An update to the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP30), to bring its Road Network Illustration (Map 25) into compliance with Arizona Revised Statute requirements and to resolve inconsistencies between Map 25 and parts of the Flagstaff City Code. This update does not alter the intent of FRP30; it is only concerned with correcting errors, removing legal vulnerability, and improving the readability of FRP30.

This document embraces two components. First, a Conservation Assessment describes the current status of the jaguar in the United States, and identifies and assesses risks to the jaguar in Arizona and New Mexico. The Assessment focuses the second component, the Conservation Strategy, on reducing or eliminating these threats in Arizona and New Mexico, which might allow for expansion of the range currently occupied by the Arizona subspecies, and thus contribute to promoting recovery of the species.
Information in this document comes primarily from the state level, an approach that considers regional variation and provides a complete habitat and species assessment.

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. The agencies believed that if strong partnerships could be developed under this approach, it would be a significant step forward in bringing local governments, private landowners, and nongovernmental organizations directly into jaguar management.

The southwestern United States and Sonora, Mexico are the extreme northern limits of the jaguar’s (Panthera onca) range, which primarily extends from central Mexico south through Central and South America to northern Argentina. Recently, the jaguar ranged as far north as Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Over the last century, the jaguar’s range has been reduced to approximately 46% of its historic range due to hunting pressure and habitat loss. The greatest loss of occupied range has occurred in the southern United States, northern Mexico, northern Brazil, and southern Argentina. Since 1900, jaguars have been documented occasionally in the southwestern United States, but the number of sightings per decade has declined over the last 100 years with only 4 verified sightings between 1970 and 2000. The objectives of our analysis were twofold: (1) characterize potential jaguar habitat in Arizona from historic sighting records, and (2) create a statewide habitat suitability map.

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.

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.

The Arizona Head Start--Public School Transition Project is 1 of 31 demonstration projects designed to test whether advances by Head Start children could be maintained by continuing Head Start-type services into kindergarten through the third grade, and to identify, develop, and implement transition practices to bridge the gap between Head Start and public schools. This study evaluated the Arizona project in its fourth year of implementation. Participating were two cohorts of students at three transition and three comparison schools in Phoenix. The program components evaluated were: (1) developmentally appropriate practices, curriculum, and materials; (2) physical health, mental health, and dental services; (3) family services; and (4) parent involvement. Findings indicated that all components had been implemented by the time of the 1995-96 evaluation. Both cohorts had similar public assistance participation, and all groups showed dramatic decreases in public assistance since program entry. The vast majority of parents from all groups reported positive interactions with schools; qualitative data confirmed continuing positive impact on teachers, schools, and the Head Start agency. Transition services, especially those of family advocates, were seen as crucial to smooth transitions. There were observable differences between transition and comparison classrooms; however, quantitative data showed few significant differences in gains made by children between transition and comparison classrooms. Confounding variables of high attrition, variations in student English proficiency, and the existence in comparison schools of transition-like services may have influenced the results. Promising practices and further challenges were identified and recommendations were made for improving the collaboration between the Head Start program and the public schools, and improving the evaluation process. (Three appendices include a summary of data collection instruments. Contains 20 references.)

This report presents the second comprehensive look at the conditions of children and families in Arizona. Building upon information presented in the 1992 Factbook, this document presents and analyzes 48 indicators of child well-being. Following the executive summary and tables, chapter 1 provides an overview of the data for the state as a whole, including a summary of key findings and tables depicting raw numbers, rates adjusted for population growth, and rate changes over time. Racial and ethnic breakdowns are presented when such data are available.

Chapters 2-16 offer individual county profiles, following the general format established in the state chapter. These chapters offer insights into regional variations and identify varying conditions for children across the state. The report charts data within the state and county chapters for each of the following six categories: (1) poverty; (2) child health and safety; (3) child abuse, neglect, and out-of-home care; (4) early care and education; (5) children in school; and (6) teens at-risk. Overall, findings reveal significant improvements for a few indicators since 1990, most notably within birth-related items, such as an increase in the percent of women receiving timely prenatal care and a decrease in low birth-weight births. Findings also suggest there has been a worsening for many indicators, including poverty, firearm-related deaths and hospitalizations, alleged child abuse incidents, and births to teens.

This study was conducted as a progress evaluation of charter schools in Arizona. The study was funded by the Arizona Department of Education and conducted during calendar year 1998 by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy.

A total of 303 parents of charter school students, 171 students, 123 teachers and 54 directors completed surveys about charter schools. Fourteen focus groups were held around the state with parents, students, teachers and directors. Individual interviews were conducted with 23 persons, most of whom either hold policy-making positions related to charter schools or are employed by professional organizations that interact frequently with the schools.