Restoration of Cienega De San Bernardino, Sonora Applicant Organization Infor

PROPOSAL NUMBER AND RECEPTION DATE:

PROJECT TITLE: RESTORATION OF CIENEGA DE SAN BERNARDINO, SONORA

APPLICANT ORGANIZATION INFORMATION

Organization Fundacion de Refugio de San Bernardino A.C., partnered with Instituto Nacional de Ecologia ([NE), Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustenable del Estado de Sonora (IMADES), UNAM — Hermosillo, and other universities. Contact Person: Eduardo Avalos Cortes, CP, MBA Address Fundacion de Refugio de San Bernardino, Calle 1341, Avenida 21, Agua Prieta, C.P., Sonora, Mexico 84200 Telephone: 011 52 633-8497 Fax: As above E-mail E.AVALOS@M[CROSOFTNET.COM.MX

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EJECUTIVO RESUMEN 3 DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES: 4 A. Ecological Importance 4 B. Physiographic & Geological Importance 5 C. Social & Economic Importance 6 D. Historical & Cultural Importance 6 E. Recognition 6 GOALS & OBJECTIVES 7 WORK PLAN & PROJECT SCHEDULE 8 EVALUATION & MONITORING 9 ESTIMATED BUDGET 10 APPENDICES: L Map & photographs of project area 11 II Letter of commitment & other supporting documents 13 III References 22

Submitted 1 August 2000 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Title: Restoration of Cienega de San Bernardino, Sonora, Mexico.

0 Location: Municipality of Aqua Prieta, San Bernardino Ranch, 31 km (19.4 mi) east of Agua Prieta, Sonora; 31 31' N Lat., 109° 28' W Long.

Project Goals: Re-establishing Cienega de San Bernardino and restoring its watershed by repairing eroded channels, promoting elevated water tables, and other means, and managing it and its environs in a sustainable manner. First-year objectives include: 1) Restoration of existing wetlands, designing and constructing additional habitats, and developing means for more ready management. 2) Preventing water loss through increased water-use efficiency. 3) Stabi- lizing and expanding native species' populations. 4) Reducing negative impacts on native biota, including rare, threatened, and endangered species, by eradicating and excluding non-native species. And 5), with assistance from Mexican partners, informing and educating local residents and others on management of natural and semi-natural wetlands by ag- gressive habitat manipulation.

Organization: Fundacion de Refugio de San Bernardino A.C., Agua Prieta, Sonora.

Sources of Economic Resources: Source Contribution Funds ($US) NAWCA $ 304,000 Matching: Fundacion Refugio Purchase price, equipment, maintenance, materials, $ 554,500 de San Bernardino administrative and field personnel, housing facilities, logistics, coordination Subtotal $ 858,000 Non-matching: US Fish & Equipment, maintenance, materials, field personnel $ 85,000 Wildlife Service coordination (non-matching) Total Estimated Budget $ 908,500

History: Fundacion de Refugio de San Bernardino, A.C., is a non-profit organization dedicated to perpetuating the integrity and biodiversity of Southwestern ecosystems. It is privately funded by Josiah & Valer Austin, who over the past 20 years have donated personal resources to non-governmental and governmental conservation organizations, directly for research, management, and restoration, and indirectly by opening their properties in AZ, USA, for programs in management and research. In cooperation with agencies and individuals, they have evaluated erosion-control "gabions" in watershed restoration; photographically monitored rangelands; and executed a habitat management plan for imperiled fishes. They assisted in reintroduction efforts for Thick-billed Parrot and studies of western box and Sonoran mud turtles, parasite-prey relations of grassland insects, and mutualism among range grasses and fungi. Their interests now extend into Sonora, where they own property critical to perpetuating unique habitats and species, and formalized the Fundacion in 1999. They have already contributed to surveys in Mexico for jaguar and montane rattlesnakes, and investigations of pollinator (bee) diversity - plant interactions in ungrazed vs. grazed grasslands. The present project is a flagship for new activities with partners in Mexico, with emphasis on extending wetland habitats in Mexico north to the already established San Ber-nardino National Wildlife Refuge in the USA, with which the Austins have already collaborated in management of endangered species for —20 years. It is designed to promote restoration by on-the-ground management action and provide educational and other conservation opportunities for local and regional neighbors.

Ownership & Administration: The Mexican portion of Cienega San Bernardino is entirely within the 4,050 ha (10,000 acre) Rancho San Bernardino, purchased specifically for and administered by Fundacion de Refugio de San Bernardino for purposes of restoration and conservation.

Wetland Values: Cienega San Bernardino is the most extensive regional wetland in the region, other than mostly ephemeral stream channels. It forms a migratory link among mesic environments of the Sierra Madre Occidental with those to the north. It also has a unique and endemic biota, varying from special vertebrates to invertebrates and plants; rare species listed as endangered or threatened both by Mexico and the USA are present. Its natural history is well known so baseline for restoration are available, and it is continuous with an established refuge in the USA already managed for fish and wildlife enhancement. 3

EJECUTIVO RESUMEN

Titulo De Proyecto: RestauraciOn de Cienega de San Bernardino, Sonora, Mexico. Localizacion: Municipio de Aqua Prieta, rancho San Bernardino, 31 kilometros (19,4 millas) al este de Agua Prieta, So- nora; 310 31 ' N Lat., 1090 28 ' W de largo. Metas Del Proyecto: Reestableciendo Cienega de San Bernardino y su linea divisoria de las aguas reparando los canales erosionados, promoviendo los vectores elevados del agua, y otros medios, y el manejo de el y de sus alrededores de una manera sostenible. Los objetivos del primer ailo incluyen: 1) RestauraciOn de humedles existentes, diseftando y construyendo habitat adi- cionales, y desarrollando los medios para una gerencia mas lista. 2) La perdida de agua de prevencion de con aumentado agua-utiliza eficacia. 3) Que estabiliza y que amplia a poblaciones nativas de los species. 4) Que reduce itnpactos nega- tivos en biota nativo, incluyendo especie rara, amenazada, y puesta en peligro, suprimiendo y excluyendo especie ex- tranjera,. Y 5), con ayuda de los socios mexicanos, que informan y que educan al y de los residentes locales otros en la gerencia de pantanos naturales y semi-naturales por la manipulacion agresiva del habitat. Organizacion: Fundacion Refugio de San Bernardino A.C., Agua Prieta, Sonora Fuentes de recursos economicos: Fuente Contribucien Financia ($$US) NAWCA $ 304.000 Matching, Fundacion Precio de compra de tierra, equipo, mantenimiento, $ 554.000 Refugio de SanBernardino Materiales, administrativo, personal del campo, conteniendo los recursos, logistica, coordinaci6n Subtotal $ 858.000 Non-matching, U.S. Fish Equipo, mantenimiento, materiales, personal del $ 85.000 & Wildlife Service campo, conteniendo los recursos, coordinacion Estimado Total Presupuesto $ 908,500

Historia: Fundacion de Refugio de San Bernardino, A.C., es una organizacion no lucrativa dedicada a perpetuar la in- tegridad y el biodiversity de ecosistemas al sudoeste. Es financiada privado por Josiah y Valer Austin, que concluido los ultimos 20 aftos han donado recursos personales a las organizaciones no gubernamentales y gubernamentales de la conservacion, directamente para la investigacion, la gerencia, y la restauracion, y indirectamente abriendo sus caracteristicas en AZ, los E.E.U.U., para los programas en la gerencia y la investigacion. En la cooperacion con las agencias y los indi- viduos, evaluaron el "gabions" por control de la erosion en la restauracion de la linea divisoria de las aguas; pista del pasto fotograficamente vigilados; y ejecuto una gerencia del habitat que el plan para imperiled pesces. Asistieron a los esfuerzos de la reintroduccion para el loro Grueso-mandado la cuenta y los estudios de las tortugas occidentales del rec- tangulo y del fango de Sonoran, de las relaciones de la parasito-presa de los insectos del prado, y del mutualism entre hierbas y hongos del rango. Sus intereses ahora extienden en Sonora, donde poseen la caracteristica critica a perpetuar habitat anicos y especie y formalizaron el Fundacion en 1999. Han contribuido ya a las encuestas en Mexico para las ser- pientes de cascabel jaguar y del montane, y a las investigaciones de la diversidad del pollinator (abeja) - plante las inter- acciones adentro un-pastadas contra prados pastados. El actual proyecto es un buque insignia para las nuevas actividades con los socios en Mexico, con enfasis sobre habitat del pantano que extienden en el norte de Mexico al refugio nacional ya establecido de la fauna del San Bernardino en los E.E.U.U., con los cuales Austins ha colaborado ya en la gerencia de la especie puesta en peligro para —20 anos. Es diseftado para promover la restauracion por la acci6n de la gerencia de la en-la-tierra y para proporcionar a las oportunidades educativas y otras de la conservacion para los vecinos locales y re- gionales. Propiedad Y Administracion: La porci6n mexicana de Cienega de San Bernardino esta enteramente dentro del rancho San Bernardino de 4.050 has (10.000 acres), eso fue comprada especificamente para y administro por Fundacion de Refu- gio de San Bernardino para los propositos de la restauracian y de la conservacion. Valores De Pantano: Cienega San Bernardino es el pantano regional mas extenso, con excepcion sobre todo de los canales efimeros de la secuencia, en la region. Forma la conexion migratoria entre los ambientes mesic del sierra Madre Occidental con esos al norte. Tambien tiene un biota fink° y endemic°, variando de vertebrados especiales a los inverte- brados y a las plantas; las especies raras enumeradas segan lo puestas en peligro o amenazadas ambos por Mexico y los E.E.U.U. estan presentes. Su historia natural es bien sabido asi que la linea de fondo para la restauraci6n esta dis ponible, y es continua con un refugio establecido en los E.E.U.U. manejados ya para el realce de los pesces y de la fauna. 4 DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES (Appendix III provides citations & additional references)

A. Ecological Importance.—This project focuses on restoring a formerly large riparian wetland, Cienega de San Bernardino (hereafter CSB), lying on both sides of the Mexican - USA International Border within Chi- huahuan Desert Grasslands.15'46 The cienega was well-watered in the past, beginning on what is now the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge (SBNWR) in the USA and extending into Sonora for >2.5 km (1.6 mi) along Rio San Bernardino (= Black Draw in the USA; Appendix I). It is now reduced to remnants associated with artesian wells, springs, and artificial ponds. Even in its degraded state it remains an oasis within these otherwise arid lands, providing stopover, breeding, and year-around habitat for a significant number and diversity of organisms. The restoration effort emphasizes the portion of CSB in Sonora, Mexico. SBNWR will fund and carry out corresponding, cooperative efforts in the part of CSB located in the USA. The project will restore the existing Mexican wetlands, enlarging them from –15 to >100+ ha (-35 to > 250+ acres), thus expanding living space for an already present guild of wetland species and allowing other water-dependent biota to colonize and re- establish. Riparian (60 ha = –150 acres), terrace (250 ha = –600 acres), and upland areas (3650 ha = –9,000 acres) will be included as parts of the holistic restoration program. More than 250 species'° of birds are recorded for CSB, and additional taxa are discovered regularly. Because the wetlands are restricted, numbers of waterfowl are low but diversity is high. At least 24 species are recorded. The CSB is an important stopover for migrating ducks and geese. Most common are Cinnamon Teal, Am- erican Wigeon, Ring-necked Duck, Redhead, and Gadwall. Rare Whistling Swan and Fulvous and Black- bellied Whistling ducks are known; with habitat improvement the latter two may nest. Nesting is known for Ruddy Duck and Mexican and Common mallards. Other noteworthy marsh- and waterbirds are Green King- fisher, Sora, Virginia Rail, and Least and American bitterns. At least 18 raptors occur. Nesting Gray Hawk, Northern Harrier, Cooper's Hawk and American Kestrel hare recorded. Common Black Hawk and Swainson's Hawk and Crested Caracara are other notable raptors, and Aplomado Falcon formerly used the adjacent desert grasslands. Upland birds include Scaled, Gambel's and Mearns quail, and Gould's Turkey, the last often in riparian habitat. The San Bernardino Valley also forms an critical part of the north-south corridor for Neotropi- cal migrants because of its springs, moderate climate, and riparian gallery, forming an important link in the diverse habitat chain between the Sierra Madre Oriental and Rocky Mountains. Ruddy Ground dove, Yellow- billed Cuckoo, Northern Beardless Tyrarmulet, Bell's Vireo, Vermilion Flycatcher, –15 warblers, Varied and Painted buntings, Pyrrhuloxia, Botteri's Sparrow, and Scott's Oriole all are on site, with many species nesting. At least 42 mammals are known; desert shrew, western yellow bat, hognose skunk, coati, mountain lion, ban- nertail kangaroo rat, yellownose cotton rat, javalina, and mule and white-tailed deer are representatives.45'52 Groups such as bats are so poorly known that no status assessment can be made. The rugged mountains near CSB are famous for recent jaguar records, and ocelot is southeast of the area in Mexico. At least 10 amphibians and 27 reptiles are recorded, only part of the total expected. Noteworthy taxa are Chiricahua leopard frog, ornate box turtle, Gila monster, Mexican garter snake, and massassauga. Other important vertebrates include the former presence of 9 native fishes (5 persist or are reintroduced), 47% of the entire freshwater fish fauna of the Rio Yaqui of Mexico and comprising 25% of the entire native fish fauna of AZ.54'55 From the perspective of biodiversity in other groups, the area with >240 species supports the greatest taxo- nomic richness of butterflies in North America.' More than 65 dragon- and damselflies also occupy its wetland, one species known only from CSB.23 San Bernardino springsnail, is endemic to CSB,41 where jeopard- ized by habitat degradation and predation. Nearly 500 taxa of vascular plants are present,5° the vast majority native, leaving the ecosystem relatively free of exotic invaders. At least 77 native grasses further document regional diversity and species richness. Wetland plants include rare Huachuca water umbe1,66'8° sago pond- weed, cattail, at least 6 sedges (spikerushes, bulrush, and 3 Juncus), 4 species of duckweed, arroweed, and others, poised to revegetate restored habitats. These and other taxa were likely widespread and common in the past, but are now limited by human impacts. Due to reduced populations, habitat loss, or a combination of causes, a number of species and species groups receive special protection or management designation. Twenty-two birds that use CSB or associated uplands are on Mexico's list of species of concern, 36 are on a "Priority Species Pool" being developed by Partners in 5 Flight for adoption by USFWS as part of their new "List of Species of Management Concern;" 6 are listed by the state of Arizona. Excluding bats, at least 11 mammals that frequent CSB and vicinity receive listing by the Mexican government, 6 as endangered.63 The noteworthy amphibians and reptiles given above all are restricted geographically and suffering population declines due to habitat loss or negative interactions with exotic species, and also are listed by Mexico.° Eight of the 9 fishes in the project area are listed or of special concern either by the Mexican government or USFWS, or both.55'75 6 also are "of concern" to the State of AZ,6 and federally designated critical habitat exists for a shiner, chub, and catfish in the USA:' Viable populations of all 9 fishes persist in or adjacent to the CSB in Mexico. The springsnail is of special concern in the USA and Huachuca water umbel is listed by USFWs.97 All these species, "special status" or otherwise, plants and animals alike, will benefit in Mexico from a restored CSB, contributing as well to their recovery in the USA.

B. Physiographic & Geological Importance.—If restoration is to be accomplished, one needs to know how cienegas form and are destroyed.° The cienega habitat type exists because of unique, regional, climatic and hydrographic features. Unlike most other marshlands formed in closed depressions, cienegas grow in stream channels where perennial water intersects the surface in a flow sufficiently stable for biological succession to wetland. Stabilization results in channels blocked by coarse, flood-carried sediment deposited en masse due to flow dissipation by abrupt channel widening or infiltration, or dammed by a debris flow carried in by a highly erosive tributary.22 Cienegas also may form when impervious, resistant strata cross a channel, forcing groundwater to the surface and increasing stability just as low dams today protect remnant cienega habitats. Once formed, mature cienegas are controlled by permanently saturated soils; reducing conditions prevent coloniza- tion by any but specialized plants (e.g., sedges, rushes, grasses). Trees are limited to taxa such as willows that can tolerate saturated soils. Adjacent soils may become salinized by capillarity and evapotranspiration, thus vegetated only by halophytes. Sacaton grows on adjacent terrace flats if soil aeration and salinity allow, and broadleaf woodland may develop, to be replaced where drier by mesquite. Loss of cienegas was related to overgrazing. Most of the CSB area was severely overgrazed for –300 years. Overstocking with cattle36'7"was accompanied by severe erosion in the 1800s, damaging whole landscapes. Grassland deteriorated, desertscrub expanded and wetlands were diminished.6.3" A process called arroyo cutting lowered water tables.3.1621'37 Arroyo cutting proceeds upstream from nick points in stream channels that concentrate the erosive power of floods downward. Cut banks form, constraining the channel and direct- ing erosion toward the bottom, causing vertical, floodplain incision.31' 6° Water tables then drain to a new base levels near arroyo bottoms, depriving wetland/riparian plant communities of the subsurface water required for survival. With rapid runoff resulting in more erosion, less infiltration, and less water storage, water availabil- ity is reduced, diminishing habitat diversity, thus limiting biodiversity. Cienegas persist if near enough the headwaters for low probability of scour. Given sufficient time to develop, they can become large, massive enough to resist all but the largest floods.° Due to greater roughness in vegetated channels, velocities of flood flows are attenuated, resulting in lower discharge peaks and more deposition and retention than erosion. Permanence and longevity of cienegas is documented by C14 and pollen dates in deposits –60 km (-40 mi) west of CSB that indicate continuity of habitat for more than 3000 years.48'49 His- torically, they acted as long-lasting, self-protecting, groundwater-storage reservoirs, regulating downstream hydrography.° Protracted seepage from their large storage capacities stabilized base flow, so downstream discharge was more permanent and less variable. Thus, the cienega habitat type contributed broadly to regional watershed integrity and stability over a very long period of time.

C. Social and Economic Importance.—The region's social and economic fabric has been and remains based in ranching. As noted above, many other values exist, as recognized by private and governmental land managers striving to conserve its diverse resources. Regional deterioration is apparent, and efforts are underway to correct the situation. Its ranching and conservation operations will benefit local and regional economies from dependence on expertise from laborers to technical personnel employed and consulted through the project period, use of local vendors, payment for materials and services, etc. After appropriate recovery, the CSB area in Mexico will be used for controlled cattle production. Restoring CSB will thus demonstrate to area ranchers and farmers the possibilities for running a cattle operation and simultaneously managing the land for biodiversity, an example helping influence change in future stewardship from exploitative to sustainable. 6

We will partner through subcontracts with other organizations, INE, IMADES, SEMARNAP, and Mexican universities (UNAM – Hermosillo, and others), for assistance in collecting data and advice on the CSB restoration. We will seek help in surveying and map preparation; assistance with biotic surveys; and participation in annual (or more frequent) local and regional meetings to assure local and regional dissemination of information in Mexico. Contracted service also will be sought from UNAM – Hermosillo for developing baseline natural history data and for sampling and analyzing cores to determine past conditions, extent, etc., of the original CSB. Six students and their supervisor are already being supported in summer 2000 with salaries, housing, food, and transportation on Rancho San Bernardino. Such efforts and resulting data applied through the proposed remedial measures will increase property value as part of generally improved, regional ecosystems. Restoration of CBS will thus correct damages of the past and at the same time contribute to preventing such damages in the future.

D. Historical and Cultural Importance.—Evidence of Amerinds on CSB dates from >10,000 years ago to almost the present day,4'58 attesting to its long regional importance. Apaches lived here before Spanish incur- sions, their fierce nature restricting development into the 1880s.61 Written records began with exploration by Padre Kino in 1694,14'44 and the springs were used by Spaniards until –1795. Because surface water was limited, then as now, its local abundance stimulated livestock ranching. A 297-km2 (115 mi2) San Bernardino Land Grant was awarded Ignacio Perez in 1822. But in 1846, when the Mormon Battalion camped there, the hacienda was in ruins and soldiers were told a Serior Elias of Arizpe, Sonora, owned the ranch, by then said to comprise –520 km2 (-200 mi2) with 80,000 cattle. The battalion's trail became a major cross-country route in 1846-55, and accounts by its travelers provide valuable ecological information." After arroyo cutting dried CSB, the former wetland was converted to irrigated agriculture. In 1884, property in both the USA and Mexico was purchased by J. H. "Texas John" Slaughter, who grazed cattle and irrigated farmland from wells tapping an artesian aquifer.28 The ranch was again sold in 1937, with various sections passing among other owners until 1978 when The Nature Conservancy bought the USA parcel, passing it to USFWS in 1982 70 to establish SBNWR. Habitat improvement was quickly begun. Grazing, farming, and drought damages were first remedied by removal of cattle. Undesired woody plants were eliminated or thin- ned, weeds mowed and burned to favor native grasses, and abandoned fields and uplands reseeded. Desirable woody plants were replanted, which coupled with gabions installed to reduce erosion, began stabilizing arroyos. Intense grazing, farming, and related activities continued in Mexico until 1998, when CSB was taken over by Josiah & Valer Austin. Restoration like that on SBNWR was begun immediately, along with new fencing, facility renovation, and restoration of ponds and natural cienega habitats.

E. Recognition.—As just reviewed, above, the upper Rio Yaqui watershed including CSB has long been famous for its ranching values. Its biodiversity also is legendary, beginning with E. A. Mearns52 who sampled there in 1892 and clearly anticipated far greater scientific discoveries in expressing regret he could not explore further: "I had arranged for a trip down the San Bernardino and Yaqui rivers.., but [malaria].., compelled me to move to a dry camp for. ..recuperation, after exhausting the natural products of this semi-aquatic collecting ground in which glimpses of... novelties in the plant and animal kingdoms to be expected in the lower portions of the Yaqui were obtained. ...[I] look back with much regret to the lost opportunity of which sickness de- prived me." This early recognition carries to the present. Sierra de Ajos - Bavispe National Forest & Wildlife Refuge in Sonora (hereafter SABR) was established in response to area biodiversity. It seems likely that a Rio San Pedro Protected Area is soon to be created in Sonora. SEDESOL55 also proposed a floral - faunal reserve, not established, in Sierra San Luis just east of CSB and including Arroyo Cajon Bonito, a system that still supports the Rio Yaqui fish fauna that formerly occupied CSB." The critical value of the CSB area has furthermore been recognized by CONABIO in World Wildlife Fund's recent assessment' of international ecoregions for North American conservation planning. In the USA, SBNWR was founded in recognition of the values of its wetlands and water-dependent biota. The American Museum's Southwestern Research Station is dedicated to study of biodiversity within and sur- rounding the Chiricahua Mountains. Conservation efforts by the Malpais Group and Animas Foundation are carried out on private - leased federal-state lands east of the Chiricahua and Peloncillo mountains near the CSB 7 and SBNWR, and on other Austin properties in Sonora (including Arroyo Cajon Bonito), west of the Chirica- huas, north into Sulphur Springs Valley, AZ. USFWS76 further recognized an area of ecological concern cen- tered in the upper Yaqui watershed, to encompass "associated natural resource components and their respec- tive jurisdictions." in both the US and Mexico, and suggested future cooperative conservation agreements between USFWS and other regional land managers. The SABR in Sonora already has an agreement to share methods and expertise with the Chiricahua National Monument in AZ. It seems likely that the Rio San Pedro Protected area will be closely associated with the San Pedro National Riparian Conservation Area in the USA. As noted elsewhere, close coordination is also being fostered between CSB and SBNWR.. When biotic resources of northern Sonora and adjacent USA are consid- ered together, the area along with its historic, existing infrastructure for conservation provide unprecedented opportunities for ecosystem conservation on a sub-continental scale. Partnerships forged among various organizations and agencies (see Appendix II) can help conserve a major proportion of the region's resources. Our project extends both regional landscapes and these basic concepts into an even greater reality.

GOALS & OBJECTIVES

Unlike many parts of North America, both presettlement habitat and biodiversity for CSB are known and relatively well documented. We know what was lost and can thus strive to restore it. The ultimate goal is habitat restoration of both CSB proper and its watershed. A large percentage of the original biota, although depleted, still remains and we predict it will respond positively as more and higher quality habitat becomes available. This project will thus strive to: • Re-establish an elevated water table by repair of eroded channels with rock-filled, wire-basket gabions and cottonwood - willow pole plantings, with the latter designed both for erosion control and repair and to re-create riparian gallery forest for use by raptors, migratory birds, and others, including resident biota. • Contour, direct water flow, and excavate potholes to redirect and retain water on reclaimed agricultural lands to re-create cienega conditions for waterfowl nesting, feeding, and resting, and for other aquatic biota. • Reclaim old agricultural and mesquite-invaded lands on stream terraces by mechanical removal of undesirable woody plants, contouring and excavating shallow depressions to retain water, followed by reseeding with native grasses. • Repair hillslopes and over-grazed uplands by reducing sheet flow through contouring, excavation of shallow depressions to retain water, and revegetating with native grasses. • Reduce negative impacts on native biota by dedicated eradication and exclusion of noxious and invasive non-native species of all kinds. Our actions are intended to stabilize and restore natural conditions in CSB insofar as possible, to enhance native plants and animals, promote down- and delisting of listed species, avoid continued deterioration to preclude future listings, and protect habitat and populations of waterfowl, migratory birds and resident species of all kinds. We intend management of CSB to complement other Mexican efforts like those on the upper Rio San Pedro and SABR, as well as to augment efforts on the SBNWR and others in the USA (see Sec. E, above), to increase and optimize biodiversity and sustainability of regional ecosystems. An important part of our over-all program, to be initiated now but emphasized far more once restoration is well underway (with INE/IMADES/SEMARNAWUNAM — Hermosillo and others), is the training of local and regional citizens and dissemination of information elsewhere on managing semi-natural and natural wetlands by indirect (watershed improvement) and direct manipulation and enhancement. All specimens and original data, and publication of results, will be in Mexican depositories and journals, respectively, and we wish, through consulting with Mexican authorities, agencies, managers, and scientists, to apply their established protocols and methods in our program. Management of the CSB in Mexico, and in the USA, will be carefully coordinated to maximize benefits for waterfowl and other aquatic and semi-aquatic biota. 8 WORK PLAN & PROJECT SCHEDULE

Accomplished to date: • Livestock has been removed and the entire San Bernardino property newly fenced. • Reseeding of some uplands and terraces has resulted in good response to initial summer rains.

First 12 months (restoration actions): • Complete hiring and training of personnel • Acquire materials and begin stockpiling and constructing rock-filled, wire-basket gabions, and begin in- stalling gabions to stabilize stream channels and arroyos. Proceed with selective removal of mesquite and other undesirable woody vegetation. • Speed and enhance revegetation through pole-plantings of native riparian trees, native-grass reseeding of disturbed surfaces, and other means. • Subdivide and enlarge existing cienegas to expand, control and manage wetland restoration and habitats. Create, enlarge, and maintain potholes to promote use by waterfowl and other wetland species. • Extend reseeding to revegetate disturbed areas; monitor to evaluate most effective methodologies. • Construct/complete non-native fish exclusion barrier integrated as part of erosion-control system.

First 12 months (data acquisition): • Conduct (with UNAM - Hermosillo) vegetation sampling for baseline conditions (6 students and their supervisor are on site in summer 2000) and core sampling/analyses to confirm surface data and refine mapping of historic cienega and associated habitat. • Survey CSB with Geographical Positioning System control for drainage elevations, existing and historic cienegas, erosion, etc. (with IMADES), and coordinate these data with SBNWR for mutual benefits. • Conduct pumping or by other ways define aquifer volume, transmissivity and connectivity among wells, artesian outflows, and springs. • Construct and install stage-height or other recorders to quantify flood flows in Rio San Bernardino, Ar- royo Grande (= Silver Creek in the USA), etc. • Determine location(s) for a fish barrier below confluence of Rio San Bernardino and Arroyo Grande.

Future Proposals will concern, in part: • Continued installation of gabions, pole plantings, and other means of stabilizing stream channels and ephemeral arroyos. • Implement and evaluate management techniques, plantings, nest boxes and water level manipulations, to promote waterfowl other wetland species' breeding habitat. • Irrigate selected and reseeded riparian, terrace, and upland areas to promote native vegetation and reduce hillslope erosion. • Exclude exotic fishes and other noxious species from upper San Bernardino Valley, Mexico and USA (with IMADES, SEMARNAP & SBNWR). • Reintroduce native fishes in numbers and species composition that assure adequate community structure and genetic viability. • Create and implement programs for information dissemination and education of local and regional residents, publish technical information on biota, results of manipulations, restoration, etc. 9

EVALUATION & MONITORING

Evaluation and monitoring are designed to detect and document changes, successes and failures, especially the latter, so mid-course adjustments may be applied (e.g., adaptive management). Effort will be made to assure the compatibility of information collected and stored in Mexico and that from SBNWR, thereby increasing the value of both sets of information. The following are identified; others may be added as conditions warrant and the project progresses: • Monitor groundwater in existing wells or with piezometers relative to climatic conditions, season, pumping rates, or other factors. • Monitor restored wetlands and uplands through selected indicator species, e.g., pothole use by breeding waterfowl, cottonwood use for nesting by raptors, aquatic invertebrates in wetlands, etc., seasonally or more frequently as required. • Continue quarterly photography and monitoring permanent cross sections on Rio San Bernardino, Ar- royo Grande, and CSB itself, throughout the project period. • Perform rapid, ground and/or aerial assessment of impacts of flood events on biological resources, water-retention structures, gabions and landscape manipulations, so remedial action can preclude additional damage or undesirable conditions. 10

TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET: FUNDS REQUESTED, MATCHING, & NON-MATCHING FUNDS, 2000-2001, totals to nearest $500, US currency (For matching commitment see Appendix II).

Categories Requested Matching Non-matchingv Totals

CSB land purchase $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Personnel Project coordinator + secretarial 35,000 35,000 Field project manager (1) $ 15,000 -- 15,000 Heavy equipment operator (1) 8,000 - 8,000 Hourly labor (8) 20,800 20,800 41,500 ERE' (35% direct personnel costs) 15,330 19,530 35,000 Estimated non-match salaries + ERE ------$ 40,000 40,000 Heavy equipment Used bulldozer (partial cost) 20,000 - 20,000 New John Deere tractor (partial cost) 16,000 - 16,000 Bobcat (close-space excavation) 20,000 --- - 20,000 Equipment maintenance 10,000 10,000 - 20,000 Estimated non-match heavy equip)! ___ -- 14,000 14,000 Materials Gabion materials 120,000 40,000 160,000 Irrigation pipe, fittings, emitters 15,000 10,000 - 25,000 Native seed for revegetation ---- 12,000 - 12,000 Fencing Materials (posts, wire, etc.) 30,000 - 30,000 Facilities development --- 40,000 - 40,000 Stream gages 10,000 ---- - 10,000 Estimated non-match materials 6,000 6,000 Contracted services IMADES, INE, SEMARNAP 20,000 - 20,000 INE & Mexican universities4/ 15,000 8,000 - 23,000 Aerial photos, engineering consult. ---- 1,000 - 1,000 Monitoring photos, reporting 2,000 2,000 Restoration, test-pumping, recasing 30,000 30,000 Existing wells Bulldozer operator, fencing - seeding, 10,000 - 10,000 Crew, constr. personnel, etc. Estimated non-match services (survey- 25,000 25,000 ing, aquifer evaluation, gages, etc.) Indirect costs (12.5% total 33,625 - 33,500 direct costs) TOTALS $304,000 $554,500 $ 85.000 $908,500

Non-matching contribution from SBNWR, estimated as percentages of annual costs that have direct management impacts for CSB. Work to improve CSB in Sonora must also involve active management on SBNWR north of the Interna- tional Boundary, which artificially bisects the watershed and its fish and wildlife. 21 ERE = Employee related expenses (social security, workman's compensation, retirement, etc.). Includes an estimated $4,000 heavy equipment maintenance. 11/ IMADES/INE/SEMARNAP subcontracting includes assistance and advice in surveying and map preparation ($10,000); assistance with biotic surveys ($5,000); and annual (or more frequent) participant - local meetings ($5,000); total subcontracts $20,000. Contracted services will be sought for sampling and analysis of cores for determining past conditions and assistance with riparian, terrace, and up land restoration (INE; UNAM - Hermosillo); total subcontracts $15.000. 11 APPENDIX I. MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF CSB PROJECT AREA

Semi-diagramatic map of the Cienega de San Bernardino Project area and environs, showing proximity to the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, USA, and features mentioned in text; positions of drainages, roads, and other features are approximate

,.._.. •.. to Rodeo, NIA .Ply Asian . Black' Draw Spring...... , Silver ._ Creek +. - Refuge Hai Hollow -- boundary ,..---' Wash ., (;4 ,....„. _ : . , ... t % .) ' :„.... . ' SAN BERNARDINO .,_,.. '•1"/ '''; / NATIONAL 1 6 // W I L D L I F E REFUGE .- -4- to Douglas, AZ ..... —..—..—..—..—.. ‘ ,. .. —..—..—..—...;.....—...... —..—.. Ar c SONORA Granqe I • 7/ ":/. RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO -4- to Agua Prieta. SION / Rio San Key to Symbols Bernardino to Janos. CHI -0- ISM ranch headquarters permanent stream ephemeral channel • existing cienega e Kilometers 20 former cienega 1.0. . . ,, . . • ; artifIcal pond 1, 1 1.0 Miles 2.0 /...,,,,.. , Arroyo a natural spring LosaL /Aqua Verde + artesian well Scale Ojiit5 ; .1./ 12 APPENDIX 1. Concluded.

Northward view of Rancho San Bernardino, Sonora, Mexico, toward the USA — Mexican International Boundary, with some features mentioned in text; photograph, March 2000.

Southward aerial view of Rancho San Bernardino, Sonora, Mexico, USA — Mexican International Boundary in the foreground, with some features mentioned in text; photograph, March 2000. 13

APPENDIX H. LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE AND SUPPORT

Fundaction de Refugio de San Bernardino 14 IMADES (Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustenable del Estado de Sonora) 16 San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge 17 Sonoran Joint Venture Program (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 18 The Nature Conservancy, Northwest Mexico Program 19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Arizona State Office) 20 14

FUNDACHON REIM= DIE ZAN BERNARD:NO A.C.

Calle 1341, Avenida 21 Phone & Fax 011 52 633-8497 Agua Prieta, C.P.E-mail [email protected] Sonora 84200, MEXICO

1 August 2000

North American Wetlands Conservation Council Coordinator U.S. Department of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service North American Waterfowl & Wetlands Office 4401 North Fairfax Drive Arlington, Virginia 22203

Dear Council Coordinator:

CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT: The North American Wetlands Conservation Act Standard Grant proposal entitled "Restoration of Cienega de San Bernardino" correctly describes:

1) The amount of our contribution to match the grant request; 2) the work and materials funded by the contribution; and 3) eligibility of the contribution.

Additionally, since we are a private, non-profit entity, we confirm that the source of funds is not from any federal or state source in either Mexico or the United States. Following is an itemized explanation of our contribution; specific documentation for each item is available upon request:

$250,000 of the original purchase price of $350,000 for Rancho San Bernardino, occupation of which was granted by court decree in 1998. The entire ranch is dedicated to sustainable use, with the goal of maintaining wetland habitats, their environs, and their biodiversity. Included are: 1) existing cienega habitat (-30 - 50 acres); 2) former wetlands (-250 - 270 acres), riparian areas, and floodplain terraces (-700 acres) modified in the past for irrigated agriculture; and the immediate uplands (9,000 acres). The project will expand existing cienegas by converting old agricultural lands back into marshland and open-water habitat and associated native grassland to enhance waterfowl and other aquatic organisms. This is to be accomplished through manipulating water supply, physical modifications (ditching, diking), removal of invasive woody vegetation, and re-seeding. Revegetation also will be extended to the desertscrub-invaded uplands to assure hillslope (watershed) integrity.

Of $75,000 contributed as matching for personnel costs, more than half ($35,000) is to assure professional administrative and fiscal accounting through the offices of Sr. Avalos Cortes, CP, MBA, Agua Prieta, Sonora. The remainder ($20,800) is for hourly labor to be assigned mostly to gabion preparation - installation. Em- ployee related expenses (35% of total salaries and wages in Mexico) comprise the remainder ($19,530) of this category.

Heavy equipment purchased for ranch operations will be dedicated to the project at the rate of 33% time for a bulldozer ($20,000) and 50% time for a b'ackhoe-front-loader ($16,000). Partial maintenance costs for heavy equipment ($10,000), including for the requested Bobcat excavator, is included at estimated fair market price.

Materials include already stockpiled cobble - rock for filling wire-basket gabions, pilings for securing gabions for bank stabiliZation, and already purchased culverts for passing water in Rio San Bernardino and Arroyo Grande ($40,000). trrigation pipe, fittings, and emitters already purchased ($10,000) and currently in use for terrace and uptand g, s/and reVegetation, and native seed ($12,000; already germinated with summer rains. The entire Rath hag Nett tte41y &teed', matetials included are 25% the cost for the total fence-line protecting 15

North American Wetlands Conservation Council Coordinator Page 2

Materials include already stockpiled cobble - rook for filling wire-basket gabions, pilings for securing gabions for bank stabilization, and already purohased culverts for passing water in Rio San Bernardino and Arroyo Grande ($40,000). Irrigation pipe, fittings, and emitters already purchased ($10,000) and currently in use for terrace and upland grassland revegetaion, and native seed (S12,000; already germinated with summer rains. The entire Ranch has been newly kneed; materials included are 25% the cost for the total fence-line protecting the cienega itself ($30,000). Facilities development includes a match of —25% of total costs for personnel housing ($40,000; solar electrical system, dormitory, kitchen - mess hall, septic tanks, and potable water supply).

Contract services include funding for six student assistants and their supervisor from UNAM — Hermosillo for the summer months, 2000 ($8,000). Aerial photographs, monitoring photography (pre, restoration), and consultation on gabion placement ($3,000) are already in hand and offered as part of the match. Partial coats of restoring three wells to be used for seasonal end perennial flooding of cienega habitats, irrigation, and other water supplies art included ($30,000, for pump renovation, mooing, and test-pumping), as arc per-job labor costs (collectively $1 0,000) for fencing and reseeding CTOWS. An administrative (indirect) cost of 12.5% ($33,500) is computed for the total direct costs.

PARTNERSHIP STATEMENT; Our longest partnership (12 years) has been with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servioe, San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge in endangered species management in the United States. In the process we have succeeded in maintaining populations of an endangered fish (Gil° prinami, Yaqui chub), including Initiation and implementation of a Habitat Management Plan for Its management and perpetuation. We are in the process of forging partnerships with Mexican entitles, 1MADES, SEMARNAP, UNAM.— Hermosillo, and other Mexican universities, and are achieving success as indicated by appended letters of support. This match is put forward as a good-hith contribution to leverage USA federal gent dollars. None of the indicated matching funds or in-kind contributions has or will be used us such in applitation for ihnding from any other agency or organization.

Sincerely,

L-9 11^

Josiah Austin Wier Austin 16 Thims 24/July/2000

North American Wetlands Conservation Council Coordinator US Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. North American Waterfowl & Wetland Office. 4401 North Fairfax Drive. Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Dear CouriCil Coordinator.

Our Institution (IMADES) has been involved, in the past and present, with different collaborative projects that have the characteristic of being multyinstitutional and of binational type, specialty adjacent border sites like the Natural Protected Areas of The Upper California Gulf, El Pinacate and the San Pedro River.

We feet that participating in a project like the Restoration of Cienega de San Bernardino, toriora, Will help our institution on the following aspects:

1.- Enhance capacity for Collaborative work with private land owners, Top level education institutions and Governmental institutions.

2.- Participate and collect experience from a binational effort, on aspects like Research and restoration activities on riparian habitats.

3.- And most of all, contribute to the Conservation of a binational influenced site.

Taking on account all the aspects before explained, we would idce to express our Intention and willingness to participate on such an einterprise, that we know It is a challenge, but of very Writhe results for both of Our countries_

Sincerely.

- tic:e4.Z.2 op& Saavedra Director of Conservation Department

Reyes y Aguascalientes (esq.) - Cot, San Benito • 15-98-81 • 15-98-84 • Far 14-65-08 - Hermosillo, Sonora - CP. 83190 17 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge Complex Post Office Box 3509 Douglas, Arizona, 85608

Executive Director June 28, 2000 North American Waterfowl and Wetlands Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 110 Arlington, Virginia 22203 - USA

Dear Douglas Ryan;

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service support for the proposal for restoration of Cienega de San Bernardino is tremendous. Wetlands along the international border between the United States and Mexico are rare, and are extremely important to fish and wildlife that pay less attention to political boundaries than do humans. Rarer still are opportunities in which a hydrologic system that straddles an international border has a real chance at conservation and total restoration. The San Bernardino Valley currently offers this almost unique opportunity. When the Service acquired San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge in 1982 to manage native fish threatened with extinction, it was clear that we had only about half of the valley to work with. Managing half of a wetland is not entirely impossible, but it Is not cost ein_e_eut cud progrco3 can caoily be influenced and even stifled. Uncoordinated management activities between opposing landowners can surely impact and frustrate progress in habitat preservation and restoration.

The unique opportunity of a valuable desert wetland, overflowing with biological diversity and species richness, to be managed in part by the Service and in part by a non-profit organization such as Fundacion de San Bernardino is an ecological dream come true. To have such overwhelming support for conservation efforts encompassing the vast majority of a hydrological system is very special, should not be understated, and is an opportunity that cannot be missed.

Opportunities for cooperation in protecting, preserving, and restoring the habitats in this valley along with their fish and wildlife seem nearly unlimited. The Service is indeed fortunate to have a combination of favorable circumstances which can allow us to work with others to manage the entire s, Bernardino Valley as a system; the important ecological values of which could never be adequaOy managed by one party alone.

Sincerely,

.ey41;v1ituevi William R. Radke Refuge Manager United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sonoran Joint Venture Prcigram 12661 E. Broadway Blvd_ Tucson, Arizona 85748

7/2S/00 Memorandum

•To: Executive Director, North American Waterfowl and Wetlands Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia (Attn: Douglas Ryan)

From: Coordinator, Sonoran Joint Venture

Subject: Restoration of Cienega de San Bernardino, Sonora, Mexico

In October of 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated its Sonoran Joint Venture_ The Sonoran Joint Venture is a binational (U.S./Mexico) collaborative program with the goal of developing and maintaining a broad range of avian conservation initiatives (e.g., research, habitat preservation, restoration, and enhancement, and education) in the southwestern United States and northwest Mexico.

European settlement of the southwest resulted in the loss or severe degradation of the desert cienegas that were critical to the survival of large and diverse populations of resident and migratory bird species. The Cienega de San Bernardino despite its reduced and degraded state continues to provide effective habitat and holds the potential for complete restoration through the efforts of the Fundacion de Refugio de San Bernardino and its project partners in Mexico and the ongoing restoration efforts on this Cienega by the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge in the United States.

The Fundacion de Refugia de San Bernardino's binational multi-partner cienega restoration proposal is one of the first of its kind between Mexico and the United States and will help establish future strategies for wetland restoration, management, and education_ The Sonoran Joint Venture has encouraged the development of this binational conservation effort from its inception and believes it has the potential to be one of the most significant wetland conservation initiatives in northwest Mexico

The Sonoran Joint Venture endorses the subject project. If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me at 520/722-4289.

Sincerely,

Robert Mesta Sonoran Joint Venture Coordinator 19 • NortharesiMericii Proiraza .NEITWE * . 11—610• 4")#2:1.' 14ron 151fl Eust Ft. Lancll *. • 333E—Iraginia, 0216 • • 1 1 . Tucson, Ariz' ona 65?7.9 .* 40 • ..Phointcr Afizana 85(104 C°M•ERVAL. 9 , . • LAIN ANOaRTC:2% • • . . TEL. C5291- 622-4g0 ' • AND CARIBBEAN . TEL (602) 712-004 • PAX (52r0 620-1799 : %REGION . FAX (602)-7124)059 . DOCICO DWISION: s. July 3 2060 . Swing the Last Great?facts

•. . • : . • :Sject • Restoration of Cie:mega deSan"Beinaidino, 'Sonora • , Submitted by Fundacion.RefUgio de San Bel-nardino •.. To EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, North American Waterfowl and Wetlands. Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se.rvice • • 440 t 'North Falrfax ROOm *110* • • Arlington,. VA 222'03-LISA • • , . . . . • • •• • Recognizing that:species and habitats ignore politicat,borders, The Nan re Conserirancy has. been • • promoting binational conservation of critical borderland habitats for ever a:decade_ Working together MexicanMexiCan anct,LIS agencies and,non-governvieptarcirpnizaticins are working triprotea ' '• some of the region's jinportant wetland labitats or enangered andntlireatep.ed species: Our • . organization and our partners in Sonora are currently cqaborazing on abinational effort to . protect the San Pedro River and its watetihed on, both'sidei of the border: This effort involves • - riparian. and grassland restoration, private lands initiatives, and oommunity7based .conservation Or9W-441s.- • TheConseryaficy, slipPortsthe oinplernentafy restoration proj'ecipropoSed for another impoi-unt • cross-border system the unique desert wetlands eitencling from. the Cienega deSaniierna.dinO• in the Mexican state of Sonora to the San 33.ernadino.National Wildlife Refuge in AriZoria, This . , project, designEd to promote restoration by on-the-ground managesnenlaCtion, provide education • and othei conservation OppOrtunities lo lly and regionally will produce important lessons in wetland 'restoration techniques and community conservation inethOdology. ••

SINCERELY; .

L. Susan Anderson, PD. . . NOrthwesi Mexico Program. . Director. 20

United States Department of the Interior SERVICE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 640-2720 FAX: (602) 640-2730

In Reply Refer To: AESO/PFW July 26, 2000

Memorandum

To: Executive Director, North American Wateifowl and Wetlands Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia (Attn: Douglas Ryan)

From: Field Supervisor

Subject: Review of Sonoran Joint Venture Project

We have reviewed the project, "Restoration of Cienega de San Bernardino, Sonora, Mexico," being submitted by the Sonoran Joint Venture for funding from the North American Wetland Conservation Act Research biologists from the United States and from Federal and State institutions in the United Mexican States have assisted in project development The restoration of the c-ienega - wetland complex will require the landowner to implement new land management practices on a long-term basis.

Fortunately, there are those willing to test recommended practices and even some theory, such as Rancho Mababi, owned by Roberto and Alicia Valerzzuela in northwest Sonora, Mexico, and Rancho San Bernardino and the Fundacion de San Bernardino founded by Joe and Valer Austin. Rancho San Bernaclino will provide an essential forum to evaluate restoration and stewardship of a cienega complex with attention directed to both aquatic and terrestrial components, an essential strategy for ecosystem recovery.

Restoration of San Bernardino will complement and support corresponding restoration actions at the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge in the United States, the essential difference is that the project is on private land in Mexico. The cooperation between biologists, researchers, and managers of both Countries enhances the success of the project and will be facilitated by the May 18,2000, Memorandum of Understanding to work jointly on matters related to the protection and conservation of the environment signed by Secretaries Julia Carabias and Bruce Babbitt.

We support this project and believe the project will be an excellent beginning for the Sonoran Joint Venture in Mexico. Please contact Frank Baucom (x204) or me (x244) if we can be of further assistance.

David L. Harlow 2 1

2 cc: Regional Director, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM Director, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ Coordinator, Sonoran Joint Venture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tucson, AZ Refuge Manager, San Bernardino NWR, Douglas, AZ

W:Trank Paucom\NAWCA-SanBeniardAESO.wpd 22

APPENDIX III. LITERATURE CITED AND OTHER PERTINENT REFERENCES

1. Abell, R. A., et al. 1999. Freshwater Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC USA. 2. Aldrich, L. D. 1950. Journal of the Overland Route to California and the Gold Mines. Dawson's Book Shop, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Antevs, E. 1952. Arroyo cutting and filling. J. Geol. 60: 375-385. 4. Ardizone, A. J. 1980. Feasibility Study: San Bernardino Ranch. Cochise Co. Pks. Comm., Bisbee, AZ. 5. AZGFD (AZ Game Fish Dept.). 1992. Threatened Native Wildlife in Arizona. AGFD, Phoenix. 6. Bahre, C. J. 1991. A Legacy of Change: Historic Impact on Vegetation in the Arizona Borderlands. Univ. AZ Press, Tucson. 7. Bailowitz, R. A. & J. Brock. 1991. Butterflies of southeastern Arizona. Sonoran Arthropod Stud., Tucson. 8. Baird, S.F. 1859. Part 2 -- Zoology of the boundary; Mammals, pp. 162; Birds, pp. 132, in W. H. Emory. Report on the U.S. & Mexican Boundary Survey. 9. Baird, S. F. & C. Girard. 1854b. Descriptions of new species of fishes collected by Mr. John H. Clark, on the U.S. & Mexican Boundary Survey, under Lt. Col. Jas. D. Graham. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 6(1853): 387390. 10. Baird, S. F. & C. Girard. 1856. Descriptions of new species of fishes collected in Texas, New Mexico and Sonora, by Mr. John H. Clark, on the U.S. and Mexican Boundary Survey, and in Texas by Capt. Stewart Van Vliet, U.S.A. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 7(1854): 2429. 11. Barnes, W. C. 1936. Herds in the San Simon Valley. Am. For. 42: 456-457, 481. 12. Bartlett, J. R. 1854. Personal narrative of Explorations and Incidents in Texas, New Mexico, California, Sonora, and Chihuahua connected with the United States and Mexican Boundary Commission during the years 1850, '51, '52, and '53. Vols. I-II. D. Appleton, N.Y. & London. 13. Beiber, R. 1937. Southern Trails to California in 1849. SW Hist. Ser., Vol. V. A. H. Clark, Glendale, CA. 14. Bolton, H. E. 1936. The Rim of Christendom: A Biography of Eusebio Francisco Kino, Pacific Coast Pioneer. MacMillan Co., N.Y. 15. Brown, D. E. (Ed.). 1994. Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. Univ. UT Press, Salt Lake City. 16. Bryan, K. 1925. Date of channel trenching (arroyo cutting) in the arid Southwest. Science 62: 338-344. 17. Campoy-Favela, J., A. Varela-Romero & L. Juarez-Romero. 1989. Observaciones sobre la ictiofatma na- tiva de la cuenca del Rio Yaqui, Sonora, Mexico. Ecologica 1: 1-13. 18. Clarke, A. B. 1852. Travels in Mexico and California. Wright's & Hasty's Steam Press, Boston 19. Cooke, P. St. G. 1878. The Conquest of New Mexico and California - An Historical and Personal Narra- tive. Putnam, N.Y. 20. Cooke, P. St. G. 1938. Cooke's journal of the march of the Mormon Battalion, 1846-1847. Pp. 63-240, in Exploring Southwest Trails, 1946-1854. SW Hist. Ser., Vol. 7. A. H. Clark, Glendale, CA. 21. Cooke, R. U. & R. W. Reeves. 1975. Arroyos and Environmental Change in the American Southwest. Oxford Univ. Press, London. 22. Cooley, M. E., B. N. Aldridge & R. C. Euler. 1977. Effects of the catastrophic flood of December 1966, North Rim area, eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona. U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap 980: 1-43. 23. Corbet, P. S. 1999. Dragonflies: Behavior and Ecology of Odonata. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. 24. DeBano, L., et al. (Tech. Coords.). 1995. Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago: The sky islands of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. USFS Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-GTR- 264. 25. DeMarais, B. D. & W. L. Minckley. 1993. Genetics and morphology of Yaqui chub, Gila purpurea, an endangered cyprinid fish subject to recovery efforts. Biol. Conserv. 66: 195-206. 26. Durivage, J. E. 1937. Southern trails to California in 1849. R. P. Bieber (ed.) A. H. Clark, Glendale, CA. The Southwest Historical Series 5:1386. 27. Emory, W. H. 1857. Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey, Vols. I-II. U.S. 34th Congr. 1st Sess. Sen. Exec. Doc. 108. Washington, DC. 28. Ervin, A. 1965. The Southwest of John Horton Slaughter. AZ Hist. Soc. Libr., Tucson. 29. Evans, G. W. G. 1945. Mexican Gold Trail (G. S. Dumke, ed.). Huntington Libr., San Marino, CA. 23

30. Gehlbach, F. R. 1981. Mountain Islands and Desert Seas: A Natural History of the U.S.-Mexican Bor- derlands. TX A & M Univ. Press, College Station. 31. Graf W. L. 1988. Fluvial Processes in Dryland Rivers. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 32. Granger, B. H. 1960. Will C. Barnes' Arizona Place Names, Revised & Enlarged. Univ. AZ Press, Tuc- son. 33. Guiteras, E. (Translator). 1894. Rudo Ensayo. Rec. Am. Cath. list. Soc. Phila. 5: 109-135. 34. Hammond, G. P. 1931. The Zuniga Journal, Tucson to Santa Fe: Opening of a Spanish trade route, 1788-1795. NM list. Rev. 6: 40-63. 35. Harris, B. B. 1960. The Texas Argonauts and the California Gold Rush. R. H. Dillon (ed.). Univ. OK Press, Norman. 36. Haskett, B. 1935. Early history of the cattle industry in Arizona. AZ Hist. Rev. 6: 3-42. 37. Hastings, J. R. 1959. Vegetation change and arroyo cutting in southeastern Arizona. J. AZ Acad. Sci. 1: 60-67. 38. Hastings, J. R. & R. M. Turner. 1965. The Changing Mile: An Ecological Study of Vegetation Change with Time in the Lower Mile of an Arid and Semiarid Region. Univ. AZ Press, Tucson. 39. Hendrickson, D. A., et al. 1981. Fishes of the Rio Yaqui, Mexico and United States. J. AZ-NV Acad. Sci. 15(1980): 65-106. 40. Hendrickson, D. A. & W. L. Minckley. 1985. Cienegas: Vanishing climax communities of the American South west. Desert Plants 6(1984): 131-175. 41. Hershler, R. 1994. A review of the North American freshwater snail genus Pyrgulopsis (Hydrobiidae). Smithsonian Contr. Zool. 554: 1-115. 42. Humphrey, R. R. 1987. 90 years and 535 Miles: Vegetation Changes Along the Mexican Border. Univ. NM Press, Albuquerque. 43. Juarez-Romero, L., A. Varela-Romero & J. Campoy-Favela. 1991. Ecological observations of native fishes from the lower Rio Yaqui, Sonora, Mexico. Proc. Desert Fishes Counc. 20(1988): 79-80. 44. Kino, E. F. 1919. Keno's Historical Memoir of Pimeria Alta, Vols. I-II (H. E. Bolton, trans., ed.). A. H. Clark, Cleveland, OH. 45. Lanning, D. V. 1981. Vertebrates of San Bernardino Ranch, Cochise County, Arizona. Rept. USFWS, Off. Endang. Spec., AZ Natl. Heritage Prog., Tucson. 46. McClaran, M. P. & T. R. Van Devender. 1995. The Desert Grassland. Univ. AZ Press, Tucson. 47. McNatt, R. M. 1974. Re-evaluation of native fishes of the Rio Yaqui in the United States. Proc. Ann. Conf. West. Assoc. St. Game Fish Comm. 54: 273-279. 48. Martin, P. S. 1963. The Last 10,000 years. Univ. AZ Press, Tucson. 49. Martin, P. S., J. Schoenwetter & B. C. Arms. 1961. Southwestern palynology and prehistory: The last 10,000 years. Geochron. Lab., Univ. AZ, Tucson. 50. Marrs-Smith, G. 1983. Vegetation and flora of the San Bernardino Ranch, Cochise County, Arizona. MS Thesis, AZ St. Univ., Tempe. 51. Mattison, R. H. 1946. Early Spanish and Mexican settlements in Arizona. NM list. Rev. 21: 273-327. 52. Mearns, E. 1907. Mammals of the Mexican Boundary of the United States: A descriptive catalog of the species of mammals occurring in that region, with a general summary of the natural history and list of trees. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus. 56: 1-530. 53. Menges, C. M. & L. D. McFadden. 1981. Evidence for a latest Miocene to Pliocene transition from Basin Range tectonic to post tectonic landscape evolution in southeastern Arizona. AZ Geol. Soc. Dig. 13. 54. Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. AZGFD, Phoenix. 55. Minckley, W. L. 1985. Native fishes and natural aquatic habitats of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Region II, west of the Continental Divide. Final Rept., USFWS-AZ St. Univ. Interag. Pers. Agr., AZ St. Univ., Tempe. 56. Minckley, W. L. 1999. The conservation dilemma of non-native vs. native fishes. Sonoriense (AZ-SON Desert Mus.): 19: 11-13. 57. Minckley, W. L. & D. E. Brown. 1994. Part 6. - Wetlands. Pp. 223-287, 316-341 + lit, cited, in D. E. Brown (ed.), Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. Univ. UT Press, Salt Lake City. 58. Neily, R. B. & R. A. Beckwith. 1985. A cultural resource inventory of the San Bernardino. Cult. Res. Manag. Sec., AZ St. Mus., Univ. AZ, Tucson. 24

59. Parry, C. C. 1857. General geological features of the country. Pp. 1-23, in W. H. Emory, Report of the United States & Mexican Boundary Survey, Vol. I, Pt. II. U.S. 34th Congr. 1st Sess. Sen. Exec. Doc. 108. Washington, DC. 60. Patton, P. C. & S. A. Schumm. 1981. Ephemeral-stream processes: Implications for studies of Quater- nary valley fills. Quat. Res. 15: 24-43. 61. Roberts, D. 1994. Once They Moved Like the Wind. Simon & Schuster, N.Y. 62. Rosen, P. C., et al. 1995. Introduced aquatic vertebrates in the Chiricahua Region: Effects on declining native ranid frogs. Pp. 251-260, in L. F. DeBano, et al. (Tech. Coords.), Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago: Sky islands of southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. U.S. Dept. Ag- ric., For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rept RM-GTR-264. 63. SEDESOL (Sec. de Desarrollo Soc.). 1994a. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-ECOL-1994, que determina las especies y subespecies de flora y fauna sylvestres terrestres y acuaticas en peligro de extinction, amenazadas, raras y las sujetas a proteccion especial, y que establece especificaciones para su proteccion. Diaro Ofical, 16 Mayo 1994, 438(10): 2-60. 64. SEDESOL (Secretaria de Desarrollo Social). 1994b. Proyecto de plan de manejo. Reserva de flora y fauna silvestre y aquatica Sierra San Luis, Municipios de Agua Prieta, Sonora, y Janos, Chihuahua, Mexico. SON Sec. Infraestruct., Urb., y Ecol.), Hermosillo, SON. 65. Schumm, S. A. & R. F. Hadley 1957. Arroyos and the semi-arid cycle of erosion. Am. J. Sci. 255: 161- 174. 66. Suckling, K. 1993. Petition to list the Huachuca water umbell, Lilaeopsis schaffneriana subspecies recurva, as a federally endangered species. Great. Gila Biodiv. Proj., End. Sp. Ser. 4., Silver City, NM. 67. Taylor, D. W. 1967. Freshwater mollusks collected by the United States and Mexican Boundary Surveys. The Veliger 10: 152-158. 68. USBSFW (U.S. Bur. Sports Fish. Wildl.). 1966. Rare and endangered fish and wildlife of the United States. USBSFW Res. Publ. 34: 1-180. 69. USDI (U.S. Dept. Int.). 1967. Native fish and wildlife. Endangered species. Fed. Reg. 32: 4501. 70. USFWS. 1979. Proposed land acquisition, San Bernardino Ranch, Cochise County, Arizona: Environ- mental assessment. USFWS, Albuquerque, NM. 71. USFWS. 1984a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to determine the Yaqui chub to be an endangered species with critical habitat, and to determine the beautiful shiner and Yaqui catfish to be threatened species with critical habitat. Fed. Reg. 49(171): 34490-34497. 72. USFWS. 1984b. Recovery Plan for the Sonoran Topminnow (including Gila topminnow and Yaqui topminnow. USFWS, Albuquerque, NM. 73. USFWS. 1986. Management Plan for the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona. US-FWS, Albuquerque, NM. 74. USFWS. 1994ba. Recovery Plan for Rio Yaqui Fishes. USFWS, Albuquerque, NM. 75. USFWS. 1994b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. USFWS Inform. Res. Manag. Lib. Serv., Wash., DC, Internet E-mail [email protected]. 76. USFWS. 1995. San Bernardino and Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Manage- ment Plan 1995 - 2015. USFWS. II, Albuquerque. 77. USFWS. 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Huachuca Water umbel, Lilaeopsis schaffiwriana subspecies recurva., listed as a threatened species. Fed. Regist 60: 16836. 78. Wagoner, J. J. 1952. History of the Cattle Industry in Southern Arizona, 1540-1940. Univ. AZ Soc. Sci. Bull. 20. 79. Wagoner, J. J. 1960. Overstocking ranges in southern Arizona during the 1870's and 1880's. Arizoniana 2: 23-27. 80. Warren, P. L., et al. 1991. Status report: Lilaeopsis schaffiwriana subspecies recurva. Nat Conserv. (AZ), Final Rep. USFWS, Phoenix, AZ. 81. Whitworth, R. 1965. Journal of Robert Whitworth. Pp. 127-160, in D. B. Glacey & H. J. Rugeley (eds.). From the Mississippi to the Pacific--an Englishman in the Mormon Battalion. Tucson and the West, Tucson 7. 82. Williams-Sartor, III, 0. 1980. The Mexican Duck in Mexico: Natural History, Distribution, and Popula- tion status. Ph.D. Diss., CO St. Univ., Ft. Collins.