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.

The passage of Senate Bill 1013 gave the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission the responsibility for distributing Fill the Gap funds to the county attorneys and indigent defense agencies throughout the state. The formula for distributing Fill the Gap funds to each county is based on the average number of cases filed over a three-year period and the population of each county. Along with the Commission’s fiduciary responsibilities, A.R.S. §41-2409 requires ACJC to report on an annual basis each agency’s progress toward improving criminal case processing.

In early 2009, an Exploratory Committee was formed to investigate the potential creation of a Veterans Court in Maricopa County, Arizona. The Committee’s initial efforts have focused on examining existing Veterans Courts and determining the size and scope of the problem (i.e., the number of veterans in the county jail). This report provides an overview of information on veterans in the Maricopa County Jail System, drawing on data collected by the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN). This report is intended to assist the work of the Veterans Court Exploratory Committee.

Several jurisdictions across the United States have created specialized Veterans Courts, which employ a drug court-adapted therapeutic approach to funnel justice system-involved veterans to counseling and support services that are closely monitored by the court. Despite the emergence of Veterans Courts, little is known regarding the prevalence of military veterans in the criminal justice system, the nature of their cases and prior experiences, as well how combat-related conditions such as PTSD or TBI may have contributed to their involvement in the system. This report seeks to address the knowledge gap in this area through an examination of 2,102 recently booked arrestees in Maricopa County, Arizona. Using interview data from the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN), the report characterizes the problems and prior experiences of military veterans, and to compare veteran and nonveteran arrestees along a range of demographic, background and criminal behavior measures. The overall objectives of the paper are to determine the prevalence of military veterans in the Maricopa County arrestee population and to assess the extent to which the arrested veterans differ from the larger arrestee population.

This report seeks to address the knowledge gap in understanding the relationship between combat-related conditions such as PTSD and TBI and involvement in the criminal justice system, through an examination of 1,370 recently booked arrestees in Maricopa County, Arizona. Using interview data from the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN), the report characterizes the problems and prior experiences of military veterans, and compares veteran and nonveteran arrestees along a range of demographic, background and criminal behavior measures. The overall objectives of the report are to provide an ongoing estimate of the prevalence of military veterans in the Maricopa County arrestee population and to assess the extent to which the arrested veterans differ from the larger arrestee population.

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.