STATE OF ARIZONA AGENCY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 Prepared by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Arizona State Parks 2013 REPORT ON STATE AGENCY PERFORMANCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT INTRODUCTION Arizona Revised Statutes §41-861 through §41-864 (or the State Historic Preservation Act) direct state agencies to: preserve historic properties under their ownership or control; consider the use of historic properties for agency responsibilities; establish a program to locate, inventory, and nominate properties to the Arizona Register of Historic Places; insure that properties are not destroyed or substantially altered by state action or assistance; make appropriate documentation in accordance with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) standards if a property is to be destroyed or altered; and seek review and comment from the SHPO on agency plans. The terms “historic property” or “historic properties,” as cited within the State Historic Preservation Act, refer to properties that are eligible for, or listed on, the Arizona Register of Historic Places. This report provides a summary of the performance of state agencies in compliance with these state statutes. The information provided was compiled from SHPO records and an agency self-evaluation questionnaire (Appendix A). Although the same general questions were asked as previous years, this year the SHPO asked for respondents to explain negative answers in an effort to better understand when and why agencies are not able to address historic preservation needs (as related to their agency’s plans and actions) in our state. Table 1 lists the agencies that responded to the SHPO-designed survey questionnaire (Appendix B, Table 1). Table 1a. (Appendix B) lists the agencies that did not respond to the survey. Fewer state agencies completed the survey this year (21 out of a total of 30 state agencies), when compared to 27 agencies that responded for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-2012. A.R.S. 41-861 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITES The chief administrator of each state agency is responsible for the preservation of historic properties, which are owned or controlled by the agency. Prior to acquiring, constructing or leasing buildings for purposes of carrying out agency responsibilities, each agency shall consider the use of historic buildings. Each agency shall undertake any preservation necessary to carry out this article in a manner consistent with the preservation of historic properties, the duties of the agency and professional standards, which the state historic preservation officer recommends. The chief administrator of a state agency may designate a full-time employee to coordinate the agency’s activities under this article. Agencies were asked if they have incorporated historic preservation into their internal planning. A total of 71% (n=15) of the agencies responded that they had incorporated historic preservation in their agency planning. Although the change in percentage from last year’s results (73%) is not significant, these responses, and those from previous years (92% in FY 2010-2011), show a continuing decline in fully incorporating historic preservation into agency planning. For example, when queried if they had included historic preservation in their state plan, only five (24%) of the 2 agencies responded in the positive; this is a significant decrease from last year’s survey in which twice as many (n=10) respondent agencies reported incorporating historic preservation into their internal planning endeavors. A total of 52% (n=11) of the respondents indicated that historic preservation was included in agency policies, procedures, or regulations, and 33% (n=7) stated that they had incorporated historic preservation in applications or agreements. Both of these figures represent declines in positive responses when compared to last year’s survey. Apparently, many agencies believe that preservation planning is only applicable to them if they manage or own historic period properties, particularly historic buildings; however, the State Historic Preservation Act requires that they consider whether any of their actions (including grant-funded projects, permitting, licensing approvals, etc.) have the potential to impact historic properties of any kind. There seems to be a general misperception that “historic property” only refers to buildings, structures, etc. that date from the historic period; when, in reality, this term refers to any site, object, district, structure, or building that is eligible for, or listed on, the Arizona Register of Historic Places. Agencies were asked if they had designated an employee to coordinate the agency’s historic preservation responsibilities. Responses (Appendix C, Table 2) indicate that 67% (n=14) of agencies had designated such an employee; this figure represents a slight decrease from last year’s survey results when 16 agencies stated that they had such a position. Many agencies cited lack of funding and loss of critical positions for reasons as to why they did not have a dedicated staff person to oversee their agency’s historic preservation requirements. Among agencies that had designated a historic preservation coordinator, only 27% (n=4) indicated that the employee was committed full time to preservation activities. When asked how many agencies had additional staff devoted to historic preservation compliance, of the 18 agencies that responded to this question, seven (39%) responded in the positive. In an effort to ascertain if agencies were hiring qualified individuals to direct their historic preservation activities, agencies were asked if these coordinators met the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Standards for history, architecture, or archaeology. Less than half (47%; n=9) of the 19 agencies that answered this question indicated that their staff charged with overseeing their historic preservation programs met these qualifications. This figure is virtually identical to the figures from FY 20102011 and FY 2011-2012, suggesting that little attempt is being made by agencies to acquire professionals that are knowledgeable in the areas of expertise needed to adequately comply with the State Historic Preservation Act. When asked how many historic preservation projects or activities they conducted, sponsored, funded, etc. during FY 2012-13, 48% (n=10) responded that they had between 1 and 5 projects/activities, 14% (n=3) had between 11-50 projects, and an additional 10% (n=2) had between 101- 500 projects. Table 3 (Appendix D) summarizes agency use of historic period buildings. Asked if they had acquired, leased or constructed buildings to carry out their responsibilities, 29% (n=6) of agencies indicated that they had. Also, asked if they had considered the use of historic properties available to them prior to acquiring, constructing, or leasing buildings for purposes of carrying out their responsibilities, 48% (n=10) responded that they did. A.R.S 41-862 PROGRAM 3 In cooperation with the state historic preservation officer, each state agency shall establish a program to locate, inventory and nominate to the Arizona Register of Historic Places all properties under the agencies ownership or control that appear to meet the criteria for inclusion on the register. Each state agency shall exercise caution to insure that the property is not inadvertently transferred, sold, demolished, substantially altered or allowed to deteriorate significantly. Pursuant to A.R.S 41-862, agencies were asked to provide information on their program to locate, inventory, and nominate to the Arizona Register of Historic Places all properties under the agency's ownership or control that appear to meet the criteria for inclusion on the Register. Responses (Appendix E, Table 4) indicated that 43% (n=9) of agencies had such programs. In addition, 33% (n=7) of the agencies had conducted survey or inventory to identify Arizona Register-eligible properties. However, a total of only 19% (n=4) of the agencies had determined at least one property eligible for the Register in consultation with the SHPO, and no agency had actually nominated a property to the Arizona Register during FY 2012-2013. A.R.S. 41-863 RECORDS Each state agency shall initiate measures, in consultation with the state historic preservation officer, to assure that if, as a result of state action or assistance given by the agency, historic property is to be substantially altered or demolished, timely steps are taken to make appropriate documentary recordation with standards which the state historic preservation officer establishes. The agency shall deposit the records with the Department of Library, Archives and Public Records and with the state historic preservation officer for future use and reference. A total of 19% (n=4) of agencies (Appendix F, Table 5) provided information on measures that they initiated, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, to make appropriate documentary recordation of any historic properties that were or will be demolished or substantially altered due to agency action and provided information on the submittal of these documents to the required archival repository. Of these four agencies, two agencies included archaeological recordation, one agency collected ethnohistorical or ethnographic data, two agencies gathered historical information, and two agencies included architectural documentation. A single agency included documentation meeting the standards of the Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER). One agency indicated that they had conducted oral interviews as part of their research and documentation efforts. No agency reported that a Register-listed property was destroyed or substantially altered in the past Fiscal Year. A.R.S. 41-864 REVIEW OF AGENCY PLANS The state historic preservation officer has thirty working days in which to review and comment on any plans of a state agency, which involve property which is included on or may qualify for inclusion on the Arizona Register of Historic Places, including any construction projects, sale, lease or acquisition of historic properties, to insure that the prehistoric, historical, architectural or cultural significant values will be preserved or enhanced. As per A.R.S. 41-864, agencies were surveyed on whether they solicited review and comment from the SHPO on agency plans involving properties either listed on or eligible for the Arizona Register of Historic Places, including any construction project, 4 sale, lease or acquisition of a historic property. Only 43% (n=9) of agencies indicated that they had solicited review and comment by the SHPO on agency plans. Four agencies reported that their plans would have, or did have, negative impacts on Register-eligible properties. A total of four agencies indicated that their plans had, or would have, positive impacts on Register-eligible properties; this is a slight decrease from last year when five agencies indicated that their actions had enhanced, or would enhance, eligible/listed cultural properties. Tribal consultation can help an agency better inventory, document, and manage prehistoric and historic aboriginal properties, yet only six (29%) of the agencies consulted with tribes as per their tribal consultation plans required by Executive Order 2006-14. This percentage is roughly the same as last year’s response, indicating little change in the number of agencies consulting with tribes. Agencies provided information (Appendix G, Table 6) on the results of project evaluation and review, including any eligible properties negatively impacted or enhanced by agency plans/activities. • The following negative impacts resulting from actions by state agencies were described: Arizona State Land Department The ASLD oversaw projects that resulted in several Register eligible archaeological sites being disturbed; however, impacts to these sites were mitigated through scientific data recovery by professional archaeologists. Department of Emergency and Military Affairs The ADEMA reported that an archaeological site, AZ U:15:313(ASM), had been inadvertently damaged during construction activities. This agency is actively pursuing mitigation of these damages. Arizona State University ASU will be significantly modifying the fountain at historic Old Main on the Tempe Campus, changing the existing WPA sculpture (public art) by raising it three feet and building a new basin below it. State agencies were asked additional questions regarding their historic preservation activities, planning, and funding. The Statewide Historic Preservation Plan (HPP) produced by the SHPO contains a set of policy guidelines that reflect a consensus as to the state of cultural resource management and the public’s perspective on historic preservation issues. When queried as to whether they took advantage of this existing guidance document and utilized the HPP, only 38% (n=8) of the agencies responded affirmatively (Appendix H, Table 7). This figure represents a decrease in the number of agencies utilizing the Statewide HPP when compared with last year’s figures (n=10). • The following agencies described an enhancement of a historic property: Arizona State University ASU conducted adobe work at the Kerr Cultural Center. The adobe restoration will 5 replace the inappropriate finish material with an appropriate adobe finish to match the composition of the original adobe material. This action will eliminate the current spalling, allow the finish to be more easily maintained over time, and restore the original finish. ASU also worked at the Dixie Gammage Hall, West Hall & Wilson Hall; exterior painting of these buildings protected and improved their appearance. ASU is currently treating all properties over 50 years old on the Tempe campus as potentially eligible pending completion of a Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) for the Tempe campus. They will be hiring a historian to prepare the MPDF. ASU is also in the process of hiring a conservator to assess and provide restoration treatment and ongoing maintenance recommendations for the public art on their Tempe campus, some of which may be historic (eligibility has not been assessed). Arizona State Parks At Ft. Verde State Historic Park, ASP performed maintenance improvements to adobe buildings in order to improve grading and drainage in order to better protect these historic structures. ASP also repaired windows at the historic Kannally Ranch House at Oracle State Park. Electrical and plumbing improvements were made to the historic Tonto Lodge at Tonto Natural Bridge State Park. ASP is also in the process of nomination the historic Picket Post House at Boyce Thompson Arboretum/State Park. ASP also participates in the Arizona Site Steward Program, utilizing these valuable volunteers to monitor for impacts to cultural resources on ASP lands. The presence of Site Stewards at these sensitive heritage properties helps to curtail vandalism, looting, dumping, and other impacts. Arizona State Land Department Multiple Register-eligible properties under the control or ownership of the ASLD were transferred over to a city or county for preservation as open space. The ASLD also participates in the Arizona Site Steward Program, utilizing Site Steward volunteers to help protect heritage resources on state Trust lands from looting, vandalism, and other negative impacts. Arizona Department of Housing The ADH stated that some properties (presumably historic in age) were rehabilitated making them affordable, sustainable, and also extending their use life. Arizona Game and Fish Department The AGFD acquired the historic Triangle Bar Ranch in Pinal County. Arizona Historical Society The AHS completed an architectural and engineering review by the SHPO and will begin restoration and reassembly of the Gregg Cabin. They also conducted assessments of the Charles O. Brown House in Tucson with historical architects and the City of Tucson Historic Preservation Office. Arizona Corporation Commission 6 The ACC has occasionally taken measures to preserve historic properties through its conditions within the Siting Certificates that it issues. Arizona Department of Transportation ADOT is in the process of developing a programmatic approach for evaluating and treating historic roads in the state. Arizona Department of Health Services/Arizona State Hospital In order to help protect a historic building from weathering, the ADHS replaced the roof on the structure; products to deter birds from nesting and perching on the building were also been installed. Facilities and landscaping personnel monitor the building on a regular basis. • Participation in other positive historic preservation opportunities: Site Steward Program When asked if they participated in the Arizona Site Steward Program during FY 20122013, only 10% (n=2) stated that they take advantage of this valuable program for protecting significant cultural resources that they own or manage. Grants for Historic Preservation Needs and/or Proactive Activities State agencies did not apply for any grants or funding in FY 2012-2013 that could aid them in implementing historic preservation endeavors. Agency Training Throughout FY 2012-2013, the following training opportunities were offered by the SHPO and/or cooperating agencies (e.g., the National Preservation Institute and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) and partners; however, only two agencies indicated that they had attended any of these trainings: Training at the Historic Preservation Partnership Conference • The Essentials of Section 106 • Introduction to Prehistoric Artifact Analysis • Building Energy Codes: Methods, Strategies and Requirements • Setting Priorities and Historic Preservation • Measuring your Organization’s (Historic Preservation) Impact in a Meaningful Way • Teaming Up for Preservation • A Conversation with the SHPO • Renewable Energy and Non-Renewable Resources: A Tribal Cultural Resources Perspective • Practical Preservation • Urban Preservation Perspectives • Rural Preservation Perspectives • Tribal Issues in Cultural Resources Management • Funding, Resources, Sources, and Opportunities • Historic Treatments of Windows • AZSITE: A Cultural Resource Tool Other Training 7 • • • • National Historic Preservation Act/Section 106 Traditional Cultural Properties Workshop Section 106: An Introduction Consultation and Protection of Native American Sacred Lands Requests for Future Training Opportunities (in order of frequency of request): • Identification and evaluation of cultural properties • Compliance with state and federal historic preservation laws (the State Historic Preservation Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, specifically the Section 106 regulations) • Tribal issues and consultation • How to nominate a property to the Arizona and National Registers of Historic Places • Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation • Archaeology basics for non-archaeologists • Historic building maintenance and rehabilitation SUMMARY As can be seen from the survey responses for FY 2012-2013, fewer agencies responded to this survey when compared to last year and, among those respondents, a decrease can be observed in the amount of historic preservation work conducted by state agencies in general. Responses indicate a continuing decline in the number of agencies that are integrating historic preservation into their planning endeavors at all levels. There seems to be a common lack of understanding that the term “historic property” as included in the State Historic Preservation Act refers to any property that is eligible for, or listed on, the Arizona Register of Historic Places, not just to properties dating from the historic period. Many agencies also seem to think that the law only applies to historic properties that they own or control; they do not understand that it requires that an agency’s plans and actions consider potential impacts to ANY property that is eligible for, or listed on, the Arizona Register of Historic Places. Levels of hiring dedicated staff positions to coordinate agencies’ historic preservation responsibilities appear to have decreased slightly from last year’s survey results, and most of these jobs are not filled by individuals that meet state and/or federal professional qualifications in history, archaeology, or architecture. Employment of designated, qualified staff to oversee an agency’s historic preservation planning and activities is critical to assisting agencies in their compliance with the State Historic Preservation Act. Awareness of the importance of preserving and/or protecting Register-eligible/listed cultural properties, when possible, does not appear to have grown much through FY 2012-2013. When compared to the previous year, fewer Register-eligible/listed properties were enhanced. In addition, very few voluntary or proactive historic preservation endeavors were noted. More effort is also needed to seek out grant funding that can help agencies meet historic preservation needs, as well as utilizing existing volunteer programs, such as the Arizona Site Steward Program administered by Arizona State Parks. Even though multiple training venues on historic 8 preservation laws and issues were offered last year (many of which were free/no cost), very few state agencies took advantage of these opportunities. With regard to agencies’ compliance with Executive Order 2006-14, FY 2012-2013 saw very little change in the number of state agencies engaging in Tribal consultation efforts. Again, many agencies felt that this was only necessary if they owned a cultural property that was important to Tribes; they did not recognize that Tribes are interested in learning about agency plans and/or actions that can adversely impact traditional or cultural properties, regardless of whether or not an agency owns or controls those cultural resources. Agencies generally cited a lack of funding and positions as reasons for decreased compliance with the various requirements of the State Historic Preservation Act and E.O. 2006-14. However, the dual misperceptions held by many agencies that only have to comply with this law if: 1) properties date to the historic period, and 2) they only own or manage significant properties, continues to deter many agencies from improving their historic preservation planning and implementation activities. In order to help preserve, or document, significant heritage resources for the benefit of Arizona’s citizens, state agencies need to refocus their planning, and determine how actions for which they are responsible can affect ANY Register-eligible/listed property, not just those that date to the historic period or that they own or control. In an effort to help agencies better understand, and comply with, the State Historic Preservation Act, staff of the State Historic Preservation Office is available to provide training on this statute. These trainings are provided at no cost to the agency, and can be tailored to assist specific agencies in their compliance responsibilities. 9 APPENDIX A State agency survey questionnaire conducted through SurveyMonkey: 1. Has your agency incorporated historic preservation into your agency planning? 1.a. If yes, is historic preservation incorporated in agency plan? Agency plan? Agency policies, procedures, or regulations? Stipulations in applications or agreements? Other? 1.b. If not, why not? (please specify) 2. Pursuant to A.R.S. 41-861 has your agency designated an employee to coordinate the agency’s historic preservation responsibilities? 2.a. If not, why not? (please specify) 2.b. If yes, how much of this designee’s work time is devoted to historic preservation activities? 2.c. Please provide contact information of designee. 2.d. Do you have additional staff devoted to historic preservation activities? 2.e. Does this designee or any other staff, who are designated to work on historic preservation activities, meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Standards for history, architecture, or archaeology? 2.f. If not, why not? (please specify) 3. Approximately how many historic preservation projects/activities did your agency have this year? 4. Pursuant to A.R.S. 41-861, has your agency considered the use of historic properties available to the agency prior to acquiring, constructing, or leasing buildings for purposes of carrying out agency responsibilities? 4.a. If not, why not? (please specify) 4.b. Did your agency acquire, lease, or construct buildings to carry out agency responsibilities in the last year? 4.c. If not, why not? (please specify) 4.d. If yes, list any historic properties acquired or leased in the last year. 5. Pursuant to A.R.S. 41-862, does your agency have a program to locate, inventory and nominate to the Arizona Register of Historic Places all properties under the agency’s ownership or control that appear to meet the criteria for inclusion on the Register? 5.a. If not, why not? (please specify) 5.b. Did your agency conduct surveys or inventories to identify Arizona Register listed or eligible properties in this last year? 5.c. If not, why not? (please specify) 5.d. Did your agency, in consultation with the SHPO, determine any properties eligible for the Arizona Register or National Register in this last year? 5.e. If not, why not? (please specify) 5.f. Did your agency nominate any properties to the Arizona or National Registers in the last year? 5.g. If not, why not? (please specify) 5.h. If yes, list properties nominated. 6. Pursuant to A.R.S. 41-863, did your agency take measures, in consultation with the SHPO, to make appropriate documentary recordation of any historic properties that were or will be demolished or substantially altered due to agency action? 6.a. If not, why not? (please specify) 6.b. If yes, what type of documentation? Archaeological (data recovery)? Ethnohistoric or Ethnographic? Historical/archival? State-level architectural? Historic American Building Survey? Historic American Engineering Record? Oral (historical) interviews? 10 6.c. Was the property that was substantially altered or destroyed listed on the Arizona or National Register of Historic Places? 6.d. If yes, please list the name of the property. 6.e. Has the documentation been submitted to the required archival repository? State Historic Preservation Office? Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records? 7. Pursuant to A.R.S. 41-864, has your agency solicited review and comment from the State Historic Preservation Officer on any agency plans, which involve properties that are included on or may qualify for inclusion on the Arizona Register of Historic Places, including any construction projects, sales, leases or acquisitions of historic properties? 7.a. If not, why not? (please specify) 7.b. Were any properties eligible for or listed on the Arizona or National Register of Historic Places negatively impacted by agency plans/actions? 7.c. Were any properties eligible for or listed on the Arizona or National Register enhanced by agency plans/actions? 7.d. Did any of your projects involve consultation with Indian Tribes in compliance with Executive Order 2006-14? 8. Does your agency utilize the State Historic Preservation Plan produced by the SHPO? 8.a. If not, why not? (please specify) 8.b. The Arizona Site Steward Program is a volunteer program to help agencies protect and preserve Arizona and National Register properties through site/property monitoring and education. Does your agency participate in the Arizona Site Steward Program? 8.c. Has your agency applied for historic preservation grant funding in the last year to assist with acquisition, identification, evaluation, nomination, rehabilitation, or education activities? 8.d. If yes, did you receive funding? 8.e. If yes, from which of the following funding sources did you receive funding: Grants from Tribes? Save America’s Treasures? Historic Preservation Fund? Other? 8.f. If yes, funding was awarded for: Protection/security? Survey/inventory? Assessment? Rehabilitation (buildings)? Nomination? Acquisition? Educational programming? Stabilization (archaeological sites)? Other? 8.g. If yes, amount of funding? 9. List any other proactive agency activities to protect, preserve or enhance Arizona Register listed or eligible properties. 10. If anyone from your agency has attended any of the following training offered by the SHPO and cooperating organizations/agencies in the last year, please indicate which training (check list). 10.a. If you attended trainings at the Historic Preservation Partnership Conference, which trainings did you attend (check list). 10.b. If you attended National Preservation Institute trainings, which one of the trainings did you attend (check list). 11. Please check any additional training needs (check list). 12. Please provide any additional information on your agency’s historic preservation program and activities not covered by the above questions, including special achievements and awards. 11 Appendix B Table 1. Agencies that responded to the questionnaire. Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) Arizona Department of Agriculture (AZDA) Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Arizona Department of Emergency & Military Affairs (ADEMA) Arizona Department of Health Services/State Hospital (ADHS) Arizona Department of Housing (ADH) Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Arizona Division of Emergency Management (ADEM) Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) Arizona Geological Survey (AGS) Arizona Historical Society (AHS) Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) Arizona Mine Inspector (AMI) Arizona State Parks (ASP) Arizona State School for the Deaf & Blind (ASDB) Arizona State University (ASU) Arizona Water Resources Infrastructure and Finance Authority (WIFA) Northern Arizona University (NAU) School Facilities Board (SFB) Table 1a. Agencies that did not respond to the questionnaire. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Arizona State Library, Archives, & Public Records (ASLAPR) Arizona Commerce Authority Arizona Exposition and State Fair Arizona Power Authority Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) University of Arizona (UA) Arizona Department of Veteran Services (ADVS) 12 Appendix C Table 2. Employees designated to coordinated historic preservation activities. Agency ACC AZDA Designated Cultural Resource Staff N ADOA ADC ADEMA ADHS ADH ADOT ADEM AGFD AGS AHS AOT ASLD AMI ASP ASDB ASU WIFA NAU SFB Time Other Staff N Staff Meeting Historic Preservation Professional Standards N Approx. Number of Projects/ Activities in 2012-13 1-5 N Y Part Time Y Y Part Time Full Time N N Y Y 1-5 1-5 Y Part Time 2 N 1-5 N Y Full Time N 6 N Y 1-5 101-500 N N 1-5 N Y Y Y Full Time Part Time 3 N Y N 11-50 1-5 Y N Part Time 2 N Y N 1-5 Y Full Time 2 Y 101-500 Y Y Part Time Part Time 2 1 N Y 11-50 Y N Part Time N N Y N 11-50 Y Y Part Time Part Time N N N N 1-5 1-5 N N = No Y = Yes Blanks (not answered) 13 Appendix D Table 3. Summary of agency’s use of historic buildings in FY 2012. Agency Arizona Corporation Commission Arizona Department of Agriculture Arizona Department of Administration Arizona Department of Corrections Arizona Department of Emergency & Military Affairs Arizona Department of Health Services/State Hospital Arizona Department of Housing Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Division of Emergency Mgmt Arizona Game & Fish Department Arizona Geological Survey Arizona Historical Society Arizona Office of Tourism Arizona State Land Department Arizona Mine Inspector Arizona State Parks Arizona State School for the Deaf & Blind Arizona State University Arizona WIFA School Facilities Board Northern Arizona University Considers the Use of Historic Buildings N Acquired, Leased or Constructed Buildings Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N N Y N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N N N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Y Y Historic PropertyAcquired or Leased Y1 Y2 Y1 = Triangle Bar Ranch Y2 = Downtown Phoenix Post Office and A.E. England Building are being leased for the Phoenix Campus. 14 Appendix E Table 4. Agency activities to locate, evaluate, and nominate properties to the Arizona Register of Historic Places. Agency Arizona Corporation Commission Arizona Department of Agriculture Arizona Dept. of Administration Agency Program to Locate and Evaluate Properties N Conducted Surveys in 2012-13 N Consulted with SHPO on Eligibility of Properties N Properties Nominated to the Arizona Register in 2012-13 N Y N N N Y Arizona Dept. of Corrections Arizona Dept. of Emergency & Military Affairs Arizona Dept. of Health Services/State Hospital Arizona Dept. of Housing N N N Y Y N N N N N N N N N N Arizona Dept. of Transportation Arizona Division of Emergency Management Y Y Y N N N N N Arizona Game & Fish Dept. Arizona Geological Survey Arizona Historical Society Arizona Office of Tourism Arizona State Land Department Arizona Mine Inspector Arizona State Parks Arizona State School for the Deaf & Blind Arizona State University Arizona WIFA School Facilities Board Northern Arizona University Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N Y N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N Y N Y N N N Y Y N N N N N N N Y N N 15 Appendix F Table 5. Documentary recordation of properties altered or demolished. Agency ACC AZDA ADOA ADC ADEMA ADHS ADH ADOT ADEM AG&F AGS AHS AOT ASLD AMI ASP ASDB ASU AWIFA SFB NAU Documented Properties Destroyed or Altered N Type of Documentation Property Listed on Arizona or National Register of Historic Places Documentation Submitted N N N N N Y N Y Archaeological/Ethnohistoric/ Historical/HABS/HAER/Oral interviews/State level architectural N SHPO & ASLAPR Historical N SHPO Archaeological N SHPO State level architectural N SHPO N N Y N Y N N N N 16 Appendix G Table 6. Results of consultation with SHPO & Tribes on agency plans/projects. Agency Arizona Corporation Commission Arizona Dept. of Agriculture Arizona Dept. of Administration Arizona Dept. of Corrections Arizona Dept. of Emergency & Military Affairs Arizona Dept. of Health Services/State Hospital Arizona Dept. of Housing Arizona Dept. of Transportation Arizona Division of Emergency Management Arizona Game & Fish Dept. Arizona Geological Survey Arizona Historical Society Arizona Office of Tourism Arizona State Land Dept. Arizona Mine Inspector Arizona State Parks Arizona State School for the Deaf & Blind Arizona State University Arizona WIFA School Facilities Board Northern Arizona University Consultation on Agency Plans Positive Impacts on Historic Properties Negative Impacts on Historic Properties Consultation with Indian Tribes N N N Y N N N N N Y N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y N Y N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N N N N N N 17 Appendix H Table 7. Agencies utilizing the State HPP produced by the SHPO. Agency Used HPP when Considering and Consulting on Agency Plans Arizona Corporation Commission Arizona Dept. of Agriculture Arizona Dept. of Administration Arizona Dept. of Corrections Arizona Dept. of Emergency & Military Affairs Arizona Dept. of Health Services/State Hospital Arizona Dept. of Housing Arizona Dept. of Transportation Arizona Division of Emergency Management Arizona Game & Fish Dept. Arizona Geological Survey Arizona Historical Society Arizona Office of Tourism Arizona State Land Dept. Arizona Mine Inspector Arizona State Parks Arizona State School for the Deaf & Blind Arizona State University Arizona Water Resources Infrastructure and Finance Authority School Facilities Board Northern Arizona University Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y N Y 18 This document was compiled by the State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Parks. For more information call 602-542-4174. 19