STATE OF ARIZONA
AGENCY HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMPLIANCE
PERFORMANCE REPORT

FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016

Prepared by the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

Arizona State Parks

2

2015 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 2015-2016.
Table 1 (Appendix B) lists the 20 agencies that responded to the survey questionnaire.

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. All 20 agencies responded to this question, and a total of 80% (n=16) of the
agencies indicated that they had incorporated historic preservation in their agency
planning. This is a slight decrease from last year’s survey. When queried if they had
included historic preservation in their agencies’ plans, 13 of the 20 agencies (65%)
responded affirmatively; this figure is virtually static from last year’s survey results
3

(63%). General reasons given for not incorporating historic preservation compliance
into an agency’s general planning processes indicated that the agencies believed that
this endeavor did not apply to them, because they do not “own, control or reside in”
any historic properties.
A total of 65% (n=13) of the respondents indicated that historic preservation was
included in agency policies, procedures, or regulations, again, virtually static with last
year’s results. A total of 11 agencies (55%) stated that they had incorporated historic
preservation into their applications or agreements. This figure represents an 8%
increase in positive responses when compared to last year’s survey (47%).
Agencies were asked if they had designated an employee to coordinate the agency’s
historic preservation responsibilities. Responses (Appendix C, Table 2) indicate that
80% (n=16) of agencies had designated such an employee; this figure represents an
4% decrease from last year’s survey results. Many of the agencies that responded in
the negative stated that they believed the statute was not applicable, and thus did not
need to have a dedicated staff person to oversee their agency’s historic preservation
requirements. Among agencies that had designated a historic preservation
coordinator, only 13% (n=2) indicated that the employee was committed full-time to
preservation activities, also a decrease from last year. When asked how many of these
agencies also had additional staff devoted to historic preservation compliance, eight
(50%) 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
Arizona State Museum (State of Arizona) standards or the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Standards for history, architecture, or archaeology. Of the 16 agencies
with a dedicated employee, only 8 hired professionals that met these qualifications.
This figure represents an increase relative to the figures from FY 2014-2015, but still
suggests that agencies are slow in acquiring professionals that are knowledgeable in
the areas of expertise needed to adequately comply with the State Historic
Preservation Act. Some agencies stated that they did not feel the law was applicable
to them because they do not manage any historic properties, and thus hiring qualified
preservation professionals was not required of them. One agency stated that they do
not have the funding available to hire and train dedicated staff.
When asked how many historic preservation projects or activities they conducted,
sponsored, funded, etc. during FY 2015-16, 18 agencies responded. Of these, 72%
(n=13) responded that they had between 1 and 5 projects/activities, 22% (n=4) had
between 11-50 projects, and one agency had between 51-100 projects.
Table 3 (Appendix D) summarizes agency use of historic period buildings. When asked
if they had considered the use of historic properties available to them prior to
4

acquiring, constructing, or leasing buildings for purposes of carrying out their
responsibilities, 60% (n=12) responded that they had. When asked if they had
acquired, leased or constructed buildings to carry out their responsibilities, a total of
30% (n=6) of agencies indicated that they had; this figure represents only a slight
decrease of 2% from last year’s survey.

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 50% (n=10)
of agencies had such programs; this represents a slight increase of 8% from last year’s
survey. However, only 25% (n=5) of the agencies had conducted survey or inventory
to identify Arizona Register-eligible properties – a 12% decrease from the previous
year. In addition, only two of the agencies had determined at least one property
eligible for the Register in consultation with the SHPO, (this is half the number of
agencies from last year’s survey), and only one agency had actually nominated a
property to the Arizona Register during FY 2015-2016.

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 25% (n=5) of the 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; this is
almost identical with last year’s survey results. These agencies provided information
on the submittal of these documents to the required archival repository – i.e., the
SHPO and/or the Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public Records. A total of two
5

agencies included archaeological recordation, three agencies gathered historical
information. Three agencies included state level architectural documentation, and one
agency undertook documentation meeting the federal standards of the Historic
American Building Survey (HABS). Only one agency indicated that they had not
submitted the documentation performed on or for these historic properties to the
required archival repository. Two agencies 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,
sale, lease or acquisition of a historic property. A total of five (25%) of the 20
agencies that responded stated that they had solicited review and comment by the
SHPO on planned agency projects or actions. This figure represents a significant
decrease of 17% from last year’s responses.
Three agencies reported that their plans would have, or did have, negative impacts on
Register-eligible properties. A total of two agencies indicated that their plans had, or
would have, positive physical impacts or enhancements to Register-eligible properties;
this is identical to last year..
Tribal consultation can help an agency better inventory, document, and manage
prehistoric and historic aboriginal properties. Only four (20%) of the agencies stated
that they had consulted with Tribes as per their Tribal Consultation Plans required by
Executive Order 2006-14. This percentage is a slight decrease (6%) from last year’s
response (26%), indicating little change, in general, 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 was updated in 2014; it is available on the SHPO pages of the
Arizona State Parks’ website, under “Publications.” The HPP contains a set of
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
6

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). This figure
represents an increase of 7% in the number of agencies utilizing the Statewide HPP
when compared with last year’s figures. 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 felt it was not applicable to them because they did not “own or control
property.” These responses suggest that they are not aware that the statewide HPP
contains information about historic preservation that goes well beyond information
just related to compliance with the State Historic Preservation Act.
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 state agencies
plans/projects/actions were described:

Arizona State University
ASU demolished one building, the Palo Verde Main Residence Hall. This historic
property was demolished after conducting the appropriate historical documentation,
in consultation with the SHPO.
Arizona State Parks
ASP demolished the historic Pendley Cabin at Slide Rock State Park after consultation
with the SHPO.
Arizona State Land Department
Various projects on State Trust lands impacted eligible archaeological sites. These
impacts were mitigated through data recovery and consultation with SHPO and other
relevant consulting parties, such as Tribes.
•

The following agencies described an enhancement of a historic property:

Arizona State University
Exterior rehabilitation was performed at the historic Phoenix Downtown Post Office,
resulting in continued use of the building while preserving its historic character.
Exterior rehabilitation work was also conducted on Old Main and the University Club.
Additions to Gammage Auditorium were completed to increase the number of
restrooms and to improve ADA access through the installation of two elevators.
Consultation continues on plans for future University development at the prehistoric
Midvale Site on the Polytechnic Campus – this site is a Traditional Cultural Property to
the Gila River Indian Community and thus ASU is conducting tribal consultation, as
7

well as consulting with SHPO regarding preservation and data recovery work.
ASU also undertakes internal education/coordination with Facilities Development and
Management Project Managers to insure that properties over 50 years old are
evaluated for their eligibility and managed in accordance with the State Historic
Preservation Act.
Arizona State Parks
Repairs, improvements, and stabilization efforts were conducted at various State Parks
throughout the state.
ASP also coordinates, and 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.
Arizona Department of Administration
ADOA put a new roof on the Carnegie Library Center in downtown Phoenix.
•

Participation in other positive historic preservation opportunities:

Arizona Game and Fish Department
The AGFD has multiple, professionally qualified archaeologists on staff who mark
archaeological site boundaries so that the sites will be avoided by project activities.
They also create buffer zones around archaeological sites to enhance their protection,
and the AGFD hires additional professional archaeologists when needed to survey
and/or monitor sites and project areas.
Arizona Site Steward Program
Similar to last year’s survey, when asked if they participated in the Arizona Site Steward
Program during FY 2015-2016, only 25% (n=5) of the agencies stated that they take
advantage of this valuable program for protecting significant cultural resources that
they own or manage. However, this is an increase of 9% from the previous year, when
only three agencies stated that they were utilizing the Site Steward Program.
Grants for Historic Preservation Needs and/or Proactive Activities
Identical to last year, only one of the state agencies that responded to the survey
applied for any grants or funding in FY 2015-2016 that could aid them in
implementing historic preservation endeavors. Arizona State Parks obtained a grant
from the National Park Service to undertake rehabilitation at historic buildings.

8

Agency Training
Throughout FY 2015-2016, the following training opportunities were offered by the
SHPO and/or cooperating agencies and partners (e.g., the National Preservation
Institute). A total of nine agencies indicated that they had attended some of these
trainings; this is an increase from last year’s survey results (n=4), potentially indicating
that more agencies are seeing the importance of obtaining this valuable training for
their staff that is involved in historic preservation activities.
Training Sessions at the Historic Preservation Conference, Phoenix
Four respondents indicated that they attended this Conference and participated in the
following sessions:
• A Conversation with the SHPO
• Sustainable Preservation of Historic Settings and Landscapes
• Current Issues in Historic Preservation
Other Training Opportunities Attended
• Work Session: Government to Government Consultation with Tribes
(coordinated by the SHPO) (Two attendees)
• National Preservation Institute (NPI) seminar on an introduction to the National
Historic Preservation Act/Section 106 (Two attendees)
Requests for Future Training Opportunities (in order of frequency of request):
#1
Tribal issues and consultation
#2
Compliance with the State Historic Preservation Act
#2
Identification and evaluation of historic properties
#2
Arizona Antiquities Act Compliance (includes state permitting requirements through
the Arizona State Museum and use of the AZSITE database)
#3
Compliance with National Historic Preservation Act/Section 106
#4
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
#4
How to nominate a property to the Arizona and National Registers of Historic
Places
#5
Historic building maintenance and rehabilitation: Common maintenance and
rehabilitation techniques (adobe, brick repointing, reroofing, etc.) for facilities
maintenance staff
At the end of the survey, agencies were given the opportunity to provide any
additional information on their historic preservation programs and activities that were
not covered by the survey questions, including any special achievements and/or
awards. One agency, AGFD, responded that they were going to be hiring a second
field archaeologist to assist with their compliance responsibilities.

9

SUMMARY
When compared to previous years’ surveys, the 2015-16 survey responses do not
show a decrease in the amount of historic preservation work conducted by state
agencies, as has been the pattern in the past. Responses indicate a slight, albeit
almost static, increase in the number of agencies that are integrating historic
preservation into their planning endeavors at many levels, and that are using the
statewide Historic Preservation Plan (HPP). The increased use of the HPP is especially
important, as the SHPO believes that utilization of the HPP can assist agencies in their
historic preservation planning. Arizona’s HPP was generated by the SHPO and
incorporates the results of professionally-administered public surveys, as well as input
from state and federal agencies, tribes, preservation organizations, and others. As
statements of public policy in historic preservation, the HPP serves as a general-level
guide for decision-making throughout the state, rather than as compilation of all that
is known about the state's cultural resources. The Arizona HPP is important in:
o
o
o

o

Identifying current and emerging historic preservation issues throughout
the state;
Establishing the vision, mission, and priorities for the SHPO;
Identifying preservation goals for integrating historic preservation into
broader planning and decision-making at local, regional, and state levels;
and
Identifying preservation partners and how their contributions are needed
to accomplish the HPP’s objectives, as well as compliance with state and
federal historic preservation laws.

Levels of hiring dedicated staff positions to coordinate agencies’ historic preservation
responsibilities appear to have decreased slightly from last year’s survey results.
Additionally, most of these jobs are part-time or less, and are not filled by individuals
that meet state and/or federal professional standards in history, archaeology, or
architecture. Many agencies reported that their lack of dedicated staff was driven by
the paucity of historic properties under agency ownership or control. Indeed agencies
that manage programs (e.g., Housing, Agriculture) rather than land may have a more
limited need for professional preservation assistance than agencies that manage lands,
buildings and rights of ways (e.g., ADOT, AGFD, ASLD and ADOA). Employment of
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. The data from this
survey indicate that SHPO should investigate options for enhancing training and
providing consultative services to agencies that lack dedicated staff. With regard to
staff training, agencies can take advantage of the multiple training venues on historic
preservation laws and issues that are offered throughout the year, many of which are
free of cost.
10

Awareness of the importance of utilizing and protecting Register-eligible/listed
cultural properties, when possible, does not appear to have grown much through FY
2015-2016. The number of agencies with programs to locate, inventory, and nominate
historic properties to the Arizona Register of Historic Places, depending upon the
types of projects they undertook, funded, permitted, regulated, etc., increased slightly
by 8% from the previous year. Again, depending on the type of actions undertaken,
fewer agencies conducted surveys to identify historic properties, and fewer agencies
actually determined at least one cultural resource as ARHP-eligible. As a result, there
was a concomitant decrease (16%) in the number of agencies consulting with the
SHPO for technical advice and expertise.
Only two agencies reported that they had conducted projects that enhanced Registereligible/listed properties; this number represents a decrease by three agencies from
last year’s survey results. Additionally, few voluntary or proactive historic preservation
endeavors were noted by the agencies that responded to the survey. It is possible that
stronger efforts to seek out relevant grants can help agencies fund historic
preservation needs; currently, only one agency was successful in obtaining a historic
preservation grant. On the positive side, there was a 9% increase in the number of
agencies utilizing the Arizona Site Steward Program administered by Arizona State
Parks. This stewardship program is valuable for protecting significant cultural
resources.
With regard to agencies’ compliance with Executive Order 2006-14, on Tribal
consultation, FY 2015-2016 saw a slight decrease in the number of state agencies
engaging in Tribal consultation efforts with regards to historic preservation planning
activities. Again, many agencies felt that this was only necessary if they owned a
cultural property that was important to Tribes, whereas many Tribes are interested in
learning about agency plans and/or actions that can adversely impact properties that
have religious and cultural significance to them, regardless of whether or not an
agency owns or controls those cultural resources. The recent establishment of the
Governor’s Office on Tribal Relations (GOTR) will undoubtedly have a positive effect in
promoting state agency engagement in proactive consultation with the tribes with
regard to not only historic preservation issues, but also with regard to agency planning
and programming writ large. The GOTR is charged with assisting state agencies in
implementing tribal consultation and outreach activities. SHPO will continue
coordinating with GOTR to ensure that historic preservation planning is integrated into
agencies’ consultation policies.
In an effort to help agencies better understand, and comply with, the State Historic
Preservation Act, staff of the State Historic Preservation Office is always available to

11

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.

12

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 plans? 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 State of Arizona’s standards or 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
undertake this year that involved compliance with the State Historic Preservation Act?
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?
4.b.
Did your agency acquire, lease, or construct buildings to carry out agency
responsibilities in the last year?
4.c.
If yes, list any properties and their addresses that are 45 years or older that were
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 yes, please list the properties. Archaeological sites should have site numbers and
historic period properties should have addresses.
5.f.
Did your agency nominate any properties to the Arizona or National Registers in the
last year?
5.g.
If yes, please list the properties. Archaeological sites should have site numbers and
historic period properties should have addresses.
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?

13

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?
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 provide the name of the property. Archaeological sites should have site
numbers and historic period properties should have addresses.
6.e.
Has the documentation been submitted to the required archival repository? State
Historic Preservation Office? Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records? If not, why
not?
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 that involve properties that are
included on or may qualify for inclusion on the Arizona Register of Historic Places, including
any construction projects, sales, permits, licenses, grants, leases or acquisitions of historic
properties? If yes, please discuss.
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? If yes, please discuss.
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 free 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: (check all
that apply). Grants from Tribes? Save America’s Treasures? Historic Preservation Fund? Other?
8.f.
Funding was awarded for (check all that apply): 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 activities undertaken by your agency or your contractor to
protect, preserve or enhance Arizona Register listed or eligible properties.
10.
If anyone from your agency has attended any of the following trainings offered by the
SHPO and cooperating organizations/agencies in the last year, please indicate which training
(check list).
10.a. If you attended the 2016 Historic Preservation Conference in Phoenix, which of the
presentations listed below did you attend? (check list)

14

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.

15

Appendix B
Table 1. Agencies that responded to the questionnaire.
Arizona State Library, Archives, & Public Records (ASLAPR)
Northern Arizona University (NAU)
Arizona Historical Society (AHS)
Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
Arizona State Land Department (ASLD)
Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC)
University of Arizona (UA)
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 Agriculture (ADAG)
Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD)
State Mine Inspector (State Mine)
Arizona State Parks (ASP)
Arizona State School for the Deaf & Blind (ASDB)
Arizona State University (ASU)
Arizona Department of State (State)
Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA)
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

16

Appendix C

Table 2. Employees designated to coordinated historic preservation activities.

Agency
ASLAPR
NAU
AHS
ADRE
ASLD
ACC
UA
ADC
APA
ADHS
ADH
ADAG
AGFD
State Mine
ASP
ASDB
ASU
State
ADOA
ADEQ

Designated Cultural
Resource Staff
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Staff Meeting Historic
Preservation
Professional Standards

Approx. Number of
Projects/ Activities
in 2014-15

N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y

1-5
1-5
1-5
51-100
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5

Full Time

N
N
Y

N
N
Y

1-5
11-50
11-50

Part Time
Part Time
Part Time
Part Time
Part Time
Part Time

Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N

Y
N
Y
N
Y
N

11-50
1-5
11-50
1-5
1-5
1-5

Time
Part Time
Part Time
Part Time
Full Time
Part Time
Part Time
Part Time
Part Time
Part Time
Part Time

Other
Staff
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y*
N
N
N

N = No
Y = Yes
Blanks (not answered)
*UA has a 7-member Historic Preservation Advisory Commission

17

Appendix D

Table 3. Summary of agencies’ use of historic buildings.

Agency
ASLAPR
NAU
AHS
ADRE
ASLD
ACC
UA
ADC
APA
ADHS
ADH
ADAG
AGFD
State Mine
ASP
ASDB
ASU
State
ADOA
ADEQ

Considers
the Use of
Historic
Buildings
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N

Acquired, Leased
or Constructed
Buildings
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N

Historic Property
Acquired or
Leased
1
2

3

4
5
6

1 = South Beaver School, Flagstaff
2 = Gregg Cabin, Flagstaff
3 = Cracchiolo Ranch, Cornville
4 = Planet Ranch, Mohave County
5 = Evans House, Phoenix
6 = Grant Street Studio and First Avenue properties in Phoenix
Blank in column 3 = Not applicable

18

19

Appendix E
Table 4. Agency activities to locate, evaluate, and nominate properties to the Arizona
Register of Historic Places.

Agency
ASLAPR
NAU
AHS
ADRE
ASLD
ACC
UA
ADC
APA
ADHS
ADH
ADAG
AGFD
Mine
ASP
ASDB
ASU
State
ADOA
ADEQ

Agency Program to Locate and
Evaluate Properties
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N

Conducted
Surveys in
2014-15
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N

Consulted with
SHPO on
Eligibility of
Properties
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N

Properties
Nominated to the
Arizona Register in
2014-15
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
1
N
N
N
N

1 = Superintendent’s House, Tucson
Blank (not answered)

20

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

Agency
ASLAPR
NAU
AHS
ADRE
ASLD
ACC
UA
ADC
APA
ADHS

Documented
Properties
Destroyed or
Altered
N
N
N
N
N
N

ADH
ADAG
AGFD
Mine
ASP
ASDB

ASU
State
ADOA
ADEQ

N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y

N
Y

Type of Documentation

Property Listed
on Arizona or
National Register
of Historic Places

HABS

Y

State-level Architectural
Historical-Archival
Archaeological/HistoricalArchival/State-level
Architectural

Y
N
N

SHPO
SHPO
SHPO

Historical-Archival/
State-level Architectural

N

SHPO

Documentation
Submitted

N

Blank = No response

21

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

Agency
ASLAPR
NAU
AHS
ADRE
ASLD
ACC
UA
ADC
APA
ADHS
ADH
ADAG
AGFD
Mine
ASP
ASDB
ASU
State
ADOA
ADEQ

Consultation on
Agency Plans
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N

Positive
Impacts on
Historic
Properties
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N

Negative
Impacts on
Historic
Properties
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N

Consultation
with Indian
Tribes
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N

Blank (no answer)

22

Appendix H
Table 7. Agencies utilizing the State Historic Preservation
Plan produced by the SHPO.

Agency
ASLAPR

Used HPP when Considering and Consulting on
Agency Plans
N

NAU

N

AHS

N

ADRE

Y

ASLD

Y

ACC

N

UA

Y

ADC

Y

APA

N

ADHS

Y

ADH

N

ADAG

N

AGFD

Y

Mine

Y

ASP

Y

ASDB

Y

ASU

Y

State

Y

ADOA

Y

ADEQ

N

23

This document was compiled by the State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State
Parks.
For more information call 602-542-4009.

24