Filtering by
- All Subjects: Arizona
- Creators: Arizona. Department of Mines and Mineral Resources
- Creators: Johnson, Ryan M.
This report was prepared to briefly highlight Arizona’s metallic mineral potential and current projects. It has been compiled from annual reports, websites, personal interviews, news articles, and other sources. It is acknowledged that there are additional activities and available properties not listed in this report.
Provides individuals and companies anticipating mineral exploration or mining in Arizona with a clear picture of the permitting process. This document is an honest attempt to present all the permits that may be required by a mining operator in Arizona.
This article studies the characteristics of modern Arizona mining scams or nontraditional mining projects and describes a number of examples. The purported mines or properties were located in Arizona, or the schemes had other substantial ties to the state.
This report, a companion to Open File Report 90-5, Publications of the department of Mines and Mineral Resources from 1939 to 1990, is a serial listing of the publications of the Department from September 1990 to December 2004.
Testimony for The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Natural Resources presented against the withdrawal of the uranium-bearing lands around the Grand Canyon National Park.
This directory contains a listing of Arizona-registered consultants for the following mining related disciplines: assayers, geological engineers, geologists, geophysical engineers, metallurgical engineers, and mining engineers.
A serial listing of the publications of the Arizona Department of Mineral Resources (1939-1984) and the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (1984-August 1990). The name change in 1984, to more accurately reflect the Department’s involvement with mining, did not affect the function or the procedures of the Department, so the publications have not been segregated.
In the Valley, developing viable long-term transit from where we are currently will be very difficult if key
components continue to remain unaligned. Thus, before getting to the primary purpose of this report, it is important to first establish the players and basic considerations relevant to the effectiveness of a transit system.
Few would dispute that the Phoenix metropolitan area is severely lacking in terms of mass-transit compared to other similarly sized and configured cities. The Valley’s fleet of roughly 400 buses is about one-third of the service found in San Diego, Atlanta, and Seattle. In addition, most of Phoenix’ peer regions either already have, or are planning rail systems. Of the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., only six -- Phoenix included -- do not currently have or are not planning to add rail to their transit system.
Believing that voters might support transit if they felt like an integral part of the transit proposal decision-making process, the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce's Valleywide Transit Task Force set out in early 1995 to initiate a bottom-up process which would enable people to say, "here's what we want." The Task Force agreed that the first step in the process was to initiate a new dialogue. the Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked to write a briefing paper, which would re-invigorate the transit debate. The resulting report, "Transit in the Valley: Where Do We Go From Here?" painted a bleak picture of the Valley's existing transit system and challenged many long-held conventional wisdoms. The dialogue had begun. The report was then presented to the citizens of 17 Valley cities and towns for their consideration in 16 public meetings sponsored by cities and their local Chambers of Commerce. In community forums conducted between October 1996 and February 1997, more than 500 Valley residents discussed the Valley's transit future. This document summarizes the questionnaire responses by 501 people who attended the forums.
This report brings together the results of a survey of 1100 homeless people living in and around downtown Phoenix in 1996 with the results of a similar survey conducted in 1983. In addition to providing a snapshot of the homeless population in Phoenix, the data and comparative information presented in this report also reveal the complex and intractable nature of the homeless problem in general.