ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

B. Wall

Adam Baker

C. Glymph
139 

METHODS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 

The planning team based the impact analysis and 

the conclusions in this chapter largely on the 

review of existing literature and studies, 

information provided by experts in the National 

Park Service and other agencies, and Big Bend 

staff insights and professional judgment. The 

team’s method of analyzing impacts is further 

explained below. It is important to remember 

that all the impacts include mitigating measures 

to minimize or avoid impacts. If mitigating 

measures described in the “Alternatives 

Including the Preferred Alternative” chapter 

were not applied, the potential for resource 

impacts and the magnitude of those impacts 

would increase. 

Effects can be direct, indirect, or cumulative. 

Direct effects are caused by an action and occur 

at the same time and place as the action. Indirect 

effects are caused by the action and occur later 

or farther away, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative effects are the impacts on the 

environment that result from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, regardless of what agency (federal or 

nonfederal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor, but collectively significant, 

actions taking place over a period of time. 

Impact intensity is the degree to which a resource would be beneficially or adversely 

affected. The criteria that were used to rate the 

intensity of the impacts for each resource topic 

are presented later in this section under each 

topic heading. 

Impact duration refers to how long an impact 

would last. For the purposes of this document, 

the planning team used the following terms to 

describe the duration of the impacts: 

Short term: The impact would last less than 

one year, normally during construction and 

recovery. 

Long term: The impact would last more 

than one year, normally from operations. 

PROJECTS THAT MAKE UP THE 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT SCENARIO 

To determine potential cumulative impacts, 

projects in the area surrounding Big Bend were 

identified. The area included Study Butte/ 

Terlingua, the Christmas Mountains, adjacent 

Mexican villages that border the park, the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic River, and nearby lands 

administered by the state (Black Gap Wildlife 

Management Area and Big Bend Ranch State 

Park). Projects were determined by meetings 

and phone calls with county and town governments and state land managers. Specific 

development proposals were not available 

because of the lack of formal planning in 

counties and gateway communities. Potential 

projects identified as cumulative actions 

included any planning or development activity 

that was currently being implemented or that 

would be implemented in the reasonably 

foreseeable future. These include projects in the 

park that are not funded. 

These cumulative actions are evaluated in the 

cumulative impact analysis in conjunction with 

the impacts of each alternative to determine if 

they would have any additive effects on a 

particular natural resource, cultural resource, 

visitor use, or the socioeconomic environment. 

Because most of these cumulative actions are in 

the early planning stages, the evaluation of 

cumulative effects was based on a general 

description of the project. 

Past Actions 

The following past actions could contribute to 

cumulative effects. 

Agriculture and Ranching. Agriculture and 

ranching within and outside the park, while 

leaving a historical/cultural landscape, have 

greatly reduced native plants in favor of 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

140 

vegetation that cattle and sheep prefer for food. 

This in turn has led to the alteration of soil and 

the loss of soil through erosion. Fences have 

been built in the park and elsewhere to limit the 

movement of animals, mainly cattle and sheep. 

Along with ranching has come the use of 

herbicides to kill unwanted plant species and the 

introduction of exotic species of plants. The 

park’s use of herbicides to control exotics 

contributes to herbicide use in the area. In 

addition, natural hydrology and landforms have 

been modified to create dams and stock tanks to 

provide water for nonnative animals. Besides 

agriculture and ranching, a variety of 

development actions have occurred in the park 

over time. (Additional information about past 

development in the park may be found under 

“Cultural Resources” in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter. For example, at Chisos 

Basin, the main road, trails, and cottages were 

built and Oak Spring began to be used as the 

water source for the Basin. Later, housing, the 

upper basin parking lot, campground, 

infrastructure, and some roads within the 

development were built. Still later additional 

lodging units, and the restaurant were built. 

These actions created an increasing human 

presence in the relatively fragile environment of 

the Basin and made increasing demands on the 

water from Oak Spring. In the 1990s, the Park 

Service began taking action to reduce water use. 

Low-flow toilets and shower heads were 

installed and the Park Service began an 

incremental replacement of the water system. To 

date these changes have resulted in a water 

savings of 18% to 20% at Chisos Basin. 

Development of visitor facilities at Panther 

Junction has included a visitor center, post 

office, and gas station. A school, more than 70 

employee housing units, and other 

administrative structures have also been built. 

At Rio Grande Village, resources were affected 

by agriculture and grazing for more than 100 

years. Many changes were made to natural 

hydrology and landforms to facilitate these uses. 

Later, housing; the road system; some parts of 

the irrigation system for the camping areas and 

roadsides; the reflection pond in the group 

campground; and infrastructure for the 

campgrounds, visitor center, gas station, store, 

employee housing, and restroom area were 

added. Making the area a park changed the use 

from agriculture and ranching to visitor use and 

park operations. Ranchers began using irrigation 

water to grow plants that were not native to the 

area. The Park Service continued to water 

nonnative plants for the convenience of park 

visitors. 

Other smaller developments occur in scattered 

areas of the park. 

All these areas used for support of visitors have 

altered soils, vegetation and water regimes. They 

use water that would otherwise be available to 

native plants and wildlife in an environment 

where water is scarce. The developments at 

Panther Junction, Rio Grande Village and 

Cottonwood Campground occupy floodplains. 

The latter two prevent restoration of riparian 

areas on the areas they occupy. Rio Grande 

Village and Cottonwood Campground together 

occupy less than 1 mile of 118 miles of river 

front in the park. 

Upstream Use of the Rio Grande. Despite 

numerous treaties and agreements, both 

international and among parties in the United 

States, the water in the Rio Grande is so overused that the riverbed between El Paso and 

Presidio, Texas, is frequently nearly dry (NPS 

1997a). In fact flow records from the Candelaria 

gaging station from 1977 to the present indicate 

an average flow of 7.59 cubic meters per second 

(cms) with ranges from 0–535cubic meters per 

second. In fact, flows were 0 cms 6% of the time 

and less than one cms 20% of the time. (www. 

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

reduces opportunities for activities such as 

irrigation of crops and recreational use of the 

river. Even when there is water in the river, the 

water has a high salt and silt content that is 

unhealthy for irrigated plants and people. 

Current and Future Actions 

Current actions and those projected for the 

future also could contribute to cumulative 

effects. 
Methods for Analyzing Impacts 

141 

Increased development of the gateway 

communities west of the park, the establishment 

and proposed joint activities with Big Bend 

Ranch State Park, and the continued operation 

of the state Black Gap Wildlife Management 

Area may be impacting local aquifers. 

An ongoing restoration project at the North 

Rosillos/Harte Ranch area, the largest such 

project in the park, is restoring natural contours, 

hydrology, and vegetation as much as possible. It 

will continue as funding permits. 

A curatorial and resource management office 

building (6,250 square feet with fire sprinkler 

system), walkways, and parking is scheduled for 

construction at the Panther Junction developed 

area. This building will be adjacent to the new 

fire management building. 

Another major project scheduled for Big Bend is 

an approved trailer replacement project that will 

replace 19 bedrooms. Tentative plans call for the 

construction of four 2-bedroom duplex units 

and one 3-bedroom house. 

The park would upgrade the water and 

wastewater treatment systems at Chisos Basin 

and water treatment systems at Panther Junction 

and Rio Grande Village that do not meet the 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s 

standards or are in a deteriorated condition. 

Replacement of the Panther Junction service 

station/convenience store in the footprint of the 

existing service station and former associated 

housing will be part of the new concessions 

contract prospectus. Their new contract will 

also call for trailer replacement housing at 

Panther Junction. The new service 

station/convenience store will provide public 

showers instead of an automobile service bay. 

The park is also applying for funds, under the 

concessions contract, to construct a 

concessioner dorm style building and a 

recreation hall in Panther Junction. National 

Park Concessions Inc, is also working with the 

park on building housing outside of the park 

but, as the only 24/7 operation in the park, the 

concessioner has to have the majority of their 

employees housed in the park. 

IMPAIRMENT OF RESOURCES 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives, NPS policy 

(NPS 2001a: Management Policies, section 1.4) 

requires that potential effects be analyzed to 

determine whether or not proposed actions 

would impair the resources or values of the park. 

The fundamental purpose of the national park 

system, established by the Organic Act and 

reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as 

amended, begins with a mandate to conserve 

resources and values. NPS managers must 

always seek ways to avoid or minimize, to the 

greatest degree practicable, adverse impacts on 

the resources and values. However, the laws do 

give the National Park Service the management 

discretion to allow impacts on the resources and 

values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill 

the purposes of a park, as long as the impact 

does not constitute impairment of the affected 

resources and values. Although Congress has 

given the National Park Service this management discretion, that discretion is limited by the 

statutory requirement that the National Park 

Service must leave the resources and values 

unimpaired unless a particular law directly and 

specifically provides otherwise. 

The prohibited impairment is an impact that, in 

the professional judgment of the responsible 

NPS manager, would harm the integrity of the 

resources and values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the 

enjoyment of those resources or values. An 

impact on any resource or value may constitute 

an impairment. An impact would be most likely 

to constitute an impairment if it affected a 

resource or value whose conservation would be 

(a) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of the park, (b) key to the natural 

or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities to enjoy it, or (c) identified as a goal in 

the park’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents. Impairment 

might result from NPS activities in managing a 

park, visitor activities, or activities undertaken 

by concessioners, contractors, and others 

operating in the park. In this document, a 

determination on impairment is made in the 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

142 

conclusion section for each impact topic in the 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

The impact topic of natural resources includes 

discussions of the effects on the integrity of 

natural systems, including soils; vegetation; 

wildlife; water quantity in the Rio Grande and 

Oak Spring; threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species; and wetlands and floodplains. 

Threatened, endangered and sensitive species 

are those listed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service as threatened, endangered, or proposed 

for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

Sensitive species also include state-listed plants 

and animals; however, Texas does not maintain 

a list of sensitive species. Wetlands are “lands 

where saturation with water is the dominant 

factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface” 

(USFWS 1979). Floodplains are defined by the 

NPS Floodplain Management Guideline (1993a) 

as “the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining 

inland and coastal waters, including flood-prone 

areas of offshore islands, and including, at a 

minimum, that area subject to temporary 

inundation by a regulatory flood.” 

Information on known resources was compiled. 

Where possible, map locations of sensitive 

resources were compared with the locations of 

proposed developments and modifications. Predictions about short-term and long-term site 

impacts were based on previous studies of visitor 

and facilities development impacts on natural 

resources. Sociological studies comparing the 

deterrent effects of signs versus ranger presence 

on sites were also considered in this analysis. 

The definitions below assume that mitigation 

would be implemented. For this document, the 

planning team qualitatively evaluated the impact 

intensity for natural resources. 

The following categories were used to evaluate 

the potential impacts on soils: 

Negligible: Soil would not be affected or the 

effects would be below or at the lower levels of 

detection. Any effects on soil productivity or 

fertility would be slight and no long-term 

effects on soils would occur. 

Minor: Effects on soil would be detectable. 

Effects on soil productivity or fertility would 

be small, as would the area affected. If 

mitigation were needed to offset adverse 

effects, it would be relatively simple to 

implement and would likely be successful. 

Moderate: The effect on soil productivity or 

fertility would e readily apparent, likely longterm, and result in a change to the soil 

character over a relatively wide area. 

Mitigating measures would probably be 

necessary to offset adverse effects and would 

likely be successful. 

Major: The effect on soil productivity or fertility 

would be readily apparent, long-term, and 

substantially change the character of the soil 

over a large area in and out of the park. 

Mitigating measures to offset adverse effects 

would be needed, extensive, and their success 

could not be guaranteed. 

The following categories were used to evaluate 

the potential impacts on vegetation: 

Negligible: The impact would result in no 

measurable or perceptible changes in plant 

community size, integrity or continuity. 

Minor: Impacts are measurable or perceptible 

and localized within a relatively small area. The 

overall viability of the plant community would 

not be affected and, if left alone, would 

recover. 

Moderate: Impacts would cause a change in the 

plant community (e.g. abundance, distribution, 

quantity, or quality); however, the impact 

would remain localized. 

Major: Impacts on plant communities would be 

substantial, highly noticeable, and long term. 

The following categories were used to evaluate 

the potential impacts on wildlife: 
Methods for Analyzing Impacts 

143 

Negligible: Impacts on wildlife or their habitat 

would not be measurable or perceptible. 

Minor: Impacts on wildlife and habitats would 

be detectable, although the effects would likely 

be short-term, localized, and would be of little 

consequence to the species’ population. 

Moderate: Impacts on wildlife and habitats 

would be readily detectable, long-term and 

localized, with consequences at the population 

level. 

Major: Impacts on wildlife and habitats would 

be obvious, long-term, and would have 

substantial consequences on wildlife 

populations in the region. 

The following categories were used to evaluate 

the potential impacts on water quantity: 

Negligible: Changes in water use would not be 

measurable. 

Minor: Water use would be increased or reduced 

by up to 25 percent. 

Moderate: Water use would be increased or 

reduced by 26to 49 percent. 

Major: Water use would be increased or reduced 

by 50 percent or more. 

The following categories were used to evaluate 

the potential impacts on threatened, 

endangered, or proposed species: 

Negligible: The action would result in a change to 

a population or individuals of a species that 

would be so small that it would not be of any 

measurable or perceptible consequence to the 

population or other changes that would be so 

small that they would not be measurable or 

perceptible. 

Minor: The action would result in a change to a 

population or individuals of a species that, if 

measurable, would be small and localized, or 

other changes that would be slight but detectable. 

Moderate: The action would result in a change to 

a population or individuals of a species that 

would be measurable but localized. 

Major: The action would result in a change to a 

population or individuals of a species that 

would be measurable and have a permanent 

consequence to the population. 

The following categories were used to evaluate 

the potential impacts on floodplains: 

Negligible: Impacts on the ability of the 

floodplain to function normally would not be 

measurable or perceptible. 

Minor: Impacts on the ability of the floodplain to 

function normally would be localized and 

slightly detectable. 

Moderate: Impacts on the ability of the 

floodplain to function normally would be 

clearly detectable and could have an 

appreciable effect on natural processes. 

Major: Impacts on the ability of the floodplain to 

function normally would be highly noticeable 

and would have a substantial influence on 

natural processes. 

The following categories were used to evaluate 

the potential impacts on wetlands: 

Negligible: Impacts on wetlands not be 

measurable or perceptible. 

Minor: Impacts on wetlands would be localized 

and slightly detectable. 

Moderate: Impacts on wetlands would be clearly 

detectable and could have an appreciable 

effect on natural processes. 

Major: Impacts on wetlands would be highly 

noticeable and would have a substantial 

influence on natural processes. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

In this environmental impact statement, impacts 

on cultural resources (archeological resources, 

historic structures, the cultural landscape, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

144 

ethnographic resources, and museum collections) are described in terms of type, context, 

duration, and intensity, which is consistent with 

the regulations of the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) that implement the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Potential 

impacts are described in terms of type (are the 

effects beneficial or adverse?), context (are the 

effects site-specific, local, or even regional?), 

duration (are the effects short term, lasting less 

than one year, or long term, lasting more than 

one year?), and intensity (are the effects 

negligible, minor, moderate, or major). Because 

definitions of intensity (negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major) vary by impact topic, 

intensity definitions are provided separately for 

each impact topic. 

Impacts on Cultural Resources Included in or 

Eligible for Inclusion in the National Register 

of Historic Places and Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act 

These impact analyses are intended, however, to 

comply with the requirements of both the 

National Environmental Policy Act and Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA). In accordance with the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800, 

Protection of Historic Properties), impacts to 

cultural resources were identified and evaluated 

by (1) determining the area of potential effects; 

(2) identifying cultural resources in the area of 

potential effects that were either listed on or 

eligible to be listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places; (3) applying the criteria of 

adverse effect to affected cultural resources 

either listed on or eligible to be listed on the 

national register; and (4) considering ways to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. 

Under the Advisory Council’s regulations a 

determination of either adverse effect or no 

adverse effect must also be made for affected, 

national-register-eligible cultural resources. An 

adverse effect occurs whenever an impact alters, 

directly or indirectly, any characteristic of a 

cultural resource that qualify it for inclusion on 

the national register, e.g., diminishing the 

integrity of the resource’s location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. Adverse effects also include 

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the 

actions proposed in the alternatives that would 

occur later in time, be farther in distance, or be 

cumulative (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of 

Adverse Effects). A determination of no adverse 

effect means there is an effect, but the effect 

would not diminish in any way the characteristics of the cultural resource that qualify it for 

inclusion on the national register. 

CEQ regulations and the NPS Conservation 

Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and 

Decision-making (Director’s Order #12) also call 

for a discussion of the appropriateness of 

mitigation, as well as an analysis of how effective 

the mitigation would be in reducing the intensity 

of a potential impact, e.g., reducing the intensity 

of an impact from major to moderate or minor. 

Any resultant reduction in intensity of impact 

due to mitigation, however, is an estimate of the 

effectiveness of mitigation under the National 

Environmental Policy Act only. It does not 

suggest that the level of effect as defined by 

Section 106 is similarly reduced. Although 

adverse effects under Section 106 may be 

mitigated, the effect remains adverse. 

A Section 106 summary is included in the impact 

analysis sections for those cultural resources that 

are eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places. The Section 106 summary is intended to 

meet the requirements of Section 106 and is an 

assessment of the effect of the undertaking 

(implementation of the alternative) on cultural 

resources, based upon the criterion of effect and 

criteria of adverse effect found in the Advisory 

Council’s regulations. 

Context. The affected area is the park and 

Brewster County. Cultural resources impacts 

should not extend beyond these areas. 
Methods for Analyzing Impacts 

145 

Intensity Definitions for the National 

Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 

Analysis of Cultural Resources 

Archeological Resources. Certain important 

research questions about human history can 

only be answered by the actual physical material 

of cultural resources. Archeological resources 

can answer, in whole or in part, such research 

questions. An archeological site(s) can be eligible 

for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places if the site(s) meets one or more of the 

following criteria: it is associated with events 

that have made a significant contribution to the 

broad patterns of our history; or it is associated 

with prehistory or with the lives of persons 

significant in our past, or it embodies the 

distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or 

method of construction or that represent the 

work of a master, or that possess high artistic 

values, or that represent a significant and 

distinguishable entity whose components may 

lack individual distinction; or it has yielded, or 

may be likely to yield, information important in 

prehistory or history. For purposes of analyzing 

impacts on archeological resources, thresholds 

of change for the intensity of an impact are 

based upon the degree to which the site’s(s’) 

ability to meet the above criteria would be 

affected. 

Negligible: There are no perceptible 

consequences to an archeological site’s (s’) 

potential to yield important information. For 

the purpose of Section 106, the determination 

of effect would be no adverse effect. 

Minor: Adverse impact — disturbance of a 

site(s) is confined to a small area with little, if 

any, loss of important information potential. 

For the purpose of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. Beneficial impact — preservation of a 

site in its natural state. For the purpose of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would 

be no adverse effect. 

Moderate: Adverse impact — disturbance of a 

site(s) would not result in a substantial loss of 

important information For the purpose of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would 

be an adverse effect. Beneficial impact — 

stabilization of the site. For the purpose of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would 

be no adverse effect. 

Major: Adverse impact — disturbance of a 

site(s) is substantial and results in the loss of 

most or all of the site and its potential to yield 

important information. For the purpose of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would 

be an adverse effect. Beneficial impact — 

active intervention to preserve the site. For the 

purpose of Section 106, the determination of 

effect would be no adverse effect. 

Historic Structures/Buildings. For a structure 

or building to be listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places, it must be associated with an 

important historic context, i.e., possess 

significance — the meaning or value ascribed to 

the structure or building, and have integrity of 

those features necessary to convey its significance, i.e., location, design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association (see 

National Register Bulletin #15, “How to Apply 

the National Register Criteria for Evaluation”). 

To analyze potential impacts on historic 

structures/ buildings, the thresholds of change 

for the intensity of an impact are defined as 

follows: 

Negligible: Impact(s) is at the lowest levels of 

detection — barely perceptible and not 

measurable. For the purpose of Section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Minor: Adverse impact — impact would not 

affect the character-defining features of a 

National-Register-of-Historic-Places-eligible 

or listed structure or building. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would 

be no adverse effect. Beneficial impact — 

stabilization/preservation of characterdefining features in accordance with the 

Secretary’s of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties, to maintain 

existing integrity of a structure or building. For 

the purpose of Section 106, the determination 

of effect would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate: Adverse impact — impact would 

alter a character-defining feature(s) of a 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

146 

structure or building, but would not diminish 

the integrity of the resource to the extent that 

its national register eligibility is jeopardized. 

For purposes of Section 106, the determination 

of effect would be an adverse effect. Beneficial 

impact — rehabilitation of a structure or 

building in accordance with the Secretary’s of 

the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties to make possible a compatible use of the property while preserving its 

character-defining features. For the purpose of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would 

be no adverse effect. 

Major: Adverse impact — the impact would 

alter a character-defining feature(s) of the 

structure or building, diminishing the integrity 

of the resource to the extent that it is no longer 

eligible to be listed on the national register. For 

the purpose of Section 106, the determination 

of effect would be an adverse effect. Beneficial 

impact — restoration in accordance with the 

Secretary’s of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties to accurately 

depict the form, features, and character of a 

structure or building as it appeared during its 

period of significance. For the purpose of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would 

be no adverse effect. 

Cultural Landscapes. Cultural landscapes are 

the result of the long interaction between people 

and the land, the influence of human beliefs and 

actions over time upon the natural landscape. 

Shaped through time by historical land use and 

management practices, as well as politics and 

property laws, levels of technology, and economic conditions, cultural landscapes provide a 

living record of an area’s past, a visual chronicle 

of its history. The dynamic nature of modern 

human life, however, contributes to the continual reshaping of cultural landscapes, making 

these landscapes a good source of information 

about specific times and places, but at the same 

time rendering their long-term preservation a 

challenge. 

For a cultural landscape to be listed on the 

national register, it must possess significance 

(the meaning or value ascribed to the landscape) 

and have integrity of those features necessary to 

convey its significance. The character-defining 

features of a cultural landscape include spatial 

organization and land patterns; topography; 

vegetation; circulation patterns; water features; 

and structures/buildings, site furnishings and 

objects (see The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 

With Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes 1996). For purposes of analyzing 

potential impacts on cultural landscapes, the 

thresholds of change for the intensity of an 

impact are defined as follows: 

Negligible: Impact(s) is at the lowest levels of 

detection — barely perceptible and not 

measurable. For the purpose of Section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Minor: Adverse impact — impact would not 

affect the character-defining features of a 

National-Register-of-Historic-Places-eligible 

or listed cultural landscape. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would 

be no adverse effect. Beneficial impact — 

preservation of character-defining features in 

accordance with the Secretary’s of the Interior’s 

Standards to maintain integrity of the cultural 

landscape. For the purpose of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. 

Moderate: Adverse impact — impact would 

alter a character-defining feature(s) of the 

cultural landscape, but would not diminish the 

integrity of the landscape to the extent that its 

national register eligibility is jeopardized. For 

purposes of Section 106, the determination of 

effect would be an adverse effect. Beneficial 

impact — rehabilitation of a landscape or its 

features in accordance with the Secretary’s of 

the Interior’s Standards to make possible a 

compatible use of the landscape while 

preserving its character-defining features. For 

the purpose of Section 106, the determination 

of effect would be no adverse effect. 

Major: Adverse impact — impact would alter a 

character-defining feature(s) of the cultural 

landscape, diminishing the integrity of the 

resource to the extent that it is no longer 

eligible to be listed on the national register. For 
Methods for Analyzing Impacts 

147 

the purpose of Section 106, the determination 

of effect would be an adverse effect. Beneficial 

impact — restoration in accordance with the 

Secretary’s of the Interior’s Standards to 

accurately depict the features and character of 

a landscape as it appeared during its period of 

significance. For the purpose of Section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Ethnographic Resources. Certain important 

questions about human culture and history can 

only be answered by gathering information 

about the cultural material of cultural resources. 

Ethnographic resources have the potential to 

address questions about contemporary peoples 

or groups, their identify, and heritage. To those 

for whom the resources hold cultural meaning, 

the ethnographic link is vested in specific places 

of traditional use. Ethnographic resources can 

be eligible for inclusion on the National Register 

of Historic Places if they meet national register 

criteria for traditional cultural properties. For 

purposes of analyzing potential impacts on 

ethnographic resources, the thresholds of 

change for the intensity of an impact are defined 

below. 

Negligible: Impact(s) would be barely perceptible 

and would neither alter resource conditions, 

such as traditional access or site preservation, 

nor the relationship between the resource and 

the affiliated group’s body of beliefs and 

practices. There would be no change to a 

group’s body of beliefs and practices. For the 

purpose of Section 106, the determination of 

effect on traditional cultural properties would 

be no adverse effect. 

Minor: Adverse impacts — impact(s) would be 

slight but noticeable, and would neither alter 

the resource condition, such as traditional 

access or site preservation, nor the relationship 

between the resource and the affiliated group’s 

body of beliefs and practices. Beneficial 

impact — would allow traditional access 

and/or facilitate a group’s traditional practices 

or beliefs. For the purpose of Section 106, the 

determination of effect on traditional cultural 

properties would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate: Adverse impact — impact(s) would 

be apparent and would alter resource conditions, such as traditional access, site preservation, or the relationship between the resource 

and the affiliated group’s beliefs and practices, 

but the group’s belief and/or practices would 

survive. For the purpose of Section 106, the 

determination of effect on traditional cultural 

properties would be an adverse effect. 

Beneficial impact — would facilitate a group’s 

beliefs and practices. For the purpose of 

Section 106, the determination of effect on 

traditional cultural properties would be no 

adverse effect. 

Major: Adverse impact — impact(s) would alter 

resource conditions, such as traditional access, 

site preservation, or the relationship between 

the resource and the affiliated group’s body of 

beliefs and practices, to the extent that the 

survival of a group’s beliefs and/or practices 

would be jeopardized. For the purpose of 

Section 106, the determination of effect on 

traditional cultural properties would be an 

adverse effect. Beneficial impact — would 

encourage a group’s beliefs or practices. For 

the purpose of Section 106, the determination 

of effect on traditional cultural properties 

would be no adverse effect. 

Museum Collections. Museum collections 

(historic artifacts, natural specimens, and 

archival and manuscript material) may be 

threatened by fire, theft, vandalism, natural 

disasters, and careless acts. The preservation of 

museum collections is an ongoing process of 

preventative conservation, supplemented by 

conservation treatment when necessary. The 

primary goal is preservation of artifacts in as 

stable condition as possible to prevent damage 

and minimize deterioration. A beneficial impact 

would result in greater access, preservation, and 

protection of the park’s collections. An adverse 

impact would result in less access, preservation, 

and protection of the park’s collections. For 

purposes of analyzing potential impacts, the 

thresholds of change for the intensity of an 

impact are defined as follows: 

Negligible: the impact is at the lowest levels of 

detection — barely perceptible and not 

measurable. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

148 

Minor: the impact is measurable and perceptible 

but affects only a few artifacts in the museum 

collection. 

Moderate: the impact is measurable and 

perceptible and affects many artifacts in the 

museum collection. 

Major: the impact is measurable and perceptible 

and affects the majority of artifacts in the 

museum collection. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

The discussions of the visitor experience in this 

document cover the effects on: visitors’ ability to 

experience the park’s primary resources and 

their natural and cultural settings (including 

vistas, natural sounds and smells, and wildlife); 

overall visitor access to the park; and the 

freedom to experience the resources at one’s 

own pace. Also discussed is visitor access to 

appropriate orientation and interpretive 

information and the effects of proposed actions 

on visitor safety. 

Information gathered in a 1992 visitor survey 

was used, along with public input during the 

planning process, to evaluate the potential 

impacts of implementing each alternative on 

visitors. 

Visitors have expressed interest in learning more 

about the park’s natural and cultural resources 

and to park facilities and accommodations. 

Concern was also expressed regarding the need 

for greater interaction and partnership with 

Mexican neighbors. 

Consultation with American Indian groups has 

revealed that these groups are concerned not 

only about the preservation of cultural resources 

and properties, but also about the need to 

interpret the Big Bend area from American 

Indian perspectives. 

For analysis purposes, impact intensities for 

visitor experience impact topics have been 

defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact would be barely 

detectable, would not occur in primary 

resource areas, or would affect few visitors. 

Minor: The impact would be slight but 

detectable, would not occur in primary 

resource areas, or would affect few visitors. 

Moderate: The impact would be readily 

apparent, would occur in primary resource 

areas, or would affect many visitors. 

Major: The effect would be severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial, would occur in 

primary resource areas, or would affect the 

majority of visitors. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Socioeconomic impacts take place both over the 

short and long term. For purposes of this analysis, short-term impacts would take place during 

the construction phases for the expanded facilities and system upgrades considered under 

alternatives B and C — about one to two years. 

Long-term benefits would start after construction is completed and continue indefinitely, or 

until conditions in the park are changed. 

Socioeconomic impacts vary in intensity, and the 

degree of impact is directly related to its context 

— the economic activity in the surrounding area. 

In this analysis, intensity is defined as: 

Negligible: Economic and socioeconomic 

conditions would not be affected or the effects 

would not be measurable. 

Minor: The effects on economic and 

socioeconomic conditions would be small but 

measurable and would affect a small 

proportion of the population, with few effects 

discernible outside Brewster and Presidio 

Counties. 

Moderate: The effects on economic and 

socioeconomic conditions would be readily 

apparent and widespread in the vicinity of 

Brewster and Presidio Counties. 

Major: The effects on economic and 

socioeconomic conditions would be readily 
Methods for Analyzing Impacts 

149 

apparent and would substantially change the 

economic or social services within Brewster 

and Presidio Counties. 

The socioeconomic impact data presented in the 

following analysis have been rounded to the 

nearest $100,000 for sales and tax revenues, and 

to the nearest 10 jobs for estimates of job 

creation. 
150 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Soil 

There would be soil disturbance caused by 

ongoing maintenance such as road grading, 

revegetation, restoration, repair of buildings, 

upgrading a water system, and removing or 

protecting fuel storage tanks at the gas station 

and maintenance area at Rio Grande Village 

from the 500-year flood. These actions would be 

restricted to the minimum area required for 

rehabilitation. All the areas that would be 

affected have been previously disturbed. Sites 

with soil disturbance would undergo accelerated 

wind and water erosion, at least temporarily, 

until drainage structures were fully operational 

and vegetation had recovered in cleared areas. 

To conserve available organic matter, topsoil, 

where present, would be retained and replaced. 

(Soils at Big Bend have virtually no topsoil.) The 

work, occurring in disturbed areas, would result 

in minor adverse long-term impacts on soils. 

Foot traffic would continue to compact soils, 

decrease permeability, alter soil moisture, and 

diminish water storage capacity, increasing 

erosion and changes in the natural composition 

of vegetation. Altered vegetative composition 

would create changes in soil chemistry. To 

minimize the soil erosion created by this activity, 

most visitor developments have been 

constructed where the slopes are less than 15%. 

Where heavy foot traffic was expected, trails 

have been paved and visitors are encouraged to 

stay on maintained trails. Trail rehabilitation 

would include special design methods in areas 

where the slope is high and soils are easily 

eroded by wind and water. These impacts have 

already occurred to some degree because all the 

areas involved have been disturbed; consequently, soil erosion by wind and water, and soil 

nutrient transport, would be minor, long-term 

adverse impacts. 

Under the no-action alternative, about 1,341 

acres of the 801,000 in the park would continue 

to be occupied by development. The soil survey 

for the park shows varying suitability for 

development. In areas that would be impacted 

by actions of any alternative, erosion hazard 

varies from slight to severe. Development has 

wholly or partially eliminated the direct inflow 

of water and diverted precipitation from some 

natural drainages. Soils have been compacted by 

foot traffic. Management actions such as visitor 

education on the impacts of off-trail use, site 

hardening/trail paving, placement of fences to 

direct visitor use, designated trails and campsites, and restoration of impacted sites as 

funding becomes available would assist in 

minimizing these adverse impacts. Most of these 

impacts have already occurred in the developed 

areas; consequently impacts such as eliminating 

inflow of water, diverting precipitation from 

natural drainages, and soil compaction would be 

minor long term and adverse. 

Soils at Chisos Basin, Panther Junction, Rio 

Grande Village, Castolon, and Cottonwood 

Campground have moderate or severe limitations for the kinds of actions that might occur 

under this alternative. Further geotechnical 

investigation would be required to evaluate 

suitability and needed mitigation before 

designing the kinds of facilities listed. Tables in 

appendix H show, for each developed area, 

specific limitations of soil map units for actions 

of any alternative. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, including 

dryland farming and ranching, has led to the 

erosion of soils by removing native vegetation 

and replacing it with plants not necessarily 

suited to the desert environment. This, along 

with tilling the soil, has left soils exposed to 

erosion by wind and water. 

Construction in the park, including trail development, by settlers, the army, Texas Canyons 

State Park personnel, Civilian Conservation 

Corps personnel, and Big Bend National Park 

personnel has increased erosion by removing 

native vegetation, allowing invasion of exotic 

plants, and leaving soils exposed to erosion by 

wind and water. Paving the main park roads 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No Action) 

151 

probably decreased erosion, but probably 

altered natural soil profiles. 

The development of some private lands such as 

those in gateway communities west of the park 

or on state lands such as Big Bend Ranch State 

Park and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area 

for residential, tourist-related, or other uses, and 

the construction of five structures in the park 

could increase runoff, wind erosion, and soil 

compaction and alter soil regimes. 

If efforts to restore soils and natural hydrology 

at North Rosillos/Harte Ranch are successful, 

there would be long-term beneficial impacts on 

soils there. The intensity of the impact is 

uncertain because the size of the area that would 

be successfully restored is not known. If funding 

continues, the project would likely have major 

beneficial impacts on soils. 

Impacts on soils from agriculture and ranching 

including livestock grazing and trails covered 

wide areas and were adverse. Impacts on soils 

from building structures and trails covered 

smaller areas and were adverse. Impacts on soils 

of current and anticipated future actions inside 

and outside the park, in conjunction with the 

impacts of alternative A would be major and 

adverse because they would probably cover 

more than 20 acres. Most of the impacts would 

be the result of development outside the park 

that may or may not be mitigated. The actions of 

alternative A and ongoing restoration at North 

Rosillos/Harte Ranch would contribute a very 

small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Soil disturbance from ongoing 

maintenance, repair of buildings, upgrading one 

water system, and removing or protecting fuel 

storage tanks from the 500-year flood would be 

minor, adverse, and long term. Soil erosion by 

wind and water, and soil nutrient transport from 

foot traffic would be minor, long term, and 

adverse. 

Impacts of development such as eliminating 

inflow of water, diverting precipitation from 

natural drainages, and compaction would be 

long term, adverse, and minor. 

The park’s soil resources would not be impaired 

by actions proposed under this alternative. 

Vegetation 

Disturbance of vegetation would result from 

ongoing maintenance such as road grading, 

revegetation, upgrading the water system, 

building two new buildings at Panther Junction, 

and relocating campsites at Rio Grande Village. 

Raising fuel tanks above the 500-year floodplain 

would not be expected to impact vegetation. 

Because most of these activities would occur 

over small areas that have been previously 

disturbed, this would be a negligible long-term 

adverse impact. 

Clearing some vegetation could increase the 

relative abundance of plant species that invade 

disturbed areas. Some of these could be exotics. 

Increased erosion at these areas could expose 

root systems and lead to the subsequent death of 

more mesic plants (those needing a moderate 

amount of water). Because clearing would occur 

over small areas that have already been 

disturbed, this would be a minor long-term 

adverse impact. 

The irrigation of shade trees and lawns at the 

campgrounds at Rio Grande Village and 

Cottonwood would continue to cause the 

growth of unnaturally lush vegetation and allow 

exotic species to flourish. This is an ongoing, 

moderate, long-term adverse impact. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, including 

dryland farming and ranching, have greatly 

reduced native desert plants. Plants have been 

affected by being displaced, and habitat has been 

lost through agricultural uses and introduction 

of nonnative plants. 

Building structures and trails in the park by 

settlers, the army, Texas Canyons State Park 

personnel, the Civilian Conservation Corps 

personnel, and Big Bend National Park 

personnel has reduced native vegetation, 

allowed invasion of nonnative plants, and in 

some cases planted nonnative plants. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

152 

The development of some private lands such as 

those in gateway communities west of the park 

or on state lands such as Big Bend Ranch State 

Park and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area 

for residential, tourist-related, or other uses, and 

the construction of five structures in the park 

could increase runoff, wind erosion, and soil 

compaction and alter soil regimes. 

If restoration efforts at North Rosillos/Harte 

Ranch are successful, there would be long-term 

beneficial impacts on soils and hydrology, which 

in turn would allow restoration of native plants. 

Impacts of agriculture and ranching on vegetation covered wide areas and were adverse. 

Impacts of building structures in the park, 

including trails, covered much smaller areas and 

have been adverse. Impacts of current and 

anticipated future actions outside the park, in 

conjunction with the impacts of alternative A 

would result in moderate, long-term adverse 

impacts on vegetation. Most of the impacts 

would be the result of development outside the 

park that might or might not be mitigated. The 

actions of alternative A and ongoing restoration 

at North Rosillos/Harte Ranch would contribute 

a very small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Maintenance and ongoing 

visitor use would affect vegetation by leading to 

changes in the relative abundance of species, the 

death of some plants from the exposure of root 

systems, the trampling and death of some plants, 

and the resultant changes in species composition. These would be negligible to minor longterm adverse effects. The irrigation of shade 

trees and lawns at the campgrounds at Rio 

Grande Village and Cottonwood would 

continue to cause the growth of unnaturally lush 

vegetation and allow exotic species to flourish, 

an ongoing, moderate, long-term adverse 

impact. 

The park’s vegetation resources would not be 

impaired by the actions proposed in this 

alternative. 

Wildlife 

Alternative A would result in wildlife 

disturbance caused by ongoing maintenance 

such as road grading, revegetation and 

restoration; and upgrading the water system at 

Castolon. Wildlife would probably not be 

disturbed by removing fuel tanks from the 500-

year floodplain, but methods of protecting the 

tanks in place could displace wildlife. 

There would be no change in the amount of 

wildlife habitat in the park under alternative A. 

Development would continue to occupy less 

than 1% of the 801,000+

 acres in the park. 

Wildlife habitat would continue to be fragmented by roads, trails, and facilities, and 

wildlife habits and movement would continue to 

be altered by employees and visitors. People still 

would concentrate at Chisos Basin, Panther 

Junction, Rio Grande Village, Castolon, and 

Cottonwood Campground, disturbing wildlife 

and degrading habitat. These intermittent 

adverse impacts would be minor and long term. 

Visitors to less-used sites, such as the North 

Rosillos/Harte Ranch area, Dugout Wells, and 

backcountry camping areas, would continue to 

cause intermittent minor disruption of wildlife. 

This intermittent adverse impact would be 

negligible and long term. 

Vehicle traffic would continue to cause a 

relatively low incidence of collisions with 

wildlife — a negligible, intermittent, adverse 

impact. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, including 

dryland farming and ranching, have greatly 

reduced native desert animals. Animals have 

been affected by being displaced and killed as 

vermin, and habitat has been lost through 

agricultural uses and introduction of nonnative 

animals. 

Building structures including trails in the park by 

settlers, the army, Texas Canyons State Park 

personnel, Civilian Conservation Corps personnel, and Big Bend National Park personnel has 

reduced native vegetation and allowed invasion 

of nonnative plants, degrading habitat for some 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No Action) 

153 

wildlife and improving it for others. Building and 

use of the structures, including roads, has 

increased human activity, and has degraded and 

fragmented wildlife habitat in some localized 

areas. The use of water for human needs has 

reduced the amount of water available to 

wildlife. 

The development of some private lands such as 

those in gateway communities west of the park 

or on state lands such as Big Bend Ranch State 

Park and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area 

for residential, tourist-related, or other uses, and 

the construction of five structures in the park, 

could alter wildlife habitat and habits and cause 

loss of wildlife in some areas. Water use of these 

developments or for tourist-related or other 

uses could reduce water available for wildlife. 

Road kill of rodents, larger mammals, and birds 

would increase because more development 

probably would increase traffic. 

The past impacts of agriculture and ranching on 

wildlife covered wide areas and were adverse. 

Past impacts of creating developments, including 

roads, to facilitate visitor use covered smaller 

areas, occupied and fragmented habitat, and 

were adverse. These impacts are continuing. Past 

and continuing overuse of water from the Rio 

Grande is a major contributor to adverse 

impacts on wildlife. Impacts on wildlife of 

current and anticipated future actions outside 

the park, in conjunction with the impacts of 

alternative A and restoration at North 

Rosillos/Harte Ranch would be moderate, long 

term, and adverse. Most of the impacts would be 

the result of development actions outside the 

park that might or might not be mitigated. The 

actions of alternative A would contribute a very 

small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Overall, the fragmentation of 

wildlife habitat, the alteration of wildlife movement, and vehicular collisions with wildlife from 

this alternative would continue to have a longterm minor adverse impact. 

The park’s wildlife resources would not be 

impaired by the actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

 

Water Quantity 

Chisos Basin/Oak Spring. During periods of 

extended drought, as well as at certain very 

limited times when it is not raining during 

normal years, the development at Chisos Basin 

would continue to use nearly all the water from 

Oak Spring. Impacts are particularly noticeable 

when periods of heavy use are combined with 

prolonged drought. The Chisos Basin development used 4,015,400 gallons of water in 2001. 

Because this is an ongoing impact and water use 

would not change under alternative A, this 

would be a negligible, intermittent, long-term 

adverse impact on the water quantity at Oak 

Spring and the plants and animals that would 

otherwise use the water. 

The Rio Grande. The park would continue to 

irrigate Rio Grande Village and the Cottonwood 

Campground using river water (25.6 million 

gallons per month would continue to be used at 

Rio Grande Village and 125,000 gallons per 

month at Cottonwood Campground). Because 

park use would continue to be small compared 

to the flow in the river, this would be a minor, 

long-term, adverse impact. 

At Castolon, use of irrigation water would 

continue to be about 125,000 gallons per month. 

Cumulative Effects. The presence of dams 

upstream and continued heavy use of the river 

would result in major long-term reductions in 

water quantity in the park and upstream and 

downstream of the park. 

Agriculture, including dryland farming and 

ranching, and urban development, has increased 

to the point that water in the Rio Grande watershed is overcommitted. 

Use of water in the area that is now the park, by 

residents, settlers, army personnel, Texas 

Canyons State Park personnel, Civilian 

Conservation Corps personnel, Big Bend 

National Park personnel or visitors, reduced the 

quantity of water available for wildlife, plants, 

and natural processes. Using water for watering 

stock or irrigating had a similar effect. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

154 

Past impacts of use of the Rio Grande for 

agriculture, ranching, and water supply were, 

and continue to be, major and adverse. Impacts 

on water quantity in the Rio Grande of current 

and anticipated future actions outside the park, 

in conjunction with the impacts of alternative A 

and restoration at North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 

are anticipated to be long term and adverse. 

Intensity of this impact is not known because it 

is not clear how increased development in the 

gateway communities west of the park and the 

state-managed areas would impact the Rio 

Grande or what the amount of any increased use 

would be. 

For many years, during periods of extended 

drought, as well as at certain, very limited times 

when it is not raining during normal years, the 

development at Chisos Basin has used nearly all 

the water from Oak Spring. This has had a major 

intermittent, long term, adverse impact on water 

quantity at Oak Spring and the plants and 

animals that would otherwise use the water. 

Water conservation measures begun in the 

1990s, such as installation of low flow toilets and 

shower heads and the incremental replacement 

of the water system, have reduced this impact to 

some degree. The actions of alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

The development of some private lands, such as 

those in gateway communities west of the park 

or state lands such as Big Bend Ranch State Park 

and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, for 

residential, tourist-related, or other uses or construction of five structures in the park would 

increase ground or surface water use and 

decrease water availability for other uses in an 

area where water is already scarce. The exact 

impact of increased residential or tourist 

development in gateway communities west of 

the park, if any, is not known. 

Conclusion. Continued use of nearly all the 

water at Oak Spring for human use at Chisos 

Basin during periods of extended drought , as 

well as at certain very limited times when it is not 

raining during normal years, there would be a 

negligible, intermittent, long-term, adverse 

impact. Overall, impacts on the quantity of water 

in the Rio Grande would be negligible, long 

term, and adverse. 

The resources and values of Big Bend National 

Park would not be impaired because there 

would be no major adverse impacts on a 

resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in 

the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Big Bend National Park; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as 

a goal in the park’s general management plan or 

other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Consequently, water quantity would not be 

impaired as a result of implementing actions in 

alternative A. 

Threatened, Endangered, 

and Candidate Species 

Black-capped vireo (endangered). The Chisos 

Basin, including the road corridor leading into it, 

is a very important part of this bird’s habitat. 

Reasons for the bird’s decline are habitat loss to 

urbanization, browsing by herbivores, brush 

clearing, natural succession, brown-headed 

cowbird brood parasitism, and human disturbance. The development in the Chisos Basin 

would remain in this alternative. Clearing of the 

road edges, browsing by herbivores, and human 

disturbance would continue. Impacts of these 

actions have probably already occurred and 

have been localized. The continuation of current 

trends would be a negligible long-term adverse 

impact. 

Big Bend gambusia (endangered). This fish is 

found in the wild only at Rio Grande Village. It is 

threatened by habitat alteration, ground-water 

pumping, declining spring flows, and competition with introduced nonnative species. The 

spring that feeds the pond at Rio Grande Village 

where Big Bend gambusia live is also used for 

human consumption. In alternative A, to 

eliminate the competition for water, a separate 

source of water would be found for human use. 

Relocating the campsites that are close to the 

pond would likely result in eliminating this 

source of impacts on the Big Bend gambusia. 

How these changes would impact the fish are 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No Action) 

155 

not known. It is hoped that the improvements in 

its habitat would result in minor to moderate, 

long-term beneficial impacts. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, including 

dryland farming and ranching, have greatly 

reduced native desert plants and animals 

including threatened and endangered species. 

The black-capped vireo has lost habitat to 

browsing by herbivores, brush-clearing, and 

human disturbance and urbanization. The Big 

Bend gambusia has lost habitat to habitat 

alteration, groundwater pumping, decreasing 

spring flows, and competition with introduced 

nonnative species such as the western mosquito 

fish. 

Placement of the road into Chisos Basin by the 

Civilian Conservation Corps probably destroyed 

habitat for the black-capped vireo. It facilitated 

development and occupation of the basin by 

more people for longer periods of time than had 

occurred before road construction. This was an 

adverse impact on the habitat for the nowendangered bird. 

Past agricultural use at Rio Grande Village — 

including alterations of landform and natural 

hydrologic features, irrigation, and planting of 

nonnative plants — may have damaged habitat 

for the Big Bend gambusia. Adding housing, a 

road system, some parts of an irrigation system, 

a reflection pond in the group campground, 

parts of a campground, and infrastructure for 

the campgrounds and restroom area probably 

further damaged habitat for the fish. It also 

brought in larger groups of people — employees 

who lived there and visitors who competed with 

the fish for scarce spring water resources. These 

were probably adverse impacts on the Big Bend 

gambusia. These impacts continue today. 

The development of some private lands, such as 

those in gateway communities west of the park 

or state lands such as Big Bend Ranch State Park 

and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, for 

residential, tourist-related, or other uses and the 

construction of five structures in the park could 

impact black-capped vireo habitat or alter 

suitable habitat for Big Bend gambusia. Water 

use for the developments or for activities not 

requiring development could reduce water 

available for habitat for these species in an area 

where water is already scarce. 

Past impacts on threatened and endangered 

species from agriculture, including dryland 

farming and ranching, dam building, urbanization, and over use of water from the Rio Grande 

have been major and adverse. Past impacts on 

black-capped vireo and Big Bend gambusia from 

the Civilian Conservation Corps and the 

National Park Service adding development in 

the park for visitor use have been major and 

adverse. In addition, attracting visitors to Rio 

Grande Village and allowing them to remain 

overnight and building employee housing in the 

area has increased human demand for the spring 

water used by Big Bend gambusia—an adverse 

impact. Impacts on threatened and endangered 

species from current and anticipated future 

actions outside the park, in conjunction with the 

impacts of alternative A and restoration at Harte 

Ranch, are not known because the locations of 

species outside the park in areas that might be 

impacted are not known. Given the lack of 

information regarding impacts outside the park, 

it is not possible to assess the relative size of the 

impacts of alternative A compared to current 

and anticipated future actions outside the park. 

Conclusion. Overall, the continued presence 

of development in the Chisos Basin, continued 

clearing of the road edges, browsing by 

herbivores, and human disturbance would have 

a negligible, long-term adverse impact on the 

black-capped vireo. Improving Big Bend 

gambusia habitat by eliminating competition for 

spring water and relocating campsites would 

have a minor to moderate long-term beneficial 

impact on the fish. 

The park’s threatened and endangered species 

would not be impaired by actions proposed 

under this alternative. 

Floodplains 

Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values.

The natural and beneficial values of floodplains 

would continue to be compromised by the 

presence of the 100-site campground at Rio 

Grande Village, the 35-site campground at 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

156 

Cottonwood, and all the development at 

Panther Junction. Protecting fuel storage tanks 

at Rio Grande Village from the 500-year flood 

would reduce the risk of fuel spilling into 

floodwaters. However, the continuing adverse 

impact on natural processes would be moderate 

and long term. 

Flooding. A flood hazard reconnaissance (NPS: 

1991) stated that, “Because flooding occurs only 

in extremely large and rare events, and flood 

flow velocities are very small, the possibility that 

visitors could be injured or lose their lives in a 

flood at Rio Grande Village or Cottonwood 

Campground is very small.” Under the no-action 

alternative the campground and all development 

at Rio Grande Village and the campground at 

Cottonwood would continue to occupy part of 

the 100-year floodplain. Even though early 

warning and evacuation plans would be 

developed, communications might not always be 

fully comprehended or acted upon. Although 

the possibility of loss of life is very small, 

campers, other visitors, and employees would 

remain in some danger. Severe flooding has been 

infrequent, and risks are minor to moderate, but 

the results of flooding could cause major adverse 

impacts on the visitors and employees involved. 

The entire development at Panther Junction, 

located on a bajada or area of converging alluvial 

fans, is subject to flash flooding and debris flows 

and is geomorphologically unstable. In ideal 

circumstances, development at Panther Junction 

would be located outside the maximum 

estimated flood (Qme) (see appendix F). Under 

alternative A, the fire management building 

would be constructed in a less dangerous 

portion of the flood-prone area. 

According to “Estimation of Flood and 

Geomorphic Hazard in the Panther Canyon 

Area of Big Bend National Park, Texas” (NPS: 

1995), all of the structures at Panther Junction 

are at “some risk.” However, the report also 

seems to indicate that the risk is not great. 

Nevertheless, because the long period between 

events leads to a false sense of security and 

warning time would be short, there is the 

possibility of human injury or loss of life in the 

event of a large flood. Even though the report 

finds that the risk is not great, flooding at 

Panther Junction could have major adverse 

impacts on the visitors and employees involved. 

In the event of a 500-year or maximum 

estimated flood (Qme), up to 60 % of the parks 

museum collection, stored at Panther Junction, 

could be damaged or destroyed. This would be a 

major long-term adverse impact on the 

collection. 

In addition, a large investment in infrastructure 

(including the visitor center, the park headquarters, school, and 76 housing units) could be 

lost if the 500-year or maximum estimated flood 

(Qme) occurs at Panther Junction. Even though 

the risk of this event occurring is not great, loss 

of infrastructure from flooding at Panther 

Junction could have a major, long-term adverse 

impact on NPS operations and could require the 

park staff to find temporary offices and housing 

outside the park. 

Cumulative Effects. The construction of dams 

upstream of the park and the heavy use of the 

Rio Grande upstream have greatly reduced the 

extent of the floodplain and the natural and 

beneficial values of floodplains in the park. 

Cattle and sheep probably have been allowed to 

use some riparian areas in and near the park. 

This practice degrades natural and beneficial 

floodplain values in exchange for benefits to 

agricultural uses. NPS structures and visitor uses 

in floodplain areas contribute to the loss of 

natural and beneficial values. 

The presence of dams upstream and heavy use 

of the river would continue to result in major 

long-term reductions in area and in beneficial 

values in floodplains in the park and upstream 

and downstream of the park. 

Further development in floodplains and 

wetlands outside the park for residential, 

agricultural, or commercial uses would decrease 

the area in which natural and beneficial 

floodplain values would be preserved. 

Even though the natural resources and 

collections management building would be 

constructed in a less flood-prone area (less likely 

to be inundated by smaller floods), and the 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No Action) 

157 

likelihood of them being damaged in smaller 

floods would be reduced, they would still be 

within the maximum estimated flood area at 

Panther Junction. If the maximum estimated 

flood occurs, the 60% of the park’s museum 

collection that is stored at Panther Junction 

could be damaged or destroyed. This would be a 

major long-term adverse impact on the 

collection. 

Under this alternative the natural and beneficial 

values of floodplain areas would continue to be 

compromised by development at Rio Grande 

Village, Cottonwood, and Panther Junction 

(including a new natural resources and 

collections management building at Panther 

Junction). 

The past impacts of agriculture, ranching, 

urbanization, dam construction, visitor 

developments, and visitor use on floodplains 

covered wide areas and were adverse. 

Continuing overuse of water from the Rio 

Grande is a major contributor to adverse 

impacts on floodplains. Impacts on floodplains 

of current and anticipated future actions inside 

and outside the park, in conjunction with the 

impacts of alternative A and restoration at North 

Rosillos/ Harte Ranch would be moderate, long 

term, and adverse. Most of the impacts would be 

the result of development actions outside the 

park that might or might not be mitigated. The 

actions of alternative A would contribute a very 

small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. The natural and beneficial 

values of floodplain areas would continue to be 

compromised by the presence of campgrounds 

at Rio Grande Village and Cottonwood, other 

development at Rio Grande Village, and the 

development in the flash flood hazard area at 

Panther Junction. This continuing long-term 

adverse impact on natural processes would be 

moderate. 

Although severe flooding has been infrequent 

and risks are minor to moderate, flooding at Rio 

Grande Village, Cottonwood Campground, or 

Panther Junction could result in major adverse 

impacts on the visitors or employees involved. 

Even though the risk of flooding is not great at 

Panther Junction, damage or loss of 60% of the 

museum collection would be a major, long-term 

adverse impact on the collection, and loss of 

infrastructure would be a major, long-term 

adverse impact on operations. Loss of 

infrastructure could require the park to find 

temporary offices and housing outside the park. 

The resources and values of Big Bend National 

Park would not be impaired because there 

would be no major adverse impacts on a 

resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in 

the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Big Bend National Park; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as 

a goal in the park’s general management plan or 

other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, no floodplain resources would be impaired as a result of implementing alternative A. 

Wetlands 

In the no-action alternative, during periods of 

extended drought, as well as at certain, very 

limited times when it is not raining during 

normal years, all the water from Oak Spring 

would continue to be diverted for human use at 

Chisos Basin at certain times of the year. This 

deprives associated wetlands of water. At Rio 

Grande Village and Cottonwood Campground, 

riparian vegetation has been eliminated from 

some high visitation areas and would not be 

allowed to recover in this alternative. The 

natural functioning of these wetlands would 

continue to be compromised by visitor use and 

irrigation. Because changes in the areas involved 

would be clearly detectable and have an appreciable effect on natural processes, this continuing 

adverse impact on wetlands would be long term 

and moderate. 

Cumulative Effects. Some wetlands within and 

outside the park, especially along the Rio 

Grande, have been filled to make more land 

available for growing crops. Cattle and sheep 

probably have been allowed to use some wetland 

and riparian areas in and near the park. These 

practices decrease wetland areas and degrade 

natural and beneficial wetland values in 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

158 

exchange for benefit to agricultural uses. NPS 

structures and visitor uses in wetland areas 

contribute to the loss of natural and beneficial 

values. 

The presence of dams upstream and continued 

heavy use of the river would continue to result in 

major long-term reductions in wetland area and 

in beneficial values of wetlands in the park and 

upstream and downstream of the park. Further 

development in wetlands outside the park for 

residential, agricultural, or commercial uses 

would decrease the area in which natural and 

beneficial wetland values would be preserved. 

The past cumulative impacts of agriculture, 

ranching, urbanization, NPS structures and 

visitor use, and dam construction on wetlands 

covered wide areas and were major and adverse. 

Continuing overuse of water from the Rio 

Grande is a major contributor to adverse 

impacts on wetlands. Impacts on wetlands of 

current and anticipated future actions outside 

the park, in conjunction with the impacts of 

alternative A and restoration at North Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch, would be moderate, long term, 

adverse cumulative impacts. Most of the impacts 

would be the result of development actions 

outside the park that might or might not be 

mitigated. The actions of alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Maintaining use of nearly all the 

water from Oak Spring during certain times of 

the year for human use at Chisos Basin during 

periods of extended drought, as well as at 

certain, very limited times when it is not raining 

during normal years; continuing use of the 

campgrounds at Rio Grande Village and 

Cottonwood; continuing use of other 

development at Rio Grande Village; and 

irrigation at both campgrounds would continue 

a moderate long-term adverse effect on 

wetlands. 

The resources and values of Big Bend National 

Park would not be impaired because there 

would be no major adverse impacts on a 

resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in 

the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Big Bend National Park; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as 

a goal in the park’s general management plan or 

other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Consequently, no wetland resources would be 

impaired as a result of implementing alternative 

A. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. Archeological resources have been 

identified in the Panther Junction development 

areas. There is the potential for more archeological sites to found in areas scheduled for 

development. New structures to house the 

resource management staff and collections, and 

for fire management purposes are planned, and 

also a few temporary housing and storage units 

would be placed in the Panther Junction area. 

The construction of these facilities would avoid 

archeological resources to the greatest extent 

possible. The construction of the fire and 

resource management facility would require 

excavation of an archeological site. This would 

result in a long-term, moderate, adverse effect 

on the site. 

At Chisos Basin, an addition is being made to the 

main lodge building in an area that contains no 

archeological resources; the result of this action 

would be no or negligible adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. 

Continuing survey work to identify the park’s 

archeological resources and preserving 

archeological resources as time and funding 

permit would have a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact on archeological 

resources. 

Cumulative Effects. Archeological resources at 

Big Bend National Park are subject to damage 

from development, vandalism, illegal activities, 

and natural processes. Past development in the 

Rio Grande Village area, Castolon area, Chisos 

Basin, and Panther Junction has resulted in the 

loss of some archeological resources during 

excavation and construction activities. Many of 

the reasonably foreseeable future actions, such 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No Action) 

159 

as construction of new employee housing and 

administrative, maintenance, and storage 

facilities could disturb archeological resources. 

If significant archeological resources could not 

be avoided, the data they possess regarding 

prehistoric and/or historic lifeways would be 

documented and recovered in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR part 800) and other 

archeological technical guidance. The minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts of this alternative, 

in conjunction with the adverse impacts of other 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

archeological resources, depending upon the 

significance of the site. However, the adverse 

impacts of the alternative would be a relatively 

minor component of the overall cumulative 

impact due to the limited scope of the action. 

The Black Gap Wildlife Management Area and 

Big Bend Ranch State Park, along with Big Bend 

National Park, are required to identify and 

preserve archeological sites. This would result in 

better management and protection of these 

resources. In the past, archeological sites have 

been subject to vandalism and loss due to lack of 

identification and protective measures. These 

actions, added to NPS actions, could possibly 

have a long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial 

impact on archeological resources. 

Conclusion. There would be long-term, 

moderate, adverse impacts from construction at 

Panther Junction. There would be no or negligible effects on archeological resources from the 

addition to the lodge in Chisos Basin. The 

ongoing efforts to identify and protect archeological resources would have a long-term minor 

to moderate beneficial impact on archeological 

resources; limited staff and funding for such 

work would keep these impacts at minor to 

moderate levels. 

The resources and values of Big Bend National 

Park would not be impaired because there 

would be no major adverse impacts on a 

resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in 

the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Big Bend National Park; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as 

a goal in the park’s general management plan or 

other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, no archeological resources would be 

impaired as a result of implementing alternative 

A. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5) addressing the criteria of effect 

and adverse effect, the National Park Service 

finds the survey work and continuing preservation work at the park under alternative A would 

have an effect that would not be adverse. 

Historic Structures/Buildings 

Analysis. The park’s goal is to increase the 

number of structures on the List of Classified 

Structures (currently 69) in good condition 

(currently 38%) 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. This would result in a long-term, 

negligible, beneficial impact for additional 

structures listed because treatment would be 

identified for these structures. 

All national register structures receive 

preservation treatment as staff time and funding 

permit. This is a long-term, negligible to minor 

beneficial impact on these structures. 

The upgraded fire suppression and water 

systems at Castolon would improve the 

protection and preservation of the historic 

district. This would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate beneficial impact for this historic 

district. 

Cumulative Effects. Historic structures/ 

buildings at Big Bend National Park are subject 

to damage from development, vandalism, illegal 

activities, and natural processes. Past development in the Rio Grande Village area, Castolon 

area, Chisos Basin, and Panther Junction has 

resulted in the loss of some structural resources 

during construction activities as well as the 

removal of some structures for visitor safety and 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

160 

other park purposes. The reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, such as construction of new 

employee housing and administrative, maintenance, and storage facilities would not impact 

historic structures/buildings. The negligible to 

minor beneficial impacts of this alternative, in 

conjunction with the lack of adverse impacts of 

other reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

would result in negligible to minor beneficial 

impacts on historic structures/buildings. 

However, the beneficial impacts would be a 

relatively minor component of the overall 

cumulative impact due to the limited scope of 

the action. 

The Black Gap Wildlife Management Area and 

Big Bend Ranch State Park are required to 

identify and preserve historical structures. 

Before the passage of the 1966 Historic 

Preservation Act, the park removed structures 

on parklands that may have been eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places. Since the enactment of the 1966 Historic 

Preservation Act, the park has evaluated and 

preserved these structures in parklands. The 

park’s actions of identification, evaluation, and 

preservation added to those of the state parks 

could result in long-term negligible beneficial 

effects on the area’s historic structures. 

Conclusion. Research and resource 

documentation is improving the park’s ability to 

make informed management decisions. The 

ongoing efforts to identify and preserve 

structures coupled with the park’s efforts to 

improve structures so that more structures are in 

good condition would benefit these resources. 

The overall result would be a long-term 

negligible to minor beneficial effect on the park’s 

historic structures. The upgraded fire 

suppression and water systems at Castolon 

would have a long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impact on these structures. 

The park’s historical structures/buildings would 

not be impaired by actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5) addressing the criteria of effect 

and adverse effect, the National Park Service 

finds the survey work and continuing preservation work at the park under alternative A would 

have an effect that would not be adverse. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Analysis. No cultural landscapes have been have 

been officially designated, but a Level 0

reconnaissance survey has identified a number 

of potential cultural landscapes. Park maintenance and development actions prior to the 

upcoming Level 2 inventory, to establish the 

character-defining landscape features and 

evaluate potential landscapes for eligibility to the 

National Register of Historic Places, might 

impact character-defining features of these 

cultural landscapes. This could result in a longterm, moderate, adverse impact on the park’s 

cultural landscapes. The identification of 

cultural landscapes would also give them official 

recognition and allow management to develop a 

strategy for their preservation and treatment. 

This would have a long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Effects. The Black Gap Wildlife 

Management Area and Big Bend Ranch State 

Park are required as part of the state’s compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act 

to identify and preserve cultural landscapes. In 

the past, cultural landscapes in the area have 

been adversely affected due to lack of identification and evaluation of character-defining 

features. This resulted in long-term, moderate to 

major, adverse impacts on cultural landscapes. 

This problem is gradually lessening as the various agencies develop inventories and preservation strategies for cultural landscapes. The 

park’s actions added to those of the state parks 

could result in long-term, minor, beneficial 

effects on the area’s cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion. Research and resource 

documentation is improving the park’s ability to 

make informed management decisions. The 

ongoing efforts to identify and evaluate landscapes would result in actions to preserve these 

landscapes. The overall result would be a longterm, minor, beneficial effect on the park’s 

cultural landscapes. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No Action) 

161 

The park’s cultural landscapes would not be 

impaired by actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5) addressing the criteria of effect 

and adverse effect, the National Park Service 

finds the survey work and continuing preservation work at the park under alternative A would 

have an effect that would not be adverse. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. Consultation with Comanche, 

Cheyenne, and Blackfeet tribal representatives 

on one site in the park could increase access for 

the tribes to additional sites that are important to 

these tribes. This would have a long-term minor 

beneficial effect. Efforts to update park interpretation to better provide Indian and Hispanic 

viewpoints of the park and its resources would 

increase visitor and staff understanding of these 

viewpoints. Work with the two Mexican 

protected areas and villages on the park’s 

boundaries to identify ethnographic resources in 

the park, develop an understanding of the needs 

of these communities, and develop strategies 

(that are compatible with the park’s mission) to 

meet those needs would have negligible to 

moderate beneficial impacts. 

Cumulative Effects. Ethnographic resources at 

Big Bend National Park are subject to damage 

from development, vandalism, illegal activities, 

and natural processes. Past development in the 

Rio Grande Village area, Castolon area, Chisos 

Basin, and Panther Junction has resulted in the 

loss of some ethnographic resources during 

excavation and construction activities. Many of 

the reasonably foreseeable future actions, such 

as the construction of new employee housing 

and administrative, maintenance, and storage 

facilities, could disturb ethnographic resources. 

The negligible to minor beneficial impacts of this 

alternative, in conjunction with the adverse 

impacts of other reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would result in negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on historic structures/buildings 

depending upon the significance of the site. 

However, the adverse impacts would be a 

relatively minor component of the overall 

cumulative impact, due to the limited scope of 

the action. 

The Black Gap Wildlife Management Area and 

Big Bend Ranch State Park have neither 

inventories nor evaluations of ethnographic 

resources in their parks. In the past, Big Bend 

National Park did not take into consideration 

the needs of Hispanic or other groups, but the 

park staff is constructively working on problems 

of mutual concern. The park’s actions added to 

those of the state parks could result in longterm, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on 

the area’s ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion. Research and resource documentation is improving the park’s ability to 

make informed management decisions. The 

ongoing efforts to identify and to evaluate 

ethnographic resources and park programs to 

meet the needs of various groups would result in 

actions to preserve these resources. The overall 

result would be a long-term, negligible to 

moderate, beneficial effect on the park’s 

ethnographic resources. 

The park’s ethnographic resources would not be 

impaired by actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5) addressing the criteria of effect 

and adverse effect, the National Park Service 

finds the survey work and continuing 

programmatic work under alternative A would 

have an effect that would not be adverse. 

Museum Collections 

Analysis. Continued work on reducing the 

backlog of uncatalogued collections materials 

would be a long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impact on the park’s collections. 

Continued use of the display cases at Panther 

Junction, with their lack of adequate environmental control system and location in the lobby 

area that is subject to ambient light and fluctuations in temperature and humidity, would be an 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

162 

adverse long-term impact of minor intensity 

(because of the small number of artifacts being 

affected). 

The visitor contact stations at Persimmon Gap, 

Rio Grande Village, and Chisos Basin also lack 

environmental control systems. However, the 

very limited amount of display materials at these 

locations results in a long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impact. 

Cumulative Effects. Collections at Big Bend 

National Park are subject to damage and 

deterioration from vandalism, illegal activities, 

natural processes, and lack of storage facilities 

with adequate environmental controls and 

security. Past lack of adequate care and facilities 

has resulted in the loss of some collection 

materials. Many of the reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, such as the construction of a new 

building at Panther Junction for natural 

resources and collections management to 

provide additional space for park collections 

(currently housed inside and outside the park) 

would result in better care of the collections. 

The negligible to minor beneficial impacts of this 

alternative, in conjunction with the minor 

beneficial impact of other reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in minor 

beneficial impacts on collections. However, this 

impact would be a relatively minor component 

of the overall cumulative impact due to the 

limited scope of the action. 

The two Texas state parks and Sul Ross State 

University would continue to preserve and 

interpret cultural resources. This work could 

result in increased collection materials available 

to the public and researchers. This would be a 

long-term, minor to moderate beneficial effect. 

These actions, added to the limited ability of the 

park to care for collections, could result in longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

collections in the region. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would result in 

only slight improvement in the condition and 

care of park collections. A new natural resources 

and collections management building to be 

constructed at Panther Junction (described in 

the cumulative impact scenario) that would 

better protect and preserve the collections 

would be offset by the limited ability to display, 

curate, and access the collections. This 

alternative would result in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact on park collections. 

The park’s collections would not be impaired by 

actions proposed under this alternative. 

VISITOR UNDERSTANDING 

Visitors’ Experiences of Park Resources 

The visitor experience of Chisos Basin would 

continue to be degraded by congestion and 

noise during peak use times. The long-term 

impact would be major because most visitors 

would be affected and because Chisos Basin is a 

primary resource area. Fewer visitors would be 

affected in nonpeak times, so at those times the 

impacts would be long term and moderate. 

Park visitors can stop at many sites throughout 

the park to see resources and hike/walk trails to 

interact with park resources. This interaction is 

considered an important element of most 

visitors’ experiences; therefore, continuing to 

provide these opportunities would result in a 

continued long-term major beneficial effect for 

most visitors. 

Camping, lodging, and picnicking facilities are 

important to many visitors. These valuable 

activities would continue to have a long-term 

moderate beneficial effect on visitors’ 

experiences. 

Lights at night from developments associated 

with the campgrounds, lodge, visitor centers, 

and park housing are visible from areas within 

the park. These visual intrusions degrade the 

natural setting. However, under the no-action 

alternative, these long-term adverse visual 

impacts would be minor because the developments are low key. Nonetheless, lights at night 

would continue to disrupt the experiences for 

small numbers of visitors. 

The park offers many opportunities for quiet 

and solitude in natural and cultural settings. 

Although many areas are not heavily visited, 

these kinds of experiences are important to the 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No Action) 

163 

visitors who go there. Continuing to have these 

opportunities available would result in an 

ongoing long-term major benefit for visitors 

seeking these kinds of experiences. However, 

the current beneficial effect is not expected to 

change over time. 

Access to Orientation, 

Interpretation, and Education 

Facility limitations and crowded conditions at 

the Panther Junction Visitor Center would 

continue to lead to visitor and education group 

frustration over being unable to get the important and adequate information, interpretation 

and education messages, programs, and media 

that they would like to have. Most visitors and 

education groups would be affected, and 

because of the high value they place on these 

services, continuing the current limitations 

would constitute an ongoing long-term 

moderate to major adverse impact. However, the 

adverse effect is not expected to worsen over 

time. 

Visitor Safety 

Safety information would continue to be 

available, although crowding at the visitor center 

would continue to sometimes make it difficult to 

gain a comprehensive understanding of safety 

factors. The retention of visitor facilities at Rio 

Grande Village and Cottonwood Campground 

would place some visitors at risk from flooding. 

Please see the previous section on floodplains 

and flooding for more detail. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although past actions have affected visitor 

experience, no ongoing or future actions would 

have a perceptible impact on the visitor 

experience. Consequently, there would be no 

cumulative impacts as a result of implementing 

the no-action alternative. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would result in continuing 

degradation of the visitor experience because of 

noise, congestion, and visitor frustration at not 

finding adequate interpretive and education 

facilities and easy access to safety information. 

This alternative would result in a continuing 

long-term adverse impact on visitors coming to 

the park at peak times. 

Visitors would have many opportunities to 

travel around the park at their own pace. This 

would continue to be a long-term major benefit 

for visitors. 

The campgrounds, picnic areas, and lodge offer 

mostly pleasant experiences that users value 

highly. Retaining these facilities would 

constitute an ongoing, moderate, long-range 

beneficial effect for visitors. 

Although the above effects would continue over 

time, none of the impacts are anticipated to 

increase or decrease appreciably. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis 

Big Bend National Park is located in a relatively 

isolated area in southwest Texas, and with an 

existing staffing level of 100 FTE, it is an 

important employer and source of revenue in 

the region. The park is the major travel and 

tourist attraction in the region, drawing an 

average of about 300,000 yearly visitors. It is 

assumed that this general level of visitation will 

continue in the future. Most of the land in the 

park would continue to be managed as 

“proposed” or “potential” wilderness. 

Total combined sales generated from recreation 

spending by tourists and expenditures by residents, and direct government expenditures in 

salaries, supplies, construction projects, etc. 

under this alternative totals about $71.6 million. 

Overall park concessions and related private 

sector operations (such as river operators and 

hotel/motel operators) and construction would 

generate about 2,150 jobs in direct and indirect 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

164 

employment. Total tax revenues (comprised of 

state and local sales taxes and corporate income 

taxes) generated by the park and related 

recreation and support operations, and 

construction projects, is about $7 million. 

Because the no-action alternative would provide 

for a continuation of existing trends in the park, 

it is expected that the current “baseline” 

socioeconomic effects and benefits to the local 

and regional economy would continue. There 

would be no change in direct park employment 

or in related private sector employment serving 

visitors or other service sectors. This alternative 

would also include funds for construction, 

rehabilitation, and restoration of park facilities 

to maintain the current programs and levels of 

service, and upgrade of selected facilities to 

current health and safety standards (such as 

improving water system at Castolon, and 

upgrading park buildings to meet current 

requirements). Those funds have been included 

in the baseline calculations. There would be 

both direct and indirect, long-term, minor 

beneficial effects of continuing existing practices 

at the park. 

Cumulative Effects 

The park serves local and regional recreation 

users, along with a smaller but sizable number of 

visitors from elsewhere in the United States and 

some overseas travelers. Because there would be 

no material changes in the park's facilities or 

operations (aside from improvements to meet 

current requirements) under this alternative, 

there would be no cumulative impacts on the 

regional economy. Instead, the current 

economic benefits of park operations would 

continue to accrue to the local businesses and 

park neighbors. There would be no incremental 

changes from this alternative that would create a 

cumulative economic impact. 

Conclusion 

The existing benefits of the park to the local and 

regional economy would continue, with minor 

improvements in temporary employment 

opportunities and revenues as the planned 

restoration and upgrade construction activities 

took place. There would be both direct and 

indirect, long-term, minor beneficial effects of 

continuing existing practices at the park. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following paragraphs describe the more 

important (moderate and major intensity) 

adverse impacts that would result from 

implementing alternative A. These are residual 

impacts that would remain after mitigation was 

implemented. The negligible and minor impacts 

are described in the foregoing analysis. 

Natural Resources 

The natural and beneficial values of floodplain 

areas would continue to be compromised by the 

presence of campgrounds at Rio Grande Village 

and Cottonwood, other development at Rio 

Grande Village, and the development in the flash 

flood hazard area at Panther Junction. This 

continuing, unavoidable, long-term adverse 

impact on natural processes would be moderate. 

Although severe flooding has been infrequent 

and risks are minor to moderate, flooding at Rio 

Grande Village, Cottonwood Campground, or 

Panther Junction could result in unavoidable 

major adverse impacts on the visitors or 

employees involved. 

Even though the risk is not great, damage or loss 

of 60% of the museum collection could be a 

major long-term adverse impact on the 

collection and loss of infrastructure from 

flooding at Panther Junction could be a major, 

long-term adverse unavoidable impact on 

operations. Loss of infrastructure could require 

the park to find temporary offices and housing 

outside the park.

Visitor Understanding 

The visitor experience of Chisos Basin would 

continue to be degraded by congestion and 

noise. Implementation of this alternative would 

result in a continuing long-term, major, 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No Action) 

165 

unavoidable, adverse impact on visitation during 

peak use times. The impact would be major 

because most visitors would be affected and 

because Chisos Basin is a primary resource area. 

Fewer visitors would be affected in non-peak 

times, so at those times the impacts would be 

moderate. 

Facility limitations and crowded conditions at 

the Panther Junction Visitor Center would continue to lead to visitor and education group 

frustration over being unable to get the important and adequate information, interpretation 

and education messages, programs, and media 

that they would like to have. Most visitors and 

education groups would be affected, and 

because of the high value they place on these 

services, continuing the current limitations 

would constitute a long-term, moderate to 

major, unavoidable, adverse impact. 

Although the above effects would continue over 

time, none of the impacts are anticipated to 

increase or decrease appreciably. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

There would be no unavoidable adverse 

socioeconomic impacts under any of the three 

alternatives. No mitigation measures for adverse 

socioeconomic impacts would be required.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Severe flooding has been infrequent, and the 

risks are minor to moderate; however, flooding 

could result in major adverse impacts on the 

visitors and employees involved, museum 

collections, and park operations. 

Under alternative A there would no change from 

the current level of salaries paid to employees 

because there would be no change in the total 

number employed. There would be an 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources in terms of funds expended on facility 

rehabilitation and other improvements ranging 

from $5.7 to $7.7 million, with an average figure 

of $6.7 used in this analysis. 

RELATIONSHIPS OF SHORT-TERM USES 

OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Continuing visitor activities would reduce the 

long-term productivity of the environment and 

consume scarce water resources. Human 

activities associated with ongoing visitor and 

administrative use of the park would prevent 

vegetation and wildlife populations from 

reaching their full potential in size and 

population density. 

Occupation of the floodplains at Panther 

Junction, Rio Grande Village and Cottonwood 

Campground for the indefinite future causes 

long-term reduction in natural and beneficial 

values of the floodplains and prevents them 

from functioning naturally. 

Continuing recreation use and visitor activities, 

and planned facility improvements under 

alternative A would continue and improve the 

long-term productivity of the socioeconomic 

environment over the both the short and long 

term. 

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

Energy requirements would increase with the 

construction of new structures. Designing all 

structures to be energy-efficient could mitigate 

the additional energy requirements. Alternative 

A would require the most energy of all the 

alternatives because of the number and energy 

inefficient structures and systems in the park. 
166 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE B (PREFERRED) 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Soils 

Actions specific to alternative B that would 

impact soils are: 

• Chisos Basin: A 12-bed bunkhouse and a single 

family residence would be relocated to Panther 

Junction. 

• Panther Junction: A visitor center and storage 

warehouse would be constructed. One singlefamily residence and one bunkhouse would be 

constructed to replace the ones removed from 

Chisos Basin. 

• Rio Grande Village: Some campsites would be 

relocated, the former overflow camping area 

would be returned to more natural conditions, 

the concession campground would be enlarged 

by about 40% up to a total of 30 sites, four 

housing units and one fire bay would be 

constructed, and the visitor center would be 

expanded to add four offices or a building for 

four offices would be constructed. 

• Castolon: Two housing units and one fire bay 

would be constructed. 

• Cottonwood Campground: Some campsites 

would be relocated farther from the river and a 

new road would be constructed for egress. 

• North Rosillos/Harte Ranch: An interpretive 

trail at Buttrill Spring and possibly at Rosillos 

would be constructed. 

•Persimmon Gap: One duplex would be 

constructed if a water source can be found. 

•Maverick: An entrance station would be 

constructed and the existing entrance station 

would be removed. 

•Gateway communities: Residences and offices 

would either be constructed or leased. 

Proposed actions of alternative B would disturb 

about 10 acres of soil inside the park and 2.5 

acres outside. All the areas that would be 

affected have been previously disturbed. Sites 

with soil disturbance would undergo accelerated 

wind and water erosion, at least temporarily, 

until drainage structures were fully operational 

and vegetation had recovered in cleared areas. 

To conserve available organic matter, topsoil, 

where present, would be retained and replaced. 

(Soils at Big Bend have virtually no topsoil.) 

Relatively small areas would be affected, and 

mitigating measures such as prompt revegetation 

and silt fences would be employed. However, 

the aridness of the area would increase the time 

required for vegetation to become established (if 

it did become established), and the low 

resilience of the soil would mean these adverse 

impacts would be minor and long term. 

Trail rehabilitation would include special design 

methods in areas where the slope is high and 

soils are easily eroded by wind and water. These 

impacts have already occurred to some degree 

because all the areas involved have been 

disturbed. However, the new Buttrill Spring trail 

would increase the area impacted by 0.5 to 1 

acre. The possible length and alignment are not 

available for the potential Rosillos Trail, so the 

area of disturbance cannot be calculated. Soil 

erosion by wind and water, and soil nutrient 

transport, would result in minor, long-term 

adverse impacts. 

In this alternative, there would be 61.5 acres 

where soils would be restored to natural 

contours, runoff would be routed to natural 

drainages, and soils would be revegetated — 

Chisos Basin bunkhouse and residence 

removals; Rio Grande Village restoration of 

former overflow camping area; and Maverick 

entrance station removal/ replacement. Even 

though about 61.5 acres would be restored, 

some of the development to be removed would 

be replaced at other locations and only small 

portions of developed areas would be restored. 

Under alternative B, about 1,341 acres of the 

801,000+

 acres in the park would continue to be 

occupied by development. Restoring natural 

contours, routing runoff to natural drainages, 

and revegetating the area would be a major, 

long-term, beneficial impact on soils. 

Removing some structures at Chisos Basin, 

constructing a visitor center, storage warehouse, 

single-family residence, and a bunkhouse at 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (Preferred) 

167 

Panther Junction, adding four offices onto the 

visitor center or constructing a four-office 

building, moving fuel storage tanks out of the 

floodplain or protecting them from the 500-year 

flood, and adding a fire bay at Rio Grande 

Village, constructing two housing units and a fire 

bay at Castolon; constructing a new egress for 

Cottonwood Campground, constructing a 

Buttrill Spring and possibly a North Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch trail, constructing a duplex at 

Persimmon Gap, constructing an entrance 

station at the park boundary and removing the 

entrance station at Maverick, and constructing 

residences and office building offsite could 

require regrading that would result in the loss of 

some of the natural soil profile. However, 

because all these sites except the new Maverick 

entrance station site, are in developed areas, the 

overall soil quality of these areas has probably 

already been changed substantially and might be 

permanently affected. Within the park, the 

changes from actions of this alternative would 

impact small areas within developed areas. (No 

site for development outside the park has been 

selected.) Therefore, these impacts would be 

minor, long term, and adverse. 

Soils at Chisos Basin, Panther Junction, Rio 

Grande Village, Cottonwood Campground, and 

Castolon have moderate or severe limitations for 

the kinds of actions that are suggested in 

alternative B. Further geotechnical investigation 

would be required to evaluate suitability and 

needed mitigation before designing the facilities 

listed. Tables in appendix H show, for each 

developed area, the actions of the alternatives 

and specific limitations of soils. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, including 

dryland farming and ranching, has led to the 

erosion of soils by removing native vegetation 

and replacing it with plants not necessarily 

suited to the desert environment. This, along 

with tilling the soil, has left soils exposed to 

erosion by wind and water. 

Construction in the park, including trail 

development, by settlers, the army, Texas 

Canyons State Park personnel, Civilian 

Conservation Corps personnel, and Big Bend 

National Park personnel has increased erosion 

by removing native vegetation, allowing invasion 

of exotic plants, and leaving soils exposed to 

erosion by wind and water. Paving the main park 

roads probably decreased erosion, but probably 

altered natural soil profiles. 

The development of some private lands such as 

those in gateway communities west of the park 

or state lands such as Big Bend Ranch State Park 

and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area for 

residential, tourist-related, or other uses and 

construction of five structures in the park could 

increase runoff, wind erosion, and soil 

compaction and alter soil regimes. 

If efforts to restore soils and natural hydrology 

at North Rosillos/Harte Ranch are successful, 

there would be long-term beneficial impacts on 

soils there. The intensity of the impact is 

uncertain because the size of the area that would 

be successfully restored is not known. If funding 

continues, the project would likely have major 

beneficial impacts on soils. 

Impacts on soils from agriculture and ranching 

including livestock grazing and trails covered 

wide areas and were adverse. Impacts on soils 

from building structures and trails covered 

smaller areas and were adverse. Impacts on soils 

of current and anticipated future actions outside 

the park, in conjunction with the impacts of 

alternative B would be major and adverse 

because they would probably cover more than 

20 acres. Most of the impacts would be the result 

of development outside the park that might or 

might not be mitigated. The actions of alternative B and ongoing restoration at North 

Rosillos/Harte Ranch would contribute a very 

small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Construction on about 10 acres 

within the park and up to 2.5 acres outside 

would disturb soils by increasing wind and water 

erosion. Because relatively small areas would be 

affected and mitigating measures would be 

employed, these adverse impacts would be 

minor and long term. Soil erosion by wind and 

water, soil nutrient transport from trail building 

on an acre or more, and trail rehabilitation as 

needed would have a minor, long-term, adverse 

impact. Restoring soils on 61.5 acres to natural 

contours, rerouting runoff to natural drainages, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

168 

and revegetating the area would have a major, 

long-term, beneficial impact on soils. Removing 

some structures and constructing others on 

small sites within developed areas could require 

regrading that would result in the loss of some of 

the natural soil profile — a minor, long-term, 

adverse impact. 

The park’s soil resources would not be impaired 

by the impacts described under this alternative. 

Vegetation 

Construction activities in alternative B (see soils 

discussion above) would disturb about 10 acres 

of vegetation inside the park and 2.5 acres outside. Removing fuel tanks from the floodplain at 

Rio Grande Village would be in addition to this 

number because the extent of required changes 

is not known. Topsoil (if present) would be 

scraped off and saved for future use before 

construction began. To allow more rapid 

recovery of native vegetation and minimize the 

encroachment of invading species, the topsoil 

would subsequently be replaced and reseeded to 

the extent possible with seed of native species 

gathered in the park or seeds of native species 

gathered in the park and propagated elsewhere. 

During the recovery period, the artificially 

seeded or replanted native vegetation would not 

be identical in composition to vegetation prior 

to construction. A reduction in the organic 

content of the soil would cause a slight change in 

species composition for several years. Because 

the affected area is already disturbed and the 

described mitigating measures would be 

implemented, this adverse impact on previously 

disturbed vegetation would be minor and long 

term. 

There would be 61.5 acres where soils would be 

restored to natural contours and revegetated — 

Chisos Basin bunkhouse and residence 

removals; Rio Grande Village restoration of 

former overflow camping area; and Maverick 

entrance station. Sixty of these acres would be at 

Rio Grande Village, where water for irrigation is 

available to help plants become established. This 

would be a moderate, long-term beneficial 

impact on vegetation. 

Some vegetation would be trampled or 

destroyed by some off-trail use of areas such as 

the Buttrill Spring and Rosillos trails. This 

localized, intermittent impact, which would not 

affect the overall structure of any natural 

community, would be minor, adverse, and long 

term. 

At Chisos Basin, removal of the bunkhouse and 

one NPS staff residence would result in a 

117,800-gallon decrease in annual water use of 

Oak Spring — a 3% decrease from existing 

conditions. Because removal of the development 

would not be likely to be reversed, the impact 

would be long term. The plant communities 

growing next to Oak Spring would benefit from 

having additional water. The beneficial impact 

would be expected to be measurable and have an 

localized effect within a small area Therefore, 

this long-term, beneficial impact would be of 

minor intensity. 

At Rio Grande Village, reduction of irrigation by 

50% would be expected to kill 14 acres of exotic 

vegetation (lawns) and allow native vegetation to 

repopulate these areas. This would be a 

moderate to major long-term beneficial impact 

on native vegetation. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, including 

dryland farming and ranching, has greatly 

reduced native desert plants. Plants have been 

affected by being displaced, and habitat has been 

lost through agricultural uses and introduction 

of nonnative plants. 

Building structures and trails in the park by 

settlers, the army, Texas Canyons State Park 

personnel, the Civilian Conservation Corps 

personnel, and Big Bend National Park 

personnel has reduced native vegetation, 

allowed invasion of nonnative plants, and in 

some cases planted nonnative plants. 

The development of some private lands such as 

those in gateway communities west of the park 

or state lands such as Big Bend Ranch State Park 

and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area for 

residential, tourist-related, or other uses and 

construction of five structures in the park could 

alter vegetative communities and cause loss of 

plants in some areas. Water use from these 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (Preferred) 

169 

developments or uses could reduce water 

available for vegetation. 

If restoration efforts at North Rosillos/Harte 

Ranch are successful, there would be long-term 

beneficial impacts on soils and hydrology, which 

in turn would allow restoration of native plants. 

Impacts of agriculture and ranching on vegetation covered wide areas and were adverse. The 

impacts of building structures in the park, 

including trails, covered much smaller areas and 

have been adverse. Impacts of current and 

anticipated future actions outside the park, in 

conjunction with the impacts of alternative B 

would result in moderate, long-term adverse 

impacts on vegetation. Most of the impacts 

would be the result of development outside the 

park that might or might not be mitigated. The 

actions of alternative B and ongoing restoration 

at North Rosillos/Harte Ranch would contribute 

a very small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Construction activities in 

alternative B would disturb 10 acres of already 

disturbed vegetation inside the park and 2.5 

acres outside, a minor long-term adverse impact. 

Revegetation would be attempted, but arid 

conditions make revegetation difficult. 

Restoring natural contours and revegetating 61.5 

acres would have a moderate long-term 

beneficial impact on vegetation. 

The removal of the bunkhouse and one NPS 

staff residence at Chisos Basin would result in a 

3% decrease in annual water use of Oak Spring 

— a minor long-term beneficial impact on plants 

that use water from Oak Spring. 

Withdrawal of 50% of the irrigation water from 

about 14 acres of exotic vegetation at Rio 

Grande Village would allow native vegetation to 

return — a moderate to major long-term 

beneficial impact on native vegetation. 

The park’s vegetation would not be impaired by 

the impacts described under this alternative. 

Wildlife 

Wildlife habitat would continue to be fragmented by roads, trails, and facilities, and 

wildlife habits and movement would continue to 

be altered by employees and visitors. 

Construction on 10 acres of developed areas 

(except the Maverick entrance station) inside 

the park and 2.5 acres outside the park would 

disturb wildlife and degrade habitat to a small 

degree. 

At Chisos Basin, removal of the bunkhouse and 

one NPS staff residence would result in a 

117,800-gallon decrease in annual water use of 

Oak Spring — a 3% decrease from existing 

conditions. The reduction in withdrawal of 

water for human use from the perennial Oak 

Spring would provide more water for wildlife — 

a beneficial impact in the arid environment of 

the Chisos Basin. This beneficial effect on 

habitat at Oak Spring would be expected to be 

detectable, and population size of wildlife 

species using the spring could increase slightly. 

Because removal of the development would not 

be likely to be reversed, this would be a longterm impact on wildlife using Oak Spring. 

Therefore, this would be a minor, long-term, 

beneficial impact on wildlife using Oak Spring. 

Withdrawal of irrigation water is expected to kill 

about 14 acres of exotic vegetation at Rio 

Grande Village, allowing native vegetation to 

return. This would benefit wildlife by providing 

a more natural food source on 14 acres. It 

probably would provide less food for herbivores 

and less cover than the exotic vegetation that is 

there now. This would be a long-term, 

beneficial, minor impact on wildlife. 

The restoration of natural contours and 

vegetation on approximately 61.5 acres at Chisos 

Basin and Rio Grande Village might provide 

habitat for smaller animals. The location of most 

of the restoration adjacent to the concessioner 

RV campground at Rio Grande Village would 

mean the habitat value would be diminished by 

its proximity to areas of human activity. 

Restoration to more natural conditions would 

decrease habitat fragmentation to a small degree. 

Restoration of 61.5 acres of wildlife habitat 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

170 

would be a moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impact on smaller animals. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, including 

dryland farming and ranching, have greatly 

reduced native desert animals. Animals have 

been affected by being displaced and killed as 

vermin, and habitat has been lost through 

agricultural uses and introduction of nonnative 

animals. 

Building structures in the park, including trails, 

by settlers, the army, Texas Canyons State Park 

personnel, Civilian Conservation Corps 

personnel, and Big Bend National Park 

personnel has reduced native vegetation and 

allowed invasion of nonnative plants, degrading 

habitat for some wildlife and improving it for 

others. Building and use of the structures, 

including roads, has increased human activity, 

which has degraded and fragmented wildlife 

habitat in some localized areas. The use of water 

for human needs has reduced the amount of 

water available to wildlife. 

The development of some private lands such as 

those in gateway communities west of the park 

or state lands such as Big Bend Ranch State Park 

and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area for 

residential, tourist-related, or other uses and 

construction of five structures in the park could 

alter wildlife habitat and habits and cause loss of 

wildlife in some areas. Water used by developments or for tourists could reduce water available for wildlife. Road kill of rodents, larger 

mammals, and birds would increase because 

more development probably would increase 

traffic. 

The past impacts from agriculture and ranching 

on wildlife covered wide areas and were adverse. 

Past impacts of creating developments, including 

roads, to facilitate visitor use covered smaller 

areas, occupied and fragmented habitat, and 

were adverse. These impacts are continuing. Past 

and continuing overuse of water from the Rio 

Grande is a major contributor to adverse 

impacts on wildlife. Impacts on wildlife of 

current and anticipated future actions outside 

the park, in conjunction with the impacts of 

alternative B and restoration at North Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch would be moderate, long term, and 

adverse. Most of the impacts would be the result 

of development actions outside the park that 

might or might not be mitigated. The actions of 

alternative B would contribute a very small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Reducing human use of water at 

Oak Spring by 3% would provide more water for 

wildlife, a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on 

wildlife using the spring. Restoration of natural 

contours and vegetation on about 61.5 acres at 

Rio Grande Village would increase wildlife 

habitat, a moderate long-term beneficial impact 

on smaller animals. 

The park’s wildlife would not be impaired by the 

actions proposed under this alternative. 

Water Quantity 

Chisos Basin/Oak Spring. Removing the 

bunkhouse and one NPS staff residence from 

Chisos Basin would result in a 117,800-gallon 

decrease in annual water use of Oak Spring — a 

3% decrease from existing conditions. This 

would be a minor, intermittent, long-term,

beneficial impact on the quantity of water 

available at Oak Spring. 

Panther Junction. Moving 15% of personnel 

and functions out of Panther Junction would not 

be expected to decrease water use because 

additional employees are needed who would 

work and live at Panther Junction. There would 

probably be no net change in employees living at 

Panther Junction. Adding an administration 

building to the area would add a minimal 

amount of water use to the area. Incorporating 

water-saving features into the building would 

probably offset most of the increased use. 

The Rio Grande. The park would continue to 

irrigate Rio Grande Village and the Cottonwood 

Campground using river water. However, at Rio 

Grande Village, use of irrigation water would be 

reduced from about 25.6 million gallons per 

month to about 12.8 million gallons per month 

by restricting its irrigation to the campgrounds, 

picnic areas, and areas undergoing revegetation. 

At Castolon, use of irrigation water would 

continue to be about 125,000 gallons per month. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (Preferred) 

171 

Because park use would remain small and 

intermittent compared to the flow in the river, 

this would be a minor, long-term, beneficial 

impact on water quantity. 

Spring at Rio Grande Village. Finding a 

separate source of drinking water for visitors 

and employees would eliminate the use of the 

spring at Rio Grande Village that feeds three 

ponds in the area. The availability of about 2.9 

million additional gallons per year of water to 

the pond system would be a major long-term 

beneficial impact on water quantity. However, 

the new source of water would be used at the 

rate of about 2.9 million gallons per year. This 

might be an adverse impact on that source, 

depending on the nature of the alternative 

source. 

Castolon. Water use at Castolon would be 

expected to remain the same as alternative A — 

2.6 million gallons per year of drinking water 

from wells and about 125,000 gallons per month 

of irrigation water from the Rio Grande. 

However, depending on the alternative water 

source, an adverse impact on that source might 

occur. 

Persimmon Gap. Water use at Persimmon Gap 

would be expected to remain the same as in 

alternative A — 300,000 gallons per year. 

Cumulative Effects. The presence of dams 

upstream and continued heavy use of the river 

would result in major long-term reductions in 

water quantity in the park and upstream and 

downstream of the park. 

Agriculture, including dryland farming and 

ranching, and urban development have 

increased to the point that water in the Rio 

Grande water shed is overcommitted. 

Use of water in the area that is now the park, by 

residents, settlers, army personnel, Texas 

Canyons State Park personnel, Civilian 

Conservation Corps personnel, or Big Bend 

National Park personnel or visitors, has reduced 

the quantity of water available for wildlife, 

plants, and natural processes. Using water for 

watering stock or irrigating has had a similar 

effect. 

The development of some private lands, such as 

those in gateway communities west of the park 

or state lands such as Big Bend Ranch State Park 

and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, for 

residential, tourist-related, or other uses and the 

construction of five structures in the park would 

increase ground or surface water use and 

decrease water availability for other uses in an 

area where water is already scarce. The exact 

impact of increased residential or tourist 

development in gateway communities west of 

the park, if any, is not known. 

Past impacts of use of the Rio Grande for 

agriculture, ranching, and water supply were, 

and continue to be, major and adverse. Impacts 

on water quantity in the Rio Grande of current 

and anticipated future actions outside the park, 

in conjunction with the impacts of alternative B 

and restoration at North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 

are anticipated to be long term and adverse. 

Intensity of this impact is not known because it 

is not clear how increased development in the 

gateway communities west of the park and the 

state-managed areas would impact the Rio 

Grande or what the amount of any increased use 

would be. 

For many years, during periods of extended 

drought, as well as at certain, very limited times 

when it is not raining during normal years, the 

development at Chisos Basin has used nearly all 

the water from Oak Spring. This has had a major 

intermittent, long term, adverse impact on water 

quantity at Oak Spring and the plants and 

animals that would otherwise use the water. 

Water conservations measures begun in the 

1990s, such as the installation of low-flow toilets 

and shower heads and incremental replacement 

of the water system, have reduced this impact to 

some degree. The actions of alternative B would 

contribute a very small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Reduction of human use of 

water from Oak Spring by about 3% would be a 

minor, intermittent, long-term, and beneficial 

impact on water quantity. Reduction of park use 

of river water for irrigation by 12.8 million 

gallons per month, a small amount compared to 

the flow in the river, would have a minor, longterm, beneficial impact on water quantity in the 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

172 

river. Finding a separate source of drinking 

water for visitors and employees at Rio Grande 

Village would leave an additional 2.9 million 

gallons in the pond system — a major, long-term 

beneficial impact on pond system water 

quantity. However, depending on the alternative 

water source, an adverse impact on that source 

might occur from park use. 

The park’s water quantity would not be 

impaired by the actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

Threatened, Endangered, 

and Candidate Species 

Black-capped vireo (endangered). The Chisos 

Basin, including the corridor of the road leading 

into it, is a very important part of this bird’s 

habitat. Reasons for the bird’s decline are habitat 

loss to urbanization, browsing by herbivores, 

brush clearing, natural succession, brown–

headed cowbird brood parasitism, and human 

disturbance. The proposed reductions in 

development at Chisos Basin and consequent 

reduction in traffic on the road leading into it 

would not be expected to be large enough to 

have an impact on black-capped vireo. 

Big Bend gambusia (endangered). This fish, 

found in the wild only at Rio Grande Village, is 

threatened by habitat alteration, ground-water 

pumping, declining spring flows, and competition with introduced nonnative species. The 

spring that feeds the pond at Rio Grande Village 

where Big Bend gambusia live is also used for 

human consumption. Finding a separate source 

of water for human use would eliminate the 

competition for water, and relocating some of 

the campsites in the area that are close to the 

pond and the fish would likely result in eliminating this source of impacts on the gambusia. 

How these changes would impact the fish is not 

known. It is hoped that the improvements in its 

habitat would result in minor to moderate, longterm beneficial impacts. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, including 

dryland farming and ranching, have greatly 

reduced native desert plants and animals 

including threatened and endangered species. 

The black-capped vireo has lost habitat to 

browsing by herbivores, brush-clearing, and 

human disturbance and urbanization. The Big 

Bend gambusia has lost habitat to habitat 

alteration, groundwater pumping, decreasing 

spring flows, and competition with introduced 

nonnative species such as the western mosquito 

fish. 

Placement of the road into Chisos Basin by the 

Civilian Conservation Corps probably destroyed 

habitat for the black-capped vireo. It facilitated 

development and occupation of the basin by 

more people for longer periods of time than had 

occurred before road construction. This was an 

adverse impact on the habitat for the nowendangered bird. 

Past agricultural use at Rio Grande Village — 

including alterations of landform and natural 

hydrologic features, irrigation, and planting of 

nonnative plants — may have damaged habitat 

for the Big Bend gambusia. Adding housing, a 

road system, some parts of an irrigation system, 

a reflection pond in the group campground, 

parts of a campground, and infrastructure for 

the campgrounds and restroom area probably 

further damaged habitat for the fish. It also 

brought in larger groups of people — employees 

who lived there and visitors who competed with 

the fish for scarce spring water resources. These 

were probably adverse impacts on the Big Bend 

gambusia. These impacts continue today. 

The development of some private lands, such as 

those in gateway communities west of the park 

or state lands such as Big Bend Ranch State Park 

and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, for 

residential, tourist-related, or other uses and the 

construction of five structures in the park could 

impact black-capped vireo habitat or alter 

suitable habitat for Big Bend gambusia. Water 

used by developments or for tourists could 

reduce water available for habitat for these 

species in an area where water is already scarce. 

Past impacts on threatened and endangered 

species from agriculture, including dryland 

farming and ranching, dam building, 

urbanization, and over use of water from the Rio 

Grande have been major and adverse. Past 

impacts on black-capped vireo and Big Bend 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (Preferred) 

173 

gambusia from the Civilian Conservation Corps 

and the National Park Service adding 

development in the park for visitor use have 

been major and adverse. In addition, attracting 

visitors to Rio Grande Village and allowing them 

to remain overnight and building employee 

housing in the area has increased human 

demand for the spring water used by Big Bend 

gambusia—an adverse impact. Impacts on 

threatened and endangered species from current 

and anticipated future actions outside the park, 

in conjunction with the impacts of alternative B 

and restoration at Harte Ranch, are not known 

because the locations of species outside the park 

in areas that might be impacted are not known. 

Given the lack of information regarding impacts 

outside the park, it is not possible to assess the 

relative size of the impacts of alternative B 

compared to current and anticipated future 

actions outside the park. 

Conclusion. Changes at Chisos Basin would 

not impact the black-capped vireo. Improving 

Big Bend gambusia habitat by eliminating 

competition for spring water and relocating 

campsites would have a minor to moderate, 

long-term beneficial impact on the fish. 

The park’s threatened and endangered species 

would not be impaired by the actions proposed 

under this alternative. 

Floodplains 

Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values.

The natural and beneficial values of floodplain 

areas would continue to be compromised by 

development in the flash-flood hazard area at 

Panther Junction. This continuing long-term 

adverse impact on natural processes would be 

unavoidable and moderate. 

The natural and beneficial values of the Rio 

Grande floodplain would be enhanced at Rio 

Grande Village by moving fuel storage tanks out 

of the 500-year floodplain or protecting them 

from the 500-year flood, restoring former 

overflow camping area to more natural 

conditions, relocating some campsites farther 

from the river, and reducing irrigation. The 

likelihood of fuel spilling into flood waters 

would be reduced, and vegetation in the 

floodplain at Rio Grande Village would more 

nearly approximate natural conditions. These 

impacts on the floodplain would be localized, 

minor, beneficial, and long term. 

Flooding. A flood hazard reconnaissance (NPS: 

1991) stated that, “Because flooding occurs only 

in extremely large and rare events, and flood 

flow velocities are very small, the possibility that 

visitors could be injured or lose their lives in a 

flood at Rio Grande Village or Cottonwood 

Campground is very small.” As in the no-action 

alternative the campground and all development 

at Rio Grande Village and the campground at 

Cottonwood would continue to occupy part of 

the 100-year floodplain. In addition under 

alternative B four offices, four housing units, and 

a fire bay would be added within the floodplain. 

Even though early warning and evacuation plans 

would be developed, communications might not 

always be fully comprehended or acted upon. 

Although the possibility of loss of life is very 

small, campers, other visitors, and employees 

would remain in some danger. Severe flooding 

has been infrequent, and risks are minor to 

moderate, but the results of flooding could cause 

major adverse impacts on the visitors and 

employees involved. 

The entire development at Panther Junction, 

located on a bajada or area of converging alluvial 

fans, is subject to flash flooding and debris flows 

and is geomorphologically unstable. In ideal 

circumstances, development at Panther Junction 

would be located outside the maximum 

estimated flood (Qme) (see appendix F). As in 

alternative A, the fire management building 

would be constructed in a less dangerous 

portion of the flood-prone area. In alternative B, 

four additional structures would be constructed 

in the floodplain at Panther Junction — an 

employee residence, a bunkhouse, a visitor 

center, and a storage warehouse. 

According to “Estimation of Flood and 

Geomorphic Hazard in the Panther Canyon 

Area of Big Bend National Park, Texas” (NPS 

1995), all of the structures at Panther Junction 

are at “some risk.” However, the report also 

seems to indicate that the risk is not great. 

Nevertheless, because the long period between 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

174 

events leads to a false sense of security and 

warning time would be short, there is the 

possibility of human injury or loss of life in the 

event of a large flood. As in the no-action 

alternative, even though the report finds that the 

risk is not great, flooding at Panther Junction 

could cause major adverse impacts on the 

visitors and employees involved. 

As in the no-action alternative, in the event of a 

500-year or maximum estimated flood (Qme), up 

to 60% of the park’s museum collection, stored 

at Panther Junction, could be damaged or 

destroyed. This would be a major long-term 

adverse impact on the collection. 

In addition, a large investment in infrastructure 

(including the visitor center, the park 

headquarters, school, and 76 housing units) 

could be lost if the 500-year or maximum 

estimated flood (Qme) occurs at Panther 

Junction. Even though the risk of this event 

occurring is not great, loss of infrastructure from 

flooding at Panther Junction could have a major, 

long-term impact on NPS operations and could 

require the park staff to find temporary offices 

and housing outside the park. 

Cumulative Effects. The construction of dams 

upstream of the park and the heavy use of the 

Rio Grande upstream have greatly reduced the 

extent of the floodplain and the natural and 

beneficial values of floodplains in the park. 

Cattle and sheep probably have been allowed to 

use some riparian areas in and near the park. 

This practice degrades natural and beneficial 

floodplain values in exchange for benefits to 

agricultural uses. NPS structures and visitor uses 

in floodplain areas contribute to the loss of 

natural and beneficial values. 

The presence of dams upstream and heavy use 

of the river would continue to result in major 

long-term reductions in area and in beneficial 

values in floodplains in the park and upstream 

and downstream of the park. 

Further development in floodplains and 

wetlands outside the park for residential, 

agricultural, or commercial uses would decrease 

the area in which natural and beneficial 

floodplain values would be preserved. 

Under this alternative the natural and beneficial 

values of floodplain areas would continue to be 

compromised by development at Rio Grande 

Village, Cottonwood, and Panther Junction. 

Even though the natural resources and 

collections management building would be 

constructed in a less flood-prone area (less likely 

to be inundated by smaller floods), and the 

likelihood of them being damaged in smaller 

floods would be reduced, they would still be 

within the maximum estimated flood area at 

Panther Junction. If the maximum estimated 

flood occurs, the 60% of the park’s museum 

collection that is stored at Panther Junction 

could be damaged or destroyed. This would be a 

major long-term adverse impact on the 

collection. 

The past impacts of agriculture, ranching, 

urbanization, dam construction, visitor 

developments, and visitor use on floodplains 

covered wide areas and were adverse. 

Continuing overuse of water from the Rio 

Grande is a major contributor to adverse 

impacts on floodplains. Impacts on floodplains 

of current and anticipated future actions outside 

the park, in conjunction with the impacts of 

alternative B and restoration at North Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch would be moderate, long term, and 

adverse. Most of the impacts would be the result 

of development actions outside the park that 

might or might not be mitigated. The actions of 

alternative B would contribute a very small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. The natural and beneficial values 

of floodplain areas would be enhanced at Rio 

Grande Village by the reduction of the likelihood of fuel spilling into flood waters and the 

restoration of more natural vegetation. This 

impact would be minor, beneficial, and long 

term. 

Although severe flooding has been infrequent 

and risks are minor to moderate, flooding at Rio 

Grande Village, Cottonwood Campground, or 

Panther Junction could result in major adverse 

impacts on the visitors or employees involved. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (Preferred) 

175 

As in alternative A, even though the risk of 

flooding is not great at Panther Junction, damage 

or loss of 60% of the museum collection would 

be a major, long-term adverse impact on the 

collection, and loss of infrastructure would be a 

major, long-term adverse impact on operations. 

Loss of infrastructure could require the park to 

find temporary offices and housing outside the 

park. 

The resources and values of Big Bend National 

Park would not be impaired because there 

would be no major adverse impacts on a 

resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in 

the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Big Bend National Park; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as 

a goal in the park’s general management plan or 

other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Consequently, no floodplain resources or values 

would be impaired as a result of implementing 

this alternative. 

Wetlands 

In alternative B there would be a reduction of 

117,800 gallons per year, 3%, in water use from 

Oak Spring at Chisos Basin. This would leave 

more water in the wetland area year-round for 

the benefit of wetland vegetation and associated 

wildlife. This would be a minor, long-term, 

beneficial impact on wetlands at Oak Spring. 

Cumulative Effects. Some wetlands within and 

outside the park, especially along the Rio 

Grande, have been filled to make more land 

available for growing crops. Cattle and sheep 

probably have been allowed to use some wetland 

and riparian areas in and near the park. These 

practices decrease wetland areas and degrade 

natural and beneficial wetland values in 

exchange for benefit to agricultural uses. NPS 

structures and visitor uses in wetland areas 

contribute to the loss of natural and beneficial 

values. 

The presence of dams upstream and continued 

heavy use of the river would continue to result in 

major long-term reductions in wetland area and 

in beneficial values of wetlands in the park and 

upstream and downstream of the park. Further 

development in wetlands outside the park for 

residential, agricultural, or commercial uses 

would decrease the area in which natural and 

beneficial wetland values would be preserved. 

The past cumulative impacts of agriculture, 

ranching, urbanization, and dam construction 

on wetlands covered wide areas and were major 

and adverse. Continuing overuse of water from 

the Rio Grande is a major contributor to adverse 

impacts on wetlands. Impacts on wetlands of 

current and anticipated future actions outside 

the park, in conjunction with the impacts of 

alternative B and restoration at North Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch, would be moderate, long term, 

adverse, and cumulative. Most of the impacts 

would be the result of development actions 

outside the park that might or might not be 

mitigated. The actions of alternative B would 

contribute a very small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Reducing use of water from Oak 

Spring by 117,800 gallons per year (3%) would 

have a minor long-term beneficial impact on the 

wetland at the spring. 

The park’s wetlands would not be impaired by 

the actions proposed under this alternative. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. The ground-disturbing activities of the 

preferred alternative would include removing 

structures in Chisos Basin, constructing a new 

visitor center and storage warehouse at Panther 

Junction, relocating campsites at Cottonwood 

Campground and Rio Grande Village, undergrounding electrical lines, upgrading park water 

systems, constructing fire bays at Rio Grande 

Village and Castolon, relocating the Maverick 

entrance station, enlarging the campground at 

Rio Grande Village, and constructing new 

housing at Rio Grande Village, Castolon, and 

Persimmon Gap are mainly in previously 

disturbed areas. These actions could result in 

impacts on archeological resources. In those 

areas such as Panther Junction, Chisos Basin, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

176 

and Rio Grande Village where archeological 

resources have been identified, Construction 

would be done in a manner to avoid impacting 

resources. A small amount of the new 

development could occur in previously 

undisturbed areas such as the new location for 

the Maverick entrance station. This could result 

in the discovery of previously unknown 

archeological resources. Development would be 

so designed to avoid these resources. Therefore, 

there would be long-term negligible beneficial 

impacts on archeological resources. 

The area around Buttrill Spring contains 

potentially eligible archeological and historic 

sites. Developing a trail could be done in a 

manner to avoid these resources; however the 

introduction of visitation to the area could result 

in resource degradation due to trampling of the 

ruins and prehistoric archeological components 

of the site. This could be partially mitigated 

through a visitor education program and would 

have a long-term, minor to moderate adverse 

impact. 

The management prescriptions of the preferred 

alternative would place more than 90% of the 

park in either the Wilderness or Backcountry 

Nonwilderness prescriptions and less than 10% 

of the park in management prescriptions that 

would allow for development. This would result 

in little new disturbance of known archeological 

resources. The application of the management 

prescriptions would have a long-term, negligible, 

beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Effects. Archeological resources at 

Big Bend National Park are subject to damage 

from development, vandalism, illegal activities, 

and natural processes. Past development in the 

Rio Grande Village area, Castolon area, Chisos 

Basin, and Panther Junction has resulted in the 

loss of some archeological resources during 

excavation and construction activities. Many of 

the reasonably foreseeable future actions, such 

as construction of new employee housing and 

administrative, maintenance, and storage 

facilities could disturb archeological resources. 

If significant archeological resources could not 

be avoided, the data they possess regarding 

prehistoric and/or historic lifeways would be 

documented and recovered, in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR part 800) and other 

archeological technical guidance. The negligible 

impact of this alternative, in conjunction with 

the adverse impacts of other reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

archeological resources, depending upon the 

significance of the site. However, the adverse 

impacts of the alternative would be a relatively 

minor component of the overall cumulative 

impact due to the limited scope of the action. 

The Black Gap Wildlife Management Area and 

Big Bend Ranch State Park are required to 

identify and preserve archeological resources. In 

the past, archeological resources have been lost 

due to neglect and lack of adequate protection 

measures. This situation is slowly being 

remedied as archeological resources are 

identified and protection measures are put in 

place. NPS actions added to those of the state 

parks could result in long-term, negligible, 

beneficial effects on the area’s archeological 

resources. 

Conclusion. The development that would 

occur under the implementation of this alternative would not impact known archeological 

resources in the park; in those areas where there 

are possible unknown archeological resources 

there is sufficient space to avoid impacting these 

resources. Some excavation work might be 

required to complete compliance for some 

construction and removal activities. There 

would be no direct or indirect impacts on 

archeological resources, and no change to 

existing conditions. This would result in a longterm, negligible beneficial impact on these 

resources. 

The park’s archeological resources would not be 

impaired by actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5) addressing the criteria of effect 

and adverse effect, the National Park Service 

finds the development proposed under 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (Preferred) 

177 

alternative B would have an effect that would 

not be adverse. 

Historic Structures/Buildings 

Analysis. The current visitor center dates from 

the Mission 66 period. A determination of 

eligibility needs to be completed to determine its 

significance and character-defining features. If 

the visitor center were determined eligible, then 

changes to the building would be done in such a 

manner as to not impact the character-defining 

features. Rehabilitation activities would have a 

long-term, negligible impact. The adaptive use of 

Barker Lodge for housing researchers could 

result in some loss of historic fabric, but overall 

would result in the preservation of this property. 

The preservation of this structure would result 

in a long-term, moderate beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Effects. Historic structures/ 

buildings at Big Bend National Park are subject 

to damage from development, vandalism, illegal 

activities, and natural processes. Past development in the Rio Grande Village area, Castolon 

area, Chisos Basin, and Panther Junction has 

resulted in the loss of some structural resources 

during construction activities as well as the 

removal of some structures for visitor safety and 

other park purposes. The reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, such as construction of new 

employee housing and administrative, maintenance, and storage facilities would not impact 

historic structures/buildings. 

The Black Gap Wildlife Management Area and 

Big Bend Ranch State Park are developing 

inventories of historic structures in their parks 

to guide them in the preservation of these 

structures. In the past, Big Bend National Park 

has allowed some historic structures to 

deteriorate without a priority system of what to 

preserve. These actions had an adverse action on 

the preservation of structures. NPS actions in 

implementing the preferred alternative, in 

combination with those of the state parks, would 

have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. 

Conclusion. The preservation actions taken 

in the preferred alternative would have an 

overall long-term, moderate, beneficial impact 

on the park’s historic structures. 

No impairment of historic structures/buildings 

would result from implementing the preferred 

alternative. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5) addressing the criteria of effect 

and adverse effect, the National Park Service 

finds the development proposed under the 

preferred alternative would have an effect that 

would not be adverse. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Analysis. This alternative would evaluate 

Buttrill Spring and Bone Spring to identify those 

features that contribute to this potential cultural 

landscape. These features would be preserved 

and interpreted by the park. This would have a 

long-term, minor, beneficial effect. 

Rio Grande Village and Cottonwood Campground contain a cultural landscape, resulting 

from the Mission 66 work in this area of the 

park, that is potentially eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places. The water 

conservation measures in the Rio Grande Village 

and Cottonwood Campground could result in 

changing the vegetation characteristic of this 

landscape, such as reducing the amount of green 

grass areas and phasing out heavy-water-using 

plants with more drought-tolerant native 

species. It needs to be determined if the current 

vegetation is a character-defining feature of this 

potential cultural landscape; this would help 

guide management in how to reduce heavywater-using plants. These actions could have a 

long-term, moderate adverse impact on these 

potential cultural landscapes. 

The management prescriptions of alternative B 

would place more than 90% of the park in either 

the Wilderness or Backcountry Nonwilderness 

prescription and less than 10% of the park in 

management prescriptions that would allow for 

development. The application of these management prescriptions would have a long-term 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

178 

negligible, beneficial impact on the park’s 

cultural landscapes. 

Cumulative Effects. The Black Gap Wildlife 

Management Area and Big Bend Ranch State 

Park are required to identify and preserve 

historic resources including cultural landscapes. 

In the past, cultural landscapes have been 

adversely affected due to lack of identification 

and protection measures. Over the years, some 

of the original character-defining vegetation 

types in the park’s cultural landscapes have been 

lost or replaced with other species. This 

situation is slowly being remedied as cultural 

landscapes are being identified and preservation 

and protection measures are put in place. NPS 

actions added to those of the state parks could 

result in long-term, negligible, beneficial effects 

on the area’s cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion. Identifying those features at 

Buttrill Spring that contribute to this potential 

cultural landscape and preserving these features 

would have a long-term, minor, beneficial effect. 

Water conservation measures in the Rio Grande 

Village could change the vegetation characteristic of this landscape, which could have a longterm, moderate adverse impact on this potential 

cultural landscape. 

Placing more than 90% of the park in either the 

wilderness or backcountry nonwilderness 

prescription and less than 10% in management 

prescriptions that would allow for development 

would have a long-term negligible, beneficial 

impact on the park’s cultural landscapes. 

The resources and values of Big Bend National 

Park would not be impaired because there 

would be no major adverse impacts on a 

resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in 

the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Big Bend National Park; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as 

a goal in the park’s general management plan or 

other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Consequently, no cultural landscapes would be 

impaired as a result of implementing this 

alternative. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5) addressing the criteria of effect 

and adverse effect, the National Park Service 

finds the development proposed under the 

preferred alternative would have an effect that 

would not be adverse. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. None of the proposed actions in the 

preferred alternative would alter the relationship 

or practices of affiliated groups with park 

resources, nor would the actions facilitate access 

or be supportive of practices or beliefs. 

However, none of the actions would hinder 

current access and practices. The actions would 

be considered to have long-term, negligible, 

beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Effects. The Black Gap Wildlife 

Management Area and Big Bend Ranch State 

Park have neither inventories nor evaluations of 

ethnographic resources in their parks. In the 

past, Big Bend National Park did not take into 

consideration the needs of Hispanic or other 

groups, but the park staff is constructively 

working on problems of mutual concern. The 

park’s actions, added to those of the state parks, 

could result in long-term, negligible, beneficial 

impacts on the area’s ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion. The actions in the preferred 

alternative would result in a long-term, 

negligible, beneficial impact on the park’s 

ethnographic resources. 

The park’s ethnographic resources would not be 

impaired by actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5) addressing the criteria of effect 

and adverse effect, the National Park Service 

finds the development proposed under the 

preferred alternative would have an effect that 

would not be adverse. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (Preferred) 

179 

Museum Collections 

Analysis. The new visitor center at Panther 

Junction would contain space to display the 

park’s collections, provide better access for 

researchers, and provide adequate environmental control systems. The new structure 

would allow the park to consolidate the 

collections from various locations around the 

park and be placed in areas that have environmental control systems. The new visitor center 

would provide for greater display space for 

materials in the park’s collection. Because these 

actions would affect most of the park’s collections, these actions would result in a long-term, 

major, beneficial impact on the park’s 

collections. 

Cumulative Effects. The two Texas state parks 

and Sul Ross State University would continue to 

collect, preserve, and interpret cultural and 

natural collections. This work could result in 

increased collection materials available to the 

public and researchers if it was coordinated with 

the collection work being done by the park staff. 

Many of the reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, such as the construction of a new building at Panther Junction for natural resources and 

collections management to provide additional 

space for park collections (currently housed 

inside and outside the park) would result in 

better care of the collections. This would be a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial effect. 

These actions, added to the limited but 

improved ability of the park to care for 

collections, could result in long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts on collections in 

the region.

Conclusion. There would be a long-term 

major, beneficial impact to artifacts and 

collections at Panther Junction. Overall, there 

would be a long-term, minor beneficial effect on 

park collections in that the collections would be 

better preserved and interpreted. 

The park’s museum collection would not be 

impaired by actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

VISITOR UNDERSTANDING 

Visitors’ Experience of Park Resources 

The visitor experience of Chisos Basin would 

continue to be degraded by congestion and 

noise during peak use times. The long-term 

impact would be major because most visitors 

would be affected and because Chisos Basin is a 

primary resource area. Fewer visitors would be 

affected in nonpeak times, so at those times the 

impacts would be long term and moderate. 

The visitor experience would be further 

enhanced by the addition of interpretive trails at 

Buttrill Spring and possibly at Rosillos Ranch. 

This would be a long-term beneficial and minor 

impact. 

Lights at night from developments associated 

with the campgrounds, lodge, visitor centers, 

and park housing are visible from areas within 

the park. These visual intrusions degrade the 

natural setting. Nonetheless, lights at night 

would continue to disrupt the experiences for 

small numbers of visitors. 

Access to Orientation and Interpretation 

Construction of a new visitor center at Panther 

Junction would help visitors and educational 

groups to get the important and adequate 

information, interpretation and education 

messages, programs, and media that they would 

like to have. Because most visitors and education 

groups would be affected, and because of the 

high value they place on these services, this 

would constitute a long-term moderate to major 

beneficial impact on the visitor experience. 

Visitor Safety 

The increased availability of access to visitor 

safety information through printed materials 

and personal contact at Panther Junction would 

provide for a better visitor experience. The 

retention of visitor facilities at Rio Grande 

Village, but moving some of the campsites at 

Cottonwood Campground farther from the 

river, would place fewer visitors at risk from 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

180 

flooding. Please see the previous section on 

floodplains and flooding for more details. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although past actions have affected visitor 

understanding, no other on-going or future 

actions would have a perceptible impact on 

visitor experiences. The actions of this 

alternative would not add appreciably to 

cumulative effects. 

Conclusion 

Over the long term, most visitors at Chisos Basin 

would benefit from the removal of park housing; 

this would be a minor to moderate beneficial 

effect on visitors’ experiences during the peak 

season and would result in a long-term benefit 

for visitors coming to the park at peak and 

nonpeak times. 

A new visitor center would provide adequate 

space for interpreting the park’s primary themes, 

conducting interpretive and educational 

programs, and ensuring that visitors received 

sufficient information to effectively plan for a 

safe and enjoyable stay. This would provide a 

major long-term benefit for most park visitors. 

Moving some of the campsites farther from the 

river would lessen the potential danger to 

visitors from flooding. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis 

Alternative B would enhance stewardship of 

natural resources while simultaneously 

expanding visitor facilities and opportunities for 

cultural resource understanding. Although most 

of the land in the park would continue to be 

managed as “proposed” or “potential” wilderness, this alternative would include construction 

of new and improved visitor and park employee 

facilities, campground improvements, upgrade 

of one water system to serve visitors and residents, restoration of native drought-resistant 

plant species, and strengthening of park interpretive and outreach programs. An additional 

25%-30% more full-time equivalent employees 

would be needed to implement this alternative, 

increasing local employment opportunities and 

long-term economic benefits. 

As stated in alternative A, the park would be 

expected to continue to serve about 300,000 

visitors yearly. Total combined sales generated 

from recreation spending by tourists and expenditures by residents, and direct government 

expenditures in salaries, supplies, construction 

projects, etc. under this alternative would total 

about $91.7 million. Overall park and related 

private sector concessions and operations (such 

as river operators and hotel/ motel operators) 

and construction would generate about 2,750 

jobs in direct and indirect employment. Total 

tax revenues (comprised of state and local sales 

taxes and corporate income taxes) generated by 

the park and related recreation and support 

operations and construction projects would be 

about $8.9 million. 

In comparison to the no-action alternative, 

alternative B would have a net increased benefit 

greater than $20 million in total combined sales, 

about $1.9 million in tax revenues, and about 

650 additional jobs. These additional short-term 

and long-term, minor to moderate beneficial 

effects would be the direct and indirect products 

of the increased spending on facility upgrades 

and improvements in programs, including 

increased park employment. 

Cumulative Effects 

Big Bend National Park serves local and regional 

recreation users, along with a smaller but sizable 

number of visitors from elsewhere in the United 

States and some overseas travelers. There would 

be incremental enhancements to the park's 

facilities and operations, along with long-term, 

beneficial cumulative impacts on the regional 

economy from increased economic activity. 

Baseline park employment (100 full-timeequivalent employees) would continue, and 

25%-30% more employees would be added, 

many or most of whom may be drawn from the 

local labor pool. Therefore, it would be 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (Preferred) 

181 

anticipated that most of the economic benefits 

would accrue to the private sector and to local 

and state agencies. In addition, there might be 

beneficial cumulative socioeconomic impacts in 

the adjacent Mexican villages that border the 

park resulting from increased employment 

opportunities, and for the Big Bend Ranch State 

Park, Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, and 

the Rio Grand Wild and Scenic River from 

enhanced recreational activity. 

Conclusion 

The existing economic and socioeconomic 

benefits that the park brings to the local and 

regional economy would continue. There would 

be minor to moderate direct short-term and 

long-term improvements in both permanent and 

temporary federal and private sector 

employment opportunities from implementing 

alternative B, which would generate about 650 

jobs. There would also be minor to moderate 

indirect improvements in overall socioeconomic 

activity and tax revenues as the planned 

upgrades of facilities and programs are implemented. These economic benefits would be due 

to increased payrolls and visitor spending, 

providing greater than $20 million in additional 

sales and about $1.9 million in additional tax 

revenues. These benefits would be both local 

and regional in nature, with the minor to 

moderate improvements to employment 

benefiting the relatively isolated and sparsely 

populated southwest Texas counties of 

Brewster, Presidio, and Terrell. There would 

also be international economic stimulation with 

enhanced employment opportunities for 

Mexican communities along the border. There 

might be beneficial cumulative socioeconomic 

impacts in the Mexican villages that border the 

park, and at the Big Bend Ranch State Park, 

Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, and the 

Rio Grand Wild and Scenic River from 

enhanced recreational activity. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following paragraphs describe the more 

important (moderate and major intensity) adverse impacts that would result from implementing alternative B. These are residual 

impacts that would remain after mitigation was 

implemented. The negligible and minor impacts 

are described in the previous analysis. 

Natural Resources 

The natural and beneficial values of floodplain 

areas would continue to be compromised by 

development in the flash-flood hazard area at 

Panther Junction. This continuing long-term 

adverse impact on natural processes would be 

unavoidable and moderate. 

Although severe flooding has been infrequent 

and risks are minor to moderate, flooding at Rio 

Grande Village or Cottonwood Campground 

could result in major adverse impacts on the 

visitors or employees involved. 

At Panther Junction, because the long period 

between flood events leads to a false sense of 

security and warning time would be short, there 

is the possibility of human injury or loss of life in 

the event of a large flood. Even though the risk is 

not great, flooding at Panther Junction could 

cause major adverse impacts on the visitors and 

employees involved. 

Although the risk of flooding at Panther 

Junction is not great, damage or loss of 60% of 

the museum collection would be a major longterm adverse impact on the collection, and loss 

of infrastructure could have a major long-term 

adverse impact on operations. 

Cultural Resources 

Rio Grande Village contains a cultural landscape, resulting from the Mission 66 work in this 

area of the park, which is potentially eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places. The water conservation measures in the 

Rio Grande Village could result in changing the 

vegetation characteristic of this landscape, such 

as reducing the amount of green grass areas and 

phasing out heavy-water-using plants with more 

drought-tolerant native species. These actions 

could have a long-term, moderate, adverse, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

182 

unavoidable impact on this potential cultural 

landscape. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

There would be no unavoidable adverse 

socioeconomic impacts under any of the three 

alternatives. No mitigation measures for adverse 

socioeconomic impacts would be required.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Severe flooding has been infrequent, and the 

risks are minor to moderate; however, flooding 

could result in major adverse impacts on visitors 

or employees involved, museum collection, and 

park operations. 

Construction materials and energy used would 

be irretrievably lost. 

Under alternative B, there would be irreversible 

and irretrievable commitments of resources in 

terms of funds expended on both labor and 

construction materials, and for labor for both 

facility and program construction and operation. 

These commitments would be about $1.7 yearly 

for the additional planned employees and an 

approximate average of $21.7 million (ranging 

from $18.3 to $25.0 million) for construction, 

rehabilitation, and restoration costs. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES 

OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Continuing visitor activities would reduce the 

long-term productivity of the environment and 

consume scarce water resources. Human 

activities associated with ongoing visitor and 

administrative use of the park would prevent 

vegetation and wildlife populations from 

reaching their full potential in size and 

population density. 

The short-term disturbance of soils, vegetation, 

and wildlife habitat from constructing facilities 

and rehabilitating disturbed areas would be 

more than offset by the long-term restoration of 

vegetation and wildlife habitat and reductions in 

water use at Chisos Basin and Rio Grande 

Village. 

Occupation of the floodplains at Panther 

Junction, Rio Grande Village, and Cottonwood 

Campground for the indefinite future would 

cause long-term reduction in natural and 

beneficial values of the floodplains. 

Under alternative B the development and 

construction of additional and improved visitor 

facilities, demolition of structures, and 

revegetation activities would result in short-term 

socioeconomic benefits. Once construction 

work was completed, long-term benefits would 

result from the enhanced facilities and 

programs. Alternative B would have the most 

favorable overall net socioeconomic benefits 

from increased employment and economic 

activity. 

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

Energy requirements would increase with the 

construction of new structures. Designing all 

structures to be energy-efficient could mitigate 

the additional energy requirements. Alternative 

B would require slightly less energy than 

alternative A because two energy-inefficient 

structures would be removed at Chisos Basin 

and replaced with energy-efficient structures. 

Also, electricity required for pumping water 

would be reduced by 3% at Chisos Basin and 

50% at Rio Grande Village.
183 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE C 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Soils 

Actions specific to alternative C that would 

impact soils are as follows: 

• Chisos Basin: All development except the 

main road, 50-car parking area, and a restroom 

would be removed. 

• Panther Junction: The visitor center/ 

headquarters would be rehabilitated to better 

serve as a visitor center, consolidate offices for 

the interpretive division, and provide space for 

collections. A new administration building and 

a new warehouse would be built. 

• Rio Grande Village: All development would 

be removed except the main road, a trailhead 

and 50-car parking area, and a restroom. The 

trails to Hot Springs and Boquillas Crossing 

would be extended to the new trailhead. 

• Castolon: One fire bay would be constructed. 

• Cottonwood Campground: Some campsites 

would be relocated farther from the river, and 

a new road would be constructed for egress. 

• North Rosillos/Harte Ranch: An interpretive 

trail would be constructed at Buttrill Spring 

and possibly at Rosillos. 

•Persimmon Gap: No change. 

•Maverick: An entrance station would be 

constructed and the existing entrance station 

would be removed. 

•Gateway communities: Residences and offices 

would either be constructed or leased. 

These actions would disturb approximately 4 

acres of soil inside the park and 2.5 acres 

outside. Removing fuel tanks from the floodplain at Rio Grande Village would be in 

addition to this number because the extent of 

required changes is not known. All the areas 

that would be affected have been previously 

disturbed. Sites with soil disturbance would 

undergo accelerated wind and water erosion, 

at least temporarily, until drainage structures 

were fully operational and vegetation had 

recovered in cleared areas. To conserve 

available organic matter, topsoil, where 

present, would be retained and replaced. (Soils 

at Big Bend have virtually no topsoil.) Relatively small areas would be affected, and mitigating 

measures such as prompt revegetation and silt 

fences would be employed. However, the 

aridness of the area would increase the time 

required for vegetation to become established 

(if it did become established), and the low 

resilience of the soil would mean these adverse 

impacts would be minor and long term. 

Trail rehabilitation would include special 

design methods in areas where the slope is high 

and soils are easily eroded by wind and water. 

These impacts have already occurred to some 

degree because all the areas involved have been 

disturbed. However, the trail extensions to 

Boquillas at Rio Grande Village, and new 

Buttrill Spring trail increase the area impacted 

by 0.7 to 1.2 acres. The possible length and 

alignment are not available for the potential 

Rosillos Trail, so the area of disturbance 

cannot be calculated. Soil erosion by wind and 

water, and soil nutrient transport, would result 

in minor, long-term, adverse impacts. 

In this alternative, there would be 700 acres at 

Chisos Basin, Rio Grande Village, Cottonwood 

Campground, and the Maverick entrance 

station where soils would be restored to 

natural contours, runoff would be routed to 

natural drainages, and soils would be 

revegetated. Under alternative C, about 641 

acres of the 801,000+

 acres in the park would 

continue to be occupied by development.

Restoring natural contours, routing runoff to 

natural drainages, and revegetating an area 

greater than 700 acres would have a major, 

long-term beneficial impact on soils. 

Removing almost all structures at Chisos Basin, 

constructing an administration building and 

storage warehouse at Panther Junction, 

removing development at Rio Grande Village 

and extending the trail system, constructing a 

fire bay at Castolon; constructing a new egress 

road for Cottonwood Campground, constructing a Buttrill Spring trail and possibly a North 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

184 

Rosillos/Harte Ranch trail, constructing an 

entrance station at the park boundary and 

removing the entrance station at Maverick, 

and possibly constructing residences and an 

office building offsite could require regrading 

that would result in loss of some of the natural 

soil profile. However, because all these sites 

except the ones for the new Maverick entrance 

station and development outside the park are 

in developed areas, the overall soil quality of 

these areas has probably already been changed 

significantly and possibly permanently 

affected. Within the park, the changes from 

actions of this alternative would impact small 

areas within developed areas. (No site for 

development outside the park has been 

selected.) Therefore, these impacts would be 

minor, long term, and adverse. 

Soils at Chisos Basin, Panther Junction, Rio 

Grande Village, Cottonwood Campground, 

and Castolon have moderate or severe limitations for the kinds of actions that are suggested 

in alternative C. Further geotechnical investigation would be required to evaluate suitability 

and needed mitigation before designing the 

facilities listed. Tables in appendix H show, for 

each developed area, the actions of the 

alternatives and specific limitations of soils. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, including 

dryland farming and ranching, has led to the 

erosion of soils by removing native vegetation 

and replacing it with plants not necessarily 

suited to the desert environment. This, along 

with tilling the soil, has left soils exposed to 

erosion by wind and water. 

Construction in the park, including trail 

development, by settlers, the army, Texas 

Canyons State Park personnel, Civilian 

Conservation Corps personnel, and Big Bend 

National Park personnel has increased erosion 

by removing native vegetation, allowing 

invasion of exotic plants, and leaving soils 

exposed to erosion by wind and water. Paving 

the main park roads probably decreased 

erosion, but probably altered natural soil 

profiles. 

The development of some private lands such as 

those in gateway communities west of the park 

or state lands such as Big Bend Ranch State 

Park and Black Gap Wildlife Management 

Area for residential, tourist-related, or other 

uses, and construction of five structures in the 

park could increase runoff, wind erosion, and 

soil compaction and alter soil regimes. 

If efforts to restore soils and natural hydrology 

at North Rosillos/Harte Ranch are successful, 

there would be long-term beneficial impacts 

on soils there. The intensity of the impact is 

uncertain because the size of the area that 

would be successfully restored is not known. If 

funding continues, the project would likely 

have major beneficial impacts on soils. 

Impacts on soils from agriculture and ranching 

including livestock grazing and trails covered 

wide areas and were adverse. Impacts on soils 

from building structures and trails covered 

smaller areas and were adverse. Impacts on 

soils of current and anticipated future actions 

outside the park, in conjunction with the 

impacts of alternative C would be major and 

adverse because they would probably cover 

more than 20 acres. Most of the impacts would 

be the result of development outside the park 

that might or might not be mitigated. The 

actions of alternative C and ongoing restoration at North Rosillos/Harte Ranch would 

contribute a very small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Soil disturbance from actions 

proposed in alternative C would be restricted 

to the minimum required. Construction in 

alternative C would disturb approximately 4 

acres of soil inside the park and 2.5 acres 

outside. All of the soils in the park that would 

be disturbed by construction are in developed 

(disturbed) areas except the Maverick 

entrance station; consequently, soil erosion by 

wind and water and soil nutrient transport 

would result in minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts. (Soil characteristics for sites outside 

the park are unknown because no site has been 

selected.) Removing development, restoring 

natural contours, and revegetating 700 acres at 

Chisos Basin, Rio Grande Village, and 

Maverick entrance station would have a major, 

long-term beneficial impact on soils. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

185 

The park’s soil resources would not be 

impaired by the actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

Vegetation 

Construction activities in alternative C (see 

soils discussion above) would disturb about 4 

acres of vegetation inside the park and 2.5 

acres outside. Topsoil (if present) would be 

scraped off and saved for future use before 

construction began. To allow more rapid 

recovery of native vegetation and minimize the 

encroachment of invading species, the topsoil 

would subsequently be replaced and reseeded 

to the extent possible with seed of native 

species gathered in the park or seeds of native 

species gathered in the park and propagated 

elsewhere. During the recovery period, the 

artificially seeded or replanted native vegetation would not be identical in composition to 

vegetation prior to construction. A reduction 

in the organic content of the soil would cause a 

slight change in species composition for 

several years. Because the affected area is 

already disturbed and the described mitigating 

measures would be implemented, this adverse 

impact on previously disturbed vegetation 

would be minor and long term. 

At Chisos Basin, Rio Grande Village, Cottonwood Campground, and the Maverick 

entrance station, 700 acres of soils would be 

restored to natural contours and revegetated. 

About 638 of these acres would be at Rio 

Grande Village, a site where water for irrigation is available to help plants become 

established. Restoring the areas would have a 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impact on 

vegetation. 

At Chisos Basin, all development would be 

removed except a trailhead for access to the 

backcountry, 50-car parking area, and a 

restroom. There would be no human use of 

Oak Spring — an annual reduction of about 4 

million gallons of water. Because removal of 

the development would be a large undertaking 

and would not be likely to be reversed, the 

impact would be long term. The plants are 

growing next to Oak Spring because they are 

water-loving. Therefore, having wet conditions 

all year and having use of all the water from the 

spring except what is taken by wildlife (rather 

than having some of the water taken all year 

with periods when nearly all the water in the 

spring is taken for human use) would be 

beneficial to these plants. The beneficial 

impact would be expected to be highly 

noticeable and increase the abundance and 

health of individuals, groups of species and 

communities of plants at the spring. Therefore, 

this long-term, beneficial impact on plants that 

use Oak Spring would be major. 

At Rio Grande Village, eliminating irrigation 

(reducing it from about 25.6 million gallons per 

month to 0) would be expected to kill about 

638 acres of exotic vegetation (lawns) and 

allow native vegetation to repopulate the areas. 

This would be a major, long-term, beneficial 

impact on native vegetation. 

Some vegetation would be trampled or 

destroyed by some off-trail use of areas such as 

the Buttrill Spring and Rosillos trails. This 

localized intermittent adverse impact would be 

minor and long term. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, including 

dryland farming and ranching, have greatly 

reduced native desert plants. Plants have been 

affected by being displaced, and habitat has 

been lost through agricultural uses and 

introduction of nonnative plants. 

Building structures and trails in the park by 

settlers, the army, Texas Canyons State Park 

personnel, the Civilian Conservation Corps 

personnel, and Big Bend National Park 

personnel has reduced native vegetation, 

allowed invasion of nonnative plants, and in 

some cases planted nonnative plants. 

The development of some private lands such as 

those in gateway communities west of the park 

or state lands such as Big Bend Ranch State 

Park and Black Gap Wildlife Management 

Area for residential, tourist-related, or other 

uses and the construction of five structures in 

the park could alter vegetative communities 

and cause loss of plants in some areas. Water 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

186 

use from these developments or uses could 

reduce water available for vegetation. 

If restoration efforts at North Rosillos/Harte 

Ranch are successful, there would be longterm beneficial impacts on soils and hydrology, 

which in turn would allow restoration of native 

plants. 

Impacts of agriculture and ranching on vegetation covered wide areas and were adverse. The 

impacts of building structures in the park, 

including trails, covered much smaller areas 

and have been adverse. Impacts of current and 

anticipated future actions outside the park, in 

conjunction with the impacts of alternative C 

would result in moderate, long-term adverse 

impacts on vegetation. Most of the impacts 

would be the result of development outside the 

park that might or might not be mitigated. The 

actions of alternative C and ongoing 

restoration at North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 

would contribute a very small increment to the 

overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Construction activities in 

alternative C would disturb about 4 acres of 

already disturbed vegetation inside the park 

and 2.5 acres outside, a minor long-term 

adverse impact. Revegetation would be 

attempted, but arid conditions make revegetation difficult. Restoring natural contours and 

revegetating about 700 acres would have a 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impact on 

vegetation. 

The removal of all development except a trailhead, parking, and restroom at Chisos Basin 

would result in a cessation in human use of 4 

million gallons per year from Oak Spring — a 

long-term major beneficial impact on plants 

that use water from the spring. 

Withdrawal of irrigation water from about 638 

acres of exotic vegetation at Rio Grande 

Village would allow native vegetation to return 

— a major, long-term beneficial impact on 

native vegetation. 

The park’s vegetation resources would not be 

impaired by the actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

Wildlife 

Alternative C would result in wildlife 

disturbance caused by ongoing maintenance 

such as road grading, revegetation and 

restoration; and upgrading the water system at 

Castolon. 

Construction on 4 acres in developed areas 

(except the new Maverick entrance station) 

inside the park and 2.5 acres outside the park 

would disturb wildlife and degrade habitat to a 

small degree. These intermittent adverse 

impacts would be minor and long term. 

At Chisos Basin, all development would be 

removed except a trailhead for access to the 

backcountry, 50-car parking area, and a 

restroom. There would be no human use of 

Oak Spring — an annual reduction of about 4 

million gallons of water. Because removal of 

the development would be a large undertaking 

and would not be likely to be reversed, this 

would be a long-term impact on wildlife using 

Oak Spring. The cessation of withdrawal of 

water for human use from the perennial Oak 

Spring would restore a permanent (yearround) water source for wildlife and increase 

the amount of water available to wildlife — a 

beneficial impact in the arid environment of 

the Chisos Basin. This beneficial effect on 

habitat at Oak Spring would be expected to be 

readily detectable, and population size of 

wildlife species using the spring would be 

expected to increase. Composition of wildlife 

communities would be expected to change. 

Therefore, this would be a moderate, longterm, beneficial impact on wildlife using Oak 

Spring. 

Withdrawal of irrigation water from about 638 

acres of exotic vegetation at Rio Grande 

Village would allow native vegetation to 

return. This would benefit wildlife by 

providing a more natural food source. It 

probably would provide less food for 

herbivores and less cover than the exotic 

vegetation that is there now. This would be a 

long-term, beneficial, moderate impact on 

wildlife. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

187 

Although wildlife habitat would still be 

fragmented by the roads into Chisos Basin and 

Rio Grande Village and by day use of the area 

by visitors, fragmentation would be reduced in 

both areas by removal of most development 

and discontinuing overnight stays in the 

campground (and motel units at Chisos Basin). 

This would be a moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impact on wildlife habitat. 

The restoration of natural contours and 

vegetation on about 700 acres at Chisos Basin, 

Rio Grande Village, and the Maverick entrance 

station would provide additional habitat for 

wildlife and greatly reduce fragmentation of 

wildlife in these areas. It is anticipated that the 

restoration of habitat on 700 acres, the large 

decrease in human activity there because of the 

removal of development, and reduced habitat 

fragmentation would have a moderate, longterm, beneficial impact on wildlife. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, including 

dryland farming and ranching, has greatly 

reduced native desert animals. Animals have 

been affected by being displaced and killed as 

vermin, and habitat has been lost through 

agricultural uses and introduction of nonnative 

animals. 

Building structures and trails in the park by 

settlers, the army, Texas Canyons State Park 

personnel, Civilian Conservation Corps 

personnel, and Big Bend National Park 

personnel has reduced native vegetation and 

allowed invasion of nonnative plants, 

degrading habitat for some wildlife and 

improving it for others. Building and use of the 

structures, including roads, has increased 

human activity, which has degraded and 

fragmented wildlife habitat in some localized 

areas. The use of water for human needs has 

reduced the amount of water available to 

wildlife. 

The development of some private lands such as 

those in gateway communities west of the park 

or state lands such as Big Bend Ranch State 

Park and Black Gap Wildlife Management 

Area for residential, tourist-related, or other 

uses and the construction of five structures in 

the park could alter wildlife habitat and habits 

and cause loss of wildlife in some areas. Water 

used by developments or for tourists could 

reduce water available for wildlife. Road kill of 

rodents, larger mammals, and birds would 

increase because more development probably 

would increase traffic. 

The past impacts from agriculture and 

ranching on wildlife covered wide areas and 

were adverse. Past impacts of development, 

including roads, to facilitate visitor use covered 

smaller areas, occupied and fragmented 

habitat, and were adverse. These impacts are 

continuing. Past and continuing overuse of 

water from the Rio Grande is a major 

contributor to adverse impacts on wildlife. 

Impacts on wildlife of current and anticipated 

future actions outside the park, in conjunction 

with the impacts of alternative C and 

restoration at North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 

would be moderate, long term, and adverse. 

Most of the impacts would be the result of 

development actions outside the park that 

might or might not be mitigated. The actions of 

alternative C would contribute a very small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Stopping withdrawal of water 

from Oak Spring for human use would be 

expected to have a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impact on wildlife using Oak Spring. 

Restoration of natural contours and vegetation 

on about 700 acres at Chisos Basin, Rio Grande 

Village, and the Maverick entrance station 

would increase wildlife habitat, a moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impact on wildlife. 

Withdrawal of irrigation water from about 638 

acres of exotic vegetation at Rio Grande 

Village would allow native vegetation to return 

and would benefit wildlife by providing a more 

natural food source. This would be a longterm, beneficial, moderate impact on wildlife. 

Although wildlife habitat would still be 

fragmented by the roads into Chisos Basin and 

Rio Grande Village and by day use of the area 

by visitors, fragmentation would be reduced in 

both areas by removal of most development 

and discontinuing overnight stays in the 

campground (and motel units at Chisos Basin). 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

188 

This would be a moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impact on wildlife habitat. 

The park’s wildlife resources would not be 

impaired by the actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

Water Quantity 

Chisos Basin/Oak Spring. Removing all park 

and concessioner personnel, functions and 

development except for a trailhead for access 

to the backcountry, a 50-car parking area, and 

a restroom would help conserve water in this 

arid environment; drinking water and flush 

toilets would not be provided. Removing all 

development from Chisos Basin except the 

main road, a trailhead, 50-car parking and a 

restroom (without flush toilets) would result in 

a decrease in water withdrawal from Oak 

Spring of about 4 million gallons per year. All 

water formerly used by the development, park 

and concessioner staff, and visitors would be 

available to the spring and associated 

vegetation and wildlife. Because removal of the 

development would be a large undertaking and 

would not be likely to be reversed, this would 

be a long-term, major, beneficial impact on 

water quantity in Oak Spring. 

Panther Junction. Moving 15% of personnel 

and functions out of Panther Junction would 

not be expected to decrease water use because 

additional employees are needed who would 

work and live at Panther Junction. There 

would probably be no net change in employees 

living at Panther Junction. Adding an administration building to the area would add a 

minimal amount of water use to the area. 

Incorporating water-saving features into the 

building would be expected to offset most of 

the increased use. 

Rio Grande Village. Removing all park concessioner personnel, functions and development at Rio Grande Village except a trailhead 

for access to the backcountry, 50-car parking 

area, and a restroom would conserve water in 

this arid environment; drinking water and 

flush toilets would not be provided. Removing 

development would reduce the use of water 

from the river for irrigation from about 25.6 

million gallons per month to 0 gallons per 

month once all development (except cultural 

resources) is removed and revegetation of the 

area is complete. There is no data available on 

how much of the irrigation water evaporates 

and how much finds its way back into the Rio 

Grande, but it is thought that most of the water 

does flow back into the river. Because removal 

of the development would be a large undertaking and would not be likely to be reversed, 

this would be a long-term impact on water 

quantity. Leaving an additional 25.6 million 

gallons of water per month in the river rather 

than removing it for irrigation would be 

expected to be a moderate, long term, beneficial impact on water quantity in the Rio 

Grande. 

Spring at Rio Grande Village. Removing 

development at Rio Grande Village and 

providing no water for human use there would 

mean that all the water formerly used by park 

and concessioner staff and visitors would be 

available to two of the three spring-fed ponds 

in the area. The availability of about 2.9 million 

additional gallons of water to the pond system 

would be a major long-term beneficial impact 

on water quantity. 

Castolon. Water use at Castolon is expected to 

remain the same as alternative A — 2.6 million 

gallons per year of drinking water from wells 

and about 125,000 gallons per month of 

irrigation water from the Rio Grande. 

Persimmon Gap. Water use at Persimmon 

Gap would be expected to remain the same as 

alternative A — about 300,000 gallons per year. 

Cumulative Effects. The presence of dams 

upstream and continued heavy use of the river 

would result in major long-term reductions in 

water quantity in the park and upstream and 

downstream of the park. 

Agriculture, including dryland farming and 

ranching, and urban development have 

increased to the point that water in the Rio 

Grande water shed is overcommitted. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

189 

Use of water in the area that is now the park, 

by residents, settlers, army personnel, Texas 

Canyons State Park personnel, Civilian 

Conservation Corps personnel, Big Bend 

National Park personnel or visitors , has 

reduced the quantity of water available for 

wildlife, plants, and natural processes. Using 

water for watering stock or irrigating has had a 

similar effect. 

The development of some private lands, such 

as those in gateway communities west of the 

park or state lands such as Big Bend Ranch 

State Park and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, for residential, tourist-related, or 

other uses would increase ground or surface 

water use and decrease water availability for 

other uses in an area where water is already 

scarce. The exact impact of increased 

residential or tourist development in gateway 

communities west of the park, if any, is not 

known. 

Past impacts of use of the Rio Grande for 

agriculture, ranching, and water supply were, 

and continue to be, major and adverse. Impacts 

on water quantity in the Rio Grande of current 

and anticipated future actions outside the park, 

in conjunction with the impacts of alternative 

C and restoration at North Rosillos/Harte 

Ranch are anticipated to be long term and 

adverse. Intensity of this impact is not known 

because it is not clear how increased 

development in the gateway communities west 

of the park and the state-managed areas would 

impact the Rio Grande or what the amount of 

any increased use would be. 

For many years during periods of extended 

drought, as well as at certain, very limited times 

when it is not raining during normal years, the 

development at Chisos Basin has used nearly 

all the water from Oak Spring. This has had a 

major intermittent, long term, adverse impact 

on water quantity at Oak Spring and the plants 

and animals that would otherwise use the 

water. Water conservation measures begun in 

the 1990s, such as the installation of low-flow 

toilets and shower heads and incremental 

replacement of the water system, have reduced 

this impact to some degree. The actions of 

alternative C would contribute a very small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Removing all human use of 

water from Oak Spring, 4 million gallons per 

year, would be a long-term, major, beneficial 

impact. At Rio Grande Village, eliminating the 

use of irrigation water — 25.6 million gallons 

per month — from the Rio Grande would be a 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impact. 

Removing all human use of the springs at Rio 

Grande Village, 2.9 million gallons per year, 

would be a major, long-term, beneficial impact. 

The park’s water quantity would not be 

impaired by the actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

Threatened, Endangered, 

and Candidate Species 

Black-capped vireo (endangered). The 

Chisos Basin, including the corridor of the 

road leading into it, is a very important part of 

this bird’s habitat. Reasons for the bird’s 

decline are habitat loss to urbanization, 

browsing by herbivores, brush clearing, natural 

succession, brown-headed cowbird brood 

parasitism, and human disturbance. Most 

development in the Chisos would be removed 

in this alternative. The main road into the 

Basin would remain and a trailhead and 50-car 

parking area would be constructed. During 

demolition and removal of structures, 

recontouring of the land and revegetation, 

visitor traffic would be replaced by fewer 

heavy equipment vehicles such as front-end 

loaders and dump trucks. Once the heavy 

equipment work was complete and the 

trailhead and parking in place, visitor traffic 

would resume at lower levels than before 

demolition. Impacts of human disturbance 

from current visitor use and from fewer heavy 

vehicles during construction would be 

expected to be about the same. However, 

when the only use of Chisos Basin is for 

backcountry use, human disturbance from a 

smaller number of visitor vehicles would be 

expected to be much less. Clearing of road 

edges would continue, but there would be 

fewer roads. In addition, if restoration of 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

190 

vegetation on about 60 acres in the Basin was 

successful, there might be additional habitat 

for the black-capped vireo. Should traffic on 

the road decrease, there would be a beneficial, 

minor, and long-term impact on the bird by 

reducing human disturbance. The restoration 

of about 60 acres of vegetation in the Basin 

might have a moderate to major long-term 

beneficial impact on the bird by increasing 

habitat. 

Big Bend gambusia (endangered). This fish, 

found in the wild at only Rio Grande Village, is 

threatened by habitat alteration, ground-water 

pumping, declining spring flows, and competition with introduced nonnative species. The 

spring that feeds the pond at Rio Grande 

Village where Big Bend gambusia live is also 

used for human consumption. Removing 

development at Rio Grande Village and 

providing no water for human use there would 

mean that all the water formerly used by park 

and concessioner staff and visitors would be 

available to two of the three spring-fed ponds 

in the area. The availability of about 2.9 million 

additional gallons of water to the pond system 

would remove human competition for water 

and make it very unlikely that pond system 

would dry up. Whether this change would 

actually lead to increases in numbers of this 

endangered fish is not known. The impact 

would be expected to be minor to moderate, 

long term, and beneficial. 

Removal of development and most human 

disturbance from Rio Grande Village would be 

expected to benefit Big Bend gambusia by 

reducing the likelihood of predators being 

introduced into the pond by visitors as when 

fishermen dispose of their catch. Introduction 

of predators might still occur when the river 

overflows into the pond. Restoration of a more 

natural system through revegetation of the area 

would provide a more natural area that might 

benefit the fish. Whether this change would 

actually lead to increases in numbers of this 

endangered fish is not known. The impact 

would be expected to be minor to moderate, 

long term, and beneficial. 

If the potential 10-acre wetland is successfully 

restored at Rio Grande Village, it would 

approximately double the habitat of the Big 

Bend gambusia. Whether there would be a 

change in population is not known. The impact 

would be expected to be minor to moderate, 

long term, and beneficial. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, including 

dryland farming and ranching, have greatly 

reduced native desert plants and animals 

including threatened and endangered species. 

The black-capped vireo has lost habitat to 

browsing by herbivores, brush-clearing, and 

human disturbance and urbanization. The Big 

Bend gambusia has lost habitat to habitat 

alteration, groundwater pumping, decreasing 

spring flows, and competition with introduced 

nonnative species such as the western 

mosquito fish. 

Placement of the road into Chisos Basin by the 

Civilian Conservation Corps probably 

destroyed habitat for the black-capped vireo. It 

facilitated development and occupation of the 

basin by more people for longer periods of 

time than had occurred before road 

construction. This was an adverse impact on 

the habitat for the now-endangered bird. 

Past agricultural use at Rio Grande Village — 

including alterations of landform and natural 

hydrologic features, irrigation, and planting of 

nonnative plants — may have damaged habitat 

for the Big Bend gambusia. Adding housing, a 

road system, some parts of an irrigation 

system, a reflection pond in the group 

campground, parts of a campground, and 

infrastructure for the campgrounds and 

restroom area probably further damaged 

habitat for the fish. It also brought in larger 

groups of people — employees who lived there 

and visitors who competed with the fish for 

scarce spring water resources. These were 

probably adverse impacts on the Big Bend 

gambusia. These impacts continue today. 

The development of some private lands, such 

as those in gateway communities west of the 

park or state lands such as Big Bend Ranch 

State Park and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, for residential, tourist-related, or 

other uses could impact black-capped vireo 

habitat or alter suitable habitat for Big Bend 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

191 

gambusia. Water used by developments or for 

tourists could reduce water available for 

habitat for these species in an area where water 

is already scarce. 

Past impacts on threatened and endangered 

species from agriculture, including dryland 

farming and ranching, dam building, 

urbanization, and over use of water from the 

Rio Grande have been major and adverse. Past 

impacts on black-capped vireo and Big Bend 

gambusia from the Civilian Conservation 

Corps and the National Park Service adding 

development in the park for visitor use have 

been major and adverse. In addition, attracting 

visitors to Rio Grande Village and allowing 

them to remain overnight and building 

employee housing in the area has increased 

human demand for the spring water used by 

Big Bend gambusia—an adverse impact. 

Impacts on threatened and endangered species 

from current and anticipated future actions 

outside the park, in conjunction with the 

impacts of alternative C and restoration at 

Harte Ranch, are not known because the 

locations of species outside the park in areas 

that might be impacted are not known. Given 

the lack of information regarding impacts 

outside the park, it is not possible to assess the 

relative size of the impacts of alternative C 

compared to current and anticipated future 

actions outside the park. 

Conclusion. Overall, decreased traffic on 

the Chisos Basin road would have a beneficial, 

minor and long-term impact on the blackcapped vireo by reducing human disturbance. 

Restoring about 60 acres of vegetation in the 

Basin might have a moderate to major longterm beneficial impact on the bird by 

increasing habitat. 

The availability of about 2.9 million additional 

gallons of water to the pond system where Big 

Bend gambusia live, restoring more natural 

conditions in the area through revegetation, 

and potentially doubling the available habitat 

through wetland restoration would be 

expected to have a minor to moderate, longterm, beneficial impact on the fish. 

The park’s threatened and endangered species 

would not be impaired by the actions proposed 

under this alternative. 

Floodplains 

Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values.

The natural and beneficial values of floodplain 

areas would continue to be compromised by 

development in the flash-flood hazard area at 

Panther Junction. This continuing long-term 

adverse impact on natural processes would be 

unavoidable and moderate. 

Removal of about 638 acres of development 

from Rio Grande Village and revegetation of 

the area would restore natural and beneficial 

floodplain values — a long-term, major 

beneficial impact on the floodplain. 

Flooding. A flood hazard reconnaissance 

(NPS: 1991) stated that, “Because flooding 

occurs only in extremely large and rare events, 

and flood flow velocities are very small, the 

possibility that visitors could be injured or lose 

their lives in a flood at Rio Grande Village or 

Cottonwood Campground is very small.” As in 

the no-action alternative, the campground at 

Cottonwood would continue to occupy part of 

the 100-year floodplain. Under alternative C all 

the development at Rio Grande Village except 

the main road would be removed and a parking 

area, trailhead, and restroom would be 

constructed. This would remove all overnight 

use in the area by visitors and employees. Dayuse would be greatly reduced. Visitors, 

employees, and infrastructure at risk from 

flooding would be greatly reduced at Rio 

Grande Village. Even though early warning 

and evacuation plans would be developed, 

communications might not always be fully 

comprehended or acted upon. Although the 

possibility of loss of life is very small, and 

greatly reduced in alternative C, campers and 

employees at Cottonwood Campground and 

day users at Rio Grande Village would remain 

in some danger. As in the no-action alternative 

severe flooding has been infrequent, and risks 

are minor to moderate, but the results of 

flooding could cause major adverse impacts on 

the visitors and employees involved. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

192 

The entire development at Panther Junction, 

located on a bajada or area of converging 

alluvial fans, is subject to flash flooding and 

debris flows and is geomorphologically 

unstable. In ideal circumstances, development 

at Panther Junction would be located outside 

the maximum estimated flood (Qme) (see 

appendix F). As in alternative A, the fire 

management building would be constructed in 

a less dangerous portion of the flood-prone 

area. In alternative C, two additional structures 

would be constructed in the floodplain at 

Panther Junction — an administration building 

and a storage warehouse. 

According to “Estimation of Flood and 

Geomorphic Hazard in the Panther Canyon 

Area of Big Bend National Park, Texas” (NPS 

1995), all of the structures at Panther Junction 

are at “some risk.” However, the report also 

seems to indicate that the risk is not great. 

Nevertheless, because the long period between 

events leads to a false sense of security and 

warning time would be short, there is the 

possibility of human injury or loss of life in the 

event of a large flood. Even though the report 

finds that the risk is not great, flooding at 

Panther Junction could cause major adverse 

impacts on the visitors and employees 

involved. 

As in the no-action alternative, in the event of a 

500-year or maximum estimated flood (Qme), 

up to 60% of the park’s museum collection, 

stored at Panther Junction, could be damaged 

or destroyed. This would be a major long-term 

adverse impact on the collection. 

In addition, a large investment in infrastructure 

(including the visitor center, the park 

headquarters, school, and 76 housing units) 

could be lost if the 500-year or maximum 

estimated flood (Qme) occurs at Panther 

Junction. Even though the risk of this event 

occurring is not great, loss of infrastructure 

from flooding at Panther Junction could have a 

major, long-term adverse impact on NPS 

operations and could require the park staff to 

find temporary offices and housing outside the 

park. 

Cumulative Effects. The construction of dams 

upstream of the park and the heavy use of the 

Rio Grande upstream have greatly reduced the 

extent of the floodplain and the natural and 

beneficial values of floodplains in the park. 

Cattle and sheep probably have been allowed 

to use some riparian areas in and near the park. 

This practice degrades natural and beneficial 

floodplain values in exchange for benefits to 

agricultural uses. NPS structures and visitor 

uses in floodplain areas contribute to the loss 

of natural and beneficial values. 

The presence of dams upstream and heavy use 

of the river would continue to result in major 

long-term reductions in area and in beneficial 

values in floodplains in the park and upstream 

and downstream of the park. 

Further development in floodplains and 

wetlands outside the park for residential, 

agricultural, or commercial uses would 

decrease the area in which natural and 

beneficial floodplain values would be 

preserved. 

Even though the natural resources and 

collections management building would be 

constructed in a less flood-prone area (less 

likely to be inundated by smaller floods), and 

the likelihood of them being damaged in 

smaller floods would be reduced, they would 

still be within the maximum estimated flood 

area at Panther Junction. If the maximum 

estimated flood occurs, the 60% of the park’s 

museum collection that is stored at Panther 

Junction could be damaged or destroyed. This 

would be a major long-term adverse impact on 

the collection. 

Under this alternative the natural and 

beneficial values of the floodplain areas would 

continue to be compromised by development 

at Cottonwood and Panther Junction. This 

would include a new natural resources and 

collection management building at Panther 

Junction. 

The past impacts of agriculture, ranching, 

urbanization, dam construction, visitor 

developments, and visitor use on floodplains 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

193 

covered wide areas and were major and 

adverse. Continuing overuse of water from the 

Rio Grande is a major contributor to adverse 

impacts on floodplains. Impacts on floodplains 

of current and anticipated future actions 

outside the park, in conjunction with the 

impacts of alternative C and restoration at 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch, would be 

moderate, long term, and adverse. Most of the 

impacts would be the result of development 

actions outside the park that might or might 

not be mitigated. The actions of alternative C 

would contribute a very small increment to the 

overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Removal of about 638 acres of 

development from Rio Grande Village and 

revegetation of the area would have a longterm, major, beneficial impact on natural 

floodplain values. 

Although the risk is not great, flooding at 

Panther Junction could cause major adverse 

impacts on the visitors and employees 

involved. 

Even though the risk of flooding is not great at 

Panther Junction, damage or loss of 60% of the 

museum collection would be a major, longterm adverse impact on the collection, and loss 

of infrastructure would be a major, long-term 

adverse impact on operations. Loss of infrastructure could require the park to find temporary offices and housing outside the park. 

The resources and values of Big Bend National 

Park would not be impaired because there 

would be no major adverse impacts on a 

resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Big Bend National Park; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. Consequently, no 

floodplain resources or values would be 

impaired as a result of implementing this 

alternative. 

Wetlands 

Removing all development from Chisos Basin 

except the main road, a trailhead, 50-car 

parking area, and a restroom (without drinking 

water or flush toilets) would result in a 

decrease in water withdrawal from Oak Spring 

of about 4 million gallons per year. All of the 

water formerly used by the development, park 

and concessioner staff, and visitors would be 

available to the spring and associated 

vegetation and wildlife. Because removal of the 

development would be a large undertaking and 

would not be likely to be reversed, this would 

be a long-term, major, beneficial impact on 

wetlands associated with Oak Spring. 

At Rio Grande Village, riparian and other 

wetland vegetation has been eliminated from 

some high visitation areas and would be 

restored to more natural conditions in this 

alternative. The natural functioning of 

wetlands in this area would be enhanced by the 

removal of most visitor use, cessation of 

irrigation, and elimination of use of spring 

water for human drinking water. About 638 

acres would be restored to more natural 

conditions. The area that would be occupied 

by wetlands after restoration is not known, but 

it is hoped that the potential 10-acre wetland 

could be restored. This would be a major, 

long-term, beneficial impact on wetland 

processes. 

Cumulative Effects. Some wetlands within 

and outside the park, especially along the Rio 

Grande, have been filled to make more land 

available for growing crops. Cattle and sheep 

probably have been allowed to use some 

wetland and riparian areas in and near the 

park. These practices decrease wetland areas 

and degrade natural and beneficial wetland 

values in exchange for benefit to agricultural 

uses. NPS structures and visitor uses in 

wetland areas contribute to the loss of natural 

and beneficial values. 

The presence of dams upstream and continued 

heavy use of the river would continue to result 

in major long-term reductions in wetland area 

and in beneficial values of wetlands in the park 

and upstream and downstream of the park. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

194 

Further development in wetlands outside the 

park for residential, agricultural, or commercial uses would decrease the area in which 

natural and beneficial wetland values would be 

preserved. 

The past cumulative impacts of agriculture, 

ranching, urbanization, and dam construction 

on wetlands covered wide areas and were 

major and adverse. Continuing overuse of 

water from the Rio Grande is a major 

contributor to adverse impacts on wetlands. 

Impacts on wetlands of current and 

anticipated future actions outside the park, in 

conjunction with the impacts of alternative C 

and restoration at North Rosillos/Harte 

Ranch, would be moderate, long term, adverse 

cumulative impacts. Most of the impacts 

would be the result of development actions 

outside the park that might or might not be 

mitigated. The actions of alternative C would 

contribute a very small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Removing all human water use 

from Chisos Basin would mean that about 4 

million additional gallons per year would be 

available to wetland vegetation, a long-term, 

major, beneficial impact on wetlands associated with Oak Spring. 

Removing most visitor use, discontinuing 

irrigation, eliminating use of spring water for 

humans, and restoring about 638 acres to more 

natural conditions would have a major, longterm beneficial impact on wetland processes at 

Rio Grande Village. 

The park’s wetland resources would not be 

impaired by the actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. The removal of structures and roads 

in the Rio Grande Village and Chisos Basin 

area and the restoration of the natural 

contours would result in extensive ground 

disturbance. Although there are archeological 

resources in these two areas, this action would 

only occur in previously disturbed areas.

The area around Buttrill Spring contains 

potentially eligible archeological and historic 

sites. Developing a trail could be done in a 

manner to avoid these resources; however the 

introduction of visitation to the area could 

result in resource degradation due to trampling 

of the ruins and prehistoric archeological 

components of the site. This could be partially 

mitigated through a visitor education program 

and would have a long-term, minor to 

moderate adverse impact. 

Known archeological resources can be found 

in the Panther Junction area, but the construction of a new administrative center and 

warehouse would be done in a location to 

avoid these resources. No impact on 

archeological resources would result. 

Archeological resources would be avoided in 

the location and construction of the trails in 

the North Rosillos/Harte Ranch area, the 

relocation of the Cottonwood Campground 

campsites, and relocation of the Maverick 

entrance station. There would be no impact on 

archeological resources in these areas. 

The management prescriptions of alternative C 

would place more than 95% of the park in 

either the Wilderness or Backcountry Nonwilderness management prescription and less 

than 5% of the park in management prescriptions that would allow for development. This 

would not result in disturbance of known 

archeological resources. The application of the 

management prescriptions would have a longterm, minor, beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Effects. The Black Gap Wildlife 

Management Area and Big Bend Ranch State 

Park are required to identify and preserve 

archeological resources. In the past, archeological resources have been lost due to neglect and 

lack of adequate protection measures. This 

situation is slowly being remedied as archeological resources are identified and protection 

measures are put in place. The park’s actions 

added to those of the state parks could result in 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

195 

long-term; negligible, beneficial cumulative 

effects on the area’s archeological resources. 

Conclusion. Overall, alternative C would 

result in leaving large portions of the park in a 

natural condition, which would have a longterm, minor, beneficial impact on 

archeological resources. 

The park’s archeological resources would not 

be impaired by actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds the development 

proposed under alternative C would have an 

effect that would not be adverse. 

Historic Structures/Buildings 

Analysis. No historic structures would be 

affected by the removal of development at Rio 

Grande Village. However, the removal of 

structures at Chisos Basin would include four 

small stone cottages that were constructed by 

the Civilian Conservation Corp and have been 

determined eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places. The demolition 

and removal of these cottages would result in a 

long-term, major, adverse impact on these 

resources. Allowing those portions of the 

Barker Lodge that are not character defining to 

deteriorate would have a long-term, negligible, 

adverse impact on this resource. 

The current visitor center dates from the 

Mission 66 period. A determination of eligibility needs to be completed to determine its 

significance and character-defining features. If 

the visitor center were determined eligible, 

then changes to the building would be done in 

such a manner as to not impact the characterdefining features. Rehabilitation activities 

would have a long-term, negligible impact. 

Placing more than 95% of the park in either 

the Wilderness or Backcountry Nonwilderness 

prescription and less than 5% of the park in 

management prescriptions that would allow 

for development would have a long-term 

negligible, beneficial impact. The reduction of 

park maintenance demands in this alternative 

could result in more funding and time for 

preserving the park’s historic structures, which 

would also have a long-term negligible, 

beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Effects. Historic structures/ 

buildings at Big Bend National Park are subject 

to damage from development, vandalism, 

illegal activities, and natural processes. Past 

development in the Rio Grande Village area, 

Castolon area, Chisos Basin, and Panther 

Junction has resulted in the loss of some 

structures during construction activities as well 

as the removal of some structures for visitor 

safety and other park purposes. The reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as 

construction of new employee housing and 

administrative, maintenance, and storage 

facilities, would not impact historic structures/ 

buildings. The minor to major adverse impacts 

of this alternative, in conjunction with the lack 

of adverse impacts of other reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

minor to major adverse impacts on historic 

structures/buildings. However, the adverse 

impacts would be a relatively minor 

component of the overall cumulative impacts, 

due to the limited scope of the action. 

The Black Gap Wildlife Management Area and 

Big Bend Ranch State Park are required to 

identify and preserve historic structures. In the 

past, historic structures have been lost due to 

neglect, lack of adequate protection measures, 

or even deliberate destruction. NPS actions 

added to those of the state parks could result in 

long-term, negligible to minor adverse effects 

on the area’s historic structures. 

Conclusion. Overall, alternative C would 

result in the demolition of some historic 

structures while other structures would be 

preserved. This would result in a long-term 

moderate to major, adverse impact on historic 

structures. 

Although actions under this alternative would 

have a major adverse effect on the historic 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

196 

structures/buildings, there would be no major 

adverse impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (a) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park, (b) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park or to 

opportunities to enjoy it, or (c) identified as a 

goal in the park’s general management plan or 

other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds the development 

proposed under alternative C would have an 

effect that would be adverse. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Analysis. The removal of man-made features 

and structures at Rio Grande Village and 

Chisos Basin would impact two potential 

cultural landscapes. One landscape represents 

a potential Mission 66 period and the other 

represents the “CCC” (Civilian Conservation 

Corps) period and a potential Mission 66 

period at the park. At Rio Grande Village 

impacts would include the removal of manmade ponds and other features associated with 

the Mission 66 work there. At Chisos Basin, the 

action would result in the removal of CCC-era 

buildings and a road that was originally built by 

the CCC. It would result in the removal of 

housing, parking, and campground layouts 

associated with Mission 66. The demolition 

and removal of these features would result in a 

long-term, major, adverse impact. 

The management prescriptions of alternative C 

would place more than 95% of the park in 

either the Wilderness or Backcountry 

Nonwilderness prescription and less than 5% 

of the park in management prescriptions that 

would allow for development. The application 

of these management prescriptions would 

result in the removal of the two abovementioned potential cultural landscapes; 

however, other park cultural landscapes, such 

as in the Castolon historic district, would be 

preserved under the management prescriptions. The management prescriptions would 

have a long-term negligible, beneficial impact 

on the park’s cultural landscapes. 

Cumulative Effects. The Black Gap Wildlife 

Management Area and Big Bend Ranch State 

Park are required to identify and preserve 

historic resources including cultural 

landscapes. In the past and continuing to the 

present, cultural landscapes have been lost due 

to lack of identification and protection 

measures. NPS actions added to those of the 

state parks would result in the loss of some 

potential cultural landscapes, which would be 

considered a long-term, moderate to major, 

adverse effect on the area’s cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion. Overall, alternative C would 

result in the loss of some potential cultural 

landscapes. This would result in a long-term, 

major, adverse impact on these resources. 

Application of the management prescriptions 

would have a long-term negligible, beneficial 

impact on the park’s cultural landscapes. 

Although actions under this alternative would 

have a major adverse effect on the cultural 

landscape, there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation or proclamation of Big Bend 

National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural 

integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal 

in the park’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents. 

Consequently, no cultural landscapes would be 

impaired as a result of implementing this 

alternative. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds the development 

proposed under alternative C would have an 

effect that would be adverse. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

197 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. The store in Rio Grande Village is a 

potential ethnographic resource for the 

Hispanic community. It is scheduled for 

removal in this alternative. This would result in 

a long-term, moderate, adverse effect. The 

removal of structures and the restoration of 

natural contours in Rio Grande Village and 

Chisos Basin would not impact or facilitate the 

beliefs and practices of American Indian 

groups associated with the park. Nor would 

the other actions proposed in alternative C 

impact or facilitate the beliefs and practices of 

these American Indian groups. 

Cumulative Effects. The Black Gap Wildlife 

Management Area and Big Bend Ranch State 

Park have neither inventories nor evaluations 

of ethnographic resources in their parks. In the 

past, Big Bend National Park did not take into 

consideration the needs of Hispanic or other 

groups, but the park staff is constructively 

working on problems of mutual concern. The 

park’s actions added to those of the state parks 

could result in long-term negligible beneficial 

impacts on the area’s ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion. The overall result of 

alternative C would be long-term, moderate, 

adverse impacts on ethnographic resources. 

The resources and values of Big Bend National 

Park would not be impaired because there 

would be no major adverse impacts on a 

resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Big Bend National Park; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. Consequently, no 

ethnographic resources or values would be 

impaired as a result of implementing this 

alternative. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds the development 

proposed under alternative C would have an 

effect that would be adverse. 

Museum Collections 

Analysis. The rehabilitation of the Panther 

Junction visitor center would provide more 

space for display of the park’s collections. This 

would have a long-term, minor beneficial 

effect. Also a warehouse would be constructed 

at Panther Junction that would replace the 

various facilities around the park and the 

feasibility of storing collections in this 

structure would be studied. This consolidation 

of park storage facilities and placing the 

collections in a facility designed for their 

protection and preservation would have a 

long-term, major beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Effects. The two Texas state 

parks and Sul Ross State University would 

continue to collect, preserve, and interpret 

cultural and natural materials. This work could 

result in increased collection materials available to the public and researchers if it was 

coordinated with the collection work being 

done by the park staff. Many of the reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, such as the construction of a new building at Panther Junction 

for natural resources and collections management to provide additional space for park 

collections (currently housed inside and 

outside the park) would result in better care of 

the collections. This would be a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effect. These 

actions, added to proposed actions of park 

staff to care for collections, could result in 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts on collections in the region. 

Conclusion. The overall effect of this 

alternative would be to have a long-term, 

major beneficial impact on park collections in 

that the collections would be better preserved 

and interpreted. 

The park’s museum collections would not be 

impaired by actions proposed in alternative C. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

198 

VISITOR UNDERSTANDING 

Visitors’ Experience of Park Resources 

Removal of all facilities at Chisos Basin and Rio 

Grande Village (except for the main road, a 

trailhead with parking and restroom, and 

backcountry trails) would eliminate congestion 

and most noise from these primary resource 

areas of the park. Visitors would experience 

these areas as day-use sites and would have 

ample opportunities to seek solitude and 

interact with resources. This would be a major 

long-term beneficial impact on visitor 

experience of natural and cultural resources. 

Removing the lodging at Chisos Basin and 

camping facilities at Rio Grande Village would 

result in the loss of overnight experiences for 

some visitors. Because of the coolness of 

Chisos Basin in the warmer months and the 

campground’s proximity to the river at Rio 

Grande Village, these are prime areas for 

staying overnight; the loss of these facilities 

would be a major long-term adverse impact on 

the overnight visitor experience. 

Park visitors can stop at many sites throughout 

the park to see the resources and hike/walk 

trails to interact with park resources. This 

interaction is considered an important element 

of most visitors’ experiences; therefore, 

continuing to provide these opportunities 

would result in a continued major beneficial 

effect for most visitors. The visitor experience 

would be further enhanced by the addition of 

interpretive trails at Buttrill Spring and 

possibly at Rosillos Ranch. 

Removing facilities at Chisos Basin and Rio 

Grande Village would significantly reduce the 

adverse impacts from lights at night. The 

natural setting would be enhanced, although 

lights in the Panther Junction area would 

continue to disrupt the experiences for small 

numbers of visitors. Overall, removal of 

facilities at Chisos Basin and Rio Grande 

Village would have a major, long-term, 

beneficial impact on opportunities to see the 

night sky without light intrusions. 

Access to Orientation and Interpretation 

Rehabilitating the existing headquarters 

building at Panther Junction to accommodate 

offices, storage, and a visitor center would 

create some conflicts in use and space 

allocation. Although the space devoted to the 

visitor center might be enlarged from the 

current facility, it might not be sufficient or in 

the best configuration to best interpret park 

themes, provide information, and otherwise 

meet visitor needs. However, the result would 

be long term and moderately beneficial to the 

overall visitor experience. 

Visitor Safety 

The reduction of facilities at Chisos Basin 

would be partially offset by increased access to 

visitor safety information at Panther Junction. 

Removing visitor facilities at Rio Grande 

Village would virtually eliminate the danger to 

visitors from flooding there. Please see the 

previous section on floodplains and flooding 

for more details. 

Conclusion 

Over the long term, day use visitors at Chisos 

Basin and Rio Grande Village would benefit 

from the removal of overnight facilities 

brought about by alternative C. This would be 

a major long-term beneficial impact on visitor 

experience of natural and cultural resources. 

A rehabbed visitor center at Panther Junction 

would provide additional space for 

interpreting the park’s primary themes, 

conducting interpretive and educational 

programs, and ensuring that visitors receive 

sufficient information to effectively plan for a 

safe and enjoyable stay. This would provide a 

moderate long-term benefit for the majority of 

park visitors. 

Removing lodging and camping facilities 

would result in the loss of overnight 

experiences for some visitors. Removing the 

interpretive centers at Chisos Basin and Rio 

Grande Village would eliminate opportunities 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

199 

for visitors to learn, through exhibits and other 

indoor media, some of the key themes and 

resource management issues of these sections 

of the park. The loss of these facilities would 

be a major long-term adverse impact on the 

overnight and interpretive visitor experiences 

in these areas. 

Retaining the Cottonwood Campground and 

picnic areas would constitute a moderate longrange beneficial effect for visitors, and moving 

some of the campsites further from the river 

would lessen the potential danger from 

flooding. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although past actions have affected the visitor 

experience, no ongoing or future actions such 

as repaving the main road would have a 

perceptible impact on it. The actions of 

alternative C would not add appreciably to 

cumulative impacts. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis 

Alternative C would maximize stewardship of 

natural resources and preservation of park 

resources, along with expanding opportunities 

for cultural resource understanding. Most of 

the land in the park would continue to be 

managed as “proposed” or “potential” wilderness. This alternative would also include some 

construction of new and improved visitor and 

park employee facilities, campground 

improvements, upgrade of one water system to 

serve visitors and residents, restoration of 

native drought-resistant plant species, and 

strengthening of park interpretive and 

outreach programs. About 8%-15% more fulltime-equivalent employees would be needed to 

implement this alternative, increasing local 

employment opportunities and economic 

benefits. 

The park would be expected to continue 

serving about 300,000 visitors yearly. Total 

combined sales generated from recreation 

spending by tourists, expenditures by 

residents, and direct government expenditures 

in salaries, supplies, construction projects, etc. 

with this alternative would total about $85 

million. Overall, park and related private sector 

operations and construction would generate 

about 2,550 jobs in direct and indirect employment. Total tax revenues (comprised of state 

and local sales taxes and corporate income 

taxes) generated by the park and related 

recreation and support operations and 

construction projects would be about $8.3 

million. The loss of the concessioner’s 

operation at Chisos Basin and Rio Grande 

Village would reduce total sales from $85.0 

million to $83.5 million, and total tax revenues 

from $8.3 million to $8.1 million. Employment 

generation would be reduced from 2,550 jobs 

to 2,505 jobs. Using a worst-case assumption 

that displaced overnight visitors would not 

find accommodations elsewhere and would 

therefore decide not to visit the park would 

reduce overall annual visitation from about 

300,000 visitors per year to about 292,000 per 

year. These reductions would be considered 

long term, minor, adverse effects at the park 

level. However, such changes might affect the 

concessioner’s local management and 

operating decisions. 

In comparison to the no-action alternative, 

alternative C would have a net increased 

benefit of about $13.4 million in total 

combined sales, $1.3 million in tax revenues, 

and 400 additional jobs. These additional 

short-term and long-term moderate to major 

beneficial impacts would be the direct and 

indirect products of the increased spending on 

facility upgrades and improvements in programs, including increased park employment. 

Cumulative Effects 

Big Bend National Park serves local and 

regional recreation users, along with a smaller 

but sizable number of visitors from elsewhere 

in the United States and some overseas 

travelers. There would be enhanced natural 

resource preservation activities, incremental 

enhancements to the park's facilities and 

operations, and long-term beneficial 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

200 

cumulative impacts on the regional economy 

from increased economic activity. Baseline 

park employment (100 full-time-equivalent 

employees) would continue, and 8%-15% 

more employees would be added, many or 

most of whom might be drawn from the local 

labor pool. Therefore, it would be anticipated 

that most of the economic benefits would 

accrue to the private sector and to local and 

state agencies. In addition, there might be 

beneficial cumulative socioeconomic impacts 

in the adjacent Mexican villages that border 

the park resulting from increased employment 

opportunities, and at the Big Bend Ranch State 

Park, Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, 

and the Rio Grand Wild and Scenic River from 

enhanced recreational activity. 

Conclusion 

The existing economic and socioeconomic 

benefits that the park brings to the local and 

regional economy would continue, and there 

would be moderate to major direct short-term 

and long-term benefits in both permanent and 

temporary federal and private sector employment opportunities with alternative C, which 

would generate about 2,505 jobs. There would 

also be a moderate to major indirect long-term, 

beneficial impact in overall socioeconomic 

activity and tax revenues as the planned 

upgrades of facilities and programs are 

implemented. This beneficial effect would 

result from increased payrolls and visitor 

spending providing about $85 million in 

additional sales and $8.3 million in additional 

tax revenues. These benefits would be both 

local and regional in nature, with the moderate 

to major improvements to employment 

benefiting the relatively isolated and sparsely 

populated southwest Texas counties of 

Brewster, Presidio, and Terrell. There would 

also be international economic stimulation 

with enhanced employment opportunities for 

Mexican communities along the border. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following paragraphs describe the more 

important (moderate and major intensity) 

adverse impacts that would result from implementing alternative C. These are residual 

impacts that would remain after mitigation was 

implemented. The negligible and minor impacts are described in the foregoing analysis. 

Natural Resources 

The natural and beneficial values of floodplain 

areas would continue to be compromised by 

development in the flash-flood hazard area at 

Panther Junction. This continuing long-term 

adverse impact on natural processes would be 

unavoidable and moderate. 

Although severe flooding has been infrequent 

and risks are minor to moderate, flooding at 

Rio Grande Village or Cottonwood 

Campground could result in major adverse 

impacts on the visitors or employees involved. 

At Panther Junction, because the long period 

between flood events leads to a false sense of 

security and warning time would be short, 

there is the possibility of human injury or loss 

of life in the event of a large flood. Even 

though the risk is not great, flooding at Panther 

Junction could cause major adverse impacts on 

the visitors and employees involved. 

Even though the risk of flooding is not great at 

Panther Junction, damage or loss of 60% of the 

museum collection would be a major, longterm adverse impact on the collection, and loss 

of infrastructure could be a major, long-term 

adverse impact on operations. 

Cultural Resources 

The removal of structures at Chisos Basin 

(including four small CCC-era stone cottages 

that have been determined eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic Places) 

would result in a long-term, major, adverse 

impact on these resources. 

Overall, alternative C would result in the 

demolition of some historic structures while 

other structures would be preserved. This 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

201 

would result in a long-term minor to major, 

adverse impact on historic structures. 

The removal of man-made features and 

structures at Rio Grande Village (the removal 

of man-made ponds and other features 

associated with the Mission 66 work there) and 

Chisos Basin (the removal of CCC-era 

buildings and road) would impact these two 

potential cultural landscapes. These actions 

would result in a long-term, major, adverse, 

unavoidable impact on historic structures. 

The store in Rio Grande Village is a potential 

ethnographic resource for the Hispanic 

community. It is scheduled for removal in this 

alternative. This would result in a long-term, 

major, unavoidable, adverse effect. 

Visitor Understanding 

Removing lodging and camping facilities in 

Chisos Basin and Rio Grande Village would 

result in the loss of overnight experiences for 

some visitors. Removing the visitor centers at 

Chisos Basin and Rio Grande Village would 

eliminate opportunities for visitors to learn, 

through exhibits and other indoor media, 

some of the key themes and resource 

management issues of these sections of the 

park. The loss of these facilities would be a 

major, long-term, unavoidable adverse impact 

on the overnight and interpretive visitor 

experiences in these areas. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

There would be no unavoidable adverse 

socioeconomic impacts under any of the three 

alternatives. No mitigation measures for 

adverse socioeconomic impacts would be 

required. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Severe flooding has been infrequent, and the 

risks are minor to moderate; however, flooding 

could result in major adverse impacts on 

visitors or employees involved, museum 

collections, and park operations. 

Removal of four small, historic stone cottages 

constructed at Chisos Basin by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps would be irreversible. 

Construction materials and energy used would 

be irretrievably lost. 

There would be irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources in terms of funds 

expended on both labor and construction 

materials, and for labor for both facility and 

program construction and operation. These 

commitments would be about $0.74 million 

yearly for the additional planned employees 

and an approximate average of $17.2 million 

(ranging from $16.0 to $18.4 million) for 

construction, rehabilitation, and restoration 

costs. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES 

OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Continuing visitor activities would reduce the 

long-term productivity of the environment and 

consume scarce water resources at Panther 

Junction, Castolon, and Cottonwood 

Campground. Human activities associated 

with ongoing visitor and administrative use of 

the park would prevent vegetation and wildlife 

populations from reaching their full potential 

in size and population density. 

The short-term disturbance of soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat from constructing 

facilities and rehabilitating disturbed areas 

would be more than offset by the long-term 

restoration of about 700 acres of vegetation 

and wildlife habitat and cessation of human 

use of water at Chisos Basin and Rio Grande 

Village. 

Long-term reduction of human use of Rio 

Grande Village, restoration of about 638 acres 

to more natural conditions, and elimination of 

human use of the spring there might result in 

long-term improvement of the habitat of the 

endangered fish, Big Bend gambusia. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

202 

Occupation of the floodplains at Panther 

Junction and Cottonwood Campground for 

the indefinite future causes long-term 

reduction in natural and beneficial values of 

floodplains. Removal of development at Rio 

Grande Village would allow floodplain values 

to become reestablished over the long term at 

that location. 

Under alternative C the development and 

construction of additional and improved 

visitor facilities, demolition of structures, and 

revegetation activities would result in shortterm socioeconomic benefits. Once 

construction work was completed, long-term 

benefits would result from the enhanced 

facilities and programs. 

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

Energy requirements would increase with the 

construction of new structures and be reduced 

by removing structures. Designing new 

structures to be energy-efficient could mitigate 

the additional energy requirements of new 

buildings. Alternative C would require much 

less energy than alternative A because all the 

structures at Chisos Basin and Rio Grande 

Village (except historic structures) would be 

removed.