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.

One goal of the SDCP was to obtain a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act to enable incidental take of species protected by the ESA in the course of development in Pima County. This report provides the county with the framework to go forward and further its analysis of the final funding costs for a Section 10 Permit.

This Additional Site Characterization Work Plan presents a strategy for collecting site characterization information at the closed Maricopa County Cave Creek Landfill to support ongoing remedial action planning for trichloroethene-impacted groundwater underlying the site. The Work Plan supplements previous remedial investigation work plans prepared to characterize the nature and extent of site contamination.

To evaluate whether VOCs are migrating out of the landfills into the vadose zone, a soil vapor survey of the soil beneath the landfill bases was performed. Permanent vapor monitoring probes were installed and then sampled twice for VOCs. Groundwater beneath the landfills has been impactd by VOCs, namely TCE, DCE, and toluene.

In March 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requested information on efforts to monitor and protect children from exposure to lead in drinking water at schools. The Arizona Department of Health Services reviewed the state lead poisoning registry, and analyzed drinking water samples from 45 randomly selected schools. The Office of Environmental Health provided this consultation to help document our findings and supplement our response to the EPA. This work was also undertaken to help provide useful information should hazardous waste sites be discovered in the future near these schools. We also wanted to apply the ATSDR health assessment process in support of state and federal efforts to protect the health of children.

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.