Lights on Transmountain?

There has been some email chatter today about the possiblity that TxDOT is planning to "light up" Transmountain with a string of light poles. I'm not sure how this rumor got started, but here is the response from TxDOT's Regional Engineer, Bob Bielek:

"There is no lighting included as part of the current project and we currently have no plans to install lighting along TransMountain.  In the future, if there were a drastic increase in the number and severity of nighttime accidents along the roadway we might consider continuous lighting; however, given the lack of electric service and the cost of such an installation I expect we would look for other options first.  Let me be clear however, I don't expect there to be a sudden increase in accidents along TransMountain so any discussion of what might happen is just speculation."

Rest easy.

State Park Entrance Still Top Issue

Houdini, the Harris Hawk, was a big hit at the Fiesta

(Photo courtesy of Benny Pol)

In spite of the construction on Transmountain Road, this past Saturday's Chihuahuan Desert Fiesta was well-attended. The unofficial guestimate of attendance is now 500. The buzz at the Fiesta though was the park entrance. Many had a hard time finding their way into the park. Some who came from the east side missed the turn and then, in spite of no real left turns allowed at this time, made a left turn anyway into the park after turning around and heading back east. 

The question on everyone's mind was "What will be done with the entrance?"

Elpasonaturally has learned today from TxDOT Engineer, Bob Bielek, that, before November 1, the public can expect another meeting concerning the entrance and the alternatives that TxDOT believes now to be viable. Bielek said that TxDOT has heard loud and clear that the public wants a safe animal corridor under the highway and safe passage for hikers and bicyclists. To do an animal corridor would probably be less than $300,000 - chump change for a project as expensive and extensive as the west side segment of Transmountain.

So, look for a public meeting soon and look for some real discussion on safe alternatives that include making entrance to the largest urban park in the United State quite attractive.

Bielek affirmed that the project and entrance considerations are on-schedule.

More Information about Park Entrance Travesty

Before I go any farther, take the time to go to the FMWC call to action concerning the park entrance.  In addition to meeting dates and an email that you can write (complete with a list of email addresses), also go to TxDOT's Public Meeting Notice and see where you can send comments.  In all 4 calls to action: emails to officials, an MPO meeting on April 5 and the TxDOT meeting on April 10, and information where you can email your comments to TxDOT - window dressing for them, of course; but it will be great to have on record emails from all of you.

Now here's how the bad deal went down - the defunding of the TPWD preferred entrance to the FMSP which provided safety and better access by motorists along with an animal corridor. Just know that there is still more information coming in.

On February 25, 2013 Dr. Richard Bonart met with Bob Bielek, the El Paso District TxDOT Engineer, and City Council representative, Susie Byrd.  Rep. Ann Lilly also joined the meeting at the park entrance from Transmountain in question is in her district.  

Dr. Bonart reportedly either was misunderstood or misrepresented the position of the environmental/conservation community - viz., their support of the TPWD's Alternative 4: an underpass at the entrance that will support motorists, animals and hikers and bicyclists.  Bonart has opposed such a plan for a long time now and has lobbied for a route from Paseo del Norte about 1.5 miles from the park.  Since OSAB changed an earlier recommendation of the Bonart proposal to the TPWD preferred alternative, it seemed certain that the park entrance would be the TPWD's preferred plan.  Rep Lilly apparently also favors the TPWD proposal for an entrance in her district.  Unfortunately, one meeting can undo what the larger public favors.  Bielek is using the mis-information at the meeting to further what it now seems was his plan to scuttle a safer entrance to the park in the first place.

Bielek has been making several assertions about defunding the project for a new entrance that just don't seem to add up.

In one email he blames the Sierra Club:

From: Bob Bielek [mailto:Robert.Bielek@txdot.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: TXDOT Option 4

Ray,

To clarify the actual situation regarding the project to alter the entrance to Franklin Mountain State Park, the following are the facts:

1.  The funding for the project had to be obligated by the end of August of this year.  Because of the suit by the Sierra Club environmental processing was delayed and therefore the project can not be funded with those funds.  Also, the funds reserved for this project were insufficient for the alternative you describe.  We do not believe that finding alternative funding once the environmental process is complete will be a problem.

2.  In reviewing the situation, it does not appear that a change to the entrance that will exist after completion of the TransMountain West Project is necessary from a traffic safety perspective.

3.  A Public Meeting will be held April 10th, from 6PM to 8PM at Canutillo High School to advise the public of the alternatives that have been investigated and to permit the public to offer their own alternatives.  This is particularly important since it appears that the Purpose and Need for this project is not traffic safety but other issues, such as the safe passage of pedestrians and wildlife that wish to transit TransMountain.

We certainly welcome anyone with an interest in this project to attend the Public Meeting and to participate in the environmental process.

Bob Bielek, DPA, PE

District Engineer, El Paso District

Texas Department of Transportation

Sent from my iPad

However, the Sierra Club's attorney says that the Sierra Club's suit did not affect the entrance in any legal way:

From: David Frederick [mailto:dof@lf-lawfirm.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: FMSP Entrance and Sierra Club ?

All:

I am overseas for a short break.  So, this is perfunctory.  But, it is not correct or fair to say the Club's suit, which was over the expansion project from which TxDOT had earlier deleted (segmented) the park entrance project, affected the park entrance project in any legal sense.  TxDOT may have wished to move slowly on the park entrance project to make look more reasonable it's argument in court that the two projects were wholly independent, because, otherwise, the environmental impacts of the park entrance project should have been considered in the EA for the Transmountain road expansion project, and they were not.  Basically, TxDOT could more easily argue the park entrance project was not related to the expansion project, if the two were separated by more time and if the park entrance project were still vaguely defined.

David Frederick

Lowerre, Frederick, Perales, Allmon & Rockwell

Austin 78701      phone: (512) 469-6000

Furthermore traffic safety has been the primary reason for a discussion about a new park entrance since the expansion of Transmountain West from 2 lanes to 4 has been in front of the public.

In another email, Mr. Bielek asserts that he has never spoken with anyone at TPWD about the entrance alternative so, in effect, time has just run out and there is nothing that he can do about it now:

From: Bob Bielek <Robert.Bielek@txdot.gov>

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:04:04 -0600

To: Teschner, Richard<teschner@utep.edu>

Subject: Re: Loop 375's FMSP Tom Mays Entrance: A grade-level crossing against two lanes of downhill traffic is safe?

Richard,

First, I am not familiar with the original arguments made for TransMountain West.  Transitioning from a four lane facility to a two lane facility on a steep grade is a safety issue and if this is the argument made at that time it is quite valid.  It would also be a valid argument that the road is four lane for much of its length and that reducing capacity on steeply graded sections has an adverse impact on capacity, delay, increases pollutant discharge, and wastes fuel.  That said, when considering the situation when TransMountain West is complete, there will be no left turns permitted to eastbound TransMountain from the park entrance.  Eastbound traffic will be required to exit westbound to the frontage road (downhill) and then use the Texas turnaround at any of the interchanges to proceed eastbound.  Eastbound traffic entering the park will need to cross two lanes of traffic; however, the sight distance is virtually unlimited and the volumes are so low as to not meet any warrant for signalization much less grade separating the crossing.

I was not at the January 11th meeting you mention and I don't know if anyone from TxDOT attended that meeting.  I am unaware of any agreement between TxDOT and TPWD other than an exchange of land for the former TxDOT District Office now occupied by TPWD.  While there was an agreement for this exchange of land, really cleaning up an old situation since TPWD has been using the Clark Street TxDOT property for more than a decade; any "done deal" on implementation of any alternative being considered would have been a gross violation of the environmental process.  Since I am the TxDOT official that will make the recommendation for the preferred alternative as the process proceeds I can assure you that I have never even spoken to anyone from TPWD regarding TxDOT adopting a preferred alternative.

I appreciate you position regarding highway safety; however, my professional opinion is not consistent with yours.  I am afraid we will need to agree to disagree on this point.

Bob Bielek, DPA, PE

District Engineer

Texas Department of Transportation

Sent from my iPad

Elpasonaturally has reason to believe that there was substantial communication between TPWD and TxDOT including Bielek. More coming, folks.  Promise.

Bait and Switch Scheme by TxDOT?

Is TxDOT planning to do a bait and switch scheme with the new entrance to the Franklin Mountains State Park? Rumor has it that they are.

A plan favored by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Franklin Mountains State Park and conservationists and environmentalists may now be doomed by TxDOT.  The plan for a new and safer entrance to the Tom Mays Unit of the FMSP, a wildlife corridor, and hike and bike trail connections was presented earlier to the public and El Paso City Council.  The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission voted to give 8 acres of land to TxDOT for the project.

We are now hearing that TxDOT is planning to renege on the deal, pull a bait and switch scheme and do so with the excuse of lack of funds.  Instead of an underpass which guaranteed the protection of the view shed, TxDOT may be planning an ugly OVERPASS and NO ANIMAL CORRIDOR.  If the rumor is true, we have to ask whether this was the intention by TxDOT all along once they had the land in their control.

The new entrance is part of the project to widen Transmountain Road from the State Park entrance to Interstate 10.  

A public meeting about the proposed entrance is scheduled for April 10 from 6 to 8 p.m. at Canutillo High School. (Map)

If indeed a bait and switch is in the works, let's hope that public outrage will be loud and clear. 

Transmountain: Done

Here's a sad message from Lawrence Gibson, the Chair of the El Paso Group of the Sierra Club:

On October 23 the Environmental Law Office of Sierra Club national in San Francisco finally recommended dismissal of El Paso Group’s lawsuit against TxDot and the Federal Highway Administration over their overblown plans to expand Transmountain Road in Northwest El Paso. If approved as expected by SC leadership, this would mark the end of a 20-month effort by El Paso’s environmental community to get back to TxDot’s original 4-lanes-at-grade road improvement plan for this once-pristine drive past Franklin Mountains State Park and over the crest of the mighty Franklins.

The Executive Committee of your El Paso Group, already $38K in debt to its lawyers, decided in July to pull the plug on the lawsuit. The litigation has been fraught with delays, taking almost two months for approval in San Francisco to begin, with a three month delay by the Austin judge on our motion for a temporary injunction to halt construction, and finally another three-month delay in granting our wishes to halt legal action.

Fortunately, Lowerre, Frederick, et al;, our Austin lawyers, agreed to “stop the clock” in July after your Excom, intimidated by a debt that might take 15 or 20 years to pay off, felt it was hopeless to continue after the judge denied our request for an injunction to stop construction.

In retrospect (Hindsight is always perfect, yes?) we can say, even the lawyers say, that we got a “bad” judge, one unlikely to go up against the development community. Of course, the idea of filing in Austin was in hopes of getting our case heard in a more environmentally sensitive court.

There were several good things to come of this debilitating lawsuit effort. We actually did a terrific job of fundraising! For the first time the Rio Grande Chapter did a special fundraising mailing targeted just to El Paso. This netted over 30 donations, some for hundreds of dollars. Unfortunately they averaged about $20; not nearly enough to cover our five-figure debt.

We also inadvertently discovered a “high-value” donor in El Paso committed to the Lone Star Chapter (That’s the rest of Texas, folks). This person, a non-member, gave our top gift of $5000 and has promised to change donations to El Paso. We also were heartened by major gifts from our coalition partner Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coalition and our Rio Grande Chapter overseers.

The national Sierra Club was, unfortunately for El Paso, MIA on this lawsuit, which was of course a civic effort. Its Bloomberg millions are committed to the transition away from coal. Efforts are already underway to find ways to replace that money when it is “used up.”

Many thanks to all of the donors to this cause, individual as well as institutional. The El Paso Group of the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club appreciates your support! 

Sierra Club Needs Your Help Fighting TxDOT

Here is an update on the TxDOT lawsuit from Laurence Gibson, the Chair of the El Paso Group of the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter:

Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter El Paso Groupnmsierraclub.org/elpasoDear El Paso Sierrans, For over a year now most of your Executive Committee’s energy has gone into fighting Texas Department of Transportation’s overblown plan for Transmountain Road. We regard the planned expansion as the linchpin that will release a flood of development on the western slopes of our beloved Franklin Mountains, labeling El Paso forever as a second-rate city that values the short-term gains of sprawl over respect for our natural heritage. We have a vision for El Paso that would put us in a class with Tucson or Boulder, or even Austin! First, we hired Texas’ foremost environmental law firm, Lowerre, Frederick, Perales, Allmon and Rockwell, for an unsuccessful protest of the TxDot plan where we asked for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) instead of their “quick and dirty” Environmental Analysis. This is the same firm that brought our ASARCO suit to a successful end. We do not often seek legal help. Then, we filed suit against TxDot and the Federal Highway Administration in hopes of forcing that EIS. In the meantime, the contractor has begun work down by I-10. By the time you read this, we may have an injunction in force to halt construction while the court rules on our case. As you know, lawyers do not work gratis. The final bill for this effort could reach $75,000! Your response to our financial pleas has been remarkable: Our environmental partners have really “stepped up” with large commitments, like Franklin Mountain Wilderness Coalition’s $3,000, the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter’s $2,700 and your El Paso Group treasury’s $4,000. The fight for clean energy is taking almost all of the national club’s legal resources, so we have nothing there. Individual donations have ranged all the way from $25 to $1,000, for a total now of around $2,500. We need your gift to reach our goal. We’d be happy to add your name to the list or respect your desire to remain anonymous. Just mail your check in the enclosed envelope. [See mailing address below.] Your donation could mean the difference between endless sprawl and an El Paso future generations can be proud of. Thank you,Laurence GibsonChair, El Paso Group of the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter
P.S.: Please be generous. Your gift might determine what El Paso looks like next year and in 100 years!

Send $ to:

El Paso Group, Sierra Club

PO Box 9191 El Paso 79995

Sierra Club Files Lawsuit to Halt Transmountain West Construction

The Sierra Club has filed a suit today against the Federal Highway Administration and TxDOT over the Transmountain project that will widen that road from just east of the State Park entrance all the way to Interstate 10. The suit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division.

The suit asks the court to find that the environmental assessment done by TxDOT was arbitrary and not done in accordance with the law. If the Court so finds, then Sierra Club is asking that the project be halted.  Sierra Club says that a full environmental impact statement must be prepared before any construction starts. Such an impact study and statement can take over a year to complete.  Sierra argues that the project as now defined will have a very negative impact on people and the environment.

The El Paso Times reported just last week that “Sundt Construction of Tucson has been selected by the Texas Department of Transportation to build the $61 million Loop 375 Trans Mountain West project on the West Side . . . “ The Times further reported that Sundt plans to break ground this month.

By the way, weren’t we told by City leaders that $85 million not $61 million was the cost of the project? These same leaders were so afraid of losing so much money for El Paso – or Tucson – or wherever. Still $61 million far exceeds the initial solution for the project - $15 million.

Know that this project is no mere widening of the road. It will create a 4 lane “freeway” from the State Park to I-10 with four additional frontage road lanes – two north and two south of this asphalt beast.

An earlier story by Chris Roberts published in the El Paso Times and still available online documents how decisions about the TxDOT project were made behind closed doors and prior to any public meetings. [Actually, Roberts’ key story was called “Bypassed” and chronicled how developers and TxDOT corresponded on design of the Transmountain Road project. That story is only available now through an online subscription process.] Roberts wrote:

“Emails obtained by the El Paso Times under a Texas Open Records Act request indicated that TxDOT officials worked closely with developers as they planned a strip of big-box stores on Trans Mountain near I-10. And when public meetings were held in February, ‘plans for Transmountain had long been completed,’ according to an email Texas Transportation Commissioner Ted Houghton sent to a City Council member.”

The mere fact that the public was cut out of the process and that public hearings were mere window dressing, gives added fuel to the support of the Sierra lawsuit.

Lawsuits cost money and this one needs your support. A Legal Defense Fund has been set-up to support the lawsuit. If you wish to contribute, make your check payable to “El Paso Regional Sierra Club Group” with a memo that reads “Franklin Mountain Legal Defense Fund”. Mail your check to the El Paso Regional Sierra Club Group, P.O. Box 9191, El Paso, TX 79995.

Other subjects . . . 

Switching subjects and please take note: I got my dates wrong for the public City hearings regarding  action on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Re-Write (Plan El Paso). It is important that the public attend and voice their support for a Plan that was written after more than 2500 people participated in 100 meetings and 20 hands-on-sessions. Plan El Paso has been discussed by numerous groups, stakeholders and the press. Efforts to sink the plan by delaying its passage are underway. I published the corrected dates at elpasonaturally and here they are again (correctly):

Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee

Monday, February 20, 2012, 10 a.m. to Noon, 10^th Floor City Hall

City Plan Commission

Thursday, February 23, 2012, 1:30 p.m., 2^nd Floor City Hall

Legislative Review Committee

Thursday, March 1, 2012, 1:30 p.m., 2^nd Floor City Hall

City Council

Tuesday, March 6, 2012, 8:30 a.m., 2^nd Floor City Hall

Please get these dates on your calendar. I will be discussing the Comprehensive Plan Re-Write and publicizing these critical meetings more and more.

As I keep saying, El Paso needs a Green Chamber of Commerce as they have in New Mexico cities. Also, I’ve noticed that Everyday Health recently linked to an article about the new hairstyles that are simple and don’t require blow dryers: Celeb-Inspired Summer Hair. I mention this only because one of the key players (if not the key player) in efforts to water down the new City Landscape Ordinance and now to scuttle the Comprehensive Plan re-write is none other than River Oaks Properties. River Oaks is owned by Helen of Troy founder and CEO, Gerald “Jerry” Rubin.  Of course you know that Helen of Troy makes and markets “personal care electrical products”.  Perhaps not purchasing electrical hair care appliances or even using them makes sense not just for the sake of the planet but for  the sake of El Paso, Texas.

Finally, The 14-week annual training program to become a Texas Master Naturalist begins in just two weeks: February 22, 2012. Persons interested will be trained by experts in urban ecology, geology, botany, mammology, invertebrate biology, ornithology, archaeology, soils, climate and more. Classes are held on Wednesday evenings from 6 to 9 p.m. at the El Paso Garden Center, 3105 Grant Avenue. (Map)   There are also several Saturday morning field trips.  Time is short but applications are still being taken.  To apply for this year’s class you can call the AgriLife Extension office at 915-851-2515 or apply online: http://txmn.org/apply/.  You can also email Matthew Santillan for more information. The cost of the program is $125 to cover books and publications.   The complete press release is available at elpasonaturally.

Song of the Day: Velia Christina and Transmountain

Singer, songwriter and petition gatherer, Velia Christina Gurrola, did this track with Zyme One. The song, of course, is about Transmountain.

Don't Ease Up!

Here’s what I wrote in the last e-letter:

“I have not seen a copy of the FONSI yet. It may be that TxDOT made some changes. I doubt it. Remember, their plans had some major discrepancies among them was a safe way to enter and exit Tom Mays Park and a provision for the protection of motorists from collisions with animals by building a safe animal corridor/crossing.”

The good news is that TxDOT did make some changes. El Paso Times reporter, Chris Roberts, summarizes those changes in today’s paper. Read the FONSI itself if you would like. It is good that TxDOT did indeed make provisions for a safe access to the Park and for a place for an animal crossing. Those good ideas for safe access and an animal crossing were proposed to them in 2004 and again in 2008 and it took some noise to make them make changes in their final plans. However, the animal crossing will be constructed west of their Paseo del Norte interchange in an area that could become developed if the 800 acres conservationists wish to set aside isn’t. In other words, animals won’t have a crossing because they won’t go through a human neighborhood. TxDOT did some good things – but let’s talk about the best thing: preserving 800 acres of the Scenic Corridor including moving Paseo del Norte west.

Today’s El Paso Times ran an editorial – Development: Northwest petitioners should ease up. Note to the El Paso Times publishers: Like Hell We Will!

That editorial is so filled with (to be charitable) “misinformation”, that a rebuttal is worth making.

The El Paso Times says: “Growth in the Northwest has been long planned out and the City Council signed off on an official ‘Northwest Plan’ in 2005. It includes open space, hiking and biking trails, and there is a buffer zone between land to be developed and the base of the Franklin Mountains.”

Nobody is talking about all of the land in the NW Plan – just the less than 800 acres of the Scenic Corridor. Plans can be changed and modified and should be. City Council has already called for using Smart Growth for the area – something not in the 2005 Master Plan and certainly something you can expect push back from Archuleta and others. Also, most favoring preserving the 800 acres are for widening Transmountain. The Times publishers suggest that they are not.

Then the Times says this about the land petitioners call for preserving: “It's land owned by the Public Service Board. The PSB says if it can never sell that land, likely portions at a time, it would probably mean a rise in water rates. Selling land it owns, at timely times, has helped keep rates at their present levels, according to Ed Archuleta, who heads El Paso Water Utilities and its various arms.”

Again, to be charitable, this paragraph is packed with misinformation – oh hell – they are down right lies that either the Times publishers ignorantly believe or are themselves complicit in re-telling and spreading.

First, the PSB doesn’t own any land. They can’t by State law. It is City of El Paso land managed by the PSB. They may track that land on different ledgers; but make no mistake, it is El Paso land and the City Council, our elected representatives, have final authority. At the last Open Space Advisory Board meeting, a PSB representative used the misnomer “PSB owned” and I called him on it. He admitted that I was right. The PSB will use this terminology in order to put into the public mind that they, and they alone, can make decisions about City-owned land that they manage. The final decision-maker is City Council – or, more to the point, you the people who elect members of the City Council.

It is also “misinformation” that land sales keep your water rates low. Land sales are about 2% of the revenue of the El Paso Water Utilities. In their favor, it is the policy of water conservation that has kept those rates low. We have gone from 200 gallons of water per day per person several decades ago to 130 gallons of water per day per person today. Sprawl and added infrastructure only mean that the cost of City services are going up and will go up.

What do land sales really mean? A non-free market manner of subsidizing particular developers and builders. A few El Pasoans benefit on the backs of many. I say “particular” developers because I suspect Archuleta is in bed with some on El Paso’s Westside while being antagonistic toward (as are his developer friends) some builders on the east side. The west side has one source of drinkable water: the Mesilla Bolson (a source of water that EPWU’s plans are certain to deplete very quickly.) The east side has the Hueco Bolson, two river plants, a desalination plant, and potentially farm water from counties east of El Paso. Yet, Archuleta will tell you that there are problems with the east side and that the west side should be developed. Of course, better than more sprawl any where is in-fill.

The Times talks about “unstoppable natural growth”. More people and lower water rates cannot cancel the laws of supply and demand. Think less water, much higher rates, the end to more farm land . . . unsustainability. So, EPWU/PSB, go ahead and keep adding water meters (especially in NW El Paso) because natural growth is unstoppable, according to your pals at the El Paso Times. According to those Campbell Street Cronies, we El Pasoans lack the vision to have policies of sustainability and should just continue to subsidize the plans of the few.

As for easing up – should City Council members on September 20 vote down the proposed ordinance of petitioners, then those same petitioners will sign another petition to have the ordinance placed on a ballot for the people of El Paso to decide.

Now Here's the Bad News

Now that our first petition has been certified, here’s the bad news:

Representative Silvestre Reyes’ office confirmed that the FHWA had completed the NEPA and sent a FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) to TxDOT yesterday. A second source also confirmed this story as well.

As we all know, TxDOT in league with developers completed the designs for the Transmountain project before public vetting. The public meeting was pro forma – mere window dressing. The FHWA has issued a FONSI in spite of the fact that TxDOT’s EA clearly circumvented the public. If City Council passes the ordinance requested by the petition, the connection to Paseo del Norte at Transmountain will be for naught – an overpass to no where. If Council does not pass the ordinance, then petitioners will gather the required signatures for a referendum election. Will TxDOT pursue their plans of clandestine origin without listening to the will of the people?

Remember, petitioners by and large do not oppose widening of Transmountain Road even through the Scenic Corridor. The issue is to preserve about 800 acres known as the Scenic Corridor in its natural state from development or major roadways such as Paseo del Norte as currently schemed. The preservation would not even disallow critical utility structures such as a water tank and any service roads or power lines to service the structure. Opponents have misrepresented this matter.

I have not seen a copy of the FONSI yet. It may be that TxDOT made some changes. I doubt it. Remember, their plans had some major discrepancies among them was a safe way to enter and exit Tom Mays Park and a provision for the protection of motorists from collisions with animals by building a safe animal corridor/crossing.

The final NEPA decision can, of course be sued under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Sign this online petition. Even if you signed the official petition and/or even if you are not a registered voter in the City of El Paso, this petition lets everyone know that you want to preserve and protect the Franklin Mountains. We will promote this publicly in the light of day. We will not do things behind closed doors, huddled with cronies and presuming to know what is best for the people of El Paso.

Breaking News: Petition Certifies!

SharpMFP@Elpasotexas.gov 20110816 161022

My Comments to City Council

Before submitting petitions to the Municipal Clerk this past Tuesday, I announced intentions to do so to the City Council during the "Call to the Public" portion of their regular agenda for August 9, 2011. Here is what I said:

Today, citizens of El Paso will submit to the Municipal Clerk a petition.

The right of the people to petition their government is key to our democracy and enshrined in the Constitution of our country. There is also provision for it in our City Charter. We come today to ask that land along Transmountain Drive abutting the State Park and known as the Scenic Corridor be preserved and left in its natural state. We believe that we have gathered the necessary number of signatures of voters registered in the City of El Paso. Unlike our last attempt, we carefully checked each item on our petition pages against the voter registration records of the County of El Paso.

We also worked with Mr. Chacon of the County Elections office to resolve any discrepancies that we found. We believe that the Municipal Clerk’s office will concur that we have enough signatures. If it does, then you will have another opportunity to vote to preserve this land.

Our petition is not an issue of morality but of policy. We believe that it is in the best interest of the people of El Paso to preserve this land not just for its beauty but for the economic advantages to be gained from such conservation. We disagree with those who believe that there is any financial gain from selling the land. We are aware that many of you do not agree with us or, at this time, favor our proposed ordinance. We respect the difference of opinions. However, know that, if our ordinance fails to pass City Council, we shall immediately begin the petition drive to have that same ordinance placed before the voters of El Paso, Texas on the next available ballot which probably will be next spring rather than this November. We have communicated our intentions to the Federal Highway Administration, TxDOT and to you, our elected representatives.

We hope that we can work together. Our ordinance does not oppose the widening of Transmountain Road as some have deceptively claimed. We are all reasonable people and can work together just as long as no El Pasoan is ever bypassed.

More Than Enough Signatures!

PLAN NOW TO ATTEND the El Paso Water Utilities/Public Service Board Strategic Planning meetings, September 8 and 9 from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the TecH20 Center, 10751 Montana Avenue, El Paso, TX. (Map) EPWU/PSB is an agency of the City of El Paso. It belongs to you, the people of El Paso. Your voice in strategic planning is important.

Petition gatherers for the Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coalition announced today that they now have more than enough verified signatures on a petition which calls for the preservation of the Scenic Transmountain Corridor. Plans are being made now to announce the results of the petition drive at the next City Council meeting on Tuesday, August 9, at approximately 9 a.m. Supporters are invited to attend that presentation. Immediately afterwards, the petitions will be formally submitted to the Municipal Clerk’s office.

The petition reads as follows:

The undersigned ask that the El Paso City Council pass the following ordinance:

The City of El Paso shall preserve, in its natural state and in perpetuity, all of the acreage in the land legally described as “Parcel 1 - Nellie D. Mundy Survey 246, City of El Paso, El Paso County, Texas, and Parcel 2 - a portion of S.J. Larkin Survey, Abstract 10070, Tract 1, City of El Paso, El Paso County, Texas, and Parcel 3 - a portion of S.J. Larkin Survey, Abstract 10070, Tract 1-A, City of El Paso, El Paso County, Texas.” The City shall take all steps necessary to preserve this land and to prevent it from being developed with either private development or major public roadways. (This land is also known as “the West Transmountain Scenic Corridor.”)

As mentioned in the last elpasonaturally e-letter, the Federal Highway Administration has still not ruled on the TxDOT Environmental Assessment although word through the grapevine is that they will in the next couple of weeks.

Take time to read Lisa Tate’s excellent history of Transmountain which is the feature story in the August El Paso Scene. Her story concludes with comments about the open space issue from our very good friend, Rick L. LoBello. The Scene can be found at these locations.

Judy Ackerman of the Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coalition sent this very encouraging email message:

This week, members of FMWC met with new City Representatives Niland and Noe. They both expressed support for our efforts to preserve land on the Scenic Corridor in NW [El Paso] and Castner Range in NE [El Paso]. Ms. Cortney Niland assured us that she wants to protect our mountains because she and her family are active rock climbers and mountain bikers. Dr. Michael Noe expressed support for smart growth concepts and wants to stop the sprawl in east El Paso that causes traffic jams and other problems.

Interested in starting an eco-tourism business or community project? It’s not too late to register for the Eco-Tourism Workshop. (See flyer.) Registration must be done by tomorrow (August 5). Just contact Dr. Ray Bader at rbader@ag.tamu.edu or calling 915-860-2515. The registration fee is $50.00. Read Judge Veronica Escobar’s letter about the event.

The El Paso Native Plant Society will meet next on Thursday, August 11 beginning at 6:30 p.m. Dave Nolan of the National Weather Service will speak on “Weather 2011 Style”. Also, the El Paso Cactus and Rock Club will host a pot-luck luncheon and cactus plant lottery beginning at 10 a.m. on Saturday, August 13. Both events take place at the Garden Center, 3105 Grant Avenue. For more information, call 915-833-7637.

Finally, the El Paso Sunrise Hikers, Franklin Mountains State Park Volunteers, the El Paso Ridgewalkers and the El Paso Hiking Group are having a rummage sale at this year’s Chihuahuan Desert Fiesta on September 17^th to benefit the Franklin Mountains State Park. Please donate any good, clean used (or new) hiking or camping gear that you don’t plan on using again. For more information and/or to make a donation, please call Jim Tolbert at 915-525-7364 or email him or call Richard Love at 915-474-1384 or email him. We will arrange to pick up all items that you wish to donate.

This is Volume 2 and Number 26 published on August 4, 2011 of the Elpasonaturally e-letter. To subscribe, email and write "Subscribe elpasonaturally".

It Isn't Over

Here's today's elpasonaturally e-letter:

It’s not over until . . . you know the rest. The Federal Highway Administration has taken some time now to rule on TxDOT’s Environmental Assessment of its Transmountain project. They will either accept the EA or notify TxDOT that they must perform a full blown Environmental Impact Study. There is a Sierra Club account to collect money for legal fees in case FHWA says an EIS is not needed. “In that case the next step would be to sue TXDOT and FHWA,” a Sierra Club official told me. The Sierra Club attorneys will obviously not do anything else until FHWA has made their decision regarding the EA.

There is, however, the petition that has been re-circulating. It does not call for Transmountain not to be widened. It does call for keeping nearly 800 acres natural and it would prevent some of the major overpasses from being built as described in the Chris Roberts El Paso Times story, Bypassed, a story that keeps being talked about and keeps angering people.

Petitioners are carefully checking each signature to make sure that they are those of registered City of El Paso voters. Download the petition here. Email me and I’ll come pick it up or tell you how to mail it to me ASAP. The petition is just a sliver away from getting enough signatures. Even if City Council were to turn down the petition, the FHWA needs to know that El Pasoans don’t like being bypassed and don’t like the project as designed. There is no virtue in getting lots of highway money for El Paso went that money is spent on environmentally bad, poorly designed and poorly presented projects.

Even if you think that you signed the petition before March or April, you can sign again. Any doubt, sign.

Read the El Paso Inc. story about the state parks cuts. The El Paso Times also did a piece on last week’s massacre of Texas Parks and Wildlife employees that hit El Paso the hardest. One of my readers questioned my use of the term “firing” when I spoke about the termination of employees here in El Paso. She suggested that “laid off” was more apropos since “firing” has the connotation that the persons being laid off did something wrong. None of these people did anything wrong except work in El Paso for the TPWD since El Paso is a city unrepresented on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. Each and every one of these eight people has been hurt and will be missed. It is a tragedy and a travesty to lose John Moses, the John Wayne/Sean Connery of our local state parks. John wasn’t a pencil pusher. He got out there and knew the trails and the terrain of every square inch of our parks. I just hope he sticks around El Paso and continues to enrich our community with his leadership and wisdom.

Please support our friends at the Southwest Environmental Center. Read more here. Also, please visit Trap Free New Mexico, learn more, visit the petition page and the Facebook page.

Letter Outlines Deficiencies in TxDOT EA

A letter to TxDOT outlines the serious problems with their Environmental Assessment of the Transmountain Road project between I-10 and the State Park. It is written by the law firm of Lawerre, Frederick, Perales, Allman & Rockwell, the attorneys for the local chapter of the Sierra Club. It utilizes a key study by David Simon, the principal of Eco-Think Consulting.

It makes the following chief points:

TxDOT's EA is underfunded and deficient.

The report used outdated data.

There is no true evaluation of the noise impact.

There is no true evaluation of the visual impact and, in fact, the video that TxDOT provides online does not include commercial, industrial or residential development.

It underestimates damage to biodiversity, wildlife and vegetation.

What is needed is study for an Environmental Impact Study.

Here's the letter and attachment of the consultant's findings:

Sierra Club Public Hrg Comments-TxDOT Loop 375 Transmtn West

What Next after Council Approves TxDOT Plan

Yesterday’s 7-1 vote by City Council approving the TxDOT Transmountain West plan means one thing: the freeway/highway is going to be built and along with it, interchanges/overpasses at Plexxar and Paseo del Norte.

Paseo del Norte will be a major thoroughfare as planned by the MPO. To be sure, the plan for Paseo is not part of the TxDOT project except as it connects with Transmountain; but it logically follows that Paseo del Norte will be completed as currently mapped-out. As a major thoroughfare intersecting a freeway (and Transmountain will be a freeway from I-10 to Paseo) it will encourage and contribute to commercial development and there will be no natural open space except as may be dictated by SmartCode.

It was good enough for Mr. Chuck Berry of TxDOT to assure Council members that there will be a “fix” for the currently unsafe entrance/exit to the State Park. No one can doubt his sincerity and determination that TxDOT will find a way to make that entrance to the Tom Mays Unit safer. Additionally, it appears that the overall project will be under budget enough to make for a good solution.

When all was said and done yesterday, members of Council decided to bite the $85 million carrot stick. Only Representative Susie Byrd stuck to her principles.

Of course, there is a possibility that the Federal Highway Administration may pay attention to many of the objections raised by you at the public meeting and by the copies of the first two petitions – each signed by nearly 1900 El Pasoans. There is also a possibility that legal action may delay the project. It is also possible that the fact that City Council would not preserve the Scenic Corridor for fear of losing money may prove to be a significant impact. Preserving the land never meant preventing the project. However putting Paseo del Norte where it is planned to be most definitely will mean no open space. A portion of TxDOT’s plan is predicated on the location and construction of Paseo del Norte.

So what are the implications in the short-term for people, including conservationists and environmentalists, who value natural open space and the preservation of the Scenic Corridor?

· First, there is no reason at this time to pursue a petition to preserve land. That fight can wait for another day. Even if enough valid signatures are presented, Council will still vote 7-1 against it. It may not always work the way we want and it may not always work well, but representative democracy works. That should be respected. Instead of pouring energy into an effort that will only be fruitless at this time, El Pasoans including the environmental/conservation community should work to elect genuine green candidates. Right now I’m aware of Lyda Ness-Garcia in District 1 (Ann Morgan Lilly’s district) and Ernesto Villanueva, Jr. in District 8, the seat Beto O’Rourke is vacating.

· It also means getting involved in the in the planning with the City for Smart Codes in the NW Master Plan. The location, size, and shape of the open space will be decided there.

· It means working with the head of City Engineering ,Alan Shubert, who is leading the way on a mitigation bank that will benefit the environment and business interests.

· And, it means keeping an eye on the land, on the PSB and on future City Council actions.

But here is the really good news – the rich blessings in all of this – an optimistic, Reaganesque pony in the manure pile: El Pasoans from all areas of the City and from different demographics have come together and discovered their common values and dreams. They represent a powerful and creative force for change and they can be found in government, businesses, medical and other service professions, schools, the University - everywhere. Here are three aspirations I have heard from many of them:

A PAC must be organized so that issues can be addressed, candidates can be found, and the public can be informed. A PAC is necessary because the long-entrenched political power structure in El Paso does not see the need for anything but sprawl and low pay and has nothing to offer but ideas for unsustainability. Ecology, ecosystems, wildlife habitat, sustainable human community, creativity and innovation are not terms in their vocabulary.

The City of El Paso, the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Public Service Board especially must become more transparent and accountable to the people of El Paso. (Some at the City and EPWU/PSB will scream about this point because they either think that they are or they think that they don’t have to be and the “riff-raff” should just keep quiet and be grateful.)

El Pasoans (including the business and political communities) need more information about the environment, about ecosystems, about sustainable systems, about our natural heritage and treasures. Such information must be ongoing. Citizens must have more information about events and decisions that affect them and their communities. Media, schools, organizations, clubs, businesses, church groups and government workers must get this information. There are already good sources: the Chihuahuan Desert Education Coalition, Iloveparks.com, and organizations such as the West Texas Urban Forestry Council, Celebration of Our Mountains, Keystone Heritage Park, Friends of the Rio Bosque, and the Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coalition.

Just reviewing these few resources excites me and suddenly renews my spirit!

Yesterday’s vote was a sad disappointment with the decision, the decision-makers, with those we thought were friends. It was also a call to revival, renewal, and reinvigoration. There’s a pony in this room and we are going to find it and share it.

The fun, the adventure and the challenge has just begun!

City Council Approves TxDOT Project 7 to 1

Only Susie Byrd opposed the approval of the Transmountain project as set forth by TxDOT. Chuck Berry was able to convince other members of Council that a safer entrance to the State Park will be created. In the motion to approve there was nothing about Smart Code. Paseo del Norte as planned will tear through beautiful, natural open space.

More later.

Time to Speak Out about Transmountain Road

First, read Rep. Susie Byrd's blog post, "TxDOT to El Paso: 'My Way or the Highway'". Take the vote on her blog. Print the form letter below and fill it out and mail it today or bring it with you to the meeting next Tuesday night:

TXDOT Form Letter for Transmountain

The public hearing for the Transmountain project is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. next Tuesday evening (March 22nd) at Canutillo High School.

Dover Kohl Says "Protect the Gateway"

Plan El Paso_February Charrette_Work in Progress Presentation_Transmountain Slides

Petition Submission and Transmountain Public Hearing Scheduled

Circle these dates and plan to attend if you can:

Tuesday, February 22 @ 8:30 a.m. (approximately) – El Paso City Council. Petition Number 1 will be submitted!

Tuesday, March 1 @ 8:30 a.m. (approximately) – El Paso City Council. Council will hear the TxDOT Transmountain plan and will weigh in on alternatives. They need to hear from you!

Tuesday, March 22 @ 6:00/7:00 p.m. – Canutillo High School – TxDOT’s formal public hearing for the Transmountain Road Project I-10 east to the Franklin Mountain State Park entrance. (See below).

The Federal Highway Administration has given TxDOT approval to release the Environmental Assessment (EA) for public comment and review. TxDOT’s Environmental Assessment is available online. It’s a big file so be patient and prepared to use the magnifying tool. The formal public hearing is scheduled for March 22nd at Canutillo High School starting at 6 p.m. with an open house.

Here is the information as published at http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/hearings_meetings/elp_375_032211.htm:

Public Hearing - Loop 375 Transmountain Rd. Project I-10 to east of the Franklin Mountain State Park Entrance

Where:	Canutillo High School Cafeteria 6675 South Desert Blvd. El Paso, TX	When:	Tuesday, Mar. 22, 2011 6 p.m. - Open House 7:00 p.m. - Public Hearing
Purpose:	The purpose of the hearing is to provide information about the proposed improvements to Loop 375 from I-10 to east of the Franklin Mountains State Park entrance, a distance that includes approximately 3.6 miles of mainlanes and approximately 2.10 miles of frontage roads (from Northwestern Drive to Paseo Del Norte Drive).
Description:	The proposed improvements will consist of expanding the current two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane divided roadway with two-lane frontage roads. The improvements also include grade separated intersections at Northwestern Drive, Resler Drive, Plexxar Drive and Paseo del Norte Drive as well as two direct connectors from Loop 375 west to I-10 east and from I-10 west to Loop 375 east. As part of this project shared hike-and-bike trail will be constructed separate from the roadways, near the Loop 375 right-of-way line, between the intersections of Northwestern Drive and Paseo del Norte Drive. Access to the LP 375 main lanes and frontage roads will be by means of entrance and exit ramps at various locations between intersections. The right-of-way (ROW) footprint and geometric design provides for expansion to six main lanes from Northwestern Drive to east of Paseo del Norte Drive.
Downloads:	· Notice of Public Hearing · Notice of Public Hearing (Español) · Project Location · Environmental Assessment
Contact:	TxDOT El Paso District Public Information Office Phone: (915) 790-4200

There’s more – much more. Enough for now.