Filtering by
- All Subjects: Wildlife conservation
- All Subjects: Recreation areas
- Creators: Pima County (Ariz.). County Administrator's Office
- Creators: Battelle Memorial Institute. Technology Partnership Practice
Arizona State Parks must prepare a Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan every five years. This report is for 2003 through 2008. The primary purpose of this plan is to establish priorities for acquiring land and developing outdoor recreation facilities in Arizona.
On the County's behalf, the Arizona Open Land Trust has entered into two purchase agreements for the Buckelew Farms property. Under this conservation acquisition proposal, farming would continue in the areas currently farmed, grazing would continue on a seasonal basis, and the popular annual pumpkin festival would continue. However, the County and the Buckelew's would work together to enhance opportunities for wildlife habitat on the farm and grazing lands.
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.
The spread of invasive species creates serious environmental problems as well as economic hazards for residents and will hamper implementation of parts of the SDCP.
Pima County in partnership with the Arizona Open Land Trust has the opportunity to purchase 500 acres of land in fee simple from the Buckelews at a per acre price of $1,800, for a total of $900,000 plus closing costs.
Pima County's grant proposal for the 640.4 acre in-holding in the Ironwood Forest National Monument known as Lord's Ranch was selected by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Compares conservation plans from: City of Austin and Travis County, Texas -- Clark County, Nevada -- Wisconsin statewide -- San Diego, California -- Coachella Valley, California -- Orange County, California -- Volusia County, Florida.
To facilitate development of the Environmental Impact Statement which must accompany the Section 10 multi-species conservation proposal, a series of issue papers have been written. This study presents a brief look at outdoor recreation issues and describes the impacts of five alternative permit strategies might have on the County's ability to maintain recreation opportunities.
Demonstrates that an effort to protect only listed species would lead to a reserve that was closer to the urbanizing areas of Tucson, and therefore more expensive. The Listed Species Reserve is also one that makes a call on more non-federal land. By limiting the focus of the reserve to listed species, the broader and long term benefits are lost, and trade-offs of high potential habitat are not based on such comprehensive biological principles.
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.