CONSULTATION & 

COORDINATION

WITH OTHERS

Andy Foster Brian Crocket

Jeff Blaylock Jeff Blaylock

Adam Smith
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS

192 

(back of divider) 
Public Involvement 

193 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement for Big Bend 

National Park represents thoughts presented by 

the National Park Service, Native American 

groups, and the public. Consultation and 

coordination among the agencies and the public 

were vitally important throughout the planning 

process. The public had two primary avenues by 

which it participated during the development of 

the plan: participation in public meetings and 

responses to newsletters. 

PUBLIC MEETINGS AND NEWSLETTERS 

Public meetings and newsletters were used to 

keep the public informed and involved in the 

planning process for Big Bend National Park. A 

mailing list was compiled that consisted of 

members of governmental agencies, nongovernmental groups, businesses, legislators, local 

governments, and interested citizens. 

The notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement was published 

in the Federal Register on May 3, 2000. A 

newsletter issued in May 2000 described the 

planning effort. Public meetings were held 

during May 2000 in Study Butte/Terlingua, 

Alpine, Sanderson, and Austin and were 

attended by 63 people. A total of 80 electronic 

and mailed comments were received in response 

to that newsletter. The National Park Service 

also met with city, county, and state agencies. In 

July 2000 the park held meetings in Mexico at 

Santa Elena, San Vicente, and Boquillas del 

Carmen. These meetings were attended by 

nearly 40 people. The National Park Service 

received comments in the meetings and in the 

response to the newsletter, and these comments 

were incorporated into the issues for the plan. 

A second newsletter distributed in June 2001 

described the draft alternative concepts for 

managing the national park. A total of 120 

electronic and mailed comments were received 

in response to that newsletter. A number of 

letters favored only minimal changes to the 

current management of the park. Other people 

favored more visitor amenities, such as more 

recreational vehicle camping areas, trails, etc., 

while others favored removal of park development from areas of the park like the Chisos 

Basin. 

CONSULTATION 

Section 106 Consultation 

Agencies that have direct or indirect jurisdiction 

over historic properties are required by section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended (16 USC 470, et seq.) to take 

into account the effect of any undertaking on 

properties eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places. To meet the requirements of 36 

CFR 800, the National Park Service sent letters 

to the Texas historic preservation office and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on 

May 15, 2000, inviting their participation in the 

planning process. Both offices were sent all the 

newsletters with a request for comments. 

Under the terms of stipulation VI.E of the 1995 

programmatic agreement among the National 

Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Conference of 

State Historic Preservation Officers, the 

National Park Service, “in consultation with the 

SHPO, will make a determination about which 

are programmatic exclusions under IV.A and B, 

and all other undertakings, potential effects on 

those resources to seek review and comment 

under 36 CFR 800.4-6 during the plan review 

process.” 

In the following table the specific undertakings 

are listed, along with the National Park Service’s 

determination of how those individual 

undertakings relate to the 1995 Programmatic 

Agreement. 
194 

TABLE 9. ACTIONS THAT MIGHT AFFECT CULTURAL RESOURCES AND ASSOCIATED COMPLIANCE 

REQUIREMENTS 

(Requirements of the Texas Historic Preservation Office and/or the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) 

Action Compliance Requirement 

Adaptively use Barker Lodge for housing Further SHPO review may be necessary at the scoping, conceptual, 

and possibly at the design stage of the project. 

Development at Buttrill Spring No further SHPO review necessary unless it is determined that the 

spring and its features are eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places or it is determined that visitation to the spring 

would impact archeological resources. 

Removal of one NPS employee 

residence, NPS “bunkhouse”, and one 

motel unit. 

No further SHPO review necessary. 

Construct new visitor center No further SHPO review unless eligible National Register of 

Historic Places archeological sites are impacted by construction. 

Relocation of campsites at Rio Grande 

Village and Cottonwood Campground 

No further SHPO review unless eligible National Register of 

Historic Places archeological sites are impacted by construction or 

sites would impact cultural landscapes. 

Construct new storage warehouse at 

Panther Junction 

No further SHPO review unless eligible National Register of 

Historic Places archeological sites are impacted by construction. 

Construct new employee housing at Rio 

Grande Village, Castolon, and 

Persimmon Gap 

No further SHPO review unless eligible National Register of 

Historic Places archeological sites are impacted by construction or 

sites would impact cultural landscapes. 

Construct fire bays at Rio Grande Village 

and Castolon 

No further SHPO review unless eligible National Register of 

Historic Places archeological sites are impacted by construction. 

Relocation of Maverick entrance station No further SHPO review unless eligible National Register of 

Historic Places archeological sites are impacted by construction. 

Rehabilitate visitor center No further SHPO review necessary unless the building is 

determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or 

is a part of a cultural landscape. If so, further consultation would 

be necessary to protect the landscape and the character-defining 

features. 

Identification and evaluation of 

potentially eligible cultural landscapes 

and resources. 

Further SHPO review and consultation necessary to determine if 

any of the cultural landscapes or properties are potentially eligible 

for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Consultation with Native Americans 

Letters were sent to the following Native 

American groups on May 15, 2000, to invite their 

participation in the planning process: 

Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Mescalero Apache Tribe 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Blackfeet Tribe 

Caddo Indian Tribe of Oklahoma 

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma 

Jicarilla Apache Tribe 

Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma 

Comanche Indian Tribe, Oklahoma 

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas 

The tribes were briefed on the scope of the 

planning project and the preliminary alternatives 

by newsletter and follow-up telephone calls 

soliciting comments. Oral comments by some 

tribes included recommendations to maintain 

the park as it is; other tribes had no comments at 

this time. The Mescalero Apache commented 

that traditional cultural properties be identified 

and protected and that interpretation takes in 

the Native American viewpoint. Conversations 

have been ongoing throughout the planning 

process to inform the tribes about the progress 

of the plan and identify how and to what extent 

they would like to be involved. The tribes will 

have an opportunity to review and comment on 

this draft plan. 
195 

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH THIS 

DOCUMENT WAS SENT 

Federal Agencies 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

 U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

National Park Service 

 Amistad National Recreation Area 

 Guadalupe National Park 

 Organ Pipe Cactus National Park 

 Rivers and Trails Program 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Ecological Field Office 

U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mexican State Agencies 

Patricio Martinez 

Palacio de Gobierno 

Chihuahua, Chihuahua 25000 

Mexico 

Rogelio Montemayor 

Palacio de Gobierno 

Saltillo, Cohuila 25000 

Mexico 

Mexican Protected Areas 

Maderas del Carmen 

Julio Carrera 

Apdo. Postal 486 

Saltillo, Coahuila 2500 

Mexico 

CaZon de Santa Elena 

Pablo Dominquez 

Col. San Felipe 

Chihuahua, Chihuahua 31240 

Mexico 

U.S. Senators and Representatives 

Office of Senator John Cornyn 

Office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison 

U.S. Representative Henry Bonilla 

U.S. Representative Gene Green 

U.S. Representative Silvestre Reyes 

State Agencies 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Texas Parks and Wildlife 

 Big Bend Ranch State Park 

 Black Gap Wildlife Management Area 

 Davis Mountains State Park 

 Endangered Species Branch 

Texas Historical Commission (state historic 

 preservation office) 

State Officials 

Texas Governor Rick Perry 

Texas State Representative Pete Gallego 

Texas State Senator Frank Madla 

American Indian Tribes With Potential 

Cultural Affiliation to the Park 

Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Mescalero Apache Tribe 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Blackfeet Tribe 

Caddo Indian Tribe of Oklahoma 

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma 

Jicarilla Apache Tribe 

Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma 

Comanche Indian Tribe of Oklahoma 

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas 

Local, City, and County Governments 

Amarillo, Texas, local governement 

Brewster County 

 Commission 

 Judge, Val Beard 

Brownsville, Texas, local government 

Pecos, Texas, local government 

San Vicente School District 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS

196 

Terrell County Commission 

 Judge Dudley Harrison 

Organizations and Businesses 

Abilene Reporter-News 

Alpine Commerce 

Alpine Observer 

American Whitewater Association 

Andy White Ranches 

Associated Press 

Audubon Texas 

Austin American-Statesman 

Balmorhea Commerce 

Barton Warnock Center 

Big Bend Motor Inn/Mission Lodge 

Big Bend Natural History Association 

Big Bend River Tours 

Big Spring Commerce 

Big Spring Herald 

Borderline 

Brownsville 

Brownwood Bulletin 

Bullis Gap Ranch and Paradise Valley Ranch 

Center for Environmental Resource 

Management 

Chevron USA 

Chisos Mountain Lodge 

Continental Divide Trail Society 

Conservationists’ Wild River Committee 

Crane Chamber of Commerce 

Dallas Morning News 

Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage 

Association 

Del Rio Commerce 

Del Rio News Herald 

Desert Sports 

Eagle Pass News-Guide 

El Paso Times 

Far Flung Adventures 

Forever Resorts, LCC 

Fort Davis Chamber of Commerce 

Fort Stockton Commerce 

Fort Stockton Pioneer 

Fort Worth Newsletter 

Fort Worth Star Telegram 

Galveston Daily News 

Houston Chronicle 

Indian Creek Landowners Association 

Isleta del Sur Pueblo 

Jeff Davis County Mountain Dispatch 

Judge Roy Bean Center 

Kent State University 

KFST Radio 

KLKE and KDLK Radio 

KMID-TV Channel 2 

KVLF Radio 

KOSA-TV 

KVLF Radio 

KWES-News West 9 

KWES-TV 

KWMC Radio 

Lajitas Trading Post 

Laredo Morning Times 

Lubbock Avalanche-Journal 

Marathon Commerce 

Marfa Chamber of Commerce 

Midland Commerce 

Midland Reporter-Telegram 

Mission Chamber of Commerce 

National Parks and Conservation Association 

National Park Concessions, Inc. 

Northern Arizona University 

Northwestern University 

Odessa American 

Odessa Convention & Visitors Bureau 

Paradise Valley 

Pecos Commerce 

Pecos Enterprise 

Pitcock Ranch 

Presidio Commerce 

Randolph Company 

Rio Grande Adventures 

Rio Grande Sun 

Riskind Natural Resources 

Rhodes Welding 

San Angelo Commerce 

San Angelo Standard-Times 

San Antonio Express-News 

Sanderson Commerce 

San Marcos Record 

Sanderson River Ranch 

Santa Fe New Mexican 

Sierra Club 

Standard/Radio Post 

Study Butte Store 

Sul Ross University 

Terlingua Moon 

Terlingua Ranch Lodge 

Terrell County News Leader 

Terrell Visitor 

Texas Audubon Society 

Texas Explorers Club 

Texas River Adventures 
Agencies and Organizations to Which This Document Was Sent 

197 

Texas Rivers Protection Association 

Texas Tech University 

The Alpine Avalanche 

The Battalion 

The Big Bend Sentinel 

The Conservation Fund 

The Conservationists’ Wilderness and Wild 

River Committee 

The Crane News 

The Desert Candle Newspaper 

The Gage Hotel 

The International Presidio 

The Lajitas Sun 

The Sweetwater Reporter 

The Van Horn Advocate 

TOCNR 

University of Northern Colorado 

University of Texas-El Paso 

Uvalde Commerce 

Valley Star 

Voyageur Outward Bound 

Waco Tribune-Herald 

World Wildlife Fund 
198 
APPENDIXES,

BIBLIOGRAPHY,

PREPARERS,

& INDEX

Dave Catalani

Bill Chambers Gareth Rowell

Karl Tipple
APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, AND INDEX

200 

blank back of divider 
201 

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 
APPENDIXES

202 
Appendix A: Legislation 

203 
APPENDIXES

204 
Appendix A: Legislation 

205 
206 

APPENDIX B: DEVELOPING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

To develop a preliminary preferred alternative, 

the planning team evaluated the four draft 

alternatives that had been reviewed by the public 

in newsletter 2. The planning team broke down 

the alternative concepts, modified them based 

on public comment and professional input, and 

developed the actions that would flow from each 

concept as guided by the policy, park mission, 

and park significance. After this was completed, 

it was determined that two of the alternatives 

were very similar and these were blended to 

form one alternative. The alternatives were 

tested against the decision points and issues 

identified by the public and park to determine 

their relative advantages.

“GIVENS” AND DESIRED CONDITONS

First, it is useful to consider the assumptions or 

“givens” that affected the analysis of the 

alternatives. These givens are based on the 

purpose and significance, laws and policies, and 

public concerns and comments. The givens are 

listed below in two categories, one representing 

conditions that must be met by the preferred 

alternative; the second representing conditions 

that would be desirable for the preferred 

alternative to meet. 

The actions in the preferred alternative must 

accomplish the following: 

• would not adversely impact threatened and 

endangered species in ways that could not 

be mitigated 

• would result in no net loss of wetlands 

• would meet clean air and water standards 

• would allow no loss of cultural resources 

without complete documentation 

• would allow public access 

• would provide safe, sustainable, and 

efficient operations for resource protection 

and visitor use 

The following actions would be desirable in the 

preferred alternative: 

• would result in little or no adverse impact on 

plants, animals, or soils 

• would preserve properties eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places 

• would allow maximum public access 

consistent with resource protection and 

visitor experience goals 

• would result in minimum disruption of 

desired experiences for users 

COMPARING THE ALTERNATIVES 

The next step was to develop criteria that would 

be used to compare alternatives. Using the 

givens presented above and topics that were 

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

four criteria to evaluate the alternatives. 

3⁄4 visitor understanding of the park’s 

significance 

3⁄4 natural resource stewardship 

3⁄4 cultural resource stewardship 

3⁄4 efficiency of park operations 

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

enhanced the visitor’s understanding of the 

park’s significance because the increased 

opportunities and diversity of ways it provided 

for interpreting the park’s significance to 

visitors. Alternative A maintains the current 

range of visitor activities that only provide a 

limited understanding of the park’s significance. 

Alternative C reduces the number and types of 

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

Alternative C best supports natural resource 

stewardship as it provides the greatest reduction 

in park water use and creates the most wildlife 

habitat. Alternative A maintains the current 

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

water use or create wildlife habitat. Alternative B 

somewhat reduces water use and creates wildlife 

habitat. 
Appendix B: Developing the Preferred Alternative 

207 

Alternative B best provides for cultural resource 

stewardship in that it sets preservation priorities 

and provides a number of strategies for giving 

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

landscapes and structures. Alternative A would 

result in limited protection for cultural 

resources. 

Alternative B would best provide for more 

efficient park operations by creating more 

functional park facilities and reducing the 

number of park personnel in the park. 

Alternative C would provide for similar benefits, 

but the removal of park visitor amenities could 

make this alternative slightly less efficient. 

Alternative A would continue a number of 

inefficient activities such as collections and staff 

being house in various structures – some not 

suitable for these purposes. 
208 

APPENDIX C: LETTERS REGARDING THREATENED AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES 
Appendix C: Letters Regarding Threatened and Endangered Species 

209 
APPENDIXES

210 
Appendix C: Letters Regarding Threatened and Endangered Species 

211 
APPENDIXES

212 
Appendix C: Letters Regarding Threatened and Endangered Species 

213 
APPENDIXES

214 
215 

Big Bend National Park 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Endangered Resource Branch 

Special Species List, Brewster County 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

Found 

in Park 

Found in 

Project 

Area (3) 

Likelihood of 

being affected 

by GMP 

alternatives 

Buteo albicaudatus white-tailed hawk T 

Buteo albonotatus zone-tailed hawk T 

Buteo nitidus gray hawk T x 

Buteogallus anthracinus common black-hawk T x 

Charadrius montanus mountain plover PT SC x 

Empidonax traillii 

extimus 

southwestern willow 

flycatcher 

E E 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon E E,T 

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon E 

Falco peregrinus tundrius arctic peregrine falcon T 

Vireo atricapillus black-capped vireo E E x x unlikely 

 

Campostoma ornatum Mexican stoneroller T 

Cycleptus elongatus blue sucker T 

Cyprinodon eximius Conchos pupfish T 

Gambusia gaigei Big Bend gambusia E E x unlikely 

Notropis chihuahua Chihuahua shiner T 

 

Amplypterus blanchardi Blanchards’ sphinx moth SC 

Deronectes neomexicana Bonita diving beetle SC 

 

Canis lupus (extirpated) gray wolf E E 

Cynomys ludovicianus 

arizonensis 

black-tailed prairie dog SC 

Euderma maculatum spotted bat T x 

Eumops perotis 

californicus 

greater western mastiff bat SC x 

Felis pardalis Ocelot E E x 

Leptonycteris nivalis greater long-nosed bat E E x 

Myotis ciliolabrum western small-footed bat SC 

Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis bat SC x 

Myotis velifer cave myotis bat SC x 

Myotis volans Long-legged myotis bat SC x 

Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis bat SC x 

Nasua narica White-nosed coati T x 

Sigmodon ochrognathus Yellow-nosed cotton rat SC 

Sylvilagus floridanus 

robustus 

Davis Mountains cottontail SC x 

Ursus americanus Black bear T x 

 

Humboldtiana chisosensis Chisos Mountains threeband SC 

Humboldtiana texaba Stockton Plateau threeband SC 

 

Coleonyx reticulatus Reticulated gecko T x 

Gopherus berlandieri Texas tortoise T x 

Kinosternon hirtipes Chihuahuan mud turtle T 

Phrynosoma cornutum Texas horned lizard T 
APPENDIXES

216 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

Found 

in Park 

Found in 

Project 

Area (3) 

Likelihood of 

being affected 

by GMP 

alternatives 

Tantili rubra Big Bend blackhead snake T 

Trachemys gaigeae Big Bend slider SC 

Trimorphodon biscutatus Texas lyre snake T 

 

Acleisanthes wrightii Wright’s trumpets SC 

Agalinis calycina Leoncita false foxglove SC 

Agave glomeruliflora Chisos agave SC x Chisos 

Basin 

unlikely 

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

Cottonwoo

d 

unlikely 

Andrachne arida Trans-Pecos maidenbush SC x 

Batesimalva violacea Purple gay-mallow SC x 

Bonamia ovalifolia Bigpod bonamia SC x 

Bouteloua kayi Kay’s grama SC 

Brickellia brachyphylla

var hinckleyi

Hinckley’s brickellbush SC not in 

park 

 

Brickellia brachyphylla

var terlinguensis

Terlingua brickellbush SC x 

Brongniartia minutifolia Little-leaf brongniartia SC x 

Cardamine macrocarpa

var texana

Texas largeseed bittercress SC x 

Castilleja elongata Tall paintbrush SC x(1) 

Peniocereus greggii var 

greggii

Desert night-blooming cereus SC x(2) 

Chamaesyce chaetocalyx

var triligulata

Three-tongue spurge SC x 

Chamaesyce 

golondrina 

Swallow spurge SC x 

Chamaesyce jejuna Dwarf broomspurge SC not in 

park 

 

Coryphantha 

albicolumnaria 

White column cactus SC x 

Coryphantha 

dasyacantha var 

dasyacantha

Dense cory cactus SC x 

Coryphantha 

duncanii 

Duncan’s cory cactus SC x 

Coryphantha hesteri Hester’s cory cactus SC not in 

park 

 

Coryphantha minima Nellie cory cactus E E 

Coryphantha ramillosa Bunched cory cactus a.k.a. 

Big Bend cory cactus 

T T x 

Croton pottsii var 

thermophilus

Leatherweed croton SC x 

Cryptantha crassipes Terlingua creek cat’s-eye E E 

Dalea bartonii Cox’s dalea SC not in 

park 

 

Echinocereus chisoensis

var chisoensis

Chisos Mountains hedgehog 

cactus 

T T x 

Echinocereus chloranthus

var neocapillus

Golden-spine hedgehog 

cactus 

 SC not in 

park 

 
Appendix C: Letters Regarding Threatened and Endangered Species 

217 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

Found 

in Park 

Found in 

Project 

Area (3) 

Likelihood of 

being affected 

by GMP 

alternatives 

Echinocereus viridiflorus 

correllii 

Correll’s green pitaya SC not in 

park 

 

Echinocereus viridiflorus

var davisii

Davis’green pitaya E E 

Erigeron mimegletes Sonora fleabane SC x(2) 

Eriogonum suffruticosum Bushy wild-buckwheat SC not in 

park 

 

Escobaria chaffeyi Chaffey’s cory cactus SC x Chisos 

Basin 

unlikely 

Festuca ligulata Guadalupe Mountains fescue C1 SC x (1) 

Galium correllii Cliff bedstraw SC not in 

park 

 

Gaura boquillensis Boquillas lizardtail SC x 

Genistidium dumosum Brush-pea SC not in 

park 

 

Hedeoma pilosum Old blue pennyroyal SC 

Hedyotis butterwickiae Mary’s bluet SC 

Hedyotis pooleana Jackie’s bluet SC 

Hexalectris revoluta Chisos coral-root SC x 

Hexalectris warnockii Warnock’s coral-root SC x Chisos 

Basin 

unlikely 

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

Kallstroemia perennans Perennial caltrop SC 

Lechea mensalis Chisos pinweed SC x 

Lycium texanum Texas wolf-berry SC 

Matelea texensis Texas milkvine SC 

Neolloydia (Sclerocactus) 

mariposensis 

Lloyd’s mariposa cactus T T x 

Nesaea longipes Longstalk heimia SC 

Opuntia aureispina Golden-spine prickly-pear SC x 

Opuntia imbricata var 

argentea

Silver cholla SC x 

Ostrya chisosensis Big Bend hop-hornbeam SC x 

Paronychia wilkinsonii Wilkinson’s whitlow-wort SC 

Perityle bisetosa var 

appressa

Appressed two-bristle rockdaisy  SC Not in 

park 

 

Perityle bisetosa var 

bisetosa 

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

Village 

unlikely 

Perityle bisetosa var 

scalaris

Stairstep two-bristle rockdaisy  SC 

Perityle dissecta Slimlobe rock-daisy SC x North 

Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch, 

Chisos Basin

unlikely 

Perityle vitreomontana Glass Mountains rock-daisy SC not in 

park 

 

Phacelia pallida Pale Phacelia SC 

Phyllanthus ericoides Heather leaf-flower SC not in 

park 

 

Poa strictiramea Desert Mountains bluegrass SC x 

Polygala maravillasensis Maravillas milkwort SC 

Proboscidea spicata Many-flowered unicornplant 

 SC 
APPENDIXES

218 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

Found 

in Park 

Found in 

Project 

Area (3) 

Likelihood of 

being affected 

by GMP 

alternatives 

Prunus murrayana Murray’s plum SC 

Quercus graciliformis Chisos oak SC x Chisos 

Basin 

unlikely

Quercus robusta Robust oak SC x 

Quercus tardifolia Lateleaf oak SC x 

Rorippa ramosa Durango yellow-cress SC x 

Sedum harvardii Harvard’s stonecrop SC x 

Sedum robertsianum Roberts’ stonecrop SC 

Selaginella viridissima Green spikemoss SC x 

Senna orcuttii Orcutt’s senna SC 

Senna ripleyana Ripley’s senna SC 

Streptanthus cutleri Cutler’s twistflower SC x 

Thelocactus bicolor var 

flavidispinus

Straw-spine glory-of Texas SC 

Zanthoxylum parvum Shinner’s tickle-tongue C1 SC 

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

(Conservation Agreement) for these species. 

2. Current presence in park uncertain. 

3. Chisos Basin, Panther Junction, Rio Grande Village, Castolon, Cottonwood, North Rosillos/Harte Ranch 
219 

APPENDIX D: INTERPRETIVE THEMES AND SUBTHEMES AND VISITOR 

UNDERSTANDING GOALS 

Interpretive Themes and Subthemes 

1. Big Bend National Park’s varied ecosystems 

– mountain, desert, and river – support an 

extraordinarily rich biological diversity. 

• Although it appears harsh and barren, the 

Chihuahuan Desert is home to many 

plants and animals (some found nowhere 

else in the world) that use ingenious 

physical adaptations and behavioral 

strategies to overcome heat and drought 

stress. 

• The park’s location along a major 

biological corridor for bird migration on 

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

species than in any other national park, as 

well as some Mexican species seldom seen 

anywhere else in the United States. 

• The Chisos Mountains, the only complete 

mountain range found in a national park, 

stand as a mountain island surrounded by 

a desert sea, providing cooler, wetter 

habitat for species unable to survive in the 

hotter, drier desert. Relict species found 

in the Chisos Mountains today indicate 

what the climate and landscape over a 

broader area were like thousands of years 

ago. Many species are not found 

elsewhere in the United States. 

• Big Bend National Park provides valuable 

habitat for several endangered and 

threatened species of plants and animals, 

and the park’s protected status greatly 

aids in the preservation, study, and 

recovery of many of these species. 

• The periodic occurrence of fire is a 

natural process in several of the 

ecosystems of Big Bend and is a necessary 

element in maintaining the overall health 

of these systems. 

• Although they are seldom seen, the 

animals of the desert have become highly 

adapted and take full advantage of scarce 

available resources. 

• The rich plant life in Big Bend represents 

the diversity of the Chihuahuan Desert 

and provided food, medicine, clothing, 

textiles, and tools for people of many 

cultures who have lived here. 

• The outstanding fossils uncovered in Big 

Bend National Park make this one of the 

premier national parks for paleontological 

discoveries. These fossils continue to 

provide clues to the past climate, flora, 

and fauna of this region. 

2. Major resource threats such as air and water 

pollution, intrusive sounds, and the 

presence of exotic plant and animal species 

as well as vandalism, graffiti, and the illegal 

collection of plants and animals, negatively 

impact both the resources of the park and 

the visitor experience. 

• Big Bend National Park provides visitors 

with incredibly clear views of the night 

sky, unobstructed by light pollution. 

• Through stargazing, visitors learn how 

early cultures relied on the night sky for 

critical survival information and about 

current air and light pollution issues. 

• Big Bend is a mandatory class I air quality 

area under the Clean Air Act, meaning 

that very little degradation of air quality is 

acceptable. Both particulate and visibility 

aspects of air quality have been monitored 

since 1978. Big Bend is part of a large-scale 

air resource protection program to 

determine the potential impact of local 

and distant pollutant sources on the area. 

• An important part of the NPS mission is 

to preserve and/or restore the natural 

resources of the parks, including the 

natural soundscapes associated with units 

of the national park system. Intrusive 

sounds are also a matter of concern to 

park visitors. Big Bend is relatively free of 

intrusive sounds and strives to preserve 

the natural soundscape. 

• Exotic plants and animals are extremely 

disruptive to park ecosystems. Efforts to 
APPENDIXES

220 

prevent the introduction of exotic species 

and to remove established exotic species 

are ongoing.

3. Though rarely seen, water constitutes the 

most important resource in the Chihuahuan 

Desert environment. Water is the architect 

of the desert, and its presence or absence 

affects the desert’s appearance, plant and 

animal life, and the ways that humans can 

use it. 

• The ruins at Castolon and Rio Grande 

Village show evidence that the river has 

historically been a focal point of life in Big 

Bend. 

• The Rio Grande is a source of life-giving 

water for the inhabitants of the Big Bend 

region, but there are also serious threats 

to its water quality and quantity. 

• Big Bend is a land of limited water. Water 

conservation, alternatives to mitigate the 

historic effects of people on the flow 

regime, evaluation of flood hazards in 

developed or frequently visited areas, and 

monitoring and managing water quality 

for the health and safety of park visitors 

and ecosystems are underway. 

4. The evidence left behind by different 

cultural groups over several thousand years, 

including American Indians, Mexicans, 

Mexican-Americans, and Anglo-American 

settlers, gives us clues to the past and helps 

us imagine what life was like for these early 

inhabitants of Big Bend. 

• Big Bend National Park contains many 

outstanding archeological and historical 

sites and provides visitors with the chance 

to see how early inhabitants and later 

settlers lived. 

• People engaged in a number of 

occupations, including farming, ranching, 

and mining, to make a living. 

• American troops were stationed at several 

locations at various times throughout 

what is now the park from the mid-19th 

century until the conclusion of the 

Mexican Border Conflict in 1920. These 

soldiers, including African American 

Buffalo Soldiers (1885-90), protected 

settlers from hostile Indians, border raids, 

and bandits. 

• How did these various groups adapt to 

the desert environment, what was their 

interaction and interdependence, and 

what was the cumulative effect of the 

human presence on the developing desert 

environment? 

5. The Maderas del Carmen Protected Area in 

Coahuila and the Cañon de Santa Elena 

Protected Area in Chihuahua are two 

Mexican federally protected areas adjacent 

to Big Bend National Park, and Big Bend 

Ranch State Park. Together with Black Gap 

Wildlife Management Area, these four areas 

preserve millions of acres of important 

habitat, protect biological corridors for 

wildlife migration, and provide unique 

opportunities for the United States and 

Mexico to work together to preserve a 

common ecosystem. 

6. Big Bend National Park provides an 

excellent outdoor laboratory for researchers 

to study the natural world, the interactions 

that occur within, and the impacts of both 

natural events and human activity. 

• In addition to the National Park Service, 

the state of Texas, its citizens, the Civilian 

Conservation Corps, and other entities 

were instrumental in the creation and 

development of Big Bend National Park 

and in preserving its resources. 

7. The legacy of human impacts on Big Bend 

National Park’s varied environments 

exhibits changes from past to present, 

including soil erosion, watershed 

impairment, grasslands decline, and species 

reduction. 

Visitor Understanding Goals 

These goals help establish the desired visitor 

experiences and serve as a guide for developing 

a range of management approaches. The 

National Park Service will provide opportunities 

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

221 

• learn about Big Bend without physically 

visiting the park 

• feel welcome, respected, and able to offer 

suggestions 

• safely enjoy park resources 

• experience clean and well-maintained 

facilities 

• visit a park visitor center and talk to a 

knowledgeable ranger or volunteer 

• interact with park employees and other 

visitors 

• have access to differing points of view on 

issues affecting the park 

• learn and practice low-impact uses in the 

park 

• learn about the park by attending 

interpretive programs 

• learn some of the complex natural processes 

that helped to shape Big Bend 

• receive exceptional customer service 

• experience solitude 

• experience the natural world without the 

intrusions of modern life 

• experience views as far as the eye can see 

without evidence of humans in the 

landscape 

• see plants and animals in their natural 

settings 

• experience the richness of biological 

diversity in the park 

• visit a historic site and see how early 

inhabitants of this area lived 

• make self-discoveries and establish a 

connection to park resources 

• experience Mexican culture by visiting one 

of the border towns adjacent to the park 

• contemplate their own roles and 

responsibilities in the stewardship of natural 

and cultural resources 

• enjoy a variety of appropriate recreational 

opportunities that are compatible with the 

protection of park resources 
222 

APPENDIX E: DRAFT WILDERNESS SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 

DRAFT 

L48-(ScRM) 

September 14, 2002 

MEMORANDUM 

From: Regional Director, Intermountain Region 

To: Director 

Subject: Wilderness Suitability Assessment – North Rosillos area of Big 

Bend Bend National Park 

The Intermountain Regional Office determines that the North Rosillos addition of 

Big Bend National Park contains roadless and undeveloped Federal lands of 

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

suitable as wilderness. 

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

undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without 

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

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

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

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

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

Wilderness Act and NPS Policies. 

The determination applied the following Management Policies criteria: 

National Park Service lands will be considered suitable for wilderness if 

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

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

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

223 

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

where humans are visitors and do not remain; 

• The area is undeveloped and retains its primeval character and 

influence, without permanent improvements or human 

habitation; 

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

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

unnoticeable; 

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

conditions, and 

• The area offers outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation. 

NPS Management Policies (2001) 6.2.1.1 

Primary Suitability Criteria. 

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

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

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

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

area offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or for primitive and unconfined 

recreation. 

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

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

county maintained road; and its 3 mile administrative access road leading to an NPS 

aircraft facility. 

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

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

non-federal ownership. 

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

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

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

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

road and NPS boundary corners. 

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

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

Sincerely, 
224 

APPENDIX F: STATEMENT OF FINDINGS FOR FLOODPLAINS 

STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 

FOR 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 

Rio Grande Village Developed Area & Cottonwood Campground 

General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

Big Bend National Park 

Recommended:___________________________________________________________ 

 Superintendent, Big Bend National Park Date 

Concurred:_______________________________________________________________ 

 Chief, Water Resources Division Date 

Approved:_______________________________________________________________ 

 Director, Intermountain Region Date 
Appendix F: Statement of Findings for Floodplains 

225 

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

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

for the development at Rio Grande Village and Cottonwood Campground and has prepared this 

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

(GMP) for the park, the SOF describes the flood hazard, alternatives, impacts, mitigation, and 

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

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

USE OF THE FLOODPLAIN 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bank erosion. 

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

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

subject to bank loss. 

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

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

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

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

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

available, 

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

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

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

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

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

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

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

campers. 

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

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

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

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

226 

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

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

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

FLOOD HAZARD FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

WITHOUT MITIGATION

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

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

information is from the report of that trip. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

locations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

great concern. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

be made available to visitors. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

227 

THE PROPOSED ACTION 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romtech vault toilets. 

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

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

plans would address the following points: 

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

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

• Notification protocols for park staff, visitors, and campers 

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

• Preparation of informational and warning signs, brochures 

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

Weather Service 

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

especially when the watershed is saturated by previous rains 

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

• Formalization of evacuation routes and mobilization sites for rescue 

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

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

Resources Management Plan, Big Bend National Park, Texas: 

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

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

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

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

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

• Train park personnel for flood contingency. 

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

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

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

gauging stations between Presidio and Rio Grande Village. 

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

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

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

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

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

228 

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

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

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

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

basis, or converting them to day use picnicking only. 

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

flooding information that becomes available. 

REFERENCES 

National Park Service 

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

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

Colorado. 

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

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

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

D. Flora, Water Resources Division. 
Appendix F: Statement of Findings for Floodplains 

229 

STATEMENTS OF FINDINGS 

FOR 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 

Panther Junction Developed Area 

General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

Big Bend National Park 

Recommended:___________________________________________________________ 

 Superintendent, Big Bend National Park Date 

Concurred:_______________________________________________________________ 

 Chief, Water Resources Division Date 

Approved:_______________________________________________________________ 

 Director, Intermountain Region Date 
APPENDIXES

230 

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the GMP. 

USE OF THE FLOODPLAIN 

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

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

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

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

regulatory floodplain is the Qme. This is an extremely large event with a very low probability of 

occurrence. It is used as the regulatory floodplain here to provide a high degree of safety from runoff 

events that may inundate an area in a very short time (NPS WRD 1995: “Estimation of Flood and 

Geomorphic Hazard in the Panther Canyon Area of Big Bend National Park Texas”). 

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

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

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

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

Basin. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

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

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

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

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

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

moved by that entity. 

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

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

removal. A 12-room motel unit, one employee house and the bunkhouse will be removed from Chisos 

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

231 

FLOOD RISK 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

have lower depths and velocities... 

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

magnitude flooding was observed.... 
APPENDIXES

232 

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

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

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

Debris Flow Hazard 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bank Loss Hazard 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

channel area. 

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

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

233 

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

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

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

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

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

but, if possible, could be extremely destructive. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

not mentioned are scheduled for replacement in a less flood-prone area of Panther Junction (as 

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

PROPOSED ACTION 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Junction continued. 

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

threats. The plan would address the following points: 

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

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

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

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

plan. 

• Preparation of informational and warning signs, and brochures. 

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

Weather Service. 

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

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

Junction.) 

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

especially when the watershed is saturated by previous rains. 

• Preemptive housing area closure using the decision tree. 

• Formalization of evacuation routes and mobilization sites for rescue. 

• Train park personnel for flood contingency. 

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

234 

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

from the 500-year floodplain. 

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

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

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

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

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

entirely. 

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

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

Junction, other locations in the park, or outside the park. 

SUMMARY 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Junction continued. 

The park service will create a developed area warning and evacuation plan to ensure that employees, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

available. 

Note from floodplain guidelines: 

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

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

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

REFERENCES 

National Park Service 

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

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

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

235 

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

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

Flora, Water Resources Division. 

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

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

subject of “Summary of Panther Junction Flood Hazard,” April 14, 2000. 
236 

APPENDIX G: UNINVESTIGATED POSSIBLE CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

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

investigated further in the 1999 reconnaissance due to time limitations: 

Sites scattered across the park:

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

Chilicotal Spring with candelilla wax processing plant 

Croton Spring 

de la Ho’s Spring with candelilla wax processing plant 

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

 Dodson Spring with candelilla wax processing plant 

Graham Ranch 

Grapevine Spring/ranch 

Dominguez Ranch 

Ernst Basin 

Ernst Tinaja 

Fresno 

Fossil bone exhibit 

Grapevine Ranch 

Gravel Pit and La Clocha 

Harte Ranch/North Rosillos Addition 

Juniper Canyon 

Laguna Meadows Cabin 

Marufo Vega Trail 

Maverick Junction/old Maverick Road 

Mule Ear spring/ranch/Mule Ears corral 

Nine Point Draw 

Nugent Mountain 

Oak Springs Ranch 

Paint Gap Ranch 

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

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

Robbers Roost 

Ross Maxwell Scenic Drive 

San Jacinto Spring with Candelilla wax processing plant 

Telephone Canyon 

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

Sites along Rio Grande between Castolon and Mariscal Canyon: 

Buenos Aires 

Smoky Creek 

Black Dike 

Sierra Chino 

Cemetery (unnamed) 

Reed 

Jewels 

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

Pettit’s site 

Pantera site and cemetery 

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

237 

Sites along Rio Grande between Mariscal Canyon and Hot Springs: 

Solis Landing 

Grave (unnamed) 

Solis Ranch 

Compton Place with Candelilla wax processing plant 

Rooney’s Place 

Casa de Piedra 
238 

APPENDIX H: SOIL TYPES AND LIMITATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT BY 

ALTERNATIVE 

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

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

Soils with Moderate or Severe Limitations for Actions in Alternative A 

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

mitigation prior to design of the listed facilities. 

Developed Area Actions Soil Type 

Chisos Basin •Upgrade water system 

•Place electrical lines 

underground 

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

Water erosion is a severe hazard because of steep slopes. 

Excavating for underground utilities is difficult. 

Limitations for shallow excavations – 

 Liv severe: slope 

 Mainstay, severe: depth to rock, slope 

 Rock Outcrop, severe depth to rock, slope 

Rio Grande 

Village 

•Retain campsites, visitor 

center, housing and 

maintenance areas, store, and 

gas station. 

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

Tornillo loam, occasionally flooded. 

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

because of steep slopes. 

Glendale-Harkey soils are located in the floodplain and 

occasional flooding is the major limitation for campsites, 

picnic areas and building sites. The picnic area and sewage 

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

During high intensity rainstorms, this soil type is flooded 

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

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

erosion is a severe hazard. 

Limitations on Glendale Harkey – 

 shallow excavations – moderate: flooding 

 small commercial buildings – severe: flooding 

 dwellings without basements – severe: flooding 

 campsites – severe: flooding 

Castolon •Upgrade water and fire 

system. 

Chamberino very gravelly loam, rolling (CHD). 

Limitations for shallow excavations, moderate slope 

Cottonwood 

Campground 

•Retain campsites. Glendale-Harkey association, occasionally flooded 

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

occasional flooding is the major limitation for campsites 

and picnic areas. 

North Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch 

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

Persimmon Gap No actions in alternative A. 

Maverick No actions in alternative A. 

Gateway 

communities 

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

239 

Soils with Moderate or Severe Limitations for Actions in Alternative B 

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

mitigation prior to design of the listed facilities. 

Developed Area Actions Soil Type 

Chisos Basin •Remove one 12-room motel 

building, 1 employee residence 

and one 12-bed bunk house 

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

Water erosion is severe because of steep slopes. Hurds 

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

hazard. 

Limitations for shallow excavations – 

 Liv severe: slope 

 Mainstay, severe: depth to rock, slope 

 Rock Outcrop, severe depth to rock, slope 

Panther Junction •Construct visitor center 

•Construct storage warehouse 

•Rehabilitate headquarters for 

additional offices 

•Construct employee residence, and 12-bed bunkhouse 

•Move up to 15 percent of 

personnel and functions to 

gateway communities 

•Upgrade water system 

Chilicotal-Monterosa association, rolling (CMD) 

Limitations for shallow excavations – 

 Chilicotal: moderate: slope 

 Monterosa: severe: cemented pan, small stones small 

 commercial buildings – severe: slope & cemented 

 pan 

Rio Grande 

Village 

•Relocate some campsites to 

reduce impacts on Gambusia 

•Find and develop an 

alternative water source so that 

endangered fish and people do 

not share the same source. 

•Return former overflow 

camping area to natural 

conditions 

•Enlarge concession 

campground (RV) by 

approximately 40% in area not 

to exceed 30 additional sites. 

Add islands. 

•Construct 4 housing units if a 

water source is found 

•Construct one fire bay 

•Expand visitor center to add 4 

offices or build 4-office 

building 

•Upgrade water system 

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

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

hazard of water erosion is severe because of steep slopes. 

Glendale-Harkey soils are located in the floodplain and 

occasional flooding is the major limitation for campsites, 

picnic areas and building sites. The picnic area and sewage 

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

During high intensity rainstorms, this soil type is flooded 

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

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

erosion is a severe hazard. 

Limitations on Glendale-Harkey – 

 small commercial buildings – severe: flooding 

 dwellings without basements – severe: flooding 

 campsites – severe: flooding 

Castolon •Construct 2 housing units 

•Construct fire bay 

Chamberino very gravelly loam (CHD) 

Limitations for 

 shallow excavations and dwellings without basements – 

 moderate, slope 

 small commercial buildings – severe: slope 

 
APPENDIXES

240 

Developed Area Actions Soil Type 

Cottonwood 

Campground 

•Relocate some campsites 

farther from the river 

•Construct new egress road 

Glendale-Harkey association (GHA), occasionally 

flooded; these soils are located in the floodplain 

Limitations for 

 campsites – severe: flooding 

 local roads – Glendale severe: flooding, low strength; 

 Harkey, severe: flooding 

North Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch 

•Preserve structures around 

Buttrill Spring 

•Construct interpretive trail at 

Buttrill Spring 

•Possibly construct a Rosillos 

trail 

Area not covered by 1985 soil survey. 

Persimmon Gap •Construct duplex if a water 

source can be found 

Paharito-Agustin (PAA) at visitor contact station 

Upton-Nickel at trailer site (duplex site) 

Limitations for 

 Dwellings without basements – Upton moderate: 

 cemented pan; Nickel slight 

 Septic tank absorption fields – Upton severe: cemented 

 pan; Nickel severe: percolates slowly 

Maverick •Construct entrance station at 

park boundary 

•Remove existing entrance 

station 

Vieja-Badland complex, rolling (VBD). 

Limitations for 

 Small commercial buildings – Upton, moderate: 

 cemented pan; Nickel, moderate: slope 

 Septic tank absorption fields – severe: depth to rock 

Gateway 

communities 

Construct or lease residences 

and offices (Some of the 15% of 

employees who would be 

moved would rent or buy their 

own residences.) 

Soils with Moderate or Severe Limitations for Actions in Alternative C 

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

mitigation prior to design of the listed facilities. 

Developed Area Actions Soil Type 

Chisos Basin •Remove all development 

except main road. 

•Construct trailhead and 

parking 

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

erosion is a severe hazard because of steep slopes. 

Excavating for underground utilities is difficult.) 

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

Limitations for paths and trails – 

 Liv and Mainstay – severe: slope and small stones 

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

241 

Developed Area Actions Soil Type 

Panther Junction •Construct administration 

building and warehouse, 

•Rehabilitate headquarters 

into a visitor center 

•Moving up to 15 percent of 

personnel and functions to 

gateway communities; 

•Upgrade water system 

Chilicotal-Monterosa association, rolling (Wind and water 

erosion are only slight hazards for Chilicotal and 

Monterosa soils because of gravel on the surface.) 

Limitations for shallow excavations – 

 Chilicotal: moderate: slope 

 Monterosa: severe: slope and cemented pan, small stones 

Limitations for small commercial buildings – 

 Monterosa: severe: slope and cemented pan 

Rio Grande 

Village 

•Remove all development 

except the main road to a day 

use trailhead 

•Extend Hot Springs trail to 

new trailhead, nature trail to 

Boquillas crossing 

Lozier-Rock outcrop complex, steep; Glendale-Harkey 

association, occasionally flooded; and Tornillo loam, 

occasionally flooded. For Lozier-rock outcrop, the hazard 

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

flooding is the major limitation for campsites, picnic areas 

and building sites. During high intensity rainstorms, this soil 

type is flooded by sheet water as much as several inches 

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

8 years. Water erosion is a severe hazard. 

Limitations for 

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

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

Limitations for 

 shallow excavations – moderate, slope 

 small commercial buildings – severe: slope 

Cottonwood 

Campground 

•Relocate some campsites 

farther from the river 

•Construct new egress road 

Glendale-Harkey association, occasionally flooded; These 

soils are located in the floodplain and occasional flooding is 

the major limitation for campsites, picnic areas and building 

sites. 

Limitations for – 

 campsites – severe: flooding 

 local roads – Glendale severe: flooding, low strength 

 Harkey, severe: flooding 

North Rosillos/ 

Harte Ranch 

•Construct interpretive trail 

at Buttrill Spring 

•Possibly construct a Rosillos 

trail 

Area not covered by 1985 soil survey. 

Persimmon Gap None 

Maverick •Construct entrance station at 

park boundary 

•Remove existing entrance 

station 

Vieja-Badland complex, rolling 

Limitations for 

 Small commercial buildings – Upton, moderate: 

 cemented pan; Nickel, moderate: slope 

 Septic tank absorption fields – severe: depth to rock 

Gateway 

communities 

Construct or lease residences 

and offices (some of the 15% 

of employees who would be 

moved would rent or buy 

their own residences.) 
242 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Brewster County, Texas 

1991 Gift Deed assigning 9,269 acres known as the 

Christmas Mountains Ranch to the State of 

Texas, on behalf of the Permanent School 

Fund. 

Dobb, Edwin

2000 “Can Humans Help Other Species Defy 

Extinction?” High Country News, 

December 18. 

International Boundary Water Commission 

(United States and Mexico Sections), the 

National Water Commission of Mexico, and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1994 Binational Study Regarding the Presence of 

Toxic Substances in the Rio Grande/Rio 

Bravo and its Tributaries along the 

Boundary Portion Between the United 

States and Mexico. 250 pp. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior 

1984 Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Proposed Wilderness Classification, Big 

Bend National Park, Texas.

1986 “Land Protection Plan, Big Bend National 

Park, Texas.” 

1989 “Resource Evaluation of the Christmas 

Mountains, Brewster County, Texas. Big 

Bend National Park,” assisted by the 

Southwest Regional Office. 

1992 Memorandum “Trip report for travel to 

Petroglyph National Monument and Big 

Bend National Park on November 12-18, 

1991.” To Chief, Water Resources 

Division, Through Chief, Water 

Operations Branch from Gary Smillie, 

Hydrologist, Water Operations Branch 

and Mike Martin, Hydrologic Technician, 

Water Operations Branch January 3, 1992. 

1992b Memorandum “Floodplain Delineation 

near the Terlingua Abaja Area, Terlingua 

Creek, Big Bend National Park.” To Keith 

Yarborough, Park Scientist, Big Bend 

National Park, From Bill Jackson, Chief, 

Water Operations Branch, Water 

Resources Division. March 3, 1992. 

1993a Floodplain Management Guideline. 

Washington, DC.

1993b Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design. 

1993c “Visitor Services Project, Big Bend 

National Park.” University of Idaho 

Cooperative Park Studies Unit. Visitor 

Services Project Report 45 by Margaret 

Littlejohn. 

1994 Protecting the National Parks in Texas 

through Enforcement of Water Quality 

Standards: An Exploratory Analysis. 

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

of the Interior, National Park Service by 

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station 

Texas A&M University, College Station, 

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

Hammill. 96 pp. 

1994b Big Bend National Park, Texas, Wildland 

Fire Management Plan. Big Bend National 

Park with assistance from Southwest 

Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

1995 “Estimation of Flood and Geomorphic 

Hazard in the Panther Canyon Area of Big 

Bend National Park, Texas”. Water 

Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO. 

1995b “Executive Summary,” Estimation of 

Flood and Geomorphic Hazard in the 

Panther Canyon Area of Big Bend 

National Park, Texas. Water Resources 

Division, Fort Collins, CO. 

1996 Water Resources Management Plan, Big 

Bend National Park, Texas. Project 

coordinators: Robert D. MacNish and 

Laurel J. Lacher, Arizona Research 

Laboratory for Riparian Studies, 

Department of Hydrology and Water 

Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, 

Arizona; Carl M. Flemming, National 

Park Service, Big Bend National Park, 

Texas and Mark D. Flora, National Park 

Service, Water Resources Division, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

1997a “NPS Strategic Plan, Big Bend National 

Park, Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River.” 

Intermountain Region. 

1997b Resources Management Plan, Big Bend 

National Park 
Bibliography 

243 

1998a National Park Service Procedural Manual 

77-1: Wetland Protection. Technical Report 

NPS/NRWRD/ NRTR-98/203. Denver, 

CO. 

1999 Environmental Assessment for Construction 

of a Curatorial and Research Office 

Facility, Panther Junction Developed Area, 

Big Bend National Park. April 2, 1999. 

Division of Science and Resource 

Management, Big Bend National Park. 

2000a Memorandum “Summary of Panther 

Junction Flood Hazard,” Water 

Resources Division (April 14, 2000). To 

Superintendent, Big Bend National Park, 

Through Bill Jackson, Chief, Water 

Operations Branch, From Michael 

Martin, Hydrologist, Water Operations 

Branch. 

2001a Management Policies 2001. Washington, 

DC. 

2001b Water Conservation Plan for Public Water 

Supplies: Castolon, Chisos Basin, Panther 

Junction, Rio Grande Village, Big Bend 

National Park, Texas. (Internal NPS draft) 

January 2001. 18 pages 

2001c Drought Contingency Plan for Public Water 

Supplies: Castolon, Chisos Basin, Panther 

Junction, Rio Grande Village, Big Bend 

National Park, Texas. (Internal NPS draft) 

January 2001. 11 pages 

2001d “Focus on the Parks” in Arrowhead 

Employees and Alumni Association, Spring 

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

2002 Environmental Assessment of Effect, Safety

Improvements on Route 12, Mile 14, Project 

PRA BIBE 12 (2) Rio Grande Road, Big 

Bend National Park, Texas. January 2002 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, and National Parks and Conservation 

Association 

2001a “Big Bend National Park Business Plan”. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 

2001 Personal communication August 7, 2001, 

Texas State Office, Temple, Texas. Sam 

Brown (no prime and unique farmlands at 

Big Bend National Park). 

Protected Area for Flora and Fauna, Canon 

Santa Elena, Mexico 

1998 Management Program 

Protected Area for Flora and Fauna, Maderas 

del Carmen, Mexico 

1998 Management Program

Texas Natural Resources Conservation 

Commission 

1994 Regional Assessment of Water Quality in the 

Rio Grande Basin Including the Pecos 

River, the Devil’s River, the Arroyo 

Colorado, and the Lower Laguna Madre.

Watershed Management Division, Austin, 

Texas. 337 pp 

Texas Parks and Wildlife 

1994 Big Bend Ranch State Natural Area, 

Management Plan, 45 pp 

1995 TORP (Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan), 

Assessment and Policy Plan, Consumer 

Research, Austin, Texas. 191 pp 

Texas Water Commission 

1992 Regional Assessment of Water Quality in the 

Rio Grande Basin Including the Pecos 

River, the Devil’s River, the Arroyo 

Colorado, and the Lower Laguna Madre, 

Standards and Assessments Division, 

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

pages plus appendixes 

U.S Environmental Protection Agency 

1998 Environmental Justice Guidance. From the 

Internet at 

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ofa/ejepa.html

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

of the Interior 

1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States. Prepared for 

the USFWS by Lewis M. Cowardin 

(USFWS), Virginia Carter (USGS), 

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

Edward T. LaRoe (NOAA). Reprint 1992. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

244 

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

of Agriculture 

1985 Soil Survey of Big Bend National Park, Part 

of Brewster County, Texas. By Rex A. 

Cochran and Jerry L. Rives. 

University of Colorado, The Center for 

Advanced Decision Support in Water and 

Environmental Systems; The Houston Advanced 

Research Center; Institute for Social and 

Environmental Transition; Instituto 

Technologico de Estudios Superiores de 

Monterrey (The Monterrey Institute of 

Technology; The Environmental and Societal 

Impacts Group at the National Center for 

Atmospheric Research; The Natural Heritage 

Institute; The Freshwater Initiative of The 

Nature Conservancy, The University of New 

Mexico; Center for Environmental Resource 

Management, The University of Texas at El 

Paso; Utah State University, World Wildlife 

Fund; and additional Mexican Counterpart 

Institutions to be Identified 

2000 A Physical Assessment of the Opportunities 

for Improved Management of the Water 

Resources of the Bi-National Rio Grande 

Basin. 

Wuerthner, G. 

1989 Texas’ Big Bend Country. American 

Geographic Publishing, Helena, Montana. 

104 pp. 
Preparers 

245 

PREPARERS 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Denver Service Center 

John Paige, Cultural Resource Specialist – 

overall project coordination, analysis of 

cultural resources, costs 

Mary Magee, Natural Resource Specialist – 

natural resource and regional planning 

analysis, statements of findings for 

floodplains 

Harpers Ferry Center

Paul Lee, Interpretive Planner – visitor use and 

visitor experience analysis and affected 

environment 

Big Bend National Park 

Frank Deckert, Superintendent – overall park 

management 

Lou Good, Management Assistant – park 

coordination of general management 

planning 

Vidal Davila, Chief, Science and Resource 

Management – natural and cultural resource 

information 

Jim Erickson, Chief Facilities Management – 

facilities and water use 

Lisa Bigley, Chief of Interpretation and Visitor 

Services – interpretive and visitor service 

concerns, themes, impacts 

Todd Brindle, Chief of Visitor and Resource 

Protection – visitor protection needs and 

impacts 

Raymond Skiles, Wildlife Biologist – natural 

resource concerns and impacts 

Betty Alex, GIS Specialist – maps 

Tom Alex, Archeologist – cultural resource 

concerns and impacts 

Jo Sirotnak, Botanist – threatened and 

endangered species 

Carol Purchase, Hydrologist – water resource 

issues 

Other (Peer Reviewers) 

Ellis Richard, Superintendent, Guadalupe 

Mountains National Park 

Bill Wellman, Superintendent, Organ Pipe 

Cactus National Park 

Publication Services 

Linda Ray, Technical Specialist, Denver Service 

Center 

Christy Fischer, Writer-Editor, Denver Service 

Center 

CONSULTANTS 

National Park Service

Pete Biggam, Soil Scientist, Natural Resource 

Program Center, Inventory and Monitoring 

Program 

Mike Martin, Hydrologist, Water Operations 

Branch, Water Resources Division, 

Washington Office 

John Reber, Air and Water Resource 

Coordinator, Intermountain Region 

Laura Hudson, Former Program Manager for 

Threatened and Endangered Species, 

Intermountain Region 

Other 

Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. of Parsons 

Infrastructure and Technology Group Inc. – 

Steve Miller and Brian Farris, socioeconomic 

affected environment and environmental 

impacts