Matching Items (2,855)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

41354-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsBass, W. W. (Author)
Created1918-09-22
Description

Letter from W. W. Bass to Carl Hayden requesting the boundaries of the park be reconsidered as a large portion of the land is suitable for mining and farming.

41358-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsHayden, Carl T. (Author)
Created1917-06-28
Description

Letter from Carl Hayden to W. W. Bass concerning the passing of the national park bill. Hayden states that he will try to make the bill as advantageous to Arizona miners and farmers as possible, but the land will either remain as a national monument or become a national park.

Letter from Carl Hayden to W. W. Bass concerning the passing of the national park bill. Hayden states that he will try to make the bill as advantageous to Arizona miners and farmers as possible, but the land will either remain as a national monument or become a national park. A postscript is added concerning the land allocated for the Havasupai Tribe.

Created2002 to 2017
Description

Mission: To regulate and support Arizona Agriculture in a manner that encourages farming, ranching and agribusiness, while protecting consumers and natural resources.

43448-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2005-12-31
Description

Whether reintroduction and recovery should be allowed, and if so where and how, were hotly debated through the 1990s, when reintroduction was formally proposed. They still are. Regardless, the proposal process ended with a nonessential experimental population rule (hereafter Final Rule) approved on January 12, 1998. In keeping with the

Whether reintroduction and recovery should be allowed, and if so where and how, were hotly debated through the 1990s, when reintroduction was formally proposed. They still are. Regardless, the proposal process ended with a nonessential experimental population rule (hereafter Final Rule) approved on January 12, 1998. In keeping with the stated experimental nature of the reintroduction effort, and respectful of the doubts expressed by many, the Final Rule required full evaluations after 3 and 5 years to recommend continuation, modification, or termination of the Reintroduction Project. The 3-Year Review, conducted in 2001, concluded that reintroduction should continue, albeit with important modifications. However, as we discuss elsewhere in this report, for many reasons the 3-Year Review recommendations were not implemented, at least not to the extent that interested parties and stakeholders expected or desired. Regardless of cause, the apparent lack of closure was a significant agency and public concern when the time came for the next review.

By agreement among the primary cooperating agencies, responsibility for the Reintroduction Project’s 5-Year Review fell to the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Adaptive Management Oversight Committee (AMOC) that oversees the Project on behalf of six Lead Agencies and various formal and informal Cooperator agencies. AMOC and the Project's Interagency Field Team conducted the 5-Year Review to comply with the Final Rule, but above and beyond that the intent was to identify and implement improvements in the Project. The Review consists of several primary components: Administrative, Technical, Socioeconomic, and Recommendations. Each is detailed in this report. Review and adaptive management of the Reintroduction Project will not stop with this review. Project cooperators will continue to seek internal and public input regarding Mexican wolf reintroduction to help achieve recovery goals and objectives.

41236-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Amendments to the bill establishing the Grand Canyon a National Monument. Circa 1908.

42221-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Contributor)
Created2008-05-22
Description

The Mexican gray wolf subspecies was listed as endangered in 1976. In 1998 a nonessential experimental population was established in New Mexico and Arizona. Eleven captive-born and reared animals were released into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. In June 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contracted with D.J.

The Mexican gray wolf subspecies was listed as endangered in 1976. In 1998 a nonessential experimental population was established in New Mexico and Arizona. Eleven captive-born and reared animals were released into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. In June 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contracted with D.J. Case and Associates to assist in planning and implementing public input for a scoping process to identify issues to consider in developing alternatives preparatory to development of a new Environmental Impact Statement for the Mexican gray wolf introduction program.

42711-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2002-07-31
Description

To facilitate development of the Environmental Impact Statement which must accompany the Section 10 multi-species conservation proposal, a series of issue papers were prepared. In Pima County, ranching is uniquely able to preserve the integrity of vast tracts of connected and unfragmented open space and wildlife habitat. This study reviews

To facilitate development of the Environmental Impact Statement which must accompany the Section 10 multi-species conservation proposal, a series of issue papers were prepared. In Pima County, ranching is uniquely able to preserve the integrity of vast tracts of connected and unfragmented open space and wildlife habitat. This study reviews the effect of five alternative permit strategies on the County's ability to preserve unfragmented landscapes through conserving ranch lands.

Created2001 to 2008
Description

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead agency responsible for recovery of the Mexican wolf, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program essentially is separated into two, interrelated components: 1) Recovery – includes aspects of the program administered primarily by the Service that

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead agency responsible for recovery of the Mexican wolf, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program essentially is separated into two, interrelated components: 1) Recovery – includes aspects of the program administered primarily by the Service that pertain to the overall goal of Mexican wolf recovery and delisting from the list of threatened and endangered species, and 2) Reintroduction – includes aspects of the program implemented by the Service and cooperating States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies that pertain to management of the reintroduced Mexican wolf population in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, which consists of the entire Apache and Gila National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico. This report details all aspects of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program.

Created2001 to 2017
Description

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead agency responsible for recovery of the Mexican wolf, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program essentially is separated into two, interrelated components: 1) Recovery – includes aspects of the program administered primarily by the Service that pertain

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead agency responsible for recovery of the Mexican wolf, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program essentially is separated into two, interrelated components: 1) Recovery – includes aspects of the program administered primarily by the Service that pertain to the overall goal of Mexican wolf recovery and delisting from the list of threatened and endangered species, and 2) Reintroduction – includes aspects of the program implemented by the Service and cooperating States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies that pertain to management of the reintroduced Mexican wolf population in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, which consists of the entire Apache and Gila National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico. This report details all aspects of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program.

62249-Thumbnail Image.jpg
ContributorsPalgen-Maissoneuve, Mimi, 1918-1995 (Photographer)
Created1942 to 1962