Fort Davis 

National Historic Site 

 Texas 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

General Management Plan
 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

General Management Plan 

FORT DAVIS 

National Historic Site • Texas 

SUMMARY: 

The general management plan would guide the management of the Fort Davis National Historic Site for the 

next 10 to 15 years. Four alternatives were considered—a no-action and three action alternatives, including 

the National Park Service proposal. The proposed general management plan would retain most existing visitor 

experiences and would improve outreach programs, visitor orientation, collaborative research partnership 

opportunities, and administrative staff services. It also would provide for enhanced protection of facilities and 

resources from flooding. The environmental impact statement assesses impacts to visitor experience, 

archeological resources, cultural landscapes, historic resources, long-term health of natural ecosystems, 

economic contribution to local communities, adjacent landowners, and facility/operational efficiency. The plan

also identifies cumulative effects on wetlands and floodplains for the National Park Service proposal. 

Direct questions and send comments to: 

Superintendent

Fort Davis National Historic Site 

P.O. Box 1379

Fort Davis, Texas 79734 

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • Fort Davis National Historic Site

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................I ALTERNATIVE D — IMPROVED VISITOR 

SERVICES AND RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT WITH EXPANSION 

AND RELOCATION ............................38

LIST OF TABLES ....................................ii

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED 

FOR THE PLAN ................................1 ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED 

INTRODUCTION ................................. 1 ALTERNATIVE ....................................50

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN ...................... 1 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL 

NEED FOR THE PLAN CONSEQUENCES ..........................51 .......................... 1

INTRODUCTION ................................51 THE PLANNING PROCESS.................... 2

EXISTING CONDITIONS .....................51 THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM ............. 3

VISITOR EXPERIENCE .........................53 PARK PURPOSE.................................... 3

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..........54 PARK SIGNIFICANCE............................ 3

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES AND 

HISTORIC RESOURCES .......................55

SPECIAL MANDATES............................ 4

PLANNING PROCESS ........................... 4

LONG-TERM HEALTH OF NATURAL 

ECOSYSTEMS .....................................60 VISION FOR THE FUTURE ................... 6 

GPRA MISSION GOALS........................ 7 ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF 

DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS .......... 7 COMMUNITIES ..................................70

CHAPTER 2: MANAGEMENT ADJACENT LANDOWNERS ................72

PRESCRIPTIONS AND RESOURCE 

AREAS ...........................................11

FACILITIES/OPERATIONAL 

EFFICIENCY .......................................72

PARK RESOURCES AND 

VISITOR USE...................................... 11

SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM 

EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSAL .............74

MANAGEMENT PRESCIPTIONS.......... 16 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

RELATED TO THE PROPOSAL.............75

CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES.................21

ALTERNATIVE A — NO ACTION........ 21

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE 

PROPOSAL.........................................75 ALTERNATIVE B—SAFETY, 

PROTECTION, AND ACCESSIBILITY 

COMPLIANCE ................................... 27 CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION / 

COORDINATION ...........................83 ALTERNATIVE C—IMPROVED VISITOR 

SERVICES AND RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT (NPS PROPOSAL)...... 32

HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/ 

AGENCIES CONSULTED.....................83

PLANNING TEAM...............................83

CONTRIBUTORS.................................84

LIST OF RECIPIENTS ...........................84

i
BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................87 LIST OF TABLES 

APPENDIX 1: LEGISLATION..................89 TABLE 1 — OPERATIONAL COSTS ...............43

APPENDIX 2: FUTURE PLANS AND 

STUDIES NEEDED..........................93

TABLE 2 — POSSIBLE FUTURE 

DEVELOPMENT COSTS .........................43

TABLE 3 — COMPARISON OF 

ALTERNATIVES .......................................44

APPENDIX 3: DRAFT STATEMENT OF 

FINDINGS FOR EXECUTIVE ORDER 

11988 “FLOODPLAIN 

MANAGEMENT”............................95

TABLE 4 — COMPARISON OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..................76

NPS RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.. 115 INTRODUCTION ............................... 96

USE OF THE FLOODPLAIN................ 96

FLOOD RISK...................................... 97

PROPOSED ACTION.......................... 98

SUMMARY......................................... 98

REFERENCES ..................................... 99

APPENDIX 4: CONSULTATION...........101

APPENDIX 5: ERRATA, PUBLIC 

COMMENTS, AND 

NPS RESPONSE............................111

DRAFT EIS ERRATA .......................... 111

NPS RESPONSES TO SUBSTANTIVE 

COMMENTS.................................... 114

ii
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED 

FOR THE PLAN 

INTRODUCTION 

Fort Davis National Historic Site

(NHS) is located on Texas State 

Highways 17/118 on the 

northern edge of the town of 

Fort Davis. It is situated at the

eastern side of the rugged Davis 

Mountains, approximately 200 

miles southeast of El Paso, Texas,

and 180/160 miles southwest of 

Midland/Odessa, Texas,

respectively. In its currently

preserved condition, Fort Davis 

symbolizes the era of westward

migration and the essence of the 

late 19th-century U.S. Army. The 

park preserves the historic

buildings, ruins, foundations, and

landscape associated with two 

forts (1854–1862 and 1867–

1891). In so doing, it makes this 

valuable part of America’s

heritage available to thousands of 

visitors annually for their

enjoyment, understanding, 

education, and appreciation. The accompanying environmental

documentation for Fort Davis NHS 

provides sufficient information to evaluate 

alternatives and provide the basis for a 

record of decision (ROD) documenting

the NPS’s choice of a preferred action. 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 

1978 tasked the National Park Service to 

prepare general management plans

(GMPs) for all national park units. The 

purpose of the general management plan 

is: 

NEED FOR THE PLAN 

Fort Davis NHS has an outdated 1962 

master plan. The GMP is needed to

establish the basic management

philosophy of the park and to provide a 

rationale for making management 

decisions that affect the park’s resources 

and the visitors’ experience of the site. 

● To clearly describe specific resource 

conditions and visitor experiences in 

various management units throughout 

the park and 

● To identify the kinds of management, use, 

and development that will be appropriate 

to achieving and maintaining those 

conditions. 

1
PURPOSE AND NEED 

President John F. Kennedy authorized 

Fort Davis National Historic Site on 

September 8, 1961. Public Law 87-213

stated that no more than 460 acres be 

acquired for the purposes of establishing 

a national historic site. Approximately 14 

acres were added to the park by donation

in 1999 (authorized on November 6,

1998, by Public Law 105-355 Section 

506). The fort lands are listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places and 

are classified and managed as a historic

zone, in accordance with the National 

Park Service Management Policies (1988). 

The 1988 policies direct that physical 

development shall be the minimum 

needed to preserve, protect, and interpret

historical values and shall not detract from 

or adversely affect these values. 

The final plan, when completed, will set

forth the basic management philosophy 

for the park. This document includes 

measures for the preservation of the

area’s resources, indications of the types 

and general intensities of development 

(including visitor circulation and 

transportation patterns, systems, and 

modes) associated with public enjoyment 

and use of each area, and the first steps in 

identifying visitor carrying capacities. 

This document also discloses the potential

environmental consequences, as far as

can be determined by a conceptual plan, 

that may result from implementation of 

various alternatives. It documents the

process used by the National Park Service 

in preparing a general management plan. 

THE PLANNING PROCESS 

The planning process builds upon the 

logic established for national parks,

starting with all laws, regulations, and

policies applicable to the national park

system. The proposed action and 

alternatives displayed in this document 

are based on each unit’s purpose and 

significance. Alternatives in the plan have 

three common components—the vision, 

the desired future conditions, and the 

management prescriptions. Each 

alternative addresses the desired future

conditions in a different way. 

The vision is a short narrative that 

describes the park’s desired future

condition. It is meant to stand the test of 

time and reflect the park’s purpose and 

significance. It expresses the management

philosophy for the park and describes 

what the park is to be like in the future. 

Desired future conditions capture the 

essence of the vision, providing clarity

and priorities. These objectives are issue-,

resource-, or geographic-specific. They

may include products to be produced or 

conditions to be attained or maintained. 

As a whole, objectives are interrelated 

and interdependent. The desired future

conditions provide a basis for allocating 

resources and describing regions in the 

park. 

Management prescriptions are 

geographically based. Prescriptions

describe characteristics of the 

management region for which they were 

developed and define the outputs,

activities, and projects for that region. The

rationale for defining regional boundary 

delineations is included in this planning 

document. 

Management prescriptions for each 

region are based on the character and 

condition of the resource involved. They 

are not only tied to local or park-wide

needs but also take into consideration 

factors beyond park boundaries. A menu 

of available management prescriptions is

developed. Each alternative revolves

around a common theme, and the same 

set of prescriptions is applied differently

over park lands, depending on the theme 

of the alternative. Themes set the basis for 

developing distinctly different alternatives 

that provide a variety of visitor experience 

options. 

2
PURPOSE AND NEED 

The plan provides general guidance and is

not detailed, specific, or highly technical 

in nature. Highly technical environmental 

analysis is done when funds become

available to design facilities, if prescribed 

by the management plan, when sitespecific impacts can be addressed. All

undertakings are subject to Section 106 

review and compliance prior to

implementation. 

THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

The national park system represents our 

national heritage and includes a collection 

of the nation’s most outstanding and 

significant natural, cultural, historic, and 

recreational resources. Each unit contains 

resources and values that make it

something special and nationally

significant. Fort Davis NHS fulfills a

particular “niche” in the national park

system. The place filled by each park is

defined by its park purpose. 

The National Park Service’s mission of 

conserving resources—whether they be 

natural, cultural, historic, or recreational—

recognizes the importance of preservation

as an active management tool. This

preservation principle respects both 

natural and human relationships and 

emphasizes the value of maintaining land 

for the purpose of preserving natural

ecosystems, historic significance, and 

outstanding recreational opportunities. 

Balanced against the protection and 

preservation of these resources is the 

value of public enjoyment by present and 

future generations. Human use often can 

threaten the very resources that the 

National Park Service is entrusted to

protect. Many public debates have

revolved around the balancing of these 

two National Park Service purposes. 

Whether it is telling a story or carefully

protecting resources, the Service uses the 

principles of human and natural

management to accomplish its mission. 

But at the very least, “these areas derive 

increased national dignity and recognition

of their superb environmental quality 

through their inclusion jointly with each 

other in one national park system 

managed for the benefit and inspiration 

of all people.” (16 USC 1a-1; 1970) 

PARK PURPOSE 

Each park in the national park system is

established for a specific purpose. The

reason or reasons why Fort Davis 

National Historic Site was incorporated

into the system is called its park 

purpose. The park purpose reflects

current scientific or scholarly inquiry and 

interpretation. Purpose statements are

based on enabling legislation and 

legislative history. Other legislation that 

affects each park unit includes, but is not 

limited to, the 1916 Organic Act for the 

National Park Service, National

Environmental Policy Act, Historic 

Preservation Act, and the Endangered 

Species Act. The following purpose

statements reflect the mandates and 

legislative intent for the creation of Fort

Davis NHS. (See Appendix 1 for 

legislation.) 

● Perpetuate and conserve the cultural and 

natural resources of Fort Davis NHS 

● Educate the public about the influence of 

Fort Davis on the development and 

settlement of the Southwest and about 

the impact of military operations on 

American Indians 

PARK SIGNIFICANCE 

Each significance statement captures the 

essence of Fort Davis National Historic 

Site’s importance to our nation’s natural 

and cultural heritage. Together, they

describe the distinctiveness of the

resources, distinguishing Fort Davis 

National Historic Site as one of the units 

in the national park system that offers a 

3
PURPOSE AND NEED 

unique experience within a regional, 

national, and global context. 

The significance statements identify the

exceptional values and resources that 

must be preserved and maintained to

achieve the purpose of the park. These 

statements also help park managers set 

resource protection priorities and identify 

primary park interpretive themes and 

desirable visitor experiences. 

● Fort Davis is one of the best remaining 

examples in the Southwest of a typical 

post–Civil War frontier fort because of the 

extent of the surviving structures and 

ruins. 

● Fort Davis provides an excellent 

opportunity for understanding and 

appreciating the important role played by 

African Americans in the West and 

specifically in the frontier army, because 

Black troops served at the post from 1867

to 1885. 

● Fort Davis provided essential troops and 

supplies to the Victorio Campaign, which 

ended meaningful resistance of Apache 

bands in the Trans-Pecos. 

● The historic integrity and character of the 

military post have not been significantly 

altered since its establishment. Much of 

the landscape immediately adjacent to 

the post has experienced little visible 

change. 

● Fort Davis was strategically located to 

defend the Trans-Pecos portion of the San 

Antonio–El Paso Road and the Chihuahua

Trail. This encompassed controlling 

activities on the southern portions of the 

Great Comanche War Trail and Mescalero 

Apache War Trails. 

SPECIAL MANDATES 

Historic District 

Fort Davis structures are listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places as a 

historic district. The entire district includes

over 250 structures and ruins, of which 5 

are restored and refurnished buildings 

and 21 are roofed buildings. The National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as 

amended) requires the NPS to ensure that 

any federally funded or licensed

undertaking is implemented only after

careful consideration of its possible

impacts on properties listed on or eligible 

for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

Servicewide Law and Policies 

Management and operations within NPS 

units are governed by many laws, 

regulations, policies, and guidelines. The 

following are those that apply to this 

planning effort: 

● National Park Service Organic Act 

● National Environmental Policy Act 

● National Historic Preservation Act 

● Archeological Resources Protection Act 

● American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

● Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act 

● Endangered Species Act 

● E.O. 11988: Floodplain Management 

● E.O. 11990: Wetlands Protection 

● Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

● Clean Air Act 

● Architectural Barriers Act 

● Rehabilitation Act 

● Americans with Disabilities Act 

PLANNING PROCESS

The planning process began in February 

1997. Initial scoping activities were 

conducted, which included public 

meetings and issuance of a press release.

Additional meetings to update the public 

on the planning process were also held in 

April and June 1998. 

A notice of intent for an environmental 

impact statement was published in the 

Federal Register on November 19, 

1998. A public comment period followed, 

ending on February 15, 1999. A web site 

was established at the following address

4
PURPOSE AND NEED 

to facilitate making information about the 

planning process available to the public. 

http://www.nps.gov/planning/foda

A newsletter invited the public to share 

their thoughts on the future of Fort Davis 

NHS, and a total of 27 responses were

received. News releases updating area 

residents on the GMP process were also

sent to nearby newspapers. General 

issues to be considered by the plan 

included: 

● How can we best protect and preserve 

park resources and at the same time 

provide for a quality visitor experience? 

● What kinds of management, use, and 

development are appropriate in order to 

achieve these conditions?

5
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Vision for the Future 

Set in the rugged beauty of the Davis Mountains, Fort Davis is one of

America’s best surviving examples of an Indian Wars’ frontier military

post in the Southwest. Echoes of bugle calls and the haunting sounds of 

a dress retreat parade help visitors envision what life was like in the 

late 19th century at this frontier fort. 

Treading close to its ruins and wandering through its restored and 

refurnished buildings, visitors experience a segment of history 

interwoven in every American’s heritage. Balanced interpretive

programs reflect the cultural diversity of those who once lived here. 

Fort Davis is, indeed, a living classroom where opportunities abound 

for exploration, enlightenment, and inspiration. 

The future of Fort Davis is within the bounds of past preservation and

restoration. Resources are protected without compromising the 

historic scene. The National Park Service manages Fort Davis National 

Historic Site and has accepted the challenges to preserve it for future 

generations. Partnerships with local communities and especially with 

the Friends of Fort Davis NHS allow for the attainment of goals. 

Our children’s children will be able to learn from and enjoy this park 

because its resources are protected and its history interpreted with 

accuracy. In the words of former President Lyndon B. Johnson: 

“If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than 

contempt, we must leave them more than miracles of technology. We 

must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning not 

just after we got through with it.”

6
PURPOSE AND NEED 

GPRA MISSION GOALS 

The Government Performance and Results Act

of 1993 (GPRA) was enacted to make 

government more effective and efficient. 

Planning for this GMP is consistent with the 

following Mission Goals established for GPRA. 

Category I: Preserve Resources 

● Mission Goal Ia: Natural and cultural resources 

and associated values of Fort Davis NHS are

protected, restored, and maintained in good 

condition and managed within their broader 

ecosystem and cultural context. 

● Mission Goal Ib: The National Park Service at 

Fort Davis NHS contributes to knowledge 

about natural and cultural resources and 

associated values; management decisions 

about resources and visitors are based on 

adequate scholarly and scientific information. 

Category II: Provide for the Public 

Enjoyment and Visitor Experience 

● Mission Goal IIa: Visitors safely enjoy and are 

satisfied with the availability, accessibility, 

diversity, and quality of Fort Davis NHS

facilities, services, and appropriate recreational 

opportunities.

● Mission Goal IIb: Fort Davis NHS visitors, and 

the general public, understand and appreciate 

the preservation of the park and its resources 

for this and future generations. 

Category IV: Ensure Organizational 

Effectiveness 

● Mission Goal IVa: The National Park Service at 

Fort Davis NHS uses current management 

practices, systems, and technologies to 

accomplish its mission. 

● Mission Goal IVb: The National Park Service at 

Fort Davis NHS increases its managerial 

resources through initiatives and support from 

other agencies, organizations, and individuals. 

DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS 

Desired future conditions (DFC) further refine

management objectives and GPRA goals. For

each desired future condition, the 

corresponding GPRA Goal is shown in

parenthesis. 

Prime Resource 

Prime resource lands are defined as those

resources that made a direct contribution to

establishing the park as a unit of the national 

park system and are related to the park’s 

purpose and significance. Other lands within 

the park are also important to protecting and 

supporting the prime resource, but are not

considered to be the prime resource. 

The historic resources, features, and objects 

are considered the prime resource of the park.

“For nearly four decades Fort Davis stood as a 

bastion of Anglo-American civilization in West 

Texas. The post guarded roads and trails, 

served as a mobilization point for Indian 

campaigns, and by its presence provided 

impetus for settlement of the region of the

upper Rio Grande. Fort Davis provided a 

viable military continuum in the area from 

1854 to 1891, alternatively serving a variety of 

military purposes. During the early years of the 

Civil War Confederate troops occupied the

fort; from mid-1862 until 1867 it went 

ungarrisoned. In the latter year Fort Davis was 

rebuilt and reoccupied by the United States

Army. After abandonment in 1891, the 

structures composing the post languished for 

seventy years until the National Park Service 

acquired the property and established Fort 

Davis National Historic Site.”

(Historic Resource Study, 1986) 

The following resource-, geographic-, and 

issue-specific Desired Future Conditions apply 

to Fort Davis NHS.

Resource-Desired Future Conditions 

CURATORIAL—Provide high-quality artifact 

preservation and exhibits (Ia, Ib) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) NPS standards for storage of artifacts are met. 

2) Objects are professionally conserved, 

catalogued, and preserved. 

3) Alternative sources of funding, staffing, and 

outside partnerships are explored. 

4) Display space for curatorial resources is of 

high quality and is appropriate for telling the 

park story. 

7
PURPOSE AND NEED 

ARCHEOLOGY—Protect and Preserve all 

Archeological Resources (Ia) 

OUTREACH—Provide effective and quality 

outreach programs to the general public (IIb) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) A comprehensive archeological survey has 

been completed. 

1) The story of Fort Davis is understood by 

school children throughout west Texas. 

2) Archeological resources are identified, 

inventoried, documented, and protected. 

2) Partnerships broaden the ability of the park to 

provide the story of Fort Davis to the general 

public. 3) Information gained from archeological sites is 

shared with the public. 3) A high-quality study/research facility is 

available to the public for historical research. 

INTERPRETATION—Provide high-quality

interpretive services that inspire visitors (IIb) HISTORIC PRESERVATION—Conserve and 

protect the historic fabric of Fort Davis (Ia) Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 1) The story of Fort Davis is told from the 

perspective of the military, civilians, Buffalo 

Soldiers, Native Americans and other cultures 

associated with the history of the fort. 

1) The historic structures and ruins are 

conserved, minimizing impacts on the original 

fabric. 

2) Stabilization is used as a treatment to prevent 

loss of the original fabric. All treatments will 

be compatible with the original, based on 

current research, and documented for future 

reference. 

2) High-quality personal services and interpretive 

programs are provided. 

3) Special educational programs and services are 

offered. 

4) A vital component of the interpretive message 

contains information on the protection and 

preservation of resources. 

3) The exterior appearance and integrity of the 

structures and ruins are not compromised 

through inappropriate conservation 

5) Accurate and quality living history programs treatments. 

connect visitors to the story of Fort Davis. 4) A comprehensive database provides 

information on all known structures, ruins,

and sites. 

6) Interpretive media and non-personal services 

enhance visitors’ understanding and 

knowledge of the significance of the park. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE—Manage the 

cultural landscape (Ia, Ib) 7) Information on natural resources is provided. 

OUTREACH—Use the Internet to provide 

comprehensive information about Fort Davis

(IIb) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) The cultural landscape inventory and plan are 

completed. Conditions to be attained/maintained: 2) The cultural landscape plan is considered in 

1) An educational web site is available that the management of Fort Davis. 

provides curriculum-based materials for 

teachers. PROTECTION—Protect park resources (Ia, 

2) A “Buffalo Soldiers” web site provides accurate IIa) 

and in-depth information at it relates to the 

history of Fort Davis. Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) All historic structures and ruins are protected 

from adverse impacts. 

3) Fort Davis NHS home page provides a broad 

spectrum of information for the visitor. 

8
PURPOSE AND NEED 

1) A strong and vibrant friends group supports 

the park and helps it meet its mission and

goals. 

2) The park is managed to provide a safe 

environment. This includes safety for visitors, 

employees, and volunteers. 

2) Programs with academic institutions are 

established to provide additional research and 

resources to the park. 

3) Fire suppression is fully sufficient to protect 

the resource. 

4) Facilities and contents are secured and 

protected. 3) The park partners with private institutions and 

organizations that support park goals. 5) Visitor use is managed to protect the cultural 

and natural environment. 4) The park maintains a viable professional group 

of volunteers. 6) Plants, wildlife, and cultural resources are 

protected. 5) The park maintains a strong partnership with 

the Davis Mountains State Park. 

FACILITIES—Provide facilities that meet 

visitor and staff needs (Ia, IIa, IIb) 6) The park partners with local, county, other 

state, and federal agencies to share resources 

and experiences. Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

AIR QUALITY—Maintain the best possible 

air quality (Ia)

1) Facilities meet ADA standards where practical. 

2) Adequate storage and workspace exists for all 

operations, meeting all laws and mandates

where applicable. 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Facilities and activities within the park are in 

compliance with the Clean Air Act 

requirements. 

3) Museum and interpretive exhibits are 

modernized and updated using state-of-theart technology. 

2) The park strives to raise the level of awareness 

of the importance of air quality to park 

resources. 

4) Adequate parking is provided. 

5) Space in the visitor center enhances the 

visitor’s experience. 

FLASH FLOOD MITIGATION—Mitigate the 

flood threat (Ia, Ib, IIa) 6) Nature trails meet visitor, educational, and 

safety needs. 

7) Facilities, such as rest rooms, meet basic Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

needs of staff and visitors. 

1) Park resources and visitors are protected from 

flooding. ADJACENT LANDS—Protect the historic 

scene from incompatible development on 

adjacent land (Ia)

2) A flash flood mitigation plan is in place. 

3) Flood mitigation measures are sympathetic to 

historic features. Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

INTRUSIVE NOISE—Minimize inappropriate

noise and overflight (Ia, IIa, IIb) 

1) NPS values and goals are shared and 

understood by park stakeholders. 

2) NPS considers opportunities that may present 

themselves to acquire adjacent land that fit 

within the management goals for the park. 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Inappropriate sound and noise are minimized 

to enhance the visitors’ opportunities to 

PARTNERSHIPS—Develop strong experience historical sounds in the park. 

partnership programs (IVb) 2) The park strives to minimize overflight effects 

from extreme vibrations that may damage 

park resources. Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

9
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Geographic 2) Military sounds are broadcast. 

These areas refer to the Resource Opportunity 3) Living history is a core interpretive program. 

Areas described in the Visitor Experience and 

the Environmental sections. HISTORIC CORE—Protect the historic scene 

(Ia)

FOREGROUND—Protect the viewshed and 

natural features (Ia) Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) The fort‘s historic appearance is maintained 

through appropriate preservation 

management. 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Views into the park remain natural and 

undeveloped (this excludes residential/ 

maintenance area on the park boundary). 

BACKDROP—Protect and maintain the 

natural environment (Ia) 

2) The cottonwood grove is protected and 

propagated. Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

HISTORIC CORE—Provide sights and 1) No visual intrusions are evident. 

sounds that enhance visitor experience (IIa, 

IIb) 2) Natural systems are protected. 

3) Nonnative species are identified, mitigated, 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: and managed to the extent possible. 

1) Natural quiet is desirable. 

10
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

CHAPTER 2: MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTIONS AND RESOURCE AREAS

PARK RESOURCES AND 

VISITOR USE 

Fort Davis National Historic Site has the 

tremendous responsibility of managing and 

protecting all natural and cultural resources 

within the park, while at the same time 

providing visitor enjoyment of the same 

resources. In order to accomplish its 

mission, it is necessary to outline 

management strategies for the park and 

designate where specific activities are 

appropriate and where they are not. 

The development of such strategies will

enable the park to begin monitoring

conditions and to ensure that the goals 

related to resource management and visitor 

use can be achieved. The Resource 

Opportunity Area concept is the first step in 

incrementally moving the park toward the 

goal of addressing “carrying capacity.” It 

also helps to define the “suitability” of park

lands for the application of management 

prescriptions.

Resource 

Opportunity Areas

Parks are composites of a 

variety of important cultural 

and natural resources. People

value parks for many 

reasons—inspirational,

educational, aesthetic, 

recreational, scientific, spiritual,

and economic, among others. 

Significant differences relating 

to resource values and visitor 

use usually exist within 

different areas of a park. The 

uniqueness of these various areas and their 

relationship to one another, as well as to 

lands beyond the park boundary, influence 

visitor use and management of the park. In 

order to describe the park’s affected

environment, to outline a set of alternatives,

and to ultimately assess impacts on the 

resource, the resource values of the park 

must be identified and categorized. 

This identification is best accomplished

through the designation of areas or zones 

where similar resources are located. These

pieces of the park, or geographic 

delineations, which may extend beyond the 

boundaries of the park, are called Resource 

Opportunity Areas (ROAs). The evaluation of 

these areas requires the involvement of 

public and private interests in the area. 

At Fort Davis there are three distinct ROAs— 

Foreground, Historic Core, and Natural 

Backdrop. Each contributes in a different 

way to how people use the resources of the 

site.

11
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

12
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

13

It is important to incrementally plan ROAs 

for the protection of park resources from 

visitor overuse. ROAs illustrate how visitors 

might relate to and use park resources and 

point out the relative importance of each 

area to the whole. They also provide the 

basis for understanding visitor experiences 

available within a park. At the same time, 

the physical resources and visitor 

experiences are related to the park’s 

purpose and significance. 

The designation of Resource Opportunity 

Areas helps to specify and identify areas of 

sensitive resources where damage can occur 

from overuse. By identifying important 

resource areas, the park can begin the steps 

needed to define carrying capacity and 

“Visitor Experience and Resource Protection 

(VERP)” planning. Future VERP planning will 

eventually define carrying capacities needed 

to protect resources. Each Resource 

Opportunity Area includes a brief 

description of the following: 

● Outstanding examples of historic, natural, 

scenic, geological, ecological, floral, faunal, 

and recreational values for which the park 

was established. 

● Populations of rare plants and animals that 

are particularly vulnerable because of their 

small population sizes and genetic isolation. 

● Habitats necessary for the survival or 

reintroduction of federal or state recognized 

threatened or endangered species or 

candidate species being considered for 

listing. 

● Resources that are unusually sensitive to 

human use. 

● Major known archeological or important 

historical resources. 

The following paragraphs define each of the 

three Resource Opportunity Areas (ROAs) at 

Fort Davis National Historic Site. Although 

there may be some characteristics shared 

among ROAs, other characteristics will be 

unique to one ROA. 

Foreground ROA 

This Resource Opportunity Area is located 

on the easternmost edge of the Fort Davis 

National Historic Site property. An open 

grassland environment common to the 

Davis Mountains dominates the area. 

Historic resources located in the Foreground 

ROA were auxiliary in nature, but still played 

an important role in supporting fort 

functions. The historic resources in this ROA 

include garden sites, a wood yard, a pump 

house, laundresses’ quarters, a lime kiln, a 

spring, and remnants of the San Antonio–El 

Paso Road. One of the garden sites 

contains a historic grove of cottonwood 

trees that provides visitors with a shaded 

area, a pleasant spot for a picnic. 

This ROA offers a physical and visual buffer 

between the site’s historic structures and 

the modern commercial and residential 

areas of the town of Fort Davis. It also 

furnishes visitors with the first glimpses of 

the fort from State Highways 17 and 118. 

This ROA serves as the entrance to the fort, 

giving visitors their first impression of the 

fort and its resources. 

Opportunities that are available in the 

Foreground Resource Opportunity Area 

include: 

• Viewing opportunities— give visitors an 

outside look at the historic resources and 

the historic scene. Views from this area 

afford a picture of how the fort might have 

first appeared to early settlers. 

• Recreational opportunities — provide 

visitors opportunities to picnic and enjoy the 

solace of the historic cottonwoods. 

• Cultural opportunities —enable visitors to 

experience resources that supported and 

maintained the fort’s existence. 

Historic Core ROA 

The Historic Core Resource Opportunity 

Area is located in the center of the park and 

contains the primary resources for which the 

park was created. This area contains the 

majority of the fort’s historic structures, 

features, and sites and was the location of 
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

most day-to-day activities during its

existence.

This ROA provides the visitor with

opportunities to view Fort Davis’s abundant 

historic resources and to learn about the 

history of the fort. The historic buildings,

ruins, foundations, and sites provide visitors 

access to the history of the first and second 

forts. Military sites and sounds help visitors

to imagine what it would have been like 

during the period when Fort Davis was an 

active military post. The parade ground and 

cultural landscape give visitors an experience

of times past. Remnants of the San Antonio–

El Paso Road, company streets, and historic 

roads within the fort can be seen. 

Because the fort is in the middle of an

alluvial floodplain, natural drainages run 

through this ROA. Historic flood control 

features, such as ditches and dikes,

originally built by the military for flood 

protection, are also present. 

It is in this ROA that most development has 

occurred. Support facilities are housed

within the fort’s historic structures and 

include a visitor center, museum, 

auditorium, curatorial storage areas, and 

administrative offices. 

Opportunities available in the Historic Core 

Resource Opportunity Area include: 

• Viewing opportunities—give visitors 

opportunities to see, hear, and learn about 

the park’s prime resource. 

• Interpretive opportunities—are provided 

through personal service programs. 

Educational materials, audiovisual media 

programs, exhibits, and other materials are

available in the visitor center, museum, and 

auditorium. 

• Cultural opportunities—in this zone contain 

the prime resources. Visitors can experience 

the historic resources and the historic 

essence (parade ground, buildings, 

foundations, and ruins) on a firsthand and 

close-up basis. 

Natural Backdrop ROA 

The Natural Backdrop Resource Area is 

located along a series of natural geological 

Officers’ Row from Sleeping Lion Mountain

14
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

ridges and outcrops along the western 

boundary of the site. beauty characteristic of the Davis 

Mountains. 

It includes the two cliff walls of Hospital 

Canyon and a rugged steep escarpment 

running north and south that form the 

prominent viewscape as seen from lower 

elevations. Grassland and brush skirt the 

base of volcanic rock formations. From trails

on these ridges, visitors are provided with 

bird’s-eye views of the fort as well as

panoramic vistas of the adjacent slopes of 

the Davis Mountains and flatland areas to

the east. This ROA can in turn be viewed 

from the Foreground ROA and the Historic 

Core ROA. 

This ROA also contains the bulk of the 

hiking and natural viewing opportunities. 

Trails to lookout points traverse the

northwest canyon rim. It also contains the 

majority of the park’s archeological 

resources. This area is most important to the

fort’s natural setting, ensuring that the fort 

maintains its late 19th-century appearance, 

and, therefore, this ROA is the most

sensitive to development. 

Opportunities that occur within the Natural 

Backdrop Resource Opportunity Area 

include: 

Mixed vegetative cover is found throughout 

this zone. Areas of sagebrush are intermixed 

with large clusters of mountain scrub, while 

desert cacti and pinyon juniper woodland 

dominate other areas. The seasons are 

highlighted by the color changes that occur 

throughout this zone, especially during

spring and autumn, providing visitors

opportunities to see the breathtaking 

● Wildlife viewing opportunities—rich in a 

variety of species, including whitetail and 

mule deer, squirrel, porcupine, bobcat, 

ringtail, raccoon, fox, mountain lion, and a 

variety of birds and reptiles. 

● Recreational opportunities—physically

demanding trails on the North Ridge 

provide significant panoramic views and 

opportunities to explore. 

Enlisted Men’s Barracks from Sleeping Lion Mountain 

15
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

Squad Room of Refurnished Enlisted Men’s Barracks 

• Cultural opportunities—areas of interest 

include historic resources such as the 

cemetery and water storage site. 

Three management prescriptions have been

identified for Fort Davis National Historic 

Site. They are: Historic 

Interpretive/Developed, Undeveloped 

Landscape, and Outlying/Modern

Development. Each of the Management 

Prescriptions is described below and each 

details desired visitor experience and 

resource conditions within a broad 

framework for the human use of the site.

The following six components—visitor

experience, access, natural resource 

management, cultural resource 

management, facilities, and maintenance—

have been identified as management 

prescription categories for Fort Davis. 

• Rural Texas landscape and Davis 

Mountains—the area is a reminder of the 

natural and primitive nature that at one time 

composed much of the West. 

MANAGEMENT PRESCIPTIONS 

Management Prescriptions, common to all 

alternatives, provide direction for managing

the resource opportunity areas (specific 

identified areas of land) within the park. 

These “Management Prescriptions” also

outline proposed management strategies or

actions. They are different from Resource 

Opportunity Areas because they describe 

the proposed use of areas within the site

rather than the resources themselves.

Historic Interpretative/Developed

The historic interpretive/developed

management prescription includes the areas

where the majority of interpretation takes 

place. It encompasses those parts of the 

park where modern development and/or

16
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

intensive use substantially alter the natural 

environment. The area is managed as a 

historic district and is the main focus for 

interpretation at the park. 

This area provides an experience that is

basically facility dependent (e.g. visitor

center, museum, auditorium, restored and 

refurnished buildings, administrative

facilities), which helps to make the visitor’s

park experience more enjoyable and 

educational. 

This area would accommodate the highest 

levels of use in the park. Visitor activities

would be fairly structured and directed and 

would involve little challenge. Support

services and facilities could be moderate. 

Visitor contacts and contacts with NPS 

personnel could be frequent in this area,

especially during peak visitor periods. 

Contacts could be less frequent during the 

off-peak season but might still be common 

compared with other management areas. 

There could be little or no opportunity for 

solitude. Relatively intensive resource 

management activity could be required to

mitigate impacts associated with high levels

of visitor use and development. Although

natural processes would be perpetuated 

wherever possible, a high degree of

encroachment and human intrusion to the 

natural and cultural environment could be 

evident. 

Visitor Experience—This area provides

for the primary experience of most visitors, 

introducing them to many of the park’s 

significant resources. The area also presents

the park’s primary interpretive themes. 

Management emphasizes sights and sounds

of the military history associated with park 

resources. 

Living history involves visitors in active

learning experiences, teaching them about

the history and life of the fort. Exhibits 

emphasize the role of the military during the 

frontier Indian Wars period.

Films and publications available at the visitor 

center/auditorium area convey an

understanding of the park and its natural 

and cultural resources. Tours by NPS 

personnel could be available. Additional 

orientation information would assist visitors 

in planning their stay in the park or region. 

Access—Access would be easy. Pedestrian

access along improved trails would allow for 

visitor access to a variety of environments.

Hardened trails could be provided in areas 

around the visitor center and in other areas 

of high use identified to give visitors an 

overview and familiarity with park resources. 

Barrier-free design is provided in selected 

areas to permit visitors with physical

impairments to experience representative 

park settings. 

Natural Resource Management—The 

natural environment, which includes the 

cultural landscape, is preserved to the

greatest extent possible, while

accommodating high levels of use and

protection of the sensitive historic fabric. 

Vista site modifications may be used to 

improve views in this area. Visitors would 

be restricted or directed to trails to limit 

resource impacts. Significant soil and 

vegetation impacts occurring near high-use 

sites could be mitigated through periodic 

closures, the use of natural materials to

more clearly define use corridors, and 

increased enforcement techniques. Native 

and historically significant species would be

used for revegetation. Landscaping would 

be done with native species or those species 

documented to have been present during 

the active fort period. Mowing and selective 

removal/pruning of trees may also be done

where appropriate or to enhance visitor 

safety, consistent with the park’s historic 

scene. 

Cultural Resource Management—

Resources or sites that are designated as

outstanding cultural features might be

restored in accordance with NPS Standards.

Resources or sites designated as significant 

cultural features and cultural landscapes will

be preserved or restored depending on the 

17
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

degree of importance to the visitor’s 

understanding of the purpose of the park or

settlement and use of the region. 

Archeological sites would be protected. 

Coordination and consultation with the 

Texas Historical Commission would be a 

part of the process. 

Facilities—Developments must be 

compatible and consistent with the historic 

resource. Existing and potential

modifications might include unsurfaced

access roads, restored dikes and ditches,

and other treatments that would enhance 

the historic scene. 

Maintenance—Maintenance activities 

could involve maintaining existing facilities

(cleaning, painting, crack sealing, chip

sealing, striping, etc.), landscaping, 

providing for visitor convenience and 

comfort, protecting resources, irrigating, 

and restoring areas disturbed by human 

activities. Roads, buildings, signs, walks, 

interpretive displays, landscaping, and other 

facilities would be maintained on a regular 

basis. Power tools could be used for routine 

maintenance activities, and heavy 

equipment could be used for road and 

utility system repairs, development, and 

maintenance. 

Undeveloped Landscape

The undeveloped landscape management

prescription consists of limiting 

development and allowing the natural 

environment to thrive. This management

prescription is applied to areas where 

development would detract from the 

historic core resource opportunity area.

This management prescription serves to 

maintain a landscape that is predominantly

natural and brings the visitor in direct

contact with the park’s natural 

environment. Management accommodates 

visitors wishing to experience the park’s

superlative cultural resources on foot.

Contacts among visitors and with NPS 

personnel are less frequent than those in

areas managed under the historic 

interpretive/developed prescription. 

Contacts are less frequent during midweek 

and off-season periods, when opportunities 

for solitude and seclusion would be greater. 

The landscape setting appears

predominantly natural, although evidence 

of facilities that blend with surroundings 

might be present. Emphasis is placed on 

minimizing human impacts on sensitive 

environments, cultural resources, habitats,

and species. 

Areas managed as Undeveloped Landscapes

would contain historic ruins of first and 

second fort structures, the area where the 

post cemetery was located, nature trails and 

prehistoric sites. 

Visitor Experience—This area brings the 

visitor in direct contact with the park’s

natural environment. The integrity of natural 

and cultural resources, including the cultural 

landscape, would be preserved. Interpretive

media would be limited to small interpretive 

signs and/or wayside exhibits. This area 

provides a sense of being immersed in the 

natural and cultural landscape, creating a

sense of oneness with the historical past. 

Access—Access can vary from easy to 

moderately challenging. This area has one 

main unpaved service road that runs

through a portion of it. Public access is

restricted to established trails and limited to

foot traffic. No bicycles or motorized 

vehicles are permitted. 

Natural Resource Management—The 

natural environment, which includes the 

cultural landscape, is preserved. The area is

monitored to avoid overuse. Trail use and 

other intrusive visitor impacts are actively 

mitigated. 

Emphasis is placed on minimizing human 

impacts on sensitive environments, cultural 

resources, habitats, and species.

Management would reduce or minimize the 

impacts of all uses. If impairment occurred,

mitigating actions, such as temporary

18
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

Post Hospital 

Maintenance—Activities include 

protecting cultural resources from excessive 

visitor use, maintaining and/or stabilizing 

cultural sites, and providing resource 

protection. Closure of the area to visitors 

could occur as well as the restoration of 

areas disturbed by human activity. Primitive 

trails would use native materials that blend 

in with the surrounding environment. 

Modern materials such as cement and metal

guard rails would only be utilized in areas

where visitor safety is compromised. 

closures, revegetation, or restrictions on 

uses, would be implemented as required. 

Cultural Resource Management—

Resources or sites that are designated as

outstanding cultural features are stabilized 

to protect the integrity of the resource. 

Other resources designated as significant 

cultural features or landscapes could be 

stabilized depending on the degree of 

importance to the visitor’s understanding of 

the purpose of the park or settlement and 

use of the region. Archeological sites would 

be protected. Coordination and

consultation with the Texas Historical 

Commission would be a part of the process. 

Outlying/Modern Development

This Outlying/Modern Development

Prescription is unique because it is not 

directly related to visitor experience but is

necessary for visitor use. The areas where 

this prescription applies are utilized to

facilitate maintenance and preservation of 

the site. They include the maintenance 

Facilities—No development is allowed

other than those associated with trails, 

stabilization, and visitor safety. 

19
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

20

complex, housing/office area, a modern 

building (Bally Building) used for curatorial 

storage, and an outside area used to 

stockpile building materials. Areas managed 

under this prescription frequently would 

contain maintenance vehicles, and 

equipment that often conflict with the 

historic and natural scene. 

Visitor Experience—The maintenance 

and housing complexes and the Bally 

Building could be viewed as somewhat 

detrimental to the visitor experience. They 

partially obstruct a view of the park for 

visitors entering the fort from Highway 17-

118 north, therefore, infringing on the 

cultural and natural landscape of the site. 

On the reverse, they served to block a view 

of modern business development outside 

the site for those visitors already in the park. 

They also serve to muffle modern highway 

sounds from the historic core area. 

The maintenance “stock pile” area, located 

in Hospital Canyon can be seen by visitors 

hiking the Hospital Canyon Nature Trail. 

This area also may be seen as an 

encroachment to the resource as well as on 

the historic scene. 

Access—Access to these areas is easy, but 

restricted. Visitors would not normally be in 

these areas unless they had business, had 

special collecting permits, or were 

researchers desiring to see museum 

collection items or historic records. 

Natural Resource Management—The 

natural environment, which includes the 

cultural landscape, is preserved to the 

maximum extent possible while 

accommodating the maintenance/housing/ 

curatorial facilities necessary for the 

operation of the park. 

Cultural Resource Management—

Cultural resources, which include the 

cultural landscape, is preserved to the 

maximum extent possible while 

accommodating the maintenance/housing/ 

curatorial facilities necessary for the 

operation of the park. 

Facilities— This management prescription 

allows for modern developments and 

activities related to park operations and 

maintenance. 

Such uses may modify and detract from the 

natural and cultural environments. Even 

though modern developments and activities 

are allowed, they should be kept to a 

minimum and only allowed if they are 

necessary for the operation and 

maintenance of the park 

Maintenance—Maintenance activities 

serve to protect the natural and cultural 

resources of the park and, where possible, 

to restore areas disturbed by human 

activities to their historic appearance. 

Activities must not conflict with park values.
CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES

This document presents four 

alternatives for the management

of Fort Davis NHS, including the

NPS proposal. Alternatives are 

broad and conceptual in nature.

Each alternative provides for a 

distinctly different method of 

achieving the Desired Future 

Conditions outlined under the 

Purpose and Need for the Plan. 

Volunteers and Staff Members Conducting an Artillery Demonstration

The four alternatives include (A) a

“no-action” alternative, (B) a 

compliance alternative, (C) a twophased enhanced visitor services 

and resource management 

alternative, (D) an improved 

visitor services and resource 

management with emphasis on

expansion and relocation. The 

National Park Service’s preferred proposal is

Alternative C.

In each of the four alternatives, the

following categories or topics are

addressed: General Emphasis, Outreach and 

Partnership, Cultural Resource Management, 

Land Use Management, Interpretation, 

Natural Resource Management, Resource 

Protection, Possible Future Facility and 

Development Changes, Costs, and Future 

Plans and Studies. 

The final plan, when adopted, will serve as

the park’s general management plan. The 

plan will guide the management and 

development of Fort Davis for the next 10 to

15 years.

 ALTERNATIVE A — NO ACTION

This alternative describes the no-action 

alternative. It is presented conceptually as if 

the existing management was to continue 

without any significant changes. This

alternative serves as a baseline for

evaluating the changes and impacts of the 

three proposed action alternatives.

General Emphasis

Under the no-action alternative, existing

administrative, maintenance, land use, and 

resource management activities would 

continue. Minimal changes, subject to 

available funding, would be implemented to

bring unsatisfactory conditions into 

compliance with current regulations and 

policies. Present use patterns would serve as

the basis for mapping management

prescriptions. Existing levels of resource 

protection and interpretation would 

continue. 

Existing visitor facilities would be maintained

to support current activities, and no new 

facilities would be considered or built.

Required improvements to safety, 

sanitation, and access for persons with

disabilities would be completed as funding

permitted. 

21
ALTERNATIVES 

Outreach and Partnerships

In keeping with advances in technology, a

web site would be established that provides

basic information about the park. It would 

be updated on an as-needed basis and 

would contain information on upcoming 

events and programs. Current partnerships

with the Friends of Fort Davis National 

Historic Site and other local and area

organizations, whose focus is resource

protection, would continue to be 

encouraged. 

The park would continue to encourage 

adjacent landowners to use their land in

ways that complement park values, thereby 

promoting the natural and scenic character

of the landscapes. 

The existing research/library facility would be

maintained and would continue to be 

accessible to the general public. New 

publications and documents would be

added, but without expansion or change to

the facility. 

Cultural Resource Management

Curatorial—The park would continue to 

maintain the collection in the current

condition. Deficiencies identified in the 

National Park Service’s checklist for 

Preservation and Protection of Museum

Collections for Fort Davis National Historic 

Site would be addressed only as resources 

became available.

The park would continue to catalog and 

enter into the National Park Service 

Automated National Catalog System a small 

number of significant museum objects each 

year, but would be unable to catalog the 

backlog of uncataloged field collections 

without special funding. Exhibits would be

maintained in their current conditions. 

Temporary exhibits would be changed 

periodically, and items in permanent exhibits

rotated at regular intervals in order to help 

protect and preserve them. 

Archeology—Archeological sites would be 

preserved and protected, using existing

monitoring and conservation methods. 

Historic Preservation—Much of the 

historic fabric of Fort Davis National Historic 

Site consists of adobe and stone buildings,

ruins, and foundations. Current preservation 

techniques and practices would continue to 

be used in the conservation of these 

remains. Loss of some original fabric could 

be expected. Progress on maintaining or 

raising the condition of structures to a good

condition would be dependant on special 

project funding. 

The national database lists 110 structures in 

Fort Davis National Historic Site on the List

of Classified Structures. According to park 

records, many more structures exist. The 

inconsistencies between the park’s data and 

the national database would continue to 

exist. Historic structures and ruins would be

monitored and evaluated periodically.

Land Use Management

This alternative would provide no change in 

existing uses. The land would continue to

be managed for the protection of the

resources and the historic fabric. 

Foreground Resource Opportunity 

Area (ROA)—The majority of the

Foreground ROA would continue to be 

managed under the Undeveloped 

Landscape Management Prescription. No

new developments, either interpretive or 

resource management related, would be 

introduced into this area. 

The maintenance and housing complexes 

and museum storage facility (Bally Building) 

located near the entrance to the park would 

continue to be managed under the

Outlying/Modern Development 

Management Prescription. No additions or 

22
ALTERNATIVES 

23
ALTERNATIVES 

changes to this area would be

implemented. 

A garden site and unique stand of historic 

cottonwood trees, dating from the mid-tolate 19th century, would continue to be used 

as a picnic and rest area and would be 

managed under the Historic 

Interpretive/Developed Management

Prescription. 

Historic Core Resource Opportunity 

Area (ROA)— The majority of the Historic 

Core ROA would continue to be managed

under the Historic Interpretive/Developed 

Management Prescription. The area would 

remain the main focal area for interpretation 

and visitor services. The natural quiet 

would be maintained to serve as a backdrop 

for the daily presentation of historic bugle

calls and the sounds of a dress retreat 

parade. Park staff will continue to maintain

this setting within the park. No alterations 

would be made to change either the

recordings or the amplifying equipment 

used to project these sounds. 

The western reaches of the Historic Core 

ROA, located in hospital canyon, contain 

many first fort structures. These would 

continue to be managed under the

Undeveloped Landscape Management

Prescription. The natural and cultural

environment of this area would be 

maintained and the existing natural 

processes and conditions perpetuated. This

area, however, is affected by the presence 

of a maintenance storage yard that is 

managed under the Outlying/Modern

Development Management Prescription. 

This site is physically and visually

incompatible with the natural and cultural 

environment of the rest of the canyon. 

Under this alternative, it would continue to 

be managed as a maintenance yard. The 

remainder of the canyon would be 

managed under the undeveloped landscape

prescription. 

The present parking area, which contains 

spaces for cars, buses, motor homes, and 

two spaces for visitors with disabilities, 

would not be modified or changed. 

Backdrop Resource Opportunity 

Area (ROA)— For the most part, the 

appearance and environment of the natural

backdrop of Fort Davis National Historic Site

is rugged, with cliff walls featuring steep

slopes that form prominent landmarks. This 

is the area that offers the majority of hiking 

and nature viewing opportunities. The

natural landscape of this backdrop is

important to the fort’s historic setting, and it

also helps visitors visualize its 19th-century 

appearance. 

The Backdrop ROA would be managed 

under the Undeveloped Landscape 

Management Prescription. The natural and 

cultural environment of this area would be

maintained and the existing natural 

processes and conditions perpetuated. 

No development would be permitted other

than those associated with trails and visitor 

safety and these would result only in 

minimum modification to the natural 

environment. Signs that blend well with the 

environment and semi-primitive trails might 

be present. Primitive trails would be 

maintained to NPS unpaved standards. 

Interpretation

Interpretive programs would continue to

focus on the history of Fort Davis, and life at 

the fort, primarily from the military

perspective. The current informational 

video, which highlights the role played by 

Fort Davis during the frontier Indians Wars

of the late 19th century, the current bugle 

call and dress retreat sound programs

would continue to be enjoyed by visitors. 

Interpretive messages, including information 

on resource protection, would continue to 

be provided to all visitors. 

Training would be provided based on

available funding in order that employees in 

the interpretive division would have the 

opportunity to achieve essential or basic 

level competencies identified in their career

24
ALTERNATIVES 

field. Educational programs and services 

would continue to focus on curriculum for 

grades 4 through 7. 

Research into 19th-century military and 

civilian records would continue to ensure 

the accuracy and quality of interpretive

programs, interpretive literature, and 

interpretive exhibits. 

Living history clothing and equipment 

would be sustained at the current levels of 

maintenance. 

The park would make every effort to

maintain the current cadre of volunteers 

and to continue to recruit new volunteers 

for the program. 

Natural Resource Management

Wildlife—Wildlife would be managed to 

protect the natural habitat of species known 

to inhabit the park at the current level. 

Vegetation—Vegetation would be 

managed at the current level to preserve the 

historic appearance/landscape of the park.

The unique stand of historic cottonwoods 

would be perpetuated and protected.

Wetlands/Floodplain/Flash Flood— 

Since the establishment of Fort Davis in

1854, the periodic flash flooding of the site 

has plagued military personnel and now 

park managers. Given the small size of the 

watershed and the fort’s position on an 

alluvial fan, some flooding may occur during

summer months when rainfall is average or 

above average. 

During the second fort period (1867-1891), 

the army constructed a series of dikes and 

ditches to alleviate flooding of the fort. 

These protective structures are still in use,

but because of limited effectiveness (less 

than 100-year flood protection), erosion, 

human disturbances, and extensive 

maintenance requirements; these 

safeguards are not adequate to protect the 

area. Under this alternative, these

insufficient structures would not be

upgraded to protect park resources from

flash flooding and therefore all great storm

events would cause some flooding damage

to historic structures close to the channel. 

Fort Davis has two ephemeral drainage 

corridors that transport precipitation run-off 

from the historic ditch/dike system to 

ephemeral streams outside of the park. 

Low-lying areas of these drainage corridors 

meet NPS criteria for a wetland. Under this

proposal these seasonal wetland areas

would not be changed.

Intrusive Noise—The bugle calls and dress 

retreat parade sound programs would 

continue to be used to help cover up or 

drown out modern sounds from the parking 

area and adjacent highway. The parking 

area would be periodically monitored in 

order to reduce noise levels. 

Air Quality—The air quality of the park is

good, even though on some days,

particularly those when air currents are from

the southeast, the site experiences visibility

impairments. Fort Davis National Historic 

Site would continue to support air quality 

programs, both in the public and private 

sectors.

Resource Protection

In order to ensure protection of the 

resources as well as the safety of the visitors,

routine patrols of the grounds and 

structures would be maintained at the 

current level. 

Only one of the park’s historic structures is 

equipped with a sprinkler system for fire 

suppression. Under this alternative, no other 

historic structures would be outfitted with 

fire suppression systems.

The park’s water lines are in fair condition,

but are not large enough in diameter to 

provide necessary water volume for fire

protection of the historic buildings. This 

inadequate water system/supply to meet the 

protection needs of the park would remain

status quo. 

25
ALTERNATIVES 

The park does not have a fire 

truck serviceable to fight 

structural fires, and not all

employees who have been 

red-carded have had proper 

fire suppression training. These

conditions would remain the 

same under the no-action 

alternative. 

The fort’s historic buildings 

that have been modified for 

electricity do not have 

electrical systems that meet 

National Electrical Code (NEC) 

standards. The electrical

systems would not be

upgraded to meet national 

code standards. 

Two-Story Shared Officers’ Quarters

Possible Future Facility and 

Development Changes

There would be no changes to facilities. The 

no-action alternative would retain current 

uses of park resources and the status quo 

on development and organization. Facilities 

would be improved to meet standards as

funding permits. No construction or 

restoration work would be undertaken. 

Existing facilities and structures would 

continue to serve their present functions. 

Only routine maintenance would be carried 

out. 

Operational Costs

Current Budget and Staff—The FY2000 

budget for Fort Davis National Historic Site 

is $942,000 as compared with $774,000 in 

FY1999. In addition to the standard increase 

for inflation, the FY2000 budget reflects an 

increase of $110,000 for a new cultural 

resource management position and for 2 

subject-to-furlough cultural resource 

preservation worker positions. 

Current staffing levels include 19 permanent 

(P) and 5 seasonal (S) full-time equivalencies

(FTEs), for a total of 24. The breakdown is 

as follows: Interpretation and Visitor 

Services (4 P, 1 S), Facility Management (6 P,

3.5 S), Cultural Resource Management (5 P – 

which includes 2 – 6 month subject- tofurlough positions), Historian (1 P),

Administration (2 P, .5 S), and 

Superintendent (1 P). 

All employees share visitor service,

protection, and conservation functions. 

These functions are: 

● Superintendent (1 P). Responsible for the 

general management and oversight of the

park, including establishing long-term 

mission goals and objectives, setting and or 

ensuring appropriate policy and procedure, 

and serving as the liaison with other 

agencies, government officials, and other 

entities and organizations. 

● Facility Management (6 P, 3.5 S). 

Responsible for design, construction, 

maintenance, and general oversight of all 

area facilities, including nature trails, picnic

area, public rest rooms, interpretive facilities, 

roads and trails, historic and non-historic 

buildings, and utilities. 

● Interpretation and Visitor Services (4 P,

1 S). Responsible for the operation of the 

visitor center, interpretive waysides and 

exhibits, audio and audiovisual 

presentations, five furnished structures, 

publications, environmental and curriculumbased education and outreach, and 

interpretive programs and demonstrations. 

26
ALTERNATIVES 

● Historian (1 P). Responsible for planning

and conducting historic research and, in

conjunction with resource management, 

monitoring cultural resources. 

Responsibilities for providing law 

enforcement (with an emphasis on 

protecting park resources and visitors), 

search and rescue, fire suppression, fee 

collection, monitoring and research of 

natural resources, including wildlife, flora, 

and air and water quality, are also provided 

for under this grouping. 

● Administration (2 P, .5 S). Provides 

essential support in personnel services, 

payroll, property, contracting, purchasing, 

and budget. 

● Cultural Resource Management (5 P).

Provides monitoring and research of cultural 

resources, including archeological and 

historical resources. Responsible for 

preservation, stabilization, and 

documentation of historic ruins, buildings, 

and features. Responsible for the 

accountability, preservation, and protection 

of the museum collection. 

Development Costs

There are no development costs for the noaction alternative.

Future Plans and Studies

There would be no change to currently 

scheduled plans and studies.

ALTERNATIVE B—SAFETY, PROTECTION, AND ACCESSIBILITY 

COMPLIANCE 

Under this alternative required 

improvements to safety, resource 

protection, sanitation, and access for

persons with disabilities would be

emphasized.

General Emphasis

Existing levels of resource protection and 

interpretation would continue. 

The fort’s historic setting and historic 

viewscape would be protected and

preserved and modern intrusions would be 

minimized in the historic core area. 

Historic fabric would be restored on a 

piecemeal basis, contingent on the 

availability of funding. Loss of original ruins 

and portions of structures could result. 

Progress on maintaining or raising the 

condition of structures to good would be

minimal. 

Interpretive programs would continue to

focus on the history of the fort, primarily 

from a military perspective. The current

informational video, which highlights the 

role played by Fort Davis during the frontier

Indian Wars of the late 19th century, the 

current bugle call tape, and sounds of a 

dress retreat program, would continue to be

enjoyed by visitors. Interpretive messages, 

including information on resource 

protection, would continue to be provided 

to all visitors. New programs would be 

limited to meet interpretive, research, and 

educational needs. 

In this alternative (as with Alternatives C and 

D), the interior of the post hospital would 

be partially restored and refurnished to

more fully tell the story of Fort Davis and 

therefore provide the visitors with a more 

comprehensive learning experience. This 

restoration and refurnishing project would 

be dependent on partnerships resulting in

private sector funding. 

The park would continue to encourage 

adjacent landowners to use their land in

ways that complement park values. 

Outreach and Partnerships

In keeping with advances in technology, a

web site would be established that provides

basic and educational information about the

park. Included would be a web page

27
ALTERNATIVES 

Commanding Officer’s Quarters Parlor

containing basic information on the Buffalo 

Soldiers as well as links to other

authoritative sources on the Internet

containing information on these soldiers of

African-American descent who served in the 

late 19th-century army. 

Basic education programs emphasizing the 

general history of the fort would be 

available. Current partnerships with the 

Friends of Fort Davis National Historic Site

and other local and area organizations, 

whose focus is resource protection, would 

continue to be encouraged. The existing

research/library facility would be maintained

and would continue to be accessible to the 

general public. New publications and 

documents would be added, but without 

expansion or change to the facility. 

Cultural Resource Management

Curatorial—As with Alternative A, the park

would continue to maintain the collection in

the current condition. Deficiencies 

identified in the National Park Service 

checklist for Preservation and Protection of 

Museum Collections for Fort Davis NHS 

would be addressed. The park would 

continue to catalog a small number of 

museum objects each year, but would be 

unable to process the backlog of 

uncataloged field collections without special 

funding. 

Exhibits would be maintained in their 

current conditions. Temporary exhibits 

would be changed periodically, and items in

permanent exhibits rotated at regular 

intervals in order to help protect and 

preserve them. 

The park would continue to explore new 

opportunities for partnerships and funding 

to ensure current levels of preservation, 

protection, and other curatorial work. 

28
ALTERNATIVES 

The maintenance and housing complexes 

located near the entrance of the park would 

continue to be managed under the

Outlying/Modern Development 

Management Prescription. No additions or 

changes to this area would be

implemented. 

Archeology—As with Alternative A,

archeological sites would be preserved and 

protected using existing monitoring and 

conservation methods. 

Historic Preservation—As with Alternative 

A, current preservation techniques and 

practices would continue to be used in the

conservation of historic remains. Loss of 

some original fabric could be anticipated.

Progress on maintaining or raising the 

condition of structures to a good condition 

would be dependant on special project 

funding. 

A garden area and unique stand of historic 

cottonwood trees, dating from the mid-tolate 19th century, would be managed under 

the Historic Interpretive/Developed 

Management Prescription and would 

continue to be used as a picnic and rest 

area. The national database lists 110 Fort Davis 

National Historic Site structures on the List

of Classified Structures. According to park 

records many more structures exist. The 

inconsistency between the park records and 

the national listing would be resolved. The 

database would be completed, providing 

information on all known structures, ruins, 

and sites. The information would be 

updated continually and monitoring would 

be provided through analysis of the data. 

Historic Core Resource Opportunity 

Area (ROA)— As in Alternative A, the 

majority of the Historic Core ROA would 

continue to be managed under the Historic 

Interpretive/Developed Management

Prescription. This area would continue to 

be used as the main focal point of 

interpretation at the fort and would provide 

visitor services through the visitor center, 

administration offices, auditorium, furnished

buildings, and living history programs. The 

natural quiet would be maintained to serve 

as a backdrop for the daily presentation of 

historic bugle calls and the sounds of a 

dress retreat parade. No alterations will be 

made to change either the recordings or the

amplifying equipment used to project these 

sounds. 

Land Use Management

This alternative would provide no significant 

change in existing land use prescriptions. 

Under this alternative, a Cultural Landscape 

Inventory for Fort Davis National Historic 

Site would be developed and

recommendations would be implemented 

as appropriate. The western reaches of the Historic Core 

ROA, located in hospital canyon, contain 

many first fort structures. These would 

continue to be managed under the

Undeveloped Landscape Management

Prescription. The natural and cultural

environment of this area would be 

maintained and the existing natural 

processes and conditions perpetuated. This

area is marred, however, by the presence of 

a maintenance storage yard that is managed 

under the Outlying/Modern Development

Management Prescription. This area is

physically and visually incompatible with the

natural and cultural environment of the rest 

of the canyon. Under Alternative B this area

Minor facility changes, such as modifying 

the existing parking area to increase

capacity, would not change land use.

The proposed land use and management 

prescriptions for each Resource Opportunity 

Area are described below.

Foreground Resource Opportunity Area 

(ROA)—As in Alternative A, the majority of 

the Foreground ROA would continue to be 

managed as an Undeveloped Landscape. 

No new developments or interpretive 

programs would be introduced into this 

area. 

29
ALTERNATIVES 

would continue to be used as a 

maintenance yard. The remainder of the 

canyon would be managed under the

Undeveloped Landscape Prescription and 

would not receive any further development

or be interpreted for the visitors. 

Educational programs and services would 

continue to focus on enriching curriculum 

for grades 4 through 7. Orientation talks 

and interpretive programs would include a 

resource protection message and 

information about natural resources.

Research into 19th-century military and 

civilian records would continue to ensure 

the accuracy and quality of interpretive

programs, interpretive literature, and 

interpretive exhibits. 

The present parking area contains spaces for 

cars, buses, motor homes, and two spaces

for visitors with disabilities. Under this 

alternative, the parking area would not be 

enlarged, but would be modified to allow 

for the accommodation of more vehicles. As with Alternative A, the living history 

clothing and equipment would be sustained 

at the current levels of maintenance. Backdrop Resource Opportunity Area 

(ROA)— As in Alternative A, the Backdrop 

ROA will be managed under the 

Undeveloped Landscape Management

Prescription. The natural and cultural

environment of this area would be 

maintained and the existing natural 

processes and conditions perpetuated. This

area is reserved for hiking and natural 

observation. No developments would be 

permitted other than those associated with 

trails and visitor safety. Signs that blend 

well with environment and semi-primitive 

trails would be permitted. Primitive trails

would be maintained to an unpaved NPS 

standard. 

The park would make every effort to retain

the current cadre of volunteers and to

recruit new volunteers for the program. 

Natural Resource Management

Wildlife—Programs to manage and protect 

the known species that inhabit the park and 

their natural habitat in the park will be 

increased. As a member of the Chihuahuan 

Desert Network, whose purpose is to 

inventory and monitor vertebrates and 

vascular plants within the member parks’ 

boundaries, the park will complete a 90% 

inventory and then submit annual proposals

as part of the network to receive funding to 

complete monitoring projects. Interpretation

The history of Fort Davis would be 

presented so as to include the story of the 

various cultural groups associated with it.

Guided by the Comprehensive Interpretive

Plan, the main focus would continue to be 

from the military perspective, but

interpretive programs, literature, and 

exhibits would additionally include the story 

from the perspectives of American Indians 

and civilians. 

Vegetation — Vegetation would be 

managed at the current level to preserve the 

historic appearance/landscape of the park. 

Recommendations proposed in the CLI and 

CLR would be implemented as appropriate.

An inventory and monitoring program for 

vascular plants would be implemented 

through the Chihuahuan Desert Network 

once funding has been approved at the 

national level. The unique stand of historic 

cottonwoods would continue to be 

perpetuated and protected. 

Training would be provided based on

available funding in order that employees in 

the interpretive division would have the 

opportunity to achieve essential or basic 

level competencies identified with their 

career field. 

Wetlands/Floodplain/Flash Flood — 

The Water Resources Division of the

National Park Service has identified options 

for improving the management of 

floodwaters in and around Fort Davis

30
ALTERNATIVES 

National Historic Site. One of these options

involves the modification of the North Ditch 

to maximize its conveyance of water. This 

would reduce flooding at the south end of 

the site for flooding events of less than 100-

year flood, thus providing more protection 

for the historic buildings, foundations, and 

ruins located in this area. Since the South 

Channel can only carry the 25 to 50-year 

flood flow, all greater storm events would 

cause some flooding damage to historic 

structures close to the channel. 

Under this alternative, the North Ditch 

Option would be used to protect park

resources. Periodic maintenance of the

North Ditch after flooding events would be 

required. 

Wetlands located downstream of both the 

North Ditch and South Channel dike system 

would not be modified in this alternative. 

Intrusive Noise—As with Alternative A, the 

parking area would be periodically

monitored in order to reduce the noise 

levels. 

The sound system projecting military 

recordings would continue to be used to 

give visitors an appreciation and 

understanding of the fort and to drown out 

modern intrusive sounds. Improvements 

would be made to maintain a high-quality 

sound system for these recordings. 

As with Alternative A, should overflights 

become a noise problem in the future, 

appropriate studies would be undertaken 

and a recommendation proposed. 

Air Quality—As in Alternative A, Fort Davis

National Historic Site would continue to

support air quality programs both in the 

private and public sectors. 

Resource Protection

In order to ensure protection of the 

resources as well as visitor safety, routine 

patrols of the grounds and structures are

conducted. The current level of these patrols 

would be maintained. Restored historic

structures in which historic artifacts or

historic furnishings are located, or in which 

park functions are conducted, would be 

installed with sprinkler systems for fire

suppression. 

In order to provide necessary water volume 

for the fire protection of historic buildings,

the park’s water systems would be 

upgraded. This would involve upgrading 

water lines that supply water from the town 

of Fort Davis. It also would involve making 

operational the park’s own water system.

Approved fire suppression equipment,

including a fire truck serviceable to fight 

structural fires, would be acquired, and 

training for employees would be increased

to meet fire suppression needs.

The fort’s historic buildings that have been

modified for electricity do not have electrical 

systems that meet National Electrical Code

(NEC) standards. Under this alternative, the 

electrical systems in all buildings would be 

upgraded to meet NEC standards.

Possible Future Facility and

Development Changes

Under this alternative, facilities relating to 

safety, resource protection, sanitation, and 

disability access would be improved. The 

following is a list of proposed facility

changes under this alternative chosen. 

● The park’s water systems would be 

upgraded. 

● The fire suppression system, which includes 

sprinkler systems in all buildings, would be

upgraded. 

● The electrical systems would be upgraded. 

● Building standards to meet ADA 

requirements in the post hospital would be

improved. 

● Buildings within the existing maintenance 

area would be upgraded to meet CFR and

OSHA standards. 

● The parking area would be modified to 

increase capacity within the existing space. 

● The post hospital would be partially restored 

and refurnished with private sector funding. 

31
ALTERNATIVES 

Operational Costs ● Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 

● Natural Resource Management Plan and Current Fauna Study staff and budget would be 

maintained. ● Cultural Resource Management Plan 

● Safety Plan Development Costs ● Flash Flood Plan (includes Floodplain Map) 

There would be an expenditure of 

$612,000. (See Table 2)

● Historic Preservation Plan identifying types 

and levels of treatment 

● Structural Fire Management Plan 

Future Plans and Studies ● Wildland Fire Management Plan 

● New Comprehensive Archeological Survey ● Transportation Study: Should visitation reach 

125,000 visitors a year, a study would be 

initiated to evaluate the feasibility of a 

transportation system from the town of Fort 

Davis. 

● Condition Assessments of Archeological Sites 

● Cultural Landscape Inventory 

● Cultural Landscape Report 

● Ethnographic Study 

ALTERNATIVE C—IMPROVED VISITOR SERVICES AND 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (NPS PROPOSAL) 

This is the preferred alternative and is the 

plan the National Park Service is proposing 

to implement for Fort Davis National 

Historic Site over the next 10 to 15 years. 

This alternative has two phases: Phase 1 

and Phase 2. Both phases are identical 

except that in Phase 2 the administrative 

offices, maintenance complex, maintenance

storage yard in Hospital Canyon, employee

housing, and curatorial “Bally” building

would be moved outside of the park. Phase 

2 could be accomplished with private sector 

funding. 

General Emphasis

In this alternative quality visitor services 

would be enhanced and at the same time

the preservation and protection of culture 

and natural resources would be prudently 

broadened. This alternative provides the 

balance and flexibility necessary to 

accomplish both of these objectives in a 

realistic manner. 

Change in the fort’s outward appearance 

would be minimal. There would be no 

further major exterior restoration or modern

development. Well-balanced preservation, 

resource protection, and interpretive 

programs would complement one another. 

Existing buildings, ruins, and foundations 

would undergo stabilization and 

conservation measures so as to preserve 

their historical integrity. 

Broader interpretive themes highlighting the 

more complex role of Fort Davis in the 

history of the American West would 

complement existing interpretive programs. 

In this alternative (as with Alternatives B and 

D), the interior of the post hospital would 

be partially restored and refurnished to

more fully tell the story of Fort Davis and 

therefore provide the visitors with a more 

comprehensive learning experience. This 

restoration and refurnishing project would 

be dependent on partnerships resulting in

private sector funding. 

The park would continue to encourage 

adjacent landowners to use their land in

ways that complement park values, thereby 

promoting the natural and scenic character

of the landscape. 

32
ALTERNATIVES 

Outreach and Partnerships

With an additional staff person (an

educational specialist), a web site would be

established that provides curriculum-based 

educational materials for grades K–12 for 

on-site and off-site use. In addition, the web 

site would have updated and detailed park 

information. It would contain web pages 

that provide authoritative information on 

the Buffalo Soldiers who served at Fort

Davis. The web site would also provide links 

to other authoritative sources on the 

Internet containing information on these

soldiers of African-American descent who 

served in the late 19th-century army.

Current partnerships with the Friends of 

Fort Davis National Historic Site and other 

local and area organizations, whose focus is

resource protection, would be expanded. In

addition, new partnerships with other 

preservation organizations and agencies 

(including the Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department), educational institutions, and 

individuals would be actively developed. 

The existing research and library facility

would be expanded and upgraded. New 

publications and documents would

continue to be added, but the facility would 

be made more accessible and more userfriendly for researchers as well as for the 

general public. 

Cultural Resource Management

Curatorial—Under this alternative, all

deficiencies identified in the National Park 

Service Checklist for Preservation and 

Protection of Museum Collections would be 

corrected with appropriate funding. 

Improved storage and office space and the 

installation of environmental controls in 

buildings that house artifacts would be 

provided. 

Under this alternative, more artifacts (above

the park’s current goal of cataloging 250 

items per year) would be cataloged,

conserved, and preserved through staff 

increases (seasonal museum aide). Funding 

for a Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit 

(CESU), and an internship program would 

be actively solicited. Display space for

temporary and permanent exhibits would 

be increased and modernized. 

Archeology—Archeological sites would be 

preserved and protected using existing as

well as more advanced methods of 

monitoring and conservation. Information 

gathered from analyzing, evaluating, and 

identifying artifacts from the sites would be

shared with the public through exhibits and 

publications. Interns would be actively

sought to assist with the recording of data

and evaluation of the sites. 

Historic Preservation—Current 

conservation practices would be continued, 

but in addition, new state-of-the-art

preservation techniques could be applied. 

The addition of a cultural resource specialist

(historic architect, architectural conservator,

exhibit specialist, or historic craft specialist)

would provide additional support with

historic preservation, documentation, and 

condition monitoring. 

Inconsistencies between the number of 

structures in the national database’s List of 

Classified Structures and the number of 

historic structures listed in the park’s records

would be resolved. The database would be 

completed, providing information on all

known structures, ruins, and sites. The 

information would continually be updated, 

and monitoring would be provided through 

analysis of this data. 

The addition of a clerk/typist for the Cultural

Resource and Maintenance Divisions would 

facilitate better record keeping and 

documentation. 

Land Use Management

In Phase 1 of this alternative, some facilities

would be redesigned. In Phase 2, in 

addition to the redesign of some facilities, 

other facilities would be relocated outside 

the park boundary. 

33
ALTERNATIVES 

34
ALTERNATIVES 

Foreground ROA— Current natural 

resource management policies would be 

maintained, thereby helping to ensure the 

perpetuation of the unique stand of historic 

cottonwood trees located adjacent to the 

paved entrance roadway. 

Recommendations contained in the Cultural

Landscape Inventory (CRI) and Cultural

Landscape Report (CLR) would be 

implemented as appropriate. 

In this ROA, if Phase 2 is implemented, the

maintenance complex, the curatorial “Bally” 

building, and the employee housing units 

would move to a location outside the park. 

The area would then be managed under the 

Undeveloped Landscape Management

Prescription. 

Historic Core ROA—The natural quiet that 

serves as a backdrop for the daily 

presentation of historic bugle calls and the 

sounds of a dress retreat parade would 

continue to be maintained. The recordings,

however, would be revised to more closely 

reflect the military sounds of the 1880s, and 

the amplifying equipment used to project 

these sounds would be upgraded. 

If Phase 2 is implemented, the administrative

offices would be moved from their current 

location inside an historic enlisted men’s

barracks to outside the park. The space

vacated would be redesigned and used for 

interpretive, library and curatorial functions. 

The maintenance storage yard in hospital

canyon would be removed and the area 

would be managed under the Undeveloped

Landscape Management Prescription. 

The parking area would be redesigned to

provide for more vehicles. 

Recommendations in the CLI and CLR for 

Fort Davis National Historic Site would be 

implemented as appropriate.

Backdrop Resource Opportunity Area 

(ROA)—As with Alternatives A and B, the 

Backdrop ROA would be managed under 

the Undeveloped Landscape Management

Prescription. The natural appearance and 

environment of this ROA would be 

maintained. 

Interpretation

As with Alternative B, the history of Fort 

Davis would be presented so as to include 

the story of the various cultural groups 

associated with it. Guided by the 

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan, the main

focus would continue to be from the 

military perspective, but interpretive 

programs, literature, and exhibits would 

additionally include the story from the

viewpoint of American Indians and civilians.

In addition, more emphasis would be placed

on interpreting the story of the first fort. 

The current informational video would 

continue to be enjoyed by visitors, but 

improvements would be made in the dress 

retreat parade and bugle calls sound 

programs. 

Curriculum-based educational programs and 

services would be developed for all grades

K–12. 

Training would be provided so that all

interpreters would achieve the full 

competencies identified in their career field. 

Staff increases (2 full-time seasonal Park

Guides) would provide additional support 

for the Division of Interpretation during

periods of high visitation. 

Orientation talks and interpretive programs

would include a resource protection 

message and information about natural 

resources. 

Research into 19th-century military and 

civilian records would be ongoing to ensure 

the accuracy and quality of interpretive

programs, interpretive literature, and 

interpretive exhibits.

Living History clothing and equipment 

would be upgraded and adequate storage 

provided. 

35
ALTERNATIVES 

In Phase 2, a part of the space freed-up by 

the administrative offices moving off the 

park grounds would be used for an 

expanded research facility for historians, 

researchers, and the general public. 

The park would continue to retain the 

current cadre of volunteers and at the same

time develop new strategies for the 

recruitment of additional volunteers. 

Support to “living history reenactors” and 

resource management groups would be a 

focus of the new strategies. 

Natural Resource Management

Wildlife—Programs to manage and protect 

the known species that inhabit the park and 

their natural habitat in the park would be 

increased. As a member of the Chihuahuan 

Desert Network (the purpose of the network 

is to inventory and monitor vertebrates and 

vascular plants within the member parks' 

boundaries) the park will complete a 90% 

inventory and then submit annual proposals

as part of the network to receive funding to 

complete monitoring projects. Corrective 

action will be taken as needed to ensure a

healthy environment exists for wildlife based 

on the results of the monitoring projects. 

The park will also implement an inventory 

and monitoring program for invertebrates as 

part of a network once the national 

program is established and funded. 

Vegetation — Efforts would be increased

to manage and preserve the historic 

appearance/landscape of the park.

Recommendations proposed in the CLI and 

CLR would be implemented as appropriate.

An inventory and monitoring program for 

vascular plants would be implemented 

through the Chihuahuan Desert Network 

once funding has been approved at the 

national level. 

The park is a member of the Chihuahuan 

Desert-Shortgrass Prairie Exotic Plants 

Management Team. A more active program 

would be established to monitor and

eradicate exotic plants through the use of 

this team. The unique stand of historic 

cottonwoods would be perpetuated and

protected.

Wetlands/Floodplain/Flash Flood— In 

this alternative, the South Channel, actually

the original and main drainage feature on 

site, would still carry the majority of the 

runoff on site, but both the North Ditch and

the South Channel dike would be 

reconstructed to aid in flood protection 

during low to moderate floods. Wetlands 

along the ephemeral South Channel would 

remain largely unchanged with these flows. 

Wetlands that receive run-off from the 

North Ditch and the South Channel dike 

system would remain in place and receive 

periodic water during all flood events. No 

major impact to habitat or function is 

anticipated. Both the North Ditch and the 

South Channel dike system would be 

overwhelmed by flood flows of 50–100 

year-events, since they are very light-duty 

structures. 

Because of the nonconfining nature of the 

alluvial fan, the overbank flows are likely to

occur as sheet flows and should not attain

substantial depth. Since the South Channel 

can only carry the 25–50 year flood flow, all 

greater storm events would cause some 

flooding damage to historic structures close 

to the channel. 

Protection would be provided to historic 

resources and to the enlisted men’s barracks 

building that house the administrative 

offices, visitor center and museum. 

Maintenance of the North Ditch and the 

South Channel dike system would be 

required after moderate-to heavy-flooding 

events, causing some short-term wetland 

and vegetation disturbance. Periodic 

grading, ditch cleaning, levee replacement,

grade control installation, stone placement,

and revegetation would be required. 

Intrusive Noise—The bugle calls and dress 

retreat parade recordings would continue to 

be used to help cover up or drown out 

36
ALTERNATIVES 

● The post hospital would be partially restored 

and refurnished with private sector funding. 

modern sounds from the parking area and

the adjacent highway. Interpretive 

messages would be used and enforcement

increased to reduce the noise levels in the 

parking area.

● The fire suppression system, including 

sprinkler systems in all buildings, would be

upgraded. 

● The park’s water systems would be 

The park would continue to maintain the upgraded. 

high-quality visitor experience and ensure 

the protection of resources from detrimental 

effects caused by overflights. A problem 

with overflights does not exist at the present 

time. Should a situation arise in the future, 

appropriate studies would be undertaken 

and a recommendation proposed. 

● The electrical systems would be upgraded. 

● Building standards to meet ADA 

requirements in the post hospital and other 

restored buildings, where practical, would

be improved. 

● Buildings within the existing maintenance 

area would be upgraded and expanded to 

meet CFR and OSHA standards. 

Air Quality—The air quality of the park is

currently good. The site would continue to 

monitor the air quality and to support air

quality programs both in the private and 

public sectors. Messages addressing air 

quality would be incorporated into 

interpretive programs. 

● Parking area would be redesigned to 

increase capacity. 

Phase 2 

● The administrative offices would be 

relocated outside of the park. Vacated space 

would be used for interpretation, expansion 

of library services, and curatorial storage. Resource Protection ● Existing employee housing and maintenance 

complexes would be removed. The 

curatorial “Bally” building would be 

dismantled and moved outside of the park. 

Maintenance storage yards and areas 

located on the park would also be moved 

off-site. The moving of these functions 

outside of the park would enhance the 

historic scene and cultural landscape of the 

fort. 

Under this alternative, there would be an

increase in the number of routine patrols of 

the grounds and structures. Restored 

historic structures in which historic artifacts 

and furnishings are located, or in which 

park functions are conducted, would be 

equipped with sprinkler systems for fire

suppression.

As with Alternative B, the park’s water

systems would be upgraded, additional fire

suppression equipment acquired, and 

training for employees would be increased

to meet fire suppression needs. As also

proposed in Alternative B, the electrical

systems in all buildings would be upgraded

to meet NEC standards. 

Operational Costs

Under this alternative funding would be 

sought for an increase of 6.5 FTEs, or an 

additional $194,000 in base funding would 

be required. (See Table 1, Operational

Costs.) 

Development Costs

Possible Future Facility and

Development Changes Phase 1—This alternative would require an 

expenditure of about $1,017,500 for 

development-related improvements. (See 

Possible Future Development Costs, Table 

2.) 

The following possible future facility 

developments would be proposed under 

this alternative. 

Phase 2—This alternative would require an 

additional expenditure of $1,122,000 for 

development-related improvements,

Phase 1 

37
ALTERNATIVES 

including funding for advanced planning. ● Cultural Resource Management Plan 

These improvements could be funded

through partnerships as appropriate. (See 

Table 2.) 

● Safety Plan 

● Flash Flood Plan (includes Floodplain Map) 

● Historic Preservation Plan identifying types 

and levels of treatment 

Future Plans and Studies ● Structural Fire Management Plan 

● New Comprehensive Archeological Survey ● Wildland Fire Management Plan 

● Transportation Study: Should visitation reach 

125,000 visitors a year; a study would be

initiated to evaluate the feasibility of a 

transportation system from the town of Fort 

Davis. 

● Condition Assessments of Archeological Sites 

● Cultural Landscape Inventory 

● Cultural Landscape Report 

● Ethnographic Study 

● Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 

● Natural Resource Management Plan and 

Fauna Study 

ALTERNATIVE D — IMPROVED VISITOR SERVICES AND RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT WITH EXPANSION AND RELOCATION

General Emphasis

In this alternative (as with

Phase 2 of Alternative C), 

the administrative, 

maintenance, curatorial

“Bally” building, and

employee housing facilities

would be relocated outside 

the park. Maintenance 

yards and storage areas 

would also be moved offsite. The vacated 

administrative office space 

would be redesigned to 

house additional 

interpretative, library, and 

curatorial functions. The 

maintenance and employee 

housing complexes would 

be removed, while the 

curatorial “Bally” building would be 

disassembled and moved off site for use.

This alternative would reduce modern

intrusions in the park, thus better preserving 

its historic integrity and cultural landscape. 

Officers’ Quarters 

As with the other alternatives, change in the 

fort's outward appearance would be

minimal. There would be no further major 

exterior restoration or modern development 

in the historic core. Well-balanced

preservation, resource protection, and 

interpretive programs would be

emphasized. Existing buildings, ruins, and 

foundations would undergo stabilization 

The museum would be completely

redesigned and new exhibits/displays would

be installed.

38
ALTERNATIVES 

and conservation measures so as to 

preserve their historical integrity. 

As with Alternatives B and C, the interior of 

the post hospital would be partially restored

and refurnished to enhance the fort's story. 

This project would be dependent on 

partnerships resulting in private sector 

funding. 

The park would continue to encourage 

adjacent landowners to use their land in

ways that complement park values. 

Outreach and Partnerships

As with Alternative C, an additional person 

(educational specialist) would be added to 

the staff. A web site would be established 

that provides curriculum-based educational

materials for grades K–12 for on-site and offsite use. It would have updated and detailed 

park information, authoritative information

on the Buffalo Soldiers who served at Fort 

Davis, and links to other authoritative

sources on the Internet containing 

information on these soldiers.

Current partnerships with the Friends of 

Fort Davis National Historic Site and other 

local and area organizations whose focus is

resource protection would be expanded. As

with Alternative C, new partnerships with 

other preservation organizations and 

agencies (including the Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department), educational 

institutions, and individuals would be

actively developed. 

An improved research facility requiring

dedicated space and state-of-the-art

technology would be provided to serve and 

support individuals/groups interested in the 

history of Fort Davis. 

Cultural Resource Management

Curatorial— The museum would be 

completely redesigned and new

exhibits/displays installed. All deficiencies 

identified in the National Park Service 

Checklist for Preservation and Protection of 

Museum Collections would be corrected 

with appropriate funding. Office and 

storage space would be expanded. 

Environmental controls would be installed 

in buildings that house artifacts. 

Under this alternative, more artifacts would 

be conserved, catalogued, and preserved 

through staff increases (seasonal museum 

aide). Partnerships and funding for a CESU 

and new internships would be actively 

solicited. 

Archeology—Archeological sites would be 

preserved and protected using existing as

well as more advanced methods of 

monitoring and conservation. Information 

gathered from analyzing, evaluating, and 

identifying artifacts from the sites would be

shared with the public through exhibits and 

publications. Interns would be actively

sought to assist with the recording of data

and evaluation of the sites. 

Historic Preservation—Current 

conservation practices would be continued, 

but in addition, new state-of-the-art

preservation techniques could be applied.

The addition of a cultural resource specialist

(historic architect, architectural conservator,

exhibit specialist, or historic craft specialist)

would provide additional support with

historic preservation, documentation, and 

condition monitoring. 

Inconsistency between the number of 

structures in the national database’s List of 

Classified Structures and the number of 

historic structures listed in the park’s records

would be resolved. The database would be 

completed, providing information on all

known structures, ruins, and sites. The 

information would continually be updated, 

and monitoring would be provided through 

analysis of this data. 

The addition of a clerk/typist for the Cultural

Resource and Maintenance Divisions would 

facilitate better record keeping and 

documentation. 

39
ALTERNATIVES 

Land Use Management Recommendations in the Cultural Landscape 

Inventory (CLI) and the Cultural Landscape 

Report (CLR) would be implemented as 

appropriate. 

This alternative would provide for a 

decrease in facilities inside the park. Some

facilities would be redesigned, moved, or 

relocated outside the park boundary. The 

removal of modern facilities from the park

would help to better preserve the integrity

of the historic scene, thus providing the 

visitor with a better historical perspective of 

the site.

The parking area would be redesigned and 

slightly expanded to provide for more 

vehicles. 

Backdrop ROA— As with Alternatives A, B, 

and C, the Backdrop ROA would be

managed under the Undeveloped 

Landscape Management Prescription. The

natural appearance and environment of this

ROA would be maintained. 

Foreground ROA— As with Alternative C,

current natural resource management 

policies would be maintained, thereby

helping to ensure the perpetuation of the 

unique stand of historic cottonwood trees

located adjacent to the paved entrance 

roadway. The Cultural Landscape Inventory 

(CRI) and Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) 

recommendations would be implemented 

as appropriate. 

Interpretation

As with Alternatives B and C, the story of 

Fort Davis would be presented from 

different viewpoints so as to incorporate the 

various cultural groups associated with its

history. The main focus would continue to 

be from the military perspective, but 

interpretive programs, literature, and 

exhibits would additionally include the story 

from the viewpoint of American Indians and 

civilians. In addition, more emphasis would

be placed on interpreting the story of the 

first fort. 

In this ROA, the maintenance complex, the 

curatorial “Bally” building, and the 

employee housing units would move to a 

location outside the park. The area would 

then be managed under the Undeveloped 

Landscape Management Prescription. 

Historic Core ROA—As with Alternative C, 

the natural quiet would continue to be 

maintained. Historic bugle calls and dress

retreat parade recordings would be revised 

to more closely reflect the military sounds of 

the 1880s, and the amplifying equipment 

used to project these sounds would be 

upgraded.

The current informational video would 

continue to be enjoyed by visitors, but 

improvements would be made in the dress 

retreat parade and bugle calls sound 

programs. 

Curriculum-based educational programs and 

services would be developed for all grades

K–12. The administrative offices would be moved

from their current location inside an historic 

enlisted men’s barracks to outside the park. 

The space vacated would be redesigned and 

used for interpretive, library and curatorial 

functions. 

Training would be provided so that all

interpreters would achieve the full 

competencies identified in their career field. 

Staff increases (2 full-time and 1 part-time 

seasonal Park Guides) would provide 

additional support for the Division of

Interpretation during periods of high 

visitation. 

The maintenance storage yard in hospital

canyon would be removed and the area 

would be managed under the Undeveloped

Landscape Management Prescription. Orientation talks and interpretive programs

would include a resource protection 

40
ALTERNATIVES 

message and information about natural 

resources. 

Research into 19th-century military and 

civilian records would be ongoing to ensure 

the accuracy and quality of interpretive

programs, interpretive literature, and 

interpretive exhibits.

Living History clothing and equipment 

would be upgraded and adequate storage 

provided. 

A part of the space freed-up by the 

administrative offices moving off the park 

grounds would be used for expanded 

research facilities for historians, researchers,

and the general public. 

The park would continue to retain the 

current cadre of volunteers and at the same

time develop new strategies for the 

recruitment of additional volunteers. As 

with Alternative C, support to “living 

history” reenactors and resource 

management groups would be a focus of 

the new strategies. 

Natural Resource Management

Wildlife—Programs to manage and protect 

the known species that inhabit the park and 

their natural habitat in the park will be 

increased. As a member of the Chihuahuan 

Desert Network (the purpose of the network 

is to inventory and monitor vertebrates and 

vascular plants within the member parks' 

boundaries) the park will complete a 90% 

inventory and then submit annual proposals

as part of the network to receive funding to 

complete monitoring projects. Corrective 

action will be taken as needed to ensure a

healthy environment exists for wildlife based 

on the results of the monitoring projects. 

The park will also implement an inventory 

and monitoring program for invertebrates as 

part of a network once the national 

program is established and funded. 

Vegetation—Efforts would be increased to

manage and preserve the historic

appearance/landscape of the park.

Recommendations proposed in the CLI and 

CLR would be implemented as appropriate.

An inventory and monitoring program for 

vascular plants would be implemented 

through the Chihuahuan Desert Network 

once funding has been approved at the 

national level. 

The park is a member of the Chihuahuan 

Desert - Shortgrass Prairie Exotic Plants

Management Team. A more active program 

would be established to monitor and

eradicate exotic plants through the use of 

this team. The unique stand of historic

cottonwoods would be perpetuated and

protected.

Wetlands/Floodplain/Flash Flood—In 

this alternative, the South Channel, actually

the original and main drainage feature on 

site, would be optimized for water 

conveyance and flood protection. Wetlands 

that receive run-off from the South Channel 

would remain largely unchanged, even with 

increased flows. Wetlands that receive runoff from the North Ditch system would 

remain in place, but would be drier during 

low to moderate runoff events. No major 

impact to habitat or function is anticipated. 

The South Channel dike system would incur 

some disruption during periodic moderate 

to heavy flooding events. 

As this alternative involves the 

concentration of runoff into the South 

Channel, historic diversions to the North 

Ditch would be structurally prevented. Since 

the South Channel can only carry the 25–50 

year flood flow, all greater storm events

would cause some flooding damage to 

historic structures close to the channel. 

Intrusive Noise — The bugle calls and 

dress retreat parade recordings would

continue to be used to help cover up or 

drown out modern sounds from the parking 

area and the adjacent highway. Interpretive 

messages would be used and enforcement

increased to reduce the noise levels in the 

parking area.

41
ALTERNATIVES 

The park would continue to maintain the 

high-quality visitor experience and ensure 

the protection of resources from detrimental 

effects caused by overflights. A problem 

with overflights does not exist at the present 

time. Should a situation arise in the future, 

appropriate studies would be undertaken 

and a recommendation proposed. 

Air Quality—The air quality of the park is

currently good. The site would continue to 

monitor the air quality and to support air

quality programs both in the private and 

public sectors. Messages addressing air 

quality would be incorporated into 

interpretive programs.

Resource Protection

As with Alternative C, routine patrols of the 

grounds and structures would be 

continued. Restored historic buildings, in 

which artifacts and furnishings are located, 

or in which park functions are conducted,

would be equipped with sprinkler systems 

for fire suppression. 

As with the other action alternatives, the 

park’s water systems would be upgraded,

and additional fire suppression equipment

acquired. Training for employees would be

increased to meet fire suppression needs,

and electrical systems in all buildings would 

be upgraded to meet NEC standards.

Possible Future Facility and

Development Changes

The following possible future facility 

developments would be proposed under 

this alternative. 

● The post hospital would be partially restored 

and refurnished with private sector funding. 

● The fire suppression system, including 

sprinkler systems in all buildings, would be

upgraded. 

● The park’s water systems would be 

upgraded. 

● The electrical systems would be upgraded. 

● Building standards to meet ADA 

requirements in the post hospital and other 

restored buildings, where practical, would

be improved. 

● Existing maintenance and employee 

complexes, and the curatorial “Bally” 

building would be removed. These functions 

would be moved outside of the park, thus 

enhancing the historic scene. 

● The administrative offices would be 

relocated outside of the park. Vacated space 

would be used to increase the space for 

visitor services, research, and curatorial

storage. 

● Parking area would be slightly increased and 

redesigned to increase capacity. 

Operational Costs

Under this alternative funding would be 

sought for an increase of 7 FTEs, or 

$206,500 in base funding. (See Table 1, 

Operational Costs.) 

Development Costs

This alternative would require an 

expenditure of about $2,773,500 for 

development-related improvements. (See 

Table 2, Possible Future Development 

Costs.) 

Future Plans and Studies

● New Comprehensive Archeological Survey 

● Condition Assessments of Archeological Sites 

● Cultural Landscape Inventory 

● Cultural Landscape Report 

● Ethnographic Study 

● Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 

● Natural Resource Management Plan and 

Fauna Study 

● Cultural Resource Management Plan 

● Safety Plan 

● Flash Flood Plan (includes Floodplain Map) 

● Historic Preservation Plan identifying types 

and levels of treatment 

● Structural Fire Management Plan 

● Wildland Fire Management Plan 

● Transportation Study: Should visitation reach 

125,000 visitors a year, a study would be 

initiated to evaluate the feasibility of a 

transportation system from the town of Fort 

Davis 

42
ALTERNATIVES 

TABLE 2 — POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 

COSTS 

Description A B** C** D** 

Sprinkler Systems $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 

Water System $95,000 $95,000 $95,000 

Upgrade Electrical System $25,000 $25,000 $ 25,000 

Improved ADA Stds. For 

Hospital $ 8,000 

Improved ADA Stds. For 

Hospital/Other $ 16,500 $ 16,500 

Expansion & upgrade of 

Existing Maint. Buildings $ 60,000 $60,000 

Move Facilities in

Foreground ROA outside 

park/Demolition/New

Facilities ($818,000)* $ 818,000

Remodel vacated 

Administrative Facilities $65,000 

Move Admin. Facilities ($ 304,000)* $ 304,000 

Manage Parking $ 4,000 $ 85,000 $ 112,000 

Complete redesign of 

Museum/New Displays $ 365,000 

Environmental Controls & 

new Cabinets $107,000 $ 107,000 

Upgrade Museum Displays $75,000 

Flash Flood Mitigation $ 20,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 

SUBTOTAL $482,000 $808,500 $2,252,500 

Equipment Cost (Fire Truck 

and Hoses) $74,000 $74,000 $74,000

Project Planning and 

Advance Cost $56,000 $135,000 $447,000 

TOTAL $612,000 $1,017,500 $2,773,500 

*Phase 2 

(Partnership/other funding, 

including 25% for Project 

Planning and Advance 

Cost)

($1,122,000) 

** Note: Alternatives B, C and D include the partial restoration and

refurnishing of the post hospital from private funding sources. Alternative 

C, Phase 2, includes funding (which could be from the private sector) for 

maintenance facility/employee housing, curatorial building (Bally), and 

administrative offices relocation. 

TABLE 1 — OPERATIONAL COSTS 

(Increases in FTEs by Alternative) 

Description A B C* D* 

Cultural Resource Specialist, GS-9 1.0 1.0 

 Education Specialist, GS-9 1.0 1.0 

Clerk Typist, CR & Maint., GS-4 1.0 1.0 

Interpretation, Seasonals, GS-4 1.0 1.5 

Seasonal Museum Aide, GS4 0.5 0.5 

Custodial, WG-2 1.0 1.0 

 Budget Clerk, GS-7 1.0 1.0 

TOTAL 6.5 7.0 

Alternative C: funding sought for an additional 6.5 FTEs, 

or $194,000 for increased staff. 

Alternative D funding sought for an additional 7 FTEs, or 

$206,500 for increased staff. 

* Indicates Additional Full-Time Equivalents (FTE)

43
ALTERNATIVES 

TABLE 3 — COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C—NPS Proposal Alt. D

+ Under the no-action 

alternative, existing 

administrative, 

maintenance, land use, and 

resource management 

activities would continueó

with current use serving as 

the basis for mapping 

management prescriptions. 

+ In this alternative, the park 

would only complete 

necessary upgrades or 

changes required for 

compliance with safety and 

security codes and 

regulations. Existing 

administrative, 

maintenance, land use, and 

resource management 

activities would continue. 

+Resource management 

activities would be

increased to ensure the 

historical integrity of the site. 

There would be no major 

exterior restoration or 

modern development inside 

the park. 

With Phase 2 of this 

alternative, administrative, 

maintenance, and some 

curatorial functions would be

moved outside the park. 

+ The administrative, 

maintenance, and some 

curatorial functions would be

moved outside the park. 

There would be no major 

exterior restoration or 

modern development inside 

the park. 

+ Existing visitor facilities 

would be maintained to 

support current activities 

and no new facilities would 

be considered or built. 

+A portion of the interior of 

the post hospital (with 

private sector funding) 

would be restored and 

refurnished. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Existing levels of 

interpretation and resource 

protection would continue. 

+Except for the hospital 

project, which would 

increase the level of 

interpretation in this area, 

existing levels of 

interpretation and resource 

protection would continue. 

+This alternative would 

broaden the interpretive 

themes to highlight the more 

complex role of Fort Davis in 

the history of the American 

West. 

+Same as Alternative C. 

+ No change from current 

historic preservation 

methods. 

+ Same as Alternative A. +Existing buildings, ruins, 

and foundations would 

undergo stabilization and 

conservation measures so 

as to preserve their 

historical integrity. 

+Same as Alternative C. 

General Emphasis 

+ Continue to encourage 

adjacent landowners to use 

their land in ways that 

complement park values. 

+Same as Alternative A. +Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

+ The current web site 

would continue to provide 

basic information about the 

park. 

+ The current web site 

would be improved to 

provide basic as well as 

educational information 

about the park. It would 

provide basic information on 

the Buffalo Soldiers as well 

as links to other 

authoritative sources on the 

Internet. 

+ The current web site 

would be improved to 

provide curriculum-based 

grades Kñ12 educational 

materials for educators for 

on-site and off-site use. In 

addition, the web site would 

have updated and detailed 

park information. It would 

contain web pages that 

provide authoritative 

information on Buffalo 

Soldiers at Ft. Davis. 

+Same as for Alternative C. 

+Basic education programs 

would be available. 

+Same as Alternative A. + Curriculum-based 

education 

programs/materials for 

grades Kñ12 would be 

available. 

+Same as for Alternative C. 

Outreach & Partnerships 

+Existing partnerships that 

are mutually beneficial 

would continue to be 

fostered. 

+ Existing partnerships that 

are mutually beneficial 

would continue to be 

fostered and improved. 

+New partnerships would be

sought. These, along with 

existing partnerships, would 

be developed. 

+ Same as for Alternative C. 

44
ALTERNATIVES 

TABLE 3 — COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C—NPS Proposal Alt. D

Outreach & 

Partnerships 

+ The existing research 

facility would be maintained 

and would continue to be 

accessible to the general 

public. 

+ Same as Alternative A. +The existing research and 

library facility would be 

expanded and upgraded. 

+ An improved research 

facility (dedicated 

space/state-of-the-art 

technology) would be 

provided. 

Curatorial

+ Existing deficiencies in 

preservation and protection 

standards would continue to 

exist. 

Curatorial

+ Some improvements 

would be made to correct 

deficiencies. 

Curatorial

+ Deficiencies would be 

corrected with appropriate 

funding. This would involve 

the acquisition of new

cabinets, expanded storage 

space, improved office 

space, and the installation of 

environmental controls in 

buildings that house 

artifacts. 

Curatorial

+ Same as Alternative C. 

+ Existing levels of curatorial 

work would continue. 

+ Existing levels of curatorial 

work would continue. 

+ More artifacts would be 

conserved, catalogued, and 

preserved through staff 

increases. 

+Same as Alternative C. 

+The park would continue to 

explore new opportunities 

for partnerships and 

funding. 

+Same as Alternative A. + Partnerships and funding 

for CESUs and new

internships would be 

actively solicited.

+Same as Alternative C. 

+ Exhibits would be 

maintained and rotated 

periodically. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Display space would be 

increased and modernized. 

+ Museum facility would be 

completely redesigned with 

new exhibits. 

Archeology

+Archeological Sites would 

simply be monitored and 

preserved 

Archeology

+ Same as Alternative A. 

Archeology

+ Information on 

archeological sites and 

artifacts would be shared 

with the public through 

exhibits and publications. 

Archeology

+Same as Alternative C. 

+No internship programs 

would be developed. 

+ A limited internship 

program would be

developed. 

+ Internship programs would 

be actively sought. 

+ Same as Alternative C. 

Historic Preservation

+ Current practices would 

be continued. 

Historic Preservation

+ Same as Alternative A. 

Historic Preservation

+ Current practices would 

be continued. State-of-theart preservation techniques 

would be applied.

Historic Preservation

+ Same as Alternative C. 

Cultural Resource Management 

+ Database would remain 

incomplete. Monitoring 

would be conducted 

periodically. 

+ Database would be 

completed, providing 

information on all known 

structures, ruins, and sites. 

Monitoring would be 

provided through data 

analysis of this information. 

+ Same as Alternative B. +Same as Alternative B. 

45
ALTERNATIVES 

TABLE 3 — COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C—NPS Proposal Alt. D

+No change from existing 

management. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

Phase 2. 

+ Maintenance complex, 

employee housing units, 

curatorial ìBallyî building, 

and maintenance yard in 

Hospital Canyon would be 

moved to a location outside 

the park and management 

prescription of these areas 

would be changed to 

undeveloped landscape. 

+Same as Phase 2 of 

Alternative C. 

+ In the Foreground ROA,

the perpetuation of the 

cottonwood grove would be 

emphasized. 

+Same as Alternative A. +Same as Alternative A. +Same as Alternative A. 

+No change to the 

landscape. 

+ Recommendations in the 

proposed Cultural

Landscape Inventory and 

Cultural Landscape Report 

would be implemented as 

appropriate. 

+Same as Alternative B. 

Phase 2. 

The maintenance complex, 

employee housing units, 

curatorial ìBallyî Building, 

and maintenance yard in 

Hospital Canyon would be 

moved to a location outside 

the park. 

+Same as Phase 2 of 

Alternative C. 

+No change to parking area. +Parking area would be 

slightly modified to

accommodate more 

vehicles. 

+Parking area would be 

redesigned (not enlarged) to

accommodate more 

vehicles. 

+Parking area would be 

redesigned and slightly

enlarged. 

Land Use Management 

+The natural appearance 

and environment in the 

Backdrop ROA would be 

maintained. Existing 

management would 

continue. 

+Same as Alternative A. +Same as Alternative A. +Same as Alternative A. 

+ The story of Fort Davis 

would continue to be 

presented from viewpoint of 

the military.

+ The story of Fort Davis 

would continue to be 

presented from the military

perspective, but programs 

would additionally include 

the story from the viewpoint 

of other groups associated 

with the fortís history.

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Training would be 

provided based on available 

funding. 

+ Basic competency level of 

interpretive staff would be 

achieved through training, 

as funding became 

available. 

+ Staff would be increased, 

and training would be 

provided so that interpreters 

achieve a full performance 

competency level. 

+ Same as Alternative C. 

Interpretation Interpretation 

+ Existing curriculum would 

be provided through 

educational programs and 

services. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Curriculum-based 

educational programs and 

services would be

developed for grades Kñ12. 

+ Same as Alternative C. 

46
ALTERNATIVES 

TABLE 3 — COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C—NPS Proposal Alt. D

+ Interpretation would 

include a resource 

protection message and 

information about natural 

resources. 

+ Interpretation would 

include a resource 

protection message and 

information about natural 

resources. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Ongoing research would 

ensure the accuracy and 

quality of interpretation. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

+ Living history clothes and 

equipment would be 

maintained. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Living history clothes and 

equipment would be 

upgraded and adequate 

storage provided. 

+ Same as Alternative C. 

Interpretation Interpretation 

+ The current cadre of 

volunteers would be 

maintained. New volunteers 

would be recruited. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Volunteers would be 

actively solicited. Support 

for living history and 

resource management 

groups would be provided. 

+ Same as Alternative C. 

+ The current level of patrols 

would be maintained. 

+Same as Alternative B. + The level of patrols would 

be increased. 

+ Same as Alternative C. 

+ One structure would be 

protected with a sprinkler 

system (for fire 

suppression). 

+ Required sprinkler 

systems would be installed 

in all buildings for fire

suppression. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ An inadequate water 

system/supply to meet 

protection needs would 

remain. 

+ The water system/supply

would be upgraded to meet 

protection needs.

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Inadequate equipment 

and training to meet fire 

suppression needs would 

remain. 

+ Equipment and training for 

fire suppression would be 

increased to meet fire 

suppression needs. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

Resource Protection 

+ Electrical systems that do 

not meet National Electrical 

Code (NEC) standards 

would remain. 

+ All electrical systems 

would be upgraded to meet 

codes. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

Wetlands/Floodplain/Flash 

Flood

+ No change from current 

management. Periodic 

flooding would cause 

damage to historic

resources. 

Wetlands/Floodplain/Flash 

Flood

+ The north ditch would be 

modified to carry a greater

flow of water. Periodic 

flooding would cause 

minimal damage to historic 

resources. 

Wetlands/Floodplain/Flash 

Flood

+ Both the north and South 

Channel systems would be 

reconstructed/modified to 

carry a greater flow of 

water. South Channel 

system would be used as 

main water flow. 50 or 100

year flood events would 

cause some damage to 

historic resources. 

Wetlands/Floodplain/Flash 

Flood

+ The south Channel 

stream corridor would be 

reconstructed/modified to be 

the main drainage. Periodic 

flooding would cause 

minimal damage to historic 

resources. 

+ Seasonal wetland areas 

would not be changed. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

Natural Resource Management 

Intrusive Noise

+Periodic monitoring of 

parking area would be used 

to reduce noise. 

Intrusive Noise

+Same as Alternative A. 

Intrusive Noise

+ Interpretive messages 

used and enforcement 

increased to reduce noise in 

parking area. 

Intrusive Noise

+Same as Alternative C. 

47
ALTERNATIVES 

TABLE 3 — COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C—NPS Proposal Alt. D

+ A sound system for 

military recordings would 

continued to be used. 

+Improvement would be 

made to maintain a highquality sound system for 

military recordings. 

+ Sound system would be 

upgraded to the latest digital 

recordings for military

sounds. 

+Same as Alternative C. 

Air Quality

+ Park supports air quality

programs. 

Air Quality

+ Same as Alternative A. 

Air Quality

+ Park supports air quality

programs. Message would 

be incorporated into 

interpretive programs. 

Air Quality

+ Same as Alternative C. 

Vegetation

+ No changes from current 

management practices. 

Vegetation

+ Recommendations in the 

Cultural Landscape 

Inventory would be 

implemented. 

Vegetation

+ Same as Alternative B. 

Vegetation

+ Same as Alternative B. 

+Limited vegetation 

inventories would be 

completed as staff and 

budget allow.

+ Inventory and monitoring 

program implemented 

through the Chihuahuan 

Desert Network.

+Inventory and monitoring 

program implemented 

through the Chihuahuan 

Desert Network. Active 

program established to 

eradicate exotic plants. 

+ Same as Alternative C. 

Wildlife

+ No changes from current 

management practice. 

Wildlife

+ Programs to manage and 

protect known species 

would be increased. 

Wildlife

+ Same as Alternative B. 

Wildlife

+ Same as Alternative B. 

Natural Resource Management 

+Limited wildlife inventories 

would be completed as staff 

and budget allow. 

+ 90% inventory of wildlife 

would be completed as a 

part of the Chihuahuan 

Desert Network. Monitoring 

projects on known species 

would be implemented as 

funding is provided. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ There would be no 

changes to facilities. 

+ Upgrade sprinkler 

systems. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Upgrade water system. + Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Upgrade electrical system. + Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Improved ADA standards 

for the post hospital. 

+ Improved ADA standards 

for the post hospital and 

other restored buildings 

where practical. 

+ Same as Alternative C. 

+ Expansion of existing 

maintenance buildings 

within existing area to meet 

CFR and OSHA standards. 

+ Same as Alternative B. 

+ Modify parking area within 

the existing space to 

increase capacity. 

+Redesign parking area 

within the existing space to 

increase capacity. 

+ The parking area would be 

slightly increased and 

redesigned to increase 

overall capacity.

Possible F

uture Facility and 

Developme

nt Changes 

+ Partial Restoration of post 

hospital (private funding). 

+ Partial restoration of post 

hospital (private funding). +Partial restoration of post 

hospital (private funding). 

Phase 2

+ The administrative offices 

would be relocated outside 

of the park. 

+Same as Alternative C, 

Phase 2. 

48
ALTERNATIVES 

TABLE 3 — COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C—NPS Proposal Alt. D

Vacated space would be 

used to increase the space 

for visitor services, 

research, and curatorial 

storage. 

P

o

s

sibl

e Future

Facility and 

Developme

nt 

Changes 

- Existing maintenance and 

employee housing 

complexes and the 

curatorial ìBallyî building 

would be moved outside of 

the park. 

+Same as Alternative C, 

Phase 2. 

Operational 

Costs 

+ Current Budget and Staff. + Same as Alternative A. + Increase of 6.5 FTEs, or 

$194,000 in base funding. 

(See Table 1, Operational 

Costs.)

+ Increase of 7 FTEs or 

$206,500 in base funding. 

(See Table 1, Operational 

Costs.)

Developme

nt 

Costs 

+ Current Budget. + Increase of $612,000. 

(See Table 2, Possible 

Future Development Costs.) 

Phase I

+ Increase of $1,017,500. 

Phase 2

+ Increase of $1,122,000. 

(See Table 2, Possible 

Future Development Costs.) 

+ Increase of $2,773,500. 

(See Table 2, Possible 

Future Development Costs.) 

+ No Change + New Comprehensive 

Archeological Survey

+ New Comprehensive 

Archeological Survey

+ New Comprehensive 

Archeological Survey

+ Condition assessments for 

archeological sites 

+ Condition assessments for 

archeological sites 

+ Condition assessments for 

archeological sites 

+ Cultural Landscape 

Inventory 

+ Cultural Landscape 

Inventory 

+ Cultural Landscape 

Inventory 

+ Cultural Landscape 

Report 

+ Cultural Landscape 

Report 

+ Cultural Landscape 

Report 

+ Structural Fire 

Management Plan

+ Structural Fire 

Management Plan

+ Structural Fire 

Management Plan

+ Wildland Fire 

Management Plan

+ Wildland Fire 

Management Plan

+ Wildland Fire 

Management Plan

+ Comprehensive 

Interpretive Plan 

+ Comprehensive 

Interpretive Plan 

+ Comprehensive 

Interpretive Plan 

+ Natural Resource 

Management Plan and 

Fauna Study 

+ Natural Resource 

Management Plan and 

Fauna Study 

+ Natural Resource 

Management Plan and 

Fauna Study 

+ Cultural Resource 

Management Plan

+ Cultural Resource 

Management Plan

+ Cultural Resource 

Management Plan

+ Safety Plan + Safety Plan + Safety Plan 

+ Flash Flood Plan (includes 

Floodplain Map)

+ Flash Flood Plan (includes 

Floodplain Map)

+ Flash Flood Plan (includes 

Floodplain Map)

+ Historic Preservation Plan 

identifying types and levels 

of treatment 

+ Historic Preservation Plan 

identifying types and levels 

of treatment 

+ Historic Preservation Plan 

identifying types and levels 

of treatment 

Future Pla

ns and Stu

dies 

+ Transportation Study

(Should visitation reach 

125,000 visitors a year) 

+ Transportation Study

(Should visitation reach 

125,000 visitors a year) 

+ Transportation Study

(Should visitation reach 

125,000 visitors a year) 

49
ALTERNATIVES 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

The environmentally preferred alternative is 

the alternative that will best promote the 

national environmental policy as expressed 

in Section 101 of the National 

Environmental Policy act of 1969 (as 

amended). 

The environmentally preferred alternatives

for the Fort Davis General Management Plan

consist of Alternative C (Phase 2) and 

Alternative D. Both alternatives are very 

similar in scope and will affect the 

environment in the same way. The

environmental affects and advantages of the 

alternatives are discussed below. 

Alternative C (Phase 2) and

Alternative D

Both Phase 2 of Alternative C and 

Alternative D emphasize the need to restore 

the park grounds to their historical uses. 

This requires that the maintenance complex, 

housing units, curatorial “Bally” building, 

and maintenance yard in Hospital Canyon 

all be removed to a location outside of the 

park. The removal of the modern buildings 

and maintenance materials from these

locations would allow the areas to be 

managed under the Undeveloped 

Landscape Management Prescription. This 

prescription provides for native plants and 

animals to thrive unencumbered by human 

intervention and impacts. In addition, the 

removal of maintenance equipment and 

materials from both the maintenance

complex and the storage yard in Hospital

Canyon would remove the threat of minor

contamination issues related with the use of 

modern materials and vehicles, such as 

vehicle fluid leaks, material spills, and 

construction debris. 

Alternative C (Phase 2) and Alternative D 

also emphasize the need to increase natural

resource programs which inventory, 

manage, and protect native plant and 

animal species within the park. Such 

programs would monitor the stability of

native species and develop projects to

remove encroaching or harmful exotic

species.

Alternative C (Phase 2) and Alternative D 

also provide a baseline for managing the 

cultural resources in a manner which 

complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties (36 CFR 68). These alternatives 

emphasize the need to follow the National

Park Service Organic Act of 1916 which 

states that the purpose of the National Park 

Service is to “conserve the scenery and the 

natural and historic objects and the wildlife

therein” (16 USC 1).

50
51

CHAPTER 4: 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 

The alternatives in this

plan encompass

allocation of resources

consistent with the 

park’s purpose and

significance and also 

might include future 

actions in the park by 

non-government 

entities. Only those 

areas of the park that 

could be affected are 

described. Future sitespecific proposals after 

approval of this plan may

require further surveys and 

environmental compliance. 

Foundations and Ruins of an Enlisted Men’s Barracks with Two-Story

Officers’ Quarters in Background

All action alternatives meet the desired 

future conditions described in the first

chapter in different ways. Management 

prescriptions are applied to different areas

of the park based upon the general 

emphasis of the alternative. 

Effects are documented in general terms 

in this section and are related to the 

descriptions of the resources described in

previous sections. Impact topics have

been selected on the basis of the 

significance of the adverse effects or 

potential benefit to resources. Items that 

would not be impacted under any of the 

alternatives are not discussed. Impacts 

may be direct, indirect, or cumulative. 

Direct effects are caused by a specific

action and occur at the same time and 

place as the action. Indirect effects are 

caused by the action and occur later in

time or farther removed from the place, 

but are still reasonably foreseeable.

Cumulative effects are the impacts on the 

environment that result from the 

incremental impact of the action when

added to other past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future actions,

regardless of what agency (federal or 

nonfederal) or person undertakes such

other actions. Cumulative impacts can

result from individually minor or 

collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time. 

EXISTING CONDITIONS 

Fort Davis NHS encompasses the 

buildings, ruins, foundations, and cultural 

landscape of two frontier military posts 

active from 1854–1862 and 1867–1891. 

The forts were built in and around the 

mouth of a natural box canyon. Today, 

Fort Davis NHS consists of 473.87 acres, 

having a blend of natural and cultural 

resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

52
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The elevation of Fort Davis NHS is 4,880 feet, 

slightly under one mile, with the 

surrounding hills rising to approximately 340 

feet, bringing the maximum elevation to 

5220 feet. Limpia Creek, which was a vital 

water source for the fort, flows eastward and 

northward along the site’s north boundary. 

Boundaries on the south side consist of 

Sleeping Lion Mountain and on the north, of 

an irregular parcel of land bordered by State 

Highway 118. The Davis Mountains State 

Park defines the site’s western boundary; 

and State Highway 17 creates its eastern 

boundary. Adjacent to the fort is the town of 

Fort Davis, a small, unincorporated town of 

approximately 1,200 people. There is no 

zoning to govern the appearance or uses of 

the town. 

The summer months are dry and hot, with 

afternoon showers frequently occurring

during July and August. Winters tend to be

mild with very little snowfall. The mean daily

minimum temperature averages 37 degrees

in winter, and the mean daily maximum 

temperature is 88 degrees in summer.

Average yearly precipitation is 13–15 inches, 

with July usually being the wettest month.

Humidity generally tends to be very low. 

Historical extremes in rainfall occurred in 

1871, when only 6.78 inches of rain fell, and 

in 1881, when the rainfall totaled 27.54 

inches. Flooding from extreme weather 

conditions has occurred frequently. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Affected Environment

Visitation patterns have remained fairly

stable. Generally, the park attendance

averages 60,000–70,000 people per year. 

The 10-year total for calendar years 1990 

through 1999 is 653,369. The average time 

spent at the park by visitors is 1.8 hours. The 

shortest visits tend to be in December and 

January when colder temperatures limit 

walking around the site. 

Peak visitation usually occurs during 

March when many schools are not in 

session because of spring break. The 

majority of visitors to Fort Davis NHS are 

from Texas. Most of the fort’s European 

visitors come from Germany, while the

majority of Asian visitors are from Japan. 

Visitors to the fort could experience 

crowding, generally on weekends,

holidays, and busy periods during the 

spring. 

Entry to the fort area brings visitors in 

contact with the visual beauty of Fort

Davis. The mood created by military 

sounds and sights enhances awareness of 

the fort’s historic past. Visitors have an

opportunity to experience the site on their 

own or through organized interpretive 

programs. 

The current level of development strikes a 

balance between ruins and restored 

historic buildings—a balance that

provides visitors with both a story and a

provocative introduction to a significant 

part of America’s frontier history. 

Impacts of the No-Action 

Alternative—Alternative A 

There would be no change to visitor 

experience. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

This alternative is the same as Alternative 

C, but with less emphasis on expanded

programs. 

Impacts of Alternative C—NPS 

Proposal 

Visitor experience would be enhanced by

the proposal, because it focuses on 

improving visitor services and access to

information via outreach and park 

programs. 

Visitor flow and use patterns will not 

change. Access routes permit walking 

tours through the fort and its historic 

resources in a logical, topic-oriented

53
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

54

manner, with initial orientation provided at 

the visitor center. 

Improvements in parking will increase 

capacity within certain limits. If visitation 

remains below 125,000 recreation visits per 

year, it is estimated that visitors can be 

accommodated in a relatively uncrowded 

environment. Because the park has a small 

parking area, larger vehicles such as tour 

buses and touring vans or motor homes are 

not accommodated easily. A transportation 

study is proposed should visitation exceed 

125,000. The study would evaluate 

alternative means of accessing the fort in 

order to maintain a quality visitor experience 

and minimize the impact of larger vehicles on 

the historic scene. 

Access to the park will continue to be 

essentially via private vehicle. The historic 

area is easily accessible by foot from the 

town of Fort Davis. Modifications may be 

necessary in the future to access interior park 

paths and trails, to improve circulation, and 

to orient visitors to other park resources, 

such as historic roads. This would be done in 

a manner consistent with the management 

prescriptions. The close relationship to the 

town makes this a practical solution to 

overcrowding, but solutions need to be 

adequately evaluated in the transportation 

study. 

No overnight accommodations would be 

permitted. Visitation will probably level off at 

about 75,000 per year. With improved 

programs, the visitor's length of stay at the 

fort is expected to increase. This increase 

could be as much as 3 hours, with an 

estimated average length of stay of about 

2.0–2.2 hours. The quality of stay is also 

expected to improve through program 

enrichment. 

Phase 2 impacts are documented in 

Alternative D. 

Impacts of Alternative D 

This alternative would improve visitor 

experience slightly more than Alternative C, 

because more emphasis would be placed 

on facility and space improvements to 

accommodate visitors and improve the 

historic scene. No overnight 

accommodations would be permitted. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Affected Environment

Archeological Sites 

Prehistory Overview—People first came 

to Texas about 12,000 years ago. These 

inhabitants banded together in small 

groups, moving from camp to camp in 

search of food, depending on availability 

of game and wild plants. Each group 

probably moved around in the same area 

year after year. The arid climate provided 

few trees for firewood or building. The 

region is classified as “mountain and 

basin,” therefore, there were wide 

differences in the living patterns of the 

American Indians who inhabited the area. 

During Archaic times (6,000 B.C. to A.D. 

500) the food supply shifted toward 

plants and smaller game. The emphasis 

on plant foods necessitated the use of 

manos and metates, which are common 

to Archaic sites and have been found at 

Fort Davis NHS. The late Prehistoric Period 

(A.D. 500 to 1500) introduced new tools 

and ways of producing food, resulting in 

a greater use of pottery and arrow points. 

With the arrival of the Spanish began the 

Historic Period. After A.D. 1500, new 

groups such as the Comanche and 

Apache began to traverse the Trans-Pecos 

and gradually replaced the native people 

now identified as “Jumanos.” 

As summed up by Robert M. Utley in his 

publication entitled Fort Davis National 

Historic Site, Texas: 

“Few Indians actually lived in this 

country. Several bands of Mescalero 

Apaches had villages in the Davis 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Mountains and the Big Bend . . . many other 

Indians regularly passed through the TransPecos.” 

The Mescalero Apaches, Kiowas, and 

Comanches all conducted raids over large

distances in this vast area, which played a

significant role in the establishment of the 

fort. 

Resources—While there are several 

identified prehistoric archeological sites at 

Fort Davis NHS today, the prospect of having

other isolated occurrences or remains is 

substantial. The identified sites, first

documented in July 1986, are monitored on 

a regular basis. The connections of the earlier 

people, military occupation, and yet

undiscovered sites all provide the potential 

for a rich archeological as well as historical 

resource. 

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative—

Alternative A 

Periodic increased water flows may erode

areas in the alluvial floodplain, thereby 

exposing and moving archeological

resources and making them more liable to

theft. 

Impacts of Action Alternatives (B, C, and 

D) 

Reconstruction activities would not affect 

known archeological sites. While there

should be little ground disturbance in areas 

of high archeological potential, buried

historic remains are located throughout the

park. 

Known locations are well documented and 

surveyed. All ground-disturbing activity in 

these areas will be monitored to mitigate any 

impacts that might occur, should any 

archeological sites be encountered. Sites in 

close proximity to visitor-use areas are

vulnerable to surface damage. 

Prior to final site selection during project 

design or any land-modifying activity, an 

archeologist will inspect the proposed

development site and its immediate vicinity 

for the presence of cultural remains, both 

prehistoric and historic. Should newly 

discovered or previously unrecorded 

cultural remains be found, additional

investigations will be performed. 

In summary, providing additional

information and protection on 

archeological resources would be a 

positive benefit. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES AND 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

Affected Environment

Cultural Landscapes— “Cultural 

landscape” can refer to a geographic area 

where people have been or still are, 

modifying, interacting with, and giving

human meaning to the land. The National

Park Service is primarily concerned with 

landscapes having historic and/or 

ethnographic significance in areas in 

which the NPS has or plans to acquire

legal interest. The landscape does not 

need to contain visible evidence of 

human manipulation to be considered a 

cultural landscape. The term can also 

describe a way of seeing, where all 

aspects of a place—natural and cultural—

are considered together as part of an

overall system. 

The definitions, policies, and procedures 

of the NPS Cultural Landscapes Program 

are based on the National Register of 

Historic Places. A major part of the 

national heritage, which the National Park 

Service is charged to protect and 

interpret, has been and is lived out in the 

landscape. Farm fields and irrigation 

systems, plazas and courtyards, designed 

parks and gardens, and river valleys, 

mesas, plains, and mountains where 

groups of people have gathered food, 

held ceremonies, or fought each other 

over political beliefs, are all examples of

cultural landscape resources. 

55
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Characteristics of cultural landscapes can 

include tangible and intangible elements. 

Tangible evidence on-site can relate to a 

number of types of land use, including 

settlement, aesthetics, travel, subsistence, 

agriculture, recreation, industry, ceremony,

and celebration. 

In addition to being a distinct resource along 

with archeological sites, historic structures,

ethnographic resources, and museum

objects, cultural landscapes can be thought 

of as the holistic context for the individual

cultural features, the organizing system

within which specific cultural resource

elements (e.g., plants, animals, structures) 

are located. 

Retaining the present cultural landscape of 

Fort Davis serves to enrich the visitor’s 

experience. The box canyon, the military 

installation, the rugged landscape are all 

historic and unique features of this area.

They are features that visitors for decades

have traditionally associated with the fort. 

Although a cultural landscape inventory (CLI)

has not yet been completed for Fort Davis 

NHS, a potentially significant cultural

landscape associated with several historic 

periods and events is clearly present, and a

CLI is needed to document and analyze all

the features of the historic landscape at the 

site. The structural and biotic evidences of 

activities associated with the first and second 

forts are included within this cultural

landscape. The CLI would identify 

contributing characteristics of the landscape,

including patterns of spatial organization, 

natural systems and features, circulation 

patterns, all underground and aboveground 

structural remains, and all vegetative 

patterns and features characteristic of the 

significant historic periods. 

The CLI will also include a statement of 

significance and an overall integrity rating. 

The completed CLI will address NHPA Section 

110 compliance as required by NPS policy to 

provide baseline resource data. It will also

provide park management with information 

needed for informed preservation and 

management of cultural landscape

resources. The CLI is scheduled to begin 

in the summer of 2000, and, until it is 

completed, all landscape features, such as

historic roads, garden sites, and the 

cemetery, and open areas, such as the

parade ground, should be preserved.

Historic Structures—After gold was 

discovered in California in 1848, 

westward overland travel routes became 

important. In west Texas, the San

Antonio–El Paso Road passed through 

territory used by the Apache and 

Comanche. To protect travelers and the 

mail from their encounters with Apache 

and Comanche tribes, the army built a 

fort in 1854, in what were then called the 

Apache Mountains, near Limpia Creek.

The new post was named Fort Davis, 

after then Secretary of War Jefferson 

Davis, and soon the mountains became 

known as the Davis Mountains. 

Fort Davis, Texas 1885 

With the secession of Texas from the 

Union in 1861, Fort Davis was 

abandoned. The post was then occupied 

by Confederate troops. In the summer of 

1862, southern forces left and the post 

was deserted for the remainder of the 

Civil War. A second Fort Davis,

constructed in 1867, prevailed until 1891. 

Troops from both forts scouted and 

mapped the surrounding territory, 

escorted the mail, protected stagecoaches 

and wagon trains, guarded railroad 

surveyors, and fought against raiding

Apache and Comanche bands. Most 

notable among the troops who served at 

Fort Davis were African Americans 

(known as Buffalo Soldiers) of the 9th and 

10th U.S. Cavalry and 24th and 25th U.S. 

Infantry regiments. These units compiled

a notable record of military

accomplishment and helped to bring 

about the peaceful settlement and 

development of the region. 

56
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fort Davis taken from Sleeping Lion Mountain with Post Sutler’s Complex in Foreground, and Enlisted 

Men’s Barracks and Corrals in Background, circa 1885 

Collections—The museum collection at 

Fort Davis consists of an estimated 

80,000 artifacts, which range from 

antique furnishings, museum exhibit 

artifacts, extensive archeological and field 

collection groups, and two herbariums.

About 5,000 items are on public exhibit in 

the museum and in five furnished

buildings. The remaining items are stored 

in three curatorial facilities. Items in the 

museum collection are used in permanent 

and temporary exhibits, for research and 

study, and for occasional loan. 

The structures of the first Fort Davis, 

numbering about 60, were primarily

constructed of pine slabs. Today all that 

remain of these buildings are the

foundations. 

The post–Civil War fort consists of adobe and 

cut stone buildings. 

About 25 significant structures from this fort

have been restored and five of these are 

furnished to the time period of the 1880s. 

There are also several ruins and foundations

of second fort structures as well as a ditch 

system used by the army for flood control 

(see discussion under Floodplains, Wetlands,

and Water Resources). Currently 110 first and 

second fort structures are on the List of

Classified Structures. 

In a sense, the entire park is an “outdoor 

museum.” Viewed in this context, it is 

therefore critical to maintain the historical 

appearance and integrity of the fort. 

57
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative—

Alternative A 

Historic and Scenic Vistas from Within 

and Outside Park Boundaries—No

changes would be made to any element 

in the landscape within the park. 

Cultural Landscapes—The historic 

vernacular-designed landscape would 

continue to be managed as a historic 

landscape resource, and any modifications

would be made so as not to reduce its 

integrity. Maintaining the integrity of

landscape areas and features would result in 

no adverse effect on this landscape. Pending 

the completion of a cultural landscape

report, all contributing or potentially 

contributing landscape elements will be 

preserved resulting in no adverse effect. 

Historic Structures—Improvements

would be made to make the post hospital

accessible to mobility-impaired visitors. 

This would require some modification to 

existing entryways, but would enable

people with mobility impairments to

experience the interior of an additional 

fort building. 

The North Ditch would be reconstructed 

for flood control purposes. This could 

result in an adverse effect to the historic 

resources. Proper mitigation and 

recording should reduce this impact to a 

no adverse effect. Some structures would 

be modified to meet fire protection 

standards. 

Historic and Scenic Vistas from Within 

and Outside Park Boundaries—No

changes would be made to any element in

the landscape within the park. 

Historic Structures—Buildings and facilities

open to the public would not be improved.

Some would remain inaccessible to mobilityimpaired visitors. 

Use of buildings and structures to support 

park operations, interpretation, and visitor 

use would contribute to their long-term 

preservation. Remodeling staff quarters to

increase office space would result in 

increased operational efficiency and better

employee morale. Changes would be 

compatible with historic function and 

consistent with the preservation of 

historic fabric. 

Collections—Space is inadequate for

storage and display.

Impacts of Alternative B 

Cultural Landscapes—The historic 

vernacular-designed landscape would 

continue to be managed as a historic 

landscape resource, and any modifications

would be made so as not to reduce the 

integrity of these areas. Maintaining the 

integrity of landscape areas and features 

would result in no adverse effect on this 

landscape. Pending the completion of a 

cultural landscape report, all contributing or 

potentially contributing landscape elements

will be preserved, resulting in no adverse 

effect. 

No physical impacts to known 

ethnographic resources are anticipated. 

Collections—A minor beneficial 

improvement would be made to correct 

deficiencies. 

Impacts of the Proposal— 

Alternative C 

Cultural Landscapes—The historic 

vernacular-designed landscape would 

continue to be managed as a historic 

landscape resource, and any 

modifications would be made so as not to

reduce the integrity of these areas. Minor 

changes in the parking configuration to 

increase capacity would be carefully done 

The preservation of visual quality within the 

park and working with adjacent landowners 

to minimize modern intrusions on park 

viewsheds would benefit the experience of 

those visiting and hiking. This would retain

the less-developed, more historic views 

within the park. 

58
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

to maintain the integrity of landscape areas 

and features. This would result in no adverse 

effect on this landscape. Pending the 

completion of a cultural landscape report, all 

contributing or potentially contributing

landscape elements will be preserved, 

resulting in no adverse effect. 

The preservation of visual quality within the 

park and working with adjacent landowners 

to minimize modern intrusions on park 

viewsheds would benefit the experience of 

those visiting and hiking. This would retain

the less-developed, more historic views 

within the park. 

Phase 2 impacts are documented in 

Alternative D.

Historic and Scenic Vistas from Within 

and Outside Park Boundaries—No

changes would be made to any element in

the landscape within the park during Phase I. 

Phase 2 impacts are documented in 

Alternative D.

Historic Structures—Improvements would 

be made to make the post hospital and other 

historic buildings accessible to mobilityimpaired visitors. This would require some 

modification to existing entryways but would 

enable people with mobility impairments to

experience the interior of additional fort 

buildings. The partial restoration and 

refurnishing of the post hospital would 

enhance visitor experience by providing new 

opportunities for viewing historic resources. 

The installation of fire suppression 

equipment would not adversely affect 

historic resources, but would add to their 

protection. 

The North Ditch and South Channel would 

be reconstructed for flood control purposes.

This could result in an adverse effect to the

historic resources. Proper mitigation and 

recording should reduce this impact to a no

adverse effect. 

Use of buildings and structures to support 

park operations, interpretation, and visitor 

use will contribute to their long-term 

preservation. Remodeling staff quarters to

increase office space will result in 

increased operational efficiency and better

employee morale. Changes will be 

compatible with historic function and 

consistent with the preservation of 

historic fabric. 

No physical impacts to known 

ethnographic resources are anticipated. 

Additional Phase 2 impacts are 

documented in Alternative D. 

Collections—Deficiencies would be 

corrected, and collection storage and 

displays would be improved. 

Impacts of the Proposal— 

Alternative D 

Cultural Landscapes—The historic 

vernacular-designed landscape would 

continue to be managed as a historic 

landscape resource, and any 

modifications would be made so as not to

reduce the integrity of these areas. 

Maintaining the integrity of landscape

areas and features would result in no

adverse effect on this landscape. Pending 

the completion of a cultural landscape

report, all contributing or potentially 

contributing landscape elements will be 

preserved resulting in no adverse effect. 

The preservation of visual quality within

the park and working with adjacent 

landowners to minimize modern 

intrusions on park viewsheds would 

benefit the experience of those visiting

and hiking. This would retain the lessdeveloped, more historic views within the 

park. 

Historic and Scenic Vistas from Within 

and Outside Park Boundaries—The 

relocation of the maintenance facility, 

employee housing, and curatorial Bally 

building to an area outside the park 

would improve the vistas and views of

the fort from State Highways 17 and 118. 

59
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This change would provide a more

historically accurate and attractive approach 

to the fort without adversely impacting the 

historic structures or cultural landscape. 

LONG-TERM HEALTH OF 

NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS 

Affected Environment

Historic Structures—Improvements would 

be made to make the post hospital and other 

historic buildings accessible to mobilityimpaired visitors. This would require some 

modification to existing entryways but would 

enable people with mobility impairments to

experience the interior of additional fort 

buildings. The partial restoration and 

refurnishing of the post hospital would 

enhance visitor experience by providing new 

opportunities for viewing historic resources. 

The installation of fire suppression 

equipment would not adversely affect 

historic resources, but would add to their 

protection. 

Soils/Vegetation 

Soil—In 1977, the Soil Conservation 

Service mapped four soil range sites at

Fort Davis NHS. According to a 1981 

report by Dr. James T. Nelson, former 

professor of Range Animal Science at Sul 

Ross State University, Alpine, Texas,

entitled “The Historic Vegetative Aspect of 

Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas,” 

“Most of the fort is situated on a deep 

upland or loamy range site. This site is

defined as having a flat to concave valley

plane with a 0–3% slope. Soils are 

predominantly of the Musquiz 

association, over 20” deep with low 

erosion hazard and high water 

availability. Most of the hospital canyon 

floor lies in a draw range site. Soils here

are deep well-drained non-calcareous

loams of the Gageby association. The

canyon is long and narrow with run-in 

water from adjacent steep slopes

providing soil moisture and washing fine 

soil materials into the canyon floor. 

The South Channel would be reconstructed 

for flood control purposes. This could result

in an adverse effect to the historic fabric. 

Proper mitigation and recording should 

reduce this impact to a no adverse effect. 

Use of buildings and structures to support 

park operations, interpretation, and visitor 

use will contribute to their long-term 

preservation. Removal of maintenance

building, employee complexes, and the 

curatorial Bally building from the historic 

scene would provide for uses that are more

historically compatible inside the park

boundary and improve viewing from the 

highways. Moving administrative offices 

outside the park and the reallocation of 

space to historic functions would help

reduce the presence of non-historic functions 

and features in historic structures. 

At the foot of the canyon walls lies a 

narrow band of gravelly loam on gentle 

convex slopes of 1–5%. This zone is

known as the gravelly range site and 

consists of about half-and-half Santo

Tomas gravelly loam and Medley loam. 

Fine material is washed out of these soils

into the flats below.

Most of the higher canyon walls and 

hilltops consist of 50–90% rock outcrop 

and 10–40% Brewster association soils. At

the western edge of the site is a hill

consisting of rock outcrops, Mainstay and 

Livingston soils. These areas are known as

igneous mountain range sites. The soils 

range from very shallow to deep (pockets) 

and are gravelly to cobbelly in texture.” 

No physical impacts to known ethnographic 

resources are anticipated. 

Collections—Deficiencies would be 

corrected, and there would be a major

improvement to displays and storage for 

collections. 

60
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Vegetation—Because of the variable

topography, a striking blend of desert,

mountain, and grassland formations has 

created “a rich floral diversity” evident at the 

fort. Historically there was more grassland 

compared to the large amount of catclaw 

and mesquite visible today. In his study, Dr. 

Nelson noted the dramatic difference 

between the photographs he took in 1980 

and 1981 and historic photos taken in the 

1880s. Today the dominant plant 

community areas are grama grass, mixed 

desert, sotol scrub, and montane/chapparal,

with more recent additions of canyon scrub 

and sandy arroyo. 

An historic grove of native Rio Grande 

cottonwoods (Populus wislizenii), estimated 

to be approximately 120 years old, provides 

an attractive setting for visitors entering the 

park. Other tree growth consists of mixed 

stands of gray oak (Quercus grisea), Emory 

oak (Quercus emoryi), and alligator and redberry juniper (Juniperus deppeana and 

pinchot). According to Dr. Nelson, 

common shrubs include three forms of

sumac, evergreen, littleleaf, and 

skunkbush (Rhus virens, R. microphylla, 

and R. aromatica), Texas mountain laurel 

(Sophora secundiflora), catclaw (Mimosa 

biuncifera and Acacia ssp.), Mormon tea 

(Ephedra trifurca), honey mesquite 

(Prosopis glandulos), and algerita (Berberis 

trifoliata). Two half-shrubs, threadleaf 

groundsel (Senecio longilobus) and 

Broom snakeweed (Xanthocephalum 

sarothrae), are present, scattered or in

dense patches on the property. Sotol 

(Dasylirion wheeleri) can be found on

rocky slopes, and on hilly area the

presence of beargrass (Nolina erumpens)

has been detected. Prickly pear cactus 

(Opuntia spp.) is found in its many 

varieties on most of the grounds. 

The most common grasses are blue

grama (Bouteloua gracilis), sideoats (B. 

curtipendula), black (B. eriopoda), hairy 

(B. hirsute), and sprucetop (B.

chrondrosoides). 

Tall grasses, such as cane bluestem

(Bothriochloa barbinodis), little bluestem 

(Schizachyrium scoparium), bull muhly 

(Mulhenbhergia emerslyi), dropseed

(Sporobolus cryptandrus), and tanglehead 

(heteropogon contorta), are found on

well-drained sites throughout the area. 

Two major herbarium groups, totaling 

approximately 580 specimens, collected in 

the 1970s and 1990s, are located in the 

museum collection’s main storage area. 

There are no known plants classified as

“protected” or endangered species in the 

park. Some exotic grasses and plants do

exist in the park, but they are not 

considered a threat to the ecosystem. 

Of primary importance is the scenic value

of vegetation, giving a unique sense of 

openness and panoramic vistas of the

fort. This setting, composed of mountain Typical vegetation of area: sotol, juniper, and 

various cacti. 

61
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

and desert plant life, is the distinctive feature

of the fort. 

Any future construction requires site 

preparation that would result in soil

addition or removal and destruction 

of soil structure. Removal and 

displacement of topsoil would occur 

where pavement and buildings are 

located and utilities or other facilities 

are installed. Foot traffic in and 

around the parade ground would 

affect vegetation and soils. 

Impact of the No-Action Alternative 

Existing measures to minimize the impact to

soils and vegetation by human activities 

would continue. 

Impacts of the Action Alternatives 

(B, C, D) 

Mitigation—Educational and 

interpretive programming teaching 

visitors the importance of staying on 

designated trails would mitigate

further impacts to the soil. Engaging

the visitor in a variety of recreational 

and educational activities geared 

toward minimum impact could be 

useful in the mitigation of impacts to

soil. 

Under the action alternatives, minor soil and 

vegetation alterations would be allowed in 

conjunction with proposed changes to 

various facilities throughout the park. 

Additional environmental review and analysis

will be done once the scope and areas of 

these changes are determined. Future

actions requiring additional site-specific

environmental analysis would most certainly 

consider impacts on soils. These can be 

described as follows: Specific mitigation measures for future 

development projects would be

defined during planning for each 

project and carried out prior to or 

during project development. 

Impacts of any new visitor traffic to soil 

can be directly and indirectly caused by 

continual and increased use of the 

resource. Potential impacts that could 

occur from visitor use include soil

compaction, soil erosion, loss of soil

permeability, changes in soil chemistry,

and loss in soil insulation. Areas that

have the most recovery potential from 

impacts of development are located 

within areas previously described. 

Mitigation of impacts may include 

modifications to soil and topography 

to reduce soil compaction around 

heavily used facilities. Flat and slightly

sloping areas could erode, and 

channeling of the soil could take

place. In the short term, soil in 

construction areas would temporarily

undergo rapid erosion. In the long

term, when drainage structures are in

place and fully operable and 

vegetation restored, the soil would be 

protected and preserved. 

On trails or where visitor use is

concentrated, the most common impact 

on soil would be compaction, which 

lowers soil permeability, changes the

local soil moisture, and decreases water 

storage capability. As a result, water 

transmission within soils would decrease

and surface runoff and soil erosion 

would increase. 

Carefully designed and landscaped

areas consistent with the cultural 

landscape report (CLR) 

recommendations would assist in

minimizing topsoil impacts. Topsoil 

replacement, when needed, should 

use material similar in composition 

(mineral and organic) to the original 

topsoil, and replanting should be

done with native grasses and shrubs.

Unauthorized expansion of trail areas on 

the fringes of visitor uses most often 

leads to continual trampling that 

gradually diminishes vegetation and 

increases soil exposure to wind, rain, and 

hail. 

62
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Floodplains/Flash Floods—Fort Davis 

NHS is located in the Davis Mountains of 

west Texas at an elevation of close to

5,000 feet (NGVD). The watershed above 

the park is approximately 0.6 square miles 

and is oblong, measuring less than 2

miles long by less than one-half mile

wide. Intense thunderstorms, 

characteristic of this region, are capable of 

producing high-magnitude runoff events.

Furthermore, given the small size of the 

watershed and the rapid runoff rate of the 

bedrock, the fort location is very likely 

within a flash flood zone. 

Careful and continuous monitoring

should be done to mitigate impacts. 

Conclusion—None of the action 

alternatives considered would have any 

significant immediate or cumulative impact 

to the soils or vegetation of the park. 

Wetlands, Floodplains, and Water 

Resources 

Wetlands—Narrow wetland areas exist 

along the ephemeral “south channel”

drainage stream. These wetland areas likely

meet the classification criteria adopted by the 

NPS in Director’s Order #77-1 and 

Procedure Manual #77-1, which implement 

policies, requirements, and standards for 

Executive Order (E.O.) 11990: “Protection of 

Wetlands” (42 Fed. Reg. 26961). These 

seasonally wet areas in Fort Davis NHS 

probably meet wetland criteria under the 

Cowardin classification methodology in the 

Riverine System, Intermittent Subsystem, 

with both rock (bedrock and rubble) and 

unconsolidated (various subclasses) bottoms 

(Cowardin et al., 1979). 

Fort Davis was originally an army post

established in 1854. The fort site is 

located on an alluvial fan directly below 

the fan-head valley. The fort and 

surrounding grounds occupy 

approximately two-thirds of the upper 

alluvial fan. Distributary channels are

visible on aerial photographs downstream

(NE) of the fort, however, construction of 

the fort and its surrounding grounds likely

obliterated all evidence of distributary 

channels in that area. The South Channel 

stream drainage is perhaps the only

remnant channel, largely carrying all 

surface flow now through the fort. 

Mapping of the wetland areas in the park 

has been performed on large-scale aerial 

maps through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service National Wetland Inventory Mapping 

project. A map entitled; National Wetlands 

Inventory, Fort Davis, Texas, was prepared at

1:24000 scale in 1994. This map indicates no 

wetlands on the Fort Davis site, although 

two less-than-one-acre diked impoundments

(probably for holding stock water) are 

identified immediately upstream. The map is

an indicator of wetland location, but requires 

an additional wetland survey. 

Because of Fort Davis’s setting on an

alluvial fan, flooding is a regular 

phenomenon there. During the second

fort period (1867–1891), the army 

constructed a series of ditches and dikes 

to alleviate flooding on the fort grounds. 

Low to moderate flows were, and 

continue to be, diverted around the fort 

grounds via two ditches, hereafter 

referred to as the North Ditch and the 

Two other drainages, the North Ditch and South Channel. 

the South Channel dike system, constructed 

by the army as interceptor dikes and ditches,

function as wetlands when moderate to 

major flooding occurs. They are considered

created or “intentional artificial” wetlands by 

the NPS and have minimal wetland habitat 

associated with them. 

The existing configuration of ditches and 

dikes, however, is not sufficient to protect 

the fort grounds from frequent flooding, 

and current park staff have observed a 

number of large runoff events in recent 

years. Of particular note is an event that 

occurred in late summer 1990. In this 

event, the entire ditch-dike-channel 

63
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

system was overwhelmed by floodwaters

and a large portion of the fort was flooded.

The right bank of the North Ditch failed, and 

the lower South Channel dike system 

received water originally diverted from the 

primary channel (South Channel) into the 

North Ditch. Eventually, the lower dike also

failed and debris-laden flood waters spilled 

onto the fort ground, eroding historic

foundations and depositing sediment in 

historic structures. Backup floodwaters 

approached the three on-site staff 

residences. Additionally, flow overtopped 

the left bank of the South Channel, eroding 

the walking trails and flooding the 

headquarters building and the barracks. A 

subsequent site visit performed by Joe Bruno

of the old Southwest Regional Office resulted 

in several recommendations, including 

reinforcing the dikes and improving the 

conveyance capacity of the ditches/channels 

(Bruno/NPS, 1990). 

Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analyses—Flood 

frequency information for Fort Davis was 

derived using equations published by the 

USGS (Schroeder and Massey, 1977). 

Calculated discharges ranged from about 

100 cfs for the 2-year flood to about 650 cfs 

for the 100-year flood. The 500-year flood is 

estimated to be just under 1,000 cfs. The 

Maximum Estimated Flood (Qme) for this

watershed is projected to be about 6,000 cfs 

using the method presented in Crippen and

Bue, 1977. This is nearly 10 times greater 

than the calculated 100-year discharge but is

within the range of maximum flood 

estimates calculated in other studies 

conducted by the authors. 

Ditch-Dike System—The hydraulic 

capacities of ditches in Fort Davis NHS, as

outlined below, were estimated using the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’s computer

model HEC-RAS. 

The North Ditch intersects the South 

Channel, which is the first-order drainage, 

roughly midway between the hospital (an 

historic structure located on the upper end 

of the fan) and the upper fan-head valley. 

From that point, the North Ditch 

commences northeast, following the 

contour and passing due north and uphill

of the primary fort grounds. Cut-and-fill

excavation produced a channel roughly 

10 feet wide with a 1- to 1.5-foot levee 

on the right bank. Hydraulic modeling

results indicate that the ditch capacity is 

about 50 cfs. A discharge greater than 

this is likely to overtop the levee, probably

washing it out in one or more locations. 

A flow in the South Channel in excess of 

1.5 feet is needed to initiate flow into the 

North Ditch. A discharge of about 100

cfs, which is in the range of a 2-year 

recurrence interval flood, will produce 

sufficient flow to access the North Ditch.

Reportedly, the army used a check dam 

across the South Channel to encourage 

diversion of flows into the North Ditch on 

a more frequent basis; however, this 

feature is no longer present. 

Below the diversion to the North Ditch, 

the South Channel drainage continues for 

several hundred feet before losing all

channel characteristics owing to reduced 

grade. Downstream of where the South 

Channel flattens out, the army

constructed two dikes (herein referred to

as the South Channel dike system).

Currently, the upper dike serves to divert 

sheet flow (including that conveyed from 

the South Channel) back to the South

Channel. The lower dike primarily 

impounds overbank flow from the South 

Channel and some sheetflow from the

upper fan. The upper dike runs roughly 

east-west and is approximately 3 feet

high. The lower dike runs roughly northsouth and also is about 3 feet high. 

These two dikes nearly intersect at a point 

where the service road crosses the South 

Channel. This is also the diversion point 

where overbank flows access the area

behind the lower dike, creating a flood 

detention pond. A discharge of about 100 

to 200 cfs (2- to 5-year recurrence interval 

flood) will produce a sufficient stage to

access the detention area. It is not 

64
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

apparent if the original design of the lower 

dike was for storage or redirection. The 

section where the road crosses the channel 

has likely been filled in, as there is a buried 

water main at the crossing. If the channel at

this location was deeper at one time, then 

the lower dike may have been intended for

diversion only. 

The South Channel appears to have been 

one of the original alluvial fan channels. It 

has received concentrated flow, however, for

more than a century. Either because of the 

underlying structure, the fan morphology, or 

the concentrated flows (most likely a

combination of the three), the South 

Channel has incised into bedrock. This

channel is steep with a grade of about 3–4 

percent. Most of the reduction in elevation is

accomplished through two bedsteps, which 

drop about three and four feet, respectively. 

Because of the relatively large cross section 

and the steep grade, the South Channel has 

the capacity to convey between 400 and 

500 cfs, which is somewhere between a 25- 

and 50-year flood for this watershed. 

Flash Flood Protection—Occupation of a 

floodplain in a flash flood-prone area

constitutes a Class III action in reference to 

the National Park Service Floodplain

Management Guidelines (NPS 93-3), with the 

regulatory floodplain defined as that

inundated by an extreme flood. The Qme

has previously been used as an estimate of 

the largest possible flood for a given 

watershed. Floods of this magnitude are 

exceptionally rare and not useful as a

practical structural design standard.

Knowledge of the conditions associated with 

the worst-case flood, however, can be useful 

for planning purposes and to help ensure 

human safety. 

The Qme flow would reach the majority of 

the fort buildings with at least shallow, but

swiftly flowing water and debris. There are 

no reasonable alternatives that would 

provide for full protection from the Qme 

flood damage to the historic resources, staff, 

and visitors at the fort. Options to optimize

flood protection using on-site historic 

water conveyances, such as the North 

Ditch and the South Channel dike system 

are sympathetic to the current and future 

objectives for the site and have been

proposed as alternative elements in this

GMP. The optimized North Ditch and 

South Channel dike system would provide

protection from flash flooding, however, 

at less than the 100-year event. (WRD, 

1999). The construction of additional 

protective dikes and diversion structures 

has also been considered for many years, 

but deemed to be too disruptive to the 

cultural and historic resources of the site.

These additional protective devices would 

also have to be constructed very close to 

the historic buildings (Blackstun, 1997). 

There have been no structural proposals

that would provide any significant

additional protection to staff and visitors 

against flash flooding. Short of the 

unreasonable options of completely

denying access to staff and visitors from 

the flash flood-prone fort location or

moving structures out of the flood zone 

there are no absolute protective measures 

available. Flood warning systems that rely 

on electronic sensors or personal 

observations are not foolproof in flash

flood-prone areas such as this one. But, 

because of the nonconfining nature of the 

alluvial fan, the overbank flows are likely 

to occur as sheet flows and will likely not 

attain substantial depth. Flood flows in

this area have the potential to affect the 

headquarters/visitor center building, the 

refurnished barracks, and on-site staff 

residences, and might affect the Church 

Camp building. Hydraulic modeling,

however, indicates that overbank flow 

resulting from floods up to the 500-year 

recurrence interval would obtain depths 

of less than 1 foot, and associated

velocities would not exceed 3 feet per

second. On the other hand, the Qme

could be capable of achieving depths in

the range of 2 feet across the fan, with

associated velocities ranging from 4–6 

65
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

feet per second. While these conditions are 

not extremely dangerous, the combination of 

the depth, velocities, and the large area of 

inundation could be life threatening. Thus, in

all but the most extreme floods, staff and 

visitors would still have enough time and 

ability to evacuate the flood-prone areas to

safety. 

The Church Camp building is located in 

upper Hospital Canyon within fifty feet of the

drainage channel. The structure is used for 

occasional daytime meetings, and less 

frequently for over night stays by park

volunteers or staff. Because of the effort 

made to address potential flooding impacts

to park resources and visitor safety in the 

lower canyon and fort location, the Church 

Camp has been identified as a location

requiring a flood threat decision. Using 

topographic mapping and a rudimentary 

hydrologic analysis, it appears that the 

Church Camp building might be in the 500 

year flood plain and possibly be threatened

by the maximum flood in the canyon; both

would require NPS management decisions

about future use for over night stays. Current 

written and verbal records in the park

indicate no historical problem with flooding

at the site, thus no change in use would be 

proposed. At the next opportunity however, 

the park would have a reconnaissance 

and/or survey level study made of the

Church Camp building and the surrounding

drainage area. Then, depending upon the 

level of flooding threat, park managers may 

be required to file a statement of findings on 

decisions regarding future use of the Church 

Camp. 

Consideration of the severity of the threat of 

flash flooding to the historic resources, staff, 

and visitors would be a part of future

planning by the NPS at Fort Davis. Attached 

to this GMP is a Statement of Findings (SOF) 

that documents the current commitment of 

the NPS to continue occupation of the flash 

flood-prone area of Fort Davis with historic 

structures, visitor center, maintenance areas,

and staff residences. The SOF confirms that

a flood mitigation plan should be developed 

as a part of the chosen alternative. This

plan should be protective of and 

sympathetic to the historic/cultural 

resources as well as staff and visitor 

safety. Options to be considered in the 

flood mitigation plan would be: 

● Develop a plan to minimize the threat to 

historic resources, staff, and visitors that 

includes: 

1. Priorities for historic resources that 

could be moved/protected. 

2. Closure conditions. 

3. Seasonal, watershed saturation, and 

storm event priorities.

4. Notification protocols for park staff 

and visitors. 

● Train staff and volunteers in the 

implementation of the plan. 

● Prepare informational and warning signs 

and brochures. 

● Establish formal notification/warning 

procedures between the Fort Davis NHS 

and the National Weather Service. 

● Heightened awareness during the 

monsoon rain months of July, August, 

and September, especially when the 

watershed is saturated by previous rains. 

● Formalization of evacuation routes and 

mobilization sites for rescue.

● Review and revise the plan elements every 

2–3 years. 

Impacts of the No-Action 

Alternative—Alternative A 

Wetlands—In the no-action alternative, 

the South Channel would remain the only 

operational drainage system from the 

Davis Mountains through Fort Davis NHS, 

carrying the full surface drainage for all

storm events. Wetlands associated along 

the South Channel ephemeral stream

would be periodically disrupted by 

flooding events (a normal condition), but 

functioning naturally in all storm flow

events. Created wetlands associated with 

the currently dysfunctional North Ditch 

and the South Channel dike system

would continue to become drier as the 

water conveyance function ceases in all

but moderate to high flow storm events. 

66
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Floodplain/Flash Floods—In the no-action 

alternative there would be insufficient 

safeguards from flash flooding to protect 

park resources. Buildings closest to the South

Channel (headquarters/visitor center building 

and refurnished barracks) would be the most

threatened by flooding of the 100-year or 

greater magnitude frequency, but all 

structures, some building contents, park 

staff, and visitors would continue to be 

threatened by flash flooding. The currently

dysfunctional North Ditch and South 

Channel dike system would provide no

protection from flooding. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

Wetlands—Portions of flood flows of low to

moderate frequency would be intercepted by 

a rehabilitated North Ditch. Created 

intentional wetlands existing along the North

Ditch would be maintained in function, but 

would be periodically disrupted for 

maintenance after flooding events. Minor 

disruption to the created wetlands would 

occur during the rehabilitation of the North 

Ditch. Wetlands associated along the South 

Channel ephemeral stream would be 

periodically disrupted by flooding events (a

normal condition), but functioning naturally 

in all storm flow events. Created wetlands 

associated with the currently dysfunctional

South Channel dike system would continue 

to become drier as water conveyance 

function ceases in all but moderate to high 

flow storm events. 

Floodplain/Flash Floods—Minor

improvements to protect against the

potential flooding of the historic buildings

would be implemented by optimizing flow in 

the North Ditch. Low to moderate flows 

would be conveyed around the fort grounds, 

but large magnitude runoff events, such as 

the 100-year flood or greater, would likely 

exceed the capacity of the existing system no 

matter how it is managed. Buildings closest 

to the South Channel (headquarters/visitor 

center building and refurnished barracks) 

would be the most threatened by flooding of 

the 100-year or greater magnitude 

frequency, but all structures, some

building contents, park staff, and visitors 

would continue to be threatened by flash 

flooding. Fortunately, because of the 

nonconfining nature of the alluvial fan 

location, overbank flows are likely to

occur as sheet flows and are not likely to 

obtain substantial depth. An exception to 

this is the extreme Maximum Estimated

Flood, which could possibly produce 

dangerous conditions. 

This alternative provides some reduced 

flood flow in the South Channel (50–100 

cfs. when the flow reaches 200+ cfs.). 

Historic flood flow patterns established 

100+ years ago would be largely 

preserved. 

The dike would require initial 

rehabilitation and periodic maintenance 

to continue the flood protection. While 

providing some greater flood protection 

at low to moderate flows, this alternative 

would provide an increased risk of greater

periodic flood damage to structures

below the North Ditch were the ditch to 

be overwhelmed in a heavy flood event 

Impacts of Alternative C 

Wetlands—Portions of flood flows of

low to moderate frequency would be 

intercepted by a rehabilitated North Ditch 

and South Channel dike system. Created 

intentional wetlands existing along the 

North Ditch and the South Channel dikes 

would be maintained in function, but 

would be periodically disrupted for 

maintenance after flooding events. Minor 

disruption to the created wetlands would 

occur during the rehabilitation. Wetlands 

associated along the South Channel

ephemeral stream would be periodically 

disrupted by flooding events (a normal

condition), but function naturally in all 

storm flow events. 

Floodplain/Flash Floods—Minor 

improvements to protect against the

potential flooding of the historic buildings

would be implemented by optimizing 

67
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

flow in the North Ditch and the South

Channel dike system. Low to moderate flows

would be conveyed around the fort grounds, 

but large magnitude runoff events, such as 

the 100-year flood or greater, would likely 

exceed the capacity of the existing system no 

matter how it is managed. Buildings closest 

to the South Channel (headquarters/visitor 

center building and refurnished barracks) 

would be the most threatened by flooding of 

the 100-year or greater magnitude 

frequency, but all structures, some building 

contents, park staff, and visitors would 

continue to be threatened by flash flooding. 

Fortunately, because of the nonconfining 

nature of the alluvial fan location, overbank 

flows are likely to occur as sheet flows and

are not likely to obtain substantial depth. An 

exception to this is the extreme Maximum 

Estimated Flood, which could possibly

produce dangerous conditions. 

This alternative provides some reduced flood 

flow in the South Channel (50–100 cfs when

flow reaches 200+ cfs). Historic flood flow 

patterns established 100+ years ago would 

be largely preserved. The ditch and the dikes

would require initial rehabilitation and 

periodic maintenance to continue the flood 

protection. While providing the greatest 

flood protection of any of the alternatives at

low to moderate flows, this alternative 

would provide an increased risk of greater

periodic flood damage to structures below

the North Ditch and the South Channel dikes 

were the ditches and dikes to be

overwhelmed in a heavy flood event.

Impacts of Alternative D 

Wetlands—All surface flows would be 

concentrated in the ephemeral South 

Channel stream, which was the natural 

surface flow condition prior to the U.S. Army 

ditch and dike system. The function of the 

wetlands associated with this stream would 

be largely preserved. Some disturbance 

would occur during minor rehabilitation of 

this channel and during periodic 

maintenance after flooding events. Wetlands 

associated along the South Channel

ephemeral stream would be periodically 

disrupted by flooding events (a normal

condition), but function naturally in all 

storm flow events. Created wetlands 

associated with the currently 

dysfunctional North Ditch and the South 

Channel dike system would continue to 

become drier as their water conveyance 

function ceases in all but moderate to 

high flow storm events. 

Floodplain/Flash Floods—All surface 

flows would be concentrated in the 

ephemeral South Channel stream, which 

was the natural surface flow drainage

condition prior to the establishment by 

the army of the ditch and dike system.

Both the North Ditch and the South 

Channel dike system would be blocked to

exclude diversions of South Channel 

flows, but would be allowed to remain as

historic elements of the landscape. The 

most pertinent consequence of directing 

flows toward the South Channel is a 

somewhat more frequent instance of

overbank flows. Buildings closest to the 

South Channel (headquarters/visitor 

center building and refurnished barracks) 

would be the most threatened by stormevent flooding of the 100-year or greater 

magnitude frequency, but all structures, 

some building contents, park staff, and 

visitors would continue to be threatened 

by flash flooding. 

This alternative disturbs the least area

while providing some flooding protection.

Buildings threatened by the failure of the 

North Ditch or South Channel dike system 

during medium to high flow events 

(greater than the 100-year event) would 

gain some protection. This allows for the 

preservation of the appearance, but not 

the function, of an approximately 100+-

year-old feature of the fort. 

There would be some unquantified but 

minor reduction in historic groundwater 

hydrology along the North Ditch and the 

South Channel dike system. During low to 

moderate flood flow conditions there 

68
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

would be a minor increase in flow along the 

South Channel stream, possibly affecting 

culverts, channels, and residential areas

outside of the park boundary. This would 

require some hydraulic analysis. It could also

require permitting by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Section 404, Clean Water Act). 

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (8/17/99), endangered species 

listed in Jeff Davis County, Texas, that

have confirmed sightings are: 

● American peregrine falcon (Falco

peregrinus anatum) 

● Black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapillus) 

● Least tern (Sterna antillarum) Wildlife and Threatened and 

Endangered Species ● Northern aplomado falcon (Falco

femoralis septentrionalis) 

The Davis Mountains have abundant wildlife. 

Since the natural western boundary of Fort 

Davis NHS is shared with the Davis 

Mountains State Park, the potential for a 

large variety of fauna exists. Two species of 

deer—white-tailed (Odocoileus virginianus) 

and mule (Odocoileus heminonus)—are 

common. The collared peccary (Pecari

tajacu), commonly known as javelina, is

prevalent. The coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat

(Felis rufus), mountain lion (Felis concolor),

pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), gray fox

(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), desert cottontail 

(Sylvilagus saudubonii), eastern cottontail 

(Sylvilagus floridanus), blacktail jackrabbit 

(Lepus californicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), 

ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), and the

common skunk (Mephitis mephitis) also 

make the area their habitat. Black bear (Ursus

americanus) were present historically and are 

sighted today on rare occasions in the Davis

Mountains. 

● Southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii extimus) 

● Comanche Springs pupfish (Cyrinodon

elegans) 

● Pecos gambusia (Gambusia nobilis)

● Little Aguja pondweed (Potamogeton 

clystocarpus) 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also

listed several species of concern. 

According to park natural resource staff, 

there are no known threatened or

endangered species in the park. 

Impacts of the No-Action 

Alternative—Alternative A 

Current visitor use patterns do not affect 

wildlife habitats within the park. 

Impacts of the Action Alternatives 

(B, C, and D) 

Visitor use patterns would not affect 

wildlife habitats within the park. No

wildlife habitat would be lost. 

Smaller mammals, such as the ground 

squirrel (Sperophilus mexicanus), rock squirrel 

(Spermophilus variegatus), pocket gopher 

(Thomomys bottae), deer mouse 

(Peromuscus maniculatus), and house mouse 

(Mus Musculus), as well as two species of 

bats—Mexican free-tailed (Tadarida 

brasiliensis) and Pallid (Antrozous pallidus)—

are common in the park. Birds most

commonly found at the fort are the barn and 

cliff swallow (Hirondo rustica and 

pyrrhonota), flycatcher (Muscicapidae), rock 

wren (Salpinctes obsoletus), turkey vulture 

(Cathartes avra), and red tail hawk (Buteo 

jamaicensis). A variety of reptiles and 

amphibians are also found at the fort.

Conclusion—None of the alternatives 

considered would have any significant 

immediate or cumulative impact on

wildlife or threatened and endangered

species.

Air Quality 

The park is within a Class II airshed. While 

visibility is usually clear, some serious

concerns have been expressed about the 

air quality of the region. 

Existing Sources of Pollution—

Automobiles are one source of air 

69
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

pollution. Traffic on roads produces an 

unknown quantity of pollutants, which may 

contribute to haze. Both inside and outside 

the park, dust is a problem where gravel 

roads and parking areas are heavily used. 

Impacts of All Alternatives 

Air quality would continue to be monitored 

and corrective actions taken within the 

park’s jurisdiction, to maintain the Class II

Airshed. 

Conclusion—None of the alternatives 

considered would have any significant 

immediate or cumulative impact to the air 

and visual quality of the park.

Noise 

Noise conditions vary from almost absolute

solitude available in the western portions of 

the park to the military sounds heard on the 

parade ground to the sounds of bus motors

in the parking area. 

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

Noise would continue to be managed as it

has been in the past. 

Impacts of Alternatives B and C 

Alternatives B and C would slightly decrease 

(and thus positively affect) the amount of 

noise in the park by managing parking area

congestion. 

Conclusion—Neither of these alternatives

would cause any significant immediate or 

cumulative noise impact that would affect 

visitor experience. 

Impacts of Alternative D 

Alternative D would slightly increase the 

amount of noise in certain developed areas 

by providing additional parking. As scope

and areas for actions allowed under this plan

are developed, further environmental review

and analysis would be needed. 

Conclusion—This alternative would not 

cause any significant immediate or 

cumulative noise impact that would affect 

visitor experience. 

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS 

OF COMMUNITIES 

Affected Environment

Fort Davis is approximately 160–180 miles 

southwest of Odessa-Midland, Texas, and 

200 miles southeast of El Paso, Texas. A 

range of services (including lodging, gas,

and food) can be found in the adjacent 

town of Fort Davis, a small, 

unincorporated, community of 

approximately 1,200 people. There is no 

zoning to govern the appearance or uses

of the town. 

The exact dollar amount of increases

cannot be predicted because of the 

general nature of this plan. We can

estimate the effect of future possible

actions, however, using information from 

the Money Generation Model (1990).

These estimates are shown for the

impacts of alternatives below. 

The existing budget for the park provides

income to the local economy. Total

combined sales from park operating 

expenditures are about $2.8 million 

annually. Total increased tax revenue 

gained from park-related activities is

about $.23 million annually. Operations 

and use of the park result in 

approximately 85 jobs for the local

community. 

For every 1,000 additional visits, 

approximately $23,000 in combined sales 

is added to the local economy along with 

$2,000 in increased tax revenue. One 

additional job is also created. For every 

$100,000 expended by the park, 

approximately $160,000 in combined 

sales is added to the local economy along 

with $13,000 in increased tax revenue. 

Five additional jobs are also created.

70
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative In the long term, increases in the park’s 

operational budget of $106,000 would 

create a benefit to the economy of 

$169,000 in total combined sales and 

approximately $14,000 in tax revenue and 

would create 5 jobs in the local economy.

Upon implementation of Phase 2, an 

additional increase in the park’s

operational budget of $66,000 would 

create an additional benefit to the

economy of $106,000 in total combined 

sales and approximately $9,000 in tax 

revenue and would create 3 jobs in the 

local economy. 

There would be no additional contribution to

the local economy from this alternative. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

This alternative would provide a slight shortterm increase to the local economy. There 

are two types of estimated increases: shortterm (from capital investment) and long-term 

(from an increase in the annual operating 

budget). 

In the short term, it is estimated that an 

expenditure of about $.34 million would 

create a one-time benefit to the economy.

The benefits would be an increase of $.53 

million in total combined sales,

approximately $44,000 in tax revenue, and 

approximately 16 additional jobs. This would 

not necessarily occur in the local economy. 

Conclusion—Alternative C would 

provide a beneficial increase to the

socioeconomics of the area. Upon 

implementation of Phase 2, there would 

be an additional minor beneficial increase 

to the socioeconomics of the area. 

In the long term, there would be no

additional contribution to the economy. Impacts of Alternative D 

This alternative would provide the most 

short-term increase in economic 

contributions to the local community. 

Conclusion—Alternative B would provide a 

slight beneficial increase to the 

socioeconomics of the area. 

In the short term, it is estimated that an 

expenditure of about $2.4 million would 

create a one-time benefit to the economy.

The benefits would be an increase of $3.7 

million in total combined sales,

approximately $312,000 in tax revenue, 

and approximately 114 additional jobs. 

This would not necessarily occur in the 

local economy. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

The proposal would provide a short-term 

increase in the economic contribution to the 

local community. 

In the short term, it is estimated that an 

expenditure of about $.79 million would 

create a one-time benefit to the economy.

The benefits would be an increase of $1.2 

million in total combined sales,

approximately $102,000 in tax revenue, and 

approximately 37 additional jobs. This would 

not necessarily occur in the local economy.

Upon implementation of Phase 2, it is 

estimated that an expenditure of an 

additional $1.4 million would create an

additional one-time benefit of $2.4 million in 

total combined sales, $208,000 in tax 

revenue, and 75 jobs for the life of the 

projects. 

In the long term, increases in the park’s 

operational budget of $172,000 would 

create a benefit to the economy of 

$275,000 in total combined sales and 

approximately $23,000 in tax revenue and 

would create 8 jobs in the local economy. 

Conclusion—Alternative D would 

provide a beneficial increase to the

socioeconomics of the area. 

71
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

● A fire suppression system in the restored 

enlisted men’s barracks, which now 

houses the administrative offices, visitor 

center, museum, auditorium and 

curatorial office, and storage space. 

ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

Affected Environment

Some of the private parcels of land adjacent 

to the park are used for businesses and 

residential purposes. Specific impacts and 

values associated with land protection

concerns are the preservation of historic 

resources and the setting in which they 

occur. Management actions under action 

alternatives seek to preserve the viewshed,

the ambience, and the feeling of openness 

that encompass the fort and contribute to a

quality experience for visitors. 

● The painting of trim on several buildings 

along officers’ row. 

● New cedar roofs for two restored 

barracks. 

● Improved accessibility between buildings. 

● Added handicapped facilities in rest 

rooms. 

● New air conditioning/heating units for 

several areas. 

The maintenance facility is located at the 

park entrance and is partially screened by

young trees. The trees help shield the

maintenance complex and government 

quarters from visitors’ view. 

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

be no impacts on adjacent landowners. 

The park manages 250 historic buildings,

foundations, and sites. Five historic

buildings have been restored and 

refurnished, and 21 buildings are roofed. 

Park facilities include a visitor center, 

administrative office complex, 

maintenance area, 3 residences, 2 water 

(well) systems for irrigation and fire 

protection purposes, picnic area, 2 sewer 

systems, 2 cesspools, 67 acres of mowed 

grounds with more than 160 trees, 3 

miles of boundary fence, 4 miles of selfguided trails, and 6.1 miles of roads.

Impacts of Alternatives B and C 

Adjacent landowners would be encouraged 

to manage their land in ways that would be 

compatible with park values. Upon Phase 2 

implementation, there would be a positive 

benefit of increased community connection 

associated with the relocation of the

administrative offices outside the park.

Impacts of Alternative D 

Adjacent landowners would be encouraged 

to manage their land in ways that would be 

compatible with park values. There would be

a positive benefit of increased community 

connection associated with the relocation of 

administrative offices outside the park. 

Existing Conditions and Use of Park 

Facilities—The park visitor center, 

museum, auditorium, administrative 

offices, and curatorial storage are housed 

in a historic military barracks. The interior 

floor area for this structure is 6,210

square feet and is in good condition. The 

structure is inadequate in size to

accommodate the needs of 

administration, interpretation, and 

curatorial work. 

FACILITIES/OPERATIONAL

EFFICIENCY 

Affected Environment

For the most part, the current facilities at 

Fort Davis NHS are in good condition. In

recent years, special funding for maintenance 

projects has resulted in the upgrading of 

several buildings to include: 

The maintenance facility is enclosed

within a masonry wall and consists of a 

storage building for flammable products,

a utility shed, a maintenance shop, a 

utility yard, and one small, self-contained 

72
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

storage shed. The enclosed interior floor area

is approximately 1,500 square feet. The 

structures are in fair condition, but are

inadequate for their intended uses. Several 

OSHA and Life, Health, Safety violations exist 

that are not correctable without additional

facilities and funding. 

Utilities within the park include one

50,000-gallon water storage tank, 13,800 

linear feet of water line, 2 water wells,

and 4 septic systems (2 tanks w/leach field 

and 2 cesspools). Two of the four septic 

systems are in fair condition, and the two 

cesspools are considered to be in poor

condition. The cesspools should be 

replaced when funding is available. The 

water lines are in fair condition, but need 

to be upgraded to provide sufficient

volume for fire protection and for routine 

irrigation. 

Park roads consist of 1.4 miles of bituminous

paved surface and 4.7 miles of unpaved 

service roads. Paved surfaces are in good 

condition, and unpaved surfaces are in fair 

condition. The paved roads provide access 

into the park, the visitor parking area, and 

the housing and maintenance areas. All 

unpaved surfaces provide access to the 

historic buildings, ruins, trails, and utilities. 

Other park facilities include 1 bunkhouse, 

3 wooden bridges, 104 informational 

signs, 1 flagpole, 3 trailer sites with partial 

concrete pads, 2 weather stations, and an 

employee gravel, 15-car unpaved parking 

area between the maintenance and 

residential area. 

Park housing is in good condition. The 

residence is a triplex building, containing 

three residences with attached one-car

garages and detached exterior storage sheds.

Each residence has approximately 1,100 

square feet of interior floor area. The storage 

shed has 135 square feet of interior floor 

area. 

Three bridges provide access across

historic ditches and into the historic core 

area. One bridge, located at the visitor

parking area, is for pedestrian access only 

and is in good condition. The other two 

wooden bridges provide pedestrian and 

vehicular access across ditches. These two

bridges are in fair condition but will

require structural repair to the tread 

surfaces. 

There is inconsistency within the park as to

the number of recorded historic buildings, 

ruins, and sites. The List of Classified 

Structures includes 110 structures on the 

inventory. The park inventory lists over 250 

structures and ruins and 8 known 

archeological sites. The bunkhouse is located at the western 

end of hospital canyon. It is an open 

structure with no divided rooms except 

for rest room facilities. It has gas utilities 

and water only. The structure is in fair

condition. It is used intermittently in the 

summer months for volunteers and 

researchers. 

Of the 110 buildings recorded, there are five 

restored and refurnished historic structures. 

Existing conditions of historic

buildings/ruins/sites are as follows: 

● Restored and furnished historic structures: 4 

Good, 1 Fair (5) 

● Partially restored historic structures: 1 Good, 

2 Fair (3) 

The three trailer pads are used for longterm volunteers and are in good 

condition. The sites have electric, sewer, 

water, cable, and telephone service 

hookups. 

● Ruins w/Roofs: 9 Good, 9 Fair (18) 

● Ruins, exposed: 51 Good, 62 Fair, 4 Poor 

(117) 

● Unexcavated Ruins: Condition Unknown (42) All other facilities, including signs, 

flagpole, weather stations, and parking 

areas, are in good to fair condition. 

● Archaeological Sites: 3 Good, 4 Fair, 1 Poor 

(8) 

73
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

In some areas of Fort Davis NHS access for 

visitors with disabilities is adequate. An

electric cart is available to visitors upon

request. Three furnished buildings currently 

are accessible to visitors with disabilities, and 

the remaining buildings are scheduled for 

improved access. Two handicap spaces are 

reserved in the parking lot. The surfaces of 

many visitor-use paths are uneven and 

difficult for wheelchair use. 

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative—

Alternative A 

The effects of the no-action alternative 

would be a continuation of the present 

situation. The current visitor center is too 

small to meet the needs of increasing 

visitation. Space is not available to conduct 

environmental education programs. The 

existing water distribution system is 

inadequate to meet fire suppression needs. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

Impacts on operational efficiency would 

slightly increase with an improved water 

system and equipment to meet fire

protection needs. Space would be increased 

for visitor orientation and environmental 

education. There would be an increase of 

personal services and outreach education 

programs for visitors.

Impacts of Alternative C 

Impacts on operational efficiency would 

slightly increase with an improved water 

system and equipment to meet fire

protection needs. Space would be increased 

for visitor orientation and environmental 

education. There would be an increase of 

personal services and outreach education 

programs for visitors.

Impacts of Phase 2 implementation are 

documented in Alternative D. 

Impacts of Alternative D 

The construction of new facilities outside the 

existing boundary would result in the 

consolidation of all administrative functions.

Considerable savings would be realized in 

terms of human and fiscal resources. 

Historic structures would be used more

appropriately. New maintenance facilities

would improve views into the park from 

State Highways 17 and 118. Significant 

savings would be realized by having

adequate storage facilities to safeguard 

equipment, supplies, materials, and the 

museum collection. 

Visitors would be better served with

facilities large enough to meet their needs 

through space improvements in existing 

visitor facilities. An improved water

distribution system would enhance 

employee and visitor safety by ensuring a

dependable supply for fire suppression. 

SHORT-TERM AND LONGTERM EFFECTS OF THE

PROPOSAL 

Compared with a land base of 473.87 

acres, land-use consumption would 

decrease by about .2 acres with the 

remodeling of the existing visitor facilities. 

The proposal would improve long-term 

management, provide better protection

to the environment, and enhance visitor 

experience. 

Interpretation and visitor orientation 

would be more effective. Also, managers 

would be more efficient and effective in 

carrying out long-term management 

goals through the use of broadly defined 

prescriptions for land management

contained in the proposal. 

There would be minor benefits to the 

economy. Short term, from the 

expenditure of about $.8 million, a onetime benefit of $1.2 million in total 

combined sales, $102,000 in tax revenue, 

and 37 jobs would result for the life of the 

projects. Long term, from the expenditure 

of about $.1 million for additional staff, an 

annual benefit of $169,000 in total 

combined sales, $14,000 in tax revenue, 

74
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

75

and 5 jobs would result. If Phase 2 were

implemented, additional benefits would 

accrue to the economy. All the benefits

would not necessarily occur in the local 

economy.

IRREVERSIBLE AND 

IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS 

OF RESOURCES RELATED TO

THE PROPOSAL 

Some archeological sites are subject to

irreversible damage (because of vandalism 

and loss of contextual relationships between 

objects) that compromises these sites. When

objects are removed from a site or moved 

within a site, this irreversible damage affects 

the potential for future archeological

research to fully derive all scientific 

knowledge from that particular site. 

Additional visitation would tend to increase 

the potential for more damage occurring to 

archeological sites and the loss of artifacts.

This could occur no matter what protective 

measures are put in place or what messages

are provided through interpretation and 

education. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE 

PROPOSAL 

The impact analysis of the proposed GMP 

looks at all actions in the past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future that would 

affect Fort Davis NHS and its visitors. 

Cumulative effects would be insignificant 

and no elements of precedence were

identified by any of the alternatives

considered. 

The NPS proposal for parking 

improvements and dike modifications for 

protecting historic resources from flash 

floods would disrupt less than 1 acre of 

previously disturbed area. Remodeling of 

the quarters would reduce impacts on the 

historic resource and increase operational 

efficiency. 

Wetlands—There would be minor 

disruptions to natural stream corridor

wetlands during periodic maintenance 

and minor short-term disturbance of 

created wetlands during periodic 

maintenance after flooding. Existing 

natural and created wetlands on site 

would be largely preserved as they have 

been for approximately 100 years. None 

of these actions represents a significant 

cumulative impact upon wetlands on the 

Fort Davis site or in the area outside of

the park. 

Floodplains/Flash Floods—Through 

the rehabilitation of the North Ditch and 

the South Channel dike system and the 

regular maintenance of the South 

Channel, there would be a 

reestablishment of flood flow regimes as 

they have operated since the late 1800s. 

No cumulative change would be affected 

on site through this reestablishment of

historic flood flows, and the off-site 

cumulative change to floodplain or flash 

flooding would be insignificant, since the 

flows would be nearly identical to those 

experienced for approximately 100 years.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

TABLE 4 — COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C—NPS Proposal Alt. D

Visitor Experience 

+ No change on visitor 

experience. 

+ Same as Alternative C, but 

less emphasis on increased 

programs. 

+ Focuses on improving 

visitor services/access to 

information via outreach/park 

programs. 

+ No change in visitor 

flow/use patterns.

+Improvements in parking; 

increase capacity. 

+ Broad range of

interpretation and orientation 

at visitor center. 

+ Visitation exceeds 

125,000/transportation study

conductedóevaluating 

alternative means of 

accessing the fort to maintain 

a quality visitor 

experience/minimize impact 

of larger vehicles on the 

historic scene. 

+ Quality of stay to improveó

through more and better 

programs. 

+ With the implementation of 

Phase 2, more emphasis on 

facility and space

improvements to 

accommodate visitors and 

improve the historic scene. 

+ Same as Alternative C, but 

more emphasis on facility

and space improvements to 

accommodate visitors and 

improve the historic scene. 

+ No effect on known sites--

locations well documented/ 

surveyed. 

+ No effect on known sites: 

Same as Alternative A. 

+ No effect on known sites: 

Same as Alternative A. 

+ No effect on known sites: 

Same as Alternative A. 

+ Ground-disturbing activity

monitored to mitigate any 

impacts. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

+ Sites near visitor-use 

areasóvulnerable to surface 

damageómonitor to protect. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

Archeological Resources 

+ Periodic increased water 

flows may erode areas in the 

alluvial floodplainóa 

possible impact on 

archeological resources. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

+ Historic landscape 

managed as historic 

landscape resource. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

+ Any modifications will not 

reduce area integrity.

+ Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. + Changes in parking area 

carefully done to maintain 

integrity of landscape 

areas/features. 

Cultural Landscape and 

Historic Resources 

+ No adverse effect on this 

landscape. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

76
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

TABLE 4 — COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C—NPS Proposal Alt. D

+ Pending completion of CLI 

and CLR, 

integrity/principles/materials 

maintained. 

+ Pending completion of CLI 

and CLR, 

integrity/principles/materials 

maintained. Minimize modern 

intrusions on viewsheds. 

Retain the less-developed, 

more historic views from the 

historic landscape within the 

park. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ No changes to 

historic/scenic vistas from 

within the park. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Phase 1: Same as 

Alternative A. 

+ With Phase 2 

implementation, relocation of 

maintenance facility,

employee housing, Bally

bldg. to outside park would 

improve vistas/views of fort 

from State Highways 17 and 

118. 

+Same as Alternative C, 

Phase 2. 

+ With Phase 2 

implementation, change 

would provide more 

historically accurate/attractive 

approach to fort without 

adversely impacting historic 

structures/cultural landscape. 

+Same as Alternative C, 

Phase 2. 

+ Historic structures—

buildings and facilities open 

to the public not improvedó

some remain inaccessible to 

mobility impaired. 

+ Historic structures—

improvements to make post 

hospital accessible to 

mobility-impaired visitors. 

+ Historic structures—

improvements to make post 

hospital and other historic 

buildings accessible to 

mobility-impaired visitors. 

+ Same as Alternative C, 

Phase 2. 

+ Installation of fire 

suppression equipment 

would not adversely affect 

historic resourcesó will add 

to their protection. 

+ Installation of fire 

suppression equipment 

would not adversely affect 

historic resourcesówill add 

to their protection. 

+Same as Alternative C, 

Phase 2. 

+ North Ditch reconstructed 

for flood controlócould result 

in an adverse effect to the 

historic fabric. Mitigation--

recording reduces impact to 

no adverse effect. 

+North Ditch/South Channel 

reconstructed for flood 

controlócould result in 

adverse effect to historic 

fabric. Mitigation--recording 

reduces impact to no adverse 

effect. 

+South Channel 

reconstructed for flood 

control-could result in 

adverse affect to historic 

fabric. Mitigation-recording 

reduces impact to no adverse 

effect. 

+ Use of buildings/structures 

contribute to their long-term 

preservation. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Changes will be compatible 

with historic 

function/consistent with the 

preservation of historic fabric. 

+ Same as Alternative B. +Same as Alternative B. 

+ Partial restoration and 

refurnishing of post hospital 

enhances visitor experience. 

+ Partial restoration and 

refurnishing of post hospital 

enhances visitor experience. 

+ Partial restoration and 

refurnishing of post hospital 

enhances visitor experience. 

Cultural Landscape and Historic Resources 

+ With Phase 2 

implementation, removal of 

maintenance building, 

employee complexes, and 

+ Same as Alternative C, 

Phase 2. 

77
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

TABLE 4 — COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C—NPS Proposal Alt. D

the curatorial Bally building 

from the historic scene would 

provide uses more

historically

compatible/improve viewing 

from the highway. 

+ With Phase 2 

implementation, 

administrative offices outside 

park/reallocation of space to 

historic functions helps 

reduce presence of 

nonhistoric functions/features 

in historic structures. 

+ Same as Alternative C, 

Phase 2. 

Cultural Landscape and 

Historic Resources 

+ No physical impacts to 

known ethnographic 

resources are anticipated. 

+Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. +Same as Alternative A. 

+ Existing measures to 

minimize impact to soils and 

vegetation to continue. 

+ Minor soil/vegetation 

alterations + potentialósoil 

compaction/soil erosion/loss 

of soil permeability/changes 

in soil chemistry/loss in soil

insulation. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Trampling gradually

diminishes 

vegetation/increases soil 

exposure to wind, rain, and 

hail. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

Mitigationó

Educational/interpretive 

programming teaching 

visitors the importance of 

staying on trails. Activities 

geared toward minimum 

impact. 

Mitigationó

Same as Alternative B. 

Mitigationó 

Same as Alternative B. 

. 

+Modifications to soil and 

topography to reduce soil 

compaction around heavily

used facilities. 

+Same as Alternative B. +Same as Alternative B. 

+ Short termótemporarily

rapid erosion. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as alternative B. 

+Long termósoil protected 

and preserved. 

+Same as Alternative B. +Same as Alternative B. 

+Designed and landscaped 

areas consistent with the

Cultural Landscape Report 

(CLR). 

+Same as Alternative B. +Same as Alternative B. 

+Topsoil replacement, when

needed. 

+Same as Alternative B. +Same as Alternative B. 

+Monitoring to mitigate 

impacts. 

+Same as Alternative B. +Same as Alternative B. 

Soils/Vegetation 

+ Conclusionóno significant 

immediate or cumulative 

impact to soils/vegetation. 

+ ConclusionóSame as 

Alternative B. 

+ ConclusionóSame as 

Alternative B. 

78
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

TABLE 4 — COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C—NPS Proposal Alt. D

+ Wetlandsóperiodically

disrupted by flooding events 

(a normal condition). 

+ Wetlandsóportions of flood 

flows intercepted by a 

rehabilitated North Ditch.

+ Wetlandsóportions of flood 

flows intercepted by a 

rehabilitated North Ditch and 

South Channel dike system.

+ Wetlandsóportions of flood 

flows intercepted by a 

rehabilitated South Channel.

+Created wetlands 

maintained in functionó

periodically disrupted for 

maintenance. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Function of the wetlands 

associated with the South 

Channel would be largely

preserved. 

+Minor disruption to the 

created wetlands during the 

rehabilitation of the North 

Ditch. 

+Minor disruption to the 

created wetlands during the 

rehabilitation. 

+ Some disturbance during 

minor rehabilitation of South 

Channel. 

+ Some disruption during 

periodic maintenance after 

flooding events. 

+South wetland channel 

ephemeral streamó

periodically disrupted by

flooding events--functioning 

naturally in all storm flow

events. 

+Same as Alternative B. +Same as Alternative B. 

+ Created wetlands continue 

to become drier. 

+ Created South Channel 

dike wetland system 

becomes drier. 

+Created wetlands continue 

to become drier.

+ Created North Ditch and 

South Channel dike wetland 

system becomes drier.

+ Floodplain/flash floodsó

insufficient safeguards from 

flash flooding. 

+ Floodplain/flash floodsó

minor protective 

improvements for floodingó

optimize flow in North Ditch. 

+ Floodplain/flash floodsó

minor protective 

improvements for floodingó

optimize flow in North Ditch 

and South Channel system. 

+ Floodplain/flash floodsó

both the North Ditch and the 

South Channel dike system 

blocked to exclude diversions 

of South Channel flows, but 

allowed to remain as historic 

elements of the landscape. 

+Low to moderate flows 

conveyed around the fort 

grounds--but large magnitude 

runoff events, such as the 

100-year flood or greater, will 

likely exceed the capacity of 

the existing system. 

+Same as Alternative B. + Somewhat more frequent 

instance of overbank flows 

for South Channel. 

+ Buildings closest to South 

Channel most threatened by

flash flooding. 

+ Buildings closest to the 

South Channel most 

threatened by flooding of the 

100-year or greater 

magnitude frequency.

+ Same as Alternative B. +Same as Alternative B 

+Dysfunctional North Ditch 

and South Channel dike 

system provides no 

protection from flooding. 

+ All structures, some 

building contents, park staff, 

and visitors would continue to 

be threatened by flash 

flooding. 

+Same as Alternative B. + Disturbs least new or 

existing landscape while 

providing some flooding 

protection. 

+ Overbank flows are as 

likely as sheet flows and will 

not attain substantial depth. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Buildings threatened by

failure of North Ditch / South 

Channel dike system during 

medium to high flow gain 

some protection.

Wetlands, Floodplains, and Water Resources

+ Allows for preservation of 

the appearance, but not the 

function of created wetlands. 

79
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

TABLE 4 — COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C—NPS Proposal Alt. D

+ Some minor reduction in 

historic groundwater 

hydrology along dike system. 

+ During low to moderate 

flood flowsóminor increase 

in flow along the South 

Channel affecting culverts, 

channels, and residential 

areas outside of the park 

boundary. 

+ Maximum Estimated Flood 

could produce dangerous 

conditions. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+Some reduced flood flow in 

the South Channel. 

+Same as Alternative B. + Requires some hydraulic 

analysis/possible permitting 

by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Section 404, 

Clean Water Act). 

+Historic flood flow patterns 

established 100+ years ago 

preserved. 

+Same as Alternative B. 

+Ditch would require initial 

rehabilitation and periodic 

maintenance. 

+Same as Alternative B. 

Wetlands, Floodplains, and Water Resources 

+Increased risk of greater

periodic flood damage to 

structures below the North 

Ditch when the ditch is 

overwhelmed in a heavy

flood event. 

+ Greatest flood protection of 

any of the alternatives at low

to moderate flowsó

increased risk of greater 

periodic flood damage to 

structures below North Ditch 

and South Channel dikes 

when overwhelmed in a 

heavy flood event. 

+ Locations/seasons 

structured to minimize any

effect on wildlife. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

+ No wildlife habitat lost. + Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

+ No effect on birds/wildlife. + Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. +Same as Alternative A. 

Wildlife & Threatened 

&Endangered Species 

+ Conclusionóno significant 

immediate or cumulative 

impact on wildlife or 

threatened and endangered

species.

+ ConclusionóSame as 

Alternative B. 

+ ConclusionóSame as 

Alternative B. 

+ Existing pollution from 

automobiles, traffic, dust 

continues. 

+ Air quality monitoredó

corrective actions taken to 

maintain Class II Airshed.

+ Same as alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

Air Quality

+ Conclusion--no significant 

immediate or cumulative 

impact to the air and visual 

quality.

+ Conclusion—Same as 

Alternative B. 

+ Conclusion—Same as 

Alternative B. 

Noise 

+ Noise will continue to be 

managed. 

+ Potential for slight 

decrease in negative noise 

through managing parking 

area congestion. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Potential for slight increase 

in noise in certain developed 

areas by providing additional 

parking. 

80
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

TABLE 4 — COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C—NPS Proposal Alt. D

+Further environmental 

review and analysis needed 

prior to site design. 

Noise 

+ Conclusionóno significant 

immediate or cumulative 

noise impact affecting visitor 

experience of the park. 

+ ConclusionóSame as 

Alternative B. 

+ ConclusionóSame as 

Alternative B. 

+ Continues to provide 

income to local economy.

+ Increases to local economy 

above Alternative Aó

estimate effect of future 

possible actions.

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Total combined sales from 

park operating expenditures--

about $2.8 million annually. 

+ Short-termóexpenditure of 

about $348,000 for projects. 

+ Short-termóexpenditure of 

about $778,500 for projects.

Phase 2: expenditure of 

about $1.4 million for 

projects. 

+ Short-termóexpenditure of 

about $2.4 million for 

projects. 

+ Total increased tax 

revenue being gained from 

park-related activities is 

about $.23 million annually. 

+ Operations and use of the 

park results in about 85 jobs 

for the local community. 

+ One-time benefit of $.53 

million in total combined 

sales, $44,000 in tax 

revenue, 16 jobs for the life 

of the projects. 

+ One-time benefit of $1.2 

million in total combined 

sales, $102,000 in tax 

revenue, 37 jobs for the life 

of the projects. Phase 2: onetime benefit of $2.4 million in 

total combined sales, 

$208,000 in tax revenue, 75 

jobs for the life of the 

projects. 

+ One-time benefit of $3.7 

million in total combined 

sales, $312,000 in tax 

revenue, 114 jobs for the life 

of the projects 

+Long termóincreases in the 

operational budget of 

$106,000. Phase 2: 

increases in the operational 

budget of an additional 

$66,000. 

+Long termóincreases in the 

operational budget of 

$172,000. 

+ Annual benefit of $169,000 

in total combined sales, 

$14,000 in tax revenue, 5 

jobs. Phase 2: additional 

annual benefit of $106,000 in 

total combined sales, $9,000 

in tax revenue, 3 jobs. 

+ Annual benefit of $275,000 

in total combined sales, 

$23,000 in tax revenue, 8 

jobs. 

Economic Contributions to Communities 

+Conclusionódoes not 

significantly impact the socioeconomics of the area. 

+ Conclusionóminor 

beneficial increase to the 

socioeconomics of the area.

+ Conclusionóbeneficial 

increase to the 

socioeconomics of the area, 

depending on phased 

implementation. Upon Phase 

2, there would be an 

additional minor beneficial 

increase to the 

socioeconomics of the area. 

+ Conclusionóbeneficial 

increase to the 

socioeconomics of the area. 

81
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

TABLE 4 — COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C—NPS Proposal Alt. D

+ Current management 

continues. 

+ Continue to encourage 

adjacent landowners to use 

their land in ways that 

complement park values.

+ Same as Alternative B. + Continue to encourage 

adjacent landowners to use 

their land in ways that 

complement park values. 

Adjacent 

Landowners 

+ Phase 2: increased 

connection to community

associated with the relocation 

of administrative offices 

outside park. 

+ Increased connection to 

community associated with 

the relocation of 

administrative offices outside 

park. 

+ Continuation of the current 

situation. 

+ Slight increase with an

improved water 

system/equipment to meet 

fire protection needs. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + New facility outside the 

existing boundaryó

consolidation of admin. 

functions. 

+ Considerable savings in 

human/fiscal resources. 

+ Visitor center too small to 

meet increasing visitation. 

+ Increased space for 

orientation/environmental 

education. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Historic structures used 

more appropriately. 

+ Space not available to 

conduct environmental 

education programs. 

+ Greater use of personal 

services/outreach education 

to serve visitors.

+ Same as Alternative B. +Same as Alternative B. 

+ Buildings do not meet 

National Electric Code 

Standards (NEC).

+ Facilities would be updated 

to meet code. 

+ Same as Alternative B. +Same as Alternative B. 

+ Maintenance facility does 

not meet OSHA or CFR 

standards. 

+ Maintenance building 

brought up to maintenance 

standards. 

+ Same as Alternative B. 

+ Water system/equipment 

inadequate to meet fire 

protection needs.

+ Improved water 

system/equipment to meet 

fire protection needs.

+Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Phase 2:

Relocation/elimination of 

maintenance, employee 

housing, and ìBallyî building, 

improves views into the park 

from State Highways 17 and 

118. 

+ Same as Alternative C, 

Phase 2. 

+ Phase 2: Adequate storage 

facilities to safeguard 

equipment, supplies, 

materials, and museum 

collections. 

+ Same as Alternative C, 

Phase 2. 

Facilities/Operational Efficiencies 

+ Phase 2: Visitors more 

adequately served with 

facilities large enough to 

meet needs. 

+ Same as Alternative C, 

Phase 2. 

82
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION / 

COORDINATION 

HISTORY OF PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT/AGENCIES 

CONSULTED 

As described in the Purpose and Need, 

Planning Process section, scoping was

conducted twice for the Fort Davis NHS GMP. 

The notice of intent to publish an

environmental impact statement was

published in the Federal Register on 

November 19, 1998. This draft environmental 

impact statement was be available for public 

review for a minimum of 60 days. 

The following agencies were contacted 

during preparation of the plan: 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Texas State Historic Preservation Office 

PLANNING TEAM 

Intermountain Support Office

Denver

Christopher Marvel, team captain/lead 

planner, Intermountain SO-Denver—BLA/BS, 

NYS College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry/Syracuse University, 22 years 

government (10 years USFS, 12 years NPS). 

Responsible for general

coordination/document preparation, purpose 

and need, alternatives, tables, contract

coordination, environmental consequences, 

and economic contributions. 

John Reber, physical scientist, air and water 

resource coordinator for Intermountain 

Support Office, National Park Service. B.S. 

biology, M.S. biology/environmental

monitoring, University of Hartford. Eight 

years NPS, including 7 years resource

planning. Nine years technical services 

director and quality assurance manager in 

private concrete and construction materials 

firms. Seven years environmental analyst in 

private engineering and environmental 

consulting firm. Responsible for statement of 

findings and write-up on wetlands and

flooding issues throughout the document.

Lori Kinser, visual information specialist, 

Intermountain SO-Denver—24 years as a 

primary provider of graphic support.

Responsible for the production of graphics. 

Fort Davis National Historic Site

Jerry R. Yarbrough, superintendent, Fort 

Davis National Historic Site—history major,

New Mexico State University, 30 years

government service (28 NPS). Responsible for 

overall coordination and public contact. 

Elaine Harmon, curator, Fort Davis National 

Historic Site—B.A., Hunter College, New York 

and M.A., Sul Ross University in the History of 

Art, 20 years National Park Service. 

Responsible for curatorial information.

Regina Heiner, administrative officer, 18 years 

experience in National Park Service, including 

7 years as facility manager at Fort Davis NHS. 

Responsible for information on park facilities. 

Donna Gerstle Smith, park ranger, Fort Davis 

National Historic Site—B.A. social sciences, 

Webster University, St. Louis, Missouri. M.A.

history, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, 

Texas. Eight years National Park Service. 

Master’s thesis on 19th-century army

medicine at Fort Davis; 7 years social studies

teacher Prude Ranch Environmental

Education Center; State of Texas Teaching 

Certification—social studies grades 6–12; 2 

years Peace Corps volunteer (Tonga, South 

Pacific); author 2 books, Gentle People—

History of Vava’u and Tonga Pictorial—

83
CONSULTATION/COORDINATION 

Tapestry of Pride. Responsible for information 

on outreach programs. 

Mark Adams, superintendent of McDonald

Observatory and board member, Friends of Fort 

Davis NHS 

Susanna J. Liddell, administrative clerk, Fort 

Davis National Historic Site, 21 years NPS. 

Responsible for payroll, travel, third-party 

drafts, fee accountability, all clerical duties. 

Responsible for mailing lists and tracking.

Malcolm “Bish” Tweedy, board member, Friends 

of Fort Davis NHS 

Curtis Tunnell, retired executive director of Texas 

Historical Commission 

Mary L. Williams, historian, Fort Davis Joe Duncan, president, Friends of Fort Davis NHS 

National Historic Site. B.A., Daemen College

(Buffalo, New York), M.A. history, University

of Connecticut. Thirty years NPS. Responsible

for document preparation—purpose and 

need, alternatives, tables, and environmental 

consequences. 

Jerry Johnson, board member, Friends of Fort 

Davis NHS 

Jan Smith, Fort Davis NHS volunteer 

Larry Smith, former board member, Friends of Fort 

Davis NHS, Fort Davis NHS volunteer 

Jeffrey Rust, Cultural Resource Manager, Fort

Davis National Historic Site - B.A. and M.A.,

Anthropology (Archaeology emphasis), 

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. One

year experience in National Park Service. Six 

years experience in cultural resource 

management / archaeology with private 

consulting firm. Master’s Thesis on 

archaeological investigations of 19th-century 

army post (Camp Floyd) in central Utah. 

Responsible for management of cultural 

resources, including historic preservation of 

Fort Davis structures, archaeology, and 

NHPA/Section 106 compliance. 

Sam Witt, board member, Friends of Fort Davis 

NHS 

Barbara Dirks, former board member, Friends of 

Fort Davis NHS 

Lucy Jacobson, Fort Davis Historical Society 

representative

Larry Wingert, former board member, Friends of 

Fort Davis NHS and former Fort Davis NHS 

volunteer 

George Grubb, justice of the peace, Jeff Davis 

County, former board member, Friends of Fort 

Davis NHS 

Beth Francell, Fort Davis NHS volunteer 

CONTRIBUTORS Larry Francell, board member, Friends of Fort 

Davis NHS, Fort Davis NHS volunteer 

Jill Cowley, historical landscape architect 

Delton Daugherty, superintendent, Region No. 1-

Linda Carlson, editor, Carlson Editing Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. 

Alpine Chamber of Commerce 

LIST OF RECIPIENTS Bob Dillard, editor, Mountain Dispatch, former

board member, Friends of Fort Davis NHS 

Douglas C. McChristian, historian, Intermountain 

Region Fort Davis Chamber of Commerce 

Clyde Heron, noted western artist, former board 

member, Friends of Fort Davis NHS 

William B. Gwaltney, Chief of Interpretation, Rocky 

Mountain National Park 

Eric Brunneman, archeologist, National Park Marfa Chamber of Commerce 

Service, Southeast Utah Group in Moab, Utah 

Peggy Robertson, county judge, Jeff Davis County 

Bob Gray, board member, Friends of Fort Davis 

NHS, and Fort Davis Historical Society 

representative

Bob Mallouf, director, Center for Big Bend Studies, 

Sul Ross State University 

84
CONSULTATION/COORDINATION 

85

Clay Miller, area rancher, Fort Davis Historical 

Society 

Alan Cox, superintendent, Chiricahua NM and Fort

Bowie NHS 

Jodie Miller, Jeff Davis Historical Commission 

Chairperson 

Neil Mangum, superintendent, Little Big Horn NM

Wayne Sheehan, professor of history, Sul Ross 

State University 

Ninth U.S. Cavalry on Parade, Fort Davis, Texas, cica 1875 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Alex, Thomas C., Donald W. Corrick and Carol 

Purchase. 1999. Archeological Assessment of 

Eight Prehistoric Sites at Fort Davis National

Historic Site, Texas. Science and Resource 

Management Division, Big Bend National 

Park. 

Jacobson, Lucy Miller, and Mildred Bloys 

Nored. 1993. Jeff Davis County, Texas. Fort 

Davis, Texas, Fort Davis Historical Society. 

Martin, Michael, hydrologist. 1999. Flood 

Hazard Assessment for Fort Davis National 

Historic Site, Texas. Water Operations Branch, 

Water Resources Division, National Park

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Blackstun, David. 1997. (**Not an official) 

Flood Mitigation Assessment of Alternatives 

for Fort Davis National Historic Site, (Draft 

Report). U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 6 pp. 

Myers, David K. 2000. Fort Davis National 

Historic Site, Texas: Cultural Landscape Study: 

Landscape History, Statement of Significance, 

Documentation Package. University of

Pennsylvania, Graduate Program in Historic 

Preservation.

Bruno, Joseph. 1990. (**Not an official) 

Recommended Storm Damage Repairs and 

Flood Prevention Improvements, Fort Davis 

National Historic Site. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service. 7 pp. National Park Service. 1993. NPS 93-03, 

Floodplain Management Guidelines. U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service. Special directive 93-3. 14 pp. 

Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. 

LaRoe. 1979. Classification of the Wetlands 

and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 pp. 

National Park Service. 1998. Director’s Order 

#77-1: Wetlands Protection. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, National Park Service. 4 pp. 

Crippen, J., and C. Bue, 1977. Maximum 

Floodflows in the Conterminous United 

States. U.S. Geological Survey. USGS-WSP 

1887. 

National Park Service. 1998. Procedural 

Manual #77-1: Wetlands Protection. U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service. 31 pp. 

Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland 

Inventory Map. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

National Park Service. 1999. Flood 

Hazard Assessment for Fort Davis 

National Historic Site, Draft Copy 6-17-

99. Water Operations Branch, U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service. 7 pp.

Greene, Jerome A. 1986. Historic Resource 

Study, Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas. 

U. S. Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service. 

Nelson, Dr. James T. 1981. The Historic 

Vegetative Aspect of Fort Davis National 

Historic Site, Texas. Range Animal Science 

Department, Sul Ross State University, Alpine,

Texas. 

Intermountain Cultural Resource Center 5, 

1996. Professional Paper No. 58, National 

Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

Ivy, James E. 1986. The Archeological Survey 

of Fort Davis and the Historical Base Map.

National Park Service, Southwest Regional 

Office. This document is listed as Appendix K

of Jerome A. Greene’s Historic Resource 

Study, Fort Davis National Historic Site. 

Office of the State Archeologist. 1993. The 

Indians of Texas and the Plants They Used.

Texas Historical Commission, Austin, Texas. 

87
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Schroeder and Massey, 1977. Technique for 

Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of 

Floods in Texas. U.S. Geological Survey WRI 

77-110, Water Supply Paper. 

Soulliere, Laura E., survey historian. 1983. 

Fort Davis National Historic Site Historic Scene 

Management Plan. National Park Service, 

Southwest Regional Office. 

Sutton, John M. 1986. Fort Davis National

Historic Site Historic Tree Management Plan.

Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas.

Texas Historical Commission. 1995. Texas

Archeology in the Classroom: A Booklet of 

Activity Ideas and Lesson Plans for Teachers.

Office of the State Archeologist, Texas 

Historical Commission, Austin, Texas.

Utley, Robert M. 1965. Fort Davis National 

Historic Site, Texas. Washington, D.C.: 

Government Printing Office. 

Welsh, Michael. 1996. A Special Place, A 

Sacred Trust: Preserving the Fort Davis Story. 

Administrative History, Fort Davis National 

Historic Site. 

Wooster, Robert. 1990. History of Fort Davis, 

Texas. Southwest Cultural Resources Center 

Professional Papers, Number 34, National 

Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

88
89

APPENDIX 1: LEGISLATION 
APPENDIX 1 

90 
APPENDIX 1 

91
APPENDIX 1 

92 
APPENDIX 1 

APPENDIX 2: FUTURE PLANS AND 

STUDIES NEEDED 

Future plans and studies needed for Fort Davis NHS include: 

● New Comprehensive Archeological Survey

● Condition Assessments of Archeological Sites 

● Cultural Landscape Inventory 

● Cultural Landscape Report 

● Ethnographic Study 

● Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 

● Natural Resource Management Plan and Fauna Study 

● Cultural Resource Management Plan 

● Safety Plan 

● Flash Flood Plan (includes floodplain map)

● Historic Preservation Plan identifying types and levels of treatment 

● Structural Fire Management Plan 

● Wildland Fire Management Plan 

● Transportation Study: Should visitation reach 125,000 visitors a year, a study would be 

initiated to evaluate the feasibility of a transportation system from the town of Fort Davis

93

APPENDIX 3: DRAFT STATEMENT OF 

FINDINGS FOR EXECUTIVE ORDER 

11988 “FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT” 

 

 

General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Davis National Historic Site 

Texas 

 

 

Recommended: _______________________________________________________ 

Superintendent, Fort Davis National Historic Site Date 

Concurred: _______________________________________________________

Chief, Water Resources Division Date

Approved: _______________________________________________________

Director, Intermountain Region Date

95
APPENDIX 3: DRAFT STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 

In accordance with 

Executive Order 11988

(Floodplain Management) 

and National Park Service

guidelines for 

implementing the order,

the National Park Service 

(NPS) has evaluated

flooding hazards for Fort 

Davis National Historic Site

and has prepared this

statement of findings

(SOF). As an integral part 

of the effort to develop a 

general management plan

(GMP), the SOF describes

the flood hazard, 

alternatives, impacts,

mitigation, and informed

decisions for the

continued use of the 

historic site. Additional

detail regarding the

historic site, flooding 

history, and future plans 

may be found in the GMP. 

INTRODUCTION 

Fort Davis National Historic Site was 

authorized in 1961, symbolizing the era 

of western migration and the essence of 

the late 19th-century U.S. Army. The park 

preserves the historic landscape and 

buildings, ruins, and foundations of two 

forts, and makes them available to

thousands of visitors for their enjoyment, 

understanding, education, and 

appreciation.

Since the establishment of Fort Davis in

1854, military personnel and now park 

managers have been plagued by periodic 

flash flooding of the site. Intense

thunderstorms, which are characteristic of 

the region, often produce high volumes 

of runoff water. Given the small size of

the watershed and the fort’s position on

an alluvial fan, some flooding may occur 

during summer months when rainfall is

average or above average. The fort

location is very likely within a flash flood 

zone. 

During the second fort period (1867–

1891), the army constructed a series of

dikes and ditches to alleviate flooding of 

the fort. These protective structures are 

still in use, but because of limited design 

effectiveness (less than 100-year flood 

protection), erosion, human disturbances,

and extensive maintenance requirements, 

these safeguards are not adequate to 

protect the area. Three action alternatives 

were considered in the general 

management plan, because of the fort’s 

position on the alluvial fan no structural 

alternative could significantly reduce the 

threat of flash flooding while meeting the 

park’s legislated purpose.

The NPS will continue to operate Fort

Davis NHS with an operational plan (flood 

mitigation plan) that lowers the threat to

life and property within the park. Fort

Davis NHS will develop this plan, regularly 

educate staff and visitors in its detail, and 

periodically review it with any additional 

weather or flooding information that 

becomes available. The proposed plan in 

the general management plan (Alternative

C) would reduce some flooding risk to 

historic structures and the cultural

landscape of the fort, but would not 

provide any additional protection to those 

resources, park staff, or visitors during

floods of a magnitude greater than the 

100-year flood. 

USE OF THE FLOODPLAIN 

The historic core area of the fort lies on 

the alluvial floodplain. The U.S. Army

chose this location for the fort. The NPS is 

committed through its enabling 

legislation to preserve and interpret the 

historic resources that include structures 

in the floodplain. The flood-prone alluvial 

fan area of the fort is occupied primarily 

96
APPENDIX 3: DRAFT STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 

during daytime hours. Three on-site staff 

residences are present along the far north 

edge and distal end of the alluvial fan.

Occupation of a floodplain in a flash 

flood-prone area constitutes a Class III 

action in reference to the National Park

Service Floodplain Management

Guidelines (NPS 1993), with the 

regulatory floodplain defined as that

inundated by an extreme flood, and 

requires notification, warning, and 

development of mitigation for the 

flooding threat. The Maximum Estimated 

Flood (Qme) has previously been used as

an estimate of the largest possible flood 

for a given watershed. Floods of this

magnitude are exceptionally rare and not 

useful as a practical structural design 

standard. However, knowledge of the 

conditions associated with the worst-case 

flood can be useful for planning purposes 

and to help ensure human safety. 

FLOOD RISK 

Primary surface drainage through the fort 

occurs in the South Channel, flowing 

westerly around the historic structures. A

floodplain map for the fort is not available 

at this time, but several surveyed cross 

sections were used with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers’ computer model,

HEC-RAS, to compute hydraulic capacities 

of the dike and ditch system on site. 

The dikes and ditches constructed by the 

army more than 100 years ago carry 

portions of surface flow as intercepting

ditches and as diversion and detention 

ditch and dikes during storm events as

little as 2–5-year floods and up to 50–

100-year floods (see further description in 

Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement/General Management Plan, 

Fort Davis National Historic Site). During a

flood event of 50 to 100-year frequency 

most of the partial flood control devices 

built by the army and maintained by the 

NPS would be overwhelmed, allowing 

flooding to access portions of the historic 

buildings. Flood flows in this area have

the potential to affect the headquarters

building, the visitor center, the barracks, 

and the on-site staff residences. The staff 

residences would be expected to 

experience backwater conditions, not any 

destructive depths or velocities during the 

50-100, and even the 500-year frequency 

events. 

Hydraulic modeling indicates that during 

the 500-year recurrence flood, overbank 

flow would attain depths less than 1 foot 

and associated velocities would not

exceed 3 feet per second. The Qme, on 

the other hand, could be capable of

achieving depths in the range of 2 feet 

across the fan, with associated velocities

ranging from 4–6 feet per second. While 

these conditions are not extremely

dangerous, the combination of the depth,

velocities, and the large area of

inundation could be life threatening 

during daytime hours when the facility is

occupied, and at night to the staff 

residences. Thus, in all but the most

extreme flood, staff and visitors would still

have enough time and ability to evacuate 

the flood-prone areas to safety. 

The Qme flow would reach the majority 

of the fort buildings and staff residences 

building with at least shallow, but swiftly 

flowing water and debris. The Qme 

poses a potentially dangerous flooding

condition to visitors and staff if it occurs. 

There are no reasonable alternatives that 

would provide for full protection from the 

Qme flood damage to the historic 

resources or to staff and visitors at the

fort. Options to improve flood protection 

using on-site historic water conveyances, 

such as the North Ditch and the South 

Channel dike system, are sympathetic to 

the current and future objectives for the 

site and have been proposed as

alternative elements in the current GMP. 

However, the optimized North Ditch and 

South Channel dike system would provide

protection from flash flooding at less than 

the 100-year magnitude event. (NPS 

97 
APPENDIX 5: ERRATA, PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NPS RESPONSE

● Training for staff and volunteers in the 

implementation of the plan 

1999). The construction of additional 

protective dikes and diversion structures 

has also been considered for many years, 

but has been deemed to be too disruptive

to the cultural and historic resources of

the site. These additional protective

devices would also have to be

constructed very close to the historic 

buildings (NPS 1997). 

● Preparation of informational and warning 

signs, brochures 

● Establishment of formal 

notification/warning procedures between 

the park and the National Weather Service 

● Heightened awareness periods during the 

monsoon rain months of July, August, 

and September, especially when the 

There have been no watershed is saturated by previous rains. structural proposals

that would provide any significant

additional protection to staff and visitors 

to flash flooding. Short of the 

unreasonable options of completely

denying access to staff and visitors from 

the flash flood-prone fort location or

moving structures out of the flood zone 

there are no absolute protective measures 

available. Flood warning systems that rely 

on electronic sensors or personal 

observations are not foolproof in flash

flood-prone areas such as this one. 

● Preemptive closures during small flooding

events to avoid being trapped by larger 

ones 

● Formalization of evacuation routes and 

mobilization sites for rescue 

● Review and revision of the plan elements 

every 2–3 years 

This proposed action does not represent a 

new or expanded impact on natural 

resource, cultural resource, or park 

infrastructure floodplain values at the fort. 

It does represent an informed decision 

concerning the continuation of a risk to 

human life, historic structures, and 

historic objects that is reduced by the 

mitigation contained in the flood 

mitigation plan. The risk to human life

cannot be eliminated entirely. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The NPS will continue to operate Fort

Davis National Historic Site in a safe and 

prudent manner by optimizing on-site 

flood protective dike and ditch systems 

and flood threat awareness training for 

staff and visitors. Park staff will seek 

funding for topographic mapping of the 

site, especially the flood-prone areas of

the fort, in order to produce an accurate 

floodplain map.

SUMMARY 

The NPS will continue to operate Fort

Davis National Historic Site at a location

that is very likely within a flash flood 

zone. Through the completion of the 

preferred alternative in the general 

management plan the park will optimize 

the higher frequency (50 to 100-year) 

flood improvements. The park will also

produce a flood mitigation plan to 

substantially lower the threat to life and 

property within the fort area during the 

lower and higher frequency of occurrence 

(100-year to Qme) flood events. The park 

will develop this plan, regularly educate 

staff and visitors in its detail, and 

periodically review it with any additional 

relative weather or flooding information 

that becomes available.

The NPS will develop a flood mitigation

plan to address flooding threats, 

considering:

● Development of a decision tree for staff to 

minimize the threat to life, historic 

structures and staff residences by clear 

planning choices, including:

● Closure conditions 

● Seasonal, watershed saturation, and 

storm event priorities

● Notification protocols for staff, visitors, 

and local emergency organizations 

98
APPENDIX 3: DRAFT STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 

REFERENCES 

National Park Service

1999. Flood Hazard Assessment for Fort 

Davis National Historic Site, Draft Copy 6-

17-99, Water Operations Branch U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service. 7 pp.

1997. Flood Mitigation Assessment of 

Alternatives for Fort Davis National 

Historic Site, (Draft Report, David 

Blackstun, 7/97). U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service. 6 pp. 

1993. Floodplain Management

Guideline. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service. 14 pp. 

1990. Recommended Storm Damage 

Repairs and Flood Prevention 

Improvements, Fort Davis National

Historic Site (Joseph Bruno 10/90). U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service. 7 pp.

Other

Schroeder and Massey, 1977. Technique 

for Estimating the Magnitude and 

Frequency of Floods in Texas. U. S. 

Geological Survey WRI 77-110, Water 

Supply Paper.

Crippen and Bue, 1977. Maximum 

Floodflows in the Coterminous United 

States, U.S. Geological Survey.

99
100
101

APPENDIX 4: CONSULTATION 
APPENDIX 4: CONSULTATION 

102
APPENDIX 4: CONSULTATION 

103
APPENDIX 4: CONSULTATION 

104
APPENDIX 4: CONSULTATION 

105
APPENDIX 4: CONSULTATION 

106
APPENDIX 4: CONSULTATION 

107
APPENDIX 4: CONSULTATION 

108
APPENDIX 4: CONSULTATION 

109
APPENDIX 4: CONSULTATION 

110
APPENDIX 5: ERRATA, PUBLIC COMMENTS, 

AND NPS RESPONSE

Resource Opportunity Area 

Changes DRAFT EIS ERRATA

This section outlines errata made to the 

draft EIS and incorporated into the final EIS. 

None of the changes modify any of the 

alternatives. Changes were necessary to 

clarify management prescriptions, improve 

document organization, and bring EIS

information in line with existing site

conditions, some of which changed since 

the publication of the DEIS. 

Various public comments indicated that the 

Resource Opportunity Areas described in

the text were somewhat unclear. 

Comments indicated that the text was 

especially unclear as to how the ROAs

should fit in with the Management

Prescriptions and how they would relate to 

each of the Alternatives. Text of the ROAs 

has been modified to clarify their roles. 

Each Alternative now has a section under 

“Land Use Management” where the 

proposed management prescriptions for all 

three ROAs are discussed.

Purpose and Need for the Plan

Special Mandates: Historic District 

“110 buildings” was changed to “over 250 

buildings.” Resource Opportunity Areas Map 

In the Map Key, “Core Resource” was 

changed to “Historic Core.” 

“listed on the National Register” was

changed to “listed on or eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic Places.” 

Management Prescription 

Desired Future Conditions Changes

The heading “Historic Fabric” was changed 

to “Historic Preservation.”

The Draft EIS originally contained four

Management Prescriptions for use at Fort 

Davis National Historic Site (Historic 

Developed, Historic Rural, Outlying Historic, 

and Semi-Primitive). Various comments as

well as internal review of the management

prescriptions indicated that the prescriptions 

outlined in the draft EIS were unclear and 

did not accurately relay the proposed

management of the park. The park staff 

evaluated and modified each management

prescription as needed to make the

descriptive text match the intended purpose 

of the management prescription. 

The Proposal and Alternatives

This chapter has been split into two 

chapters. The first part of the chapter has 

been named “Chapter 2: Management 

Prescriptions and Resource Areas.” The 

Second part of the chapter has been named 

“Chapter 3: Alternatives.” 

Visitor Experience and the Park 

Environment

The heading “Visitor Experience and the 

Park Environment” has been changed to 

“Park Resources and Visitor Use.” The text 

under this new heading was modified to

better relay the intended message about the

importance of protecting resources while at

the same time providing for visitor use.

First, the “Outlying Historic” management

prescription and the “Semi-Primitive”

management prescription were combined

and renamed “Undeveloped Landscape” to

more accurately portray the emphasis of the 

management prescription. The staff felt that

the two original management prescriptions 

111 
APPENDIX 5: ERRATA, PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NPS RESPONSE

were redundant and essentially prescribed

the same management strategy. The text

describing the management prescription has

also been modified to clearly indicate its 

intention and emphasis. 

Second, the “Historic Developed” 

management prescription was renamed 

“Historic Interpretive / Developed” to more

accurately indicate the interpretive emphasis 

of the management prescription. This

management prescription was also

expanded to cover all areas of the park 

where any active interpretation would take 

place or where the environment would be 

modified for interpretive purposes. 

Third, the “Historic Rural” management 

prescription was incorporated into the new 

“Historic Interpretive/Developed” 

management prescription. The staff 

determined that the “Historic Rural” 

management prescription was essentially a 

watered-down version of the “Historic 

Interpretive/Developed” management 

prescription and was unnecessary. 

Fourth, a new management prescription 

named “Outlying/Modern Development” 

was created to describe areas of the park 

where modern intrusions and developments

would be allowed for maintenance and

facility management. This management 

prescription was needed because these 

areas currently exist within the park and the 

management prescription was needed to

accurately describe land use management

for the No Action alternative and Alternative 

B. 

In tandem with the changes made to the 

management prescriptions, the land use 

management maps for the four alternatives

have been modified to show the changes.

Alternative Changes

All four of the original alternatives (A, B, C,

and D) continue to emphasis and outline 

the same basic proposals as indicated in the 

draft EIS, but moderate changes, additions,

and clarifications have been added to each 

alternative. Most changes consist of textual 

changes for clarity and ease of reading. 

Other changes include adding required 

sections which were missing from the draft 

EIS. 

Changes Common to all Alternatives 

In each of the four alternatives, an updated

discussion indicating how the management

prescriptions will be applied in each of the 

three park Resource Opportunity Areas was 

placed under the heading of “Land Use 

Management.” 

In each alternative, the management 

prescription acreage, which was previously

located under “Land Use Management”, has 

been removed. The staff felt that an 

accurate map showing the areas designated 

under each management prescription

would be more informative than listing the 

acreage in text format. 

In each alternative, the “Historic Core ROA” 

sub-section now contains a discussion on 

the proposed management of the existing

maintenance yard in Hospital Canyon. A

discussion of this area was not included in

the Draft EIS. 

In each alternative, the text under the 

heading of “Natural Resource Management” 

was moved into a section named “Resource 

Protection” to better reflect the emphasis of 

the text. The heading of “Natural Resource 

Management” now incorporates the 

existing sub-sections of “Wetland / 

Floodplain / Flash Flood,” “Intrusive Noise,” 

and “Air Quality.” In addition, two new 

sub-sections entitled “Wildlife” and 

“Vegetation” have been added to discuss 

management of these resources. 

In each alternative, the sub-heading of 

“Historic Fabric” was changed to “Historic 

Preservation.”

To clarify the similarities and differences of 

the four Alternatives, paragraphs of text, 

which were identical or similar to 

paragraphs in a previous alternative, were 

112
APPENDIX 5: ERRATA, PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NPS RESPONSE

prefaced with indicative text (I.E. “As with Changes to Alternative C

Alternative A, . . .”). A descriptive title has been added to the 

name of this Alternative. The title now 

reads “Alternative C—Improved Visitor

Services and Resource Management (NPS 

Proposal).” 

Changes to Alternative A

Wetlands/Floodplain/Flash Flood 

The draft EIS incorrectly places wetlands 

within the ditch and dike system 

constructed by the army in the 1880s. In

reality, the only wetland areas are located 

on the eastern edges of the park and are 

not within any of the constructed ditch/dike 

systems. In contrast to the original text, the 

wetlands are not disrupted by moderate to

heavy flooding, but instead are rejuvenated 

by moderate to heavy flooding. The text in 

Alternative A has been modified to indicate

that the “No Action Alternative” will not 

affect any change on the existing wetlands. 

The two-phase concept of this proposal has

been clarified and better explained. Phase 2 

of this alternative now includes removing 

the existing maintenance yard from Hospital

Canyon. 

Outreach and Partnerships 

This section now discusses the addition of 

an Education Specialist. This position was 

noted in Table 1 (Operational Cost 

Increases) of the draft EIS but was not noted 

in the text of the alternative. 

Changes to Alternative B

Historic Preservation 

The title of this alternative was changed to 

“Alternative B – Safety, Protection, and 

Accessibility Compliance” to better indicate

the emphasis of the alternative.

This section now discusses the addition of a

Cultural Resource Specialist and a Clerk 

Typist. These two positions were noted in 

Table 1 (Operational Cost Increases) of the 

draft EIS but were not noted in the text of

the alternative. Wetlands/Floodplain/Flash Flood 

The text was modified from “Wetlands

located downstream . . . would continue to 

be disrupted during periodic moderate to

heavy flooding events” to “Wetlands located 

downstream . . . would not be modified in 

this alternative.” The original text states that

the wetlands would be disrupted during 

moderate to heavy flooding events, when in 

reality they are rejuvenated during moderate 

to heavy flooding events. The text has been 

changed to emphasize that the proposed

plan would not physically impact the

wetlands. 

Interpretation 

This section now discusses the addition of 2 

seasonal Park Guides. These two positions 

were noted in Table 1 (Operational Cost 

Increases) of the draft EIS but were not

noted in the text of the alternative. 

Changes to Alternative D

A descriptive title has been added to the 

name of this Alternative. The title now 

reads “Alternative D—Improved Visitor 

Services and Resource Management with 

General Emphasis Expansion and Relocation.” 

The partial restoration and refurnishing of 

the post hospital (dependent on private 

sector funding) was inadvertently left out of 

Alternative B in the draft EIS. It has been 

included here, in Table 2 – Possible Future 

Development Costs, and in Table 3 – 

Comparison of Alternatives. 

Outreach and Partnerships 

This section now discusses the addition of 

an Education Specialist. This position was 

noted in Table 1 (Operational Cost 

Increases) of the draft EIS but was not noted 

in the text of the alternative. 

113 
APPENDIX 5: ERRATA, PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NPS RESPONSE

Historic Preservation 

This section now discusses the addition of a

Cultural Resource Specialist and a Clerk 

Typist. These two positions were noted in 

Table 1 (Operational Cost Increases) of the 

draft EIS but were not noted in the text of

the alternative. 

Interpretation 

This section now discusses the addition of 2 

full-time and 1 part-time seasonal Park

Guides. These three positions were noted 

in Table 1 (Operational Cost Increases) of 

the draft EIS but were not noted in the text 

of the alternative.

Wetlands/Floodplain/Flash Flood 

The sentence “Periodic maintenance of the

South Channel after heavy flooding events 

would cause some short-term wetland and 

vegetation disturbance” was removed in the

final EIS. As noted earlier, the wetlands of 

the park are located downstream of the 

constructed dike/ditch system. Periodic 

maintenance of the constructed ditch/dike

system would not disturb or affect the

wetlands. 

Table 3—Comparison of Alternatives 

Each section in this table has been modified

to match any changes in the text of the 

Alternative. Those changes will not be 

individually listed here. Other changes

include clarifying and simplifying the table.

Bulleted text which was identical to text of

the previous alternative was replaced with 

“Same as Alternative #.” This change

removes much of the redundant text and 

allows the differences between the 

alternatives to be more visible and more 

readily identified. 

Table 4: Comparison of 

Environmental Impacts

Table 4 was moved and placed at the end of 

chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences). 

In the draft EIS, this table had been placed 

behind Table 3 in Chapter 2 (Proposal and 

Alternatives). 

Appendices

A letter from Davis Mountain State Park

(Texas Parks and Wildlife) has been added to

Appendix 4. This letter lists and discusses

threatened and endangered species, which 

have been identified in the immediate area

of Fort Davis. 

NPS RESPONSES TO

SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS 

In this section, the National Park Service has 

listed and responded to substantive

comments received from the public about 

the Fort Davis General Management Plan / 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

All public comments on the draft EIS were 

reviewed by park staff, but only those

comments which where considered to be

substantive have received responses in this

section. Substantive comments, as defined 

by the Council on Environmental Quality 

and the National Park Service are comments, 

which do one or more of the following: 

● Question, with reasonable basis, the 

accuracy of information in the EIS.

● Question, with reasonable basis, the 

adequacy of environmental analysis. 

● Present reasonable alternatives other than

those presented in the EIS. 

● Cause changes or revisions in the 

proposal.(NPS Director’s Order #12 

Handbook, 4.6(A)). 

Public Comments

Substantive comments are organized in the 

following table (5) for convenience. The left 

column contains the question or comment

with the person’s name who submitted the 

comment in brackets. The right column 

contains the National Park Service’s reply.

114
APPENDIX 5: ERRATA, PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NPS RESPONSE

NPS RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Public Comment NPS Response 

[Ken Fitch] Park Purpose: ìThe Park Purpose should include 

a statement about the participants in the military operations 

and their lives at the Fort, as this is a major theme.î 

Interpreting and educating the public about ìthe participants 

in the military operations and their lives at the Fortî are major 

themes that are addressed in the second part of the second 

park purpose statement found in this document. A General 

Management Plan is a very broad document that will and 

must be implemented by more detailed plans. The 

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan (CIP) for Fort Davis

National Historic Site covers these interpretive themes. They

are also covered in a number of other site-specific documents 

such as the Interpretive Prospectus for Fort Davis National 

Historic Site and the Strategic Plan for Fort Davis National 

Historic Site. 

[Ken Fitch] Significance: ìÖ a statement should be included 

that Fort Davis offers an opportunity for understanding the life 

of soldiers at a frontier fort, as well as the clash of military,

civilian and tribal cultures that was reflected in the operations 

and actions here. Also conspicuously absent from the 

document, a[nd] certainly a point of significance, is reference 

to Lt. Henry Flipper, an historical figure of importance and 

accessibility whose life offers a key to understanding the life 

of a soldier at this fort.î 

Understanding the life of soldiers at frontier forts (including Lt. 

Henry Flipper) and the ìclash of culturesî are themes 

included in significant statements 2 and 6. 

[Ken Fitch] Desired Future Conditions ñ Archaeology: ì(Add) 

Appropriately qualified staff persons should be assigned to 

monitor and manage resources.î

Standard NPS regulation requires that archaeological 

resources be identified, documented, and monitored by

individuals who meet the Secretary of the Interiorís 

qualifications for an Archaeologist. Because this standard is 

inherent to the NPS, it does not need to be noted in the GMP. 

[Ken Fitch] Desired Future Conditions ñ Interpretation: ìThe

emphasis on ëquality and accuracyí as well as the breath of 

the concept here are admirable. Interpretation should also 

include information on the environmental conditions at this 

site, including flash flood situations at the Fort and the 

potential for impacts on current visitor experience.î

Interpreting environmental conditions such as flash floods 

and their impacts on the visitor experience are subjects that 

are addressed in numbers 2, 4, and 7 of the desired future 

conditions under interpretation. Again, other site-specific 

plans address interpreting natural resource conditions. 

[Ken Fitch] Desired Future Conditions ñ Historic Fabric: ìAll 

ëtreatmentsí and their material components should be

carefully documented. 

Statement 2 has been changed to read ìall treatments will be 

compatible with the original, based on current research and 

documented for future reference.î 

[Ken Fitch] Proposal and Alternatives ñ ROA ñ Foreground 

ROA: ìThere is a VERP [Visitor Experience and Resource 

Protection] issue of concern here in the designation of 

ëhistoric cottonwoodsí as offering recreational opportunities.î 

The historic cottonwood trees at Fort Davis NHS are a 

significant and valued resources. Their protection and 

perpetuation is guided by a number of approved plans and 

directives including Directorís Order #28: Cultural Resource 

Management Guidelines and an approved Historic Tree 

Management Plan for Fort Davis NHS. Even though a picnic 

area is located on the fringes of the main grove of trees, 

barbecue grills, vehicles, and other potential impacts that may

have a negative effect are prohibited. 

[Ken Fitch] Proposal and Alternatives-ROA-Foreground ROA: 

ìAre garden sites, wood yards, pump houses, etc. located in 

the Foreground ROA or Historic Core?î

These resources are located in the Foreground ROA. An 

error incorrectly shifted two paragraphs to a different column 

in the Draft EIS. The error has been corrected in the final 

plan. 

[Ken Fitch] Management Prescriptions-Historic Developed ñ

Visitor Experience: ìConspicuously absent here is reference 

to the life at the FortÖ. ì 

The paragraph that Mr. Fitch referenced has been changed to 

say ì history and life of the fort.î 

115
APPENDIX 5: ERRATA, PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NPS RESPONSE

NPS RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Public Comment NPS Response 

[Ken Fitch] Alternatives: ìíLoss of original ruins and portions 

of structuresí and loss of historic fabric as described in 

Alternatives A and B, is unacceptable and would represent a 

failure of responsibility on the part of The National Park 

Service. Approval of such a proposal would also be illegal.î 

No matter what preservation measures are taken, loss of 

some historic fabric is inevitable. The NPS at Fort Davis is 

committed by law to prevent the loss of any and all original 

materials. Alternatives A, B, and D have been included in the 

EIS in order to provide the public with various options to 

compare and contrast with the NPS Proposal (Alternative B). 

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

which interprets the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, these additional alternative must be included even if 

they are in conflict with a law (40 CFR 1500.1 (a)).

[Ken Fitch] Alternatives: ìAlternative C proposes a Phase 2 

during which relocation of supportive facilities would occur, 

ëdependent on partnerships for private sector funding.í What 

are the potential or anticipated partnerships, and how would 

they be constructed? What agendas would partners bring to 

these projects? Is the relocation to leased, rented or NPS 

owned facilities? If the facility is private owned, what is the 

permanence of such a relationship?î 

ìPhase 2î of Alternative C has been rewritten so that it is not 

dependent on private sector funding. If relocation did occur it 

would not be to a privately owned facility. It would more than 

likely be (as it the case with many government facilities) a 

GSA facility that would be leased to the NPS. 

[Ken Fitch] Alternatives: ìHow does Alternative C function 

should Phase 2 not occur?î 

 ìPhase 1î and ìPhase 2î of Alternative C function 

independently of one another. This section has been rewritten 

to more clearly show how each functions. 

[Ken Fitch] Alternatives: ìA focus on the history of the Fort 

and the lives of the military personnel who inhabited this 

place should be the priority [of interpretive efforts] because it 

is resource basedÖ.î 

The interpretive programs do and will continue to focus on the 

lives of those who served at the post. The second part of the 

park purpose statement defines this, as do significant 

statements 2, 3, and 5. The significant statements serve as 

the foundation for developing interpretive themes and 

desirable visitor experiences. They, in turn, serve as the 

basis for all interpretive programs. 

[Ken Fitch] Alternatives: ìThe overwhelming need in the 

future will be the continued preservation of the physical 

resources (historical and cultural) and the GMP should be 

adamant and insistent and inescapable in that focus.î 

It should be noted that Mr. Fitch addresses the need for 

preservation in several places, and that this response is 

directed to all of those comments. As stated above, the 

preservation of the historic fabric at Fort Davis NHS is the 

primary focus for all actions at Fort Davis NHS and will 

continue to be so in the future. It is a task mandated by the 

legislation that established Fort Davis NHS and is 

incorporated in the park purpose.

[Ken Fitch] Collections: ìConditions for storage and display

must be ëstate of the art.í Failure to fully address and remedy

any deficiencies in conditions for preservation, or to permit 

deterioration or [sic] would be irresponsible.î 

Fort Davis National Historic Site is mandated by law to fully

address and remedy any deficiencies in conditions and to 

prevent deterioration when possible. Deficiencies that 

currently exist do not precipitate a negative impact. Storage 

and display areas are rated adequate to very good. 

[Ken Fitch] Natural Ecosystems-QME Flow: ìWhile the Qme 

flow would be a rare event or occurrence, the importance of 

the resources that would be affected demands a plan, and 

preventative actions that would be put in place, and this 

potential should be addressed in the plan.î 

Specific issues regarding the QME are addressed in other 

documents, i.e. Flood Mitigation Plan. 

[Ken Fitch] Natural Ecosystems ñ Alternatives: ìÖBefore 

determining and implementing a decision (regarding

Alternative D and use of the South Channel), a survey/study

of archaeological resources that would be more directly by

these overflows should be conducted.î 

The National Park Service completed ìThe Archeological 

Survey of Fort Davisî in 1986 and the ìArcheological 

Assessment of Eight Prehistoric Sites at Fort Davis National 

Historic Site, Texasî in 1999. The need for further 

archeological resource studies in the channel areas is not 

considered necessary for the proposed work. 

[Ken Fitch] Facilities: In this section, Mr. Fitch proposes a 

number of questions dealing with a variety of topics. They

deal with topics such as what are the impacts of large 

vehicles on existing/proposed road surfaces to protection to 

ìunprotected and exposed ruins.î He asks ìwhat is the 

management prescription for buildings, ruins, and sites in 

ìpoorî condition.î 

All of the questions Mr. Fitch asks are somewhat valid 

questions, but they do not fit into the scope of this document. 

They are addressed in more site-specific reports and 

documents. No management prescription is included in this 

document ìfor buildings, ruins and sites in poorî condition as 

federal legislation (GPRA) ensures that they be raised to 

good condition. A timetable for the completion of this has 

been established and annual goals have been set. 

116
 

NPS D-45a