Government weighs changes to Big Bend park work

The pause follows the park line

A border project called Big Bend covers places with different owners, contracts and plans. The Associated Press and Houston Chronicle reported on Sept. 30 that the government was considering changes to work inside Big Bend National Park. They also reported that ground-disturbing work on a separate 61-mile line in Presidio County may resume. Those are distinct project statuses, not a regional pause or restart.¹²

AP reported that the government made two filings late on Sept. 29. The filings were unavailable for this review, and the news reports do not establish which filing contains each reported commitment. AP and the Houston Chronicle say the government is considering adjustments to limit the national-park work after input from the National Park Service and other stakeholders. They report a decision is expected in the first week of October, with park ground disturbance not expected for several weeks afterward. These are reported intentions and estimates, not a completed redesign or firm construction date.¹²

Inside Big Bend National Park, the design is unsettled

The work at issue inside Big Bend National Park belongs to Big Bend 4, a Customs and Border Protection contract. A local report in August described about 17 miles of noncontiguous, low-profile vehicle barriers and roughly 205 miles of possible road improvements, maintenance or detection technology, depending on location. That larger figure describes contract-level “system attributes.” It does not show that 205 miles of new road or equipment would be built inside the park.³

Before the reported pause, the contractor had begun preliminary soil assessments in the park, according to the same report. In August, CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott described the park work as one new access road, improvements to existing roads, detection technology and barriers in limited locations. He said the agency would not build a 30-foot wall or stadium lighting through Big Bend National Park, Big Bend Ranch State Park or Black Gap Wildlife Management Area. That statement narrowed what CBP said it planned; it did not rule out roads, barriers or sensors.³⁴

The June 9 Federal Register notice supplies the legal backdrop. DHS invoked section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, waived listed laws for specified border infrastructure and related work, and described its rationale in terms of apprehensions and seizures in the Big Bend Sector. The notice covers activities such as access, staging, earthwork, roads, drainage, barriers, lighting and sensors. It defines a waiver area, not a parcel-by-parcel construction design; DHS’s rationale is an agency assertion, not a court finding about conditions on the ground or the effects of construction.⁵

The People of La Junta for Preservation, Far Flung Outdoor Center and individual plaintiffs challenge work in the national park. Their complaint says Congress assigned the park’s administration, protection and development to the Interior Department and argues that waiving environmental and other laws did not give DHS authority to disregard that separate park mandate. The plaintiffs predict harm to habitat, archaeology, scenery and recreation. Those are allegations and forecasts in a complaint, not measured effects or findings by a judge. The case asks a narrower question than whether border security matters: what authority governs permanent development inside this national park?⁶

The government’s reported response leaves the physical plan open. AP and the Houston Chronicle say it is considering a narrower approach after NPS and stakeholder input. Neither account establishes which road, barrier or sensor would be removed or moved, and the underlying filing was not retrieved for this assignment. NPS’s public alerts page, checked Sept. 30, contained no announcement of a final redesign; that visitor page is not a project docket and cannot establish what consultation took place.¹²⁷

Presidio County’s 61 miles have a different status

Big Bend 2 is a separate, roughly 61-mile proposed line extending from Ruidosa toward Redford, mostly across private land, according to local and national reporting. The government’s reported position is that ground-disturbing work on this line may resume as the park adjustment is considered. AP calls the land north of the national park; the Houston Chronicle calls it west. Without the underlying filing and a verified alignment map, this article does not resolve that directional conflict or draw a boundary.¹²⁸

The Sept. 30 reporting says some landowners declined voluntary rights of entry and that the government could refer those properties for possible condemnation. That describes a possible legal process, not a determination that any particular property will be taken. In July, the Big Bend Sentinel reported that designs for work near Presidio were still being submitted and construction there had not begun or was not then likely to be imminent. That earlier status cannot settle what can proceed now, but it shows why contract mobilization, land access and ground disturbance should not be collapsed into one event.¹⁹

The case brought by Presidio Municipal Development District is also distinct from the national-park suit. In August, a federal judge held that DHS’s waiver then in force precluded PMDD’s Administrative Procedure Act and ultra vires claims on the merits, while recognizing jurisdiction over claims based on earlier agency action. The opinion discussed the district’s concerns about levees and flooding as allegations and described a dispute over the Rivers and Harbors Act. It did not decide the park plaintiffs’ claims or determine the final design of Big Bend 2.¹⁰

Big Bend Ranch State Park is another place

Big Bend Ranch State Park lies in the same border region but is not Big Bend National Park. In March, a Border Patrol spokesperson told Marfa Public Radio that the agency had no current plan to build a wall in the state park. The outlet noted that CBP’s public map still showed a wall option and that the finality of the change was unclear. The August CBP statement later ruled out a 30-foot wall and stadium lighting in both parks, but did not say that every kind of border infrastructure or review had ended in the state park.¹¹⁴

The Sept. 30 accounts focus on the National Park Service’s national-park work and the separate Presidio County line. They do not report a new state-park alignment or a decision covering all activity in Big Bend Ranch State Park. Nor should NPS’s separate wildlife-management work be treated as border-project review: a Sept. 25 park release describes scheduled work with Texas Parks and Wildlife under an assessment completed in 2018, a different project with its own review record.¹¹²

The filing leaves two tracks in motion

Separate proceedings also caution against treating “the Big Bend project” as one court-controlled build. An April complaint by Friends of the Ruidosa Church and other plaintiffs described a broader project extending more than 250 miles and said public construction plans were incomplete at that time. That pleading predates the June waiver, later contracts and September filings. Its broad project description explains the shifting labels; it cannot supply a current alignment or prove environmental damage. The Texas Tribune’s September explainer likewise identifies several lawsuits, each tied to different plaintiffs and concerns.¹³¹⁴

The reports describe two current tracks. Officials are still considering a narrower approach to work inside Big Bend National Park, with a decision expected in early October. Ground disturbance on the mostly private Big Bend 2 line in Presidio County may resume. The park’s final design, the exact terms of the filings, the alignment behind conflicting directional descriptions and the state park’s broader status remain unresolved. Park work awaits a decision; the separate county project is outside the reported pause.¹²