AFFECTED

ENVIRONMENT

T. Smith

Bill Chambers Phil Nichols

B. Dann
103 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

SETTING 

Big Bend National Park comprises 801,000 acres 

in southern Brewster County in southwestern 

Texas in the northernmost portion of the 

Chihuahuan Desert. The Chihuahuan is the 

largest of North America’s four deserts. The 

name Big Bend is applied to the area that is 

bordered on three sides by the Rio Grande. The 

park is only a part of this area. The elevation 

ranges from about 1,700 feet at the point where 

the Rio Grande leaves the park to 7,825 feet on top 

of Emory Peak. Big Bend National Park is known 

for its scenic beauty, which ranges from stark 

seemingly barren wastelands to majestic forested 

mountains to gigantic canyons. Visitors also come 

to observe the flora and fauna, much of which is 

typical of the Chihuahuan Desert. 

Although water resources dot the landscape and 

flash floods occur after heavy rains, the Rio 

Grande provides the park’s most prominent 

source of water (http://www.nps.gov/bibe/ 

riogrand.htm 8/20/01). 

The Rio Grande defines the park’s southern 

boundary for 118 miles. A 196-mile portion of the 

Rio Grande, designated as part of the Wild and 

Scenic River system, is administered by the park. 

Only 69 miles of the Wild and Scenic River are 

within the park boundary. The remaining 127 

miles are downstream of the park. 

Big Bend National Park is a UNESCO-designated 

Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Reserve 

representing the Chihuahuan Desert. 

SOILS 

The following discussion describes the soils in 

the areas that would be affected by implementing actions proposed in the alternatives of 

this general management plan. All of the information regarding soil resources came from the 

Soil Survey of Big Bend National Park, Part of 

Brewster County, Texas (U.S. Soil Conservation 

Service 1985). 

The soils in Big Bend National Park occur in an 

orderly pattern that is related to the geology, 

landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation 

of the area. These soils are delineated on soil 

survey maps and depicted as soil map units. For 

each soil map unit the soil survey provides 

specific information regarding a wide variety of 

uses and management issues. 

Topsoil in the park is virtually nonexistent. 

Instead, subsoils, containing higher concentrations of calcium carbonate and sodium, are 

exposed. This is an important factor in efforts to 

revegetate disturbed areas, especially in the 

extremely arid conditions at the park. 

In the following descriptions of limitations of 

soils at specific locations in the park, only those 

limitations that apply to actions in one or more 

alternatives are discussed. For example, because 

no campground is considered in any alternative 

for Panther Junction, no soil limitations for 

campgrounds are described for Panther 

Junction. However, because buildings are 

proposed for Panther Junction in one or more 

alternatives, limitations for building foundations 

are described. 

Chisos Basin 

According to the soil survey, one soil map unit 

occurs within the developed area: LMF LivMainstay-Rock Outcrop Complex, steep. 

The Liv-Mainstay-Rock Outcrop Complex, 

steep, covers all of the developed area except the 

route of the road to the Basin; it consists of 

shallow and deep, very cobbly, and very gravelly 

soils with areas of exposed rock outcrop on 

igneous hills and mountains. Slopes are steep, 

generally ranging from 20% to 45%, although 

they can range from 8% to vertical rock walls. 

Elevation of this soil ranges from 5,000 to about 

6,200 feet. Stones and large boulders that have 

fallen from igneous rock ledges are scattered 

across the surface of these areas. The soils are 

well drained. Surface runoff is rapid. Water 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

104 

erosion is a severe hazard because of steep 

slopes. Slopes, stones, and depth to bedrock 

make excavating for foundations, septic systems, 

and underground utilities difficult. 

Panther Junction 

At this area near the base of the Chisos Mountains, soils are CMD-Chilicotal-Monterosa 

association, rolling. They consist of deep, 

shallow and very shallow, very gravelly and 

cobbly soils on rolling uplands. They are on 

ballenas, or rounded ridges, partial ballenas, and 

piedmont slopes of 3% to 8% . The landscape is 

incised with frequent drainage ways that have 

side slopes of mostly 8% to 20%. The soil 

surface has a desert pavement of igneous gravel. 

Chilicotal soils make up about 60% of the map 

unit, and occur on concave side slopes of drainageways and the concave and more sloping parts 

of ridges. Monterosa soils, located on convex 

ridgetops, make up about 20% of the unit. The 

remaining 20% of the soil map unit is Pantera 

and Tornillo soils in drainage ways; reddish 

colored shales and clays along side slopes of 

larger drainageways; sandstone outcrops along 

drains; and igneous rock dikes and outcrops. 

Chilocotal soils are well drained. Surface runoff 

is medium. Wind and water erosion are only 

slight hazards because of gravel on the surface. 

Limitations for excavating for foundations are 

moderate because of slope; for septic systems 

slight. No data is provided for limitations for 

underground utilities. 

Monterosa soils are well drained. Surface runoff 

is medium. Because of the gravel and cobbles on 

the surface, wind and water erosion are only 

slight hazards. The cemented pan of the Monterosa soils presents some problems in excavating 

for foundations, septic systems, and underground utilities. The short, steep slopes present 

problems in leveling areas for building sites. 

Rio Grande Village 

There are two soil map units that might be 

affected at Rio Grande Village: GHA-GlendaleHarkey and TOA-Tornillo loam, occasionally 

flooded. 

Glendale-Harkey soils are deep, well drained, 

and located on the floodplain of the Rio Grande, 

along the southern border of the park. Slopes 

range from 0% to 2%. Heavy rains on the Rio 

Conchos in Mexico and other watersheds cause 

the Rio Grande, to overflow its banks and flood 

areas with these soils with 1 to 10 feet of water. 

Flooding occurs about once every three to five 

years. Inundation usually lasts from 2 to 20 days. 

Thin layers of fresh alluvium are deposited 

during each flood. The mapped areas are long 

and narrow. The ranger station and campground 

are located in this soil type. 

Both Glendale and Harkey soils are well drained 

with slow to medium surface runoff and 

moderate wind erosion hazard. Occasional 

flooding is the major limitation for campsites 

and picnic areas. The soils are highly erodible if 

used for paths and trails. The major limitation 

for building sites is the hazard of flooding, which 

is difficult to overcome. 

Tornillo loam, occasionally flooded, consists of 

a deep, nearly level and gently sloping soil on 

broad alluvial flats on valley floors. Slopes range 

from 0% to 3%. 

Tornillo soil is well drained. Surface runoff is 

slow to medium. This soil receives runoff from 

areas higher on the landscape, and during high 

intensity rainstorms it is flooded by sheet water 

as much as several inches deep. This brief flash 

flooding occurs about once every three to eight 

years. The surface of the soil crusts and seals 

over so that most of the rainfall runs off and 

water enters the soil very slowly. This soil is very 

erosive and has narrow, deep arroyos in many 

areas. Wind erosion is a moderate hazard, and 

water erosion is a severe hazard. 

The possibility of flash flooding precludes the 

use of these areas for building sites. Dirt roads 

that cross arroyos are difficult to maintain. 
Natural Resources 

105 

Flooding makes limitations for camping areas 

severe and slight for picnic areas, paths, and 

trails. 

Limitations for shallow excavations are slight. 

Limitations for dwellings and small buildings are 

severe because of flooding. 

The picnic area, visitor center, gas station, 

maintenance area, employee housing, and 

sewage lagoons at Rio Grande Village are in this 

soil type. 

Since the 1985 soils survey, several dams have 

been constructed on the Rio Conchos in 

Mexico. Because the Rio Conchos is the source 

of most of the water in the Rio Grande at Big 

Bend National Park, these dams make the 

danger of flooding at Rio Grande Village and 

Cottonwood Campground much smaller than it 

was at the time of preparation of the soil survey. 

Castolon 

The soil map unit is CHD-Chamberino very 

gravelly loam. Most areas are between the 

Chisos Mountains and the Rio Grande on fan 

piedmonts, or broad alluvial fans that have many 

shallow drainageways from 3 to 10 feet deep and 

10 to 60 feet wide. Slopes are dominantly 1% to4% and several hundred feet long. Short slopes 

along drainageways are as much as 8%. 

The Chamberino soil is well drained. Surface 

runoff is medium. Wind and water erosion are 

only slight hazards because of the cobbles and 

gravel on the surface. 

The existing employee housing and historic 

district are in this soil type. Limitations for 

shallow excavations and dwellings without 

basements are moderate because of slope. 

Cottonwood Campground 

The soil map unit at Cottonwood Campground 

is GHA-Glendale-Harkey (floodplain). For a 

discussion of this soil type, including flood 

hazard, see “Soils, Rio Grande Village” above. 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 

This area, added to the park since 1985, was not 

mapped as part of the park soil survey. It is, 

however, being mapped by the 2002 soil 

mapping project. 

Persimmon Gap 

The visitor contact station at Persimmon gap is 

in the PAA —Pajarito-Agustin map unit, gently 

sloping, and the trailer is in the UNC —UptonNickel map unit. 

The Pajarito-Agustin association consists of 

deep, well-drained soils on uplands. No dependable water sources are available. Pajarito soils 

make up 40% of this soil map unit, Agustin 40%, 

and other types 20%. Pajarito and Agustin soils 

are well drained. Surface runoff is very slow in 

Pajarito and slow in Agustin. Water erosion is 

moderate in Pajarito and slight in Agustin. Wind 

erosion is a moderate hazard in both types. 

These soils have few or no limitations for 

building sites. Seepage can be a problem for 

septic systems in some areas. 

The Upton-Nickel map unit, undulating, consists of deep, shallow, and very shallow, gravelly 

and very gravelly soils on broad dissected 

piedmont slopes. Slopes are mostly 1%-6%. 

Upton and similar soils make up about 80% of 

the map unit, Nickel about 15%, and other types 

about 5%. Upton soils are on gently sloping 

piedmont ridges. Nickel soils are along the 

gently sloping to strongly sloping drainageways. 

Both soils are well drained, and surface runoff is 

medium. For both Upton and Nickel, wind and 

water erosion are only slight hazards because of 

gravel on the surface. 

The major limitations for building sites are the 

small stones and the cemented caliche layer at a 

shallow depth in the Upton soils, which makes 

excavating for foundations, septic systems, and 

underground utilities difficult. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

106 

Maverick and Potential Site 

for New Entrance Station 

Soil here is in the VBD–Vieja-Badland, rolling 

map unit. These soils are very shallow and 

shallow, very gravelly clayey soils and badland in 

areas where geologic materials are exposed. 

They are on uplands and in valleys. Slopes are 

mostly 2%-15% but are as much as 35%. Vieja 

soils make up about 65% of this map unit, 

Badland about 15%, and other types about 20%. 

Vieja soils are well drained. Surface runoff is 

rapid. Wind and water erosion are moderate 

hazards. 

Badland soils consist of barren, eroding geologic 

exposures. Surface runoff is very rapid, and little 

or no water enters the soil. Wind erosion is a 

slight hazard. Water erosion is a severe hazard. 

Badland soils produce much sediment. 

Limitations for small commercial buildings are 

severe for Vieja soils because of slope and severe 

for Badland soils because of slope and depth to 

rock. Limitations for dwellings without basements are moderate for Vieja soils because of 

slope and depth to rock and severe for Badland 

soils because of slope and depth to rock. 

Limitations for septic tank absorption fields are 

severe for both soil types because of depth to 

rock. In Badland soils limitations are also severe 

because of slope. 

VEGETATION 

Chisos Basin 

The Chisos Basin is an intermountain basin with 

woodland-grassland vegetation. Many endemic 

and unusual species of trees, such as the 

drooping juniper, grow here. Vegetation on LivMainstay-Rock Outcrop Complex soils includes 

pinyon pine, gray oak, Graves oak, Emory oak, 

Chisos red oak, drooping juniper, oneseed 

juniper, alligator juniper, Texas madrone, green 

agave, sotol, lechuguilla, prickly pear, skeletonleaf goldeneye, whitethorn acacia, sideoats 

grama, cane bluestem, buffalograss, green 

sprangletop, dropseeds, and tridens. 

On Hurd soils, the vegetation includes Mexican 

pinyon pine, redberry juniper, Gambel oak, 

catclaw, foothill basketgrass, Mexican sagewort, 

wolftail, deer muhly, bracken fern, little 

bluestem, hairy grama, and cane bluestem. There 

are a few of the scarce Texas madrone trees. 

Trees and other mixed prairie-type vegetation 

make this one of the most beautiful and scenic 

units in the park. 

Panther Junction 

Vegetation in the Panther Junction area is brush 

grassland. Sotol and ceniza are the major brush 

species. Chino grama is the dominant grass. 

Other vegetation is lechuguilla, ocotillo, whitethorn acacia, mariola, prickly pear, ephedra, 

skeletonleaf goldeneye, guayacan, red grama, 

and sideoats grama. 

Rio Grande Village 

At Rio Grande Village on Glendale-Harkey soils 

vegetation includes saltcedar, mesquite, cottonwood, willow, tree tobacco, whitebrush, spiny 

aster, Bermudagrass, and common and giant 

reed. The vegetation is dense in most areas. 

At Rio Grande Village, Tornillo soils cover 

broad, gently sloping areas that are mostly bare 

except for creosotebush. Some of the low, nearly 

level areas, where water stands after rains, 

support pockets of grass. Vegetation includes 

creosotebush, mesquite, lechuguilla, mariola, 

fourwing saltbrush, and tasajillo. The brush is 

scattered and much of the surface is bare. 

Grasses are scattered tobosa, burrograss, fluffgrass, threeawns, and sixweeks grama. There are 

small coppice dunes around the bases of the 

brushy plants. 

Castolon 

On Chamberino-Chilocotal-Upton soils at 

Castolon, much of the surface is bare. Creosotebush, generally small and stunted, is the dominant vegetation. Clumps of dog cacti and 

patches of lechuguilla are scattered across the 

surface. This soil supports a sparse stand of 
Natural Resources 

107 

vegetation. The woody vegetation includes 

lechuguilla, dog cacti, creosote bush, leatherstem, prickly pear, and range ratany. Grasses are 

chino grama, threeawns, fluffgrass, and slim 

tridens. The lack of available seed sources, the 

dominance of creosotebush, and high ground 

temperatures during the summer make 

reestablishment of grasses difficult. 

Cottonwood Campground 

For a description of vegetation in this area, see 

“Vegetation at Rio Grande Village on GlendaleHarkey Soils” above. 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 

The following description comes from the 

“Draft Wilderness Suitability Assessment, 

Appendix E. 

Three vegetation communities dominate the 

area — desert shrublands, remnant grasslands, 

and degraded former-grasslands. Much of the 

area consists of shallow, rocky soils that support 

native Chihuahuan Desert shrublands 

dominated by creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), 

with varying amounts of interspersed grama 

(Bouteloua spp.) grass. Small patches of intact 

Tornillo loam flatlands support native grasslands 

dominated by tobosa (Hilaria mutica), Chloris, 

and bluestem (Bouteloua spp.) grasses. Over 

large areas, the organic horizon of Tornillo loam 

soil has been lost to erosion and vegetation is 

sparse or absent. 

In gully systems and associated man-made 

diversions and water catchment structures, 

exotic Johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense) is 

prevalent. 

Well-developed native riparian plant 

communities can be found at several natural 

springs in the North Rosillos area, most notably 

at the Buttrill Spring complex. These riparian 

islands are important for maintaining landscapelevel biodiversity in the area. 

Persimmon Gap 

The Pajarito-Agustin association, gently sloping 

soil type (visitor contact station) is dominated by 

shrub vegetation, mostly creosotebush. Other 

vegetation is lechuguilla, tasajillo, prickly pear, 

dog cacti, and mariola and some scattered chino 

grama and threeawns. 

The dominant plant on the Upton-Nickel soil 

association (trailer) is creosote bush. The sparse 

vegetation also includes lechuguilla, mariola, 

ceniza, candelilla, dog cacti, prickly pear, and 

ephedra, as well as grasses such as chino grama, 

threeawn, fluffgrass, slim tridens, and sixweeks 

grama. 

Maverick and Potential Site 

for New Entrance Station 

The Vieja soils have sparse vegetation of stunted 

creosotebush, fluffgrass, dog cacti, and sixweek 

grama. Various fast-growing, short-lived annuals 

appear after rainstorms in some areas. Badland 

soils are mostly barren of vegetation. 

WILDLIFE 

The following describes wildlife at areas that 

may be impacted by actions of alternatives in this 

general management plan. 

Chisos Basin 

Areas with Liv-Mainstay-Rock Outcrop Complex soils are used by the endemic Carmen 

Mountains whitetail deer for food and shelter. 

Javelina make limited use of areas along 

drainages. Mountain lions use some areas for 

hunting and dens. Fox, ringtails, and rock 

squirrels den in the area. Raptors use the high 

mountains for food, cover, lookout points, and 

nesting. Peregrine falcons sometimes nest on the 

high rocky cliffs. Perching (passerine) birds, 

including the black-capped vireo, use portions 

of the Chisos Basin for food, cover, and nesting. 

On Hurd soils, mule deer range at lower elevations and Carmen Mountains whitetail deer at 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

108 

higher ones. There is a good variety and quantity 

of forage for deer. Mountain lions hunt here, 

and many perching birds nest and feed in the 

area. 

A few springs in the Chisos Basin provide water 

for wildlife. On the Hurd soil type there are no 

springs. 

Panther Junction 

Mule deer and javelina use the Panther Junction 

area as home ranges. The lechuguilla and other 

shrubs provide a good variety and quantity of 

food. Coyote and fox use the area for hunting 

and dens. Rodents, snakes, and lizards also den 

here. Perching birds use the area for food, cover, 

and nesting. 

Springs in at various places throughout the 

Panther Junction area provide water for wildlife. 

Rio Grande Village 

On the Glendale-Harkey soils map unit, the Rio 

Grande, which forms one boundary of the Rio 

Grande Village, provides ample water for 

wildlife. A few mule deer and javelina use the 

areas of these soils at Rio Grande Village for 

food and shelter. Mexican beaver burrow in the 

riverbank and feed on willows and other trees. 

Coyotes hunt and make dens. Rodents, snakes, 

and lizards den here. Many perching birds use 

the soils map unit for food, shelter, and nesting. 

Where there are Tornillo soils, there are no 

springs or other permanent water sources, 

causing the area to have limited use by most 

wildlife. Mule deer and javelina occasionally 

cross areas of Tornillo soils, but do not use them 

for home ranges. Rodents, snakes, and lizards 

use the area for dens. A few perching birds use 

the area for food and nesting. 

Castolon 

Use by wildlife is limited. A few mule deer and 

javelina feed on lechuguilla and woody shrubs, 

but do not make these areas their normal home 

range. Rodents, snakes, and lizards use these 

desert areas for food and shelter, and a few 

passerine birds use this area for food, shelter, 

and nesting sites. 

There are no springs or other permanent water 

sources for wildlife. 

Cottonwood Campground 

For a description of wildlife in this area, see 

“Wildlife, Rio Grande Village on GlendaleHarkey soils” above. 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 

The following description comes from the 

“Draft Wilderness Suitability Assessment” 

(appendix E). 

Desert and mountain transition zones of the area 

provide suitable habitat for a suite of 

Chihuahuan desert wildlife, including desert 

mule deer, Carmen white-tail deer, mountain 

lion, bobcat, coyote, fox, occasional black bear, 

and numerous other mammals. Higher 

elevations of the Rosillos Mountains contain 

one of the few small populations of Carmen 

white-tailed deer, and the area is expected to 

host an expanding population of desert bighorn 

sheep being reintroduced to the nearby Black 

Gap Wildlife Management Area. 

The lowland Tornillo soils are habitat for the 

park’s greatest diversity of amphibian species. At 

least six species are adapted to reproducing in 

the area’s intermittent pools and surviving long 

dry periods underground. Three additional 

species associate with permanent springs and 

rocky habitats of the Rosillos Mountains. 

Habitat diversity of the North Rosillos area 

makes reptiles the most abundant terrestrial 

vertebrate group. The 37 documented reptile 

species include 17 lizards, 19 snakes, and one 

turtle. Included in this group is the rare Texas 

horned lizard. 

Numerous resident and migratory birds find 

necessary desert scrub and grassland habitat on 
Natural Resources 

109 

the North Rosillos. Typical desert species such 

as cactus wren, mockingbird, scaled quail, 

turkey vulture, and black-throated sparrow are 

common. 

Persimmon Gap 

Mule deer and javelina sometimes travel across 

areas of Pajarito-Agustin soils (visitor contact 

station) but do not use them for home ranges. 

Rodents, snakes and lizards use the areas for 

shelter, food, and nesting. 

On the Upton-Nickel soils map unit, mule deer 

and javelina use the lechuguilla and other woody 

shrubs for food. Shrubs and woody vegetation 

along drainageways provide shelter and 

travelways. Rodents, snakes, and lizards use this 

unit for food and dens. Coyotes and foxes hunt 

across the soil map unit and passerine birds use 

it for food and nesting. 

Maverick and Potential Site 

for New Entrance Station 

Lizards and rodents are about the only wildlife 

in this area. Mule deer and javelina occasionally 

cross areas of this soil type, but because there is 

little food and cover, they do not use areas with 

this soil type as home ranges. 

WATER QUANTITY 

Water — its presence or absence — affects every 

aspect of Big Bend National Park. It sculpts the 

landscape and controls vegetation and wildlife. 

It affects visitor use and places severe restrictions on development. Water conservation 

measures are required throughout the park. At 

times, the park has come close to not having 

enough water available for resource protection, 

and park visitor and staff use. 

Water for Chisos Basin is pumped from the 

perennial Oak Spring about 2 miles west of the 

Basin. During the high visitor use season, the 

quantity of water available from the spring is 

barely adequate to meet the needs of visitors and 

staff. Little, if any water is left for vegetation and 

wildlife at the spring. 

At Panther Junction, an extensive water system 

contains six water wells (three on standby), four 

observation wells, two water reservoirs, pumps 

and 7 miles of water lines. 

At Rio Grande Village water for human use 

comes from a spring. The endangered Big Bend 

gambusia also depends on this spring. Water 

from the Rio Grande is used to water lawns and 

trees in the developed area, providing very 

unnatural conditions in this desert environment. 

Water for Persimmon Gap is trucked from 

Panther Junction and stored in a 5,000-gallon 

holding tank. Water supplies appear to be sufficient for the present but could not accommodate a significant increase in visitation (NPS 

1986). 

Upstream impoundments and diversions, compounded by additional development and cultivated lands along the Mexican Rio Conchos, 

and the Rio Grande and their tributaries severely 

reduce river flows reaching the park. These 

conditions, exacerbated by recurring droughts, 

have effectively eliminated river recreation for 

parts of the year from 1994 through 2002. 

The park’s previous management plan refers to 

river recreation, but the river’s minimum flow to 

sustain riparian and aquatic habitat and river 

recreation has yet to be determined. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, 

AND CANDIDATE SPECIES 

Although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

listed multiple species as occurring in Brewster 

County and potentially occurring in the park, 

black-capped vireo and Big Bend gambusia are 

the only ones of those species occurring in the 

park that would be potentially impacted by 

actions proposed in the alternatives in this 

general management plan. These species are 

listed as endangered (see “Impacts Considered 

But Dismissed” and appendix C). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

110 

The black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapillus) can 

be found in mountain habitats and mid elevation 

drainages from the Chisos Mountains. The 

Chisos Basin is a very important part of their 

habitat. The vireo lives in areas with scattered 

trees and numerous dense clumps of shrubs 

growing to ground level, interspersed with open 

areas of bare ground, rock, grasses, or forbs. 

Foliage that extends to ground level is the most 

important requirement for nesting. Most nests 

are well-screened by foliage. Territories can be 

on steep slopes, such as heads of ravines or along 

sides of arroyos. In such areas, the slow succession of the shallow soils and the microclimates 

provided by the rugged terrain perpetuates 

clumping of vegetation, thus sustaining an area 

suitable for the vireo. In west Texas, the vireo 

occurs in more stable shrub associations adapted 

to dry conditions consisting of littleleaf ash, 

mountain laurel, evergreen sumac, cacti, century 

plant, sotol, ocotillo, and beard grass, and is 

located primarily along steep canyons. Threats 

to and reasons for decline of the species are 

habitat loss to urbanization, browsing by 

herbivores, brush clearing, natural succession, 

brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) brood 

parasitism, and human disturbance. A recovery 

plan was prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in 1991. 

Big Bend gambusia (Gambusia gaigei) lives in 

spring-fed marshes with dense aquatic 

vegetation (submerged and emergent), primarily 

Chara and cat-tail. Presumably its habitat is 

clear, shallow water fed by warm springs. The 

Bid Bend gambusia is located in the wild at only 

one site — Rio Grande Village in the park. 

(There is a small population being maintained at 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fish hatchery 

in Dexter, New Mexico.) The Big Bend 

gambusia is threatened by habitat alteration, 

groundwater pumping, declining spring flows, 

and competition with introduced nonnative 

species such as the western mosquito fish (G. 

affinis). A recovery plan was prepared for Big 

Bend gambusia by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in 1984. 

This fish has been threatened with extinction on 

several occasions. The refugium habitat (spring 

1) at Rio Grande Village has experienced 

extreme variation in groundwater levels during 

the past decade, resulting in concerns for the 

well being of this population. 

FLOODPLAINS

Dams on the Rio Grande upstream of the park are 

one factor regulating river flows. Water is released 

from various dams in response to irrigation and 

flood control needs. River regulation and heavy 

use have severely damaged the riparian woodland 

system and geomorphological processes in the 

park. The National Park Service does not possess 

water rights for maintaining minimum flows in the 

river. 

Floodplains in areas that might be affected by 

actions in the alternatives in this plan are those 

at Panther Junction and the Rio Grande at Rio 

Grande Village and Cottonwood Campground. 

Panther Junction 

Information in this section is mainly from two 

documents prepared by the NPS Water 

Resources Division: a memorandum, “Summary 

of Panther Junction flood hazard,” dated April 

2000, and “Estimation of Flood and Geomorphic Hazard in the Panther Canyon Area of Big 

Bend National Park, Texas” dated 1995. 

The main park housing area is about 0.25 mile 

southwest of park headquarters. The housing 

facility contains more than 40 residence 

structures, an elementary school, and a resource 

management building. Most structures are 

between the Panther Canyon drainage and the 

Mouse Canyon drainage on the upper end of an 

alluvial fan. The structure used for storing 

museum artifacts is adjacent to the Panther 

Canyon drainage. 

Panther Canyon drains a watershed of just over 2 

square miles, and Mouse Canyon drains about 

0.65 square mile. Both watersheds are underlain 

by bedrock composed of Chisos limestone in the 

lower portion of the catchment and Panther 

laccolith rhyolite in the upper catchment. The 

upper canyons are steep with a large proportion of 

exposed bedrock and therefore have high runoff 

capabilities. The lower canyons have a more 
Natural Resources 

111 

gentle slope, where relatively thick deposits of 

alluvium have accumulated. The drainages 

themselves are intermittent streams, supporting 

flow only in response to rainfall. No base flow 

exists between runoff periods. Because of the 

physical characteristics of the watersheds and the 

possibility of intense summer thunderstorms, it is 

likely that these drainages are capable of 

producing flash floods. 

All of the structures at Panther Junction are 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 from 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). 

Bank loss in the housing area during times of 

moderate to high flows may pose a serious threat 

to structures 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 cross-channel gradient is 

toward 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 mitigating measures. 

Structures near the incised channel have the 

highest degree of risk from bank collapse. Any site 

farther from the channel is less likely to suffer 

foundation collapse due to erosion, but for long 

time periods all structures on the fan are 

potentially at some risk, as the primary channel 

may be expected to migrate. During the early 

1990s, during large discharge events, large 

portions of one bank were lost through erosion, 

and several park residences were threatened. 

High magnitude, clearwater flows pose a risk, 

primarily to structures near the major, active 

channel where it is not deeply incised, specifically 

in the area of the museum storage and resources 

building. Other structures on the lower portion of 

the fan are at moderate risk because flooding of 

the many distributary channels is likely during a 

high magnitude event. However, flow on the 

lower fan would likely spread out, resulting in 

shallow depths and modest velocities. The incised 

channel in the upper portion of the fan is capable 

of containing high magnitude flows up to and 

including the estimated 500-year flood. The 

regulatory flood (the Qme), however, will overtop 

channel banks and likely inundate the entire 

housing area. The flood hazard of different 

portions of the fan may be quantified in terms of 

depth by comparing land elevation with the 

floodplain elevation depicted on the floodplain 

map. A quantitative analysis of flood depth will 

allow park staff to develop appropriate mitigation 

measures. 

A detailed reconnaissance of the upper watershed was conducted to determine whether a 

debris flow threat exists. Despite large amounts 

of alluvium and colluvium in Bovarc Canyon 

upstream of the confluence of Panther and 

Bovarc Canyons, 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. However, the 

large amount of available material 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 Panther 

Junction area would increase the flood hazard. 

Rio Grande Village 

The NPS Water Resources Division, during a 

reconnaissance in 1992, found the Rio Grande 

to be functioning in a manner normal for a large 

river in a fairly natural setting. There was 

abundant evidence of erosion on the outside of 

bends, apparently caused by two fairly large 

floods in 1991-1992. 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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

112 

stabilization techniques were not recommended 

because they would make the Rio Grande 

function less naturally and might cause problems 

in other locations. 

Developments at Big Bend in the greater 

floodplain of the Rio Grande 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 floods that occur in the Rio Grande 

originate from precipitation over a large area 

and can usually be observed upstream, well in 

advance of arrival at Big Bend. 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. 

Cottonwood Campground

Park developments along the Rio Grande, 

though within the 100-year floodplain according 

to flood insurance rate maps, 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 at 

Cottonwood Campground. However, if unstable 

bank areas are clearly marked, they are of little 

risk to visitors. Bank stabilization, such as 

placement of riprap, is not recommended 

because it would make the Rio Grande less 

natural and may cause problems at other 

locations. 

WETLANDS 

Wetlands at the park have not been inventoried 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or other 

agencies, and there is no wetlands map. There is 

a map of springs. Two areas with wetlands that 

might be impacted by plan alternatives are Oak 

Spring and Rio Grande Village. 

 

The water supply for development at Chisos 

Basin comes from Oak Spring. During periods of 

low spring flow much of the water from the 

spring is collected and used at the Basin. This 

leaves little water for the wetland plants at the 

spring. 

Before establishment of the park, farm development destroyed Big Bend’s most extensive 

wetlands at Rio Grande Village. These wetlands 

were created by four warm springs emanating 

within 0.5 mile of the Rio Grande near what is 

now Rio Grande Village. Pre-park agricultural 

development resulted in containment of springs, 

diversion into irrigation systems, and virtual 

removal of beaver populations. When Rio 

Grande Village campground, roads, and 

maintenance facilities were established, they 

were placed in areas cleared by decades of 

agricultural use. 

Five decades of protection have allowed some 

natural establishment of wetlands in the area. 

However, a paved 0.75-mile service road to an 

abandoned NPS maintenance facility, a 

powerline corridor, an unpaved water reservoir 

access road, and a water pipeline across sections 

of the recovering wetland prevent the Park 

Service from allowing or fostering recovery of 

half the approximately 10-acre potential 

wetland. 

The warm springs supply two artificial ponds 

with water to support the only habitat of the 

endangered Gambusia gaigei (Big Bend 

mosquitofish). The artificial ponds also displace 

potential natural wetlands, although Gambusia 

gaigei exists in the warm springs and associated 

beaver ponds. Restoration of the wetlands 

displaced by nonessential NPS facilities would 

approximately double the available habitat of 

Gambusia gaigei. 

The riparian zone along the Rio Grande is 

heavily impacted by grazing as evidenced by the 

lack of typical riparian tree species reproduction, areas of vegetation trampling, stock 

trails, and the spread of exotics through fecal 

material. 
113 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

INTRODUCTION 

Big Bend National Park is a land of borders. 

Situated on the boundary with Mexico along the 

Rio Grande, it is a place where countries and 

cultures meet. It is also a place that merges 

natural environments, from desert to mountains. 

It is a place where south meets north and east 

meets west, creating a great diversity of plants 

and animals. The park covers more than 801,000 

acres of west Texas in the place where the Rio 

Grande makes a sharp turn — the Big Bend. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL AND 

HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

Although Big Bend is famous for its natural 

resources and recreational opportunities, the 

park is rich in cultural history. Native peoples 

lived in and/or passed through this area for 

thousands of years. Pictographs and archeological sites evidence their presence. In more 

recent history (the last 500 years), six different 

nations — Spain, France, Mexico, the Republic 

of Texas, the Confederate States of America, and 

the United States of America have claimed 

Texas. 

The pre- and proto-historic indigenous people 

of Big Bend were culturally related to other UtoAztecan cultures of northern Mexico. Throughout the prehistoric period, humans found shelter 

and maintained open campsites throughout the 

present-day park. The archeological record 

reveals an Archaic desert culture whose 

inhabitants developed a nomadic hunting and 

gathering lifestyle that remained virtually 

unchanged for several thousand years. Archeological discoveries indicate an Archaic period 

occupation in the high Chisos Mountains. Past 

human inhabitants used all portions of the park 

but were particularly attracted to the river 

corridor during the most recent prehistory due 

to the increasing climatic aridity and the need 

for more moist conditions in which to practice 

horticulture and agriculture. 

One chronological sequence proposed for the 

park is based on archeological studies from 

surrounding cultural regions. Many chronological schemes have been suggested that attempt to 

organize the existing archeological data into 

meaningful temporal sequences. Although these 

chronological sequences often conflict, four 

broad categories are most commonly accepted: 

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

 Archaic (ca. 6500 B.C. – A.D. 1000) 

 Late Prehistoric (ca. A.D. 1000 – 1535) 

 Historic (ca. A.D. 1500 – present) 

The duration of each period and time of transition from one period to the next remains 

speculative. 

Late Paleo-Indian 

Period (ca. 8000 - 6500 B.C.) 

At the end of the last ice age, the climate was 

much cooler and wetter, and woodlands 

covered much of the Big Bend. Since about 9000 

B.C. the climate has gradually become warmer 

and drier, and there has been a gradual influx of 

heat- and drought-adapted plants. Evidence of 

Paleo-Indian presence has been recorded in the 

park, but no studies have been done that explain 

local human adaptation during this period. The 

earliest inhabitants lived a nomadic hunting and 

gathering lifestyle that was adapted to the cooler 

and wetter climate that prevailed in that age. 

Throughout the Paleo-Indian period, people 

hunted large game animals as their primary 

source of materials for food, clothing, and 

shelter. 

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

After the last glacial episode, woodlands gave 

way to arid-adapted plant communities at lower 

elevations. The slowly changing climate caused a 

decline in the numbers of large game animals, 

primarily bison. American Indian groups of the 

Archaic period adapted to the changing climate 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

114 

by developing a hunting and gathering lifestyle 

so successful that it remained virtually 

unchanged for about 7,500 years. The Archaic 

Period people hunted smaller game with a spear 

that was propelled by a spear-thrower called an 

atlatl. A strong dependence on plant foods and a 

more structured social organization characterize 

this period. People learned skillful ways to 

exploit the environment and developed a rich 

material culture that involved the intensive use 

of plants and animals. A higher density of late 

Archaic sites indicates a more efficient 

adaptation and larger, denser population. An 

expansion of the Jornada Mogollon culture from 

southeastern New Mexico into extreme West 

Texas occurred at the close of the Archaic 

period. 

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

By 1000 A.D. the native people of the Big Bend 

had come under the influence of the Jornada 

Mogollon, with its ceramics, agriculture, and 

sedentary lifestyle. During the Late Prehistoric, 

American Indians of the Big Bend began using 

the bow and arrow, and groups northwest of the 

area were producing pottery. Agricultural 

villages existed near present-day Presidio, Texas, 

and Indian groups in the area that is now the 

park practiced horticulture or simple agriculture. In most areas to the east, the Late Archaic 

hunting and gathering lifeway persisted into the 

Historic Period. The period is characterized by 

increased interregional trading. 

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

During the early Historic Period several Indian 

groups were recorded as inhabiting the Big 

Bend. The Chisos Indians were a loosely 

organized group of nomadic hunters and 

gatherers who probably practiced limited agriculture. The name Chiso (Chizo) originally 

referred to one band (also known as the 

Cauitaome or Taquitatome), but the Spaniards 

extended it to include at least six closely 

associated bands. Their origin is not known, but 

they were associated with the Concho speaking 

Indians of northeastern Chihuahua and northwestern Coahuila. Their language group is a 

variation of Uto-Aztecan, a language whose 

speakers ranged from central Mexico to the 

Great Basin of the United States and includes the 

Aztec, Toltec, and the modern Hopi. The 

Jumano were a nomadic people who traveled 

and traded throughout western Texas and 

southeastern New Mexico, but some historic 

records indicate they were enemies of the 

Chisos. Around the beginning of the 18th 

century (1700 A.D.), the Mescalero Apaches 

began to invade the Big Bend region, eventually 

displacing or absorbing the Chisos Indians. The 

last aboriginal group to use the Big Bend was the 

Comanche who passed through along the Great 

Comanche Trail on their way to and from 

periodic raids into the Mexican interior. These 

raids continued until the mid-1800s. 

In roughly 1535 A.D. the first Spanish explorations came into this portion of North America. 

The expedition of Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca 

passed near the Big Bend, and was followed by 

other expeditions in the search for gold and 

silver, farm and ranch land, and Indian slaves. In 

an attempt to protect the northern frontier of 

Mexico, a line of “presidios,” or forts, was 

established along the Rio Grande in the late 

1700s. The Presidio de San Vicente was built 

near present-day San Vicente, Coahuila, and the 

Presidio de San Carlos was built near presentday Manuel Benavides, Chihuahua, both in 

Mexico. These presidios were soon abandoned, 

however, because of financial difficulties and 

because they could not effectively stop Indian 

intrusions into Mexico. 

Very little study has been made of the Mexican 

occupation of the Big Bend following the abandonment of the presidios. In 1805 the Mexican 

settlement called Altares existed 30 miles south 

of the Rio Grande. Mexican families lived in the 

Big Bend area when Anglo settlers began moving 

in during the latter half of the 1800s. Following 

the war between Mexico and the United States, 

which ended in 1849, military surveys were 

made of the uncharted land of the Big Bend. 

Military forts and outposts were established 

across West Texas to protect migrating settlers 

from the Indians. Around 1870 ranchers began 

to migrate into the Big Bend, and by 1900 sheep, 

goat, and cattle ranches occupied the Big Bend 
Cultural Resources 

115 

area. The delicate desert environment, however, 

was soon overgrazed. 

In the early 1900s, the discovery of valuable 

mineral deposits brought more settlers who 

worked in the mines or supported the mines by 

farming or by cutting timber for use in the mines 

and smelters. Communities sprang up around 

the mines; development of Boquillas and Terlingua directly resulted from mining operations. 

During this period, farmers settled the Rio 

Grande floodplain. Settlements developed with 

names like Terlingua Abajo, San Vicente, 

Coyote, and Castolon. These were often no 

more than clusters of families living and farming 

in the same area, and they were successful only 

to the degree that the land was able to support 

them. 

From about 1915 to 1920, revolution raged in 

Mexico. Many Mexican families moved north of 

the river to avoid the bloodshed and bandit 

raids. The raids, including the Glenn Springs 

raid in 1916, brought the U.S. military to defend 

the border. The National Guard established 

camps at Glenn Springs, La Noria (northeast of 

Rio Grande Village), Lajitas (west of the park), 

and Castolon (Camp Santa Helena). In response 

to a later revolution (the Escobar Rebellion of 

1929), the Air Corps established a landing field 

at nearby Johnson’s Ranch. 

Camp Santa Helena, established in 1916, used 

troops from the 5th, 6th, and 8th cavalries. The 

men lived in tents and the construction of a 

permanent post began in 1919. By the time the 

buildings were completed in 1920, the 

Revolution was over and the men were ordered 

to roll up their tents and take new assignments 

elsewhere. The soldiers probably never 

occupied the new buildings. They included an 

enlisted men’s barrack, officers' and noncommissioned officers' quarters, a latrine, a 

granary and tack shed, and a stable (which 

burned sometime before 1933). 

In the 1930s many people who loved the Big 

Bend country saw that it was a land of unique 

contrast and beauty that was worth preserving 

for future generations. The state of Texas passed 

legislation to acquire land in the area that was to 

become the Texas Canyons State Park. In 1935, 

the federal government passed legislation that 

would enable the acquisition of the land for a 

national park. The state deeded the land that 

they had acquired to the federal government, 

and on June 12, 1944, Big Bend National Park 

became a reality. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

There still is much to learn about the prehistory 

and history of Big Bend National Park. A complete understanding of people’s past depends on 

the scientific study of the sites and artifacts that 

have survived the ravages of time. Archeological 

research in Big Bend National Park is scanty 

with only 3% of the park surveyed. Two early 

archeological surveys (1936-37 and 1966-67) 

sampled only a portion of the park. However, 

the two surveys recorded 628 sites. The latter 

survey revealed that the park probably contains 

more than 5,000 localities. Archeological surveys 

conducted after 1982 have added significantly to 

the archeological inventory, which now contains 

information on more than 1,500 sites. Extant 

data suggest that the park contains more than 

26,000 archeological sites. These sites contain 

more than 200 prehistoric to proto-historic 

structures and more than 400 historic period 

structures. Only three archeological properties 

have been through the national register review. 

Park archeological studies have been adding 

more than 100 new sites a year. At Big Bend 

National Park, only two prehistoric archeological sites are currently considered “public” — the 

Hot Spring pictograph site and the Chimneys. As 

research is completed on other archeological 

sites, they may be opened to the public. 

The park staff continues to update inventories of 

archeological sites into the Archeological Sites 

Management Information System. In 1995 the 

park began a multiyear archeological survey to 

sample 12%-15% of the park, which will ultimately enable management to predict where 

archeological sites may occur. The project 

heavily involves the park Geographic Information System (GIS) for spatial analysis of the 

survey field data. Already the survey has added 

significantly to the cultural resources inventory, 

and data is being used for assisting with the 

park’s fire management program. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

116 

Two of the archeological sites and one archeological district (Burro Mesa) are listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places. The Glenn 

Spring Cavalry Outpost and an individual archeological site are in the process of nomination to 

the national register. Other archeological sites 

consisting of prehistoric sites might be nominated pending further survey and evaluation. 

Fifteen sites on the North Rosillos Ranch 

addition are currently Texas State Archeological 

Landmarks. 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

There are eight National Register of Historic 

Places sites or districts containing structures in 

Big Bend National Park. They are Burro Mesa 

Archeological District, Castolon Historic 

District, Hot Springs Historic District, the 

Mariscal Mining District, the Homer Wilson 

Blue Creek Ranch Site, Rancho Estelle, Daniel’s 

Farmhouse, and Luna's Jacal. The park contains 

76 historic structures. When properly studied, 

these sites and structures can provide valuable 

information about past lifeways. The Barker 

Lodge, Neville Spring, and Glenn Spring Cavalry 

Outpost are in the process of being nominated to 

the national register. Additional sites that may be 

nominated pending further survey and 

evaluation are Terlingua Abaja, Johnson Ranch, 

ore tramway, McKinney Spring Ranch, La 

Noria, and Indian Head Mountain. The park 

contains structures associated with Mission 66 

work that need to be identified and evaluated. 

The park continues to evaluate structures in 

various areas to determine their national register 

eligibility. Currently, the park has listed 69 

structures in Big Bend National Park on the List 

of Classified Structures. Of the 69 structures, 26 

were considered in good condition. The 

category of good condition is defined as a level 

at which the structure and significant features 

need no repair, but only routine or cyclic 

maintenance. The park’s goal is to increase the 

number of structures in good condition to 50% 

of those listed. This action would result in a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact. In addition, 

the park is revising the list, which could result in 

the evaluation and possible listing of more park 

structures. 

All national register sites or districts receive 

preservation maintenance, and interpretation is 

currently provided for all sites and districts as 

well. The park also preserves and interprets all 

significant cultural properties as time and 

funding permit. 

All buildings on the List of Classified Structures 

receive preservation treatment as staff time and 

funding allow. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

Big Bend has many cultural landscapes, relating 

to various classic themes of the West (Indian 

use, Spanish colonial military/exploration, 

Mexican settlement, U.S. exploration/military, 

ranching, floodplain agriculture, mining, and the 

development of tourism) and time periods from 

prehistory to the 20th century. 

Big Bend’s cultural landscapes are under threat 

by the usual culprits such as erosion and 

weathering, vandalism, collectors, flooding, 

collapse, and benign neglect due to insufficient 

funding and personnel. In addition, there are 

other threats like the collapse of stone and 

adobe structures due to constant heavy truck 

traffic routed to nearby roads during construction. All management decisions having 

potential to affect a cultural landscape must be 

made in consultation with appropriate cultural 

resource specialists (historic landscape architects, historians, archeologists, historical 

architects, etc.) and through concurrent review 

and agreement by the Texas state historic 

preservation office. 

No cultural landscapes have been officially 

identified and designated for Big Bend National 

Park, but a Level 0 reconnaissance cultural 

landscape inventory has identified a number of 

potential cultural landscapes. (A cultural 

landscape inventory Level 0 reconnaissance 

study identifies cultural landscape needs, 

information requirements, and immediate 

threats, and establishes priorities for Level 1 and 

2 inventories.) Most cultural landscapes in the 
Cultural Resources 

117 

park would either be considered as historic 

vernacular landscapes or associated with historic 

sites. Many areas of the park have a record of 

repeated use by many groups of people over 

10,000 years, and each group leaves its layers of 

effects. Some locations exhibit numerous layers 

of reuse during the prehistoric period, with 

subsequent use during the Historic Period. Park 

facilities create an additional cultural overlay. 

The park is preparing to undertake a landscape 

reconnaissance survey that would identify what 

is known about a specific cultural landscape, 

identify information needs, and establish 

priorities for a Level 2 inventory. The Level 2 

inventory would result in establishing the 

character-defining landscape features and 

evaluate the landscapes for eligibility to the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

In 1999, a “Cultural Landscape Inventory Level 

0 Reconnaissance Study” of 11 major cultural 

landscapes (or component landscapes) was 

conducted (see following list). It appears that 

these cultural landscapes have the potential for 

eligibility to the National Register of Historic 

Places as cultural landscapes (districts). These 

should be within the first cut for more in-depth 

cultural landscape inventory work and possibly 

cultural landscape reports. 

Castolon Valley

Themes: U.S. Military, Trade, Floodplain 

agriculture, and Mexican-U.S. relations 

Historic properties: Castolon Historic District, El 

Ojito, Old Castolon, La Coyota, Rancho 

Estelle (Sublett-Dorgan farm), and perhaps 

up Alamo Creek to Luna’s Jacal 

Boundaries: CaZon de Santa Elena to El Ojito to 

Cerro Castellan to the Rio Grande and Santa 

Elena Crossing 

Contributing adjacent lands: Santa Elena, Mexico 

Terlingua Abajo

Themes: Floodplain agriculture, mining trade, 

and Mexican-U.S. relations 

Historic properties: Terlingua Abajo, Molinar, 

and vicinity (perhaps to Luna’s Jacal) 

Boundaries: South and East to CaZon de Santa 

Elena, north along Terlingua Creek to park 

boundary, west to base of Mesa Anguila 

Contributing adjacent lands: Terlingua 

Boquillas Valley 

Themes: Native American occupation (Hot 

Springs), floodplain agriculture, mining, 

Mexican-U.S. relations/conflicts 

Historic properties: Ore tramway, Barker Lodge, 

Boquillas community (with Sada home and 

restaurant site), Daniel’s farm, Deemer store 

site, Rio Grande Village Mission 66 area, Hot 

Springs Historic District 

Boundaries: Boquillas Canyon to Boquillas Hot 

Springs, Boquillas Crossing to Lower 

Tornillo, Rio Grande Overlook and northern 

tramway terminus 

Contributing adjacent lands: Boquillas, Mexico 

and the Puerto Rico Mine 

San Vicente 

Themes: Floodplain agriculture, Mexican-U.S. 

relations, and Spanish period 

Historic properties: San Vicente site, Comptons, 

San Vicente Crossing and vicinity. Outliers 

may include Solis, Rooneys, and Casa de 

Piedra 

Boundaries: The immediate vicinity/viewshed of 

San Vicente 

Contributing adjacent lands: San Vicente, 

Mexico, notably Presidio de San Vicente 

Chisos Basin 

Themes: Native American occupation, CCC 

development and the Park 

Historic properties: CCC-built road, trails, and 

cottages, CCC-related features, Chisos Basin 

site, the historic viewshed (ex: the Window) 

Boundaries: Viewshed to the surrounding peaks 

that define the Basin, including Panther Pass 

and Green Gulch road 

Contributing adjacent lands: None (Chisos 

Mountains NPS-managed) 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

118 

Mariscal Mining District

Themes: Mining 

Historic Properties: Mariscal Mine, prospects, 

surrounding settlement, brick kiln, red-light 

district 

Boundaries: To base of Talley Mountain, up to 

cessation of prospects on Mariscal 

Mountain, to back portion of mining area 

(area of brick kiln and dwellings) 

Contributing adjacent lands: None (vicinity NPSmanaged) 

Comanche Trail (Linear Landscape) 

Themes: Native American occupation, military 

Historic Properties: Persimmon Gap, Comanche 

Trail, La Noria, Glenn Spring, Paso de Chisos 

(there were several branches; more research 

needed) 

Boundaries: Linear landscape, viewshed/ 

occupation sites along trail 

Contributing adjacent lands: From beyond 

Marathon and Fort Stockton, south to the 

trail as it crosses through Lajitas and Paso de 

Chisos into Coahuila and Chihuahua, 

Mexico 

Cottonwood Creek Valley 

Themes: Native American occupation, ranching 

Historic Properties: Prehistoric Native American 

archaeological landscape, with lithic quarries, 

campsites, springs, and trails. Also includes 

far corner of G-4 Ranch, with Gano Ranch 

site at Gano Spring, the first ranch in this 

valley. Finally, includes Homer Wilson Blue 

Creek Ranch (headquarters at base of Chisos 

Window) and Line Camp, and Sam Nail 

Ranch. 

Boundaries: From Chisos Mountains to Burro 

Mesa, from the head of Cottonwood Creek 

to the canyon. 

Contributing adjacent lands: None (vicinity NPSmanaged) 

Glenn Spring 

Themes: Native American occupation, U.S. 

military and Mexican conflict, candelilla 

processing 

Historic properties: Glenn Spring campsite 

(Indian site), Glenn Spring village (military 

camp/battlefield, candelilla wax plant, about 

five jacals, ranch) 

Boundaries: Up to divide and Indian campsite, to 

clay canyon draining the springs, village 

defined by surrounding, close hills 

Contributing adjacent lands: None (vicinity NPSmanaged) 

Neville Spring 

Theme: U.S. Military 

Historic properties: Neville Spring Cavalry 

Outpost (including oldest datable structure 

in park) 

Johnson Ranch 

Themes: Ranching, U.S. military 

Historic properties: sloping plain south of Punta 

de la Sierra on Rio Grande was used as farm 

and landing field. Farm begun in 1924 by 

Graddy and Williams; started trading post; 

Johnsons bought it in 1928 — post good but 

the cotton and goats not profitable. In 1929, 

U.S. Army dedicated landing field, which was 

used for training and lookout/checkpoint on 

international boundary. Training included 

flying between the Mule Ear Peaks 

The reconnaissance identified the following 

eight landscapes as having good potential 

according to the literature, park files, and staff, 

but further investigation is needed to develop 

boundaries and interrelationships with other 

elements. 

Dugout Wells 

Themes: Ranching 

Historic properties: Dugout Well, W. A. Green 

ranch and school, garden, fruit trees, flowers 

(palms, oleanders survive); important 
Cultural Resources 

119 

overnight campout on Marathon-Boquillas 

road 

Boundaries: Immediate vicinity of Dugout Well 

or legal boundaries of Green ranch 

Contributing adjacent lands: None (vicinity NPSmanaged) 

Indian Head Mountain 

Theme: Native American occupation 

La Noria (“The Well”) 

Historic properties: Army camp and “Old 

Boquillas.” Nearby road led to Hannold’s 

store (1930s trading post) 

McKinney Spring 

Historic properties: McKinney Spring Ranch and 

village, candelilla wax processing plant (one 

of two largest in park) 

Government Spring (Burnham) Ranch 

Historic properties: Government surveyor camp, 

Government Spring (Burnham) Ranch 

Hannold Ranch 

Historic properties: Hannold Ranch, Hannold 

grave, Hannold store, site (landscape scar) of 

Texas Highway Department’s Big BendMarathon road building/maintenance (1936-

39) 

K-Bar Ranch 

Theme: Ranching 

Tornillo Flat 

Themes: Native American occupation, ranching, 

overgrazing 

Historic Properties: Now a wasteland, previously 

(before 1918-20) covered by tobosa grass 

(named for Tobosa Indians). Was good 

antelope range and probably used as hunting 

grounds. Sandstone ridges (cuestas) were 

good for ambush, and some, especially with 

shelters, have archaeological sites. Hornfels 

quarry at Banta Shut-In near south end of the 

flat. Grass cut by early settlers for hay, and 

there were parts of old mowing machine. 

Grass was killed by drought and overgrazing; 

excellent potential for interpreting 

overgrazing. 

There are other potential cultural landscapes, 

notably the many small ranching operations 

throughout the park (perhaps two thematic 

landscapes might be developed, one on ranching 

and one on Native American occupation). Fortyeight landscapes or landscape-related elements 

were noted in the literature but were not 

investigated in the 1999 reconnaissance due to 

time limitations. This list can be found in 

appendix G. 

After the Second World War, the National Park 

Service undertook a building program to accommodate the growing demand for better visitor 

facilities and to update park infrastructure 

neglected during the war. This program was 

known as Mission 66, and its period of significance was from after World War II until 1967. In 

this period a substantial amount of development 

occurred in the park. On April 27, 1998, the NPS 

Director of the Intermountain Region sent a 

memorandum to all superintendents of the 

Intermountain Region imposing a moratorium 

on development effecting Mission 66 structures 

and stipulating that “any construction, repair, or 

rehabilitation activity that may effect any structure built after World War II to 1967 be subject 

to provisions of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. To comply with this 

directive, park staff has made a preliminary 

determination of which structures and landscapes associated with the Mission 66 era could 

potentially be eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Place. This list does not 

represent a formal or complete identification of 

all structures and landscapes associated with 

Mission 66 in the park. The park staff has 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

120 

determined the following structures and 

landscapes as potentially eligible: 

3⁄4 Chisos Basin — structures (housing) and 

landscapes (upper Basin parking layout, 

campground layout, infrastructure, and 

some road) 

3⁄4 Panther Junction — structures (the existing 

visitor center and some housing) and 

landscapes (street layout and views of the 

visitor center) 

3⁄4 Rio Grande Village — structures (housing) 

and landscapes (road system, some parts of 

the irrigation system to the camping areas 

and roadsides, reflection pond in the group 

campground, and infrastructure for the 

campgrounds and restroom) area 

Some work may have occurred in the Castolon 

area in the Cottonwood Campground, but 

additional research is needed to make this 

determination. 

The Comanche Trail is a Historic Period cultural 

landscape that is being interpreted through a 

park brochure. This trail is known from written 

documents and historic maps, but has been 

mostly obliterated from the landscape by natural 

erosion. It is physically evident at only a few 

locations in the park. 

One landscape that is actively interpreted at Big 

Bend is an undesirable landscape of human 

misuse — the alteration of natural vegetation 

communities by overgrazing between the 1850s 

and the 1940s. Fifty years of land dormancy 

since park establishment has allowed the 

grassland to recover to its approximate pre1850s level in the higher, more moist elevations. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

Historical documents by the Spanish in the 

1600s reveal that a variety of ethnic groups used 

or occupied the Big Bend National Park region. 

These accounts indicate an early indigenous 

occupation of the Chisos Mountains and surroundings by the Chizo (Chisos) Indians during 

the 17th century, reaching back through an 

unknown span of time. This group was 

apparently linked with cultures in northern 

Mexico. Linguistically, the Chisos spoke the 

Concho dialect of the Uto-Aztecan language. 

Their material culture, evident from comparative archeological studies in the early 20th

century, is very similar to that of cave and desert 

dwellers of northern Chihuahua and northwestern Coahuila. The final status and location 

of the Chisos Indians is unknown. Neighboring 

bands fled the intrusion of Apache invaders, 

escaping southward to security within their 

cultural kindred. The same is probably true of 

the Chisos. 

Some historians suggest that the Lipan Apache 

occupied the Big Bend, but most reliable sources 

point out that the Lipan occupied land east of 

the Pecos River. There is documented use of the 

Big Bend area by Apache groups, primarily the 

Mescalero, during the 18th century. Spanish 

accounts mention raids by small bands of 

Apache, who wandered throughout New 

Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and northern Mexico. 

These were essentially nomadic transients who 

lived off of plunder taken during their wanderings. Some accounts describe renegade Apache 

bands escaping pursuit by Spanish soldiers, 

fleeing to the safety of the mountainous regions 

of west Texas and northern Chihuahua, Mexico. 

The Comanche and possibly the Kiowa passed 

through the Big Bend during their annual raiding 

forays into northern Mexico during the 19th

century. 

Hispanic communities or rancherias arose in the 

northern states of Coahuila and Chihuahua, 

Mexico, during the 18th and 19th centuries. 

Hispanic sites of 18th and early 19th century may 

exist in the park, but archeological research is 

needed to identify sites specifically attributable 

to any particular Indian, Hispanic, or Anglo 

ethnic group. 

Hispanic and Anglo ranches and farmers were 

forced out of the area when land was being 

acquired for Big Bend National Park. There may 

be traditional ties of these affected people with 

the communities, cemeteries, and farms and 

homesteads that they were forced to abandon. 

Ethnographic resources may include subsistence 

items such as plant materials used in healing or 

ceremonial activities. The only tribal group to 
Cultural Resources 

121 

request specific use of such resources was the 

Crow Chapter of the Native American Church, 

who asked for permission to hunt for and gather 

peyote cactus for ritual use. 

At Big Bend National Park, American Indian 

consultation has been conducted with tribal 

representatives from the Comanche, Cheyenne, 

and Blackfeet. The Blackfeet have expressed an 

affiliation with the park. The park consults with 

local American Indian tribes and councils to 

update park inventories. 

COLLECTIONS 

Park collections inventory lists almost 121,500 

items, including archeological, historical, 

archival, biological, paleontological, and 

geological items. About 46,087 of those items 

have not yet been catalogued. Although about 

60% of the collection remains in the park, many 

objects relating to the park have been placed in 

various repositories outside the park, including 

the University of Arizona, the Lajitas Museum, 

the Barton Warnock Environmental Education 

Center, Texas Tech University, and Texas A & 

M University. The park collection is valuable for 

the information for research and interpretation 

that it provides about processes, events, and 

interactions among cultures, individuals, and the 

environment. The collection contains diagnostic 

and site-specific artifacts, NAGPRA-related 

objects, threatened and endangered species 

specimens, voucher specimens, administrative 

reports, historic maps, papers, photographs, and 

one-of-a-kind items. 
122 

VISITOR UNDERSTANDING — EXPERIENCING THE RESOURCES 

During the 1980s the average annual recreation 

visits to Big Bend National Park was about 

180,400 people. In the 1990s the average rose to 

305,400 recreation visits per year, representing 

an increase of about 70%. Figure 1 shows the 

total annual recreation visits from 1980-2000. 

On a monthly basis (see figure 2) most visitation 

occurs from September through April, with 

November, February, and March receiving the 

highest number of visitors. Due to the high heat, 

summer is the least visited season of the year. 

In April 1992 the University of Idaho Cooperative Park Studies Unit (CPSU) conducted a 

survey of park visitors. The purpose of the study 

was to get a better understanding of park 

visitors, and to learn more about what 

experiences visitors looked for and attained. 

Information was gathered about demographics, 

the activities visitors engaged in, their opinions 

about the quality and adequacy of facilities, etc. 

The results of this survey of visitors to Big Bend 

National Park showed that: 

• Visitors were often families (62%) and in 

groups of two (60%). Forty-four percent of 

visitors were 56-70 years old; 20% were aged 

41-55. Most (60%) were first-time visitors. 

• Visitors from foreign countries comprised 

10% of the visitation, with 48% of the 

international visitors from Germany. 

• Most visitors (76%) spent one or two nights 

at Big Bend. This is further illustrated in 

figure 3, which shows the relationship of 

overnight stays to the total annual 

recreational visits. 

• In assessing the types of activities engaged 

in, most visitors saw the scenery (985), 

visited the visitor center(s) (88%), and went 

on day hikes (53%). Panther Junction 

Visitor Center was the most visited park site 

(87%), followed by the Chisos Basin (80%), 

CaZon de Santa Elena (68%), and Rio 

Grande Village (62%). 

• Highway directional signs and restrooms 

were rated as the most important maintenance services/facilities. Directional signs 

along trails received the highest quality 

ratings. 

• A number of visitors expressed the need for 

more overnight accommodations, although 

others felt there should be no additional 

overnight facilities in the park. 

A number of conflicts exist between various 

recreational activities and efforts to protect park 

resources. These conflicts include camping near 

springs, off-road travel, and bear-human 

encounters. 

Big Bend is a large park, 801,000 acres, with 

relatively low visitation. In the last 10 years 

visitation has fluctuated from a high of 340,806 

in 1998 to a low of 264,684 in 2001. The park has 

not shown the ever-increasing numbers of 

visitors that are so common in other units of the 

national park system. This is due to a number of 

factors, the most important being geographical 

isolation. The park is in one of the most isolated, 

least populated areas in the continental United 

States. The nearest airport is a four-hour drive; 

the nearest town of any size is more than 100 

miles away from park headquarters. The park is 

not “on the way” to anywhere else. Park roads 

dead-end at the Mexican border on the Rio 

Grande. 

The park does have times when it is busy, but 

they are the same periods every year. Thanksgiving week, Christmas and New Years, and the 

busiest period of every year, two to three weeks 

of Spring Break in March and April. The rest of 

the time the park is not very busy, and during the 

summer months visitation drops dramatically 

due to the heat. Holiday weekends are busier 

than other times, but are not as busy as the 

periods mentioned above. 

Visitor comments rarely, if ever, mention 

crowding. Visitors who seek solitude, and are 

familiar with the park’s visitation patterns, 

simply visit when the park is not crowded. It is 

not at all unusual for hikers or river runners to 

not encounter another person on trips throughout much of the year. 
Visitor Understanding — Experiencing the Resources 

123 

 Figure 1. Total Annual Visitation, 1980-2000 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

Jan

FebMar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

AugSep

Oct

NovDec

Monthly Visitation 2000

 Figure 2. Monthly Visitation, 2000 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Total Annual Visitation 1980-2000
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

124 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Overnight Stays 1991-2000

Total Visits Overnight Stays

 Figure 3. Overnight Stays 1991-2000 

Visitor comments tend to focus on such issues as 

generator noise and the lack of campsites at very 

specific times of the year. Most of the time 

visitors can arrive at any time of the day and 

easily get a frontcountry or backcountry 

campsite. It is the same situation for river 

permits — a visitor can arrive, pick up a free 

permit, and get on the river within hours. 

Parking can be a problem during the busy times 

of the year. It is adequate most of the year. 

There are areas of concern. The park has seen a 

return of black bears primarily to the Chisos 

Mountains and surrounding areas. Incidents 

between humans and large mammals are 

infrequent but do occur. The park has been very 

proactive in terms of installing steel, bear-proof 

storage boxes in front- and backcountry 

campsites as well as at trailheads. Regulations in 

campgrounds concerning the proper storage of 

food and other mammal attractants are quite 

strict and enforced. Information about proper 

procedures and behavior are available at visitor 

centers, in park publications such as the park 

newspaper, on bulletin boards, and at trailheads. 

As these large mammal populations grow, 

particularly black bears, there may be areas of 

the park where management changes may be 

necessary. The on-going drought has had severe 

impacts on the bear population, and it is unclear 

how many bears the park could support in years 

with normal precipitation. The bear population 

is being studied and monitored, which should 

provide the necessary information to make 

informed decisions on when, where, and what 

changes are appropriate. 

ORIENTATION AND INTERPRETATION 

In the 1992 visitor survey, visitors most used 

maps, advice from friends and relatives, and 

travel guides/tour books as sources of information about the park. Visitors came to the park for 

many reasons, but the most often identified was 

the scenic views and drives. 
Visitor Understanding — Experiencing the Resources 

125 

The most used visitor services were the park 

brochure/map and the visitor center personnel. 

The park brochure/map, visitor center personnel and safety information brochures were listed 

as the most important services. Visitor center 

sales publications and ranger/volunteer-led 

programs received the highest quality ratings. 

The Panther Junction Visitor Center is inadequate in size to serve visitors during peak 

periods. The visitor center also lacks sufficient 

space to adequately introduce the park’s primary 

interpretive themes and provide trip-planning 

information. At peak periods, considerable 

congestion exists between visitors seeking to 

purchase items and those trying to see the 

exhibits. 

The various informational and interpretive 

media and programs do not adequately address 

diverse visitor populations or the cultural 

diversity reflected in the park themes. 

SAFETY 

The campground, store, and gas station at Rio 

Grande Village are in the 100-year floodplain. 

This poses a potential hazard to visitors and 

employees in this area of the park. 

Some of the buildings at Panther Junction are in 

a flash-flood-hazard area, posing a potential 

hazard to employees and employee families in 

this area of the park. 

FACILITIES 

Chisos Basin 

The comparatively cool climate and dramatic 

scenery make the Chisos Mountains a primary 

destination for park visitors. The Chisos Basin, a 

bowl-shaped depression within the mountains, 

has long been a focal point. Facilities include a 

visitor center, the open-year-round Chisos 

Mountain Lodge (cottages and lodge units 

offering a total of 72 rooms as well as a 

restaurant, and gift shop), a 65-site campground 

operated on first-come-first serve basis, a group 

campground available by reservation for parties 

of 10 or more, a store, a visitor center, six 

employee housing units, two employee dorms, 

parking, and trails. Evening programs are 

offered in an amphitheater. 

 

Panther Junction 

Visitor facilities include a visitor center and 

bookstore, post office, and gasoline station. Park 

collections are in the floodplain, placing them at 

risk of damage or loss. 

Rio Grande Village 

This area has a visitor center, a 100-site NPS 

campground, a concessioner-operated 25-site 

RV full hook-up campground, a picnic area, a 

group campground, an amphitheater, a general 

store, a gasoline pump, and a self-guiding nature 

trail. 

The area is open year-round. Campsites have a 

parking space, grill, picnic table, and access to 

sanitary facilities and potable water. 

Castolon 

Castolon contains a ranger station that is open 

intermittently. The Castolon Historic District 

contains housing for park staff (permanent and 

seasonal), researchers, and the concessioner. 

The historic La Harmonia Store in the Castolon 

Historic District is open daily and offers 

groceries and supplies. The Castolon Historic 

District contains structures that have 

interpretive exhibits and an amphitheater. 

Interpretive programs and guided walks are 

given from November to April. 

Cottonwood Campground 

The campground has 35 sites, operated on a 

first-come, first-served basis, and chemical 

toilets. Its sites are suitable for tents and RVs. 

Each site has a picnic table and grill. Group 

camping is available for groups of 10 or more by 

reservation. There is an amphitheater near the 

campground in which interpretive programs are 

occasionally conducted from November to 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

126 

April. Nearby, at Castolon, are a general store 

and gasoline pump. 

Persimmon Gap 

A visitor center and entrance station are at 

Persimmon Gap. 

Maverick 

There is an entrance station and interpretive 

exhibit at Maverick. 
127 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

BUSINESSES AND PARK NEIGHBORS 

The study area for this Big Bend National Park 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement has been defined as Brewster 

and Presidio Counties. In addition, the affected 

environment is also described for the Mexican 

states of Chihuahua and Coahuila (located 

across the international border and south of the 

Rio Grande). The “Affected Environment” 

section describes economic conditions throughout the study area with particular emphasis on 

park tourism. Rio Grande tourism is limited to 

the park and is not described for the lower 

canyons. The Lower Canyons refers to portions 

of the river below the Heath Canyon boat put-in 

area. This area is downstream and outside the 

park. 

There are many businesses near the park’s west 

entrance, including campgrounds, commercial 

river runners and outfitters, stores, restaurants, 

motels, gas stations, a bank, a post office, and gift 

shops. There is a privately owned campground 

and store near the park’s north entrance. Most 

other adjacent lands are working ranches or 

small “ranchettes” on the Terlingua Ranch 

development. 

Brewster County 

The 2000 household population of Brewster 

County was 8,466. In 2000, about 43% of county 

residents were of Hispanic descent. County 

public school enrollment in 1995 was 1,520 

students. The median household income was 

about $18,000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998). 

The 1999 per capita income of $20,111 ranked 

Brewster County 148th in the state. This was 75% 

of the statewide average and 70% of the national 

average. Since 1989, the average annual growth 

rate in per capita income has been about 5.9% 

(by comparison, the statewide growth rate for 

per capita income was 5.1%). 

The total earnings of persons employed in 

Brewster County were $176.8 million in 1999. 

During the preceding 10 years, earnings 

increased by 5.6% per year and about 22.7% of 

all residents had 1997 incomes below the 

poverty line. About 16% of all Hispanic 

individuals were below the poverty line (U.S. 

Bureau of the Census 1998 and 2000). 

There were an average of 5,440 persons in the 

2000 civilian labor force, and an average of 5,320 

were employed (an unemployment rate of 

2.2%). Most employment was associated with 

retail trade, and services. Alpine is the largest 

community in Brewster County, with a 2000 

population of 5,672 persons. There were 2,772 

persons of Hispanic origin in that year. Brewster 

County had total of 4,614 housing units in 2000, 

3,669 of which were occupied. About 60% of the 

occupied units were owner occupied. The 1997 

median rent in town was $294 per month, and 

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

Bureau of the Census 1998 and 2000). 

Presidio County 

The 2000 population of Presidio County in 

households was 7,208. In 2000 about 84% of 

county residents were of Hispanic descent. 

County public school enrollment in 1995 totaled 

1,650 students. About 1,700 persons over 25 

years of age had completed less than the 9th grade 

in 1990 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990). 

The 1999 per capita income of $10,739 is 40% of 

the statewide average and 38% of the national 

average. Since 1989 the average annual growth 

rate in per capita income has been 2.7% (by 

comparison, the statewide growth rate for per 

capita income was 5.1%). Total earnings of 

persons employed in Presidio County were 

$96.2 million in 1998 (Bureau of Economic 

Affairs 1999). Earnings increased by 6.1% per 

year compared to the previous 10 years. About 

35.6% of all residents had 1997 incomes below 

the poverty line. In 1990 about 45% of all 

Hispanic individuals in Presidio County were 

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

Census 1990 and 2000). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

128 

There was an average of 3,609 persons in the 

2000 civilian labor force, and the average civilian 

unemployment rate was 25.6%. More than half 

of county employment was associated with 

wholesale or retail trade. 

In 2000 Presidio County had a total of 2,530 

housing units of which 1,778 (70%) were owneroccupied. 

Presidio is the largest town in Presidio County. It 

has a mayor-alderman form of government and 

has a municipal planning commission. The town 

has three full-time firefighters but does not have 

police officers or ambulance services. Drinking 

water is obtained from wells, and the sewage 

treatment facility has a capacity of 7.7 million 

gallons per day. West Texas Utilities Company 

provides electric service. Table 6 summarizes 

demographic information for the communities 

of Alpine and Presidio. 

The total 2000 study area population was 15,674 

persons. This represents an increase of about 

1,000 individuals compared to the 1950 level 

(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1950-2000). 

Decennial population changes during the period 

1950-2000 are illustrated in table 7 and figure 4. 

The population of Brewster County increased by 

16% over the 50-year period, while the population of Presidio County decreased by 2%. 

Figure 5 shows data on changes to Hispanic 

populations from 1980 to 2000. Data prior to 

1980 were not used since data on Hispanic 

individuals were not tracked before then. The 

data show that since 1980 the number of Hispanic residents in Presidio County has increased 

by about 2.5% each year, while the growth rate 

for Hispanic persons in Brewster County has 

increased by about one-half percent each year. 

STUDY AREA ECONOMIC 

CONDITIONS SINCE 1950 

For this assessment, economic conditions in the 

study area are generally represented by the 

change in per capita income. Per capita income 

information is shown on table 8 and figure 6. 

Between 1960 and 1998 (the most recent year for 

which data are available), the per capita income 

for residents of Brewster County grew by an 

average of about 7% per year. Income for 

Presidio increased at a slower rate of 3% (U.S. 

Bureau of the Census 1960-1990 and 1998). The 

Census Bureau was unable to provide data for 

1950. Although income has risen rapidly since 

1990, the income for county residents is still 

considerably lower compared to the statewide 

average. 

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS, TOWNS OF ALPINE AND PRESIDIO

Indicator Alpine Presidio 

Population 2000 5,786 4,165 

Households 2000 2,429 1,285 

Median 1990 Household Income $17,479 $9,148 

Total Housing Units 2000 2,852 1,541 

Average 1990 Monthly Rental $294 $203 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990 and 2000
Socioeconomic Environment 

129 

TABLE 7: STUDY AREA POPULATION TRENDS, 1950-2000

 County 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Change 

1950-2000 

Brewster 7,309 6,434 7,780 7,573 8,681 8,466 16% 

Presidio 7,354 5,460 4,842 5,188 6,637 7,208 -2% 

Total 14,663 11,894 12,622 12,761 15,318 15,674 7 % 

Source: Bureau of the Census, 1950-2000. 

TABLE 8: STUDY AREA PER CAPITA INCOME, 1960-1998 

County 1960 1970 1980 1990 1998 

Change 

1960-1998 

Brewster $5,035 $6,279 $8,105 $10,730 $18,729 272 % 

Presidio $4,854 $5,054 $6,285 $6,347 $10,296 112 % 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1960-1990 and 1998.

Figure 4 

Population 1950-2000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Brewster County

Presidio County
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

130 

Figure 5

Persons of Hispanic Origin By County

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1980 1990 2000

Hispanic Persons

Brewster County Presidio County

Figure 6

Per Capita Income 1980-1998

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 1998

Per Capita Income By County

Brewster County Presidio County
Socioeconomic Environment 

131 

Recreation Use at Big Bend National Park 

The Big Bend National Park was authorized on 

June 20, 1935, and was established in 1944. 

There were 264,864 total visitors in 2000. Park 

campgrounds include Chisos Basin, Cottonwood, Rio Grande Village, Rio Grande Village 

Trailer Park, and numerous backcountry sites 

with a total of 335 campground/backcountry 

sites. Major activities at the park include 

hiking/backpacking, rafting and canoeing, 

exploring, birding, and camping. Canyons in 

the park include Santa Elena (20 miles), 

Mariscal (10 miles) and Boquillas (33 miles in 

length) on the Rio Grande. 

Since 1988, total park use has increased by 

23,000 visitors, equivalent to a growth rate of 

about 1% per year for the 12-year period. 

However, park use showed a strong increase in 

the period 1989 through 1994 with an overall 

growth rate of 4% in that time frame. Park use 

then fell during 1995 and 1996, to rise again to 

a peak of 340,806 in 1998. Since then annual 

visits have fallen back to nearly 1988 levels, 

reflecting larger national and statewide 

economic trends. Annual park visitation for 

the period 1988-2000 is shown in figure 7. 

A total of 44,627 visitors stayed in concessions 

lodging and 10,473 in the concessions 

campgrounds in 2000. The total number of 

overnight stays at the park in 2000 was 184,880. 

Current Impact of Recreation 

Spending in Study Area 

In 1996, the Big Bend National Park and the 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River generated 

more than $51 million to the economy of 

Brewster County (National Park Service, 

1996). This was based on a 1996 tourism level 

of 279,952 individuals. This figure included the 

combined sales benefits associated with 

tourism (all purchases and expenditures), as 

well as Federal government expenditures (such 

as road construction). The combined job benefits from these expenditures totaled 1,789 

positions. 

Within the park, there are currently 72 rooms, 

which include the Chisos Mountains Lodge, 

the motel, the lodge unit, and the Stone 

Cottages. Park concessions staff indicated that 

there are 65 employees. The three motor inns 

and lodges contacted outside the park 

reported a combined number of about 160 

rooms and a total number of about 130 

employees. A survey of selected motel 

Figure 7

Total Park Visitors

1988-2000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Total Park Visitors

Source: National Park Service, April 24, 2002. 
132 

operators in Brewster and Presidio Counties 

showed that there are at least 500 motel/hotel 

rooms with around 90 to 100 employees. Based 

on this representative facility survey (both 

inside and outside the Park in the study area), 

it is estimated that there are currently more 

than 200 employees of hotels, motels, or 

lodges. This is only an approximation, and the 

actual number could be higher if a 100% 

inventory of all facilities was conducted. 

Conditions in Chihuahua and Coahuila 

The Mexican states of Chihuahua and 

Coahuila are immediately south of the Big 

Bend National Park and the Rio Grande. The 

socioeconomic conditions in these states are 

briefly described in this document because 

they may benefit economically from proposed 

NPS management programs. 

The current (year 2000) population of 

Chihuahua is estimated to be 3,047,867 

individuals (XII Censo General De Poblacion 

Y Vivienda, Resultados Preliminares). This 

represents an increase of 606,000 persons 

compared to 1990 (a 25% increase). Also 

between 1990 and 2000, the population of 

Mexico grew by about 20%. The population of 

Chihuahua is evenly split between males and 

females. In 1998 there were 79,336 births and 

15,753 deaths in the state. Table 9shows 

selected statistics for Chihuahua and the 

largest several towns or cities within the state. 

The current population of Coahuila is 

2,295,808, which represents an increase of 

323,000 persons (16%) compared to the 1990 

census figures. This was a somewhat slower 

growth rate relative to Chihuahua. In 1998 

there were 57,541 births and 10,276 deaths in 

the state. Table 10 summarizes selected 

socioeconomic indicators for Coahuila. 

TABLE 9: COMPARISON OF SELECTED ECONOMIC INDICATORS, STATE OF CHIHUAHUA

State or City Population 2000 

(a) 

Total 

Employment 

1998 (b) 

Individuals per 

House 

2000 (a) 

Number 

Businesses 1998 

(b) 

State of Chihuahua 3,047,867 744,450 4.0 88,803 

 

Juarez 1,217,818 393,867 4.1 32,068 

Chihuahua 670,208 194,783 3.9 23,276 

Cuauhtemoc 124,279 22,327 3.9 4,465 

Delicias 116,132 29,778 3.9 5,219 

Hidalgo 100,881 21,902 4.1 4,928 

Nuevo Casas 

Grandes 

54,226 13,100 3.9 2,300 

Guadeloupe 48,226 630 5.3 122 

Sources: 

(a) Preliminary data are for year 2000 (XII Censo General De Poblacion Y Vivienda, Resultados 

Preliminares). 

(b) Data are for 1998 (Aspectos Economicas de Chihuahua) 
Socioeconomic Environment 

133 

TABLE 10: COMPARISON OF SELECTED ECONOMIC INDICATORS, STATE OF COAHUILA

State or City Population 2000 (a) Total 

Employment 

1998 (b) 

Individuals per 

House 

2000 (a) 

Number 

Businesses 1998 

(b) 

State of Coahuila 2,295,808 535,617 4.2 74,321 

 

Saltillo 577,352 144,687 4.3 19,538 

Torreon 529,093 135,665 4.2 19,462 

Monclova 193,657 54,711 4.0 7,153 

Piedras Negras 127,898 36,036 4.1 4,114 

AcuZa 110,388 42,337 4.3 2,725 

Matamoros 91,858 6,861 4.0 1,767 

San Pedro 88,451 10,263 4.4 2,244 

Sources: 

(a) Preliminary data are for year 2000 (XII Censo General De Poblacion Y Vivienda, Resultados 

Preliminares). 

(b) Data are for 1998 (Aspectos Economicas de Coahuila) 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL 

ECONOMY / LAND USE 

The economy in the Big Bend National Park area 

is based mainly on ranching and tourism. The 

nearest town, Study Butte/Terlingua just outside 

the park’s southwestern boundary, has a motel 

and several small restaurants. There is residential 

development along the park boundary just north 

of Study Butte/Terlingua. 

This section describes land use plans, policies, 

and controls for the area including those of 

local, county, and state governments in the 

vicinity of the park. There are tribal lands 

nearby. 

Population growth and industrial development 

have occurred in recent years on both sides of 

the Rio Grande without adequate investment in 

the infrastructure to control resulting pollution. 

Growth is straining the ability of local entities to 

fund either pollution abatement or adequate 

water quality monitoring programs. The North 

American Free Trade Agreement promises to 

accelerate this growth, as does the shift from an 

agricultural to an industrial economic base in the 

border area (Texas Water Commission 1992). 

At present there is no comprehensive state or 

regional planning activity taking place regarding 

land use in the Big Bend region. Texas conducts 

a statewide low-income housing program that is 

applicable to Brewster and Presidio counties. As 

of 2000, no federal and/or Section 8 vouchers 

were included in the program for the two 

counties. 

Big Bend Ranch State Park (State of Texas) 

The Texas State Parks and Wildlife Department 

administers the Big Bend Ranch State Park, a 

299,345-acre facility adjacent to the national 

park in Presidio County. There is little existing 

or planned development in the park. Certain 

areas of the park have limited recreational use 

and vehicular access. Visitors must obtain user 

permits either at Fort Leaton State Historical 

Park or Barton Warnock Environmental 

Education Center prior to using the park. The 

park has two group and ten primitive camping 

areas and a system of hiking and riding trails. 

There are also boating and fishing areas along 

the river. 

Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan (TORP) 

This planning program seeks to improve 

recreational opportunities throughout the state. 

The plan's policies focus on local, state and 

private parks and open space. Although it does 

not address Big Bend National Park directly, it 

recognizes that Big Bend provides priority 

outdoor recreational opportunities in the state. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

134 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has 

prepared a “Land and Water Resources 

Conservation and Recreation Plan” (2002) 

addressing state, local, and private open space, 

conservation, and recreation programs. It is 

summarized in the “Introduction to the 

Alternatives.” 

Black Gap Wildlife Management 

Area (State of Texas) 

The Black Gap has 25 campsites along the river 

that are used primarily for fishing and hunting. 

Two areas at Black Gap are available for 

launching rafts and canoes, Horse Canyon and 

Maravillas Canyon. To enter the wildlife 

management area one must acquire one of three 

kinds of permit. Hunters must have an annual 

hunting permit, fishermen a limited use permit, 

and non consumptive users, such as campers, 

bird watchers, hikers, and river users, a Texas 

Conservation Passport. No permits are sold in 

the wildlife management area, but they may be 

purchased at other locations before arrival at 

Black Gap. 

Most of the wildlife management area is closed 

from March 1 to August 31 each year for road 

and habitat maintenance. The roads to Horse 

and Maravillas Canyons remain open. The entire 

Black Gap is closed October 7-11, 21-25; 

November 12 to December 12; December 26-29; 

and January 13-16. Those with special hunting 

permits may use the area during the closures. 

Brewster County 

Texas counties do not have zoning authority; 

however, they can promulgate various kinds of 

regulations that affect land use. These regulations serve some of the same purposes as a 

master plan for land use. The county has 

subdivision and platting regulations particularly 

along the border in southern Brewster County 

that would prevent dense subdivisions from 

being placed next to the park. They have regulations for permitting septic tanks. Manufactured 

homes and manufactured home rental communities are highly regulated in Brewster 

County. The county has shortages of both 

housing and office space. (County Judge, Val 

Beard, pers. comm. 9/28/01) 

City of Alpine 

The Texas Municipal Code grants home rule 

cities broad planning and zoning powers. The 

City of Alpine has a planning and zoning commission that oversees implementation of the 

city's zoning and subdivision ordinances. Alpine 

shares with Brewster County concerns about 

housing and office space shortages. (City of 

Alpine, pers. comm. 4/23/02). 

Christmas Mountains 

Adjacent to this privately owned area on the 

park’s western boundary increased subdivision 

of land is occurring (primarily the Terlingua 

Ranch development). The issue of the park’s 

viewshed has emerged as a prime concern. The 

owner of the Christmas Mountains has a longterm goal of preserving the area from the 

escalating subdivision. The owner would also 

like to preserve the viewshed from Big Bend 

National Park, and toward the park from the 

Christmas Mountains and Terlingua Ranch area. 

Subsurface ownership is divided between the 

present owner and numerous prior owners who 

wholly or partially retain the mineral rights. As 

far as the Park Service knows, only fluorspar has 

been actively extracted from the Christmas 

Mountains in the past three decades. The 

success of the mineral extraction was influenced 

by three factors: fluctuating market prices; 

remoteness of the mineral source from paved 

roads and rail service; and richness of the 

mineral deposits. The mines stopped operation 

because these factors made mining costs 

prohibitive. 

The Christmas Mountains property is bordered 

on three and one-half sides by the subdivided 

Terlingua Ranch development. The Terlingua 

Ranch headquarters, lodge, and landing strip are 

about 2.5 miles from the west boundary of the 

park. One mile of the Christmas Mountains 

boundary along the southeast side adjoins the 
Socioeconomic Environment 

135 

park near Christmas Spring, which is within the 

park. 

Terlingua Ranch 

The Terlingua Ranch development, about 

220,000 acres in size, is primarily composed of 

10-acre to 40-acre parcels that contain varying 

degrees of development. The rural and 

extremely remote nature of the area makes it 

impractical for working people to live in and 

commute to a limited job market. Most residents 

are either retired or are part-time residents. The 

Terlingua Ranch Lodge is a motel and restaurant 

resort that is at the end of a 16-mile dirt road, 

and it provides services to a limited clientele. It is 

estimated that about 400 residents live on about 

220,000 acres of the Terlingua Ranch property 

(NPS 1989); more than half of them are full-time 

residents. The development has roughly 5,000 

landowners. 

Lajitas 

In 2000, SRS Properties purchased the Lajitas 

Resort and 25,000 acres of surrounding land. 

Austin businessman Steve Smith is attempting to 

develop a world-class golf resort on the 

property. This will include two championship 

golf courses, 800 homes, an RV park, 

condominiums, an equestrian center, a private 

airport capable of landing large jets, a hotel and 

restaurants. Part of the development borders the 

park, and some of it may already infringe on 

park land. It will use enormous amounts of 

water — 700,000 gallons per day alone to water 

one of the golf courses. It blocks access to park 

trails on Mesa de Anguila. The park is very 

concerned about this development, particularly 

the water use; its location directly adjacent to the 

park, and the fact that the main put-in for Santa 

Elena Canyon river trips is also on the Smith 

property. The park will monitor the development closely and take appropriate action if the 

park and/or river are threatened or damaged in 

any way.