The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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.

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.

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.

Wilson & Company recently completed the City of Casa Grande Small Area Transportation Study. The SATS notes that “as the City of Casa Grande increases in size and planning area, the roadway network is also growing to meet the additional travel demands significant improvement measures are needed to meet the travel demand generated by forecast population and employment growth”. Given the findings of the SATS, the City of Casa Grande contracted with TischlerBise to calculate an infrastructure improvement plans and updated development fees for transportation.

The City of Casa Grande engaged TischlerBise to update its Infrastructure Improvements Plans and development fees for several categories of necessary public services. TischlerBise previously calculated development fees for the City in 1999, 2003, 2006, and 2008. Municipalities in Arizona may assess development fees to offset infrastructure costs to a municipality associated with providing necessary public services to a development. The development fees must be based on an Infrastructure Improvements Plan. Development fees cannot be used for, among other things: projects not included in the Infrastructure Improvements Plan, projects related to existing development, or costs related to operations and maintenance.

Pima County’s Southwest area has been identified by County planners as a potential and strategic growth area. To accommodate population growth, the existing infrastructure must be improved and expanded. The purpose of this Infrastructure Plan is to provide a basis for infrastructure decision-making related to development in the Southwest area. It quantifies the nature, phasing, financial impacts, and funding possibilities for those flood control, parks and recreation, transportation, wastewater infrastructure and other improvements that are necessary to service future saturation growth within the study limits.