The Arizona Department of Transportation, the Arizona Game & Fish Department and the Arizona State Parks Board are required to conduct a study every three years on watercraft fuel consumption and recreational watercraft usage. The fuel consumption data is collected to determine the allocation of motor vehicle fuel tax to the State Lake Improvement Fund. The information on recreational watercraft usage patterns on Arizona’s lakes and rivers is necessary, in part, to determine the distribution of SLIF funds to applicants.

In fiscal year 2012, Scottsdale Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’, on average, but it compared less favorably in operational efficiencies. The District’s food service program operated efficiently with a cost per meal that was lower than the peer district average. However, the District’s administrative costs were higher than peer districts’, primarily because it employed more administrative staff. In addition, the District inaccurately reported its costs on its Annual Financial Report and it lacked sufficient computer controls. The District’s plant operations cost per pupil was higher than peer districts’, on average, because the District maintained more square footage per student than the peer districts’ and many of its schools operated far below their designed capacities. Further, the District’s transportation cost per mile was much higher than the peer districts’ average, in part, because of inefficient bus routes.

This report and the accompanying Geographic Information System (GIS) datasets summarize the results of the workshop held in Florence, Arizona in 2010. At this workshop, stakeholders representing a broad range of organizations and interests identified and mapped the locations of important wildlife linkages across Pinal County. This report provides background information on the importance and benefits of conserving wildlife linkages for both people and wildlife in Pinal County and describes the methods used during stakeholder workshops and in developing the accompanying GIS products. It includes a series of maps generated from the digitized stakeholder data that depict the general locations of wildlife linkages and potential barriers to wildlife movement within Pinal County. The maps are followed by tables with descriptive information about the habitat areas each linkage connects, the species each linkage serves, and known threats and potential conservation opportunities associated with each linkage.

Identifying the primary managers of wildlife habitat can provide one useful type of information for development of Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. This can contribute to satisfying at least three of the required elements: #4 (conservation actions and priorities), #5 (monitoring plans), and #7 (coordination). This can be particularly useful in the prioritization of actions and resources.

Toward that end, The Nature Conservancy has compiled relevant information and conducted new analyses from our recent statewide efforts to map and analyze two natural communities, grasslands and forests, and a species group, native fish. The results are presented in three sections, with appendices describing data sources.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department held four Wildlife Summits to obtain input from their stakeholders into the development of the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Stakeholder groups invited to participate in the Summits included Department constituency groups, special interests, local governments, Native American tribes, interagency cooperators, and the general public. This report combines the votes from each of the four Summits into one database for analysis. The results for each individual Summit are attached as separate reports. Comparisons are made in this combined report to show differences between the results of individual Summits. The combined results have also been analyzed to determine if there were any significant differences in opinions of the various stakeholder groups. Demographic breakdowns of the individual Summit results are not included in the separate reports because they would not be statistically valid given the small number of participants at each Summit. Participant comments are included in the
individual Summit reports.