Original art by George Pettit used with permission of the artist. 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Final 

General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

RIO GRANDE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER 

Brewster and Terrell Counties, Texas 

August 2004 

Congress designated a segment of the Rio Grande 

in Texas as the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 

in 1978 because of its “outstandingly remarkable” 

scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife, and recreational 

values. A 196-mile strip of land on the American 

side of the Rio Grande in the Chihuahuan Desert 

protects the river. The National Park Service (NPS) 

at Big Bend National Park is responsible for managing the wild and scenic river. This General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement will 

define a direction for the management of the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River for the next 15 to 20 

years, specifying the resource conditions and visitor experiences that the National Park Service 

would like to achieve. 

To establish the desired experiences and resource 

conditions for the wild and scenic river, a partnership team was established with representatives 

from Texas Parks and Wildlife, local counties, an 

international environmental organization, river 

user groups, and private landowners. On the basis 

of public comments and within the framework established by legislation and mandates, the planning 

team and partners developed a no-action alternative (continuation of current management) and an 

“action” alternative for managing the wild and 

scenic river. 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would 

continue current management practices into the 

future. Its goal would be to retain the existing 

visitor experiences. No new management plan 

would be implemented. The National Park Service 

would respond to future needs and conditions 

associated with the existing wild and scenic river 

designation without major actions or changes in 

course. Compliance with the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act and associated guidelines requires a 

river management plan, which would not be 

prepared under this alternative. No agreements 

with landowners would be initiated, and there 

would be no changes in river access from federal 

land. Private and state landowners could open or 

close public access as they wished. The river 

boundary would remain at the default 0.25 mile 

from the ordinary high water mark on the United 

States side of the river. 

The intent of Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would be to enhance resource protection 

and offer high-quality visitor experiences. The protection of natural and cultural resources would be 

emphasized, as would the visitor experience. A 

permanent boundary for the wild and scenic river 

would be established to reflect the river’s outstandingly remarkable values. The National Park Service 

would negotiate individual agreements with each 

nonfederal landowner to specify the rights and responsibilities of the National Park Service and each 

landowner. The National Park Service would recommend to Congress that the upper segment of the 

Rio Grande in Big Bend National Park be designated a wild and scenic river, bringing the total 

federal and state ownership along the river to more 

than 50%. 

Alternative A (which would continue the management pattern of the past 25 years) would not ensure 

the protection of outstandingly remarkable values 

on private lands. It would mean that no partnership 

for resource protection would be established between the National Park Service and private landowners. Resources could be damaged, and private 

lands now available to the public for recreational 

use at the sufferance of landowners could be closed 

off. The National Park Service would not assist private landowners in resource protection or law 

enforcement, and there could be continued mistrust of NPS intentions with respect to regulations 

and land acquisition. 

Landowner agreements in alternative B would 

foster a cooperative relationship, allowing the 

National Park Service to play a role in protecting 

resources and values on nonfederal lands. NPS 

assistance would be available to landowners to 

protect outstandingly remarkable values on their 

land. An increase in Big Bend National Park staff 

would be included in this alternative. Beneficial 

effects on landowner relations, natural resources, 

cultural resources, scenic values, and recreational 

use would result from alternative B. 

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service 
(blank) 

ii 
SUMMARY 

Congress designated a segment of the Rio 

Grande in Texas as the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River in 1978 because of its “outstandingly remarkable” scenic, geologic, fish and 

wildlife, and recreational values. A 196-mile 

strip of land on the American side of the Rio 

Grande in the Chihuahuan Desert protects the 

river. The responsibility for managing the wild 

and scenic river was given to the National 

Park Service at Big Bend National Park, but no 

management plan has been approved that 

would guide the long-term management of the 

wild and scenic river. 

The purposes of this General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement are to 

define a direction for the management of the 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River and to 

specify the resource conditions and visitor 

experiences to be achieved on the wild and 

scenic river. The plan is intended to provide a 

framework to help guide management programs and set priorities for the next 15 to 20 

years. The approved plan will provide a 

framework for making decisions about the future direction for the management and use of 

the wild and scenic river. 

In this plan, the official boundary of the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River is described. 

Within that boundary, the outstandingly remarkable scenic, geological, fish and wildlife, 

recreational, scientific, and cultural values 

would be protected and the rights and needs 

of private property owners respected. 

The National Park Service (NPS) regards the 

public as an integral team member in establishing the desired experiences and conditions 

of resources that will guide the management 

of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River. A 

vital partnership team was established with 

representatives from Texas Parks and Wildlife, local counties, an international environmental organization, river user groups, and 

private landowners. 

ALTERNATIVES 

On the basis of public comments and within 

the framework established by legislation and 

mandates, the planning team and partners developed a no-action alternative (continuation 

of current management) and an “action” alternative for the management of the wild and 

scenic river. 

Alternative A: Existing Management 

Direction (No Action) 

The no-action alternative represents the 

existing conditions at the Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River and what would happen if 

the current management practices continued 

into the future. The goal in this alternative 

would be to maintain the existing visitor experiences and the river’s outstandingly remarkable values of scenery, recreation, geology, fish and wildlife, cultural resources, and 

scientific resources. No management plan 

would be implemented, and the Rio Grande 

Wild and Scenic River would be managed as at 

present. 

“No action” does not imply or direct discontinuing the present uses or management actions or removing the existing designation. 

The National Park Service would respond to 

future needs and conditions associated with 

the existing wild and scenic river designation 

without major actions or changes in course. 

The river would continue to be managed without conflicting with the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act and associated guidelines, NPS 

management policies, and current park management and implementation plans. No agreements with landowners would be implemented; the National Park Service would not make 

any changes in river access; and private and 

state landowners could open or close public 

access as they wished. The river boundary 

would remain at the default 0.25 mile from the 

iii 
SUMMARY 

ordinary high water mark on the United States 

side of the river. 

Alternative B: Enhance Resource Protection and Continue High-Quality Visitor 

Experiences (Preferred Alternative) 

The concept of alternative B, the alternative 

preferred by the National Park Service, would 

be to emphasize the protection of natural and 

cultural resources and of the visitor experience in the Lower Canyons (outside of Big 

Bend National Park boundaries). This would 

be done by enlisting landowners as full partners in protecting resources and establishing a 

permanent boundary reflective of outstandingly remarkable values. 

A cornerstone of the preferred alternative is 

the implementation of individual agreements 

that the National Park Service would negotiate with each nonfederal landowner. These 

binding landowner agreements would specify 

what rights and responsibilities the National 

Park Service and each landowner would have 

in regard to the property within the established boundary. The National Park Service 

would discuss with landowners the outstandingly remarkable values on the property and 

boundary appropriate to protect those values. 

The agreements also would foster a spirit of 

cooperation instead of confrontation. 

As another component of this alternative, the 

upper segment of the Rio Grande in Big Bend 

National Park would be recommended for 

wild and scenic river designation by Congress. 

This additional designation would bring the 

total federal and state ownership along the 

river to more than 50%, thus prohibiting the 

acquisition of fee title through condemnation 

of nonfederal lands. This point is extremely 

important among private landowners in the 

area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The consequences to the environment, to the 

visitor experience, and to nonfederal landowners that could result from each alternative 

were evaluated. 

Effects of Alternative A 

With the existing default 0.25-mile boundary 

remaining in effect and no agreements being 

made between the National Park Service and 

private landowners under alternative A, the 

protection of outstandingly remarkable values 

on private lands would not be ensured. Partnerships would not be established between 

the National Park Service and landowners to 

protect the resources. Resources could be 

damaged, and private lands now available for 

public recreational use could be closed off. 

Without landowner agreements, the National 

Park Service would not be able to help landowners in resource protection or law enforcement, and there could be continued mistrust 

of NPS intentions with respect to regulations 

and land acquisition. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Implementing agreements with landowners 

would foster a cooperative relationship, allowing the National Park Service to play a role 

in the protection of resources and values on 

nonfederal lands along the wild and scenic 

river. Clauses in the agreements would allow 

the National Park Service to consult with and 

assist landowners in preserving outstandingly 

remarkable values and managing the use of 

their property by visitors. A recommendation 

to increase the staff of Big Bend National Park 

for river management would be included in 

this alternative. Beneficial effects on landowner relations, natural resources, cultural 

resources, scenic values, and recreational use 

would be realized from alternative B. 

iv
CONTENTS 

Purpose and Need 

Purpose of and Need for the Plan 3

Introduction 3

Purpose 3

Need 4

Background 5

Description and Location 5

Location 5

Outstandingly Remarkable Values 5

Legislation and Mandates 6

Relationship to Other Planning Documents 11

Definitions of Special Terms 11

Purpose, Significance, and Goals 13

Mission Statement 13

Purpose and Significance of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 13

Goals 13

Issues and Impact Topics 15

Public Involvement 15

Issues and Concerns 15

Recreation and Tourism 15

Natural Resources 16

Cultural Resources 16

Water Resources 16

Landowner Interests 17

Legal Issues 17

Partnerships and Administrative Relationships 17

Impact Topics 18

Scenic Values 18

Fish and Wildlife 18

Special Status Species 18

Archeological Resources 18

Historic Structures 18

Visitor Experience and Understanding (Recreational Use) 18

Water Quality and Quantity 18

Vegetation 19

Nonfederal Lands within the River Boundary 19

Socioeconomic Conditions 20

Partnerships and International Cooperation 20

Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration 20

Soils 20

Geology and Topography 20

Selected Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 21

Cultural Landscapes 21

Ethnographic Resources 21

Museum Collections 22

Night Sky 22

Soundscapes 22

Energy, Depletable Resource Requirements, and Conservation Potential 22

Urban Quality and the Design of the Built Environment 22

v 
CONTENTS 

Air Quality 22

Public Health and Safety 23

Wilderness 23

Floodplains and Wetlands 23

Prime and Unique Farmlands 23

Indian Trust Resources 24

Environmental Justice 24

Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative 

Introduction 27

Alternative A: Existing Management Direction (No Action) 28

Introduction 28

River Management 28

Boundary 28

Management of Corridor on Nonfederal Lands 29

Land Acquisition and Rights-of-Way 29

Natural Resources 29

Cultural Resources 29

Visitor Experience and Understanding 29

Partnerships and International Cooperation 30

Implementation 30

Alternative B: Enhance Resource Protection and 

 Continue High-Quality Visitor Experiences (Preferred Alternative) 32

Introduction 32

Management Prescriptions 32

Management Prescriptions Common to All Zones 32

Management in Specific Zones 33

River Management 33

Additional Designation 34

Boundary and Nonfederal Lands 38

Land Acquisition and Rights-of-Way 39

Cultural Resources 40

Natural Resources 40

Visitor Experience and Understanding 43

All Segments 43

Segments in Big Bend National Park 44

Segments Adjacent to Nonfederal Land 45

Interpretation and Education 46

Partnerships and International Cooperation 46

Implementation 47

Mitigating Measures 47

Natural Resources 47

Cultural Resources 48

Visitors and Nonfederal Landowners 48

New Structures 48

Alternatives Dismissed from Further Consideration 48

Omit Landowner Agreements in the Lower Canyons 48

Set the Management Boundary at the High Water Mark 48

Deauthorize the Wild and Scenic River Designation 48

The Environmentally Preferable Alternative 49

Cost Estimates 50

Comparison of Alternatives and Consequences 51

vi
Contents 

Affected Environment 

Introduction and Description 55

Access 55

Ownership 55

Existing Development 55

Land Uses 55

Resources That Could Be Affected 56

Natural Resources 56

Scenic Value 56

Fish and Wildlife 56

Special Status Species 56

Water Quantity and Quality 57

Vegetation 58

Cultural Resources 59

Visitor Experience and Understanding 60

Recreation 60

Historic Recreational Use on the Rio Grande, Lajitas to Val Verde County Line 62

Boundary and Nonfederal Lands 62

Socioeconomic Conditions 64

Brewster County 64

Terrell County 64

Study Area Population Records 65

Study Area Economic Conditions Since 1950 65

Economic Impacts of Visitor Spending 65

Partnerships and International Cooperation 65

Environmental Consequences 

Introduction and Methodology 69

Introduction 69

Methods of Assessing Effects 69

Duration 69

Location 69

Cumulative Effects 69

Projects That Make up the Cumulative Impact Scenario 70

Assumptions 71

Impairment of Park Resources or Values 71

Effects on Natural Resources 73

Scenic and Aesthetic Values 73

Fish and Wildlife 74

Special Status Species 76

Water Quality and Quantity 79

Vegetation 81

Effects on Cultural Resources 84

Effects on Cultural Resources and Section 106 Analyses 84

Archeological Resources 84

Historic Structures 86

Visitor Experience and Understanding 89

Methods of Assessing Effects 89

Effects of Alternative A 89

Analysis — Segments in Big Bend National Park 89

Analysis — Segments outside of Big Bend National Park 89

vii
CONTENTS 

Cumulative Effects 89

Conclusion 90

Effects of Alternative B 90

Analysis — Segments in and outside of Big Bend National Park 90

Cumulative Effects 90

Conclusion 90

Effects on Social Conditions — Boundary and Nonfederal Lands 91

Methods of Assessing Effects 91

Effects of Alternative A 91

Analysis — Segments in Big Bend National Park 91

Analysis — Segments outside of Big Bend National Park 91

Cumulative Effects 91

Conclusion 92

Effects of Alternative B 92

Analysis — Segments in Big Bend National Park 92

Analysis — Segments outside of Big Bend National Park 92

Cumulative Effects 92

Conclusion 92

Effects on Socioeconomic Conditions 93

Methods of Assessing Effects 93

Effects of Alternative A 93

Cumulative Effects 93

Conclusion 93

Effects of Alternative B 94

Analysis — Segments in and outside of Big Bend National Park 94

Cumulative Effects 94

Conclusion 94

Partnerships and International Cooperation 95

Methods of Assessing Effects 95

Effects of Alternative A 95

Analysis — Segments in Big Bend National Park 95

Analysis — Segments outside of Big Bend National Park 95

Analysis — Trans-boundary Issues 95

Cumulative Effects 95

Conclusion 95

Effects of Alternative B 96

Analysis — Segments in and outside of Big Bend National Park 96

Analysis — Trans-boundary Issues 96

Cumulative Effects 96

Conclusion 96

Required Analyses 97

Relationships of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity 97

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 97

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 97

Consultation and Coordination 

The Planning Process 101

Involvement of Other Agencies and the Public 102

How This Plan Was Developed 102

The Partnership Team 102

Preparing a Final Plan 103

Consultation 104

viii
Contents 

Cultural Resources 104

Endangered Species 104

American Indian Involvement 104

Agencies and Organizations to Which Notification of the Draft and Final Documents Was Sent 106

Comments Received on the Draft Document 108

Regulations for Handling Comments 108

NPS Actions 108

Public Meetings 108

Letters and Electronic Messages 109

Changes Resulting from Comments 109

Responses to Comments 109

Appendixes / References / Preparers / Index 

Appendixes 

A: Legislation 141

B: Correspondence from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about Sensitive Species 143

C: Sample Landowner Agreement 147

 D: Texas Recreation Use Statute 156

Selected References 161

Preparers of Document 163

Index 164

Illustrations 

Figure 1: Number of River Users by Canyon 63 

Maps: 

Location / Current Management 7 

Alternative B 35 

Proposed Boundary 41 

ix
CONTENTS 

Tables 

 1. Ownership of Land along Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 28

 2: Existing Recreational River Use Limits in Big Bend National Park 31 

3: Ownership of Segments of Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River, as Proposed in Alternative B 34 

4: Management Prescriptions 37 

5. Proposed Classifications of Segments of Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River, Including Proposed

New Segment — Alternative B 38 

6: Limits on Recreational Use by Segment — Alternative B 45 

7: Cost Estimates for Alternative B (2002 dollars) 50

 8: Comparison of Alternatives 51 

9: Comparison of Environmental Consequences 52 

10: 1998–2000 River Use, Lajitas to Val Verde County 62

11: Visitation to the Lower Canyons of the Rio Grande, 1999–2001 63

12: Selected Economic Information, Alpine and Sanderson, Texas 65 

13: Population Trends, 1950–2000 66 

14: Study Area Per Capita Income 1950–1999 66

x 
Purpose and Need 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

(blank) 

2 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

INTRODUCTION 

This General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement River presents and 

analyzes two alternative future directions for 

the management and use of the Rio Grande 

Wild and Scenic River. One of the alternatives, 

alternative B, has been identified as the alternative the National Park Service (NPS) prefers. The potential environmental impacts of 

both alternatives have been identified and 

assessed. 

A general management plans is intended to be 

a long-term document that establishes and 

articulates a management philosophy and 

framework to guide decision-making for a 

period of 15 to 20 years. The plan will establish goals for desired future conditions of resources and visitor experiences, but it will not 

commit to specific actions to achieve these 

conditions. Such specific actions will be determined in lower-level planning documents. 

The purpose of a general management plan is 

to be a general programmatic-level document; 

therefore, the analysis of potential impacts in 

the environmental impact statement is also 

general. 

This plan for the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 

River contains several chapters. This chapter 

contains an explanation of why the plan is 

necessary and what it will accomplish, along 

with background information about the wild 

and scenic river. The river’s purpose and significance are explained, and the management 

goals for this area are described. The legislative commitments, mandates, and policies 

that have guided and continue to guide the 

management of the river are discussed, as are 

the major issues and concerns that are addressed in the plan. Special terms used in this 

document are defined on page 11. 

The “Alternatives” chapter presents two alternatives for the management of the wild and 

scenic river. Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would continue the current approach 

to managing the wild and scenic river. This is 

required as a baseline of comparison for other 

“action” alternatives. Alternative B would follow the management approach preferred by 

the National Park Service (NPS) and its key 

partners. 

The “Affected Environment” chapter contains 

a description of selected natural and cultural 

resources, the available visitor experience, and 

the socioeconomic conditions in the Rio 

Grande region that might be affected by 

implementing this plan. 

The “Environmental Consequences” chapter 

contains descriptions of the potential effects 

on the environment that could result from 

each alternative. 

In the “Consultation and Coordination” chapter are descriptions of the processes used by 

the planning team to solicit public comments 

and to consult with other agencies. Comments 

that were received about the draft document 

also are addressed in this chapter, along with 

responses to those comments. 

Further information about legislation and a 

sample landowner agreement are included in 

the appendixes. 

PURPOSE 

The primary purpose of this plan is to protect 

the free-flowing river and provide a foundation from which to protect natural and cultural resources while providing for meaningful 

visitor experiences. A secondary purpose is to 

encourage compatible activities on adjacent 

lands so as to minimize adverse effects on 

river values. Although this plan will provide 

overall direction for river management, subsequent action plans, such as a river use management plan, may be necessary to guide specific 

actions for implementing the plan. This plan 

fulfills the obligation for a comprehensive 

3 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

river management plan required by the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act. 

This plan will specify the desired future resource conditions and visitor experiences in 

the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River and 

prescribe management strategies for achieving 

those conditions. This conceptual plan will 

provide the basic framework for decisionmaking for the next 15 to 20 years. It contains 

a map and a description of the proposed 

boundary of the wild and scenic river, within 

which the outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife and 

cultural values would be protected and the 

needs of private property owners respected. 

(Also see appendix A, “Legislation.”) 

Part 1 (b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

(16 USC 1271-1287; Public Law 90-542 of 

October 2, 1968) designates that outstandingly 

remarkable values are to be protected, as 

follows: 

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the 

United States that certain selected rivers of 

the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and 

wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar 

values, shall be preserved in free-flowing 

condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the 

benefit and enjoyment of present and future 

generations. 

The National Park Service has developed a 

series of management objectives to guide 

future decision-making (see “Goals” 

beginning on p. 13). 

Actions directed by general management 

plans or in subsequent implementation plans 

are accomplished over time. Budget restrictions, requirements for additional data or 

regulatory compliance, and competing national park system priorities might prevent the 

immediate implementation of some actions. 

Major or especially costly actions could be 

implemented ten or more years into the 

future. 

NEED 

According to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 

the boundaries and classification are to be 

completed within one year after designation. 

After the designation of a river, a comprehensive river management plan with official 

boundaries is to be completed within three 

years. The Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 

was designated in 1978, and the National Park 

Service developed a general management 

plan / development concept plan for the river 

in 1981. According to that plan, the boundary 

of the wild and scenic river was to include 

only the area from the center of the river to 

the gradient boundary on the United States 

side. The National Park Service, in consultation with the Department of the Interior Solicitor’s Office, later determined that boundary to be inadequate to protect the outstandingly remarkable values, and hence legally 

deficient. The plan never was implemented. 

Later, congressional action specified that the 

boundaries on all wild and scenic rivers without approved management plans were, by 

default, 0.25 mile from the ordinary highwater mark. 

Therefore, there never has been a plan to 

guide the long-term management of the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River. A plan is 

needed to identify and protect specific 

outstandingly remarkable values and to 

comply with the law, NPS Management 

Policies 2001 and Director’s Order (DO) 2, 

Planning Process Guidelines. 

In addition, preparing this plan presents an 

excellent opportunity to foster cooperative 

working relationships between the U.S. government, represented by the National Park 

Service, and state and local governments, river 

users, owners of adjacent property, and the 

government of Mexico. 

4
BACKGROUND 

DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 

In 1978 Congress designated a segment of the 

Rio Grande a national wild and scenic river 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 

28 §1274): 

The segment on the United States side of the 

river from river mile 842.3 above Mariscal 

Canyon downstream to river mile 641.1 at 

the Terrell–Val Verde County line, to be 

administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior . . . 

The International Boundary and Water Commission later revised the river miles on the Rio 

Grande, changing the beginning and ending 

points to 853.2 and 657.5, respectively. This 

component of the national wild and scenic 

river system is unique in that only half of the 

river is designated. The southern half of the 

river could not be included in the designation 

because it is owned by Mexico. 

Location 

The designated stretch of the Rio Grande begins in Big Bend National Park, opposite the 

boundary between the Mexican states of Chihuahua and Coahuila. It then flows through 

Mariscal and Boquillas canyons in the national 

park. Downstream from the park, it extends 

along the state-managed Black Gap Wildlife 

Management Area and several parcels of 

private land in the Lower Canyons. The wild 

and scenic river segment ends at the county 

line between Terrell and Val Verde counties, 

Texas (see the Location / Current 

Management map). 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

Congress designated the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River because of its outstandingly remarkable scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife, 

recreational, and other similar values. 

Scenic Values. Rugged canyons, verdant riparian areas, scenic rapids, and unspoiled 

views contribute to the scenic allure and 

outstanding visual quality of this area. 

Geologic Features. Rock layers exposed by 

the Rio Grande were deposited about 100 

million years ago. Subsequent uplifting, folding, faulting, and cutting of the river have produced the present topography. Near its upstream end, the Rio Grande has sliced through 

the surrounding rocks to form steep-walled, 

sometimes narrow canyons. Downstream 

from Boquillas Canyon, the river flows across 

a relatively broad and open floodplain, or 

vega. Near Reagan Canyon, the floodplain 

narrows abruptly, and the river flows in a continuous deeply cut canyon for almost 40 miles. 

In the Lower Canyons portion of this segment, the river and its tributaries lie 500 to 

1,500 feet below the surrounding plateaus. 

Fish and Wildlife. The Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River corridor represents an exceptional example of Chihuahuan Desert fauna in 

association with species that depend on the 

rare aquatic and riparian habitats of the river. 

It is an isolated outpost of rapidly dwindling 

and irreplaceable natural resources such as 

several fauna in association with species, including threatened and endangered species, 

that depend on the rare aquatic and riparian 

habitats of the river. A number of wildlife species (especially birds) use the Rio Grande as a 

travel corridor. Many species of animals depend on the riverine habitat for survival. 

Recreational Opportunities. Spectacular 

river canyons, occasional rapids, the primitive 

character of the river, and its international 

flavor create a stimulating environment for a 

high-quality recreational experience. The 

river can be enjoyed from canyon rims, along 

the shore, or in a boat. The designated segment is long enough to offer several varied 

and meaningful recreational experiences 

lasting from a few hours to several days. 

5 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

LEGISLATION AND MANDATES 

The development of this plan has proceeded 

within a complex legal framework. It was developed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Public Law 

91-190, and the regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 

1508.22). The plan must comply with the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 

NPS policies, and other legal mandates, as summarized below. The policies and practices listed 

below would continue to guide the management of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 

under either alternative. The intent of the laws 

and policies is to establish sustainable conservation and to avoid the impairment of designated rivers or NPS lands and resources. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act — Congress created the national wild and scenic rivers system 

in 1968 (through Public Law (PL) 90-542; 16 

USC 1271 et seq.) to protect water quality and 

to preserve in a free-flowing condition certain 

rivers with outstandingly remarkable natural, 

cultural, or recreational values for the enjoyment of present and future generations. An 

underlying principle of the act is to promote 

partnerships among landowners, river users, 

tribal nations, and all levels of government. As 

of December 2000, the national system had 

grown from its initial eight components to a 

160-river system. 

Rivers may be designated by Congress (usually 

following a study by a federal agency) or, under certain conditions, by the secretary of the 

interior. Each river is administered by a federal or state agency. The designation may not 

include the entire river, but it usually includes 

a segment within a corridor of about 0.25 mile 

(not to exceed 320 acres per river mile) on 

each side of the river so that related natural, 

cultural, and recreational values will be protected. In the case of the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River, the corridor extends only on the 

United States side of the river and may not exceed 160 acres per river mile (a total of 31,312 

acres). 

Congress passed legislation in 1986 that set 

boundaries of 0.25 mile from the ordinary 

high water mark for any wild and scenic rivers 

for which no permanent boundaries had been 

established by a management plan. 

Each designated river is managed with the 

goal of nondegradation and the enhancement 

of the values for which it was designated. 

Other uses (including recreation, a variety of 

agricultural practices, and residential development) may continue if not otherwise precluded. In most cases, not all land within the 

boundaries is publicly owned. In fact, there 

are limitations on how much land a federal 

agency is allowed to acquire. Designation does 

not affect existing water rights or existing 

jurisdiction of states and the United States 

over waters as determined by established principles of law. 

Although the act provides numerous measures 

to protect and enhance a river’s values, the 

most significant restrictions are provided in 

section 7, in which the act specifically prohibits federally assisted or sponsored water 

resource projects that would impede a wild 

and scenic river’s free flow or cause direct and 

adverse effects on its outstandingly remarkable values. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in section 6 

authorizes the U.S. government to acquire 

land within a designated river’s corridor for 

river management purposes. Acquisition in fee 

title is limited to not more that 100 acres per 

river mile. Lands owned by a state may be acquired by donation only. If 50% or more of 

the entire acreage outside the ordinary high 

water mark is in federal, state, or local government ownership, the U.S. government cannot 

acquire fee title through condemnation. This 

section also grants the authority to acquire 

easements that are necessary to provide public 

access to and on the river. 

6
385 

285 

BIG BEND National Park 

118 

170 

Elephant Mtn. WMA 

Alpine 

Marathon 

Brewster Co. Brewster Co. Terrell Co. Terrell Co. Val Verde Co. 

Black Gap WMA 

 Santa Elena 

d Area 

Santa Elena 

Boquillas 

Maderas del Carmen Protected Area 

La Linda 

nch 

Study Butte 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 

Texas 

Big Bend National Park 

0 3 6 9 12 18 Miles 

North 

T E X A S 

UNITED STATES 

A 

COAHUILA 

 Access Points Dirt Roads 

+

+

+

+

+

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 

M E X I C O 	 Location / Current

Management 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 

National Park Service U.S. Department of Interior

DSC / Sept 03 / 192 / 20003 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

(blank back of map) 

8 
Background 

Section 10(a) of the act says, “Each component of the national wild and scenic rivers 

system shall be administered in such a manner 

as to protect and enhance the values which 

caused it to be included in said system.” It also 

says, “Primary emphasis shall be given to protecting its esthetic, scenic, historic, archeological and scientific features.” The National 

Park Service interprets this section as declaring a nondegradation and enhancement policy 

for all designated rivers, regardless of classification. 

Section 10(b) stipulates that when a wild and 

scenic river flows through designated wilderness, the river will be managed by the most 

restrictive provisions under either designation. This will apply if Congress designates the 

proposed wilderness in Big Bend National 

Park. 

Section 10(e) of the act encourages cooperative agreements with state agencies in the 

planning and administration of wild and 

scenic rivers that include state lands, as in the 

case of the Rio Grande. 

Section 13 says that the state retains the jurisdiction in regard to fish and wildlife management and navigable streams. That section also 

says that state jurisdiction over the waters of a 

wild and scenic river is unaffected by designation to the extent that such jurisdiction can be 

exercised without impairing the purposes of 

the act. 

National Park System Mandates — The National Park Service is guided by a number of 

laws specific to the national park system, in 

particular the NPS Organic Act of August 25, 

1916 (16 USC 1, 2-4) and the General Authorities Act (16 USC 1a-8). These acts direct the 

agency to conserve the scenery, the natural 

and historic objects, and the wildlife, and to 

provide for the enjoyment of those resources 

in such a manner as to leave them unimpaired 

for future generations. On March 27, 1978, 

Congress passed the Redwood Act (16 USC 

1a-1), which reaffirmed the mandates of the 

Organic Act and provided additional guidance 

for managing the national park system, as 

follows: 

The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and 

administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and 

integrity of the National Park System and 

shall not be exercised in derogation of the 

values and purposes for which these various 

areas have been established. 

The Organic Act and numerous other acts and 

legislation have been incorporated into the 

NPS Management Policies 2001, which sets the 

framework and provides direction for all management decisions in the National Park Service. Section 4.3.4 of the Policies says “No 

management actions may be taken that could 

adversely affect the values that qualify a river 

for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System.” 

Federal Statutes and NPS Policies Related to 

Biological Resources — Guidance for protecting biological resources is found in the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, NPS Management Policies 2001, and NPS-77, Natural 

Resource Management Guidelines. These mandates also require the examination of impacts 

during planning, as does the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. In addition, a 

primary goal in the overall mission statement 

of the Department of the Interior is to protect 

plant and animal diversity (biodiversity) on 

public lands. 

Under the Endangered Species Act, federal 

agencies, in consultation with the secretary of 

the interior, are required to use their authority 

to further the purposes of the act and to carry 

out programs for the conservation of listed 

endangered and threatened species (16 USC 

1535 § 7(a)(1)). The National Park Service 

interprets that section as an affirmative 

restoration mandate and will comply through 

positive habitat protection and restoration 

programs that are integral to the proposed 

action. 

9 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

The act also directs federal agencies, in consultation with the secretary of the interior, to 

ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by the agency is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat (16 USC 1535 § 7(a)(2)). 

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is required if the action might affect 

such a species to ensure that it would not 

jeopardize the species’ continued existence. 

The primary objective in managing wild and 

scenic rivers is to protect free-flowing conditions, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. In the case of the Rio 

Grande, this includes scenery, geology, fish 

and wildlife, and recreation. 

The National Park Service has a responsibility 

to protect air quality under the Clean Air Act 

of 1963, as amended. Accordingly, the agency 

will seek to perpetuate the best possible air 

quality in parks to preserve natural and cultural resources and sustain visitor enjoyment, 

human health, and scenic vistas. 

The Clean Water Act of 1977 sets standards 

and protective guidelines for maintaining 

surface water quality. Wherever possible, the 

National Park Service will avoid the pollution 

of park waters by human activities occurring 

in and outside of parks. 

Federal Statutes and NPS Policies Related to 

Cultural Resources — The National Park Service is mandated to preserve and protect its cultural resources through the Organic Act and 

through specific legislation such as the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the Archeological 

Resources Protection Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation regarding “Protection of Historic 

Properties” (36 CFR 800). The following laws, 

associated regulations, and NPS policies provide direction for developing alternatives, 

analyzing impacts, and formulating mitigation 

or avoidance measures: 

• National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended (16 USC 470 et seq.). 

The act establishes as federal policy that 

the historical and cultural foundations of 

the nation’s heritage be preserved. Section 

106 requires that federal agencies that 

fund or have direct or indirect jurisdiction 

over undertakings take into account the 

effect of those undertakings on historic 

properties eligible for or included in the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

• The Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 25 USC § 

3000-13) of 1994 provides for the repatriation, disposition, and protection of Native 

American human remains and other defined cultural items. It also prohibits the 

intentional excavation and removal of Native American human remains and defined 

cultural property from federal or tribal 

lands without a permit issued under the 

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 (16 USC 5937) and without consultation with Indian tribes. In cases involving 

the inadvertent discovery of Native 

American human remains or defined cultural items, this act requires that the activity be halted temporarily, that the items 

be protected, and that the appropriate 

federal agency or tribal authority be notified of the discovery. 

• NPS policies concerning cultural resource 

management are from NPS Management 

Policies 2001 and DO 28, Cultural Resource 

Management Guidelines. Other relevant policy directives and legislation are detailed in 

DO 28. 

Big Bend National Park has management responsibility for the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 

River. The park has consulted and will continue 

to consult with affiliated American Indian tribes 

to develop and accomplish its programs in a 

way that respects the beliefs, traditions, and 

other cultural values of the American Indian 

tribes that have ancestral ties to the lands 

encompassed by the park. 

10
Background 

Special Mandates — The 1978 designation of 

the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River also 

stipulated that the Wild And Scenic Rivers Act 

would not conflict with the 1944 Water Treaty 

or the 1970 Boundary Treaty between the 

United States and Mexico. Under these treaties, either of the countries may construct 

flood control works or water diversion structures. The 1944 treaty specifies that at least 

one-third of the combined annual flow volume from the six Mexican rivers that feed the 

Rio Grande belongs to the United States. This 

treaty also requires that the discharge must 

total at least 350,000 acre-feet annually, based 

on a five-year moving mean average. The International Boundary and Water Commission 

is responsible for implementing these treaties. 

Under a letter of intent, an agreement between the U.S. Department of the Interior and 

the Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries of the United Mexican 

States for joint work in natural protected areas 

on the United States–Mexico border, the two 

agencies plan to expand cooperative activities 

in the conservation of contiguous natural protected areas in the border zone and to consider new opportunities for cooperation in the 

protection of natural protected areas along 

the international border. Nothing in this General Management Plan would conflict with the 

letter of intent. 

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER 

PLANNING DOCUMENTS 

This plan has been developed in coordination 

with the Big Bend National Park General Management Plan. That plan leaves all planning 

decisions concerning the Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River to this plan. Nothing in this 

plan will conflict with the goals or objectives 

of the park’s General Management Plan, and 

nothing proposed in that plan conflicts with 

river management goals as described in this 

document. No proposal in the park’s plan 

would adversely affect any value or use of the 

river. 

A Recreational River Use Management Plan 

prepared by the Big Bend National Park staff 

and approved in 1997 is an implementation 

plan describing specific actions for managing 

recreational uses on the Rio Grande in Big 

Bend National Park. That plan would be revised to implement actions specified in this 

General Management Plan. 

Other plans of Big Bend National Park are as 

follows: 

Water Resources Management Plan (1995) 

Backcountry Management Plan (1995) 

Wildland Fire Management Plan (1994) 

Castolon Long Range Interpretive Plan (1980) 

“Drought Contingency Plan” (draft in 

preparation)

“Water Conservation Plan” (draft in 

preparation)

These park plans would complement the 

implementation of this General Management 

Plan. 

DEFINITIONS OF SPECIAL TERMS 

Some of the special terms used in this 

document are defined below: 

Boundary, absolute—the legal private 

property boundary. 

Boundary, wild and scenic river—A line 

located on the United States shore (as set 

forth in this plan), which includes only 

such land as is visible from the river and 

extends from the ordinary high water 

mark, inland not more than 0.25 mile, 

whichever is less. It could extend to the 

farthest sight distance (for example, a canyon rim) up to a maximum of 0.25 mile 

from ordinary high water mark, depending 

on the specific outstandingly remarkable 

values present. The boundary marks the 

area within which the manager will focus 

work with local communities and landowners in developing effective strategies 

for protecting river values. 

Classification—A designated river (or segment of a river) must be classified as either 

11
PURPOSE AND NEED 

recreational, scenic, or wild according to 

the criteria listed under those terms, below. 

Corridor/river area—The area between (1) 

the international boundary of the United 

States and Mexico and (2) the wild and 

scenic river boundary. 

Free-flowing—a river or river segment existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprapping, or other modification of 

the waterway. 

Ordinary high water mark—The line on 

the shore established by the fluctuations of 

water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a distinct natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in 

the character of soil, the destruction of 

terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter 

and debris, or other appropriate means 

that consider the characteristics of the 

surrounding areas. 

Outstandingly remarkable value—A term 

used in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

meaning a river-related value that may be 

unique, rare, or exemplary, based on professional judgment within a regional 

comparative scale. 

Recreational river—A river or section of a 

river that is readily accessible by road or 

railroad, that may have some development 

along the shoreline, and that may have 

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. Recreational segments do 

not necessarily provide exceptional recreational opportunities. 

Scenic river—A river or section of a river 

that is free of impoundment, with shorelines or watershed still largely primitive 

and shoreline largely undeveloped, but 

accessible in places by roads. Scenic segments do not necessarily possess outstanding scenery. 

Wild river— A river or section of a river 

that is free of impoundment and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watershed 

or shoreline essentially primitive and water 

unpolluted. Wild rivers represent vestiges 

of primitive America. Wild segments are 

not necessarily fast-moving white water. 

Wild and scenic river —A segment of river 

designated by Congress as a component of 

the national wild and scenic river system. 

12
PURPOSE, SIGNIFICANCE, AND GOALS 

MISSION STATEMENT 

The National Park Service at the 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 

River, through cooperative management, preserves and protects 

the free-flowing state and the 

natural, cultural, and scenic conditions of the river and its 

immediate environment for the 

benefit and enjoyment of present 

and future generations. 

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 

RIO GRANDE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER 

Purpose 

The Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River was 

designated in 1978 for the following purposes: 

to preserve the free-flowing condition and 

essentially primitive character of the river 

(except as provided by treaties) 

to protect the outstanding scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife, recreational, 

scientific, and other similar values of the 

river and it immediate environment 

to provide opportunities for riveroriented recreation that is dependent 

upon the free-flowing condition of the 

river and consistent with the primitive 

character of the surroundings 

Significance 

The Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River is significant as part of a valuable and largely intact 

ecological system representing major riparian 

and aquatic habitat associated with the Chihuahuan Desert. Spectacular river canyons, 

the primitive character of the river, and its international flavor combine to form a stimulating environment for a high quality scenic 

and recreational experience. Protecting and 

managing this outstanding natural resource 

extends a valuable opportunity for international cooperation between the United States 

and Mexico. 

GOALS 

Resource Management Goals 

The planning team and partners developed 

the following goals in response to issues and 

concerns presented by the public and park 

staff:. 

• Preserve the river in its natural, freeflowing character and the purposes for 

which it was designated, and permit historical uses such as boating and fishing. 

• Conserve or restore wildlife, scenery, 

natural sights and sounds, and other 

resources of the river corridor and its 

immediate environment. 

• Prevent adverse impacts on natural and 

cultural resources through proactive 

visitor use management and on private 

lands through landowner agreements. 

• Achieve cooperative protection of cultural 

resources in the river corridor. 

• With regional and binational partners, 

strongly advocate for scientifically determined suitable instream flow levels to 

support fish and wildlife populations, 

riparian communities, and recreation 

opportunities. 

• Maintain water quality at, or improve it to, 

levels consistent with the Clean Water Act 

and federal or federally approved state 

water quality standards. 

Visitor Use Goals 

• For visitors, afford opportunities for safe 

and enjoyable visits and for increasing 

13 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

their understanding and appreciation of 

the Rio Grande. 

• Afford opportunities for high quality visitor experiences by limiting public access 

to that now approved or commonly used 

and by establishing use limits based on 

historic levels. 

• Retain opportunities for visitors to 

experience solitude. 

• Require river users to respect adjacent private property and the lands and people of 

Mexico. 

Cooperative Management Goals 

• Manage the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 

River as a cooperative venture with other 

federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, concerned citizens, and the 

government of Mexico. 

• Ensure that the management of the wild 

and scenic river does not infringe on 

private property rights. 

14
ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS

This General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement addresses major 

planning issues — the resources and values 

that may be at stake in choosing one course of 

action over another. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The public involvement that was arranged 

during the preparation of this document is 

detailed in the “Consultation and Coordination” chapter, beginning on page 99. The public was notified of scoping meetings through 

press releases and the first planning newsletter, and the planning team arranged public 

scoping meetings in May 2000 in Study Butte, 

Alpine, Sanderson, and Austin, Texas, to introduce the public to the planning process and 

solicit comments. A workshop for landowners 

was conducted in February 2001 in Sanderson 

to give private landowners an opportunity to 

present their concerns and to work on some 

important issues. 

Public meetings in June 2001 in San Antonio, 

Alpine, and Study Butte informed participants 

about the status of the planning effort, and 

comments were received about planning issues and outstandingly remarkable values. A 

reply form encouraging people to submit 

comments about issues was included with the 

third newsletter, and 25 comments were 

received from that mailing. 

ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

As a part of the scoping mentioned above, 

many issues and concerns were identified by 

the park staff, other agencies, and the general 

public. These issues and concerns were then 

grouped and summarized by topic as follows. 

Recreation and Tourism 

Recreational Activities. Current recreational 

activities in the wild and scenic river area are 

whitewater boating, camping, hiking, motorized boating, fishing, and public hunting in the 

Black Gap Wildlife Management Area. The 

public has expressed concern that the National Park Service might implement new 

regulations that could limit or restrict certain 

recreational activities. 

Visitation Limits. Limited public access and 

the inaccessibility of the river have effectively 

limited the numbers of river users. Public 

comments have suggested that limiting visitation to the current estimate of 1,100–1,500 per 

year would be acceptable. 

Rules and Regulations. The enforcement of 

state and federal rules and regulations has 

been questioned. Jurisdictional issues between 

Texas Parks and Wildlife and the National 

Park Service occasionally strain relationships 

between the agencies. Some people are uncertain about which rules and regulations are 

enforced by the National Park Service. 

Access and Egress. Public access to the Lower Canyons is limited to Heath Canyon and 

possibly the Black Gap Wildlife Management 

Area. Egress from the river at Dryden Crossing is by the will of the landowner. No agreements exist between the National Park Service 

and this property owner to allow for public 

egress. Changes in ownership or abuse of the 

takeout privilege could result in floaters having to take out their boats 50 miles downstream at Langtry. 

Weather and Safety Hazards. Isolated thunderstorms can cause flash floods in side canyons or on the main stem of the Rio Grande. 

This is a potential danger for river users, who 

could be trapped by rising floodwaters. Addressing the safety of boaters and other visitors from floods or other hazards is an 

identified concern. 

Infrastructure. The Rio Grande is a regional 

tourist attraction. The infrastructure for adequate support of visitors is perceived to be 

15 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

lacking, and comments have been received 

saying that the National Park Service does not 

do enough to encourage appropriate naturebased tourism and associated economic development in the surrounding gateway 

communities. 

La Linda Bridge. The reopening of the La 

Linda bridge could affect visitor use and 

commercial traffic. 

Development Threats to Natural Values. Increased pressure of residential development 

and fishing camps along the river and canyon 

rims threaten the scenic and rugged characteristics of the wild and scenic river corridor. 

Natural Resources 

Loss of Aquatic Species. The Rio Grande 

Wild and Scenic River has lost five species of 

fish and possibly could lose mussel species 

and a turtle. Inadequate river flows are compromising aquatic and terrestrial species and 

their associated habitat. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

Species. The Rio Grande corridor serves as 

important habitat for several state-listed and 

federally listed threatened and endangered 

species. The river corridor also could provide 

sufficient habitat to reintroduce or strengthen 

critical species. 

Visitor Effects on Resources. Increased visitor use in the Lower Canyons could adversely 

affect or endanger important natural resources such as springs, riparian areas, and 

nesting areas for wildlife. 

Exotic Species. Invasive or introduced species such as tamarisk (salt cedar) and nutria 

have been observed along the river corridor. 

There is concern about ways to control these 

species and the impacts they could have on 

native plants and wildlife. 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural Sites on Private Land. Prehistoric 

and historic sites are abundant along the river 

corridor, mostly on private property in the 

United States or Mexico. Preserving these 

sites is important in understanding human use 

and development along the river. The National Park Service and other agencies need ways 

to work with private property owners to protect and/or stabilize significant cultural sites. 

Artifact Disturbance and Unauthorized 

Collecting. The historical records of cultural 

and historic sites continually are threatened 

by river users who collect artifacts and otherwise disturb the sites. 

Water Resources 

Water Flow. Decreased water flow threatens 

fish and wildlife populations, riparian habitat, 

and recreational opportunities. River flow 

data that have been collected indicate that instream flows decreased by 50% in the past 20 

years. Some people predict this trend will continue over the next 10 or more years. 

Instream Flow. The National Park Service 

and other wild and scenic river partners need 

cooperation from upstream water users in the 

United States and from Mexico to be able to 

resolve the instream flow issue. 

Contamination of Springs. Natural springs 

along the river could be adversely affected by 

public use. There is a possibility of contamination. 

Water Quality. The quality of water in the 

Rio Grande through the Big Bend region is 

highly variable. Big Bend National Park employees sample the water for bacterial levels 

monthly at several locations in the park. An 

incubation period of 24 hours is required, delaying results and preventing timely notification about poor water quality conditions. 

Sample results have shown a correlation be16
tween river flow levels and high bacteria 

counts. 

Pollution and Contact Recreation. After 

rainstorms and when flow levels are rising, the 

bacterial counts of the water rise and may exceed the recommended levels for contact recreation such as swimming. This probably is 

caused by runoff from creeks and other tributaries carrying animal waste and other pollutants into the Rio Grande. This occurs primarily during the summer monsoon season, 

between June and October, but it can happen 

at any time of year. 

Landowner Interests 

Resolving boundary issues and landowner 

concerns has been a priority of the Rio 

Grande Partnership Team. Many innovative 

solutions to respect property rights and conserve the wild and scenic river have been 

considered. 

Liability. Some landowners are concerned 

about personal liability if river users should 

injure themselves while hiking or camping 

along the river and side canyons. 

Boundaries and Property Rights. Some 

landowners are opposed to having an administrative boundary placed on their property, 

saying that this would be an infringement of 

their property rights. They also have expressed concern about possible restrictions on 

developing their property if a wild and scenic 

river boundary is put into place. Some landowners resent what they see as U.S. government interference in their use of their private 

property. 

Definitions of Values. The National Park 

Service needs to define clearly what outstandingly remarkable values need to be protected. 

River Below Wildlife Area. A total of 127 

miles of river below the Black Gap Wildlife 

Management Area is on private land. It is 

unclear how this area would be managed. 

Issues and Impact Topics 

River User Misbehavior. Landowners have 

complained about river user behavior: crossing private land without permission to reach 

the river, leaving trash at campgrounds, trespassing, and adversely affecting historic and 

cultural sites. 

Legal Issues 

Illegal Entry. River users who camp on the 

Mexican bank of the Rio Grande may be 

illegally reentering the United States because 

this is not at an authorized border crossing. 

Jurisdiction. Law enforcement jurisdiction 

on the wild and scenic river needs to be clarified, and NPS authorities need to be defined. 

Partnerships and 

Administrative Relationships 

Funding. Big Bend National Park staff and the 

public have expressed opinions that available 

funding is inadequate to administer the wild 

and scenic river. Funds are used primarily for 

regularly scheduled river patrols. 

Outfitters. Commenters have said that local 

outfitters are an excellent source of knowledge of the river’s resources and that the 

National Park Service should make use of this 

source to help manage the wild and scenic 

river. The appropriate roles and responsibilities for outfitters in river planning need to be 

determined. 

International Commission. The National 

Park Service needs to ascertain if there is a 

role for the International Boundary and Water 

Commission in planning for the Rio Grande 

Wild and Scenic River. 

Mexico as a Partner. Mexico cannot be left 

out of the river planning process. It is important to find out what levels of concurrence or 

agreement are needed for river planning. If 

the state of Texas, counties, and owners of 

private property are willing to conserve the 

Rio Grande corridor, having Mexico’s active 

17
PURPOSE AND NEED 

participation in planning for and protecting 

the river is critical. 

IMPACT TOPICS 

The issues and concerns described above 

were used to determine distinct impact topics. 

Each topic listed in this section is a resource 

or value at stake in the planning process. 

These topics are used throughout the document to facilitate the analysis of the environmental consequences. This allows for a comparison between alternatives on the basis of 

the most relevant information. When deciding 

on the impact topics, the planning team considered the requirements of federal laws, regulations, and orders; NPS Management Policies 

2001; and the team members’ knowledge of 

sensitive resources. A brief rationale for the 

selection of each impact topic is given below. 

Scenic Values 

Scenery, or visual quality, is an outstandingly 

remarkable value of the Rio Grande. Scenic 

value might be affected by development along 

the shore; therefore, it is included as an impact 

topic. 

Fish and Wildlife 

The riparian corridor created by the Rio 

Grande supports diverse biotic communities 

that could be affected by the implementation 

of planning actions. 

Special Status Species 

Four federally listed species of plants and fish 

and wildlife are found in or near the river: 

Big Bend gambusia 

black-capped vireo 

bunched cory cactus 

Chisos Mountains hedgehog cactus 

The management actions prescribed by this 

plan would have the potential to affect listed 

species; therefore, this topic is included for 

analysis. 

Archeological Resources 

Known archeological resources along the Rio 

Grande reveal a human presence in the region 

throughout a period of 12,000 years (NPS 

1981). The alternatives presented in this plan 

could affect archeological resources. 

Historic Structures 

Four sites within the river corridor in Big 

Bend National Park are listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places, and others may be 

eligible. There are five known historic sites in 

the Lower Canyons. The actions of the alternatives presented in this document could 

affect historic resources. 

Visitor Experience and Understanding 

(Recreational Use) 

Typically, traditional uses are allowed to continue on a wild and scenic river once it has 

been designated. Some controversy arose 

during scoping regarding the use of motorized 

craft. Recreation is considered an outstandingly remarkable value, and this plan could 

place limits on recreational use. For these 

reasons, the topic of visitor experience and 

understanding is included for analysis. 

Water Quality and Quantity 

Most of the outstandingly remarkable values 

that led to the designation of the Rio Grande 

Wild and Scenic River depend on adequate 

amounts of flowing water. For this reason, 

water quality and quantity are included as 

impact topics. 

There is general agreement that pursuing a 

management plan for the wild and scenic river 

would not make sense if there was not enough 

water flow to sustain such values as recreational use, fisheries, and riverside vegetation. 

18
Water flow has been dropping over the past 

20 years. River flows could be severely reduced by upstream impoundments and diversions, compounded by additional water needs 

for development and cultivated lands along 

the Mexican Rio Conchos, the Rio Grande, 

and their tributaries. These conditions, exacerbated by recurring droughts, could effectively eliminate river recreation for parts of 

the year. Although many river flow issues are 

beyond the scope of this document, the preferred alternative includes actions and the 

possibility of partnerships that could help to 

improve the flow conditions. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation along the river is part of the riverine ecosystem that is critical to many forms of 

life in the Chihuahuan Desert. One concern is 

that tamarisk, giant river cane, and other invasive nonnative plant species are spreading 

along the river. This plan has the potential to 

affect riverside vegetation; therefore, vegetation is analyzed as an impact topic. 

Nonfederal Lands within 

the River Boundary 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires that a 

boundary be legally established for each federally administered river in the national system. Where private lands are involved, the 

river boundary marks the area within which 

managers will focus work with local communities and landowners to develop effective 

strategies for protection. Existing landownership, whether federal or nonfederal, should 

not be a factor in determining boundaries. 

The boundary of a designated river is established by a management plan. The enabling 

legislation for the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 

River (PL 95-625) calls for “the establishment 

of a detailed boundary which shall include an 

average of not more than 160 acres per mile.” 

This maximum 160 acres per river mile 

equates to a corridor of land averaging 0.25 

mile wide on the American side of the river. 

Issues and Impact Topics 

The Draft General Management Plan / Development Concept Plan for the Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River that was written in 1981 

(NPS 1981) would have established a boundary from the international border in the center 

of the river to the gradient boundary on the 

United States side. The state of Texas defines 

the gradient boundary as midway between the 

lower level of flowing water that just reaches 

the lower cut bank and the higher level of flow 

that reaches the top but does not overflow the 

cut bank. That plan was not implemented because the gradient boundary was determined 

to be inadequate to protect the identified outstandingly remarkable values. 

A 1986 amendment to the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act specifies that the boundaries for all 

wild and scenic rivers for which permanent 

boundaries have not been established “shall 

generally comprise that area measured within 

one-quarter mile from the ordinary high water 

mark on each side of the river.” Although this 

legislation has included private lands within 

the current default boundary of the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River, management 

restrictions apply only to public lands. The 

federal government has no power to regulate 

or zone private lands, including those within 

the boundary. 

Many private landowners along the Lower 

Canyons of the Rio Grande in Brewster and 

Terrell Counties, Texas, acquired their land 

before the designation of the Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River. Some of those landowners 

opposed the legislation designating the wild 

and scenic river. The National Park Service 

recognizes and understands landowner concerns about condemnation. Throughout this 

planning effort, the National Park Service and 

the landowners can recognize the common interest in preserving the Rio Grande as a wild 

and scenic river and the advantages of participation in its management. 

Resolving boundary issues and landowner 

concerns has been a priority for the Rio 

Grande planning effort. This topic is included 

19
PURPOSE AND NEED 

because of past controversy and ongoing opportunities for cooperative partnerships. 

Socioeconomic Conditions 

The Big Bend region is rural, with an economic base of livestock, agriculture, and mineral 

extraction. Tourism plays a role in the economies of several local communities in Brewster 

and Terrell Counties. In addition, there are 

neighbors of the wild and scenic river that 

could be affected by the actions of the alternatives. The topics discussed are businesses 

and park neighbors, the impact of spending 

for recreation, river operators and hotel and 

motel operators, and the local and regional 

economy. The possible local and regional 

economic impacts that could result from 

implementing the alternatives are analyzed in 

this document. 

Partnerships and 

International Cooperation 

Early in the planning process, the National 

Park Service recognized that the plan could 

succeed only by fostering a spirit of cooperation among all entities affected by the designation of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River. 

A partnership team was created to act as 

liaison between the National Park Service, 

state and local governments, river users, and 

private landowners. 

Congressional designation of the Rio Grande 

Wild and Scenic River specified that only the 

American side of the river is included. However, land uses and environmental practices 

on either side of the river affect the whole 

river. Maderas del Carmen and Cañon de 

Santa Elena are two Mexican federally protected areas adjacent to the Rio Grande. These 

areas preserve important wildlife habitat and 

migration corridors and provide unique opportunities for the United States and Mexico 

to work together toward common resource 

preservation goals. 

Although the Mexican federal government 

owns and regulates Mexico’s half of the river 

and adjacent lands, boaters and anglers from 

the United States regularly use the Mexican 

shore. In addition, land uses in Mexico affect 

the quality and quantity of water in the river. 

Although the designation of this stretch of the 

Rio Grande does not include the Mexican side 

of the river, it would be important for future 

management to involve Mexican federal and 

state governments in cooperative partnerships. This opportunity for international cooperation is discussed in this document. 

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM 

FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

Soils 

Soils are an integral component of the ecosystem. The amount and diversity of plant life 

and associated animal life in a specific area can 

be directly related to the type and condition of 

the soil. Most soils in the river corridor are 

sediment and sand deposited by the river (alluvium). Upland slopes contain shallow soils 

that are derived from weathering of the exposed bedrock and colluviums. The topic of 

soils was dismissed from further consideration because neither alternative would call for 

ground-disturbing construction or cause an 

increase in use of the river that could affect 

soils. Most shoreline use by boaters would be 

in the first 150 feet, where natural high water 

periods and other river dynamics might affect 

soils more than would visitor use. 

Geology and Topography 

The rocks exposed by the erosive action of the 

Rio Grande and its tributaries are sedimentary, having been deposited about 100 million 

years ago. Subsequent uplifting, folding, faulting, and erosion have produced the present 

topography. Near its upstream end, the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River has cut through 

the surrounding rock to form the steep-walled 

Mariscal and Boquillas Canyons. Downstream 

from Boquillas Canyon, the river flows across 

20
Issues and Impact Topics 

a relatively broad and open floodplain. Near 

Reagan Canyon, the floodplain narrows 

abruptly, and the river flows in a continuous 

deeply cut canyon for almost 40 miles. In the 

Lower Canyons portion of this segment, the 

river and its tributaries lie 500 to 1,500 feet 

below the surrounding plateaus. 

Geologic value contributes to scenery and is 

listed as an outstandingly remarkable value of 

the Rio Grande; however, it is not included as 

an impact topic because neither of the alternatives would affect the geology or topography 

of the Rio Grande region. 

Selected Threatened, Endangered, 

and Candidate Species 

In a letter dated July 6, 2000, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service listed several species as occurring in Brewster or Terrell County (see 

appendix B). These species have been dismissed as an impact topic because they are not 

found in the river corridor. None of the actions proposed in the alternatives of this plan 

would be likely to affect them. The National 

Park Service would work with state and federal agencies to monitor populations and 

ensure that none of these species would be 

affected in the future. 

The bald eagle, a threatened species, is occasionally seen in Big Bend National Park and 

along the river, but it does not nest in the park. 

Because its presence in the area is only occasional, the bald eagle would be affected only 

negligibly, if at all, by actions taken to implement either alternative of this plan. Therefore, 

effects on the bald eagle will not be analyzed 

in this document. 

Impacts on the endangered Mexican longnosed bat, the threatened Lloyd’s Mariposa 

cactus, and candidate species tall paintbrush 

and Guadalupe fescue have not been analyzed 

in this document because, although found in 

the area, they would not be affected by the 

actions of either alternative of this plan. 

The endangered Mexican long-nosed bat 

primarily occupies mid to high elevations 

(1,550–9,330 feet) of desert scrub, open 

conifer-oak woodlands, and pine forest 

habitats. It is known to occupy only one roost 

site in the United States, a cave in the Chisos 

Mountains of Big Bend National Park. No 

actions in either alternative would affect this 

roost site or other habitat for this species. 

Candidate plant species Guadalupe fescue is 

found in scattered patches in the understory 

of pine-oak-juniper woodlands around 5,000 

feet in elevation, well above the river. Lloyd’s 

mariposa cactus is found on arid, gravelly, 

limestone-derived soils on gentle slopes, not 

typically in the area used by river visitors; 

therefore, it would not be affected. 

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 

Endangered Resource Branch, provided a special species list for Brewster County. Some 

species from the state list, other than those 

already described, are found in the general 

area. However, they all would be unlikely to 

be affected because they are not in the immediate vicinity of the proposed actions. 

Therefore, these species have been dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Cultural Landscapes 

No cultural landscapes have been officially 

identified and designated on the river either in 

or outside of Big Bend National Park. 

Ethnographic Resources 

The National Park Service defines ethnographic resources as any “site, structure, object, landscape, or natural resource feature 

assigned traditional, legendary, religious, subsistence, or other significance in the cultural 

system of a group traditionally associated with 

it” (DO-28, 181). The Mescalero Apache and 

Comanche maintain strong cultural connections with Big Bend National Park and the Rio 

Grande. These groups may make traditional 

use of cactus and other plants. The only tribal 

21
PURPOSE AND NEED 

group to request specific use of such resources 

was the Crow Chapter of the Native American 

Church, which asked for permission to gather 

peyote cactus for ritual use. 

No traditional cultural properties or other 

ethnographic resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places have been 

identified in the river corridor. Big Bend National Park would continue to consult with 

tribal representatives in the interest of providing access to traditional use areas. The park 

also would attempt to ascertain and address 

potential concerns about impacts on vegetation or other resource issues related to project 

undertakings. In addition, copies of this document will be forwarded to each affiliated tribe 

or group for review and comment. If subsequent issues or concerns should be identified, 

appropriate consultation would be undertaken. Any ethnographic resources identified 

in the future would be protected according to 

existing laws and policies 

Museum Collections 

All museum and archival collections related to 

the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River are 

stored with those from Big Bend National 

Park, in a facility in the park. This topic is addressed in the General Management Plan for 

Big Bend National Park (NPS 2004a); therefore, it does not need to be addressed in this 

plan. 

Night Sky 

The National Park Service recognizes that the 

night sky over the Rio Grande contributes significantly to the visitor experience. NPS policy 

states that the Park Service will seek to minimize the intrusion of artificial light into the 

night scene. At present, artificial light sources 

in and outside of Big Bend National Park do 

not diminish night sky viewing opportunities 

on the river. This condition will be maintained. No action or condition described in 

the management prescriptions or alternatives 

would result in an increase in light pollution 

because no development requiring outdoor 

lighting is proposed. 

Soundscapes 

Under NPS Management Policies 2001, park 

managers are required to “strive to preserve 

the natural quiet and natural sounds associated with the physical and biological resources 

of parks.” An example would be the sound of 

flowing water. Natural sounds predominate 

along most of the river. Allowing motorboats 

on some river segments would disturb the 

natural quiet, but visitors have opportunities 

to experience undisturbed natural sounds in 

other segments. The sounds of civilization 

generally are confined to developed areas 

such as Rio Grande Village. 

Energy, Depletable Resource 

Requirements, and Conservation Potential 

Consideration of energy, depletable resource 

requirements, and conservation potential is 

required by 40 CFR 1502.16. Both of the alternatives analyzed in this document would 

include the conservation of natural resources, 

and implementing either alternative would 

not require a significant expenditure of 

energy. 

Urban Quality and the Design 

of the Built Environment 

The regulations in 40 CFR 1502.16 require 

consideration of urban quality and the design 

of the built environment. Urban areas and vernacular designs are not considerations in this 

exceptionally rural environment. 

Air Quality 

Big Bend National Park is designated a class I 

air quality area under the provisions of the 

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977. The section of the river downstream of the park is in a 

class II area. Air quality in the entire Big Bend 

region has deteriorated dramatically over the 

22
past 20 years, and at times Big Bend has the 

worst air quality of any national park in the 

western United States. Windblown dust, 

natural aerosols, and long-range transport of 

sulfates all threaten visibility and air quality. 

Coal-fired power plants in both Mexico and 

the United States are suspected of being the 

primary sources of the haze that increasingly 

blankets the region, particularly during the 

summer months. A definitive ongoing air 

quality study, the Big Bend Regional Atmospheric and Observational Study (BRAVO), 

should help determine the exact sources of 

this pollution. It is recognized that poor air 

quality affects such issues as scenery and the 

quality of the recreational experience. If 

severe enough, poor air quality could affect 

vegetation, fish, and wildlife. 

None of the actions in either alternative 

would affect air quality. 

Public Health and Safety 

River running (boating) and other outdoor 

recreational activities pose some inherent 

risks. The actions proposed in the alternatives 

in this document would not result in any 

change to existing human health or safety 

concerns. Public information and education 

efforts include safety messages, and these 

would continue under either alternative. 

Wilderness 

Some parts of the Rio Grande in Big Bend National Park are adjacent to areas proposed for 

designation as wilderness. These areas were 

identified as having a primitive and largely 

untrammeled character. According to the 

Final Environmental Statement: Proposed 

Wilderness Classification for Big Bend National Park (NPS 1984), “In the three major 

river canyons of the Rio Grande, the wilderness boundaries include all of the cliffs down 

to the waterline of the Rio Grande.” The river 

itself is not included in the wilderness proIssues and Impact Topics 

posal, but the river management area would 

overlap areas proposed for wilderness. 

Segments of the Rio Grande that are classified 

as wild align with adjacent proposed wilderness areas, and the management goals of the 

wild segments are compatible with wilderness 

management goals. If Congress designated 

those proposed areas as wilderness, that designation would complement the wild and scenic river designation. Any part of a wild and 

scenic river that is within a designated wilderness is subject to the provisions of both the 

Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In case of conflict between the provisions of the two acts, the more restrictive 

provisions would apply. The management of 

the wild and scenic river through either of the 

alternatives would not affect wilderness values 

or possible designation. 

Floodplains and Wetlands 

Neither alternative of this plan would involve 

additional construction in, or disruption of, 

the Rio Grande or adjacent floodplains, and 

neither would entail filling in or disturbing 

any wetland. There are some floodplain issues 

at Rio Grande Village, but they have been addressed in the 2004 General Management Plan 

for Big Bend National Park. Management prescriptions in the preferred alternative of that 

plan will protect the river’s natural resources, 

including water quality and quantity. Therefore, the topics of floodplains and wetlands 

have been dismissed from further consideration in this document. 

Prime and Unique Farmlands 

The Council on Environmental Quality directed in August 1980 that federal agencies 

must assess the effects of their actions on 

farmland soils classified as prime or unique by 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRCS).

Prime or unique farmland is defined as soil 

that particularly produces general crops such 

as common foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; 

23
PURPOSE AND NEED 

unique farmland produces specialty crops 

such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Neither 

Brewster nor Terrell County contains soils 

with properties that would classify them as 

prime or unique farmlands. 

Indian Trust Resources 

No lands in the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 

River are held in trust by the secretary of the 

interior for the benefit of American Indians 

due solely to their status as American Indians. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires 

all federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and 

communities. Neither alternative of this document would result in adverse health or environmental effects on socially or economically 

disadvantaged populations or communities as 

defined in the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Environmental Justice Guidance 

(1998). 

24
Alternatives, 

Including the Preferred Alternative 
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

(blank back of divider) 

26 
INTRODUCTION 

The alternatives for managing Rio Grande 

Wild and Scenic River are described in this 

chapter. Alternative A, Existing Management 

Direction, the no-action alternative, would 

continue the current management. Alternative 

B, Enhance Resource Protection and Continue High-Quality Visitor Experiences, is the 

alternative preferred by the National Park 

Service. In this alternative, emphasis would be 

placed on protecting natural and cultural resources and the visitor experience in the 

Lower Canyons (outside Big Bend National 

Park boundaries) and on establishing a more 

meaningful and mutually agreed-upon boundary of the wild and scenic river. 

Although it is unusual for NPS planning documents, only one action alternative was retained through the planning process for the 

following reasons: 

a. Almost everyone submitting a comment 

had similar concerns and ideas for the 

long-term protection of the river, and 

there was a common vision for the future 

of the river among local governments, 

landowners, environmental groups, and 

the public. 

b. Most of the river is adjacent to private or 

state lands. Successful management of the 

river corridor will rely on the implementation of individual landowner agreements 

that call for specific boundaries and detail 

the specific responsibilities of the parties 

involved. The National Park Service and 

the landowners would be legally bound by 

these agreements, and there can be only 

one management approach to entering 

into these agreements. 

c. A strict regulatory alternative could adversely affect public recreation opportunities and would not reflect the spirit of 

communication and collaboration that has 

been fostered with private landowners. 

d. An earlier NPS river management plan 

was rejected because agreements with 

private landowners were not implemented, and it had a proposed boundary 

that was at the water’s edge, which was 

deemed inadequate to protect the outstandingly remarkable values. 

Therefore, the planning team and partners 

agreed that any other alternative would be 

unreasonable and have no real merit. 

The alternatives are compared in table 8 (p. 

51), in which the key differences between 

them are displayed. The potential environmental consequences of the alternatives are 

compared in table 9, page 52. 

27 
ALTERNATIVE A: EXISTING MANAGEMENT DIRECTION (NO ACTION) 

INTRODUCTION 

In this alternative, no management plan for 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River would be 

implemented; the wild and scenic river would 

be managed according to the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act and Big Bend National Park plans. 

“No action” does not imply discontinuing the 

present uses or management actions or removing the existing designation. The noaction alternative does not include any park 

zone prescriptions because zoning is not a 

part of the current management practices. 

(Current management is indicated on the Location / Current Management map, p. 7) This 

refers to management zones applied to National Park lands and not to zoning regulations on private lands.) 

The National Park Service would respond to 

future needs and conditions associated with 

the existing wild and scenic river designation 

without major actions or changes in course. 

The management of the river would continue 

to comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

and associated guidelines, NPS Management 

Policies 2001, and current management and 

implementation plans. 

In cases where the management actions for 

the river in Big Bend National Park would 

differ from those pertaining to wild and scenic 

river segments outside the park, the alternative description clearly identifies the actions 

that would apply to segments of the Rio 

Grande through the national park and those 

that would apply to segments of the Rio 

Grande through state and private lands downstream from the park. 

RIVER MANAGEMENT 

Section 10(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act says the following: 

Each component of the national wild and 

scenic rivers system shall be administered in 

such a manner as to protect and enhance the 

values which caused it to be included in said 

system. . . . Primary emphasis shall be given 

to protecting its esthetic, scenic, historic, 

archeological and scientific features. Management plans of any such component may 

establish varying degrees of intensity for its 

protection and development, based on 

special attributes of the area. 

The National Park Service interprets this to 

mean a nondegradation and enhancement 

policy for all designated rivers, regardless of 

classification. This requirement, as well as 

others from the act, would be followed. However, in this alternative, management decisions 

would not be subject to a uniform and comprehensive set of criteria, considerations, or 

management prescriptions. 

The National Park Service would continue the 

existing access to the river, enforcing the current rules and regulations to protect river values and respond to emergencies in the river 

corridor. The degree to which this would be 

carried out would depend on the available 

funding. The National Park Service would 

continue to have authority and jurisdiction to 

manage activities on the river as granted by 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Management responsibility for the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River would remain 

as it is at present, as shown in table 1. 

TABLE 1: OWNERSHIP OF LAND 

ALONG RIO GRANDE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER 

Ownership River Miles 

% of 

Total 

Private 101.1 51 

Federal (Big Bend NP) 71.4 36 

State of Texas 26.7 13 

Total 199.2 100 

Boundary 

The official management boundary of the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River would remain 

the default boundary of 0.25 mile from the 

ordinary high water mark on the United States 

side. 

28 
Alternative A: Existing Management Direction (No Action) 

Management of Corridor on 

Nonfederal Lands 

The existing default 0.25-mile management 

boundary also would remain in effect on segments outside of Big Bend National Park. 

However, the wild and scenic river designation does not affect nonfederal lands, and the 

National Park Service has no authority to enforce its rules or regulations on state or private 

land along the river. Developments and other 

land uses on nonfederal lands in the river corridor would continue without NPS input. No 

agreements would be made with landowners 

for cooperative management and the protection of resources. 

LAND ACQUISITION AND 

RIGHTS-OF-WAY 

The U.S. federal government could acquire, 

including through the use of eminent domain, 

lands and interests in land under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act clearly states 

that the jurisdiction and responsibility of the 

state to manage fish and wildlife is not affected by the federal designation. Under this 

no-action alternative, the National Park Service would adhere to existing laws and policies for managing natural resources on park 

land according to the Big Bend General Management Plan. The National Park Service 

would continue to cooperate with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the state of 

Texas in managing sensitive species in Big 

Bend National Park and on the river. 

The National Park Service has no authority to 

manage nonfederal lands adjacent to the river 

outside of Big Bend National Park, or the flora 

and fauna on those lands. No actions would 

be taken regarding these resources on nonfederal lands without landowner permission. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The National Park Service would observe existing laws and policies for protecting cultural 

resources on federal land (wild and scenic river segments in Big Bend National Park) including historic structures, archeological resources, and ethnographic resources. The 

management of cultural and ethnographic 

resources has been prescribed in the Big Bend 

General Management Plan. 

The National Park Service does not have the 

authority to manage nonfederal lands adjacent 

to the river segments outside of Big Bend National Park or the cultural resources on those 

lands; therefore, no action would be taken 

regarding cultural resources on nonfederal 

lands without landowner permission. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

AND UNDERSTANDING 

Historic and traditional uses of the river such 

as fishing, sightseeing, nature watching, swimming or wading, and boating would continue 

in this alternative. Rafts, canoes, kayaks, and 

motorized watercraft would be allowed on the 

river as at present. The established practice of 

private and commercial boaters spending a 

number of days to float through the Lower 

Canyons would not be affected. 

There would be no change to existing recreational access points in Big Bend National 

Park under this alternative. River access outside the park would continue to be at the discretion of landowners. It is possible that private landowners or the state of Texas could 

develop new river access points or close existing points at any time. The default 0.25-mile 

boundary would remain in effect and could 

lead landowners to close their lands to public 

use. 

The Recreational River Use Management Plan 

for Big Bend National Park (NPS 1997) would 

remain in effect, and the National Park Service 

would continue to require a permit to float the 

29 
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

river. Existing recreational use limits on segments of the wild and scenic river in the park 

would continue to be in effect as shown in 

table 2, but those regulations would be subject 

to change if the plan was revised. 

The following restrictions on motorized 

watercraft would continue according to the 

1997 Recreation River Use Management Plan: 

• Mariscal Canyon (classified wild) would 

continue to be closed to all motorized watercraft except during October (to provide 

a diversity of experience). Motors up to 60 

horsepower could be used in October 

only. 

• Motorized watercraft would continue to 

be prohibited in the wild segment that 

includes Boquillas Canyon to provide a 

wilderness experience. 

The National Park Service would continue to 

require permits for floating the river. Commercial boaters would have to get the appropriate business permit/contract and pay the 

required fees. Private boaters would have to 

obtain a permit. This would allow the National Park Service to deliver important safety and 

emergency information and monitor recreational use. 

Fishing would continue to be allowed according to established policy. Hunting on state and 

private lands would continue to be allowed 

according to state regulations. Hunting is not 

allowed in Big Bend National Park. NPS management responsibilities would be limited by 

the lack of administrative access to private 

lands. 

PARTNERSHIPS AND 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 

The National Park Service would continue to 

support and implement the letter of intent 

between the U.S. Department of the Interior 

and the Secretariat of Environment, Natural 

Resources and Fisheries of the United Mexican States, for joint work in natural protected 

areas on the United States-Mexico border. 

Because the Rio Grande Partnership Team’s 

primary function is involvement in the planning effort, it would be disbanded after a decision was made to accept the no-action alternative. No formal relationship with government entities in Mexico regarding river management would be initiated. 

IMPLEMENTATION 

The managers of Big Bend National Park 

would continue to manage the designated 

segments as at present, according to existing 

laws and policies. Management emphasis and 

related staffing allocations would be retained 

as identified in other approved documents 

such as the Recreational River Use Management Plan: Big Bend National Park (NPS 1997). 

30
Alternative A: Existing Management Direction (No Action) 

TABLE 2: EXISTING RECREATIONAL RIVER USE LIMITS IN BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK 

Segment 

Private Party Limits 

(Maximums)

Other Limits 

 Persons 

per Launch 

Launches 

per Day 

Western park boundary to Santa Elena 

Canyon takeout, Santa Elena takeout to 

Cottonwood Campground 30 11 

6 commercial companies may each launch 

a combination of day or multi-day trips 

per day, and 

1 special use group launch per day 

Cottonwood Campground to Reed 

Camp, Reed Camp to Talley 30 11 

3 commercial companies may each launch 

a combination of day or multi-day trips 

per day, and 

1 special use group launch per day 

Talley to Solis 

20 10 

1 commercial company may launch 1 day 

trip or multi-day trip per day; 

1 other commercial company may launch a 

1-day trip; 

3 special use groups may launch per week 

Solis to La Clocha, La Clocha to 

Boquillas 30 11 

3 commercial companies may each launch 

a combination of trips per day, and 

1 special use group launch per day 

Boquillas Canyon entrance to eastern 

park boundary 

20 10 

3 commercial companies may each launch 

a combination of -day trips per day, (if 3 

launches occur, at least one must be 

after noon) 

3 special use groups may launch per week 

On the Rio Grande downstream from Big Bend National Park, 20 persons, not including guides, may launch per 

trip. No annual limits. 

31 
ALTERNATIVE B: ENHANCE RESOURCE PROTECTION AND CONTINUE 

HIGH-QUALITY VISITOR EXPERIENCES (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

INTRODUCTION 

The planning team developed the preferred 

alternative on the basis of comments from the 

public, the park staff, and the Rio Grande 

Partnership Team and by considering the river’s purposes and significance. This alternative includes a long-term framework for protecting and managing resources, managing use 

by visitors, and other factors. All actions described in the preferred alternative are consistent with NPS policies and would not conflict with the Big Bend General Management 

Plan (see the Alternative B map). 

In cases where the management actions for 

the river in Big Bend National Park would differ from those pertaining to wild and scenic 

river segments outside the park, the description of the preferred alternative clearly defines 

the actions that would apply to segments of 

the Rio Grande through Big Bend National 

Park and those that would apply to segments 

of the Rio Grande through state and private 

lands downstream from the park. 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

A management prescription is an approach for 

managing a specified area based on desired future conditions. Prescriptions include target 

goals or objectives for resource conditions 

and visitor experience within the prescription 

area (zone). Different environmental and social conditions are emphasized in each zone. 

Management Prescriptions 

Common to All Zones 

The following prescriptions would apply to all 

the management zones: 

Biological Resources. NPS goals would be to 

preserve the natural abundance and diversity 

of native plant and animal populations, to restore native plant and animal populations that 

have been extirpated by past human-caused 

actions, and to minimize human impacts on 

native plant and animal populations and habitats. The health and sustainability of native 

wildlife and plant populations and their related habitat and natural landscapes would be 

maintained within natural fluctuations. NPS 

policy is to restore native populations whenever there is adequate habitat and the species 

does not pose a serious threat to people in the 

park, park resources, or persons or property 

outside park boundaries and when the genetic 

type of introduced individuals most nearly 

approximates the extirpated type and the 

species’ disappearance resulted from humaninduced actions. 

It is also NPS policy that exotic species be 

managed — up to and including eradication — 

if (1) control is prudent and feasible and (2) 

the exotic species does any of the following: 

interferes with natural processes and the 

perpetuation of natural features, native 

species, or natural habitats 

disrupts the genetic integrity of native 

species 

disrupts the accurate presentation of a 

cultural landscape 

damages cultural resources 

significantly hampers the management of 

park or adjacent lands 

poses a public health hazard 

creates a hazard to public safety 

NPS policy also mandates encouraging scientific research to inventory natural and cultural 

resources, monitor resource change, understand natural processes, and inform management decisions about protecting the resources. 

Water Resources. The National Park Service 

would perpetuate surface water and groundwater as integral components of natural 

ecosystems. to protect unimpeded such 

32 
Alternative B: Enhance Resource Protection and Continue High-Quality Visitor Experiences (Preferred Alternative) 

natural fluvial processes as stream meanders 

and functioning floodplains. By law, rivers 

designated as wild and scenic are to be 

managed to maintain their outstandingly 

remarkable values and characteristics. The 

National Park Service would seek partnerships to protect parts of the Rio Grande 

watershed outside the park boundaries. 

Cultural Resources. NPS policy is to evaluate 

and protect cultural resources on park property that are eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. Research, evaluation, inventories, categorization, consultation, 

planning, and stewardship are included in 

program management. The long-term preservation of resources includes public access to 

and appreciation of the features, materials, 

qualities, and significance of the resources. 

Treatment methods such as preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration could be used on 

structures in the river area on lands in the park 

or on nonfederal land with the owner’s 

permission and as funding allowed. 

Geologic Resources. Natural geologic processes such as exfoliation, erosion, sedimentation, and springs would proceed unimpeded. 

New developments would not be placed in 

areas subject to dynamic river processes (for 

example, in the floodplain). 

Air Quality. The National Park Service would 

make an effort to perpetuate the best possible 

air quality so as to preserve natural and cultural resources and sustain visitor enjoyment, 

human health, and scenic vistas. 

Soundscapes. The National Park Service 

would preserve to greatest extent possible the 

natural soundscape such as animal sounds, 

wind in the canyons, and flowing water. The 

agency also would seek to protect natural 

soundscapes from degradation. 

Lightscapes. The National Park Service 

would seek to preserve natural lightscapes by 

protecting natural darkness. Natural processes would not be disrupted by artificial 

lighting, and the intrusion of artificial light 

would be minimized. 

Other Prescriptions for All Zones. Commercial operators could offer appropriate 

recreational activities that would be compatible with goals for the management and 

protection of resources and the desired visitor 

experience. Information and education in the 

form of brochures, information about permits, 

and other useful data would be available to the 

public offsite. Public safety information would 

be made available where appropriate. 

The identification and protection of sitespecific outstandingly remarkable values 

would be accomplished through individual 

landowner agreements. Boundaries, which 

would be established to protect those values, 

would be an integral part of the landowner 

agreements. Patrols and monitoring by NPS 

law enforcement and resource management 

personnel would continue. Members of the 

public and commercial operators would be 

required to have permits for all watercraft. 

Management in Specific Zones 

Three management prescriptions (zones) 

would be assigned to the Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River under this alternative: the 

wild, scenic, and recreational zones. These 

zones would be identical to the proposed river 

classifications shown on the Alternative B 

map. The management prescriptions for the 

zones are shown in table 4, page 37. 

RIVER MANAGEMENT 

All Segments 

The National Park Service would manage the 

wild and scenic river in compliance with existing laws and policies, including the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. Its management would be 

guided by the passage quoted on page 28, 

[§10(a)], as well as by all other parts of the act. 

33
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The National Park Service would continue to 

permit access to the river in Big Bend National 

Park and to make and enforce the rules and 

regulations necessary to protect river values. 

NPS staff also would continue to respond to 

emergencies in the river corridor and would 

try to enhance the management of river resources through greater emphasis and specific 

actions outlined in implementation plans. 

Under alternative B, NPS rangers would continue to enforce county, state, and federal laws 

and regulations in cooperation with their 

counterparts in local, state, and federal agencies — county sheriffs, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Texas Rangers, the Drug Enforcement 

Agency, the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

The National Park Service would maintain full 

jurisdiction and authority to enforce applicable federal rules and regulations on the 

surface water of the designated segments of 

the river as granted by the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act. A unit manager and sufficient NPS 

and partner staff would be assigned to fulfill 

these responsibilities. 

Big Bend National Park enforces Texas fishing 

regulations as the basic guideline for the wild 

and scenic river to maintain consistency with 

the state; however, it is not limited to those 

regulations in the river stretches in the park. 

The Rio Grande would be managed according 

to the segment classifications shown in table 4 

(p. 37. Segments classified wild would be managed to maintain primitive shorelines and outstandingly remarkable values. Segments classified scenic are accessible in places by roads 

and may contain more development than wild 

segments. Scenic segments would be managed 

to maintain river values and the largely primitive and natural-appearing shorelines. More 

development would be allowed in segments 

classified as recreational, but those segments 

would be managed to offer high-quality recreational opportunities while preserving the 

outstandingly remarkable values. 

Segments Adjacent to Nonfederal Land 

The actions described above would be applied 

to all segments of the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River. The National Park Service has 

no jurisdiction over state or private lands but 

would work with landowners to meet the conditions in the prescriptions and would help 

landowners protect the resources on their 

lands. NPS rangers would continue to cooperate with their counterparts at other agencies. 

ADDITIONAL DESIGNATION 

If this alternative was selected for implementation, the National Park Service would recommend that the remaining segment of the 

river in Big Bend National Park be included in 

the national wild and scenic rivers system. 

That segment already has been studied and 

found eligible and suitable for inclusion in the 

system. The Mexican state of Chihuahua no 

longer opposes the designation of that stretch 

of river. Adding 48.6 miles would make the 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 241 miles 

long. Access points for the newly designated 

segment would be the existing access points at 

Lajitas (Santa Elena Canyon put-in) and the 

Santa Elena Canyon takeout. 

Congressional action would be needed to designate the proposed addition to the wild and 

scenic river system. This recommendation 

would go through the director of the National 

Park Service to the secretary of the interior 

and on to Congress. The ownership of the riverfront property along the 241-mile wild and 

scenic river that would result from designation of the additional segment is shown in 

table 3. 

TABLE 3: OWNERSHIP OF SEGMENTS OF RIO GRANDE 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVER AS PROPOSED IN 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Owner Miles1 % of Total 

Federal Government 

(Big Bend National Park) 115.7 48 

Private 98.6 41 

State of Texas 26.7 11 

Total 241.0 100 

1. Length is approximate (taken from Geographic Information System data). 

34
385

285



Brewster Co.

Terrell Co. Val Verde Co.

Black Gap Wildlife 

Management Area

BIG BENDNational Park

nta Elena Boquillas

Maderas del CarmenProtected Area

La Linda

te

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 

National Park ServiceU.S. Department of Interior

0 20 40 60 Miles

North

O 

ATES

2627

COAHUILA

AlternativeBPreferredAlternative

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Recreational

 Scenic WildBig Bend National Park Non-Wilderness Private Inholdings Proposed Wilderness Access Points Dirt Roads 

Elena





UA 

DSC / Sept 03 / 192 / 20004
"*($*,ssas&(((s"*($*,s

s

	7A6C@s
s768@sD;s9>K>9:G
s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

ÃÆs
TABLE 4: 

MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTIONS 

Management Zones 

Wild Scenic Re

Desired Resource Conditions 

Natural conditions and processes predominate. Primitive and natural shorelines and natural landscape are retained. Very low tolerance for adverse effects on natural and cultural resources from visitor use. All outstandingly remarkable values are protected, but emphasis is on natural and cultural outstandingly remarkable values. Some cultural sites being used by public might be interpreted, stabilized, or hardened according to landowner agreements. 

Conditions and processes are mostly natural; shorelines largely primitive and undeveloped. Natural and historic landscapes are retained as much as possible. Low tolerance for adverse effects on natural and cultural resources from visitor use. All outstandingly remarkable values protected. Some cultural sites being used by public might be interpreted, stabilized, or hardened according to landowner agreements. 

Conditions and pnatural. Historic as much as possivelopment. Modverse effects on nsources from visisites being used bterpreted, stabiliaccording to land

Desired Visitor Experience and Understanding 

Opportunities for challenge, adventure, and solitude. Natural sights and sounds prevail. Visitors gain understanding and a sense of appreciation or respect from direct sensory contact with resources. 

Opportunities for challenge, adventure, and solitude. Sights and sounds of nature more prevalent than those of human activities. Views of natural and cultural landscapes supply context for understanding broad concepts of natural systems. 

Opportunities foture. Sights and smay be apparentfeatures supply cbroad concepts awith environmen

Appropriate Level of Use 

Smaller carrying capacity based on resource vulnerability to impacts and desired visitor experience. Few to no encounters with other visitors or NPS staff. 

Moderate carrying capacity based on historic use levels. Some encounters with others, particularly at river access points. 

Larger carrying ccounters with ot

Appropriate Types of Use 

Traditional uses continue.1 Camping at undeveloped sites. Excursions on shore where allowed. Traditional uses continue.1 Camping at un­ developed sites. Excursions on shore where 

allowed. 

Traditional uses 

undeveloped and tive) sites. Excurallowed. 

Access Inaccessible from land except by occasional trail. 

Public access to river is on national park and state lands, rest is private and subject to landowner’s permission. 

Accessible in some places by road. Public access to river is on national park and state lands or designated public access on private land. 

Readily accessiblprivate land). 

Appropriate Level of Mgmt. Activity 

Nonintrusive resource management and restoration. Visitor use restrictions. 

Moderate level of resource management activities. Visitor use restrictions. 

Intensive resourcagement. Visitor 

Appropriate Levels and Kinds of Development on Federal Land 

None 

Only existing sites retained. Undeveloped or primitive put-in and takeout locations allowed. Undeveloped camping and picnicking sites. 

No federal land isegment. 

Appropriate Levels and Kinds of Development on Nonfederal Land 

Existing primitive facilities and put-in/ takeout locations retained at discretion of landowner. NPS may provide assistance in locating and designing new development to mitigate impacts or removing/restoring old development. 

Existing primitive facilities and put-in/takeout locations retained at discretion of landowner. NPS may provide assistance in locating and designing new development to mitigate impacts or removing/restoring old development. 

Enhancement of access allowed thmay provide assidesigning new deimpacts or removdevelopment. 

1. Traditional uses include floating, motorboating (not hovercraft, personal watercraft, or all-terrain vehicle use), fishing, camping, swimming, wading, an

and to points of interest. 
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

If the additional segment was designated, the 

management emphasis would shift toward 

protecting the identified outstandingly remarkable values, and it might involve additional use restrictions to reduce the effects on 

those values. 

The segments of the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River would be classified as shown in 

table 5. The newly designated portion would 

be classified as scenic. 

BOUNDARY AND NONFEDERAL LANDS 

For proper and effective management of the 

river, the National Park Service believes it is 

imperative to develop close working relationships with the state, local counties, and private 

landowners. The issue of wild and scenic river 

boundaries on private land has proven contentious as some landowners have disputed 

NPS authority or control on private lands. In 

this alternative, the National Park Service 

would work cooperatively with individual 

landowners to develop binding agreements 

that would identify the specific outstandingly 

remarkable values that exist on each property 

within the boundary and set a mutually 

agreed-upon boundary and that would protect the values and also protect landowners 

from unwanted federal acquisition and regulation. (See appendix C for a sample landowner agreement.) 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires that 

the management boundary of a wild and scenic river encompass the outstandingly remarkable values for which the river was designated within limitations imposed by the act. 

Of the river’s identified outstandingly remarkable values — fish and wildlife, geology, 

scenery, and recreation — scenery potentially 

requires the largest boundary. The Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River boundary 

would be line of sight, or 0.25 mile beyond the 

ordinary high water mark, whichever is less. 

This applies to the segments classified wild 

and scenic. A 150-foot public use corridor 

would exist along the river’s edge. On the segment classified recreational (Dryden Crossing 

to the county line between Terrell and Val 

Verde counties), the wild and scenic river 

boundary would be 150 feet from the river’s 

edge. 

TABLE 5: PROPOSED CLASSIFICATIONS OF SEGMENTS OF RIO GRANDE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER, 

INCLUDING PROPOSED NEW SEGMENT — ALTERNATIVE B 

Segment Description Classification Length 

(miles)1 

9 

(recommended 

new designation) 

Beginning at western boundary of Big Bend National Park to line 

between Mexican states of Chihuahua and Coahuila Scenic 48.6 

1 The Mexican state line between Chihuahua and Coahuila, to Talley Scenic 13.5 

2 Talley to Solis Wild 9.7 

3 Solis to entrance of Boquillas Canyon Scenic 23.3 

4 Entrance of Boquillas Canyon to exit from Boquillas Canyon 

(national park boundary) Wild 20.5 

5 Boquillas Canyon to Reagan Canyon Scenic 35.2 

6 Reagan Canyon to San Francisco Canyon Wild 37.8 

7 San Francisco Canyon to just above Dryden Crossing takeout Scenic 16.3 

8 Dryden Crossing to county line between Terrell and Val Verde 

counties, Texas Recreational 36.1 

Total Miles 241.0 

1. Length is approximate (taken from Geographic Information System data). 

38
Alternative B: Enhance Resource Protection and Continue High-Quality Visitor Experiences (Preferred Alternative) 

The official boundary would be the one illustrated on the Proposed Boundary map, p. 41. 

The area within the management boundary 

would not exceed an average of 160 acres per 

river mile on the United States side, as 

mandated by the designating legislation (see 

appendix A). 

The landowner agreements also would provide for continued traditional uses and/or access to the river while protecting property 

rights. The locations of access points and 

roads, campsites, side canyons, and other sites 

could be identified, and restrictions on use or 

other management actions could be specified. 

The landowner may also agree to stop activities (such as road building) that adversely 

affect river values. 

Nonfederal lands are not directly affected by 

wild and scenic river designation. As has been 

mentioned previously, the National Park Service does not have the authority to enforce its 

rules or regulations on private land away from 

the river. Land uses and developments on private and state lands in the river area that existed before the wild and scenic river was designated may continue. Proposed land uses and 

developments would be evaluated for their 

compatibility with the purposes of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act in conformance with 

provisions established in the landowner 

agreements. The National Park Service would 

offer technical assistance to help landowners 

find ways to alleviate or mitigate any potential 

adverse impacts on the river’s outstandingly 

remarkable values. 

The Texas Recreational Use Statute protects 

private landowners from trespass liability (see 

appendix D). The “Acknowledgement of 

Risk” form on the river permits offers additional protection to private landowners. Private land access information provided to river 

runners would encourage respect for private 

property. 

The boundary for the river corridor in Black 

Gap Wildlife Management Area, which is 

managed by the Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department, would follow the description for 

river segments classified as scenic. The National Park Service and the Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department would manage this corridor cooperatively according to an agreement 

between the two agencies. 

Recreationists regularly use the Mexican 

shore. Through permit stipulations, the 

National Park Service would require compliance with Mexican laws and encourage 

respect for the lands and people of Mexico. 

LAND ACQUISITION AND 

RIGHTS-OF-WAY 

Section 6(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

prohibits the federal government from acquiring lands through condemnation if 50% or 

more of the entire acreage within the boundary and outside the ordinary high water mark is 

in public ownership. Under this alternative, 

59% of the shoreline would be owned by the 

U.S. government and the state of Texas, as 

shown in table 3, page 34. As stated in this 

document and in the binding landowner 

agreements, no nonfederal lands would be 

acquired for the management of the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River except in the 

following circumstances: 

• if a landowner approached the U.S. government with an offer to sell or donate 

land 

• if a third party (such as the National Parks 

Conservation Association) offered land 

that party had purchased from a willing 

seller 

• if the state of Texas offered to donate land 

along the river or riverbed 

Any land being acquired would have to be 

completely or partially within the established 

boundary of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 

River. The ability of the National Park Service 

to purchase land or interest in land would be 

39
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

subject to congressional appropriation of 

funds for this purpose. 

In addition to the acquisition of fee title, the 

National Park Service could purchase rightsof-way or easements on private lands from a 

willing seller only if such access would be advantageous for river management or public 

use. The federal government would not initiate condemnation proceedings to acquire 

land. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Segments in Big Bend National Park 

Under this alternative (or any alternative) the 

National Park Service would be required to 

continue to comply with existing laws and 

policies for protecting cultural resources, including cultural landscapes, historic structures, archeological resources, and ethnographic resources. The General Management 

Plan for Big Bend also specifies actions for 

managing cultural and ethnographic 

resources. 

Segments Adjacent to Nonfederal Land 

Although the National Park Service has no 

authority to manage cultural resources on 

nonfederal land, the agency would seek agreements with landowners on both sides of the 

river to cooperatively perform resource studies and evaluations and to develop appropriate strategies for protecting resources. The 

NPS Southwest Cultural Resources Center 

might be asked to help with the inventories 

and possibly with a resource management 

plan for the river, or other agencies such as the 

Texas state historic preservation office or 

cultural resource agencies in Mexico might be 

asked to help the National Park Service. 

Inventories and monitoring of cultural sites 

would be carried out on nonfederal land only 

with the landowner‘s permission or as specified in landowner agreements. Archeological 

and historic sites discovered on nonfederal 

land that were found to be eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places would be 

recorded and made known to the landowner. 

If cultural resources were being vandalized, 

the National Park Service might provide technical assistance to help landowners protect 

them. Landowner agreements and recreational leases might permit the public to visit 

some cultural sites on nonfederal land if such 

use would not cause undue degradation or 

infringe on private property rights. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Segments in Big Bend National Park 

Under alternative B (or any alternative) the 

National Park Service would be required to 

continue to comply with existing laws and 

policies for managing natural resources, including vegetation, wildlife, and water. Big 

Bend National Park’s General Management 

Plan also specifies actions for managing 

natural resources, as would a subsequent 

resource management plan. 

The National Park Service would conduct 

regularly scheduled monitoring, assessment, 

and evaluation to determine if visitation was 

causing undue degradation of natural resources. If so, actions would be taken to reduce or eliminate the impacts. Regularly 

scheduled inventory and monitoring of special status species (that is, threatened or 

endangered species or species of concern) by 

NPS personnel or others would determine 

information about the species such as population trends and general health. These schedules would be established by a resource management plan to be prepared by the park staff. 

If monitoring indicated undue impacts from 

visitor use, additional limits on visitation 

might be established. The National Park Service would cooperate with state and federal 

wildlife agencies to reintroduce or maintain 

sensitive fish and wildlife species. 

40
385 

285 

Brewster Co. 

Black Gap Wildlife 

Management Area 

BIG BEND National Park 

nta Elena Boquillas 

Maderas del Carmen Protected Area 

La Linda 

te 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 

0 20 40 60 Miles 

North 

2627 

COAHUILA 

Alternative B 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River States Side of River 

Scenic-1/4 Mile or Line of Sight

 Wild-1/4 Mile or Line of Sight Dirt Roads 

Elena 

National Park Area 

UA 

Terrell Co. Val Verde Co. 

ATES 

Proposed Boundary on United 

Recreational-150' From High Water Mark 

Proposed 

O Boundary 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 

National Park Service U.S. Department of Interior

DSC / Sept 03 / 192 / 20005 
"*($*,ssas&(%&%)s%+$(/s

s

	7A6C@s
s768@sD;s9>K>9:G
s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

ÄÂs
Alternative B: Enhance Resource Protection and Continue High-Quality Visitor Experiences (Preferred Alternative) 

Interpretation and education media would be 

used to encourage visitors to participate in 

protecting listed species. The National Park 

Service would continue to cooperate with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state of 

Texas in managing special status species. According to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the 

jurisdiction or responsibility of the state to 

manage fish and wildlife is not affected by 

wild and scenic river designation. 

With regional and binational partners, the National Park Service would strongly advocate 

for scientifically determined suitable instream 

flow levels to support fish and wildlife populations, riparian communities, and recreational 

opportunities. The Park Service also would 

initiate cooperation with other federal agencies such as the Bureau of Reclamation, the 

International Boundary and Water Commission, and the Mexican government to maintain or enhance the quality and quantity of Rio 

Grande water. 

Big Bend National Park would develop a plan 

to inventory and eradicate invasive nonnative 

species in the river corridor. The park would 

act in conjunction with any state or local invasive species programs. 

The scenic resources in Big Bend National 

Park would be protected by measures prescribed in the park’s general management 

plan. Nothing in this alternative would result 

in an increase in light pollution that would 

affect opportunities to view the night sky. 

Segments Adjacent to Nonfederal Land 

The management of flora and fauna on nonfederal lands is subject to the permission of 

the landowner. However, the National Park 

Service does not need landowner permission 

to work on fisheries or other work that would 

take place in the river. 

Landowners’ permission would be required 

for the National Park Service to inventory or 

monitor natural resources on private or state 

lands and the impacts on those resources. If 

monitoring indicated undue impacts from 

visitor use, additional limits might be called 

for. The National Park Service could recommend measures to mitigate potential impacts. 

Exotic invasive species in the river corridor 

would be inventoried, and eradication programs would be implemented on private lands 

only with the landowners’ permission. 

In this alternative, the National Park Service 

would try to develop a fishery management 

plan in conjunction with Texas Parks and 

Wildlife to ensure sustainable fish populations 

for ecosystem management and sport fishing 

opportunities. 

Maderas del Carmen and Cañon de Santa 

Elena are two Mexican federally protected 

areas adjacent to the Rio Grande. Together 

with Big Bend National Park, these areas preserve more than 2 million acres of important 

wildlife habitat and migration corridors. The 

areas offer unique opportunities for the 

United States and Mexico to work together 

toward common resource preservation goals. 

The letter of intent between the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Secretariat of 

Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries of the United Mexican States, for joint 

work in natural protected areas on the United 

States–Mexico border, would be implemented 

to the fullest extent possible. Under this 

agreement, the two agencies would expand 

cooperative activities in the conservation of 

contiguous natural protected areas in the 

border zone and consider new opportunities 

for cooperation in protecting natural protected areas along the border. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

AND UNDERSTANDING 

All Segments 

Historic and traditional uses of the river (as of 

1978, the year of its designation as a wild and 

scenic river) such as sightseeing, floating, fishing, hiking on the shore, swimming, and wad43
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

ing would be allowed to continue under this 

alternative. Motorboats, nonmotorized boats, 

canoes, and kayaks would be allowed on the 

river. The established use by private and commercial boaters spending a number of days to 

float through the Lower Canyons would 

continue. 

Unless otherwise mentioned in this document, the management guidelines in the Recreational River Use Management Plan (NPS 

1997) would remain in effect for the river segments in Big Bend National Park. A river use 

plan for the entire wild and scenic river would 

be developed to implement the actions prescribed in this alternative. 

Permits for private boaters on the river still 

would be required under this alternative. 

Commercial boaters still would have to obtain 

an appropriate business permit/contract and 

pay the fees. These requirements would let the 

National Park Service monitor recreational 

use, deliver important safety information, and 

inform users of private property issues and 

special regulations in the Lower Canyons. To 

protect landowners, the permit would include 

an “Acknowledgement of Risk” form and a 

waiver of liability. A permit would not be required for landowners or their guests boating 

on the river adjacent to their own property. 

Fishing would be permitted according to existing policy. No state fishing license is required in Big Bend National Park. Hunting on 

state and private lands would be allowed according to state regulations, but hunting is not 

allowed in Big Bend National Park. No hunting would be permitted from the river surface 

by boat or other means. 

To protect natural and aquatic resources, the 

use of motorized wheeled vehicles would be 

prohibited on all segments. Exceptions might 

be made for emergency use. 

On designated wild and scenic rivers, the National Park Service is required by Management 

Policies 2001 and the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act to prevent unacceptable impacts on 

resource-related and recreation-related outstandingly remarkable values. In establishing 

limits on recreational use, the National Park 

Service considered the historic variety of experiences available, recent use, and the physical characteristics of each river segment. The 

goal of these limits is to continue the variety of 

historic or traditional visitor experiences and 

to protect natural and cultural resources in the 

future. 

The limits on recreational use for segments of 

the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River are sum 

marized in table 6, page 45. User-days are the 

number of users multiplied by the number of 

days spent on the river (two users on a six-day 

trip equal 12 user days). Limits would be implemented through a permit allocation 

process. 

Segments in Big Bend National Park 

The following restrictions on motorized watercraft would be enforced in this alternative. 

Personal hovercraft are prohibited on all segments by federal regulation [36 CFR 2.17(e)]. 

Personal watercraft are also prohibited. 

Boats using motors up to 60 horsepower are 

allowed on river segments except in the 

following two areas: 

• Santa Elena Canyon, from the western 

park boundary to the Santa Elena Canyon 

takeout. 

• Mariscal Canyon, from Talley to Solis 

(Wild and scenic River segment classified 

as wild), is closed to all motorized watercraft except during the month of October. 

Motors up to 60 horsepower may be used 

in October only. 

To offer a wilderness experience, motorized 

watercraft are prohibited in some segments of 

the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic river that are 

classified as wild, including. Boquillas Canyon 

and on other segments of the Rio Grande 

Wild and Scenic River that are classified as 

wild. 

44 
Alternative B: Enhance Resource Protection and Continue High-Quality Visitor Experiences (Preferred Alternative) 

TABLE 6: LIMITS ON RECREATIONAL USE BY SEGMENT — ALTERNATIVE B 

Segment 

Private Party Limits (Maximums) 

Persons per Launch Launches per Day Other Limits

Western park boundary to 6 commercial companies may each 

Santa Elena Canyon takeout, 

Santa Elena takeout to Cot­ 30 11 launch a combination of day or 

multi-day trips per day, and 

tonwood Campground 1 special use group launch per day 

Cottonwood Campground to 3 commercial companies may each 

Reed Camp, Reed Camp to 

Talley 30 11 launch a combination of -day trips per day, and 

1 special use group launch per day 

Talley to Solis 1 commercial company may launch 1 

20 10 

day trip or multi-day trip per day; 

1 other commercial company may 

launch a 1-day trip; 

3 special use groups may launch per 

week 

Solis to La Clocha, La Clocha 

to Boquillas 30 11 

3 commercial companies may each 

launch a combination of trips per 

day, and 

1 special use group launch per day 

Boquillas Canyon entrance to 

eastern park boundary 

3 commercial companies may each 

launch a combination of -day trips 

20 10 per day, (if 3 launches occur, at least 

one must be after noon) 

3 special use groups may launch per 

week 

Lower Canyons 

Park boundary to end of wild 

and scenic river segment 

20 

10, 2 per launch 

site 

(maximum of 1,000 

persons per year; 

3 commercial companies may each 

launch no more than 1 trip per day 

within maximum 

1 special use group launch per day 

7,000 user-days per 

year.) 

Segments Adjacent to Nonfederal Land 

As is indicated in table 6, the total recreation 

use levels in the Lower Canyons segments 

would be held to a maximum of 1,000 persons, 

or 7,000 user-days per year. Because social 

conflicts have not been a problem and resource impacts have not occurred either 

recently or historically, the limits have been 

set at slightly higher levels than recent use in 

the Lower Canyons. Experience and professional judgment indicate that these limits 

would not cause undue impacts on the resources and would maintain a high-quality 

visitor experience. Personal hovercraft are 

prohibited on all segments by federal regulation (36 CFR 2.17 (e)). 

The recreational use of the wild and scenic 

river outside the park would be monitored to 

determine if any unacceptable adverse 

impacts on outstandingly remarkable values 

were occurring. If so, additional management 

actions such as party size limits, fewer permits, 

or restrictions on motorized craft might be 

imposed to reduce impacts. Monitoring 

would include a visitor study to determine the 

level of experience versus expectations. The 

reason for these restrictions would be to perpetuate the previous variety of visitor experiences and to prevent conflicts from occurring 

in the future. 

In general, river users would be allowed to 

pull their boats out and camp on the United 

States shore up to 150 feet from the water’s 

edge. Exceptions to this would be posted on 

the ground or indicated on maps available to 

boaters. The use of watercraft by landowners 

who launch and take out on their own property (and their guests) would not be affected 

by this plan. 

45
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

A recreational river use plan for the entire Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River would be prepared to specify monitoring and implementation actions. 

INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION 

All Segments 

The current interpretation and education programs offered at Big Bend would be expanded 

to include the entire Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River. The emphasis in the programs 

would be on instilling an understanding of the 

natural and cultural history of the Rio Grande, 

West Texas, and the Chihuahuan Desert for 

boaters and other river users. Visitors could 

gain understanding and a sense of appreciation or respect from views of geologic and cultural landscapes and direct sensory contact 

with resources. In addition, visitor understanding would be enhanced through a variety 

of interpretive media conveyed through existing contact stations. Improved visitor understanding would lead to more appreciation of 

the inherent values of the river and could promote a good land stewardship ethic in river 

visitors. 

Interpretive Themes 

Interpretive themes are ideas or stories that 

are central to the purpose, identity, and desired visitor experience of the unit of the national park system — in this case, the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River. Interpretive 

themes form a framework for interpretation 

and educational programs. The following 

themes have been adapted from the primary 

interpretive themes for Big Bend National 

Park that are applicable to the river. 

• The Rio Grande’s ecosystem supports an 

extraordinary richness of plants and 

animals. 

9 The Rio Grande and adjacent shores 

provide valuable habitat for communities of plant and animal species, including several endangered and 

threatened species. The river’s protected status helps in the preservation, 

study, and recovery of many of these 

species. 

9 Surface water is highly important to a 

desert ecosystem. Nowhere does the 

Chihuahuan Desert exhibit more biodiversity than along a waterway such 

as the Rio Grande. 

• One hundred million years of geologic history is exposed along the river; this allows 

visitors, students, and scientists to study 

and learn about the geologic processes 

that formed the current landscape. 

• An important part of the NPS mission is to 

preserve or restore natural resources, including natural soundscapes. Intrusive 

sounds are also a matter of concern to 

visitors. The Rio Grande is relatively free 

of intrusive or unnatural sounds, and 

management strives to preserve this value. 

• Exotic (nonnative) plants and animals are 

extremely disruptive to river-related ecosystems. Natural resource managers work 

with riverside landowners and river users 

to detect, monitor, and remove exotic 

species and to prevent the spread of exotic 

species. 

• Water constitutes the most important resource in the Chihuahuan Desert. 

• Maderas del Carmen and Cañon de Santa 

Elena are two Mexican federally protected 

areas adjacent to the Rio Grande. Together with Big Bend National Park, these 

areas preserve more than 2 million acres 

of important wildlife habitat and migration corridors. The areas offer unique 

opportunities for the United States and 

Mexico to work together toward common 

resource preservation goals. 

PARTNERSHIPS AND 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 

The Rio Grande Partnership Team would remain in effect to give the National Park Ser46
Alternative B: Enhance Resource Protection and Continue High-Quality Visitor Experiences (Preferred Alternative) 

vice information regarding river management, 

with the understanding that individual team 

members will come and go. The NPS river 

management staff would continue to establish 

and foster cooperative relationships with 

owners of adjacent property, surrounding 

counties, tribal entities, and private and public 

groups that affect or are affected by the river. 

Additional partnerships would be sought for 

resource protection, research, education, and 

visitor enjoyment. 

The National Park Service would work closely 

with local, state, federal, and tribal governments whose programs affect or are affected 

by activities on the river. Cooperative regional 

planning opportunities would be encouraged 

whenever possible to integrate the river into 

issues of regional concern. 

Common resource management issues would 

be identified and a cooperative relationship 

with various government entities in Mexico, 

especially managers of the adjacent protected 

areas, would be maintained. A memorandum 

of agreement between the U.S. Department of 

the Interior and Mexico’s National Commission for Natural Protected Areas, signed in 

2000, serves as an “umbrella” for all natural 

resource activities carried out jointly between 

the National Park Service and Mexico. 

IMPLEMENTATION 

The National Park Service would begin implementing the new management actions proposed under this alternative as soon as the 

plan is approved. The implementation would 

continue over the next 15 to 20 years as funding became available. Partnerships with other 

agencies and organizations would be established to implement several actions of this 

alternative. If this alternative was selected, the 

management emphasis of the wild and scenic 

river would shift, and a reallocation of staff 

might be required. 

Given adequate funding, the highest priority 

would be given to implement actions that 

would serve the following functions: 

• protecting important resources 

• managing visitor use 

• providing more interpretation and visitor 

services 

After the final version of this plan is approved, 

park managers may need to develop several 

lower level implementation plans. These more 

detailed plans would describe specific actions 

that the park managers would take to achieve 

the desired conditions and management objectives. The National Park Service would 

seek public input for these plans and would 

prepare environmental documentation as 

needed to comply with existing environmental 

protection laws. Such implementation plans 

might include a revised river use management 

plan and a resource management plan. 

MITIGATING MEASURES 

The following mitigating measures, which 

would be applied as part of the preferred alternative, would avert or minimize the potential impacts on natural and cultural resources from visitor use and river management actions. 

Natural Resources 

The NPS staff would use inventories, regular 

monitoring, research, the best scientific information, and proven ecosystem management 

methods to maintain or enhance natural resource conditions, including water quality. 

The National Park Service would work with 

other land managing agencies and organizations to manage the entire set of resources and 

ecosystems that encompass and affect the Rio 

Grande. 

Best management practices would be employed to reduce soil erosion resulting from 

any action caused by this alternative. On non47
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

federal lands, these actions would be carried 

out only with the landowner‘s permission. 

The treatment of exotic (nonnative) species in 

the river corridor would be undertaken according to NPS Management Policies 2001 and 

other applicable state and federal laws and 

guidance. 

Big Bend National Park‘s resource management plan would be revised to include the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River. 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resource surveys would be conducted according to NPS management policies and 

existing guidelines. To minimize adverse 

impacts caused by visitor use, the staffs of the 

park and the wild and scenic river would consult with the Texas state historic preservation 

officer about management strategies for historic structures and prehistoric sites. On 

nonfederal lands, these actions would be carried out only with landowners permission. 

Visitors and Nonfederal Landowners 

The park staff would collect and use visitation 

data, communication with landowners, and 

other information to identify user conflicts 

and landowner concerns related to public use. 

Actions would then be implemented to reduce 

or eliminate conflicts according to a revised 

river use management plan. 

New Structures 

Although the preferred alternative does not 

call for new structures, it does not eliminate 

the possibility of building NPS-initiated structures (such as a visitor information kiosk or an 

emergency equipment cache) along river segments classified as scenic or recreational where 

a clear need is identified by park staff or partners. Such structures would be small, inconspicuous, and temporary (that is, with no permanent foundation), and previously disturbed 

sites would be preferred. 

ALTERNATIVES DISMISSED 

FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

During the planning effort, the planning team 

considered other alternatives that were proposed by members of the planning team or the 

public, as follows. 

Omit Landowner Agreements 

in the Lower Canyons 

The team considered trying to implement the 

resource monitoring and protection strategies 

in the Lower Canyons without landowner 

agreements . This concept would not have met 

the plan’s objectives and needs. Without landowner agreements, the National Park Service 

would have been technically unable to conduct resource management on private land 

within the river corridor. Therefore, this 

concept was dismissed. 

Set the Management Boundary 

at the High Water Mark 

Setting the management boundary in the Lower Canyons at the high water mark (the private 

property line) was considered, but it was 

dismissed because this action would not have 

complied with federal law, and it would not 

have met the plan’s objectives for protecting 

the outstandingly remarkable values that led 

to the river’s designation. Setting the boundary at the water’s edge was a major reason that 

the 1981 management plan was rejected. 

Deauthorize the Wild and 

Scenic River Designation 

The National Park Service was asked to consider deauthorizing the wild and scenic river 

designation. That concept was dismissed because Congress mandated that the National 

Park Service protect and manage the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River, and only 

Congress can revoke a wild and scenic river 

designation. 

48
THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

Environmentally preferable is defined as “the 

alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in the National 

Environmental Policy Act, §101,” which establishes the following environmental goals. 

1. to fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for 

succeeding generations 

2. to ensure for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings 

3. to attain the widest range of beneficial 

uses of the environment without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences 

4. to preserve important historic, cultural, 

and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an 

environment that supports diversity and 

variety of individual choice 

5. to achieve a balance between population 

and resource use that will permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of 

life’s amenities 

6. to enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable 

resources 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative represents the current management direction for 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River. It would 

continue a lack of long-term planning; therefore, resource management under that alternative would be limited. The existing use of 

the river is based on planning initiated when 

the river was designated, but no plan has ever 

been implemented to guide the long-term 

management of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River. Visitor and resource protection 

patrols are sporadic at present. The protection 

of cultural and natural resources would be less 

enhanced under the no-action alternative than 

under the preferred alternative (B). The noaction alternative would not fully realize goals 

1, 3, 4, and 5. 

Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would 

lead to increased management attention to 

and emphasis on preserving wild and scenic 

river objectives, including recreational values. 

It would protect and enhance natural and cultural resources (goals 1, 4, and 5). It also 

would create opportunities for high-quality, 

resource-dependent visitor experiences 

through traditional recreational uses (goals 2 

and 3). 

After careful review of the potential resource 

and visitor impacts, and after considering the 

proposed mitigation for the potential impacts 

on natural and cultural resources, the planning team has concluded that the preferred 

alternative (alternative B) also is the environmentally preferable alternative. Alternative B 

would enhance the ability of the National 

Park Service to protect natural and cultural 

resources while allowing visitors to enjoy a 

wide range of traditional river-related recreational activities. 

Alternative B would (a) provide a high level of 

protection for natural and cultural resources 

while attaining the widest range of neutral and 

beneficial uses of the environment without 

degradation; (b) maintain an environment that 

supports diversity and variety of individual 

choice; and (c) integrate resource protection 

with opportunities for an appropriate range of 

visitor uses. Thus, this alternative would surpass the other alternative by best realizing the 

fullest range of national environmental policy 

goals as stated in §101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

49
COST ESTIMATES 

The cost figures shown in table 7 are intended 

to give only a rough idea of the relative cost of 

alternative B. These estimates are general and 

should not be used for budgeting purposes. 

The actual costs to the National Park Service 

will vary, depending on if and when the actions are implemented and on contributions 

by partners and volunteers. 

Implementing alternative A, the no-action 

alternative, would not result in any additional 

operating or development costs above the 

current level other than annual cost-of-living 

salary increases and price increases for goods 

and services due to general inflation. 

Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would 

necessitate an increase in staff to improve river management and interpretation. Resource 

monitoring would be increased, and that 

could result in additional costs for materials or 

contracts. In alternative B, the National Park 

Service might help private landowners to 

manage river access points or stabilize historic 

sites in the river corridor that people might 

visit. No capital development costs would be 

incurred. 

TABLE 7: COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVE B (2002 DOLLARS) 

Element Operating Costs (per year) Potential for Cost Sharing 

Staff (3 permanent employees) $165,0001 — 

Increased interpretation (additional first year, $15,000–$45,000 — brochures or interpretive panels) thereafter, $5,000 

Resource monitoring (supplies, $40,000–$80,000 Other agencies, colleges, or environmaterials, and/or contracts) mental organizations could conduct 

monitoring or provide assistance 

Assistance to landowners in man- $0–$50,000 Cost-sharing agreements with 

aging resources or visitor use (would depend on number landowners 

and scope of projects) 

1. Staff costs include salary, benefits, training, equipment, and supplies. 

50
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND CONSEQUENCES 

TABLE 8: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative A: Existing Alternative B: Enhance Resource Protection 

Management Direction and Continue High-Quality Visitor 

Topic (No Action) Experiences (Preferred Alternative) 

Meeting Purpose and Does not meet purpose and need Fully meets purpose and need as described in this 

Need of This Plan as described in this document. document. 

Scenic Resources Development on nonfederal lands Development on nonfederal lands would be subwould proceed without NPS advice about mitigating impacts on 

ject to agreements (where in effect) requiring 

consultation with NPS to mitigate potential 

scenery. adverse effects on scenery. 

Managing Resources 

on Federal Land 

Natural and cultural resources 

managed according to Big Bend 

Natural and cultural resources managed according to Big Bend NP General Management Plan and 

NP General Management Plan and 

subsequent resource management 

subsequent resource management plans. 

plans. 

Managing Resources No NPS involvement in resource NPS might do inventories and monitoring of 

on Nonfederal Land management activities on non­ natural and cultural resources on nonfederal land 

federal lands. with landowners’ permission; if requested, NPS 

might help protect resources. 

Managing River Use Current management would con- Management guided by this General Management 

on Federal Land tinue, guided by Recreational River Plan and a revised Recreational River Use ManUse Management Plan (NPS 1997). agement Plan; limits on visitors’ use of river would 

be imposed. 

Managing River Use 

Adjacent to Nonfederal 

Land 

Current management actions and 

use restrictions would continue. 

Management guided by this General Management 

Plan, a revised Recreational River Use Management Plan, and landowner agreements; limits on 

visitors’ use of Lower Canyons imposed and 

prescribed in landowner agreements; boat use by 

landowners who launch and take out on their 

own property (and their guests) not affected. 

51
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

TABLE 9: COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Alternative A: Existing Alternative B: Enhance Resource Protection 

Management Direction and Continue High-Quality Visitor 

Topic (No Action) Experiences (Preferred Alternative) 

Scenic and Could cause continuing long-term Would result in long-term beneficial effects on 

Aesthetic Values minor adverse impacts on scenic scenic and aesthetic values of the wild and scenic 

and aesthetic values on lands river. 

outside Big Bend National Park. 

Fish and Wildlife No effect on fish and wildlife. Minor long-term beneficial effects on fish and 

wildlife. 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

No effect on special status species. No effect on Big Bend gambusia, black-capped 

vireo, bunched cory cactus, or Chisos Mountain 

hedgehog cactus; possible long-term minor 

beneficial effects from increased monitoring and 

protective actions. 

Water Quality No effect on quality or quantity of Long-term beneficial effects on Rio Grande 

and Quantity water in the Rio Grande. water quality and quantity from cooperative 

efforts to maintain a minimum flow and reduce 

contaminants. 

Vegetation No effect on vegetation along river Minor long-term beneficial effect on native 

corridor. vegetation in the river corridor. 

Archeological No effect on archeological resour- No adverse effects on archeological resources; 

Resources ces listed in National Register of possible long-term beneficial effects from 

Historic Places or known to be additional protective measures. 

eligible for listing. 

Historic Structures No adverse effects on historic No adverse effects on historic structures; 

structures listed in National possible long-term beneficial effects from 

Register of Historic Places. additional protective measures. 

Visitor Experience Possible long-term moderate ad- Long-term minor beneficial effect on visitor 

and Understanding verse effects on visitor experience experience and understanding. 

(Recreation) and understanding if private lands 

were closed to public use. 

Boundary and Possible long-term minor adverse Long-term beneficial effects on nonfederal 

Nonfederal Lands effects on nonfederal landowners. owners of land along river from establishment of 

more meaningful boundaries. 

Socioeconomic No beneficial or adverse effects on Long-term minor beneficial effects on local and 

Conditions socioeconomic conditions. regional economy. 

Partnerships and Long-term moderate adverse effect Long-term moderate beneficial effect on interInternational on cooperative river management agency and international cooperative river manCooperation efforts. agement efforts; minor beneficial effects on 

transboundary issues. 

52
Affected Environment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

(blank) 

54 
INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION 

This chapter contains background information about the resources that could be affected 

by the actions of the alternatives. 

Near its upstream end, the Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River flows through the steepwalled Mariscal and Boquillas Canyons. 

Downstream from Boquillas Canyon, the river 

travels through a relatively broad, open floodplain, or vega. Near Reagan Canyon, the 

floodplain narrows abruptly, and the river 

flows in a continuous deeply cut canyon for 

almost 40 miles. In the Lower Canyons part of 

this segment, the river and its tributaries lie 

500 to 1,500 feet below the surrounding plateaus. The original Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 

River Study identified the outstandingly remarkable values as scenic, recreational, geological, biological, and cultural (Bur. of 

Outdoor Recr. 1975). 

ACCESS 

Access to the river is available at various locations in and outside of Big Bend National 

Park. Primitive access points (access to the 

riverbank but not the water) are available at 

Talley, Solis, and Cottonwood Campground. 

Undeveloped access points exist at other locations where the river is accessible to carryin boating, such as Jewels Camp, Woodsons, 

Black Dike, Hot Springs, and La Clocha. 

There are developed access points (access to 

water’s edge) at the Santa Elena takeout and 

Rio Grande Village. Access points outside the 

park are on state or private land: Stillwell 

Crossing, Heath Canyon, Black Gap Wildlife 

Management Area, Dryden Crossing, and 

Foster’s Weir. Private access points are subject 

to closure and restriction by the landowners. 

OWNERSHIP 

The ownership of riverfront property along 

the designated wild and scenic river is shown 

in table 1, p. 28. Texas state land is in the Black 

Gap Wildlife Management Area, northwest of 

the park. Along the river are 17 parcels of 

private land, all in the Lower Canyons section. 

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 

In the Lower Canyons, some owners of private land have constructed facilities such as 

primitive campsites and buildings. Because the 

wild and scenic designation does not allow the 

river manager to regulate the use of private 

land, the potential exists for additional development along the river shores. Two developed campgrounds, 11 primitive campsites, a 

concession store, and other amenities are 

available in or near the river corridor in Big 

Bend National Park. In Black Gap Wildlife 

Management Area are 25 small fishing and 

picnicking shelters near the river. Commercial 

river running outfitters do not provide facilities but do offer shuttle services to and from 

put-in and takeout sites. 

The southern half of the Rio Grande and adjacent lands belong to Mexico. Small communities on the Mexican side are San Vicente, Boquillas del Carmen, and La Linda. Although 

the mineral processing plant at La Linda has 

been closed for 10 years, there has been renewed interest in development in or near La 

Linda in conjunction with preliminary plans 

to encourage ecotourism activities in the area. 

LAND USES 

Recreation, livestock grazing, and residential 

development are some of the current land 

uses along the river. Ranching had been the 

predominant land use for more than 100 

years, and it continues on both sides of the 

river outside of Big Bend National Park. On 

the U.S. side, livestock graze on private land. 

Livestock often cross the river during periods 

of low flow. 

Land use patterns have been changing in the 

past decade, and now some uses take place on 

small parcels of land that may or may not be 

developed, with utilities and a residence or 

other structures. Large blocks of private land 

have been subdivided and sold as ranchettes 

of a few acres to several hundred acres. 

55 
RESOURCES THAT COULD BE AFFECTED 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Scenic Value 

The area encompassing the designated Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River contains views 

of the river and surrounding canyons with 

outstanding visual quality. Rugged, steepwalled canyons, scenic rapids, and unspoiled 

views contribute to the scenic allure. These 

attributes, due largely to the primitive and 

undeveloped nature of the river and its surroundings, are important values for river 

visitors. 

Fish and Wildlife 

The area is an outstanding example of Chihuahuan Desert wildlife in Texas. This isolated area represents a rapidly dwindling, 

irreplaceable natural resource. The riparian 

corridor, containing more vegetative growth 

and a reliable water supply, attracts many 

wildlife species. 

Forty-six known species of fish inhabit the Big 

Bend area; 34 of these are native. Shiners and 

daces are the most abundant fishes in the Rio 

Grande. Larger fish found here are the longnose gar, channel catfish, blue catfish, and 

European carp. Six native fish species have 

been extirpated in recent decades because of 

the effects of dams, habitat modification, and 

competition from introduced species. 

Numerous wildlife species are residents of the 

river corridor, and many others, especially 

birds, use the Rio Grande as a travel corridor. 

Mammals include skunks, rodents, squirrels, 

rabbits, raccoons, and ringtails. Mountain 

lions (locally called panthers) occupy the area, 

and black bears and desert bighorn sheep 

occasionally can be seen. 

Birds are the most frequently seen animals 

along the river. Common resident species seen 

or heard along the river include yellowbreasted chat, black phoebe, white-winged 

dove, canyon wren, and roadrunner. Ravens, 

turkey vultures, and various raptors regularly 

soar overhead. Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) use high cliff faces for nesting in Santa 

Elena, Mariscal, and Boquillas canyons. Reptiles include lizards, snakes, and both terrestrial and aquatic turtles. Several amphibian 

species also are present. 

Native freshwater mussels have virtually disappeared from this area. Some historic species 

no longer can be found, and the more persistent Texas hornshell and Salina Mucket 

have not been found alive in recent years. 

Other aquatic species may be in danger of 

extirpation. Reductions in water quality and 

quantity adversely affect these and other 

aquatic species. 

Many exotic or nonnative species are found in 

the Rio Grande. Twelve nonnative fish species 

compete with the remaining native species. 

Nutria, a large nonnative rodent, is now common, and the exotic Asian clam is abundant. 

At present there is insufficient information 

about the distribution and spread of exotic 

species. 

Special Status Species 

The following federally listed species may be 

found in the river corridor. 

Fishes. The endangered Big Bend gambusia 

(Gambusia gaigeii) is known only from spring 

habitats near Boquillas Crossing and Rio 

Grande Village in Big Bend National Park, 

within the management area of the river. The 

population of this fish species at Boquillas 

Spring died when the spring stopped flowing 

in 1954. The population near Rio Grande Village drastically declined between 1954 and 

1956, after the spring flow was altered to provide a fishing pool. By 1960, the Big Bend gambusia no longer could be found at the Rio 

Grande Village location. The loss of this 

56 
population probably was due to competition 

with the western mosquitofish and predation 

by the introduced green sunfish. All the present populations of the Big Bend gambusia are 

descendants of two males and one female 

taken from the declining Rio Grande Village 

population in 1956. The only known wild 

population exists in a protected pond in Big 

Bend National Park (Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department Web site). A recovery plan is in 

effect for this species that calls for its reintroduction (USFWS 1984). 

Other fish species of concern are as follows: 

Chihuahua shiners are known in the United 

States only in the park, where they inhabit the 

lower reaches of Tornillo and Terlingua 

Creeks. The Mexican stoneroller fish, the blue 

sucker, and the Conchos pupfish also are 

found in the area. 

Black-Capped Vireos. Endangered blackcapped vireos (Vireo atricapillus) nest in 

Texas during April through July and spend the 

winter on the western coast of Mexico. Their 

habitat is primarily rangelands with scattered 

clumps of shrubs separated by open grassland. 

They nest in shrubs such as shinnery oak or 

sumac. They may occasionally use the river 

corridor. This species’ listing as endangered is 

due to the dwindling population numbers 

from nesting habitat loss and cowbird parasitism. 

Cactus Species. The threatened bunched 

cory cactus (Coryphantha ramillosa) is found 

on slopes and ledges of sparsely vegetated 

limestone rock outcrops (most commonly of 

the Boquillas or Santa Elena Formations) in 

the lechuguilla shrublands in Big Bend National Park and on large private ranches. This 

species is known from about 25 sites in southern Brewster County, many in Big Bend National Park. It also can be found in northern 

Coahuila, Mexico. 

The Chisos Mountains hedgehog cactus 

(Echinocereus chisoensis var. chisoensis), also a 

threatened species, is known to occur in the 

river corridor. These cacti are found in low 

Resources That Could Be Affected 

elevation desert grasslands or sparsely vegetated shrublands on gravelly flats and terraces 

in the Chihuahuan Desert. This species is 

known from about a dozen sites, all in Big 

Bend National Park. No federally designated 

critical habitat for this species exists in Terrell 

or Brewster County. 

Water Quantity and Quality 

The Rio Grande, one of the longest rivers in 

the United States, is no longer a naturally 

flowing river along its entire length. Extensive 

diversion networks and dams control flows on 

the river to provide water for a variety of human needs. The condition of the Rio Grande 

was discussed in an Associated Press item in 

The Daily Grist of June 28, 2001, as follows: 

Nine years of drought, a proliferation of 

choking river weeds and the drawing off of 

water by farms and municipalities have taken 

their toll on the river, which serves as the 

boundary between Mexico and the United 

States. Once a navigable waterway that 

swelled under bridges and made fertile an 

otherwise dry coastal plain, the river becomes 

a mere trickle before it gets to the Gulf of 

Mexico, disappearing about 300 feet short of 

its destination in a big expanse of sand. 

At the time of the original Draft General Management Plan / Development Concept Plan 

(NPS 1981), the average annual streamflow in 

the upper reaches of the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River was 925 cubic feet per second 

(cfs). The current annual flows are considerably less. From March 2000 through March 

2001, the average flow was 571 cfs as recorded 

near Castolon, according to the International 

Boundary and Water Commission’s web page. 

The proportion of the annual flow from the 

Rio Conchos in Mexico has declined from 

approximately 80% to 57% since 1993. Population growth and increasing industrial and 

agricultural uses have contributed to a growing demand for Rio Conchos water in Mexico. 

The high flows and periodic floods necessary 

to maintain the river channels have been reduced by 75% in the Rio Grande below El 

57
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Paso and by 50% on the Rio Conchos over the 

years by added dams and more water use. 

Reduced flows in the Rio Grande below Fort 

Quitman have resulted in a long stretch of river with no defined channel, and the river in 

that area has become a continuous tamarisk 

thicket. The amount of water that reaches Big 

Bend National Park and the Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River has been reduced by more 

than half the historic flows levels. 

Spring inflows and unregulated tributaries increase the average annual streamflow in the 

lower reaches of the wild and scenic river. 

Peak flows and flooding most often occur 

between May and October as the result of 

intense rainstorms in the watershed. 

Other factors that affect the water quality of 

the Rio Grande, its tributaries, and Amistad 

Reservoir are untreated sewage from Presidio/Ojinaga and border villages, livestock grazing in riparian areas, limited agricultural runoff, mining activities, and atmospheric 

deposition. 

The available database reveals the presence of 

toxic contaminants and elevated densities of 

fecal-coliform bacteria in the river. This information represents a compilation of water 

quality data for stream sites sampled by the 

Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, the U.S. portion of the International 

Boundary and Water Commission, and the 

U.S. Geological Survey. The Texas Natural 

Resources Conservation Commission periodically assesses the available data and has 

identified several areas of concern, including 

the presence of the following: 

arsenic 

cadmium 

chromium 

copper 

dichlorodiphenyl dichlorethane (DDD) 

dichlorodiphenyl ethylene (DDE) 

dichlorodiphenyl trichlorethane (DDT) 

dieldrin 

endrin 

hexachlorobenzene 

lead 

mercury 

nitrogen 

phosphorous 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

selenium 

silver 

zinc 

At present, sulfates and nitrates make up the 

largest contributors of contaminants in the 

river. 

The National Park Service has little control 

over the quality or quantity of the water in the 

Rio Grande because most of the water comes 

from tributaries on the Mexican side, and all 

the tributaries on the U.S. side are in private or 

state ownership. The character and values that 

the wild and scenic river was originally established to protect cannot be maintained without adequate water flows. Therefore, it is vital 

that the quantity of water be increased, or in 

the near future some sections of the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River may run dry 

during certain times of the year. 

The treaty of 1944 between the United States 

and Mexico established that at least one-third 

of the combined annual flow volume from the 

six Mexican rivers that feed the Rio Grande 

belongs to the United States. This treaty also 

states that the flows must total at least 350,000 

acre-feet annually, based on a five-year moving mean average. The treaty does not establish release schedules for the tributaries, so 

flows passing through the park can vary considerably over time. The International Boundary and Water Commission enforces this 

treaty and manages the water in the Rio Grande from Fort Quitman to the Gulf of Mexico. 

Vegetation 

The Chihuahuan Desert, through which the 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River flows, 

exhibits a great diversity of vegetation types, 

which have been categorized according to 

topography. The vegetation adjacent to the 

river is adapted to flooding and wet soils. Wil58
Resources That Could Be Affected 

lows, canes, reeds, seepwillows, acacias, and 

grasses are the major components of this association. Upslope, the vegetation becomes 

more desertlike, with lechugilla, blackbrush, 

catclaw acacia, candelilla, saltbush, mesquite, 

creosote bush, chino grama, and a variety of 

cacti predominating. Cracks in the cliff walls 

harbor a distinctive plant community of candelilla, rock nettle, and poison ivy. 

The riparian zone varies from narrow intracanyon banks to floodplains more than 0.5 

mile wide. Early reports indicated that lanceleaf cottonwoods and willows were common, 

but by the early 1900s most of the trees had 

been harvested for use in mining operations, 

and their seedlings rarely survived grazing. 

Tamarisk, giant river cane, Bermuda grass, and 

other invasive plant species have become established along the Rio Grande. In some 

places these exotic species have forced out 

native vegetation and form an impassable 

thicket. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The canyons and valleys of the Rio Grande 

have been a homeland to people for many 

centuries. The area contains a number of prehistoric and historic cultural resources that 

supply limited views into the lifestyle of various cultures over the last 10,500 years. Many 

sites along the wild and scenic river are undisturbed, which enhances their scientific value. 

Reconnaissance surveys have located a significant number of prehistoric sites on both sides 

of the river. These sites, which represent occupation and exploration activities by the prehistoric inhabitants, are found in caves, rock 

shelters, terraces, talus slopes, and canyon 

rims. 

Throughout the prehistoric period, people 

found shelter and maintained open campsites 

throughout what is now Big Bend National 

Park. Archeological records reveal an Archaicperiod desert culture whose inhabitants developed a nomadic hunting and gathering lifestyle that remained virtually unchanged for 

several thousand years. American Indian cultures represented are the Chisos, Mescalero 

Apache, Kickapoo, and Comanche. Sites containing ceramic artifacts suggest that some 

later indigenous peoples had a semisedentary 

lifestyle and practiced limited agriculture 

along the river. 

The historic period began in 1535 with the explorations of Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca in 

the Texas Trans-Pecos region. During the late 

1700s, Spanish presidios were established 

along the Rio Grande at San Vicente, Coahuila, and along the San Carlos River at San Carlos, Chihuahua. 

Control of the area was passed to the United 

States after the Mexican-American War 

(1846–1848). A series of army posts was established along the Rio Grande in an attempt to 

stop Comanche and Apache raids. The first 

accurate maps of the Rio Grande canyon areas 

were completed by Army topographic engineers and the United States–Mexico Boundary Commission in the 1850s. Around that 

time, a wagon road was established to link San 

Antonio and El Paso. The road tied the region 

into the trade network that stretched from 

California to the Gulf of Mexico. 

Grazing history along the Rio Grande dates 

back to the early Spanish missions established 

between 1670 and 1690. These missions had 

become major centers of livestock concentration by 1700. 

Hispanic settlements existed near the Rio 

Grande in 1805. Mexicans farmed and 

ranched the area throughout the 1800s. Beginning in the 1880s, Anglo-Americans established ranches throughout the area and began 

farming in the early 20th century. Some farmers and ranchers left the area for a short hiatus 

during the Mexican Revolution. Cotton and 

food crops were grown around Castolon and 

what is now Rio Grande Village even after Big 

Bend National Park was established in 1944. 

59
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Quicksilver (mercury) was discovered in the 

area in the late 19th century, and later finds of 

silver and fluorite attracted hundreds of 

miners and prospectors. A unique facet of the 

continuing Rio Grande history is the use of 

the candelilla plant to produce high-quality 

wax. This wax has been used in the manufacture of candles, waxes, gum, and phonograph 

records. 

Sites of historical interest in the Lower Canyons are an abandoned candelilla operation, 

the Asa Jones Waterworks, Dryden Crossing, 

and Burro Bluff, the site of an old trail built by 

cattlemen for access to the Texas side of the 

river. 

A review of the National Register of Historic 

Places reveals that four sites that are listed in 

the national register are in the river corridor in 

Big Bend National Park: Sublett Farm, Daniels 

Farm, the Castolon Historic District, and the 

Hot Springs District. 

The Texas Historical Commission conducted 

a reconnaissance survey of the river corridor 

from La Linda to Dryden Crossing in the 

1970s (Mallouf and Tunnel 1977). The researchers recorded 83 prehistoric sites and 5 

historic sites on that survey. Some of those are 

on the Mexican side of the river. The sites represented human occupation and use of the 

river area throughout the last 12,000 years. 

The potential for evidence of Paleo-Indian 

occupation exists in some of the more protected cave and rock shelter sites. Because 

they are on nonfederal land, no determination 

has been made about the eligibility of the prehistoric or historic sites in the Lower Canyons 

for the National Register of Historic Places . 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

AND UNDERSTANDING 

Recreation 

Spectacular river canyons, occasional rapids, 

the primitive character of the Rio Grande, and 

its international flavor form a stimulating environment for high-quality recreational experiences. In Big Bend National Park, the river 

can be enjoyed from canyon rims, along the 

shore, or from a boat. Downstream from the 

park, the river can be accessed only by boat or 

from a few privately-owned access points. 

Recreational activities one can enjoy on the 

river are floating, motorboating, camping, 

fishing, hunting, photography, swimming or 

wading, and relaxing on the shore. Swimming 

in the river is not encouraged because strong 

currents and dropoffs can be dangerous. A 

warning is printed in the park brochure. 

There are 13 camping areas along the river in 

the park — 2 developed campgrounds (Cottonwood and Rio Grande Village) and 11 

primitive campsites. The primitive campsites 

are in the Lower Canyons where there is 

enough of a break in the riverside vegetation 

to get through. 

Expectations of a visit and experiencing solitude are primary motivational factors for 

people who participate in a river trip, according to the Recreational River Use Management 

Plan (NPS 1997). Typically, traditional uses 

are allowed to continue on a wild and scenic 

river after it has been designated. People use 

motorized and nonmotorized boats on the 

Rio Grande both inside and outside of Big 

Bend National Park. However, the use of motorboats is an issue that was mentioned in several public comments. Conflicts between 

motorized and nonmotorized recreationists 

can occur in some stretches. 

The following restrictions are from the 1997 

Recreation River Use Management Plan (which 

does not cover the Lower Canyons section of 

the river): 

• Mariscal Canyon (classified wild) is closed 

to all motorized watercraft except during 

October. Motors up to 60 horsepower 

may be used in October only. 

• To provide a wilderness experience, motorized watercraft are prohibited in the 

wild zone that includes Boquillas Canyon. 

60
Resources That Could Be Affected 

A permit is required for boating on the wild 

and scenic river. Statistics show that a small 

percentage of permittees use motorized watercraft. Motorized traffic has decreased in recent years. This can be attributed to low water 

levels and new restrictions on motorized uses 

in the canyons of Big Bend National Park. 

None of the commercial companies offer river 

trips with motorized craft. In past years, most 

of the motorized boats were used above Santa 

Elena Canyon and in the lower end of the 

Boquillas Canyon stretch. Almost all these 

users were accessing the river from private 

lands outside the park boundary. During 

periods of low water, exposed rocks make the 

use of motorized craft impossible on many 

stretches of the river. 

Most motorized boating takes place along private lands and in the state park, upriver from 

the park and outside the wild and scenic river. 

In addition, there is much motorboat use in 

the area above Heath Canyon and on down 

through Black Gap. The Big Bend National 

Park staff indicates that it is rare to see a motorboat downstream from the Black Gap 

Wildlife Management Area that has launched 

from there. Most motorboat traffic between 

Reagan Canyon and San Francisco Canyon is 

launched from private property and limited to 

running short reaches of the river, between 

rapids. Sources familiar with the river say 

there is little motor use in this section, which 

is classified as wild. 

Personal hovercraft are being used on some 

stretches of the river, but this is not considered a traditional use. There are concerns that 

hovercraft would be able to travel upriver to 

Big Bend National Park while other motorized 

craft are confined to segments of the river 

between rapids. Federal regulation 36 CFR 

2.17 (e) prohibits hovercraft on all segments. 

The designated segments of Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River are long enough to accommodate a variety of meaningful recreational 

experiences lasting from a few hours to several days. Most of the river is an easy float trip. 

Occasional rapids intersperse the calm 

stretches. These rapids are in the class II to 

class III difficulty range, with one in the class 

IV range, depending on the flow level. As part 

of the boating experience, parties will pull out 

on the shore for picnicking, overnight camping, short hikes, or sightseeing. Most private 

users plan their trips around a particular river 

segment, and only a small percentage travel 

through two or more river segments on the 

same trip (NPS 1997). 

A journey through the Lower Canyons offers 

a true wilderness experience requiring five to 

ten days. Most boaters begin the trip at La 

Linda and take out at either Dryden Crossing 

(83 miles) or Foster’s Ranch (119 miles), 

which is at the end of the Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River. A few river runners may 

continue to Langtry (137 miles). Visitation to 

the Lower Canyons section is primarily by 

boat. Remoteness, rugged terrain, and a lack 

of public access limit visitation from off the 

river. 

A recreational user study conducted by Texas 

A&M University in 1993 indicated that users 

said that the most important reason they came 

to the Rio Grande was “getting away from the 

everyday routine.” Experiencing solitude was 

also a primary motivational factor for participating in a river trip. Many boaters take day 

hikes in side canyons. River use peaks during 

the spring, but some recreational use occurs 

throughout the year. 

NPS regulations require that commercial 

boaters obtain an incidental business permit 

and pay a fee. A free backcountry use permit is 

required for private day and overnight use of 

floating craft on all parts of the Rio Grande 

administered by the National Park Service, 

except for persons day-fishing downstream 

from the national park boundary. This allows 

the park to deliver important safety information and monitor use. Boaters deposit used 

permits in boxes at takeout points, where park 

personnel collect them. 

61
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Historic Recreational Use on the Rio 

Grande, Lajitas to Val Verde County Line 

The recreational use of the Rio Grande discussed in this section is between Lajitas and 

the Terrell/ Val Verde County line. The area 

includes both the Upper Canyons (within Big 

Bend National Park) and the Lower Canyons 

(downstream from La Linda). It does not include the Colorado Canyon or other areas upstream from Lajitas. The Upper Canyons in 

the park are primarily the canyons of Santa 

Elena, Mariscal, and Boquillas. 

Permit data from 1998 show that 3,980 people 

took float trips on the Rio Grande in Big Bend 

National Park (downstream of Lajitas), and 

352 more people were permitted to float 

through the Lower Canyons to various takeout points (see table 10). Therefore, according 

to park records, the combined 1998 total was 

4,332 persons and 789 trips on the river at 

some point between Lajitas and near Val 

Verde County. In 1999, the total number of 

river users in the same area increased to 5,840 

persons and 1,069 trips. The National Park 

Service reports that river use increased 

abruptly in 1999 because of higher water levels 

compared to 1998. 

TABLE 10: 1998–2000 RIVER USE, 

LAJITAS TO VAL VERDE COUNTY 

Location Trips Persons 

1998 

Big Bend NP 743 3,980 

Lower Canyons 46 352 

Total 789 4,332 

1999 

Big Bend NP 981 1,562 

Lower Canyons 88 678 

Total 1,069 5,840 

2000 

Big Bend NP 1,006 5,700 

Lower Canyons 98 909 

Total 1,104 6,609 

The number of river users increased again in 

2000, with 6,609 users and 1,104 trips Thus, 

the average use for 1998–2000 was 5,594 persons. In the Lower Canyons section, the 

three-year average use was 646 persons; 

however, the growth rate in that period was 

158.2%, as compared to 40.6% in the Big Bend 

section. 

About 50%–60% of the people with permits 

who float the river in Big Bend National Park 

are typically on guided trips, but only about 

10% of the people floating the river in the 

Lower Canyons are on guided trips. Outfitters 

provide a variety of services in the Lower Canyons other than guiding, including dropoff 

and pickup, vehicle shuttles, rentals of rafts, 

canoes, and other equipment, and paddling 

lessons. 

A study conducted by Texas A&M University 

in 1993 examined the total use on the Rio 

Grande from 1983 through 1992. The study 

focused on the Upper Canyons of Santa Elena, 

Mariscal, and Boquillas. The data were obtained from river use permits. River use 

peaked in 1985, when the total number of permits issued exceeded 2,500. In that year there 

were about 1,700 permits for private use and 

more than 800 permits for commercial use. 

From 1983 to 1996 the total river use in the 

Upper Canyons decreased to about 900 permits (a drop of about 64%, which included a 

total of 600 private and 300 commercial trips). 

That study also showed that while private 

river users usually had more boats per permit, 

commercial users had more individuals per 

boat than did private rafters (NPS 1997). The 

historic river use (total number of people) is 

shown in figure 1. 

Five years of visitation to the Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River are shown in table 11. From 

1990 through 1996, Santa Elena Canyon had 

approximately four times as many permits as 

either Mariscal or Boquillas Canyon. During 

that period, Santa Elena received five times as 

much commercial use as private use. 

BOUNDARY AND NONFEDERAL LANDS 

As was mentioned previously (p. 38), the issue 

of wild and scenic river boundaries on private 

62
FIGURE 1 

1983-1992 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000 

8000 

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992 

Number of People 

lena Canyon 

l Canyon 

Number of River Users By Canyon 

Santa E Boquillas Canyon 

Marisca

land has proven contentious. Some riverside 

landowners have expressed concern about 

how federal wild and scenic river boundaries 

affect their property and how the National 

Park Service will manage the corridor. For 

proper and effective management of the river, 

the National Park Service believes it is imperative to develop close working relationships 

with the state, local counties, and private 

landowners. 

About 36% of the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River flows through federal lands in Big 

Bend National Park. As was discussed on page 

55 and shown in table 10 (p. 62), riverside 

lands are owned by 17 private landowners and 

Resources That Could Be Affected 

the state of Texas at Black Gap Wildlife Management Area. The Rio Grande Partnership 

Team includes representatives of federal, 

state, and county governments, commercial 

outfitters, private paddlers, environmental 

groups, and private landowners. The team was 

established to identify and work through 

issues associated with nonfederal ownership 

and public use. 

In comparison with other Western states, 

Texas has little land in public ownership, and 

private property rights are taken seriously. 

There is a widespread fear among landowners 

that the federal government will “take” their 

property. Big Bend National Park and other 

parks and forests in Texas were purchased 

from private landowners by the federal or 

state government. 

Section 6(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

contains the following provision: 

If 50 per centum or more of the entire acreage outside the ordinary high water mark on 

both sides of the river within a federally administered wild, scenic, or recreational river 

area is owned in fee title by the United 

States, by the State or States within which it 

lies, or by political subdivisions of those 

States, neither Secretary shall acquire fee 

title to any lands by condemnation under 

authority of this Act. Nothing contained in 

this section, however, shall preclude the use 

TABLE 11: VISITATION TO THE LOWER CANYONS 

OF THE RIO GRANDE, 1992–2001 

User-Days 

Year Visitors Commercial Private Total 

1992 962 1,230 5,632 6,862 

1993 470 725 2,570 3,295 

1994 693 1,054 4,591 5,645 

1995 493 957 2,990 3,947 

1996 498 1,047 3,022 4,069 

1997 489 128 3,326 3,454 

1998 352 73 2,386 2,459 

1999 678 1,983 3,429 5,412 

2000 909 1,094 2,984 4,078 

2001 1,086 2,456 3,195 5,651 

AVERAGE 663 1,075 3,413 4,487 

63
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

of condemnation when necessary to clear 

title or to acquire scenic easements or such 

other easements as are reasonably necessary 

to give the public access to the river and to 

permit its members to traverse the length of 

the area or of selected segments thereof. 

The current frontage of the Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River is 51% in private ownership 

and 49% in federal and state lands. Nothing in 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act gives or implies government control of nonfederal lands 

in the river corridor. Although Congress has 

included private lands within the boundaries 

of this wild and scenic river, management restrictions apply only to public lands. The federal government has no power to regulate or 

zone private lands. The boundary contains the 

values for which the river was designated. 

This, in turn, is the area in which the National 

Park Service will focus work with local communities and landowners to develop effective 

strategies for protection. 

Within the state of Texas, the Rio Grande is 

considered a navigable waterway; therefore, 

the U.S. half of the riverbed is the property of 

the state of Texas, and the public may use it 

for recreation. 

The liability of landowners for the public recreating on their land also must be considered. 

The Texas Recreation Use Statute (appendix 

D) includes a broad definition of trespasser, 

which reduces the liability of landowners for 

people recreating on their lands. The “Acknowledgement of Risk” form on the river 

permits offers additional protection to private 

landowners. 

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

The study area for this plan is Brewster and 

Terrell Counties, Texas. In addition, the affected environment is also described for the 

Mexican states of Chihuahua and Coahuila 

(south of the Rio Grande). Economic conditions throughout the study area are described, 

with particular emphasis on river use and 

tourism. 

Brewster County 

In 2000, the household population of Brewster County was 8,466, and about 43% of the 

county residents were of hispanic descent. 

County public school enrollment in 1995 was 

1,520 pupils. The median household income 

was about $18,000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 

1998). The 1999 per capita income of $20,110 

ranked Brewster County 148th in the state. 

This was 75% of the statewide average and 

70% of the national average. Since 1989, the 

average annual growth rate in per capita income has been about 5.9% (by comparison, 

the statewide growth rate for per capita income was 5.1%). 

The total earnings of persons employed in 

Brewster County were $176.8 million in 1999. 

During the preceding 10 years, earnings increased by 5.6% per year, and about 22.7% of 

all residents had 1997 incomes below the poverty line. About 16% of all hispanic individuals 

were below the poverty line (U.S. Bureau of 

the Census 1998 and 2000). 

An average of 5,440 persons from this county 

were in the 2000 civilian labor force, and an 

average of 5,320 were employed (an unemployment rate of 2.2%). Most employment 

was associated with retail trade and services. 

Alpine is the largest community in Brewster 

County, with a 2000 population of 5,672. 

There were 2,772 persons of hispanic origin in 

that year. Brewster County had total of 4,614 

housing units in 2000, 3,669 of which were occupied. About 60% of the occupied units were 

owner-occupied. The 1997 median rent in 

town was $294 per month, and the median 

home value was $46,900 (U.S. Bureau of the 

Census 1998 and 2000). 

Terrell County 

Terrell County had a population of 1,081 in 

2000, which was a decline of 23.3% from the 

64 
Resources That Could Be Affected 

1990 population (2000 census). About 51.5% 

of the county’s residents in 2000 were of hispanic descent. County public school enrollment in 1995 totaled 284 students. In 1990, 

216 people older than 25 had completed less 

than the 9th grade (1990 census). 

The 1999 per capita income of $21,887 ranked 

Terrell County 97th in the state. This was 82% 

of the statewide average and 77% of the national average. Over the past 10 years, the 

county per capita income increased by about 

4.4% per year, compared to a statewide increase of 5.1%. The total earnings of persons 

employed in Terrell County were $26.3 

million in 1999 (Bur. of Econ. Anal. 1999). 

Over the preceding 10 years the earnings 

growth rate was 1.9% per year. Approximately 

21% of all residents had 1997 incomes below 

the poverty line (2000 census). In 1990, about 

40% of the hispanic people in Terrell County 

were below the poverty line (U.S. Bureau of 

the Census 1990 and 1998). The 2000 average 

civilian unemployment rate was 2.6%. Most 

employment in the county is associated with 

retail trade and services. 

Demographic information for the communities of Alpine and Sanderson is summarized in table 12. 

TABLE 12: SELECTED ECONOMIC INFORMATION, 

ALPINE AND SANDERSON, TEXAS

 Alpine Sanderson 

Population in 2000 5,786 861 

Households in 2000 2,429 356 

Median 1990 household 

income $17,479 $22,639 

Total housing units in 

2000 2,852 635 

Average 1990 monthly 

rental $ 294 $ 255 

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990 and 2000. 

population changes over the period 1950– 

2000 are illustrated in table 13. While the 

population of Brewster County increased by 

15.8%, the population of Presidio County 

decreased by 2%, and the population of 

Terrell County decreased by two-thirds. 

Study Area Economic 

Conditions Since 1950 

For this assessment, economic conditions in 

the study area are generally represented by the 

change in per capita income. Between 1960 

and 1999 (the most recent year for which data 

are available), the average per capita income 

for study area residents grew by an average of 

about 2.6% per year, as shown in table 14 

(U.S. Census, 1960–1990 and 1999). The 

Census Bureau was unable to provide data for 

1950. Although income has risen rapidly since 

1990, the income for study area residents still 

is considerably lower than the statewide 

average. 

Economic Impacts of Visitor Spending 

The NPS Public Use Statistics Office calculates that visitors to the Rio Grande contributed approximately $30,000 to the local 

economy in 2001 (most recent data available). 

This amount supported $30,000 in sales, 

$10,000 in personal income, 1 full-time job, 

and $20,000 in secondary, value added contributions (NPS 2004b). Visitors to both Big 

Bend and the Rio Grande are not included in 

this analysis (information about the socioeconomic effects of park visitors can be found in 

the Big Bend National Park General Management Plan — NPS 2004a). 

PARTNERSHIPS AND 

Study Area Population Records 

The 2000 study area population is estimated to 

be 16,755. This represents a decrease of about 

1,100 persons (–6%) compared to the 1950 

population (1950–2000 census). Individual 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 

The National Park Service is ultimately responsible for managing the Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River, but the agency cannot effectively manage almost 200 miles of the river 

without the participation and support of indi65
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

viduals, organizations, the state government, 

and local governments. Thus, the Rio Grande 

Partnership Team was formed to gather information for use in developing alternatives and 

actions for managing the wild and scenic river. 

Partnership approaches to river planning and 

management have been successfully implemented for wild and scenic rivers on private 

lands across the United States. 

As was described on page 63, the Rio Grande 

Partnership Team, which includes representatives of federal, state, and county governments, commercial outfitters, private paddlers, environmental groups, and private landowners, was established to identify and work 

through issues associated with nonfederal 

ownership and public use. To resolve boundary issues and landowner concerns, which has 

been a top priority of the team, landowner 

agreements have been initiated. 

The congressional designation of the Rio 

Grande as a wild and scenic river specifically 

indicated that only the American side of the 

river is included. The international boundary 

between the United States and Mexico, and 

the southern park boundary, is described as 

the center of the deepest channel of the Rio 

Grande. The Mexican government owns and 

regulates the south half of the river and 50 

meters up the shore. Boaters and anglers regularly use the Mexican shore. In addition, land 

uses in Mexico affect the quality and quantity 

of water in the river. 

Mexico has established two protected areas 

that are adjacent to the river, known in Mexico as Rio Bravo. Cañon de Santa Elena and 

Maderas del Carmen were set aside in 1994 to 

protect wildlife and natural features. The 

creation of these protected areas raises possibilities for developing joint river management strategies. Although the wild and scenic 

river designation does not include the Mexican side of the river, it would be important for 

future management to involve Mexican state 

and federal governments in cooperative partnerships. Because binational cooperation is 

important to the future of the Rio Grande 

Wild and Scenic River, this plan contains 

discussion of possible cooperation between 

the United States government and its 

counterparts in Mexico. 

TABLE 13: POPULATION TRENDS, 1950–2000 

County 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 % Change, 1950–2000 

Brewster 7,309 6,434 7,780 7,573 8,681 8,466 15.8% 

Presidio 7,354 5.460 4,842 5,188 6,637 7,208 – 2.0% 

Terrell 3,189 2.600 1,940 1,595 1,410 1,081 – 66.0% 

Total 17,852 14.494 14,562 14,356 16.728 16,755 – 6.0% 

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1950–2000. 

TABLE 14: STUDY AREA PER CAPITA INCOME 1950–1999 

County 1960 1970 1980 1990 1999 Change, 1960–1999 

Brewster $5,035 $6,279 $ 8,105 $10,730 $20,111 299% 

Terrell $7,055 $6,826 $11,845 $10,146 $21,887 210% 

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1960–1999. 

66
Environmental Consequences 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

(blank) 

68 
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act requires that environmental impact statements 

disclose the environmental impacts of a proposed action (implementation of the plan). 

This chapter contains the analyses of the 

effects the alternatives could cause on resources, the visitor experience, and the socioeconomic environment of the river. Considering 

these effects provides a basis for comparing 

the advantages and disadvantages of each 

alternative. 

The alternatives presented in this document 

would give broad management direction. Because their potential consequences are sometimes broad and conceptual, they can be analyzed only in general terms. Before undertaking specific action as a result of this plan, park 

managers would determine whether or not 

more detailed environmental documents 

would need to be prepared. 

For each impact topic, there is a description of 

the potential positive and negative effects that 

could result from the actions of each alternative, a discussion of the cumulative effects, 

if any, and a conclusion statement. At the end 

of this chapter there is a brief discussion of 

unavoidable adverse effects, a comparison of 

short-term uses and long-term productivity, 

and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. 

METHODS OF ASSESSING EFFECTS 

The potential effects are described in terms of 

type (beneficial or adverse effects), location 

(site-specific, local, or regional effects), duration (short-term effects, lasting less than a 

year, or long-term effects, lasting more than a 

year), and intensity (negligible, minor, moderate, or major effects). Because definitions of 

intensity vary by type of resource, intensities 

are defined separately for each impact topic 

analyzed in this document. The impact analyses were derived through professional judgment, from research, and from the study of 

previous projects that had similar effects. 

The following definitions apply to all impact 

topics. 

Duration 

A long-term effect would last one year or 

longer; a short-term effect would last less than 

one year. 

Location 

If the locations of effects would differ, they 

are described separately for segments of the 

river within Big Bend National Park and 

segments outside of the park such as in the 

Lower Canyons (also see “Management of 

Corridor on Nonfederal Lands,” p. 29). 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, which implement the National 

Environmental Policy Act, require that cumulative effects be assessed in the decisionmaking process for federal projects. Cumulative effects are defined in 40 CFR 1508.7 as 

follows: 

the impact on the environment which results 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. 

In this document the cumulative impacts have 

been considered for all impact topics and both 

alternatives. Resource-specific discussions of 

cumulative impacts are presented for each 

impact topic. 

69 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Projects That Make up the Cumulative 

Impact Scenario 

To determine the potential cumulative impacts, the planning team identified projects in 

the area surrounding the Rio Grande. The 

area includes Study Butte / Terlingua, Mexican villages adjacent to the river, Big Bend 

National Park, and nearby lands administered 

by the state (Black Gap Wildlife Management 

Area and Big Bend Ranch State Park). Planning team members met with or talked by 

telephone with people from county and town 

governments and state land managers. A lack 

of formal planning in counties and gateway 

communities made specific development proposals unavailable. 

Current and Reasonably Foreseeable 

Actions. Any planning or development activity now being implemented or that would be 

implemented in the reasonably foreseeable 

future was considered in identifying cumulative actions. Such actions are considered in 

conjunction with the effects of each alternative to determine if they would have any additive effects on a particular natural resource, 

cultural resource, visitor use, or the socioeconomic environment. Most such actions are 

in the early planning stages, so the evaluation 

of cumulative effects was based on a general 

description of the project. Because the specific 

effects of some actions cannot be determined 

at this time, the cumulative impact analysis is 

qualitative and general. 

Increased development in the gateway communities west of the park, the establishment 

and proposed joint activities with Big Bend 

Ranch State Park, and the continued operation of the state’s Black Gap Wildlife Management Area may be impacting local aquifers. 

Several new construction projects are planned 

for various places in Big Bend National Park. 

The park also plans to upgrade the water and 

wastewater treatment systems that do not 

meet state standards or are in a deteriorated 

condition. The General Management Plan for 

Big Bend National Park (NPS 2004a) calls for 

moving fuel storage tanks at Rio Grande Village out of the 500-year floodplain and reducing the amount of irrigation water drawn 

from the river. 

Illegal activities such as drug smuggling, cattle 

trespass, and illegal immigration are occurring 

along the Rio Grande. These activities contribute to adverse impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife habitat. 

Past Actions. The following past actions have 

contributed to cumulative effects. 

Agriculture and Ranching. — Agriculture 

and ranching in the region have greatly reduced native plants in favor of vegetation that 

cattle and sheep prefer for food, which in turn 

has led to the alteration of soil and the loss of 

soil through erosion. In addition, fences have 

been built to limit the movement of grazing 

animals, and natural hydrology and landforms 

have been modified to create dams and livestock tanks to provide water for livestock. 

Along with ranching has come the use of 

herbicides to kill unwanted plant species and 

the introduction of exotic species of plants. 

The park’s use of herbicides to control exotics 

contributes to the effects of herbicide use in 

the area. 

Besides agriculture and ranching, a variety of 

development actions have occurred in the region over time. Roads, trails, houses, outbuildings, and utilities were built. In Big Bend 

National Park, housing, office building, visitor 

centers, parking lots, campgrounds, and other 

infrastructure items have been constructed 

since the park was established. 

Making the area a park changed its use from 

agriculture and ranching to visitor use and 

park operations. All the areas used for support 

of visitors and park operations have altered 

soils, vegetation and water regimes. In an 

environment where water is scarce, water is 

used that would otherwise be available to 

native plants and wildlife. The developments 

at Panther Junction, Rio Grande Village, and 

Cottonwood Campground occupy flood70
Introduction and Methodology 

plains. The latter two (which together occupy 

less than 1 mile of 118 miles of riverfront in 

the park) occupy former riparian areas, precluding the restoration of riparian areas. 

Upstream Use of the Rio Grande. Despite 

numerous treaties and agreements among international and domestic agencies, the water 

in the Rio Grande is so overused that the riverbed between El Paso and Presidio, Texas, is 

frequently nearly dry. Water flows recorded at 

the Candelaria gaging station from 1977 to the 

present ranged from 0 to 535 cubic meters per 

second (cms), with an average flow of 7.59 

cms. Flows of 0 cms occurred 6% of the time, 

and flows less than one cms occurred 20% of 

the time (information from International 

Boundary Water Commission at <www.ibwc. 

state.gov/ wad/histflo1.htm.>, 9/15/03). This 

low flow reduces opportunities for activities 

such as irrigating crops and recreational use of 

the river. Even when there is water in the 

river, it has a high salt and silt content that is 

unhealthy for irrigated plants and people. 

Assumptions 

Several assumptions must be made about past, 

present, and future uses of the region so that 

the cumulative effects can be analyzed, particularly in regard to future actions. The 

following assumptions apply to this plan: 

• The International Boundary and Water 

Commission could negotiate for changes 

in water allocations between the United 

States and Mexico, and that could affect 

the flow regime of the Rio Grande. 

• The types of river use that are occurring 

now will continue, and in addition there 

may be new, different future uses. 

• Commercial and residential development, 

tourism, recreation, agriculture, and road 

construction have occurred, are occurring, and are expected to continue. 

• Several ranches along the river have been 

or are going to be subdivided into small 

parcels and sold as ranchettes. 

• Other types of development have occurred and will continue on private lands 

in the United States and on the Mexican 

side of the river. 

Developments could affect several resources. 

Implementing the Big Bend General Management Plan will affect the future management 

and decision-making in the park. Any actions 

that also would affect river management are 

discussed in this chapter. 

IMPAIRMENT OF PARK 

RESOURCES OR VALUES 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives, the potential 

effects must be analyzed to determine if any 

actions would impair the resources, as directed by NPS Management Policies 2001 (NPS 

2001b) and DO 12, Conservation Planning and 

Environmental Impact Analysis (NPS 2001a). 

The fundamental purpose of the national park 

system, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values. NPS managers always must 

seek ways to avoid or minimize, to the greatest 

degree practicable, any adverse effects on the 

resources and values of a unit of the national 

park system. However, the laws do give the 

National Park Service the management discretion to allow impacts on resources and values 

when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the 

purposes of a park system unit, as long as the 

impact does not constitute impairment of the 

affected resources and values. 

Although Congress has given the National 

Park Service the management discretion to 

allow certain impacts, that discretion is limited 

by the statutory requirement that a park’s resources and values must be left unimpaired 

unless a particular law directly and specifically 

provides otherwise. The prohibited impairment is an impact that, in the professional 

judgment of the responsible NPS manager, 

71
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

would harm the integrity of the resources and 

values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of 

those resources or values. 

Any effect on a resource or value may be an 

impairment, but an action would be most 

likely to constitute impairment if it would 

result in a major effect on a resource or value 

whose conservation is (a) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the park unit’s 

establishing legislation or proclamation, (b) 

key to the natural or cultural integrity of the 

park system unit or opportunities to enjoy it, 

or (c) identified as a goal in the general management plan of the park system unit or other 

relevant NPS planning documents. Impairment applies only to resources and values on 

federally owned lands. It could result from 

NPS management activities, from visitor activities, or from activities undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others operating 

in the park. 

A determination about impairment has been 

made for each impact topic on NPS lands analyzed in this document. If there would be 

beneficial effects on a resource, or no effect, it 

can be assumed that there would be no 

impairment. 

72
EFFECTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

SCENIC AND AESTHETIC VALUES 

Methods of Assessing Effects 

The intensity of effects on scenic and aesthetic 

values was rated as follows: 

Negligible: Natural sights and sounds might 

be affected, but the effects would be at or 

below the level of detection, or the changes 

would be so slight that they would result in 

no measurable or perceptible effect on 

wildlife or visitor experiences. 

Minor: A change in the natural sights and 

sounds would be detectable, although 

small and local, and the action would cause 

little effect on wildlife or the visitor experience. 

Moderate: A change in the natural sights 

and sounds would be readily detectable, 

affecting the behavior of wildlife or visitors 

in a large area. 

Major :An obvious change in the natural 

sights and sounds would be severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial, and the 

action would affect the health of wildlife or 

visitors or cause a substantial, highly noticeable change in the behavior of wildlife 

or visitors in a local or regional area. 

Effects of Alternative A 

Analysis — Segments in Big Bend National 

Park. Scenic and aesthetic values such as 

natural landscapes, soundscapes, and views of 

the night sky would not be affected by the 

actions of this alternative. 

Analysis — Segments outside of Big Bend 

National Park. Although the no-action alternative would not directly affect scenic values, 

it would allow potentially affecting actions to 

be carried out on lands adjacent to the river 

without NPS consultation. Landowners 

would not be required to work with the National Park Service to mitigate possible impacts from riverside development. This could 

lead to adverse effects on scenic quality and 

aesthetic values from incompatible development or land uses. 

Cumulative Effects. Scenic and other natural 

aesthetic values in the river corridor could be 

negatively affected by certain types of land 

uses, including commercial or residential development, agriculture, road construction, or 

debris piles. Several ranches along the river 

have been or are going to be subdivided into 

small parcels and sold as ranchettes. The new 

owners of these parcels might construct 

houses or other structures in sight of the river, 

which could affect the scenic quality of the 

corridor. 

Other types of development have occurred 

and will continue to occur on private lands 

and on the Mexican side of the river. These 

actions would contribute negligible to moderate long-term adverse impacts. Although the 

wild and scenic river designation does not 

include the Mexican side of the river, scenic 

values do not stop in the middle of the river. 

This no-action alternative would not directly 

contribute to cumulative effects on the scenery, but continuing the existing conditions 

and land use traditions means that actions that 

could affect the scenic value would continue. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative A 

would not directly affect scenic values, but it 

could result in continuing long-term minor 

adverse effects on these values outside of Big 

Bend National Park. 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Manage73 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

ment Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park Service has determined that no impairment of 

scenic and aesthetic values would result from 

alternative A. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Analysis — Segments in Big Bend National 

Park. Implementing the preferred alternative 

would increase management emphasis on 

scenic and aesthetic values in the river corridor. This would strengthen the protection and 

enhance these values, a minor long-term 

beneficial effect. 

Analysis — Segments outside of Big Bend 

National Park. In alternative B, the inclusion 

of a clause in landowner agreements requiring 

landowners to notify and consult with the National Park Service before beginning any proposed development would improve the protection of scenic values in the river corridor. 

The National Park Service then would work 

with landowners by recommending mitigation 

to reduce visual impacts (for example, by 

relocating developments or using alternate 

construction methods). Cooperative management efforts with Mexican authorities would 

emphasize the protection of scenic quality on 

the southern bank. 

Natural sounds would continue to predominate in most segments of the river. Nothing in 

alternative B would increase light pollution, 

affecting night sky viewing opportunities. 

Cumulative Effects. Scenic and other natural 

aesthetic values in the river corridor could be 

adversely affected by land uses such as commercial or residential development, agriculture, road construction, or debris piles. Several ranches along the river have been and are 

going to be subdivided into small parcels and 

sold as ranchettes, and the new owners could 

construct houses or other structures in sight 

of the river, affecting scenic values. 

Other types of development have occurred 

and will continue to occur on private U.S. 

lands and on the Mexican side of the river. 

These actions would cause long-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts. Although 

the wild and scenic river designation does not 

include the Mexican side of the river, scenic 

values do not stop in the middle of the river. 

The Big Bend General Management Plan does 

not propose any new development in the river 

corridor. Alternative B would reduce the 

cumulative effects on the scenery through its 

protective measures and emphasis on cooperative management. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would result in 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects on the scenic and aesthetic values of the 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River. 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park Service has determined that no impairment of 

scenic and aesthetic values would result from 

alternative B. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Methods of Assessing Effects 

All available information on known resources 

was compiled. Predictions about short-term 

and long-term site impacts were based on previous studies of the effects of visitors on fish 

and wildlife and recent monitoring data from 

Big Bend National Park. 

The intensity of effects on fish and wildlife 

was rated as follows: 

74
Negligible: A change to a population or 

individuals of a species could occur, but it 

would be so small that its effect would not 

be measurable or perceptible. 

Minor: A small, localized change to a population or individuals of a species could 

occur, but it would have little effect. 

Moderate: A measurable change to a population or individuals of a species could 

occur and would be of consequence to the 

species, but it would be localized. 

Major: There would be a noticeable, measurable change in a population or individuals of a species, resulting in a severely adverse or major beneficial and possibly 

permanent effect on the species. 

Effects of Alternative A 

Analysis — Segments in and outside of Big 

Bend National Park. Alternative A would not 

include any action that would cause effects, 

adverse or beneficial, on fish or wildlife in the 

river corridor. The existing regulations on 

fishing would continue. No project-related 

ground disturbance is proposed under this 

alternative, and there would be no potential to 

affect fish and wildlife habitat. 

Cumulative Effects. Fish and wildlife in and 

along the Rio Grande are being adversely affected by human activities in the region. Commercial and residential development could 

displace animals and fragment habitat. Human 

presence near the river could prevent wildlife 

from getting needed water. Fish could be affected by the reduction of river water for agricultural, industrial, and domestic uses. 

Aquatic life could be adversely affected by degraded water quality from land uses such as 

livestock grazing, agriculture, and development. These actions would result in long-term 

negligible to moderate adverse impacts. This 

no-action alternative would not result in any 

additional impacts; thus, it would not conEffects on Natural Resources 

tribute to cumulative effects on the region’s 

fish and wildlife resources. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative A 

would not affect fish or wildlife. 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park Service has determined that fish and wildlife resources or values would not be impaired by 

alternative A. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Analysis — Segments in Big Bend National 

Park. The continued monitoring and management of fish and wildlife populations under 

alternative B would result in the quick identification of potential threats to diversity or species population numbers. Timely remedial 

actions would be implemented as outlined in 

resource management plans, resulting in longterm minor beneficial effects on fish and 

wildlife. 

Analysis — Segments outside of Big Bend 

National Park. The increased monitoring of 

fish and wildlife populations in the Lower 

Canyons under alternative B would reveal 

whether populations were increasing or declining. If declining populations or other impacts (such as the harassment of wildlife or 

the degradation of aquatic habitat) were discovered, where feasible, the National Park 

Service would take actions — with landowner 

cooperation — to reduce or eliminate the 

cause of the problem. Landowners would help 

with habitat restoration along the river. Protecting and monitoring fish and wildlife would 

be easier under this alternative with land75
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

owner agreements in place and an atmosphere 

of cooperation. 

Continuing NPS cooperation with federal and 

state wildlife agencies to implement conservation measures would result in long-term 

minor beneficial effects on fish and wildlife 

populations. Initiating cooperative management efforts to maintain or enhance the 

quality and quantity of Rio Grande water for 

the benefit of aquatic species also would result 

in long-term minor beneficial effects on fish 

and wildlife, as would the additional conservation, monitoring, and remedial actions of 

alternative B. 

Human presence near the river could prevent 

wildlife from obtaining needed water. This alternative would not increase the number of 

visitors to the river over the historic 

maximums. 

Cumulative Effects. Fish and wildlife in and 

along the Rio Grande are being adversely affected by human activities in the region. Commercial and residential development could 

displace animals and fragment habitat. Human 

presence near the river could prevent wildlife 

from obtaining needed water. Fish could be 

affected by the reduction of river water for agricultural, industrial, and domestic uses. 

Aquatic life could be adversely affected by degraded water quality from land uses such as 

livestock grazing, agriculture, and development. These actions would contribute to longterm negligible to moderate adverse impacts. 

Implementing alternative B would result in 

beneficial effects and would not contribute to 

cumulative adverse effects on the region’s fish 

and wildlife resources. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would result in 

long-term minor beneficial effects on fish and 

wildlife. 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park Service has determined that fish and wildlife 

resources or values would not be impaired by 

alternative B. 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Methods of Assessing Effects 

Information about possible threatened, endangered, or candidate species and species of 

special concern was gathered from research 

and specialists. Known locations of habitat 

associated with threatened, endangered, and 

candidate species and species of special concern were compared with the locations of 

proposed developments and modifications of 

existing facilities. Known impacts caused by 

visitor use also were considered. 

The intensity of effects on special status 

species was rated as follows: 

Negligible: A change to a population or individuals of a species or designated critical 

habitat could occur, but it would be so 

small that its effect would not be measurable or perceptible. The change would result in a no effect opinion from the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Minor: A small, localized change to a population or individuals of a species or designated critical habitat could occur, and it 

would be measurable. It would result in a 

not likely to adversely effect opinion from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Moderate: A measurable change to a population or individuals of a species or designated critical habitat could occur, and it 

would be of consequence to the species, 

but it probably would result in a not likely 

to adversely effect opinion from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

76
Major : A noticeable, measurable change 

could occur in a population or individuals 

of a species or on a resource or designated 

critical habitat, resulting in a severely adverse or major beneficial and possibly permanent effect on the species. It would result in a likely to adversely effect opinion 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Effects of Alternative A 

Analysis — Segments in and outside of Big 

Bend National Park. None of the actions of 

alternative A would adversely affect special 

status species in the management area. Terrestrial or aquatic habitat would not be disturbed, and the current status of listed fish 

and wildlife species would not be affected; 

therefore, alternative A would not affect special status species. The National Park Service 

would continue to monitor and protect special status species in compliance with federal 

laws and mandates and with NPS Management 

Policies 2001. 

Cumulative Effects. Special status species in 

and along the Rio Grande are being adversely 

affected by human activities in the region. 

Commercial and residential development 

have displaced animals and fragmented habitat. Human presence near the river could prevent wildlife from obtaining needed water. 

Fish have been affected by the dewatering of 

the river for agricultural, industrial, and domestic uses. Aquatic life is adversely affected 

by degraded water quality from land uses such 

as livestock grazing, agriculture, and development. Sensitive plants could be adversely affected by collection or inadvertent trampling 

by humans. These actions contribute to longterm negligible to moderate adverse impacts. 

Implementing alternative A would not contribute to cumulative effects on the region’s 

sensitive species of fish and wildlife or plants. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have no 

effect on special status species in the river 

corridor. 

Effects on Natural Resources 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park Service has determined that no impairment of 

resources or values related to special status 

species would result from alternative A. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Analysis — Segments in and outside of Big 

Bend National Park. The continued monitoring and management of fish and wildlife 

populations under alternative B would result 

in long-term minor beneficial effects on fish 

and wildlife. 

The emphasis on protection in this alternative 

would allow the National Park Service to increase its efforts in inventory and monitoring 

studies for listed species and other species of 

concern, as well as monitoring to determine if 

visitation was affecting fish and wildlife (such 

as trampling of vegetation, harassment of 

wildlife, or degradation of aquatic habitat). 

This would result in long-term minor beneficial effects on fish and wildlife. Other monitoring would assess air and water pollution 

and dewatering, and actions would be taken to 

reduce or eliminate such impacts. 

Human presence near the river could adversely affect wildlife by preventing them from getting needed water; however, alternative B 

would not cause more visitors to come to the 

river. If research showed that nesting birds or 

other wildlife were being disturbed, restrictions on visitation would be applied to minimize the disturbance. Reducing disturbances 

would result in long-term minor beneficial 

effects on fish and wildlife. 

77
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Interpretation and information media would 

be used to encourage the protection of listed 

species. Continued cooperation between the 

National Park Service and federal and state 

wildlife agencies to implement recovery plans 

or other conservation efforts would maintain 

or enhance the quality and quantity of Rio 

Grande water, a long-term beneficial effect on 

aquatic species. 

Protecting and monitoring fish and wildlife 

would be easier under this alternative with 

landowner agreements in place and an 

atmosphere of cooperation. 

Alternative B does not contain any actions 

that would affect the Big Bend gambusia, 

which lives only in a protected pond in the 

park, or its habitat. NPS management goals 

include supplementing spring flows with well 

water in the dry season, restoring habitat to 

approximate predevelopment conditions, 

eradicating mosquitofish from springs and 

streams in the campground area, and eventually establishing Big Bend gambusia in other 

suitable locations. Nothing in alternative B 

would conflict with any recovery efforts 

planned for the species. 

Alternative B does not include any actions that 

would affect the black-capped vireo or its 

habitat. Shrubs that comprise its preferred 

nest sites (shinnery oak or sumac) grow primarily away from the river and would not be 

affected. 

The cactus species bunched cory cactus and 

Chisos Mountains hedgehog cactus typically 

are found on upland sites away from the river, 

although individual plants may be in the river 

corridor. The preferred alternative does not 

include any actions that would directly affect 

these plants. To reduce the potential of future 

impacts, NPS education efforts would make 

visitors aware of sensitive species and discourage plant collection. 

Cumulative Effects. Fish and wildlife in and 

along the Rio Grande are being adversely affected by human activities in the region. Commercial and residential development and 

mineral extraction could displace animals and 

fragment habitat. Fish could be affected by the 

reduction of river water for agricultural, industrial, and domestic uses. Aquatic life could 

be adversely affected by degraded water quality from land uses such as livestock grazing, 

agriculture, and development. Sensitive plants 

could be affected by collection or by inadvertent trampling by visitors and livestock. These 

actions, viewed together, would cause adverse 

impacts varying from negligible to moderate, 

depending on the species and circumstance. 

Implementing alternative B would result in 

beneficial effects and would not contribute to 

cumulative adverse effects on the region’s fish 

and wildlife resources. 

The Big Bend General Management Plan (NPS 

2004a) calls for involve relocating some campsites at Rio Grande Village, and the park staff 

would seek a separate water source so that the 

fish and people no longer would have to share 

one source. These actions would reduce impacts on the endangered Big Bend gambusia. 

Alternative B would include monitoring and 

beneficial actions to protect listed species, 

adding a positive increment and reducing the 

magnitude of the impact of other actions on 

the region’s special status species. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would not affect 

the Big Bend gambusia, the black-capped 

vireo, the bunched cory cactus, or the Chisos 

Mountain hedgehog cactus, and its increased 

protective actions would result in minor longterm beneficial effects on these species. 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park Service has determined that no impairment of 

78
Effects on Natural Resources 

resources or values related to special status 

species would result from alternative B. 

WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 

Methods of Assessing Effects 

All available information on known natural resources was compiled. Predictions about 

short-term and long-term site impacts were 

based on previous studies of the impacts on 

natural resources caused by visitors and on 

recent monitoring data from the Big Bend 

area. 

The intensity of effects on water quality and 

quantity was rated as follows: 

Negligible: A small change to a water resource would occur that would not be of 

any measurable or perceptible consequence. 

Minor: There would be a small, localized 

change to a water resource that would be 

of little consequence. 

Moderate: A measurable change to a water 

resource would occur that would be of 

consequence to the resource, but it would 

be local. 

Major : A noticeable, measurable change in 

a water resource would result in a severely 

adverse or major beneficial and possibly 

permanent effect on the resource. 

Effects of Alternative A 

Analysis — Segments in and outside of Big 

Bend National Park. None of the actions of 

alternative A would adversely or beneficially 

affect the quality or quantity of water in the 

Rio Grande. Existing conditions and situations would continue, and no water would be 

diverted from the river. No actions would be 

taken that would affect water quality. Conservation methods would be initiated according 

to the Big Bend General Management Plan 

(NPS 2004a). 

Cumulative Effects. Water has been and is 

being removed throughout the length of the 

Rio Grande for agricultural, industrial, and 

domestic uses. Occasionally in recent times 

there has been no surface water flow in long 

stretches of the river upriver from Big Bend 

National Park and at the mouth of the river in 

the Gulf of Mexico. 

The water quality has been degraded from 

land uses such as livestock grazing, agriculture, and development. Livestock grazing can 

introduce animal excrement (with associated 

pathogens), which can disrupt natural cycles. 

Sedimentation can occur from the erosion of 

overgrazed lands. The National Park Service 

cannot control cattle on the Mexican side of 

the river. 

Runoff or irrigation return from agricultural 

land carries pesticides and increased mineral 

content from soil leaching. Riverside industry 

might introduce various substances, depending on the type of operation. Improper treatment of sewage could introduce bacteria and 

unnatural levels of organic material. These 

actions would result in long-term negligible to 

moderate adverse effects on water resources. 

The General Management Plan for Big Bend 

National Park proposes actions that could 

protect or enhance water quality and conservation. Alternative A would not result in any 

actions that would add to the impacts from 

other actions; therefore, it would not contribute to the cumulative effects on the quality or 

quantity of water in the Rio Grande. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would not have 

any adverse or beneficial effect on the quality 

or quantity of water in the Rio Grande. 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

79
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park Service has determined that no impairment of 

resources or values related to water quality 

and quantity would result from alternative A. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Analysis — Segments in and outside of Big 

Bend National Park. Cooperation under this 

alternative between the National Park Service 

and other entities (such as the Bureau of Reclamation, the International Boundary and 

Water Commission, and the Mexican Government) could lead to agreements that would 

maintain a minimum flow of water through 

the segments of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River. It also might lead to better education of water users, which could reduce the 

amount of harmful chemicals introduced into 

the river. In addition, removing exotic plants 

along the shores could increase the amount of 

water available for native vegetation. The park 

staff would explore the feasibility of acquiring 

additional water rights along the Rio Grande 

for the purpose of increasing flows in the 

river. These actions would provide long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effects. 

Cumulative Effects. Water has been and is 

being removed throughout the length of the 

Rio Grande for agricultural, industrial, and 

domestic uses. Occasionally in recent times 

there has been no surface water flow in long 

stretches of the river upriver from Big Bend 

National Park and at the mouth of the river in 

the Gulf of Mexico. 

The water quality has been degraded from 

land uses such as livestock grazing, agriculture, and development. Livestock grazing can 

introduce animal excrement (with associated 

pathogens), which can disrupt natural cycles. 

Sedimentation can occur from erosion of 

overgrazed lands. 

Runoff or irrigation return from agricultural 

land carries pesticides and increased mineral 

content from soil leaching. Riverside industry 

can introduce various substances, depending 

on the type of operation. Improper treatment 

of raw residential sewage can introduce bacteria and unnatural levels of organic material. 

These actions have resulted in long-term 

moderate adverse impacts on water resources. 

The General Management Plan for Big Bend 

National Park (NPS 2004a)proposes actions 

that could protect or enhance water quality 

and conservation, resulting in long-term beneficial effects. Irrigation needs at Rio Grande 

Village would be reduced by 50%. Trees and 

plants that are heavy water users would be 

phased out to reduce the need for irrigation. 

Water quality would be protected by upgrading sewage treatment systems. The park would 

explore acquiring more water rights on the 

Rio Grande in the park to increase the flows in 

the river. 

The General Management Plan for Big Bend 

National Park (NPS 2004a) calls for moving 

fuel storage tanks at Rio Grande Village out of 

the 500-year floodplain and reducing the 

amount of irrigation water drawn from the 

river by 50%. This would result in long-term 

beneficial effects. 

Alternative B would contribute a minor beneficial component to the cumulative effects on 

the quality and quantity of water in the Rio 

Grande. However, the overall cumulative 

effects on this resource would be minor to 

moderate and adverse. 

Conclusion. Through cooperative efforts to 

maintain a minimum flow and reduce water 

contaminants, alternative B would result in 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects on Rio Grande water quality and quantity. This alternative would benefit water 

resources. 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

80
Effects on Natural Resources 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park Service has determined that no impairment of 

resources or values related to water quality 

and quantity would result from alternative B. 

VEGETATION 

Methods of Assessing Effects 

The effects on vegetation were assessed qualitatively. The intensity of effects on vegetation 

was rated as follows: 

Negligible: The effect on vegetation (individuals or communities) would not be 

measurable. The abundance or distribution 

of individuals would not be affected or 

would be only slightly affected. Ecological 

processes and biological productivity 

would not be affected. 

Minor: An action would not necessarily 

decrease or increase the area’s overall 

biological productivity. The action would 

affect the abundance or distribution of individuals in a local area but would not affect the viability of local or regional populations or communities. 

Moderate: An action would result in a 

change in the overall biological productivity in a small area. The action would affect 

a local population sufficiently to cause a 

change in abundance or distribution, but it 

would not affect the viability of the regional population or communities. Changes to 

ecological processes would be limited. 

Major : An action would result in overall 

biological productivity in a relatively large 

area. The action would affect a regional or 

local population of a species sufficiently to 

cause a change in abundance or in distribution to the extent that the population or 

communities would not be likely to return 

to its/their former level (adverse), or it/they 

would return to a sustainable level (beneficial). Significant ecological processes 

would be altered. 

Effects of Alternative A 

Analysis — Segments in Big Bend National 

Park. Implementing alternative A would not 

affect vegetation in the river corridor. No 

project-related ground disturbance that could 

affect vegetation is proposed under this alternative. Existing efforts to control exotic species would continue. Therefore, implementing 

alternative A would result in no effect on 

vegetation. 

Analysis — Segments outside of Big Bend 

National Park. Alternative A would not result 

in any change in existing vegetation on nonfederal lands in the river corridor. No projectrelated ground disturbance that could affect 

vegetation is proposed under this alternative. 

Invasive exotic plants would continue to encroach on native vegetation. The adverse effects on vegetation that occur from visitation 

at heavily used sites would continue. Most of 

this use occurs near the river, where natural 

high water events and river movement affect 

riverside vegetation to a greater degree than 

visitation. 

Although Alternative A would not result in 

any direct effects on native vegetation, it 

would allow the continuation of long-term, 

moderate adverse effects in river segments 

outside the park from the presence of exotic 

species. 

Cumulative Effects. Native vegetation in the 

region has been and continues to be adversely 

affected by agriculture, development, and 

other land use practices on federal, state, and 

private lands. Livestock grazing affects species 

composition and vegetative health. This activity no longer occurs in the park, but livestock 

from Mexico often cross the river during low 

water to graze on the American side. Live81
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

stock grazing is occurring on both sides of the 

river in the Lower Canyons. 

Commercial and residential development destroys native vegetation and often introduces 

or spreads invasive nonnative species. Exotic 

species such as tamarisk and giant river cane 

are prevalent along the river and have forced 

out native plants. Visitor activity at heavily 

used areas on the riverbanks has damaged or 

destroyed vegetation. These actions have resulted in long-term, moderate adverse impacts 

on native vegetation in the river corridor. Alternative A would not contribute to these 

effects, but it would allow some adverse conditions to continue. When the actions of alternative A were combined with the results of 

outside actions, the cumulative effects would 

be moderate and adverse. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative A, the 

no-action alternative, would not result in any 

additional impacts on vegetation along the 

river corridor. However, it would allow the 

continuation of long-term moderate adverse 

impacts. 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park Service has determined that vegetative resources 

and values would not be impaired by alternative A. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Analysis — Segments in Big Bend National 

Park. No construction would be proposed in 

alternative B that would affect vegetative resources. Efforts to control exotic species 

would continue. In rare instances, some cutting or trimming of riverside vegetation might 

be necessary to allow access to campsites on 

the shore or to create new sites. This would 

take place primarily in nonnative vegetation; 

therefore, the long-term adverse effects on native vegetation would be none to negligible. 

Recreational use would be managed to reduce 

undue effects on natural vegetation. For example, new campsites on federal land could be 

created to disperse use. Removing exotic 

plants would allow native vegetation to thrive. 

Overall, alternative B would result in longterm beneficial effects on native vegetation in 

the river corridor because native vegetation 

would be protected and competing exotics 

removed. 

Analysis — Segments outside of Big Bend 

National Park. No construction would be 

proposed in alternative B that would affect 

vegetative resources. In rare instances, some 

cutting or trimming of riverside vegetation 

might be necessary to allow access to campsites on the shore or to create new sites. This 

would take place primarily in nonnative vegetation; therefore, the adverse effects on native 

vegetation would be none to negligible. 

Efforts to control exotic species would be carried out on nonfederal lands with the agreement of the landowners. Alternative B would 

result in long-term minor beneficial effects on 

native vegetation in the river corridor because 

native vegetation would receive additional 

protection, and competing exotics would be 

removed. 

Cumulative Effects. Native vegetation in the 

region has been and continues to be adversely 

affected by development and other land use 

practices on federal, state, and private lands. 

Livestock grazing affects species composition 

and vegetative health. This activity no longer 

occurs in the park, but livestock from Mexico 

often cross the river during low water to graze 

on the American side. Livestock grazing is 

occurring on both sides of the river in the 

Lower Canyons. 

Commercial and residential development destroys native vegetation and often introduces 

82
Effects on Natural Resources 

or spreads invasive nonnative species. Exotic 

species such as tamarisk and giant river cane 

are prevalent along the river and have forced 

out native plants. Visitor activities in heavily 

used areas such as campsites have damaged or 

destroyed vegetation. 

All the above actions have resulted in longterm, moderate adverse impacts to native 

vegetation in the river corridor. This alternative would contribute a minor beneficial 

increment to these effects. When the results of 

the above actions were combined with the 

results of implementing this alternative, the 

cumulative effects would be minor and 

adverse. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would result in a 

long-term minor beneficial effect on native 

vegetation in the river corridor. 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park Service has determined that vegetative resources 

and values would not be impaired by alternative B. 

83
EFFECTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

EFFECTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

AND SECTION 106 ANALYSES 

The description of the potential effects on cultural resources in this document as to type, 

context, duration, and intensity is consistent 

with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.22), 

which implement the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). The analyses also are intended to comply with the requirements of 

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

In accordance with the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for 

implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800, Protection 

of Historic Properties), the potential effects on 

cultural resources were identified and evaluated by (a) determining the area of potential 

effects; (b) identifying the cultural resources 

present in the area of potential effects that 

were either listed in or eligible to be listed in 

the National Register of Historic Places; (c) 

applying the criteria of adverse effect to affected cultural resources either listed in or 

eligible to be listed in the National Register; 

and (d) considering ways to avoid, minimize 

or mitigate adverse effects. 

Under the Advisory Council’s regulations, a 

determination of either adverse effect or no adverse effect also must be made for affected cultural resources. An adverse effect occurs 

whenever an action would directly or indirectly alter any characteristic of a cultural resource that qualifies it for inclusion in the 

national register. For example, an action 

might diminish the integrity of the resource’s 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects 

also include reasonably foreseeable effects 

that would be caused by the actions of an 

alternative that would occur later in time, be 

farther removed in distance, or be cumulative 

(36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects). 

A determination of no adverse effect means 

there would be an effect, but the effect would 

not diminish in any way the characteristics of 

the cultural resource that qualify it for inclusion in the national register 

The CEQ regulations and the National Park 

Service’s DO-12, Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decisionmaking also require a discussion of the appropriateness of mitigation, as well as an analysis 

of how effective the mitigation would be in 

reducing the intensity of a potential impact 

(for example, reducing the intensity of an impact from major to moderate or minor). However, any resultant reduction in the intensity 

of an impact by mitigation is an estimate of the 

effectiveness of the mitigation under the National Environmental Policy Act only. It does 

not suggest that the level of the effect as 

defined by section 106 would be similarly reduced. Although adverse effects under section 

106 may be mitigated, the effect remains 

adverse. 

A “Section 106 Summary” is included in the 

impact analysis sections for cultural resources 

under the preferred alternative. The section 

106 summary, which is intended to meet the 

requirements of section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, is an assessment of 

the effect of the undertaking (implementing 

the alternative) on cultural resources, based 

on the criteria of effect and adverse effect 

found in the regulations of the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Methods of Assessing Effects 

Certain important research questions about 

human history can be answered only by the 

actual physical material of cultural resources. 

Archeological resources have the potential to 

answer, in whole or in part, such research 

questions. An archeological site can be eligible 

84 
for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places if the site has yielded, or may be likely 

to yield, information important in prehistory 

or history. Information was complied from 

research, subject experts and NPS staff. 

The intensity of effects on archeological 

resources was rated as follows: 

Negligible: The effect would be at the lowest levels of detection — barely measurable, 

with no perceptible adverse or beneficial 

consequences on archeological resources. 

For section 106 purposes, the determination would be no adverse effect. 

Minor: Adverse Effect — any disturbance 

of site(s) would be confined to a small area 

with little, if any, loss of important information potential. For section 106 purposes, 

the determination would be no adverse 

effect. Beneficial Effect — site(s) would be 

preserved in a natural state. For section 106 

purposes, the determination would be no 

adverse effect. 

Moderate: Adverse Effect — any disturbance of site(s) would not result in a substantial loss of important information. For 

section 106 purposes, the determination 

would be adverse effect. Beneficial Effect — site(s) would be stabilized. For 

section 106 purposes, the determination 

would be no adverse effect. 

Major: Adverse Effect — any disturbance 

of site(s) would be substantial and would 

result in the loss of most or all of the site 

and its potential to yield important information. For section 106 purposes, the determination would be adverse effect. Beneficial Effect — active intervention to preserve site(s). For section 106 purposes, the 

determination would be no adverse effect. 

Effects of Alternative A 

Analysis — Segments in Big Bend National 

Park. Implementing the no-action alternative 

Effects on Cultural Resources 

would have no effect, either beneficial or adverse, on archeological resources along the 

Rio Grande. The existing conditions and 

situations would continue. The protection of 

archeological resources in the park according 

to existing laws and policies would continue. 

There would be no project-related ground 

disturbance with the potential to affect 

archeological resources. 

Analysis — Segments outside of Big Bend 

National Park. Implementing alternative A 

would not result in any beneficial or adverse 

effect on archeological resources along the 

Rio Grande. Such resources not inside the 

park would not be protected, and any current 

impacts, both human-caused and natural, 

would continue. 

Cumulative Effects. Some archeological resources along the Lower Canyons have been 

adversely affected by previous disturbance. 

Visitation, vandalism, and natural erosional 

processes have contributed to past archeological impacts. Current and foreseeable construction projects have the potential to affect 

archeological resources through ground disturbance. These adverse impacts would be 

long term and minor. Because alternative A 

would not contribute to the impacts caused by 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, it would not contribute 

any project-related cumulative effects on 

archeological resources. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would not affect 

archeological resources listed in the national 

register or those that are known to be eligible 

for listing. 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park Ser85
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

vice has determined that archeological resources and values would not be impaired by 

alternative A. 

Section 106 Summary. In accordance with 

the regulations of the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation implementing section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the no-action alternative would result in a 

determination of no effect. This is based on 

the fact that there are no known properties 

listed in or eligible for listing in the national 

register. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Analysis — Segments in Big Bend National 

Park. The archeological resources in the park 

would continue to be protected according to 

existing laws and policies. The Big Bend General Management Plan prescribes preservation 

measures for the Daniels Ranch in the Rio 

Grande Village area and for the Castolon Historic District. 

Cooperating with individual landowners to 

identify and protect significant cultural resources in the Lower Canyons, which would 

be emphasized in alternative B, could result in 

landowner agreements encouraging the stabilization of archeological sites that are well 

known among river users to prevent additional damage. Such stabilization, which 

would be based on the landowners’ permission and available funding, would result in a 

long-term minor beneficial effect and no 

adverse effect on the resource. 

Cumulative Effects. Some cultural resources 

in the Lower Canyons have been disturbed 

previously. Visitation, vandalism, and natural 

erosional processes also have contributed to 

adverse effects on archeological resources. 

Ground disturbance from current and foreseeable construction projects could adversely 

affect archeological resources. These longterm adverse effects would be minor to moderate. Alternative B would not contribute to 

the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, and it would 

not include any project-related contribution 

to cumulative effects on cultural resources in 

the region. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative B 

would not adversely affect archeological 

resources, which would benefit from 

additional protective measures. 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park 

Service has determined that archeological 

resources and values would not be impaired 

by alternative B. 

Section 106 Summary. In accordance with 

the regulations of the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation on implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act, the preferred alternative would result in a 

determination of no adverse effect. 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

Methods of Assessing Effects 

The intensity of effects on historic structures 

was rated as follows: 

Negligible: The effect would be at the lowest levels of detection — barely perceptible 

and not measurable. For purposes of section 106, the determination would be no 

adverse effect. 

Minor: Adverse Effect — the action would 

not affect the character-defining features 

of a structure listed in or eligible for listing 

in the National Register of Historic Places. 

For section 106 purposes, the determina86
tion would be no adverse effect. Beneficial 

Effect — there would be stabilization/preservation of character-defining features in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties to maintain the existing integrity 

of a structure. For section 106 purposes, 

the determination would be no adverse 

effect. 

Moderate: Adverse Effect — the action 

would alter a character-defining feature(s) 

of the structure or building but would not 

diminish the integrity of the resource to the 

extent that its eligibility for the National 

Register of Historic Places would be jeopardized. For section 106 purposes, the determination would be adverse effect. Beneficial Effect — the structure or building 

would be rehabilitated in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties to make 

possible a compatible use of the property 

while preserving its character-defining features. For section 106 purposes, the determination would be no adverse effect. 

Major : Adverse Effect — the action would 

alter a character-defining feature of the 

structure or building, diminishing its integrity to the extent that it no longer would 

be eligible for listing in the national register. For section 106 purposes, the determination would be adverse effect. Beneficial Effect — the structure would be 

restored in accordance with the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties to accurately depict 

its form, features, and character as it appeared during its period of significance. 

For section 106 purposes, the determination would be no adverse effect. 

Effects of Alternative A 

Analysis — Segments in Big Bend National 

Park. This alternative would not adversely or 

beneficially affect historic structures along the 

Rio Grande. Existing conditions and situaEffects on Cultural Resources 

tions would continue, and there would be no 

project-related ground disturbance with the 

potential to affect historic structures. The 

protection of historic resources in the park 

according to existing laws and policies would 

continue. 

Analysis — Segments outside of Big Bend 

National Park. Implementing alternative A 

would have no effect, either adverse or beneficial, on historic structures on nonfederal 

land along the Rio Grande. Historic structures 

on nonfederal land would not be stabilized or 

protected, and the current long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts from visitation, 

vandalism, or natural processes would 

continue. 

Cumulative Effects. Some historic structures 

along the Lower Canyons have been disturbed 

previously; possibly the disturbance occurred 

before the wild and scenic river was designated. Visitation, vandalism, and natural erosional processes also contributed to earlier 

impacts. Other current and foreseeable construction projects have the potential to cause 

adverse effects on historic resources through 

ground disturbance. These long-term adverse 

impacts would be minor to moderate. Implementing this alternative would not contribute 

directly to the cumulative impacts of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, but the National Park Service 

would not take any action to reduce the effects already occurring on nonfederal land. 

There would be no additional project-related 

cumulative impacts on historic resources. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would not result in 

any adverse effects on historic resources listed 

in or known to be eligible for listing in the national register. The existing effects on nonfederal land would continue. The no-action alternative would not contribute to cumulative 

impacts on identified historic structures. 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legisla87
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

tion or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park Service has determined that no impairment of 

resources or values related to historic structures would result from alternative A. 

Section 106 Summary. In accordance with 

the regulations of the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation on implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act, the no-action alternative would result in a 

determination of no adverse effect. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Analysis — Segments in Big Bend National 

Park. The protection of historic structures in 

the park according to existing laws and policies would continue under alternative B. 

Analysis — Segments outside of Big Bend 

National Park. Implementing alternative B 

would involve NPS cooperation with individual landowners to identify and protect 

significant historic structures in the Lower 

Canyons. Landowner agreements could require NPS assistance with the stabilization or 

“hardening” of historic structures that are well 

known among river users so that visitors 

could enter the structures without additional 

damage, based on the landowner’s permission 

and available funding. The agreements also 

could involve NPS assistance with constructing trails and fences or rebuilding structures. 

Additional planning and compliance would be 

necessary for such projects. These actions 

would benefit the resources through longterm protection, and the actions of alternative 

B would result in no adverse effect on historic 

properties. 

Cumulative Effects. Some historic structures 

along the Lower Canyons have been disturbed 

previously; possibly the disturbance occurred 

before the wild and scenic river was designated. Visitation, vandalism, and natural erosional processes also contributed to earlier 

impacts. Other current and foreseeable construction projects have the potential to affect 

historic resources adversely through ground 

disturbance. These long-term adverse impacts 

would be minor to moderate. Alternative B 

would include actions intended to reduce the 

impacts already occurring, a beneficial contribution to the cumulative effects on historic 

resources. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative B 

would not adversely affect historic resources; 

rather, the resources could benefit from additional protective measures. 

Impairment. There would be no major adverse impact on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the river, (b) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the river or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment, or (c) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or any other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Therefore, the National Park Service has determined that no impairment of 

resources or values related to historic structures would result from alternative B. 

Section 106 Summary. In accordance with 

the regulations of the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation on implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act, alternative B would result in a determination of no adverse effect. 

88
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING 

METHODS OF ASSESSING EFFECTS 

To estimate the effects of the actions in the 

alternatives on visitor experience and understanding, visitor surveys and personal observation of visitation patterns were used, combined with the assessment of what is available 

to visitors under current management. The 

effects on visitors’ ability to experience a full 

range of resources were analyzed by examining resources mentioned in the river’s significance statement. 

The intensity of effects on the visitor experience and visitor understanding was rated as 

follows: 

Negligible: The effect would be barely 

detectable, or the action would affect few 

visitors. 

Minor: The effect would be slight but 

detectable, and/or the action would affect 

some visitors. 

Moderate: The effect would be readily apparent, and/or the action would affect 

many visitors. 

Major : The effect would be severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial, and/or 

the action would affect the majority of the 

visitors. 

EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis — Segments in 

Big Bend National Park 

Under this no-action alternative, traditional 

uses of the wild and scenic river would not be 

affected, and the existing limits and regulations on river use would continue. NPS efforts 

toward visitor understanding (interpretation 

and education) would continue, but the National Park Service would not make any provisions for visitors’ understanding of river 

resources. The effects on the visitor experience would be the continuation of minor 

short-term adverse impacts from overcrowding during periods of high river use. 

There would be no effect on visitor 

understanding. 

Analysis — Segments outside of 

Big Bend National Park 

The existing limits on commercial river services and on private boaters in the Lower 

Canyons would continue. This could result in 

large numbers of people affecting the quality 

of visitors’ experience on popular weekends. 

At the same time, boaters arriving at the river 

“on the spur of the moment” would be allowed to put in. Visitors engaging in other 

traditional uses would not be affected. 

The default 0.25-mile boundary remaining in 

effect could influence landowners to close 

their lands to any public use. This would result 

in a long-term moderate adverse impact on 

the visitor experience. 

Cumulative Effects 

The location of Big Bend in a remote region of 

the United States leads to the park and the 

river being primary destinations for visitors, 

because visitors do not stop there on their way 

to somewhere else. Reduced water levels have 

caused some stretches of the river to be inaccessible for certain craft or have made it 

necessary to portage around exposed rocks. 

This adversely affects some visitors’ experience. The forthcoming Big Bend General 

Management Plan is not likely to necessitate 

any changes in the management of visitor use 

that would affect river use patterns or opportunities. State and county tourism bureaus 

have been promoting the Big Bend region and 

probably would continue to do so, which 

would attract more visitors. Visitors to the 

89 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

river can be divided into river runners and 

others. This alternative would not affect the 

numbers of either type of visitor and so would 

not contribute to past, present, or future 

cumulative effects on visitation in the region. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A could result in long-term moderate adverse effects on the visitor experience 

and visitor understanding if Lower Canyons 

landowners closed their land to public use. 

EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis — Segments in and outside 

of Big Bend National Park 

Alternative B would include limits and restrictions on commercial river operators and private boaters all along the river. This would 

preserve a high-quality experience, but river 

visitors might have to plan ahead and obtain a 

permit early during peak use periods. This 

could result in an adverse impact on boaters 

arriving on the spur of the moment during 

peak times, who would not be allowed to put 

in. Visitors engaging in other traditional uses 

would not be affected. Future public access to 

the Lower Canyons would be virtually guaranteed by this alternative. 

The quality of experience for boaters on the 

river would be continued or enhanced by preventing overcrowding during peak times. 

Improved interpretation would increase the 

likelihood of river visitors understanding the 

resource, a long-term beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Effects 

As was mentioned above, the location of Big 

Bend in a remote region of the United States 

causes the park and the river to be primary 

destinations for visitors, because visitors do 

not stop there on their way to other attractions. Reduced water levels have made some 

stretches of the Rio Grande inaccessible for 

certain craft or have caused visitors to portage 

around exposed rocks, adversely affecting 

some visitors’ experience. 

The Big Bend General Management Plan (NPS 

2004a) is not likely to necessitate any changes 

in the management of visitor use that would 

affect river use patterns or opportunities. Development along the shores and river use by 

landowners (which is not regulated) could adversely affect the visitor experience. State and 

county tourism bureaus have been promoting 

the Big Bend region and probably would continue to do so. This would attract more 

visitors. 

Alternative B would affect the potential 

number of future river runners; this effect 

could be adverse to some visitors and beneficial to others. It would make a negligible contribution to past, present, or future cumulative 

effects on visitation in the region. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would result in a long-term 

minor beneficial effect on visitor understanding and the visitor experience because 

visitors would have opportunities for a highquality recreational experience and increased 

understanding of the river ecosystem. 

90
EFFECTS ON SOCIAL CONDITIONS — BOUNDARY AND 

NONFEDERAL LANDS 

METHODS OF ASSESSING EFFECTS 

Some of the issues and concerns covered by 

this impact topic are the effects on nonfederal 

landowners, traditional land uses outside park 

boundaries, and possible conflicts between 

the preferred alternative and local, state, or 

Indian tribal land use plans, policies, or 

controls. 

The intensity of effects on the boundary and 

nonfederal lands was rated as follows: 

Negligible: The effect would be barely detectable, or the action would not affect private landowners or agencies that own 

adjacent lands. 

Minor: The effect would be slight but detectable. and/or the action would affect a 

minority of private landowners or agencies 

that own adjacent lands. 

Moderate: The effect would be readily apparent, and/or the action would affect 

many private landowners or agencies that 

own adjacent lands. 

Major : The effect would be severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial, and/or 

the action would affect the majority of 

private landowners or agencies that own 

adjacent lands. 

EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis — Segments in 

Big Bend National Park 

The boundary of the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River would not change under the noaction alternative from the current default 

boundary of 0.25-mile from the ordinary highwater mark on the U.S. side. This equates to 

160 acres per river mile. Alternative A would 

not affect the current management of the river 

or of federally owned lands within the river 

corridor. 

Analysis — Segments outside of 

Big Bend National Park 

The interim boundary for the Rio Grande 

Wild and Scenic River sometimes exceeds 

what is necessary to protect the identified outstandingly remarkable values. Landowners 

may perceive this to be an adverse effect, but 

since the National Park Service would not use 

eminent domain to acquire land and has no 

regulatory authority over these lands, there 

would be no effect on landowners. This has 

been demonstrated over the past 25 years 

since designation. Alternative A would result 

in long-term minor adverse impacts on 

nonfederal landowners. 

Existing Texas state law (the Recreation Use 

Statute; see appendix D) significantly reduces 

the liability of landowners for people recreating on their lands; this benefits landowners. 

Cumulative Effects 

The state of Texas has little public land compared with other Western states. Big Bend 

National Park and other parks and forests 

were purchased from private landowners by 

the state or federal government, and a fear of 

the federal government “taking” private land 

is widespread. 

There has been local resistance and some animosity to the designation of the Rio Grande 

Wild and Scenic River since the 1970s. This 

no-action alternative would not encourage 

dialog between the National Park Service and 

riverside landowners. Therefore, it would be a 

component in the cumulative perceived and 

real long-term adverse impacts on nonfederal 

landowners. 

91 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Conclusion 

Implementing alternative A would result in 

long-term minor adverse effects on the 

interests of nonfederal landowners . 

EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis — Segments in 

Big Bend National Park 

Under alternative B the boundary would be 

located on the United States shore, extending 

to from the ordinary high water mark, and it 

could extend to the farthest sight distance (for 

example, a canyon rim) up to a maximum of 

0.25 mile from ordinary high water mark, depending on the specific outstandingly remarkable values present. 

Analysis — Segments outside of 

Big Bend National Park 

NPS consultation with landowners about the 

appropriate location of boundaries to protect 

outstandingly remarkable values would help 

landowners to understand the reasons for the 

boundary location. Landowners could influence the boundary location by giving sitespecific information that might not be available to the National Park Service. 

Accepting the boundary on their lands would 

encourage landowners to enter into cooperative agreements with the National Park Service. Such agreements would protect resources and relieve landowner concerns that 

the federal government might acquire their 

lands against their wishes or that regulations 

might be imposed upon them. A clause in each 

agreement would prohibit the government 

from using condemnation to acquire additional property so long as the agreement remained in place. Having such agreements 

would result in long-term moderate beneficial 

effects on private landowners, and the federal 

government would receive long-term moderate benefits from establishing a trustful and 

cooperative relationship with the landowners. 

The designation of the additional upstream 

segment would curtail the potential for condemnation of nonfederal property by placing 

more than 50% of the river in state and federal 

ownership. This would give nonfederal landowners more peace of mind, a long-term 

beneficial effect. At the same time, the alternative would result in long-term beneficial 

effects for the government from the trust and 

cooperation of landowners. 

In addition to the waiver that would be included in the mandatory boating permits, 

existing Texas state law (the Recreation Use 

Statute — see appendix D) would significantly 

reduce landowners’ liability for people 

recreating on their lands. This would be a 

long-term beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Effects 

As was mentioned in alternative A, the state of 

Texas has little public land compared with 

other Western states, and there has been local 

resistance and some animosity to the designation of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 

since the 1970s. Through emphasis on benefits 

from the landowner agreements, alternative B 

would reduce the perceived cumulative adverse impacts on nonfederal landowners, 

which have resulted in mistrust and 

misunderstandings. 

Conclusion 

Implementing alternative B, the preferred 

alternative, would result in long-term moderate beneficial effects on private landowners 

and would improve the protection of the 

outstandingly remarkable values for which the 

river was designated a wild and scenic river. 

92
EFFECTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

METHODS OF ASSESSING EFFECTS 

Issues were identified through the scoping 

process. Concerns covered by this section are 

the effects on nearby towns or agencies and 

the economic contribution of the river to local 

and regional economies. 

The intensity of effects on socioeconomic 

conditions was rated as follows: 

Negligible: The effect would be barely 

detectable, or the action would not affect 

the local economy. 

Minor: The effect would be slight but detectable, and/or the action would slightly 

affect the local economy. 

Moderate: The effect would be readily apparent, and the action would have a pronounced effect on the local economy and a 

slight effect on the regional economy. 

Major : The effect would be severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial, and the 

action would affect the local and regional 

economy. 

EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis — Segments in 

Big Bend National Park 

The no-action alternative would not change 

the current management of the Rio Grande 

Wild and Scenic River; it would continue to be 

managed as at present. There would be continuing recreational access and use, along with 

continued protection of the river values and 

resources. The effects are described following 

the “outside of the park” segment. 

Analysis — Segments outside of 

Big Bend National Park 

Whether the current recreational access 

would continue would be up to individual 

landowners. Opportunities for landowners to 

charge fees for river access (takeouts on 

private land) would continue. 

The selection of this alternative would not 

result in the generation of new socioeconomic 

benefits or costs such as changes in direct government employment or indirect private sector employment. No additional revenue 

would result from increased visitor spending 

beyond that already anticipated in the baseline. There would be no significant changes 

other than those in the annual budget process. 

Implementing this alternative would result in 

the loss of opportunities for local and regional 

economic enhancement. 

Cumulative Effects 

If alternative A was selected, there would be 

no change in socioeconomic benefits or costs 

at either the local or regional cumulative level. 

Implementing this alternative for the management of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 

would be a separate action from any changes 

in the future management at Big Bend National Park. Adopting the no-action alternative 

would not contribute to any cumulative 

effects. 

Conclusion 

No adverse or beneficial socioeconomic 

effects would result from implementing 

alternative A. 

93 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis — Segments in and outside 

of Big Bend National Park 

River recreation and the protection of river 

resources would continue under alternative B. 

More river miles would be added to the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River. Although no 

land acquisition is included in this preferred 

alternative, lands could be acquired from willing sellers if they met certain criteria, and the 

National Park Service would pursue agreements with private landowners about protecting outstandingly remarkable values. 

Three full-time federal employees would be 

added to the local workforce to manage the 

added responsibilities under this alternative. 

This would result in a beneficial effect on the 

local economy through increased spending by 

these individuals and their families. 

River visitation levels would be expected to 

remain at approximately the same level as 

now, but the local economy would continue 

to benefit from visitors’ purchases of lodging, 

fuel, food, and guide services. As visitor 

spending circulated through the local and regional economy, secondary effects would continue to create benefits through additional 

revenue and income. 

The local and regional economy would receive minor long-term benefits from improvements in both permanent and temporary 

employment opportunities and revenues as 

the planned management programs were 

implemented. For both the local and regional 

economy, there would be long-term beneficial 

effects, as well as international benefits from 

indirect enhanced economic activity in the 

Mexican state of Chihuahua. 

Cumulative Effects 

The economy in the Big Bend region is primarily affected by actions and influences beyond the control of the National Park Service, 

including land values, cattle prices, and the job 

market. Implementing the preferred alternative is considered with changes in the future 

management, if any, of Big Bend National 

Park. Thus, the actions prescribed in this plan 

would have cumulative effects with the decisions made in the Big Bend General Management Plan and other regional and local planning efforts. Those other planning efforts 

might result in benefits to the local economy. 

Adopting this alternative would contribute 

beneficial cumulative effects to the local and 

regional economy. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would result in long-term minor 

beneficial effects on the local and regional 

economy. 

94
PARTNERSHIPS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 

METHODS OF ASSESSING EFFECTS 

In this impact topic, the effects that could be 

expected for private organizations are analyzed, as are the effects on federal and state 

agencies and Mexican agencies that would 

cooperate in managing the Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River. 

The intensity of effects on partnerships and 

international cooperation was rated as follows: 

Negligible: The effect would be barely detectable, or the action would not affect 

cooperating governments and agencies. 

Minor: The effect would be slight but detectable, and/or the action would affect a 

minority of cooperating governments and 

agencies. 

Moderate: The effect would be readily apparent, and/or the action would affect 

many cooperating governments and 

agencies. 

Major : The effect would be severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial, and/or 

the action would affect the majority of cooperating governments and agencies. 

EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis — Segments in 

Big Bend National Park 

Alternative A would not involve any cooperative relationships with other agencies or the 

government of Mexico. This would result in a 

long-term moderate adverse effect on partnerships. 

Analysis — Segments outside of 

Big Bend National Park 

If the no-action alternative was selected, the 

Rio Grande Partnership Team would be disbanded, and there would be no formal consultation or coordination with the owners or 

managers of adjacent property. This would result in long-term moderate adverse effects on 

partnerships 

Analysis — Trans-boundary Issues 

The centerline of the main channel of the Rio 

Grande is the international boundary with 

Mexico. This alternative would not affect any 

aspect of the North American Free Trade 

Agreement (NAFTA) of 1993, and there 

would be no breach of the environmental protection regulations and guidelines that were 

added as a result of supplemental agreements 

signed in 1993. 

Cumulative Effects 

The need for cooperative management of the 

river, adjacent land uses, and natural resources has been recognized for many years. 

This need to cooperate has been identified at 

several levels between U.S. federal agencies, 

local governments and organizations, and the 

government of Mexico. Formal international 

cooperation exists through the boundary and 

water treaties. Recent periods of drought and 

low river flow have brought to the forefront 

the need for continued cooperation. In general, cooperation provides long-term benefits. 

This alternative would contribute adversely to 

the cumulative effects on interagency and 

international cooperation. 

Conclusion 

The fact that alternative A would not entail 

formal coordination with river users, local 

95 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

governments, or owners of adjacent land 

would cause a moderate long-term adverse 

effect on cooperative river management 

efforts. This alternative would not affect 

trans-boundary issues. 

EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis — Segments in and outside 

of Big Bend National Park 

In the preferred alternative, working relationships with nonfederal landowners, local governments, state agencies, and river users 

would be expanded or enhanced. The purpose of these relationships would be to work 

toward achieving common river management 

goals, to build a sense of trust and cooperation, and to share information. This would 

benefit all parties involved and, ultimately, the 

river. 

Current treaties and agreements with the 

Mexican government would not be affected 

by alternative B. New agreements would be 

encouraged for the purposes of joint management and protection of the river ecosystem. 

Cooperative management of the river would 

benefit from the continuation of the Rio 

Grande Partnership Team and from partnerships with individual landowners through 

the landowner agreements. 

Analysis — Trans-boundary Issues 

The centerline of the Rio Grande is the international boundary with Mexico. The transboundary effects of alternative B would be 

beneficial because binational cooperation and 

consultation would be encouraged under this 

alternative. There would be no effect on any 

aspect of the North American Free Trade 

Agreement of 1993, and there would be no 

breach of the environmental protection regulations and guidelines that were added by 

supplemental agreements to the 1993 

agreement. 

Cumulative Effects 

The actions of alternative B would support the 

need for cooperative management mentioned 

in the discussion of alternative A. This need 

has been identified by local governments, federal agencies, and the Mexican government, 

and it exists on an international level through 

treaties. This alternative would contribute a 

beneficial cumulative effect on interagency 

and international cooperation. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would 

result in moderate long-term beneficial effects 

on interagency and international cooperative 

river management. It would create minor 

beneficial effects on trans-boundary issues. 

96
REQUIRED ANALYSES 

RELATIONSHIPS OF SHORT-TERM 

USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Current federal wild and scenic river management activities would continue under alternative A, the no-action alternative. The management of federally owned land would be governed by federal mandates, but alternative A 

would involve no cooperation with private 

landowners to protect scenic, natural, and 

cultural resources along the river. Short-term 

economic activity would remain as at present, 

but long-term productivity would be 

negligibly affected. 

Alternative B would enhance the management 

and preservation programs, resulting in shortterm and long-term beneficial effects on natural and cultural resources, the visitor experience, and scenic values. Restoring natural processes along parts of the Rio Grande would 

enhance the long-term productivity of the 

river’s biological resources. Alternative B also 

would result in increased employment in the 

area. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

Because alternative A would not change the 

current management of the wild and scenic 

river, it would not create any new irreversible 

and irretrievable commitments of resources. 

Alternative B would result in irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of funds expended 

for river management and salaries. This expenditure would be about $250,000 per year. 

No other commitments of resources are 

planned. However, if nonfederal land was 

acquired from a willing seller at some point 

during the life of the plan, an unknown 

amount of funds could be committed for that 

action. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

No unavoidable or major adverse effects on 

natural or cultural resources would be expected under either the no-action alternative 

or the preferred alternative. Some visitors 

might consider the imposition of use restrictions in the Lower Canyons an unavoidable 

adverse effect. 

97 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

(blank) 

98 
Consultation and Coordination 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

(blank back of divider) 

100
THE PLANNING PROCESS 

This General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement was developed 

according to the NPS general management 

planning process as described in Director’s 

Order 2 (DO-2), Park Planning. By following 

this process, four fundamental values are 

ensured: 

• A logical, trackable rationale — Decision-making can be tracked from broad 

conceptual goals to specific actions. 

• Analysis — Decisions are based on scientific and scholarly data and analyses and 

take into account the surrounding region. 

• Public involvement — Decisions are 

based on consideration of the interest 

among members of the public in their national parks as part of their national heritage, cultural traditions, and community 

surroundings. 

• Accountability — Managers are held accountable for achieving the goals agreed 

to in plans. 

A general management plan constitutes the 

highest level of park planning. It focuses on 

why the park unit was established and what 

resource conditions and visitor experiences 

should be achieved and maintained over time. 

This process is made up of the following key 

steps: 

a. Reconfirm park purpose, significance and 

mission goals. 

b. Acknowledge special mandates and commitments. 

c. Acknowledge servicewide laws and 

policies. 

d. Identify needs for management prescriptions. 

e. Analyze resources. 

f. Describe the range of potential management prescriptions. 

g. Define alternative concepts. 

h. Use management zoning to apply alternative concepts to park resources. 

i. Describe the environmental impacts of the 

alternatives. 

j. Estimate the relative costs of the alternatives. 

k. Select a preferred alternative. 

101 
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER AGENCIES AND THE PUBLIC 

HOW THIS PLAN WAS DEVELOPED 

A notice of intent to prepare an environmental 

impact statement was published in the Federal 

Register on May 3, 2000, to officially announce 

the planning process. After that, an amended 

notice of intent was published on April 9, 

2001. 

The first opportunity for the public to become 

involved in planning for the General Management Plan for Big Bend National Park and this 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River was in May 2000. The public was 

notified of scoping meetings through press releases and the first planning newsletter. The 

meetings gave the National Park Service an 

opportunity to introduce the public to the 

planning process and solicit comments. 

Sixty-three people signed in at the meetings in 

Study Butte, Alpine, Sanderson, and Austin, 

Texas. Several other people attended the 

meetings but did not sign in. Proposals to establish a citizen-based partnership team to 

ensure broader public participation in the 

planning garnered tremendous support from 

the public. 

Besides establishing the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River Partnership Team to represent 

stakeholders, the National Park Service offered many opportunities for public involvement. Newsletters were distributed in the 

spring of 2000 and in February and May 2001. 

Each offered opportunities for feedback on 

issues, concerns, and alternatives. In addition, 

notes from meetings of the partnership team 

were posted on the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River Web site. 

The newsletters were mailed to people who 

expressed an interest in the planning effort. 

The National Park Service received 25 comments on the comment forms included in 

these mailings, as well as comments sent by 

telephone and e-mail. All comments received 

during the scoping process have been considered and will remain in the administrative 

record throughout the planning process. A 

summary and list of the public comments are 

available to the public and can be obtained 

from the superintendent of Big Bend National 

Park. 

The National Park Service arranged a “landowners’ workshop” for February 2001 so that 

owners of private land could present their 

concerns and work on some common issues. 

More than 80 people attended that meeting. 

Public meetings were conducted in June 2001 

in San Antonio, Alpine, and Study Butte to 

inform the public of the status of the planning 

effort and to receive comments on planning 

issues and outstandingly remarkable values. 

THE PARTNERSHIP TEAM 

The heart of this planning effort has been the 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River Partnership Team. The team is composed of federal, 

state, and county officials, as well as representatives from private landowners, commercial outfitters, recreational users, and conservation organizations. The team’s goal is to 

ensure that all interested parties will have a 

voice in the National Park Service’s efforts, to 

help write and implement a general management plan for the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 

River, and to explore cooperative management opportunities. Partnership team meetings, which are held several times a year, are 

open to the public. A chronology of previous 

meetings follows: 

August 2000 — The first meeting helped establish a working relationship among the team 

members. Issues discussed included designation history, public involvement strategies, the 

boundary, and river-related issues. 
October 2000 — Information was presented 

about the 1981 “Final General Management 

Plan / Development Concept Plan” (never 

implemented). Also discussed were general 

river management principles, outstandingly 

remarkable values, and public outreach. 

Agreements were reached on the need for a 

landowners‘ workshop and the process for 

determining the river’s outstandingly remarkable values. 

December 2000 — Topics discussed were the 

boundary of the wild and scenic river and its 

effects on private lands, plans for a landowners’ workshop, determining outstandingly remarkable values, and revising the project work 

plan. 

February 2001 — A landowners’ workshop 

attended by more than 70 people gave private 

landowners an opportunity to present their 

concerns and to work on some common issues. The expectations of the National Park 

Service and private landowners were discussed. The agency, the landowners, and Rio 

Grande Partnership Team representatives 

agreed to the concepts for the desired future 

conditions for the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River. The workshop also laid the foundation for a cooperative relationship for the rest 

of the river planning process. 

June 2001 — Public meetings sponsored by 

the Rio Grande Partnership Team and the 

National Park Service were conducted in San 

Antonio, Alpine, and Study Butte, Texas, to 

inform the public about the status of the planning effort and to receive comments on planning issues and outstandingly remarkable 

values. 

Involvement of Other Agencies and the Public 

Later in June, at a partnership team meeting, 

representatives reviewed comments from the 

public meetings and discussed concepts for 

landowner agreements and for extending wild 

and scenic river designation through the rest 

of Big Bend National Park. 

February 2002 — Topics discussed were recreational liability, mapping, boundaries, the La 

Linda Bridge initiative, landowners‘ agreements, and Presidio water rights. 

September 2002 — The team discussed the 

content of the landowner agreements, liability 

waivers, the content of the preliminary draft 

document, off-highway vehicles in rivers, the 

La Linda Bridge, and water rights on the river 

at Presidio, Texas. 

June 2003 — The team met to discuss the 

public involvement strategy for the draft plan. 

The team received a “Shoulder-to-Shoulder” 

award from Karen Wade, director of the 

Intermountain Region, National Park Service. 

PREPARING A FINAL PLAN 

The comment period ended May 25, 2004. 

Thereafter, the planning team reviewed all the 

comments that were received and determined 

which were substantive (more information 

about substantive comments is available in 

“Comments Received on the Draft Document,” p. 108). In several instances the text 

was revised in response to comments. A minimum of 30 days after this final plan is released, 

the National Park Service will publish a record 

of decision in the Federal Register, and the 

plan can then be implemented. 

103
CONSULTATION 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

In accordance with section IV of the 1995 programmatic agreement among the National 

Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, 

certain undertakings require only internal 

NPS review for section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, as shown below. 

Actions that are programmatically 

excluded from section 106 review outside 

the National Park Service 

Exclusion 

IV.B.1 

Preservation or maintenance 

actions intended to protect 

and stabilize historic and 

prehistoric structures within 

the river corridor 

Exclusion 

IV.B.4 

Actions involving inventorying, monitoring, researching, 

interpreting, and protecting 

cultural resources 

Other undertakings require standard section 

106 review in accordance with 36 CFR 800, 

and in those instances the National Park Service consults as necessary with the state historic preservation officer, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, tribal 

officials, and other interested parties. 

The Texas state historic preservation office 

concurred that the alternative preferred by the 

National Park Service would provide an opportunity to identify and protect cultural 

resources along the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River. That office further concluded 

that this plan should be considered along with 

the cultural resource preservation measures 

found in the General Management Plan for Big 

Bend National Park (NPS 2004a) 

ENDANGERED SPECIES 

In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was initiated at 

the beginning of this planning effort. The 

response from the Fish and Wildlife Service is 

reproduce in appendix B. 

AMERICAN INDIAN INVOLVEMENT 

Throughout the planning process, the team 

has consulted with American Indian interests. 

All the newsletters were sent to tribes identified as being affiliated with the park, along 

with a letter inviting them to participate in the 

planning process. Tribal leaders also were 

contacted personally during the process. 

Letters were sent to the following American 

Indian groups on May 15, 2000, and on July 25, 

2000, to invite their participation in the 

planning process: 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Blackfeet Tribe 

Caddo Indian Tribe of Oklahoma 

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribe of Oklahoma 

Comanche Indian Tribe, Oklahoma 

Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Jicarilla Apache Tribe 

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas 

Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma 

Mescalero Apache Tribe 

These tribes were briefed on the scope of the 

planning project by newsletter, and followup 

telephone calls were made to solicit comments. Oral comments by some tribes included recommendations to maintain the area as it 

is; other tribes had no comment. The Mescalero Apache commented that traditional cultural properties should be identified and protected. That tribe also said that interpretation 

should include the Native American 

viewpoint. 
Consultation 

Conversations have been ongoing throughout involved. A copy of the draft plan was sent to 

the planning process to inform the tribes the tribes listed above. This was followed by 

about the progress of the plan and identify telephone calls to the tribes. No further 

how and to what extent they would like to be comments were received from the tribes. 

105
AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH NOTIFICATION OF THE 

DRAFT AND FINAL DOCUMENTS WAS SENT 

Federal Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

 Forest Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mexican Government 

Patricio Martinez 

Palacio de Gobierno 

Chihuahua, Chihuahua 25000 

Mexico 

Rogelio Montemayor 

Palacio de Gobierno 

Saltillo, Cohuila 25000 

Mexico 

Mexican Protected Areas 

Julio Carrera, Maderas del Carmen 

Apdo. Postal 486 

Saltillo, Coahuila 2500 

Mexico 

Pablo Dominguez, Canon de Santa Elena 

Col. San Felipe 

Chihuahua, Chihuahua 31240 

Mexico 

U.S. Senators and Representatives 

Senator Phil Gramm 

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison 

Senator Feinstein 

U.S. Representative Henry Bonilla 

U.S. Representative Gene Green 

U.S. Representative Silvestre Reyes 

Texas State Agencies 

Texas Natural Resources Conservation 

Commission 

Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Black Gap Wildlife Management Area 

Endangered Species Branch 

Texas Historical Commission 

Texas State Historic Preservation Office 

Texas State Officials 

Governor Rick Perry 

State Representative Pete Gallego 

State Senator Frank Madla 

Local Governments 

Brewster County Commission 

Terrell County Commission 

City of Amarillo 

City of Brownsville 

City of Pecos 

Organizations and Businesses 

Abilene Reporter-News 

Alpine Commerce 

The Alpine Avalanche 

Alpine Observer 

American Whitewater Association 

Andy White Ranches 

Associated Press 

Audubon Texas 

Austin American-Statesman 

Balmorhea Commerce 

Barton Warnock Center 

The Battalion 

Big Bend Motor Inn/Mission Lodge 

Big Bend Natural History Association 

Big Bend River Tours 

The Big Bend Sentinel 

Big Spring Commerce 

Big Spring Herald 

Brownsville 

Brownwood Bulletin 

Bullis Gap Ranch and Paradise Valley Ranch 

Center for Environmental Resource 

Management 

Chevron USA 

Chisos Mountain Lodge 

The Conservation Fund 

The Conservationists’ Wilderness and Wild 

River Committee 
Agencies and Organizations to Which Notification of the Draft and Final Documents Was Sent 

Organizations and Businesses (continued) 

Conservationists’ Wild River Committee 

Continental Divide Trail Society 

Crane Chamber of Commerce 

The Crane News 

Dallas Morning News 

Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage 

Association 

Del Rio Commerce 

Del Rio News Herald 

The Desert Candle Newspaper 

Desert Sports 

Eagle Pass News-Guide 

El Paso Times 

Far Flung Adventures 

Forever Resorts, LCC 

Fort Davis Chamber of Commerce 

Fort Stockton Chamber of Commerce 

Fort Stockton Pioneer 

Fort Worth Newsletter 

Fort Worth Star Telegram 

The Gage Hotel 

Galveston Daily News 

Houston Chronicle 

Indian Creek Landowners Association 

The International Presidio 

Isleta del Sur Pueblo 

Jeff Davis County Mountain Dispatch 

Judge Roy Bean Center 

Kent State University 

KFST Radio 

KLKE and KDLK Radio 

KMID-TV Channel 2 

KVLF Radio 

KOSA-TV 

KVLF Radio 

KWES-News West 9 

KWES-TV 

KWMC Radio 

The Lajitas Sun 

Lajitas Trading Post 

Laredo Morning Times 

Lubbock Avalanche -Journal 

Marathon Commerce 

Maria Chamber of Commerce 

Midland Chamber of Commerce 

Midland Reporter-Telegram 

Mission Chamber of Commerce 

National Parks and Conservation Association 

National Park Concessions, Inc. 

Northern Arizona University 

Northwestern University 

Odessa American 

Odessa Convention & Visitors Bureau 

Paradise Valley 

Pecos Chamber of Commerce 

Pecos Enterprise 

Pitcock Ranch 

Presidio Chamber of Commerce 

Randolph Company 

Rio Grande Adventures 

Rio Grande Sun 

Riskind Natural Resources 

Rhodes Welding 

San Angelo Commerce 

San Angelo Standard-Times 

San Antonio Express-News 

Sanderson Chamber of Commerce 

San Marcos Record 

Sanderson River Ranch 

Santa Fe New Mexican 

Sierra Club 

Standard/Radio Post 

Study Butte Store 

Sul Ross University 

The Sweetwater Reporter 

Terlingua Moon 

Terlingua Ranch Lodge 

Terrell County News Leader 

Terrell Visitor Bureau 

Texas Audubon Society 

Texas Explorers Club 

Texas River Adventures 

Texas Rivers Protection Association 

TOCNR 

University of Northern Colorado 

University of Texas-El Paso 

Uvalde Commerce 

Valley Star 

The Van Horn Advocate 

Voyageur Outward Bound 

Waco Tribune-Herald 

World Wildlife Fund 

107 
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT DOCUMENT 

REGULATIONS FOR 

HANDLING COMMENTS 

This section contains a summary of comments 

received through public meetings, letters, and 

email messages s after the publication of the 

Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement for Big Bend National 

Park on March 25, 2004. 

In preparing a final environmental impact 

statement, the National Park Service is required to respond to all substantive written 

and oral comments from the public or from 

agencies. The agency also is required to make 

every reasonable attempt to consider the issues or alternatives suggested by the public or 

by other agencies. 

Substantive comments are defined as those 

that do one or more of the following: 

a. question, with reasonable basis, the 

accuracy of information in the document 

b. question, with reasonable basis, the 

adequacy of the environmental 

analysis 

c. present reasonable alternatives other 

than those presented in the draft 

document 

d. cause changes or revisions in the 

proposal 

In other words, substantive comments raise, 

debate, or question a point of fact or a policy. 

Comments in favor of or against the proposed 

action or alternatives, or comments that only 

agree or disagree with NPS policy, are not 

considered substantive. 

The CEQ regulations, which implement the 

National Environmental Policy Act, provide 

guidance on how an agency is to respond to 

public comments (40 CFR 1503.4.1–5). Such 

responses can include the following: 

a. modify the alternatives as requested 

b. develop and evaluate suggested alternatives 

c. supplement, improve, or modify the 

analysis 

d. make factual corrections 

e. explain why the comments do not 

warrant further agency response, 

citing sources, authorities, or reasons 

that support the agency’s position 

NPS ACTIONS 

The National Park Service considered all the 

comments received on the Rio Grande Wild 

and Scenic River draft document according to 

the requirements described above. 

A notice of availability of the draft document 

was published in the Federal Register on 

March 25, 2004 (Federal Register 69: 58). 

Copies of the document were distributed to 

government agencies, organizations, public 

interest groups, and individuals. In addition, 

the complete text of the Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement was posted on the NPS Planning Web 

site. Comments were accepted through the 

week of May 25, 2004. 

Public Meetings 

In May 2004 the National Park Service conducted public meetings in El Paso, Study 

Butte, and Dallas, Texas. The meetings were 

announced in local media, and notices were 

sent to the entire mailing list. A total of 46 

people attended the meetings. Most commenters at the public meetings indicated that 

they approved of the preferred alternative. 

Others sought clarification of the alternatives. 

Questions were asked about how and when 

the park would receive funding to implement 
the alternative that eventually would be 

approved. 

Letters and Electronic Messages 

The National Park Service received 27 comment forms, letters, and electronic messages 

commenting about the draft document. Of 

these, 17 were nearly identical. Six comment 

letters were received from governing bodies, 

government agencies, organizations, and organized interest groups during the comment 

period. Comments received included questions about the decision to have only one 

“action” alternative, the use of motorized 

boats, and the cumulative impact analysis. 

All letters from governing bodies, government 

agencies, and organizations and substantive 

letters from individuals are reproduced in the 

following pages. 

CHANGES RESULTING FROM 

COMMENTS 

In response to public comments, the National 

Park Service has revised the text that appeared 

Comments Received on the Draft Document 

in the Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. Changes were 

made to describe the cumulative effects 

scenario more fully, to give additional justification for presenting only one “action” 

alternative, and to correct some minor errors. 

This did not result in any changes in the findings of environmental impacts. 

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 

In the following pages are reproductions of 

the letters from that contain substantive comments. The substantive comments are marked 

and numbered, and there is a response from 

the National Park Service to each marked 

comment. Following those comments and 

responses are reproductions of the letters 

received from all agencies. 

109
Comments and Responses 

110

1 2 3 4 5 

Comment letter 1 - Nearly identical lette

1.	 The segment of river from Dryden Cross

of the designated wild and scenic river (recreational in the preferred alternative 

defined on page 12) because of the exisand road access in the river corridor. It sgranted by the Wild and Scenic Rivers A

2.	 The designation of a wild and scenic riv

ernment any control over private lands. implemented under the preferred alterners to notify and consult with the Nationstructing a structure that would be in viPark Service would then work with the reduce the visual impacts of riverside str

3.	 By their nature, scenic overlooks would 

canyon rim above the river. Outside of Bwould be out of NPS jurisdiction becausagement corridor. If a private landowneoverlook, that is up to him or her. 

4.	 The La Linda Bridge is not under NPS co

the scope of this plan. The National Parissue of a new bridge at Boquillas durinning process. The National Park Service any new bridges in Big Bend National Pawould work with the La Linda bridge owas part of the overall management strat

5.	 The preferred alternative recommends t

the upstream segment in Big Bend Nationates this segment, then more than 50% federal or state ownership, and condemby the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (see "of-Way" under alternative B, p. 38 in drplan). 
111

1 

2 

3 

4 5 

Comment letter 2 - letters from ConservatCommittee, Conservationists’ Wilderness CWatch Dog Committee, and John "Doc" Ba

1.	 The segment of river from Dryden Crossin

of the designated wild and scenic river haational in the preferred alternative becausdevelopment and road access in the river all protections granted by the Wild and Sc

2.	 The designation of a wild and scenic river 

ernment any control over private lands. Laimplemented under the preferred alternaters to notify and consult with the Nationastructing a structure that would be in view Park Service would then work with the lareduce the visual impacts of riverside struc

3.	 As has been explained in the discussion o

the preferred alternative (pp. 31 and 32, dthis final plan), the National Park Service wagencies and organizations to maintain oquantity. 

4.	 By their nature, scenic overlooks would ha

canyon rim above the river. Outside of Big would be out of NPS jurisdiction because agement corridor. If a private landowner woverlook, that is up to him or her. The Naited from acquiring lands that are not witnational park system unit. 

5.	 Federal laws and NPS management policie

Park Service manage archeological resourcagreements that would be implemented utive would allow the National Park Service tance to landowners for managing archeotheir land. 
112

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

6.	 Hunting from the river is prohibited, but t

no authority or jurisdiction to prohibit hunlands. A lack of public access has resulted motorized boating at present. Under the ing would be limited, and it would be moExperience and Understanding," pp. 42-445 in this final plan). 

7. 	The La Linda Bridge is not under NPS con

the scope of this plan. The National Park issue of a new bridge at Boquillas during ning process. The National Park Service is any new bridges in Big Bend National Parwould work with the La Linda bridge ownas part of the overall management strateg

8.	 See response 2, above. 9.	 Under the preferred alternative, recreation

and it would be monitored (see "Visitor EUnderstanding," pp. 42-44 in the draft pplan). 

10.	 Federal laws protecting cultural resources 

National Park and on the river. Texas state and archeological protection would apply 

11.	 See response 10, above. 12.	 See response 2, above. In addition, many 

ranchette developments have covenants tthe canyon rims or adjacent to the river. 
1 

2 3 4 5 

113 

Comment letter 3 - from Jeff Renfrow 

1. 	The National Park Service believes that de

nic river places additional protection on a on NPS land. The additional segment recowas included as part of the original study to be part of the wild and scenic river. Bedesignated river is not on NPS land, the cstate landowners is essential in developing meaningful long-range plan. Any other apble. The National Park Service would retairights-of-way or easements in the managsellers if that was necessary to protect res

2. 	The planning team had several discussion

private lands. This General Management Poverride state or federal laws covering thiscribed in the plan are to be considered wstate and federal statutes. 

3. 	Under the preferred alternative, boaters c

the American shore up to 150 feet above 

limit provides more room than the ordina

4. 	The Draft General Management Plan cont

agreement (appendix C). Some actual lantion the specific locations of sensitive resosites. The confidentiality of this informatioArcheological Resources Protection Act of 

5. 	All landowners are asked to sign a standa

individual tailoring concerning site-specific Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River designaAmerican half of the river, the agreement"The NPS shall . . . [e]ndeavor in every apMexico to adopt the NPS's management 
1 

114 

Comment letter 4 - from Mark Peterson, N

Conservation Association 

1.	 The National Environmental Policy Act req

a reasonable range of alternatives, but it alternatives must be considered. Two alteered in this General Management Plan: aalternative and alternative B, the alternatPark Service. Although it is unusual for thconsider only one action alternative in a gthere were extenuating circumstances — nated river is not on NPS land. To gain thof the non-NPS landowners, agreements necessary for the development and implemanagement strategies. This cooperative deemed reasonable for a successful plan. Dismissed from Further Consideration" o
2 

3 

115 

2.	 All museum and archival collections relate

preserved with those from Big Bend Natioaddressed in the Big Bend National Park G(NPS 2004a); therefore, it has been dismis

3.	 On page 43 of the draft plan, and in this 

on recreational use have been established tive) "to continue the variety of historic oences and to protect natural and cultural The limits in the plan were set by river maa level that, in their judgment, would not resources or adversely affect visitor experisegments offer more opportunities for soriver runners can experience solitude becacomparatively low. Solitude is easily found year. To preserve the visitor experience, thnumbers and carrying capacities that are 
1 

116 

Comment letter 5 - from Brandt Mannchen

1.	 The National Environmental Policy Act req

a reasonable range of alternatives, but it alternatives must be considered. Two alteered in this General Management Plan: alalternative and alternative B, the alternatiPark Service. The planning team considerebut. only one "action" alternative emergeprocess. Although presenting only two altplanning documents, for the following reents only alternative A and alternative B: 

a.	 Nearly all the people who submitte

concerns and ideas for the river's lseemed to be a common vision for among local governments, landowand the public. 

b.	 Most of the river is on private or st

agement of the river corridor depevidual landowner agreements that and detail the specific responsibilitThe National Park Service and the bound by these agreements and thagement approach to enter into th

c.	 A strict regulatory alternative could 

recreation opportunities and would communication and collaboration tprivate landowners. 

d.	 An earlier NPS river management p

agreements with private landowneand it had a proposed boundary thboundary proposed in this plan. Thinadequate to protect identified ouues. 
2 

3 

2.	 The National Park Service considers the pu

planning process. The Rio Grande Partnerin part, to have representatives or contactcy groups such as private landowners, couenvironmental protection organizations, cprivate boaters. All meetings of the partnannounced in advance, and the public waparticipate. In addition, the National Park lic meetings throughout the state, and coaccepted during the planning effort. The make any decisions for the National Park is approved, the National Park Service wilpartnership team and will encourage the that more local interests may be included

3.	 It is true that these illegal activities are oc

beyond the scope of this document to coactivities have not been quantitatively docimpacts from these activities have been accumulative impacts analyses (see response 

117 
4 

4. The National Park Service has added mor

lative effects scenario" and more analysis Consequences" chapter. This analysis is qanalysis is not appropriate for a programas a general management plan. 

4 continues next page 

118 
119

4 continues next page 
4 continues next page 

120 
121
5 

122 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

5.	 Under alternative A, the National Park Se

Mexico and with other United States agespecies and restore riparian areas in the lbeing done at present. Under alternative be enhanced and coordinated with otheactivities. 

6.	 It is true that the National Park Service, re

ment, could enter into agreements with Mprivate landowners under alternative A (tpurpose? Without a plan in place to provgoals, any agreements could be ineffectivother agreements. No formal agreements ers exist at present, and this would continalternative. 

7.	 Under alternative A, the National Park Se

restricted from obtaining administrative athrough agreement with individual landowpreferred alternative, this access need woan overall management strategy, and it wpart of the broader scope of landowner a

8.	 See response 6, above. 9.	 In managing and protecting natural and 

National Park Service must abide by fedewell as by NPS management policies. Thialternative, as was described under "Legboth the draft plan and this final plan (pB, the preferred alternative, more actions would be carried out in the Lower Canyounder alternative A, the no-action alternnative A does not include segment-speciment boundary) and long-range manage

10.	 See response 6, above. 11.	 See response 6, above. 
12 

123

13 

14 

15 16 

17 

12.	 See response 9, above. 13. 	 Although it is not mentioned in NPS Ma

under alternative A this letter of intent mented in the same manner and level it revised in this final plan to clarify this. 

14.	 See response 9, above. 15.	 Under alternative B, the preferred altern

ments would be implemented that wouers to notify and consult with the Nationposing a structure that would be within National Park Service would work with eany adverse effects on scenery or other v(This provision is discussed under "AnalyBend National Park" on p. 70 of the drament.). 

16.	 Both statements are correct. The statem

takes into account the combined effect park and segments outside the park. Thwould be a "minor long-term beneficial segments in the park. 

17.	 See response 6, above. 
18 

18.	 In establishing limits on recreational use, 

considered "the historic variety of experand the physical characteristics of each rto "continue the variety of historic or traand to protect natural and cultural resouintention is described under "Visitor Expon page 43 of the draft document and pThe limits in the plan were set by river mwho considered the number of river usea level that, in their judgment, has not hadversely affected the visitor experience future. As is shown in figure 1 (p. 60 in document), the highest number of users The Lower Canyons segments would conopportunities for solitude. 

124 
19 

20 

125 

19.	 The topic of soils was dismissed from fu

following reasons: Implementing the Gewould not cause an increase in use of tby boaters is limited to the first 150 feeperiods and other river dynamics may awould be affected by visitor use. 

20.	 Guadalupe fescue is found in scattered 

pine/oak/juniper woodlands around 5,0above the river. Lloyd's mariposa cactus limestone-derived soils on gentle slopes ridor used by river visitors. The plan is cspecies would not be affected by either tified. 
126

21 

22 

23 

21.	 The National Park Service agrees that po

viewsheds. The air quality in Big Bend NGrande Wild and Scenic River is often p"Air Quality" (p. 22 in the draft plan, pHowever, the source of this air quality dboundaries and therefore beyond the scBend General Management Plan describmonitoring program, its ongoing negotongoing cooperation with the Texas CoQuality, the NPS Air Resources Division, Protection Agency to address air quality 

22.	 This topic was dismissed because "Neit

would involve additional construction inGrande or adjacent floodplains, and neor disturbing any wetland" (p. 22 in the document). The National Park Service is increase in visitor use. The preferred alteber within 15% of the historical high in the river probably will affect the numbethan any NPS-imposed restrictions. Sholy is concentrated in the first 150 feet, wperiods and other river dynamics may aside wetlands more than they would be this plan is approved, the National Park sitive resources and impose restrictions from being degraded (p. 41 in the draft ment). 

23.	 The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does no

boating on a designated river under antions. Motorized boats are allowed on Bend National Park and in the Lower Cmade to provide a variety of resource-driences for visitors. Even so, little motoriver segments now, and no increase is commercial river guides uses motorized taken to limit recreational use further iing an adverse effect on resources or vmight include limiting the allowable sepower of motorized boats. The new rivcalled for in the preferred alternative wprogram and specific management act
127

24


25 

26 

24.	 Implementing the preferred alternative w

increase in staff for river management. A48 in the draft plan, p. 50 in this documService estimates that three more peoplmanager and two resource managemenwas mentioned in response 18, above, tto increase visitor use by 50% or 100% alternative allows a number that is within 1985 (see table 6, p. 43 in the draft dument). 

25.	 The preferred alternative would include 

al designation of the upstream segment Congress does designate this segment, river will be in federal and state ownerswould be prohibited by section 6(b) of tAct. The National Park Service still could from willing sellers to provide access or 

26.	 No action or condition described in the 

or alternatives would result in an increasno development requiring outdoor light

27.	 As was mentioned in responses 22 and 

is not proposing an increase in visitor utext of the draft document. The passage changed (see the same passage beginniment), and the passage on draft page 8(see p. 94 of this document). Table 6 is c(p. 43 draft, p. 45 this document). The p

allow a maximum of 1,000 persons or 7number that is within 15% of the histor

p. 60 draft, p. 63 this document)). Given 

trends, this number may never be reachresponse 18, the limits in the plan were professionals, who considered the numbpast 20 years at a level that, in their judresources or adversely affected the visitodo so in the future. 

27 
128

28 

29 

30 31 

32 

28.	 Neither alternative would include new st

page 46 of the draft document (pp. 47-mitigating measures that would be appla need for a small, temporary structure container should arise in the future. If a posed, site-specific environmental analysthat time. 

29.	 This matter is beyond the scope of this p

enforcement issue for which direction is tection personnel simply need to continulage people to educate them about the their cattle to cross the border, enlist theexisting park rules and regulations when border. The effects of illegal cattle grazinthe cumulative impacts discussion for ap

30.	 The treaty between the United States an

in effect since 1944, requires that a specreleased into the Rio Grande from the siside. If Mexico fails to fulfill its obligatiowater level in the Rio Grande is reduced Park (downstream segments are fed by sService has no means or authority to enis beyond the scope of this General Man

31.	 The designation of a wild and scenic riv

government any control over private lanlegally do what they want on their own landowner agreements implemented untive would require landowners to notify National Park Service before constructinin view of the river. The National Park Swith the landowner to prevent or reducside structures. 

32.	 Opportunities to experience solitude wo

in the Lower Canyons most of the year. not mandated to protect solitude outsidarea. 
129

33 

34 

35 36 37 

38 

33.	 Standard dictionary definitions are adeq

is meant by these terms. Impacts in a geenvironmental impact statement are nectual because of the nature of this level omeant to help readers understand and cties of the impacts. 

34.	 Cost estimates for all alternatives are inc

ment plan. This does not guarantee that available, but it does provide a justificatifunds. The National Park Service would mance with the approved general manafunding allowed. 

35. 	See response 18, 22, 24, and, 27, above36.	 It is known that visitor use could affect w

through the trampling of vegetation, the the degradation of aquatic habitat (p. 73 ument). 

37.	 These actions or effects are listed in the 

that analyze the cumulative effects from actions occurring on federal, state, and These actions have occurred or are occuregion but outside of NPS land; therefordiction. The exception to this is residentcorridor under a signed landowner agreethe National Park Service would work wthe impacts of a structure in view of the 

38.	 The effects on vegetation caused by visit

"Cumulative Effects" analyses on pages ument (pp. 81 and 82, this document). Aresult in any additional impacts, and alteimpacts. Also see responses 22, 24, and 
130

39 

40 

41 42 

39.	 Both statements are correct. The stateme

into account the overall or combined effpark and segments outside the park. 

40.	 As was explained in response 33, above, 

uses standard dictionary definitions, and quate for understanding what is meant cussed in a general management plan / ment are necessarily general and concepof this level of planning. These terms are understand and compare the relative int

41.	 Because the identified outstandingly rem

the river was designated are in the river 0.25-mile default boundary often extendthe default boundary "sometimes exceedtect the identified outstandingly remarkaPark Service believes that most landownthat the U.S. government could use conacquire part or all of a private landowne

42.	 The National Park Service believes that th

piece of property from an unwilling selleimpact to that landowner. 
131

43 

44 

45 

43.	 Please see response 40, above. 44.	 The economic impact analysis on page 8

use of obsolete visitor use information ahas been revised for this final plan (see p

45.	 Please see response 40, above. 
46 

132

47 

48 49 

46.	 Please see responses 5, above. 47.	 Alternative A, the no-action alternative, 

of current management. There are no agnow, nor are any proposed under currenNational Park Service could enter into aglandowners under alternative A, but witestablish long-range management goalsineffective or at cross purposes with oth

48.	 The National Park Service recognizes tha

impacts, but these impacts are neither mimpacts are occurring at a few places aloactive and dynamic river, which will perioimpacts of humans. Natural resources anbe monitored. Actions would be taken tuse if it was shown to be causing an advtherefore, these impacts are not unavoidmanagement plan called for in the prefeinclude a monitoring program and speci(Also see responses 18, 22, 24, and 27, 

49.	 The Santa Elena segment extends from t

Bend National Park downstream to the bdesignated segment, across from the staMexican states of Chihuahua and Coahumap, p. 39 draft; p.35 this document). Troad access points, which makes it inelig

Most of these access points are on primthe National Park Service believes that sc

appropriate. 
133
1 

2 

3 

134 

Comment letter 6 - from Dr. Glenn Haas, Co

1.	 1. The National Environmental Policy Act req

sonable range of alternatives, but it does not must be considered. Two alternatives have beManagement Plan / Environmental Impact Staaction alternative and alternative B, the alternPark Service. Although it is unusual for the None action alternative, there were extenuatin

a. Nearly all the people who submitted com

ideas for the river's long-term protectionvision for the future of the river among environmental groups, and the public. 

b. Most of the river is on private or state lan

river corridor depends on implementing ithat call for specific boundaries and detaparties involved. The National Park Serviclegally bound by these agreements, and approach to enter into these agreements

c. A strict regulatory alternative could adver

tunities and would not reflect the spirit othat has been fostered with private lando

2.	 On page 43 of the draft plan, and in this fina

ational use have been established (in the prefvariety of historic or traditional visitor experietural resources in the future." The limits in thment professionals at a level that, in their judthe resources or adversely affect visitor experof the outstandingly remarkable values (incluWild and Scenic Rivers Act. Actions would be use if it was shown to cause more than a negCommercial trips must abide by the same peparties. 

3.	 The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not proh

designated river. Motorized boats are allowed Bend National Park and in the Lower Canyona variety of resource-dependent recreational etle motorized use occurs on these river segmeed. None of the commercial river guides uses taken to limit recreational use further if it was effect on resources or values. These future acspeed or horsepower of motorized boats. The called for in the preferred alternative would inspecific management actions. 
135
136
Comment letter 7 - from Texas Historical Co

137 
138
Appendixes/References/Preparers/Index 
&&$.)(($)&(&(()$.s

s

	7A6C@s
s768@sD;s9>K>9:G
s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

ÁÄÀs
APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 

The National Parks and Recreation Act 

Public Law 95-625 

November 10, 1978 

provides for the addition of the Rio Grande segment 

ADDITION OF RIO GRANDE SEGMENT 

SEC. 702. Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is amended by adding 

the following new paragraph at the end thereof:

 “(17) RIO GRANDE, TEXAS.—The segment on the United States side of the river 

from river mile 842.3 above Mariscal Canyon downstream to river mile 651.1 at the 

Terrell-Val Verde County line; to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior. 

The Secretary shall, within two years after the date of enactment of this paragraph, 

take such action with respect to the segment referred to in this paragraph as is 

provided for under subsection (b). The action required by such subsection (b) shall be 

undertaken by the Secretary, after consultation with the United States Commissioner, 

International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, and 

appropriate officials of the State of Texas and its political subdivisions. The 

development plan required by subsection (b) shall be construed to be a general 

management plan only for the United States side of the river and such plan shall 

include, but not be limited to, the establishment of a detailed boundary which shall 

include an average of not more than 160 acres per mile. Nothing in this Act shall be 

construed to be in conflict with— 

“(A) the commitments or agreements of the United States made by or in 

pursuance of the treaty between the United States and Mexico regarding the 

utilization of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, signed 

at Washington, February 1944 (59 Stat. 1219), or 

“(B) the treaty between the United States and Mexico regarding maintenance of the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the international boundary 

between the United States and Mexico, signed November 23, 1970. 

For purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act with respect to the river 

designated by this paragraph, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 

may be necessary, but not more than $1,650,000 for the acquisition of lands and 

interests in lands and not more than $1,800,000 for development.”. 

141 
APPENDIXES 

(blank) 

142
APPENDIX B: CORRESPONDENCE FROM U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE ABOUT SENSITIVE SPECIES 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Ecological Services Field Office 

10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 

Austin, Texas 78758 

JUL - 6 2000 

2-15-00-I-868 

Mary Magee (DSC-PDS-RP) 

National Park Service, Denver Service Center 

Box 25287

Denver, Colorado 80225

Dear Ms. Magee: 

This responds to your June 5, 2000 letter, requesting a current list of federally listed or proposed threatened and 

endangered species and mapped locations of known populations and Critical Habitat that may occur in Terrell 

and Brewster counties, Texas. It is our understanding this information will assist in the development of a general 

management, river management planning, and wilderness study to prescribe resource conditions and visitor 

experiences to be achieved and maintained at Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 

over time. 

Enclosed is the list of species you requested and a copy of “Threatened and Endangered Species of Texas 

(Revised June 1995),” a publication that contains general information about the life histories, habitats, and 

distribution of the federally listed species in Texas. No federally designated Critical Habitat currently exists in 

Terrell or Brewster counties and, although we are unable to provide you with mapped locations of known listed 

species’ populations, we look forward to working with you to determine when species surveys would be 

appropriate in an effort to avoid adverse impacts to federally listed or proposed species and their habitats. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed management plans and your concern for endangered 

species and fish and wildlife resources. We look forward to assisting you with this effort and reviewing the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Dianne Lee at 512/490-0057, 

extension 231. 

 Sincerely,

 David C. Frederick

 Supervisor 

Enclosures 

Federally Listed as Threatened and Endangered Species of Texas 

143 
APPENDIXES 

March 28, 2000 

DISCLAIMER 

This County list is based on information available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the time of 

preparation, date on page 1. This list is subject to change, without notice, as new biological information is 

gathered and should not be used as the sole source for identifying species that may be impacted by a 

project. 

Edwards Aquifer species: (Edwards Aquifer County) refers to those six counties within the Edwards Aquifer 

region. The Edwards Aquifer underlies portions of Kinney, Uvalde, Medina, Bexar, Hays, and Comal Counties 

(Texas). The Service has expressed concern that the combined current level of water withdrawal for all 

consumers from the Edwards Aquifer adversely affects aquifer-dependent species located at Comal and San 

Marcos springs during, low flows. Deterioration of water quality and/or water withdrawal from the Edwards 

Aquifer may adversely affect eight federally-listed species. 

Comal Springs riffle beetle (E) Heterelmis comalensis 

Comal Springs thyopid beetle (E) Stygoparnus comalensis 

Fountain darter (E w/CH) Etheostoma fonti cola 

Peck’s cave amphipod (E) Stygobromus (=Stygonectes) pecki 

San Marcos gambusia (E w/CH) Gambusia georgei 

Texas wild-rice (E w/CH) Zizania texana 

Texas blind salamander (E) Typhlomolge rathbuni 

San Marcos salamander (T □w/CH) Eurycea nana 

*The Barton Springs salamander is found in Travis County but may be affected by activities within the Barton 

Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, which includes portions of Northern Hays County. 

Migratory Species Common to many or all Counties: Species listed specifically in a county have confirmed 

sightings. If a species is not listed they may occur as migrants in those counties. 

Least tern (E) Sterna antillarum 

Whooping crane (E w/CH) Grus americana 

Bald eagle (T) Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Piping plover (T) Charadrius melodus 

Loggerhead shrike (SOC) Lanius ludovicianus 

White-faced ibis (SOC) Plegadis chihi 

Brewster County 

Black-capped vireo (E) Vireo atricapillus 

Golden-cheeked warbler (E) Dendroica chrysoparia 

Northern aplomado falcon (E) Falcofemoralis septentrionalis 

Southwestern willow flycatcher (Et) Empidonax traillii extimus 

Whooping crane (E w/CH) Grus americana 

Mexican long-nosed bat (E) Leptonycteris nivalis 

Big Bend gambusia (E) Gambusia gaigei 

Davis’ green pitaya (E) Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii 

Nellie cory cactus (E) Coryphantha (=Mammillaria) minima 

Terlingua Creek cats-eye (E) Cryptantha crassipes 

Bunched cory cactus (E) Coryphantha ramillosa 

Chisos Mountain cactus (T) Echinocereus chisoensis var. chisoensis 

Hinckley’s oak (T) Quercus hinckleyi 

Lloyd’s Mariposa cactus (T) Echinomastusmariposensis 

Mountain plover (T) Charadrius montanus 

144
Appendix B: Correspondence from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about Sensitive Species 

Tall paintbrush (P/T) Castilleja elongata 

Guadalupe fescue (C) Festuca ligulata 

Shinner’s tickle-tongue (C) Zanthoxylum parvum 

Leoncita false foxglove (C) Agalinis calycina 

Texas false saltgrass (SOC) Allolepsis texana 

Ferruginous hawk (SOC) Buteo regalis 

Baird’s sparrow (SOC) Ammodramus bairdii 

Loggerhead shrike (SOC) Lanius ludovicianus 

Northern goshawk (SOC) Accipiter gentilis 

Northern gray hawk (SOC) Buteo nitidus maximus 

Texas olive sparrow (SOC) Arremonops rufivirgatus rufivirgatus 

Western burrowing owl (SOC) Athene cunicularia hypugea 

White-faced ibis (SOC) Plegadis chihi 

Davis Mountain cottontail rabbit (SOC) Sylvilagusfioridanus robustus 

Greater western mastiff bat (SOC) Scalopus aquaticus texanus 

Presidio mole (SOC) Eumops perotis caljfornicus 

Spotted bat (SOC) Eudenna maculatum 

Texas horned lizard (SOC) Phrynosoma cornutum 

Blotched gambusia (SOC) Ganthusia senilis 

Blue sucker (SOC) Cyclepsus elongatus 

Chihuahua shiner (SOC) Notropis chihuahua 

Conchos pupfish (SOC) Cyprinodon eximius 

Mexican stoneroller (SOC) Campostoma ornatum 

Proserpine shiner (SOC) Cyprinella proserpina 

Rio Grande darter (SOC) Etheostoma grahami 

Rio Grande shiner (SOC) Notropisjemezanus 

Blanchards’ sphinx moth (SOC) Adhemarius blanchardorum 

Bonita diving beetle (SOC) Deronectes neomexicana 

Subtropical tiger beetle (SOC) Cicindela nigrocoerula subtropica 

Big Bend (Desert Mts.) bluegrass (SOC) Poa strictiramea 

Big Bend hop hornbeam (SOC) Ostrya chisosensis 

Bigpod bonamia (SOC) Bonamia ovalifolia 

Bush-pea (SOC) Genistidium dumosum 

White column cory cactus (SOC) Coryphantha albicolumnaria 

Chaffey’s cory cactus (SOC) Coryphantha chaffeyi 

Chisos agave (SOC) Agave glomeruljflora 

Chisos coral-root (SOC) Hexalectris revoluta 

Chisos pinweed (SOC) Lechea mensalis 

Cliff bedstraw (SOC) Galium correllii 

Cox’s dalea (SOC) Dalea banonii 

Cutler’s twistflower (SOC) Streptanthus cutleri 

Dense cory cactus (SOC) Coryphantha dasyacantha var. dasyacantha 

Desert night-blooming cereus (SOC) Cereus greggii var. greggii 

Duncan’s cory cactus (SOC) Coryphantha duncanii 

Glass Mountain coral-root (SOC) Hexalectris nitida 

Glass Mountain rock-daisy (SOC) Perityle vitreomontana 

Golden-spine hedgehog cactus (SOC) Echinocereus chloranthus var. neocapillus 

Golden-spined prickly-pear (SOC) Opuntia aureispina 

Heather leaf-flower (SOC) Phyllanthus ericoides 

Hester’s cory cactus (SOC) Coryphantha hesteri 

Hinckley’s brickelbush (SOC) Brickellia brachyphylla var. hinckleyi 

Lateleaf oak (SOC) Quercus tardifolia 

Little-leaf brongniartia (SOC) Brongniartia minutifolia 

145
C 

APPENDIXES 

Long spur columbine (SOC) Aquilegia longissima 

Many-flowered unicorn plant (SOC) Proboscidea spicata 

Maravillas milkwort (SOC) Polygala maravillasensis 

Mary’s bluet (SOC) Hedyotis butterwickiae 

Old blue mock pennyroyal (SOC) Hedeoma pilosum 

Pale phacelia (SOC) Phacelia pallida 

Perennial caltrop (SOC) Kallstroemia perennans 

Purple gay-mallow (SOC) Batesimalva violacea 

Ripley’s senna (SOC) Senna ripleyana 

Roberts’ stonecrop (SOC) Sedum robertsianum 

Silver cholla (SOC) Opuntia inthricata var, argentea 

Slender oak (SOC) Quercus graciljformis 

Sonora fleabane (SOC) Erigeron mimegletes 

Stairstep two-bristle rock-daisy (SOC) Perityle bisetosa var. scalaris 

Straw-spine glory of Texas (SOC) Thelocactus bicolor var. flavidispinus 

Swallow spurge (SOC) Chamaesyce golondrina 

Terlingua brickelbush (SOC) Brickellia brachyphylla var. terlinguensis 

Texas milkvine (SOC) Matelea texensis 

Texas woltberry (SOC) Lycium texanum 

Three-tongued spurge (SOC) Chamaesyce chaetocalyx var. triligulata 

Trans-Pecos maidenbush (SOC) Andrachne arida 

Two-bristle rock-daisy (SOC) Perityle bisetosa var. bisetosa 

Texas purple spike (SOC) Hexalectris warnockii 

Wilkinson’s whitlow-wort (SOC) Paronychia wilkinsonii 

Wright’s water-willow (SOC) Justicia wrightii 

Statewide or areawide migrants are not included by county, except where they breed or occur in concentrations. 

The whooping crane is an exception; an attempt is made to include all confirmed sightings on this list: 

E = Species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

T = Species which is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

= Species for which the Service has on file enough substantial information to warrant listing as threatened 

or endangered. 

CH = Critical Habitat (in Texas unless annotated ‡) 

P/ = Proposed 

P/E = Species proposed to be listed as endangered. 

P/T = Species proposed to be listed as threatened. 

TSA = Threatened due to similarity of appearance. 

SOC = Species for which there is some information showing evidence of vulnerability, but not enough data 

to support listing at this time. 

□ = with special rule 

‡ = CH designated (or proposed) outside Texas 

~ = protection restricted to populations found in the “interior” of the United States. In Texas, the least tern 

receives full protection, except within 50 miles (80 km) of the Gulf Coast. 

County Name Code Designations: 

examples 

Anderson = Arlington Ecological Services (ES) office 

(Bee) = Corpus Christi ES office 

Galvestoni =Clear Lake ES office 

Gillespie = Austin ES office 

146
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE LANDOWNER AGREEMENT 

RIO GRANDE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER AGREEMENT 

Between the 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

and 

______________________________, AN OWNER OF PRIVATE LAND 

ALONG THE LOWER CANYONS OF THE RIO GRANDE IN BREWSTER COUNTY, TEXAS 

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the National Park Service (hereinafter “NPS”), United 

States Department of the Interior, an agency of the United States of America, acting through the Superintendent 

of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River, Texas (hereinafter “RGWSR”), and Trustee for Bullis Gap Ranch 

Associates (hereinafter “Landowner”), an owner of private land located along the Lower Canyons of the Rio 

Grande in Brewster County, Texas. 

I. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: 

WHEREAS, in title VII, § 702 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-625, 92 

Stat. 3467, 3522, Congress designated the segment of the Rio Grande in Texas on the United States 

side of the river from river mile 842.3 above Mariscal Canyon downstream to river mile 651.1 at the 

Terrell-Val Verde County line as a wild and scenic river (WSR) under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 

codified at 16 USC § 1271-87 (2000); and 

WHEREAS, in that act Congress directed that the RGWSR be administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior; and 

WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Interior has delegated the authority to administer RGWSR to the 

NPS; and 

WHEREAS, prior to this agreement, the NPS had not adopted a management plan for RGWSR; and 

WHEREAS, many of the owners of private land along the Rio Grande’s Lower Canyons in Brewster 

and Terrell Counties, Texas, acquired their land prior to the Rio Grande’s designation as a wild and 

scenic river, opposed the legislation designating the Rio Grande as a wild and scenic river, lobbied 

against that legislation, and believe that the limits of RGWSR were set in part to authorize condemnation of private lands along the Rio Grande’s Lower Canyons; and 

WHEREAS, those owners acquired their private lands along the Rio Grande’s Lower Canyons because 

of the area’s scenic beauty, wildness, isolation, and restricted access and over the past twenty-three 

years have acted as good stewards to maintain and protect the Rio Grande as a wild and scenic river 

without an NPS management plan; and 

WHEREAS, the Landowner owns private property along the Rio Grande’s Lower Canyons as more 

particularly described in the SPECIAL PROVISIONS in Article IV below; and 

147 
APPENDIXES 

WHEREAS, the scenery and resources along the reach of the Rio Grande on the Landowner’s property have outstandingly remarkable values; and the monetary value of the riverfront land exceeds the 

value of the adjoining ranch; and 

WHEREAS, the NPS and the Landowner now recognize the commonality of their interest in preserving the Rio Grande as a wild and scenic river, and the necessity of the NPS, the State of Texas, and 

the Landowner in participating as partners in the management of the river; and 

WHEREAS, the management plan developed by the NPS shall help to maintain the Rio Grande as a 

wild and scenic river in its current state, without interfering with the Landowner’s property rights; and 

WHEREAS, the Landowner would not grant the NPS the right to use and manage the Landowner’s 

property if the NPS acquired the right to manage or otherwise interfere with the Landowner’s use of 

the Landowner’s property; 

NOW, THEREFORE, THE NPS AND THE LANDOWNER AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 

II. DEFINITIONS: 

In this agreement the following terms shall have the following definitions: 

Absolute Boundary — The landowner‘s property line along the reaches of the river, as 

determined by Texas State law. 

Access — Locations that provide legal Public access to the river. 

Categories of Use — Categories of Use are the following: commercial users and their customers 

utilizing any form of non-motorized watercraft; noncommercial users utilizing any form of motorized 

watercraft (as defined in management plan); noncommercial users utilizing any form of nonmotorized watercraft. 

Historic Use — The utilization of the reaches of the Lower Canyons by the Public between 1978 

and 2000, measured in user-days per year. 

Landowner — The fee simple owner of the Property, whether as an individual or participants in a 

partnership, corporation, joint venture, or other legal entity, a legal relative, employee, assign, agent, or 

guest of the Landowner. The payment of fees or other consideration by a person in order to enter, use 

or to be on the property eliminates them from inclusion under this definition. 

Management Area — The area between (1) the international boundary between the United States 

and Mexico and (2) the Management Boundary. 

Management Boundary — A line located on the land owned by the Landowner and illustrated on 

the WSR map (1) that demarcates the portion of the Landowner’s land visible from the River or (2) 

that lies 1/4-mile from the River, whichever is closer to the River, unless otherwise provided under the 

SPECIAL PROVISIONS in article IV below. 

Management Plan or General Management Plan — A comprehensive river management plan 

developed by the NPS in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act, and other applicable federal laws, that (1) describes the existing resource 

conditions and the outstandingly remarkable values of the River, (2) defines the goals and desired 

future conditions for protecting river values, (3) addresses water quality issues and stream flow 

148
Appendix C: Sample Landowner Agreement 

requirements, (4) reflects a collaborative approach, recognizing the opportunities for partnership with 

all stakeholders, (5) includes a monitoring strategy to maintain desired future conditions, and (6) 

establishes a wild and scenic river boundary. 

Mile Marker (MM) — An approximate point on the River measured in miles from the Gulf of 

Mexico. Mileage as maintained by the International Boundary and Water Commission. 

Permit — A written authorization issued by the NPS to a member of the Public for river use. 

Property — All land owned by the Landowner within the Management Area, as more particularly 

described in the SPECIAL PROVISIONS in Article IV below. 

Public — All persons who are not (1) the Landowner or a legal relative, employee, assign, agent, or 

guest of the Landowner, as long as that person is accessing or utilizing the River at a location adjoining 

the Property, or (2) employees or agents of the NPS or the State of Texas. 

Ranch — All contiguous land under the same ownership, any portion of which adjoins the River. 

Reach — A segment of the River. 

River — The reaches of the Rio Grande within Brewster and Terrell Counties, Texas. 

River Bed- The area between the International Boundary and the Absolute Boundary. 

Traffic — All activities of the Public on and along the River. 

III. SPECIFIC TERMS OF AGREEMENT: 

A. LIMITATIONS: 

The NPS, in order to obtain those privileges of use and management with sole regard to the 

Public, ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES that the Landowner’s unrestricted use of the Property 

shall be absolute and unabridged except as provided in this agreement. Under this Agreement, the 

Management Plan and all NPS rules and regulations do not apply to the Landowner unless specifically 

provided in the Agreement. 

B. THE NPS SHALL: 

1 .Adopt and enforce such rules and regulations applicable to the Public as are necessary to 

maintain and preserve the Rio Grande as a wild and scenic river, in its current state, while protecting 

the Landowner’s property rights. 

2 Implement the NPS’s General Management Plan within the Management Area. 

3. Limit use of the river by the Public to less than 115% of Historic Use in each Category of 

Use. 

4. Procure and maintain in force and effect during the term of this agreement general public 

liability insurance for the Property from a reputable company or companies licensed in the State of 

Texas with a minimum limitation of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per person and One Million 

Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per incident, naming the United States of America and the Landowner as co149
APPENDIXES 

insureds and insuring against any liability for property damage, personal injury, or death arising out of 

or resulting from the Public’s use of the Property pursuant to or as a result of this agreement. 

5. Not initiate or prosecute any condemnation or eminent domain proceedings against all or any part of 

the Property 

6. By appropriate and effectively located signs and printed information on the Permit, notify commercial 

users and other persons entering the River through public access points that the land adjoining the United States 

side of the River is private property and that their presence on the Property without the Landowner’s permission 

constitutes criminal trespass under the laws of the State of Texas, unless the Property may, by virtue of this 

agreement, be utilized by the Public. 

7. Endeavor in every appropriate way to encourage Mexico to adopt the NPS’s Management Plan. 

8. Endeavor in every appropriate way to enforce the NPS’s rules and regulations and Management Plan 

with regard to the Public entering the River, regardless of where they enter the River. 

9. Not conduct or allow others to conduct surveys, studies, assessments, investigations, and evaluations 

of the environment, archeology, biology, geology, or any other facet of the Property without the Landowner’s 

express written consent, except as provided for in SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 

10. Not interfere with the Landowner’s use of the Property and access to the river. 

11. Not regulate the possession and use of firearms by the Landowner in the Management 

Area. 

12. Beyond the Big Bend National Park boundary, only utilize the traditional access areas at 

Stillwell Crossing, Heath Canyon, Black Gap WMA, Dryden Crossing, and Foster’s Weir for Public 

access to the River. Provide appropriate signage at these access areas as required notifying the Public 

that all land beyond the shore of the River is private property, that trespassing is prohibited, and this 

sign constitutes legal notice. 

13. Permit the Landowner to use motorized watercraft of appropriate size, power, and type as 

required for safe and upstream operation on the River. 

14, Prohibit and endeavor to prevent the collection of and/or damage to artifacts, archeological sites, historical sites, geological specimens, and vegetation within the Management Area. 

15. Prohibit and endeavor to prevent hunting by the Public within the Management Area. 

16. May remove and/or control the spread of exotic plants and animals along the shores and 

waters within the Management Area. 

17. Prohibit the use of wheeled vehicles within the riverbed including but not limited to ATV’s, 

SUV’s, and motor bikes. 

B. THE LANDOWNER SHALL: 

1. Provide the NPS with one hundred and eighty (180) days advance written notice of any plan 

or proposal to subdivide or change the use of all or any portion of the Property or to build, alter, 

renovate, or demolish any structure located in the Management Area. Within sixty (60) days after providing any such notice, the Landowner shall meet with the NPS, at the NPS’s request, to discuss the 

effects on the RGWSR of the Landowner’s planned or proposed activity and the possibility of 

mitigating any adverse effects. 

150
Appendix C: Sample Landowner Agreement 

2. Allow the NPS to enter onto the Property for the purpose of monitoring the RGWSR’s 

outstandingly remarkable values that are site-specific and identified in the SPECIAL PROVISIONS in 

Article IV below. 

3. Allow the NPS to enter onto the Property from the River for the purpose of enforcing NPS 

rules and regulations and the provisions of the NPS’s Management Plan as applicable to the Public. 

For purposes of interpreting this provision, “enforcing” shall include, but not be limited to, 

investigating possible violations, issuing citations, and making arrests. 

4. Allow the NPS access to the Property through the Ranch in order to respond to emergencies 

on the Property and along the River. 

5. Grant the NPS and the Public any authorities or privileges conferred by the SPECIAL 

PROVISIONS in Article IV below. 

6. Make the sale of any part of the Property subject to this Agreement. Inform prospective 

buyers of this Agreement along with the benefits, responsibilities, and restrictions associated with the 

designation of the Rio Grande as a wild and scenic river. 

7. Endeavor to assist in habitat improvement along the River and within the Management 

Area. 

C. THE NPS AND THE LANDOWNER FURTHER AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 

1. The parties shall communicate to discuss the implementation of this agreement and other 

river management concerns. 

2. To reflect their evolving relationship, the parties may, but shall have no obligation to, 

execute other agreements and legal instruments, including, but not limited to, leases, easements, and 

licenses. 

3. This agreement shall not be construed as to obligate the NPS to expend in any one fiscal 

year any sum in excess of monies appropriated by the United States Congress and allocated by the NPS 

for the purposes of this agreement. 

4. Within the Management Area, the NPS has the authority to purchase land or property rights 

for the United States from a willing seller. 

5. Camping, resting, and stopping, regulated by the NPS to prevent environmental damage, 

may be allowed within one hundred and fifty (150) feet of the water's edge except as provided by 

SPECIAL PROVISIONS in Article IV. 

IV. SPECIAL PROVISIONS: 

A. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: 

1. Property: That area of Bullis Gap Ranch along the reaches of the River within the Management 

Area 

2. Management Boundary: The Management Boundary and Management Area shall be expanded 

to include those specific areas of Bullis Gap Ranch where the NPS may, under this 

agreement, permit limited public use as illustrated on the WSR map. 

151
APPENDIXES 

B. OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES: 

[To protect the integrity of archeological sites, the descriptions and specific locations are not released for 

general public information.] 

Including, but not limited to, the following: 

1. MM 731.7-740.5. The geology, scenery, river recreation, solitude, and natural quiet. 

C. SPECIFIC AUTHORITIES, PERMISSIONS, AND GRANTS TO THE NPS: 

1. General: Public, having executed waivers of liability with indemnification and holdharmless provisions in a form whereby the Public will hold harmless and indemnify the Landowner from any and all liability without limitation and having obtained permits from the NPS, 

may enter onto and use the Property in accordance with the provisions of the permit and the 

limitations provided by this Agreement. Public access and use shall be limited to the specific areas 

and activities identified in this agreement. Unrestricted access and use by the Public is strictly 

prohibited. 

2. Trespass: The presence of the Public on the Property without having executed waivers 

of liability with indemnification and hold harmless provisions as provided under paragraph: C, 1. 

shall constitute criminal trespass and a violation of permit conditions. The offending Public shall 

be prosecuted by the NPS for violation of the conditions of the permit. The NPS and/or 

Landowner may take appropriate legal action to recover damages. 

3. Camping: Camping shall not be permitted at sensitive locations: 

4. Asa Jones Water Works: The NPS may permit Public visits to the Asa Jones Water 

Works, provided the NPS protects the water works and associated wax facilities from damage by 

the public and maintains the route to the facilities in a safe condition. NPS may stabilize from 

further deterioration, maintain, and/or restore Asa Jones Water Works. NPS may provide informational and educational signage about the water works and the candelilla wax operations. NPS 

may solicit donations for the restoration of the water works. Safety for the visiting Public shall be 

the sole responsibility of the NPS. 

D. LEASES:

(None) 

E. RESTRICTIONS: 

1. Archeological Sites: The NPS shall not permit Public access and/or visitation to 

Archeological Sites without written permission from the Landowner. The NPS shall monitor and 

protect Archeological sites from trespass and vandalism. The Landowner retains the right to explore, 

excavate and develop Archeological sites in accordance with accepted archeological practices and 

consultation with the NPS. 

2. Rim Top Development: Landowner development and construction on the canyon rim top 

shall be out view from the River except as specifically reserved by the Landowner in this Agreement. 

3. Construction: Within the Management Area, construction of any new or rebuilt structures 

shall be compatible with the historic building styles of the region. Landowner shall notify and consult 

with NPS prior to construction. 

152
Appendix C: Sample Landowner Agreement 

F. LANDOWNER RESERVATIONS: 

1. The Landowner reserves all rights not expressly granted to the NPS by this Agreement. 

2. The Landowner reserves the right to construct a private road to the river in the vicinity of 

either Silber, Jackson, or Palmas Canyon. The Landowner shall solicit NPS recommendations 

regarding the route and construction. 

3. The Landowner reserves the right to build a structure near the river in the vicinity of the 

private road at the river. 

4. The Landowner reserves the right to rebuild the wax camp structure at the river near Asa 

Jones water works for Landowner’s exclusive use unless the NPS elects to rebuild the facility for NPS 

and Public use. 

5. The Landowner reserves the right to commercially exploit the property in conflict with the 

purpose, objective, and provisions of this Agreement if the river’s wild and scenic condition and 

experience changes due to the commercial development and/or exploitation of other properties along 

the River. 

6. The Landowner retains and reserves all property or riparian rights to the spring flows from 

the property into the River. 

7. The Landowner reserves the right to inter family members on funeral frames discreetly on 

the rim of side canyons with a limited view of the River. 

V. TERM: 

This agreement shall remain in force and effect for a term of ten (10) years after its effective date, 

which shall be the date of final approval of the NPS’s General Management Plan for the RGWSR (i.e., 

the signing of the NPS’s Record of Decision), if such approval occurs within one year after the date of 

last signature on this agreement. If such approval does not occur within one year after the date of last 

signature on this agreement, then this agreement shall be null and void unless the parties agree in 

writing to an extension of time. 

At the conclusion of the initial ten-year term, this agreement shall be automatically extended for an 

additional ten-year term, and thereafter for additional ten-year terms, unless either party has declared 

it terminated pursuant to article VI. 

VI. MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION: 

Only a written instrument executed by the parties may modify this agreement. 

This agreement may be terminated at any time by written agreement of the parties. Furthermore, if 

either party breaches, violates, or fails to fulfill a material term or provision of this agreement, then the 

other party may elect to provide the breaching party with a written notice of the breach, violation, or 

failure. Upon receiving such written notice, the breaching party shall take prompt action to try to 

remedy the alleged breach, violation, or failure. If such action does not satisfy the non-breaching party, 

then the non-breaching party, in its sole discretion, may declare the agreement terminated at any time 

153
APPENDIXES 

beginning sixty (60) days after the date when the breaching party receives the written notice of the 

breach, violation, or failure. 

The parties believe that this agreement benefits both parties and hereby commit to using every 

reasonable means available, including the use of a neutral mediator if necessary, to avoid terminating 

this agreement. 

If this Agreement is terminated as a result of a breach, violation, or failure, then the non-breaching 

party shall have the right to seek any and all remedies provided by law in state or federal court. 

VII. SEVERABILITY: 

If a court of competent jurisdiction declares any part of this Agreement invalid, then either party may 

declare the entire Agreement terminated within sixty (60) days after such event. If neither party 

declares the entire agreement terminated within sixty (60) days after such event, then the remaining 

provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

VIII. COVENANTS: 

The agreements described in Article III above constitute covenants that benefit the United States of 

America and the Landowner that burden and run with the Property, and that bind the parties’ heirs, 

successors, and assigns. 

IX. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES: 

All notices and correspondence concerning this Agreement shall be directed to the following 

authorized representatives of the parties: 

1. For the National Park Service, United States Department of Interior: 

Superintendent 

Big Bend National Park/Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 

P.O. Box 129 

Big Bend National Park, TX 79834-0129

2. For the Landowner: 

Trustee 

Bullis Gap Ranch Associates 

154
_____________________________________ 

_____________________________________ 

_____________________________________ 

_____________________________________ 

_______________________ 

Appendix C: Sample Landowner Agreement 

IX. AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES: 

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the following persons, as authorized representatives, have signed this 

agreement on the dates indicated, thereby executing this agreement. 

For the National Park Service, For the Landowner: 

United States Department of Interior: 

Name (signature) Name (signature) 

Name (printed) Name (printed) 

John H. King 

Superintendent, Rio Grande Wild and Scenic Trustee, Bullis Gap Ranch Association 

River 

Date: Date: 

155
APPENDIX D: TEXAS RECREATION USE STATUTE 

TEXAS STATUTE 

CIVIL PRACTICES AND REMEDIES, CHAPTER 75, LIMITATION OF LANDOWNERS’ LIABILITY 

§ 75.001. Definitions 

In this chapter: 

(1) “Agricultural land” means land that is located in this state and that is

suitable for: 

(A) use in production of plants and fruits grown for human or animal

consumption, or plants grown for the production of fibers, floriculture,

viticulture, horticulture, or planting seed; 

(B) forestry and the growing of trees for the purpose of rendering those

trees into lumber, fiber, or other items used for industrial, commercial, or

personal consumption; or 

(C) domestic or native farm or ranch animals kept for use or profit. 

(2) “Premises” includes land, roads, water, watercourse, private ways, and

buildings, structures, machinery, and equipment attached to or located on the land,

road, water, watercourse, or private way. 

(3) “Recreation” means an activity such as: 

(A) hunting; 

(B) fishing; 

(C) swimming; 

(D) boating; 

(E) camping; 

(F) picnicking; 

(G) hiking; 

(H) pleasure driving; 

(I) nature study, including bird-watching; 

(J) cave exploration; 

(K) waterskiing and other water sports; or 

(L) any other activity associated with enjoying nature or the outdoors. 

(4) “Governmental unit” has the meaning assigned by Section 101.001. 

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1989,

71st Leg., ch. 62, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 736, § 1,

eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 520, § 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1995. 

Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. 

156 
Appendix D: Texas Recreation Use Statute 

§ 75.002. Liability Limited 

(a) An owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land: 

(1) does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser on the land; and 

(2) is not liable for any injury to a trespasser on the land, except

for willful or wanton acts or gross negligence by the owner, lessee, or

other occupant of agricultural land. 

(b) If an owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land gives permission

to another or invites another to enter the premises for recreation, the

owner, lessee, or occupant, by giving the permission, does not: 

(1) assure that the premises are safe for that purpose; 

(2) owe to the person to whom permission is granted or to whom the

invitation is extended a greater degree of care than is owed to a

trespasser on the premises; or 

(3) assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to any

individual or property caused by any act of the person to whom permission

is granted or to whom the invitation is extended. 

(c) If an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property other than

agricultural land gives permission to another to enter the premises for

recreation, the owner, lessee, or occupant, by giving the permission, does

not: 

(1) assure that the premises are safe for that purpose; 

(2) owe to the person to whom permission is granted a greater degree

of care than is owed to a trespasser on the premises; or 

(3) assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to any

individual or property caused by any act of the person to whom permission

is granted. 

(d) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall not limit the liability of an

owner, lessee, or occupant of real property who has been grossly negligent

or has acted with malicious intent or in bad faith. 

(e) In this section, “recreation“ means, in addition to its meaning under

Section 75.001, the following activities only if the activities take place

inside a facility owned, operated, or maintained by a municipality: 

(1) hockey and in-line hockey; and 

(2) skating, in-line skating, roller-skating, skateboarding, and

roller-blading. 

(f) Subsection (e) limits the liability of a municipality only for those damages

arising directly from a recreational activity described in Subsection (e) but does

not limit the liability of a municipality for gross negligence or acts conducted in

bad faith or with malicious intent. 

157
APPENDIXES 

(g) Any municipality that owns, operates, or maintains a facility in which the

recreational activities described in Subsection (e) are conducted shall post and

maintain a clearly readable sign in a clearly visible location on or near the

building. The sign shall contain the following warning language: 

WARNING 

TEXAS LAW (CHAPTER 75, CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE) LIMITS THE LIABILITY OF A

MUNICIPALITY THAT OWNS, OPERATES, OR MAINTAINS A FACILITY IN WHICH HOCKEY, IN-LINE

HOCKEY, SKATING, IN-LINE SKATING, ROLLER-SKATING, SKATEBOARDING, OR ROLLER-BLADING

ARE CONDUCTED FOR DAMAGES ARISING DIRECTLY FROM SUCH RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1989,

71st Leg., ch. 62, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. 

Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999,

76th Leg., ch. 734, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. 

§ 75.003. Application and Effect of Chapter 

(a) This chapter does not relieve any owner, lessee, or occupant of real property

of any liability that would otherwise exist for deliberate, willful, or malicious

injury to a person or to property. 

(b) This chapter does not affect the doctrine of attractive nuisance, except that

the doctrine may not be the basis for liability of an owner, lessee, or occupant of

agricultural land for any injury to a trespasser over the age of 16 years. 

(c) Except for a governmental unit, this chapter applies only to an owner, lessee,

or occupant of real property who: 

(1) does not charge for entry to the premises; 

(2) charges for entry to the premises, but whose total charges collected in

the previous calendar year for all recreational use of the entire premises of the

owner, lessee, or occupant are not more than: 

(A) twice the total amount of ad valorem taxes imposed on the premises for

the previous calendar year; or 

(B) four times the total amount of ad valorem taxes imposed on the premises

for the previous calendar year, in the case of agricultural land; or 

(3) has liability insurance coverage in effect on an act or omission

described by Section 75.004(a) and in the amounts equal to or greater than those

provided by that section. 

(d) This chapter does not create any liability. 

(e) Except as otherwise provided, this chapter applies to a governmental unit. 

(f) This chapter does not waive sovereign immunity. 

(g) To the extent that this chapter limits the liability of a governmental unit

under circumstances in which the governmental unit would be liable under Chapter

101, this chapter controls. 

(h) In the case of agricultural land, an owner, lessee, or occupant of real

property who does not charge for entry to the premises because the individuals

entering the premises for recreation are invited social guests satisfies the

requirement of Subsection (c)(1). 

158
Appendix D: Texas Recreation Use Statute 

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th

Leg., ch. 832, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 62, § 3, eff.

Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 520, § 2, eff. Aug. 28, 1995. 

Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. 

§ 75.004. Limitation on Monetary Damages for Private Landowners 

(a) Subject to Subsection (b), the liability of an owner, lessee, or occupant of

agricultural land used for recreational purposes for an act or omission by the

owner, lessee, or occupant relating to the premises that results in damages to a

person who has entered the premises is limited to a maximum amount of $500,000 for

each person and $1 million for each single occurrence of bodily injury or death and

$100,000 for each single occurrence for injury to or destruction of property. In

the case of agricultural land, the total liability of an owner, lessee, or occupant

for a single occurrence is limited to $1 million, and the liability also is subject

to the limits for each single occurrence of bodily injury or death and each single

occurrence for injury to or destruction of property stated in this subsection. 

(b) This section applies only to an owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land

used for recreational purposes who has liability insurance coverage in effect on an

act or omission described by Subsection (a) and in the amounts equal to or greater

than those provided by Subsection (a). The coverage may be provided under a

contract of insurance or other plan of insurance authorized by statute. The limit

of liability insurance coverage applicable with respect to agricultural land may be

a combined single limit in the amount of $1 million for each single occurrence. 

(c) This section does not affect the liability of an insurer or insurance plan in

an action under Article 21.21, Insurance Code, or an action for bad faith conduct,

breach of fiduciary duty, or negligent failure to settle a claim. 

(d) This section does not apply to a governmental unit. 

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 520, § 3, eff. Aug. 28, 1995. 

Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. 

159 
APPENDIXES 

(blank) 

160
SELECTED REFERENCES 

Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce

 various Current Population Survey Program, Annual Demographic Survey. From the Internet 

dates at <www.census.gov>, accessed in 2002. 

 2001 Decennial Census Data, years 1950-2000. From the Internet at <www.census.gov>, 

accessed May 13, 2002. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce 

various Various information about the economy. From the Internet at <www.bea.doc.gov>, 

dates accessed May 13, 2002. 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior 

 1975 Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River Study. Washington, DC. 

Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President 

 1978 “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act.” Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Parts 1500–1508. 

Washington, D.C. 

Mallouf, Robert, and Curtis Tunnel 

 1977 An Archeological Report of the Lower Canyons of the Rio Grande. Austin, TX: Office 

of the State Archeologist, Texas Historical Commission. Archeological Survey 

Report 22. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

N.d. “Director’s Order 13: Environmental Leadership.” (draft in preparation) 

N.d. NPS-77: Natural Resource Management Guidelines. 

 1980 Environmental Assessment / General Development Plan: Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 

River, Texas. Denver, CO. 

 1981 Draft General Management Plan / Development Concept Plan: Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River, Texas. Denver, CO. 

 1982 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, 

Classification, and Management of River Areas. Washington, DC: Federal Register, 

vol. 41, no. 173: 39454–39461. 

 1984 Final Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed Wilderness Classification. Big Bend 

National Park, Texas. 

 1997 Recreational River Use Management Plan: Big Bend National Park. Big Bend, TX. 

 1998a Director’s Order 28, Cultural Resource Management Guideline. Washington, D.C. 

1998b Director’s Order 2, Park Planning. Washington, D.C. 

161 
REFERENCES 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior (continued)

 1998c Director’s Order 77.1, Wetland Protection. Washington, D.C.

 2000 Director’s Order 47, Soundscape Preservation and Noise Management. Washington, 

D.C. 

 2001a Director’s Order 12, Conservation Planning and Environmental Impact Analysis. 

Washington, D.C. 

 2001b Management Policies 2001. Washington. D. C.

 2004a General Management Plan: Big Bend National Park. Denver.

 2004b Money Generation Model for Parks. Denver : NPS Public Use Statistics Office. 

Terrell County, Texas 

 2002 Economic Profile. From the Internet at <www.sandersontx.org>. 

Texas 

 2002 Civilian Labor Force Estimates. From the Internet at <www.twc.state.tx.us>. 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

 1996 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

 2002 Money Generation Model. N.p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 1998 Environmental Justice Guidance .An Archeological Report of the Lower Canyons of the 

Rio Grande. Austin, TX: Office of the State Archeologist, Texas Historical 

Commission. Archeological Survey Report 22. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

 1984 Recovery plan for Big Bend Gambusia (Gambusia gaigei, Hubbs 1929). Prepared by 

Rio Grande Fishes Recovery Team. N.p. 

162
PREPARERS OF DOCUMENT 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PREPARERS 

Denver Service Center 

Matthew Safford, Natural Resource Specialist — Primary Author 

Ken Franc, Program Manager 

Big Bend National Park 

Frank Deckert, Superintendent 

Lou Good, Management Assistant 

Marcos Paredes, Rio District Ranger 

NPS Rivers and Trails Program 

Attila Baily, Outdoor Recreation Planner 

CONTRACT PREPARER 

Brian Farris, Parsons Engineering, — Socioeconomic and historic river use sections 

RIO GRANDE PARTNERSHIP TEAM 

Jennifer Atchley, World Wildlife Fund 

Barry Crumrine, Private landowner 

Dudley Harrison, Landowner, Terrell County 

Mike Long, Commercial outfitter 

Marcos Paredes, Big Bend National Park 

David Reichert, Private boaters 

Paul Silber, Private landowner 

Robert Spain, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department 

Tom Williams, Brewster County 

PUBLICATION SERVICES, DENVER SERVICE CENTER, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Lou Layman, Writer-Editor 

Linda Ray, Visual Information Specialist 

Anne Shewell, Visual Information Specialist 

163 
C 

INDEX 

A 

access, accessibility, 6, 14, 15, 22, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 50, 55, 60, 61, 64, 82, 90, 93 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 10, 84, 86, 88, 104, 106 

agreements, 9, 13, 15, 27, 29, 33, 37–40, 43, 50, 51, 66, 74, 76, 78, 80, 86, 88, 92, 94–96, 103 

air quality, 10, 22, 23, 33 

American Indians, 10, 22–24, 59, 60, 91, 104, 107 

archeological resources, 9, 18, 28, 29, 40, 52, 84, 85, 86 

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 10 

B 

Big Bend National Park, 5, 9, 10, 11, 16–18, 21–23, 27–32, 34, 38, 40, 43, 44, 46, 48, 55–63, 69, 73–75, 77, 

79, 80–82, 85–96, 102, 103 

birds, 5, 56, 77, 156 

Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, 5, 15, 17, 39, 55, 61, 63, 106 

boats, boating, 5, 13, 15, 20, 23, 29, 30, 44–46, 51, 55, 60–62, 89, 90, 92 

Boquillas Canyon, 5, 20, 30, 31, 38, 44, 45, 55, 60–62 

boundaries, 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 19, 23, 27–29, 31–33, 38, 39, 44, 45, 52, 57, 61, 62, 64, 66, 89, 91, 92, 95, 96, 

102, 103 

boundary issues, 17, 19, 66, 96 

Boundary Treaty of 1970 (U.S.–Mexico), 11 

Brewster County, 19, 20, 21, 23, 57, 64, 65, 66, 106 

camping, 15, 17, 31, 37, 39, 45, 55, 59, 60, 61, 78, 82, 83 

carrying capacity, 37 

comments, 3, 15–17, 22, 27, 32, 60, 102–105, 108, 109 

construction, 11, 23, 71, 73, 74, 82, 85–88 

consultation, 3, 4, 9, 10, 22, 33, 48, 51, 73, 74, 92, 95, 96, 104 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 6, 23, 69, 84, 161 

counties, 5, 17, 21, 23, 34, 38, 47, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 89, 90, 102, 106, 107 

cultural resources (also see archeological resources; historic resources), 3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21, 22, 29, 

32, 33, 37, 40, 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 55, 59, 72–77, 78, 80–88, 97, 101, 104 

D 

E 

employment, 16,50,64, 65,93,94,97 

endangered species (see threatened, endangered, or sensitive species) 

environment, 3, 5, 13, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 32, 37, 47, 49, 50, 60, 64, 66, 69, 71, 95, 96, 101, 102 

environmental justice, 24 

environmentally preferable alternative, 49 

erosion, 20, 33, 47, 79, 80, 85–88 

ethnographic resources, 21, 22, 29, 40 

exotic species (see nonnative species) 

F 

fishes, fishing, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 23, 29, 34, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 52, 55–57, 60, 61, 74–78 

floodplains, 5, 21, 23, 33, 55, 59 

Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 106 

164
forests, 63, 91 

G 

goals, 6, 9, 11, 13, 20, 23, 32, 33, 43, 44, 46, 49, 72–78, 80–83, 85, 86, 88, 96, 101, 102 

H 

health and safety, 10, 15, 23, 24, 30, 32, 33, 40, 44, 49, 61, 73, 81, 82 

Heath Canyon, 15, 55, 61 

hikers, hiking, 15, 17, 37, 43, 61 

historic resources, 16, 18, 29, 40, 48, 50, 52, 60, 86–88 

I 

impairment, 6, 71, 72, 74–78, 80–83, 86, 88 

International Boundary and Water Commission, 5, 11, 17, 43, 57, 58, 71, 80, 106 

interpretation, 46, 47, 50, 89, 90 

interpretive themes, 46 

issues, 3, 13, 15–19, 22, 23, 38, 44, 47, 52, 60, 62, 63, 66, 91, 96, 102, 103 

J 

K 

L 

landowner agreements, 3, 13, 27, 33, 37–40, 51, 66, 74, 76, 78, 86, 92, 96, 103 

landowners, 3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 27, 29, 33, 34, 37–40, 43–45, 46, 48, 50–52, 55, 63, 64, 66, 74, 75, 

86, 88–94, 96, 97, 102, 103 

livestock, 20, 55, 58, 59, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 

Lower Canyons, 5, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 27, 29, 44, 45, 51, 55, 60–63, 69, 75, 85–90, 97 

M 

management prescriptions, 28, 32, 33, 101 

Mexico, 4, 5, 11–14, 16, 17, 19–22, 30, 34, 38–40, 43, 46, 47, 55, 57–60, 64, 66, 71, 73, 74, 79, 80, 94–96, 

106, 107 

museum collections, 22 

N 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 6, 9, 10, 49, 69, 84 

National Historic Preservation Act, 10, 84, 86, 88, 104 

National Register of Historic Places, 10, 18, 22, 33, 40, 52, 60, 84, 85, 86, 87 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 10 

Native Americans (see American Indians) 

natural resources, 5, 11, 16, 22, 23, 29, 40, 43, 46, 47, 49, 56, 58, 73, 79, 95, 106, 107 

nonnative species, 19, 43, 46, 48, 56, 82, 83 

North American Free Trade Agreement of 1993 (NAFTA), 95, 96 

O 

outstandingly remarkable values, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 17–19, 21, 33, 34, 37–39, 44, 45, 55, 91, 92, 94, 102, 103 

P 

partnerships, 3, 13, 16, 20, 27, 34, 43, 48, 50, 102, 103 

pollution, 10, 17, 23, 43, 74, 77 

property rights, 14, 17, 39, 40, 63, 92 

165
V 

INDEX 

public involvement, 15, 102 

purpose statement of Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River, 13 

Q 

R 

ranches, ranching, 57, 59, 61, 71, 73, 74, 86, 106, 107 

ranchettes, 55, 71, 73, 74 

Reagan Canyon, 5, 21, 38, 55, 61 

recreation, 5, 6, 10–13, 15–18, 20, 23, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 55, 60, 61–64, 71, 90, 

93, 94, 102, 103 

river boundary, 12, 17, 19 

S 

scoping, 15, 18, 93, 102 

sensitive species (see threatened, endangered, or sensitive species) 

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 84–88, 104 

shrubs, shrublands, 57 

significance statement (see purpose and significance statements of Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River) 

socioeconomic conditions, 16, 20, 52, 65, 93, 94, 97 

soils, 12, 20, 23, 47, 58, 79, 80 

soundscapes, 33, 46, 73 

T 

Terrell County, 5, 19, 20, 21, 23, 38, 57, 62, 64–66, 106, 107 

Texas, 5, 15, 17, 19, 21, 28, 29, 34, 38–40, 43, 46, 48, 55–65, 91, 92, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107 

Texas Parks and Wildlife, 21, 34, 39, 43, 57, 106 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, 5, 9, 10, 16, 18, 21, 29, 40, 46, 56, 57, 76, 77, 78 

trails, 12, 37, 60, 88 

tribes (also see American Indians), 6, 10, 21, 22, 47, 91, 104 

U 

Val Verde County, 5, 38, 62 

vegetation, 12, 18, 19, 22, 23, 40, 52, 58, 59, 60, 77, 80–83 

visibility, 22 

visitor experiences, 3, 4, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 33, 37, 44–46, 49, 52, 69, 73, 89, 90, 97, 101 

visitors, visitor understanding, 46, 89, 90 

W 

water quality, 6, 10, 13, 16, 18, 23, 47, 52, 56, 58, 75–81 

water resources, 79, 80 

wetlands, 23 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 4, 5, 6, 12, 19, 23, 28, 29, 33, 34, 38, 39, 43, 44, 63, 64 

wilderness, 9, 23, 30, 44, 60, 61, 143 

wildlife, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 16–18, 20, 23, 29, 32, 33, 38, 40, 43, 46, 52, 56, 66, 73–80 

166
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of 

our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the 

enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under 

U.S. administration. 

Publication services were provided by Planning and Design Services, Denver Service Center. NPS D-5, 

August 2004. 
United States Department of the Interior