Draft General Management Plan, Environmental Assessment: Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site, Texas

182 Pages·1997·8.8 MB·English

by  National Park Service

P
I 29.79/3: 18
Draft
ssessment
FEDERAL
r^UBLICATION
o- a 'V
't'«.i*A,«, k \
A-' Zvtj,,' >,, r, ^ ' A
,#
._JUGDOCUMENTS
^^DSITORY
ITEM
JUN 1 3 1997
N clemson'^^ ^^*
?T- •
- LIBRARY
'^A^aMb .v,,
* t
1 1
:Yri
r t-ttc /^
'/^«
;.^<>.^
PALO ALTO BATTLEFIELD
National Historic Site Texas
•
U.S. Department of the Interior -National Park Service
C--.c.:
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED
PAPER
Draft
General Management Plan
Environmental Assessment
PALO ALTO BATTLEFIELD
National Historic Site Cameron County, Texas
This Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Assessment describes and analyzes alternatives for the
managementanduse ofPalo Alto BattlefieldNational Historic Site. Palo Altowas established in 1978 andexpanded
in 1992 to protect and interpret the events, causes, and consequences related to the War between Mexico and the
United States from the perspective ofboth nations. A proposed action alternative, a no-action alternative, and one
other alternative have been developed forthe park. Under alternative 1 (no action) current use and management
would continueunderthe direction oftheexistingInterim OperationsPlan. Education andresearch programs would
continue, interpretation would be limited to displays at two small visitor contact stations and prearranged guided
tours, and facilitieswould be limitedto small parkingareas and atemporary visitorcontact station at the battlefield.
Headquarters would continue to be in a leased building in Brownsville, and there would be minimal formal
cooperativeeffortsto protect or interpret Resacade la Palma and Fort Brown. Underalternative 2 (the proposed
action) cooperative agreements would facilitate the interpretation and protection ofthe three primary war-related
sites in the Brownsville area. A visitor center and trail system would provide access to and interpretation ofthe
battlefield. The cityofBrownsville would purchase Resaca de la Palma, develop a headquarters facility for lease to
theNational Park Service, and interpretthe site with assistance from the Park Service. The Park Service would enter
intoacooperative agreement with the International Boundaryand WaterCommission to protect and interpret Fort
Brownbyprovidingavisitorcontact facilityonthe campus ofTexas SouthmostCollegethrough anothercooperative
agreement. A research facilitywould be developed and cooperativelyoperated by the National Park Service and the
University ofTexas at Brownsville on the Texas Southmost College campus. Alternative 3 analyzes what would
happen ifthe Park Service purchasedand/ormanagedallthree sites and developed all needed facilities at Palo Alto
Battlefield. The major impact topics assessed are cultural and natural resources, socioeconomic conditions, and
visitor use. This document was prepared to evaluate the alternatives, to assess the impacts ofimplementing each
alternative, andtoprovidethepublicwithanopportunitytocomment. Thisplanwill beon public reviewfor60days.
Comments should be received no laterthan June 30, 1997, and should be submitted to:
Superintendent
Palo Alto BattlefieldNational Historic Site
1623 Central Boulevard, Suite 213
Brownsville, TX 78520-8326
Foradditional information please contactthe park at the above address orby telephone [phone].
United States Department ofthe Interior National Park Service
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS IVIembers and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/draftgeneralmanaOOpalo
SUMMARY
This Draft GeneralManagementPlan/ agreements. The integrity and character of
EnvironmentalAssessment is intended to each site would be maintained by limiting
guide tiie management ofPalo Alto Battlefield development to only that necessary to enhance
National Historic Site for the next 15 years. the visitor experience. Vehicle access would
This plan seeks to enable park management-to be provided to a viewpoint near the battlefield.
fulfill the purpose, significance, and legislative A contemplative atmosphere and a chance for
intent for the park. The desired future for Palo reflection would be the emphasis ofthis alter-
Alto is relatively clear: native. Modes ofaccess at the battlefield
would not intrude on that atmosphere.
to preserve and protect the resources of
the historic site and, through coop- Alternative 3 would provide protection for all
erative agreements, sites related to the three sites through direct NPS ownership or
War between Mexico and the United management, which would require additional
States legislative action. All the facilities needed to
provide programs would be developed at Palo
to interpret the battle and war from the Alto and would have the advantage of
perspective ofboth nations proximity to the primary resource. The
emphasis would be on the built environment,
to facilitate research ofthe battle and but the contemplative atmosphere ofthe
war battlefield would be maintained. Vehicle
access to several viewpoints and trailheads
to encourage an understanding ofthe would be provided.
causes and continuing effects ofthe
war on both nations This plan also analyzes the impacts of
implementing each alternative on the park's
Two related sites, Resaca de la Palma and Fort natural and cultural resources and the socio-
Brown, were included in the analysis for this economic environment.
plan because the comprehensive story ofPalo
Alto cannot be told without their protection. Implementing alternative 1 would have little
This document presents three alternatives, effect on the natural and cultural resources of
including a no-action alternative, for providing the park because little development is pro-
the facilities and programs needed to achieve posed. However, the desired future for the
the park's desired future. park would only be minimally accomplished.
Opportunities for visitors would be limited,
Alternative 1 (no action) would continue the and resources would continue to be
existing management direction for the park compromised.
based on the approved Interim Operations
Plan. It would minimally achieve the intent of Implementing alternative 2 would have limited
the enabling legislation and is presented impacts on the natural and cultural resources
primarily for comparison purposes. ofall three sites because only facilities
necessary to enhance the visitor experience
Alternative 2 (the proposed action) protects would be developed. All other functions
the resources ofall three sites and provides the would use existing facilities through
facilities and programs needed through a cooperative agreements. The protection
combination ofdevelopment and cooperative
111
SUMMARY
afforded to Resaca de la Palma and Fort system would allow for better interpretation of
Brown would be effective and fiscally sound. the sites and access for those without trans-
portation but would be very costly to operate.
Implementing alternative 3 would have the
greatest impact on the natural and cultural The public review and comment period on this
resources ofthe park because ofthe amount of draft document will be 60 days. Public
new onsite development. Although there meetings will be held during the comment
would be advantages to a consolidated opera- period. Appropriate changes to the plan will
tion and proximity to the prime resource, the be made in response to public comments.
development costs would be high and the
contemplative atmosphere ofthe battlefield Following the public review ofthe Draft
would be slightly compromised. Likewise, GeneralManagement Plan /Environmental
better access to viewpoints and trails would be Assessment, the National Park Service will
advantageous to visitors with physical limita- issue either a finding ofno significant impact
tions ortime constraints but would detract or a notice to prepare an environmental impact
from the battlefield experience. A shuttle statement. A final plan will be printed.
IV
HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
This document is organized in four main sect- considered for inclusion as part ofthe park but
ions. The first section, called "Purpose ofand were not included in the final legislation. This
Need forthe Plan," introduces the plan, describes plan contains alternatives for Resaca de la Palma
why it is necessary, and explains what it will and Fort Brown as authorized by the above
accomplish. This section provides background legislation.
information about the historic site, including a
briefdescription ofthe park, its purpose, and its The third major section is called the "Affected
significant resources. Planning objectives are Environment" and presents a comprehensive
identified, along with issues and concerns facing description ofthe historic site's cultural and
the National Park Service. The "Purpose ofand natural resources and visitor use patterns. This
Need forthe Plan" section also summarizes the section also describes the socioeconomic con-
establishing legislation forthe national historic ditions that exist in the historic site and surround-
site. Finally, this section describes how the plan ing areas outside NPS boundaries. The informa-
relates to other planning activities associated tion in the "Affected Environment" section
with the historic site and surrounding areas. provides a context for analyzing the impacts of
implementing the alternatives.
The "Alternatives, Includingthe Proposed
Action" section presents alternatives for the The last major section, the "Environmental Con-
management ofthe historic site. Appendix A sequences," describes in detail the effects that
contains definitions ofterms used in this section implementing each alternative would have on the
as they relate specifically to Palo Alto and this resources described in the "Affected Environ-
plan. Certain federal laws and policies guide the ment" section.
management ofthe historic site and its resources,
and many resource management actions would The term "War between Mexico and the United
be common to all alternatives. Alternative I (no States" has been used throughout the document
action) describes what would occur at the instead ofthe Mexican-American War except
national historic site without an approved general where cited in specific legislation.
management plan. Certain minimal actions would
be taken to ensure that significant resources were The public review ofthis document allows
protected and that operations remained individuals, organizations, and agencies who are
functional. Alternative 2 (the proposed action) interested in and concerned about the future of
presents the National Park Service's preferred this park unit to consider the benefits and
actions to best guide future management ofthe drawbacks ofthese alternatives and an
national historic site. Alternative 3 presents opportunity to express their comments. During
another feasible option. This section also the review process individual actions from
describes alternatives that were considered but various alternatives may be repackaged as a new
rejected for various reasons. alternative (forexample, some actions from
alternative 1 plus some actions from alternative 2
The legislation for Palo Alto states that the or 3 could be combined). All comments and
National Park Service is authorized to enter into opinions will be considered before concluding
cooperative agreements for research and inter- the planning process. Comments are strongly
pretive planning ofrelated sites. No two sites encouraged because they assist the National Park
relate more to Palo Alto Battl—efield than Resaca Service in making its final decision.
de la Palma and Fort Brown both national
historic landmarks. The comprehensive story of
Palo Alto cannot be told without making
reference to these two sites. These sites were

6 6 445 15 3 1 1 3 3
Contents
Purpose ofand Need for the Plan
Introduction 3
BriefDescription ofthe National Historic Site 3
Purpose And Significance ofthe National Historic Site 3
Primary Resources ofthe National Historic Site 6
Cultural Resources 6
Natural Resources 7
Interpretive Themes 7
Legislative History and Legal Requirements 8
Planning Issues and Concerns 10
Facilities 10
Access and Circulation 10
Resource Protection and Preservation
1
Interpretation 10
Surrounding Land Use
1
Relationship to Other Related Sites 1
Relationship to the Community 1
Relationship to Mexico 12
Relationship ofthis Plan to Other Plans and Projects 13
Lower Rio Grande Valley Wildlife Corridor
1
International Boundary and Water Commission 13
Campus Expansion at Texas Southmost College / University ofTexas at Brownsville 13
Immigration and Naturalization Service / Border Patrol 1
Los Tomates Bridge Project
1
Brownsville Heritage Tours 14
Brownsville Urban System 14
City ofBrownsville
1
Los Caminos del Rio Heritage Project 14
American Battlefield Protection Program 14
Port ofBrownsville
1
Titan Wheel International Plant 14
City Road Plan / Texas Department ofTransportation 15
Railroad Relocation
1
Intercoastal Canal Project 15
Land Protection Plan 15
Interim Operations Plan
1
Resource Management Plan 16
Interpretive Plan
1
Research Plan
1
vii
1 1
CONTENTS
Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Introduction 19
Actions Common to All Alternatives 20
Management Zoning 20
Cultural Zone 20
Battlefield Preservation Subzone 20
Resources Preservation Subzone 22
Developed Subzone 22
Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) 22
Cultural Resources 23
Archeological Resources 23
Cultural Landscape 24
Collections 25
Natural Resources 25
Vegetation 25
Wetlands 26
Wildlife 26
Air Quality, Noise, and Water Quality 26
Visitor Use 26
Facilities and Services 26
Interpretation 26
Cooperative Agreements with Mexico and Other Owners of
War-Related Properties 27
Operations and General Development 27
Studies Required for Implementation ofthe Alternatives 28
Cultural Resources 28
Natural Resources 28
Visitor Management Plans 28
Development Planning 28
Resource Management Actions 28
Cultural Resources 29
Natural Resources 29
Actions Considered but Rejected 30
Park Tour Road 30
Bicycles 30
Alternative 1 (No Action) 3
General Concept 31
Visitor Experience 31
Access 3
General Development 34
Visitor Center 34
Commemorative Space 34
Research Center 34
Educational Programs and Conferences 34
Vlll