Draft 

General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK 

Brewster County, Texas 

February 2003 

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

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

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

20 years. Some issues to be addressed are the strain on scarce water resources; employee housing, 

offices, and other development located in flash flood hazard areas; protection of natural and cultural 

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

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

Scenic River. 

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

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

advisable. Natural and cultural resources would be managed as they are now. There would be limited, 

if any changes in interpretation and management of the park. Coordination with agencies and other 

groups would continue. There would be very little change in visitor or other park facilities except for 

the following. One new building to provide storage and office space for fire management. The park 

would be operated and maintained as before. Issues would be resolved as they emerged and not as the 

result of a comprehensive plan. Staffing and funding levels would remain at or near current levels. 

Visitor services would remain limited, and current laws, policies, and guidelines would guide resource 

management actions. Any development that is not tied to an approved plan would be designed to be 

temporary and reversible. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Preservation by Providing a More Resource-Oriented Visitor Experience – would better 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

public review. After a 60-day review period, during which public meetings will be held, comments will 

be analyzed and a final plan/environmental impact statement will be prepared. After a 30-day noaction period, a course of action will be approved through the issuance of a record of decision. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service 
ii 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
iii 

SUMMARY 

The purpose of this General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement is to define a 

direction for the management of Big Bend 

National Park for the next 15 to 20 years. The 

approved plan will provide a framework for 

making decisions about managing the natural 

and cultural resources, visitor use, development, 

and park operations so that future opportunities 

and problems can be addressed effectively. The 

plan will prescribe the resource conditions and 

visitor experiences to be achieved over time 

according to law, policy, regulations, public 

expectations, and the park’s purpose, 

significance, and special mandates. 

An updated plan is needed to address current 

issues related to water quantity at some 

developed areas, park facilities located in 

floodplains, endangered species, degradation of 

natural systems, conflicts among various user 

groups, and the lack of adequate space for 

interpretive activities, park housing, storage, and 

staff offices. 

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED 

Natural resource issues that must be addressed 

are management of water quantity at some 

developed areas, floodplains, threatened and 

endangered species, and degradation of natural 

systems. 

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

concessioner employees compete with wetland 

plants and wildlife for water. At certain times of 

the year, nearly all of the water from Oak Spring 

is diverted for human use. At times when the 

total output of the spring is not sufficient for 

needs of the developed area, conservation 

measures must be implemented. 

Visitors’ understanding of the significance of Big 

Bend National Park is limited by a lack of 

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

visitor awareness of the park’s principal stories. 

The Panther Junction visitor center, a section of 

the “Mission 66” period (1960s) headquarters 

building, cannot accommodate the current level 

of visitation or provide all the information and 

interpretation of park stories needed by visitors. 

Space in the visitor center used by park staff and 

the cooperating association is inadequate, as is 

storage space. 

At Panther Junction, there is a lack of adequate 

office and storage space for park staff. 

ALTERNATIVES 

To achieve the desired conditions at Big Bend 

National Park, the planning team developed a 

“no-action” alternative (continuing present 

management) and two “action” alternatives for 

managing the resources and visitor uses of Big 

Bend National Park. Each action alternative 

would assign various areas of the park to 

different management prescriptions (zones). 

The management prescriptions identify how 

different areas could be managed to achieve a 

variety of resource conditions and visitor 

experiences. In each alternative, the five 

management zones – wilderness, backcountry 

nonwilderness, cultural, visitor services, and 

operations – would each specify a particular 

combination of resource, social, and 

management conditions. 

Alternative A, the no-action or status quo 

alternative, reflects ongoing actions at the park 

and serves as a basis for comparing the other 

alternatives and knowing why certain changes 

may be advisable. Current laws, policies, and 

guidelines would guide natural and cultural 

resource management actions. Interpretation 

and visitor services would remain limited, and 

any development that is not tied to an approved 

plan would be designed to be temporary and 

reversible. There would be limited, if any, 

changes in the management of the park. 

Coordination with agencies and other groups 

would continue. All the visitor facilities available 

for visitor use, such as the Chisos Basin 

development, Rio Grande Village, and 

Cottonwood campgrounds, would be available 

under this alternative. 
SUMMARY

iv 

One already approved building would be 

constructed in Panther Junction, outside the 

most dangerous portion of the maximum 

estimated floodplain. It would contain storage 

and office space for fire management. Some 

campsites at Rio Grande Village would be 

relocated to provide greater protection for the 

endangered fish, Big Bend gambusia. An 

alternative water source would be sought for 

human use to further protect the endangered 

fish. At Rio Grande Village and Cottonwood 

campgrounds and Panther Junction early 

warning systems and evacuation plans would be 

developed and implemented to protect visitors 

and staff occupying the floodplain. Failing utility 

(water and waste water) systems would be 

upgraded as funds become available. The park 

would be operated and maintained as before. 

Staffing and funding levels would remain at or 

near current levels. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative – 

Enhanced and Adequate Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Enhanced Visitor Facilities 

would offer enhanced experiences for visitors 

while creating a more sustainable park and 

providing better protection for park resources. 

It is the National Park Service’s preferred 

alternative. A new visitor center would be built 

at Panther Junction to provide room for 

interpretive media to adequately interpret key 

aspects of the park’s stories and to help visitors 

plan their stays. The space in the headquarters 

building vacated by the visitor center function 

would be redesigned for staff offices. A storage 

warehouse, bunkhouse, and employee residence 

would also be built at Panther Junction. The 

natural resources and collection management 

building (described in the cumulative impact 

scenario) should adequately provide for the 

collection storage needs for the duration of this 

plan. In case additional collection storage space 

were necessary, the other new storage areas 

would be evaluated to accommodate this need. 

One employee residence, one employee bunkhouse, and one 12-room visitor lodging unit 

would be removed from Chisos Basin to reduce 

human water use at that area. 

At Rio Grande Village the RV campground 

would be enlarged by approximately 40% in 

area with no more than 30 total sites. Cottonwood Campground campsites would be 

relocated away from bank cave-in areas, and a 

new egress road would be constructed. Fifteen 

percent of park personnel and functions would 

be moved to gateway communities where offices 

and residences would be built or leased. 

Alternative C – Maximize Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Preservation by Providing a 

More Resource-Oriented Visitor Experience 

would better protect the park’s natural 

resources than alternative A (no-action) and 

alternative B while providing for visitor use. 

Development would be removed from Chisos 

Basin and Rio Grande Village except for the 

main roads. A trailhead with parking and a 

restroom would be constructed at each area. 

The visitor center function would expand within 

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

Junction. A storage warehouse would also be 

constructed at Panther Junction. The natural 

resources and collection management building 

(described in the cumulative impact scenario) 

should adequately provide for the collection 

storage needs for the duration of this plan. In 

case additional collection storage space were 

necessary, the other new storage areas would be 

evaluated to accommodate this need. Fifteen 

percent of park personnel and functions would 

be moved to gateway communities where offices 

and residences would be built or leased. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The planning team evaluated the potential 

consequences that the actions of each alternative 

could have on natural resources, cultural 

resources, the visitor experience, and the 

socioeconomic environment. The beneficial or 

adverse effects were categorized as either short 

term or long term, and their intensity was rated 

as negligible, minor, moderate, or major. The 

impacts of the various alternatives are compared 

in table 2. 

For alternative A, the no-action or status quo 

alternative, irrigation of shade trees and lawns 

at the campgrounds at Rio Grande Village and 

Cottonwood using water from the river would 

continue to cause the growth of unnaturally lush 

vegetation and allow exotic species to flourish – 

an ongoing, moderate, long-term adverse 
Summary 

v 

impact. Continued use of nearly all the water at 

Oak Spring for human use during certain times 

of the year would cause moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts on the quantity of water in Oak 

Spring and the wetland there. 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 endangered fish. The 

natural and beneficial values of floodplain areas 

would continue to be compromised by the 

presence of campgrounds at Rio Grande Village, 

and the developments in the flash flood hazard 

area at Panther Junction. This continuing longterm adverse impact on natural processes would 

be moderate. Although severe flooding has been 

infrequent and risks are minor to moderate, 

flooding at Panther Junction could result in 

major adverse impacts on visitors or employees 

involved. Even though the risk is not great, loss 

of infrastructure at Panther Junction from flooding could cause a major, long-term adverse impact on operations and require the park to find 

temporary housing and offices outside the park. 

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

moderate beneficial impact on these resources. 

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

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

resources. 

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

congestion, and visitor frustration at not finding 

adequate interpretive and education facilities. 

This alternative would result in a continuing 

long-term adverse impact on visitors coming to 

the park at peak times. Visitors would have many 

opportunities to travel around the park at their 

own pace – a long-term, major beneficial impact. 

Retaining the campgrounds, picnic areas, and 

lodge would have an ongoing, moderate, longrange beneficial impact on the visitor 

experience. 

The existing benefits of the park to the local and 

regional economy would continue. In addition, 

there would be minor, short-term, beneficial 

impacts on temporary employment opportunities and revenues during restoration and 

construction activities. 

Under alternative B restoring soils on 62 acres 

to natural contours, rerouting runoff to natural 

drainages, and revegetating an area greater than 

20 acres would have a major, long-term, beneficial impact on soils, vegetation, and smaller 

animals. Reducing human use of water from Oak 

Spring by removing some facilities at Chisos 

Basin would result in a 13% reduction in annual 

water use there – a minor to moderate long-term 

beneficial impact on plants and a moderate longterm beneficial impact on wildlife that use water 

from the spring. Withdrawal of 50% of the irrigation water from about 14 acres of exotic vegetation at Rio Grande Village would allow native 

vegetation to return – a moderate to major longterm beneficial impact on native vegetation. 

Finding a separate source of drinking water for 

visitors and employees at Rio Grande Village 

would have a major, long-term, beneficial impact 

on the pond water system water quantity and a 

minor to moderate, long-term beneficial impact 

on the endangered Big Bend gambusia. Although 

a report finds that the risk is not great, flooding 

at Panther Junction could cause major adverse 

impacts on the visitors and employees involved. 

Flooding at Panther Junction could cause major 

adverse impacts on operations and could require 

the park to find temporary offices and housing 

outside the park. 

Preservation actions taken under this alternative 

would have a long-term, moderate beneficial 

impact on some park historic structures. Water 

conservation measures at Rio Grande Village 

could change the vegetation characteristic of this 

potential cultural landscape – a long-term, 

moderate adverse impact. There would be a 

long-term, major, beneficial impact on artifacts 

and collections at Panther Junction. 

Provision of adequate space for interpreting the 

park’s primary themes, conducting interpretive 

and educational programs, and ensuring that 

visitors receive enough information to plan their 

stay effectively by constructing a new visitor 

center at Panther Junction would have a major 

long-term beneficial impact on most park 

visitors. 
SUMMARY

vi 

There would be increases in temporary and 

permanent employment opportunities and 

revenues as planned upgrades of facilities and 

programs are implemented. 

Under alternative C, removing development, 

restoring natural contours, and revegetating 700 

acres at Chisos Basin, Rio Grande Village, and 

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

be major, on vegetation and wildlife moderate, 

and on black-capped vireo moderate to major. 

Impacts on water quantity at Oak Spring, plants 

that use water from Oak Spring, and wetlands at 

Oak Spring would be major. Impacts on animals 

that use water from Oak Spring would be 

moderate, and impacts on natural and beneficial 

floodplain values at Rio Grande Village would 

be major. Withdrawal of irrigation water from 

about 638 acres of exotic vegetation at Rio 

Grande Village would allow native vegetation to 

return – a major, long-term beneficial impact on 

native vegetation and a moderate long-term 

beneficial impact on water quantity in the Rio 

Grande. 

Removing all human use from the spring at Rio 

Grande Village would be a major, long-term 

beneficial impact on wetlands and on water 

quantity in the pond system used by Big Bend 

gambusia. Along with the additional water 

available in the pond system where it lives, 

restoration of Rio Grande Village to more 

natural conditions through revegetation, and 

potentially doubling the available habitat 

through wetland restoration, would be expected 

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

that the risk is not great, flooding at Panther 

Junction could cause major adverse impacts on 

the visitors and employees involved. Flooding at 

Panther Junction could cause major adverse 

impacts on operations and could require the 

park to find temporary offices and housing 

outside the park. 

Demolition of some historic structures would 

result in a long-term minor to major, adverse 

impact on historic structures. Loss of some 

potential cultural landscapes would be a 

potential long-term, major, adverse impact on 

these landscapes. There would be long-term, 

moderate adverse impacts on ethnographic 

resources, and long-term, major beneficial 

impacts on the park collections. 

Removal of overnight facilities at Chisos Basin 

and Rio Grande Village would have a major, 

long-term beneficial impact on the visitor 

experience of natural and cultural resources. A 

rehabilitated visitor center at Panther Junction 

would have a moderate, long-term benefit for 

most park visitors. Removing lodging and 

camping facilities would result in the loss of 

overnight experiences for some visitors, and 

removing interpretive centers at Chisos Basin 

and Rio Grande Village would eliminate 

opportunities for visitors to learn about key 

themes and resource management issues. 

Together, the loss of these facilities would b e a 

major long-term adverse impact on the visitor 

experience. Retaining the Cottonwood 

Campground and picnic areas would constitute 

a moderate long-term beneficial impact on 

visitors, and moving some campsites further 

from the river would lessen the potential from 

flooding. 

There would be increases in temporary and 

permanent employment opportunities and 

revenues as planned upgrades of facilities and 

programs were implemented. 

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN 

The Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement for Big Bend 

National Park is being sent out for public review 

and comment. During the 60-day review period, 

public meetings will be held and comments will 

be analyzed. Various elements of the preferred 

alternative and other alternatives might be modified to address comments. The final plan will 

include agency and organization letters and 

responses to all substantive comments. The Final 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement will be completed and 

distributed to the public. A record of decision 

identifying the selected alternative (the 

approved plan) will be issued after a minimum 

30-day no-action period following release of the 

final plan. 
vii 

CONTENTS 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

Purpose, Need, and Scoping 3 

Introduction 3 

Brief Description of the Park 3 

Purpose of the Plan 4 

Need for the Plan 7 

Mission and Goals 7 

Park Purpose 7 

Park Significance 7 

Primary Interpretive Themes 7 

The Scoping Process – Notices, Newsletters, and Meetings 8 

Issues 9 

Issues to be Addressed 9 

Issues beyond the Scope of this Plan 10 

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

Natural Resource Topics 10 

Cultural Resource Topics 10 

Visitor Experience Topics 11 

Socioeconomic Environment Topics 11 

Impact Topics Considered and Dismissed from Further Consideration 11 

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 11 

Prime and Unique Farmland 12 

Air Quality 12 

Water Quality in the Rio Grande 13 

Traffic 13 

Indian Trust Resources 13 

Environmental Justice 14 

Laws, Policies, and Mandates 15 

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 15 

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

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

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

Border 15 

Wildfire Prevention Agreement with Mexico 15 

Proposed Wilderness Classification 15 

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

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

Conservation Plan 15 

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River Management Plan 15 

Wilderness Suitability Assessment 16 

Servicewide Laws and Policies 16 

Natural Resource Management Requirements 17 

Cultural Resource Management Requirements 28 
CONTENTS

viii 

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Introduction to the Alternatives 39 

Decision Points 39 

Relationships to Other Agencies’ Plans 39 

Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan Assessment and Policy Plan (TORP) 39 

Black Gap Wildlife Management Area 40 

Big Bend Ranch State Park 40 

Brewster County 41 

Maderas del Carmen 41 

CaZon de Santa Elena 41 

Management Prescriptions 43 

Alternative A – No-Action (Status Quo) 47 

Concept 47 

Throughout the Park 47 

Chisos Basin 48 

Panther Junction 48 

Rio Grande Village 48 

Castolon 48 

Cottonwood Campground 48 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 48 

Persimmon Gap, Maverick, and Gateway Communities 54 

Park Boundary 54 

Estimated Costs 54 

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

Enhanced Visitor Facilities 55 

Concept 55 

Detailed Description 55 

Wilderness Prescription 55 

Backcountry Nonwilderness Prescription 56 

Cultural Prescription 56 

Visitor Services Prescription 56 

Operations Prescription 63 

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 63 

Park Boundary 64 

Estimated Costs 64 

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

Resource-Oriented Visitor Experience 65 

Concept 65 

Detailed Description 65 

Wilderness Prescription 65 

Backcountry Nonwilderness Prescription 66 

Cultural Prescription 66 

Visitor Services Prescription 66 

Operations Prescription 72 

Partnerships Programs, and Activities 72 

Park Boundary 72 

Estimated Costs 73 
Contents 

ix 

Alternatives Eliminated from Futher Consideration 74 

Summary 74 

Ideas Suggested and Eliminated from Further Consideration 75 

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative 76 

Mitigation and Additional Studies 77 

Ground Disturbance/Soils 77 

Vegetation 77 

Water Resources 77 

Air Quality 77 

Cultural Resources 77 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Natural Resources 95 

Setting 95 

Soils 95 

Chisos Basin 95 

Panther Junction 96 

Rio Grande Village 96 

Castolon 97 

Cottonwood Campground 97 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 97 

Persimmon Gap 97 

Maverick and Potential Site for New Entrance Station 98 

Vegetation 98 

Chisos Basin 98 

Panther Junction 98 

Rio Grande Village 98 

Castolon 98 

Cottonwood Campground 99 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 99 

Persimmon Gap 99 

Maverick and Potential Site for New Entrance Station 99 

Wildlife 99 

Chisos Basin 99 

Panther Junction 100 

Rio Grande Village 100 

Castolon 100 

Cottonwood Campground 100 

North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 100 

Persimmon Gap 101 

Maverick and Potential Site for New Entrance Station 101 

Water Quantity 101 

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 101 

Floodplains 102 

Panther Junction 102 

Rio Grande Village 103 

Cottonwood Campground 104 

Wetlands 104 
CONTENTS

x 

Cultural Resources 105 

Introduction 105 

Archeological and Historical Resources 105 

Archeological Resources 107 

Historic Structures 108 

Cultural Landscapes 108 

Ethnographic Resources 112 

Collections 113 

Visitor Understanding – Experiencing the Resources 114 

Orientation and Interpretation 116 

Safety 117 

Facilities 117 

Chisos Basin 117 

Panther Junction 117 

Rio Grande Village 117 

Castolon 117 

Cottonwood Campground 117 

Persimmon Gap 117 

Maverick 117 

Socioeconomic Environment 119 

Businesses and Park Neighbors 119 

Brewster County 119 

Presidio County 119 

Study Area Economic Conditions Since 1950 119 

Recreation Use At Big Bend National Park 123 

Current Impact of Recreation Spending in Study Area 123 

Conditions in Chihuahua and Coahuila 123 

Local and Regional Economy / Land Use 125 

Big Bend Ranch State Park (State of Texas) 125 

Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan (TORP) 125 

Black Gap Wildlife Management Area. (State of Texas) 126 

Brewster County 126 

City of Alpine 126 

Christmas Mountains 126 

Terlingua Ranch 127 

Lajitas 127 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Methods for Analyzing Impacts 131 

Projects That Make Up the Cumulative Impact Scenario 131 

Past Actions 131 

Current and Future Actions 132 

Impairment of Resources 132 

Natural Resources 133 

Cultural Resources 135 

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

Historic Places and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 135 
Contents 

xi 

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

Cultural Resources 136 

Visitor Experience 139 

Socioeconomic Environment 139 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No Action) 141 

Natural Resources 141 

Soil 141 

Vegetation 142 

Wildlife 143 

Water Quantity 144 

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 145 

Floodplains 145 

Wetlands 147 

Cultural Resources 148 

Archeological Resources 148 

Historic Structures/Buildings 149 

Cultural Landscapes 150 

Ethnographic Resources 151 

Museum Collections 151 

Visitor Understanding 152 

Socioeconomic Environment 153 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 154 

Natural Resources 154 

Visitor Understanding 154 

Socioeconomic Impacts 155 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 155 

Relationships of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity 155 

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 155 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (Preferred) 156 

Natural Resources 156 

Soils 156 

Vegetation 158 

Wildlife 159 

Water Quantity 160 

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 161 

Floodplains 162 

Wetlands 164 

Cultural Resources 164 

Archeological Resources 164 

Historic Structures/Buildings 166 

Cultural Landscapes 166 

Ethnographic Resources 167 

Museum Collections 167 

Visitor Understanding 168 

Socioeconomic Environment 169 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 170 

Natural Resources 170 

Cultural Resources 171 

Socioeconomic Environment 171 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 171 
CONTENTS

xii 

Relationship of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity 171 

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 172 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 173 

Natural Resources 173 

Soils 173 

Vegetation 174 

Wildlife 176 

Water Quantity 177 

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 178 

Floodplains 180 

Wetlands 182 

Cultural Resources 183 

Archeological Resources 183 

Historic Structures/Buildings 183 

Cultural Landscapes 184 

Ethnographic Resources 185 

Museum Collections 186 

Visitor Understanding 186 

Socioeconomic Environment 187 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 189 

Natural Resources 189 

Cultural Resources 189 

Visitor Understanding 189 

Socioeconomic Environment 189 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 190 

Relationship of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity 190 

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 190 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 

Public Involvement 193 

Public Meetings and Newsletters 193 

Consultation 193 

Agencies and Organizations to Which This Document Was Sent 195 

APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, AND INDEX 

Appendix A: Legislation 201 

Appendix B: Developing the Preferred Alternative 206 

Appendix C: Letters Regarding Threatened and Endangered Species 208 

Appendix D: Interpretive Themes and Subthemes and Visitor Understanding Goals 219 

Appendix E: Draft Wilderness Suitability Assessment 222 

Appendix F: Statement of Findings for Floodplains 224 

Appendix G: Uninvestigated Possible Cultural Landscapes 236 

Appendix H: Soil Types and Limitations for Development by Alternative 238 

Bibliography 242 

Preparers 245 
Contents 

xiii 

Index 246 

Maps 

Region 5 

Park Area 6 

Alternative A, Chisos Basin 49 

Alternative A, Panther Junction 50 

Alternative A, Rio Grande Village 51 

Alternative A, Castolon 52 

Alternative A, North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 53 

Alternative B, Chisos Basin 57 

Alternative B, Panther Junction 58 

Alternative B, Rio Grande Village 59 

Alternative B, Castolon 60 

Alternative B, North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 61 

Alternative C, Chisos Basin 67 

Alternative C, Panther Junction 68 

Alternative C, Rio Grande Village 69 

Alternative C, Castolon 70 

Alternative C, North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 71 

Figures 

1. Total Annual Visitation, 1980-2000 115 

2. Monthly Visitation, 2000 115 

3. Overnight Stays, 1991-2000 116 

4. Population, 1950-1999 121 

5. Persons of Hispanic Origin by County 122 

6. Per Capita Income, 1980-1998 122 

7. Total Park Visitors 1988-1999 123 

Tables 

Table 1: Management Prescriptions, Big Bend National Park 44 

Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives 79 

Table 3: Comparison of Impacts 83 

Table 4. Summary of selected Demographic Conditions, Towns of Alpine and Presidio 120 

Table 5. Study Area Population Trends, 1950-2000 121 

Table 6. Study Area Per Capita Income, 1960-1998 121 

Table 7. Comparison of Selected Economic Indicators, State of Chihuahua 124 

Table 8. Comparison of Selected Economic Indicators, State of Coahuila 125 

Table 9. Actions That Might Affect Cultural Resources and Associated Compliance 

 Requirements 194 
CONTENTS

xiv