Matching Items (8)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

Created2011 to 2017
Description

The Board of Supervisors make an estimate of the different amounts required to meet the public expenditures/expenses for the ensuing year, also an estimate of revenues from sources other than direct taxation, and the amount to be raised by taxation upon real and personal property of Graham County.

Created2003 to 2012
Description

The Arizona Department of Transportation, the Arizona Game & Fish Department and the Arizona State Parks Board are required to conduct a study every three years on watercraft fuel consumption and recreational watercraft usage. The fuel consumption data is collected to determine the allocation of motor vehicle fuel tax to

The Arizona Department of Transportation, the Arizona Game & Fish Department and the Arizona State Parks Board are required to conduct a study every three years on watercraft fuel consumption and recreational watercraft usage. The fuel consumption data is collected to determine the allocation of motor vehicle fuel tax to the State Lake Improvement Fund. The information on recreational watercraft usage patterns on Arizona’s lakes and rivers is necessary, in part, to determine the distribution of SLIF funds to applicants.

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.

43034-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2010-12
Description

This study focuses in the area surrounding the municipalities of: Town of Pima, City of Thatcher and City of Safford. The junction of the two major state routes, US 191 and US 70 is located in the heart of these communities and serves as major arterials for local travelers. Parsons

This study focuses in the area surrounding the municipalities of: Town of Pima, City of Thatcher and City of Safford. The junction of the two major state routes, US 191 and US 70 is located in the heart of these communities and serves as major arterials for local travelers. Parsons Brinckerhoff has been commissioned by ADOT to perform this preliminary assessment for the development of an alternate route through the Thatcher/Safford/Pima area.

42938-Thumbnail Image.png
Created1998-12
Description

In 1992, Graham County conducted a transportation study for the Gila Valley Region. This study prepared a long-range transportation plan and a transportation improvement program. Many of the improvements have been completed. The purpose of this study is to update the 1992 transportation plan and to address the current issues

In 1992, Graham County conducted a transportation study for the Gila Valley Region. This study prepared a long-range transportation plan and a transportation improvement program. Many of the improvements have been completed. The purpose of this study is to update the 1992 transportation plan and to address the current issues within the area.

42937-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2009-07-31
Description

The Graham County, Safford, Thatcher, Pima Small Area Transportation Study was initiated by Graham County, in conjunction with the Arizona Department of Transportation, to develop a countywide, long-range multimodal transportation plan for this growing rural Arizona community. The project sponsors selected the PB Americas team to conduct this study under

The Graham County, Safford, Thatcher, Pima Small Area Transportation Study was initiated by Graham County, in conjunction with the Arizona Department of Transportation, to develop a countywide, long-range multimodal transportation plan for this growing rural Arizona community. The project sponsors selected the PB Americas team to conduct this study under the direction of a Technical Advisory Committee, which included representatives from Graham County, City of Safford, Town of Thatcher, Town of Pima, Southeastern Arizona Governments Organization, and ADOT.

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.