Bookmark aneyefortexas

aneyefortexas blog banner

Bookmark aneyefortexas, a new and excellent Chihuahuan Desert blog.

It's by Gary Nored, "retired writer/teacher/photographer, now photographing the Chihuahuan Desert at the Big Bend Ranch State Park, Texas."

Petition Drive Nears Its Goal

People stop to sign petitions at the corner of Helen of Troy and Resler on Saturday.

Nearly 170 people stopped to sign petitions on Saturday to preserve the Scenic Transmountain corridor. Some pulled their car over when they saw signs. Others took a break from their walk or jog. A few drove from faraway just to sign. Besides the nine persons who volunteered to collect signatures along the Pat O'Rourke Trail for two hours Saturday morning, two other passer-by's stayed to help. Several people took blank petitions in order to ask their friends, associates and family members to sign.

It is hard to count the numbers now because there are several efforts currently to get signatures. Of the petitions that we know about 1499 have signed the "preserve" petition and 1424 have signed the "preserve + no roadways" petition.

Plan to attend First Friday (Facebook event page and Map) on February 4th or return to the O'Rourke Trail next Saturday if you would like to sign.

Petition Gatherers to Hold Saturday Event

Which scene do you want for the Scenic Transmountain Corridor? If the top, please sign the petitions.

El Pasoans who wish to preserve the Scenic Transmountain Corridor from development can come out to a special event tomorrow, Saturday, January 29 from 9 to 11 a.m. Volunteers helping to gather signatures for both petitions will be on the Pat O'Rourke Trail along N. Resler Drive between Helen of Troy Drive and Transmountain. (Map) A Facebook page announcing the event was created by singer-songwriter, Christina Gurrola.

Both petitions must be signed by registered voters living in the City of El Paso. Both are intended to become ballot initiatives if City Council fails to do as the petitioners direct. You can read and download the petitions from here.

However, persons who are not registered to vote and/or live outside the El Paso City limits may respond to another online petition. They may leave their comments when they do so. Currently 1,210 persons have responded to this petition.

If developed, Mule Deer, such as these, will lose their habitat.

Two Reports and the Petitions

There are a couple of documents you should familiarize yourself with.

The first is “The Summary of Findings and Recommendations to the Land Study for Westside PSB Properties” done by URS and dated April 2009. URS was the consulting firm behind El Paso’s stormwater plan. My upload of this public document shows the summary (page 5) first followed by the report pages 1 – 4. Why is the report interesting? Because, in light of the 2006 flood, the URS study shows a number of major problems with PSB’s Westside Master Plan, the plan that the PSB is so resolute to preserve against NOS zoning as well as SmartCode. One of the arguments used by PSB brass against NOS zoning was that the re-zoning would mean an additional expense to re-do the master plan which they stated was done for over $700,000. Even before any talk about saving the Scenic Transmountain Corridor, the URS study revealed in 2009 that the plan would have to be overhauled. Funny how PSB brass forgot to mention that little tidbit in their propaganda onslaught.

The other document you may want to take the time to read is the Texas Parks and Wildlife’s letter to TxDOT stating their concerns about the proposed Transmountain road project. One would certainly hope that a reason for finding that the road project will have a significant impact and requires further study is that the current design does not address Parks and Wildlife’s concerns about a wildlife crossing and a safe entrance into the Tom Mays Unit of the State Park. A recent architectural competition revealed that it is possible to design a wildlife crossing that handles traffic, protects motorists and wildlife, and preserves a local ecosystem.

There are other reasons why further study of TxDOT’s cookie-cutter design for Transmountain is necessary. As Chairman Charlie Wakeem explained in a note to Mr. Gregory Punske, the District Engineer for the Federal Highway Administration, the Open Space Advisory Board has pointed out that:

“. . . the scenic foothills of the Franklin Mountains start from the El Paso Natural Gas Line Road about half way between I-10 and the Tom Mays entrance. One half mile of the 3.3 mile TxDOT project is designed to accommodate commercial development which would eliminate two significant hillsides and one arroyo within the scenic corridor. We also recommended moving the future Paseo Del Norte crossing within the scenic corridor west one half mile to the Gas Line Rd., thereby eliminating an unnecessary overpass.”

Another very good reason is the sentiment against widening Transmountain beyond grade east of the Gas Line Road. That sentiment is expressed in the response to two current petitions and an online petition and growing opposition now that more people are learning about the issues regarding Transmountain and the Westside Master Plan. BTW, the online petition has been revived to allow people who are not City of El Paso residents or registered voters to express their desire to see land preserved north and south of Transmountain Road.

The two petitions intended to become ballot initiatives have now been signed by approximately 1300 persons. 1547 plus several hundred extra for fool proofing is the target. Gatherers will be out this Saturday along Resler Road between Helen of Troy and Transmountain to gather signatures. Key locations on Mesa are targeted next along with some popular events.

Finally, the January 2011 issue of the Rio Bosque Wetlands Park newsletter is now available online.

E-letter for 01/27/11

Subscribe

Wildlife Crossing Is Needed and Do-able

In a recent competition, an architectural firm was awarded $40,000 for its design of a wildlife crossing. You can read about the competition and award in a NY Times story and also in this NY Times blog post.

The need for such a competition is summarized this way:

"An emerging critical priority for both transportation and natural resource agencies is to make North American highways safer for both drivers and wildlife. The fact that wildlife-vehicle collisions have doubled in the past fifteen years has concentrated transportation agencies’ attention on engineering solutions that prevent wildlife-vehicle collisions on the continent’s roadways. At the same time, roads have been acknowledged as a major obstacle to landscape connectivity and ecological vitality—a matter of growing concern as climate change, in the form of rising temperatures and hydrological shifts, portends increasing wildlife migrations. In this context, the continents’ road systems pose a significant threat to the long-term health and viability of North American wildlife populations."

International wildlife crossing infrastructure design competition video

Yes, the location chosen for the purpose of the competition is in Colorado not El Paso. Yes, their are big differences in terrain and ecology. However, keep in mind that the purpose of the competition was to address the need for wildlife crossings on all North American roadways. Obviously a crossing for Transmountain would require a different design. The point is that it can be done while protecting motorists, providing efficient roadways, protecting wildlife and preserving the environment and ecosystem.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife have raised several concerns about TxDOT's proposed Transmountain project. Among these are the lack of a wildlife corridor and a safe entrance to the Tom Mays Unit of the State Park. It has been estimated that $8,000,000 will be saved to take out Plexxar and bend Paseo delNorte to the contemplated site of the Plexxar interchange. With $8,000,000 one might think that a solution can be had with both concerns especially since the competition proves that well-engineered wildlife corridors can be integrated into the environment. The problem with TxDOT seems to be that they have a cookie-cutter mentality - one template to fit all situations. They also seem to have a problem with listening to the public before design and with creating acceptable alternatives.

A hat tip to Marshall Carter-Tripp for the story about the wildlife crossing competition - Thanks, Marshall!

Texas Parks and Wildlife Letter to TxDOT

Here is the text of the December 29, 2010 letter from Texas Parks and Wildlife to TxDOT commenting on their Environmental Statement regarding the Transmountain project:

Tpwd Letter on Txdot Ea

Email Reveals Change of Heart by Lilly

In a strongly-worded message to the editorial board of the El Paso Times, Charlie Wakeem, the Chairman of the City of El Paso Open Space Advisory Board, revealed that Ann Morgan Lilly has buyer's remorse over her decision to vote against NOS zoning for the Scenic Transmountain Corridor.

Mr. Wakeem took to task Times editors, Charlie Edgren and Joe Muench, for an editorial published today that is filled with misinformation. Wakeem's message disarms all of the blatant untruths that have been used to prevent NOS zoning. Here is the text of his email to them:

Charles and Joe,

This is a fairly long email, but I'd like to clear up misinformation about the very important Natural Open Space (NOS) zoning issue in the Transmountain Rd. scenic corridor.

I am not challenging the Times editorial board's decision to support City Council's decision last week not to zone the city-owned land to NOS. However, I'm challenging the validity of the arguments being used by opponents of the NOS ordinance. I'm also disappointed that you bought the misinformation opponents of the ordinance have thrown out without researching the truth.

Ann Morgan-Lilly called me Thursday and told me that if she could do it again, she would vote for the NOS zoning and now supports the petition to take it to the voters. The reason she gave me was she felt Ed Archuleta lied to her by telling her the day before Council met that he would support Smart Codes. The day after Council made it's decision, Archuleta did not say anything to his board in support of Smart Codes and, if fact, alluded to problems with them at the monthly PSB meeting. Rep. Lilly told me she was betrayed and she thinks others on Council who voted against NOS felt the same way.

The Open Space Advisory Board has been examining this issue since January, 2010 (for one entire year). OSAB defrayed a recommendation to Council until the TexDOT Plan was finished August 10, 2010. At that time, TexDOT proposed the Plan to City Council and set an artificial deadline to start the project in order to get the $80 million+ funding. Loss of the funding is a Red Herring. TexDOT has all the right-of-way it needs and the artificial deadlines keep getting pushed back. Furthermore, the federal highway Environmental Assessment is not finished and it is not automatically expected to get the green-light for the project. There are several environmental issues east of the Gas Line Road, mostly brought to the fed's attention by Texas Parks and Wildlife.

OSAB also exposed serious flaws in the TexDOT plan. Among them are no safe entrance to the Tom Mays Unit at the State Park, no wildlife crossings, a pork barrel overpass with no roadway or on/off ramps that is not even on the city's Master Thoroughfare Plan, and poorly designed commercial development in the scenic foothills.

In addition, the claim that Natural Open Space zoned acreage cannot be touched, making it impossible to provide water service is absolutely false. It's another Red Herring. I know, I helped write the NOS zoning ordinance, and it does no such thing. In fact, the ordinance is being modified to make it easier to allow critical infrastructure as well as infrastructure that enhances open space, such as parking areas, picnic areas, visitor's centers, etc.

The other fallacy is that water rates may skyrocket if water utility officials don't sell the land. False again. The savings to ratepayers is negligible, if any savings at all. The PSB sells land at wholesale, it has to put in the water infrastructure and maintain that infrastructure for ever after the developer has made his profit by selling at retail. Even if we take the utility's inflated value with no expenses, the savings to the rate payer is negligible. Sales in the last ten years have averaged $4 million per year. Using the average number of rate payers in that time, the one-time savings for the rate payer is $24.70. I know. The PSB's land sales in 2010 were only $400 thousand out of $155 million total revenues or .01%. I've studied the PSB's financial records. Furthermore, the tax base may or may not be increase with development along the scenic corridor. Development generally does not pay for itself, especially sprawl.

I don't mind disagreeing with others, including you. It's part of the debate. We're not clones. I do expect facts and truth through proper research. You haven't done either. You've simply taken the word of so-called professionals. You shouldn't believe everything those so-called professionals say. Check out the misinformation they throw out as I have.

Best regards,

Charlie

Time for a re-vote? Time to sign the petitions? Download them here or at www.franklinmountains.org and share with your friends and family. It's time that the lying stops.