A watershed at a watershed: The potential for environmentally sensitive area protection in the upper San Pedro Drainage Basin (Mexico and USA)

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 49, Issue 3-4, 2000, Pages 129-148

  Steiner, Frederick ^a   Blair, John ^a   McSherry, Laurel ^a   Guhathakurta, Subhrajit ^a   Marruffo, Joaquin ^a   Holm, Matthew ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bi national planning; Environmentally sensitive areas; Riparian corridors; Watershed planning

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; WATERSHED;

ARIZONA; MEXICO; SAN PEDRO RIVER; SONORA STATE; UNITED STATES;

BOS TAURUS; RIPARIA;

EID: 0034691686     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00062-1     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1997. The Arizona statewide watershed framework (draft). Water Quality Division, Phoenix.
2. Beech, B., Booker, T., Corcuera, E., Dveris, B., Jackson, S., Lopez, E., Marruffo, J., Oz, L., 1997. San Pedro watershed. School of Planning and Landscape Architecture, Tempe, Arizona State University, AZ.
3. Belsky A.J., Matzke A., Uselman S. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. J. Soil Water Conserv. 54(1):1999;419-431.
4. Briggs, M.K., 1996. Riparian Ecosystem Recovery in Arid Lands: Strategies and References. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
5. Charlton D.L., Tufgar R. Integrated watershed creek management for small southern Ontario rural/urban watersheds. Can. Water Resour. J. 16(4):1991;421-432.
6. City of Benson, 1993. City of Benson general development plan: 1994-2014. City Council, Benson, AZ.
7. City of Bisbee, 1996. City of Bisbee general plan: 1996-2006. Planning and Zoning Commission, Bisbee, AZ.
8. City of Douglas, 1993. 1993 general plan for Douglas, Arizona, and environs. Planning and Zoning Commission, Douglas, AZ.
9. City of Scottsdale, 1991. Approved environmentally sensitive lands ordinance (19 February). Scottsdale, AZ.
10. City of Sierra Vista, 1997. The City of Sierra Vista general development plan: Vista 2010. Department of Development Services, Sierra Vista, AZ.
11. Cochise County, 1996. Cochise County comprehensive plan. Cochise County Planning Department, Bisbee, AZ.
12. Cochise County, 1997. Naco community plan (Public Hearing Draft, 4 December). Cochise County Planning Department, Bisbee, AZ.
13. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 1998. Sustaining and enhancing riparian bird habitat on the upper San Pedro River. The Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal.
14. Corcuera, E.I., 1999. Feasibility of Private Conservation in Mexico and the Upper San Pedro River Watershed (Master of environmental planning thesis). School of Planning and Landscape Architecture, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
15. Dickert T.G., Tuttle A.E. Cumulative impact assessment in environmental planning, a coastal wetland watershed example. Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 5:1985;37-64.
16. Dixon, J.A., Easter, K.W., 1986. Integrated watershed management: an approach to resource management. In: Easter, K.W., Dixon, J.A., Hufschmidt, M.M. (Eds.), Watershed Resource Management, Westview Press, Boulder.
17. Dunne, T., Leopold, L.B., 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman, New York.
18. Easter, K.W., Hufschmidt, M.M., 1985. Integrated Watershed Management for Resource Management. East-West Center, Honolulu.
19. Espejel I., Fischer D.W., Hinojosa Al., Garcia C., Leyva C. Land use planning for the Guadalupe Valley, Baja California, Mexico. Landsc. Urban Plann. 45(4):1999;219-232.
20. Fredlake, M., 1997. Re-establishment of the North American beaver (Castor canadensis) into the San Pedro Riparian Conservation Area. Environmental Assessment EA AZ-060-97-004. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Tucson.
21. Ganster, P., Pijawka, D., Rasmussen, P., Van Schoik, R., 2000. Overview Findings of Border Institute I, The U.S. Mexico border environment: A road map to a sustainable 2020. In: Ganster, Paul (Ed.), The US-Mexico Border Environment: A Road Map to a Sustainable 2020. San Diego State University Press, San Diego.
22. Glennon R.J., Maddock III T. In search of subflow: Arizona's futile attempt to separate groundwater from surface water. Arizona Law Rev. 36:1994;567-610.
23. Griffith G.E., Omernick J.M., Woods A.J. Ecoregions, watersheds, basins, and HUCs: how state and federal agencies frame water quality. J. Soil Water Conserv. 54(4):1999;666-677.
24. Guhathakurta, S., McSherry, L., Steiner, F., Blair, J., Corcuera, E.I., Marruffo, J., 2000. A watershed at a watershed: strategies for sustainability in the Upper San Pedro River Drainage Basin. Herberger Center for Design Excellence, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
25. Herzog, Lawrence A., 1998. Where North Meets South: Cities, Space, and Politics on the US-Mexico Border. Center for Mexican American Studies, Austin, University of Texas, TX.
26. Kitsap County, 1998. Critical areas ordinance. Kitsap County Department of Community Development, Port Orchard, WA.
27. Kleiman R.E., Erickson D.L. Landscape change in an agricultural watershed: the effect of parcelization on riparian forest cover. Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Design. 23:1996;25-36.
28. McHarg, I.L., 1969. Design with Nature. Doubleday/Natural History Press, Garden City, NY.
29. McHarg, I.L., 1996. A Quest for Life. Wiley, New York.
30. McHarg I.L. Natural factors in planning. J. Soil Water Conserv. 52(1):1997;13-17.
31. Meine, C., 1997. Inherit the grid. In: Nassauer, Joan Iverson (Ed.), Placing Nature, Culture and Landscape Ecology. Island Press, Washington, DC.
32. Morett Sánchez, Jesús, 1992. Alternativas de Modernización del Ejido. Editorial Diana, México.
33. Nakata Planning Group, 1997. Long-range component, real property master plan. Colorado Springs, Colo, Fort Huachuca, AZ.
34. Ndubisi Forster, De Meo Terry, Ditto Nels D. Environmentally sensitive areas: a template for developing greenway corridors. Landsc. Urban Plann. 33:1995;159-177.
35. Newman, Harry George III, 1982. An environmentally sensitive area planning model for local government in the State of Washington. Master's thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
36. Noss Reed F. Protecting natural areas in fragmented landscapes. Natural Areas J. 7:1987;2-13.
37. Odum, E.P., 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. 3rd Edition, W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.
38. Pickett Steward T.A., Burch William R. Jr., Dalton Shawn E., Foresman Timothy W., Grove J. Morgan, Rowntree Rowan A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosystems. 1:1997;185-199.
39. Pinelands Commission, 1980. New Jersey Pinelands. Comprehensive Management Plan. State of New Jersey, New Lisbon.
40. Renthall, J., 2000. Personal communication, Bureau of Land Management, 20 January. Phoenix, AZ.
41. Riley, J.L., Mohr, P., 1994. The natural heritage of southern Ontario's settled landscape. Queen's Printer of Ontario, Toronto.
42. Ritters, K.H., Watts, C.J., Edmonds, C.M., 1997. Project summary for the upper San Pedro watershed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV.
43. Satterlund, D.R., Adams, P.W., 1992. Wildland Watershed Management. 2nd Edition. Wiley, New York.
44. Shepard, P., 1991. Man in the Landscape, 2nd Edition. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
45. Smith, T., Trushinski, B., Willis, J., Lemon, G., 1997. The Laurel Creek Watershed Study. Grand River Conservation Authority and City of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.
46. Smithsonian Institution Center for Natural Areas, 1974. Planning conservation for statewide inventories of critical areas: a reference guide (Report 3). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
47. Snohomish County, 1996a. General policy plan. Everett. Snohomish County Planning Commission, Washington.
48. Snohomish County, 1996b. Critical areas regulations. Everett, Washington (Chapter 32.10).
49. Spirn, A.W., 1998. The Language of Landscape. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
50. Steiner, F., 1991. The Living Landscape. McGraw-Hill, New York.
51. Steiner, F., 2000. The Living Landscape, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.
52. Stromberg, J., 1998. Personal communication (letter), 10 December 1998.
53. Tamminga, K.R., 1997. Restoration planning in the urbanizing (bio)region: ecological themes and regional imperatives. In: Hill, M. (Ed.), Opportunities in sustainable development: strategies for the Chesapeake Basin. American Society of Landscape Architects, Washington, DC.
54. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986. Coronado National Forest plan. U.S. Forest Service, Southwest Region.
55. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1989. San Pedro River riparian management plan and environmental impact statement. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Safford, AZ.
56. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1998. The upper San Pedro River Basin of the United States and Mexico: a resource dictionary and an overview of natural resource issues confronting decision-makers and natural resource managers. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, State Office, Phoenix, AZ.
57. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999a. Border XXI: Program Overview: Fact Sheet - Vol. 1, Spring.
58. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999b. Border XXI: Natural Resources Workgroup: Fact Sheet - Vol. 1, Spring.
59. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/crdlvweb/land-sci/san-pedro.htm.
60. U.S. Geological Survey, 1999. Hydrogeologic investigations of the Sierra Vista sub-watershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, Cochise County, Southeast Arizona. Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4197. USGS, Tucson, AZ.
61. Verma, N., 1998. Similarities, Connections and Systems: the Search for a New Rationality for Planning and Management. Lexington Books, Phoenix, AZ.
62. White, G.F., 1995. Watersheds and streams of thought. Paper presented at the Fiftieth Anniversary Meeting, Soil and Water Conservation Society, Des Moines, IA.
63. Zube E.H., Simcox D., Friedman S. Desert riparian landscapes: values and change 1981-1996. Landsc. Urban Plann. 42(2-4):1998;81-89.