ARIZONA Historic Preservation Plan UPDATE 2000 ARIZONA Historic Preservation Plan UPDATE 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS BOARD Chair Walter D. Armer, Jr. Benson Executive Staff Kenneth E. Travous Executive Director Members Suzanne Pfister Phoenix Renée E. Bahl Assistant Director Joseph H. Holmwood Mesa John U. Hays Yarnell Sheri Graham Sedona Vernon Roudebush Safford Michael E. Anable State Land Commissioner Jay Ream Assistant Director Mark Siegwarth Assistant Director Jay Ziemann Assistant Director ARIZONA Historic Preservation Plan UPDATE 2000 State Historic Preservation Office Partnerships Division ARIZONA STATE PARKS 5 6 State Historic Preservation Office Partnerships Division ARIZONA STATE PARKS 34 7 1 2 1300 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Tel/TTY: 602-542-4174 8 http://www.pr.state.az.us 9 11 10 Photographs throughout this plan feature views of historic properties found within Arizona State Parks including: 6. Homolovi Ruins State Park 1. Yuma Crossing State Historic Park 7. Tonto Natural Bridge State Park 2. Yuma Territorial Prison State Historic Park 8. Mc Farland State Historic Park 3. Jerome State Historic Park 9. Tubac Presidio State Historic Park This Plan Update was approved by the Arizona State Parks Board on March 15, 2001 9 4. Fort Verde State Historic Park 10. San Rafael Ranch State Park 5. Riordan Mansion State Historic Park 11. Tombstone Courthouse State Historic Park Cover photographs left to right: Fort Verde State Historic Park Tubac Presidio State Historic Park McFarland State Historic Park Yuma Territorial Prison State Historic Park Riordan Mansion State Historic Park Tombstone Courthouse Contents Introduction 1 Arizona’s Cultural Resources 3 The Historic Preservation Network 7 Summary of SHPO Progress 13 External Effects on the Plan 15 The Planning Process 19 Public Survey Findings 25 Framework for Action 31 Selected Bibliography 35 Appendix A: SHPO Progress Report 39 Appendix B: Survey Results 45 Acknowledgments This 2000 Update of the Arizona Historic Preservation Plan was produced by the Partnerships Division of Arizona State Parks. It could not have been successfuly completed without the assistance of all those individuals listed below and without the oversight of the Arizona State Parks Board. The critical participation of the Arizona State University Survey Research Laboratory for the completion of our public phone survey is hereby acknowledged. Additional thanks to all those who participated in the surveys and especially to those who commented on draft versions of the plan. Special thanks are due to Renée Bahl, Tanna Thornburg and James Garrison who had the primary responsibility for the development, production and editing of this plan. State Historic Preservation Office James Garrison, State Historic Preservation Officer Carol Griffith, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer William Collins, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Matthew Bilsbarrow, Compliance Specialist/Archaeologist Mary Estes, Site Steward Coordinator Robert Frankeberger, CLG Coordinator/Architect Erika Finbraaten, Preservtion Incentives Program Coordinator Ann Howard, Public Programs Manager/Archaeologist JoAnne Miller, Compliance Specialist/Archaeologist Christine Wahlstrom, National Register Coordinator/Historian Diana Walls, Administrative Secretary Arizona State Parks Staff Kenneth E. Travous, Executive Director Renée E. Bahl, Assistant Director, Partnerships Tanna Thornburg, Chief of Planning Ellen Baird, Research and Marketing Project Manager Katy Freye, Research and Marketing Project Manager Iris Krondorff, Database Analyst State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS Tombstone Courthouse State Historic Park Introduction Presented on the following pages is the 2000 Update of the 1996 Arizona Historic Preservation Plan. The Plan was first adopted by the Arizona State Parks Board in November of 1996 as the State’s first comprehensive view of historic preservation issues. The 1996 Plan took more than a year to develop. The intention of the 1996 Plan was to provide the historic preservation community throughout Arizona a set of policy guidelines that reflected a consensus as to the state of cultural resource management and the public’s perspective on historic preservation issues. The vision statement of the 1996 Plan remains pertinent and continues to recall the importance of the relationship between the public and the network of preservation professionals across the state: We envision an Arizona in which an informed and concerned citizenry works to protect our irreplaceable cultural heritage. They will be supported by a coordinated, statewide historic preservation network providing information and assistance that enables them to undertake successful projects and long-term preservation planning. The 1996 Plan has been used in all State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and related agencies’ programs in Arizona and was implemented on a daily basis through a specific and ARIZONA STATE PARKS annually updated action plan. Major changes directly tied to the 1996 Plan have included: • Revision of the Arizona Heritage Fund and federal passthrough grant scoring systems to directly relate to the goals of the 1996 Plan, • Reorganization of the SHPO staff committees to address specific aspects of the 1996 Plan, and • Better coordination between the Historic Preservation Plan and the strategic planning and budget planning cycles of Arizona State Parks (ASP). While the 1996 Plan provided a strong foundation upon which to carry out the SHPO programs, factors outside the direct influence of SHPO and State Parks have required flexibility in plan implementation. Although the overall goals of the 1996 Plan will remain the same in this Plan Update, the techniques and strategies of implementation have shifted against this changing contextual background. The primary external forces that have affected the implementation of the 1996 Plan are outlined below and include Smart Growth Planning, Tribal Historic Preservation Programs, Changing Information SysState Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 1 tems, New Section 106 Regulations, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act and Transportation Enhancement revenues. This 2000 Update of the State Historic Preservation 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 goals themselves (1. Better Resource Management, 2. Effective Information Management, 3. Maximizing Funding, 4. Partnerships in Planning, 5. Proactive Communi- ties, 6. Informed Supportive Public, 7. Informed Supportive Policy-Makers, and 8. Informed Trained Professionals) have not changed. 2 5,500,000 5,000,000 10% Other Public 4,500,000 4,000,000 13% State Trust 16% Forest Service 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 18% BLM 2,000,000 1,500,000 16% Private 27% Indian Trust 1,000,000 500,000 0 1870 1890 1910 1930 Year 1950 1970 1990 Population Growth in Arizona Land Ownership in Arizona U.S. Census Bureau Historical Atlas of Arizona State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS Arizona’s Cultural Resources Arizona has a rich and varied patrimony of cultural resources. The climate and topography of the state have allowed a record of human habitation dating back at least 12,000 years. The significance of these prehistoric and historic properties are reflected in the designation of 38 National Historic Landmarks within the state. Landmarks range in time from early man, such as the Lehner Mammoth-Kill Site, to the Titan Missile Site from the Cold War; and range in type from Historic Districts like Fort Huachuca or Jerome to structures like Hoover Dam; from buildings such as San Xavier Mission or Taliesin West to archaeological sites like Awatovi. The cultural resources of Arizona fall into four general chronological periods: Prehistoric (pre 1692), Spanish/Mexican Colonial (1692-1848), Territorial (1848-1911) or Statehood (post 1911). Within the parallel National and State Registers of Historic Places listings, Arizona has 572 entries. Buildings, sites, objects and structures comprise 425 individual properties while the remaining 148 entries refer to historical and archaeological districts comprised of multiple contributing properties. The total number of contributing properties within just the historic districts stands at 11, 345 discrete properties. Arizona has a total of 21 historic districts with 25-49 properties, 17 with 50-99 properties and 29 with 100 or more properties. The largest ARIZONA STATE PARKS San Rafael Ranch State Park 3 National Historic Landmarks in Arizona 1. Air Force Titan Missile Site 2. Awatovi Ruins 3. Casa Malpais Site 4. Colter Buildings 5. Double Adobe Site 6. El Tovar Hotel 7. Fort Bowie and Apache Pass 8. Fort Huachuca 9. Gatlin Site 10. Grand Canyon Depot 11. Grand Canyon Lodge 12. G.C. Park Operations Bldg. 13. Grand Canyon Power House 14. Grand Canyon Village 15. Hohokam-Pima Irr. Sites 16. Hoover Dam 17. Hubbell Trading Post 18.Jerome Historic District 19. Kinishba Ruins 20. Lehner Mammoth-Kill Site 21. Lowell Observatory 22. Merriam (C.Hart) Base Camp 23. Mission Guevavi 24. Old Oraibi 25. Painted Desert Inn 26. Phelps Dodge Gen. Office Build. 27. Point of Pines Sites 28. Pueblo Grande Ruin 29. San Bernardino Ranch 30. San Cayetano De Calabazas 31. San Xavier Del Bac Mission 32. Sierra Bonita Ranch 33. Taliesin West 34. Tombstone Historic District 35. Tumacacori Museum 36. Ventana Cave 37. Winona Site 38. Yuma Crossing & Assoc. Sites State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 historic district currently in Arizona is the Coronado Residential Historic District in Phoenix with 852 contributing properties. Archaeology is well represented with 33 sites and 31 archaeological districts listed. Listed properties include the full range of property types and criteria, and contextual significance at the local, state or national level. 4 Current inventories of cultural resources include the statewide AZSITE database with over 80,000 individual entries (primarily documenting archaeological site records) and over 7,500 project records indicating areas of the state that have been surveyed for resources. The SHPO historic property inventory database currently has 22,476 entries and soon will be fully integrated into the AZSITE system. This database is the summary documentation of survey work SHPO has completed in partnership with 57 communities around the state ranging in size from Jerome (pop. 2000) to Phoenix (pop. 1.25 million). Many properties within these databases have been determined eligible for listing on the State and National Registers and those on federal and tribal land are managed under federal law as if listed. The 21 federally recognized tribes have made steady progress in inventorying properties of tribal interest on and off of tribal land; such as the work of the White Mountain Apache Tribe to compile a listing of Apache place names. These inventories are kept confidential, in most cases, by the individual tribes. develop a local contextually-based resource inventory. Much remains to be done, at both the state and local levels, to continue the work of identifying and evaluating Arizona’s historic resources worthy of preservation. Among those challenges are: • A broader approach to the identification of significant properties with tribal association. • A systematic approach to the completion of historic district updates. • A plan to address properties from the recent past, especially the early post WWII boom. • The means to involve more minorities in the process of identification, especially the Hispanic/Mexican community. • A direct approach to surveying the many rural properties that lack available historical documentation. • A plan on how to complete archaeological survey work on non-federal property. The SHPO has pursued the inventorying of properties using contextual analysis by theme, place and time and currently has 17 context studies available (see bibliography). The SHPO has more recently moved to combine contexts with base level multiple resource nominations in order to facilitate the processing of individual nominations within the multiple property nomination format. The SHPO has also developed a (Power Point) presentation for use by local governments on how to State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS Apache Coconino Mojave Mohave 16(840) Navajo 1(7) 6(1212) 2(32) 7(110) 15 73 Yavapai La Paz 0(0) 5 Gila 26(4059) 1(29) Graham Yuma Maricopa 3(158) 2(137) Pima 60 Greenlee Cochise 16(3495) Santa Cruz State Totals 106 (11,064) 1 (54) 0(0) Pinal 20 33 8 26 11(729) 4 4(202) Historic Districts and (Contributing Properties) 18 9 134 31 November 2000 71 State Total 572 17 53 State and National Register Listings by County (Each House Represents Ten Listings) November 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 Certified Local Government Communities by Year of Program Approval 8 6 7 4 16 21 20 17 3 15 9 18 14 6 1 5 19 12 22 11 1. Florence ‘85 2. Willcox ‘85 3. Prescott ‘86 4. Jerome ‘86 5. Yuma ‘86 6. Globe ‘86 7. Williams ‘86 8. Kingman ‘86 9. Phoenix ‘88 10. Bisbee ‘89 11. Tucson ‘90 23 13 2 10 12. Casa Grande ‘91 13. Benson ‘92 14. Mesa ‘95 19. Clifton ‘98 15. Glendale ‘95 20. Winslow ‘99 21. Sedona ‘00 16. Flagstaff ‘97 17. Holbrook ‘97 22. Coolidge ‘00 23. Nogales ‘00 18. Tempe ‘97 State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS Riordan Mansion State Historic Park The Historic Preservation Network Throughout Arizona a multi-layered preservation network covering all levels of government and both the public and private sectors supports historic preservation efforts. The major participants in the historic preservation network and a brief discussion of their programs and responsibilities are described below. lands. BIA recently assisted the Arizona tribes in developing an intertribal Programmatic Agreement for compliance projects. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation The Advisory Council is an independent agency composed of 19 members appointed by the President of the United States. The Council advises the President and Congress on matters pertaining to the preservation of historic, archaeological, architectural and cultural resources. In 1999, the Council issued updated regulations (36 CFR Part 800) governing the Section 106 review and compliance process. SHPO and Council completed a Section 106 training workshop in February 2000. Federal Land Managing Agencies All federal agencies are responsible for identifying and protecting significant historic resources under their jurisdiction. In Arizona, partners such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and Department of Defense (DOD) are important managers of a significant amount of land and resources within the state. BOR has made great strides in integrating historic preservation programs into agency planning and policy processes. Under a progressive nationwide programmatic agreement, BLM moved from project by project review under Section 106 to planning review under Section 110. The Bureau and SHPO have formed a partnership to produce context studies on historic and prehistoric irrigation efforts in Arizona. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) BIA administers assets and lands in trust for federally recognized tribes. Although this relationship is changing as tribes assume increasing self-government, the BIA will continue to be an important player in the management of resources on tribal Federal Permitting Agencies Federal agencies that issue permits or grant funds also have responsibilities to protect cultural resources that may be affected through the use of federal funds. Agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Federal Government Partners ARIZONA STATE PARKS State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 7 Commission, Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resource Conservation Service and Federal Energy Regulation Commission, among others, all administer programs that may affect archaeological, historic or cultural properties. Each of these agencies has recently increased its compliance submissions to SHPO. 8 National Park Service (NPS) National Park Service is the federal agency responsible for the administration and implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. NPS is the nation’s lead preservation agency and sets the standards for the preservation of cultural resources, providing financial and technical support to the state historic preservation offices, administration of the National Register of Historic Places, and technical information for the management of historic resources. Additionally, NPS manages many of Arizona’s most significant cultural and natural resources within 21 designated national parks and monuments. The Arizona units of the National Park Service now hold annual meetings with SHPO and tribes to improve communications and to address common compliance issues. State Government Partners Archaeological Advisory Commission Established in 1985 and appointed by the Governor, the Archaeological Advisory Commission advises the SHPO on archaeological issues with a focus on public archaeology education programs. The nine-member Commission produced Guidelines for the Development and Operation of Archaeological Parks in 1998, monitors public education programs and advises SHPO on the Site Steward Program. Tribal Government Partners Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC) The Community Planning Program of the Arizona Department of Commerce assists Arizona communities by providing technical assistance and training to local governments on development-related issues, land-use planning, design review, zoning and financing. Also within the ADOC is the Arizona Main Street Program, which fosters economic development within the context of historic preservation by working as a partner with local and state agencies, property owners and business people to revitalize downtown areas. The Main Street Program staff and SHPO have held a number of joint workshops and participate together in local planning efforts. There are currently 21 federally recognized tribes within Arizona (see list on page 17). Most of these tribes have established cultural preservation programs as a function of government, and three tribes have assumed preservation responsibilities under the 1992 revisions to the National Historic Preservation Act. Even as tribal governments assume full responsibility for the preservation of resources, they will continue a relationship with SHPO as partners in preservation, primarily for resources off tribal land. The tribes and SHPO have improved communications and understanding toward tribal issues, especially tribal perspectives on traditional cultural places. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) As part of its mission to provide the state with a quality transportation system, ADOT continually makes decisions on how that system affects important cultural resources. ADOT provides the staffing for U. S. Department of Transportation undertakings in Arizona. Additionally, ADOT produces Arizona Highways Magazine that often includes information about the state and its history, and administers transportation enhancement (TEA-21) funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation. ADOT has recently taken the lead to minimize any adverse effects of material source locations. State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS Arizona Historical Advisory Commission (AHAC) The Arizona Historical Advisory Commission consists of 10 to 20 members, four statutory and the others appointed by the Director of Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records. The Commission advises the Legislature and state agencies on matters relating to historic preservation, recommends measures to coordinate or improve the effectiveness of historic preservation activities and submits an annual report to the Governor and Legislature on state agency activities related to historic preservation. The Historic Sites Review Committee (HSRC) is a standing committee of the Commission. HSRC advises the SHPO on the eligibility of properties being nominated to the State and National Registers of Historic Places. HSRC is a state program requirement of the National Park Service. Arizona Historical Records Advisory Board The Arizona Historical Records Advisory Board serves as an advisory body for historical records planning and for federal projects dealing with historical publications and records. Composed of at least six members and the Director of Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records, the Board can sponsor facility surveys, solicit and review proposals, set priorities and promote better understanding of the role and value of historical records. Arizona Historical Society (AHS) Through its museums in Tucson, Tempe, Yuma and Flagstaff, and its publications division, AHS is the lead agency for collecting, preserving, interpreting and disseminating information on the history of Arizona. AHS also plays an important role in supporting local historical societies around the state. Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) Among its many responsibilities, AOT works to generate ARIZONA STATE PARKS positive media coverage and promote Arizona to the public. AOT oversees the creation, production and distribution of promotional and factual information, in which heritage resources are an important component. Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) The ASLD administers and manages over 9 million acres of land and resources held in trust by the state. ASLD also provides direction, coordination, assistance and services to those who use Arizona’s land and natural resources. The ASLD and SHPO have recently signed a Programmatic Agreement that broadens the review process and clarifies obligations of both parties. Arizona State Museum (ASM) ASM carries out statutory responsibilities for archaeological and cultural preservation under the State Antiquities Act. Also central to its mission is the enhancement of public understanding and appreciation of Arizona’s cultural history through the collecting, preserving, researching and interpreting of objects and information with special focus on indigenous peoples. ASM is the primary repository for information on state-owned archaeological sites. ASM and SHPO have spearheaded the effort to complete the centralized inventory database (AZSITE). Ariz. State Library, Archives and Public Records (ASLAPR) The Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records continues to play a key role in the preservation of the state’s important documents, books, agency records, maps and photographs. ASLAPR also manages three historic properties including the Capitol Museum and is directly tied to SHPO activities through the Arizona Historical Advisory Commission that is appointed by the Director of ASLAPR. ASLAPR also encourages the development of local archives and hosts annual State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 9 events to promote the better understanding and preservation of Arizona’s history. Arizona State Parks (ASP) Within the mission of managing and conserving Arizona’s natural, cultural and recreational resources, ASP manages some of the state’s most significant resources in its nine historic parks as well as additional cultural resources within many of its other 21 state parks and natural areas. Through ASP’s Partnerships Division, which includes the State Historic Preservation Office, professional support and financial assistance is 10 given to preservation projects and organizations around the state. The State Parks Board approves the annual work plan and budget for SHPO, adopts updates to the State Historic Preservation Plan, sets guidelines for SHPO programs and proposes Rules for the State Register of Historic Places and the State Property Tax Program. The Board also manages the Arizona Heritage Fund which includes up to $1.7 million annually for historic preservation projects. Arizona’s Universities and Colleges Arizona’s universities and community colleges play an important role in historic preservation most significantly through the research materials they produce and the students they train to become professionals in the fields of anthropology, history and architecture. SHPO and the Joint Urban Design Program of the Arizona State University College of Architecture and Environmental Design are partners in local planning charrettes and in the production of the “Preservation Myth” pamphlet series. Local Government Partners Certified Local Governments (CLGs) Twenty-two communities in Arizona are currently maintaining certified historic preservation programs that receive priority State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 funding and assistance from SHPO. Each CLG has established a preservation ordinance and a formalized means of identifying, registering and protecting cultural resources. The local historic preservation commissions in these communities are major partners in virtually all historic preservation program areas. A number of CLGs have made significant progress, including Prescott’s adoption of a comprehensive preservation plan, the saving of key resources in Florence and Tucson, the adaptive reuse of historic buildings in Willcox and Casa Grande as city halls, the expansion of historic residential districts in Phoenix and the updating of survey information in Tempe and Bisbee. County and City Governments Many county and city governments work with SHPO to recognize the principles embodied in the State Historic Preservation Act by submitting local projects for review on a voluntary basis. Pima County has undertaken a comprehensive environmental planning project that includes specific consideration of archaeological and historic resources. Known as the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) the comprehensive nature of the plan is on the cutting edge of resource management. National Advocacy Groups Archaeological Conservancy The Archaeological Conservancy is a nonprofit organization working to preserve the nation’s most important archaeological sites. The Conservancy strives to permanently preserve the remains of past civilizations by purchasing lands containing significant endangered resources and managing them for the benefit of future generations. Most recently the Conservancy is purchasing the Barrio de Tubac Site with the assistance of a grant from the Arizona Heritage Fund. ARIZONA STATE PARKS National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers NCSHPO provides leadership by representing and advocating state historic preservation programs nationally, and by enhancing the capabilities and resources of SHPOs as they operate within each state. written evidence, of peoples and cultures that existed during the period of recorded history. The Society publishes a journal and newsletter and has active committees that focus on legislative affairs related to historic preservation, public education and academic and professional training. National Trust for Historic Preservation The Trust is a private, nonprofit membership organization chartered in 1949 by Congress to preserve historically significant properties and foster public participation in the preservation of our Nation’s cultural resources. The Trust provides technical and advisory support for preservation organizations at the state and local level. The Trust has undertaken a number of assistance projects throughout the state including feasibility studies of abandoned BIA structures in Tuba City. Statewide Advocacy Groups Preservation Action Preservation Action is a national lobbying organization, which promotes historic preservation and neighborhood conservation. Preservation Action works to increase opportunities for preservation in communities by advocating improved government programs, increased funding and greater awareness of the built environment. Society for American Archaeology (SAA) The SAA is an association of professional and avocational archaeologists promoting scholarly communication and greater public understanding of the importance of preserving the unwritten histories of the Americas. The SAA publishes two journals, works with the government to improve site protection and is active in promoting archaeology in schools. Society for Historical Archaeology The Society for Historical Archaeology is a scholarly organization dedicated to the study, through the use of material and ARIZONA STATE PARKS Arizona Archaeological Council (AAC) The AAC is a professional, nonprofit, voluntary association that promotes cooperation within the preservation community by fostering the conservation of prehistoric and historical archaeological resources. The AAC’s Archaeology for Educators Committee promotes archaeology and preservation in the classroom through teacher workshops, study materials and curricula review. The Archaeological Advisory Commission, SHPO and AAC are combining forces to hold a series of forums on current directions in archaeological research. Arizona Heritage Alliance, Inc. The Arizona Heritage Alliance is a partnership of diverse groups and individuals interested in preserving and perpetuating the Arizona Heritage Fund. The Fund receives up to $20 million annually from state lottery revenues and is used, in part, to preserve and protect significant natural, cultural and recreational resources. Arizona Preservation Foundation (APF) The APF is a private, nonprofit foundation formed to ensure that historical and architectural resources are preserved and protected for future generations. APF is an advocacy voice for historic preservation and works to educate developers, officials and the public through workshops, a quarterly newsletter and other programs. APF cosponsors, with the State Parks Board, an annual historic preservation honor awards event. State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 11 Local Advocates Historical Societies and Museums Aside from being excellent sources of information, local historical societies and museums often include preservation messages and activities within their mission of conserving and interpreting local and regional history. Ten of Arizona’s 15 counties have Historical Societies and there are currently some 150 regional, county, municipal and other local museums and historical organizations. the past. There are currently a countless number of volunteer groups actively working to protect and preserve Arizona’s history. Among the larger ones are the Arizona Site Stewards, the Southwest Archaeology Team (SWAT), and the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society. 12 Neighborhood Organizations Neighborhood groups and homeowner associations work to preserve the continuity and character of their historic districts. They provide advocacy, education and a larger voice for the property owners living within a community. Property Owners Individual home, business and landowners are perhaps the most important component in the entire network of preservationists. Without the continued protection and conservation of the historic properties they care for, the physical reminders of our past would not survive. Volunteers and Volunteer Groups Most Arizonans do not own historic properties or live in historic neighborhoods, yet they still have a stake in preserving State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 700 600 Number of Site Stewards Preservation Consultants The professionals (architects, historians and archaeologists) who perform the research, surveys, documentation and handson preservation of historic resources are vital to the ongoing success of the preservation movement. Their knowledge and expertise provides the basis for understanding the value of Arizona’s wide range of cultural resources. 800 500 400 300 200 100 0 Year 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Year Growth in the Site Steward Program ARIZONA STATE PARKS McFarland State Historic Park Summary of SHPO Progress Since adoption of the 1996 Plan, SHPO and the State Parks Board have implemented policies, procedures and action items in conformance with and directed toward the fulfillment of the goals outlined in the Plan. Many specific accomplishments were derived from, and initiated from, the objectives outlined in the 1996 Plan. A review of the SHPO progress toward the goals of the 1996 Plan is found in Appendix A. A summary of these accomplishments is presented below. Better Resource Management: • Continued completion of community inventories • Expanded archaeological inventories 13 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 Total Number of Properties Enrolled 1000 • Sustained interest in National Register nominations 500 • Broadened interest in technical assistance Properties Certified Annually 0 • Increased growth in tax incentive participants • Added diversity in grant projects 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Historic Property Tax Classification Participants • Continued growth and interest in the Site Steward Program ARIZONA STATE PARKS State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 14 Effective Information Management: Informed Supportive Public: • Implemented new computerized database, AZSITE • Distributed information and publications • Updated in-house computer systems • Maintained website information Maximize Funding: • Offered targeted public programs • Increased leveraging of matching funds • Presented annual historic preservation awards • Continued decentralization of the SHPO programs Informed Supportive Policy Makers: • Increased use of volunteers and interns • Distributed the SHPO annual report Partnerships in Planning: • Conducted policy and standards workshops • Encouraged federal agencies to move toward planning Informed Trained Professionals: • Completed State Act Guidelines • Conducted specialized training on policies and techniques • Broadened support of tribal programs • Presented technical information at professional workshops • Helped develop county historic preservation programs Proactive Communities: • Certified and monitored CLG communities • Held annual CLG workshop • Encouraged CLGs to take an active role in Growing Smarter • Conducted local planning charrettes State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS External Effects on the Plan No matter how well the 1996 Plan addressed the future, outside influences and events require the 1996 Plan to be revised. In an age of instant information exchange, changing personnel, revised regulations and changing constituencies, State Parks and SHPO need a great deal of flexibility to implement the Plan Update effectively. The following are some of the external issues that have come up since adoption of the 1996 Plan: Growth Management Over the last five years the country and the state have experienced a growing concern over sprawl and open space. The planning issues addressed by these concerns have been grouped under the concept of smart growth. In Arizona, Governor Hull, the Legislature and the voting public address these issues under the title “Growing Smarter.” The Growing Smarter legislation in Arizona focuses on better land management by readdressing community planning and the planning connection to zoning. It also addresses neighborhood conservation and infill incentives. Fort Verde State Historic Park The premise of growing smarter is that resources are better managed through logical planning and considerations of all environmental impacts. This approach to growth management from a cultural resource viewpoint has long been a major premise of the historic preservation community. Therefore, SHPO pushed for the recognition that growth management regulation should include cultural resource management as well as natural resource management. The relationship between the development of historic districts and the concept of neighborhood conservation was also promoted. Because of the broad interest in growing smarter issues, SHPO has addressed the historic preservation connection through workshops, presentations and participation in events with Certified Local Governments, Arizona Department of Commerce and the Department of Administration. Although these issues fit into the 1996 Plan goal of “Partnerships in Planning,” the action plan was significantly revised to include activities and programs connected to the growth management movement. These issues should continue to be monitored and addressed in future planning efforts. In addition, the effort has set up funding and procedures to conserve targeted State Trust land as open space. ARIZONA STATE PARKS State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 15 Tribal Historic Preservation Programs Although the amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 recognized the need to bring tribal preservation programs into full partnership with the state and certified local government programs, implementation and program guidelines took several years to develop within the National Park Service. Of the first fifteen tribal programs certified, three were with Arizona tribes: the Hualapai, the Navajo and the White Mountain Apache. Other tribes have shown interest in taking over historic preservation responsibilities for tribal 16 lands. SHPO encourages these tribal efforts as part of its goal of partnerships in planning, but tribal takeover of SHPO responsibilities does not necessarily result in reduction in the SHPO workload. The requirement for tribal involvement in offreservation issues has resulted in SHPO coordination and training of agency representatives and responding to tribal offreservation concerns, especially with regard to traditional cultural places. Information Systems With the rapid evolution of information technology, the capabilities of State Parks and SHPO have grown considerably since adoption of the 1996 Plan. Efforts to computerize the historic properties and archaeological sites inventory (AZSITE) required technological upgrading even within the project’s development and testing phases. Although technological streamlining has allowed SHPO to do more work with equal staff, the cost to develop appropriate software and to upgrade hardware is very expensive. Changes in technology are sure to provide unexpected needs within SHPO. State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 Within the compliance program, the expansion of cellular facilities and the construction of fiber optic lines across the state have placed a direct and demanding increase on the SHPO workload. New Section 106 Regulations In 1999, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation issued new regulations (36 CFR Part 800) for the Section 106 compliance review process. Although viewed overall as having streamlined portions of the process, the new regulations place additional responsibilities and duties on SHPO. SHPO must now help train agency compliance staff, negotiate with agencies on two-party agreements, have agreements reviewed more thoroughly and offer assistance and advice on tribal consultation efforts. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) In 1999, the nation saw the strongest movement toward a comprehensive recognition by Congress of conservation issues. The result was an attempt to pass the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or CARA. Although this specific piece of legislation did not pass, there were FY 2000 appropriation increases for both natural and cultural resource conservation programs. The effort, which began within the wildlife and recreation communities, has had a definite affect on cultural resource programs. For the historic preservation community the realization of how quickly an issue can gain popular support, how much effort is needed to keep the issue moving through Congress and how much widespread support for conservation issues exists, is very enlightening and encouraging. SHPO must be ready to react to and inform preservationists when and if changes in legislation occur. ARIZONA STATE PARKS Enhancements New programs of other state and federal agencies can also have a major affect on historic resources. One example was the introduction of “transportation enhancements” as part of the Federal Highways funding programs (known originally as ISTEA and subsequently as TEA-21). More direct federal dollars for preservation work over the last five years have come from enhancement monies (±$5 million per year) than from direct historic preservation appropriations. SHPO must track this kind of new legislation, inform potential users and facilitate review of proposed undertakings. Many times these types of programs apply to a variety of properties and many times it takes the preservation community too long to become aware of new programs and how they can benefit from them. New funding sources are necessary to reach the goal of “maximized funding.” 17 11 Federally Recognized Tribes in Arizona 1. AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY 12. NAVAJO NATION 2. COCOPAH TRIBE 13. PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE 3. COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES 14. SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY 4. FORT McDOWELL INDIAN COMMUNITY 5. FORT MOJAVE INDIAN TRIBE 10 5 15. SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE 16. SAN JUAN SOUTHERN PAIUTE COUNCIL(no reservation lands) 6. FORT YUMA-QUECHAN TRIBE 3 17. TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION 7. GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 18. TONTO APACHE TRIBE 8. HAVASUPAI TRIBE 9. THE HOPI TRIBE 10. HUALAPAI TRIBE 19. WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE 12 8 6 20. YAVAPAI-APACHE INDIAN COMMUNITY 9 21 20 14 4 7 1 18 19 15 2 17 13 11. KAIBAB-PAIUTE TRIBE 21. YAVAPAI-PRESCOTT INDIAN TRIBE ARIZONA STATE PARKS State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 Schoolhouse/Tubac Presidio State Historic Park 18 State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS The Planning Process Planning is the process used to formulate a program for the accomplishment or attainment of a specific set of goals. Planning seeks to both envision a future state or condition and to present methods and processes needed to achieve these desired goals. The development of a plan is in itself a process, one that must be repeated in a cyclical way. Planning Cycles To address the historic preservation needs of the State of Arizona in a comprehensive way while at the same time implementing previous planning decisions, a planning methodology is required that allows the integration of the plan into the annual, biennual and strategic planning efforts of State Parks. Ideally, planning decisions drive budget requests that drive program efforts. The SHPO has placed a special focus on implementation of the plan goals through direct connection to annual work plans. These plans are presented to the Parks Board at its annual budget meeting where public comment is encouraged. Planning efforts are also directed at the integration of the plan into the agency strategic plan as required by the Legislature. Therefore, the staff and the Parks Board utilizes three separate but integrated planning cycles. ARIZONA STATE PARKS Yuma Crossing State Historic Park 19 The Annual Planning Cycle In the Spring SHPO staff holds an annual retreat. The focus of the retreat is to prepare the annual work program for the upcoming state fiscal year that begins on the first of July. The annual work program is organized and directly connected to the goals of the Historic Preservation Plan and to agency budget projections. The SHPO also holds annual planning meetings with many of its partners, including Certified Local Governments, tribes, federal agencies, state agencies and statewide preservation organizations. The Strategic Planning Cycle Each year the Parks Board adopts an updated three-year strategic plan. Each update reiterates the previous mission and vision statements, outlines strategic issues, addresses opportunities and threats and establishes goals, objectives and performance measures. The FY2001-FY2003 Strategic Plan has three goals, 13 objectives and 16 performance measures. SHPO tasks are incorporated under Goal 2: “To effectively provide the right services and information by involving our State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 customers and partners in our programs, parks and planning efforts.” Objectives 2, 3 and 4 under this goal are specific to SHPO. 2. By June 2001, Partnerships will update the statewide comprehensive historic preservation plan, in conjunction with its advisory committees, preservation partners and customers. 3. By June 2002, the State Historic Preservation Office will implement the State Act Guidelines as a streamlining tool for 20 state compliance projects. 4. By June 2003, State Parks, in conjunction with our partners, will improve the ability to share cultural resource information through AZSITE, the statewide online database for Arizona’s known cultural resources, through ongoing data entry and cleanup, and implementing use agreements. Although these objectives for SHPO, listed above, deal with major tasks they are also related to the goals of the Historic Preservation Plan. The Historic Preservation Plan/Planning Cycle Based on the experience of developing the plan in 1996, implementing the plan from 1997 through 1999 and updating the plan in 2000, the SHPO and State Parks staff have outlined the following planning schedule: Year One Plan implementation/First year of the action plan • Spring: Plan adoption • Spring: Staff retreat, Development of Five Year Action Plan, Preparation of annual work plan • Summer: Work plan implementation State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 Year Two Plan implementation/Second year of the action plan • Spring: Staff retreat: Preparation of the annual work plan • Summer: Work plan implementation Year Three Plan implementation/Third year of the action plan • Spring: Staff retreat, Preparation of the annual work plan • Summer: Work plan implementation Year Four Plan implementation/Fourth year of the action plan • Spring: Staff retreat, Preparation of the annual work plan • Summer: Work plan implementation Year Five Plan implementation, Final year of the action plan • Spring: Staff retreat, Preparation of the annual work plan • Summer: Work plan implementation Year Six Plan Review and Update • Spring: Staff retreat, Input into survey issues and questions, Outline of planning tasks, Preparation of annual work plan • Spring: Preparation of survey and questionnaire materials • Summer: Phone survey, mail-in questionnaire distribution and partner meetings • Fall: Draft Plan Update • Winter: Public Comment Period • Winter: Board Action ARIZONA STATE PARKS State Historic Preservation Plan/Planning Cycle 2000 21 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2006 Plan Adoption FY01 FY02 FY03 Plan Review and Update FY04 FY05 Five Year Action Plan FY06 FY07 Plan Review and Update Annual Work Plans Biennual Budget Cycle Budget Requests Biennual Budget Cycle Biennual Budget Cycle Strategic Plan Updates ARIZONA STATE PARKS State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 Public Involvement Public input is a critical step in any planning process. Feedback from the public and from preservation partners has been a key component in the development of this Plan Update. In the past, State Parks has tried a variety of techniques for the inclusion of public input into the state’s historic preservation planning efforts. In the early 1990s, SHPO produced the first comprehensive questionnaire on historic preservation issues and sent a team of 22 consultants out to conduct 15 public meetings. Staff directly integrated the results of these efforts into the policies of the Arizona Heritage Fund grants for historic preservation. Public input for the 1996 Preservation Plan included targeted partnership meetings, statewide meetings with the general public, distribution of a written questionnaire to individuals with an expressed interest in historic preservation and a statistically valid phone survey of the general public. State Parks’ approach to public input into the implementation of the 1996 Plan was not to wait and attempt to update all the public input at one time, requiring another full year of meetings, but to update the Action Plan on an annual basis and to hold meetings with preservation partners on a regular basis. Currently, SHPO holds annual meetings with BLM districts, National Park Service and CLGs, and addresses individual CLG issues on an on-call basis. SHPO holds meetings with the Intertribal Council Cultural Resource Working Group at least annually and meets with the Forest Service regionally and with individual National Forests. When federal agencies show competence in cultural resource management (i.e., moving from Section 106 project by project review to Section 110 planning), it is the intention of SHPO to become involved in agency State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 planning efforts instead of doing project by project reviews. For the 1996 Plan the phone survey method was one of a number of approaches used, but for State Parks it was the most cost effective and most often referenced by the Arizona State Parks Board. This approach does have limitations due to the time constraints interviewees have to ponder and answer the questions being presented and the fact that the methodology involves verbal presentation of the material and relies on verbal (as opposed to written) responses. Riordan Mansion In preparation for drafting this update to the Arizona Historic Preservation Plan, Arizona State Parks’ staff utilized three different public involvement strategies to garner public input and guide the planning process: 1. Consultation with the SHPO staff providing integration of contemporary professional priorities, 2. Meetings and conferences with historic preservation agencies providing professional input from Arizona’s network of preservation partners, and 3. Telephone and mail surveys providing purpose, direction and priorities for the Plan Update through public participation. SHPO Consultation The first planning action involved consultation with the SHPO staff at a retreat held in April 2000. The purpose of the retreat was to gain input into development of the survey questionnaire, evaluate the relevance of the 1996 goals, identify current trends and external effects, and review the relationship between the plan and SHPO programs. Once the plan update is adopted the staff will then address the five-year action plan for SHPO. ARIZONA STATE PARKS Meetings and Conferences The second important planning action staff undertook involved communication with Arizona’s diverse preservation partners at numerous meetings and conferences held throughout the state from July through October 2000. Staff held discussions concerning historic preservation issues and priorities at Certified Local Government meetings and conferences, tribal meetings, federal agency meetings and state agency and commission meetings. Staff also discussed with these agencies the goals, objectives, priorities and actions of the State Historic Preservation Office since 1996. Tonto Natural Bridge State Park 23 In general, staff tries to hold annual meetings with partners in order to get timely feedback on SHPO programs. Staff has purposely not focused input from agencies into a single planning event or year for better integration of ideas into the process on a continuous basis. The majority of these agencies were also included in the “target group” mail survey in order to compare agency comments with comments from the general public. Many of the previous planning efforts relied solely on the input of those citizens who took the time to attend public meetings, leaving out the opinions of the vast majority of the public. Phone surveys are currently the best tool agencies have to receive input from the general public. The weakness of the phone survey was the necessity to simplify some complex topics in order for verbal questions and answers to be understood. Surveys From May through July 2000, State Parks funded a random telephone survey of Arizona residents. State Parks contracted the survey to the Survey Research Laboratory at Arizona State University, who developed the survey instrument based on draft questions prepared by State Parks’ staff. The Survey Research Laboratory pretested the survey questions for understandability and effectiveness in addressing key historic preservation issues identified during and since the 1996 Plan. This random, digit-dialed phone survey resulted in 1,059 completed interviews of Arizona residents from all over the state. From June through August 2000, State Parks conducted a mail survey of a “target group” of 582 Arizona citizens with an interest in historic preservation, including historic property owners participating in the State Tax Program, volunteers in the Site Steward Program, and agency representatives and other individuals involved with or affected by historic preservation efforts. This targeted written survey complements the random phone survey and provides an excellent method to achieve broad-based public input on historic preservation issues. Of all of these techniques the one carrying the most weight with policy makers is this phone survey of the general public. ARIZONA STATE PARKS State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 Riordan Mansion State Historic Park 24 State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS Tubac Presidio State Historic Park Public Survey Findings The results of the general public and target group surveys are very encouraging (see Appendix B). The statewide phone survey of 1,059 random adult residents and the written questionnaire (distributed to 1,850 individuals with 582 completed responses) involved 10 areas of interest: 1. Introductory questions which raise the issue of historic preservation, 2. Questions posing the connection of historic preservation with other current issues, 3. A review of SHPO programs and their importance, 4. A review of historic property treatment options, 5. A review of funding priority issues, 6. Understanding of the relationship between historic preservation and economic development and quality of life issues, 7. Feedback on property types, historic periods and themes, 8. Level of understanding of the threats to historic properties, 9. Summary of concern, and 10. Demographic information. The first significant finding was that nearly half (48%) of those completing the phone survey had visited a State Park in Arizona within the last 12 months and over half (54%) could name the park they visited. Although not directly related to a speARIZONA STATE PARKS cific historic preservation issue, the realization that Arizona State Parks has this level of visibility is encouraging. Arizona’s State Parks’ system includes nine historic parks and 21 other parks that also contain historic and archaeological resources. It was also encouraging that the general public sees an important connection between historic preservation and protection of natural and cultural resources. Survey respondents agreed that historic preservation efforts help: • Preserve open space (91% agreed the presence of archaeological sites increases the value of open space), • Conserve natural resources (90% agreed that re-using existing buildings and construction materials conserves new resources), and • Reduce urban sprawl (76% agreed that maintaining and using older inner city buildings reduces the need for new buildings elsewhere). Recent studies now document the positive relationship between historic preservation programs and economic development. From the work of Donovan Rypkema (such as his analyState Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 25 sis that “Historic Preservation is Smart Growth”) to statistics compiled by the Arizona Department of Commerce on the economic effects of the Arizona Main Street Program, to the Arizona Humanities Council 1997 publication “Expand Arizona’s Economy by Investing in Cultural Heritage,” disprove the myth that economic development is incompatible with the goals of historic preservation. One of the more important results of the survey was validation that the general public acknowledges this connection between historic preservation and economic benefits, from the connec26 tion to increasing tourism (95% agreed) to helping downtown businesses (90% agreed). It is also important that the public understands that historic district designation can stabilize neighborhoods and increase property values (82% agreed). More than three fourths of Arizonans agreed that the preservation of historic properties improves their quality of life (77% agreed). The survey also shows that the public found all the SHPO program areas to be important ranging from a low of 83% support for technical assistance to a high of 95% support for compliance review of publicly funded projects. A big part of historic preservation involves property management. The management treatments range from regular maintenance to complete reconstruction. For treatment of historic properties the survey indicates that the public supports SHPO policy to downplay reconstruction of historic properties (60%), favoring the maintenance (98%) of properties slightly ahead of rehabilitation (96%), restoration (96%) and stabilization (95%). The section of the survey concerned with setting priorities of funding and effort indicate that the public prefers to see money and effort go to older publicly-owned properties, rather than State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 newer or privately-owned properties or for-profit businesses. When asked if significance of a property should be a factor in setting priorities the public did say yes but was evenly divided on the preference between local and national significance. When asked if greater attention should be given to archaeological sites (prehistoric era) or to historic properties (historic period) there was a definite edge toward historic properties (50% to 27%), but when combined with the “no preference” option the public indicated strong support for all properties. When asked what periods of history and what thematic categories the public was most interested in, the most significant finding was no preference (49%). Beyond this finding the only directions indicated by the data were interest in the Old West (18%) and Native American history (12%) from the general public, and an interest in the generic category of old buildings (40%) from the target group. Finally, when asked if they were aware of potential threats to historic resources the general public overwhelmingly said yes to all eight types of threats listed, with the highest response to vandalism (94%). Respondents were also asked to rate the severity of the threat posed by each with vandalism (71%) and not enough money (70%) ranking the highest. When asked about all the potential threats to historic properties, 91% of the general public expressed concern about the future of historic properties in Arizona, with more than one third of all those surveyed saying they were very concerned; nearly two thirds of the target group said they were very concerned. Implications What are the implications of these findings? First and foremost, this survey indicates the general public supports the state’s involvement in historic preservation issues and in the ARIZONA STATE PARKS Percent of Survey Respondents who Agree that Historic Preservation Provides Certain Benefits 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 27 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 General Public Target Group Increase Property Values 0.82 0.959 Help Nearby Businesses Increase Tourism 0.899 0.972 0.949 0.961 current programs of SHPO. It also indicates that the general public has a much broader understanding of the role of historic preservation within other contemporary issues, such as growth management, and a broad understanding of the current threats to historic resources. Second, the survey supports the concept that historic preservation issues are important considerations for planning at all levels of government, especially as it relates to economic development programs, protecting archaeological sites when planning new housing developments, and protecting historic ARIZONA STATE PARKS Improve Quality of Life 0.765 0.944 Preserve Open Space 0.913 0.958 Conserve Natural Resources 0.903 0.94 Reduce Urban Sprawl 0.758 0.875 districts through municipal and neighborhood conservation efforts. SHPO efforts surrounding these issues should be continued. Third, the public rated all the programs SHPO oversees as important, indicating those efforts should be undertaken to provide adequate funding for all program areas. If hard decisions have to be made the public and the target group indicates that the highest priority should be placed on compliance, and then on grants, site stewards, national register and tax incentive program areas. The main difference between the general State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 public and target group priorities was in the program area of providing technical assistance. The target group rated this function as important, though it was the lowest rated by the general public. Also, the public rated education about historic preservation issues as important, though the target group rated this area lowest. Fourth, although reconstruction as a preservation treatment appears in state statute, SHPO has cautioned against its use in favor of working on the standing historic resources first. This policy is supported by the survey findings. Both the public 28 and target group indicated that reconstruction was the lowest in importance of all treatments presented. Fifth, the implications of the survey indicate equal consideration for all treatments except reconstruction, a validation of public benefit priorities with a preference toward older public properties, and no preference toward age or context. It would appear that the public defers to the professional preservationists on any priority related to theme or context and that the public is split over local or national significance being a factor for setting priorities. There is also a slight preference for assisting properties owned by not-for-profits (government or private) (55%) ahead of for-profit related properties. This preference indicates that the public benefit of preserving individual properties should still be considered. Factors such as the ability of the public to enter, visit or tour properties expands the benefit of assistance to the public. Finally, the survey definitely indicates the public’s concern that vandalism is the greatest threat to historic and prehistoric resources, which is reflected in support for the Site Steward Program where volunteers continue to come forward to counter this threat. State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 Other 7% Ethnic History 12% Transportation 0% Old Buildings 6% No Preference 48% Mining/Agric 2% Military History 4% Old West 18% Spanish Era 3% Survey Respondents’ Preferences toward Historic Themes and Periods ARIZONA STATE PARKS Percent of Survey Respondents who Agree there are Threats to Historic Properties 100% 29 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% decline of inner city lack of public knowledge owner neglect new home construction not enough money lack of zoning guidelines vandalism public construction projects ARIZONA STATE PARKS General Public 76% 84% 84% 85% 84% 68% 94% 85% Target Group 95% 95% 97% 91% 96% 87% 98% 95% Extreme Threat 60% 54% 56% 65% 70% 65% 71% 54% State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 Yuma Territorial Prison State Historic Park 30 State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS Jerome State Historic Park Framework for Action As a basis for planning, the historic preservation community relies on the efforts of a variety of government agencies and institutions, non-profit organizations, advocacy groups, neighborhood associations and individuals. While one of the purposes of the Plan Update is to guide the activities of SHPO, SHPO is not the only entity that can obtain direction from the Plan Update. The goals and objectives outlined below represent the desires of a wide range of historic preservation interests around the state. As such, the individuals and organizations possessing these interests also play an important part in achieving the objectives of the Plan Update. The above statewide analysis of historic preservation issues and public input forms the basis for the following recommended framework for action. This framework is intended as guidance for the entire historic preservation community throughout Arizona. Specific actions to be addressed by the State Historic Preservation Office will be made in a separate five-year action plan. SHPO will use the five-year action plan to produce annual program goals. ARIZONA STATE PARKS 31 Toward Effective Management of Historic Properties Goal 1: Better Resource Management Problem: Historic resources continue to be lost at an alarming rate. Losses occur because properties are not identified, their significance is not substantiated or because they are knowingly or unknowingly mistreated. Objectives: • Slow the loss of significant resources • Increase the number of resources put into contemporary use • Target survey for resources by specific type and location • Continue contextual approach to resource identification • Monitor the condition of the most significant resources • Assist owners in understanding appropriate resource treatments • Provide appropriate incentives toward the preservation of significant historic resources • Develop policies and procedures for emergency treatment of properties State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 Goal 2: Effective Information Management Problem: Information about historic resources is often not readily accessible. Responsible planning cannot happen without timely and dependable information. Objectives: • Implement an integrated, centralized, statewide, computerized inventory of historic resources • Allow ready access to appropriate information • Streamline information processing 32 • Bring the most current data to bear on resource management decisions due to the lack of planning coordination. Many times agencies are not in full compliance with their historic resource management responsibilities and the evolution of tribal cultural resource management programs has brought about greater need for consultation. Objectives: • Integrate historic preservation issues into the planning activities of government at all levels • Apply federal and state statutes, regulations and guidelines uniformly • Continue partnerships with tribal preservation programs • Continue to build partnerships with educational and economic institutions Goal 3: Maximized Funding Goal 5: Proactive Communities Problem: The high demand for professional, technical and financial assistance to the owners of historic properties is well beyond the current support for preservation programs. Objectives: • Encourage program partnerships to validate and expand funding • Increase productivity through streamlining • Target other agency grant funding • Seek new funding sources • Encourage the use of volunteers for program support Toward Proactive Stewardship and Partnerships Goal 4: Partnerships in Planning Problem: In most Arizona communities, historic preservation issues and/or policies have not been fully integrated as a routine part of the planning process. Preservation of a community’s identity and character is often lost or impacted as a result of new corporate development or uncontrolled growth. Objectives: • Empower local communities to take appropriate historic preservation management actions • Help coordinate local and state historic preservation priorities • Encourage communities to become certified local governments • Assist existing certified local governments to expand their historic preservation programs Problem: Within the network of preservation partners, resource management can be inconsistent or even contradictory State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS Toward an Informed and Supportive Constituency Goal 6: An Informed, Supportive Public Problem: Many of Arizona’s citizens were neither born nor raised here and therefore they often do not understand or appreciate the state’s cultural and historic patrimony. Even those who have studied or experienced this rich heritage may lack the information or knowledge to become advocates for the preservation of resources. Objectives: • Promote widespread participation of citizens in the preservation of the state’s historic properties • Update and broaden information available to the public • Support the development and operation of historic preservation advocacy groups • Enable citizens to make informed decisions on current historic preservation issues or threatened resources tion of the state’s cultural resources • Keep policy makers informed on current historic preservation issues Goal 8: Informed, Trained Professionals Problem: Many historic preservation professionals lack the necessary training and background to provide quality advice on the treatment and identification of historic properties. Proper management and treatment decisions are often based on outdated or incorrect information and contemporary approaches and studies are not readily available. Objectives: • Hold training workshops for preservation professionals on current policies and techniques • Collect current research information • Advise professionals on “best practices” for the treatment of historic properties Goal 7: Informed, Supportive Policy Makers Problem: Many policy makers are not aware of the social and economic value of preserving Arizona’s historic resources. Lack of knowledge can perpetuate misinformation concerning current historic preservation goals and standards. Misunderstanding can also lead to the inappropriate treatment or inadequate support for important historic resources. Objectives: • Educate policy makers of the economic and social values of historic preservation • Seek increased participation of elected officials in historic preservation activities • Recognize the efforts of policy makers toward the preservaARIZONA STATE PARKS State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 33 Recent SHPO Publications 34 State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS Yuma Territorial Prison State Historic park Selected Bibliography Arizona Archaeological Advisory Commission. Presenting the past to the public: Guidelines for the development of archaeological parks in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, 1997. Basques in Arizona, from Spanish Colonial Times to Present An examination of the contribution of one ethnic group to the development of the state, particularly related to the sheepherding industry. Arizona Humanities Council. Expand Arizona’s Economy by Investing in Cultural Heritage. Phoenix,AZ: Arizona Humanities Council, no date. Cattle Ranching in Arizona 1697-1950 Cattle ranching has played an important role in the Arizona economy from Spanish colonial times to today. This study identifies building types such as ranch houses, line camps, wind mills, corrals, and cattle trails that have made cattle raising possible in the arid Arizona environment. Arizona State Historic Preservation Office. Files. State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Parks, Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona State Parks. Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, 1994. Center for Desert Archaeology. Paleoindian and Archaic Sites in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, 1998. Arizona State Parks. Arizona Trails 2000: State Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails Plan. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, 1999. Chinese in Arizona, 1870-1950 Focused study on the contribution of one ethnic group to the development of the state. Property types are Chinatowns, residences, commercial properties, community buildings, work camps, agricultural properties, and cemeteries. Arizona State Parks. Three-Year Strategic Plan. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, August 2000. City of Phoenix. Historic Homes of Phoenix: An Architectural and Preservation Guide. Phoenix, AZ: City of Phoenix, 1992. ARIZONA STATE PARKS State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 35 City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Commission. Ten Vital Years in the History of Phoenix. Phoenix, AZ: City of Phoenix, 1997. Collins, William S. The New Deal in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, 1999. Commerce in Phoenix, 1870-1942 A focused study on commercial properties in Phoenix. The study identified five major historical periods in the history of 36 commerce in Phoenix, each marked by distinct patterns in the local economy and the resultant fluctuations in the growth and shape of the original town site. Doyle, Gerald, Lyle Stone, and Richard Lynch. Arizona Heritage Fund Historic Preservation Five Year Plan. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, 1992. Gammage, Grady Jr. Phoenix in Perspective: Reflections on Developing in the Desert. Tempe: Herberger Center for Design Excellence, Arizona State University, 1999. Gilpin, Dennis and David A. Philips. Prehistoric to Historic Transition Period in Arizona, Circa AD 1519 to 1692. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, 1999. Gold & Silver Mining in Arizona, 1848-1945 Looks at the historical significance of precious metal mining. Property types identified include: Extraction properties, processing properties and habitation and commercial properties (camps and boomtowns). Growing Smarter Commission. Growing Smarter Final Report. Phoenix, AZ: Growing Smarter Commission, 1999. State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 Historic Trails in Arizona from Coronado to 1940 A statewide study of historically significant transportation corridors. Property categories include: Native American trails; Spanish and Mexican period trails and roads; Early American, U.S. Government trails; Mormon roads; stagecoach, freight, and toll roads; stock trails; and early automotive routes. Homesteading in Arizona, 1862-1940 Agricultural and stock-raising homesteads represents one of the major ways that Anglo-Americans settled Arizona. Property types include homestead houses, outhouses, fields, livestock outbuildings, water features like wells and windmills, and artifacts. Eadie, Douglas C. Taking Command of Change: A Practical Guide for Applying the Strategic Development Process in State Historic Preservation Offices. Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources, Division, 1995. Laurent, Steven, et al. Arizona Historic Preservation Plan. Phoeniz, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, November 1996. Lawson, Barry L., Ellen P. Ryan, and Rebecca Bartlett Hutchison, Reaching Out, Reaching In: A Guide to Creating Effective Public Participation for State Historic Preservation Programs. Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1993. Lithic Sites in Arizona Sites containing flaked stone and ground stone represent one of the major property types associated with prehistoric cultures in Arizona. Significant sites provide information on the production and use of stone tools. ARIZONA STATE PARKS National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Preservation Planning Branch. A Planning Companion for NPS 49 Chapters 6, 30, and 31: Suggestions for Designing and Implementing a State Preservation Planning Process. Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, February 1993. Montoya, Pia, ed. Arizona Statistical Abstract. Tucson, Arizona: College of Business and Public Administration, 1993. Prehistoric Irrigation in Arizona Irrigated agriculture represent the foundation of prehistoric Hohokam culture in Arizona. Property types include canals, fields, petroglyphs and habitation sites. Prehistoric Non-Irrigated Agriculture These properties provide critical information concerning how prehistoric peoples subsisted in an arid environment. Property types include fields and water-control feature such as rock piles, check dams and terraces. Prehistoric Rock Art in Arizona Drawings on rocks (petroglyphs and pictographs) are an intriguing and little understood remnant from prehistoric cultures in Arizona with sites scattered across the state. Significant rock art properties show a relation to prehistoric cultural groups and will provide information on interpretation, dating and techniques. Rich, Jacqueline, et.al. Governor’s Task Force on Historic Preservation: Final Report. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Governor’s Office of Economic Planning and Development, 1981. Travis, Tara. Historic Preservation Myth Series. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, 2000. Myth 1: Historic Preservation and Economic DevelopARIZONA STATE PARKS ment are Incompatible Myth 2: Real versus Fake: No one knows the Difference Myth 3: Newer is Better Myth 4: Preservation Means I Can’t Do Anything with My Property Myth 5: Preservation Stops Growth Transcontinental Railroading in Arizona, 1878-1940 Explores property types associated with the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe Railroads built and operated as connections between the Mississippi Valley and California. Property types include construction camps, roadbed, grade, track, bridges, tunnels, culverts, office buildings, section houses, depots, and hotels. United States Military in Arizona, 1846-1945 This study examined all aspects in the U.S. military presence in Arizona from the frontier era to World War II. Major property types include: forts, camps, and operational posts; roads; battle sites; heliograph stations; air bases; civilian flight schools; POW and internment camps; gunnery and training ranges; and National Guard facilities. Vegors, Wallace. An Interim Plan for Historic Preservation in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, August 1970. Vernacular Architecture in Arizona, 1863-1920 Vernacular architecture encompasses the culturally determined building forms and traditional styles built by common people without benefit of formal architectural or building plans. Property examples include folk housing, Native American traditional building forms, and other traditional based building forms. State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 37 Tombstone Courthouse State Historic Park 38 State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS Homolovi Ruins State Park Appendix A: SHPO Progress Report The Framework for Action is intended as guidance for the entire Arizona historic preservation community, but one of the primary avenues for its implementation is through the specific actions of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Arizona State Parks. In order to better understand this critical relationship, a review of the progress SHPO has made since the 1996 Plan and how these activities are tied to the goals of the 1996 Plan are presented in this SHPO progress report. Better Resource Management Better Resource Management involves the core responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Office to identify, evaluate and recommend appropriate treatment of historic properties. The initial thirty year effort to identify historic properties resulted in a direct systematic approach toward community inventories, especially Certified Local Government partners, and a move from the development of context studies toward multiple resource nominations. SHPO has been very successful in convincing communities to complete survey and inventory projects utilizing matching funds. These efforts directly led to the development of local historic preservation commissions and the passage of local historic preservation ordinances. Inventorying of historic properties has also been accomplished ARIZONA STATE PARKS through the compliance responsibilities of federal and state agencies either as required under the Arizona Historic Preservation Act, NHPA Section 106 activities or as proactively pursued by agencies under their Section 110 responsibilities. The tremendous increase in the state’s archaeological inventory is directly related to these compliance activities. The primary challenges for inventory work are threefold. First, SHPO is faced with the need to begin inventorying buildings from the substantial post World War II construction boom throughout Arizona. Second, many earlier inventoried properties have been determined eligible but not been moved forward toward nomination. Finally, SHPO must change its approach to inventory to reach the great number of rural properties scattered throughout the state. Property evaluation and nomination to the State and/or National Registers of Historic Places continues to be a critical program function. Interest in nominations from private individuals remains high. Neighborhood associations continue to pursue new historic district designation. Completion of context studies encourages multiple property nominations. Requests for updating nominations of existing historic districts is high. And, many properties are submitted for review by state State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 39 and federal agencies as part of their Section 110 responsibilities. The state register evaluation committee, the Historic Sites Review Committee (HSRC), is well attended and the members feel that their role in reviewing nominations is important and useful in advising SHPO and recommending properties for listing. Debate on the role of the Arizona Historical Advisory Commission (of which the HSRC is a subcommittee) has led to discussion on where HSRC should be located. 40 The first responsibility for the SHPO resource management programs is to guarantee that the resources to be managed are truly historic, but once an evaluation is complete and a property is deemed worthy of preservation, management and treatment of the resource come to the forefront. Although SHPO does not own any resources, the technical assistance the professional staff provides and the incentives that can be applied to historic resources allow the office the opportunity to advise owners of these properties of current methods and standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Projects and for buildings in particular, the Standards for Rehabilitation, are now well understood throughout the preservation community. The broad range of State Parks and SHPO incentives continues to attract the interest of owners of historic resources. The state property tax reclassification programs, for income and nonincome producing historic properties, have a substantial number of new applicants each year. The applications for participation in the federal 20% investment tax credit program remain steady. Requests for historic preservation grant assistance through State Park’s Heritage Fund Grant Program continues to be three to four times the amount available for award. State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 One of the more creative resource management tools developed by the Governor-appointed Archaeological Advisory Commission (AAC) and strongly supported by the Arizona State Parks Board has been the Site Steward Program. Working with the state and federal land management agencies SHPO trains, certifies and motivates volunteers who monitor archaeological sites for vandalism and other threats. Since 1976, the program has continued to grow from 450 stewards to a current enrollment of 688 stewards who are monitoring 1,500 sites. In addition to State Parks, direct funding support for the program since 1997 has come from the following sponsors: National Park Service, U. S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Game and Fish Department and City of Phoenix. Effective Information Management Effective information management is the centerpiece of the streamlining efforts undertaken by SHPO. As government moves into the “information age” SHPO is moving from a paper-based records system to an electronic-based records system and from discrete databases to a single, integrated, relational database. The key element of this effort is the development, in partnership with Arizona State Museum, Arizona State University, and Museum of Northern Arizona, of a centralized database (AZSITE) of historic properties that can be used for cultural resource management and for research purposes. AZSITE holds information on all types of properties with primary emphasis on archaeological sites and includes a Geographic Information System (GIS) interface and also data on cultural resource surveys. In development for five years, AZSITE is in the final phase of testing. Federal agencies, such as Bureau of Land Management, are already accessing and using AZSITE ARIZONA STATE PARKS SHPO Annual Reports for planning and compliance purposes. Other information systems advances within State Parks is the upgrading of computer systems, the linking of the compliance logging with our mail logging and efforts to visually reference all contributing properties within historic districts on electronic maps. Information on current SHPO and grant activities is also posted on the State Parks website (www.pr.state.az.us). Maximize Funding When the 1996 Plan was adopted there was little hope of significant increases in the SHPO budget from either federal or state sources. The goal was, therefore, not to seek increased allocations but to maximize the funding the agency administered. The primary approaches to this end were State Parks’ efforts at forming partnerships and in streamlining procedures. For new historic surveys, matching funds were requested for all proactive projects and were raised from all survey partners. For nominations, SHPO has continued to move toward district and multiple resource nominations. For context studies, SHPO sought partners for matching funds and were successful in combining efforts with Bureau of Reclamation. More recent contexts were combined with multiple resource nominations. ARIZONA STATE PARKS The SHPO efforts at compliance streamlining through computerization allow an increasing workload to be reviewed by the existing staff. For educational workshops, training and public events SHPO developed a number of partners and sponsors. And, SHPO supports efforts to attend existing events and support existing programs developed by others before beginning any new programs. The most important approach for SHPO to maximize funding is the effort to decentralize responsibilities through the Certified Local Government (CLG) program. By assisting in the development of historic preservation programs at the local level, many information requests, historic property identification efforts and treatment issues are now dealt with by the individual CLGs. SHPO has also encouraged federal and state agencies to streamline the compliance process by making cultural resource management decisions as part of an agency’s early planning efforts under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), thereby reducing interaction with SHPO by programmatic agreement. Finally, SHPO now uses volunteers and/or student interns in State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 41 many program areas. SHPO feels that the use of volunteers and students not only stretches program dollars, it also educates these individuals on the policies, standards and needs of cultural resource management. Partnerships in Planning The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) assigns to SHPO the responsibility to “cooperate with the Secretary [of the Interior], the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other Federal and State agencies, local governments, and organizations and individuals to ensure that historic properties 42 are taken into consideration at all levels of planning and development....” The primary vision of the NHPA was to include cultural resources into federal agency planning efforts and the Section 106 compliance review process is the direct result of this mandate. In a rapidly growing state like Arizona, the pressures of development on historic properties is certainly greater than the rate of deterioration of resources through time. Therefore, the integration of historic preservation policies into planning efforts is critical at all levels of government. By far, the majority of staff time is assigned to review federal and state undertakings and their effects on historic properties. Compliance reviewers are finally beginning to see movement away from project by project review to program and planning monitoring as agencies have integrated cultural resource management into their cyclical planning activities. This is especially true of the federal land managing agencies (Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Reclamation) that have hired internal staff to deal with historic properties. At the state level, SHPO (for the first time since passage of the State Historic Preservation Act in 1982) has issued Guidelines State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 to the state agencies. Recommendations are made to assist agencies while developing a plan of action that may affect historic properties. As part of these planning efforts SHPO promoted, to the greatest extent possible, the adoption of parallel management standards and policies at the federal and state levels. The newest partners in preserving the state’s patrimony are the 21 federally recognized tribes. With amendments to the NHPA in 1992, tribes were encouraged to develop their own preservation programs covering tribal lands. Arizona currently has three tribes that have taken over the SHPO responsibilities on tribal land: the Hualapai, the Navajo and the White Mountain Apache. SHPO currently represents the remaining 18 tribes, but is encouraging each to develop a cultural resource program. SHPO is also working with the Intertribal Council’s Cultural Resource Working Group on a number of tribalrelated issues including intertribal compliance streamlining. At the county level, SHPO pursued basic interaction with planning officials and review is now done, primarily on a volunteer basis, on limited public and private development projects. These efforts focused on the counties surrounding Phoenix and Tucson (Maricopa and Pima Counties). The SHPO goal is to develop more formal relationships with county planners by encouraging counties to join the Certified Local Government (CLG) program. Proactive Communities Because the Certified Local Government (CLG) Program has grown to include 22 communities, each with a contractual relationship with SHPO, planning efforts with CLG communities is listed as a discrete goal. The interface CLG program focuses on both the monitoring of ARIZONA STATE PARKS existing CLGs and the development of new CLGs. The primary training effort with CLGs is the annual CLG workshop. These Friday noon to Saturday noon workshops have dealt with a number of basic CLG program issues, advanced CLG responsibilities and the relationship between community planning and historic preservation. SHPO is on the cutting edge of advising local commissioners of their role in growth management issues and brought state and national leaders in to advise them on current standards and practices. One of the greatest challenges is keeping CLGs informed on current issues and rapidly changing planning policies. At the specific CLG level, SHPO completed two planning charrettes that brought local leaders, elected officials, staff and professionals together to address community needs and economic development issues in relationship to historic resources and districts. One result of these workshops is the production of a half-hour videotape on how other CLGs can use this process. SHPO is in discussion with several counties (Arizona has 15) to initiate historic preservation programs. One of the major components of these programs will be to target archaeological sites and historic districts. An Informed, Supportive Public In a high growth state where citizens born outside the state outnumber those born in the state, creating an appreciation of Arizona’s historic properties and the threats to their preservation is a major challenge. With various preconceptions ranging from “newer is better” to “off-highway travel means off-road travel,” from “there’s nothing worth preserving” to “I can do whatever I want,” there is a definite responsibility to inform the public on historic preservation issues, policies and regulations. SHPO engages the public in a variety of ways from ARIZONA STATE PARKS publications to workshops, from media releases to public events. National Park Service has commended Arizona for its progressive and broad based educational efforts. Arizona was the first state to promote cultural resource stewardship responsibilities by celebrating Archaeological Awareness Week (now expanded to a full Month) tied to the Archaeology Expo event. The month is promoted with a calendar of events and posters usually tied to an annual theme. The Expo features exhibits from agencies, consultants, educational institutions and communities that present current archaeological issues and projects. Many states now have designated their own archaeological weeks. There is also a major educational component to the Site Steward Program that focuses on the current ethics of archaeological site visitation and responsibilities. More than 1,300 people have gone through the training program. SHPO and State Parks, in partnership with the Arizona Preservation Foundation and the Governor’s Office, holds an annual awards ceremony in order to recognize outstanding projects, individuals and organizations related to historic preservation activities. SHPO also distributes historic preservation information by phone request and maintains current information on the agency website. Informed, Supportive Policy Makers In the rapidly changing arena of politics, in the ever-changing personnel of agencies and communities, and in a world of updated and revised policies, it is important to educate policy makers concerning historic preservation issues. SHPO regularly meets with agency officials and CLG elected officials and representatives. State Parks and SHPO staff meet with elected state officials upon request. State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 43 By far the most requested and most time consuming interaction with elected officials is at the local level where technical advice is shared and policy reviewed. The SHPO sponsored workshops are often attended by agency and community officials. These workshops often focus on implementation of federal and state compliance requirements. SHPO Brochures SHPO issues an annual report that is distributed to local and state policy makers and SHPO briefs the State Parks Board on revelant issues. 44 Informed, Trained Professionals Continuing education of preservation professionals who interact with SHPO is critical for the identification, evaluation and management of historic properties. SHPO distributes a wide variety of technical information to professionals upon request. SHPO also sponsors or cosponsors technical workshops on topics such as the legal requirements of historic preservation legislation, materials conservation, building treatments and historic property interpretation. SHPO is also committed to the continued training of its staff and CLG partners. In order to address a number of historical archaeology issues SHPO set up a working group on historical archaeology. The working group has recently compiled information for conducting research on historical archaeological sites and artifacts in Arizona called Historical Archaeology in Arizona: A Research Guide. Once the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) issued the new Section 106 Regulations, SHPO conducted a workshop on them for the federal agency cultural resource managers. One hundred fifty six participants attended this workshop. State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS APPENDIX B: GENERAL PUBLIC AND TARGET GROUP SURVEY RESPONSES General Public Phone Survey: 1059 completed interviews of random adult Arizona residents statewide. Target Group Mail Survey: 582 questionnaires returned (1850 mailed) from people interested in historic preservation statewide. 1. Please answer the following questions by checking either: General Public YES or NO Target Group YES or NO a. Have you visited any state parks in Arizona in the past 12 months? 47.5% 52.5% 68.1% 31.9% 43.0% 57.0% 78.3% 21.7% 20.8% 79.2% 51.8% 48.2% 67.9% 32.1% 88.2% 11.8% (If yes, please name one) Target Group only: 56% of respondents named a park. 54% of those who listed a park named a State Park; 26 State Parks were mentioned. b. Have you visited any historic buildings or museums in Arizona in the past 12 months? 45 (If yes, please name one) Target Group only: 45% of respondents named a property. c. Have you visited any archaeological sites in Arizona such as Montezuma’s Castle or Pueblo Grande in the past 12 months? (If yes, please name one) Target Group only: 62% of respondents named a site. d. Were you aware that historic preservation includes the protection of archaeological sites, not just historic buildings? 2. Historic preservation may contribute to the protection of natural and cultural resources in a number of ways. Would you say you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements? Strongly Agree a. b. c. Historic preservation efforts help preserve open space. (by saving open space that includes archaeological sites) Historic preservation helps conserve natural resources. (by re-using existing buildings and construction materials) Historic preservation helps reduce urban sprawl. (by maintaining inner city buildings, keeping them in use) ARIZONA STATE PARKS Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 30.1% 61.2% 91.3% 7.5% 1.2% 58.2% 37.6% 3.5% 95.8% 0.7% 28.1% 62.2% 90.3% 8.7% 1.0% 52.7% 41.3 94.0% 1.0% 21.1% 54.6% 75.8% 22.2% 2.0% 55.3% 32.2% 11.4% 1.0% 87.5% Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree 5.0% State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 3. As you may know, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has responsibility for a variety of programs as indicated below. Would you say these functions are very important, somewhat important, not very important, or not at all important to you? General Public Target Group 46 Program Functions Very Somewhat Important Important Technical Advice a. The SHPO provides technical advice such as information on how to maintain historic properties. 39.9% 43.3% Survey/Inventory/Research 83.2% b. The SHPO documents and publishes research on Arizona’s archaeological sites and historic properties. 56.5% 34.4% National Register 90.0% c. The SHPO places historic properties and archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places. 60.2% 32.6% Compliance 93.3% d. The SHPO ensures that publicly funded projects, such as highways and canals, follow the rules concerning historic properties and archaeological sites. 70.3% 24.7% Education 94.9% e. The SHPO provides education and training through workshops, seminars and special events. 57.2% 36.3% Site Steward Program 93.5% f. The SHPO uses volunteers to protect archaeological sites. 58.5% 36.1% Grants 94.6% g. The SHPO provides grants for historic preservation projects. 62.1% 32.3% Tax Incentives 94.4% h. The SHPO offers property tax reductions as incentives to maintain historic properties. 60.1% 30.8% 90.9% State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 Not Very Important Not At All Important Very Somewhat Important Important Not Very Not At All Important Important 12.2% 4.6% 74.6% 22.8% 97.4% 2.6% - 7.6% 1.4% 68.0% 29.0% 97.0% 2.9% - 5.3% 1.3% 75.8% 22.0% 97.8% 2.1% 0.2% 3.5% 1.5% 84.0% 13.4% 97.4% 2.4% 0.2% 5.4% 1.1% 58.9% 36.2% 95.1% 4.5% 0.3% 4.2% 1.2% 66.5% 29.7% 96.2% 3.8% - 3.8% 1.8% 77.9% 20.3% 98.2% 1.6% 0.2% 6.7% 2.4% 82.2% 16.8% 99.0% 0.9% 0.2% ARIZONA STATE PARKS 4. A big part of historic preservation involves property maintenance. These efforts range from simple regular maintenance to complete reconstruction. Would you say funding the following types of maintenance projects are very important, somewhat important, not very important, or not at all important to you? General Public Very Somewhat Not Very Important Important Important Maintenance a. Maintaining properties so that they stay in good shape. 79.6% 18.2% 97.8% Rehabilitation b. Fixing up properties to make them usable or functional, such as modernizing a bathroom or kitchen. 64.9% 31.3% 96.2% Restoration c. Restoring historic properties to their original condition for use as museums or tourist destinations. 62.2% 33.8% 96.0% Stabilization d. Stabilizing properties by keeping them from falling over or collapsing. 78.0% 16.5% 94.5% Reconstruction e. Reconstructing properties that no longer exist, for instance, recreating buildings/structures that have burned down. 17.6% 42.2% 59.8% ARIZONA STATE PARKS 1.2% Target Group Not At All Important Very Somewhat Important Important Not Very Not At All Important Important 0.9% 84.9% 14.2% 99.1% 0.5% 0.3% 47 2.7% 1.1% 51.7% 38.7% 90.4% 7.8% 1.7% 3.0% 1.0% 67.6% 28.1% 95.7% 4.0% 0.3% 3.7% 1.8% 77.9% 18.8% 96.7% 2.6% 0.7% 27.0% 13.3% 17.1% 41.6% 58.7% 31.3% 10.0% State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 5. Due to limited resources, the State Historic Preservation Office must set priorities to determine which projects get money. Please read the following questions and indicate (YES or NO) if each topic is a priority and, if YES, which you think is the higher priority. General Public Target Group a. 48 b. - c. - d. - Yes No Yes No Should the age of the property be a priority when allocating funds? For example, giving a higher priority to the older of two equally important properties. 72.4% 27.6% 65.1% 34.9% (IF YES) Which should be the higher priority, older properties or newer properties? OLDER NEWER OLDER NEWER 94.9% 5.1% 100% - Should the level of significance of the property (such as national versus local significance) be a priority when allocating funds? 86.7% 13.3% 62.5% 37.5% (IF YES) Which should be the higher priority, those properties of national significance or those of local significance? NATIONAL LOCAL NATIONAL LOCAL 50.0% 50.0% 45.7% 54.3% Should ownership of the property be a priority when allocating funds? For instance, giving priority to either public or privately owned properties. 53.8% 46.2% 45.3% 54.7% (IF YES) Which should be the higher priority, public properties or privately owned properties? PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE 81.6% 18.4% 66.8% 33.2% 54.9 45.1% 42.2% 57.8% FOR PROFIT NOT FOR PROFIT FOR PROFIT NOT FOR PROFIT 18.3% 81.7% 9.4% 90.6% Should the economic potential of a property be a priority when allocating funds? That is giving priority to properties that are either "for profit" businesses such as a private hotel or "not for profit" businesses such as a public museum. (IF YES) Which should be the higher priority, for profit business or not for profit business? State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS 6. Historic preservation activities here in Arizona can result in economic benefits. Would you say you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements? General Public Strongly Agree Agree a. The creation of historic districts increases property values of homes within that district. Target Group Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree 27.3% 54.7% 15.8% 2.2% 82.0% 64.0% 31.9% 3.5% 0.5% 95.9% b. Historic downtown areas help nearby businesses. 33.4% 56.5% 9.0% 89.9% 1.1% 65.0% 32.2% 2.6% 0.2% 97.2% c. Historic buildings increase tourism. 43.6% 51.4% 4.1% 94.9% 1.0% 60.7% 35.4% 3.7% 0.2% 96.1% d. My quality of life is improved by preserving historic properties. 24.6% 51.9% 21.2% 2.3% 76.5% 65.4% 29.0% 4.4% 1.2% 94.4% 7. If it were up to you, would you give greater attention to preserving historic properties or archaeological sites or do you have no preference? • General Public Target Group HISTORIC PROPERTIES (Historic Period) ............................... 49.6% ................................................ 35.0% • ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (Prehistoric Period) ..................... 27.0% ................................................ 23.0% • NO PREFERENCE ....................................................................... 23.4% ................................................ 42.0% ARIZONA STATE PARKS State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 49 50 7a. (IF ANSWER IS HISTORIC PROPERTIES) Is there any one aspect of the Historic Period that interests you the most? Please check one of the boxes below, and if you have a more specific interest, please circle one of the subcategories. • General Public • Target Group • NO PREFERENCE ............................................................................................................. 49.0% .............21.1% ........ 21.2% • SPANISH EXPLORERS/MISSIONARIES (Spanish/Mexican exploration/settlement) ............ 2.5% ...............4.5% .......... 4.5% • OLD WEST (frontier exploration/settlement, gunfighters, mountain men, prospectors) .............. 18.2% ...............6.3% .......... 6.3% • MILITARY HISTORY .......................................................................................................... 3.5% ...............4.9% .......... 1.4% - Indian Wars ................................................................................................................................................................... 1.4% - Civil War ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1.4% - World War I .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.3% - World War II ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.3% - Cold War ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0% • MINING/RANCHING/AGRICULTURE ............................................................................. 1.8% ...............6.3% .......... 2.4% - Mining .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.4% - Ranching ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.7% - Farming ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.3% - Homesteads ................................................................................................................................................................... 1.4% - Reclamation Projects (water control, dams, canals) .................................................................................................................. 0.0% • OLD BUILDINGS ................................................................................................................ 5.5% .............39.6% ........ 20.8% - Victorian Architecture................................................................................................................................................... 2.8% - Other Architecture ........................................................................................................................................................ 5.2% - Civic/Government Buildings ........................................................................................................................................ 0.3% - Urban History (cities, towns, neighborhoods, historic districts) .............................................................................................. 10.4% • TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................ 0.4% ...............4.9% .......... 0.7% - Railroad History ........................................................................................................................................................... 3.5% - Automobile History ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.7% - Aeronautical History (airplanes) ............................................................................................................................................... 0.0% • NATIVE AMERICAN HISTORY ....................................................................................... 11.8% ...............7.3% .......... 7.3% - OTHER ETHNIC HISTORY ...................................................................................................................2.8% .......... 1.0% - Hispanic/Mexican/Latino History ................................................................................................................................ 1.4% - African American History ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0% - Asian American History ............................................................................................................................................... 0.0% - Mormon History ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.3% - Other ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0% - SPECIFIC PERSON ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.3% • OTHER (specify) ................................................................................................................... 7.3% ...............2.1% .......... 2.1% State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS 8. As you may know, historic properties are exposed to many potential threats. Please answer the following questions by checking either YES or NO. If YES, please indicate what you think is the level of threat. General Public YES NO Target Group YES NO Extreme Threat Moderate Threat Low Threat No Threat a. Are you aware that the decline of downtown and inner75.7% 24.3% city areas are a threat to historic properties? 95.1% 4.9% 60.4% 36.3% 96.7% 3.1% 0.2% b. Are you aware that a lack of public knowledge about historic preservation is a threat to historic properties? 83.8% 16.2% 94.8% 5.2% 53.5% 39.7% 93.2% 6.5% 0.2% c. Are you aware that owner neglect of historic properties 83.8% 16.2% is a threat to historic properties? 96.7% 3.3% 56.3% 38.6% 94.9% 4.9% 0.2% d. Are you aware that new home construction impacting archaeological sites is a threat to historic properties? 85.0% 15.0% 91.3% 8.7% 65.2% 27.4% 92.6% 6.8% 0.6% e. Are you aware that not enough money for historic preservation is a threat to historic properties? 83.9% 16.1% 95.8% 4.2% 69.6% 26.9% 96.7% 3.5% - Are you aware that the lack of local zoning guidelines for historic preservation is a threat to historic properties? 67.5% 32.5% 87.1% 12.9% 64.7% 32.1% 96.8% 3.0% 0.2% 6.3% 98.1% 1.9% 70.9% 25.8% 96.7% 2.5% 0.7% h. Are you aware that public construction projects, such as roads, bridges, and canals impacting archaeological sites or historic properties, are a threat to historic properties? 84.6% 15.4% 94.6% 5.4% 54.4% 35.6% 90.0% 9.2% 0.8% f. g. Are you aware that vandalism to historic properties and 93.7% archaeological sites is a threat to historic properties? ARIZONA STATE PARKS State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 51 9. Thinking about all of these potential threats, how concerned are you about the future of Arizona’s historic properties? Would you say you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all? General Public • VERY CONCERNED ...................35.2% Target Group ..................................65.4% (91.1%) 52 (97.0%) • SOMEWHAT CONCERNED .......55.9% ..................................31.6% • NOT VERY CONCERNED ............7.4% ....................................1.9% • NOT CONCERNED AT ALL .........1.5% ....................................1.1% 10. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Finally, we need to ask you a few other questions simply for statistical purposes. General Public Target Group a. What is your age? 18-26 years ......................................... 11.9% ............................................ 0.9% 27-40 years ......................................... 30.0% .......................................... 15.5% 41-64 years ......................................... 42.7% .......................................... 61.1% 65 years and over ................................ 15.4% .......................................... 22.5% b. How many years have you lived in Arizona? less than 5 years .................................. 17.6% ............................................ 6.0% 5-10 years ........................................... 16.3% .......................................... 12.3% 11-20 years.......................................... 21.0% .......................................... 22.8% more than 20 years .............................. 45.0% .......................................... 58.9% c. What is your zip code? (Zip codes throughout Arizona were proportionally represented.) State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 ARIZONA STATE PARKS 10. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION cont. General Public Target Group d. What is the highest level of education you had the opportunity to complete? - did not complete high school ............................... 4.6% ....................................................................... 1.0% - completed high school ........................................ 19.6% ....................................................................... 4.8% - some college or a community college ................ 35.4% ..................................................................... 22.6% - currently enrolled in college ................................. 3.6% ....................................................................... 1.2% - 4 year college degree or BS................................ 25.1% ..................................................................... 30.6% - completed graduate degree ................................. 11.8% ..................................................................... 39.8% e. Are you: - employed full time ............................................. 60.1% ..................................................................... 58.8% - employed part time ............................................... 7.5% ....................................................................... 7.3% - retired ................................................................. 19.7% ..................................................................... 27.9% - not employed now ................................................ 3.2% ....................................................................... 1.7% - a homemaker ........................................................ 6.7% ....................................................................... 3.5% - a student................................................................ 2.8% ....................................................................... 0.7% f. What was your total family income for last year, 1999, before taxes and including every one in your household. - under $20,000 ..................................................... 11.6% ....................................................................... 5.3% - $20,000-$34,999................................................. 23.8% ..................................................................... 11.4% - $35,000-$44,999................................................. 12.9% ..................................................................... 13.7% - $45,000-$54,999................................................. 19.3% ..................................................................... 14.4% - $55,000 and over ................................................ 32.3% ..................................................................... 55.1% g. Which one of the following best describes you? - historic property owner ............................................... - ..................................................................... 53.7% - interested individual .................................................... - ..................................................................... 16.7% - Site Steward volunteer ................................................ - ..................................................................... 16.3% - preservation consultant ................................................ - ....................................................................... 4.2% - agency representative .................................................. - ....................................................................... 5.7% - tribal representative ..................................................... - ....................................................................... 0.2% - Certified Local Government representative ................ - ....................................................................... 3.1% h. Are you male or female? Male .................................................................... 44.9% ..................................................................... 47.9% Female ................................................................ 55.1% ..................................................................... 52.1% ARIZONA STATE PARKS State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2000 53