Vail Historic Preservation Plan August 2015 · 2020. 8. 16. · ! ! 8! SECTION’1!INTRODUCTIONAND OVERVIEW! INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN! HistorianDavidLowenthal(1979:554)onceobservedthat,atthelocallevel

VAIL, ARIZONA: HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN [2014]

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [PP. 4]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [PP. 5] SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW [PP. 8]

INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN INTRODUCTION TO THE VAIL AREA LEGAL BASIS

SECTION 2 VAIL HISTORY AND HERITAGE [PP. 26] PREHISTORIC HISTORY: TRANSPORTATION HISTORY: CATTLE RANCHING HISTORY: MINING HISTORY: COMMUNITY HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY

SECTION 3 PRESERVATION: PAST PRESERVATION EFFORTS AND A RENEWED EMPHASIS [PP. 54] PAST PRESERVATION EFFORTS A RENEWED EMPHASIS: VAIL AS CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

SECTION 4 PLANNING: LAND-‐USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT [PP.60] ZONING GROWTH MANAGEMENT

SECTION 5 COMMUNITY: DEFINING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION [PP. 71] SECTION 6 RECOMMENDATIONS: BUILDING A PRESERVATION PROGRAM IN VAIL [PP.75]

SAVING THE OLD VAIL POST OFFICE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE STUDY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS TOWN SITE DESIGN CONCEPTS AND ALTERNATIVES

SECTION 7 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTIONS [PP.98] RESOURCES AND APPENDICES [PP.101]

Image 1 (on title page): Original Vail Town Site, including Old Vail Road (Highway 80), The Shrine of Santa Rita in the Desert in the Desert and The 1908 Vail & Post Office, March 1935 Shrine Dedication. (Courtesy Catholic Diocese of Tucson Archives)

3

TABLES AND MAPS

Table 1: Previous Cultural Resource Management Projects within One Mile of the Historic Town Site (pp. 54)

Table 2: Previously Identified Historic Properties within One Mile of Historic Town Site (pp. 55)

Table 3: Zoning Definitions (pp. 67-‐68)

Map 1 Project location: Vail, Arizona original town site at Colossal Cave Road and Old Vail Road (previously Highway 80)

Map 2 One-‐mile focus zone, centered around the original town site and 1908 Vail & Post Office

Map 3 One-‐mile “focus zone,” and five-‐mile “contextual zone”; together, the Vail Historic Preservation Plan focus area

Map 4 The location of the post office and town site within the one-‐mile “focus zone” with the overall context of land ownership in the area.

Map 5 The location of the post office and town site within the one-‐mile “focus zone” and the five-‐mile “contextual zone”, with the overall context of land ownership in the area.

Map 6 Map of Vail drawn by Leonard McCulloch, 1918 (courtesy of VPS)

Map 7 Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail Special Resource Study/Environmental Assessment

Map 8 Vail Sensitivity Map; derived from model created by Daughtrey (2014)

Map 9 Zoning map for the one-‐mile focus zone

Map 10 The location of the original town site within the one-‐mile priority buffer, the five-‐mile buffer, and in the overall context of zoning in the area

Map 11 Cultural resources identified by the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan; Vail is within a “Priority Archaeological Site Complex”

Map 12 Land use intensity map of one-‐mile focus zone

Map 13 The location of the town site within the one-‐mile priority buffer, the five-‐mile buffer, and in the overall context of land use intensity

Map 14 View of the natural washes in the vicinity of the study area

Map 15 The location of historic Vail town site within the one-‐mile priority buffer, the five-‐mile buffer, and in the overall context of washes

4

Vail Preservation Society

Executive Director J.J. Lamb

Executive Board Members Max Allen Calvin Baker James Egbert, Esq. Al Flores Davita Mueller Sandy Knowlden Jayme Kahle Carla Kerekes-‐Martin Mike Pena David Yubeta

Advisory Board Members Andrew Gorski Sarah Hiteman Joy Mehulka Marley Lamb Robin Pinto Elizabeth Webb

Community Advisory Board Marlene Bachmann Charlotte Cook Allison Corona Greg Cranwell Royce Davenport Sandi Garrick Rebecca Howey Robert Leftwich Jeanne Lumia Charlotte Kimball-‐Leon Neal Lutyens Tracy Martin Barbara Mayer Jo Maxwell Ann Miko Ron Miko Gary Scott Jenny Selenski Edward Wagner Sandy Whitehouse

Pima County Linda Mayro, Ph.D., Director, Office of Conservation and Sustainability University of Arizona, PLG 564 Preservation Planning Issues Graduate Seminar William P. O'Brien, Facilitator Nicole C. Lavely, Project Manager

Rebecca Caroli, Editor Starr Herr-‐Cardillo, Editor Aysan Abdollahzadeh, Designer Jae Anderson Deyaniva Nevarez Martinez Stephanie Stiscia William White Special thanks to the following individuals for their consultation and contribution: Pat O’ Brien, Ph.D., Cultural Resources, DSCESU, National Park Service J.J. Lamb, VPS Executive Director, Vail Preservation Society Jonathan Mabry, Ph.D., Tucson Historic Preservation Officer, City of Tucson Frank S. Bangs, Jr., Lazarus, Sylan & Bangs, P.C. Courtney Rose, Ph.D., Cultural Resources & Historic Preservation Program Coordinator, Pima County Office of Sustainability & Conservation Ian M. Milliken, M.A., Cultural Resources & Historic Preservation Program Coordinator, Pima County Office of Sustainability & Conservation Cannon S. Daughtrey, M.A., Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology (BARA), University of Arizona Submitted May 2014

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Historic resources and landscapes are finite; once destroyed, they cannot be replaced. The successful implementation of conservation activities requires actions beyond the mere stabilization of structures. To be successful in the long term, preservation planning must involve the comprehensive pursuit of regulatory framework, community education and participation, and economic mechanisms. Preservation planning can serve to organize these efforts into a logical and manageable sequence of tasks. It is the intent of this document to illuminate the vast potential and urgency of a preservation program within the Greater Vail Area to the benefit of its community. Vail, Arizona, has historically been a diverse, rural community located southeast of the City of Tucson in Pima County. The expansive Southwestern landscape and the original Vail town site encompass cultural resources spanning a multitude of cultural groups tracing back thousands of years to the present. As will be demonstrated, the area is a high sensitivity zone for archaeological sites and historic properties. Transportation, mining, and cattle ranching have all had a huge impact on the cultural and physical development of the area now known as Vail.

The Vail Historic Preservation Plan was produced by a group of University of Arizona graduate students at the request of the Vail Preservation Society (VPS), a non-‐profit organization advocating community connections through local history. The Vail Historic Preservation Plan develops a framework of goals and recommendations under the auspices of Pima County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Arizona State Historic Preservation Plan and area historic preservation guidelines. The structure guides zoning, land-‐use, and growth management based on significant cultural resources associated with two concentric zones (a one-‐mile radius “focus zone,” and a five-‐mile “contextual zone”) centered on the original town site, at Colossal Cave Road and Old Vail Road (previously Highway 80). The plan is meant to evolve with changes in commercial, social and jurisdictional conditions and special care was taken to allow for flexibility in the event of incorporation.

Recommendations will be made for county and privately owned lands within this area. The document addresses the need to develop a proactive public participation process, and provides a course of action to preserve Vail’s cultural resources while promoting economic development. The recommended actions are outlined in three town site concepts. The scope of the plan strives to sustain a strong future of its shared past by revisiting the vision and elements of the plan every five-‐years.

6

The Vail Historic Preservation Plan is organized by chapters that address the following goals:

• Provide context for preservation in Vail by outlining a thorough environmental and cultural history of the area [Section 3 Vail History and Heritage]

• Provide a comprehensive summary of past and ongoing preservation efforts [Section 4 Preservation: Past Preservation Efforts and a Renewed Emphasis]

• Impart a focused emphasis for linking cultural significance to the landscape as related to preservation recommendations [Section 4 Preservation: Past Preservation Efforts and a Renewed Emphasis]

• Encourage the implementation of land-‐use strategies that maintain the view shed and emphasize the protection of the surrounding cultural landscape. [Section 5 Planning: Zoning, Land-‐Use and Growth Management]

• Provide a public outreach strategy with specific recommendations for implementing public participation in ongoing preservation efforts [Section 6 Community: Defining Public Participation]

• Offer recommendations to foster a healthy and productive preservation program in Vail that balances the needs of the cultural resources with those of the community [Section 7 Recommendations: Building a Preservation Program in Vail]

• Provide design guidelines and program alternatives for proposed historic/cultural district [Section 7 Recommendations: Building a Preservation Program in Vail]

7

Map 1 Project location: Vail, Arizona original town site at Colossal Cave Road and Old Vail Road (previously Highway 80).

8

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN Historian David Lowenthal (1979:554) once observed that, at the local level, communities need familiar landmarks in order to remain in touch with their own collective pasts in a rapidly changing world. Many cities, towns and villages go to great lengths to conserve scenes and structures of the past that “would never qualify for preservation grants as architectural gems or ancient monuments.” Most of world’s historic sites are not internationally known, and relatively few ever draw tourists from abroad, except perhaps in conjunction with other attractions. For every world-‐famous heritage attraction, there are hundreds of other sites of local significance. Local heritage sites have the ability to stir emotions and contribute to a local heritage experience and sense of place. Memorials erected in honor of a community’s pioneer efforts, or a local historical museum, can provide an important experience for locals to which outsiders may not be able to relate. (Timothy and Boyd 2002:15).

In the southeast Arizona, just outside of Tucson, lies the community of Vail. As the area develops Vail grows more disconnected from its heritage, rapidly losing any tether to the town’s foundational history. The few remaining landmarks of Vail’s collective past are in jeopardy from both neglect and development, as is the town’s unique character and sense of place. Preserving the vestiges of historic Vail is important not only for the continued legacy of these Territorial structures, but for the community engendering impacts of recognizing a shared heritage.

It is to this end that the Vail Historic Preservation Plan was developed.

LOCATION

Vail Arizona is located at 32°0’7”N 110°42’1”W at an elevation of 3,235 feet, and is approximately 24 miles southeast of Tucson off Interstate 10. An unincorporated, census-‐designated place (CDP) in Pima County, Arizona, Vail has no legal boundaries, but consists of roughly 23 square miles spanning across scenic Southwestern landscape. A rural-‐suburban community, the population was 10,208 as of the 2010 census and is largely composed of married couples with children (2010 Census).

Vail is located within the Las Cienegas Corridor, a watershed basin bounded by the Whetstone Mountains to the East, the Santa Rita’s to the west, and the Rincon Mountains to the North. The corridor, encompassing a transitional

9

zone between the Sonoran Desert and the Chihuahuan Desert, is exceptionally rich in biodiversity and has historically been a settling place for numerous cultural groups. The histories of the Tohono O’odham, Apache groups, Mexican Americans, Chinese immigrants, Yaqui, and individuals of European descent are discussed for their direct relation to Vail’s remaining built heritage, however, a variety of other ethnic groups have contributed to Vail’s rich history.

Notable nearby attractions include Colossal Cave Mountain Park, Saguaro National Park East, Rincon Valley Farmers and Artisan Market, Lamar Cobb Monument, the Arizona Trail, Cienega Creek Preserve, the planned Esmond Station Regional Park, Charron Vineyards, Empire Ranch, and the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area.

For the purpose of this preservation plan, recommendations will be made for county and privately owned land that falls within two buffer zones: a one-‐mile radius “focus zone” centered around the original town site and 1908 Vail Store & Post Office (see map 2), and a five-‐mile radius “contextual zone” that will allow for discussion of additional sites relative to the purposes and recommendations of the plan. The combination of these two zones will be referred to as the “Vail Historic Preservation Plan Focus Area” or “focus area” (see map 3). While discussed in the history section of the plan to provide context for the ranching legacy in the area, the historic Empire Ranch does not fall within the focus area and is currently being maintained and protected. Therefore this plan will not provide recommendations for Empire Ranch and will primarily focus on sites located immediately within the endangered historic Vail town site. Colossal Cave Mountain Park, an important part of the Vail community and history falls partially inside the contextual zone. Because of its close ties to Vail’s history special efforts to work closely with the Park to strengthen these ties should be instituted by greater Vail community organizations and the Vail Preservation Society. The historic Esmond Station site falls within the contextual zone and the Vail Preservation Society should maintain a stake holder relationship and consult as this site is developed into a Regional Park.

Lands within the focus area fall within three main jurisdictions: State Trust, private, and Pima County lands. Just outside the focus area are lands classified as National Forests, National Parks and Monuments, Local or State Parks, and Military Reserves land. This plan will only make recommendations for areas designated “Private, Municipal or County Lands” (see maps 4 & 5).

10

0

Legend

1,835.22

Focus Zone

Notes:

3,670.4

Feet

This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map are subject to Pima County's ITD GIS disclaimer and use restrictions. 5/5/2014

Parcels

0

Legend

9,156.01

Contextual Zone

Notes:

18,312.0

Feet


Map 2 One-‐mile “focus zone,” and five-‐mile “contextual zone” ; together, the Vail Historic Preservation Plan focus area.

Map 3 One-‐mile focus zone, centered around the original town site and Old Vail Store & Post Office.

11

0

Legend

1,993.88

Land OwnershipFocus Zone

Notes:

3,987.8

Feet


ParcelsLand Ownership - ALRIS

Bureau of Land Management

Local or State Parks

Military Reserves

National Forests

National Parks and Monuments

National Wildlife Refuge

Private, Municipal or County Lands

State Trust Lands

Tribal Lands

Other

Map 4 The location of the1908 Vail Store &PostOoffice and town site within the one-‐mile “focus zone” with the overall context of land ownership in the area.

12

0

Legend

9,765.98

Land OwnershipContextual Zone

Notes:

19,532.0

Feet


Land Ownership - ALRISBureau of Land Management

Local or State Parks

Military Reserves

National Forests

National Parks and Monuments

National Wildlife Refuge

Private, Municipal or County Lands

State Trust Lands

Tribal Lands

Other

Map 5 The location of the 1908 Vail Store & PostOoffice and town site within the one-‐mile “focus zone” and the five-‐mile “contextual zone”, with the overall context of land ownership in the area.

13

PURPOSE, METHODOLOGY AND PERSPECTIVE

The purpose of this plan is to provide context for historical, regulatory, and outreach planning for historic preservation, heritage conservation, and land use in the Vail area. This document was constructed within the guidelines of Pima County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation plan and historic preservation regulations. Additional guidance for portions of this document was gleaned from preservation plans from other communities in the United States. The following document was organized along the outline specified in the book preparing a Historic Preservation Plan, which was published by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (White and Roddewig 1994).

The basic overview of this document is described in the Executive Summary (Section 1) and Introduction (Section 2). The rich history of Vail is summarized in Section 3 and past historic preservation efforts are outlined in Section 4. Section 5 provides a description of the zoning, land-‐use, and growth management regulations and Section 6 explains the necessity of public participation and community involvement. Recommendations for building a viable historic preservation program in Vail are outlined in Section 7, and the five-‐year goals and objectives of that preservation program are highlighted in Section 8. Appendices and additional information are included in Section 9.

The ultimate goal of this document is to create an historic preservation plan that involves the public in the decision-‐making process regarding the conservation of Vail’s heritage. This document was created primarily from publically available information and archival documents with advice from members of the Vail Preservation Society, the Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Division of the Pima County Office of Sustainability and Conservation, and members of the University of Arizona faculty. Community involvement is essential for the execution of this plan and public participation will be central to future preservation efforts in Vail. The connection between history, the landscape, and the local community will be strengthened only by carrying out this plan with the cooperation of preservation-‐minded members of the Vail community. This plan also builds upon the work of many community members and organizations and initiatives to include the Vail Vision work group sponsored by the Vail Community Action board. The plan will include community input before being finalized.

STATEMENT OF GOALS

• Provide context for preservation in Vail by outlining a thorough environmental and cultural history of the area [Section 3 Vail History and Heritage]

14

• Provide a comprehensive summary of past and ongoing preservation efforts [Section 4 Preservation: Past Preservation Efforts and a Renewed Emphasis]

• Impart a focused emphasis for linking cultural significance to the landscape as related to preservation recommendations [Section 4 Preservation: Past Preservation Efforts and a Renewed Emphasis]

• Encourage the implementation of land-‐use strategies that maintain the view shed and emphasize the protection of the surrounding cultural landscape. [Section 5 Planning: Zoning, Land-‐Use and Growth Management]

• Provide a public outreach strategy with specific recommendations for implementing public participation in ongoing preservation efforts [Section 6 Community: Defining Public Participation]

• Offer recommendations to foster a healthy and productive preservation program in Vail that balances the needs of the cultural resources with those of the community [Section 7 Building a Preservation Program in Vail]

• Provide design guidelines and program alternatives for proposed historic/cultural district [Section 7 Building a Preservation Program in Vail]

INTRODUCTION TO THE VAIL AREA Despite a common misconception fostered by the recent influx of new development, there is a long, layered history in Vail, Arizona. The confluence of the nearby mountain ranges, flat lands, and riparian zone is a unique feature of the La Cienega Corridor that surrounds Vail, resulting in a particularly rich and diverse biological community. It is because of this distinct landscape that for thousands of years the Vail area has represented a crossroads for the movement of people, goods and information. From the early Hohokam and Tohono O’odham’s use of the area as a seasonal migration route, to the establishment of wagon and cattle herding trails, and in the modern era rail lines and interstate highways. Vail continues to be defined as an integral transportation corridor. This corridor has ushered in diverse groups of people, from Native Americans, homesteaders, ranchers, Chinese railroad workers, Mexican, Anglo settlers and Yaqui immigrants, to Civilian Conservation Corps enrollees stationed at nearby Colossal Cave Mountain Park. These groups have shaped the area in varied and lasting ways, contributing to Vail’s distinct sense of place.

15

The historic heart of Vail lies between two active sets of Union Pacific Railroad tracks. In 2014 only the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office, 1935 Shrine o Santa Rita in the Desert, Matea Flores’ house, Vail Cemetery, and an unpaved stretch of the Old Wagon Road/1927-‐1931 Highway 80 alignment -‐ now known as Old Vail Road, remain at the original town site. The relationship of the remaining buildings, transportation infrastructure, and surrounding landscape is significant as the last vestige of “downtown” Vail’s layered past. These cultural resources offer meaningful dialogue between past and present Vail that can be shared across generations. The preservation of Vail’s cultural heritage is particularly urgent in a time when sprawl and development threaten their survival. Without the thoughtful preservation of its remaining historic material, all evidence of Vail’s territorial history will be irrevocably lost. Beyond the sense of place and identity they contribute, these historic resources have the capacity to be an economic driver for the area.

Map 6 Map of Vail drawn by Leonard McCulloch, 1918 (Courtesy Vail Preservation Society).

16

Vail Preservation Society Mission Statement Connecting Community Through Local History Vail Preservation Society Vision Statement: “The Vail Preservation Society works to preserve and present the heritage and historic resources of the greater Vail area in ways that recognize, honor and interpret the rich diversity of our community’s shared past as the foundation for a strong future. We actively seek to engage community members of all ages in the work of historic preservation. We utilize our preservation efforts to provide educational opportunities that enrich community life.”

VAIL PRESERVATION SOCIETY

In

2006, a community action group was formed in an effort to preserve the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office along with community oral histories. By 2007, the Vail Preservation Society (VPS) was recognized as a non-‐profit organization. With preservation and education at the forefront of its mission, VPS has organized a number of preservation related programs involving the Vail community. Through the help of over 100 volunteers, VPS has recorded over 70 oral histories, collected hundreds of photographs, documents and ephemera, established two annual events, a Community Historical Advisory Board, and facilitated opportunities for hands-‐on preservation education for students at Cienega and Empire High Schools, Esmond Station K8, and Acacia Elementary. VPS is currently raising funds to purchase the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office with the goal being to ultimately develop an historic park district in the area of the original town site. VPS COMMUNITY OUTREACH As of the creation of this document, no formal public survey has been conducted. Outreach by VPS has primarily taken place in the form of collecting oral histories, growing awareness through local newspaper articles, two public events—“Between the Tracks-‐Vail Meet Yourself” and “‘Tis the Season”—and a partnership with the Vail School District to develop high school preservation programs through hands-‐on preservation projects. The first of which is the 1915 Marsh Station Section Foreman House at Esmond Station K-‐8 school. VPS has been working to identify other cultural groups who have had an impact on the area’s heritage: Hohokam, Tohono O’odham, Apache, Spanish, Mexican, Yaqui, Chinese, and European immigrant settlers, and plan to incorporate those stories in exhibits and events with a goal of creating awareness and appreciation for the diversity of cultures that had a hand in shaping the greater Vail area. VPS additionally collaborated with the Arizona Historical Society and the Tohono O’odham Cultural Center in the production of the documentary The Voices of Vail, and currently has partnerships with the Vail School District, Greater Vail Area Chamber of Commerce, Tohono O’odham Nation, Colossal Cave Mountain Park, Empire Ranch

17

Foundation, Empire-‐Fagan Coalition, Santa Rita Foothills Community Association, Vail Community Action Board, Cienega Watershed Partnership, Tucson Chinese Culture Center, Southern Arizona Transportation Museum, Santa Cruz Heritage Alliance and Postal History Foundation. Recently, VPS has started communication with the Yaqui Nation as well. VPS has reached out to volunteers, local Scout troops, the Vail School District and student groups to assist with preservation work and the stabilization of the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office. They have also installed an interpretive exhibit on the outer walls of the 1908 building with reproductions of historic photographs, an illustrated timeline, and information about the history of the building and its former occupants. Additionally, VPS hosts events to raise funds to support the student preservation project at Esmond Station School and other programs.

18

OVERVIEW OF CULTURAL RESOURCES LANDSCAPE

Vail’s most defining and appealing feature is the natural landscape. The area is situated between the Rincon, Empire and Santa Rita mountain ranges in an expansive, relatively flat riparian corridor. These landscape features encouraged the establishment of numerous pathways through Vail, from prehistoric times to the eventual siting of the Southern Pacific Railroad main line, leading to substantial development and growth in the area. With the increased development of natural resources and minerals hastened by the expansion of railways and roads during the 1890s, Vail became a break-‐of-‐bulk point. This in turn encouraged further road construction, economic development, and homesteading. In 2014, subdivisions are encroaching on open spaces as populations push past the boundary of nearby Tucson, seeking scenic environments with access to Interstate-‐10.

Maintaining an open view shed is thus critical to the overall appeal and cultural significance that the environment lends to the area. Educational programs that communicate the significance of the landscape, such as VPS’s Crossroads Through Time Discovery Trail, are important in publicly highlighting the connection between Vail’s historical development patterns and the natural landscape. Working through established partnerships with local and regional organizations and agencies in additional ways to educate and engage the greater Vail community in the appreciation and preservation of open space must be identified and put into action.

1908 VAIL & POST OFFICE

The 1908 Vail & Post Office is the sole remaining Territorial building at the original Vail town site and the oldest remaining structure in Vail. Nominated for historical designation in 2009, it is currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The 1908 Vail Store & Post Office was the information center and local gathering place for the greater Vail community, which stretched from the Rincon Valley south to the Empire and Santa Rita Mountains from 1908 to 1973. A simple vernacular adobe building, it sits in the heart of the original town site between the railroad tracks and along an unpaved stretch of Old Vail Road. The building served as the regional Post Office from 1908 through 1973. Likely constructed in two phases, the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office was initially built of mud adobe. Later, perhaps, in the 1920’s, an additional three rooms (the Postmaster or Postmistress’ quarters) were constructed of stone rubble and lime concrete. The building was originally coated in a lime plaster, but was subsequently covered in earth-‐colored cement (National Register Nomination, 2009). Over

19

time, the corrugated metal roof has deteriorated significantly, and was finally lost in a July 4, 2011 microburst storm. A building Condition Assessment Report was completed in 2005 and has guided stabilization work done by VPS between 2006 and 2011. With the concrete plaster sloughing off, walls eroding, and the temporary roof protections failing, the current condition of the building is poor and in need of immediate further stabilization.

20

OLD VAIL ROAD

The unpaved portion of Old Vail Road, which runs along the north side of the 1908 Vail & Post Office, is part of the Old Wagon Road and one of the best preserved of easily publicly accessible portions of Highway 80, the “Broadway of America,” in Arizona. The historic, nationally significant transportation corridor, US Route 80, connected many of southern Arizona’s communities to one another and to the greater United States. It was the first southern, all-‐weather, coast-‐to-‐coast highway. The route passed through the center of Vail, adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. During Old Vail Road’s period of use as Highway 80 from 1927 to 1931, this early 20th century arterial road was an economic backbone of the region, promoting tourism and economic development.

RAILROAD

Following the acquisition of the southernmost Arizona territory through the Gadsden Purchase in 1854, Lieutenant John Parke conducted the first Arizona railroad survey for a southern route. Parke recommended a route that would traverse the southern edge of the Rincon Mountains and head over Apache Pass. Later SPRR engineers would choose to follow the established wagon road instead. Like others looking for opportunity, brothers Walter and Edward Vail and their business partner, J.S. Vosberg, saw the economic potential of the imminent Southern Pacific rail line construction and strategically purchased land along its proposed route. In 1880, the men deeded a right-‐of-‐way to the railroad for the purpose of building a passing spur, or siding, on the last flat piece of land before the rails followed the wagon road into Cienega Creek (which becomes Pantano Wash as it heads west past Punta de Agua where the Pantano Bridge is located in 2014). The Southern Pacific Railroad arrived at Vails Siding in 1880. The main rail line eventually connected San Francisco, California to New Orleans, Louisiana. Located along the main line, Vails Siding became a break-‐of-‐bulk site, or point of transfer for commercial activities including stagecoach travel, freighting, mining, and ranching, throughout the region. By 1901, the Southern Pacific Railroad established a depot. Postal services were established at the new depot. Vails Siding linked the surrounding area to the national “mail by rail” network along the main line.

In 1912, the El Paso and Southwestern Railroad (EPSW) constructed a main line that paralleled the SPRR main line to establish coast-‐to-‐coast shipping capability, endowing Vail with the moniker, “The Town Between the Tracks.” The EPSW was bought out by the SPRR in 1924. Today, the original town site

21

still lies between two active sets of railroad tracks. The train no longer stops in Vail, the 1901 Depot was turned into a three-‐sided shelter in the early 1940s and finally demolished in 1968. Until 1973 postal services were delivered out of the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office.

BUTTERFIELD STAGE ALIGNMENT

Established August 31, 1857, the San Antonio-‐San Diego Mail Line was the first mail route to reach San Diego, California. It was soon taken over by the Butterfield Overland Mail Company, established by John Butterfield in 1858. The Butterfield Route utilized the wagon road through the Cienega Creek watershed and passed through the general area of Vail, where traces of the alignment still exist today (Ayres 1994:6). The National Park Service is currently studying the route as a possible addition to their historic trails program, which could lead to opportunities for historical tourism in Vail (NPS 2014). This nationally significant route spanned from Missouri to San Francisco, covering 2,700 miles. Developers in the area should be aware of this resource and take special care in surveying development areas to protect remnants of the historic trail.

SHRINE OF SANTA RITA IN THE DESERT

Located directly to the east of the 1908 Vail & Post Office, the 1935 Shrine of Santa Rita in the Desert is a defining element of Vail. The single story building was constructed of lime-‐plastered adobe in the Mission Colonial Revival Style and features hand hewn stone exterior trim and a five-‐ton granite altar that were quarried in the Santa Rita Mountains. The building is in excellent condition, has had very little alteration since its original construction, and is currently in use by the Diocese of Tucson. Originally featuring nearly all-‐native plants, the landscape surrounding the church also holds significance. When constructed, the only water source for the landscaping and the shrine was a cistern fed by a water harvesting system. This system is no longer functioning, but the cistern and much of the original landscape remain. The Shrine’s nomination for historic designation to the National Register of Historic Places is under review, as of this document’s date of publication.

LEGAL CONTEXT In order to understand the legal justification for the recommendations contained in this historic preservation plan, it is important to assess the regulatory issues that inform its suggested actions. It is similarly important to introduce the most common of these issues and to outline the ramifications and protocol of involved parties. The following are not legal

22

opinions written by a trained land-‐use attorney; rather they represent a survey of planning law in order to guide possible stakeholders.

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

There are several major federal laws relating to historic preservation that are applicable to the Vail area and should be considered when enacting preservation projects:

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) After decades of nation-‐wide, post-‐war development trends that led to the irrevocable loss of countless cultural resources, a Special Committee on Historic Preservation was formed in 1965 at the national level in order to assess the United States’ preservation programs and make recommendations based on their findings. The committee consisted of representatives at many levels of government and from various agencies. Their goal was to encourage the preservation of our cultural resources by developing new systems and tools for its promotion.

The Committee’s findings and recommendations, known as With Heritage So Rich, proceeded and influenced the seminal Federal legislation, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), which is the basis of our nation’s preservation policies today.

With Heritage So Rich (1966:208) A national plan of action for historic preservation should include the following elements: • A comprehensive statement of national policy to guide the activities and programs of all federal

agencies; • The establishment of an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to provide leadership and

guidance for the direction of inter-‐agency actions and to provide liaison with state and local governments, public and private groups and the general public;

• A greatly expanded National Register program to inventory and to catalogue communities, areas, structures, sites and objects; a federal program of assistance to states and localities for companion programs; and a strong federal public information program based on the material in the Register:

• Added authority and sufficient funds for federal acquisition of threatened buildings and sites of national historic importance, and expansion of the urban renewal program to permit local non-‐cash contributions to include acquisition of historic buildings on the National Register, both within and outside the project area;

• Provision for federal loans and grants and other financial aid to facilities and expansion of state and local programs of historic preservation;

• Federal financial aid to and through the National Trust for Historic Preservation to assist private interest and activity in the preservation field, for educational purposes and for direct assistance to private property holders.

23

The Vail Preservation Society is required to follow the policies of the NHPA when it receives federal funds, grants or monies for preservation projects. Additionally, local funding is often tied to adherence of the NHPA.

Within the NHPA, are various elements that were originally outlined in With Heritage So Rich, and provide a crucial backdrop for any local preservation program:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: The ACHP guides preservation policies at the national level and reviews federal and federally funded and licensed projects that are (or have potential to be) designated historically significant.

National Register of Historic Places: Historic significance is officially recognized through nomination and approval onto the National Register, the official inventory of documented cultural resources. Nominations are continuous and approval is contingent upon defined criteria for evaluation (see insert). Listing on the register offers legitimacy and recognition to the claim of historic significance. Often eligibility for federal, state and local funding, tax breaks and other protection and incentive programs are dependent on designation to the National Register. (For a more in-‐depth discussion of these funding and incentive programs, refer to Section VII: Recommendations).

“Ground-‐Up,” Decentralized Control: The NHPA sets up a system of decentralized control, often referred to as a “ground-‐up” approach, which puts much of the legislative and deterministic power into local governments’ hands. The underlying philosophy is that communities should determine for themselves what is culturally and historically valuable, and define the steps necessary to insure the protection of identified resources. State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) are designated in each state, along with various Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) who provide a link between federal agencies and local programs. The concept of locally regulated historic districts are encouraged, along with policies that rely on the voluntary

Criteria for National Register Evaluation: 1. Age: 50+ years (with exceptions) 2. Association and Historic Context based on the following:

A. Event: associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B. Person: associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or

C. Design/Construction: embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;

D. Potential: have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory

3. Integrity (or the ability to convey significance) based on seven qualities: location, materials, association, design, workmanship, setting, feeling.

24

cooperation of historic property owners, without violating their private property rights (Tyler 2009).

Section 106 Review: The NHPA also sets up a procedure for the review of any federal or federally supported (e.g. grants and permitting) action involving historic properties. Referring to its place in the Act, the Section 106 review process ensures that cultural resources are considered during project planning and provides a mechanism to mitigate adverse effects on such resources. Other federal acts connect logistically to the Section 106 review, such as the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404; 1968 Federal-‐Aid Highway Act, Section 4(f); and the 1969 National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). These laws require federally associated projects to consider their environment before action is taken by determining any prudent and feasible alternatives to adverse effects, and to engage in all possible planning to minimize harm. Section 106 does not, however, have the power to stop work even when adverse effect is recognized; it only requires that the review take place. If the owner chooses to proceed, federal funding may be withdrawn and the project could potentially continue contingent on local regulations.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) The Shrine of Santa Rita in the Desert in the Desert has an additional layer of protection with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). RLUIPA was passed by Congress in 2000. This was a result of a report that showed that many religious institutions were discriminated via land use and land marking legislation. The Department of Justice website describes it as, “In particular, Congress found that minority religions are disproportionately disadvantaged in the zoning process. For example, Congress found that while Jews make up only 2% of the U.S. population, 20% of recorded cases involved synagogues. Faith groups constituting 9% of the population made up 50% of reported court cases involving zoning disputes (United States Department of Justice, n.d.). RLUIPA exists to protect religious land-‐use, and will come into play if there is ever any effort to change the regulations affecting the Shrine.

Other Federal Acts Affecting Preservation Other federal acts that are central to historic preservation policy are the 1979 Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), which applies to the management of public land, and any trafficking violating state or local law along with the 1990 Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which protects Native American burial grounds and sacred funerary objects. Both are highly significant and frequently applicable in the state of Arizona. As mentioned above, the 1969 National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) is a broad program that often runs parallel to the NHPA, but has slightly differing requirements for actions. This act should be considered

25

when projects potentially affect historical or environmental resources and federal monies or permits are required.

Preservation as Public Purpose The preservation of culturally significant property has long been considered a legitimate public purpose. The legal framework is largely based on land-‐use law, with the supposition that the government’s actions affecting private property are “reasonable” and “fair” and must advance a public purpose, according to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, citizens are entitled to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment, and under the 5th Amendment are protected against the undue taking of private property without just compensation (Tyler 2009; Bowers 1998). Zoning Laws were institutionalized in the 1926 Supreme Court decision,

Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company, which set the precedent that land-‐use ordinance is in the public’s interest and is recognized as a public purpose. Since then, many seminal U.S. Supreme Court decisions have worked to define

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Historic Preservation (Tyler 2009): Zoning Laws Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company (1926) – Set the precedent that land-‐use ordinance is in the public’s interest and is recognized as a public purpose.

Historic Districting Berman v. Parker (1954) – Provided initial legal basis for preservation regulations by establishing the principle that aesthetics can justify government regulation. This has allowed for the establishment of Historic District Commissions to base their regulations on aesthetic judgments along with more quantifiable criteria.

Eminent Domain Kelo v. City of New London (2005) – Controversial decision to allow municipalities to “take” private land to the benefit of its citizenry with fair compensation given to the owner. If the project creates jobs, increases tax base and other city revenues, and revitalizes a depressed area, it qualifies as a public use.

Takings Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York (1978) – Essentially the first U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing directly with historic preservation law. It upheld the legitimacy of historic preservation ordinances and denied the claim that they constitute “takings.”

Substantive due process and equal protection; “reasonable” and “fair” Maher v. City of New Orleans (1975) – Established precedent for considering the preservation and protection of the setting and scene in which historically significant structures are positioned.

Freedom of religion (RLUIPA) St. Bartholomew’s v. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (1990) – Established that religious organizations are subject to historic preservation ordinances of local government and found that such regulations are not a violation of the 1st Amendment separation of church and state.

26

and institutionalize Historic Preservation efforts in our legal framework (Tyler 2009).

STATE & LOCAL OVERVIEW

The following is an overview of state and local regulations and policies as they apply to the Vail area and to the recommendations in this Historic Preservation Plan.

State Historic Preservation Act In 1982, the State of Arizona passed the State Historic Preservation Act. This legislation requires State institutions and agencies to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding changes, plans or decisions that may affect historic resources under their stewardship.

Pima County Board of Supervisors Policy C3.17 -‐ Protection of Cultural Resources The purpose of this Policy is to establish guidelines regarding the protection and documentation of archaeological, historical, and other cultural resources that are on land owned by Pima County or that may be affected by County projects or ground disturbing activities by other entities on County-‐owned land (Pima County 2014).

Pima County Historic Zone Ordinance 18.63 Local zoning ordinances are the regulations that local governments use to delegate land use. Each state and jurisdiction has its own zoning enabling statutes to which local land-‐use must conform legally. Because Vail is unincorporated, Pima County zoning ordinances currently hold jurisdiction.

The purpose of a Pima County historic zone is to:

1. Promote the health, education, culture, and general welfare of the community;

2. Insure the harmonious growth and development of Pima County, by encouraging the preservation of historic sites and structures located within historic zones; and

3. Protect and perpetuate the unique character of a geographic district where existing sites, objects, architecture, archaeological remains, or other tangible records of past eras can be of enduring value to the people of the county in advancing education, general welfare, civic pride, and appreciation of their cultural heritage. (Pima County)

Zoning ordinances are of critical importance to the implementation of a preservation plan for Vail, as they will regulate the method and applicability for any project to move forward. (See more detail of Pima County Zoning Ordinances in Section VI: Zoning, Land-‐Use and Growth Management).

Land Division

27

The purpose of land division is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The resulting lots, parcels, or fractional interests must meet or provide minimum applicable zoning requirements, legal access, physical access, and reservation of utility easements on the lots, parcels, or fractional interests being created. (Cassidy 2013)

Nonconforming Uses and Vested Rights Vested rights involve uses that are already established before the adoption of more restrictive ordinances. The concept of vested rights defines whether or not a use was in fact “established” at the time a more restrictive ordinance goes into effect. (Cassidy 2013)

This could be of specific interest in Vail in regard to the proposed development in this plan’s focus area. In particular, issues of nonconforming uses and vested rights could become relevant if future plans for Vail involving the expansion of the Post Office site to include commercial or residential opportunities conflict with the area’s current zoning.

Development Agreements Local governments and developers sometimes form a development agreement to outline the rights and obligations related to a project. The developer’s main motivation for entering into a development agreement is to reduce risks associated with the project and to ensure the regulations that affect the project remain unchanged. The government typically will not accept such an agreement, unless the project has significant public benefits, such as creating jobs, generating sales tax or constructing important public infrastructure. (Cassidy 2013)

Development agreements can potentially become of interest in this project. It may behoove the Vail Preservation Society to look into entering a development agreement with Pima County, should plans to develop Vail’s heritage sites move forward. This project has the potential to have major impact for Vail, including the opportunities listed previously: creation of jobs, generation of sales tax and/or construction of important public infrastructure.

Board of Adjustment Most states’ zoning enabling statutes require the establishment of a board of adjustment. The board has two major functions: hearing and considering changes from the strict application of a zoning ordinance and interpreting zoning ordinances when they do not have a clear meaning. The Vail area is regulated by the Pima County Board of Adjustment. (Cassidy 2013)

The Power of Eminent Domain In certain situations, the government has the authorization to acquire private property for public uses. The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment

28

requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes private property.

In Arizona, and subsequently the Vail area, local governments may only exercise the power of eminent domain for public purposes specifically authorized by the Arizona Legislature. Under the Arizona Constitution, courts decide whether or not a particular use of the power of eminent domain is an authorized “public use.” Arizona courts will dismiss an eminent domain action if it finds that a local government is using the power of eminent domain to advance primarily private interests.

In 2006, the citizens of Arizona adopted the Private Property Rights Protection Act by initiative, further restricting the exercise of eminent domain in Arizona. Known as Prop 207, the regulation requires the government to repay landowners when regulations result in the reduction of property value. It also prevents the government from exercising eminent domain on behalf of a private party. (Cassidy 2013)

Conclusion It is important to keep all of the issues in mind when completing any planning process. Whether it be a city, county, or a non-‐profit developing a regional visioning plan or a historic preservation plan there are several factors of the process that are universal. These factors include things such as, the legal framework in place via ordinances, laws, and industry wide best practices. In terms of the Vail Preservation Society and their desire to implement an historic preservation plan, it is important for the organization and this document to make sure that they maintain the letter of the law as the basic framework for the plan. It is also important to take all of the resources provided here within and allow and encourage the community to get involved.

29

SECTION 2 VAIL HISTORY AND HERITAGE

An understanding of the underlying significance of Vail’s heritage can only be discovered through an exploration of the area’s rich historical context. Relationships between people and the surrounding desert environment have evolved over a period of 11,000 years, prompting fluxes of social and cultural changes within the area. These changes led to the establishment of communities along Cienega Creek, shaped by industry and the interactions of diverse ethnic groups.

The history of the Vail area begins with the ephemeral patterns of Paleo-‐Indian settlement on the landscape, continuing under the later social, political and economic networks of the Hohokam, and still later the Tohono O’odham and Apache. The late 1700’s brought Spanish influence to the Southwest, resulting in the development of the mission system. This practice heralded a new trajectory in the shaping of the southwest, ushering in an era of exploitation that re-‐characterized the nature of interaction with surrounding resources. Lucrative industries such as farming, mining, and ranching provided opportunities for the Spanish and Mexican populations in Southern Arizona. With the Mexican-‐American War of 1848 and 1854 Gadsden Purchase, the American Southwest was established as United States territory, bringing more social and cultural change to the area. This transition of territory directly influenced the development of the area where the future community of Vail, Arizona, would be located. The formative processes of the transportation, mining, and ranching industries would lead to the establishment of Vail’s Siding in 1880.

PREHISTORY PALEO-‐INDIAN (9,500B.C–8,500 B.C.)

Southern Arizona remained untouched by the glaciers of the Pleistocene ice age, which covered most of North America 11,000 years ago. Nevertheless, little archaeological evidence of humans in this region has been identified prior to 9,500 B.C. (Plog 1997:37). During this time, the southwestern United States possessed a radically different environment than it has today. Deserts and arid grasslands had not yet formed and the region was covered with a complex mosaic of many different plant communities. Several extinct species of large mammals once inhabited southern Arizona including the American camel (Camelops sp.), bison (Bison antiquus), ground sloth (Northrotheriops shastensis), horse (Equus sp.), lion (Panthera leo atrox), and mammoth (Mammuthus columbi). These extinct species lived alongside other animals that still exist today, including rabbit, deer, and antelope (Plog 1997:37; Reid and Whittlesey 1997:32–33).

30

The earliest archaeological remains in southern Arizona are associated with the Clovis complex, which was distinguished based on a unique assemblage of artifacts that were originally identified near Clovis, New Mexico in the 1920s and 1930s (Reid and Whittlesey 1997:30). In the Southwest, archaeological sites belonging to the Clovis complex proliferated by 9,500 B.C. and are defined by the presence of a distinctive lanceolate spear point with a concave base (Slaughter 1992:72). Several important Clovis sites have been identified southeast of Vail in the upper San Pedro River Valley, including the Naco, Lehner Ranch, Escapule, and Murray Springs sites (Faught and Freeman 1998:41). Isolated Clovis points have been found in Saguaro National Park East and Willow Springs in the Tucson Basin, in the Avra Valley area west of the Tucson Basin, and near Kartchner Caverns in the San Pedro Valley (Agenbroad 1967; Ayres 1970; Faught and Freeman 1998; Huckell 1984, 1982).

Archaeologists believe the people that created Clovis complex artifacts lived as highly mobile big-‐game hunters, following herds of bison and mammoth across the landscape. They probably also gathered plant foods as they traveled and lived lightly on the land, sleeping in temporary shelters and carrying the few possessions they owned from place to place (Plog 1997:40–41; Reid and Whittlesey 1997:32–38).

ARCHAIC (8,500B.C.–A.D.1)

Around 9,000 B.C., the climate in North America changed. The vast ice sheets retreated. Big game went extinct. The climate of southern Arizona became increasingly dry, ultimately turning into the Sonoran Desert environment we know today. The changing environment and extinction of big game animals forced people living in southern Arizona to change their lifeway’s. This change affected the food ancient people ate, the houses they lived in, and the artifacts they made. Archaeologists call this time period the Archaic, which refers both to a division of time and the lifeway practiced by the ancient peoples during that time.

For nearly 9,000 years, prehistoric people in southern Arizona sustained themselves by gathering plant foods and hunting the remaining game animals— primarily deer, antelope, and rabbit— and living in small, mobile bands that moved seasonally across the landscape. In Arizona, archaeologists call sites created during the Archaic period the Cochise Culture. They have divided the Cochise Culture into three periods: the Sulphur Spring phase (8,500–6000B.C.), the Chiricahua (6,000–2,100B.C.), and the San Pedro phase (2,100B.C.–A.D.1) (Ravesloot et al. 2011:6; Reid and Whittlesey 1997:43–44).

The Archaic period in southern Arizona begins with the Sulphur Springs phase, which is identified by the arrival of grinding stones, baskets, and distinctive projectile points. These artifacts are taken as an indicator that people were following a different lifestyle and using different

31

resources, specifically seeds and plants. Human populations during this time were small. People lived in small, isolated bands that preferred to live near water sources (Reid and Whittlesey 1997:51–53). Few early Archaic sites have been identified in southeastern Arizona.

During the Chiricahua phase, shallow basin metates, mortars and pestles, various bifacial tools, and distinctive side-‐notched Chiricahua points appear in the archaeological record (Freeman 1999; Huckell 1996:342). Projectile points at this time take on a similarity in design across a large geographic region. The earliest evidence of semi-‐permanent housing appears at this time, but people still maintained a highly mobile lifestyle. Towards the end of the Chiricahua phase, the first Mesoamerican cultigens appear in southern Arizona, perhaps as early as 2,000B.C. (Mabry 2005:114–115). Inconclusive evidence of early maize cultivation during the Chiricahua phase has been collected at the Cienega Creek site in the upper San Pedro River valley southeast of Vail (Ravesloot et al. 2011:7).

The San Pedro phase of the Archaic was when people in southern Arizona increasingly turned toward agriculture, specifically maize. Direct dating of maize indicates a contemporaneous adoption of this agricultural product around 2,000B.C. however, adaptations to this cultigen were not uniform in all regions (Mabry 2005). Many people maintained their highly mobile way of life and did not take to agriculture at this time. Additionally, the earliest ceramic experimentation, in the form of figurines, beads, and miniature vessels, takes place during the San Pedro phase (Heideke 2005). Important early evidence of early agriculture at sites like Las Capas on the Santa Cruz River west of Vail and Los Ojitos on Cienega Creek southeast of Vail have revealed that prehistoric people were growing a variety of crops including cotton, maize, squash, beans, and tobacco (Ravesloot et al. 2011:9–11).

HOHOKAM (A.D.1–1450)

There is a marked change in Native American archaeological sites in southern Arizona at the close of the Archaic period. The transition into what we now know as the Hohokam period is differentiated from the Archaic period by the addition of pottery to the material culture repertoire (Lopez 2007:118). Hohokam is an Anglicization of the O’odham word Huhugam, meaning “something that is all gone.”

Recent archaeological evidence demonstrates that the river valleys of southern Arizona were inhabited at the end of the Archaic by agriculturalists that were in the process of becoming more sedentary and had been experimenting with ceramic production. The Hohokam archaeological culture is defined by the proliferation of ceramics decorated with motifs that had strong Mesoamerican overtones. It is now believed that this affiliation with Mesoamerica was the result of the transfer of knowledge and

32

ideas across the Southwest. These peoples shared similar subsistence technologies, architectural forms, tools, mortuary customs, and other cultural traits. These shared similarities encompass the regions that are conventionally recognized as the Hohokam, Mogollon, and Ancestral Pueblo (formerly known as the Anasazi) culture areas (Deaver and Ciolek-‐Torrello 1995; Whittlesey et al. 1994).

The Hohokam culture is segmented into a sequence of four cultural periods. From oldest to youngest, these are the Pioneer, Colonial, Sedentary, and Classic periods (Gladwin 1965; Haury 1976, 1978).

Pioneer Period (A.D. 1–700): The Late Archaic Legacy Trends set in motion during the San Pedro phase of the Archaic continued well after A.D.1,000. During the Pioneer period, people continued to increase their reliance on agriculture and living in sedentary villages. Continuities between the Archaic and Pioneer periods include the continuance of projectile point types and the fact that the mixed agricultural and foraging subsistence strategy remained similar. The Pioneer period is characterized by the construction of more substantial homes (called pit houses) and the introduction of ceramic vessels. Archaeologists consider the Gila River area the Hohokam heartland because that was where these characteristics appear first (Reid and Whittlesey 1997:88–90).

Colonial Period (A.D. 725–950): Hohokam Expansion and Florescence The transition to sedentary agriculturalists living in small villages was complete by the Colonial period. This was a time of cultural florescence, development, and elaboration in all areas of Hohokam life. It was also a time of expansion where new settlements sprang up across southern Arizona, extending increasingly further from the Hohokam core on the Gila River (Reid and Whittlesey 1997:91).

Hohokam settlements were firmly dependent upon the triumvirate of maize, beans and squash, but hunting and foraging for native foods continued. The people practiced a variety of agricultural techniques, but are most famous for the extensive irrigation systems along the middle Gila River and the lower Salt River of the Phoenix Basin. They lived in brush and earth structures built in shallow pits that were arranged around a central courtyard. Villages were composed of multiple courtyard groups. The Colonial period saw the creation of a variety of decorative items including red-‐on-‐buff pottery, shell jewelry, slate palettes, clay figurines, and distinctive projectile points. Hohokam villagers built platform mounds and ball courts near the edge of their villages— public structures that had never previously existed in southern Arizona. Archaeologists believe the ball courts were created to facilitate a ball game played in Mesoamerica by the Aztec and Mayan people. While the rules of this game in Arizona are unknown, the presence of ball courts indicates some sort of connection to the people of central Mexico (Plog 1997:73–75; Reid and Whittlesey 1997:91–92).

33

Sedentary Period (A.D. 950–1150): Solidification of Hohokam Characteristics Abundant rainfall during the appropriate seasons helped make the Sedentary Period a time of growth and consolidation for the Hohokam. New settlements were established away from major waterways along secondary drainages and bajadas. Populations in the Hohokam culture area increased and the distribution of public structures changed. In the Tucson area, settlement locations changed. Some ball courts were abandoned while new courts were constructed in other locations. Central plazas were built at some sites at this time. Ceramic vessel forms changed and polychrome varieties were introduced. In short, the changes manifest in Hohokam society after A.D.950 were dramatic enough to suggest that local populations of southern Arizona began to take on independent, localized political and economic systems that were separate from the Hohokam heartland (Reid and Whittlesey 1997:96–100).

Classic Period (A.D. 1150–1450): A New Direction of Change The Classic Period is marked by significant and extensive changes in Hohokam society. In southern Arizona this was manifested by the introduction of distinctive architecture, settlement organization, ceramic types, and interaction patterns. Massive changes in prehistoric societies are seen across the Southwest around A.D.1150. These changes are evidenced by migrations from the Kayenta region of the Colorado Plateau into east-‐central Arizona and the florescence of Paquimé (Casas Grandes) in Chihuahua, Mexico, which emerged as an influential regional center (DiPeso 1974; Plog 1997:173–178; Woodson 1999, 2006).

During the Classic Period, settlement patterns changed. Some heavily populated areas were abandoned and Classic settlements are rarely found atop Sedentary Period villages. People in the Hohokam area began building with adobe and some villages had multi-‐story adobe structures, such as the great house at Casa Grande National Monument. Adobe walled compounds also became increasingly common. Platform mounds at this time were rectangular structures and resembled flat-‐topped pyramids. Some mounds had structures built on top, were surrounded with massive retaining walls, and topped with plaster. This has been taken as evidence that people were living on top of the mounds (Plog 1997:178–179; Reid and Whittlesey 1997:100–107).

The Classic period represents the end of the Hohokam archaeological culture. Archaeological evidence suggests migrants from the Mogollon Rim strongly influenced people in the Hohokam area, as seen by the increased use of adobe in house construction. Other evidence, such as walled compounds, dwellings on top of mounds, and abandoned settlements, suggests this interaction was not always peaceful. By A.D.1450, the signature of the Hohokam archaeological culture had vanished from the landscape (Reid and Whittlesey 1997:106–107).

34

The Hohokam Legacy in the Vail Area (A.D. 1–1450) Recent archaeological investigations at the Cienega Creek site (AZ EE:2:44[ASM]) and the Mescal Wash Site (AZ EE:2:51[ASM]) have provided some of the best information of what life was like in the Vail area during the time period characterized by the Hohokam culture (Ravesloot et al. 2011; Vanderpot and Altschul 2007). Both sites are located about 11 miles southeast of Vail, near the confluence of Cienega Creek and Mescal Wash. Human occupation of these two sites began as early as 1200 B.C. and continued until around A.D. 1450. The peak of occupation at both sites was during the Colonial and periods (approximately A.D. 750–1150) (Vanderpot and Altschul 2007:56; Ravesloot et al. 2011:355). During this time, prehistoric residents cultivated several crops, including cotton, maize, squash, beans, and tobacco, while continuing to harvest other plant foods such as prickly pear, saguaro, and cholla (Ravesloot et al. 2001:357).

Ceramics and projectile points indicate this area was used by peoples belonging to a number of different archaeological cultures. It was at the southeastern most edge of the Hohokam culture area and is similar to Hohokam sites in the Tucson area from A.D. 750 to 950. After A.D. 950, house architecture changes and a variety of ceramics from the Four Corners area appear at these sites. From A.D. 700–1100 a local ceramic variant called Dragoon pottery appears in the archaeological record, which has decorative characteristic of Hohokam and other groups (Vanderpot and Altschul 2007:61–62). The area appears to have been unpopulated from A.D. 1150–1300; however, the area remained occupied further down Cienega Creek near Pantano Wash. When humans returned to the area after A.D. 1300, they began constructing adobe houses rather than traditional Hohokam pit houses (Vanderpot and Altschul 2007:53). Archaeologists have come to the conclusion that Cienega Creek and the Vail area was a borderland that was utilized by multiple groups (Ravesloot et al. 2011:358; Vanderpot and Altschul 2007:69).

The Vail area and Cienega Creek remained a borderland by the time of the arrival of the Spanish during the seventeenth century. Archaeologists believe the San Pedro River Valley and Cienega Creek were a contested portion of the territory of Piman-‐speaking Sobaipuri that was also occupied by Apache groups (Gilpin and Phillips 1998:32; Masse 1981:28; Vanderpot and Altschul 2007:55). Many researchers view the Sobaipuri as the descendants of the prehistoric peoples who previously inhabited this same region (Gilpin and Phillips 1998:32). However, based on the archaeological record, other researchers speculate that the Sobaipuri may have migrated into the region after the collapse of the prehistoric cultures. (Seymour 2007; Teague 1993).

The highly mobile Sobaipuri lived in small, loosely organized settlements and moved frequently within a specific territory (Seymour 1989:212, 213). Sobaipuri architecture is insubstantial and settlements have ephemeral features and few artifacts. The Sobaipuri settlement characteristics are

35

generally taken as evidence that Sobaipuri groups were mobile and existed at lower population densities than previous prehistoric peoples (Doelle and Wallace 1984; Masse 1981; Seymour 2007).When the Spanish arrived in southern Arizona, the Sobaipuri presence was contested by Apache bands. The exact timing of the Apache arrival is not known, but anthropologists have noted that both the Navajo and Apache have a linguistic affinity to Native American groups in Alaska, Canada, and northern California. These people had arrived and separated into two distinct groups by the arrival of the Spanish (Whittlesey 2003:243). Apache groups moved into mountainous areas with low populations that had apparently been unpopulated late in prehistory. This area encompassed much of the mountainous region of south central and southeastern Arizona (Whittlesey 2003:242). Apache bands were highly mobile and practiced a hunting-‐and-‐gathering subsistence strategy that was supplemented by limited horticulture (Goodwin 1942). Raiding more sedentary Native American peoples and Spanish settlements was another important aspect of Apache subsistence (Goodwin and Basso 1971).

Conflicts between the Sobaipuri and Apache in the upper San Pedro River valley were chronicled by the Spanish, with the Sobaipuri abandoning their traditional lands to join other O’odham groups at the Spanish settlement at Sonoita in 1698 (Seymour 1989:209–212). Both the Sobaipuri and Apache lived lightly on the land and left little trace of their presence. Ephemeral protohistoric archaeological features at the Mescal Wash site have been taken as evidence of either Sobaipuri or Apache presence in the Vail area (Vanderpot and Altschul 2007:55).

HISTORY: TRANSPORTATION In Arizona, historic routes almost always have prehistoric roots. (Stein 1994:3).

The natural landscapes of Arizona are characterized by their extremes, embodying a vastness in scale, severity of climate and diversity of terrain that together represent significant forces of isolation. Connectivity in the face of these constraints was a testament to the human ability to manipulate their environment, and to the cultural prominence of movement and transportation. Routes over cliffs and through canyons were forged, rivers forded and desert expanses overcome to insure the conveyance of people, culture, products and information. The legacy of such transit is manifest in linear imprints on the land. Today, remnants of ancient and historic transportation corridors traverse and shape the landscape of Arizona as transient vestiges of the even more ephemeral action of human movement across space. Often difficult to perceive, these archaeological and historic cultural relics are appreciably harder to preserve and protect. This makes the conservation of transportation features, cultural landscapes and history

36

all the more significant, as important but endangered artifacts of the myriad cultures, ethics and events that created them.

In Vail, this is especially salient. The geography of the area, located on a flat swatch of land and bounded by mountain ranges and riparian corridor, made Vail a nexus for the movement of people, goods and information for millennia. Born from the rail system, the town was, at different points in history, a prominent site along transit routes of both regional and national significance, from early migratory trails, to the Butterfield Stage line, to the transcontinental Highway 80. As a consequence, the original town site of Vail demonstrates, in microcosm, the greater history of transportation within the American southwest, representing an unusual confluence of ancient, historic and modern vectors of transportation.

PREHISTORIC PERIOD-‐THE U.S. MEXICAN WAR CIRCULATION

Overland circulation was a significant facet of the indigenous cultural experience. Trails were created both with intent and as a natural result of recurrent traffic across hunting and foraging corridors, trade routes and migratory paths. Travel was necessitated by the practical functions of trade, intercultural relations and the performance of religious rites. Its fundamental role in the indigenous prehistoric cultures of the southwest is reflected in the many origin stories and mythologies, and is demonstrated physically by a plethora of direct and indirect archaeological remnants (Stein 1994:2). Secondary evidence of travel is indicated by the profusion of imported and exotic goods at southwestern archaeological sites, including shell, parrot bones, turquoise, obsidian and copper bells (Stein 1994:2). The Hohokam in particular had a vast trading network between Mexico, California, Baja California, New Mexico and Colorado, operating along major drainages such as the Gila, Salt, Santa Cruz and San Pedro rivers (Stein 1994:2). Cultural traditions and political influences were disseminated along these routes to and from outlying communities. This process was institutionalized in a formal context of exchange by the ball court system and its associated ritual function (Stein 1994:2). Around A.D. 1100, the ancient Puebloan culture formerly known as the Anasazi constructed 400 miles of formal roads, linking the great complex at Chaco canyon with people and products over an area of 60,000 square miles (Stein 1994:2).

The location that would become Vail felt the footsteps of various native groups for centuries prior to its settlement by Euro Americans, with the Hohokam and protohistoric Tohono O’odham utilizing this riparian area as a seasonal migration corridor. Prior to the interlacing of land with borders and boundaries in the 1930s by the developmental priorities of an Anglo-‐American governmental agenda, the traditional practices of the O’odham brought them to the area along Cienega Creek, collecting bear grass for baskets and sandals, clay for pots, harvesting hackberry and saguaro fruit,

37

and cultivating agave and creating water-‐retaining Ak Chin gardens along ephemeral streams (VPS 2008:3).

In the 1500s, the area that would become Arizona represented the northern frontier of the Spanish empire. Excursions throughout the region by Spanish explorers frequently relied on established native pathways until the late 1600s with the arrival of Jesuits in Sonora (Stein 1994:6). At this point, efforts to systematically missionize all of northern Mexico and southern Arizona saw a redefinition of the landscape to promote and sustain new transportation and travel ethics and demands. During the Mexican period, the opening of the Sante Fe trail heralded a burgeoning period of commerce, launching a system of trade between Mexican Santa Fe and American St. Louis. This brought an inflow of American merchants into the borderlands, as well as clandestine entrepreneurs, such as the beaver trappers in the 1820s and 30s, who covertly built trails throughout Arizona (Stein 1994:8). With the influx of Europeans and Euro-‐Americans, the ultimate disruption of traditional ways of life forced the abandonment of myriad native practices, which were subsequently lost to time. Many native trails however, were given new life in different iterations, over the years developing into wagon routes and eventually stage and railways.

THE SOUTHERN EMIGRANT TRAIL

It was not until the outbreak of the Mexican-‐American war in 1846 that the history of transportation in Arizona broadly, but particularly in the region around what would become Vail, was launched into its modern context. During this conflict, the Southwest became an area of immense strategic importance. Quickly it became apparent that America’s military success would be contingent on the conquest of California, and the securing of the New Mexico territory, which at the time included Arizona. At the head of this southwest campaign was Colonel Stephen W. Kearny, who was responsible for organizing the “Army of the West.” This ragtag force was replete with dragoons, traders and fortune seekers, along with 500 Mormon soldiers sent by Brigham Young (Stein 1994:9). One of Kearny’s priorities was establishing a reliable wagon road to permanently connect the newly acquired California to the rest of the United States. At the time, goods and mail were primarily conveyed to the west coast by sea, entailing a six to eight month journey over 18,000 miles (Stein 1994:11). In order to achieve a reliable overland route, Kearny dispatched Lieutenant Colonel Philip St. George Cooke and the Mormon Battalion. Cooke and his Mormon contingent began construction on the wagon road in 1846, however they soon departed from Kearny’s plotted course when the route became too impractical, around upper Gila in New Mexico (Stein 1994:11). Instead, Cooke and the battalion opted for a more southerly route, entering Arizona through the Guadalupe pass, following the San Pedro River to around the area of modern Benson and then heading northwest to Tucson before rejoining Kearny’s original planned route. As with many developed

38

wagon trails, this corridor followed a series of ancient paths, which had connected Native American villages and gathering sites throughout the desert.

This new course for the wagon route, completed in early 1847, is thought to have passed through the area about seven miles to the east of Vail, however the exact location of Cooke’s route through the Cienega area has not yet been specifically identified (Ayres et al 1994:5). A road labeled “Tucson to Cienega” in the T16S R16E square (within which Vail is located) on a General Land Office map from 1874 lends credence to this claim and could potentially represent the wagon trail’s approximate path (General Land Office 1874).

Eventually Cooke’s road became a major trail for prospectors heading to California and subsequent travelers through the southwest. Referred to by many names over the decades, this major overland route in and out of southern California eventually became known as the Southern Emigrant Trail, and was used to cross the southwest well into the 20th century (Brigandi 2010:100). Unlike many northerly routes, the Southern Emigrant Trail was open year round, becoming heavily trafficked by the thousands of individuals seeking their fortune in the west. Aside from miners and homesteaders, the trail was frequently utilized by ranchers who drove their herds of animals overland to capitalize on the business of such prospectors (Brigandi 2010:103). Eventually as the trail evolved and responded to contemporary needs, the Old Wagon Road/Southern Emigrant Trail passed through what would become Vail.

THE BUTTERFIELD OVERLAND MAIL COMPANY

As the golden allure of the west coast drew more and more prospectors and settlers, the rapidly developing economies on the west coast necessitated a subsidized overland mail line and mode of transportation to transport people quickly and safely from the Midwest and the East to California. Arizona itself was seen as an inhospitable territory at the time, termed “Apacheria” in which there was a constant perceived threat from native populations.

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Grinnell Station

Burke's Station

Casa Blanca Station

Centroid Desert Station

Cienega Creek Station

Desert Station (Approximate)

Griswell / Texas Hill Station

Oneida Station (Approximate)

Picacho Pass Station

Picacho Station / Picacho Peak State Park

Pointer Mountain 'Rillito Station'

Picacho Passs Station (Approximate)

Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail Special Resource Study/Environmental Assessment

MEXICO

CALIFORNIA

ARIZONA

Sea of Cortez±0 10 205

Miles

Butterfield Overland Trail

Texas

Utah

Montana

Nevada

California

Arizona

IdahoOregon

Kansas

Iowa

Wyoming

Colorado

New Mexico

Nebraska

Minnesota

Missouri

Illinois

Oklahoma

AlabamArkansas

South Dakota

Washington

North Dakota

Tenness

Kent

Wisconsin

Louisiana

Mississippi

Indian

Mich

Area of Study

Pacific Ocean

Gulf of Mexico

Map 7 Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail Special Resource Study/Environmental Assessment

39

Early U.S. efforts to establish updated transportation routes through Arizona focused largely on the Colorado Plateau, the Colorado River and the Sonoran Desert (Stein 1994:12). Surveys were undertaken, wherein older trails and wagon routes, including the Southern Emigrant Trail were utilized in the creation of a 1475-‐mile overland mail and transit route (Stein 1994:15). According to Conkling and Conkling (1947:151), the mail line followed Cooke’s road to Tucson via Cienega Creek. On August 31st, 1857, the San Antonio-‐San Diego Mail Line nicknamed Jackass Mail for its use of mules to cross the desert, first delivered mail to California. With little funding and terrible travel conditions, this company was short-‐lived, however, and the concession was transferred to John Butterfield, who established his Overland Mail Company and the first transcontinental mail route in the fall of 1858. The Butterfield line traversed 2700 miles from Missouri to San Francisco and established a chain of stations providing food, ammunition, water, equipment and overnight accommodations (Stein 1994:15). One of these stations, constructed in 1858 under the direction of Silas St. John and William Buckley, was located in the Vail area, just east of the site now known as Three Bridges (Ayres et al 1994:6). The 60 feet by 114 feet adobe compound incorporated a living area and stock corrals, and represents the first known building to have been constructed in the area (Ayres et al 1994:6). Although the station itself burned down in 1862, the remnants of the wagon road emerging from Cienega Creek at this station are still visible today (Ayres et al 1994:6).

A primarily southern route, the Butterfield contract was summarily canceled when the South seceded at the start of the civil war, and its former, well-‐provisioned stations across the New Mexico-‐Arizona Territory became strategic targets of exploitation or attack by troops. This was true of the Cienega Creek station, which was reportedly destroyed, rebuilt and then attacked a second time, leading to its ultimate abandonment. Historical documentation on the Cienega Station however is sparse and frequently contradictory. The site was reportedly in ruins by 1876, when it was visited by Walter Vail, yet a station keeper was noted for the site 1874, and other sources record a different operator in 1880 (Hislop 1965:37; Myrick 1975:57). It is possible that the station site originally features multiple buildings, or that more than one station existed along the Cienega Creek route. Currently the National Park Service is undertaking an extensive research survey of the Butterfield line, which may elucidate the vagaries concerning the stage line in this area.

The postwar period brought another influx of southern settlers to California across Arizona, seeking to reestablish their lives in a new context. Simultaneously, the discovery of Arizona’s own wealth of mineral assets drew prospectors and miners, who in turn beckoned a variety of entrepreneurial activity and settlers. New military posts were established to protect the miners and wealth they extracted, while farmers, ranchers, and merchants

40

immigrated to Arizona in order to establish a trade supplying goods and services to the expanding numbers of military personnel and miners (Stein 1994:17). As a consequence, a new network of transportation development arose to connect areas of strategic or economic importance. One of earliest Euro American mining efforts occurred in Arizona between 1854-‐59 when the Arizona Mining and Trading Company began to extract copper ore in Ajo. The freight of ore out of southern Arizona thus became a prime motivator in the further evolution of transportation systems. During the 1860s, Raphael Pumpelly was commissioned to evaluate mineral deposits in the Santa Rita Mountains just south of what would become Vail.

THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD

In 1854, the first railroad survey in Arizona was completed by Lieutenant John Parke, who recommended a route that would traverse the southern edge of the Rincon Mountains towards Apache Pass. Construction did not take place, however, for another 25 years (VPS 2008:2). Beyond the rail lines, lucrative freighting required not only quality roads, but way stations to provide water, fresh horses and equipment or repairs if necessary. With a small tax base and sparse population, the territory of Arizona was little equipped to generate enough resources through legislation to fund major transportation projects. Development was thus largely dependent on private enterprise. Walter Vail, who had arrived in Arizona in 1876, his brother Edward in 1879 and their business partner, J.S. Vosberg, saw the potential of the imminent Southern Pacific rail line and strategically purchased land along its proposed route. In 1880, the men deeded a right-‐of-‐way to the SPRR for the purpose of building a passing spur on the last flat piece of land before the rails followed the Southern Emigrant Trail and old Butterfield line into Cienega Creek (Ayres et al 1994:7). Expectation of the rail line brought homesteaders to settle the area, was known as the Vail siding (VPS 2008:3). The Southern Pacific Railroad arrived in 1880, connecting San Francisco, California to New Orleans, Louisiana. Construction of the railroad was undertaken by 500 hundred Chinese laborers, who were brought in to address the difficult task this section of the line was expected to present (Ayres et al 1994:7). The original placement of the line within Cienega Creek proved to be a serious miscalculation, as the railway was immediately washed away by seasonal flooding. After a costly series of repeated washouts and subsequent repairs, the railway was moved to its current orientation through Vail. Located along the main rail line, the Vail Siding became a break-‐of-‐bulk site, or point of transfer for commercial activities, including stagecoach travel, freighting, mining, and ranching, throughout the region when the Helvetia Mining Company identified the siding as the closest rail point to ship its copper ore to Globe for processing. The Company built a

41

road from Helvetia to Vail’s Siding for this purpose leading to Vail’s first economic “boom time”.

With the establishment of mail routes representing a major influence on the ultimate development of the transportation systems within the area of Vail, it is little wonder that the legacy of transportation in Vail is manifest in one of the town site’s two surviving historic structures. By 1901, postal services established at the Vail Siding linked the surrounding area to the national “mail by rail” network. Prior to the late 1960s, about 90% of mail in the United States was transported by rail, but as this dissipated so did the function of post offices such as the one in Vail (VPS 2008:3). Once part of the longest Rail Post Office route in country, the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office now exists as the only remaining pre-‐statehood structure at the original town site of Vail. The 1908 Vail Store & Post Office may be the only remaining historic Mail-‐by-‐Rail Post Office located next to an active rail line in Arizona.

The transportation history of Vail is similarly tied with its history of ranching. The transcontinental railroad forever changed ranching industry, and the dichotomy between the old transportation paradigms of long cattle drives and new methods of cattle-‐shipping. This was especially relevant in the greater Vail area. A 1918 report recorded 51 existing and proposed cattle driveways, however with the advent of the railway; there was no longer any need for long cattle drives (Stein 1994:24). The last important cattle drive in Arizona occurred in 1890 along the Southern Emigrant Trail by Walter Vail. In this year, the Southern Pacific Railroad company raised shipping fees by 25%, an increase which the Vails protested by boycotting the railroad and instead herding their cattle to California (VPS 2008:2).

In addition to being a cattle-‐shipping center, Vail also served as the storage and loading facility for copper ore produced from the Helvetia Copper Mine. Producing over 42,000 tons of ore, the Helvetia Copper Mine transported its cargo to Vail in heavy freight wagons, hauled by teams of six-‐twelve mules. A century later, the haul road produced by this activity is still a visible path in the desert between Vail, Corona de Tucson, and Helvetia. Parts of the road have been obliterated by the recent Sycamore Canyon development. But, some portions have remained in continuous use as Sahuarita, Wentworth and Colossal Cave Roads.

THE AUTOMOBILE AND THE INTERSTATE

The first car in Arizona was sent to Tucson, where a physician in 1899 adopted it for use in making house calls. Within a year, 20 more cars had been delivered to Arizona by rail (Stein 1994:26). By 1928 the state and federal highway system in AZ included 1,988 miles of roads, 219 miles of which were paved, 869 graveled, 758 graded and 142 unimproved (Stein 1994:26). Most followed earlier wagon and transportation routes. Through the

42

center of Vail along the south side of Cienega Creek passed the ocean-‐to-‐ocean Borderlands Highway (U.S. 80), known as the Broadway of America, which connected many of southern Arizona’s communities to each other and the greater United States. In the early 20th century, this thoroughfare transformed local development patterns within the region, fostering economic development and helping to shape the American tourist impressions of southern Arizona. The original alignment of Highway 80 exists in Vail as an unpaved road that runs parallel to the northernmost rail line, passing the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office. Nearby Interstate 10 has become the southern Arizona segment of a modern transcontinental route.

With the termination of Vail’s utility as a railroad depot and break of bulk point, the town’s population lowered dramatically from a peak of 150 to less than 25 by the mid-‐1950s. Interstate highway 10, came through in 1959-‐1960, and completely bypassed Vail. By 1957 only a single business occupied the historic town site, at the intersection of Vail Road and Old Vail Road: the 1908 Vail & Post Office (P.A.S.T. 2009:6). In recent years, development activities within Vail have placed an emphasis on the Colossal Cave Road corridor, which was known as Vail Road until 2003 when it was renamed by Pima County.. Historic Vail was a community of businesses and residences, in part along US Highway 80, and between twin railroad tracks. With this change in orientation from historic transportation corridors to modern routes, Vail little resembles or evokes its historic past, making the conservation of the few existing elements all the more urgent and vital.

HISTORY: CATTLE RANCHING Ranching has played a significant role in the formative history of Arizona. During the Spanish Colonial period, ranching provided a means to settle the west and aided missionaries in their quest to 'civilize' the native population. In the American period ranching was important in the settlement and development of southern Arizona. Establishing a successful ranch in southern Arizona meant enduring harsh environmental conditions, Apache raids, and boom and bust periods. Many ranchers succumbed to these factors; however, the Empire Ranch established by Walter Vail and partners represents a well-‐managed and uniquely successful enterprise. Edward Vail, Walter’s younger brother, established a ranch as well. The VR or Vail Ranch was located to the south in the Santa Rita Mountains. In addition to cattle, goats and sheep herds were grazed in the area near Vail. Early ranchers in the area include: Joseph Hopley who established a ranch and dairy farm in the Rincon Mountains in 1885, Solomon Lick in 1878 at the Mountain Springs near Colossal Cave, and Perry Hilton’s Ranch in the Empire Mountains. Ranching continues to the present in Vail, and as a major industry in Arizona.

43

SPANISH COLONIAL AND MEXICAN PERIOD: 1540-‐1848

The Spanish first introduced a method of cattle ranching into the southwest that harkens back to cattle ranching strategies established in medieval Castille. This method was based upon larger scale, free roaming, cattle ranching rather than simple, small-‐scale cattle raising seen elsewhere (Collins 2002). The first cattle introduced into the southwest were a result of the Coronado expedition of 1540. This expedition brought horses, sheep, mules, and cattle into Arizona while the Spanish explored the territory and searched for gold. The cattle present during the expedition were used as a source of subsistence to support the exploration by the Spanish. While a few cows may have strayed from the herd, this expedition did not leave any significant number of cattle in southern Arizona. It was not until the 1590's when conquistadors and expeditions gave way to missionaries that cattle were raised in Arizona. One of the most prominent missionaries of the period was Father Francisco Eusebio Kino. Father Kino is best known for establishing a series of missions throughout northern Mexico and southern Arizona. Kino brought large numbers of cattle up from Sinaloa and Sonora Mexico into southern Arizona. Kino's herds prospered and were some of the first permanent cattle populations in Arizona. Cattle ranching was the main component of Kino's strategy for settling the region and missionizing the native peoples. Ranching was established to provide a permanent source of income and subsistence to the missions and to aid in the colonization of the territory (Collins 2002; O'Mack and Parkhurst 2006; White et al. 2012).

By the late 18th century cattle were successfully established as a source of sustenance and income for the Spanish, Mexican, and native peoples living on the land. Mexico controlled the territory of southern Arizona from 1821 through 1831. During this time, Hispanic ranching families petitioned for land grants as cattle ranching had come to dominate the economy. However, by the 1830's, the Mexican government was no longer able to continue bribing the Apaches with goods and livestock. The subsequent raids by the Apache caused the number of Spanish and Mexican cattle herds in southern Arizona to fall dramatically during the 1830's (Collins 2002). Finally, in 1848 the treaty of Guadalupe-‐Hidalgo was signed following the Mexican-‐American war. This treaty gave a portion of present day Arizona, north of the Gila river, to the United States (Collins 2002; White et al. 2012).

EARLY AMERICAN PERIOD: 1848-‐1880

With the Spanish and Mexican cattle being nearly absent from the landscape, the first American cattle in the Southwest can be attributed to the herd following the Army of the West in 1848. Beginning in 1851, cattle were being driven across Arizona into California to support the miners living and working there. These early Americans coming into southern Arizona had to deal with the harsh climate and terrain, as well as the ever-‐present threat

44

of Apache attack. While American cattle were being driven across the landscape at this time, the difficulty provided by the territory was enough to delay the establishment of the first American ranches in Arizona (Collins 2002; O'Mack and Parkhurst 2006). In 1854, the Gadsden Purchase expanded the territory from the Gila River to the present day Arizona-‐Mexico border (Collins 2002; O'Mack and Parkhurst 2006; White et al. 2012). It was not until 1854 that the first permanent American rancher, Pete Kitchen, established a ranch in southern Arizona along the Santa Cruz River. Even during the Civil War, Kitchen's ranch was able to withstand Apache attack and became one of the most consistent supply sources in the region (Collins 2002). In 1862 the Homestead Act was passed which offered 160 acres of free land to anyone who could settle and work on it (Collins 2002; O'Mack and Parkhurst 2006). Some of the most successful ranchers were those who knew how to bend these laws and establish large land holdings. By the late 1870's, the Apache threat had decreased and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks were getting closer to Arizona. These factors led to a rise in cattle ranching in general and to the success of the Empire, Vail, and other area ranches.

MOUNTAIN SPRINGS RANCH

By 1878 Solomon Lick and partner Mr. Lee were operating the Mountain Springs Stage Stop and Hotel as well as a ranch near Colossal Cave. Their brand was the Lazy L. A story passed down through Lick’s family recounts that it was while gathering stray cattle that Solomon Lick ‘discovered’ Colossal Cave.

HOPLEY RANCH

Joseph was born in Ireland on October 24, 1851. He came to the United States at the age of 14. He was a soldier, having enlisted in 1869. He served for 15 years in the United States Cavalry and rose to the rank of first sergeant. He fought in the Indian wars, remarking that he “often rode for two hundred miles without seeing a single habitation.” In 1880 his service brought him to Arizona. He was discharged from the army in 1884 from Ft. Lowell and settled in the foothills of the Rincon Mountains to begin a dairy farm. He also ranched near the town of Pantano where he operated a mail stage and express line that carried the mail and passengers between Pantano and Greaterville. During the drought in the 1890’s he lost 500 head of cattle and had to leave the ranching business in 1898. HILTON RANCH

Perry and his wife Louisa proved up on their Empire Mountain homestead in 1882. They operated a goat ranch and maintained a mining operation called ‘49 Mining Camp. These enterprises supported a community of 200 at its height. The Hilton goat operations caused friction between them and the Empire Ranch cattle operations. Ed Hilton, their son, maintained ranching operations until his death in 1974.

EMPIRE RANCH

45

The Empire Ranch was purchased in 1876 by Walter Vail and his partner Herbert R. Hislop with help from Walter's Uncle, Nathan Vail. Walter Vail was born in Liverpool, Nova Scotia and grew up on his family's farm in Plainsfield, New Jersey. At 22 years of age, Walter headed west eventually joining up with his Uncle Nathan Vail in Los Angeles. It was Nathan who suggested that Walter consider ranching opportunities in Arizona. After scouting potential ranches in southern Arizona, Walter worked as a carpenter for the Comstock Mine in Nevada in an effort to earn the money needed to purchase a ranch. When he was unable to save enough money, Walter turned to his Uncle who set him up with his business partner, Herbert Hislop. Hislop was a wealthy Englishman from London who had no ranching experience. On August 22nd Vail, with a loan from his Uncle Nathan, and Hislop purchased the Empire Ranch for $1,174, which included the land, adobe ranch house, corral, and 612 head of cattle. The ranch totaled 160 acres and was previously owned by Fish and Silberberg of Tucson (Dowell 1978). Vail and Hislop had visited various properties throughout the area but had settled on the Empire ranch due to its prolific grasses, trees, and dependable springs. Their decision is one that fits in with a broad trend of savvy ranchers during this time period in southern Arizona. By purchasing the land controlling stream flow and water one could control and utilize the surrounding acreage without having to purchase it (Collins 2002; Dowell 1978). Vail and Hislop were able to utilize about 1500 acres that surrounded their 160-‐acre track. They were strong businessmen, able to recognize that successful ranching in Arizona was based on large-‐scale efforts. Small-‐scale ranches of the time tended to fail due to the arid climate.

Within their first few years at Empire Ranch, Vail and Hislop worked diligently to expand the range by purchasing ranches belonging to Sanford, Kane, and Gardiner. This expansion included the San Bernadino Ranch, which had been one of the largest in southern Arizona. In purchasing additional rangeland, they were also able to expand their herd of cattle to 5,000 head. Vail and Hislop took on a third partner, another Englishman named John N. Harvey, who had been convinced to invest in the ranch by Nathan Vail. In 1878, Hislop left the Empire Ranch selling his share to Vail. After losing Hislop, Walter Vail recruited his brother, Edward Vail, who joined him at the Empire Ranch in 1879 (Dowell 1978).

In 1879 Vail and Harvey purchased the site of the Total Wreck mine and incorporated the Total Wreck Mining and Milling Company. The Total Wreck mine turned out to be a highly profitable venture that allowed Vail and his partners to continue to expand the Empire Ranch and improve the quality of their cattle herds (Dowell 1978: 29-‐53). The profits came just in time as in 1880 the Southern Pacific Railroad was completed through Arizona. The completion of the railway changed the cattle market and brought with it a demand for higher quality meat. Vail was able to use the profits from Total Wreck mine to improve the breeding lines of his herd and introduced some of

46

the first English bloodlines into southern Arizona (Collins 2002; Dowell 1978).

Walter Vail helped to shape the cattle industry in southern Arizona through both his ranch and business strategies and by involving himself in many of the issues facing the cattle industry. Vail was president of the Livestock Ranchman's Association, he worked to reduce taxes on the cattle industry, and he helped to establish livestock regulations and fencing ordinances. He also fought the Southern Pacific Railroad on the grounds that their freight costs were too high for ranchers. His business practices were innovative as he expanded the Empire Ranch, introduced new types of cattle, and utilized grasslands outside of Arizona during times of hardship. The Empire Ranch was also unique in that it was never hit hard by Apache attack. This is due to the successful management of the ranch by Vail and his partners. The horses were corralled every night and Vail's workers were always armed and were never allowed to ride the ranges alone. Despite all of the obstacles facing ranchers of the time, Vail managed to take his starting herd of 612 cattle which he purchased with a loan from his uncle and turn it into a ranching empire where he commanded thousands of acres and about 40,000 cattle (Dowell 1978).

THE AMERICAN PERIOD: 1880-‐1893

The completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the early 1880's brought with it a new and more efficient way to get beef to markets outside of the immediate region. Previously, the market had been based on feeding working class miners and the expanded federal troop presence following the Civil War, to suppress the Apache. Texas longhorn cattle and Mexican criollos had been the primary breeds of cattle utilized during the early American period. When the railroad opened and more people were traveling from the east to the west, the need for higher quality cuts of meat arose. As mentioned above, Walter Vail, and other ranchers began to raise English bloodlines to fulfill this need. However, the new market and new breeds of cattle led to several problems. Native predatory species were killed off to protect the cattle. The English cattle were not as hardy or as well adapted to the harsh Arizona climate and required more water. Many ranchers also began to raise these new breeds with no regard for the land's carrying capacity. When drought struck during the mid to late 1880s through the 1890s, Arizona was carrying the highest number of cattle in its history. At least 1 million head. With environmental conditions worsening ranchers who were able, began to focus only on breeding cattle in Arizona and then transporting them out of state for grazing. The Vail’s are known for having utilized this strategy. However, for many other ranchers, when the cattle could not be brought to market the drought conditions caused death by starvation. In some cases the cattle bones were the only product left to sell. The bones were shipped east

47

to be ground into bone meal to be used for fertilizer. (Collins 2002; Dowell 1978).

AMERICAN PERIOD: 1900-‐1940'S

World War I helped to bring Arizona's cattle industry out of the slump it had experienced due to drought and poor ranching practices in the 1890's. World War I created a demand for beef to support the war effort and cattle ranching went through a boom period. This boom period caused a second period of overgrazing and ranching at an unsustainable level. When World War I ended, it caused a second crash in the cattle ranching economy. Responses to this boom and bust pattern began in the 1930's, as regulations were either being debated or put into place to limit the amount of cattle allowed to graze on the ranges at any single time. This led to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, which enacted the drought purchase program that was intended to remove cattle from the range during periods of drought. It also led to the Taylor Grazing Act, which was established within the New Deal in 1934. This act segregated public lands into districts and ended the open range by requiring permits to graze livestock. During this period, ranchers actively lobbied to support their interests. The end to the open range had been a contentious issue that eventually was accepted by the ranchers as being in their best interest (Collins 2002). Another boom in the cattle industry occurred during the World War II and postwar periods. During this time, the number of cattle sold as well as the value of cattle increased. Fortunately, this boom period was not followed by as devastating a bust as with the prior periods. Cattle ranching has managed to maintain itself as an important and lucrative economic activity in Arizona to the present.

Goat ranching was also important within the greater Vail area. Small goat herds that were grazed between Vail and the Rincon Valley and in the Empire Mountains Perry Hilton established a successful goat ranching operation on his 1882 homestead. This ranch was never part of the Empire Ranch and its lands remained intact until 1970. Sheep operations were also present in the greater Vail area, with Basque shepherds brought in to work.

RANCHO DEL LAGO

Rancho Del Lago, currently developed as a housing and golf course community, is located about one mile north of the Vail town site, situated along the banks of the Cienega Creek. Ranchers Carter Crane and John Fraker were in the area as early as 1888 and by 1891 they had filed for a permit to divert water from Cienega Creek to an irrigation ditch to water their fields. In 1897, the Arizona Daily Star reported that:

48

Messrs. Fraker and Crane, of Vail’s station, have probably the finest single ranch there is in Southern Arizona. They have 600 acres under fence with more than sufficient water to irrigate the whole tract. Their water they developed by cutting into the Cienega… The harvest this year yielded 1,500 sacks of wheat and barley. …over 100 tons of alfalfa and barley hay. When these men first settled on their present homestead they were regarded as visionary in their ideas so far as it affected their water supply, but they went work themselves and by hard labor developed one of the finest bodies of permanent of water there in the entire country. This place is well worth a visit.

Crane and Fraker were supplying both ends of the Tucson to Helvetia Stage line as well as the livery in Vail where the horses were changed out for the second leg of the trip.

In 1907, the Tattersfield family purchased the ranch and gave it the name Rancho Del Lago. Prior to 1907, it was known as: Crane and Fraker’s place, LaLoga, Cienega Ranch, La Cienega Ranch, Maull’s Ranch, and Vail Valley Ranch. The Tattersfield family homesteaded additional sections of land and expanded the size of the ranch to1800 acres. During this time, Rancho Del Lago was a working ranch featuring a large truck farm operation and artificial ponds stocked with fish. Cleaveland Putnam purchased the Ranch in1932. At this time it was converted into a working and guest ranch featuring additional artificial ponds, tennis courts, swimming pool, airstrip, horse track and guesthouses.

Rancho del Lago was purchased by Motorola and used as a corporate training and retreat center from the late 1940s through 1956. The resort was later purchased by Harold Nason with the intention of turning it into a luxury guest ranch. In 1981, the Horizon Corporation owned by Joe Timan of Phoenix purchased Rancho del Lago for development. In 1983, a flood washed out much of the work done on the golf course. That caused the development plans to be halted.

In 1989, Vail Valley Ranch development plans are were approved by Pima County Board of Supervisors. In 1992, the Horizon Corporation exchanged 200 acres within and along the Cienega Creek to Pima County in order to expand the Cienega Creek Natural Preserve. In exchange the Horizon Company received 60 acres south of Colossal Cave Road. In that same year the Rancho del Lago main house was demolished and the Vail Water Company business office began operating out of the remaining Rancho del Lago guesthouse. In 1996, Vail Valley Joint Venture, together with Bill Estes Jr., purchased the Horizon property. After acquiring the land, the Estes Company bulldozed the remaining guesthouse at Rancho del Lago and as of 2014, the land remains vacant.

49

A biological survey found no threatened or endangered species. In 2000 development by Estes Corporation moved forward. They planned for 1,600 acres of rolling hills, slopes and washes to include an 18-‐hole public golf course, 5,500 homes, and at least one school. In 2014, the only historic elements remaining at Rancho del Lago are a dry laid stone retaining wall, a portion of the adobe wall that enclosed the last guest house, a set of steps that led to the lake, and a decorative stone bridge.

RANCHING TODAY

Cattle ranching in 2014 southern Arizona features characteristics of both Spanish and British traditions that have been adapted for American markets. The economic importance and scale of cattle ranching has continued into the present. As of 1992, there were 930,000 head of cattle estimated to be in the state of Arizona. At this time, these cattle were projected to have been using 40% of state land for grazing. It was estimated that cattle produced a market value of 1.5 billion dollars and represented about 38% of Arizona's total market value of products sold (Collins 2002). Cattle ranching is a longstanding tradition in Arizona that has played a significant role in the colonization and settlement of the state. The continued prominence of ranching in the state's economy speaks to the importance of the broad patterns of ranching history as well as the entrepreneurs of the past who were able to overcome harsh conditions and boom and bust markets.

HISTORY: MINING

GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Southern Arizona is part of the Basin and Range province that extends from Texas and southern New Mexico westward across southern Arizona and southeastern California and north into Nevada, western Utah, southern Idaho, and Oregon. The formation of the Basin and Range began during the late Paleozoic period and continued into the early Mesozoic eras. This occurred when Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks were deformed by the Laramide orogeny that occurred about 80 million years ago. This orogeny is also responsible for the formation of the Rocky Mountains. Major periods of deformation and faulting continued to occur throughout the Neogene, 30 million years ago, and Miocene, 17 million years ago (Ballanger et al. 2010). Today, southern Arizona is home to rich mineral and metal deposits as well as numerous rock types and formations. The rock formations visible today include gneiss, schists, granite, limestone, fossiliferous limestone, marble, conglomerate, quartzite, and sandstone. Many of these rock formations contain rich veins of copper and silver ore (Blake 1910: 8-‐9).

MINING DURING SPANISH, MEXICAN, AND AMERICAN PERIODS

50

Francisco Coronado led the first expedition of Spanish explorers into the Territory in the 1540's. This expedition primarily focused on the search for gold. Unfortunately for Coronado, there were no rich veins of gold discovered in the region. During the Spanish period small silver mines were operated across Southern Arizona. The first mine in Arizona, the Arizonac, was probably located just west of present day Nogales, Arizona. Historically known Spanish mines in southern Arizona include Ajo mine, established in 1750, Salero Mine, established in 1751, Arivaca mine established, in 1764, and the Longorena Mine, established in 1774 (Ballanger et al. 2010). The small mines opened during this time utilized simple adobe furnaces in melting ores. Later, during the Mexican period, Mexico did not yet have a strong central government which caused the mines to be poorly managed and left miners open to Apache attack (Blake 1910: 11).

Little mining activity occurred until after the Gadsden Purchase of 1854, when the United States purchased the land south of the Gila River creating the modern day border with Mexico. The first American mining company in Arizona was the Arizona Mining and Trading Company which was established in 1854. This company focused solely on mining for copper ore. During this time period the technology for refining copper was inefficient and costly turning most early American period miners towards the more profitable silver ore deposits. During the early 1860's, American troops were withdrawn from the area. This action left the mines vulnerable again to Apache attack and mining activities were forced to cease for a time. By the late 1860's, silver prices were rising and American troops returned to the region. These factors helped to revive the silver mining economy of southern Arizona. In the 1880's, corresponding with the expansion of the Southern Pacific Railroad and diminished Apache threat, mining became a main focus in southeastern Arizona (Ballanger et al. 2010).

Copper mining rose to prominence during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This time period marks the beginning of the electrical age followed by World War I. These events increased the demand for copper wire and metals for the war effort (Ballanger et al. 2010; Rosemont Company 2014). Like other big economies in Arizona, the mining industry went through boom and bust periods. Another boom in the copper industry began during World War II. During the Second World War, Arizona produced approximately 31% of the nation's copper. The mining industry was intricately linked to the prosperity and economy of the growing settlements of the Southwest as well as the success of national war efforts.

HELVETIA

The Helvetia mining district was located at the northern end of the Santa Rita Mountains with Greaterville and Empire districts making up its closest neighbors (Blake 1910: 20). Helvetia boomed in 1875 when copper ore was

51

discovered in the Santa Rita Mountains. By 1883, 20 claims existed making up what was known as the Helvetia Copper group. The Vail siding was the closest railhead to the Helvetia mine at 17 miles away. Vail siding became the primary shipping and storage location for ore and machinery going to and from the Helvetia mine. Most notably, the smelter for the Helvetia mine was stored at the Vail Station until its transport was possible.

In 1898, a wagon road between Helvetia and Vail Siding was established as the main route for machinery to be delivered to the mine and ore being shipped for processing. It was called the Vail Road. By 1899, Helvetia employed about 500 men, constructed small permanent towns that included saloons, hotels, a post office, laundry service, shoemaker, butcher, and a school. During its heyday, Helvetia's school was the third largest school district in Pima County with 100 students. In 1899, stage lines between Helvetia, Vail, and Tucson were established. Carter Crane and John Fraker, operators of La Cienega Ranch at Vail siding, were supplying the Helvetia to Tucson stage line.

Tucson’s Loss, Vail’s Gain …Mr. Seager, general manager of the Helvetia mines, …offered to bear

half the expense of building a fine road from Tucson to Helvetia. After giving the supervisors

ample time, and no action being taken on his proposition, a road was built to Vail’s station by the mine company. Tucson necessarily losing by the loss of freighting. Arizona Daily Star, August 31, 1899 Helvetia was one of the largest mining groups in the region but it was not immune to the boom and bust cycle that affected mines and miners throughout Arizona. The falling price of copper forced the mine to liquidate its machinery and close in 1911. After 1912, the stagecoaches to Helvetia were discontinued and mining was carried out only intermittently into the 1920's. By 1923, the Helvetia school closed and most of the residents of the town had left. With the coming of the 1950's, the town was nearly abandoned and the buildings were bulldozed to keep away transients (Feil 1968).

ROSEMONT

The Rosemont mining district, located 22 miles from Vail, began producing copper with its first mining claims staked in 1879 by J.K. Brown's Narragansett claim and M.L. Geroud's Eclipse claim. By 1894, the Rosemont mining district had 30 claims and a camp was established that would later become the Old Rosemont community. The town included an assay office, schoolhouse, hotel, blacksmith, post office and general store. In 1899, a

52

stage line was established that connected Old Rosemont to the Pantano and Vail stops along the Southern Pacific Railroad. These stops were utilized in shipping and receiving ores, machinery, and goods. The Rosemont district experienced difficulty due to fuel shortages resulting in the shutdown of their smelter in 1907. Like most mines in the copper industry Rosemont endured boom and bust periods throughout its history. The Rosemont boomed again in 1915 and reached its peak in 1920 with 350 miners employed. After 1926, the work at the mine had slowed and only a few claims groups continued working intermittently between 1938 and 1973. In 2014 the Rosemont Copper Company was in operation with interests in mining and currently offers weekend mine tours. (Rosemont Company 2014). In July 2014 Augusta Mining Company, the parent company of Rosemont Copper was purchased by HudBay Mining Company.

TOTAL WRECK MINE

After his first visit to the region, Walter wrote to his brother Edward Vail describing his confidence in Arizona's ability to prosper.

... it is destined to be one of the richest states in the Union. It will never be a very good farming country but when they get capital enough to work the mines then will be the time when things will pick up and everything will take a start (Dowell 1978: 9-‐10).

In 1881, Walter and Nathan Vail, along with their partner John A. Harvey, incorporated the Total Wreck Mining and Milling Company. The Total Wreck mine was located on an eastern slope of the Empire Mountains approximately 17 miles from Vail, Arizona. The Total Wreck Mine had rich veins of high quality silver ore and during its zenith was said to have produced between 65 to 70 tons of ore per day. The Vails constructed a wagon road between the mine and the railheads at the town of Pantano, eight miles east of Vail’s siding to facilitate the shipment of their silver. The road was opened as a toll road and brought in additional income to the Vail family enterprises. During this time, a stage coach service was established between Total Wreck, Harshaw Camp, and the Empire Ranch.

Total Wreck had over 50 houses, three hotels, a brewery, several saloons and Chinese laundries, a butcher shop, lumberyard and bank. The mine employed a large number of Mexican workers. Total Wreck drew people from other camps throughout the Empire Mining District because of its reputation for liquor, gambling, and excitement. However, by 1885 silver prices were plummeting and the most productive silver veins had been exhausted. Despite these setbacks, the Vails continued to produce silver ore until it was no longer profitable to do so. By 1890 postal service stopped and the Total Wreck Mine had closed. During its short lifetime the mine produced about $500,000 in profits speaking to its successful management by the Vails (Dowell 1978: 29-‐

53

53). These profits supported the expansion of Walter and Edward Vail’s ranching operations.

HISTORY: VAIL COMMUNITY Entrepreneurship, risk taking and exploiting a generally hostile natural environment to make a better life are traits that define those choosing to make a life in and around Vail. From the relatively unobtrusive land use practices of ancient native peoples, the acumen and ingenuity of Walter and Edward Vail, to the tenacity of settlers like Carter Crane, John Fraker, Santiago Leon, Teclo Lujan, Solomon Lick, Jeremiah Tattersfield, Otto Schley, and the massive movers of people and goods in the railroad and highway system, these cultural forces left their signature on the landscape. Many of Vail’s early settlers had been employed by the Southern Pacific Railroad, and some had been part of early survey crews. The national economic and cultural forces that converged at Vail in the late 19th and early 20th century created opportunities for those willing to live with daily struggles it took to make a life and build a future . Vail and other railroad stops like Esmond to the west and Marsh, Pantano, and Benson to the east were a local response to the expansion of the United States population westward. Empty space is not easily controlled or held. The Railroad and Homestead Acts of 1862 were written with this in mind. Individuals and families seeking to become landowners and improve their social station pushed westward by wagon and on the rails of the Southern Pacific Railroad providing a presence on the land. Vail’s siding is part of this story. It appears as early as 1883 on George Roskruge’s Pima County map. Vail gets its name from Walter and Edward Vail, ranchers and businessmen. The siding that would come to bear the Vail name was along the old wagon road on the last flat piece of land before railroad tracks followed the wagon road into the Cienega Creek bed. It was a place where the railroad, homesteading, mining, and ranching drew those seeking a better life. Until about 1895, the population at Vail’s siding hovered around 25, mostly SPRR employees. By 1900, the population around Vail had grown to nearly 150. Vail Population: 1890 25 1900 100-‐150 1930 40 1960 150 estimate Walter and his brother Edward conducted business from multiple locations including Total Wreck, Rosemont, Tucson, Vail’s siding and the town of Pantano where Walter served for a time as Postmaster An Eagle Milling receipt dated 1900 for flour to be delivered to Vail’s station, and signed by Edward Vail speaks to their business interests in Vail. Below,

54

prominent places and figures in Vail’s history are illustrated along with their contributions in establishing a growing Southwestern town.

WALTER L. VAIL

“I had a letter from Uncle Nathan the other day in which he says he has found three young men who wish to join me in the cattle business and they all have cash to put in, so this looks like more business. I hope they will come and will like the country well enough to stick. Anyone that goes there expecting to lead an easy life and make money without working or standing some hardships will be disappointed, but from what uncle N. (Nathan Vail) says of the parties, I don’t think when they have once started they will turn back. I wish you were once of the number but doubt very much whether the life would suit you, and at present one of a family is enough to go into that country.” Walter L. Vail, April 15, 1876

The 1870’s attracted ambitious pioneers seeking substantial profits from cattle ranching Southern Arizona’s once adequate water sources and lush vegetation. A young twenty-‐four Nova Scotia native, Walter L. Vail, traveled to Tucson, Arizona to pursue a desire in the cattle ranching industry. A close connection with family, Walter L. Vail often corresponded with his brother Edward “Ned” L. Vail in his adventures. In 1876, Walter L. Vail partnered with two Englishmen, Herbert R. Hislop and John N. Harvey, and purchased Empire Ranch, a 160 acre homestead ranch, and approximately 300 heads of cattle from Tucson merchant and part-‐time rancher, Edward Nye Fish for approximately $2,000 (King 1946). Empire Ranch solely became a family operation in May 1879, after brother, Edward “Ned” L. Vail, relocated to Arizona and the departure of Vail’s English business partners. The keen business strategy of Walter L. Vail and his brother developed one of the largest cattle ranches in Arizona, spanning over 100,000 acres during its pinnacle.

The prosperity of the ranching business brought opportunity to branch out into the silver mining industry so the Vail brothers purchased Total Wreck Mining in 1880. The same year Walter L. Vail influenced the eastern expansion of the Southern Pacific Railroad from Tucson to the town of Pantano. Vail donated parcels of land to the train company in exchange for Vail’s Siding, a wooden framed train station named in his honor (Janus Associates Inc. 1989). The train tracks were constructed on the southern banks of the Cienega Creek with Chinese laborers (Myrick 1975).

Vail’s Siding engendered an increase in population from approximately 25 to nearly 150 residents over five years (Lamb 2012). The population boom was due to the establishment of goods and services to service miners destined

55

for surrounding mines. By 1900, the community consisted of a telegrapher-‐ticket agent, store buildings, corrals, and ore dumps.

EDWARD VAIL

Edward Vail moved to Arizona in 1879 joining his brother Walter. Edward started his own ranch, the VR or Vail Ranch, in the Santa Rita Mountains. He had business interests at Vail Station as evidenced by early shipping receipts to Vail Station for staples like flour.

OTTO SCHLEY

Vail’s second postmaster, Otto Schley, operated a store, bar, and multiple mining claims, including a bat guano mining operation at Colossal Cave with friend and Mountain Springs Ranch owner, William Shaw. An enterprising individual, Schley raised venture capital and operated a mercantile to the south at Cuprite Mine, and was a business partner of the Helvetia Mining Company in the Santa Rita Mountains. Schley emigrated from Germany in the late 1880s. Continually on the lookout for promising business ventures, his partners included J.B. Anderson, a manager for the Helvetia Mining Company and who was the Pima County representative to the Fifth Arizona Territorial Legislature in 1870, and Henry and Albert Buehman, prominent photographers in Tucson. Otto’s business partnership with the Helvetia Mining Company and several of the company’s managers led to a dispute involving the land the store and post office were built on. The dispute ended up in court. Otto and business partners F. B. Close and J.B. Anderson, Helvetia Mine managers, along with the Helvetia Mining Company had co-‐leased the land from the Pima County Board of Supervisors. There was a falling out about the direction the business should take and the partnership broke up. Otto continued doing business on the property in the building he had constructed for Otto Schley & Co. General Store. Without Otto’s knowledge Mr. Close had taken out a second lease for the Helvetia Mining Company and left him out. The land that the store and the Schley’s new home, Casa Blanca, were built on were now leased to the Helvetia Mining Company from the Pima County Board of Supervisors and belonged to the Vail School District. After the Pima County Court ruling, the case was not over. The outcome gave the Helvetia Mining Company the power to force Schley out. Otto was not going to be ousted from the business and buildings he had invested in without a fight. He and his wife continued to operate the Otto Schley & Company General Store and Post Office in Vail. The case went all the way to the District Nine Court of Appeals in San Francisco which upheld the lower court’s decision. “THE TOWN BETWEEN THE TRACKS”

56

Until 1912 only the Southern Pacific Railroad’s main line passed through Vail. In 1912 the El Paso and Southwestern Railroad built their main line parallel and to the south. Vail’s town site is bounded on the north and south by these rail lines and book ended to the east by the Shrine of Santa Rita in the Desert and the west by the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office.

In 1888 Walter Vail and the SPRR negotiated new easements when the main line was realigned to bring the tracks out of the Cienega Creek bed. As part of this agreement the SPRR agreed to build corrals and a wooden building that could be used for commerce. All of this was done at SPRR expense; the Vail’s would rent the facilities for $5.00 a year. It is unknown for sure whether this building housed the original Vail Store & Post Office, but it is a possibility.

In 1908 a fire destroyed the original board and batten Vail Store & Post Office. The next day, the Vail Post Master, Otto Schley declared that he would rebuild, and this time it would be of brick. With the help of Mr. F.B. Close, Otto built a single story adobe structure with mud plastered walls and a wooden floor, which served as the only Post Office from the Rincon Mountains south to the Empire and Santa Rita Mountains. The rectangular building, adjacent to train tracks, accommodated numerous postmasters and serviced people of the Vail area, including the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) Camp SP-‐10-‐A enrollees. The enrollees worked on building facilities and amenities at the nearby Colossal Cave Mountain Park, and retrieved their mail from the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office between 1934-‐1937 (Vail Preservation Society).

POSTMASTERS (Appointed)

• Harry A. Mann (1901) • Otto W.H. Schley (10/16/1905) • Andrew Duffey (10/2/1907) • Otto Schley (1909) • Richard Mason (12/17/1915) • Duffy, A.C. (1914-‐1916) • Kruse Davis (9/19/1917) • Richard Lee (12/13/1926) • Sarah E. Schley (12/8/1927) • Dovie Woolsey (9/11/1929) • Mary Jane Warner (10/8/1934) • Patricia R. (Meyer) Sweepe (6/22/74) • John Hudson (8/28/1999) • Barbara R. Gerrettie (6/12/2004) • Trina J. LaFreniere (7/27/2013)

57

SANTIAGO LEON

Homestead records reflect that Santiago Leon proved up in 1912. The Leon family has been in the Vail area since the 1880s according to Jimmy Leon, Santiago’s grandson. They have the distinction of being the longest continuously residing family in Vail.

Carmen Leon recollected in 1980 that;

On weekends, the community would gather at the house of Norman Wagner, who had spread a slab of cement across part of his yard. For 10 cents apiece, people danced and sang to the music of a five-‐man band that played guitars and basses (Tucson Citizen January 1980).

In 1910, Carmen Leon, an 18 year old girl, and her family moved to Vail from Hermosillo, Sonora. Mrs. Leon, owner of a private Mexican cemetery, has been a resident for nearly 70 years as of 1980. She recalls her family irrigating using the Cienega Creek when the water was available, to grow fields of corn, beans, watermelon, grain, and fruit. Once a year, her family would travel to Tucson, via horse-‐drawn wagon, to sell excess produce. Mrs. Leon also remembers occasional community dances, which brought the neighbors together for a joyous moment.

About the time Mrs. Leon moved to the Vail area, El Paso and Southwestern Railroad constructed a route south of Vail’s Station and parallel to the Southern Pacific Railroad line (1912) (Janus Associates Inc. 1989). This placed the community of Vail between two tracks, and in time led to local residents to refer to their community as “The Town Between the Tracks.” The train station was turned into a three-‐sided shelter in the early 1940s and finally demolished in 1968, but this loss did not stop the community from flourishing.

CARTER CRANE AND JOHN FRAKER

Visionary, is how the 1897 Arizona Daily Star described the ranching and farming operation of Carter Crane and John Fraker at Vails station. The article goes on to say, they “have probably the finest single ranch there is in Southern Arizona. They have 600 acres under fence with more than sufficient water to irrigate the whole tract. This water they developed by cutting into the Cienega and the results more than justified their judgement and exceeded their expectations. …the crops grown are equal to the best in the country. The harvest this year yielded 1500 sacks of wheat and barley and something over 100 tons of alfalfa and barley hay. …When these men first settled on their present homestead they were regarded as visionary in their ideas so far as it affected their water supply, but they went to work themselves and by hard labor developed one of the finest bodies of permanent water there is in the entire country. This place is well worth a visit.” Originally from Arkensas where his family farmed, Carter Crane was born in 1853. Too young to have fought in the Civil War, it would surely have affected his growing up years. It was in 1877 while Carter was a

58

scout for Buffalo Bill Cody in the Black hills of South Dakota that his older brother Peter convinced him to head to Arizona with him. The two walked much of the over 1,200 miles to Arizona, living mostly off of the land, their marksmanship key to their survival. Carter Crane and John Fraker homesteaded adjacent to each other arriving in December of 1891. They dug an irrigation ditch by hand two miles through the rocky soil to bring the water from Cienega Creek to fertile soil waiting for moisture to bring it to life. By the mid-1890s Crane and Fraker were supplying not only their livery at Vails, but both ends of the Tucson to Helvetia Stage Line. Vails had become the break of bulk point for copper from the Helvetia Mine in the Santa Rita Mountains as well as cattle from nearby ranches. They prospered, their enterprise provided work and a living for their families and others like the Harris’s, Lively’s and Bravo’s as well. Carter called his home La Cienega Ranch. It was located where Cienega Creek and the Pantano Wash meet. In about 1907 Crane and Fraker further impounded the waters of the Cienega by building a dam upstream that would provide an even more reliable source of water for their farming operations, a “bread basket” for Pima County. Carter invested in land and mining claims across the Tucson basin. In 1907 Crane sold to the Tattersfield family. JEREMIAH AND ALMA MONTHAN-‐TATTERSFIELD

The Tattersfields expanded the operation creating a truck farm that supplied Tucson with produce; they planted orchards with apricots, peaches, apples and more. 50 foot tall cottonwoods swayed in the wind providing shade and branches that held a swing for the children of those laboring in the fields. The Tattersfield’s built a large lake at La Cienega Ranch and renamed it Rancho del Lago.

The Tattersfields had immigrated from England, ranching briefly in Calgary, Canada. Jeremiah and Alma had five sons, each of which filed homesteads adjacent to each other increasing the family’s holdings and farming operations. The Tattersfields/Monthans supplied many local residents with both water and employment. Rancho del Lago was sold by Alma to Cleveland Putnam in the 1932.

CAROLINE TAKAMINE BEACH AND THE SHRINE OF SANTA RITA IN THE DESERT IN THE DESERT

“I wish to express my deep approval and appreciation for this gift and to commend Mrs. Beach highly for what she has so thoughtfully and generously done. She has been most kind to provide for the spiritual necessities of the people around her and I hope this gift may serve as an incentive and example to others whom God has blessed with the world’s goods that they too may return some of these in gifts of charity. I hope Santa Rita in the Desert may become a sermon in stone to others and make them realize that blessings are not given them for themselves alone.”

Bishop Daniel J. Gercke, March 31, 1935 Dedication Ceremony

The only United States Catholic chapel built as a memorial to a Japanese citizen, Dr. Jokichi Takamine (1854-‐1922), by his widow, Caroline Fields Hitch Takamine Beach (1866-‐1954), was dedicated to the community of Vail on March 31, 1935. The small Spanish Colonial Revival chapel was constructed as a place to worship and serve the spiritual needs of a population predominately consisting of Hispanic ranch hands, railroad workers, miners,

59

and homesteaders. Designed by H.D.R. Figge, the chapel emulates simplicity and gracefulness through white stucco on adobe, red mission style roof tiles, and salvaged stained glass windows from a 1st Methodist Church in neighboring Tucson, Arizona (Grigsby 1986).

Caroline Fields Hitch was a landlord’s daughter in New Orleans, Louisiana when she first met Dr. Jokichi Takamine. She married Dr. Takamine as a young woman in August 1887 and had two sons, Jokichi Jr. and Eben, in Japan prior to returning to the United States. Her husband, Dr. Takamine, was an esteemed scholar in the field of chemistry for his innovative biotechnology research. He first isolated an enzyme, “Diastase”, from “Koji”, a traditional Japanese source used to manufacture sake, soy sauce, and miso. The process accelerated the conversion of starch into sugar, which became the first patented microbial enzyme in the United States and engendered, “Taka-‐diastase”, a digestive medical treatment. In 1901, Dr. Takamine also became known for isolating and purifying the hormone adrenaline further impacting medical treatments. A goodwill ambassador, Dr. Takamine personally funded thousands of cherry trees as a gift of friendship from the People of Japan to the People of the United States in hopes of improving cultural and political relationships (National Park Service 2014). The cherry trees were planted around the Tidal Basin in Washington, D.C. and have become scenic national landmark representing a legacy of Dr. Takamine’s scientific contributions and cultural consciousness. In 1922, Dr. Jokichi Takamine died from kidney disease.

The widowed Caroline Takamine visited Vail to see her youngest son, Eben, who was staying with rancher Charles P. Beach. Caroline H. Takamine remarried in August 1926 to Charles Pablo Beach, a veteran of World War I who attended the University of Arizona studying mining and cattle ranching for three years. Serving as Arizona’s Fish and Game Commission (1933-‐1951), Charles P. Beach actively promoted desert conservation around the Vail area, influencing his aesthetic and functional designed landscape for the surrounding chapel property. The design concept included cisterns, sustainable water systems to accommodate for the regional water shortages, were built in conjunction with the chapel (Grigsby 1986). The above ground concrete cistern remains about 100 feet to the southeast of the Chapel, but is not functional, as of the date of this document.

The inspiration, dream, and mission of a spirited, determined woman and her husband developed a place of serenity for an evolving community. Caroline also influenced Dovey Woolsey and later her daughter Mary Jane Warner to stay in the town of Vail as the postmistresses.

MARY JANE WARNER

“With every three cent stamp sold, we get thirty minutes of entertainment.”

60

Dovie Woolsey, mother of Mary Jane Warner

Mary Jane Warner moved from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma to Vail in 1933 to assist her ailing mother, Dovie Woolsey, with three younger siblings and the Vail general store and post office. In 1934, Dovie Woolsey passed and Mrs. Caroline Beach convinced Mary Jane Warner to stay in the town of Vail, as she had Mary Jane’s mother seven years earlier. In September 1934, Mary Jane Warner officially became the postmistress of Vail Post Office with strong support and influence from Mrs. Beach. Mary Jane would hold this position for 39 years, collecting and sharing stories, such as the origins of the dark stain on the wall leading from the store-‐post office into the living quarters. The story is that a confrontation between a suspected steer-‐stealing rustler shot was by wranglers leaving a dark stain on the wall (Vail Preservation Society).

Mary Jane is remembered fondly by the community that she served for 39 years. Mary Jane’s mother was Dovie Woolsey, Vail’s postmistress. Dovie became ill with cancer in 1933 and wrote her daughter asking for help. Mary Jane left a promising position as an executive secretary for an Oklahoma City car dealership. The young woman from the city could never have envisioned the direction her life would take. She moved in with the family and began helping with the work. Dovie told her daughter Mary Jane that, “With every three cent stamp sold, we get thirty minutes entertainment.” Dovie died on April 21, 1934, about six months after her daughter arrived. Mary Jane was left to care for her three younger siblings and a country store and post office. With the encouragement of Caroline Beach, Mary Jane decided to stay. She was appointed temporary postmistress of Vail in 1934. Another potential candidate, or “eligible”, wanted the position and was not going to give up easily. Mr. George Allen was a loyal Democrat and active member of the local Democratic Party. He had invested a great deal of time working on Mrs. Greenway’s Congressional campaign. It was 1934 and the Great Depression was in full force. Mr. Allen had been out of work for three years. Allen hoped that his and his son’s work for Greenway’s campaign and their loyalty to the Democratic Party might tip the decision in his direction. Within days of Dovie’s death, the correspondence and campaign for her position began. On April 24th, Isabella Greenway had already sent a response to the head of the local Democratic Party in Tucson, Mr. Leslie C. Hardy whose office was in the impressive Consolidated National Bank building in downtown Tucson. There was a rule relating to residency1 stating that a postmaster’s home address must lie within the delivery area of the post office they would be serving. This rule became the deciding factor. George Allen alleged that Mary Jane was from Oklahoma. Mrs. Beach, who had been a great friend to Mary Jane’s mother, Dovie, wanted Mary Jane to become Vail’s

61

permanent postmistress. She wrote to Arizona Congresswoman Isabelle Greenway who became actively involved in the process of Mary Jane’s appointment. Tucson’s Democratic Party chair, Leslie Hardy, and Congresswoman Greenway corresponded about the situation. She said that Mary Jane had been “living in Vail for the past six months. It shouldn’t really matter where she was from before that.” The story is told within the lines from letters that passed between Congresswoman Greenway, Leslie Hardy, Caroline Beach, and Mr. George Allen–who wanted the position in Vail, as well as Postmistress Dovie Woolsey’s daughter–Mary Jane Warner. In a Western Union telegram to Congresswoman Greenway, Mrs. Beach wrote, “May I beg your favorable action on the appointment of Mary Jane Warner Democrat as Postmistress of Vail Arizona. Mrs. Warner has been assistant Postmistress during her widowed mother’s long and fatal illness. Mrs. Woolsey[‘s] death has left destitute three young children. Mrs. Warner wishes to keep the home for these children holding them all together for 4 years. We have donated the building which holds the Home Country Store and Post Office the only store building in Vail. Mrs. Warner has given satisfaction in her work and the various members of the Vail community with whom we have discussed this are in accord with our plea. Praying a favorable action=Caroline Beach.” After another courtesy communication with the Pima County Democratic Central Committee Chairman, Leslie Hardy, Mrs. Greenway sent her recommendation to the Acting First Assistant Postmaster General, V.C. Burke in May of 1934. A few months later Mary Jane sent a hand-‐written note to Mrs. Greenway. “My Dear Mrs. Greenway: Just a few lines to thank you very much for the lovely message and for both you[r] help and your sympathy. I should have written sooner but am very busy with my newly acquired family. Have heard nothing definite yet about the Post office but I feel sure I will get it with your kind help. I certainly hope I do my work here as it should be done and to the satisfaction of everyone concerned. Thanks again very much. Yours very truly, Mary Jane Warner.” Mr. George Allen continued to hope the position would be his, but he received a letter from the Congresswoman’s office dated August 31, 1934 explaining, “…I hope this clears up the matter of residence requirements which make it impossible for me to give your application the consideration I otherwise would have.” In the end Mrs. Beach had her way–as she usually did. In September of 1934, Mary Jane received official confirmation.

ARTHUR “ART” KELLEY

62

“I don’t want feed bags on my mind all day. I want to have time to look at the sun coming up and going down.”

Arthur “Art” Kelley, Old Pueblo January 31, 1980

Arthur “Art” Kelley, a white-‐collar worker left the city of Detroit for the freedom of a rural lifestyle. The search for freedom landed Kelley in Vail where he purchased the Old Vail Post Office, an old adobe structure with sheet metal roofing near the train tracks, and transformed it into the Vail Feed Store. A store that largely sells livestock feed, but also offers an informal place where people can converse for hours, post community information on bulletin boards, or purchase general goods such as tools, gas, and handcrafted rattlesnake skin earrings. “Kelley says his store began life as a saloon for Vail’s cowhands, who would drive cattle to the railhead. Later, it became a general store and saloon. And in 1901, a post office was established in Vail, and Kelley figures it was housed in what is now his feed store” (Stiles 1980). The feed store provided a place for the community of Vail to continue to bind together during a time when the IBM Corporation influenced growth. The Kelley family owned the land between the railroad tracks to include the Old Vail Post Office, from 1975-‐2012.

VAIL IN 2014

The evolution of transportation, cattle ranching, and mining all had direct impacts in shaping the community of Vail, the oscillations of these respective industries contributing to the modern fluxes in Vail’s population and demographics. By the 1950s, with the exhaustion of mines, diversion of major transportation corridors, and departure from traditional practices, the community within Vail had significantly dwindled to a sparse 25 people. However, Vail is a community characterized by its resiliency to booms, busts and changing dynamics. In 1980, the IBM Corporation opened a plant in Southeast Tucson, located within the Vail School District, which reinvigorated growth with the Vail area.

Today Vail is growing rapidly. People are drawn to the area by the beautiful landscape framed by several mountain ranges and the beautiful Cienega Creek, as well as by the excellent school system and an expanding list of businesses, churches and organizations. (Vail Preservation Society)

The new community of Vail is growing and changing, but the legacy of the town’s past is still salient. Incorporating the modern considerations of the Vail community and locating Vail’s heritage within its contemporary context will be crucial to the ultimate conservation of and interpretation of the city’s historic resources. The story of Vail is still unfolding, but it cannot be properly told if its history is summarily erased.

63

HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY Most of what is known about the prehistoric and historical resources within the Vail Historic Preservation Plan Focus Area was recorded during previous cultural resource management surveys. A total of 20 cultural resource management investigations have been undertaken within one mile of the original town site. All of these projects were surveys.

The majority of these surveys were conducted parallel to the Union Pacific Railroad alignment and East Colossal Cave Road. While the earliest survey was conducted in 1955, the bulk of cultural resources work in the preservation area was conducted in the 2000s, when the local area was developed. The most significant survey was conducted in 1996 by Lone Mountain Archaeological Services for the Vail Valley Ranch subdivision (Seymour 1997). A total of 24 archaeological sites were identified during this survey, 10 of which are within a mile of the historic Vail Store & Post Office. These sites appear to have been covered by the Rancho del Lago Golf Course and the neighborhood that surrounds it.

A total of 20 archaeological sites and historic properties have been identified within one mile of the Vail historic post office. The majority of these sites are small prehistoric artifact assemblages.

Five previously identified cultural resources are within 500 feet of the1908 Vail Store & Post Office. Except for a small prehistoric archaeological site, all of these resources are historical. The small prehistoric site was identified during a pipeline survey conducted in 2006 (Rieder 2006). Other cultural resources near the post office include a section of the El Paso Natural Gas Pipeline No. 1007 that runs parallel to the south side of the Union Pacific Railroad line, the former location of the Old Vail Railroad Station, the Shrine of the Santa Rita, and the 1908 Vail & Post Office building itself.

Located directly across the street from the 1908 Vail & Post Office is the Shrine of Santa Rita in the Desert, a Catholic church that has played a central role in the Vail community. The church was constructed between 1934 and 1935 as a memorial to Dr. Jokichi Takamine. It was assigned a site number in 2003 (Stephen 2003) and formally recorded as a cultural resource in 2004.

The remains of Rancho del Lago are located approximately one mile northeast of the 1908 Post Office. While most of the architectural remains of Rancho del Lago were destroyed during the 1980s, several buildings and structures remained when the site was recorded in 1998 (Gallison 1999). Only architectural ruins remain today.

Predictive models created by Daughtrey (2014) demonstrate the high likelihood for cultural resources in the study area. This is illustrated in

64

Map 8. This model combined cultural resources data from the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) sensitivity and archaeological site data from the Arizona State Museum’s cultural resource inventory (AZSITE). The site types were divided into three temporal periods: archaic, Hohokam, and historical. In order to create the model, archaeological site and historic property data was compared against landform data collected from the Pima Association of Governments, the Arizona Geologic Society, and the Arizona State Land Department’s (ASLD) Arizona Land Resources Information System (ALRIS) (Daughtrey 2014:44–47).

Map 8 Vail Sensitivity Map; derived from model created by Daughtrey (2014).

The geographic information systems (GIS) data for known archaeological sites and historic properties was entered into an attribute table that was joined with a shape file and standard query language (SQL) selections were used to classify the GIS data by time period (Daughtrey 2014:48–49). A multivariate logistic regression was used to predict the outcome of the site locations through the examination of the dispersion of site types with respect to the values of the environmental data (Daughtrey 2014:52). The final result was a model that demonstrated the likelihood of archaeological sites and historic properties across most of Pima County. This final result was compared

65

against quantitative models created for Pima County based on expert opinions.

Both Daughtrey’s model and the expert-‐based qualitative models show that the study area in Vail has a very high likelihood for archaeological sites and historic properties. Daughtrey shows that archaic, Hohokam, and historical sites are very likely in the study area (see Map 8).

66

SECTION 3 PRESERVATION: PAST PRESERVATION EFFORTS AND A RENEWED EMPHASIS

PAST PRESERVATION EFFORTS THE SHRINE OF SANTA RITA IN THE DESERT IN THE DESERT

The Shrine of Santa Rita in the Desert is a single story. Lime plastered adobe brick Mission Colonial Revival style building with a modified rectangular floor plan. Mission style red clay tiles cover the roof. A bell tower is located at the northwest corner of the building. The windows are arched lancet style, salvaged from Tucson’s First United Methodist Church. A large tripartite lancet style window is set into the south wall of the Shrine with three smaller lancet windows set in the west wall and three windows in the east wall. Additionally there are three round rose windows; one is placed at the entry on the north wall, and one in each of the two side rooms on either side of the altar. The central nave of the shrine is 36 feet long by 27 feet wide and seats 115 people on wooden pews. The five-‐ton granite altar, hand hewn from Santa Rita Mountain granite, is located in the south end of the Shrine in front of the large tripartite window. The contributing Rectory and 1938 garage, echoing the Shrine in design and materials, are located east of the Shrine along with the non-‐contributing support buildings. The new Sanctuary/Church is set back to the southeast of the Shrine with access and parking adjacent to the new Church on the south and east sides. The Shrine is in excellent condition and has had very little alteration since its construction in 1935.

During the intervening years the windows have been re-‐glazed and repaired as needed. The center window of the large tripartite window in the south wall was replaced in 1967 with a more modern stained glass design imbedded into concrete when this window was damaged. The original window design was re-‐installed in 2010 when stabilization work was done on the stained glass windows. Don Crater and Charlie Brown, parishioners and caretakers for the Shrine, rebuilt the wooden frame in 2003. This became necessary when a routine check and cleaning process discovered damage to the wood that endangered the integrity of the window structure. Paul Walker of Colored Vision Glass, a commission-‐only art glass studio in Tucson, restored the window damaged in 1967 to its original design. The open Bible was replaced with the image of a cross and crown. Walker used original techniques to restore the windows. His work was based on postcards and photographs of the original windows.

All plants used in the original landscaping were native. A cistern was built simultaneously with the Shrine to provide water for the Shrine and landscaping. It is located about 190 feet southeast of the Shrine. A water

67

harvesting system fed the cistern until 1967; however it is no longer functioning. The cistern and water brought in tank cars by the Southern Pacific Railroad were the only water sources for the Vail. Today, the Shrine remains surrounded by mostly native landscaping. The four large Italian Cypress have replaced the saguaros planted in front of the shrine in 1935.

THE 1908 VAIL STORE & POST OFFICE

The 1908 Vail & Post Office is a vernacular adobe building situated between the two sets of railroad tracks that run through the heart of Vail, Arizona. Research suggests that the building may have originally been constructed in the late 1880’s. Regardless of the original construction date the original wooden building was destroyed by a fire on May 21, 1908. Postmaster Otto Schley rebuilt the store and post office out of adobe. It was open for business by August of 1908. This simple, rectangular 50-‐foot by 21-‐foot adobe building, constructed of 12-‐inch adobe bricks (probably produced on site) is defined by its ordinariness. It utilizes many salvaged materials as evidenced by the use of 1-‐inch by 12-‐inch railroad wooden packing crates in the ceiling and the use of salvaged 2-‐inch by 4-‐inch boards overlapped and joined to create ceiling joists. The interior is divided into four rooms and retains its original configuration. A 1-‐inch to 2-‐inch layer of dirt rests on top of the 1-‐inch by 12-‐inch wooden ceiling boards, which may have been intended as insulation (Poster and Frost 2005).

The structure today includes the original reconstructed adobe building, measuring approximately 31 feet by 21 feet, and an addition of two rooms constructed of stone rubble and concrete, believed to have been completed in the 1920’s served as living quarters. The double hung windows are made of wood as well as the doors, which are framed by recessed entries.

As the sole remaining Territorial era building at Vail’s town site it represents the building methods and style associated with Vail’s founding period. Its crude construction is a direct result of the environmental and cultural forces at play in Vail at the time. The building’s character defining features include: simple rectangular construction, local building materials, simple gabled roof, and the milled lumber used for windows which was supplied via the railroad.

Early photographs show that a lime plaster and white wash had previously been applied to the entire building. Eventually, an earth-‐colored cement plaster replaced the lime plaster. In 1975 Art Kelley purchased the property. Kelley converted the building into a general store, and made some modifications to the structure in the process. A concrete slab was added to the interior, a second doorway was opened on the South side of the building, and the northwest corner was rebuilt with rubble, stone and concrete. Electric and telephone lines were added at this time and are still the only utilities supplied to the building.

68

A shallow stone rubble foundation is present under all walls with the exception of the northwest corner, which is supported by a concrete stem wall. This corner collapsed in 1976 and was replaced with a mortar and stone corner section. The original wood flooring remains in the three eastern rooms, but is covered with plywood. The wood floor in the larger, adobe room on the west end of the building was removed between 1973 and 1974 when the building stood vacant. Arthur Kelley poured a cement floor in 1976 (Poster and Frost 2005) The center window on the south side of the building was also taken out and the adobe bricks were removed in 1976 to create a doorway into a shed that adjoined the building. The shed was used to store hay and feed for the Kelley’s Feed Store.

A Building Structure Report was completed by Poster Frost Architects in 2005 outlining the current condition of the building and immediate steps necessary for its stabilization. At the time the report was written, the building’s tin roof was still intact and it was in considerably better condition than it is today. Poster and Frost’s assessment was that the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office was in dire condition and required immediate stabilization.

Since 2005, the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office has survived two particularly difficult monsoon seasons. In 2007, the record summer rains resulted in the need for emergency stabilization. Through the collaborative fundraising efforts of the Vail Preservation Society, the community and a $2,000.00 grant from the Tucson-‐Pima County Historical Commission, VPS paid for the $5,754.00 stabilization measures necessary to provisionally preserve the structure.

The roof was lost on July 4, 2011 due to a strong microburst storm. Working with Echo Construction, VPS installed temporary trusses and secured a tarp to cover the tops of the adobe walls and exposed ceiling beams.

In June of 2012 VPS board voted not to contribute to any further stabilization efforts or maintenance of the building until they legally owned the property or until an easement agreement was reached. Since 2012, there has been an unproductive back and forth between VPS and the property owner. In July 2013 VPS and the Greater Vail Area Chamber of Commerce did replace the tarp and add additional reinforcing along the perimeter of the roof. VPS is currently fundraising to meet the $650,000. price that the owner has set to purchase the building and approximately 1/2 acre. VPS ultimately hopes to acquire the entire parcel of land, 4.2 acres, containing the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office and original town site that the owner has priced at $1.5 million. Without a permanent roof protecting the adobe walls, deterioration has rapidly accelerated over the past two years and it is likely that it may not survive another monsoon season.

69

The issue that VPS is currently grappling with is a difficult one: without funding to purchase the structure, they are reluctant to sink more money into short-‐term emergency stabilization. Meanwhile, the farther the building falls into deterioration, the more difficult it is to garner public support for its protection. Vail’s oldest remaining building may soon be lost due to neglect. With the beautifully maintained Shrine of Santa Rita in the Desert in the Desert standing just feet away as a testament to how preservation can lend a sense of place and add value to the community, it seems unconscionable that the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office, the only remaining original town site structure, be left to fall into ruin. As illustrated in historic photographs within this document, the two structures truly were, and remain, the heart of downtown Vail.

RAILROAD HOUSING

The Vail Preservation Society has written a proposal for the Adaptive Reuse of historic railroad buildings at Ross Acres located just southeast of the Kolb Road and I10 Interchange.`

During the 1960s the Southern Pacific Railroad modernized operations, which involved selling off and demolishing turn of the century railroad buildings along its Arizona alignments. The buildings and materials were sold for scrap and much of the irreplaceable historic railroad fabric of southern Arizona diminished. Unlike other parts of the region that watched these buildings disappear, in and around Vail, a man named John Dewey purchased and relocated buildings Pantano, Marsh Station, Wilmot Station, Rita Station, Vail Station, the Wilmot water tank, a DOT house at Vail and the Sahuarita School, first to Rita Station, and later to the Ross Acres site located southeast of the Kolb Road and I-‐10 intersection. Dewey and his family lived in one of the buildings (furthest to the east) utilizing the others as rentals and for storage. Through their research, VPS has identified the buildings and their original locations. Additionally, VPS has evaluated the viability of relocation and restoration of these buildings and has identified an initial four that can be successfully relocated and adaptively reused.

In April of 2013 as a Phase I demonstration project, VPS successfully purchased and relocated the 1915 Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) Marsh Station Section Foreman House to the newest Vail school, Esmond Station K-‐8. The historic building was placed adjacent to an existing section of historic 1880s Southern Pacific rail bed that bisects the school site. The 1915 SPRR building will be rehabilitated using student participation as a learning exercise in preservation practice. This project brings together education and historic preservation in a partnership that will engage the community, provide unique training and educational opportunities to students while celebrating Vail’s heritage.

70

CROSSROADS THROUGH TIME

VPS is currently engaged in developing a new interpretive trail network called “Crossroads Through Time: A Museum Without Walls Discovery Trail.” Crossroads Through Time will consist of a trail system around Vail that will incorporate interactive sites designed to allow visitors to understand and explore the number of transportation routes that converged in Vail, Arizona and that will connect population centers and to the Pima County Loop Trail, Esmond Regional Park, the Arizona Trail and Cienega Creek Preserve. The central theme of the project is the exploration of various culture groups and the influence of historic transportation routes and their associated economic drivers on the physical and cultural development of the town of Vail. The sites will strive to emphasize the diversity in cultures, people, and technologies associated with the creation of those routes and the connection each group had to the landscape.

The Crossroads Through Time trail and sites will engage its visiting public through active participation. Each site will have an approximate 12 foot by 12 foot footprint and contain interpretative signage with interactive information related to the site. Additionally each site will support a hybrid letterbox/geocache and conversation seating for two. For the tech-‐savvy, a mobile application will generate two downloadable features: historic photos to compare with the modern landscape and a short excerpt from the documentary film, Voices of Vail, which presents aspects of community history. Ten locations for these heritage interaction sites have already been tentatively identified within the Vail community. Crossroads Through Time will utilize previous VPS research as well as documentation, photographs and support of partner organizations like the Pima County Office of Sustainability & Conservation, Southern Arizona Transportation Museum, Postal History Foundation, and Vail Unified School District to demonstrate the role of transportation routes and associated historical events. VPS will continue to explore further collaboration with Pima County.

As of this writing one site along a future rails to trail site has been installed. It explores the role of the Chinese railroad workers brought in by the SPRR to construct the main line in 1880 and again in 1888. A student public art project has produced tile murals that will be incorporated at a second site along Colossal Cave Road as part of the road widening project that will take place during 2015-‐2016. The mural’s themes; Vail’s Special Places, Natural History, Ranching & Homesteading, At the Crossroads-‐Transportation , Welcome to Vail and future mural that will celebrate Vail’s pre-‐history, are the result of three years of community participation and planning. A Pima Association of Governments Transportation Art By Youth funded the Colossal Cave Road site.

71

A RENEWED EMPHASIS: VAIL AS CULTURAL LANDSCAPE The true historical value of Vail lies in the fact that it consists of a landscape that has the capability to convey cultural meaning. These meanings differ depending upon cultural affiliation and individual familiarity with the community of Vail. As a cultural landscape, Vail chronicles the past 4,000 years of human experience along this stretch of Cienega Creek. Prehistoric peoples had a very different relationship with the land than the people that created Vail during the nineteenth century. While these relationships differ, everyone that has lived in the area now known as Vail has cultivated his/her own landscape—both tangible and intangible.

Landscapes are created by humans and are filtered through the lens of culture (Longstreth 2008:1). They are places where the activities of everyday life are conducted. During prehistory, food and construction materials were wrested from the land. To Native Americans, the land was imbued with a spiritual significance and was the site of important cultural ceremonies. It was the source of all things, both spiritual and material. To the various cultural groups that lived in the Vail area during the historical period, the land was a source of financial support and freedom. It was a place where material dreams could be realized through hard work and effort. For all people, prehistoric and historical, Vail is home. It is a community where families are made and sustained; where every day spiritual and physical practice maintained cultural values.

Most importantly, cultural landscapes are products of the mind and memory. Michael Kenney (1999:420–421) explains that memory is a major theme in contemporary life and is a key to personal, social, and cultural identity. The continuity of memory is considered by philosophers to be an essential quality of personhood. Kenney goes on to explain the anthropological interest in memory and how it manifests in the natural world:

All experience is individual in that collectivities do not have minds or memories either, though we often speak as if they did. Yet it is also true that individuals are nothing without the prior existence of the collectivities that sustain them, the cultural traditions and the communicative practices that position the self in relation to the social and natural worlds (1999:421).

Memory is firmly fixed to place and context. Place is essential if the stories embedded in our memories are to last beyond a single generation (Kenny 1999:421). Building upon this interpretation of historical memory, we posit that memories are also used to interpret and create landscapes. Cultural landscapes reside both in the individual, the public memory, and on the landscape.

72

As a rapidly growing commuter community, the historical nucleus of Vail has been fragmented by recent development. The landscape has changed dramatically since the time when this area was occupied by Native Americans. The sweeping panoramic vistas of the Rincon Mountains, covered by saguaro and tall ocotillo, have been altered since the nineteenth century. Cattle and dude ranches that once proliferated have also been lost. Many of Vail’s earliest buildings have been removed in order to make way for new homes and businesses. Nevertheless, glimpses of historical Vail can be seen in the remaining, intact buildings and the places where the landscape still instills the feeling of freedom and awe that is commonplace in the unspoiled places of the American West. It is at these points on the land where the cultural landscape of historical Vail still remain.

Historic preservation in Vail should focus on maintaining what remains of the cultural landscape and engaging the local population in identifying ways that their cultural landscape can enrich community life now and in the future. The true historical value of this place lies not only in the remnants of its built environment, but also in the plants, animals, and geographic elements that make it unique. Preservation should be conducted in such a manner that descendants— Euro American, Hispanic, Native American, and all others— and newcomers can interpret what it means to live in Vail through their own unique cultural lens. Preservation should acknowledge that Vail has a cultural landscape with different interpretations and that this landscape is its most valuable asset.

73

SECTION 4 PLANNING: ZONING, LAND-‐USE, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT

The context and significance of Vail’s cultural and natural heritage demonstrate ample justification for their conservation; however any preservation efforts are contingent upon the allowances and opportunities presented by local regulatory action, ownership and development patterns. The planning process can be very complex but it is rooted in the simple idea that communities should have plans in place in order to achieve their goals. These plans are malleable and frequently overreaching, but they are important to organize and facilitate the mission of the community. The planning process is undertaken by federal, state, local governments, quasi-‐governmental organizations, and non-‐profits and they vary in magnitude and purpose, from long-‐range, historical, visioning, utilities, economic development, and many other contexts.

While process varies, there are guidelines that should be followed, both as legal standards and because they have been found to be best practices. The Vail Preservation Society is a non-‐profit organization and many regulations will not apply to them. One example is that of public participation. It is this plan’s recommendation, however, that the community should have a say in the planning process and public participation should be central to its implementation. It is important for the organization and this document to insure that legal guidelines are maintained as its basic framework in order to certify the objectives and support of the community, and determine how best the planning process can help assist in achieving them.

ZONING Pima County has several regulations concerning zoning for historic areas. These are found in Pima County Historic Overlay Ordinance, Chapter 18.63: Historic Zone. In this chapter, Pima County attempts to protect the unique character of a geographic district where existing sites, objects, architecture, archaeological remains, or other tangible records of past eras can be of enduring value to the people of the county in advancing education, general welfare, civic pride, and appreciation of their cultural heritage. (Pima County, Arizona, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18.63).

HISTORIC DISTRICT ZONE

Criteria The criteria that define historic district zones are as follows (not all criteria are required to be satisfied, however a sufficient number should be satisfied):

1. An historic district zone should include historic sites, buildings, structures, objects, man-‐made landscapes, or spaces.

2. An historic district zone should include sites, buildings, structures, objects, man-‐made landscapes, or spaces in their original setting which contribute to an understanding of the heritage of the community.

74

3. The sites, buildings, structures, objects, man-‐made landscapes, or spaces should provide the area with a sense of uniqueness, so that it is readily distinguishable from other areas of the community.

4. The collection of sites, buildings, structures, objects, man-‐made landscapes, or spaces should possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, thus constituting a recognizable entity

New Construction or Alterations In addition, Pima County has specific regulations for development zones, and criteria for new construction or alterations. The criteria are as follows:

A. The historical and architectural characteristics of an historic structure, object, or man-‐made landscape which make it unique shall be properly preserved and any changes shall generally conform to the character of the structures, objects, and man-‐made landscapes located within its development zone.

B. No specific architectural style shall be required for the design of a new building or other structures that have not been designated as historic. However, such buildings and structures are subject to the following:

1) The design of the structure shall generally conform to the character of the buildings and structures located within its development zone; 2) If demolished and the area left vacant, the area shall be maintained in a clean and inoffensive manner; 3) If demolished and the area converted to another use not requiring buildings (such as a parking lot), the area shall be buffered by landscaping or have walls or fences that conform to the character of the other buildings and structures located within its development zone; 4) If demolished and new structures erected, they shall generally conform to the character of the buildings located within their development zone.

C. Building Permit Criteria. A. Height. New structures may be constructed no higher than the tallest conforming building located within their development zone at the time of the establishment of the historic district zone; B. Setbacks. New structures must maintain the prevailing setback existing within its development zone at the time of the establishment of the historic zone; C. Proportion. The relationship between the height and width of the front elevation of the building; D. Recurrent alteration of solids to voids in the front facade; E. Roof types; F. Surface texture of buildings;

75

G. Color of buildings, trim, roof, etc.; H. Site utilization. The width of side yards as it affects the spacing between individual buildings and structures; I. Projections and recessions. Such as but not limited to the presence or absence of porches, steps, awnings, and overhangs; J. Architectural details. Such as but not limited to cornices, lintels, arches, grill work, and shutters.

Other pertinent factors generally affecting the appearance, harmony and efficient functioning of the historic district zone may be used. (Pima County, 2014)

76

Demolition Pima County also devotes a section of the ordinance to address the demolition of historic structures. The county recommends that permits not be granted for the demolition of all or any significant part of a structure or building that has been designated as historic before approval by the planning and zoning commission.

For making such decisions, the commission decides whether the applicant has shown that the preservation of the structure is physically and economically unfeasible. If preservation is found to be physically and/or economically unfeasible, the zoning inspector should be informed that the issuance of the demolition permit is approved by the commission. The site may be left vacant or a new building constructed in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 18.63.070B and C.

If the preservation of the structure is found to be feasible, the commission should inform persons or groups interested in historic preservation who may either attempt to convince the owner to preserve the building or structure or, if the owner does not agree, to attempt to have the property purchased by someone who will agree to preserve the building or structure in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

If the owner is not convinced to retain the building or structure and does not make an agreement to that effect and no one has agreed to purchase it within one hundred eighty days after public notification of the application for a demolition permit, the commission shall notify the building official that the issuance of a permit to demolish the building or structure is approved and the provisions set forth in Section 18.63.070B and C shall apply (Pima County 2014).

Zoning for the Vail Town Site The 1908 Vail & Post Office is located in a CB-‐2 zone. This zone is a general business zone, which allows for indoor/outdoor retail, wholesale, and residential development. The Post Office is a unique building and while the current zoning would not affect the building because of the fact that the structure precedes the zoning, the plans in this document and the plans of VPS seem to be consistent with this zoning. The Shrine of Santa Rita in the Desert is located across the street from the Post Office and is located in a RH zone. An RH zone is a rural homestead zone, which allows for low density residential and agriculture. The Shrine of Santa Rita in the Desert is similar to the 1908 Vail Store & Post Office in that both buildings have been located on these properties before this zoning was instituted and therefore they are allowed in these zones. The Shrine however has an additional layer of protection in this factor because of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) passed in 2000. According to the Department of Justice, “RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that substantially burden the religious exercise of churches or other

77

religious assemblies or institutions unless implementation of such laws is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest” (United States Department of Justice, n.d.).

78

Maps and Illustrations The table below shows the zoning categories for Pima County and illustrates that the majority of the area within the focus zone are zoned CB-‐1 (Local Business), CI-‐1 (Light Industrial/Warehousing), CI-‐2 (General Industrial), CMH1 (County Manufactured and Mobile Home), CR-‐3 (Single Residence), CR-‐5 (Multiple Residence Zone), GR-‐1 (Rural Residential), RH (Rural Homestead),

SH (Suburban Homestead), SR (Suburban Ranch), and TR (Transitional).

Table 3. Zoning Definitions Zone Zone Definition Principal Uses TH Trailer Homesite Trailer (RV) Park IR Institutional Reserve Public Reserve Land RH Rural Homestead Low Density Residential, Agriculture GR-‐1 Rural Residential Residential, Agriculture ML Mount Lemon Single-‐Family residential SR/RX-‐1 Suburban Ranch Low Density Rural Residential SR-‐2 Suburban Ranch Estate Low Density Rural Residential SH Suburban Homestead High Density Rural Residential CR-‐1 Single Residence Single-‐Family Residence CR-‐2 Single Residence Single-‐Family Residence CR-‐3 Single Residence Single Family Residence

0

Legend

1,675.24

ZoningFocus Zone

Notes:

3,350.5

Feet


ParcelsZoning - County

CB-1

CB-1(H)

CB-2

CB-2(H)

CI-1

CI-2

CI-3

CMH-1

CMH-2

CPI

CR-1

CR-2

CR-2(H)

CR-3

CR-4

CR-4(H)

CR-5

CR-5(GC)

CR-5(H)

GR-1

GR-1(H)

IR

ML

MR

MU

RH

RH(GC)

RH(H)

RVC

SH

SH(H)

SP

SR

SR-2

TH

TH(H)

TR

Map 9 Zoning map for the one-‐mile focus zone.

79

As demonstrated in the below map, the one-‐mile focus zone includes land zoned as GR-‐1, RH, SP, and TR while the 5 mile buffer is mainly zoned CI-‐1 (Light Industrial/Warehousing), CR-‐1 (Single Residence), CR-‐2 (Single Residence), GR-‐1 (Rural Residential), MH-‐1 (Mobile Homes), RH (Rural Homestead), RX-‐1 (Suburban Ranch), SR (Suburban Ranch), SR-‐2 (Suburban Ranch Estate), and TR (Transitional). These zoning ordinances are important to be aware of so there are no conflicting uses implemented adjacent to one

CR-‐4 Mixed-‐Dwelling Type Single/Multi-‐Family Residences; Duplexes CR-‐5 Multiple Residence Zone Single/Multi-‐Family Residences; Duplexes TR Transitional High Density Residential, Office and Some Commercial Uses CMH1 County Manufactured and Mobile Home Manufactured or Site Built Homes CMH2 County Manufactured and Mobile Home Manufactured or Site Built Homes; Mobile Home Park MU Multiple Use Residential, Commercial, Light Manufacturing MR Major Resort Resort RVC Rural Village Center Zone Retail/Services CB-‐1 Local Business Indoor Retail, Residential CB-‐2 General Business Indoor/Outdoor Retail, Wholesale Residential CPI Campus Park Industrial Zone Research and Development, Non-‐Nuisance Manufacturing CI-‐1 Light Industrial/Warehousing Manufacturing, Retail, Warehousing CI-‐2 General Industrial Manufacturing, Salvage Yards CI-‐3 Heavy Industrial Intensive Industrial MH-‐1 Mobile Homes Mobile Homes

Map 10 The location of the original town site within the one-‐mile priority buffer, the five-‐mile buffer, and in the overall context of zoning in the area.

0

Legend

8,839.29

ZoningContextual Zone

Notes:

17,678.6

Feet


Zoning - CountyCB-1

CB-1(H)

CB-2

CB-2(H)

CI-1

CI-2

CI-3

CMH-1

CMH-2

CPI

CR-1

CR-2

CR-2(H)

CR-3

CR-4

CR-4(H)

CR-5

CR-5(GC)

CR-5(H)

GR-1

GR-1(H)

IR

ML

MR

MU

RH

RH(GC)

RH(H)

RVC

SH

SH(H)

SP

SR

SR-2

TH

TH(H)

TR

Zoning - MaranaA Small Lot Zone

80

another. In addition, it is important to know what is permitted in the area in order to inform design or programming plans and any necessity to request a variance.

GROWTH MANAGEMENT Growth management can be a controversial issue in Arizona. Many have suggested that the state needs extreme measures because of rampant sprawl in the state. These measures include regulations such as Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB’s). Contradictorily, in Arizona, laws exist that make it difficult to implement UGB’s. The Arizona State Legislature adopted a statute prohibiting the state from requiring municipalities to adopt urban growth boundaries in 2006.

Other statutes make it impossible for Arizona municipalities to adopt traditional urban growth boundaries, however municipalities may not plan or zone private property or state lands for a density of less than 1RAC without the property owner or state land commissioner's approval, unless it was already so designated or zoned when the statutes took effect. This is stated in A.R.S. § 9-‐461.05(D) and A.R.S. § 9-‐462.04(I). Any effort to deny permits will be treated as a "moratorium" and is restricted and in most cases prohibited by state law A.R.S. § 9-‐463.06.

Many municipal water and sewer providers adopt a service boundary, and case law allows municipal utilities to withhold service to properties located outside city limits. So this can have the practical effect of creating an urban growth boundary.

Pima County looks at other factors when considering growth. The Sonoran Desert Conservation plan considers areas that are environmentally and culturally sensitive. This creates a map that shows which areas are best suited for development and which areas should be targeted for conservation. Many of the areas addressed within the plan are closely tied to historical and archeological resources. According to the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (2011:6), “Since 1997, Pima County has been working on fulfilling the task assigned by this community to conserve this region’s most prized natural and cultural resources.” The plan is highly consequential to the citizens of Pima County and in 2004 the Conservation Plan was adopted by voters. It is essential to respect the wishes of the community and conserve the resources that they feel are significant. Many of these are identified in the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, and many are within the Vail Historic Preservation Plan’s focus area. The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan addresses the Cienega Valley-‐Empire Ranch Reserve, Bar V Ranch, Clyne Ranch, Empirita Ranch, Colossal Cave Mountain Park Expansion, and the Cienega Creek Natural Preserve Expansion. The report states that, “The Cienega Valley Empire Reserve encompasses some of Pima County’s most ecologically rich and desert-‐rare resources. Located southeast of Tucson, it

81

encompasses the valley between the Rincon, Santa Rita and Whetstone Mountains. This valley received national recognition as one of seven endangered cultural landscapes in America in 2004. The reserve includes Davidson Canyon, Cienega Creek, Colossal Cave Mountain Park, a key segment of Agua Verde Creek, and other important sections of the Cienega watershed. This area contains a wide range of invaluable natural resources, including the best example of a riparian forest system embedded within semi-‐desert grassland in Pima County” (Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan 2011:29).

The below illustration places the focus area in the larger historical and cultural context of Pima County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. It should be noted that the focus area is within a Priority Archaeological Site Complex area and is nearby Priority Historic Sites, National Register

Properties, and Priority Archaeological Sites.

Map 11 Cultural resources identified by the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan; Vail is within a “Priority Archaeological Site Complex.”

82

Maps and Illustrations Any plans to the original town site and the creation of heritage center will be required to take into account various land-‐use and zoning regulations. The one-‐mile focus zone falls mainly within two different land-‐use intensity categories: the southern portion of the area is low and medium intensity rural, while the northern part of the site is medium and low intensity urban

with some urban industrial land-‐use adjacent to the railroad tracks.

0

Legend

1,993.88

Comprehensive Plan Land Use IntensityFocus Zone

Notes:

3,987.8

Feet


ParcelsComprehensive Plan Land Use Intensity

Regional Activity Center

Community Activity Center

Multifunctional Corridor

Neighborhood Activity Center

High Intensity Urban

Medium High Intensity Urban

Medium Intensity Urban

Military Airport

Low Intensity Urban 3.0


Low Intensity Urban .5


Rural Forest Village

Rural Activity Center

Rural Crossroads

Medium Intensity Rural

Low Intensity Rural

Resource Transition

Resource Productive

Resource Extraction

Urban Industrial

Heavy Industrial

Public Preserves

Pascua Yaqui Fee Lands

Map 12 Land use intensity map of one-‐mile focus zone.

83

The map below shows that in addition to the low and medium rural, and the low and medium urban portions, there is also a resource transition area within the one-‐mile buffer. The five-‐mile buffer includes all of these land-‐uses and a couple of areas designated as activity centers. The crucial significance of this map is that it illustrates the need for the historic town site to bear a relationship between these various and disparate land uses. The site design proposals and alternatives will need to reflect the

0

Legend

9,765.98

Comprehensive Plan Land Use IntensityContextual Zone

Notes:

19,532.0

Feet


Comprehensive Plan Land Use IntensityRegional Activity Center

Community Activity Center

Multifunctional Corridor

Neighborhood Activity Center

High Intensity Urban

Medium High Intensity Urban

Medium Intensity Urban

Military Airport





Rural Forest Village

Rural Activity Center

Rural Crossroads

Medium Intensity Rural

Low Intensity Rural

Resource Transition

Resource Productive

Resource Extraction

Urban Industrial

Heavy Industrial

Public Preserves

Pascua Yaqui Fee Lands

Map 13 The location of the town site within the one-‐mile priority buffer, the five-‐mile buffer, and in the overall context of land use intensity.

84

tensions and parallels between the historic and the modern, concurrently.

The focus area is directly south of a major wash (Cienega Creek, also referred to as Pantano Wash) and lies between several 1000-‐2000 CFS and 5000-‐10000 CFS washes.

0

Legend

1,993.88

WashesFocus Zone

Notes:

3,987.8

Feet


ParcelsWashes - All

Unknown Discharge

100-500 CFS

500-1000 CFS

1000-2000 CFS

2000-5000 CFS

5000-10000 CFS

Over 10000 CFS

Washes - Major

85

Map 14 View of the natural washes in the vicinity of the study area within the one mile and five mile range of historic Vail town site.

86

The below map shows that there is a major wash within both the one and five-‐mile buffers. In addition, there are many smaller washes between 100 to over 10,000 CFS and some washes of unknown discharge within the five-‐mile buffer. The implications of this map are several. First, it informs the susceptibility of structures in the area to flood but also it can inform possible design. It would be beneficial to incorporate these washes into the landscape architecture design and implementation of the overall design

concept.

0

Legend

12,360.07

Vail Buffers with Washes

Notes:

24,720.1

Feet


Post OfficesWashes - All

Unknown Discharge

100-500 CFS

500-1000 CFS

1000-2000 CFS

2000-5000 CFS

5000-10000 CFS

Over 10000 CFS

Washes - Major

Map 15 The location of the post office within the one-‐mile priority buffer, the five-‐mile buffer, and in the overall context of washes.

87

SECTION 5 COMMUNITY: DEFINING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN This plan aims to develop a proactive public participation process for the preservation efforts of the Vail Preservation Society that is broad-‐based, inclusive, informed, educational, transparent and collaborative, ensuring that a wide range of voices and views will be taken into account. The plan delineates strategies to increase public awareness and access to information and encourage early and continuous involvement of the community in developing a realistic and beneficial plan for the entire community.

THE PROCESS The public is extremely important in any planning process. It is critical that the process addresses concerns and listens to the community in order to generate results that will bring the community together and create opportunities for all.

Chapter 7 of the Arizona Agency Handbook deals with open meetings. The handbook lists the bodies that need to adhere to its regulations, including: boards and commissions, quasi-‐governmental corporations, quasi-‐judicial bodies, advisory committees, special and standing committees and subcommittees. The Vail Preservation Society does not fall into any of these categories, but in effect, to obtain and retain the trust of the community, it is suggested that they adhere to the regulations by posting meeting notices and agendas for meetings. In addition, it is recommended that VPS posts minutes and all documents produced on their website. Finally, they should also consider posting sufficient notice of hearings and allow for ample public comments. The process should include the use of charrettes. A charrette is an intensive planning session where citizens, designers and others collaborate on a vision for development (What is a Charrette?, n.d.). In this particular case, the development is historic in nature.

IDENTIFYING THE STAKEHOLDERS

The public is made up of many different groups of people, all of whom have different motivations and perhaps agendas regarding any particular project. It is important to identify who should be a part of the planning process for each project and why. With this in mind, it is important to follow the guidelines set forth by the National Park Service in their Public Participation guide. It is important to engage the following individuals and/or groups of people:

• Preservation Professionals • Federal, State, and Local Government Officials • Elected Officials

88

• Individuals and groups who may be affected • American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians • Certified Local Governments • Minority groups and the disabled • Others

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Context is one of the most important aspects of historic preservation and is applicable to public involvement efforts in the field as well. A plan needs to consider the technical planning context that the public can help craft. Additionally, it must assess the local players in the community, county, or state that need to become engaged. It is necessary to ascertain the appropriate venues as a means to reach out to those that need to be involved. This may be accomplished through local periodicals such as the Vail Voice newspaper or though more regional publications such as the Arizona Daily Star. It may involve utilizing radio programs, or perhaps television advertisements that target the Vail zip code or public service announcements. In addition, it will be necessary to follow events at which VPS can host tables or to hand out information. In creating a successful strategy, it is important to know the area in question and the means by which residents are most likely to respond. Finally, it will be important for VPS to utilize mobile technology and utilize app technology to appeal to younger generations of Arizonans and Vail residents.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GUIDELINES

In order to promote successful public participation, effective and thoughtful strategies will need to be implemented. The following principles will assist in moving the process in the right direction. Overall, the process should be:

Authentic and Meaningful The process should support public participation because it is meaningful. The organization as a whole should embrace it and accommodate for it. The values and objectives of the community should develop from the bottom up and not be imposed on people.

Clear, Focused and Understandable Individuals should be clear about why their participation is needed and how it will be used. If they are clear about their mission they are more likely to accomplish it and provide dynamic feedback.

Flexible The public participation process should be able to accommodate those that usually do not or are unable to participate. If the effort to engage people is a serious one, the process will be adjusted as the needs of affected communities are identified.

89

Inclusive The Vail Preservation Society should be proactive in engaging low-‐income and minority communities in the region. Using the past efforts of the Preservation Society, areas where engagement is lacking both geographically and demographically should be identified. Priority should be given to these areas and individuals.

Respectful Feedback from everybody should be taken into account and considered equally.

Responsive The Preservation Society should make sure that all comments and suggestions are acknowledged and incorporated into the decisions made by the organization.

Tailored Public participation efforts by the Preservation Society should be guided, in the instances when it is appropriate, by cultural preferences and local traditions.

Transparent The process should be open and inclusive. All information collected should be used in the implementation of the plan.

Trustworthy Information given to the community about the process and the outcomes of the process should be accurate (Presutti 2013).

PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES

The Vail Preservation Society has formed a Community Board that will be responsible for holding public meetings that convene regularly and create opportunities for the entire community to participate.

The first participation effort should be a public survey that targets the citizens of Vail directly. It should provide easily digestible and pertinent information and ask questions regarding the sites that the Vail Preservation Society intends to conserve in order that they may gauge the interest levels of the community.

In addition to these efforts, the Community Board will be responsible for hosting public hearings and facilitating a public comment period. All of these should be open to any and all interested parties, and materials resulting from the meetings should also be made available to the community.

RECOMMENDED TIMELINE

The table below offers a timeline for the public participation efforts. The process is made up of 5 phases that include both the general public and the elected officials in the region. For the purposes of Vail the elected

90

officials will mainly consist of the Pima County Board of Supervisors. If Vail ever becomes a city or township, the City Council or Town Council will then be included along with the Board of Supervisors in the elected official’s category.

Phase I: This phase follows up on the recommendation to form a preservation Community Board. This body would consist of community members that can track and implement preservation issues and ordinances for the area. This body would represent the community and could potentially be associated or a subcommittee of the current historic preservation commission and inform the Board of Supervisors in matters related to area preservation, heritage and quality of life. This phase also includes the kickoff of meetings by this body.

Phase II: The second phase consists of two different opportunities. These include survey distribution and completion along with an open comment period.

Phase III: This phase mainly consists of presenting the findings of the mapping exercise and survey data with both the public and elected officials.

Phase IV: This particular part of the process brings forth proposals from the findings to the elected officials.

Phase Public Participation Opportunity Public

Phase I Form Community Board General Public, Elected Officials

Phase I Kickoff Community Board charrette meetings General Public

Phase II Conduct preservation charrette surveys (paper and online) General Public

Phase II Open comment period General Public

Phase III Present findings of survey data with the public General Public

Phase III Present findings of survey data with elected officials Elected Officials

Phase IV Propose changes to the elected officials Elected Officials

Phase V Track implementation of proposed changes General Public, Elected Officials

91

Phase V: The final phase will tracks the action by the Community Board and VPS along with the implementation of the recommendations that were a result of the public participation process.

Objective The objective of this process is to create opportunities for the community to contribute their visions for the focus and contextual areas with officials, planning and identifying ways to make these visions a reality. Much of the success of this project will depend on the buy-‐in of the community. If the objectives of the project are to preserve historical sites while promoting economic development for the entire Vail community the Vail community has to share and support it as well. The statement of goals previously presented in this document stated that the goal of this exercise was to, “Provide a public outreach strategy with specific recommendations for implementing public participation in ongoing preservation efforts.” The phases recommended here aim to accomplish this specific goal.

92

SECTION 6 RECOMMENDATIONS: BUILDING A PRESERVATION PROGRAM IN VAIL

The following section contains recommendations for the development of a comprehensive Preservation Plan for Vail. The work of VPS, which has identified a core preservation community in Vail and engaged other community members in individual projects since its inception in 2006, has been a critical first step in establishing the preservation of Vail’s heritage as a shared cause and goal for the greater Vail community. Our outline of steps to begin “Building a Preservation Plan in Vail,” will focus primarily on the initial stabilization of critical resources, building support for preservation within the community that can be reinforced by education and local incentives, conducting a cultural landscape study, and the importance of public participation in the preservation process moving forward.

THE VAIL TOWN SITE Identifying uses that will successfully blend preservation and provide long term economic drivers for the community that reflect the values of residents is important. Only this site can provide an authentic sense of place. Planning for Vail’s historic sites and heritage to functionally serve and inspire the future is the goal.

THE 1908 VAIL & POST OFFICE Today, the 1908 Vail & Post Office stands as a legacy of the turn of the century forces that shaped America and built the town of Vail, although perhaps not for long. The last building connecting Vail to its territorial past is currently in jeopardy from both the natural agents of dereliction and the human threat of demolition for modern development opportunities.

Natural Deterioration On July 4, 2011, after standing for over a century and undergoing several minor renovations and restorations, a microburst during a summer monsoon storm severely damaged the historic adobe structure and tin roof. Although immediate efforts were taken to remove the compromised roof and rubble and provide preliminary stabilization for the building, resources were insufficient to fully restore or protect the Post Office. As it stands now, the adobe structure is covered by a temporary tarp, and shored up by wooden beams on all sides.

Without immediate action, the Post Office will undergo significant and rapid deterioration from the elements. The tarp covering the exposed building is tattered, leaving half of the original wooden ceiling boards vulnerable to the harsh Arizona weather. As an adobe structure, the building is particularly imperiled by its lack of roof and drainage during the monsoonal

93

rains that inundate southeastern Arizona in the summer months. Composed largely of sand and clay, adobe is naturally inclined to deteriorate, reverting back to its original diffuse state with the addition of water, a problem compounded by the addition of impermeable and incompatible cement-‐based materials to the structure.

Prior to the damaging microburst, several thousand dollars had been invested in the restoration of the Post Office by the Vail Preservation Society, following the recommendations for immediate stabilizing action outlined in the building condition assessment report performed in 2005 by Poster Frost Associates, Inc. and paid for by Pima County. Since 2008, $15,000 was applied by VPS towards the stabilization of the building, with additional sums used to address the roofing issues. However, aside from the priority considerations of providing a secure and historically compatible roof, the Old Vail Post Office is suffering from myriad other effects of natural deterioration, which must soon, and recurrently, be addressed. A summary of these threats to the continued preservation of the Post Office and its character defining qualities, as per the Poster Frost Associates, Inc. report (2005), is as follows:

Side Grading/Drainage: Water is prone to settling near the building after running off of the roof (or tarp), causing basal erosion to the adobe structure. By pouring off the roof, splashing water erodes the lower parts of the adobe walls, while moisture is drawn into the mud and clay bricks through capillary action, severely degrading their integrity.

Foundation: In the 1970s, concrete slab was added to the adobe structure. As an impermeable material, concrete contributes to the basal erosion of adobe when water becomes trapped between the concrete and mud brick and consequently wicks into the adobe.

Walls: The addition of cement plaster to adobe walls, as is the case for the Post Office, is a common but highly detrimental action, often taken in misbegotten attempts to preserve the friable mud brick. Yet the issues inherent to impermeable concrete are similarly relevant to the use of cement plaster. Not being vapor-‐permeable, any water that breaches the walls will absorb into the adobe. With the current state of dereliction, it is likely that significant erosion has already occurred to the bricks behind the cement plaster façade.

Doors: Of the three doors currently on the Post Office only one is original. This door is not, however, operable, and like the others it is in poor condition. The remaining openings are boarded up with plywood, the lack of proper sealing leading to internal degradation of the building due to the effects of rodents, insects and the elements.

Roof: Representing the most pressing and significant issue, the roof was blown off during a 2011 storm. As noted, water poses an extreme threat to adobe, making this step especially urgent.

94

Development At the time of the authorship of this plan, the land parcel containing the 1908 Vail & Post Office is under private ownership, and has not been acquired by the Vail Preservation Society, despite their best efforts. VPS board decided to purchase the building in November of 2011, completing a survey and all requisite actions by the following year and expecting a purchase date the week of January 10, 2012. For reasons unknown, this arrangement fell through, and the parcel occupying the space between the two railroad tracks and the entire historic town site was instead sold to a different purchaser. Current plans for the parcel involve its development for commercial enterprises, which would necessarily result in the demolition of the Post Office. Negotiations are ongoing, however the parcel is currently zoned for such development, and pending the acquisition of the Post Office by the purchase of the entire parcel or a portion thereof, the current development plan has few obstacles impeding the destruction of the Post Office. Despite the significantly lower estimate determined in 2011 for the parcel at the request of the Vail Preservation Society by Southwest Appraisal Associates, Inc., the $1.5 million asking price offered by the current owner is beyond the budget of VPS. Pending a new agreement, the fate of the Post Office remains unresolved, although actions discussed below are being undertaken to insure its preservation and permanently eliminate the risk of demolition.

Community Sentiment Although formal outreach has yet to be undertaken, a disconcerting sentiment of the community concerning the 1908 Vail & Post Office appears to be one of apathy or mild irritation. As the building deteriorates, it is viewed as an eyesore and public safety hazard, especially given the derelict building’s proximity to a local school.

The citing of decaying historic structures as public safety concerns has been utilized in the past to justify demolition, as in the case with the historic EL Con Water Tower located in central Tucson. In 1962, the city had developed plans to destroy the prominent, yet decaying 1928 structure until the local community successfully rallied to save it. In 1991 the water tower officially became a Tucson landmark, and was fully restored by 1994. Instead of removing the nuisance, the historic structure was preserved and rehabilitated, and now represents an iconic element of the neighborhood.

This solution was dependent on community support, which rallied behind the iconic structure as a contributor to their sense of identity and local pride. The protection of the 1908 Vail & Post Office will also depend on this important factor. Most of Vail’s residents are relatively newer transplants to the area, and consequently do not feel a strong connection to the history of the town. This disconnect must be addressed and resolved for

95

the benefit of both the historic building, and the cultivation of a robust community spirit.

ACTION THUS FAR

For a detailed discussion of previous preservation actions, see Section III. Since 2006, the Vail Preservation Society has made efforts towards stabilizing the 1908 Vail & Post Office. Several grants and fundraising collaborations have been acquired to this effort, and an adobe workshop was undertaken to aid in restoration and educate high school students on the principals and methods of preserving historic buildings. Following the stabilizing actions of 2011, VPS enacted a moratorium as of 2012 on all preservation activities to the Old Vail Post Office by their society pending the purchase of the structure or acquisition of an easement.

In order to engage in future preservation efforts and save the original town site and 1908 Vail Store & Post Office from demolition, VPS has initiated a donation campaign in the hopes of raising the quoted $1.5 million (or subsequently decided amount) needed to purchase from the current owner the parcel which encompasses the entire historic town site.

96

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAVING THE TOWN SITE

Awareness In order to generate more support and resources it is advisable that a wider audience be reached. This may be achieved through capitalizing on various forms of media attention, including social media, film and television, publications and periodicals. In comparable situations, community organizations have successfully addressed their preservation goals by seeking avenues to more broadly disseminate their message. Successful preservation efforts in the United States are frequently centered on grass roots campaigns that hinge upon public involvement. As a consequence, public involvement will be crucial. For further discussion and recommendations, refer to Sections 6 and 7.

Grants and Funding The pursuit of relevant grants may aid in the acquisition of funds needed to purchase and protect the town site. Relationships with interested or relevant parties should be cultivated, especially from private individuals or enterprises. By its individual significance and relation to the railroad system and major transportation corridors including old Highway 80, the Post Office could likely benefit from the application for various relevant grants. Potential federal grants to consider include:

• Rural Housing and Economic Development Grants (Department of Housing and Urban Development)

• Recreational Trails Program Grants (Federal Highway Administration) • National Scenic Byways Program (Federal Highway Administration) • Transportation and Transit Enhancements Programs (Federal Highway

Administration and Federal Transit Administration) • America’s Historic Places Grants • Training Programs (Small Business Administration)

Preservation If acquired, certain recommended actions must be considered in the preservation plan for the site’s historic 1908 Vail Store & Post Office addressing the major threats to its structural and historical integrity. For greater detail in the conservation of historic adobe structures, refer to the National Park Service Preservation Brief 5.

As a consequence of its composition, adobe construction is inclined to deteriorate, however, buildings can be made durable and renewable when properly maintained. Preserving and rehabilitating a deteriorated adobe building is most effective when the techniques, materials and methods used for restoration and repairs are as similar as possible to the techniques used in the original construction. Success of any preservation plan for an adobe structure will be contingent on the development of a rehabilitation

97

and restoration scheme that is sensitive to the integrity of the historic adobe building, and a maintenance program for continued conservation.

Before any restoration can take place, it is advisable to secure the services or advice of a professional architect or other preservationist proficient in adobe preservation and stabilization. Restoration or repairs cannot take place until the problems that have been causing the deterioration of the adobe have been found, analyzed, and solved. Although many issues were identified and addressed in the Poster Frost Associates, Inc. report (2005), an assessment of the Post Office to determine its current condition and integrity must be undertaken in light of the significant deterioration and damage resulting from the 2011 storm event. A brief summary of recommendations for addressing the various threats to the preservation of the structure is discussed below, however for an in depth examination see the Poster Frost Associates, Inc. (2005) building condition assessment report.

Site Grading/Drainage: Positive drainage should be provided away from the structure, particularly around the exterior walls where basal coving has already occurred, to protect the foundation systems from variations in soil moisture. This may be achieved in part through small, hand dug drainage ways.

Foundation: A moisture barrier should be added to protect the adobe.

Walls: The cement plaster coating the walls should be removed and any eroded bricks should be repaired or replaced. To protect the adobe from further weathering a lime and earthen plaster should be utilized in place of any cement plaster.

Doors: All doorways should be sealed with historically contextual or compatible doors.

Roof: Must be replaced with historically contextual or compatible material and style.

Floor: If unable to add moisture barrier, concrete slab near the adobe walls should be removed and replaced with brick to allow the escape of moisture.

Cautionary Notes Historically, most adobe walls were composed of adobe bricks laid with mud mortar. Today, cement and lime mortars are commonly used with stabilized adobe bricks, but cement mortars are incompatible with unstabilized adobe because the two have different thermal expansion and contraction rates. Cement mortars thereby accelerate the deterioration of adobe bricks since the mortars are stronger than the adobe. As a consequence, despite their

98

seeming permanence and ease, cement mortars should be avoided when working with adobe structures.

Maintenance Cyclical maintenance has always been the key to successful adobe building survival. As soon as rehabilitation or restoration has been completed, some program of continuing maintenance should be initiated. Changes in the building should particularly be noted. The early stages of cracking, sagging, or bulging in adobe walls should be monitored regularly. All water damage should be noted and remedied at its earliest possible stages. Plant, animal, and insect damage should be halted before it becomes substantial. The roof should be inspected periodically. Surface coatings must be inspected frequently and repaired or replaced as the need indicates.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE STUDY The National Park Service (NPS) maintains the Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI) and, pursuant to a 1997 NPS cultural landscape survey, has established some best practices in the creation of cultural landscapes. These practices are documented in National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory Professional Procedures Guide (1998; revised 2009) (Killion and Hilyard 2009). The creation of a cultural landscape depends on the execution of a cultural landscape survey. This inventory provides information on the nature of historic and cultural resources and their location on the landscape. It will also provide ways historic preservation officials can fashion the cultural landscape into a management unit. The result of the CLI will be a cultural landscape report and historic character study. This report and character study is outlined in the NPS publication A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Concepts, Processes, and Techniques (Page et al. 1998).

RECOMMENDATION FOR CULTURAL LANDSCAPE INVENTORY

It is recommended that the Vail Historical Society perform a CLI as outlined by the NPS. This will allow VPS to create a cultural landscape report, a historic character study and will provide important information that can guide management decision-‐making.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS Preservation incentives make preservation happen. And preservation incentives represent a fiscally responsible investment of scarce public resources (Rypkema 2005:29).

There is still an old guard thinking that preservation work does not pay, that it is a costly luxury that cannot be afforded when times are tight. Contrary to this thinking, it has been proven time and again by the work of large and small communities alike, that through smart preservation programs,

99

not only does conscientious preservation pay, it helps to stabilize the area, incubate business, and foster sustainable economic growth and development. There are many institutionalized methods to incentivize historic preservation and to help the community receive the payoff. After all, as Donovan Rypkema states in his seminal work, The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader’s Guide, “at the most elemental level, economics and preservation are fundamentally about the same thing—saving scarce resources” (Rypkema 2005:7).

It is recommended that the Vail Preservation Society investigate how preservation and cultural resources can be highlighted to bolster and encourage economic activity in the area. Federal and state tax programs are available for the rehabilitation of historic structures, development of an incentive program can be implemented to serve the specific needs of the community, heritage tourism strategies can be employed, federal approaches such as The Main Street Program can be followed, and linking efforts with sustainable practices can help highlight the area’s tremendous cultural and natural resources.

FEDERAL AND STATE TAX CREDIT PROGRAMS

The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program is a crucial and successful program to help stimulate interest and support of preservation efforts. The credits are available for the rehabilitation costs of income-‐producing historic buildings that adhere to criteria made explicit in the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation and are in line with the qualified expenditures detailed by the Secretary of the Interior and the IRS. Each year, approximately 1,000 projects are approved, leveraging nearly $4 billion annually in private investment in the rehabilitation of historic buildings across the country.

100

Arizona Homeowner Tax Credits The State of Arizona maintains a property tax reduction program (State Historic Property Tax Reclassification, SPT) for owner-‐occupied homes listed on the National Register and a property tax incentive program for income-‐producing properties. This program is administered by the SHPO in conjunction with the county assessors.

BUILDING A LOCAL PRESERVATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM

The above described tax credits, as well as many programs described below rely on historic eligibility, and consequently only currently apply to the Old Vail Post Office and potentially soon, the Santa Rita Shrine. A survey will need to be conducted to get a sense of how many homes, commercial, and industrial structures in the Vail area are potentially eligible for historic designation or soon will be eligible. As structures become eligible for historic designation, VPS should be prepared to help owners navigate the financial options available to them by preparing an incentives program and guide.

The availability of the following programs depend on state enabling legislation. Since no two preservation projects are alike, no one incentive can insure the preservation of all historic resources. The incentive program should offer flexibility and variety in order to support project feasibility. VPS should conduct informal meetings with the Vail Community Action Board, The Greater Vail Area Chamber of Commerce, Pima County Historic Preservation Officer, bankers, local corporate CEOs, local business owners and entrepreneurs to develop strategies and community backed-‐programs that are fitting for Vail.

Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) (NPS, Tax Incentives for Preserving Historic Properties 2014) 20% Tax Credit A 20% income tax credit is available for the rehabilitation of historic, income-‐producing buildings that are determined by the Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service, to be “certified historic structures.” This program also permits depreciation of such improvements over 27.5 years for a rental residential property and 31.5 years for commercial property.

10% Tax Credit A 10% tax credit is available for the rehabilitation of non-‐historic buildings placed in service before 1936. The building must be rehabilitated for non-‐residential use. In order to qualify for the tax credit, the rehabilitation work must meet certain criteria listed on the NPS.gov website.

Tax benefit for easements A historic property owner who donates an easement may be eligible for tax benefits, such as a Federal income tax deduction.

101

More information on the below programs and examples of how they have been implemented in other communities can be found in White and Roddewig’s (1994) Preparing a Historic Preservation Plan.

Local Operating-‐Expense (property tax) Incentive Programs Vail Preservation Society should inquire about the possibility of tax incentive programs in the case that the Old Vail Post Office is acquired and rehabilitated for use. These incentives directly reduce expenses of income-‐producing property and lower taxes on owner-‐occupied homes.

Abatements and Freezes: tax abatements generally reduce a percentage of the assessed value of the historic property after improvements for a designated number of years; whereas freezes keep the property tax stable at pre-‐rehabilitation values for a certain period of time.

Tax Deferral: essentially a “no interest loan” in which taxes resulting from an increase in assessed value from the rehabilitation of a historic property are deferred for a period of years or until the sale of the property.

Local Financing Incentive Programs When credit and capital for investment in the real estate are scarce, financing incentives may be more valuable than operating-‐expense reductions. The Vail Preservation Society may consider some of these options to help secure the Old Vail Post Office and other historic resources.

Tax-‐Exempt Bond Financing: Some states and communities provide grants or loans to not-‐for-‐profit organizations that rehabilitate historic properties and is sometimes used for private projects as well. Pima County has been using bond funds to preserve cultural and historical resources since 1974. (It is noted here that VPS successfully worked to include the 1908 building in the 2008 Pima County Bond. In March of 2014 Pima County removed the building from the Bond initiative).

Partnerships with Lending Institutions: VPS may find a partner in local lending institutions—such as commercial banks, savings and loans, and credit unions—that are willing to jointly fund projects through the Preservation Society.

Mortgage Guarantees or Credit Enhancements: The guarantee reduces the risk to the mortgagee, and benefits, such as a waiver or reduction in loan costs or a reduction in interest rates, may be passed onto the developer or property owner.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF): Increases in tax revenues from the redevelopment of a historic district are used to pay bonds that have been issued for capital improvements. Tax recipient agency revenues are frozen during the term of the TIF district. The increment in tax revenues is

102

used to reduce the debt of infrastructure improvements, site improvements, and acquisition.

Loan or Grant Pools: Such pools are generally made available through local governments for the rehabilitation of historic resources, and can be financed through direct appropriations or collections from building permit fees or other fees.

Acquisition or Construction Incentive Programs The Vail Preservation Society may consider these options to help secure the Old Vail Post Office and other historic resources.

Relief from Local Sales Taxes: Relief can take various shapes: forgiveness of sales tax on construction materials; some areas identify “enterprise zones” in which projects in the area qualify for sales tax relief.

Acquisition Pools: Pools for the acquisition of historic resources by local government and subsequent resale at a significant write-‐down to purchasers agreeing to rehabilitate the structure.

Relief from Zoning or Building Code Regulations: Local communities should analyze zoning, parking and other land-‐use management tools for their effect on historic structures (e.g. allowances for the shifting or sale of density; relaxation of use classifications and variance and special use procedures for historic structures; adjustment of building codes for historic structures; reduction in permit fees; and relaxation of parking codes).

Other Programs: Easements: A historic preservation easement is a voluntary legal agreement, typically in the form of a deed that permanently protects an historic property. Through the easement, a property owner places restrictions on the development of or changes to the historic property, then transfers these restrictions to a preservation or conservation organization, usually in return for favorable tax incentives.

An easement could be re-‐considered in the case that VPS cannot secure funding to purchase the Old Vail Post Office. (It is noted that VPS has had funding in place for an easement and that this tool has been refused by both the present and previous owners).

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): TDR programs can help alleviate financial inequity when historic designation restricts the alteration or development of an area. TDR programs allow owners to sell development potential to owners of other sites.

Purchase of Development Rights (PDR): In rural areas or places where view, landscape, or countryside is highly valued, such as Vail, the

103

public can provide cash payment to a landowner (often farmers or ranchers) in exchange for deed restrictions (easement) on the property preventing development of real estate. The land is ultimately conserved by the owner rather than through continuing public expenditures and provides financial incentive to the farmer, rancher or landowner to continue their operation, rather than cashing in to developers. It also supports the preservation of scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, watershed areas, and recreational opportunities. The value of the easement can be calculated as the difference between the fair market value of the land and its value as restricted by the easement, and are often funded by a local tax levy. (Tyler 2009).

A PDR Program should be seriously considered by the Vail Preservation Society to preserve the view shed and landscape in areas where development is threatening cultural and environmental resources. Precedent for PDR programs being implemented in Pima County can be found within the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Refer to Pima County memorandum regarding Purchase of Development Rights Program Discussion Paper dated May 23, 2001, for more information. (Pima County 2001).

104

MAIN STREET PROGRAM

As Rypkema points out, “No model of economic development has been more consistently effective than the ‘Main Street approach’ of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.” He advocates the approach as “a cost effective, grass-‐roots, bottom-‐up process for local economic development” (Rypkema 2005:18). Officially launched in 1980 by the National Trust, the program emphasizes historic preservation as a tool for small towns’ efforts to promote economic development and downtown revitalization. The approach consists of four-‐points: organization, promotion, design, and economic restructuring. While each town may employ the points to varying degrees and in a manner that suits their particular needs, the National Main Street Center, Inc., which organizes information and provides resources to participating communities, has made it clear that it is vital that each point be integrated and balanced in order to achieve success.

Today, the program boasts: “cumulatively, commercial districts taking part in the Main Street program have generated more than $55.7 billion in new investment, with a net gain of more than 473,000 new jobs and 109,000 new businesses, and over 236,000 buildings rehabilitated” (PreservationNation.org 2014). For every dollar spent by the community on its Main Street program, $18 in new investment is leveraged, making the program one of the most successful economic development strategies in America.

As will be recommended below, the Main Street Program could offer Vail a method for economic revitalization by emphasizing and promoting its rich heritage and cultural resources within the original town site, along with the historic and current “main street.” The town site, born from the railroad, is unique in that it encompasses numerous transit routes—the railroad tracks, old transcontinental Highway 80, prehistoric migratory routes, the Butterfield Stage line, and the current Colossal Cave Road (renamed in 2003 from Vail Road)—demonstrating a possibility for a unique and significant interpretation of what the “Main Street” of Vail actually signifies.

The Main Street Four-‐Point Approach (Robertson 2004:57) Organization: fundraising; committee structure; membership recruitment; and consensus building and cooperation amongst the many businesses, individuals, institutions, and government offices with a stake in downtown

Design: enhancement of downtown’s physical assets and visual qualities (i.e., buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, waterfronts)

Promotion: marketing the downtown to the public, working to enhance its image, and hosting events and activities to bring people downtown

Economic Restructuring: strengthening and diversifying the downtown’s economic base

105

HERITAGE TOURISM

Since the mid-‐1980s, tourism has become the world’s largest industry, with heritage tourism representing one of the fastest growing sectors there within (Timothy and Boyd 2002:1). While the economic-‐use incentives of tourism could seem to contradict the ethos of preservation, the development of a heritage tourism strategy frequently benefits the historical resources as well as the community responsible for their stewardship. The value that a heritage resource may offer economically, especially when considering the incidental expenditures visitors make within the host community, justifies and in many cases funds its preservation.

The cultivation of heritage tourism for the city of Vail would follow a recent trend in North America, where small communities have begun to establish and support their locally relevant historic sites (Timothy and Boyd 2002:16). In many cases, these sites demonstrate common elements, such as churches, historic homes, businesses and farmhouses, creating a precedent for the type of conservation proposed for Vail. These attractions not only draw regional and broader tourism, but contribute significantly to the local heritage experience. Supporting special events and extracurricular activities at heritage sites can offset operation and preservation costs while providing local community involvement and entertainment (Timothy and Boyd 2002:145).

In developing heritage tourism for any community, it is important to recognize who the target demographic for the heritage asset is and what their motivations for travel may be. In general, older people are more likely to travel for heritage reasons than younger demographics, and may potentially be the focus of any marketing strategy or considerations for the development of a tourism plan. However, other interests relevant to Vail may draw other groups, including outdoors types seeking natural landscapes and hiking, history buffs and education-‐oriented tourists (Timothy and Boyd 2002). Within heritage tourism, the primary motivator of tourists is the pursuit of knowledge, which includes learning about culture and nature, and generally enriching one’s personal knowledge and experience. According to Confer and Kerstetter (2000), about a quarter of the heritage tourists surveyed in their report indicated a strong interest in local culture, heritage or ethnicity as the primary drive for visiting heritage sites in southern Pennsylvania. Potential tourists have both pride and interest in exploring their pasts and the pasts of others, frequently leading visitors to sites that embody nostalgic values and lifestyles that are rapidly disappearing in the modern world. This desire for an educational experience, and contextual exploration of history and our mutual pasts should be considered in the rendering of the historic town site, and defined heritage assets around Vail as a destination for locals and visitors alike.

106

Similarly, local heritage assets should be assessed and utilized, especially in connection with one another. Maps, guidebooks, applications or electronic sites and features could be produced to provide information and background on regional attractions, as well as audio/visual or static presentations at the historic town site. Other heritage assets in the regions to consider include Colossal Cave Mountain Park, historic and modern hiking trails, ghost towns, historic mines, architecture and ranches. Both the natural and built resources of Vail should be considered and marketed, with integrated interpretive material located at the town site, as a natural gateway from travelers arriving from I-‐10 to the heritage sites of Vail.

Interpretive elements, to be discussed in greater depth in Section 7, are largely education-‐based activities that reveal significances and connections behind historic sites, conveying stories about events and people. These may take the form of displays and exhibits, printed brochures and maps, signs, audio presentations or guided tours, to name a few. Well-‐presented interpretive elements will help visitors find their way around, make connections, offer variety, and tell a good story. Above all, understanding the audience for which this material is intended is paramount in the creation of cogent and accessible interactive displays. (For a more in-‐depth discussion see Tilden 1977, Field and Wagar 1982, Nuryanti 1997, Uzzell 1994, and Timothy and Boyd 2002).

Common sources of revenue at heritage sites (Timothy and Boyd 2002:144; after Stevens 1995) Direct funding

• Government funding • Local authority

funding • Grants • Donations • Legacies • Membership • Endowments • Sponsorship/joint

promotions • Affinity cards

Retail • Merchandising • Mail order • Farm shops • Garden centers • Franchise

reproduction • Off-‐site shops • Currency exchanges • Plants • Specialty shops

Accommodation • Bed and breakfasts • Training courses • Regional

conferences • Holiday cottages

Private hire • Film sets • Photography • Product launches • Renting artifacts

Events • Festivals • Craft fairs • Historical re-‐

enactments • Plays/concerts • Horse/dog/car shows • Battle games • Exhibitions • Sporting activities

Interpretation • Guidebooks

• Other publications • Audio tours • Audiovisuals • Guided tours • Machines/simulators

Catering • Restaurants/cafes/s

nack bars • Banquets • Corporate

entertainment • Conferences

Admissions • Site/entrance fees • Car parking fees • Activity

participation fees Leasing property

• Land cultivation • Caravan parks • Golf courses

107

Elements in the mission of heritage attractions (Timothy and Boyd 2002:134, after Garrod and Fyall 2000:691)

Conservation: The role of the heritage manager is to safeguard the heritage for posterity; to ensure that the use of heritage by the present generation does not compromise the ability of future generations to use and benefit from those assets; and to ensure that the present generation properly manages the heritage assets it holds in trust for the nation as a whole

Accessibility: Heritage only has significance in so far as it benefits people. If people are prevented from experiencing heritage objects, it can no longer be considered part of their heritage. However, high levels of accessibility can lead to heritage assets being damaged. At the same time, conservation requirements can prevent the present generation from enjoying heritage to the fullest extent

Education: Education plays a crucial role in achieving accessibility. To appreciate heritage, visitors must be able to understand its nature and importance, including why it needs to be conserved. This requires the use of various interpretive techniques, ranging from the very formal to the very informal. Education is most effective if it is also entertaining.

Relevance: Heritage sites must be relevant to as broad an audience as possible. They should not simply be the domain of a small minority of ‘heritage enthusiasts.’ Ideally, all visitors should leave with a better appreciation of why the heritage asset is relevant to them, the local area, and to the nation as a whole. Heritage attractions should also seek to be something with which the local community can identify, giving them a greater sense of place and pride

Recreation: Part of the mission of heritage attractions must be to entertain visitors and provide recreational opportunities. If they do not enjoy themselves, visitors will be less likely to make return visits or to recommend the attraction to others. Nonetheless, conservation requirements may by necessity limit the recreational potential of a heritage place

Financial: Heritage attractions need to be financially sound if they are to achieve their aims. Finances need not, however, be generated entirely by charging for admission, and some external funding, particularly for expensive conservation work, will most certainly be required

Local Community: The heritage site should seek to work in harmony with the host community. Visitors should not be permitted to use the heritage attraction at the expense of the residents. Heritage places can also have important economic multiplier effects throughout the community

108

Quality: Heritage sites must provide high-‐quality service to their customers if they expect to compete in an ever more crowded tourism marketplace. This includes providing a range of facilities, flexibility, a high standard of cleanliness, well-‐trained staff and adequate car parking. If a charge is made for admission then the attraction should aim to exceed visitor’s expectations

Of major consideration in developing a successful heritage tourism plan is the provision of quality attractions and interpretive or interactive material. Even if the primary concern of a heritage site is its resource conservation, it is important to remember that tourism is a significant economic generator and should be duly recognized and utilized. Fundamentally, tourism is a service-‐based industry, and research indicates that a positive visitor experience can increase respect for the site and minimize contention surrounding its continued conservation. “High-‐quality experiences which satisfy visitors’ expectation, motivations and needs…can modify and influence the behavior of visitors in such a way as to ensure that the values of the heritage resource are maintained” (Hall and McArthur 1993:13). To this end, the attraction should be inexpensive, user friendly, and physically and intellectually accessible to diverse groups. It should also be managed in a manner that balances the needs of visitors with those of conservation, with constant attention to the maintenance of the site’s integrity and authenticity (Timothy and Boyd 2002:172).

COMMON RESULTS OF PRESERVATION PROGRAMS

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation identified various benefits commonly accrued, both directly and indirectly, by communities through preservation programs including: new businesses formed, private investment stimulated, tourism stimulated, increased property value, enhanced quality of life, sense of place and pride in community, new jobs created, compatible land-‐use patterns, increased property and sales taxes, and pockets of deterioration and poverty diluted (Rypkema 2005).

The summary of economic benefits of preservation activity below is gathered from Rypkema’s (2005) The Economics of Historic Preservation, a great resource for public officials and organizations looking for specific answers to preservation economics. Review this document for more detailed information.

Economic Development Historic preservation has an extraordinarily positive and comprehensive impact on communities that have embraced it. Evaluations of its effects have focused on job-‐creating impacts of individual rehabilitation projects, cost effectiveness of revitalization programs, the stabilizing effects of historic districts on property values and communities, the draw of heritage tourism, and the use of historic preservation in overall economic

109

development plans. In all these cases, when historic preservation has been tried and measured, clearly, it pays.

Job Creation Dollar for dollar, preservation is one of the highest job-‐generating economic development options available. In general, labor and materials are evenly split over the cost of new construction, whereas in a typical historic rehabilitation project, between 60 and 70 percent of the total cost is labor. In rehabilitation projects, the labor is nearly always hired locally, which means the paycheck is spent locally. Especially in an economic downturn, turning to rehabilitation and repurposing is a cost-‐effective, solution to building concerns, when the primary drive is how to accomplish successful design within a budget.

Sustainability Following an age of unmitigated sprawl, two factors immerge as true: we must plan how we use our land better; and we must use—or reuse—the capacity of older buildings, neighborhoods, towns, and downtowns to a greater extent than they are used now. Current structures can be improved or adapted to offer a more sustainable solution for managing changes to our built environment. Planners, architects, and policy makers should especially focus on repurposing our current structures—for their vast material resources and cultural significance—with history as the point of departure. This emphasis lends legitimacy, significance and nuance to the act of revitalization, while remaining sensitive to the existing constitution of our communities and environment.

Counter-‐cyclical and Incremental Historic preservation fosters incremental economic development, not a mythical “big fix.” As part of a comprehensive plan, the impact of historic preservation efforts is compounded from numerous projects over time. It is a counter-‐cyclical activity that stabilizes the local economy due to its relative affordability compared to new construction, offering a more modest scaled alternative, providing jobs for local labor, and ensuring stability to property value if part of a historic district.

Increased Property Value It has been consistently found that property value within historic districts appreciate significantly faster than the market as a whole and introduce stability and certainty into the market, resisting fluctuations and speculation.

Small Business Incubation For both size and occupancy reasons, small business and historic buildings fit well together. The cost of acquisition of existing structures is nearly always cost effective compared with new construction and keeps low occupancy costs, especially essential in the early years of a small business.

110

Quality of Life Quality of life plays an integral role today in attracting businesses to locations and is a critical ingredient in economic development. A community’s history and sense of place is demonstrated through existing historic structures and how well a community conveys its heritage. This offers attractive incentives for businesses and individuals when looking for a place to relocate. More and more studies are showing the dynamic and pronounced influence that the quality of life aspect is playing on these decisions. Socially, historic preservation attaches people to their community, provides a sense of place, connects them to their neighbors, and encourages public participation” (Rypkema 2005:68).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

The whole process of economic development is one of encouraging the private sector to act in such a way as to generate community benefit. (Rypkema 2005:28).

Prepare Incentive Program This plan proposes that the Vail Preservation Society work with local businesses, the Greater Vail Area Chamber of Commerce, Santa Rita Foothill Association, Empire-‐Fagan Coalition, home owners associations, the Community Action Board, and Pima County to implement a preservation incentive program that helps facilitate private and public efforts to fund preservation projects. By structuring programs formed with the community’s needs in mind, projects will be simplified and expedited, encouraging more community members to be aware of and preserve cultural resources. After a program is developed, VPS should work to educate the community on the funding opportunities available to preservation projects.

To facilitate these programs, it will be essential to complete a survey of surrounding buildings to understanding what types of structures and the number of associated resources that may merit protection now or in the future. This will help the community be proactive in saving their historic structures and understanding how best to incentivize their preservation. The survey should inventory dates that homes, commercial and industrial structures become eligible (i.e. 50 years of age) if they are not so currently. Particular attention should be given to any structures constructed after WWII and in the postwar boom, as these are recently eligible, or will soon become eligible in regard to age and may merit protection. See appendix for an example survey completed by the Mesa Historic Preservation Plan.

Explore the Main Street Program in Vail With Vail Preservation Society’s emphasis on preserving the original Vail town site, The 1908 Vail & Post Office, and old Highway 80, The Main Street Program may be an option to help revitalize the area, encourage economic

111

restructuring and promote Vail’s distinct history. VPS should also consider the purchase and returning of the 1910 Vail Section Foreman House to its original location at the town site. With little remaining of the original structures in the town site, the program will either need to be interpretive or rely heavily on the landscape as its primary emphasis and design motif. Additional consideration should include the numerous transit routes through the town site (e.g. the railroad tracks, old transcontinental Highway 80, prehistoric migratory routes, the Butterfield Stage line, and the current Colossal Cave road), which is suggestive of a unique interpretation for the meaning of “Main Street” in Vail.

Building commercially in the area will be a delicate matter as to not compromise the historic, cultural and environmental integrity of the town site. If VPS and the Vail Community decide they would like to bring businesses into the town site area, this plan recommends that it look for ways to encourage compatible commercial ventures, such as recreational services, traditional craftsmanship and artisan shops, or businesses who may share in the heritage of Vail’s downtown. It may also be worth looking into the possibility of bringing the United States Postal Service back into the Old Vail Post Office even at a minimal level, such as selling commemorative stamps, etc. The building could also serve as a welcome/visitors center.

It is recognized in this plan that VPS plans to host a Main Street Program workshop in the summer of 2014 with neighboring communities and affiliated organizations.

Heritage Tourism Program Heritage Tourism programs should be explored that target both far-‐ranging and local audiences. It is important to understand and recognize a target demographic, which may be outdoor enthusiasts, history buffs, or education-‐oriented tourists. Almost without exception, heritage tourists desire perspective into culture and nature for personal knowledge and enrichment, and a heritage tourism program should facilitate this objective. Heritage assets should be connected and integrated through maps, guidebooks, applications, electronic, audio/visual or static presentations to provide varied information in a manner that reaches all target audiences.

Surrounding destinations should be recognized and incorporated, such as Colossal Cave Mountain Park, historic and modern hiking trails, ghost towns, historic mines, architecture and ranches. Both the natural and built resources of Vail should be considered and marketed, with integrated interpretive material located at the town site, as a natural crossroads for travelers and locals. It is essential to choose methods that balance the needs of visitors with those of the resources being preserved, with constant attention to the maintenance of the site’s integrity and authenticity.

112

TOWN SITE DESIGN CONCEPTS AND ALTERNATIVES Efforts to preserve the heritage sites outlined in this document have extended over several years and reflect a substantial investment of resources and energy from the Vail Preservation Society. The stabilization of affected heritage is paramount for their continued existence and integrity, however the isolated preservation of these sites, landscapes and the built environment individually represents only a minimally desired outcome. Surviving alone only as static, disconnected, museum pieces, the heritage of Vail is ill served to express the broader story and relevance of Vail’s history. As simple vernacular buildings, the historic structures of Vail are not singly significant, but rather derive their value as an integrated part of the rich historic context of the town of Vail. This plan calls for the development of a comprehensive and cohesive design strategy for both conserving and best utilizing Vail’s heritage and tourism opportunities to the benefit of the community. Building a context and connection between heritage resources in Vail and the surrounding area, while providing much needed public spaces will best insure that the potential of these sites is realized. The scenarios below represent varying degrees of integration and investment. These different levels will depend on many factors including, but not limited to, monetary investment from conservation organizations and Pima County, among many other individuals and agencies, the level of support from the community, and finally, the buy-‐in

from private sector business and industries in the general area. The following are three potential scenarios, organized within three distinct design and preservation levels, from the most basic of actions and connectivity to a fully integrated heritage center.

ALTERNATIVE 1: MINIMUM – STABILIZE

The first design scenario represents the “minimum” level of preservation activities. Resulting from a scenario wherein the community has invested minimally in the conservation of Vail’s historic sites and structures, this

Alternative 1 Minimum site plan

113

strategy would entail only the stabilization of the 1908 Vail & Post Office and other endangered heritage resources. Should fundraising efforts be less than fruitful or investment from Pima County and other sources nominal, this may be the sole alternative available to the Vail Preservation Society. Immediate actions would thus be to acquire the 1908 Vail & Post Office building or property and focus on essential repairs and restoration.

Level of Connectivity: Basic efforts would be made to preserve the discrete cultural resources, however they would continue to be managed individually with no effort made towards a unifying program.

Actions must be taken to:

• Acquire and stabilize the 1908 Vail & Post Office. • Construct and promote a land-‐use plan to preserve the view shed. • Continue developing education programs to teach the importance of

preservation and protecting Vail’s cultural heritage. • Maintain Old Vail Road as an unpaved, historic dirt road. • Maintain Colossal Cave Road as a three-‐lane road (improvements

scheduled to begin in August 2014).

The image below is a rendering by Eglin and Cohen Architects in 2008 of the 1908 Vail & Post Office after essential restoration has been completed. Situated on the only major artery into Vail, the building would exist amidst new development without historic context and minimal programming

opportunities.

Alternative 1 Minimum rendering

114

ALTERNATIVE 2 & 3: MODERATE – INTERPRETIVE PROGRAMS + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The second and third design scenarios are at the “moderate” preservation level. This level would result from a situation where the community has moderately invested in Vail’s heritage as a cultural resource. In order to succeed, these scenarios would require support from the community through public participation and fundraising efforts and investment from Pima County through grants or other fiscal support. The main goal of these scenarios would be first to stabilize the Old Vail Post Office and then implement the creation of a robust interpretive program, accompanied with economic development opportunities. Immediate actions required by these scenarios include purchasing the Old Vail Post Office and town site property, performing essential restoration, and developing additional economic growth opportunities through programming and added amenities.

Located on the major route (Colossal Cave Road) off of Interstate-‐10 and only arterial road into Vail, the dilapidated Post Office currently represents a major eyesore for residents and incoming visitors to the Vail area. Fundamental to the moderate design scenarios would be the utilization of the Post Office’s prominent position to instead serve as a positive introduction to the city, reinforce Vail’s historic roots, and act as a gateway to the cultural resources and tourist attractions of the area. The historic town site and post office once functioned as a nexus of social interaction, where transportation routes and the mail system brought together people and news from the region and beyond. As a visitor and cultural resource center, the Post Office and town site could once again operate as a locus for the community. Restoring and converting the Post Office to a functional visitor center and museum, with information concerning historic Vail, Colossal Cave, hiking trails and other local sites of interest, would be the focus of the moderate design program. An

Alternative 2 Moderate site plan

115

interpretive program, condensing educational and engaging historical contexts, along with a concerted connection between natural and cultural resources of the area should be integrated into the design of the town site and heritage center, utilizing various media and interactive activities or displays. Opportunities for local business and community involvement could be cultivated, including the development of the area around the historic town site with compatible venues for recreation and commerce. Merchandise, maps, interactive material and refreshments are among the many items that could be potentially available in the retail development of the 1908 Vail & Post Office building itself. In addition, coordinating with the National Trust’s Main Street program may yield further incentives and options to explore.

Level of Connectivity: The cultural resources are connected through an interpretive program and create a sustainable and compatible economic development program. The historic town site would serve as a locus for heritage, culture and tourism activities in area.

Actions should be taken to:

• Open the 1908 Vail and Post Office as a functional public space (e.g. visitor’s center & shop)

• Establish town site as historic district o Design guidelines: design to be informed by historic

constructions (scale, material, height); compatible but distinct infill

! Not to limit creativity, but to maintain the landscape as primary context and compliment historic design

! Traditional, environmentally friendly and sustainable techniques preferred

• Implement land-‐use ordinances that preserve view shed (e.g. height restrictions, density control)

• Main Street Program o Encourage the development of appropriate commercial ventures,

such as traditional craftsmanship and artisans (blacksmithing and farrier shops, recreational services)

o Bring USPS back into the Old Post Office (e.g. sell commemorative stamps)

The images below illustrate the “moderate” design concept. The following renders present 2 efficient ways of accomplishing such goals. These renders reflect the combination of economic development opportunities and programming attached to the historical nature of the Post Office, the Shrine of Santa Rita in the Desert. These designs look to enhancing the connection between the 2 landmarks and not hinder it.

116

The first design concept reflects the vision of the design team. In this concept the Post Office is restored and surrounded by a recreation area with natural and native vegetation. The vegetation will reflect native plants that require low amounts of water and maintenance. In addition, this area will incorporate some items reminiscent of Vail’s historical past, perhaps a restored train or a pioneer wagon. The area will also be surrounded by 3 buildings that will aide in with the economic development goals of this design concept. These buildings will accommodate for restaurants and shops amongst other commercial opportunities. The parking is located on the North side of the site, in order to maintain the integrity of the property. A 41.5

ft. easement is located directly adjacent to the tracks in observance of the regulation.

The second design in the “moderate” category was developed by the Vail Preservation Society. The design was created in hopes that it would generate excitement about the potential of the site. Providing much of the basis for the previous design, this concept has the Post Office restored and surrounded by a recreation area with natural and native vegetation. In addition to the design elements outlined in the above concept, two further commercial structures are included. These are meant to promote added economic development opportunities in the area. In this particular design,

Alternative 2 Moderate rendering

Alternative 3 Moderate, VPS Commissioned Rendering by Deryn Davidson, University of Arizona 2013 Olmstead Scholar

117

the parking lot is located on the Post Office parcel rather than on the north part of the site and incorporates a playground on the westernmost part of the site.

ALTERNATIVE 4: ULTIMATE – CULTURAL LANDSCAPE + HERITAGE BASED ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING

The final design scenario is the “ultimate” preservation level. This level would result from a scenario where the community has substantially invested in the post office as a cultural resource. This would require monetary contributions. The investment from the community should come from lucrative and extensive fundraising efforts and investment from Pima County through grants or other such support. The main goal of this scenario would be to create a site that generates excitement from the community. Additionally, the ultimate scenario would create a public-‐use center that utilizes natural and cultural resources to promote economic development opportunities for Vail. The actions required include purchasing the property, performing substantial restoration of the Post Office, creating additional economic development opportunities through programming and added amenities, and finally, the extension of these efforts to surrounding historical properties

and buildings in the community. Level of connectivity: Create an economic engine to preserve the landscape. Establish and promote Vail as a distinct place (identity or branding) and as a crossroads that links to all of the Vail area, Tucson, Colossal Cave, and surrounding attractions.

Actions should be taken to:

• Establish the town site and beyond as a public-‐use area that utilizes: nature preserves and land conservation; outdoor cultural

Image 2 Alternative 4 Ultimate site plan

118

center or venue for events; walking trails; water conservation; and interpretive and instructional programs that communicate the historic and prehistoric value (e.g. footprints for historic structures no longer in existence)

o Create comprehensive land-‐use plan; preserve view shed • Solicit appropriate commercial ventures

o Re-‐establish a rail stop o Dude Ranches and vacation ranching o Recreational shops (e.g. REI) o Bus Tours

• Development of Rancho del Lago lands into Community Park – bike trail to connect Town Site Park to Rancho del Lago Park.

o Utilize adjacent creek in plans o Utilize remaining historic remnants (e.g. retaining wall, Foot

Bridge, etc.)

The design images below illustrate 2 views of the same concept. The concept incorporates elements from the preferred VPS scenario and incorporates some elements that the design team felt were needed in order to create the desired result. In this concept, the Post Office is substantially restored and surrounded by a recreation area with natural and native vegetation. As some of the previous concepts have shown, this concept also incorporates some items reminiscent of Vail’s historical past. These could include a restored train or a pioneer wagon. The area will also be surrounded by only 1 commercial structure and restores the 2 historical homes/structures on the west side of the site. The commercial area is meant to promote additional economic development opportunities for Vail. Finally, the parking lot is located on the North side of the site in order to maintain the integrity of the property and a 41.5 ft. easement is located directly adjacent to the tracks in observance of the regulation.

119

CONCLUSION

The material presented in this section represent a variety of different alternatives available to the Vail Preservation Society as they look for methods for restoring the site. These are only preliminary ideas and many could be combined to obtain different results. All options should be explored and many of them will depend on funding and community buy-‐in. The reality of all of these is that the community will have to weigh in before any of these options are implemented. Further analysis is also needed when considering archeology, county and state ordinances, and design concepts. The goal of this project is to enhance the viability of the Post Office as a historical site but also highlight the incredible amount of historical resources that surround this site. With that in mind, it is important to go with an option that will allow for easy adaptation for future situations.

Image 4 Alternative 4 Ultimate Rendering 1

Image 3 Alternative 4 Ultimate Rending 2

120

SECTION 7 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

Below are some guiding principles and recommendations discussed throughout the Vail Historic Preservation Plan. These guidelines should be considered by the Vail Preservation Society and the community as they make decisions regarding the future of Vail’s preservation program.

GOALS

• Utilize the outlined environmental and cultural history of the area to inform preservation activity

• Understand the past and ongoing preservation efforts in the area to successfully integrate and expand Vail’s preservation program

• Place a distinct emphasis on the link between Vail’s cultural significance and its landscape

• Explore land-‐use strategies to maintain view shed and highlight the area’s cultural landscape

• Implement public participation strategies as a critical tool for preservation planning

• Balance and integrate the needs of the cultural resources with those of the community

• Explore program alternatives for the proposed historic/cultural district

OBJECTIVES

• Highlight the Santa Rita Shrine is an example of what preservation can add to a community: a sense of place and identity; enhancement of character and aesthetics in historic "downtown" Vail

• Acquisition and stabilization of the Vail Post Office is a critical component to any preservation program in Vail as the only remaining piece of the historic town site

• Old Vail road must be left unpaved and preserved as a linear cultural resource

• Colossal Cave road cannot be widened beyond three lanes, which would jeopardize the relationship between the 1908 Vail & Post Office, the Shrine of Santa Rita in the Desert in the Desert and the transit routes through the original town site; these elements ARE Historic Vail.

ACTIONS

Surveys • Perform a Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI) as outlined by the NPS. • Conduct a preservation charrette survey (see appendix for sample). • Conduct a survey of surrounding buildings to inventory types of

structures, quantity and age (see appendix for example).

121

• Survey for the verification and potential mapping of the Butterfield Stage route through Vail.

Public Participation • Form a Citizens’ Steering Committee • Creation of a local growth management plan based on heritage

conservation. • Implement a preservation incentive program that helps facilitate

private and public efforts to fund preservation projects. • Explore the Main Street Program as a tool to promote Vail’s distinct

history and facilitate economic restructuring in the area. • Explore heritage tourism programs that target both far-‐ranging and

local audiences and include cultural resources of the greater Vail area as well as surrounding destinations.

• Determine through public involvement which site design alternative best meets the goals of the community (minimum stabilization; interpretive programs and economic development; or the coupling of large scale land conservation/public use areas with heritage based economic restructuring).

RECOMMENDED 5-‐YEAR REVIEW If the Vail Preservation Society chooses to implement the recommendations within this plan it is the suggestion of the team that the plan be periodically reviewed. It is standard for such documents to undergo a 5-‐year review to determine whether further clarification or adjustments are needed for the plan. The table below gives an outline of the actions that should take place on the year leading up to the review (in quarters).

Quarter 1 (January-‐March): The first quarter of the year leading up to the 5 year review of the document should begin with community outreach to insure that the public knows when the update will begin and what the goal of the process is. In addition, this quarter also incorporate the beginning of the public comment period.

Quarter 2 (April-‐June): The second quarter of the year should consist of public meetings where the community can come and express their feelings and opinions regarding the actions of the Vail Preservation Society under the existing preservation plan.

Quarter 3 (July-‐September): This quarter will be dedicated to analyzing the comments received during both the comment period and the meetings. The comments can be received electronically, by phone, letter or at a community meeting.

Quarter 4 (October-‐December): The final quarter of the year should consist of sharing the results of the comments and updating the plan.

122

Objective The objective of this process is to create opportunities for the community to contribute their long-‐term visions for their historical sites. To reiterate the statement of goals previously presented in this plan, it is the aim of the document to, “Provide a public outreach strategy with specific recommendations for implementing public participation in ongoing preservation efforts.” The recommendation to implement a 5-‐year review is to demonstrate the commitment of VPS to preservation and to the people of Vail.

Quarter 5-‐Year Review Preparation

Quarter 1 Begin outreach regarding upcoming review (Radio, TV, Newspapers); Public comment period opens

Quarter 2 Public meetings to discuss the plan begin

Quarter 3 Comment Analysis

Quarter 4 Results of community input shared with the public; Plan is updated and shared with public (community, officials)

123

RESOURCES AND APPENDICES

SAMPLE PRESERVATION CHARRETTE QUESTIONNAIRE In order to help the Vail Preservation Society explore the possibility of preserving several historic properties in the area, we would like to hear from you. We would like to know how you feel about the following statements, based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 meaning “Strongly Agree,” 3 meaning “Neutral,” and 1 meaning “Strongly Disagree.” 1. It is important to preserve properties that are significant to Vail’s history and culture

1 2 3 4 5

Please specify specific properties you would like to see preserved:________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

2. Owners of designated historic properties should be allowed to make alterations that do not change the property’s historic character.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Significant alterations to designated historic properties should be reviewed by a Vail Preservation Steering Committee or Commission.

1 2 3 4 5

4. Demolition of designated historic properties should not be allowed by the County except in cases of extreme hardship.

1 2 3 4 5

5. Alterations of demolitions of designated historic properties should go through the same review process as any other property.

1 2 3 4 5

124

6. Requests for alterations or demolitions of designated historic properties should be given special consideration in the planning process.

1 2 3 4 5

7. Owners of designated historic properties should not be more limited than non-‐historic property owners.

1 2 3 4 5

8. Owners of designated historic properties should be eligible for incentives to maintain their historic properties.

1 2 3 4 5

Please specify specific incentives you would like to see provided to property owners: ________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

9. Pima county should adopt an Historic Vail Preservation ordinance to promote, protect, and preserve properties that are significant to Vail’s history and culture.

1 2 3 4 5

Additional comments: ___________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

* This questionnaire has been adapted for use in Vail from the “City of Temple City Preservation Workshop Questionnaire for an historic preservation ordinance” (City of Temple City 2013).

125

SAMPLE SURVEY FOR INVENTORYING AGE AND TYPE OF STRUCTURES IN AREA

Figure 1 Example of a survey completed for the Mesa Historic Preservation Plan (City of Mesa, 2002).

126

HERITAGE TOURISM GRANTS AND FURTHER INFORMATION Heritage Tourism is a high-‐income field, grossing about 192 billion dollars per year. This income can be used towards the development of local communities and creation of jobs. At the community and local level heritage sites help to build a community identity and pride. These sites can bring people together, get them talking, and give them a feeling of local pride and satisfaction.

Heritage tourism can also be used to promote intangible heritage. Festivals of the arts help to educate and perpetuate traditional knowledge. Dances, crafts, music, cuisines, are all things that are not easily represented in the archaeological record.

One of the most imperative things to remember about heritage tourism is that the past is important to people. People care, so the ability to maintain a meaningful connection to their past as well as the pasts of others is part of basic human propensities. This is part of the ethos of a preservation movement.

There are drawbacks to Heritage Tourism. Vandalism, looting, littering, overuse (loving a site to death), rapid growth, and poor interpretive programs, which are historically inaccurate or intentionally misrepresented for political reasons are a few examples. There are strategies to overcome these obstacles, but the first step is to consider your ethical obligations:

Promote coexistence of cultural values: understand that not everyone visits the site for the same reasons. Some may come to learn, others may come to worship or leave religious offerings, others might simply use the space for a hobby.

Ensure that local community is not being exploited: are they benefiting from the effort? Who is getting the most profit? It should not be a foreign entity.

Promote honest, unbiased and accurate interpretation of the past.

Strategies to Overcome the Drawbacks of Tourism:

1. Most effective and least restrictive: you always want the solution to problems to be the most effective (least damage) while also not overly restrictive for the people visiting the site.

2. Know your guests and their patterns: tourism is a service industry. You need to understand your guests, know who is coming to the site and be able to accommodate them. If you can plan for guests and their behavior you are better able to provide a good guest experience and limit damage to the site.

127

3. You may have to limit access to the site or its parts but you need to do it in a way that is not frustrating to your guests. You need them to come back or give word of mouth advertising.

4. Maximize hands-‐on opportunities: give people something to touch, or to climb on, to keep them away from touching or climbing on sensitive areas.

To avoid littering, polluting, and damage to sensitive areas, set up activity areas to promote activities in specified places, away from sensitive areas.

Consider the types of infrastructure you will need (e.g. facilities, walkway materials, seating). Locate these strategically.

Consider what languages signs and interpretive materials should include.

Accommodate special interest groups.

Provide secondary trails that are less obvious than pathways to entice the more adventurous guests. It will help keep them off sensitive areas.

Discussions about limiting access is a balancing act between all interest groups and preservation purposes.

Replicas are a great way of maximizing hands on experience. They keep people busy, satisfying their need to touch or climb on something, or interact physically with the site.

How to Build a Successful Heritage Tourism Site

1. Consult local community and stakeholders 2. Financial Planning 3. Establish interpretive goals and objectives 4. Identify potential adverse effects 5. Mitigate adverse effects using effective strategies, such as those

discussed here

Economic Resources Available for Heritage Tourism Sites:

Community Development Block Grant: directed toward revitalizing neighborhoods, economic development, and providing improved community facilities and services. communities have discretion in how they spend funds and can use them to support heritage tourism initiatives or related infrastructure.

Rural Housing and Economic Development Grants: They can fund projects involving heritage tourism and economic development through use of historic properties

National Heritage Areas Program (National Park Service): National Heritage Areas are individually authorized by Congress and receive funding, technical

128

assistance, and management support from the National Park Service. Heritage area designation provides a vehicle for promoting local economic and cultural vitality by capitalizing on an area’s heritage assets, particularly through heritage tourism.

National Register of Historic Places "Discover Our Shared Heritage" Travel Itineraries (National Park Service): Maps and travel itineraries (printed and online) have been developed linking National Register properties on a thematic or regional basis. To date there are 30 itineraries online.

National Scenic Byways Program (Federal Highway Administration): This program provides technical and financial assistance to help preserve America’s scenic roads and promote tourism and economic development. Grants are available to assist states in implementing projects on National Scenic Byways and developing state scenic byways. The national scenic byways system currently includes 125 nationally designated byways; approximately 400 additional scenic byways are recognized at the state level.

Recreational Trails Program Grants (Federal Highway Administration): These grants can be used to maintain, restore, and rehabilitate trails, including National Historic Trails, and rehabilitate trailside facilities. They can also support acquisition of easements or titles to property for trails, including acquisition of old road or railroad bridges to be used as recreational trail bridges.

Transportation and Transit Enhancements Programs (Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration): Ten percent of Federal Surface Transportation Program funds and 1 percent of federal urban mass transit funds are set aside to fund transportation enhancements. Such funding can be used for historic preservation projects and programs related to historic transportation routes, systems, facilities, etc. Heritage tourism trails may be funded at state discretion.

America’s Historic Places Grants: Part of NEH’s We the People Initiative, this program provides funding for public programs that use one or more historic sites to address issues central to American history. Projects eligible for funding may interpret a single historic site, a series of sites, whole neighborhoods, communities or towns, or larger geographical regions. Fundable activities include docent tours, publications (e.g., brochures, guidebooks, etc.), driving or walking trails or tours, annotated itineraries, exhibition labeling or trail signs, films, and digital media.

Training Programs: The Small Business Administration does not provide direct loans or grants (although it guarantees loans), but it does provide entrepreneurs with training materials and opportunities that could support heritage tourism and business development using historic buildings

State funding is also available in the form of:

129

TEAM: Teamwork for Effective Marketing RTDGP: Rural Tourism Development Grant Program (money for tourism infrastructure)

(Stiscia 2013; Pedersen 2002).

130

WORKS CITED SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Bowers, Christopher. (1998). Historic Preservation Law Concerning Private

Property. Urban Lawyer, 30 (2), 405-‐440. Cassidy, Frank. (2013). Land Use Law Cases and Materials. Marana, Arizona. Cienega Watershed Partnership. (2014). Where We Work. Retrieved from

http://www.cienega.org/where-‐we-‐work/#cienegacorridor Lowenthal, David. (1979). Environmental Perception: Preserving the Past.

Progress in Human Geography, 3(4):549-‐559. National Park Service. (2014). Butterfield Overland Trail Special Resource

Study/Environmental Assessment, Retrieved from http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=33568

Pima County. (2014). “Policies, Laws and Regulations.” Office of Sustainability and Conservation: Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Division. Retrieved from http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=169&pageId=53176

Tyler, Norman. (2009). Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles and Practices (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.

United States Conference of Mayors. (1966). Findings and Recommendations. With Heritage So Rich: A Report. New York, N.Y.: Random House.

United States Department of Justice. (n.d.). Protection of Religious Land Use. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/crt/spec_topics/religiousdiscrimination/ff_landuse.php

SECTION 2 VAIL HISTORY AND HERITAGE

Prehistoric Agenbroad, Larry D. (1967). The Distribution of Fluted Points in Arizona.

Kiva: Journal of Southwestern Anthropology and History, 32, 113–120. Ayres, James E. (1970). Two Clovis Fluted Points from Southern Arizona.

Kiva: Journal of Southwestern Anthropology and History, 35:121–124. Deaver, William L., and Richard Ciolek-‐Torrello. (1995). Early Formative

Period Chronology for the Tucson Basin. Kiva: Journal of Southwestern Anthropology and History, 60 (4):481–530.

DiPeso, Charles C. (1974). Casas Grandes, a Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca (Vols. 1–3). Gloria, J. Fenner (Ed.). Arizona: Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, and Northland Press.

Doelle, William H., and Henry D. Wallace. (1984). The Tucson Basin during the Protohistoric Period. Kiva: Journal of Southwestern Anthropology and History, 49(3–4):195–211.

131

Faught, Michael K., and Andrea K. L. Freeman. (1998). Paleo-‐Indian Complexes of the Terminal Wisconsin and Early Holocene. In Jonathan B. Mabry (Ed.), Paleo-‐Indian and Archaic Sites in Arizona (Technical Report No. 97 7) Tucson, Arizona: Center for Desert Archaeology.

Freeman, Andrea. (1999). Status of the Middle Archaic in Southern Arizona. Excavation in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Middle Archaic Component at Los Pozos (Anthropological Papers No. 20). Tucson, Arizona: Center for Desert Archaeology.

Gilpin, Dennis, and David A. Phillips, Jr. (1998). The Prehistoric to Historic Transition Period in Arizona, circa A.D. 1519 to 1692. Flagstaff, Arizona: SWCA.

Gladwin, Harold S., Emil W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and Nora Gladwin. (1937). Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture (Medallion Papers No. 25). Globe, Arizona. (Priv. Print. for Gila Pueblo).

Goodwin, Grenville. (1942). The Social Organization of the Western Apache. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Goodwin, Grenville, and Keith Basso. (1971). Western Apache Raiding and Warfare. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.

Haury, Emil W. (1976). The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.

Haury, Emil W. (1978). Concluding Thoughts. In Isabel T. Kelly, et al. (Ed.), The Hodges Ruin: A Hohokam Community in the Tucson Basin (Anthropological Papers No. 30), (pp. 126–128). Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.

Heidke, James M. (2005). Early Agricultural Period Pottery from Las Capas and Los Pozos. In R. Jane Sliva (Ed.), Material Cultures and Lifeways of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona (pp. 171–206). Tucson Arizona: Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Huckell, Bruce B. (1982). The Distribution of Fluted Points in Arizona: A Review and an Update (Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 145). Tucson, Arizona: Cultural Resource Management Division, Arizona State Museum.

Huckell, Bruce B. (1984). The Paleo-‐Indian and Archaic Occupation of the Tucson Basin: An Overview. Kiva: Journal of Southwestern Anthropology and History, 49 (3–4):133–145.

Huckell, Bruce B. (1996). The Archaic Prehistory of the North American Southwest. Journal of World Prehistory, 10(3):305–372.

Lopez, Daniel. (2007). Huhugam. In Suzanne K. Fish and Paul R. Fish (Eds.), The Hohokam Millennium (pp. 117–122). Santa Fe, New Mexico: School for Advanced Research Press.

Mabry, Jonathan B. (2005). Diversity in Early Southwestern Farming and Optimization Models of Transition to Agriculture. In Michael W. Diehl (Ed.), Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural

132

Communities in Southern Arizona (Anthropological Papers No. 34). Tucson, Arizona: Center for Desert Archaeology.

Masse, W. Bruce. (1981). A Reappraisal of the Protohistoric Sobaipuri Indians of Southeastern Arizona. In David R. Wilcox and W. Bruce Masse (Eds.) The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, A.D. 1450–1700 (pp. 28–56). Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University.

Plog, Stephen. (1997). Ancient Peoples of the American Southwest. London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd.

Ravesloot, John C., Michael J. Boley, and Melanie A. Medeiros, (Eds.). (2011). The Prehistory of the Marsh Station Road Site (AZ EE:2:44[ASM]), Cienega Creek, Southeastern Arizona. Tucson, Arizona: Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona.

Reid, Jefferson and Stephanie Whittlesey. (1997). The Archaeology of Ancient Arizona. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.

Seymour, Deni J. (1989). The Dynamics of Sobaipuri Settlement in the Eastern Pimería Alta. Journal of the Southwest, 31(2):205–222.

Seymour, Deni J. (2007). A Syndetic Approach to Identification of the Historic Mission Site of San Cayetano del Tumacácori. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 11(3):269–296.

Teague, Lynn S. (1993). Prehistory and the Traditions of the O’odham and the Hopi. Kiva: Journal of Southwestern Anthropology and History, 58(4):435–454.

Vanderpot, Rein and Jeffrey H. Altschul (2007). The Mescal Wash Site: A Persistent Place in Southeastern Arizona. In Alan P. Sullivan, III and James M. Bayman (Eds.), Hinterlands and Regional Dynamics in the Ancient Southwest (pp. 50–69). Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.

Whittlesey, Stephanie M., R. Ciolek-‐Torrello, and William L. Deaver. (1994). Resurrecting the O’odham: The Early Formative Period in Arizona. Mogollon VII, the Collected Papers of the 1992 Mogollon Conference Held in Las Cruces, New Mexico (pp. 31–42). Las Cruces, New Mexico: COAS Publishing & Research.

Whittlesey, Stephanie M. (2003). Rivers of Rock: Stories from a Stone-‐dry Land: Central Arizona Project Archaeology. Tucson, Arizona: SRI Press.

Woodson, M. Kyle (1999). Migrations in Late Anasazi Prehistory: The Evidence from the Goat Hill Site. Kiva: Journal of Southwestern Anthropology and History, 65:63–84.

Woodson, M. Kyle. (2006). The Goat Hill Site and Ancestral Pueblo Migrations into the Safford Basin. Archaeology Southwest, 20(2):4.

History: Transportation Ayres, James E., Laurie V. Slawson and Mark E. Sullivan. (1994). A Cultural

Resources Overview of the Cienega Creek Natural Preserve. Cienega Creek Natural Preserve Management Plan. McGann & Associates, Inc.

133

Brigandi, Phil. (2010). The Southern Emigrant Trail. Overland Journal 28(3):99-‐116.

Conkling, Roscoe P., and Margaret B. Conkling. (1947). The Butterfield Overland Mail, 1857-‐1869. Glendale, California: Arthur H. Clark.

General Land Office (GLO). (1874). Map of T16S R16E. Washington, D.C.: General Land Office.

Hislop, Herbert R. (1965). An Englishman’s Arizona: The Ranching Letters of Herbert R. Hislop, 1876-‐1878. Tucson, Arizona. Overland Press.

Myrick, David F. (1975). Railroads of Arizona (vol. 1). Berkeley, California: Howell-‐North Books.

P.A.S.T. (2009). Cultural Resources Survey of the Old Vail Rd./Colossal Cave Rd. SWC Project. MJM Consulting, Inc.

Stein, Pat H. (1994). Historic Trails in Arizona from Coronado to 1940: Historic context study. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Parks.

History: Ranching Collins, William S. (2002). Cattle Ranching in Arizona, 1540-‐1950. National

Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona State Historic Preservation Office.

Dowell, Gregory Paul. (1978). History of the Empire Ranch. (Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of History, The University of Arizona) Tucson, Arizona.

Gallison, James D. (1999). Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of Nine Cultural Resource Properties for Vail Valley Ranch Development, Pima County, Arizona. (Report No. 343). Albuquerque, New Mexico: Lone Mountain Archaeological Services, Inc.

O'Mack, Scott. Janet Parkhurst. (2006). Canoa Ranch Rural historic Landscape. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form.

White, W. A., S. Benaron, M. M. Prasciunas, C. S. Daughtrey (2012). A Cultural Resources Inventory of Approximately 41 Miles for the TEP Pinal-‐Tortolita 500-‐KV Transmission Line, Pinal County, Arizona. Tucson, Arizona: Westland Resources.

History: Mining Ballanger, J. A. M., C. P. Garraty, A. Morton, S. Thompson, W. A. White, J.

Windingstad (2010). A Class I Cultural Resources Inventory North-‐South Corridor Study Area, Pinal County, Arizona. In W. M. Graves (Ed.) Technical Report No. 11-‐3. Tucson, Arizona: Statistical Research.

Blake, William P. (1910). Sketch of Pima County Arizona its Mining Districts, Minerals, Climate, Agriculture, and Other Resources. Tucson, Arizona: Citizen Print.

134

Dowell, Gregory Paul. (1978). History of the Empire Ranch. (Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of History, The University of Arizona) Tucson, Arizona.

Feil, Lin B. (1968). Helvetia: Boom Town of the Santa Rita’s. The Journal of Arizona History, 9(2):77-‐95.

Rosemont Company (2014). Southern Arizona's Historic Mining District, History of the Rosemont Mining District. Retrieved from http://rosemontcopper.com/historic-‐mining-‐district.html

History: Community Bennett, Joan and Yutaka Yamomoto. (2006). Dr. Jokichi Takamine: Japanese

father of American Biotechnology. Kennesaw, Georgia: Deerland Enzymes. Brack, M.L. (2005). An Archaeological and Historical Assessment of Colossal

Cave Road near Vail, Pima County, Arizona. (Prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff, Project Report No. 03-‐207). Tucson, Arizona: Desert Archaeology.

Grigsby, Ann M. (1996). Whispered Prayers in the Arizona Desert-‐The History of the Shrine of Santa Rita in the Desert. Arizona: A.M. Grigsby.

Hislop, Herbert R. (1965). An Englishman’s Arizona The Ranching Letters of Herbert R. Hislop 1876-‐1878. Tucson, Arizona: Overland Press.

Janus Associates, Inc. (1989). Transcontinental Railroading in Arizona 1878-‐1949. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Parks Board.

King, Frank M. (1946). Pioneer Western Empire Builders: A True Story of Men and Women of Pioneer Days. Pasadena, California: Trails End Publishing Co.

Lamb, J.J. (2012, April). The Arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad at Vail: Its Influence on the Development of a Community. 2012 Arizona Centennial Conference. Phoenix, Arizona.

Myrick, David F. (1975). Railroads of Arizona. (Vol.1). Berkeley, California: Howell-‐North Books.

National Park Service. (2014). History of the Cherry Trees. Cherry Blossom Festival. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/cherry/cherry-‐blossom-‐history.htm

Shurtleff, William and Aoyagi, Akiko. (2012). Jokichi Takamine (1854-‐1922) and Caroline Hitch Takamine (1866-‐1954): Biography and Bibliography. Lafayette, California: Soyinfo Center.

Stiles, Edward. (1980, January 31). Tiny Vail faces a new era. Tucson Citizen Old Pueblo.

Vail Preservation Society (n.d.). Vail: The Town Between the Tracks. History. Retrieved from: http://vailpreservationsociety.org/blog/history/

135

Vail Preservation Society. (2013). 1908 Vail & Post Office. Retrieved from: http://vailpreservationsociety.org/blog/2013/03/23/vail-‐6/

Historic Resource Survey Brack, M.L. (2005). An Archaeological and Historical Assessment of Colossal

Cave Road near Vail, Pima County, Arizona. (Prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff, Project Report No. 03-‐207). Tucson, Arizona: Desert Archaeology.

Bruder, J. Simon. (1990). Cultural Resources Technical Report for the MCI Fiber Optic Cable Project: Rialto, California to Phoenix, Arizona and Tucson, Arizona to El Paso, Texas: Arizona, New Mexico and Texas Segments. Tucson, Arizona: Dames & Moore.

Daughtrey, Cannon S. (2014). Pima County's Open Space Ranch Preserves: Predictive Modeling of Site Locations for Three Time Periods at Rancho Seco (Unpublished Master's thesis submitted to the School of Anthropology, University of Arizona). Tucson, Arizona.

Gallison, James D. (1999). Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of Nine Cultural Resource Properties for Vail Valley Ranch Development, Pima County, Arizona. (Report No. 343). Albuquerque, New Mexico: Lone Mountain Archaeological Services, Inc.

Jones, Jeffery T. (1996 ). Archaeological Data Recovery Investigations at AZ BB:14:604(ASM) near Vail, Pima County, Arizona. (Archaeological Report 14). Tucson, Arizona: Old Pueblo Archaeology Center.

Jones, Jeffery T. (2001). Documentation of portions of El Paso Natural Gas pipeline number 1007, cultural resource AZ AA:12:875(ASM), exposed during utility trenching on the Continental Reserve property in Marana, Arizona. (Submitted to Diamond Ventures, Inc., Letter Report No. 2001.046). Tucson, Arizona: Old Pueblo Archaeology Center.

Rieder, Morgan. (2006). Class III cultural resources survey, SFPP, LP, El Paso to Phoenix expansion project, Arizona portion, Cochise and Pima counties, Arizona. Conducted for Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces. (Technical Report No. 2006-‐08). Tucson, Arizona: William Self Associates, Inc..

Seymour, Deni J. (1997). Archaeological survey of 1,755 acres for Vail Valley Ranch development Pima County, Arizona. (Prepared for Thomas Olsen Associates Inc., Report No. 124). Albuquerque, New Mexico: Lone Mountain Archaeological Services.

SECTION 3 PRESERVATION: PAST PRESERVATION EFFORTS AND A RENEWED EMPHASIS

The Cultural Landscape Foundation. (2004). Working Landscapes: Cienega Corridor. Retrieved from http://tclf.org/content/working-‐landscapes-‐cienega-‐corridor

136

Kenny, Michael G. (1999). A Place for Memory: The Interface between Individual and Collective History. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 41(3): 420–437.

Lamb, J.J. (2014). National Register Nomination: The Shrine of Santa Rita in the Desert in the Desert.

Lamb, J.J. (2009). National Register Nomination: The 1908 Vail and Post Office.

Longstreth, Richard. (2008). Introduction. In Richard Longstreth (Ed.), Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice, (pp. 1–22). Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Poster and Frost. (2005). Historic Structure Report, The 1908 Vail and Post Office.

SECTION 4 PLANNING: ZONING, LAND-‐USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT

Pima County. (2011). Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Tucson, Arizona. Pima County. (2014). “Policies, Laws and Regulations.” Office of

Sustainability and Conservation: Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Division. Retrieved from http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=169&pageId=53176

United States Department of Justice. (n.d.). Protection of Religious Land Use. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/crt/spec_topics/religiousdiscrimination/ff_landuse.php

SECTION 5 COMMUNITY: DEFINING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority. (2013). Title VI Program Update. (Approved by Elizabeth Presutti). Des Moines, Iowa.

Imagine Greater Tucson. (n.d.). The Process. Looking Forward: Vision for a Greater Tucson Region. Retrieved from http://www.imaginegreatertucson.org/about/vision-‐principles/the-‐process/

Lawson, Barry R., Ellen P. Ryan, and Rebecca Bartlett Hutchison. (2002). Reaching Out, Reaching In: A Guide to Creating Effective Public Participation for State Historic Preservation Programs. (Originally published 1993). Retrieved from http://www.cr.nps.gov/HPS/pad/plancompan/PublicPartic/RORIhome.html

National Park Service. (n.d.). Public Participation in Historic Preservation Planning. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/pad/plancompan/publicpartic/index.html

Ozaukee County Planning & Parks Department (2009). Public Participation Plan for the Ozaukee County Farmland Preservation Plan. Ozaukee County, WI.

137

The Town Paper. (n.d.). What is a Charrette? Public Outreach. Retrieved from http://www.tndtownpaper.com/what_is_charrette.htm

SECTION 6 RECOMMENDATIONS: BUILDING A PRESERVATION PROGRAM IN VAIL

Saving the 1908 Vail & Post Office Poster Frost Associates, Inc. (2005). Historic Structure Report, The 1908

Vail and Post Office.

Cultural Landscape Study Killion, Jeffery and Gretchen Hilyard. (2009). National Park Service

Cultural Landscapes Inventory Professional Procedures Guide. (Revised from original by Robert R. Page). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Page, Robert R., Cathy A. Gilbert, and Susan A. Dolan. (1998). A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Processes, and Techniques. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Economic Development and Incentive Programs Arizona Secretary of State. (Revised 2013). Article 3: Historic Property

Classification (ARS § 42-‐12101). Arizona Revised Statutes. Retrieved from http://www.pr.state.az.us/SHPO/downloads/SHPO_SPT_ARS_421201.pdf

Arizona State Parks. (n.d.). Tax Incentives and Grant Programs. State Historic Preservation Office. Retrieved from http://azstateparks.com/shpo/tax.html

Arizona State Parks. (n.d.). State Historic Property Tax Reclassification (SPT) for Owner-‐Occupied Homes. State Historic Preservation Office. Retrieved from http://www.pr.state.az.us/SHPO/propertytax.html

Confer, J.C., and D. L. Kerstetter (2000). Past Perfect: Explorations of Heritage Tourism. Parks and Recreation 35(2):28-‐39.

Field , D. R. and J.A. Wagar. (1982). People and Interpretation. In G.W. Sharpe (Ed.) Interpreting the Environment (pp. 52-‐73). New York: Wiley.

Garrod, B. and A. Fyall. (2000). Managing Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 28:682-‐708.

Hall, C. M. and S. McArthur (1993) Towards Sustainable Heritage Management? In C. M. Hall and S. McArthur (Eds.) Heritage Management in New Zealand and Australia: Visitor Management, Interpretation and Marketing (pp.274-‐278). Aukland: Oxford University Press.

Huckelberry, C.H. (2001, May 23). Purchase of Development Rights Program Discussion Paper. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan/ Ranch and Rural Lands PDR Program. Retrieved from

138

http://repository.asu.edu/attachments/126634/content/R%2015_4%20Purchase%20of%20development%20rights%20program.PDF

National Main Street Center. (2014). The Main Street Four-‐Point Approach. Retrieved from http://www.preservationnation.org/main-‐street/about-‐main-‐street/the-‐approach/#.U1UpLxz8HlE

National Park Service. (2014). Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation.htm

National Park Service. (2014). Tax Incentives for Preserving Historic Properties. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-‐incentives.htm

Nuryanti, W. (1997). The Old Man of Nature Tourism: Kenya. In T. Whelan (Ed.) Nature Tourism: Managing for the environment (pp.23-‐38). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Pima County. (2001). Memorandum Regarding Purchase of Development Rights Program Discussion Paper. Retrieved from http://www.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp/reports%5Cd1%5C004PIM.PDF.

Robertson, K. A. (2004). The Main Street Approach to Downtown Development: An Examination of the Four-‐Point Program. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 21:55-‐73.

Rypkema, Donovan. (2005). The Economics of Historic Preservation (2nd ed.). Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Stevens, T. (1995). Heritage as Design: A Practitioner’s Prospective. In D.T. Herbert (Ed.) Heritage, Tourism and Society (pp.191-‐211). London: Mansell.

Tilden, R. (1977). Interpreting Our Heritage. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press.

Timothy, Dallen J., and Stephen W. Boyd (2002) Heritage Tourism. London: Pearson Education Limited. Tyler, Norman. (2009). Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its

History, Principles and Practices (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. Uzzell, D.L. (1994). Heritage Interpretation in Britain four decades after

Tilden. In R. Harrison (Ed.) Manual of Heritage Management (pp.293-‐302). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

White, Bradford J. and Richard Roddewig. (1994). Preparing a Historic Preservation Plan. Chicago: American Planning Association.

RESOURCES AND APPENDICES

City of Mesa Historic Preservation Office. (2002). City of Mesa Historic Preservation Plan. Mesa, Arizona.

City of Temple City. (2013, October 22). City of Temple City Preservation Workshop Questionnaire for an Historic Preservation Ordinance. Retrieved from http://www.templecity.us/HistoricPreservation.asp

139

Pedersen, Arthur. (2002). Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites: a Practical Manual for World Heritage Site Managers. Paris France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Stiscia, Stephanie. (2013). Heritage Tourism [PowerPoint Presentation and notes].

Documents

Vail Historic Preservation Plan August 2015 · 2020. 8. 16. · ! ! 8! SECTION’1!INTRODUCTIONAND OVERVIEW! INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN! HistorianDavidLowenthal(1979:554)onceobservedthat,atthelocallevel