Arizona State and Local Government Documents Collection

This report summarizes the results of the first two meetings of the Arizona-New Mexico Jaguar Conservation Team (JAG Team) Research Committee and outlines future research that will guide the JAG Team in sound conservation management of jaguars in the United States. Research objectives were identified and approved by the JAG Team. These objectives are to describe and quantify (1) the current distribution and (2) habitat requirements of jaguars in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. The second meeting focused on selecting study methods to achieve these objectives.

After virtual extirpation from the Southwest during the mid-1900’s, jaguars have been rediscovered in portions of their former range in the United States, changing the way we think about their current status and distribution. However, we must look ahead and take the next step towards responsible jaguar conservation and apply serious, in depth and objective research on the jaguar in the borderlands region. We emphasize the unique situation of wild jaguars currently occupying portions of southeastern Arizona and recommend investigations to learn as much as possible on the specific habitat selection and habitat requirements of these jaguars while the opportunity exists. We propose a combination of studies. These would include noninvasive presence/absence surveys to determine the current status and distribution. Once jaguars are located, we recommend conducting detailed studies of their habitat selection and ecology using a combination of GPS telemetry and noninvasive monitoring techniques.

The Jaguar Conservation Agreement provides opportunities and incentives for interested parties to become involved with conservation activities. These activities include collection of biological information (to provide a sound scientific basis for decisions); consideration of relevant cultural, economic, and political factors; design and implementation of a comprehensive approach to conservation (including public education); and monitoring, evaluation, and feedback. This summary will focus on the mapping efforts and make recommendations to the Jaguar Conservation Team on conservation measures for potential jaguar habitat.

This report utilizes criteria developed by the Habitat Subcommittee of the Jaguar Conservation Team to identify suitable jaguar habitat in New Mexico. In July 2003, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish also issued a report on jaguar habitat, along with accompanying maps.4 However, in an August 2004 meeting of the Habitat Subcommittee in Albuquerque, members who were present during the development of the habitat criteria between 1998 and 2000 reviewed the New Mexico report, concluded it was based on criteria different from those they had agreed to, further noted that it explicitly refrained from identifying suitable jaguar habitat, and decided not to forward it to the Jaguar Conservation Team as fulfilling the conservation assessment and strategy’s intent. The present document is intended to complete the process of identifying suitable jaguar habitat in the two states preparatory to coordinating protection of those habitats.

In March 1997, the Arizona Game and Fish Department and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish entered into a Conservation Agreement with other state, local, and federal cooperators, with voluntary participation by many private individuals, to conserve the jaguar (Panthera onca) along borderlands of Arizona and New Mexico and to stimulate parallel efforts in Mexico. Under the Conservation Agreement, an annual evaluation and progress report must be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The first of these reports was completed in July 1998 and the second in June 2000. This third report is a comprehensive review of all Jaguar Conservation Agreement activities from March 1997 through December 2003. We compiled the information herein with assistance from members of the Jaguar Conservation Team and Jaguar Working Group, to help ensure that objectives outlined in the Conservation Agreement are being accomplished and that any deficiencies identified are addressed and corrective measures are implemented. In this report, we will identify progress, or lack thereof, in accomplishing the goals and objectives set forth by and for the JAGCT for the last 6 years.

In fiscal year 2012, Winslow Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’ averages, but its cost-efficiency in noninstructional areas was mixed. The District’s per pupil administrative costs were much higher than peer districts’, on average, primarily because it employed more administrative positions. The District’s plant costs were higher primarily because it maintained a large amount of excess school building space, which was likely not needed because most of the District’s schools operated far below their designed capacities. The District’s food service program operated with slightly higher costs that may have been a result of it not sufficiently overseeing the vendor operating the program. The District’s transportation program operated in a reasonably efficient manner, despite having higher costs per pupil, but the District needs to strengthen controls over fuel purchases.

In fiscal year 2013, Safford USD's student achievement was similar to peer districts', and the District operated efficiently overall with most costs lower than, or similar to, the peer districts' averages. The District's administrative cost per pupil was similar to the peer districts' average, and its plant operations and food service program operated efficiently. Further, despite a higher cost per rider, the District's transportation program was reasonably efficient. However, the District should strengthen controls over its computer network and systems.

In fiscal year 2012, Santa Cruz Valley USD's student achievement was similar to peer districts', and its operations were reasonably efficient overall despite having some higher costs than peer districts', on average. However, the District needs to improve its computer controls, pay its credit cards in full to avoid interest charges, and accurately report its costs.

In fiscal year 2012, Tolleson ESD's student achievement was similar to peer districts', and its operational efficiencies were mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts', on average. Specifically, the District's plant operations and food service program operated efficiently, but its administration and transportation program operated less efficiently with higher costs than peer districts' averages.

In fiscal year 2012, Wenden ESD's student test scores on Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) were mixed compared to peer district averages, with similar scores in reading but lower scores in math, writing, and science. Although the District's costs in noninstructional areas were mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts' averages, the District was reasonably efficient overall. However, auditors identified several opportunities for improved procedures and controls.

In fiscal year 2012, Kayenta Unified School District’s student achievement was slightly higher than peer districts’, and the District’s efficiency in noninstructional areas was mixed, with some costs higher and some lower than peer districts’, on average. The District’s per pupil administrative costs were similar to peer districts’, on average, but the District needs to strengthen controls over its computer network and systems. The District’s plant operations costs were much higher partly because it provided employee housing and had some unique facilities that other districts typically do not have. However, the District also had excess space at its schools. To its credit, the District has taken steps to reduce some of this excess space, but more needs to be done. The District’s food service program operated efficiently with a much lower cost per meal than peer districts averaged, and although the District’s transportation costs were higher, the long bus route times limit the ability to reduce these costs. Finally, the District did not ensure that bus preventative maintenance was systematically performed.