This pamphlet describes CyberPort as multinational in its approach, considering the impacts of cross-border traffic at the local, state, and regional levels. The goal of CyberPort in Arizona is to increase the capacity of Nogales, San Luis and Douglas to serve as safe, secure and efficient gateways between the United States and Mexico. Nogales, as Arizona’s primary commercial port-of-entry, is naturally positioned to serve as the port of choice for western U.S.-Mexico trade.

The Nogales CyberPort Project began in the Spring of 2002 amid dramatic changes to the safety and security of U.S. borders. Throughout the following year, extraordinary change was experienced in policy and practice regarding the treatment of the border at the local, state and federal levels. While the movement toward a more efficient and effective border crossing environment has been underway in Arizona and the U.S. for a number of years, there is perhaps a no more appropriate time to undertake the effort to define and implement a CyberPort than right now.

The Nogales CyberPort Project began in the Spring of 2002 amid dramatic changes to the safety and security of U.S. borders. Throughout the following year, extraordinary change was experienced in policy and practice regarding the treatment of the border at the local, state and federal levels. While the movement toward a more efficient and effective border crossing environment has been underway in Arizona and the U.S. for a number of years, there is perhaps a no more appropriate time to undertake the effort to define and implement a CyberPort than right now.

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.