The Office of Highway Safety produces the annual Highway Safety Plan to serve as the implementation guide for highway safety projects throughout Arizona. The Plan also is an application for funding through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Project selection is data driven and utilizes state and national traffic safety data (e.g., crashes, fatalities, injuries, citations, etc.). Knowledge of the Arizona political, economic, and demographic environments, as well as highway safety expertise on the part of staff and other partners also are taken into account where appropriate.

The Arizona Department of Transportation has been involved with railroad planning since 1976, with its first State Rail Plan Update issued in 1978. The most recent report, the 2000 Arizona State Rail Plan Update was an important starting point for this Inventory and Assessment in that the seven-year-old study provides the description and inventory of Arizona railroads as they existed at that time. There have been a number of important changes over the intervening years, and these are reflected in this 2007 Inventory and Assessment. In addition to the 2000 State Rail Plan Update, RLBA made use of the 2003 Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) High-Capacity Transit Study and the 1998 Arizona High Speed Rail Feasibility Study. The information contained in this report was gathered from a number of sources, including the railroads themselves, ADOT, the Arizona Corporation Commission, MAG and numerous Arizona officials. A listing of persons who contributed to this Railroad Inventory and Assessment is provided under “Acknowledgements” inside the front cover. Information in this report also was obtained from the Association of American Railroads and from RLBA’s extensive data banks.

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.