ALTERNATIVES,

INCLUDING THE

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Phil Nichols

Tom Vandenberg

Karl Tipple

K. Newton
43 

INTRODUCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter contains descriptions of the three 

alternatives. Alternative A, the “no-action” or 

status quo alternative, which is described first, 

reflects existing conditions and serves as a 

basis for comparing and evaluating the other 

alternatives. Then the two “action” alternatives 

(B and C) that propose the future direction for 

Big Bend National Park are described. 

Alternative B is the National Park Service’s 

preferred alternative. In the process used to 

select the preferred alternative, the planning 

team found that alternative B would safeguard 

the resources, scenic values, and current visitor 

experience of Big Bend National Park. 

Before the action alternatives were developed, 

information was gathered about the resources 

in the park. Information about the issues and 

scope of the project was solicited from the 

public, other agencies, special interest groups, 

and park staff through newsletters, meetings, 

and personal contacts. This helped with the 

development of the action alternatives. All the 

alternatives were intended to support the 

park’s mission, purpose, and significance and 

to address issues; avoid unacceptable resource 

impacts; and respond to public desires and 

concerns. A number of the actions proposed in 

the alternatives would require additional 

compliance steps before implementation. 

These steps would include identification, 

evaluation, and consultation. The detail for 

these requirements can be found elsewhere in 

this document. 

DECISION POINTS 

Based on public comments and NPS concerns, 

decisions must be made in this General 

Management Plan about several major points. 

Alternatives have been developed to explore 

these decision points. 

• Considering opportunities available 

outside the park, what kind of 

opportunities for experiences do we want 

visitors to have in various areas of the park 

while preserving the biodiversity of 

Chihuahuan desert ecosystem and the 

integrity of the park’s cultural resources?

• What is the best way to protect the 

viewshed from within the park and the 

resources of the Christmas Mountains? 

RELATIONSHIPS TO 

OTHER AGENCIES’ PLANS 

Possible conflicts between the alternatives and 

county, state, tribal, or federal land use plans 

and policies must be considered. 

Big Bend is in southern Brewster County, 

Texas. Properties surrounding the park are 

primarily privately owned residential and 

agricultural lands. There are a few commercial 

and state-owned parcels. There are no tribal 

lands nearby. 

Land and Water Resources Conservation 

and Recreation Plan 

The plan was written by the Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department to guide the department 

for the next 10 years in conserving the state’s 

natural and historic heritage and providing 

public access to the outdoors. The plan 

addresses conservation of land and water 

resources and recreation on land and water. 

The Land and Water Resources Conservation 

and Recreation Plan establishes priority habitat 

types and ecoregions based on conserved 

status, threat, and biological value. It evaluates 

existing state parks, wildlife management 

areas, and historic sites and determines 

whether the sites need additional resources to 

meet the demands of the constituency of the 

sites or whether sites would be better managed 

by another entity. The agency will focus its 

efforts on acquiring additional lands to 

improve access, recreational experiences, 

wildlife habitat, and resource protection on 

priority state parks and wildlife management 

areas. It will strive to fully interpret, protect, 

and appropriately market all priority historic 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

44 

sites. The plan identifies the need for more 

state parks to serve major urban areas and the 

importance of continued support of local park 

development through the Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department’s grant programs. The 

agency identifies instream flow study needs to 

improve river basin conservation and priority 

bays on which to focus conservation efforts. 

Black Gap Wildlife Management Area 

This management area, administered by the 

state of Texas, is about 55 miles south of 

Marathon. “It is bordered by the Rio Grande 

on the east, by Big Bend National Park on the 

west and south, and by Texas General Land 

Office (GLO) and privately owned tracts to the 

north,” (Black Gap Wildlife Management Area 

1996). It is comprised of almost 83,000 acres. 

The primary goals of the wildlife management 

area as stated in its 1996 draft Management 

Plan are: 

• To develop and manage wildlife habitats 

and populations of indigenous wildlife 

species. 

• To provide a site where research of wildlife 

populations and habitats can be conducted 

under controlled conditions. 

• To provide public hunting and appreciative 

use of wildlife in a manner compatible with 

the resource. 

• To protect populations of endangered, 

threatened, and migratory wildlife and 

protected plant species and related habitats. 

• To provide natural environments for use by 

educational groups, naturalists, and other 

professional biological investigators. 

• To provide areas to demonstrate habitat 

development and wildlife management 

practices to landowners and other 

interested groups. 

• To preserve unique natural sites and relict 

vegetation communities. 

Big Bend Ranch State Park 

This area is administered by the Texas State 

Parks and Wildlife Department. According to 

its 1994 Management Plan, this nature area is 

just west of Big Bend National Park and it 

includes the Solitario and Bofecillos 

Mountains. The area covers about 300,000 

acres and has about 25 miles of Rio Grande 

frontage between the towns of Presidio and 

Lajitas. Marfa and Alpine are about an hour’s 

drive to the north. Some proposals of the 

Management Plan are: 

• Opportunities for expanded public use will 

occur in the Rio Grande Corridor, the 

Fresno/Contrabando Lowlands, the 

Bofecillos Highlands, and in the Solitario. 

This will include camping, hiking, mountain 

biking, and equestrian use that will be 

managed through a permit system. 

• Levels of public use will be established that 

will be within the limits of prudent resource 

and visitor protection services. The 

Department will strive to maintain the 

primitive character of the state park. 

• Interpretive and educational programs will 

be developed to foster an understanding 

and appreciation of the diverse natural and 

cultural resources of the Big Bend region 

including the proposed Santa Elena/Sierra 

del Carmen Biosphere Reserve in Mexico. 

• An emphasis will be placed on repairing and 

rehabilitating existing facilities, such as the 

historic structures at Sauceda, improving 

visitor facilities at Fort Leaton and the 

Warnock Center, and stabilizing existing 

roads and trails that have been designated 

for public use. 

• Big Bend Ranch, Fort Leaton, and the 

Barton Warnock Environmental Education 

Center will be managed by the Superintendent of Big Bend Ranch State Park. An 

administrative headquarters is located near 

Presidio, adjacent to Fort Leaton. 

Brewster County 

Brewster County does not have a master plan 

guiding management of natural resources and 

private and public land use (office of the 

Brewster County judge, pers. comm. 9/27/01). 

The county has regulations designed to 

prevent high density development in southern 

Brewster County including the area near the 

park. Counties in Texas do not have authority 
Introduction to the Alternatives 

45 

to zone. (See the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, “Socioeconomic Environment” 

section, “Land Use” subsection). 

Brewster County has been informed of and 

involved in the development of this plan 

through informal and formal discussions with 

county staff (more details are available in the 

“Public Involvement” section of the 

“Consultation and Coordination” chapter). 

The “Environmental Consequences” chapter 

contains analyses of the impacts of concern to 

the county. The county favors Big Bend 

National Park continuing to focus on what 

they have rather than on land acquisition, 

keeping park management close to it current 

level, and making as much of the park as 

possible accessible to visitors. 

Maderas del Carmen 

This protected area in Mexico preserves 

208,381 hectares (84,365 acres) of the 

Chihuahuan Desert south of Big Bend in the 

state of Coahuila, Mexico. The Management 

Program for the protected Area for Flora and 

Fauna, Maderas del Carmen, proposes to 

• assure the permanence of the natural 

resources 

• guarantee preservation of biological 

diversity of the area 

• rely on necessary technical information 

about the area’s resources to facilitate and 

make its protection and management more 

efficient 

• protect the natural resources of the area by 

rationally using them, which coincides with 

the general objectives and conservation of 

the area 

• promote the participation and collaboration of the proprietors, users of the area, 

and the general public in the conservation 

and management programs for the area 

• administer, coordinate, and supervise the 

financial, human, and material resources on 

which the protected area relies, as well as the 

actions that are undertaken within it 

CaZon de Santa Elena 

This protected area in Mexico preserves 

277,209 hectares (112,230 acres) of mountains 

and valleys south of Big Bend in the state of 

Chihuahua, Mexico. Its objective is to preserve 

the natural habitats and ecosystems of the 

region, assuring the balance and continuity of 

the evolutionary and ecological processes; 

preserve existing biological diversity; and 

achieve the rational and controlled use of 

natural resources. The Management Program 

for the protected Area for Flora and Fauna, 

CaZon de Santa Elena, Chihuahua, Mexico, 

proposes to 

• preserve the genetic and biological diversity 

of the area 

• establish specific mechanisms for the 

conservation of protected flora and fauna 

to ensure their continued existence and 

foster their increase in number 

• implement programs for the use of 

resources according to the characteristics 

and potential of each ecosystem 

• promote actions to avoid the deterioration 

of the habitats and ecosystems and to 

discourage nonregulated activities 

• promote conscientiousness of the local 

populace so that they contribute to 

preservation of natural resources, including 

paleontological and cultural resources 

• establish efficient administrative systems 

that preserve, protect, and allow sustainable 

use of resources 

• promote both productive and ecotourismrelated activities that allow the 

improvement of the quality of life of the 

local population 

Any changes brought about by any of the 

alternatives would not conflict with any of the 

approved plans of other jurisdictions. 
46 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

(Management Zones) 

An important tool in planning and management is the establishment of management 

prescriptions for various areas in the park. 

Management prescriptions (zones) identify 

how different areas could be managed to 

achieve a variety of resource conditions and 

visitor experiences. Each prescription specifies 

a particular combination of resource, social, 

and management conditions. The National 

Park Service would take different actions in 

different zones with regard to the types and 

levels of uses and facilities. The following five

management prescriptions have been 

described for Big Bend. Alternatives for future 

conditions and management have been 

developed by placing these prescriptions in 

different configurations. 
47 

TABLE 1: MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS, BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK

Management Prescription

RESOURCE CONDITIONS VISITOR EXPERIENCES FACILTI

Wilderness These areas will be managed to ensure that 

their use and enjoyment would leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, provide for the protection of the areas as wilderness, and provide for the preservation of wilderness character. Archeological resources, if discovered, would generally be left intact unless threatened by loss due to erosion. Historic period ruins would generally be preserved unless they posed a threat to life, health, and safety. 

Wilderness management would be coordinated with the backcountry nonwilderness prescription and similar experiences would be provided. However, management strategies and options would be more restrictive than under the nonwilderness prescription. Visitors would use these areas for day and overnight use. On the more popular trails, there would be a moderate probability of encountering others, particularly at campsites and other points of interest. Visitors would be influenced less by other human activities than they would in the nonwilderness prescription area. Travel would be along a range of routes from delineated trails to trail-less backcountry requiring a high degree of outdoor skills and selfreliance. Management actions would comply with NPS policies regarding wilderness. 

Facilities could inbridges, directioncampsites. If cammight contain toi

Backcountry Nonwilderness 

Natural conditions would be mostly undisturbed, but evidence of visitor and administrative use might be apparent. Resource impacts would be restricted to hiking and stock use, campsites, and approved administrative facilities and activities. Past impacts would be reversible, although areas might require intensive effort and long periods to recover. Cultural resources would be protected and preserved. Resource conditions might be modified for necessary visitor and operational needs, but in a manner that would minimize visual and resource impacts. 

Backcountry nonwilderness management would be coordinated with the wilderness prescription, and similar experiences would be provided. However, management strategies and options would be less restrictive than under the wilderness prescription. Visitors would use these areas for day and overnight use. On the more popular trails, there would be a moderate probability of encountering others, particularly at campsites and points of interest. Visitors would be influenced by other human activities more than they would in the wilderness prescription area. Travel would be along a range of routes from well-maintained trails to trail-less backcountry requiring a high degree of outdoor skills and self-reliance. Use levels might vary. There would be limits on the number of campers. There might be established campsites, food storage containers, and toilets in some locations. Hiking, camping, and stock use would be permitted. 

Facilities might inunpaved backcouinterpretive and dcampsites, adminadministrative eqradio repeaters). they might contafood storage lock
48 

Management Prescription

RESOURCE CONDITIONS VISITOR EXPERIENCES FACILTI

Cultural Intensive management of identified and 

evaluated cultural landscapes highlighting the historical period would occur. Structure exteriors would be preserved; interiors would be preserved for interpretation or adaptively used for park and visitor support needs. Preservation strategies would be developed for each resource in this prescription. Archeological and ethnographic resources would be protected and preserved. 

Visitors would be immersed in a cultural setting that reflects a prehistoric or historic period with minimal exposure to modern intrusions, both visible and audible. Visitors could explore sites on their own or participate in ranger-conducted programs. Recreational activities would be managed to support the area’s prehistoric or historic character. Some areas may be closed to visitors to protect resources and resource values. 

Interpretive exhidemonstrations, these areas. Prehstructures, and seThere would be lthrough adaptive (sales, restroomslimited administrstorage, housing, 

Visitor Services To the greatest degree practical in this management prescription, facilities would be models 

of best management practices and sustainable development. This prescription would be where there are limited or no significant resources or in areas that were previously disturbed by development. The natural environment could be modified for park operations, but it would still harmonize with the surrounding environment. Although the environment could be highly modified within the area, pollutants and other disturbances (e.g., stormwater runoff and dust from construction) would be contained and mitigated before affecting adjoining areas. The physical footprint of structures and stored material in this area would be minimized. Archeological resources would be avoided or adverse effects on the resources would be mitigated if necessary. 

The visitor experience in this area would be highly social and focused on interpretation, education, orientation, visitor comfort, and safety. This structured environment would be highly accessible and ranger-led, and contacts with park staff and other visitors would be common; overcrowding would be avoided. Visitors would have an opportunity to get an overview of park resources in a short time with a minimum of physical exertion. An opportunity to learn about the park’s significance and compelling stories through the interpretation of themes would be an important element. Visitors would have an opportunity to purchase materials related to the park. Necessary food and lodging would be available here. 

Sightseeing, learninterpretive medled tours, short wcommon activitieas a staging area fOrientation and ias a visitor centerother interpretivappropriate. Supcollection, restroareas, and hardentrails could be prsuch as developeavailable. Space cresearch, collectilibraries. Utilities electricity, teleph
49 

Management Prescription

RESOURCE CONDITIONS VISITOR EXPERIENCES FACILTI

Operations To the greatest degree practical, facilities in 

this management prescription would be models of best management practices and sustainable development. This prescription would be where there are limited or no significant resources or in areas that were previously disturbed by development. The natural environment could be modified for park operations, but facilities would still harmonize with the surrounding environment. Although the environment could be highly modified in this area, pollutants and other disturbances (e.g., storm-water runoff and dust from construction) would be contained and mitigated before affecting adjoining areas. Facilities and operations in the area would be buffered to avoid visitors seeing them or being disturbed by associated noise. The physical footprint of structures and stored material in this area would be minimized. Archeological resources would be avoided or adverse effects on the resources would be mitigated if necessary. 

This area is not intended for visitors; however, limited incidental visitor use would be permitted. Most visitors would be only slightly aware of the facilities in this area during their visits. 

The area could inused for administas offices, mainteareas, storage areresearch facilitiestraining facilitiesequipment storagoutdoor storage. and communicatthis area. Facilitieefficient, comforenvironment for circulation and pappropriate in thfor operations acsufficient space f
50 

ALTERNATIVE A — NO-ACTION (STATUS QUO) 

CONCEPT 

Under this alternative the park would continue 

current management direction, and there would 

be no significant change in interpretation and 

management of the park. This alternative is 

presented as a basis for comparing the two 

“action” alternatives. Examining the no-action 

alternative is also useful in understanding why 

the National Park Service or the public may 

believe that certain changes are necessary or 

advisable. The two action alternatives (B and C) 

present ways of exploring those changes. 

Actions that are already funded have been included in the no-action alternative. Other future 

actions planned for implementation by the park 

that have not been funded are included in the 

“Environmental Consequences” under 

“Methods for Analyzing Impacts” under the 

subheading “Projects That Make Up the Cumulative Impact Scenario, Current and Future 

Actions.” The impacts of these actions are 

analyzed as part of the cumulative impact 

analysis. 

THROUGHOUT THE PARK 

The park staff would continue to protect and 

maintain known cultural and natural resources 

as time and funding allow. Cultural and natural 

resource inventory work and monitoring would 

continue and be expanded if possible. Park staff 

would continue to encourage and seek funding 

for the research that is needed to fill the gaps in 

knowledge about resources (following the park’s 

strategic plan). 

Park staff would continue to manage existing 

proposed and potential wilderness areas from 

1984 Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Proposed Wilderness Classification (NPS 1984) as 

wilderness, as required by NPS policy. 

There would be little change in visitor facilities 

(see Alternative A maps). The only changes in 

operations would be construction of an already 

approved and funded fire management building 

at Panther Junction. 

The maps in this document are for illustration 

purposes only and are not drawn perfectly to 

scale. 

The park has instituted a program of conservation and visitor education on the need to limit 

water use and the role of water in a desert 

environment. 

The park would upgrade the water treatment 

system at Castolon. 

Fire suppression systems would be upgraded at 

residences and the historic district at Castolon, 

45 housings at Panther Junction and Rio Grande 

Village, headquarters at Panther Junction, and 

two single-story apartment buildings and a dorm 

at Chisos Basin. 

The National Park Service proposes to reconstruct a 0.5-mile segment of Park Route 12 at 

mile marker 14. Park Route 12 is the paved route 

from Panther Junction to Rio Grande Village, 

within the park. The proposal calls for vertical 

realignment of the road between miles 14 and 

14.5 to allow greater sight distance and increased 

highway safety. To accomplish the realignment, 

low water crossings would be replaced with 

culverts at two sites. An Environmental 

Assessment was released for public review in 

January 2002. 

Housing would continue to be scattered 

throughout the park and in short supply. 

Adequate office and storage space for park staff 

would continue to be lacking and sometimes in 

facilities that are not suitable for efficient park 

operation. 

Coordination would continue with agencies and 

other groups regarding water quality and quantity in the Rio Grande, air quality, threatened and 

endangered species, wildlife management, and 

law enforcement. The park’s water rights would 

continue to be maintained at current levels. 
Alternative A — No-Action (Status Quo) 

51 

The significant cultural properties would 

continue to be preserved and interpreted as time 

and funding permit. All national register sites 

and/or districts currently receive preservation 

maintenance and interpretation as time and 

funding allow. This would continue. 

Park staff would continue to work with Mexican 

protected areas’ staff and with Mexican villages 

that border the park. Park interpretive programs 

beyond park boundaries would continue. 

There would be no change in the electrical lines 

that are in the viewshed of the road into Chisos 

Basin. 

CHISOS BASIN 

The visitor center, campgrounds, lodge, and 

employee housing would continue to be 

available to visitors and employees. The fire 

suppression and water systems would be 

upgraded. 

PANTHER JUNCTION 

The park is developing an early warning system 

and evacuation plan for all of Panther Junction, 

which is in the maximum estimated floodplain 

(see appendix F). 

Facilities at Panther Junction would continue to 

increase slowly over the coming years to meet 

park needs. A few temporary housing and 

storage units would be placed in the Panther 

Junction area. The fire suppression system 

would be upgraded. 

The National Park Concessions Inc. Foundation 

has provided the funds to build two new duplex 

units that will provide eight concession 

employee bedrooms at Panther Junction. The 

eight bedrooms will replace very old facilities 

(trailers) with modern housing. 

RIO GRANDE VILLAGE 

The park is developing an early warning system 

and evacuation plan for all of Rio Grande 

Village, which is in the 100-year floodplain. 

Facilities would continue to increase slowly over 

the coming years to meet park needs. 

Fuel storage tanks would be raised above the 

level of or protected from the 500-year flood. 

Irrigation of shade trees and lawns at the 

campground would continue to use 25.6 million 

gallons per month. 

Efforts to locate a separate water source for 

visitors and staff would continue. 

Campsites close to the Big Bend gambusia pond 

would be relocated to eliminate some potential 

impacts. 

The fire suppression system at four residences 

would be upgraded. 

The hydrologic patterns would remain altered. 

The Barker Lodge, NPS housing units, and the 

25-site campground at Rio Grande Village 

would continue to be used. 

CASTOLON 

The store would continue operations. Employee 

and concessioner housing would remain in their 

current locations. The fire suppression system 

and water treatment and delivery systems would 

be upgraded. 

COTTONWOOD CAMPGROUND 

The park is developing an early warning system 

and evacuation plan for Cottonwood Campground, which is in the 100-year floodplain. The 

campground and amphitheater would continue 

current operations. The single egress road would 

continue to be used. Irrigation of shade trees at 

the Cottonwood Campground would continue 

to use about 125,000 gallons per month. 

NORTH ROSILLOS/HARTE RANCH 

Ongoing work to restore natural hydrologic and 

soil conditions would continue as funds permit. 

Inventories would continue to identify the 

cultural and natural resources in this area. A 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

52 

small-scale experimental restoration treatment 

to determine how best to restore natural 

grasslands would be undertaken, and successful 

treatments would be used elsewhere in the park. 

PERSIMMON GAP, MAVERICK, AND 

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES 

The housing unit at Persimmon Gap and the 

entrance station at Maverick would continue to 

be used. No facilities would be provided in 

gateway communities. 

PARK BOUNDARY 

No change in the park boundary is proposed 

under this alternative. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

All costs are in year 2002 dollars. Alternative A 

would retain the current base staff of 100 fulltime-equivalent (FTE) positions at a cost of $4.3 

million per year. 

The construction, rehabilitation, and restoration 

costs for alternative A would be $5.7 to $7.7 

million. The estimate is general and should be 

used only for comparing the alternatives. 
Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Alternative A

No Action (Status Quo)

Chisos Basin

0 1000 2000 Feet

North

Campground

Sewage Lagoons

Group

Campground

Employee

Housing

Amphitheater

Concessioner

Lodge Facility

Water Tanks

Store

Visitor

Center

Bunkhouse

Sewage 

Treatment

Plant

ROADS

Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio Grande

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South

Rosillos

Ranch

(private)

Mesa De

Anguila Rio Grande Village

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20077
Alternative A

No Action (Status Quo)

Panther Junction

North

Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Visitor Center/

Offices and

 Post Office

Sewage

Treatment

Plant

Maintenance

Area

School

Gas Station

& Store

Em

ployee

H

o

using

0 1000 2000 Feet

Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

and

Cottonwood

Campground

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio Gra nde

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South

Rosillos

Ranch

(private)

Mesa De

Anguila

ROADS

Rio Grande Village

Natural History

Association

Building

Fire Management Office

Science and 

Resource Management

Building

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20083
Rio

Gra nde Wild and Scenic River

Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Alternative A

No Action (Status Quo)

Rio Grande Village

Barker

Lodge

Boquillas

Crossing

Sewage Treatment

and Water System Employee

Housing

Maintenance

Area

Campground

Group

Campground

Amphitheater

Concession

RV Campground

Store and

Gas Station

0 1000 2000 3000

North

Visitor

Center

Daniel's

Ranch

ROADS Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio G rande

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South

Rosillos

Ranch

(private)

Mesa De

Anguila

Rio Grande Village

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20086
Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Alternative A

No Action (Status Quo)

Castolon

0 0.5 1 Mile

North

Access to 

Santa Elena Crossing 

Cottonwood

Campground

Old

Castolon Pump House/

Water Treatment

 Housing

Maintenance

Area

Employee

Rio

Grande

Castolon

Compound

Castolon

Historic

District

ROADS

Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio Grande

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South

Rosillos

Ranch

(private)

Mesa De

Anguila

Rio Grande Village

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20074
DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20080

Bone

Spring

Persimmon Gap

Entrance Station,

Visitor Center,

and Picnic Area

PRIVATE LANDS

Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Alternative A

No Action (Status Quo)

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

0 2.5 5 Miles

North

Buttrill

Spring

Mountain

Lodge

Park Airstrip

ROADS

Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

and

Cottonwood

Campground

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio Gra nde

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon 

Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South Rosillos Ranch (private)

Mesa De

Anguila Rio Grande Village
Alternative A — No-Action (Status Quo) 

58 
59 

ALTERNATIVE B — (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) — 

ENHANCED AND ADEQUATE NATURAL RESOURCE 

STEWARDSHIP AND ENHANCED VISITOR FACILITIES 

CONCEPT 

This alternative would offer an enhanced 

experience for visitors while creating a more 

sustainable park and providing better 

protection for park resources. 

A new visitor center would be developed that 

would include an auditorium, an expanded 

exhibit area, and possibly an outdoor exhibit 

area. Interpretation would be developed for 

the Buttrill Spring area. A number of actions 

such as reducing irrigation water used at Rio 

Grande Village by 50%, phasing out plants that 

are heavy water users at Rio Grande Village 

and Cottonwood Campground, relocating 

personnel to gateway communities, and 

removing some development from Chisos 

Basin would result in reduced water use. All 

these actions would provide for a better visitor 

experience and make the park more 

sustainable. 

DETAILED DESCRIPTION 

The description of this alternative, like 

descriptions of the other action alternative, is 

organized by management prescriptions. The 

various kinds of prescriptions are described at 

the beginning of this chapter. Also see the 

Alternative B maps for various areas within the 

park. 

The maps in this document are for 

illustration purposes only and are not 

drawn perfectly to scale. 

Wilderness Prescription 

(See Park Area map) 

Most of the land that comprises the park has 

been determined either as “proposed” wilderness or “potential” wilderness. These recommendations have been transmitted to Congress 

by the president, but have not been acted on by 

Congress. The National Park Service is 

required to manage these lands to preserve 

their wilderness values until Congress acts. To 

accomplish this requirement, these lands 

would be managed under the wilderness prescription. This prescription would preserve 

vast desert and mountain landscapes that are 

unaltered by human hands. These areas contain dramatic contrasts, from lofty wooded 

peaks to canyons carved by the Rio Grande, all 

dominated by the great expanse of the Chihuahuan Desert. The visitor would have the 

opportunity for a primitive experience with 

chances to see the magnificent scenery that is 

unique within the United States as well as to 

sense the solitude and quietness that typifies 

the area. 

Some of the notable features in the prescription are the Mesa de Anguila and the north 

side of the Santa Elena Canyon, the area east of 

the Santa Elena Canyon containing the 

creosotebush plant community, the lava 

capped Burro Mesa, the Chisos Mountains, 

and portions of the Chisos Basin. Most of the 

area around Mariscal Mountain, Talley 

Mountain, and Chilicotal Mountain would be 

in this prescription, as well as portions of 

Tornillo Creek, McKinney Hills, Boquillas 

Canyon on the Rio Grande, and the Sierra del 

Carmen Mountains. All of the cliffs in the three 

major canyons of the Rio Grande would be 

managed under the wilderness prescription. 

The North Rosillos/Harte Ranch section of the 

park contains lands that are being evaluated by 

park staff to determine their suitability or 

nonsuitability for further study and possible 

recommendation for wilderness designation. 

See “Appendix E: Draft Wilderness Suitability 

Assessment,” and the “Purpose, Need, and 

Scoping” chapter. If lands are found suitable 

for further study and possibly recommended 

for wilderness designation, these lands would 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

60 

be managed as wilderness at least until the 

wilderness study was completed. 

Backcountry Nonwilderness Prescription 

(Much of Chisos Basin, Panther Junction, Rio 

Grande Village, Castolon [outside the historic 

district], and North Rosillos/Harte Ranch) 

The following portions of the park have been 

excluded from the wilderness proposal: (1) 

areas along the Rio Grande and south of the 

River Road that are less than 5,000 acres and 

are impacted by citizens of Mexico and fishermen, (2) corridors along the roadways, and (3) 

areas that contain pole-mounted telephone, 

powerlines, or the soil and moisture study area. 

However, many of the areas contain values 

similar to those found in wilderness areas. In 

alternative B these lands would be in the 

backcountry nonwilderness prescription. In 

the North Rosillos/Harte Ranch area, the park 

would develop an interpretive trail at Buttrill 

Spring and might develop a Rosillos trail. 

The Mariscal Mine, Luna’s Jacal, Homer 

Wilson Ranch, and Sam Nail Ranch (not a 

national register site) are cultural resources 

found in areas covered by this prescription. A 

high priority for preservation work would be 

given for all sites eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places, such as 

the structures at Mariscal Mine and Luna’s 

Jacal. The Homer Wilson and Sam Nail 

Ranches would be preserved and interpret 

both natural and cultural resource topics 

related to West Texas ranching. 

Cultural Prescription 

(Daniel’s Ranch, Barker Lodge, Castolon 

Historic District, Bone and Buttrill Springs, 

and the adobe structures near the airstrip in 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch area) 

The cultural prescription would include 

Daniel’s Ranch and Barker Lodge in the Rio 

Grande Village area, and the Castolon Historic 

District. Barker Lodge would be adaptively 

used for housing for researchers. The 

preservation and interpretive activities at the 

Daniel’s Ranch and Castolon Historic District 

would continue. 

In the North Rosillos/Harte Ranch area, Bone 

Spring and Buttrill Spring have been placed in 

this prescription, and the park would develop 

preservation strategies for each of these 

features. The various sites around Buttrill 

Spring and Bone Spring would be evaluated for 

their potential to be listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places — possibly as part 

of a cultural landscape. Features around 

Buttrill Spring would be preserved for their 

historic and interpretive significance. An 

interpretive trail would be developed in the 

area of Buttrill Spring. 

Visitor Services Prescription 

(Chisos Basin - campground, group 

campground, and amphitheater area and 

the visitor center, store, and lodge area 

Panther Junction - area along the main park 

road from the visitor center/headquarters 

to the gas station and store 

Rio Grande Village - visitor center, 

campground, group campground, store, 

gas station, concession RV campground, 

and surrounding area 

Cottonwood Campground 

Persimmon Gap - area surrounding entrance 

station, visitor center, and picnic area; 

the new site for the Maverick entrance 

station) 

many of the roads in the park)

At Chisos Basin, electrical lines would be 

placed underground to decrease their impact 

on park scenic values. To promote the Basin’s 

sustainability and decrease the human impact 

on the Basin, especially water use, the National 

Park Service would remove one NPS employee 

residence and the NPS “bunkhouse,” which is 

used for seasonal housing, after replacement 

housing is built at Panther Junction. If 

additional park housing were needed, it would 

be developed elsewhere in the park or in 

gateway communities. No lodging units would 

be removed from Chisos Basin, but if water 

shortages did occur in the Basin, then the Park 

Service would close facilities, concessions, and 

campground areas on a temporary basis. 
Alternative B — (Preferred Alternative) — Enhanced and Adequate Natural Resource Stewardship and Enhanced 

Visitor Facilities 

61 

At Panther Junction, a new visitor center 

would be built to provide comprehensive 

interpretation of the park’s interpretive 

themes. A new visitor center is the most effecttive and efficient way to address numerous 

shortcomings in the current facility, which 

serves not only as the main park visitor center 

but also as the park operational headquarters 

building. This results in conflicts between 

strictly park administrative activities and the 

need to provide a full range of visitor services. 

The current building was constructed in 1961 

and designed to accommodate a smaller park 

staff and a park annual visitation of slightly 

more than 90,000 people. Forty years later, the 

park staff has grown and park annual visitation 

averages between 300,000 and 340,000 (and 

has been as high as 474,000). Because of the 

geography and layout of the park road system, 

nearly every visitor goes by the visitor center. 

During peak periods of use, the interior space 

becomes very congested with staff and visitor 

activities. 

The visitor center lacks sufficient indoor 

spaces for such basic interpretive functions as 

interpretive programs, films, and other multimedia presentations. The visitor center’s 

original auditorium, many years ago, was 

converted into a park community/meeting/ 

training room for park functions (such as 

administrative activities such as permitting for 

park activities) or for potlucks, Girl Scout 

meetings, religious services, and other community activities — purposes never anticipated 

in the original design. It has become the center 

for these activities because it is one of the very 

few public facilities within a 100-mile area that 

is large enough to accommodate numbers of 

people. (A small year-round visitor center in 

the Chisos Basin is geared to those visitors 

planning activities in the Basin. The two other 

visitor contact stations in the park at Rio 

Grande Village and Persimmon Gap operate 

only seasonally. None of these sites have the 

geographic advantage of Panther Junction.) 

The visitor center cannot accommodate all 

these activities and still be an effective visitor 

center. During peak periods, it can be difficult 

to even get into the building much less gain any 

understanding or appreciation of the various 

exhibits, displays, and literature available on 

the park. 

In addition, it is critical to provide visitors with 

safety information to enable visitors to safely 

enjoy the park’s beauty and not have their visit 

marred by accident or injury. Currently, the 

visitors can with effort gain the necessary 

information, but a new facility would provide a 

more efficient and effective mechanism for 

both distributing materials and face-to-face 

contact with visitors. 

The new visitor center would include an 

auditorium for orientation and interpretive 

programs, expanded exhibit areas, and the 

main Big Bend Natural History Association 

bookstore. The center would take advantage of 

the desert climate by using outdoor exhibit 

space as much as possible for such items as 

paleontological exhibits and other appropriate 

interpretive themes. The new building would 

consolidate offices for the interpretive 

division. It would contain enough space to 

adequately provide interpretation of the park’s 

interpretive themes and fully address the complexities of this huge park. Rather than having 

one large and very expensive structure, a 

number of the exhibits would be incorporated 

into the building area so that they could be 

protected from the elements but remain open 

to the outside even when the building was 

closed. In this way, exhibit space would be 

increased for minimal cost. 

The new building would allow for the 

conversion of the old structure into much 

needed office space for current and future 

park staff. This conversion would be undertaken only after this Mission 66 structure was 

evaluated to determine its national register 

eligibility. If it was found eligible, the rehabilitation would be done in a manner that would 

preserve its character-defining features. This 

would consolidate offices that currently are in 

various locations around Panther Junction and 

make administrative operations more efficient. 

The natural resources and collection management building (described in the cumulative 

impact scenario) should adequately provide 

for the collection storage needs for the 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

62 

duration of this plan. In case additional 

collection storage space was necessary, the 

other new storage areas would be evaluated to 

accommodate this need. 

At Rio Grande Village, some campsites would 

be relocated to reduce impacts on the 

endangered Big Bend gambusia. To give 

further protection to the Big Bend gambusia, 

the park staff would seek to find a separate 

water source so that the fish and people would 

no longer be sharing the same source. The 

former overflow camping area would be 

returned to natural conditions. The concessioner-operated RV campground would be 

enlarged by about 40% in area, but would not 

exceed 30 total sites. The current visitor center 

building would be expanded to provide office 

space for four park rangers, or a separate 

building would be constructed for this purpose 

depending on which would be more costeffective. 

At Cottonwood Campground, some of the 

campsites would be relocated away from the 

river because the riverbank in that area tends 

to slough off. An additional egress road from 

the campground would be constructed. 

To eliminate visitor and employee safety issues 

at the Maverick entrance station and to 

remove it from its prominent place in the 

viewshed, the entrance station would be 

removed and a new one would be constructed 

closer to the park’s western boundary. 

Operations Prescription 

(Chisos Basin - sewage lagoons/sewage 

treatment plant area, employee housing, 

water tanks, and NPS operational area 

near the lodge 

Panther Junction - all the developed area 

south of the visitor center/ headquarters, 

the sewage treatment plant, and the road 

to this plant 

Rio Grande Village - the area north of 

Daniel’s Ranch, the maintenance area, 

the employee housing area, the sewage 

treatment and water system area, and the 

roads to these areas 

Castolon - maintenance area, employee 

housing, and pump house/sewage 

treatment area 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch - park airstrip 

and a portion of the road leading to the 

airstrip) 

The water system at Castolon would be 

upgraded to meet state standards. Up to 15% 

of the park’s personnel and functions would be 

moved to gateway communities. This would 

require the park to construct or lease offices 

and /or residences in the gateway communities. Some employees might rent or buy their 

own residences. This action would increase the 

park’s sustainability. 

A new storage warehouse would be built at 

Panther Junction to consolidate this scattered 

function into one building specifically 

designed for storage. New housing inside the 

park would be located in Rio Grande Village, 

Castolon, and Persimmon Gap if water sources 

can be found. Also, the National Park Service 

could build additional housing units in Panther 

Junction to accommodate NPS needs as well as 

the needs of the Border Patrol and the 

concessioner. A total of eight new housing 

units would be constructed to provide for 

better resource protection, visitor safety, and 

interpretation. Fire bays would be built at Rio 

Grande Village and Castolon to achieve greater 

resource protection. 

PARTNERSHIPS, PROGRAMS, 

AND ACTIVITIES 

Water is critical to understanding and 

preserving the Big Bend ecosystem. This 

alternative proposes a number of actions to 

meet this critical need. In Rio Grande Village 

the amount of land irrigated by water from the 

Rio Grande would be reduced by about 50% to 

about 12.6 million gallons per month. Priority 

for irrigation would be given to shade trees in 

campgrounds and picnic areas. As cottonwoods die, they would be replaced by more 

drought-tolerant native species. Overall, plants 

that are heavy water users would be phased out 

to reduce the amount of irrigation. In the Rio 

Grande Village area, a study would be made on 
Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio Grande

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South

Rosillos

Ranch

(private)

Mesa De

Anguila Rio Grande Village

Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Alternative B

Chisos Basin

0 1000 2000 Feet

North

Campground

Sewage Lagoons

Group

Campground

Employee

Housing

(One House Removed)

Amphitheater

Concessioner

Lodge Facility

Water Tanks

Store

Visitor

Center

Sewage 

Treatment

Plant

Bunkhouse

(Removed)

Wilderness

Backcountry Nonwilderness

Operations

Visitor Services

ROADS

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20078
Visitor Center/

Offices and

Post Office

Sewage

Treatment

Plant

Maintenance

Area

Add 

New Storage Warehouse School

Gas Station

& Store

New

Visitor Center

Em

ployee

H

o

using

Natural History

Association

Building

Fire Management Office

Science and

Resource Management

Building

Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

0 1000 2000 Feet

Alternative B 

Panther Junction

Wilderness

Backcountry Nonwilderness

Operations

Visitor Services

North

Roads

Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

and

Cottonwood

Campground

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio Gra nde

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South

Rosillos

Ranch

(private)

Mesa De

Anguila Rio Grande Village

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20084
ROADS

Rio

Gra nde Wild and Scenic River

Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Alternative B

Rio Grande Village

Wilderness

Backcountry Nonwilderness

Operations

Visitor Services

Barker

Lodge

Boquillas

Crossing

Sewage Treatment

and Water System Employee

Housing

Maintenance

Area

Campground

Group

Campground

Amphitheater

Expand

Concession

RV Campground

Store and

Gas Station

Visitor

Center

Daniel's

Ranch

0 1000 2000 3000

North

Cultural

Revegetate

Overflow

Campground

Expand 

or Add

Four-Office

Building

Add Fire Bay

Add Four Housing Units

Relocate Some

Campsites Away

From River

Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio G rande

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South

Rosillos

Ranch

(private)

Mesa De

Anguila Rio Grande Village

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20087
Add New Fire Bay

Add Two New

Housing Units

Castolon

Historic

District

Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Alternative B

Castolon

ROADS

Wilderness

Backcountry Nonwilderness

Operations

Visitor Services

Cultural

0 0.5 1 Mile

North

Access

to

Santa Elena Crossing

Cottonwood

Campground

Old

Castolon

Pump 

House/

Water

Treatment

Maintenance

Area

Employee

Housing

Rio

Grande

Castolon

Compound

New Egress

Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio Grande

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South

Rosillos

Ranch

(private)

Mesa De

Anguila

Rio Grande Village

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20075
Add Duplex

South Rosillos Ranch (private)

Bone

Spring

Persimmon Gap

Entrance Station,

Visitor Center,

and Picnic Area

Wilderness

Backcountry Nonwilderness

Operations

Visitor Services

Cultural

Roads

Private Land

Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Alternative B

North Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch

0 2.5 5 Miles

North

Buttrill

Spring

Mountain

Lodge

Park Airstrip

Nine Point

Draw

Campsite

Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

Castolon

and

Cottonwood

Campground

Chisos 

Basin

Rio Gra nde

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon 

Gap

Maverick

Entrance

Mesa De

Anguila Rio Grande Village

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Panther 

Junction

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20081
Alternative B — (Preferred Alternative) — Enhanced and Adequate Natural Resource Stewardship and Enhanced 

Visitor Facilities 

68 
Alternative B — (Preferred Alternative) — Enhanced and Adequate Natural Resource Stewardship and Enhanced 

Visitor Facilities 

69 

how best to restore natural hydrology consistent with maintaining cultural landscapes. The 

park staff would explore the feasibility of 

acquiring additional water rights for the entire 

length of the Rio Grande in the park for the 

purpose of increasing flows in the river. 

In the North Rosillos/Harte Ranch area, smallscale experimental restoration treatments 

would be undertaken to determine how best to 

restore the natural grasslands. Successful 

treatments would then be used in other areas 

of the park. 

The park staff would continue to seek ways to 

strengthen connections with the Mexican 

protected areas bordering the park. This would 

include working with the staff in the Mexican 

protected areas to better protect and provide 

an understanding of the areas’ natural and 

cultural resources. In addition, the park staff 

would continue to seek ways to work with the 

Mexican villages that border the park. This 

would include, but not be limited to, more 

interpretive programs. 

Park interpretive programs that extend beyond 

park boundaries would be expanded, including 

external curriculum-based environmental 

education and use of technology to develop 

distance learning opportunities. 

PARK BOUNDARY 

No major changes in the park boundary would 

be proposed under this alternative. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

In 2001 Big Bend National Park, in a unique 

partnership with the National Parks 

Conservation Association and a consortium of 

philanthropic organizations led by the Kendall 

Foundation, developed a business plan to 

identify the financial and personnel shortfalls 

at this park (NPS and NPCA 2001). This plan 

analyzed how many full-time equivalent 

employees (FTEs) would be necessary for the 

park to meet resource protection, management, administrative, maintenance, visitor 

experience, and facility operational standards. 

The additional FTE requirements below are 

based on that analysis. 

There would be a transition period between 

when this plan is approved and when the park 

could become fully staffed. During this 

transition period, the park would seek to 

increase its efforts in the areas of grant and 

fund raising, developing partnerships, and 

doing cost-benefit analysis on park activities to 

increase park efficiency to cover the shortfall 

and meet minimal operational standards. 

These are at best temporary solutions. 

All costs are in year 2002 dollars. All 

alternatives retain the current base staff of 100 

full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions. To fully 

implement this alternative, an increase of 25% 

to 35% in park staff would be required. The 

reason this plan calls for the additional FTE 

employees is the growing need to provide for 

homeland security, the need to provide better 

resource and visitor protection as well as to 

provide for visitor experience and enjoyment. 

Big Bends’ location has required the park to 

increase security measures along this border 

and to greatly increase its security role. 

Increased enforcement efforts along the entire 

U.S.-Mexico border have forced the smuggling 

of contraband and undocumented aliens to 

less protected areas of the border. As a result, 

the already limited law enforcement resources 

at Big Bend are now dealing with an increased 

number of drug and border violations as well 

as terrorist threats. Also the poaching of 

animals, plants, minerals, and fossils from the 

park has become an increasing concern. 

Big Bend is bigger than Rhode Island. Due to 

the limited number of cultural resource staff, 

only 3% of the park has been adequately 

surveyed for archeological and cultural 

resources purposes. Currently park staff has 

concentrated their efforts on the preservation 

on known cultural resources. Also, growth of 

exotics such as tamarisk, gradual deterioration 

due to climate, and visitor depredations have 

all combined to result in the slow deterioration 

of the park’s cultural resources. 

Currently, the interpretive ranger staff is 

stretched to its limits. This has resulted in 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

70 

fewer programs, short hours at some fee 

stations and visitor orientation facilities, and 

less person-to-person contact by park staff. 

Some of the functions normally done by 

interpretive rangers are now being done by 

volunteers. 

As an interim measure, volunteers could be 

used to help preserve resources and provide 

for a quality visitor experience (between 1987 

and 2000, the park has added volunteer hours 

equating to 20 FTE employees), but the longterm continuation of this measure would result 

in the gradual deterioration of the park 

experience and resources. Also cooperative 

efforts with the border patrol could help in 

providing security for park staff and visitors, 

but again this is only a short-term solution to 

the larger problem of providing adequate 

resource protection. Greater emphasis on 

public education concerning the fragile nature 

of natural and culture resource could slow but 

not stop damage to the park’s resources. In 

conclusion, the above measures might provide 

a degree of resource protection and 

preservation. But eventually, park staffing must 

be increased. It is expected that the increase in 

park staffing of 25% to 35%. The staffing 

request over a 20-year period would be an 

increase of approximately 1.5% a year. 

The additional positions would be in resource 

protection, interpretation, maintenance, and 

administrative support. The additional FTE 

employees would eventually raise park costs to 

between $1.4 and $2.0 million per year. Added 

to current staffing costs of $4.3 million per 

year, the total would be $5.7 to $6.3 million per 

year. 

The construction, rehabilitation, and 

restoration costs for alternative B would be 

about $ 18.3 to $25.0 million. The estimate is 

general and should be used only for comparing 

the alternatives in this plan. 

TABLE 2: REPRESENTATIVE DEVELOPMENT 

COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE B 

Removal of one NPS employee 

residence and seasonal housing in 

Chisos Basin 

$ 70,000 

Construct new visitor center at 

Panther Junction 

$4,500,000 

Rehabilitation of old visitor center 

into administrative space 

$ 600,000 

Expanded office area at Rio 

Grande Village 

$ 75,000 

Rehabilitate Barker Lodge $ 500,000 

Construct eight new housing units 

in park 

$1,060,000 
71 

ALTERNATIVE C — MAXIMIZE NATURAL RESOURCE 

STEWARDSHIP AND PRESERVATION BY PROVIDING A MORE 

RESOURCE-ORIENTED VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

CONCEPT 

This alternative would provide for the 

enduring protection and preservation of the 

park’s natural resources. Actions would be 

undertaken to give greater resource protection 

while allowing for visitor use. 

This alternative would result in the 

construction of a new park administrative 

headquarters while rehabilitating the existing 

facilities to better serve visitors. Removal of all 

development except for main roads at Chisos 

Basin and Rio Grande Village would be 

undertaken to provide greater protection for 

natural resources. Trailheads would be 

developed in these areas for visitor access. The 

private sector would be encouraged to develop 

lodging for visitors outside of the park. 

DETAILED DESCRIPTION 

The description of this alternative, like the 

description of alternative B, is organized by 

management prescriptions. The various 

prescriptions are described at the beginning of 

this chapter. Also see the Alternative C maps 

for placement of management prescriptions on 

areas within the park. 

The maps in this document are for 

illustration purposes only and are not 

drawn perfectly to scale. 

Wilderness Prescription 

(See Park Area map) 

Most of the land that comprises the park has 

been determined either as “proposed” 

wilderness or “potential” wilderness. These 

recommendations have been transmitted to 

Congress by the president, but have not been 

acted on by Congress. The National Park 

Service is required to manage these lands to 

preserve their wilderness values until Congress 

acts. To accomplish this requirement, these 

lands would be managed under the Wilderness 

Prescription that would preserve vast desert 

and mountain landscapes that are unaltered by 

the hand of man. These areas contain dramatic 

contrasts, from lofty wooded peaks to canyons 

carved by the Rio Grande, all dominated by the 

great expanse of the Chihuahuan Desert. The 

visitor would have the opportunity for a 

primitive experience with chances to see the 

magnificent scenery that is unique within the 

United States as well as to sense the solitude 

and quietness that typifies the area. 

Some of the notable features in the 

prescription would be the Mesa de Anguila 

and the north side of Santa Elena Canyon, the 

area east of Santa Elena Canyon containing the 

creosotebush plant community, the lavacapped Burro Mesa, the Chisos Mountains, 

and portions of the Chisos Basin. Most of the 

area around Mariscal Mountain, Talley 

Mountain, and Chilicotal Mountain would 

also be in this prescription, as well as portions 

of Tornillo Creek, McKinney Hills, Boquillas 

Canyon on the Rio Grande, and the Sierra del 

Carmen Mountains. All the cliffs in the three 

major river canyons of the Rio Grande would 

be managed under the wilderness prescription. 

The Hot Spring trail would be extended to a 

new trailhead and nature trail to Boquillas 

Crossing. 

The North Rosillos/Harte Ranch section of the 

park contains lands that are being evaluated to 

determine their suitability or nonsuitability for 

further study and possible recommendation 

for wilderness designation. See “Appendix E: 

Draft Wilderness Suitability Assessment,” and 

the “Purpose, Need, and Scoping” chapter. If 

lands are found suitable for further study and 

possibly recommended for wilderness 

designation, these lands would be managed as 

wilderness at least until the wilderness study 

was completed. 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

72 

Backcountry Nonwilderness Prescription 

(Chisos Basin - most of Basin 

Panther Junction - most of area excluding 

developed areas 

Rio Grande Village - most of area 

Castolon - most of area north and west of 

historic district 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch - most of area 

excluding roads and development) 

Portions of the park excluded from the 1984 

wilderness proposal are: (1) areas along the Rio 

Grande and south of the River Road that are 

less than 5,000 acres and are impacted by 

citizens of Mexico and fishermen, (2) corridors 

along the roadways, (3) areas that contain 

pole-mounted telephone and power lines, and 

(4) the soil and moisture study area. However, 

many of the excluded areas contain values 

similar to those found in proposed or potential 

wilderness. Alternative C has placed these 

lands in the Backcountry Nonwilderness 

prescription. 

In the North Rosillos/Harte Ranch area, the 

park may develop a Rosillos trail. All 

concession and park facilities in the Chisos 

Basin and Rio Grande Village would be 

removed, except the main road, and the area 

would be restored to natural contours and 

revegetated. A trailhead and parking area and 

restrooms would be provided. These areas 

would be managed following the Backcountry 

Nonwilderness prescription. No concessions 

lodging would be allowed in the park, but the 

private sector would be encouraged to develop 

lodging facilities outside the park boundaries. 

The Mariscal Mine, Luna’s Jacal, Homer 

Ranch, and Sam Nail Ranch (not a national 

register site) are cultural resources found in 

areas covered by this prescription. All sites 

eligible for listing on the national register 

would be preserved. These resources would 

continue to be preserved, and over time the 

interpretation of these sites would be upgraded 

as time and funding permit. This prescription 

would result in these areas being managed to 

either continue the natural conditions or to 

reduce past impacts on resources. 

Cultural Prescription 

(Daniel’s Ranch, Barker Lodge area, 

Castolon Historic District, the two springs, 

and the adobe structures near the airport) 

The park would consult with the Texas 

Historic Preservation Office to determine if the 

non-character-defining features of Barker 

Lodge could be documented and allowed to 

deteriorate. If this was not feasible, then Barker 

Lodge would be preserved in the most cost 

effective manner. The current preservation 

and interpretive activities at the Daniel’s Ranch 

and Castolon Historic District would continue. 

The water and fire suppression system would 

be upgraded to provide for better protection of 

the historic district. 

In the North Rosillos/Harte Ranch area, Bone 

Spring and Buttrill Spring would be placed in 

this prescription, and the park staff would 

develop preservation strategies for each of 

these features. The various sites around Buttrill 

Spring and Bone Spring would be evaluated for 

their potential to be listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places — possibly as part 

of a cultural landscape. Features around 

Buttrill Spring would be preserved for their 

historic and interpretive significance. An 

interpretive trail would be developed in the 

area of Buttrill Spring. 

Visitor Services Prescription 

(Panther Junction - area along the main park 

road from the visitor center/headquarters 

to the gas station and store 

Cottonwood Campground 

Persimmon Gap - area around the entrance 

station, visitor center, and picnic area 

Maverick - the new site for the entrance 

station) 

At Chisos Basin, electrical lines would be 

placed underground to decrease their impact 

on park scenic values. At 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. This would 

be undertaken only after this Mission 66 

structure was evaluated to determine its 
Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio G rande

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South

Rosillos

Ranch

(private)

Mesa De

Anguila Rio Grande Village

Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Alternative C

Chisos Basin

0 1000 2000 Feet

North

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20079

Backcountry Nonwilderness

Visitor Services

ROADS

Trailhead to

Backcountry/

Parking Area/

Restroom
Visitor Center/

Offices and

 Post Office

Sewage

Treatment

Plant

Maintenance

Area

School

Gas Station

& Store

Em

ployee

H

o

using

Add New

Administration

Building

Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

0 1000 2000 Feet

Alternative C

Panther Junction

Wilderness

Backcountry Nonwilderness

Operations

Visitor Services

North

Add

New Storage Warehouse

Roads

Natural History

Association

Building

Fire Management Office

Science and Resource 

Management

Building

Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

and

Cottonwood

Campground

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio Gra nde

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South

Rosillos

Ranch

(private)

Mesa De

Anguila Rio Grande Village

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20085
ROADS

Rio

Gra nde Wild and Scenic River

Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Alternative C

Rio Grande Village

Wilderness

Backcountry Nonwilderness

Visitor Services

Barker

Lodge

Boquillas

Crossing

Daniel's

Ranch

0 1000 2000 3000

North

Cultural

Trailhead/Parking/Restroom

Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio G rande

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South

Rosillos

Ranch

(private)

Mesa De

Anguila Rio Grande Village

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20088
Add New Fire Bay

Add Two New Housing Units

Castolon

Historic

District

Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Alternative C

Castolon

ROADS

Wilderness

Backcountry Nonwilderness

Operations

Visitor Services

Cultural

0 0.5 1 Mile

North

Access

to

Santa Elena Crossing

Cottonwood

Campground

Old

Castolon

Pump 

House/

Water

Treatment

Maintenance

Area

Employee

Housing

Rio

Grande

Castolon

Compound

New Egress

Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio Grande

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South

Rosillos

Ranch

(private)

Mesa De

Anguila

Rio Grande Village

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20076
Bone

Spring

Persimmon Gap

Entrance Station,

Visitor Center,

and Picnic Area

Wilderness

Backcountry Nonwilderness

Operations

Visitor Services

Cultural

PRIVATE LANDS

Big Bend National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Alternative C

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

0 2.5 5 Miles

North

Buttrill

Spring

Mountain

Lodge

Park Airstrip

Nine Point

Draw

Campsite

ROADS

Study Butte/

Terlingua

Rosillos

Ranch

North Rosillos/

Harte Ranch

Castolon

and

Cottonwood

Campground

Chisos 

Basin

Panther 

Junction

Rio Gra nde

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

Christmas 

Mountains

Persimmon 

Gap

Maverick

Entrance

South Rosillos Ranch (private)

Mesa De

Anguila Rio Grande Village

DSC • Dec 2002 • 155/20082
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

78 
Alternative C — Maximize Natural Resource Stewardship and Preservation by Providing a More Resource-Oriented 

Visitor Experience 

79 

eligibility for listing on the national register. If 

it is found eligible, the rehabilitation would be 

done in a manner that would preserve its 

character-defining features. 

At Cottonwood Campground, some of the 

campsites would be relocated away from the 

river, and a new egress road would be 

constructed from the campground. 

To provide better visitor orientation and 

eliminate visitor and employee safety hazards 

at the Maverick entrance station, it would be 

removed; a new entrance station constructed 

on a site closer to the park’s western boundary. 

Operations Prescription 

(Panther Junction — all the developed area 

south of the visitor center/ headquarters 

and the sewage treatment plant 

Castolon - maintenance area, employee 

housing, and pump house/ sewage 

treatment area 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch - park airstrip 

and a portion of the road leading to the 

airstrip) 

The water system at Panther Junction would 

be upgraded to meet state standards. Up to 

15% of the park’s personnel and functions 

would be moved to gateway communities. This 

would require the park to construct or lease 

offices and /or residences in the gateway 

communities. Some employees may rent or buy 

their own residences. This action would 

increase the park’s sustainability. 

A new administrative building would be built 

at Panther Junction so that all administrative 

offices there would be in one building. A new 

storage warehouse would be built at Panther 

Junction to consolidate this scattered function 

into one building specifically designed for 

storage. A fire bay would be built at Castolon 

to achieve greater resource protection. The 

natural resources and collection management 

building (described in the cumulative impact 

scenario) should adequately provide for the 

collection storage needs for the duration of 

this plan. In case additional collection storage 

space was necessary, the other new storage 

areas would be evaluated to accommodate this 

need. 

PARTNERSHIPS, PROGRAMS, 

AND ACTIVITIES 

Water is critical to the understanding and 

preserving the Big Bend ecosystem. When 

development is removed from Rio Grande 

Village and Chisos Basin, the existing 

vegetation would be replaced with droughttolerant species. Overall, plants that are heavy 

water users would be phased out and irrigation 

discontinued in Rio Grande Village. In the Rio 

Grande Village area, a study would be made on 

how best to restore natural hydrology consistent with maintaining cultural landscapes. The 

park staff would explore the feasibility of 

acquiring additional water rights for the entire 

length of the Rio Grande in the park for the 

purpose of increasing flow in the river. 

In the North Rosillos/Harte Ranch area, smallscale experimental restoration treatments 

would be undertaken to determine how best to 

restore natural grasslands. Successful treatments would be used in other areas of the park. 

The park would continue to seek ways to 

strengthen connections with the Mexican 

protected areas bordering the park. This would 

include working with staff in the Mexican 

protected areas to better protect and provide 

an understanding of the areas’ natural and 

cultural resources. In addition, the park staff 

would continue to seek ways to work with the 

Mexican villages that border the park. This 

would include, but not be limited to, more 

interpretive programs. 

The park’s interpretive program would be 

expanded in a variety of ways to extend 

beyond park boundaries. This would include 

expanded, external, curriculum-based 

environmental education and using technology 

to develop distance learning opportunities. 

PARK BOUNDARY 

No change in the park boundary would be 

proposed under this alternative. 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

80 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

In 2001 Big Bend National Park, in a unique 

partnership with the National Parks Conservation Association and a consortium of philanthropic organizations led by the Kendall 

Foundation, developed a business plan to 

identify the financial and personnel shortfalls 

at this park (NPS and NPCA 2001). This plan 

analyzed how many full-time-equivalent (FTE) 

employees would be necessary for the park to 

meet resource protection, management, 

administrative, maintenance, visitor experience, and facility operational standards. The 

additional FTE requirements below are based 

on that analysis. 

There would be a transition period between 

when this plan is approved and when the park 

could become fully staffed. During this 

transition period, the park would seek to 

increase its efforts in the areas of grant and 

fund raising, developing partnerships, and 

doing cost-benefit analysis on park activities to 

increase park efficiency to cover the shortfall 

and meet minimal operational standards. 

These are at best temporary solutions. 

All costs are in year 2002 dollars. All 

alternatives retain the current base staff of 100 

FTE positions. The staffing figures represent 

additional positions that would be needed to 

carry out this alternative. The additional 

positions would be in the resource, protection, 

interpretation, maintenance, and administrative divisions. An increase in FTE employees of 

between 8% and 15% at a cost of between 

$625,000 and $846,000 per year would eventually be required to implement this alternative. 

Added to the current staff cost of $4.3 million 

per year, total costs would be $4.9 to $5.1 

million per year. 

The construction, rehabilitation, and 

restoration costs for alternative C are 

estimated to range from $16 to $18.4 million. 

The estimate is general and should be used 

only for comparing the alternatives in this plan. 

TABLE 3: REPRESENTATIVE DEVELOPMENT 

COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE C 

Removal of structures and 

revegetation at Chisos Basin 

$1,100,000 

Removal of structures and 

revegetation at Rio Grande 

Village 

$6,614,420 

Rehabilitation of visitor center/ 

headquarters at Panther 

Junction 

$1,140,000 

New administration building at 

Panther Junction 

$2,400,000 

Preservation of Barker Lodge $ 300,000 

Construct two new housing 

units in the park 

$ 300,000 

 
81 

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

SUMMARY 

One alternative previously under consideration

was eliminated from the draft plan. The 

principal focus of this alternative was the 

relocation of most facilities in the Chisos Basin, 

Rio Grande Village, and Castolon. Most 

comments received on this proposal pointed out 

that simply moving facilities would result in 

impacts in the areas where facilities were 

removed and in areas to which these facilities 

were moved — many new areas of the park. The 

bullets indicate elements that were not included 

in another alternative. 

Chisos Basin 

• Remove all concession and park facilities 

from Chisos Basin except for campground 

and two residences for law enforcement and 

maintenance. 

• Relocate the lodge and concession operations to an area between Basin Junction and 

Panther Junction. If this action were not 

feasible, permit no concession lodging in the 

park. 

Panther Junction 

• Expand visitor center to best interpret the 

park's natural and cultural material. 

Castolon 

• Develop new campground and 

amphitheater in mesquite flat or southeast 

along the river; remove current campground 

and amphitheater. 

• Relocate concessions housing out of historic 

district. 

Rio Grande Village 

• Relocate campsite facilities and certain park 

support facilities such as visitor center and 

housing outside the 100-year floodplain. 

• Relocate the gas station, store, and park 

support facilities such as maintenance 

outside the 500-year floodplain, possibly at 

the junction of the road to Boquillas. 

• Reduce park facilities to a total of five 

residences (three for maintenance and two 

for law enforcement). 

• If sufficient space can be identified, develop 

additional campsites. 

• Reduce concessions facilities to two 

residences. 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 

• Designate a substantial portion of North 

Rosillos/Harte Ranch area for a wilderness 

study and manage it following the wilderness prescription. Exclude the county road, 

landing strip with surrounding buildings, 

and mountain lodge from this study. 

• Allow the remaining structures to 

deteriorate in place; if necessary for visitor 

safety, remove them. 

• Manage most land in the North Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch area following the wilderness 

prescription. 

Parkwide 

• Develop in situ display of paleontological 

resources and improve fossil bone exhibit 

Christmas Mountains 

• Encourage the Texas General Land Office to 

find a buyer for the land who would manage 

it to be compatible with park purposes. 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

82 

IDEAS SUGGESTED AND ELIMINATED 

FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

During the planning process, the public 

suggested two ideas that were dropped from 

further consideration. These ideas are discussed 

below. 

Museum of Paleontology. The new visitor 

center would have paleontological exhibit space, 

and an appropriate location in the park would 

be identified for an in situ display of 

paleontological resources including fossils. 

Christmas Mountains. The Christmas 

Mountains are owned by the Texas State Land 

Office. The lands are protected by a strict 

conservation easement, and that easement 

remains in place regardless of ownership. The 

easement will protect the park viewshed and the 

Christmas Mountains from any development. 

Because of this, it was decided that the focus of 

this management plan should be on the lands 

owned by the park within the current boundary. 
83 

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The environmentally preferred alternative is the 

alternative that will promote the national 

environmental policy as expressed in section 101 

of the National Environmental Policy Act. In the 

National Park Service, the environmentally 

preferred alternative is identified by (1) 

determining how each alternative would meet 

the criteria set forth in section 101(b) and (2) 

considering any inconsistencies between the 

alternatives analyzed and other environmental 

laws and policies (Director’s Order 12, 2.7.E.). 

The preferred alternative, alternative B, is the 

environmentally preferred alternative based on 

the following criteria provided in the National 

Environmental Policy Act: 

3⁄4 fulfill the responsibilities of each generation 

as trustee of the environment for 

succeeding generations; 

3⁄4 assure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and esthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings; 

3⁄4 attain the widest range of beneficial uses of 

the environment without degradation, risk 

to health or safety, or other undesirable 

and unintended consequences; 

3⁄4 preserve important historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our national heritage, 

and maintain, wherever possible, an 

environment which supports diversity, and 

variety of individual choices; 

3⁄4 achieve a balance between population and 

resource use which will permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of 

life’s amenities; and 

3⁄4 enhance the quality of renewable resources 

and approach the maximum attainable 

recycling of depletable resources. 

Alternative B, which rated high in all 

categories, would enhance the park’s ability to 

carry out its mission through developmental 

and programmatic activities while limiting the 

amount of new environmental impacts from 

the development. This would be accomplished 

through, in the main, limiting development to 

previously developed areas. Alternatives A and 

C lack the range of diversity and variety of 

individual choices found in B. Alternative B 

best balances the need to protect the park’s 

resources while allowing visitors to enjoy the 

widest range of activities. Alternative B fulfills 

the responsibility of protecting resources for 

future generations by taking actions to reduce 

water use in the park and provide for additional measures to protect endangered species. 

Alternative C provides similar protection, but 

reduces opportunities for all visitors to fully 

enjoy the park and its resources. Therefore, the 

preferred alternative is the environmentally 

preferred alternative. 
84 

MITIGATION AND ADDITIONAL STUDIES 

GROUND DISTURBANCE/SOILS 

Where possible, new development would be 

built on previously disturbed sites. During 

design and construction, park natural resource 

staff would identify areas to be avoided. 

Best management practices for controlling soil 

erosion, such as the placement of silt fencing, 

retention and replacement of topsoil, revegetation of sites with native species, and selective 

scheduling of construction activities, would be 

taken to reduce runoff and soil loss from construction sites. Salvaged vegetation, rather than 

new planting or seeding, would be used to the 

extent possible. Workers also would be required 

to control dust, and all construction machinery 

would be required to meet air emission standards. Restoration efforts would be scheduled to 

minimize impacts on downstream water users. 

VEGETATION 

Park staff would survey proposed development 

sites for sensitive species and would relocate 

new development if sensitive species 

populations were present. Similarly, trails, roads, 

campsites, and picnic sites would be located to 

avoid impacts on sensitive species. 

To the extent possible, help minimize the spread 

of nonnative plants, park managers would allow 

only the use of weed-free materials and 

equipment for park operations and visitor use 

activities. 

WATER RESOURCES 

Best management practices such as the use of silt 

fences, would be implemented to ensure that 

construction-related effects were minimal and to 

prevent long-term impacts on water quality, 

wetlands, and aquatic species from displacement 

of soils. 

A statement of findings for floodplains would be 

prepared if the selected alternative included 

retaining a campground in the 100-year floodplain or any development in the flash-floodprone area at Panther Junction. The statement of 

findings would include an emergency preparedness plan for evacuating people in the event of a 

flood. More detail is available in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter, under “Natural 

Resources.” 

Any new facilities proposed in the floodplain 

(except trails, roads, and picnic facilities) would 

be designed to manage flood conditions, and a 

statement of findings for floodplains would be 

prepared. 

Increased caution would be exercised to protect 

wetlands from damage caused by construction 

equipment, erosion, siltation, and other activities 

with the potential to affect wetlands. 

Construction materials would be kept in work 

areas, especially if the construction took place 

near streams or natural drainages. 

Wetlands would be delineated by qualified NPS 

staff or certified wetland specialists, and they 

would be marked before construction. 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED 

SPECIES AND SPECIES OF CONCERN 

Undertake mitigatingmeasures during normal 

park operations as well as before, during, and 

after construction to minimize immediate and 

long-term impacts on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. These actions would vary 

by specific project and area of the national park 

affected. 

Conduct surveys for rare, threatened, and 

endangered species as warranted. If sensitive 

species are found, prior to design or construction in those areas, consultation would be 

undertaken with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

for federally listed species or the Texas Parks 

and Wildlife for state listed species to determine 

the most appropriate locations, construction 

methods, and mitigating measures. 
Mitigation and Additional Studies 

85 

Site and design facilities/actions to avoid adverse 

effects on rare, threatened, and endangered 

species. If avoidance is infeasible, minimize and 

compensate adverse effects on rare, threatened, 

and endangered species as appropriate and in 

consultation with the appropriate resource 

agencies. 

Develop and implement restoration and/or 

monitoring plans as warranted. Plans would 

include methods for implementation, 

performance standards, monitoring criteria, and 

adaptive management techniques. 

AIR QUALITY 

The best available clean fuel technology would 

be applied (as it becomes available) to the extent 

feasible. 

Measures to reduce air pollution would be 

taken. 

Dust abatement measures would be employed. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

In accordance with NPS policies and 

procedures, the protection of cultural resources 

would continue. The disturbance of significant 

resources would be avoided wherever possible. 

Where avoidance or preservation could not be 

achieved, appropriate mitigation would be 

carried out according to the procedures of the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 

CFR 800). 

“Stop work” provisions and other protective 

measures would be included in project documents implementing the approved plan. (A stop 

work order would only be used in an extreme 

situation. Projects would be designed to identify 

and protect resources well before development 

plans were finalized.) Construction would be 

restricted to the immediate vicinity of the 

projects, and new disturbance would not be 

permitted outside the designated project area. 

If previously unknown and significant 

archeological resources were unearthed during 

construction, or if human remains were 

discovered, work in the discovery area would be 

stopped immediately, and the park superintendent and the contracting officer would be 

notified immediately. Measures would be 

instituted to protect the remains, sacred objects, 

associated funerary objects, and objects of 

cultural patrimony. The superintendent would 

notify the state historic preservation officer. Any 

artifacts found in association with the remains, 

funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of 

cultural patrimony, would be left in place. If the 

remains were determined to be of American 

Indian origin, the park superintendent would 

notify associated tribes according to the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act and its implementing regulations. 

A number of park landscapes and structures at 

Panther Junction, Rio Grande Village, Chisos 

Basin, and Castolon are potentially eligible for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic 

Places as part of the National Park Service’s 

Mission 66 work. Before taking any actions that 

would affect these sites, the sites would be 

evaluated in consultation with the Texas 

Historic Preservation Office. If these sites were 

determined eligible, then a strategy would be 

developed for their preservation or 

documentation. 

Studies would be undertaken to determine: 

• What is the archeological site distribution 

throughout the park, how do the sites relate 

to the various environmental zones, and 

what does this tell us about prehistoric 

populations and their adaptations to a 

changing environment? 

• What cultural sites are located in areas of 

development and visitor use where the 

potential for adverse impacts from those 

activities are greatest? 

• What native American tribes are affiliated 

with Big Bend and Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River? 

• What ethnographic resources can be found 

in the park (Native American, Hispanic, 

others)? 

• What are past and present Hispanic 

influences on Big Bend and the Rio Grande? 

• What cultural landscapes in the park are 

eligible for nomination to the National 

Register of Historic Places? 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

86 

• What is the best way to provide treatment 

for identified and evaluated cultural 

landscapes and historic structures? 

• What archeological resources would be 

impacted in areas where development or 

visitor activity is planned? 

• What is the best way to record and preserve 

the 450 buildings, structures, and ruins 

scattered throughout the park? 

• What was the Hispanic settlement that took 

place in the area of the park in the 18th and 

19th centuries? 

• What native plants and animals were used by 

the Hispanic populace? 

• What was the effect of mining on the park 

environment? 

• What is the best way to document and 

preserve the 40 gravesites and 300 graves 

scattered throughout the park? 

A parkwide cultural sites inventory, necessary 

for science-based planning for development and 

for resource management and interpretation, is 

needed to provide information on the prehistory 

of the park. 

Also, a scope of collections needs to be prepared 

and a cadastral survey of all disputed sections of 

boundary needs to be conducted, especially in 

recent additions in the northwest section of the 

park. 
87 

TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B (Preferred) Alter

Concept No significant change in current 

interpretation or park management direction. 

Offer enhanced experience for visitors while creating a more sustainable park and providing better protection for park resources. A new visitor center would be developed that would include an auditorium, an expanded exhibit area, and possibly an outdoor exhibit area. Interpretation would be developed for the Buttrill Spring area. A number of actions such as reducing irrigation water used at Rio Grande Village by 50%, phasing out plants that are heavy water users at Rio Grande Village and Cottonwood Campground, relocating personnel to gateway communities, and removing some development from Chisos Basin would result in reduced water use. All these actions would provide for a better visitor experience and make the park more sustainable. 

Provide for the endupreservation of the pGive greater resourcproviding for visitor This alternative wouconstruction of a new headquarters while rfacilities to better serall development exceChisos Basin and Rio be undertaken to profor natural resourcesdeveloped in these arThe private sector wdevelop lodging for vpark. 

Wilderness Manage existing proposed and potential 

wilderness areas from 1984 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Wilderness Classification (NPS 1984) as 

wilderness as required by NPS policy. 

Same as alternative A. If wilderness suitability assessment for North Rosillos/Harte Ranch area finds lands suitable for further study and possible recommendation for wilderness designation, manage these lands as wilderness at least until the wilderness study was completed. 

Same as alternative B

Throughout the Park 

Continue to provide all park offices and housing in the park boundary. 

Move up to 15% of park personnel and functions to gateway communities; construct or lease offices and/or residences in gateway communities. 

Same as alternative B

 Maintain park water rights at current levels. Acquire additional water rights to increase 

flows in the river. 

Same as alternative B

 Continue to work with Mexican protected 

areas’ staff. 

Seek ways to strengthen connections with the Mexican protected areas. 

Same as alternative B

 Continue to work with Mexican villages that 

border the park. 

Seek additional ways to work with the Mexican villages that border the park, possibly including more interpretive programs. 

Same as alternative B
88 

Alternative A Alternative B (Preferred) Alter

Throughout the Park (cont.) 

Continue interpretive programs beyond park boundaries. 

Expand interpretive programs that extend beyond park boundaries, including environmental education and the use of technology. Develop in situ paleontological 

exhibit. 

Same as alternative B

Chisos Basin Retain visitor center, campgrounds, lodge, 

and NPS housing. 

Relocate one NPS employee residence and NPS bunkhouse to Panther Junction. 

Remove all developmmain road; restore to drought-tolerant sperestroom, and parkinEncourage private seoutside the park. 

 Do not change electrical lines, which are in 

the viewshed of the road into Chisos Basin. 

Place electrical lines underground (to decrease visual impacts). 

Same as alternative Bwhen remove develo

Panther Junction 

Construct new fire management building. Same as alternative A Same as alternative A

 Develop early warning system and evacuation 

plan. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A

 Retain visitor center and administrative 

functions in headquarters building. 

Construct new visitor center, including auditorium, bookstore, and expanded exhibit area. Determine feasibility of developing outdoor exhibits for large items (casts of paleontological resources). 

Construct new admi

 Provide and consolidate space for storage. 

and office space for interpretive division. Rehabilitate former visitor center area of headquarters to consolidate administrative offices. Provide NPS employee residence and bunkhouse to replace those removed from Chisos Basin. 

Rehabilitate visitor cbetter serve as a visitconsolidated offices division. 

 Add a few temporary housing and storage 

units as needed. 

Construct storage warehouse. Replace housing (as described in the cumulative impact scenario). 

Same as alternative B

 Upgrade fire suppression system Same as A. Same as A. 
89 

Alternative A Alternative B (Preferred) Alter

Rio Grande Village

Maintain visitor center building at current site. 

Expand current visitor center building to provide offices for four park rangers or build a separate building for this purpose — whichever is most cost-effective. 

Remove all developmfrom village, includinto natural conditions species. Provide trailparking. Extend Hot head and nature trail 

 Develop early warning system and evacuation 

plan for floodplain. 

Same as alternative A. Remove all developm

and cultural resource

 Raise fuel storage tanks above 500-year flood 

level. 

Same as alternative A. Remove fuel tanks. 

 Continue to irrigate shade trees and lawns. Reduce irrigation water used by 50% (to 12.6 

million gallons per month); give priority to shade trees in campgrounds and picnic areas. When they die, replace cottonwoods with more drought-tolerant species. Phase out plants that are heavy water users. 

Phase out plants that Continue irrigation orestored. 

 Retain altered hydrologic patterns. Study how best to restore natural hydrology 

consistent with maintaining cultural landscapes. 

Same as alternative B

 Continue efforts to locate a separate water 

source for visitors and staff. 

Same as alternative A. Remove all visitor, st

facilities, therefore nsource would be nee

 Relocate some campsites away from Big Bend 

gambusia pond. 

Same as alternative A. Remove all developm

campgrounds. 

 Use Barker Lodge for housing. Use Barker Lodge for housing for researchers Consult with state hi

to see if non-charactthe lodge could be dodeteriorate; if that walodge in most cost-ef

 Return overflow camping area to natural 

conditions. 

Remove all developmincluding campgroun

 Retain 25-site RV campground. Concessioner would enlarge RV campground 

by about 40% with a total of no more than 30 sites. 

Remove all developmincluding campgroun

 Retain nine housing units (plus Barker 

Lodge). 

Construct four new NPS housing units if a water source is found. 

Remove all developm

 Construct fire bay. Remove all developmCastolon Retain 11 housing units Construct two new NPS housing units if 

water source is found. 

Same as alternative A

 Upgrade water and fire suppression systems. Same as A. Same as A.  Construct fire bay. Same as alternative B
90 

Alternative A Alternative B (Preferred) Alter

Cottonwood Campground 

Develop early warning system and evacuation plan for the floodplain. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A

 Continue to irrigate shade trees and other 

vegetation. 

When cottonwoods die, replace them with more drought-tolerant species. Phase out plants that are heavy water users. 

Same as alternative B

 Continue to have campsites in areas where 

riverbank caves in. 

Relocate some campsites away from river. Same as alternative B

 Retain single egress road. Construct additional egress road from 

campground. 

Same as alternative B

North Rosillos/ Harte Ranch 

Continue work to restore natural hydrologic and soil conditions and inventory cultural and natural resources as funds permit. Undertake small-scale experimental restoration treatments to determine how best to restore natural grasslands; use successful treatments elsewhere in the park. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A

 Retain existing conditions, with no trails. Develop an interpretive trail at Buttrill Spring 

and possibly develop a Rosillos trail. 

Same as alternative B

 Develop preservation strategies for Bone 

Spring and Buttrill Spring. Preserve features around Buttrill Spring for historic and interpretive significance. 

Same as alternative B

 Evaluate features around Buttrill Spring and 

Bone Spring for potential to be listed on national register 

Same as alternative B

Persimmon Gap 

Retain one housing unit. Construct NPS duplex unit if a reliable water 

source is found. 

Same as alternative A

Maverick Entrance 

Retain current station. Remove current station; construct new one 

closer to western park boundary. 

Same as alternative B 

Gateway Communities 

Maintain no facilities in gateway communities. 

Construct or lease residences and offices. Same as alternative B

Boundary Adjustments 

Propose no changes. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A

Costs 100 FTEs at about $4.3 million/year 

Construction, rehabilitation,  and restoration costs $5.7 – $7.7 million 

25%-30% more FTEs for a total  of about $1.4.–$2 million/year Construction, rehabilitation,  and restoration costs $18.3 – $25 million 

8%-15% more FTEs  of about Construction, rehabi and restoration cos
91 

TABLE 5: COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternativ

Soils 

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. 

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 and 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 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. 

Soil disturbance from actwould be restricted to threquired. Construction in would disturb approximasoil inside the park and 2All of the soils in the park disturbed by constructiodeveloped (disturbed) arMaverick entrance statiosoil erosion by wind and nutrient transport would long-term, adverse impaccharacteristics for sites oare unknown because no selected.) Removing deverestoring natural contourrevegetating 700 acres at Rio Grande Village, and Mentrance station would hlong-term beneficial imp
92 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternativ

Vegetation 

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 long-term 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. 

Construction activities 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. 

Construction activities wabout 4 acres of already dvegetation inside the park outside, a minor long-terimpact. Revegetation woattempted, but arid condrevegetation difficult. Recontours and revegetatinacres would have a modebeneficial impact on vegeThe removal of all develotrailhead, parking, and reBasin would result in a cehuman use of 4 million gafrom Oak Spring — a lonbeneficial impact on planfrom the spring. Withdrawal of irrigation about 638 acres of exotic Rio Grande Village woulvegetation to return — a beneficial impact on nativ
93 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternativ

Wildlife 

Overall, the fragmentation of wildlife habitat, the alteration of wildlife movement, and vehicular collisions with wildlife from this alternative would continue to have a long-term minor adverse impact. 

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. 

Stopping withdrawal of wSpring for human use woto have a long-term, modimpact on wildlife using ORestoration of natural covegetation on about 700 aBasin, Rio Grande VillagMaverick entrance statiowildlife habitat, a moderabeneficial impact on wildWithdrawal of irrigation about 638 acres of exotic Rio Grande Village woulvegetation to return and wildlife by providing a msource. This would be a lbeneficial, moderate impAlthough wildlife habitat fragmented by the roads Basin and Rio Grande Viuse of the area by visitorswould be reduced in both removal of most developdiscontinuing overnight campground (and motel Basin). This would be a mterm, beneficial impact ohabitat. 
94 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternativ

Water Quantity 

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, longterm, adverse impact. Overall, impacts on the quantity of water in the Rio Grande would be negligible, long term, and adverse. 

Reduction of human use of water from Oak Spring by about 3% would be a minor, intermittent, longterm, 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, long-term, beneficial impact on water quantity in the 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. 

Removing all human use Oak Spring, 4 million gallwould be a long-term, maimpact. At Rio Grande Veliminating the use of irri25.6 million gallons per mthe Rio Grande would be long-term, beneficial impall human use of the sprinVillage, 2.9 million gallonwould be a major, long-teimpact. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 

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, longterm 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. 

Changes at the 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. 

Overall, decreased traffic Basin road would have a and long-term impact on capped vireo by reducing disturbance. Restoring abvegetation in the Basin mmoderate to major long-timpact on the bird by incThe availability of about additional gallons of watesystem where Big Bend grestoring more natural coarea through revegetationdoubling the available hawetland restoration wouhave a minor to moderatbeneficial impact on the f
95 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternativ

Floodplains 

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 would require the park to find temporary offices and housing outside the park. 

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. Same as A. Same as A. 

Removal of about 638 acrdevelopment from Rio Gand revegetation of the along-term, major, beneficnatural floodplain valuesSame as A. Same as A. 
96 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternativ

Wetlands 

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. 

Reducing use of water from Oak Spring by 117,8,00 gallons per year (3%) would be a minor long-term beneficial impact on the wetland at the spring. 

Removing all human watChisos Basin would mean million additional gallons be available to wetland veterm, major, beneficial imwetlands associated with Removing most visitor usirrigation, eliminating use for humans, and restorinto more natural conditionmajor, long-term beneficwetland processes at Rio 

Archeological Resources 

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 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 long-term, negligible beneficial impact on these resources. 

Overall, alternative C woleaving large portions of natural condition, which long-term, minor, benefiarcheological resources. 
97 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternativ

Historic Buildings/Structures 

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 be a long-term, minor to moderate beneficial impact for these structures. 

The preservation actions taken in the preferred alternative would have an overall long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the park’s historic structures. 

Overall, alternative C wodemolition of some histowhile other structures wopreserved. This would reterm moderate to major, on historic structures. 

Cultural Landscapes 

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 long-term, minor, beneficial effect on the park’s cultural landscapes. 

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 long-term, 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. 

Overall, alternative C woloss of some potential cuThis would result in a lonadverse impact on these rApplication of the managprescriptions would have negligible, beneficial impcultural landscapes. 
98 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternativ

Ethnographic Resources 

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 actions in the preferred alternative would result in a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the park’s ethnographic resources. 

The overall result of alterbe long-term, moderate aon ethnographic resourc

Museum Collections 

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. 

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 overall effect of this would be to have a long-tbeneficial impact on park that the collections woulpreserved and interprete
99 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternativ

Visitor Understanding 

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. 

Over the long term, most visitors at Chisos Basin would benefit from a reduction in congestion and noise brought about by alternative B; this would be a moderate beneficial effect on visitors’ experiences during the peak season. Less congestion and noise 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 longterm benefit for most park visitors. Moving some of the campsites farther from the river would lessen the potential danger to visitors from flooding. 

Over the long term, day uChisos Basin and Rio Grawould benefit from remofacilities. This would be a term beneficial impact on experience of natural and resources. A rehabbed visitor center Junction would provide afor interpreting the park’themes, conducting intereducational programs, anvisitors received sufficieneffectively plan for a safe stay. This would provide long-term benefit for the visitors. Removing lodging and cawould result in the loss oexperiences for some visithe interpretive centers aand Rio Grande Village wopportunities for visitors through exhibits and othsome of the key themes amanagement issues of thethe park. The loss of thesbe a major long-term advthe overnight and interprexperiences in these areaRetaining the Cottonwooand picnic areas would cmoderate long-range benvisitors, and moving somcampsites further from thlessen the potential dang
100 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternativ

Socioeconomic Environment 

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. 

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 600 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 about $20.1 million in additional sales and $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.

The existing economic annomic benefits that the plocal and regional economtinue, and there would be major direct short-term abenefits in both permanerary federal and private sment opportunities with which would generate abThere would also be a moindirect long-term, benefoverall socioeconomic acrevenues as the planned ufacilities and programs arThis beneficial effect wouincreased payrolls and viproviding about $85 millisales and $8.3 million in arevenues. These benefits local and regional in natumoderate to major improemployment benefiting thisolated and sparsely popsouthwest Texas countiePresidio, and Terrell. Theinternational economic senhanced employment oMexican communities al