DOCSLIB.ORG

General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona PROJECT TEAM ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Payson Town Council: Planning & Zoning Commission: Kenny Evans, Mayor Jeff Loyd, Chairman Michael Hughes, Vice Mayor John Swenson, Vice Chairman John Wilson, Council Member Dan Jaeger, Commissioner Ed Blair, Council Member Clark Jones, Commissioner Su Connell, Council Member Lori Meyers, Commissioner Fred Carpenter, Council Member James Scheidt, Commissioner Rick Croy, Council Member Mark Waldrop, Commissioner General Plan Steering Committee Joel Mona Barbara Underwood Ron Hitchcock Ralph Bossert Kayla Percell Emily DePugh Jeff Loyd Joel Goode Rob Ingram Robert Sanders Sharon King John Wakelin Jim Hunt Staff Participants: Debra Galbraith, Town Manager LaRon Garrett, Assistant Town Manager Sheila DeSchaaf, Zoning Administrator Donald Engler, Chief of Police Cameron Davis, Chris Floyd, Parks, Recreation & Tourism Director Executive Assistant Community Development Doni Wilbanks, Planning Technician Citizen Participants: As part of the General Plan Update 2014-2024 process, the Town of Payson engaged citizen participation through an online survey, workshops, an information forum, and access to Town staff and officials. Over 775 Payson citizens and stakeholders participated in the yearlong Update process. Consultants: TischlerBise was retained by the Town of Payson to deliver a General Plan Update 2014-2024. The findings and conclusions in this analysis are the culmination of data collection, research, and stakeholder input. The Berkley Group was retained by TischlerBise to assist with the public participation component of the General Plan Update 2014-2024 along with substantive portions of the Plan’s development in close collaboration with TischlerBise staff. i General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona APPROVAL SCHEDULE Agency Reviews June 14, 2013 – August 14, 2013 Planning Commission Public Hearing August 12, 2013 Planning Commission Recommendation September 9, 2013 Town Council Public Hearing October 3, 2013 Town Council Recommendation TBD Ratification by Payson Citizens August 2014 ii General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 General Plan and Planning Framework .................................................................. 3 1.1 Town of Payson Planning Process ...................................................................... 3 1.2 General Plan Update 2014-2024 Development Process ................................... 5 2 Introduction: Payson Arizona .................................................................................. 9 2.1 Town of Payson in Context ................................................................................. 9 2.2 Payson Planning Area .......................................................................................... 9 2.3 Population and Households .............................................................................. 11 2.4 Population Demographics ................................................................................. 13 2.5 Housing Demographics ..................................................................................... 16 2.6 Household Demographics ................................................................................. 18 2.7 Industry and Occupation Employment ........................................................... 20 2.8 Payson Workforce ............................................................................................... 26 2.9 Travel and Tourism Industry ............................................................................ 30 2.10 Retail Industry ..................................................................................................... 32 3 Environmental Planning Element.......................................................................... 36 3.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 36 3.2 Critical Issues ....................................................................................................... 41 3.3 Goals and Strategies ........................................................................................... 41 4 Water Resources Element ....................................................................................... 43 4.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 43 4.2 Critical Issues ....................................................................................................... 49 4.3 Goals and Strategies ........................................................................................... 50 5 Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element ......................................................... 51 5.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 51 5.2 Open Space .......................................................................................................... 52 5.3 Parkland and Amenities .................................................................................... 53 5.4 Multi-Modal Trails .............................................................................................. 56 5.5 Critical Issues ....................................................................................................... 59 5.6 Goals and Strategies ........................................................................................... 63 iii General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona 6 Land Use Element ................................................................................................... 64 6.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 64 6.2 Land Use Controls .............................................................................................. 68 6.3 Future Land Use Map......................................................................................... 68 6.4 Land Use Designations ...................................................................................... 71 6.5 Critical Issues ....................................................................................................... 74 6.6 Development Design Standards ....................................................................... 75 6.7 Goals and Strategies ........................................................................................... 79 7 Growth Area Element ............................................................................................. 80 7.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 80 7.2 Critical Issues ....................................................................................................... 90 7.3 Goals and Strategies ........................................................................................... 93 8 Circulation/Transportation Element ...................................................................... 94 8.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 94 8.2 Critical Issues ....................................................................................................... 98 8.3 Transportation Design Components ................................................................ 99 8.4 Goals and Strategies ......................................................................................... 106 9 Cost of Development Element ............................................................................. 107 9.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 107 9.2 Factors Influencing the Fiscal Sustainability of Land Uses ......................... 107 9.3 Existing Financial Condition ........................................................................... 110 9.4 Critical Issues ..................................................................................................... 112 9.5 Goals and Strategies ......................................................................................... 113 10 Implementation Plan ............................................................................................ 114 10.1 General Plan Process ........................................................................................ 114 10.2 Approval, Adoption, and Ratification ........................................................... 114 10.3 Amendment Procedure .................................................................................... 116 10.4 Implementation Process ................................................................................... 118 10.5 Implementation Matrix .................................................................................... 119 11 Appendices ............................................................................................................ 129 11.1 2012 Payson Community Survey .................................................................... 129 11.2 Urban Land Institute – Definitions of Retail ................................................. 131 iv General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Decennial Population for Payson ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Apache and Navajo Counties Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2013
    The Apache and Navajo Counties Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2013 Photograph by B. Sitko, AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department In partnership with The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................................... ii RECOMMENDED CITATION ............................................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... iii DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................ iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 THE APACHE AND NAVAJO COUNTIES WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ASSESSMENT
    [Show full text]
  • Green Infrastructure Design for Transport Projects: a Road Map To
    GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN FOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS A ROAD MAP TO PROTECTING ASIA’S WILDLIFE BIODIVERSITY DECEMBER 2019 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN FOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS A ROAD MAP TO PROTECTING ASIA’S WILDLIFE BIODIVERSITY DECEMBER 2019 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) © 2019 Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 8632 4444; Fax +63 2 8636 2444 www.adb.org Some rights reserved. Published in 2019. ISBN 978-92-9261-991-6 (print), 978-92-9261-992-3 (electronic) Publication Stock No. TCS189222 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/TCS189222 The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/.
    [Show full text]
  • State Route 260 Little Colorado River Bridge Scour Retrofit Project FHWA File # 260-C(204)T ADOT File # 260-AP-394-H8269-01C
    United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 9828 North 31st Avenue, Suite C3 Phoenix, Arizona 85051 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 In reply refer to: 02EAAZ00-2015-F-0270 June 3, 2019 Mr. Joshua Fife, Biology Team Lead Arizona Department of Transportation Environmental Planning 1611 West Jackson Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 RE: State Route 260 Little Colorado River Bridge Scour Retrofit Project FHWA File # 260-C(204)T ADOT File # 260-AP-394-H8269-01C Dear Mr. Fife: Thank you for your June 12, 2018, request for formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544), as amended (Act). Your request was dated June 12, 2018, and was received by us via electronic mail (email) on the same day. At issue are effects that may result from a proposed scour retrofit and culvert extension project at the Little Colorado River (LCR) bridge on State Route (SR) 260 (hereafter the LCR bridge) within the town of Eagar, Apache County, Arizona. The proposed action may affect the threatened Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata) (spinedace). Below we provide a biological opinion (BO) on effects of the proposed action on the spinedace. In your letter, you requested our concurrence that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) (flycatcher) and endangered New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus) (jumping mouse). We concur with your determinations for the flycatcher and jumping mouse and provide our rationales in Appendix A.
    [Show full text]
  • SR 260 – Payson to Heber Archaeological Project: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan for Data Recovery in the Doubtful Canyon Segment
    SR 260 – Payson to Heber Archaeological Project: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan for Data Recovery in the Doubtful Canyon Segment Sarah H. Herr Pat H. Stein Technical Report No. 2009-09 Desert Archaeology, Inc. SR 260 – Payson to Heber Archaeological Project: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan for Data Recovery in the Doubtful Canyon Segment DRAFT Project Number: STP-053-2 (38) Sarah H. Herr TRACS Number: 260 GI 269 H4698 01C Pat H. Stein Contract Number: 99-59 Submitted to Historic Preservation Team Environmental and Enhancement Group Arizona Department of Transportation 205 South 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Technical Report No. 2009-09 Desert Archaeology, Inc. 3975 North Tucson Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona 85716 • December 2009 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY Date: 18 December 2009 Report Title: SR 260 – Payson to Heber Archaeological Project: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan for Data Recovery in the Doubtful Canyon Segment. Technical Report Number 2009-09. Client: Arizona Department of Transportation Client Project Name: State Route 260 – Payson to Heber project Compliance Agency: Tonto National Forest, Arizona Department of Transportation Compliance Level: Federal ADOT TRACS Number: 260 GI 269 H4698 01C Applicable Laws/Regulations: Arizona Antiquities Act, ARS §41-841; Federal Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897; Antiquities Act of 1906, As Amended; Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, As Amended; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 106; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Applicable Permits: TNF permit TON426 for prehistoric period sites; TNF permit TON425 for historic sites; TNF permit TON570 for survey work. Arizona Antiquties Act Project Specific Permit 1999-121ps Tribal Consultation: When working on Tonto National Forest land the State Route 260 project works under the Plan for the Treatment and Disposition of Human Remains and Other Cultural Items from the Tonto National Forest pursuant to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Revised 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • CX Appendix C Burro Movem
    1 B. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 2 Name and Address of Applicant or Applicant Organization: 3 Arizona Game and Fish Department 4 5000 W. Carefree Highway 5 Phoenix, AZ 85086 6 Evaluation of Burro Movements and Collisions along Roads Near Lake Pleasant 7 Herd Management Area 8 With burro populations above acceptable Herd Management Area (HMA) levels, burro- 9 vehicle collisions (BVC) have become an increasing problem for the travelling public on 10 roads in proximity to Lake Pleasant (LP) HMA. BVC in and around the LPHMA have 11 increased dramatically and exceeded 35 between October 1, 2015 and December 7, 12 2015, and will continue to pose a hazard to motorists. The Bureau of Land Management 13 (BLM) and its partners are seeking solutions to return the population to acceptable HMA 14 levels. Current BLM burro removal efforts cannot keep pace with the herd’s population 15 growth. Until long-term burro reduction strategies are implemented, there is an ever 16 increasing risk to the safety of both motorists and burros. The Arizona Department of 17 Transportation (ADOT) shoulders a bulk of the liability associated with BVCs. To help 18 mitigate risks to motorists and burros, an evaluation of burro movements and collision 19 locations is warranted. We propose to gather information on burro movements along 20 roads within and adjacent to LPHMA through the collection of 1) GPS movement data, 21 2) BVC hotspots and associated variables, and 3) burro roadway access point camera 22 data collection. Our analysis of this Information will 1) provide recommendations for 23 strategic reduction in BVCs while considering implications to wildlife connectivity and 2) 24 identify additional areas for burro removal efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona
    [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona PROJECT TEAM ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Payson Town Council: Planning & Zoning Commission: Kenny Evans, Mayor Jeff Loyd, Chairman Michael Hughes, Vice Mayor John Swenson, Vice Chairman John Wilson, Council Member Dan Jaeger, Commissioner Ed Blair, Council Member Clark Jones, Commissioner Su Connell, Council Member Lori Meyers, Commissioner Fred Carpenter, Council Member James Scheidt, Commissioner Rick Croy, Council Member Mark Waldrop, Commissioner General Plan Steering Committee Joel Mona Barbara Underwood Ron Hitchcock Ralph Bossert Kayla Percell Emily DePugh Jeff Loyd Joel Goode Rob Ingram Robert Sanders Sharon King John Wakelin Jim Hunt Staff Participants: Debra Galbraith, Town Manager LaRon Garrett, Assistant Town Manager Sheila DeSchaaf, Zoning Administrator Donald Engler, Chief of Police Cameron Davis, Chris Floyd, Parks, Recreation & Tourism Director Executive Assistant Community Development Doni Wilbanks, Planning Technician Citizen Participants: As part of the General Plan Update 2014-2024 process, the Town of Payson engaged citizen participation through an online survey, workshops, an information forum, and access to Town staff and officials. Over 775 Payson citizens and stakeholders participated in the yearlong Update process. Consultants: TischlerBise was retained by the Town of Payson to deliver a General Plan Update 2014-2024. The findings and conclusions in this analysis are the culmination of data collection, research, and stakeholder input.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 2-21-90-F-299-R1 May 23, 2001 Mr. Robert E. Hollis, Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division 234 North Central Avenue, Suite 330 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Dear Mr. Hollis: This reinitiated biological opinion responds to your request for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (Act). Your request for reinitiation of formal consultation was dated April 2, 2001, and received by us on April 2, 2001. At issue are impacts that may result from use of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds for proposed construction of the Christopher Creek and Kohls Ranch segments of Arizona Department of Transportation’s (ADOT) State Route (SR) 260 improvements from Payson to Heber, Gila and Navajo counties, Arizona. FHWA/ADOT proposes to widen from 2 to 4 lanes and make other improvements to 7.6 miles of SR 260. Impacts resulting from the project may affect the following listed species: Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) (threatened), spikedace (Meda fulgida) (threatened), loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) (threatened); and may also affect one species proposed for listing as threatened, the Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis). We concur that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the latter three species. The basis for our conclusion is provided in Appendix 1 of this biological opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Department of Transportation
    ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS SPECIAL PROVISIONS BIDDERS DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY: ________________________________________________________________ (Company or Firm Name) ________________________________________________________________ (Mailing Address) ________________________________________________________________ (City) (State) (Zip Code) ________________________________________________________________ (Street Address - If Different From Above) ________________________________________________________________ (City) (State) (Zip Code) Arizona Commercial License No. _________________________________________ License Classifications(s) _______________________________________________________ TRACS/Proj. No.: 260 AP 394 H826901C STBG-260-C(204)T SHOW LOW-MCNARY-EAGAR HIGHWAY (SR 260) (LITTLE COLORADO RIVER BRIDGE, STR #416) Contracts and Specifications Section 1651 West Jackson, Room 121F Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3217 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS BID OPENING: FRIDAY, MAY 15, 2020, AT 11 :00 A.M. (M.S.T.) TRACS NO 260 AP 394 H826901C PROJECT NO STBG-260-C(204 )T TERMINI SHOW LOW-McNARY-EAGAR HIGHWAY (SR 260) LOCATION LITTLE COLORADO RIVER BRIDGE, STA. # 416 ROUTE NO. MILEPOST DISTRICT ITEM NO. SR 260 394.68 to 394.78 Northeast 14517 The amount programmed for this contract is $700,000. The location and description of the proposed work are as follows: The proposed work is located in Apache County on SR 260 at Milepost 394.75, one mile west of the Town of Eagar. The work consists of constructing a new scour concrete floor underneath the existing bridge and repairing pier stem walls. The work also includes box culvert extension, shotcrete, pavement marking, signing, and other related work. The work included in this contract shall be completed by February 1, 2021. The Arizona Department of Transportation, in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat.
    [Show full text]
  • Yavapai County June 30, 2010 Financial Report
    Yavapai County, Arizona Yavapai County Superior Court 2840 Commonwealth Drive Camp Verde, Arizona November 2009 Completion Date Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010 Yavapai County, Arizona Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010 Board of Supervisors Carol Springer, District 1 A.G. “Chip” Davis, District 3 Thomas Thurman, District 2 Prepared by Yavapai County Finance Department YAVAPAI COUNTY Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Year Ended June 30, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY SECTION Letter of Transmittal 1 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting 6 Organizational Chart 7 Yavapai County Officials 8 FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor's Report 9 Management's Discussion and Analysis (Required Supplementary Information) 11 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Government-Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Assets 22 Statement of Activities 23 Fund Financial Statements: Balance Sheet-Governmental Funds 24 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Assets 26 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances-Governmental Funds 28 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities 30 Statement of Net Assets-Proprietary Funds 31 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Assets- Proprietary Funds 32 Statement of Cash Flows-Proprietary Funds 33 Statement of Fiduciary Net Assets-Fiduciary Funds 34
    [Show full text]
  • Yavapai County June 30, 2011 Financial Report
    Yavapai County, Arizona Yavapai County Courthouse Prescott, Arizona Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011 Yavapai County, Arizona Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011 Board of Supervisors Carol Springer, District 1 A.G. “Chip” Davis, District 3 Thomas Thurman, District 2 Prepared by Yavapai County Finance Department YAVAPAI COUNTY Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Year Ended June 30, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY SECTION Letter of Transmittal 1 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting 6 Organizational Chart 7 Yavapai County Officials 8 FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditors' Report 9 Management's Discussion and Analysis (Required Supplementary Information) 11 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Government-Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Assets 22 Statement of Activities 23 Fund Financial Statements: Balance Sheet-Governmental Funds 24 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Assets 26 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances-Governmental Funds 28 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities 30 Statement of Net Assets-Proprietary Funds 31 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Assets- Proprietary Funds 32 Statement of Cash Flows-Proprietary Funds 33 Statement of Fiduciary Net Assets-Fiduciary Funds 34 Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Assets-Fiduciary Funds
    [Show full text]
  • The Coconino County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input March 2011
    The Coconino County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input March 2011 Photo by G. Andrejko, AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department In partnership with Coconino County and the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup 1 Recommended citation: Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2011. The Coconino County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input. 2 Acknowledgments: This project would not have been possible without the contributions of the individuals and organizations listed below, to whom we extend our sincere appreciation. Stakeholders: Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs/Camp Navajo, Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona Public Service, Arizona State Forestry, AZTEC Engineering, City of Flagstaff, Coconino County - Community Development, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works Departments, Coconino National Forest, Defenders of Wildlife, El Paso Natural Gas, Energy Transfer Company, Flagstaff Regional Plan Citizens’ Advisory Committee, Grand Canyon Trust, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Habitat Harmony, Hopi Nation, Jenness Enterprises, Kaibab National Forest, National Park Service - Flagstaff Area National Monuments and Grand Canyon National Park, Northern Arizona Audubon Society, Northern Arizona University, Oak Creek Canyon Task Force, The Nature Conservancy, US Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Geological Survey, Verde Valley Land Preservation Institute Partners: Arizona Wildlife Linkages
    [Show full text]
  • Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Detailed Linkages
    August 2012 Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Detailed Linkages Kitt Peak Linkage Design Towards Kitt Peak Photo courtesy George Andrejko, AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County Kitt Peak Linkage Design Recommended Citation Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2012. Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Detailed Linkages. Kitt Peak Linkage Design. Report to the Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County. ii Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Detailed Linkages Kitt Peak Linkage Design Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. We would like to thank the following: CorridorDesign Team at Northern Arizona University: Paul Beier, Emily Garding, Jeff Jenness, and Dan Majka (CorridorDesign Team) for authoring the Arizona Missing Linkages. Content from the Arizona Missing Linkages (Beier et al 2006a, Beier et al 2006b), is used directly throughout this report with permission. Models in this report were created using methods developed by Majka et al. (2007). Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup: Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Game and Fish Department, AZTEC Engineering, Bureau of Land Management, Defenders of Wildlife, Northern Arizona University, Sky Island Alliance, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Workgroup: Arizona Game and Fish Department, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, Defenders of Wildlife, Pima County, Sky Island Alliance, Town of Marana, Tucson Audubon Society, University of Arizona, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County: The Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County for funding the Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment project, which this report is part of.
    [Show full text]