Filtering by
- All Subjects: Pima County (Ariz.)--Appropriations and expenditures
- All Subjects: Wetland mitigation banking
- All Subjects: Agriculture
- All Subjects: Fang-Achat
- Creators: Pima County (Ariz.). County Administrator's Office
- Creators: 鄧, 七
A comprehensive review of over 100 city or county budgets. Many of these governmental entities have service populations in the general order of magnitude similar to Pima County, and some have experienced similar trends in population growth. Given the comparisons that have been made, Pima County's per capita expenditure is among the lowest of other high growth counties with a similar population base.
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.
Provides a brief review of the rules, listing history, and biological issues relevant to the status and protection of the pygmy-owl in Pima County. Land use in unincorporated northwest Pima County is analyzed to determine existing commitments and conservation opportunities, and in order to begin to answer the question of whether a general biological goal of conserving 80 percent of the pygmy-owl's habitat can be achieved.
Provides an overview of types of mitigation banking activities that have evolved from the Army Corps of Engineers wetlands banking. The discussion provides important distinctions between traditional practices in the area of mitigation banking and banking for endangered species purposes. The potential role of private sector in this market is described, as well as the roles of federal and local government participants.
Provides a rational basis for (1) a cost of growth element to require development to pay a fair share of public facility costs, and (2) to plan for and regulate infrastructure service area boundaries beyond which the County may limit or prescribe conditions on the publicly financed extension of improvements.