Matching Items (70)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

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.

42569-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2003-06-13
Description
This document reports the Steering Committee’s recommendations on issues related to Pima County’s ESA Section 10 permit application and the associated MSHCP. With a few exceptions, it does not address the issues associated with the other elements of the SDCP. With a few exceptions, it does not address the issues

This document reports the Steering Committee’s recommendations on issues related to Pima County’s ESA Section 10 permit application and the associated MSHCP. With a few exceptions, it does not address the issues associated with the other elements of the SDCP. With a few exceptions, it does not address the issues associated with the other elements of the SDCP.
42570-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2003-05
Description

One goal of the SDCP was to obtain a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act to enable incidental take of species protected by the ESA in the course of development in Pima County. This report provides the county with the

One goal of the SDCP was to obtain a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act to enable incidental take of species protected by the ESA in the course of development in Pima County. This report provides the county with the framework to go forward and further its analysis of the final funding costs for a Section 10 Permit.

42314-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2003-10-01
Description

This report documents the existing drainage conditions related to Silverbell Trails Estates roadways and 100-year flow depths and includes qualitative and quantitative analyses of the existing hydrologic and hydraulic conditions.

42316-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2003-12-30
Description

The purpose of this study is to determine the hydrologic and hydraulic impacts of the Aspen Fire of the summer of 2003 on the Sabino Canyon and Carter Canyon watersheds, which are in the vicinity of the Town of Summerhaven, located on Mount Lemmon in the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona.

Created1995-03-24
Description

A detailed hydraulic analysis of Idle Hour Wash for the purpose of preparing a Letter of Map Revision.

42319-Thumbnail Image.png
Created1999-06
Description

This study was developed to identify the resources and applicable methodology for the delineation of primary flood corridors.

42320-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2000-07-24
Description

Work maps for the Mission Wash floodplain. Highlighted photographs show the floodplain limits and watersheds.

42321-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2000-10-06
Description

The purpose of this study is to develop a physical, process-based hydrologic model for the Finger Rock Wash watershed. A HEC-1 model was developed to estimate the 100-year discharge rate.