The Arizona Department of Transportation, through the Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program, awarded funding for the City of Sierra Vista Safe Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Plan. Improving bicycle and pedestrian safety has many benefits to the city of Sierra Vista and its residents. Improving and providing safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities provides a viable transportation option for those people who cannot or do not drive. In addition, it is anticipated that development of a network of safe bicycle and pedestrian routes will increase the number of bicycle and pedestrian trips, thus reducing reliance on personal vehicles.

With the advent of multi-modal transportation planning, and given that most of the major metropolitan areas in Arizona have implemented bicycle and pedestrian plans, it is now desirable that ADOT develop a bicycle and pedestrian plan that encompasses all of Arizona. The major intent of the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is to provide a long-term plan for a system of shared roadways and bicycle and pedestrian facilities for the ADOT State Highway System. This includes the definition of the roles of the State and local government in the continual development of the bicycle and pedestrian transportation system in Arizona. It also includes the identification of all existing bicycle and pedestrian plans of the MPOs within Arizona to address the relationship between ADOT and the jurisdictions in the advancement of these plans. In addition, this plan includes design and maintenance guidelines for consideration by all implementing agencies in Arizona. Most importantly, this statewide bicycle and pedestrian plan guides ADOT in making transportation decisions impacting bicycling and pedestrian activity, and improves the accommodation of these non-motorized modes of transportation within Arizona’s multi-modal transportation system.

The Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Phase II Plan focuses on implementing some of the main recommendations of the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Phase I Plan. This includes the development of documents for statewide distribution, the development of plans for a number of future programs, and significant improvements to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program website.

This report and the accompanying Geographic Information System (GIS) datasets summarize the results of the workshop held in Florence, Arizona in 2010. At this workshop, stakeholders representing a broad range of organizations and interests identified and mapped the locations of important wildlife linkages across Pinal County. This report provides background information on the importance and benefits of conserving wildlife linkages for both people and wildlife in Pinal County and describes the methods used during stakeholder workshops and in developing the accompanying GIS products. It includes a series of maps generated from the digitized stakeholder data that depict the general locations of wildlife linkages and potential barriers to wildlife movement within Pinal County. The maps are followed by tables with descriptive information about the habitat areas each linkage connects, the species each linkage serves, and known threats and potential conservation opportunities associated with each linkage.

Identifying the primary managers of wildlife habitat can provide one useful type of information for development of Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. This can contribute to satisfying at least three of the required elements: #4 (conservation actions and priorities), #5 (monitoring plans), and #7 (coordination). This can be particularly useful in the prioritization of actions and resources.

Toward that end, The Nature Conservancy has compiled relevant information and conducted new analyses from our recent statewide efforts to map and analyze two natural communities, grasslands and forests, and a species group, native fish. The results are presented in three sections, with appendices describing data sources.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department held four Wildlife Summits to obtain input from their stakeholders into the development of the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Stakeholder groups invited to participate in the Summits included Department constituency groups, special interests, local governments, Native American tribes, interagency cooperators, and the general public. This report combines the votes from each of the four Summits into one database for analysis. The results for each individual Summit are attached as separate reports. Comparisons are made in this combined report to show differences between the results of individual Summits. The combined results have also been analyzed to determine if there were any significant differences in opinions of the various stakeholder groups. Demographic breakdowns of the individual Summit results are not included in the separate reports because they would not be statistically valid given the small number of participants at each Summit. Participant comments are included in the
individual Summit reports.