Matching Items (7)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

Created2009 to 2016
Description

This report, required by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provides an update of highway safety projects throughout the state of Arizona during the Federal Fiscal Year as administered by the Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety.

Created2010 to 2017
Description

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

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.

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.

43024-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2007-03
Description

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 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.

42126-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2010-05
Description

The Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study is a PARA that is a joint effort of ADOT and the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. The pedestrian study reviewed past and current information and considered future travel demand.

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.