United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Big Bend National Park

Texas 

Big Bend National Park

Final General Management Plan/

Environmental Impact Statement
Final 

General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK 

Brewster County, Texas 

May 2004 

This General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes three 

alternatives for managing Big Bend National Park. The approved plan will help managers make 

decisions about managing natural and cultural resources, visitation, and development for the next 15 

to 20 years. Some issues to be addressed are protection of natural and cultural resources; the strain on 

scarce water resources; employee housing, offices, and other development located in flash flood 

hazard areas; limited orientation and interpretation, and inadequate office space and storage for park 

staff. A separate management plan is being developed concurrently for the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River. 

Alternative A, the no-action or status quo alternative, reflects ongoing actions at the park and 

serves as a basis for comparing the other alternatives and knowing why certain changes may be 

advisable. Natural and cultural resources would be managed as they are now guided by laws, policies 

and guidelines. Issues would be resolved as they emerged and not as the result of a comprehensive 

plan. There would be limited if any changes in interpretation and visitor services would remain limited. 

Coordination with agencies and other groups would continue. There would be very little change in 

visitor facilities. The park would be operated and maintained as before with no new park management 

facilities except one new building to provide storage and office space for fire management and two 

new duplex units that will provide eight concession employee bedrooms at Panther Junction. The 

eight bedrooms will replace very old facilities (trailers) with modern housing. Staffing and funding 

levels would remain at or near current levels. Any development that is not tied to an approved plan 

would be designed to be temporary and reversible. 

The two “action” alternatives describe various approaches to managing the park’s resources and 

visitation. Alternative B — Preferred Alternative — Enhanced and Adequate Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Enhanced Visitor Facilities — would create a more sustainable park and provide 

better protection for the park’s natural and cultural resources than the no-action alternative while 

offering an enhanced experience for visitors. Some facilities would be upgraded, and a new visitor 

center would be built at Panther Junction. Alternative C — Maximize Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Preservation by Providing a More Resource-Oriented Visitor Experience — 

would better protect the park’s natural resources than the no-action alternative and alternative B while 

providing for visitor use. All facilities except the main road, a trailhead with parking, and a restroom 

would be removed from Chisos Basin and Rio Grande Village. These and other actions would be taken 

to make the park more sustainable, greatly reduce water use, and promote ecological restoration. 

For questions about this document, write Superintendent, Big Bend National Park, P.O. Box 129, Big 

Bend National Park, TX 79834-0129, call (915) 477-2251, or Email: www.nps.gov/bibe. Please note 

that the NPS practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available 

for public review. After a 30-day no-action period, a course of action will be approved through the 

issuance of a record of decision. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service 
iii 

SUMMARY 

The purpose of this General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement is to define a 

direction for the management of Big Bend 

National Park for the next 15 to 20 years. The 

approved plan will provide a framework for 

making decisions about managing the natural 

and cultural resources, visitor use, development, 

and park operations so that future opportunities 

and problems can be addressed effectively. The 

plan will prescribe the resource conditions and 

visitor experiences to be achieved over time 

according to law, policy, regulations, public 

expectations, and the park’s purpose, 

significance, and special mandates. 

An updated plan is needed to address current 

issues related to water quantity at some 

developed areas, park facilities in floodplains, 

endangered species, degradation of natural 

systems, conflicts among various user groups, 

and the lack of adequate space for interpretive 

activities, park housing, storage, and staff offices. 

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED 

Natural resource issues that must be addressed 

are management of water quantity at some 

developed areas, floodplains, threatened and 

endangered species, and degradation of natural 

systems. 

Water resources at Chisos Basin are overcommitted. Overnight visitors and park and 

concessioner employees compete with wetland 

plants and wildlife for water. At certain times of 

the year, nearly all of the water from Oak Spring 

is diverted for human use. At times when the 

total output of the spring is not sufficient for 

needs of the developed area, conservation 

measures must be implemented. 

Visitors’ understanding of the significance of Big 

Bend National Park is limited by a lack of 

adequate orientation and interpretation. Additional interpretive emphasis is needed to foster 

visitor awareness of the park’s principal stories. 

The Panther Junction visitor center, a section of 

the “Mission 66” period (1960s) headquarters 

building, cannot accommodate the current level 

of visitation or provide all the information and 

interpretation of park stories needed by visitors. 

Space in the visitor center used by park staff and 

the cooperating association is inadequate, as is 

storage space. At Panther Junction, there is a 

lack of adequate office and storage space for 

park staff. 

ALTERNATIVES 

To achieve the desired conditions at Big Bend 

National Park, the planning team developed a 

“no-action” alternative (continuing present 

management) and two “action” alternatives for 

managing the resources and visitor uses of Big 

Bend National Park. Each action alternative 

would assign various areas of the park to 

different management prescriptions (zones). 

The management prescriptions identify how 

different areas could be managed to achieve a 

variety of resource conditions and visitor 

experiences. In each action alternative, the five 

management zones — wilderness, backcountry 

nonwilderness, cultural, visitor services, and 

operations — would each specify a particular 

combination of resource, social, and 

management conditions. 

Alternative A — The No-action or Status Quo 

Alternative, reflects ongoing actions at the park 

and serves as a basis for comparing the other 

alternatives and knowing why certain changes 

might be advisable. Current laws, policies, and 

guidelines would guide natural and cultural 

resource management actions. Interpretation 

and visitor services would remain limited, and 

any development that is not tied to an approved 

plan would be designed to be temporary and 

reversible. All the visitor facilities available for 

visitor use, such as the Chisos Basin development, Rio Grande Village, and Cottonwood 

campgrounds, would be available under this 

alternative. There would be limited, if any, 

changes in the management of the park. Coordination with agencies and other groups would 

continue. 

One already approved building would be 

constructed in Panther Junction, outside the 

most dangerous portion of the maximum 
SUMMARY

iv 

estimated floodplain. It would contain storage 

and office space for fire management. Some 

campsites at Rio Grande Village would be 

relocated to provide greater protection for the 

endangered fish, Big Bend gambusia. An 

alternative water source would be sought for 

human use to further protect the endangered 

fish. At Rio Grande Village and Cottonwood 

campgrounds and Panther Junction early 

warning systems and evacuation plans would be 

developed and implemented to protect visitors 

and staff occupying the floodplain. Failing utility 

(water and waste water) systems would be 

upgraded as funds become available. The park 

would be operated and maintained as before. 

Staffing and funding levels would remain at or 

near current levels. 

Alternative B — Preferred Alternative — 

Enhanced and Adequate Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Enhanced Visitor Facilities 

would offer enhanced experiences for visitors 

while creating a more sustainable park and 

providing better protection for park resources. 

It is the National Park Service’s preferred alternative. A new visitor center would be built at 

Panther Junction to provide room for interpretive media to adequately interpret key 

aspects of the park’s stories and to help visitors 

plan their stays. The space in the headquarters 

building vacated by the visitor center function 

would be redesigned for staff offices. A storage 

warehouse, bunkhouse, and employee residence 

would also be built at Panther Junction. The 

natural resources and collection management 

building (described in the cumulative impact 

scenario) should adequately provide for the 

collection storage needs for the duration of this 

plan. In case additional collection storage space 

were necessary, the other new storage areas 

would be evaluated to accommodate this need. 

One employee residence and one employee 

bunkhouse would be removed from Chisos 

Basin to reduce human water use at that area. 

At Rio Grande Village the RV campground 

would be enlarged by about 40% in area with no 

more than 30 total sites. Cottonwood Campground campsites would be relocated away from 

bank cave-in areas, and a new egress road would 

be constructed. Fifteen percent of park personnel and functions would be moved to gateway 

communities where offices and residences 

would be built or leased. 

Alternative C — Maximize Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Preservation by Providing a 

More Resource-Oriented Visitor Experience 

would better protect the park’s natural 

resources than alternative A (no-action) and 

alternative B while providing for visitor use. 

Development would be removed from Chisos 

Basin and Rio Grande Village except for the 

main roads. A trailhead with parking and a 

restroom would be constructed at each area. 

The visitor center function would expand within 

the headquarters building, and a new administrative building would be built at Panther 

Junction. A storage warehouse would also be 

constructed at Panther Junction. The natural 

resources and collection management building 

(described in the cumulative impact scenario) 

should adequately provide for the collection 

storage needs for the duration of this plan. In 

case additional collection storage space was 

necessary, the other new storage areas would be 

evaluated to accommodate this need. Fifteen 

percent of park personnel and functions would 

be moved to gateway communities where offices 

and residences would be built or leased. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The planning team evaluated the potential 

consequences that the actions of each alternative 

could have on natural resources, cultural 

resources, the visitor experience, and the 

socioeconomic environment. The beneficial or 

adverse effects were categorized as either short 

term or long term, and their intensity was rated 

as negligible, minor, moderate, or major. The 

impacts of the various alternatives are compared 

in table 5. 

For alternative A, the no-action or status quo 

alternative, during periods of extended drought 

as well as at certain very limited times when it is 

not raining during normal years, continued use 

of nearly all the water at Oak Spring for human 

use would cause negligible, intermittent, longterm, adverse impacts on the quantity of water in 

Oak Spring and the wetland there. The irrigation 

of shade trees and lawns at the campgrounds at 

Rio Grande Village and Cottonwood using 

water from the river would continue to cause the 

growth of unnaturally lush vegetation and allow 

exotic species to flourish — an ongoing, 

moderate, long-term adverse impact. Improving 
Summary 

v 

Big Bend gambusia habitat by eliminating 

competition for spring water and relocating 

campsites would have a minor to moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impact on the endangered 

fish. The natural and beneficial values of 

floodplain areas would continue to be 

compromised by the presence of campgrounds 

at Rio Grande Village, and the developments in 

the flash flood hazard area at Panther Junction. 

This continuing long-term adverse impact on 

natural processes would be moderate. Although 

severe flooding has been infrequent and risks are 

minor to moderate, flooding at Panther Junction 

could result in major adverse impacts on visitors 

or employees involved. Even though the risk is 

not great, loss of infrastructure at Panther 

Junction from flooding could cause a major, 

long-term adverse impact on operations and 

require the park to find temporary housing and 

offices outside the park. 

Ongoing identification and protection of archeological resources would have a minor to 

moderate beneficial impact on these resources. 

Research, documentation, identification, evaluation, and preservation of ethnographic resources 

would result in long-term, negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on ethnographic 

resources. 

Alternative A would result in continuing degradation of the visitor experience from noise, 

congestion, and visitor frustration at not finding 

adequate interpretive and education facilities. 

This alternative would result in a continuing 

long-term adverse impact on visitors coming to 

the park at peak times. Visitors would have many 

opportunities to travel around the park at their 

own pace — a long-term, major beneficial 

impact. Retaining the campgrounds, picnic 

areas, and lodge would have an ongoing, 

moderate, long-range beneficial impact on the 

visitor experience. 

The existing benefits of the park to the local and 

regional economy would continue. In addition, 

there would be minor, short-term, beneficial 

impacts on temporary employment opportunities and revenues during restoration and 

construction activities. 

Under alternative B restoring soils on 61.5 acres 

to natural contours, rerouting runoff to natural 

drainages, and revegetating an area greater than 

20 acres would have a major, long-term, beneficial impact on soils, vegetation, and smaller animals. Reducing human use of water from Oak 

Spring by removing some facilities at Chisos 

Basin would result in a 3% reduction in annual 

water use there — a minor long-term beneficial 

impact on plants and a moderate long-term 

beneficial impact on wildlife that use water from 

the spring. Withdrawal of 50% of the irrigation 

water from about 14 acres of exotic vegetation at 

Rio Grande Village would allow native vegetation to return — a moderate to major long-term 

beneficial impact on native vegetation. 

Finding a separate source of drinking water for 

visitors and employees at Rio Grande Village 

would have a major, long-term, beneficial impact 

on the pond water system water quantity and a 

minor to moderate, long-term beneficial impact 

on the endangered Big Bend gambusia. Although 

a report finds that the risk is not great, flooding 

at Panther Junction could cause major adverse 

impacts on the visitors and employees involved. 

Flooding at Panther Junction could cause major 

adverse impacts on operations and could require 

the park to find temporary offices and housing 

outside the park. 

Preservation actions taken under this alternative 

would have a long-term, moderate beneficial 

impact on some park historic structures. Water 

conservation measures at Rio Grande Village 

could change the vegetation characteristic of this 

potential cultural landscape — a long-term, 

moderate adverse impact. There would be a 

long-term, major, beneficial impact on artifacts 

and collections at Panther Junction. 

Provision of adequate space for interpreting the 

park’s primary themes, conducting interpretive 

and educational programs, and ensuring that 

visitors receive enough information to plan their 

stay effectively by constructing a new visitor 

center at Panther Junction would have a major 

long-term beneficial impact on most park 

visitors. 

There would be increases in temporary and 

permanent employment opportunities and 

revenues as planned upgrades of facilities and 

programs are implemented. 

Under alternative C, removing development, 

restoring natural contours, and revegetating 700 
SUMMARY

vi 

acres at Chisos Basin, Rio Grande Village, and 

the Maverick entrance station would have longterm, beneficial impacts. Impacts on soils would 

be major, on vegetation and wildlife moderate, 

and on black-capped vireo moderate to major. 

Impacts on water quantity at Oak Spring, plants 

that use water from Oak Spring, and wetlands at 

Oak Spring would be major. Impacts on animals 

that use water from Oak Spring would be 

moderate, and impacts on natural and beneficial 

floodplain values at Rio Grande Village would 

be major. Withdrawal of irrigation water from 

about 638 acres of exotic vegetation at Rio 

Grande Village would allow native vegetation to 

return — a major, long-term beneficial impact 

on native vegetation and a moderate long-term 

beneficial impact on water quantity in the Rio 

Grande. 

Removing all human use from the spring at Rio 

Grande Village would be a major, long-term 

beneficial impact on wetlands and on water 

quantity in the pond system used by Big Bend 

gambusia. Along with the additional water 

available in the pond system where it lives, 

restoration of Rio Grande Village to more 

natural conditions through revegetation, and 

potentially doubling the available habitat 

through wetland restoration, would be expected 

to have a minor to moderate long-term beneficial impact on the fish. Although a report finds 

that the risk is not great, flooding at Panther 

Junction could cause major adverse impacts on 

the visitors and employees involved. Flooding at 

Panther Junction could cause major adverse 

impacts on operations and could require the 

park to find temporary offices and housing 

outside the park. 

Demolition of some historic structures would 

result in a long-term minor to major, adverse 

impact on historic structures. Loss of some 

potential cultural landscapes would be a 

potential long-term, major, adverse impact on 

these landscapes. There would be long-term, 

moderate adverse impacts on ethnographic 

resources, and long-term, major beneficial 

impacts on the park collections. 

Removal of overnight facilities at Chisos Basin 

and Rio Grande Village would have a major, 

long-term beneficial impact on the visitor 

experience of natural and cultural resources. A 

rehabilitated visitor center at Panther Junction 

would have a moderate, long-term benefit for 

most park visitors. Removing lodging and 

camping facilities would result in the loss of 

overnight experiences for some visitors, and 

removing interpretive centers at Chisos Basin 

and Rio Grande Village would eliminate 

opportunities for visitors to learn about key 

themes and resource management issues. 

Together, the loss of these facilities would b e a 

major long-term adverse impact on the visitor 

experience. Retaining the Cottonwood Campground and picnic areas would constitute a 

moderate long-term beneficial impact on visitors, and moving some campsites further from 

the river would lessen the potential from 

flooding. 

There would be increases in temporary and 

permanent employment opportunities and 

revenues as planned upgrades of facilities and 

programs were implemented. 

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN 

The Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement for Big Bend 

National Park was sent out for public review and 

comment. During the review period, public 

meetings were held; after the review period 

comments were analyzed and changes were 

made, as appropriate, to the draft document. In 

response to public comment, the proposal to 

remove a 12-room motel unit from Chisos Basin 

is no longer in the preferred alternative. The 

“Purpose of and Need for the Plan” section and 

some impact discussions have been modified in 

response to comments. Comments and 

responses are in the “Consultation and 

Coordination” chapter. The final plan includes 

agency letters and all organization and 

individual letters with substantive comments. 

Following release of the Final General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement and a 30-day no-action period, a 

record of decision identifying the selected 

alternative (the approved plan) will be issued.
vii 

CONTENTS 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

Purpose, Need, and Scoping 3

Introduction 3

Brief Description of the Park 3

Purpose of the Plan 4

Need for the Plan 7

Mission and Goals 7

Park Purpose 7

Park Significance 7

Primary Interpretive Themes 7

The Scoping Process — Notices, Newsletters, and Meetings 8

Issues 9

Issues to Be Addressed 9

Issues beyond the Scope of this Plan 10

Impact Topics (Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process) 10

Natural Resource Topics 10

Cultural Resource Topics 10

Visitor Experience Topics 11

Socioeconomic Environment Topics 11

Impact Topics Considered and Dismissed from Further Consideration 11

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 11

Prime and Unique Farmland 12

Air Quality 12

Water Quality in the Rio Grande 13

Traffic 13

Indian Trust Resources 13

Environmental Justice 14

Laws, Policies, and Mandates 15

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 15

International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico (IBWC) 15

Letter of Intent Between The Department of the Interior (DOI) of the United States and The 

Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries (SEMARNAP) of the United 

Mexican States for Joint Work in Natural Protected Areas on the United States-Mexico 

Border 16

Wildfire Prevention Agreement with Mexico 16

Proposed Wilderness Classification 16

Water Resources Management Plan, Wildland Fire Management Plan, Backcountry Management 

Plan, Castolon Long-Range Interpretive Plan, Drought Contingency Plan, Water 

Conservation Plan 16

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River Management Plan 16

Wild and Scenic River Assessment 16

Wilderness Suitability Assessment 17 

Commercial Visitor Services Assessment 17

Servicewide Laws and Policies 17

Natural Resource Management Requirements 19

Cultural Resource Management Requirements 32 

Other Requirements 32 
CONTENTS

viii 

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Introduction to the Alternatives 43

Decision Points 43

Relationships to Other Agencies’ Plans 43

Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan 43

Black Gap Wildlife Management Area 44

Big Bend Ranch State Park 44

Brewster County 44

Maderas del Carmen 45

CaZon de Santa Elena 45

Management Prescriptions 46

Alternative A — No-Action (Status Quo) 50

Concept 50

Throughout the Park 50

Chisos Basin 51

Panther Junction 51

Rio Grande Village 51

Castolon 51

Cottonwood Campground 51

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 51

Persimmon Gap, Maverick, and Gateway Communities 52

Park Boundary 52

Estimated Costs 52

Alternative B — (Preferred Alternative) — Enhanced and Adequate Natural Resource Stewardship and 

Enhanced Visitor Facilities 59

Concept 59

Detailed Description 59

Wilderness Prescription 59

Backcountry Nonwilderness Prescription 60

Cultural Prescription 60

Visitor Services Prescription 60

Operations Prescription 62

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 62

Park Boundary 69

Estimated Costs 69

Alternative C — Maximize Natural Resource Stewardship and Preservation by Providing a More 

Resource-Oriented Visitor Experience 71

Concept 71

Detailed Description 71

Wilderness Prescription 71

Backcountry Nonwilderness Prescription 72

Cultural Prescription 72

Visitor Services Prescription 72

Operations Prescription 79

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 79

Park Boundary 79

Estimated Costs 80

Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration 81

Summary 81

Ideas Suggested and Eliminated from Further Consideration 82

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative 83
Contents 

ix 

Mitigation and Additional Studies 84

Ground Disturbance/Soils 84

Vegetation 84

Water Resources 84

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 84

Air Quality 85

Cultural Resources 85

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Natural Resources 103

Setting 103

Soils 103

Chisos Basin 103

Panther Junction 104

Rio Grande Village 104

Castolon 105

Cottonwood Campground 105

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 105

Persimmon Gap 105

Maverick and Potential Site for New Entrance Station 106

Vegetation 106

Chisos Basin 106

Panther Junction 106

Rio Grande Village 106

Castolon 106

Cottonwood Campground 107

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 107

Persimmon Gap 107

Maverick and Potential Site for New Entrance Station 107

Wildlife 107

Chisos Basin 107

Panther Junction 108

Rio Grande Village 108

Castolon 108

Cottonwood Campground 108

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 108

Persimmon Gap 109

Maverick and Potential Site for New Entrance Station 109

Water Quantity 109

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 109

Floodplains 110

Panther Junction 110

Rio Grande Village 111

Cottonwood Campground 112

Wetlands 112

Cultural Resources 113

Introduction 113

Archeological and Historical Resources 113

Late Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 8000 - 6500 B.C.) 113

Archaic Period (ca. 6500 B.C. - A.D. 1000) 113
CONTENTS

x 

Late Prehistoric Period (ca. A.D. 1000 - 1535) 114

The Historic Period (1535 A.D. - present) 114

Archeological Resources 115

Historic Structures 116

Cultural Landscapes 116

Ethnographic Resources 120

Collections 121

Visitor Understanding — Experiencing the Resources 122

Orientation and Interpretation 124

Safety 125

Facilities 125

Chisos Basin 125

Panther Junction 125

Rio Grande Village 125

Castolon 125

Cottonwood Campground 125

Persimmon Gap 126

Maverick 126

Socioeconomic Environment 127

Businesses and Park Neighbors 127

Brewster County 127

Presidio County 127

Study Area Economic Conditions Since 1950 128

Recreation Use at Big Bend National Park 131

Current Impact of Recreation Spending in Study Area 131

Conditions in Chihuahua and Coahuila 132

Local and Regional Economy / Land Use 133

Big Bend Ranch State Park (State of Texas) 133

Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan (TORP) 133

Black Gap Wildlife Management Area (State of Texas) 134

Brewster County 134

City of Alpine 134

Christmas Mountains 134

Terlingua Ranch 135

Lajitas 135

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Methods for Analyzing Impacts 139

Projects That Make Up the Cumulative Impact Scenario 139

Past Actions 139

Current and Future Actions 140

Impairment of Resources 141

Natural Resources 142

Cultural Resources 143

Impacts on Cultural Resources Included in or Eligible for Inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 144

Intensity Definitions for the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 Analysis of 

Cultural Resources 145

Visitor Experience 148

Socioeconomic Environment 148
Contents 

xi 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No Action) 150

Natural Resources 150

Soil 150

Vegetation 151

Wildlife 152

Water Quantity 153

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 154

Floodplains 155

Wetlands 157

Cultural Resources 158

Archeological Resources 158

Historic Structures/Buildings 159

Cultural Landscapes 160

Ethnographic Resources 161

Museum Collections 161

Visitor Understanding 162

Visitors’ Experiences of Park Resources 162

Access to Orientation, Interpretation, and Education 163

Visitor Safety 163

Cumulative Effects 163

Conclusion 163

Socioeconomic Environment 163

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 164

Natural Resources 164

Visitor Understanding 164

Socioeconomic Impacts 165

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 165

Relationships of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity 165

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 165

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (Preferred) 166

Natural Resources 166

Soils 166

Vegetation 168

Wildlife 169

Water Quantity 170

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 172

Floodplains 173

Wetlands 175

Cultural Resources 175

Archeological Resources 175

Historic Structures/Buildings 177

Cultural Landscapes 177

Ethnographic Resources 178

Museum Collections 179

Visitor Understanding 179

Visitors’ Experience of Park Resources 179

Access to Orientation and Interpretation 179

Visitor Safety 179

Cumulative Effects 180

Conclusion 180

Socioeconomic Environment 180

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 181
CONTENTS

xii 

Natural Resources 181

Cultural Resources 181

Socioeconomic Environment 182

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 182

Relationship of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity 182

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 182

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 183

Natural Resources 183

Soils 183

Vegetation 185

Wildlife 186

Water Quantity 188

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 189

Floodplains 191

Wetlands 193

Cultural Resources 194

Archeological Resources 194

Historic Structures/Buildings 195

Cultural Landscapes 196

Ethnographic Resources 197

Museum Collections 197

Visitor Understanding 198

Visitors’ Experience of Park Resources 198

Access to Orientation and Interpretation 198

Visitor Safety 198

Conclusion 198

Cumulative Effects 199

Socioeconomic Environment 199

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 200

Natural Resources 200

Cultural Resources 200

Visitor Understanding 201

Socioeconomic Environment 201

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 201

Relationship of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity 201

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 202

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 

Public Involvement 205

Public Meetings and Newsletters 205

Consultation 205

Comments on the Draft Document 208

Changes Resulting from Comments 208

Responses to Comments on the Draft Document 209

Agencies and Organizations to Which This Document Was Sent 271

APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, AND INDEX 

Appendix A: Legislation 277

Appendix B: Developing the Preferred Alternative 282
Contents 

xiii 

Appendix C: Letters Regarding Threatened and Endangered Species 284

Appendix D: Interpretive Themes and Subthemes and Visitor Understanding Goals 295

Appendix E: Draft Wilderness Suitability Assessment 298

Appendix F: Statement of Findings for Floodplains 300

Appendix G: Uninvestigated Possible Cultural Landscapes 312

Appendix H: Soil Types and Limitations for Development by Alternative 314

Bibliography 318

Preparers 321

Index 322

Maps 

Region 5 

Park Area 6 

Alternative A, Chisos Basin 53 

Alternative A, Panther Junction 54 

Alternative A, Rio Grande Village 55 

Alternative A, Castolon 56 

Alternative A, North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 57 

Alternative B, Chisos Basin 63 

Alternative B, Panther Junction 64 

Alternative B, Rio Grande Village 65 

Alternative B, Castolon 66 

Alternative B, North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 67 

Alternative C, Chisos Basin 73 

Alternative C, Panther Junction 74 

Alternative C, Rio Grande Village 75 

Alternative C, Castolon 76 

Alternative C, North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 77 

Figures 

1. Total Annual Visitation, 1980-2000 123 

2. Monthly Visitation, 2000 123 

3. Overnight Stays, 1991-2000 124 

4. Population, 1950-1999 129 

5. Persons of Hispanic Origin by County 130 

6. Per Capita Income, 1980-1998 130 

7. Total Park Visitors 1988-1999 131 

Tables 

Table 1: Management Prescriptions, Big Bend National Park 47

Table 2: Representative Development Costs for Alternative B 70

Table 3: Representative Development Costs for Alternative C 80

Table 4: Comparison of Alternatives 87

Table 5: Comparison of Impacts 91
CONTENTS

xiv 

Table 6: Summary of selected Demographic Conditions, Towns of Alpine and Presidio 128

Table 7: Study Area Population Trends, 1950-2000 129

Table 8: Study Area Per Capita Income, 1960-1998 129

Table 9: Comparison of Selected Economic Indicators, State of Chihuahua 132

Table 10: Comparison of Selected Economic Indicators, State of Coahuila 133

Table 11: Actions That Might Affect Cultural Resources and Associated Compliance Requirements 

206