APPENDIXES,

BIBLIOGRAPHY,

PREPARERS,

& INDEX

Dave Catalani

Bill Chambers Gareth Rowell

Karl Tipple
APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, AND INDEX

276 
277 

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 
APPENDIXES

278 
Appendix A: Legislation 

279 
APPENDIXES

280 
Appendix A: Legislation 

281 
282 

APPENDIX B: DEVELOPING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

To develop a preliminary preferred alternative, 

the planning team evaluated the four draft 

alternatives that had been reviewed by the public 

in newsletter 2. The planning team broke down 

the alternative concepts, modified them based 

on public comment and professional input, and 

developed the actions that would flow from each 

concept as guided by the policy, park mission, 

and park significance. After this was completed, 

it was determined that two of the alternatives 

were very similar and these were blended to 

form one alternative. The alternatives were 

tested against the decision points and issues 

identified by the public and park to determine 

their relative advantages.

“GIVENS” AND DESIRED CONDITONS

First, it is useful to consider the assumptions or 

“givens” that affected the analysis of the 

alternatives. These givens are based on the 

purpose and significance, laws and policies, and 

public concerns and comments. The givens are 

listed below in two categories, one representing 

conditions that must be met by the preferred 

alternative; the second representing conditions 

that would be desirable for the preferred 

alternative to meet. 

The actions in the preferred alternative must 

accomplish the following: 

• would not adversely impact threatened and 

endangered species in ways that could not 

be mitigated 

• would result in no net loss of wetlands 

• would meet clean air and water standards 

• would allow no loss of cultural resources 

without complete documentation 

• would allow public access 

• would provide safe, sustainable, and 

efficient operations for resource protection 

and visitor use 

The following actions would be desirable in the 

preferred alternative: 

• would result in little or no adverse impact on 

plants, animals, or soils 

• would preserve properties eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places 

• would allow maximum public access 

consistent with resource protection and 

visitor experience goals 

• would result in minimum disruption of 

desired experiences for users 

COMPARING THE ALTERNATIVES 

The next step was to develop criteria that would 

be used to compare alternatives. Using the 

givens presented above and topics that were 

commonly mentioned by the public in commenting on the alternatives, the team identified 

four criteria to evaluate the alternatives. 

3⁄4 visitor understanding of the park’s 

significance 

3⁄4 natural resource stewardship 

3⁄4 cultural resource stewardship 

3⁄4 efficiency of park operations 

The team identified the benefits of each alternative for each of the criteria. Alternative B best 

enhanced the visitor’s understanding of the 

park’s significance because the increased 

opportunities and diversity of ways it provided 

for interpreting the park’s significance to 

visitors. Alternative A maintains the current 

range of visitor activities that only provide a 

limited understanding of the park’s significance. 

Alternative C reduces the number and types of 

visitor activities and in so doing reduces opportunities to understand the park’s significance. 

Alternative C best supports natural resource 

stewardship as it provides the greatest reduction 

in park water use and creates the most wildlife 

habitat. Alternative A maintains the current 

water use but upgrades utility systems. Alternative A does not measurably reduce the park 

water use or create wildlife habitat. Alternative B 

somewhat reduces water use and creates wildlife 

habitat. 
Appendix B: Developing the Preferred Alternative 

283 

Alternative B best provides for cultural resource 

stewardship in that it sets preservation priorities 

and provides a number of strategies for giving 

more protection to cultural resources. Alternative C results in the lost of some cultural 

landscapes and structures. Alternative A would 

result in limited protection for cultural 

resources. 

Alternative B would best provide for more 

efficient park operations by creating more 

functional park facilities and reducing the 

number of park personnel in the park. 

Alternative C would provide for similar benefits, 

but the removal of park visitor amenities could 

make this alternative slightly less efficient. 

Alternative A would continue a number of 

inefficient activities such as collections and staff 

being house in various structures — some not 

suitable for these purposes. 
284 

APPENDIX C: LETTERS REGARDING THREATENED AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES 
Appendix C: Letters Regarding Threatened and Endangered Species 

285 
APPENDIXES

286 
Appendix C: Letters Regarding Threatened and Endangered Species 

287 
APPENDIXES

288 
Appendix C: Letters Regarding Threatened and Endangered Species 

289 
APPENDIXES

290 
291 

Big Bend National Park 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Endangered Resource Branch 

Special Species List, Brewster County 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

Found 

in Park 

Found in 

Project 

Area (3) 

Likelihood 

of being 

affected by 

GMP 

alternatives 

Buteo albicaudatus white-tailed hawk T 

Buteo albonotatus zone-tailed hawk T X 

Buteo nitidus gray hawk T X Castolon unlikely 

Buteogallus anthracinus common black-hawk T X Rio Grande 

Village 

unlikely 

Empidonax traillii 

extimus 

southwestern willow 

flycatcher 

E E 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon E E,T X 

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon E X 

Falco peregrinus tundrius arctic peregrine falcon T 

Vireo atricapillus black-capped vireo E E X Chisos Basin unlikely 

 

Campostoma ornatum Mexican stoneroller T X 

Cycleptus elongatus blue sucker T X 

Cyprinodon eximius Conchos pupfish T 

Gambusia gaigei Big Bend gambusia E E X Rio Grande 

Village 

likely 

Notropis chihuahua Chihuahua shiner T X 

 

Amplypterus blanchardi Blanchards’ sphinx moth SC X 

Deronectes neomexicana Bonita diving beetle SC 

 

Canis lupus (extirpated) gray wolf E E 

Cynomys ludovicianus 

arizonensis 

black-tailed prairie dog SC 

Euderma maculatum spotted bat T X 

Eumops perotis 

californicus 

greater western mastiff bat SC X 

Leptonycteris nivalis greater long-nosed bat E E X Chisos Basin unlikely 

Myotis ciliolabrum western small-footed bat SC 

Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis bat SC X 

Myotis velifer cave myotis bat SC X 

Myotis volans Long-legged myotis bat SC X 

Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis bat SC X 

Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow bat SC 

Nasua narica White-nosed coati T X 

Sigmodon ochrognathus Yellow-nosed cotton rat SC X 

Sylvilagus floridanus 

robustus 

Davis Mountains cottontail SC X Chisos Basin unlikely 

Ursus americanus Black bear T X Chisos Basin unlikely 

Humboldtiana chisosensis Chisos Mountains threeband SC X 

Humboldtiana texaba Stockton Plateau threeband SC 

Coleonyx reticulatus Reticulated gecko T X 

Kinosternon hirtipes Chihuahuan mud turtle T 

Phrynosoma cornutum Texas horned lizard T X Harte Ranch unlikely 

Tantili rubra Big Bend blackheaded snake T X 
APPENDIXES

292 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

Found 

in Park 

Found in 

Project 

Area (3) 

Likelihood 

of being 

affected by 

GMP 

alternatives 

Trachemys gaigeae Big Bend slider SC X 

Trimorphodon biscutatus Texas lyre snake T X 

 

Acleisanthes wrightii Wright’s trumpets SC 

Agalinis calycina Leoncita false foxglove SC 

Agave glomeruliflora Chisos agave SC X Chisos Basin unlikely 

Allolepis texana Texas false saltgrass SC X (2) Castolon, 

Cottonwood 

unlikely 

Andrachne arida Trans-Pecos maidenbush SC X 

Batesimalva violacea Purple gay-mallow SC X 

Bonamia ovalifolia Bigpod bonamia SC X 

Bouteloua kayi Kay’s grama SC 

Brickellia brachyphylla

var hinckleyi

Hinckley’s brickellbush SC 

Brickellia brachyphylla

var terlinguensis

Terlingua brickellbush SC X (2) 

Brongniartia minutifolia Little-leaf brongniartia SC X 

Cardamine macrocarpa

var texana

Texas largeseed bittercress SC X 

Castilleja elongata Tall paintbrush SC X (1) 

Peniocereus greggii var 

greggii

Desert night-blooming cereus SC X (2) 

Chamaesyce chaetocalyx

var triligulata

Three-tongue spurge SC X 

Chamaesyce golondrina Swallow spurge SC X 

Chamaesyce jejuna Dwarf broomspurge SC 

Coryphantha 

albicolumnaria 

White column cactus SC X 

Coryphantha 

dasyacantha var 

dasyacantha

Dense cory cactus SC X 

Coryphantha duncanii Duncan’s cory cactus SC X 

Coryphantha hesteri Hester’s cory cactus SC 

Coryphantha minima Nellie cory cactus E E 

Coryphantha ramillosa Bunched cory cactus a.k.a. 

Big Bend cory cactus 

T T X 

Croton pottsii var 

thermophilus

Leatherweed croton SC X 

Cryptantha crassipes Terlingua creek cat’s-eye E E 

Dalea bartonii Cox’s dalea SC 

Echinocereus chisoensis

var chisoensis

Chisos Mountains hedgehog 

cactus 

T T X 

Echinocereus chloranthus

var neocapillus

Golden-spine hedgehog 

cactus 

 SC 

Echinocereus viridiflorus 

correllii 

Correll’s green pitaya SC 

Echinocereus viridiflorus

var davisii

Davis’green pitaya E E 

Erigeron mimegletes Sonora fleabane SC X (2) 

Eriogonum suffruticosum Bushy wild-buckwheat SC 

Escobaria chaffeyi Chaffey’s cory cactus SC X Chisos Basin unlikely 
Appendix C: Letters Regarding Threatened and Endangered Species 

293 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

Found 

in Park 

Found in 

Project 

Area (3) 

Likelihood 

of being 

affected by 

GMP 

alternatives 

Festuca ligulata Guadalupe Mountains fescue C1 SC X (1) 

Galium correllii Cliff bedstraw SC Not in 

park

 

Gaura boquillensis Boquillas lizardtail SC X 

Genistidium dumosum Brush-pea SC Not in 

park

 

Hedeoma pilosum Old blue pennyroyal SC 

Hedyotis butterwickiae Mary’s bluet SC 

Hedyotis pooleana Jackie’s bluet SC 

Hexalectris revoluta Chisos coral-root SC X 

Hexalectris warnockii Warnock’s coral-root SC X Chisos Basin unlikely 

Justicia wrightii Wright’s water-willow SC X (2) Castolon unlikely 

Kallstroemia perennans Perennial caltrop SC 

Lechea mensalis Chisos pinweed SC X 

Lycium texanum Texas wolf-berry SC 

Matelea texensis Texas milkvine SC 

Neolloydia (Sclerocactus) 

mariposensis 

Lloyd’s mariposa cactus T T X 

Nesaea longipes Longstalk heimia SC X 

Opuntia aureispina Golden-spine prickly-pear SC X 

Opuntia imbricata var 

argentea

Silver cholla SC X 

Ostrya chisosensis Big Bend hop-hornbeam SC X 

Paronychia wilkinsonii Wilkinson’s whitlow-wort SC 

Perityle bisetosa var 

appressa

Appressed two-bristle rockdaisy  SC 

Perityle bisetosa var 

bisetosa 

Two-bristle rock-daisy SC X(2) Rio Grande 

Village 

unlikely 

Perityle bisetosa var 

scalaris

Stairstep two-bristle rockdaisy  SC 

Perityle dissecta Slimlobe rock-daisy SC X North 

Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch, 

Chisos Basin

unlikely 

Perityle vitreomontana Glass Mountains rock-daisy SC 

Phacelia pallida Pale Phacelia SC 

Phyllanthus ericoides Heather leaf-flower SC 

Poa strictiramea Desert Mountains bluegrass SC X 

Polygala maravillasensis Maravillas milkwort SC 

Proboscidea spicata Many-flowered unicornplant 

 SC 

Prunus murrayana Murray’s plum SC 

Quercus graciliformis Chisos oak SC X Chisos Basin unlikely 

Quercus robusta Robust oak SC X 

Quercus tardifolia Lateleaf oak SC X 

Rorippa ramosa Durango yellow-cress SC X(2) 

Sedum harvardii Harvard’s stonecrop SC X 

Sedum robertsianum Roberts’ stonecrop SC 

Selaginella viridissima Green spikemoss SC x 

Senna orcuttii Orcutt’s senna SC 

Senna ripleyana Ripley’s senna SC 
APPENDIXES

294 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

Found 

in Park 

Found in 

Project 

Area (3) 

Likelihood 

of being 

affected by 

GMP 

alternatives 

Streptanthus cutleri Cutler’s twistflower SC x 

Thelocactus bicolor var 

flavidispinus

Straw-spine glory-of Texas SC 

Zanthoxylum parvum Shinner’s tickle-tongue C1 SC 

1. Big Bend National Park and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have entered into an Agreement in Lieu of Listing 

(Conservation Agreement) for these species. 

2. Current presence in park uncertain. 

3. Chisos Basin, Panther Junction, Rio Grande Village, Castolon, Cottonwood, North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 
295 

APPENDIX D: INTERPRETIVE THEMES AND SUBTHEMES AND VISITOR 

UNDERSTANDING GOALS 

Interpretive Themes and Subthemes 

1. Big Bend National Park’s varied ecosystems 

— mountain, desert, and river — support an 

extraordinarily rich biological diversity. 

• Although it appears harsh and barren, the 

Chihuahuan Desert is home to many 

plants and animals (some found nowhere 

else in the world) that use ingenious 

physical adaptations and behavioral 

strategies to overcome heat and drought 

stress. 

• The park’s location along a major 

biological corridor for bird migration on 

the US-Mexico border enable birdwatchers to see more varieties of bird 

species than in any other national park, as 

well as some Mexican species seldom seen 

anywhere else in the United States. 

• The Chisos Mountains, the only complete 

mountain range found in a national park, 

stand as a mountain island surrounded by 

a desert sea, providing cooler, wetter 

habitat for species unable to survive in the 

hotter, drier desert. Relict species found 

in the Chisos Mountains today indicate 

what the climate and landscape over a 

broader area were like thousands of years 

ago. Many species are not found 

elsewhere in the United States. 

• Big Bend National Park provides valuable 

habitat for several endangered and 

threatened species of plants and animals, 

and the park’s protected status greatly 

aids in the preservation, study, and 

recovery of many of these species. 

• The periodic occurrence of fire is a 

natural process in several of the 

ecosystems of Big Bend and is a necessary 

element in maintaining the overall health 

of these systems. 

• Although they are seldom seen, the 

animals of the desert have become highly 

adapted and take full advantage of scarce 

available resources. 

• The rich plant life in Big Bend represents 

the diversity of the Chihuahuan Desert 

and provided food, medicine, clothing, 

textiles, and tools for people of many 

cultures who have lived here. 

• The outstanding fossils uncovered in Big 

Bend National Park make this one of the 

premier national parks for paleontological 

discoveries. These fossils continue to 

provide clues to the past climate, flora, 

and fauna of this region. 

2. Major resource threats such as air and water 

pollution, intrusive sounds, and the 

presence of exotic plant and animal species 

as well as vandalism, graffiti, and the illegal 

collection of plants and animals, negatively 

impact both the resources of the park and 

the visitor experience. 

• Big Bend National Park provides visitors 

with incredibly clear views of the night 

sky, unobstructed by light pollution. 

• Through stargazing, visitors learn how 

early cultures relied on the night sky for 

critical survival information and about 

current air and light pollution issues. 

• Big Bend is a mandatory class I air quality 

area under the Clean Air Act, meaning 

that very little degradation of air quality is 

acceptable. Both particulate and visibility 

aspects of air quality have been monitored 

since 1978. Big Bend is part of a largescale air resource protection program to 

determine the potential impact of local 

and distant pollutant sources on the area. 

• An important part of the NPS mission is 

to preserve and/or restore the natural 

resources of the parks, including the 

natural soundscapes associated with units 

of the national park system. Intrusive 

sounds are also a matter of concern to 

park visitors. Big Bend is relatively free of 

intrusive sounds and strives to preserve 

the natural soundscape. 

• Exotic plants and animals are extremely 

disruptive to park ecosystems. Efforts to 
APPENDIXES

296 

prevent the introduction of exotic species 

and to remove established exotic species 

are ongoing.

3. Though rarely seen, water constitutes the 

most important resource in the Chihuahuan 

Desert environment. Water is the architect 

of the desert, and its presence or absence 

affects the desert’s appearance, plant and 

animal life, and the ways that humans can 

use it. 

• The ruins at Castolon and Rio Grande 

Village show evidence that the river has 

historically been a focal point of life in Big 

Bend. 

• The Rio Grande is a source of life-giving 

water for the inhabitants of the Big Bend 

region, but there are also serious threats 

to its water quality and quantity. 

• Big Bend is a land of limited water. Water 

conservation, alternatives to mitigate the 

historic effects of people on the flow 

regime, evaluation of flood hazards in 

developed or frequently visited areas, and 

monitoring and managing water quality 

for the health and safety of park visitors 

and ecosystems are underway. 

4. The evidence left behind by different 

cultural groups over several thousand years, 

including American Indians, Spanish, 

Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and AngloAmerican settlers, gives us clues to the past 

and helps us imagine what life was like for 

these early inhabitants of Big Bend. 

• Big Bend National Park contains many 

outstanding archeological and historical 

sites and provides visitors with the chance 

to see how early inhabitants and later 

settlers lived. 

• People engaged in a number of 

occupations, including farming, ranching, 

and mining, to make a living. 

• American troops were stationed at several 

locations at various times throughout 

what is now the park from the mid-19th 

century until the conclusion of the 

Mexican Border Conflict in 1920. These 

soldiers, including African American 

Buffalo Soldiers (1885-90), protected 

settlers from hostile Indians, border raids, 

and bandits. 

• How did these various groups adapt to 

the desert environment, what was their 

interaction and interdependence, and 

what was the cumulative effect of the 

human presence on the developing desert 

environment? 

5. The Maderas del Carmen Protected Area in 

Coahuila and the Cañon de Santa Elena 

Protected Area in Chihuahua are two 

Mexican federally protected areas adjacent 

to Big Bend National Park, and Big Bend 

Ranch State Park. Together with Black Gap 

Wildlife Management Area, these four areas 

preserve millions of acres of important 

habitat, protect biological corridors for 

wildlife migration, and provide unique 

opportunities for the United States and 

Mexico to work together to preserve a 

common ecosystem. 

6. Big Bend National Park provides an 

excellent outdoor laboratory for researchers 

to study the natural world, the interactions 

that occur within, and the impacts of both 

natural events and human activity. 

• In addition to the National Park Service, 

the state of Texas, its citizens, the Civilian 

Conservation Corps, and other entities 

were instrumental in the creation and 

development of Big Bend National Park 

and in preserving its resources. 

7. The legacy of human impacts on Big Bend 

National Park’s varied environments 

exhibits changes from past to present, 

including soil erosion, watershed 

impairment, grasslands decline, and species 

reduction. 

Visitor Understanding Goals 

These goals help establish the desired visitor 

experiences and serve as a guide for developing 

a range of management approaches. The 

National Park Service will provide opportunities 

for public to 
Appendix D: Interpretive Themes and Subthemes and Visitor Understanding Goals 

297 

• learn about Big Bend without physically 

visiting the park 

• feel welcome, respected, and able to offer 

suggestions 

• safely enjoy park resources 

• experience clean and well-maintained 

facilities 

• visit a park visitor center and talk to a 

knowledgeable ranger or volunteer 

• interact with park employees and other 

visitors 

• have access to differing points of view on 

issues affecting the park 

• learn and practice low-impact uses in the 

park 

• learn about the park by attending 

interpretive programs 

• learn some of the complex natural processes 

that helped to shape Big Bend 

• receive exceptional customer service 

• experience solitude 

• experience the natural world without the 

intrusions of modern life 

• experience views as far as the eye can see 

without evidence of humans in the 

landscape 

• see plants and animals in their natural 

settings 

• experience the richness of biological 

diversity in the park 

• visit a historic site and see how early 

inhabitants of this area lived 

• make self-discoveries and establish a 

connection to park resources 

• experience Mexican culture by visiting one 

of the border towns adjacent to the park 

• contemplate their own roles and 

responsibilities in the stewardship of natural 

and cultural resources 

• enjoy a variety of appropriate recreational 

opportunities that are compatible with the 

protection of park resources 
298 

APPENDIX E: DRAFT WILDERNESS SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 

DRAFT 

L48-(ScRM) 

September 14, 2002 

MEMORANDUM 

From: Regional Director, Intermountain Region 

To: Director 

Subject: Wilderness Suitability Assessment — North Rosillos area of Big 

Bend National Park 

The Intermountain Regional Office determines that the North Rosillos addition of 

Big Bend National Park contains roadless and undeveloped Federal lands of 

sufficient size to make their preservation as wilderness practicable and are therefore 

suitable as wilderness. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) defines wilderness as “...an area 

of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without 

permanent improvements or human habitation which is protected and managed so as 

to preserve its natural conditions....” 16 U.S.C. 1131(c). 

The Wilderness Act, regulations at 43 CFR 19, Secretarial Order 2920, and 

Management Policies of the NPS (2001) require that the National Park Service (NPS) 

review all areas within a park to determine if any meet the criteria laid out in the 

Wilderness Act and NPS Policies. 

The determination applied the following Management Policies criteria: 

National Park Service lands will be considered suitable for wilderness if 

they are at least 5000 acres or of sufficient size to make practicable their 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and if they possess the 

following characteristics (as identified in the Wilderness Act): 
Appendix E: Draft Wilderness Suitability Assessment 

299 

• The earth and its community of life are untrammeled by humans, 

where humans are visitors and do not remain; 

• The area is undeveloped and retains its primeval character and 

influence, without permanent improvements or human 

habitation; 

• The area generally appears to have been affected primarily by the 

forces of nature, with the imprint of humans’ work substantially 

unnoticeable; 

• The area is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural 

conditions, and 

• The area offers outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation. 

NPS Management Policies (2001) 6.2.1.1 

Primary Suitability Criteria. 

I determine that areas within the North Rosillos addition of Big Bend National Park 

meet the criteria and are, therefore, suitable for wilderness. Significant portions of the 

North Rosillos area generally appear to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature with minimal evidence of human activity. These areas of the North Rosillos 

area offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or for primitive and unconfined 

recreation. 

The suitable area is divided into 2 units. The North Rosillos unit and the Nine Point 

unit fall on opposite sides of the 14 mile Terlingua Ranch road; a permanent, 

unpaved, county maintained road; and its 3 mile administrative access road leading to 

an NPS aircraft facility. 

The North Rosillos unit contains approximately 23,300 suitable acres. This includes, 

as suitable for potential wilderness, a 135 acre powerline corridor and 475 acres in 

non-federal ownership. 

The Nine Point unit contains approximately 39,400 suitable acres. The Nine Point 

unit also includes areas suitable for potential wilderness: 55 acres of powerline 

corridor, a four-mile unpaved access road to private land, and approximately 900 

acres of NPS land in three triangular parcels that lie between the private land access 

road and NPS boundary corners. 

Attached is a draft notice for publication in the Federal Register should you approve 

this memorandum as the NPS’ final wilderness assessment suitability determination. 

Sincerely, 

Appendix F: Statement of Findings for Floodplains 

301 

In accordance with Executive Order 11988—Floodplain Management and National Park Service 

guidelines (DO 77-2)for implementing the order, the National Park Service (NPS) has evaluated 

flooding hazards for the development at Rio Grande Village and Cottonwood Campground and has 

prepared this statement of findings (SOF). As an integral part of the effort to develop a general 

management plan (GMP) for the park, the SOF describes the flood hazard, alternatives, impacts, 

mitigation, and informed decisions for the continued use of the two areas. Additional detail regarding 

the park, campground, and future plans may be found in the GMP. 

USE OF THE FLOODPLAIN 

Rio Grande Village is the site of ponds that are the refugium of the endangered fish, gambusia. Visitor 

facilities include a nature trail, visitor center, gas station, store, 100-site campground, and concessioner 

RV campground. Administrative development is comprised of offices in the orientation and 

interpretive center, sewage lagoons, six employee residences, and a maintenance area. The entire 

developed area, including fuel storage tanks at the gas station, maintenance area, and housing area is 

located within the 100-year floodplain as mapped on Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Also within the 100-

year floodplain is an historic adobe house. In the vicinity of Boquillas Canyon are a hot spring that may 

be subject to inundation during high flows and the historic Barker Lodge that may be damaged by 

bank erosion. 

Cottonwood Campground, 35 sites, is located upriver from Rio Grande Village in the Castolon 

historic district. This campground, within the 100-year floodplain according to Flood Insurance Rate 

Maps, is subject to bank loss. 

At Rio Grande Village, the preferred alternative in the general management plan would protect fuel 

storage from the 500-year flood, revegetate 70 acres formerly used for overflow camping, enlarge the 

concessioner RV campground by up to 40% not to exceed 30 total sites, move some campsites to 

better protect the endangered fish, add four offices to the visitor center or construct a new building for 

four offices, construct one fire bay, preserve Barker Lodge for housing, and add four houses if water is 

available, 

At Cottonwood Campground, the preferred alternative of the GMP would relocate 20 campsites away 

from the river (because of bank cave-ins), construct a new access road (1/2 mile long) further from the 

river, and add two new 2-stall Romtech vault toilets. 

Use of the 100-year floodplain for a campgrounds, residences, and maintenance buildings is a class I 

action. Storage of toxic materials (gasoline and other fuels) in the floodplain are class II actions. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

The first alternative, presented to the public in a newsletter, was relocating the campgrounds out of the 

100-year floodplain. Responses were that the park service should not impact a new area when the 

campground is already in place and that responders do not want to camp at a location away from the 

river. Being next to the river and the large cottonwoods in the riparian area is highly valued by 

campers. 

Alternative C in the GMP would remove all development except the main road, a trailhead with 

parking and a restroom, and three trails from Rio Grande Village. (The alternative of removing 

Cottonwood Campground was not considered in any alternative.) This would restore the natural and 

beneficial values of the floodplain, protect campers and employees from the dangers of flood, and 
APPENDIXES

302 

remove the opportunity for visitors to camp and receive interpretation of park resources at Rio 

Grande Village. It would eliminate the need for housing staff and having a maintenance facility at Rio 

Grande Village, and inconvenience those who use the gas station and store. 

FLOOD HAZARD FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

WITHOUT MITIGATION

In November, 1991, Gary Smillie and Mike Martin of Water Resources Division, National Park Service 

conducted flood hazard reconnaissance for the major developments at Big Bend. The following 

information is from the report of that trip. 

In general we found the Rio Grande River [sic] to be functioning in a manner normal for a 

large river in a fairly natural setting. There is abundant evidence of erosion on the outside of 

bends, apparently caused most recently by two fairly large flood events in the past year. 

Channel instability of this type is a natural process and should not necessarily be considered a 

man-caused problem. Placement of riprap or other structural stabilization technique would 

make the Rio Grande function less naturally and may, in fact, cause problems in other 

locations. 

Many of the major developments we visited in BIBE are in the greater floodplain of the Rio 

Grande, however, they will experience flooding only in extremely large (and rare) events. 

Furthermore, flow velocities can be expected to be very low because of hydraulic conditions 

along the river. The gradient of the Rio Grande is low, about 5 feet per mile, and the floodplain 

is very wide. These factors make rapid and dangerous flooding in the areas of visitor and 

concession use almost impossible. The largest flood events that occur in the Rio Grande 

originate from precipitation over a large area and can usually be observed upstream, well in 

advance of arrival to BIBE. Even a very large tributary flood will result in a much smaller 

relative event in the main river. For these reasons, flash flooding on the main river is not a 

great concern. 

In conclusion, we believe that park developments located along the Rio Grande are well 

located from a flood hazard perspective. Bank failure will continue to occur and may 

eventually lead to the need to relocate certain facilities, for example, Cottonwood 

Campground. However, if unstable bank areas are clearly marked, they are of little risk to 

visitors. Bank stabilization such as placement of rip rap in eroding bends, is not recommended 

at this time. Development of a flood warning system based on upstream flow and weather 

information may be practical and provide sufficient time to evacuate visitor and concession 

areas...Additionally, signage and/or pamphlet material explaining flood-related hazards could 

be made available to visitors. 

The fact that the Rio Grande is not subject to flash flooding means that the regulatory floodplain for 

development associated with Cottonwood Campground and Rio Grande Village would be the 100-

year floodplain. The regulatory floodplain for fuel storage, a critical action, is the 500-year floodplain. 

In summary, because flooding occurs only in extremely large and rare events, and flood flow velocities 

are very small, the possibility that visitors could be injured or lose their lives in a flood at Cottonwood 

Campground or Rio Grande Village is very small. The following section describes measures that will be 

taken to minimize this already very small risk. 
Appendix F: Statement of Findings for Floodplains 

303 

THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The National Park Service will continue to operate the campground and all other facilities at Rio 

Grande Village and the campground at Cottonwood. At Rio Grande Village, it would protect fuel 

storage tanks at the gas station, maintenance area and housing area from the 500-year flood, restore 76 

acres formerly used for overflow camping to more natural conditions, enlarge the concessioner RV 

campground by up to 40% not to exceed 30 total sites, move some campsites to better protect the 

endangered fish, add four offices to the visitor center or construct a new building for four offices, 

construct one fire bay, preserve Barker Lodge for housing, and add four houses if water is available. All 

fuel storage tanks would be protected by constructing berms that reached above the level of the 500-

year flood, and securing the fuel storage tanks to the berms. At Cottonwood Campground, the 

preferred alternative of the GMP would relocate 20 campsites away from the river (because of bank 

cave-ins), construct a new access road (1/2 mile long) further from the river, and add two 2-stall 

Romtech vault toilets. 

The National Park Service will develop a campground operational plan for Cottonwood Campground 

and a campground and developed area plan for Rio Grande Village to address flooding threats. The 

plans would address the following points: 

• A decision tree for park staff to minimize the threat to life by clear planning choices 

• Closure conditions: seasonal, watershed saturation, and storm event priorities 

• Notification protocols for park staff, visitors, and campers 

• Training staff, campground hosts, and volunteers in the implementation of the plan 

• Preparation of informational and warning signs, brochures 

• Establishment of formal notification/warning procedures between the park and the National 

Weather Service 

• Heightened awareness periods during monsoon rain months of June, July, August and September, 

especially when the watershed is saturated by previous rains 

• Preemptive night camping closure of the campground using the decision tree 

• Formalization of evacuation routes and mobilization sites for rescue 

• Review and revision of the plan elements every two to three years. 

Some of these points related to flows on the Rio Grande are already included in the 1996 Water 

Resources Management Plan, Big Bend National Park, Texas: 

• Educate public on low-flow and flood hazards through information leaflet distribution and with 

posted warning signs at boat launch sites and popular recreation areas. 

• Take nonstructural and low-cost structural measures to protect flood-prone high use areas. 

• Monitor National Weather Service severe weather and flood warning broadcasts for Amistad 

Reservoir and use as an early warning system for the park. 

• Train park personnel for flood contingency. 

• Use U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System data from telemetered stations 

upstream of the park (as far as the Rio Conchos) in conjunction with studies of flood wave 

propagation along the park boundary to correlate water levels and corresponding discharges at key 

gauging stations between Presidio and Rio Grande Village. 

The proposed action does not represent a new impact upon natural resource, cultural resource, or 

park infrastructure floodplain values in the park. Because of the restoration of 76 acres to more natural 

conditions, even with the addition of four offices, four employee housing units, and a fire bay, it does 

not represent an expansion of impacts on natural resource or park infrastructure floodplain values. It 

does represent an informed decision concerning the continuation of risk to human life that is 
APPENDIXES

304 

minimized by the mitigation contained in the campground and developed area operation plans. The 

risk to human life in the campgrounds and developed area cannot be eliminated entirely. 

If the campground is damaged by future flooding or, as additional camping facilities and are developed 

outside the park, the park staff will consider closing the campgrounds on a seasonal or year-round 

basis, or converting them to day use picnicking only. 

SUMMARY

The National Park Service will continue to operate the 35-site campground at Cottonwood, and the 

100-site campground and other development at Rio Grande Village. It will protect fuel storage at the 

gas station and maintenance area from the 500-year flood, return the 76-acre overflow camping area to 

more natural conditions, enlarge the concessioner RV campground up to a total of 30 sites, and build 

four offices, four employee residences and a fire bay. Selective closure options described in an 

operational plan (campground and developed area operation plan) would lower the threat to life and 

property within the campgrounds and developed area. The park will develop this plan, regularly 

educate staff and visitors in its detail, and periodically review it with any additional relevant weather or 

flooding information that becomes available. 

REFERENCES 

National Park Service 

1992 “Trip Report for Travel to Petroglyph National Monument and Big Bend National Park on 

November 12-17, 1991,” by Bill Jackson, Chief, Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

1993 Floodplain Management Guideline, Washington Office, Washington, D.C. 

1996 Water Resources Management Plan, Big Bend National Park, Texas, Robert D. MacNish and 

Laurel J. Lacher, University of Arizona, Carl M. Fleming, Big Bend National Park, and Mark 

D. Flora, Water Resources Division. 

APPENDIXES

306 

In accordance with Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management and National Park Service 

guidelines for implementing the order, the National Park Service (NPS) has evaluated flooding hazards 

for the development at Panther Junction and has prepared this statement of findings (SOF). As an 

integral part of the effort to develop a general management plan (GMP) for the park, the SOF 

describes the flood hazard, alternatives, impacts, mitigation, and informed decisions for the continued 

use of this area. Additional detail regarding the park, flooding history, and future plans may be found 

in the GMP. 

USE OF THE FLOODPLAIN 

Panther Junction is the location of a visitor center, the principal administrative area for the park 

(headquarters, maintenance, resource office building, collections storage Bally building), gas station, 

store, post office, school and 76 housing units (22 of which are trailers). The entire development is in a 

flash flood prone area. Therefore, according to the NPS Floodplain Management Guideline, 1993, the 

regulatory floodplain is that inundated by the Maximum Estimated Flood (Qme). This is an extremely 

large event with a very low probability of occurrence. It is used as the regulatory floodplain here to 

provide a high degree of safety from runoff events that may inundate an area in a very short time (NPS 

WRD 1995: “Estimation of Flood and Geomorphic Hazard in the Panther Canyon Area of Big Bend 

National Park Texas”). 

The preferred alternative in the GMP is to construct a new visitor center with 100-space parking area, 

construct a storage warehouse, rehabilitate the vacated visitor center area of headquarters for 

additional offices, and move up to 15%of park personnel and functions to gateway communities. A 

dormitory and three-bedroom house would be built to replace housing units removed from Chisos 

Basin. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

The alternative of moving all development out of Panther Junction was considered and rejected 

because of the very high fiscal and natural resource costs of redeveloping infrastructure at another 

location. In addition, Panther Junction is located at the intersection of the roads leading from the two 

park entrances making it the ideal location for the visitor center and administrative facilities for the 

park. The school and associated housing, owned by the San Vicente School District, can only be 

moved by that entity. 

The Chisos Basin development, located in a unique montane ecosystem and experiencing even greater 

problems with water quantity than Panther Junction, was deemed to be a higher priority for structure 

removal. One employee house and the bunkhouse will be removed from Chisos Basin. The employee 

house and bunkhouse will be replaced at Panther Junction. 
Appendix F: Statement of Findings for Floodplains 

307 

FLOOD RISK 

According to a memorandum from Michael Martin, Hydrologist, Water Operations Branch, Water 

Resources Division, National Park Service to Superintendent, Big Bend National Park on the subject of 

“Summary of Panther Junction Flood Hazard,” April 14, 2000: 

All of the structures at PJ are located on the uppermost end of an extensive bajada, or a series of 

coalescing alluvial fans. There are three specific flood related hazards associated with this 

location: bank loss due to erosion, inundation from floodwaters, and destruction from debris 

flows. Additionally, an overriding hazard exists in the long periods between devastating events, 

which may create the illusion of inactivity. Lastly, hazardous flood events, when they do take 

place, may occur in a very short time period due to the relatively small and steep watershed, 

allowing little opportunity for warning or evacuation. Consequently, this area is considered flash 

flood prone, and the resulting regulatory floodplain is the Maximum Estimated Flood (Qme). 

The following information is from “Estimation of Flood and Geomorphic Hazard in the Panther 

Canyon Area of Big Bend National Park, Texas,” (NPS: 1995). 

The calculated design flood discharges for Panther Canyon were 1500, 2895, and 17000 cubic 

feet per second (CFS), for the 100-year, 500-year, and Qme, respectively. Mouse Canyon, with 

its much smaller watershed, produced discharge estimates of 550, 920, and 6000 cfs, for the 

100-year, 500-year, and Qme, respectively. 

Because Mouse Canyon drains a much smaller watershed and the channel itself is far more 

entrenched than Panther Canyon, it was determined that the flood risk associated with 

Panther Canyon is much greater than from Mouse. In fact, the Mouse Canyon channel was 

capable of containing all three design floods. Consequently, Panther Canyon was judged as the 

source of all flood hazard and the following results are restricted to that drainage. 

Estimations of flood stage indicate that the Panther Canyon channel, with its present 

morphology, is capable of containing the 100-year discharge. As a result, the residential 

structures, the school, and the administrative buildings are above the level of this design flood. 

The 500-year discharge is also contained by the upper channel with it’s [sic] present 

morphology. The downstream channel, however, does not contain the 500-year flood and 

structures on the lower fan may be subject to some inundation from this flood. This includes 

the area in the lower fan proposed for future development. The building that contains 

curatorial storage is located adjacent to the channel at an elevation that is very close to that 

predicted for the 500-year flood. The Qme discharge in Panther Canyon would overtop the 

banks and inundate the existing site between both Panther and Mouse Canyons. 

The depths of these design floods in Panther drainage ranged from 3.5 feet for the 100-year 

flood, to 8.5 feet for the Qme (Table 1). Mean channel velocities associated with the three 

design floods ranged from 8 feet per second (fps) for the 100-year event to about 13 fps for the 

Qme. These reported depths and velocities are estimated from one-dimensional flow. Any 

overbank flow, especially on the lower fan, would likely resemble divergent sheetflow and 

have lower depths and velocities... 

Careful field examination was made of Panther Canyon and no indication of previous high 

magnitude flooding was observed.... 
APPENDIXES

308 

Quoting again from a memorandum from Michael Martin, Hydrologist, Water Operations Branch, 

Water Resources Division, National Park Service to Superintendent, Big Bend National Park on the 

subject of “Summary of Panther Junction Flood Hazard,” April 14, 2000: 

Debris Flow Hazard 

To substantiate whether a debris flow threat exists or not, a detailed reconnaissance of the upper 

watershed was conducted with the intent of identifying adverse structure (fractures parallel to 

slopes) and accumulation of material in potential debris flow source areas. We reconnoitered 

Panther Canyon for a distance of over a mile upstream of the housing area. At the confluence of 

Panther and Bovarc Canyons, we proceeded several hundred yards upstream. Above the 

mentioned confluence, we observed large amounts of alluvium and colluvium in Bovarc Canyon. 

However, given the low channel gradient and the relatively great distance, it is unlikely that a 

destructive debris flow could travel to the Panther Junction housing area. The large amount of 

available material, however, could be transported downstream in moderate to high magnitude 

floods, aggrading the incised channel and reducing flood conveyance capacity. Aggradation of 

the incised channel in the PJ area would increase the flood hazard. 

Bank Loss Hazard 

Bank loss in the housing area during times of moderate to high flows may pose a serious threat to 

structures located near the channel. The fan deposit where the development is located is 

composed of unconsolidated material underlain by bedrock at a shallow depth. Consequently, 

downward incision is inhibited and lateral migration of the channel is occurring. Examination of 

the cross-section surveyed in 1995 through the area of greatest bank loss indicates that the crosschannel gradient is towards the housing area. This general tilt of the channel, coupled with the 

shallow bedrock, strongly indicates that bank loss will be an ongoing problem without mitigative 

measures. Structures in close proximity to the incised channel have the highest degree of risk 

from bank collapse. Any site located farther from the channel is less likely to suffer foundation 

collapse due to erosion, but, for long time periods all structures located on the fan are potentially 

at some risk, as the primary channel may be expected to migrate. 

The following information is from “Estimation of Flood and Geomorphic Hazard in the Panther 

Canyon Area of Big Bend National Park, Texas,” (NPS: 1995). 

Summary 

In general, the fan is an undesirable place because it is geomorphically unstable, flood prone, 

and possibly debris prone. This is not to say the residents are at extreme risk. Processes are 

slow in this environment and the present configuration may persist for many years, so any time 

afforded through protection may translate into a long, safe occupancy. Another factor that 

somewhat reduces the risk of catastrophic clear-water floods is the small contributing area of 

the watershed, which limits the amount of runoff and results in moderate, low frequency 

floods. Additionally, no evidence of prior high magnitude flooding, the debris of which would 

likely be preserved for long periods of time in this desert environment, was observed in the 

channel area. 

When viewed in the context of long-term occupancy, the entire development is likely at some 

risk. The channel is actively migrating and bank loss threatens several structures. Buildings 
Appendix F: Statement of Findings for Floodplains 

309 

constructed on the lower portion of the fan, including the curatorial storage building, are 

likely to experience inundation from high magnitude flows. Shifting of the active channel to a 

distributary channel through aggradation would potentially flood portions of the fan far 

removed from the main channel, and the most extreme floods that could be expected from 

this size watershed could inundate the entire area. The hazard of debris flow is not certain, 

but, if possible, could be extremely destructive. 

All of the structures at Panther Junction are at “some risk” according to the report. However, the 

report also seems to indicate that the risk is not great. Nevertheless, because the long period between 

events leads to a false sense of security and warning time would be short, there is the possibility of 

human injury or loss of life in the event of a large flood. In addition, a large investment in 

infrastructure could be lost if the 500-year or Qme does occur. 

The curatorial storage building mentioned in the report and the science and resource building that is 

not mentioned are scheduled for replacement to a location outside the 500-year floodplain of Panther 

Canyon (as described in the cumulative impact scenario) — an action outside the GMP. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The National Park Service will continue to have its principal visitor center, headquarters, 

administrative offices, and housing at Panther Junction. It will construct a new visitor center, with 100-

space parking, storage warehouse, 12-bed dormitory, and three-bedroom house to replace housing 

units removed from Chisos Basin, rehabilitate the headquarters building for additional offices, and 

move up to 15% of park personnel and functions to gateway communities. Removing 15% of park 

personnel and functions out of the park will mean that fewer offices and residences will be needed at 

Panther Junction than if the trend to provide housing and offices for most personnel at Panther 

Junction continued. 

The National Park Service will develop a developed area plan for Panther Junction to address flooding 

threats. The plan would address the following points: 

• A decision tree for park staff to minimize the threat to life by clear planning choices. 

• Closure conditions: seasonal, watershed saturation, and storm event priorities. 

• Notification protocols for park staff, visitors, and others. 

• Training staff, employee families, school children, and volunteers in the implementation of the 

plan. 

• Preparation of informational and warning signs, and brochures. 

• Establishment of formal notification/warning procedures between the park and the National 

Weather Service. 

• Monitor National Weather Service severe thunderstorm warning broadcasts as an early warning 

system for the park. (Water Resources Management Plan language was modified for Panther 

Junction.) 

• Heightened awareness periods during monsoon rain months of June, July, August and September, 

especially when the watershed is saturated by previous rains. 

• Preemptive housing area closure using the decision tree. 

• Formalization of evacuation routes and mobilization sites for rescue. 

• Train park personnel for flood contingency. 

• Review and revision of the plan elements every two to three years. 
APPENDIXES

310 

• Determine if fuel tanks at the maintenance area are out of the 500-year floodplain or protect them 

from the 500-year floodplain. 

Because of removal of 15% of park personnel and functions from Panther Junction, the proposed 

action does not represent a new impact upon natural resource, cultural resource, or park 

infrastructure floodplain values in the park. It does represent an informed decision concerning the 

continuation of risk to human life that is minimized by the mitigation contained in developed area 

operation plan. The risk to human life in the Panther Junction developed area cannot be eliminated 

entirely. 

If the developed area is damaged by flooding or, as additional facilities are developed outside the park, 

the park staff will consider whether replacement facilities would best be sited at Panther Junction, 

other locations in the park, or outside the park. 

SUMMARY 

The National Park Service will continue to have its principal visitor center, headquarters, 

administrative, and housing area at Panther Junction. It will construct a new visitor center, with 100-

space parking, storage warehouse, 12-bed dormitory, and three bedroom house to replace housing 

units removed from Chisos Basin, rehabilitate the headquarters building for additional offices, and 

move up to 15% of park personnel and functions to gateway communities. Removing 15% of park 

personnel and functions out of the park will mean that fewer offices and residences will be needed at 

Panther Junction than if the trend to provide housing and offices for most personnel at Panther 

Junction continued. 

The Park Service will create a developed area warning and evacuation plan to ensure that employees, 

employee families, school children and visitors receive adequate warning so that they suffer no ill 

effects from flooding. It will protect fuel storage at the gas station and maintenance area from the 500-

year flood. Preparation of the developed area warning and evacuation plan would lower the threat to 

life and property within Panther Junction. However, injury or loss of life from flooding could not be 

completely prevented. The park will develop the plan, regularly educate staff and visitors in its detail, 

and periodically review it with any additional relevant weather or flooding information that becomes 

available. 

Note from floodplain guidelines: 

If flood warning and evacuation are planned, both warning and evacuation times should be 

determined. In the event that risk to property of human life cannot be eliminated in high hazard areas, 

even by compliance with this guideline, a clear statement of this situation is required in the SOF. 

REFERENCES 

National Park Service 

1994 Floodplain Management Guideline, Washington Office, Washington, D.C. 

1995 “Estimation of Flood and Geomorphic Hazard in the Panther Canyon Area of Big Bend 

National Park, Texas,” by Mike Martin, Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, Colorado. 
Appendix F: Statement of Findings for Floodplains 

311 

1996 Water Resources Management Plan, Big Bend National Park, Texas, Robert D. MacNish and 

Laurel J. Lacher, University of Arizona, Carl M. Fleming, Big Bend National Park, and Mark D. 

Flora, Water Resources Division. 

2000 Memorandum from Michael Martin, Hydrologist, Water Operations Branch, Water 

Resources Division, National Park Service to Superintendent, Big Bend National Park on the 

subject of “Summary of Panther Junction Flood Hazard,” April 14, 2000. 
312 

APPENDIX G: UNINVESTIGATED POSSIBLE CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

The following 48 landscapes or landscape-related elements were noted in the literature, but were not 

investigated further in the 1999 reconnaissance due to time limitations: 

Sites scattered across the park:

Cartledge’s No. 4 mill with candelilla wax processing plant 

Chilicotal Spring with candelilla wax processing plant 

Croton Spring 

de la Ho’s Spring with candelilla wax processing plant 

Dodson Ranch/Spring/Dodson Trail/house(s)/Outer Mountain Loop/Del 

 Dodson Spring with candelilla wax processing plant 

Graham Ranch 

Grapevine Spring/ranch 

Dominguez Ranch 

Ernst Basin 

Ernst Tinaja 

Fresno 

Fossil bone exhibit 

Grapevine Ranch 

Gravel Pit and La Clocha 

Harte Ranch/North Rosillos Addition 

Juniper Canyon 

Laguna Meadows Cabin 

Marufo Vega Trail 

Maverick Junction/old Maverick Road 

Mule Ear spring/ranch/Mule Ears corral 

Nine Point Draw 

Nugent Mountain 

Oak Springs Ranch 

Paint Gap Ranch 

Panther Junction: headquarters, visitors center, employee housing, school 

Rice Place/cemetery/Ranch (includes the large stock tank) 

Robbers Roost 

Ross Maxwell Scenic Drive 

San Jacinto Spring with Candelilla wax processing plant 

Telephone Canyon 

The route taken by Echols with his camel experimental expedition (ex: Dog Canyon) 

Sites along Rio Grande between Castolon and Mariscal Canyon: 

Buenos Aires 

Smoky Creek 

Black Dike 

Sierra Chino 

Cemetery (unnamed) 

Reed 

Jewels 

Woodson’s; also site of Paso de Chisos Crossing (see Comanche War Trail) 

Pettit’s site 

Pantera site and cemetery 

Talley Ranch with nearby Candelilla wax processing plant 
Appendix G: Uninvestigated Possible Cultural Landscapes 

313 

Sites along Rio Grande between Mariscal Canyon and Hot Springs: 

Solis Landing 

Grave (unnamed) 

Solis Ranch 

Compton Place with Candelilla wax processing plant 

Rooney’s Place 

Casa de Piedra 
314 

APPENDIX H: SOIL TYPES AND LIMITATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT BY 

ALTERNATIVE 

Information in this table comes from Soil Survey staff. 1985 “Soil Survey of Big Bend National Park, 

Part of Brewster County, Texas.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 

Soils with Moderate or Severe Limitations for Actions in Alternative A 

The following areas will require further geotechnical investigation to evaluate suitability and needed 

mitigation prior to design of the listed facilities. 

Developed Area Actions Soil Type 

Chisos Basin •Upgrade water system 

•Place electrical lines 

underground 

Liv-Mainstay-Rock Outcrop Complex, steep (LMF) 

Water erosion is a severe hazard because of steep slopes. 

Excavating for underground utilities is difficult. 

Limitations for shallow excavations – 

 Liv severe: slope 

 Mainstay, severe: depth to rock, slope 

 Rock Outcrop, severe depth to rock, slope 

Rio Grande 

Village 

•Retain campsites, visitor 

center, housing and 

maintenance areas, store, and 

gas station. 

Lozier-Rock outcrop complex, steep (LRF); GlendaleHarkey association, occasionally flooded (GHA); and 

Tornillo loam, occasionally flooded. 

Lozier-rock outcrop, the hazard of water erosion is severe 

because of steep slopes. 

Glendale-Harkey soils are located in the floodplain and 

occasional flooding is the major limitation for campsites, 

picnic areas and building sites. The picnic area and sewage 

lagoons at Rio Grande Village are in the Tornillo soil type. 

During high intensity rainstorms, this soil type is flooded 

by sheet water as much as several inches deep. This brief 

flash flooding occurs about once every 3 to 8 years. Water 

erosion is a severe hazard. 

Limitations on Glendale Harkey – 

 shallow excavations – moderate: flooding 

 small commercial buildings – severe: flooding 

 dwellings without basements – severe: flooding 

 campsites – severe: flooding 

Castolon •Upgrade water and fire 

system. 

Chamberino very gravelly loam, rolling (CHD). 

Limitations for shallow excavations, moderate slope 

Cottonwood 

Campground 

•Retain campsites. Glendale-Harkey association, occasionally flooded 

(GHA); These soils are located in the floodplain and 

occasional flooding is the major limitation for campsites 

and picnic areas. 

North Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch 

No actions in alternative A. Area not covered by 1985 soil survey. 

Persimmon Gap No actions in alternative A. 

Maverick No actions in alternative A. 

Gateway 

communities 

No actions in alternative A. 
Appendix H: Soil Types and Limitations for Development by Alternative 

315 

Soils with Moderate or Severe Limitations for Actions in Alternative B 

The following areas will require further geotechnical investigation to evaluate suitability and needed 

mitigation prior to design of the listed facilities. 

Developed Area Actions Soil Type 

Chisos Basin •Remove one employee 

residence and one 12-bed 

bunkhouse 

Liv-Mainstay-Rock Outcrop Complex, steep (LMF)—

Water erosion is severe because of steep slopes. Hurds 

very cobbly loam (HRF) – Water erosion is a severe 

hazard. 

Limitations for shallow excavations – 

 Liv severe: slope 

 Mainstay, severe: depth to rock, slope 

 Rock Outcrop, severe depth to rock, slope 

Panther Junction •Construct visitor center 

•Construct storage warehouse 

•Rehabilitate headquarters for 

additional offices 

•Construct employee residence, and 12-bed bunkhouse 

•Move up to 15 percent of 

personnel and functions to 

gateway communities 

•Upgrade water system 

Chilicotal-Monterosa association, rolling (CMD) 

Limitations for shallow excavations – 

 Chilicotal: moderate: slope 

 Monterosa: severe: cemented pan, small stones small 

 commercial buildings – severe: slope & cemented 

 pan 

Rio Grande 

Village 

•Relocate some campsites to 

reduce impacts on Gambusia 

•Find and develop an 

alternative water source so that 

endangered fish and people do 

not share the same source. 

•Return former overflow 

camping area to natural 

conditions 

•Enlarge concession 

campground (RV) by 

approximately 40% in area not 

to exceed 30 additional sites. 

Add islands. 

•Construct 4 housing units if a 

water source is found 

•Construct one fire bay 

•Expand visitor center to add 4 

offices or build 4-office 

building 

•Upgrade water system 

Lozier-Rock outcrop complex, steep (LRF); GlendaleHarkey association, occasionally flooded; and Tornillo 

loam, occasionally flooded. For Lozier-rock outcrop, the 

hazard of water erosion is severe because of steep slopes. 

Glendale-Harkey soils are located in the floodplain and 

occasional flooding is the major limitation for campsites, 

picnic areas and building sites. The picnic area and sewage 

lagoons at Rio Grande Village are in the Tornillo soil type. 

During high intensity rainstorms, this soil type is flooded 

by sheet water as much as several inches deep. This brief 

flash flooding occurs about once every 3 to 8 years. Water 

erosion is a severe hazard. 

Limitations on Glendale-Harkey – 

 small commercial buildings – severe: flooding 

 dwellings without basements – severe: flooding 

 campsites – severe: flooding 

Castolon •Construct 2 housing units 

•Construct fire bay 

Chamberino very gravelly loam (CHD) 

Limitations for 

 shallow excavations and dwellings without basements – 

 moderate, slope 

 small commercial buildings – severe: slope 

 
APPENDIXES

316 

Developed Area Actions Soil Type 

Cottonwood 

Campground 

•Relocate some campsites 

farther from the river 

•Construct new egress road 

Glendale-Harkey association (GHA), occasionally 

flooded; these soils are located in the floodplain 

Limitations for 

 campsites – severe: flooding 

 local roads – Glendale severe: flooding, low strength; 

 Harkey, severe: flooding 

North Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch 

•Preserve structures around 

Buttrill Spring 

•Construct interpretive trail at 

Buttrill Spring 

•Possibly construct a Rosillos 

trail 

Area not covered by 1985 soil survey. 

Persimmon Gap •Construct duplex if a water 

source can be found 

Pajarito-Agustin (PAA) at visitor contact station 

Upton-Nickel at trailer site (duplex site) 

Limitations for 

 Dwellings without basements – Upton moderate: 

 cemented pan; Nickel slight 

 Septic tank absorption fields – Upton severe: cemented 

 pan; Nickel severe: percolates slowly 

Maverick •Construct entrance station at 

park boundary 

•Remove existing entrance 

station 

Vieja-Badland complex, rolling (VBD). 

Limitations for 

 Small commercial buildings – Upton, moderate: 

 cemented pan; Nickel, moderate: slope 

 Septic tank absorption fields – severe: depth to rock 

Gateway 

communities 

Construct or lease residences 

and offices (Some of the 15% 

of employees who would be 

moved would rent or buy their 

own residences.) 

Soils with Moderate or Severe Limitations for Actions in Alternative C 

The following areas will require further geotechnical investigation to evaluate suitability and needed 

mitigation prior to design of the listed facilities. 

Developed Area Actions Soil Type 

Chisos Basin •Remove all development 

except main road. 

•Construct trailhead and 

parking 

Liv-Mainstay-Rock Outcrop Complex (LMF), steep (Water 

erosion is a severe hazard because of steep slopes. 

Excavating for underground utilities is difficult.) 

Hurds very cobbly loam (Water erosion is a severe hazard.) 

Limitations for paths and trails – 

 Liv and Mainstay – severe: slope and small stones 

 Rock outcrop – severe: slope 
Appendix H: Soil Types and Limitations for Development by Alternative 

317 

Developed Area Actions Soil Type 

Panther Junction •Construct administration 

building and warehouse, 

•Rehabilitate headquarters 

into a visitor center 

•Moving up to 15 percent of 

personnel and functions to 

gateway communities; 

•Upgrade water system 

Chilicotal-Monterosa association, rolling (Wind and water 

erosion are only slight hazards for Chilicotal and 

Monterosa soils because of gravel on the surface.) 

Limitations for shallow excavations – 

 Chilicotal: moderate: slope 

 Monterosa: severe: slope and cemented pan, small stones 

Limitations for small commercial buildings – 

 Monterosa: severe: slope and cemented pan 

Rio Grande 

Village 

•Remove all development 

except the main road to a day 

use trailhead 

•Extend Hot Springs trail to 

new trailhead, nature trail to 

Boquillas crossing 

Lozier-Rock outcrop complex, steep; Glendale-Harkey 

association, occasionally flooded; and Tornillo loam, 

occasionally flooded. For Lozier-rock outcrop, the hazard 

of water erosion is severe because of steep slopes. GlendaleHarkey soils are located in the floodplain and occasional 

flooding is the major limitation for campsites, picnic areas 

and building sites. During high intensity rainstorms, this soil 

type is flooded by sheet water as much as several inches 

deep. This brief flash flooding occurs about once every 3 to 

8 years. Water erosion is a severe hazard. 

Limitations for 

 Paths and trails – Glendale-Harkey – severe: erodes easily 

Castolon •Construct one fire bay Chamberino very gravelly loam, rolling 

Limitations for 

 shallow excavations – moderate, slope 

 small commercial buildings – severe: slope 

Cottonwood 

Campground 

•Relocate some campsites 

farther from the river 

•Construct new egress road 

Glendale-Harkey association, occasionally flooded; These 

soils are located in the floodplain and occasional flooding is 

the major limitation for campsites, picnic areas and building 

sites. 

Limitations for – 

 campsites – severe: flooding 

 local roads – Glendale severe: flooding, low strength 

 Harkey, severe: flooding 

North Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch 

•Construct interpretive trail 

at Buttrill Spring 

•Possibly construct a Rosillos 

trail 

Area not covered by 1985 soil survey. 

Persimmon Gap None 

Maverick •Construct entrance station at 

park boundary 

•Remove existing entrance 

station 

Vieja-Badland complex, rolling 

Limitations for 

 Small commercial buildings – Upton, moderate: 

 cemented pan; Nickel, moderate: slope 

 Septic tank absorption fields – severe: depth to rock 

Gateway 

communities 

Construct or lease residences 

and offices (some of the 15% 

of employees who would be 

moved would rent or buy 

their own residences.) 
318 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Brewster County, Texas 

1991 Gift Deed assigning 9,269 acres known as 

the Christmas Mountains Ranch to the State 

of Texas, on behalf of the Permanent School 

Fund. 

Dobb, Edwin

2000 “Can Humans Help Other Species Defy 

Extinction?” High Country News, 

December 18. 

International Boundary Water Commission 

(United States and Mexico Sections), the 

National Water Commission of Mexico, and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1994 Binational Study Regarding the Presence of 

Toxic Substances in the Rio Grande/Rio 

Bravo and its Tributaries along the 

Boundary Portion Between the United 

States and Mexico. 250 pp. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior 

1984 Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Proposed Wilderness Classification, Big 

Bend National Park, Texas.

1986 “Land Protection Plan, Big Bend National 

Park, Texas.” 

1989 “Resource Evaluation of the Christmas 

Mountains, Brewster County, Texas. Big 

Bend National Park,” assisted by the 

Southwest Regional Office. 

1992 Memorandum “Trip report for travel to 

Petroglyph National Monument and Big 

Bend National Park on November 12-18, 

1991.” To Chief, Water Resources 

Division, Through Chief, Water 

Operations Branch from Gary Smillie, 

Hydrologist, Water Operations Branch 

and Mike Martin, Hydrologic Technician, 

Water Operations Branch January 3, 1992. 

1992b Memorandum “Floodplain Delineation 

near the Terlingua Abaja Area, Terlingua 

Creek, Big Bend National Park.” To Keith 

Yarborough, Park Scientist, Big Bend 

National Park, From Bill Jackson, Chief, 

Water Operations Branch, Water 

Resources Division. March 3, 1992. 

1993a Floodplain Management Guideline. 

Washington, DC.

1993b Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design. 

1993c “Visitor Services Project, Big Bend 

National Park.” University of Idaho 

Cooperative Park Studies Unit. Visitor 

Services Project Report 45 by Margaret 

Littlejohn. 

1994 Protecting the National Parks in Texas 

through Enforcement of Water Quality 

Standards: An Exploratory Analysis. 

Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR94/18. Prepared for the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, National Park Service by 

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station 

Texas A&M University, College Station, 

TX. Kaiser, R.A., S. E. Alexander, and U.P. 

Hammill. 96 pp. 

1994b Big Bend National Park, Texas, Wildland 

Fire Management Plan. Big Bend National 

Park with assistance from Southwest 

Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

1995 “Estimation of Flood and Geomorphic 

Hazard in the Panther Canyon Area of Big 

Bend National Park, Texas”. Water 

Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO. 

1995b “Executive Summary,” Estimation of 

Flood and Geomorphic Hazard in the 

Panther Canyon Area of Big Bend 

National Park, Texas. Water Resources 

Division, Fort Collins, CO. 

1996 Water Resources Management Plan, Big 

Bend National Park, Texas. Project 

coordinators: Robert D. MacNish and 

Laurel J. Lacher, Arizona Research 

Laboratory for Riparian Studies, 

Department of Hydrology and Water 

Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, 

Arizona; Carl M. Flemming, National 

Park Service, Big Bend National Park, 

Texas and Mark D. Flora, National Park 

Service, Water Resources Division, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

1997a “NPS Strategic Plan, Big Bend National 

Park, Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River.” 

Intermountain Region. 

1997b Resources Management Plan, Big Bend 

National Park 
Bibliography 

319 

1998a National Park Service Procedural Manual 

77-1: Wetland Protection. Technical 

Report NPS/NRWRD/ NRTR-98/203. 

Denver, CO. 

1999 Environmental Assessment for Construction 

of a Curatorial and Research Office 

Facility, Panther Junction Developed Area, 

Big Bend National Park. April 2, 1999. 

Division of Science and Resource 

Management, Big Bend National Park. 

2000a Memorandum “Summary of Panther 

Junction Flood Hazard,” Water 

Resources Division (April 14, 2000). To 

Superintendent, Big Bend National Park, 

Through Bill Jackson, Chief, Water 

Operations Branch, From Michael 

Martin, Hydrologist, Water Operations 

Branch. 

2001a Management Policies 2001. Washington, 

DC. 

2001b Water Conservation Plan for Public Water 

Supplies: Castolon, Chisos Basin, Panther 

Junction, Rio Grande Village, Big Bend 

National Park, Texas. (Internal NPS draft) 

January 2001. 18 pages 

2001c Drought Contingency Plan for Public 

Water Supplies: Castolon, Chisos Basin, 

Panther Junction, Rio Grande Village, Big 

Bend National Park, Texas. (Internal NPS 

draft) January 2001. 11 pages 

2001d “Focus on the Parks” in Arrowhead 

Employees and Alumni Association, Spring 

2001, Vol. 8 #2, pg. 2. 

2002 Environmental Assessment of Effect, Safety

Improvements on Route 12, Mile 14, Project 

PRA BIBE 12 (2) Rio Grande Road, Big 

Bend National Park, Texas. January 2002 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, and National Parks and Conservation 

Association 

2001a “Big Bend National Park Business Plan”. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 

2001 Personal communication August 7, 2001, 

Texas State Office, Temple, Texas. Sam 

Brown (no prime and unique farmlands at 

Big Bend National Park). 

Protected Area for Flora and Fauna, Canon 

Santa Elena, Mexico 

1998 Management Program 

Protected Area for Flora and Fauna, Maderas 

del Carmen, Mexico 

1998 Management Program

Texas Natural Resources Conservation 

Commission 

1994 Regional Assessment of Water Quality in the 

Rio Grande Basin Including the Pecos 

River, the Devil’s River, the Arroyo 

Colorado, and the Lower Laguna Madre.

Watershed Management Division, Austin, 

Texas. 337 pp 

Texas Parks and Wildlife 

1994 Big Bend Ranch State Natural Area, 

Management Plan, 45 pp 

1995 TORP (Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan), 

Assessment and Policy Plan, Consumer 

Research, Austin, Texas. 191 pp 

2002 Land and Water Resources Conservation 

and Recreation Plan, at www.tpwd.state. 

tx.us/plan/pdfs/land_water_plan_final_ 

full.pdf 

Texas Water Commission 

1992 Regional Assessment of Water Quality in the 

Rio Grande Basin Including the Pecos 

River, the Devil’s River, the Arroyo 

Colorado, and the Lower Laguna Madre, 

Standards and Assessments Division, 

Austin, TX, GP 92-02, November, 207 

pages plus appendixes 

U.S Environmental Protection Agency 

1998 Environmental Justice Guidance. From the 

Internet at http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ofa/ 

ejepa.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department 

of the Interior 

1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States. Prepared for 

the USFWS by Lewis M. Cowardin 

(USFWS), Virginia Carter (USGS), 

Francis C. Golet (Univ. of RI), and 

Edward T. LaRoe (NOAA). Reprint 1992. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

320 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 

1985 Soil Survey of Big Bend National Park, Part 

of Brewster County, Texas. By Rex A. 

Cochran and Jerry L. Rives. 

University of Colorado, The Center for 

Advanced Decision Support in Water and 

Environmental Systems; The Houston Advanced 

Research Center; Institute for Social and 

Environmental Transition; Instituto 

Technologico de Estudios Superiores de 

Monterrey (The Monterrey Institute of 

Technology; The Environmental and Societal 

Impacts Group at the National Center for 

Atmospheric Research; The Natural Heritage 

Institute; The Freshwater Initiative of The 

Nature Conservancy, The University of New 

Mexico; Center for Environmental Resource 

Management, The University of Texas at El 

Paso; Utah State University, World Wildlife 

Fund; and additional Mexican Counterpart 

Institutions to be Identified 

2000 A Physical Assessment of the Opportunities 

for Improved Management of the Water 

Resources of the Bi-National Rio Grande 

Basin. 

Wuerthner, G. 

1989 Texas’ Big Bend Country. American 

Geographic Publishing, Helena, Montana. 

104 pp. 
321 

PREPARERS 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Denver Service Center 

John Paige, Cultural Resource Specialist — 

overall project coordination, analysis of 

cultural resources, costs 

Mary Magee, Natural Resource Specialist — 

natural resource and regional planning 

analysis, statements of findings for 

floodplains 

Harpers Ferry Center

Paul Lee, Interpretive Planner — visitor use and 

visitor experience analysis and affected 

environment 

Big Bend National Park 

John King, Superintendent — overall park 

management 

Frank Deckert, former Superintendent — 

overall park management 

Lou Good, Management Assistant — park 

coordination of general management 

planning 

Vidal Davila, Chief, Science and Resource 

Management — natural and cultural resource 

information 

Jim Erickson, Chief Facilities Management — 

facilities and water use 

Lisa Bigley, Chief of Interpretation and Visitor 

Services — interpretive and visitor service 

concerns, themes, impacts 

Todd Brindle, Chief of Visitor and Resource 

Protection — visitor protection needs and 

impacts 

Raymond Skiles, Wildlife Biologist — natural 

resource concerns and impacts 

Betty Alex, GIS Specialist — maps 

Tom Alex, Archeologist — cultural resource 

concerns and impacts 

Joe Sirotnak, Botanist — threatened and 

endangered species 

Carol Purchase, Hydrologist — water resource 

issues 

Other (Peer Reviewers) 

Ellis Richard, Superintendent, Guadalupe 

Mountains National Park 

Bill Wellman, Superintendent, Organ Pipe 

Cactus National Park 

Publication Services 

Linda Ray, Technical Specialist, Denver Service 

Center 

Christy Fischer, Writer-Editor, Denver Service 

Center 

CONSULTANTS 

National Park Service

Pete Biggam, Soil Scientist, Natural Resource 

Program Center, Inventory and Monitoring 

Program 

Mike Martin, Hydrologist, Water Operations 

Branch, Water Resources Division, 

Washington Office 

John Reber, Air and Water Resource 

Coordinator, Intermountain Region 

Laura Hudson, Former Program Manager for 

Threatened and Endangered Species, 

Intermountain Region 

Other 

Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. of Parsons 

Infrastructure and Technology Group Inc. — 

Steve Miller and Brian Farris, socioeconomic 

affected environment and environmental 

impacts 
322 

INDEX 

air quality, 12, 13, 27, 50 

American Indian(s), 4, 8, 9, 14, 32, 33, 34, 35, 

85, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 122, 148, 197, 205, 

206 

automobile, 141 

campground(s), 8, 9, 17, 24, 48, 51, 59, 60, 62, 

72, 79, 81, 84, 87, 88, 89,90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 99, 

103-105, 107, 108, 110, 112, 121, 124, 125, 

127, 131, 140, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155-158, 

162-167, 169, 170, 172, 173-175, 177, 179, 

180, 181-185, 187, 190, 191, 194, 196, 198, 

199, 200-202, 206, 208 

camping, 24, 44, 47, 62, 89, 99, 105, 121, 122, 

125, 131, 133, 140, 152, 166, 168, 173, 198, 

201, 205 

carrying capacity, 37 

Chisos Basin, 9, 50, 51, 53, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70, 

71, 72, 73, 79, 80, 81, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 

96, 99, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 118, 

121, 122, 125, 131, 140, 141, 150, 152, 153, 

154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 164, 166, 

167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 

177, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 

188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 

198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 205, 208, 291, 292, 

293, 294, 306, 309, 310, 314, 315, 316, 319 

Chisos Mountains, 4, 59, 71, 104, 105, 110, 114, 

118, 119, 121, 124, 125, 131, 291, 292, 295 

Christmas Mountains, 43, 81, 82, 134, 139, 318 

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 118, 150, 

151, 152, 153, 155, 167-168, 170-173, 184, 

185, 187, 189, 190, 191, 196, 200, 201 

construction, 12, 15, 24, 38, 48, 49, 50, 52, 70, 

71, 80, 84, 85, 87, 91, 96, 100, 116, 117, 120, 

131, 139, 141, 145, 148, 151, 152, 153, 154, 

155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 

165, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 

177, 179, 180, 182, 184, 185, 187, 189, 190, 

192, 194, 195, 197, 199, 201, 202, 206 

cultural resources, 4, 7, 10, 12, 26, 33, 38, 43, 

44, 45, 60, 69, 72, 79, 85, 89, 99, 116, 143, 144, 

145, 147, 148, 162, 188, 198, 205, 206 

endangered species, see threatened and 

endangered species 

environmental justice, 14 

erosion, 8, 19, 24, 28, 47, 84, 91, 104, 105, 106, 

107, 111, 117, 121, 140, 150, 151, 152, 166, 

167, 183, 184 

ethnographic resources, 10, 33, 34, 48, 85, 98, 

144, 147, 161, 178, 197 

fire, 27, 30, 50, 51, 72, 79, 88, 89, 97, 116, 141, 

147, 156, 158, 159, 160, 166, 167, 173, 175, 

183, 192, 206 

flood(s), 13, 15, 24, 51, 84, 89, 91, 95, 104, 105, 

110, 111, 112, 125, 142, 150, 151, 156, 157, 

164, 167, 173, 174, 181, 191, 192, 200 

flooding, 24, 35, 95, 99, 104, 105, 111, 112, 117, 

156, 157, 163, 164, 165, 173, 174, 175, 180, 

181, 182, 191, 192, 193, 198, 199, 200, 201 

floodplains, 10, 24, 84, 140, 142, 143, 155, 156, 

157, 163, 165, 174, 180, 182, 192, 198, 202 

forest, 10 

gravel, 104, 105 

hiking, 24, 44, 47, 131, 133 

interpretation, 7, 8, 28, 35, 37, 38, 48, 50, 51, 61, 

62, 70, 72, 80, 86, 87, 117, 122, 161, 163, 165, 

179, 206 

landowners, 44, 135 

National Environmental Policy Act, 7, 10, 83, 

144, 145, 208 

National Historic Preservation Act, 7, 10, 17, 

32, 33, 34, 35, 120, 144, 160, 205 

National Register of Historic Places (national 

register), 32, 34, 35, 51, 60, 61, 72, 79, 85, 90, 

116, 117, 118, 144, 145, 146, 147, 159, 160, 

177, 181, 195, 200, 205, 206 

Native American, see American Indian(s) 

natural resources, 13, 24, 33, 38, 44, 45, 50, 51, 

61, 71, 79, 87, 90, 98, 114, 142, 156, 157, 162, 

174, 179, 180, 192, 197, 199 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch, 17, 26, 51, 57, 59, 

60, 62, 67, 69, 71, 72, 77, 79, 81, 87, 105, 107, 

108, 141, 151, 152, 153, 154, 166, 167, 169, 

171, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 193, 194 

orientation, 8, 11, 48, 61, 70, 79, 148 

Panther Junction, 9, 12, 24, 35, 50, 51, 54, 60, 

61, 62, 64, 70, 72, 74, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 88, 95, 

96, 98, 99, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 

121, 122, 125, 140, 141, 150, 151, 152, 156, 

157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 

167, 170, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 181, 

182, 183, 184, 188, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 

197, 198, 200, 201, 202, 206, 208 

parking, 9, 17, 21, 24, 37, 49, 72, 88, 89, 92, 121, 

125, 140, 141, 183, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191, 

193, 196, 198 
Index 

323 

ranch(es), 60, 115, 119, 120, 121, 127 

ranching, 60, 117, 119, 120, 133, 139, 140, 150, 

151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 167, 168, 

169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 184, 185, 186, 

187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194 

Rio Grande, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21, 

24, 25, 30, 35, 44, 50, 51, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 

69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 79, 80, 81, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 

93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 

108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 

119, 121, 122, 125, 127, 131, 132, 133, 139, 

140, 141, 142, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 

156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 

166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 

175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 

185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 

194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 

206 

section 106, see National Historic Preservation 

Act 

soil(s), 8, 12, 19, 51, 60, 72, 84, 90, 91, 103, 104, 

105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 140, 142, 150, 151, 

152, 166, 167, 168, 183, 184, 185 

threatened and endangered species, 11, 17, 23, 

50, 83, 84, 85, 122, 155, 172, 173, 190, 191 

traffic, 13, 91, 94, 117, 150, 151, 152, 153, 170, 

172, 187, 189, 191 

trail(s), 9, 35, 37, 44, 47, 48, 60, 71, 72, 84, 89, 

90, 91, 104, 105, 112, 118, 119, 121, 122, 125, 

133, 135, 140, 150, 151, 152, 162, 166, 167, 

168, 169, 170, 176, 179, 183, 184, 185, 186, 

187, 194, 198, 205 

vegetation, 4, 9, 10, 20, 21, 25, 30, 44, 79, 84, 90, 

92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 103, 106, 107, 109, 110, 

112, 121, 140, 141, 142, 146, 150, 151, 152, 

157, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 173, 174, 

175, 177, 178, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 

187, 188, 190, 191, 193, 194, 201 

vehicle(s), 13, 17, 49, 152, 189, 205 

viewshed(s), 43, 51, 62, 82, 88, 118, 119, 134 

visitor experience, 4, 7, 8, 11, 17, 29, 36, 43, 46, 

48, 59, 69, 70, 80, 87, 99, 148, 162, 163, 164, 

179, 180, 198, 199, 201 

visitors, 4, 7, 11, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 28, 29, 32, 36, 

37, 38, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 59, 61, 70, 71, 83, 87, 

89, 93, 94, 95, 99, 109, 112, 122, 124, 125, 131, 

140, 148, 150, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 162, 

163, 164, 165, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 179, 

180, 181, 182, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 

193, 198, 199, 200, 201 

visual intrusions, 162, 179 

water quality, 9, 12, 13, 21, 50, 84, 133 

water quantity, 10, 94, 142, 143, 153, 154, 171, 

172, 188, 189 

wetlands, 10, 24, 25, 27, 84, 94, 96, 112, 142, 

143, 156-158, 174, 175, 190-194 

wildlife, 8, 9, 10, 16, 20, 43, 44, 50, 93, 107, 108, 

109, 134, 140, 142, 143, 148, 152, 153, 165, 

169, 170, 171, 175, 182, 185, 186, 187, 188, 

189, 193, 201 
324 

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. 

NPS D-223A May 2004