Arizona State and Local Government Documents Collection

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.

Provides a detailed description of plants and animals that are being considered as potentially covered under the multi-species program, organized by taxonomic group. Two strong themes emerge when this compilation of species accounts is read together: one is the enormous importance of aquatic and riparian-based habitats to the majority of priority vulnerable species, and the other is the very bleak biological status of the riparian system.

In fiscal year 2011, Paradise Valley Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’ and it operated efficiently overall. The District’s per pupil administrative costs were lower than peer districts’, and its food service and transportation programs operated efficiently. The District’s plant operations cost per square foot was lower than peer districts’. However, the District did not gain the full benefit of potential savings from this lower cost per square foot because it maintained a large amount of excess building space. The District should continue to review options to address its excess building capacity. Additionally, the District’s solar power system contracts are unlikely to meet expectations for cost savings, and although the District has taken action to recover estimated financial losses, it should continue to monitor its solar power production and electricity usage. The District also needs to strengthen controls over its computer systems.

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.

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 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.