Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Corridor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draft wildlife-corridor guide presented; Prescott Valley staff budget phase 2 for project identification
Summary
Consultants and staff presented a Phase 1 wildlife-corridor guide that synthesizes community input, five case studies and agency outreach; Phase 2 will identify specific on-the-ground projects, require additional data and seek funding partnerships.
Prescott Valley — Consultants from Logan Simpson presented a draft “wildlife corridor foundation” guide on Wednesday that maps habitat types, summarizes community input and lists best-practice tools to protect wildlife movement as growth continues.
Mikaela Dunphy of Logan Simpson, the project lead, described Phase 1 as a foundation and said the guide compiles existing conditions, community visioning and comparable case studies. “A wildlife corridor is a natural or plant habitat or crossing that connects animal populations to other suitable habitats,” Dunphy said during a video segment included in the presentation.
The draft guide identifies three primary habitat contexts within the town—riparian waterways, grasslands and mountain forest—and organizes recommended approaches by habitat: restoration and buffering, targeted fencing or crossing design, lighting standards, clustered zoning, and conservation easements. Logan Simpson identified five case studies used as models: Marana (AZ), the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (Pima County), Yavapai County linkages, Gallatin Valley (MT) and Ventura County (CA).
The team summarized its public engagement: roughly 600 people participated across outreach activities, including a community meeting that drew about 100 attendees and generated about 400 questionnaire responses. Dunphy said staff and consultants also held 11 listening sessions and multiple focus groups with wildlife experts, developers, property managers and agency partners.
Discussion at the meeting focused on data gaps, funding and how to protect private-property rights while preserving movement corridors. Town staff and consultants told the council and planning commission that Phase 2—budgeted for the next fiscal year—will map specific corridor parcels, identify high-priority crossing points and recommend targeted projects such as underpasses, overpasses, fencing modifications and selective land conservation.
Commissioner Bridal and several council members pressed for options to acquire or protect parcels. John Jacobson noted Arizona Game and Fish collaring and tracking data are useful but incomplete for some local segments; he told the group that Game and Fish and consultants have collared pronghorn in the region but not in every local herd area. Staff emphasized the need for additional targeted study and camera monitoring in Phase 2 to locate high-value crossing points.
Logan Simpson’s materials and staff also addressed coordination with state and regional agencies. Sandra Hoffman (consultant) recounted outreach with Arizona Game and Fish and ADOT and said some state agencies are motivated to reduce wildlife–vehicle conflicts; consultants noted ADOT can be a partner on underpass/overpass solutions and that road alignment revisions or fencing strategies sometimes accompany that work.
Participants raised funding and partnership avenues. Council members and commissioners suggested pursuing federal and state grants, conservation easements, regional partnerships and nonprofit support (for example, Central Arizona Wildlife Alliance) and urged starting outreach to funders early rather than waiting until Phase 2. Staff said some regional coordination meetings of water and natural-resource managers are scheduled in the coming months and that Phase 2 will include costed project packages.
On wildlife specifics, consultants and staff discussed pronghorn movement and barriers. John Jacobson relayed that Arizona Game and Fish data indicate pronghorn generally avoid crossing roads with daily traffic above a certain threshold, a factor that helps prioritize potential crossing locations. Staff also pointed to the Game and Fish website and presentations by Jeff Gagnon as useful existing data sources.
Next steps: staff and Logan Simpson will refine the Phase 1 draft using commission and council feedback, identify needed research (including additional collaring or camera monitoring), develop a prioritized Phase 2 project list, and pursue funding partners for land protection and crossing projects.
Ending
The guide is intended as a living document; staff said a Phase 2 effort will translate the guide’s recommendations into specific mapped projects, funding strategies and draft regulatory options for the council and planning commission to review.
