Looping Brownsville

Brownsville is about to see a new decade filled with ever expanding retail, hotels, restaurants, medical facilities such as expanding hospitals and clinics, international trade, growing port and air port, schools, explosive growth of UTB/TSC and the ever so elusive renaming of HW 77/83 to I-69. But most of these growths and expansions will not happen without a complete, or at the very least partially complete loop around Brownsville to help keep traffic moving and developing land that at this time remains empty. The loops that will help launch Brownsville into the stratosphere are called the West Loop and East Loop.

These two loops have already come before the public prior to construction. Both have been proposed as tolled, limited access highways such as the Expressway 77/83. Though I, for one, have opposed the tolled part of the projects at public meetings and in writing to CCRMA (Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority), who is responsible for the two loop projects, there is no doubt that these loops are needed in order for Brownsville to grow in a positive manner. Just look at the economic benefits that the HW 77/83 has provided for Brownsville. There is no question that without the expressway, as it is commonly referred to, has had an irreversible positive effect on the city of Brownsville. Without the expressway, there would not have been a Sunrise Mall or all of its numerous shopping centers, The Valley Regional Medical Center and the Doctor’s Hospital would not have been built, all the hotels along the expressway would be vacant lots, and absolutely everything that is there now would more than likely not have been there. Where would Brownsville be without the expressway? It would be a little town that had no major connection to the rest of the valley much less connected to the rest of the state and nation. The old Highway 77 was a pothole filled, two-lane highway that would never have been able to handle the traffic that exists today. Even the expressway had to be recently expanded to three lanes just to accommodate the traffic we have today and will likely have to be expanded again in the next 20 years (it took forty years before it was expanded due to the explosive growth here) if current projects shows Brownsville at over 350,000+ by 2030. Let’s look now at each of the loops being considered for construction in the near future and what they will do for the area that it will be built on.

East Loop

As currently envisioned, East Loop will stretch from the intersection of International Blvd and Elizabeth St. to the expressway (this segment has been built but as a four-lane boulevard named University Blvd) from the expressway to the airport via the outer most part of Southmost along the levee of the Rio Grande River and loop into the airport, from the airport to the Port of Brownsville and from the port to back to the expressway north of Brownsville along the existing FM 511 (this portion is under construction as the frontage roads are being built until the highway funding can be found).

What does this new loop mean for Brownsville? Everything. Trucks would have faster routes around the city and easy access to the airport, the Port of Brownsville, the Veteran’s Int’l Bridge and UTB/TSC and the Gateway Int’l Bridge. It would be, in effect, a semi-loop on the east side of Brownsville from the intersection of FM 511 and the Expressway 77/83 to the Veteran’s International Bridge on the south side of the city. Trucks and large rigs would be able to use this portion of the highway and reduce burden on the expressway within the center part of the city. This means safer travel for everyone else using the expressway. Just think how easy it would be to get to the airport without leaving the expressway? This is one of the many benefits of East Loop. Also, this new connection would help Southmost as a new highway that winds around this area would bring new businesses that would otherwise overlook due to poor access to this side of the community. Land around the port and FM 511 to the expressway would also enjoy new construction of residential and businesses.

West Loop

This is another project that the City of Brownsville and Cameron County have been dreaming about since the announcement of the removal of the rail line that starts at the B&M Int’l Bridge and goes to north Brownsville. A new international rail bridge will be built in the near future (5 to 15 years from now) and the tracks that will be left behind will revert to the city of Brownsville. The city will have 100 feet of right-away on each side of the track and the length of the loop will be about eight miles long.

This loop, as I envision, will help downtown Brownsville due to its proximity. The downtown business center would only be a few blocks away rather than about ten blocks from the current expressway. For a downtown to survive, it needs immediate access to a major highway. Otherwise, most people will avoid going to downtown if access is not immediate. In today’s world, people want to get to place ASAP and not deal with the hassle of driving long distances.
Also, since the West Loop will connect with the B&M Int’l Bridge, Brownsville will have two direct accesses to two international bridges. The West Loop will travel parallel to the existing highway and will provide needed relief on the current expressway. A whole new avenue of opportunity waits with the construction of West Loop and its exciting future for downtown.
Another reason for the construction of the West Loop is the attraction for developers in building the greatest project to come to downtown ever. This is the proposed project called Brownsville Crossings. This project envisions a shopping center nearly the size of the Sunrise Mall and includes a river walk between the Gateway Int’l Bridge and the B&M Int’l Bridge. Along the river walk will be retail and restaurants similar to the San Antonio River Walk. Of course, all this is pending not just on the West Loop but also on DHS’s planned border wall. If an agreement can be reached between the city, the developers, and DHS on the planned river walk and the border wall, then bringing the West Loop in would also have a positive spin being that the proposed shopping center would be a mere ¾ mile from West Loop via 12th Street (Sam Pearl Blvd). With a direct access to a major highway, this project would be a hit for tourists and locals alike.

The Future of Brownsville

Brownsville is in a midst of an ever growing population and size and it only stands to reason that with added growth come added strains and stresses of everyday life such as driving from one side of the city to the other. The more congested our streets get, the more difficult and longer it takes to get from point A to point B. Not only will it take longer to travel within Brownsville but pollution will also be a major concern in the near future. With more cars on our streets idling at traffic lights, the more probable that Brownsville will begin to see smog forming over our city and blanketing the sky for long periods of time.

Currently, the expressway is the only means of traveling in the city unencumbered and with the recent expansion of the expressway to three lanes, it will only take twenty years before the highway will have to add a fourth lane just to keep up with congested and keep the highway from coming to a halt on peak hours. Then, it would only take ten more years to have to add a fifth lane and so on. If Brownsville doesn’t any other means by which traffic can move unimpeded, then Brownsville will hit a wall and growth will slow down and congestion will be a daily complaint. What’s needed is a way to keep Brownsville moving not just today but tomorrow as well. Our city has one of the youngest populations in the nation and each and every one of these people will need cars as our city grows. How will the population of the future deal with congestion? By adding a loop around Brownsville and connecting different areas of our city that today is not easily done.

Looping Brownsville is the answer to our city’s growth and its ability to continue growing without screeching to a halt. Both the West Loop and East Loop proposes to do this and our future depend on it. Forty years from now, we will see the fruits of this labor, which could take decades to fully complete, and wonder how Brownsville could have survived without this loop. Just think about that when you are travelling on Highway 77/83 next time.

Boundary Adjustment Feasibility Study for Fort Texas

Boundary Adjustment Feasibility Study for the Original Fort Brown Earthworks

PRESENTED TO: University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College

SUBMITTED BY: Mary Kralovec, Superintendent Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site

I. INTRODUCTION

Background:

In June, 2008, a Fort Brown Preservation working group was established to identify the feasibility of adjusting the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site administrative boundary to include the Original Fort Brown Earthworks. Representatives from the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College (UTB-TSC), Brownsville Historic Association, Cameron County Historical Commission, City of Brownsville, Historic Brownsville Museum, Palo Alto National Park Committee, and Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic (PAAL) site were represented in the working group.

At a July 2008 work group meeting, the PAAL Superintendent was asked to provide a geographic boundary for the Original Fort Brown Earthworks. A National Park Service project team; consisting of the park superintendent, historian, and archeologist; developed a map with the recommended preservation boundaries. The proposed boundary included the standing ruins of the earthworks, as well as the entire foot print of the structure where there is still a potential to have intact subsurface features associated with the fortification. This information was shared with the Fort Brown Preservation working group in August, 2008.

As a follow up to the recommended boundary adjustment, the PAAL Superintendent was asked in early September 2008 to provide a feasibility analysis of the boundary adjustment proposal. This report reflects an analysis of alternatives associated with changing the PAAL administrative boundary to include the Original Fort Brown Earthworks.

II. HISTORY

Fort Brown-Earthen Fort:

General Zachary Taylor ordered construction of the original Fort Brown (often referred to as Fort Texas) in March 1846. He desired a substantial system of earthworks to provide protection for his “Army of Occupation” which had been sent to claim the Rio Grande as the southern boundary of the United States. He requested that the post be large enough to harbor at least one of the three brigades of his 4000-man army, in the likely event that it came under fire from Mexican troops that opposed his advance.

Responsibility for design and construction of the post fell upon engineer Captain J. F. K. Mansfield. Mansfield mapped out an ambitious six-sided earthwork, with bastions at each corner. The star-shaped structure had sloped walls 9 feet high, with additional parapets at the top which raised the profile to 15-feet in height. The length of the walls ranged from 120-150 feet. Additional shelters and bomb-proofs were constructed in the interior of the fort. Around the exterior, he planned for the creation of a moat, 10-15 feet deep and up to 20 feet wide.

Construction commenced on the earthwork in late March and soldier work crews toiled from dawn to dusk throughout the month of April. The fort was largely complete when Mexican forces crossed the Rio Grande on April 24 and attacked a U.S. scout party the following day. Taylor’s troops then worked around the clock on the site until May 1 to ensure that the post could withstand an assault. The U.S. General then placed the fort in the hands of Major Jacob Brown and a force of 500 men, before marching his army to Point Isabel to gather the supplies and materiel required to hold off a possible siege of Fort Texas.

The lightly-manned fort soon became the center of conflict. Mexican forces had intended to trap Taylor in the fort and institute a siege. Difficulties in traversing the Rio Grande, however, delayed this effort. General Mariano Arista pursued Taylor to Point Isabel but failed to overtake him. With the main American force safely ensconced in its coastal depot, Arista ordered a bombardment of Fort Texas as a ploy to draw Taylor into a fight. Firing commenced at daybreak on May 3 and would continue for 6 days.

Arista’s bombardment had its effect. On the evening of May 7, U.S. troops departed the coast and moved to rescue their fort. On May 8, at Palo Alto and May 9 at Resaca de la Palma, U.S. and Mexican forces faced-off in the opening battles of a prolonged war between their nations. U.S. victory in the second battle forced Arista to retreat back across the Rio Grande and ended the siege of the fort. Days later, as Taylor prepared to cross the river and occupy the Mexican city of Matamoros, he ordered the earthworks to be named Fort Brown, in honor of the commander who died during the siege.

The earthwork was abandoned following the occupation of Matamoros, but Fort Brown survived. Following the war with Mexico, activities and construction of fort facilities moved about ¼ to the north. The Fort Brown reservation remained an active outpost until 1945 when it was deactivated by the War Department, almost 100 years after its founding. The fort, including the historic earthworks, is on the National Register of Historic Places and is a National Historic Landmark. Currently, the Fort Brown – Earthen Fort and historic buildings are owned by the International Boundary and Water Commission and maintained and managed by the UTB-TSC.

National Register of Historic Places

The Original Fort Brown Earthworks and Historic Fort Brown were adopted onto the National Register of Historic Places in 1996. The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of cultural resources in need of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the program works to coordinate and support public and private efforts in identifying, evaluating, and protecting historic and archeological resources. Properties listed in the Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture.

National Historic Landmark Designation:

National Historic Landmarks (NHL) is nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States.

Fort Brown, which includes the Original Fort Brown Earthworks, was designated as a NHL on December 19, 1960 and consists of three discontinuous historic districts. One comprises the standing ruins of the original earth fortification. The second consists of Fort Brown’s remaining historic Calvary Barracks and, the third encompasses a number of historic buildings that date from 1868. The Original Fort Brown Earthworks NHL boundary includes the remaining intact part of the breastworks constructed by General Taylor in 1846. The boundary forms a rectangle measuring 80 yards north/south by 170 yards east/west around the site. Beginning at the intersection of the two levees, the boundary proceeds east-southeast along the top of the levee for a distance of 170 yards (Fig. 1). The boundary then turns south-southwest for a distance of 80 yards and west-northwest for a distance of 170 yards. The last turn is north for 80 yards along the top if the western levee (Fig. 1)

Fig. 1. Outline of Original Fort Brown Earthworks on current aerial photograph of site.



Fort Brown is a nationally significant place due to its prominent role in the U.S. War with Mexico and U.S. Civil War and as a training ground in the Spanish-American War and mobilization point for border defense during the Mexican Revolution era. Throughout its early history, Fort Brown contributed significantly to the growth and defense of U.S. territory.

IV. LAND STATUS

The Original Fort Brown Earthworks has been dramatically altered since its construction in 1846 and little remains of the original earthen walls (Fig. 1). Currently, approximately 230 linear yards of exterior parapet and bastion walls remain standing as ruins, representing less than 25% of the original earthworks (Fig. 2). The original earthworks occupied approximately 12 acres. Of this, approximately 2.5 acres remain intact and undisturbed.

It is unclear why dirt from the earthen walls was removed and where it was transported to after removal. As late as 1939, aerial photographs appear to indicate that the earthwork walls were intact. However, by 1950, much of the earthen walls had been removed from its original location. Dirt from the earthen walls was likely used to construct the modern levee system which is still in use today.

Fig. 2. Existing standing ruins at the Original Fort Brown Earthworks site.


V. NATIONAL PARK SERVCE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATION

The National Park Service recommendation for inclusion within the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site boundary includes the area contained within the NHL boundary plus lands to the north and east of the intersection where two levees meet (Fig. 3). This entire area has the potential to contain subsurface features; as revealed through ground penetrating radar surveys (Nickel and Nickel: 2004). The boundary was derived from the Mansfield’s 1846 scale drawing of the original earthworks (Fig. 4). The National Park Service recommends preservation of the additional area outside of the NHL boundary to protect the entire fort and preserve any subsurface remains that may still exist.

VI. PUBLIC USE POTENTIAL

As a Tourist Destination:

As a tourist destination, Fort Brown would likely attract visitors from the local, regional, and national arenas. The Fort Brown site is the location of one of the key battles which drew the United States and Mexico into a war over disputed territory. Each of the three battlefield sites (Fort Brown, Resaca de la Palma, and Palo Alto) are strategically located along a north-south gradient and geographically linked along the old Port Isabel to Matamoros road. Together, they help to tell the story of the strategic importance of the southern tip of Texas to the United States and the Rio Grande delta.

Efforts are currently underway to adjust the PAAL boundary to include Resaca de la Palma and to change the name of the park to Palo Alto National Historical Park. Inclusion of the Original Fort Brown Earthworks in the PAAL boundary would complete the story, assure further protection for this valuable historic site, and allow increased interpretation and promotion of the earthworks by the National Park Service. Because this National Historical Park will be nationally recognized as the only NPS unit dedicated to commemorating the U.S. War with Mexico it will likely draw visitors from the local area and around the country to the area. At each of the three sites, visitors would learn about site specific events and why each site is strategically tied to the other. A visitor center, as outlined in the park’s General Management Plan, could be developed on the university campus and used to interpret and draw visitors to Fort Brown.

The site will also likely draw researchers and students from the local, regional, and national arenas to study the sites archeology and history.

Tourism/Visitor Use in Immediate Area:

Brownsville, Texas is the southernmost city in the continental United States that shares a border with Mexico. Brownsville is 25 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico and is directly across the border from Matamoros, Mexico.

The population in Brownsville is approximately 170,000. Visitors from all over the United States come to the Brownsville area for sunshine, warm climate, excellent ocean beaches, and the opportunity to visit Mexico. Many individuals from Mexico visit the Brownsville for shopping, commerce and tourism, and access to the ocean beaches.

Fig. 3. National Park Service Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site boundary adjustment recommendation. The recommended boundary adjustment is represented by the area within the solid green line. Section A, B, and C represented the National Historic Landmark designations.

Fig. 4. Mansfield’s 1846 scale drawing of the Original Fort Brown Earthworks used as a basis for the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site administrative boundary adjustment recommendation.



History is very important to the region’s leaders and residents. The City of Brownsville Convention and Visitors Bureau has recently unveiled a new logo which emphasized the cities historic roots. The logo “Brownsville-With A History As Big As Texas” is designed to emphasize the important role Brownsville has played in our nation’s history.

In 2008, visiting historic sites and parks were among the top 10 leisure activities for tourists when visiting Texas, comprising over 13% of all visitors. It is estimated that states and communities who invest in the development of heritage and cultural tourism offerings are realizing a greater and faster return on their investment than other types of tourism products. According to a recent article in an Austin paper that was written on heritage tourism along the border, “…heritage destinations on the border are attracting more visitors and providing the base for an emerging tourism industry.”

The following population centers exist within a 75-mile radius of the Original Fort Browns Earthworks site. They include:

Brownsville, Texas 170,000
Los Fresnos, Texas 5,400
San Benito, Texas 25,000
Harlingen, Texas 66,000
Port Isabel, Texas 5,000
South Padre Island, Texas 2,700
Matamoros, Mexico 422,000

VII. SITE EVALUATION

The National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmark designations have documented and assessed the Original Fort Brown Earthworks as important resource to preserve for the nation.

By nature of its designation on the National Register of Historic Places and as a NHL, the Original Fort Brown Earthworks have been identified by Congress and the American people as a place of historical significance and in need of preservation for future generations to learn from and enjoy.

Local and regional entities support the protection and preservation of Fort Brown, including the original earthworks site.

The long term preservation and protection of the Original Fort Brown Earthworks has strong local and regional support. In 1988, a proposal to preserve and interpret the earthworks was developed by the Brownsville Community Foundation, Palo Alto National Park Committee, and University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College. At that time, nine federal, state, city, and non-profit entities supported the proposal.

For this proposal, UTB-TSC staff emphasized the importance of continuing to provide potential educational opportunities, advancing cultural and historical missions, and providing community service through the preservation of the Fort Brown earthworks. State Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr., also emphasized the importance of maintaining the Fort Brown earthworks as an important part of our nation’s history. More recently, a report written by Dr. Antonio Zavaletta and Dr. Gene J. Paull, UTB-TSC (2008) called the original breastworks of Fort Texas, one of our nation’s most significant military sites.

Land contained within the recommended boundary adjustment is owned be several landowners.

Landowners include the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College, International Boundary and Water Commission, Texas National Guard, and Army Reserve. The City of Brownsville leases the property south of the east/west levee from the International Boundary and Water Commission. This land is, in turn, sub-leased by the UTB-TSC for operation of a public golf course and driving range.

The Original Fort Brown Earthworks is very accessible through the UTB-TSC campus.

Located next to the Fort Brown Memorial Golf Course, the earthworks are easily accessible for interpretative, research, management, and maintenance activities. Road access is available from University Drive and parking is available at the Fort Brown Memorial Golf Course.

The original earthworks have been modified over time, but existing natural and cultural resources are currently protected.

The land comprising the original earthworks has changed dramatically from when the fort was constructed in 1846. Less than 25% of the earthwork exists in its original state. In the past 162 years, dirt from the earthwork walls may have been removed to construct and reinforce levees, for fill in building construction, and for various other purposes during the fort’s occupation.

VIII. ALTERNATIVES, BENEFITS, AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MANAGING THE ORIGINAL FORT BROWN EARTHWORKS.

ALTERNATIVE 1

NO ACTION:

Existing conditions would continue. The Original Fort Brown Earthworks would remain in public hands and continue to be managed by UTB-TSC, International Boundary and Water Commission, and City of Brownsville with no other outside agency involvement.

Benefits:

· No change in management strategies and impact to landowners or the local community. All landowners of battlefield tracts would retain title to their property.
· The site would remain on the National Register of Historic Places and NHL lists.
· Congressional authorization would not be needed to adjust the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site boundary to include the site.
· Congressional appropriations would not be needed for the management and operation of the new National Park Service unit.

Costs:

· The site would not be available to the general public for use or enjoyment.
· The site would not receive extra protection and national recognition as a unit under the National Park Service system.
· National Park Service resources, such as staffing and funding, would not be expended at the site for maintaining, interpreting, researching, and managing the site.
· The City of Brownsville and UTB-TSC would not benefit from increased tourism associated with a National Park Service unit in downtown Brownsville.
· The remaining walls will continue to deteriorate with time and limited stabilization. If allowed to continue, the walls will become dispersed; resulting in minimal to zero above ground structure.
· Proposed activities and development on the site as a National Register of Historic Places and NHL would subject to applicable federal and state regulations, including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Endangered Species Act.

ALTERNATIVE 2

INCLUSION OF THE ORIGINAL FORT BROWN EARTHWORKS IN THE PALO ALTO NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY AND MANAGEMENT BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE:

The administrative boundary of Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site would be changed to include that area recommended by the National Park Service (Fig. 3). The area would be identified as part of Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site and included as a unit within the National Park Service system. The current landowners would continue to maintain title and ownership over all lands contained within the boundary adjustment. However, the site would be co-operatively managed by the National Park Service and UTB-TSC.

A visitor contact station or kiosk, parking area and wayside exhibits would be located near the Unit or somewhere on the UTB-TSC campus. The facilities would be managed by UTB-TSC. The visitor contact station would be staffed and visitor service programs provided by the National Park Service. The visitor contact station and wayside exhibits would tell the story of the military engagements which took place at the Original Fort Brown Earthworks and historic Fort Brown as well as highlight the area’s rich cultural and natural heritage. A Memorandum of Understanding would be developed between UTB-TSC and the National Park Service for co-management, protection, interpretation, and maintenance of the lands designated within the new Unit. The National Park Service would provide natural and cultural resource recommendations and guidance for the site.

Benefits

· All landowners of battlefield tracts would retain title to their property.
· The site would remain on the National Register of Historic Places and NHL lists.
· The site would receive additional protection and national recognition as a part of the National Park Service system.
· A Memorandum of Understanding to co-manage the site between the University and National Park Service would be developed.
· National Park Service resources, such as staffing and funding, would be expended at the site for maintaining, interpreting, researching, and managing the site.
· The City of Brownsville and University would benefit from increased tourism associated with a National Park Service unit in downtown Brownsville.
· The site would be eligible for federal dollars which are earmarked for National Park units.
· The site would be promoted as a unit in the National Park System which would result in increased visitation to the site and University.
· Historic resource and archeological studies and stabilization work would be completed through National Park Service funding.
· The collective resources of one state and federal agency would be used to interpret the history of and protect the cultural resources at the site.
· University staff and students would be actively involved in completing research and interpretation at and assisting National Park Service staff with stabilization of the site.
· Additional federal funding will be available for site stabilization, archeological surveys, historic resource studies, interpretation, and research.

Costs

· Congressional authorization would be needed to adjust the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site boundary to include the site.
· Congressional appropriations would be needed for the management and operation of the new National Park Service unit.
· Activities which adversely affect the enabling legislation and reason for the site’s designation as a National Park unit would be difficult for landowners within the recommended boundary adjustment to complete or conduct. The 1916 Organic Act which established the National Park Service, instructed the service “…to promote and regulate the use of Federal Areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations…to conserve the scenery and natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
· Proposed activities and development within the newly established park unit would be subject to applicable federal and state regulations, including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Endangered Species Act.
· The designation as a National Park unit will elevate the site to the national level in the eyes of the public and, in return, be subject to additional public input and scrutiny for any proposed activity of development.
· Congressional interest in and oversight of the site will be greater after designation as a National Park.

ALTERNATIVE 3

UTB-TSC AND NPS COOPERATIVELY MANAGE THE ORIGINAL FORT BROWN EARTHWORKS NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE AND INTERPRETATION ACTIVITIES

The administrative boundary of Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site would not be changed to include that area recommended by the National Park Service (Fig. 3).

A visitor contact station or kiosk, parking area and wayside exhibits would be located near the Original Fort Brown Earthworks or somewhere on the UTB-TSC campus. The facilities would be managed by UTB-TSC. The visitor contact station and wayside exhibits would tell the story of the military engagements which took place at the Original Fort Brown Earthworks and historic Fort Brown as well as highlight the area’s rich cultural and natural heritage. A Memorandum of Understanding would be developed between UTB-TSC and the NPS interpretation services at the visitor center. The National Park Service would provide natural and cultural resource recommendations and guidance for the site.

Benefits

· All landowners of battlefield tracts would retain title to their property.
· The site would remain on the National Register of Historic Places and NHL lists.
· A Memorandum of Understanding between the University and National Park Service to provide interpretive services at the visitor center would be developed.
· Congressional authorization would not be needed to adjust the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site boundary to include the site.
· Congressional appropriations would not be needed for the management and operation of the new National Park Service unit.
· The site would be available to the general public for use and enjoyment.

Costs

· The site would not receive extra protection and national recognition as a unit under the National Park Service system.
· National Park Service resources, such as staffing and funding, would be limited and restricted to that agreed upon under a Memorandum of Understanding between UTB-TSC and PAAL.
· The City of Brownsville and UTB-TSC would not benefit from increased tourism associated with a National Park Service unit in downtown Brownsville.
· The remaining walls will continue to deteriorate with time and limited stabilization. If allowed to continue, the walls will become dispersed; resulting in minimal to zero above ground structure.
· Proposed activities and development on the site as a National Register of Historic Places and NHL would be subject to applicable federal and state regulations, including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Endangered Species Act.
· Additional federal funding for National Park Service units would not be available for site stabilization, archeological surveys, historic resource studies, interpretation, and research.

IX. References Cited

Nickel, Robert K. and Catherine A. Nickel. 2004. Feasibility Test of Ground-Penetrating
Radar at the First Fort Brown. Prepared for Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site,
National Park Service.
Zavaleta, Antonio and Gene J. Paull. 2008. The Original Breastworks at Fort Texas. Prepared
for University of Texas at Brownsville/Texas Southmost College.


Appendix A


IX. STUDY TEAM MEMBERS:

Mary Kralovec
Superintendent
Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site

Douglas Murphy
Historian/Chief of Operations
Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site

Rolando Garza
Archeologist/Chief of Resource Management
Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site

X. FORT BROWN PRESERVATION WORKING GROUP


Name: Organization

Ben Reyna: UTB-TSC
Doug Ferrier UTB-TSC
John Hawthorne: UTB-TSC
Milagro Hernandez: UTB-TSC
Laurie Howell: UTB-TSC
Paul Kavanaugh: UTB-TSC
Tony Knopp UTB-TSC, Brownsville Historical Association
Larry Lof: UTB-TSC, Brownsville Historical Association, Cameron County Historical Commission
Allen Peakes UTB-TSC
David Rivera: UTB-TSC
Dr. Ruth Ragland UTB-TSC
Rene Torres: UTB-TSC
Dr. Antonio Zavaleta UTB-TSC
Joe Gavito: City of Brownsville
Walter Plitt: Plitt Crane & Rigging
Marisela Cortez Historic Brownsville Museum
Javier Garcia: Historic Brownsville Museum
Rolando Garza: Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site
Mary Kralovec: Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site
Dr. Douglas Murphy: Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site