Big Bend Administrative History

As with the master planning process, the 1984 natural-resources review offered cogent solutions to problems of long-standing in the park. No fewer than eleven recommendations revolved around the hiring of more staff to round up trespass stock, remove fire dangers, catalogue cultural resources, conduct backcountry patrols, and execute more effective law enforcement. The reviewer called for the building of entrance stations at Persimmon Gap and Maverick to "deter much illegal activity that impacts the resources of the park." The park did not collect entrance fees at these locations, but the monies generated might support better surveillance and ranger presence at these extremes of the park's boundaries. In addition, the park could use a botanist to "develop baseline information on the vegetative composition at the species level," and a "park archaeologist to locate sites, re-evaluate earlier documented sites, compile data, coordinate research planning, and develop an archaeological protection program." The Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River needed its own staff so that Big Bend rangers "could spend additional time on duties and responsibilities in the park." Likewise, the park would benefit from a full-time employee serving as "liaison with neighboring Mexican states and communities to help mitigate resource threats which originate in Mexico." "The price will be high to protect those things for which the park was established," concluded the reviewer. Yet "it is a price well worth paying," as "continued impacts and damage to the park's resources cannot be allowed to continue." Ignoring these features of resource management "will mean that our mandates have not been fulfilled, and that future generations will be denied the right to experience this park in an 'unimpaired' state." [38]

The 1984 review of Big Bend had echoed challenges laid before the park since its inception four decades earlier. Thus it came as little surprise to superintendent Jim Carrico that the park faced crises of use and preservation as visitation returned with the easing in the 1980s of energy prices. Carrico oversaw in his first year at the park (1986) a "statement for management." He and his staff calculated that visitation, which now could be estimated more accurately with the installation of traffic counters at the Persimmon Gap and Maverick entrances, had rebounded from 1983's low of 198,708 to 226,559 in 1985. Carrico noted that "concessioner lodging dropped dramatically as a result of the closure of the CCC 'Dallas Huts' as concessioner lodging in April 1979." In addition, "the Panther Junction concessioner campground was closed in March 1981, and no new sites were opened elsewhere." The park also began collecting fees for overflow camping at Rio Grande Village. Backcountry-use numbers had risen substantially in January 1979, when the park began registering users of the Rio Grande for float trips. Then in 1985 the park included rafters on the wild and scenic river sections below the park boundaries. [39]

Carrico and the 1986 review team noted the impact of changing land-use patterns on the park, among them the formation of 40-acre "ranchettes" to the west of Big Bend. "The impact of the development on the natural environment," said the report, "is intensified by access roads, ranging from crude paths to paved roads, and utility lines." Many of the newcomers lived in trailers, and used septic tanks and pit toilets. One attraction for settlement in the area was the annual "Terlingua World Chili Cookoff," which the reviewers noted "attracts several thousand people annually," and which increased the demand for park law enforcement. The growth of hunting lodges and "charging fees for hunting native and non-native species is a growing business that has just recently become a management concern for the park." Formation of the 312,000-acre Big Bend Ranch State Park some 30 miles west of the NPS boundary would result in plans to "sell 1,000-acre shares (undivided interest) to various individuals for use as a private hunting preserve and to keep several thousand acres for facilities supportive of the hunting preserve activities." Yet another resource threat discovered in 1986 was the drilling of exploratory oil and gas wells within fifteen miles of the park. The reviewers could not determine "whether they were 'dry holes,' or they were capped because of current low oil and gas prices." [40]

The reviewers also took note of the discussions underway in the 1980s between Mexico and the United States to revive the idea of an international park. On August 14, 1983, U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Mexican President Miguel de la Madrid signed an environmental accord that "provides both countries with the necessary legal document to speed up anti-pollution efforts along the border." Superintendent Carrico had met with the NPS's Office of International Affairs to explain the concerns of Big Bend and its wild and scenic river, and sought "possible international activities which could enhance a joint effort to solve common problems." One issue that the reviewers mentioned was Mexico's decision to halt construction of the Muzquiz-Boquillas highway, with the latter project stopped some 60 miles away from the border. Carrico wanted the international discussions to include the drug trade and contraband smuggling. Water pollution also concerned Carrico, as the reviewers learned of "the use of DDT along the border and its entry into waters of the Rio Grande by means of waters released from the Rio Conchos Dam in Chihuahua, Mexico and high rainfall." This phenomenon, thought the reviewers, resulted in "the near extinction of the peregrine falcon populations within the Rio Grande floodplain." Finally, the reviewers addressed the increase in air pollution in the park. In 1986, these threats came from potash plants in Carlsbad, New Mexico, and the urban centers of El Paso-Ciudad Juarez and Midland-Odessa. They also noted the presence of "uncontrolled fires" in Mexico, and suggested that "proposed coal-fired power plants in Mexico west of Nuevo Laredo could adversely affect the park in the years ahead." [41]

The decade of the 1990s brought its own changes and alterations to park management at Big Bend. The master planning process would be revisited late in the decade, with a draft circulated for public review in the summer of 2001. The early years of the decade witnessed the confrontation between park superintendent Rob Arnberger and the NPCI management, resulting in a court case settled in NPCI's favor. Superintendent Jose Cisneros would devote his attention to improving work conditions for the staff, upgrading business operations, and addressing issues of natural and cultural resource protection that earlier master plans had recommended but which the NPS had yet to implement. These efforts could be seen in the development of a "Friends" group to offer private support of park interpretation and facilities development, the decision by the NPS to put the concessions contract out for bid (after nearly six decades of management by NPCI), and the construction of a separate building for the operations of the Big Bend Natural History Association (which had shared space in the park visitors center since the 1960s). By the year 2000, the park would host 264,684 visitors in a park of 801,163 acres in size, utilizing 135 permanent and seasonal employees, and 180 volunteers. Frank Deckert, former chief naturalist at Big Bend, would assume command as superintendent in January of 2000, and would oversee the continuation of the changes initiated by his predecessors. [42]

The 2001 draft of the Big Bend master plan revealed much about the process of park management over the previous 67 years, even as it sought a new generation of ideas for operations of the vast resource in west Texas. Park planners analyzed four critical features of the park that had parallels with every study done of Big Bend since the 1930s. Balancing resource preservation with visitor use loomed large as always, as did the issue of air and water quality and "the best ways to foster a cross border relationship with Mexico." The master plan recognized that much of the park's operations were linked to forces beyond its boundaries and its control. From the collection of data and input from the general public, the planners strove to craft four "action alternatives," which they reminded readers of the plan would "support the park's purpose and significance, address issues, avoid unacceptable resource impacts, respond to public wishes and concerns, and meet the park's long-term goals." [43]

Of the four options outlined by the planners for Big Bend, the range included leaving operations unchanged to dramatic reductions in facilities and access (all of which the NPS had discussed at length since the 1960s). Alternative A called for "current management direction," with "no significant change in interpretation and management of the park." The second option for the planners (Alternative B) would provide "better protection for the park's natural resources and upgrade park facilities." Chisos Basin would receive no new construction, while the sites at Panther Junction, Castolon and Rio Grande Village would gain new facilities to ease the burden of visitor use on the Chisos Basin. The Harte Ranch addition would be managed "to preserve the tangible remains of West Texas ranching, including the preservation of structures around Buttrill Spring, Mountain Lodge, Bone Spring, and other sites associated with ranching." The park would continue maintenance of the ranch landing strip, and apply backcountry non-wilderness rules to most of the land. Finally, Alternative B would "encourage the Texas General Land Office to find a buyer for the [Christmas Mountains] who would manage it to be compatible with park purposes." [44]

It was Alternatives C and D, however, that suggested the more radical approaches to management at Big Bend, and which followed most closely the suggestions of the 1970s planners for substantive change in operations and use. The planners named their third option "providing for natural resource stewardship and preservation while creating a more sustainable park." They defined this as park facility design that "would sit lightly upon the land demonstrating resource efficiency, and promoting ecology restoration and integrity." Like their predecessors a generation earlier, the 2001 planning team called in Alternative C for the NPS to "remove all concession and park facilities from Chisos Basin except for campground and two residences for law-enforcement and maintenance." Where the land already was "disturbed," the planners suggested "a day-use trailhead." Then the park should "relocate the lodge and concessions operations to an area between Basin Junction and Panther Junction." Anticipating opposition to this idea, the planners went the next step and stated: "If this action were not feasible, then permit no concession lodging in the park." Panther Junction, Castolon, and Rio Grande Village would expand to meet the visitor-use needs created by closure of the Basin. The Harte Ranch should receive a wilderness study, and the park should "exclude the county road, landing strip with surrounding buildings, and mountain lodge from this study." Then the park would allow the remaining structures "to deteriorate in place," or be removed for visitor safety, and the land managed as wilderness. [45]

Readers of the 2001 draft master plan would confront in Alternative D the most striking evidence for the NPS's old dream of a restored landscape at Big Bend. "This alternative," wrote the planners, "would provide for the enduring protection and preservation of the park's natural resources." All concession and park facilities in the Chisos Basin would be removed, and the NPS would "permit no concession lodging in the park." Instead, the private sector would be encouraged to build accommodations outside the boundaries. Then the NPS could apply wilderness management regulations to the Chisos Basin. At Panther Junction and Castolon, visitor facilities and park operations would receive the upgrades outlined in earlier alternatives. It would be at Rio Grande Village, however, that the planners would offer a dramatic change. The 2001 plan suggested that the NPS "remove the gas station, store, visitor center, campsites, and park support facilities." In their place the park would "revegetate most of the area." This would "allow a more natural appearance to occur," especially with the use of "native drought-tolerant species." Yet another step towards the restoration of the village area would be exploration of "options for reallocating the park's portion of river irrigation water to maintaining the flow and quantity of water in the Rio Grande." The Barker House would be allowed to deteriorate naturally, and the NPS would "manage most of the Rio Grande Village area following the backcountry nonwilderness prescription." Once all this was completed, said the planners, the park service then could "enlarge the park's boundary to include the Christmas Mountains and seek funds for land acquisition." [46]

A close reading of the 2001 master plan reveals the impact of history on the operations of Big Bend National Park, and of the struggles that the park service encountered in fulfilling its congressional mandates to preserve America's natural and cultural treasures for the benefit of future generations. Park policy planners and park staff alike knew of the pressures on the land, and of the fragility of the environment that the NPS inherited in 1944 when the state of Texas agreed to purchase half of the acreage originally considered for Big Bend. The development of park facilities in the first decades of operations peaked with the dedication of Mission 66 construction in 1960. Then the NPS and Big Bend faced the rise of the environmental movement and its challenge to the development ethic that had suffused park planning in the years after World War II. Park managers and staff went through phases of commitment and indifference to the challenge of operations, while the nation debated in the years after 1960 not only the use of its national parks, but their funding (and at times their very existence). The closure of the park in the fall and winter of 1995-1996 because of budget debates in Congress revealed to park staff and local residents the importance of Big Bend to themselves and to the nation. Yet the return of full operations in the spring of 1996 started the process of accommodation and opposition once more. How the park service responded to this history of management would say much about its commitment to the goals of preservation, and how it would learn from its history of efforts to uphold those standards in trying times and in distant places like Big Bend.

Figure 20: Chisos Mountain Lodge, Coffee Shop (1960s)