In September 2004, ADOT awarded a contract for the Pinal County Corridors Definition Study to Kimley-Horn and Associates. The scope of the Pinal County Corridors Definition Study included the following activities:
* Confirm the need for the East Valley and the North-South corridors;
* Define planning-level corridor definition alternatives;
* Perform a technical assessment of engineering, environmental, and land use compatibility constraints opportunities for the planning-level corridor definition alternatives;
* Identify to the extent possible, feasible and preferred planning-level corridor definitions on the basis of the technical evaluation;
* Document planning-level costs of corridor development (including studies, design, construction, and right-of-way costs) for the preferred corridor definitions.

The Pinal County Corridors Definition Study resulted in sufficient detail to provide a basis for the future establishment of geometric roadway alignments and corridor design concepts, the preservation of right-of-way, and the identification of required environmental clearance studies.

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.

This report describes the development of base and future socioeconomic estimates for the Pinal Corridor Planning Model, developed by ADOT to support the evaluation of potential new highway corridors in Northern Pinal County. This section presents a summary of the methodology, data sources used, and historical trends in population and employment growth. The following two sections present the base and future year methods and resulting estimates of population and employment.

The proposed Meridian Road Corridor Study is needed to support the continuing development and growth, occurring and anticipated, in the East Mesa, West Apache Junction, and within Pinal County. The purpose of the Meridian Road Corridor Study is to document conditions along the existing roadway and to develop alternatives that will increase the safety and future level of service of Meridian Road. This study will also establish a roadway footprint and develop the ultimate right‐of‐way requirement for the corridor. Finally, the study will be utilized as a guide for local agencies and future development along the corridor. The study area for the Meridian Road Corridor Study is approximately 13 miles in length.

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.

Given the inevitable transportation changes associated with impending growth in Pinal County, there was a need for a method to assess how corresponding emissions changes might affect PM10 and Ozone concentrations in the county and at the monitor sites. The overall objective of the project was to develop methods or models that could be used in Pinal County to adequately address air pollution issues in the County.

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.