STATE OF ARIZONA
AGENCY HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMPLIANCE
PERFORMANCE REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2013-2014
Prepared by the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Arizona State Parks

2014 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 an agency
self-evaluation questionnaire designed by the SHPO (Appendix A) for FY 2013-2014.
Table 1 lists the 21 agencies that responded to the survey questionnaire (Appendix B,
Table 1). Table 1a (Appendix B) lists the agencies that did not respond to the survey.

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 had incorporated historic preservation into their internal
planning. A total of 90% (n=19) of the agencies that responded indicated that they
had incorporated historic preservation in their agency planning. This is a 19%
increase from last year’s survey, and also an increase from FY 2011-2012. However,
when queried if they had included historic preservation in their state plan, only 14 of
the 21 agencies (67%) responded, and only six of those (43%) responded in the
positive; this represents a decrease from last year’s survey when 10 respondent
agencies reported having incorporated historic preservation into their internal
planning endeavors.
A total of 81% (n=17) of the respondents indicated that historic preservation was
included in agency policies, procedures, or regulations, and 88% (n=15) stated that
they had incorporated historic preservation into applications or agreements. Both of
2

these figures represent significant increases in positive responses when compared to
last year’s survey.
The perception that preservation planning is only applicable to agencies if they
manage or own historic period properties, particularly historic buildings, still persists,
however, despite the fact that the State Historic Preservation Act requires that
agencies consider whether any of their actions (including grant-funded projects,
permitting, licensing approvals, etc.) have the potential to impact historic properties
of any kind. The general misperception that the term “historic property” only refers
to buildings or structures that date from the historic period also is still manifested in
this year’s survey responses; 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
76% (n=16) of agencies had designated such an employee; this figure represents a
slight increase from last year’s survey results when 14 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 19% (n=3) 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 16 agencies that responded to
this question, seven (44%) responded in the positive, a slight increase from 39% in last
year’s survey.
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 (44%; n=8) of the 18 agencies that answered this question
indicated that their staff charged with overseeing their historic preservation programs
met these qualifications. This figure represents a slight decrease relative to the figures
from FY 2010-2011, FY 2011-2012, and FY 2012-2013, 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. In
addition, it is unclear if some (n=3) agencies actually understood what the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards are, as they indicated that their staff has these qualifications but it
was not clear that met those standards.
When asked how many historic preservation projects or activities they conducted,
sponsored, funded, etc. during FY 2013-14, 33% (n=7) responded that they had
between 1 and 5 projects/activities, 10% (n=2) had between 6 and 10 projects, 10%
(n=2) had between 11-50 projects, one agency had between 51-100 projects, and an
additional agency had between 101- 500 projects. The responses indicate that it would
help if the survey explained that the question is referring to any project that an agency
conducted for which they had to undertake studies (e.g., an archaeological survey, a
historic building rehabilitation, etc.); the question is not just referring to any project in
which they undertook physical work on a historic property.

3

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,
24% (n=5) 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, 57% (n=12) responded
that they had. Only one agency indicated that they had actually leased a historic
property for their use.

A.R.S 41-862

PROGRAM

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) stated that 55% (n=11)
of agencies had such programs; this represents an increase from last year’s survey.
However, only 19% (n=4) of the agencies had conducted survey or inventory to
identify Arizona Register-eligible properties, and even less (only 10%; n=2) of the
agencies had determined at least one property eligible for the Register in consultation
with the SHPO. Furthermore, no agency had actually nominated a property to the
Arizona Register during FY 2013-2014. Thus, it is unclear what the agencies with such
programs are actually doing, since they do not appear to be locating, inventorying, or
nominating properties that they own, control, or can potentially affect with their
actions or their funding, permitting, etc.

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 33% (n=7) 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; they
provided information on the submittal of these documents to the required archival
repository. Of these seven agencies, two agencies included archaeological
recordation, one agency collected ethnohistorical or ethnographic data, four agencies
gathered historical information, and two agencies indicated that they had conducted
oral interviews as part of their research and documentation efforts. Two agencies
included state level architectural documentation, while three agencies included
documentation meeting the federal standards of the Historic American Building
Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER). No agency reported
4

that a Register-listed property was destroyed or substantially altered in the past Fiscal
Year. Two agencies indicated that they had not submitted the documentation
performed on or for these historic properties to the required archival repository (i.e.,
the SHPO or the Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public Records).

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,
sale, lease or acquisition of a historic property. Only 38% (n=8) of agencies indicated
that they had solicited review and comment by the SHPO on agency plans. This
figure represents a slight decrease (from 43%) from last year’s responses.
Two agencies reported that their plans would have, or did have, negative impacts on
Register-eligible properties. A total of three agencies indicated that their plans had, or
would have, positive impacts on Register-eligible properties; this is a slight decrease
from last year when four 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 five (24%) of the agencies
consulted with tribes as per their tribal consultation plans required by Executive
Order 2006-14. This percentage is slightly lower than last year’s response (29%),
indicating little change in the number of agencies consulting with tribes.
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, 60% (n=12) of the agencies responded
affirmatively (Appendix H, Table 7), although they did not provide any examples of
how they are using the HPP in their programs. This figure represents a significant
increase in the number of agencies utilizing the Statewide HPP when compared with
last year’s figures (n=8). When agencies were asked why they did not use the HPP,
they cited various reasons that suggest that they are not familiar with it or that they
confused it with the State Historic Preservation Act. Reasons such as “no historic
properties,” or “no activities,” or “not applicable,” or “haven’t had to use it,” or
“small agency, no budget” suggest that they are not aware that the statewide HPP
contains information about historic preservation that is not just related to compliance
with the State Historic Preservation Act.

5

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 University
A renovation of the Old Main building on the Tempe Campus was completed. The
SHPO had determined the proposed design to be an adverse effect to the historic
property. ASU also had archaeological data recovery performed in order to mitigate
adverse effects to historic and prehistoric sites in downtown Tempe.
Arizona Department of Transportation
Although ADOT tries to avoid adversely affecting archaeological sites with their road
projects, they are not always able to do this. However, any adverse effect was
mitigated through archaeological data recovery or other relevant type of treatment.
•

The following agencies described an enhancement of a historic property:

Arizona State University
ASU worked on upgrades to the downtown campus’ Phoenix Post Office to improve
life safety, and restored most of the original ceiling heights on the second floor.
Exterior rehabilitation of the University Club on the Tempe Campus is proposed
(awaiting funding) and will preserve the building exterior. ASU staff also consulted
with the SHPO on numerous other projects involving rehabilitation or restoration
work to historic period properties. Additionally, ASU has hired an architect to assess
the exterior of Old Main, and preservation recommendations will be submitted to the
SHPO for review and comment in FY15.
Arizona State Parks
At Ft. Verde State Historic Park, ASP performed maintenance improvements to the
Adjutant’s Office by stabilizing adobe walls. At the historic Tonto Lodge, Tonto
Natural Bridge State Park, ASP conducted improvements to the mechanical plumbing
and electrical components, and performed ADA compliance measures and added an
ADA-compliant suite/bedroom. At McFarland State Historic Park (the 1 Pinal
County Courthouse), ASP completed flooring and handrail repairs.
st

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 adverse impacts.
University of Arizona
In the Forbes Building (1915), the UA is currently planning to upgrade the main lobby,
building entry sequence, and outdoor plaza space. Rehabilitation measures will
include removing 1960s finishes, and exposing and restoring original plaster-coffered
ceilings and other features. UA also worked with the Residence Life Department to
preserve and restore original wooden entry doors to Pinal Hall, located in the 1946
Arizona Stadium Addition. UA staff, in coordination with UA Communications,
installed WIFI antennas throughout the campus historic district. The Arizona State
6

Museum (1935) staff is in the process of developing plans to upgrade the historic main
entry steps and entry plaza area. Measures will include solving water infiltration
issues, retiling stairs, and repaving the entry plaza.
Regarding Old Main (1891), the building underwent the most complete rehabilitation
in its 123-year history. The building's original cruciform plan and two of the original
quadrants were restored; the roof, porch and veranda structures were replaced; water
issues were corrected; and, building systems were upgraded while preserving the
historic appearance of the building. In addition, the Berger Memorial Fountain
(1919), located adjacent to Old Main, was rehabilitated, re-plumbed, new lighting was
added, and the upper level was made universally accessible without diminishing the
original character of this historic period feature.
Arizona State Schools for the Deaf and Blind
Although not a direct enhancement to a historic property, the ASDB currently has a
volunteer who processes and collects items relating to the history of the Campus. This
volunteer currently works with all members of the Campus to find and document its
history, and has also developed a display of these items in the former
Superintendent’s house. This “museum” is open to the public free of charge, and the
volunteer is willing to give tours to share the history of the Deaf and Blind schools.
Arizona Game and Fish Department
The AGFD is in the process of assessing the condition of the prehistoric Chevelon
Pueblo, a large and important archaeological site that has been listed on the Arizona
Register of Historic Places.
Arizona Corporation Commission
The ACC has occasionally taken measures to preserve historic properties, in
consultation with the SHPO, 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 Exposition and State Fair
Restroom stalls in the Grandstands were remodeled and adobe walls were repaired
after consulting with the SHPO.
Arizona State Mine Inspector
The ASMI has an abandoned mines program and consults with the SHPO to
determine if a mine site proposed for closure may or may not have historical
significance. If the mine is historic in age, SHPO staff performs a records check
(historical and modern) to see if the closing of the mine may adversely affect any
Register-eligible characteristics that the mine may have.
•

Participation in other positive historic preservation opportunities:

Site Steward Program
Similar to last year’s survey, when asked if they participated in the Arizona Site
Steward Program during FY 2013-2014, only 10% (n=2) stated that they take
7

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 generally did not apply for any grants or funding in FY 2013-2014 that
could aid them in implementing historic preservation endeavors. Only one agency,
the University of Arizona, applied for a historic preservation grant; they were
successful and received a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities for
survey/inventory and assessment activities related to historic properties.
Agency Training
Throughout FY 2013-2014, 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. Six agencies indicated that
they had attended some of these trainings; this is a significant increase from last year’s
survey results (n=2), indicating that more agencies are seeing the importance of
obtaining this valuable training for their staff that are involved in historic preservation
activities.
Training Sessions at the Historic Preservation Partnership Conference
• A Conversation with the SHPO
• Building and Business Preservation in a Historic Downtown Area
• Economic Impact of Heritage Tourism
• A Conversation with the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
• Historic Preservation Grant Seeking and Writing to Win
• National Register Nominations (multiple sessions)
• Historic Preservation, Livability and Economic Development
• Archaeology and Economic Revitalization
Other Training Opportunities
• National Historic Preservation Act/Section 106 class
• Traditional Cultural Properties Workshop (offered by the SHPO)
• National Preservation Institute seminars
Requests for Future Training Opportunities (in order of frequency of request):
• Identification and evaluation of historic properties
• Compliance with the State Historic Preservation Act
• Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
• Tribal issues and consultation
• How to nominate a property to the Arizona and National Registers of Historic
Places
• Archaeology basics for non-archaeologists
• Historic building maintenance and rehabilitation
• Compliance with National Historic Preservation Act/Section 106

8

SUMMARY
When compared to previous years’ surveys, the 2013-14 survey responses show a
decrease 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 many levels. There
continues to be a 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 increased slightly from last year’s survey results;
however, most of these jobs are part-time or less, and 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, and in preventing inadvertent
damage to historic properties.
Awareness of the importance of utilizing, preserving and/or protecting Registereligible/listed cultural properties, when possible, does not appear to have grown
much through FY 2013-2014. Only one agency reported leasing a historic period
property for its use. When compared to the previous year, fewer Registereligible/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 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 2013-2014 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 (i.e., are over
50 years old, but not as old as prehistoric properties), and 2) they only own or manage
significant properties, continues to deter many agencies from improving their historic
preservation activities. In order to help preserve, or document, significant heritage
resources for the benefit of Arizona’s citizens, state agencies need to refocus their
9

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.

10

APPENDIX A
State agency survey questionnaire conducted through Survey Monkey:
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)

11

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?
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 coordinated by
Arizona State Parks 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.
Funding was awarded for: Protection/security? Survey/inventory?
Assessment? Rehabilitation (buildings)? Nomination? Acquisition? Educational
programming? Stabilization (archaeological sites)? Other?
8.g. 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 the 2014 Historic Preservation Conference in Rio Rico, which of
the presentations listed below 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.
12

Appendix B

Table 1. Agencies that responded to the questionnaire.
Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC)
University of Arizona (UA)
Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA)
Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC)
Arizona Power Authority (APA)
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 Commerce Authority (ACA)
Arizona Exposition and State Fair (AESF)
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
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 State Land Department (ASLD)
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR)
Arizona State Library, Archives, & Public Records (ASLAPR)
Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT)
Arizona Department of Emergency & Military Affairs (ADEMA)
Arizona Historical Society (AHS)
Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
Arizona Department of Agriculture (AZDA)
Arizona Department of Veteran Services (ADVS)

13

Appendix C

Table 2. Employees designated to coordinated historic preservation activities.
Time
Part Time

Other
Staff
N

Staff Meeting Historic
Preservation
Professional Standards
Y

Approx. Number of
Projects/ Activities in
2012-13
1-5

Y
Y

Part Time
Part Time

N
N

Y
N

1-5
1-5

Y

Part Time

N

N

1-5

Y
Y

Part Time
Full Time

Y
6

N
Y

6-10
101-500

Y

Part Time

N

Y

1-5

AGFD
AGS

Y
Y

Full Time
Part Time

2
Y

Y
N

51-100

AMI

Y

2

N

1

Y

1

N

N

Y

11-50
1-5

Agency
ACC
ADOA
ADC
ADHS
ADH
ADOT
ADEM

Designated Cultural
Resource Staff
Y

ASDB
ASU

Y

Part Time
Part Time
&
Full Time
Part time

Y

Part Time

WIFA
NAU

N
Y

Part Time

N

N

UA

Y
N

Part Time

N*
N

Y
N

N

N

N

N
B

N

Y
ASP

APA
ACA
AESF
ADEQ
SFB

Y

Part Time

N

N

11-50

1-5

N = No
Y = Yes
Blanks (not answered)
* UA has a volunteer committee (UA Historic Preservation Advisory Committee) to assist them in their
historic preservation duties.

14

Appendix D

Table 3. Summary of agency’s use of historic buildings.
Acquired, Leased or
Constructed
Buildings
N
N

Historic
PropertyAcquired
or Leased

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y
Y

N
Y

N

Y

Y

N

N
N

N
N

N

N

N
Y

N
Y

Y

N

Northern Arizona University
University of Arizona

Y
Y

N
Y

Arizona Power Authority

N
N

N
N

N

N

N

N
N

Agency
Arizona Corporation Commission
Arizona Department of Administration
Arizona Department of Corrections
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 Mine Inspector
Arizona State Parks
Arizona State School for the Deaf & Blind
Arizona State University
Arizona WIFA

Arizona Commerce Authority
Arizona Exposition & State Fair

Considers the
Use of Historic
Buildings
Y
Y

Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality
School Facilities Board

Y

1

N

Y1 = Downtown Phoenix Post Office, A.E. England Building are being leased for the Phoenix Campus.
Blank in columns 1 & 2 = No response.
Blank in column 3 = Not applicable

15

Appendix E
Table 4. Agency activities to locate, evaluate, and nominate properties to the
Arizona Register of Historic Places.
Properties
Agency
Conduct
Nominated
Program to
ed
Consulted
to the
Locate and
Surveys with SHPO on
Arizona
Evaluate
in 2012Eligibility of
Register in
Agency
Properties
13
Properties
2012-13
Arizona Corporation
N
N
N
N
Commission
Arizona Dept. of
Y
N
N
N
Administration
Arizona Dept. of
Y
N
N
N
Corrections
Arizona Dept. of Health
N
N
N
N
Services/State Hospital
Arizona Dept. of Housing
N
N
N
N
Arizona Dept. of
Y
Y
Y
N
Transportation
Arizona Division of
Y
Y
N
N
Emergency Management
Arizona Game & Fish Dept.
Y
Y
N
N
Arizona Geological Survey
N
N
N
N
Arizona Mine Inspector
Y
N
N
N
Arizona State Parks
Y
N
N
N
Arizona State School for
N*
N
N
N
the Deaf & Blind
Arizona State University
Y
Y
N
N
Arizona WIFA
N
N
N
N
Northern Arizona
Y
N
N
N
University
University of Arizona
Y
N
N
N
Arizona Power Authority
N
N
N
N
Arizona Commerce
N
N
N
N
Authority
Arizona Exposition & State
N
N
Y
N
Fair
Arizona Dept. of
Environmental Quality
School Facilities Board
Y
N
N
N
Blank = No response.
* = This agency indicated that they are currently working with the SHPO to establish
this program.

16

Appendix F
Table 5. Documentary recordation of properties altered or demolished.

Agency
ACC
ADOA
ADC
ADHS
ADH

Documented
Properties
Destroyed or
Altered
N
N
N
N
Y
Y

ADOT
ADEM

AG&F
AGS
AMI
ASP
ASDB
ASU
WIFA
NAU
UA
APA
ACA
AESF
ADEQ
SFB

Y
Y

N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y

Type of Documentation

Property Listed
on Arizona or
National
Register of
Historic Places

Documentation
Submitted

HABS
Archaeological/
Ethnohistoric/
Historical/HABS/
HAER/Oral
interviews/State level
architectural
Historical
Historical/StateLevel Architectural/
Oral Interviews

N
N

SHPO
SHPO &
ASLAPR

N
N

SHPO
SHPO

Archaeological
(data recovery)

N

SHPO

N

Historical

N

N

Blank = No response.

17

Appendix G
Table 6. Results of consultation with SHPO & Tribes on agency plans/projects.

Agency
Arizona Corporation
Commission
Arizona Dept. of
Administration
Arizona Dept. of
Corrections
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 Mine Inspector
Arizona State Parks
Arizona State School for the
Deaf & Blind
Arizona State University
Arizona WIFA
Northern Arizona
University
University of Arizona
Arizona Power Authority
Arizona Commerce
Authority
Arizona Exposition & State
Fair
Arizona Dept. of
Environmental Quality
School Facilities Board

Consultation
on Agency
Plans
N

Positive
Impacts
on
Historic
Properties
N

Negative
Impacts
on
Historic
Properties
N

Consultation
with Indian
Tribes
N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y
Y

N
N

N
Y

Y
Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y
N
N
Y
N*

N
N
N
Y
N

N
N
N
N
N

Y
N

Y
N
Y

Y
N
N

Y
N
N

Y
N
N

Y
N
N

Y
N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Blank = No response.
* = Agency indicated that this consultation is currently in progress.

18

Appendix H
Table 7. Agencies utilizing the State HPP produced by the SHPO.

Agency
Arizona Corporation Commission
Arizona Dept. of Administration
Arizona Dept. of Corrections
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 Mine Inspector
Arizona State Parks
Arizona State School for the Deaf & Blind
Arizona State University
Arizona Water Resources Infrastructure and Finance
Authority
Northern Arizona University
University of Arizona
Arizona Power Authority
Arizona Commerce Authority
Arizona Exposition & State Fair
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
School Facilities Board

Used HPP
when
Considering
and Consulting
on Agency
Plans
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y

Blank = No response.

19

This document was compiled by the State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Parks.
For more information call 602-542-4174.

20