Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Please Contact the USFWS
It appears that the Water Improvement District rushed in to destroy vegetation and habitat during nesting season at the Montoya and Newmexas Drains. They were without authority on this as the agreement to maintain those particular drains is between the United States (Department of Interior/Bureau of Reclamation) and the City of El Paso – EPWU being the stormwater agency of the City. After the fire, EPWU began clearing out burned debris per agreement with the United States. WID then stepped in and began clearing out everything. When I asked Chuy Reyes whether he would be open to mitigation of the area with native plants, his email response was: “I am not interested in replanting native vegetation.” There can be little doubt that the destruction of habitat had to include birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (hummingbirds, grackles, etc.) as well as endangered species possibly the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. An investigation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is called for. It would be helpful if the USFWS heard from numerous people asking for an investigation. At the very least an investigation will probably mean that Mr. Reyes and the WID will think twice before destroying wildlife habitat again.
The two FWS staffers to contact are:
Delivan Roper, 575-382-2177, ext. 107; delivan_roper@fws.gov
Albert Gonzalez, 915-471-6320; albert_gonzalez@fws.gov
People can reference any of my posts on the subject at www.elpasonaturally.blogspot.com.
Please help to get the word out. Would you please urge Judy to get an email blast out ASAP.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Asked to Investigate Destruction of Endangered Flycatcher
The destruction of habitat along the Newmexas and Montoya Drains in El Paso's Upper Valley by environmental criminal, Chuy Reyes, and the El Paso County Water Improvement District #1 has possibly destroyed not only migratory birds such as hummingbirds and grackles, but the endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.
Interestingly, a channelization project was set to begin later in the fall near the terminus of the Montoya Drain at the Rio Grande near the El Paso Electric Plant. The project's guidelines call for sensitivity not only to migratory birds but also to the Willow Flycatcher. The project was/is set to start on September 15, 2013 - after nesting season. There is also mention of a proposed wetland habitat project. In other words, Chuy Reyes and the WID were already aware of the bird nesting issues prior to their extreme destruction of vegetation and habitat along the drain.
Here is a copy of the 2013 Channelization Project:
If you are outraged (and you should be), then ask the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to investigate now. The FWS staffer that enforces the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is Delivan Roper. Please contact him to discuss limitations on vegetation removal during the nesting season. Here is his contact information:
Delivan Roper
USFWS
Law Enforcement
575-382-2177, ext. 107
delivan_roper@fws.gov
5686 Santa Gertrudis Drive
Las Cruces, NM 88012
For further reading:
A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Note Figure 8, p. 11 showing nesting and breeding season; also see pictures of habitat including salt cedars.)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Profile of Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Monday, July 15, 2013
Now the Bad News from the MPO: No State Park Entrance
At the Metropolitan Planning Organization/Transportation Policy Board meeting last Friday (7/13/13) State Rep. Marisa Marquez spoke in favor of an appropriate entrance to the Tom Mays section of the Franklin Mountains State Park (FMSP) and asked what funding might be possible. The board listened respectfully as Richard Teschner, Pat White, Scott White, Lois Balin and Judy Ackerman spoke in favor of TxDOT’s option 4, the underpass that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has determined to be the safe and appropriate entrance for the Park.
The MPO looked at 47 projects for the 2014-2016 four-year Transportation Improvement Program funding. The desired FMSP Entrance was one of four projects that was not included. Members of the public spoke about other projects in the TIP. Then without further board discussion, they voted to approve the list of 47 projects. The FMSP entrance project is still in the 20 year Metropolitan Transportation Plan but there is no immediate funding for it.
El Paso Times report: http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_23653206/new-park-entrance-doesnt-get-priority
The MPO looked at 47 projects for the 2014-2016 four-year Transportation Improvement Program funding. The desired FMSP Entrance was one of four projects that was not included. Members of the public spoke about other projects in the TIP. Then without further board discussion, they voted to approve the list of 47 projects. The FMSP entrance project is still in the 20 year Metropolitan Transportation Plan but there is no immediate funding for it.
El Paso Times report: http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_23653206/new-park-entrance-doesnt-get-priority
MPO Approves $2.3 Million for Bicycle Programs and Infrastructure
Here's the good news from last Friday's MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization / Transportation Policy Board) meeting: $2.3 million for El Paso bicycle programs was approved. This follows Tuesday's decision by El Paso City Council to fund bicycle sharing. On hand were what one observer described as "many young (and not so young) energized, eloquent and inspirational El Pasoans who spoke about the need for bicycle lanes, connectivity, quality of life and access to parks."
VeloPaso, El Paso's Bike Pedestrian Coalition, presented two documents. The first showed the how obesity (an epidemic in El Paso) falls with increased cycling and walking.
Their second document shows El Paso's bicycle friendly policies and El Paso's room for improvement.
Bicycle Advocate "Rider Strong" filed this report about the MPO meeting:
"The MPO Transportation Policy Board approved $2.3 million in citywide bicycle infrastructure and programs over the next three years. Several bike advocates voiced their support for bike funding, while countless others called and emailed their representatives, before and during the meeting.
"Bicycle advocates in El Paso received an urgent 24-hour Action Alert from Bike Texas, the state's largest bicycle advocacy organization, after doubts were raised about the fund's security.
"'Infrastructure and bike programs will not only help the [City of El Paso's] new bike share program,' said Ben Foster, board member of Velo Paso, a bicycle pedestrian coalition, 'but it will inspire people to dust off their bikes sitting in their garage and ride to work, school, parks and maybe even to an Aardvarks [minor league baseball] game.'
"Plans for the $60.8 million Triple-A ballpark include 80 bike racks, a requirement for LEED certification.
"Rep. Marisa Marquez (D-77), a novice cyclist whose district includes Downtown, UTEP and neighborhoods around Fort Bliss, asked whether there were beginner bike classes she could attend and share with her constituents.
Bicycle funds approved today could go towards education initiatives and bike classes for adults and children. These funds, considered by city officials as "seed money" for the city's new bicycle program, could also be applied toward the city's first bicycle master plan.
"'An advocacy presence may have saved this pot of money from being diverted to other projects' said a city official.
"The $2.3 million dollars in funding represents a mere 1.5% of total TIP monies authorized for the next three years. MPOs in Dallas and Bexar County allocate almost quadruple that amount.
"'Next time,' Rep. Joe Pickett (D-79), member of the powerful House Committee on Transportation, lightheartedly remarked,'wear the spandex.'"
"Next time, El Paso should demand double the bike funding to catch up to places like Dallas and San Antonio."
Also see:
http://tejanotribune.com/archives/1531
http://bikesbelong.org/
VeloPaso, El Paso's Bike Pedestrian Coalition, presented two documents. The first showed the how obesity (an epidemic in El Paso) falls with increased cycling and walking.
Their second document shows El Paso's bicycle friendly policies and El Paso's room for improvement.
Bicycle Advocate "Rider Strong" filed this report about the MPO meeting:
"The MPO Transportation Policy Board approved $2.3 million in citywide bicycle infrastructure and programs over the next three years. Several bike advocates voiced their support for bike funding, while countless others called and emailed their representatives, before and during the meeting.
"Bicycle advocates in El Paso received an urgent 24-hour Action Alert from Bike Texas, the state's largest bicycle advocacy organization, after doubts were raised about the fund's security.
"'Infrastructure and bike programs will not only help the [City of El Paso's] new bike share program,' said Ben Foster, board member of Velo Paso, a bicycle pedestrian coalition, 'but it will inspire people to dust off their bikes sitting in their garage and ride to work, school, parks and maybe even to an Aardvarks [minor league baseball] game.'
"Plans for the $60.8 million Triple-A ballpark include 80 bike racks, a requirement for LEED certification.
"Rep. Marisa Marquez (D-77), a novice cyclist whose district includes Downtown, UTEP and neighborhoods around Fort Bliss, asked whether there were beginner bike classes she could attend and share with her constituents.
Bicycle funds approved today could go towards education initiatives and bike classes for adults and children. These funds, considered by city officials as "seed money" for the city's new bicycle program, could also be applied toward the city's first bicycle master plan.
"'An advocacy presence may have saved this pot of money from being diverted to other projects' said a city official.
"The $2.3 million dollars in funding represents a mere 1.5% of total TIP monies authorized for the next three years. MPOs in Dallas and Bexar County allocate almost quadruple that amount.
"'Next time,' Rep. Joe Pickett (D-79), member of the powerful House Committee on Transportation, lightheartedly remarked,'wear the spandex.'"
"Next time, El Paso should demand double the bike funding to catch up to places like Dallas and San Antonio."
Also see:
http://tejanotribune.com/archives/1531
http://bikesbelong.org/
Friday, July 12, 2013
Chuy Reyes and Water District likely violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Below is a summary of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The devastating clearing of the Nemexas/Montoya Drain by Chuy Reyes and the WID#1 probably killed hummingbirds and grackles and other migratory birds. It is still not clear whether Chuy had any authority over the drain to begin with since the agreement regarding maintaining the drain is between the United States of America (Department of Interior/Bureau of Reclamation) and the City of El Paso.
The actions by the WID are being reported to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Elpasonaturally has learned that the EPWU was only cleaning up burned debris after the fire which sparked a single complaint from a prominent El Paso attorney which led to the clearcutting and dredging of the drain during nesting season. The WID then went in and began clearcutting everything forcing EPWU to have to haul away the debris from all vegetation being destroyed by the WID.
Below is a summary of the Migratory Act which was copied from here. I have bolded and italicized the penalty section. Will Chuy Reyes have to serve six months to two years for his actions? He may very well have to do so.
MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989.
Overview. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, killing or possessing migratory birds is unlawful.
Prohibited Acts. Unless permitted by regulations, the Act provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not. Subject to limitations in the Act, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may adopt regulations determining the extent to which, if at all, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, possessing, selling, purchasing, shipping, transporting or exporting of any migratory bird, part, nest or egg will be allowed, having regard for temperature zones, distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits and migratory flight patterns. Regulations are effective upon Presidential approval. §§ 703 and 704.
The Act makes it unlawful to: ship, transport or carry from one state, territory or district to another, or through a foreign country, any bird, part, nest or egg that was captured, killed, taken, shipped, transported or carried contrary to the laws from where it was obtained; import from Canada any bird, part, nest or egg obtained contrary to the laws of the province from which it was obtained. § 705.
Arrests/Search Warrants. To enforce the Act, authorized Department of Interior employees may: without a warrant, arrest a person violating the Act in the employee's presence or view; execute a warrant or other process issued by an officer or court to enforce the Act; search any place with a warrant. All birds, parts, nests or eggs that are captured, killed, taken, offered or sold, bartered, purchased, shipped, transported, carried, imported, exported or possessed contrary to the Act will be seized and, upon conviction of the offender or upon court judgment, be forfeited to the U.S. and disposed of by the Secretary. § 706.
Violations/Penalties. According to the Act, a person, association, partnership or corporation which violates the Act or its regulations is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of up to $500, jail up to six months, or both. Anyone who knowingly takes a migratory bird and intends to, offers to, or actually sells or barters the bird is guilty of a felony, with fines up to $2,000, jail up to two years, or both. (Permissible fines are increased significantly by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, as amended in 1987, which is summarized separately in this Handbook.)
All guns, traps, nets, vessels, vehicles and other equipment used in pursuing, hunting, taking, trapping, ensnaring, capturing, killing, or any attempt on a migratory bird in violation of the Act with the intent to sell or barter, must be forfeited to the U.S. and may be seized and held pending prosecution of the violator. The property is to be disposed of and accounted for by the Secretary. § 707.
Miscellaneous. The Act should not be construed to prevent states and territories from making or enforcing laws or regulations not inconsistent with the Act or which give further protection to migratory birds, nests and eggs, if such laws and regulations do not extend open seasons. § 708.
The Act cannot be construed to prevent the breeding of migratory game birds on farms and preserves, and the sale of birds lawfully bred to increase the food supply. § 711.
In accordance with the various migratory bird treaties and conventions, the Secretary is authorized to issue regulations to assure that the taking of migratory birds and their eggs by the indigenous inhabitants of Alaska is permitted for their nutritional and other essential needs during established seasons. § 712.
The actions by the WID are being reported to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Elpasonaturally has learned that the EPWU was only cleaning up burned debris after the fire which sparked a single complaint from a prominent El Paso attorney which led to the clearcutting and dredging of the drain during nesting season. The WID then went in and began clearcutting everything forcing EPWU to have to haul away the debris from all vegetation being destroyed by the WID.
 |
According to wildlife biologist,Lois Balin, above is a picture of true
wetland plants that do absorb all kinds of toxins. These include mainly
cattails, sedges, and rushes. "A wetland is part of the water treatment process," according to Balin.
Below is a summary of the Migratory Act which was copied from here. I have bolded and italicized the penalty section. Will Chuy Reyes have to serve six months to two years for his actions? He may very well have to do so.
MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989.
Overview. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, killing or possessing migratory birds is unlawful.
Prohibited Acts. Unless permitted by regulations, the Act provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not. Subject to limitations in the Act, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may adopt regulations determining the extent to which, if at all, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, possessing, selling, purchasing, shipping, transporting or exporting of any migratory bird, part, nest or egg will be allowed, having regard for temperature zones, distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits and migratory flight patterns. Regulations are effective upon Presidential approval. §§ 703 and 704.
The Act makes it unlawful to: ship, transport or carry from one state, territory or district to another, or through a foreign country, any bird, part, nest or egg that was captured, killed, taken, shipped, transported or carried contrary to the laws from where it was obtained; import from Canada any bird, part, nest or egg obtained contrary to the laws of the province from which it was obtained. § 705.
Arrests/Search Warrants. To enforce the Act, authorized Department of Interior employees may: without a warrant, arrest a person violating the Act in the employee's presence or view; execute a warrant or other process issued by an officer or court to enforce the Act; search any place with a warrant. All birds, parts, nests or eggs that are captured, killed, taken, offered or sold, bartered, purchased, shipped, transported, carried, imported, exported or possessed contrary to the Act will be seized and, upon conviction of the offender or upon court judgment, be forfeited to the U.S. and disposed of by the Secretary. § 706.
Violations/Penalties. According to the Act, a person, association, partnership or corporation which violates the Act or its regulations is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of up to $500, jail up to six months, or both. Anyone who knowingly takes a migratory bird and intends to, offers to, or actually sells or barters the bird is guilty of a felony, with fines up to $2,000, jail up to two years, or both. (Permissible fines are increased significantly by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, as amended in 1987, which is summarized separately in this Handbook.)
All guns, traps, nets, vessels, vehicles and other equipment used in pursuing, hunting, taking, trapping, ensnaring, capturing, killing, or any attempt on a migratory bird in violation of the Act with the intent to sell or barter, must be forfeited to the U.S. and may be seized and held pending prosecution of the violator. The property is to be disposed of and accounted for by the Secretary. § 707.
Miscellaneous. The Act should not be construed to prevent states and territories from making or enforcing laws or regulations not inconsistent with the Act or which give further protection to migratory birds, nests and eggs, if such laws and regulations do not extend open seasons. § 708.
The Act cannot be construed to prevent the breeding of migratory game birds on farms and preserves, and the sale of birds lawfully bred to increase the food supply. § 711.
In accordance with the various migratory bird treaties and conventions, the Secretary is authorized to issue regulations to assure that the taking of migratory birds and their eggs by the indigenous inhabitants of Alaska is permitted for their nutritional and other essential needs during established seasons. § 712.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Is Chuy Reyes Necessary?
Above is a copy of the outdated and expired agreement between the United States of America (Department of Interior/Bureau of Reclamation) and the City of El Paso. Basically the City agrees to maintain the Nemexas-Montoya Drain since it needs the drain as part of its stormwater control. No where is there any mention of the El Paso County Water Improvement District #1, the organization whose General Manager is Jesus "Chuy" Reyes. Yet, when a single complaint resulted in a call to the WID, Reyes ordered the total clearing of vegetation (and with it habitat) in the Nemexas-Montoya Drain which required the El Paso Water Utilities to participate as the agent of the City of El Paso charged with stormwater maintenance and control. By what authority did Chuy Reyes order such radical clearance?
[Are you paying attention El Paso Times?]
A similar issue involves the IBWC's dredging of the Rio Grande at the Licon Siphon north of Las Cruces. One issue with the dredging had to do with endangered species. In a meeting attended by Mr. Reyes, Reyes mentioned that his authority to supercede concern for endangered species was "emergency". Obviously Mr. Reyes determines what is an emergency there being no objective criteria transparent to anyone else for defining an emergency. But the bigger question still looms: by what right does Mr. Reyes have to order the massive clearance of the drains when the agreement never mentions the Water Improvement District. In an Open Records request today I asked Mr. Reyes the following:
"As the agreement to help maintain the drain that we have been discussing is between the City of El Paso (the EPWU being the City’s entity) and the United States (via the Bureau of Reclamation), where does the El Paso County Water Improvement District #1 fit in? Does WID have a separate agreement with the Bureau? If so, may I please get a copy of that? If not, would you please document what authority the WID has over the drain which would obligate the EPWU to assist in maintaining it."
No reply yet.
I have been in email conversation with Mr. Jeff Hild, the Legislative Director for Rep. Beto O'Rourke, regarding the destruction along the drain. He was unaware of any federal connection that might involve Mr. O'Rourke's office as I was until now. I wrote him the following email attaching the agreement which you read at the top of this post:
Jeff,
Attached is the outdated and antiquated agreement which requires EPWU to help clean the drain in question. The agreement is between them and the United States of America because the United States of America owns the drain! You’ve got your federal hook!
The agreement was written prior to the popularization of environmental concerns. It is pre-Rachel Carson. It was also written when there was probably more farm land in the Upper Valley than residences. We now know that vegetation plays a key role in cleaning up water as it moves to a river. Besides vegetation and animal habitat provide much for the human spirit – something that can’t be easily quantified. A new agreement must show more environmental sensitivity, proper and ongoing land and habitat management.
You may be told that it was good to remove the salt cedars. Yes, that’s true; but they should have been removed and replaced with native cottonwoods or other trees over the long-run and never during nesting season. As this was federal land, then as a civil engineering friend of mine pointed out: “If federal funds or federal property is involved you could not disturb the area during nesting season if threatened or endangered species are present.” Several Audubon people have told me that the Southwest Willow Flycatcher was present. Perhaps we ought to investigate what kind of fine or jail term Chuy Reyes should serve.
I hope that the Congressman’s office will get involved especially with the EPWU and John Balliew, the CEO, and Robert Andron, the Attorney for the utility. I know that Beto knows both well. They should be encouraged to draft a more sensitive document that will maintain the drain while protecting the plants and wildlife and the ecosystem services that they provide. Working with Mr. Reyes is probably pointless and may even be unnecessary as the agreement again is between the United States and the City of El Paso. When I asked Mr. Reyes if he might be interested in mitigation, he responded: “I am not interested in replanting native vegetation. The drain will be maintained the proper way, the way the City of El Paso and EPWU are required to do so, this is an agriculture drain and not a habitat."
I look forward to your response at your very first convenience please.
Jim Tolbert
Mr. Reyes may be acting without authority and it may be that he really is unnecessary for many agreements. In a side issue also reported here at elpasonaturally, getting water to the Rio Bosque seems to have been held up for a long time by Chuy Reyes. (Perhaps he has to use the rest of the water to help his friends in Hudspeth County keep their reservoirs filled. Are you paying attention El Paso Times?)
A group of persons interested in resolving the water issue at the Bosque has been holding clandestine meetings at the home of Judy Ackerman in 2013. Those who are part of this hush-hush group include from UTEP: John Sproul, Scott Cutler, Vanessa Lougheed, John Walton, etc.; John Balliew; from the IBWC: Gilbert Anaya, Rebecca Little Owl; Mike Landis from the Bureau of Reclamation; David Will from TCEQ; Friends of the Rio Bosque; Ruben Vogt from the County; Charlie Wakeem, and others including Chuy Reyes.
At the last meeting it was brought up that the license with the TCEQ which has prevented some irrigation from the Bustamante directly to the Bosque may be moot anyway. In fact, a bid to do the pipe directly from the Bustamante to the Rio Bosque may go out to bid in August. The Water District would be cut out of the deal. Chuy Reyes was not at the meeting. My question with the Bosque and more pertinently with the Drain is this: Is Chuy Reyes necessary? Does he really have the authority that he claims to have? To whom are he and the Water District accountable?
Is there yet a better option out there for the FMSP entrance?
[I have enormous respect for my friend and frequent "co-conspirator", Dr. Rick Bonart. Rick has been at the forefront of the land conservation and preservation movements in El Paso for a very long time. He pre-dates Teschner, Wakeem, Ackerman and other heroes of El Paso's "green revolution". Indeed Bonart along with the late anesthesiologist, Dr. Billy Rogers (for whom Arroyo Park is named), really were the the first instigators in this generation of preserving the mountains and arroyos for their beauty and recreational value. Rick now serves as a member of the Public Service Board where he has also gained hard-fought respect. He was the original chairman of the Open Space Committee and then Board. He is a practicing veteranarian and cares for my two cats, Copernicus and Aristotle.
He has long opposed Option 4, the preferred option of the TPWD - the one which current El Paso TxDOT Czar, Bob Bielek, seems bound to bury. Bielek has been disingenuous about the project claiming ignorance when necessary about the public process or about the fact that the environmental and park communities have sought a way that would give safe passage into the park as well as a north-south passageway for animals and also for pedestrians and bicyclists. TxDOT uses public forums as window dressing so that they can claim that they got public input while, all of the time, planning to do exactly what they want to do - the public be damned. They seem to be doing it with Option 4. Their solution for an animal corridor previously was a extensive tunnel with access only from developed land as if animals would Google and GPS their ways through more suburban sprawl.
Dr. Bonart argues that there may be a better, cheaper, less environmentally destructive way to gain safety and corridor to the State Park and welcomes the additional time for "ongoing review". He supports his case with recent photos he took showing the height and area involved of the underpasses of the gargantuan Transmountain freeway project. Here is what he has to say]:
"I think continued advocacy for construction of a freeway style intersection (Option 4) at FMSP is not in either the community's or Park's best interest.
"I suggest proponents of a freeway style entrance visit the construction site to fully understand what they are advocating. (See attached photos). Currently there are 4 partially completed underpasses at Northwestern, Resler, Plexxar and Paseo. The size and spacing between these structures can be used to approximate what Option 4 will be like.
"These structures are huge. They have completely changed the character of the surrounding area a natural park like environment into a typical urban freeway. They completely divide north from south for pedestrians, wildlife, hikers, and bicyclists. Even without the road bed, the concrete edifice completely blocks the view. The planned signage and lighting once constructed will only further denature the adjacent surroundings.
"Option 4 requires the largest area to build and unnecessarily consumes too many precious acres of open space. Option 4 is overly expensive, five times the cost of better options.
"True, TPW did pick Option 4, because at the time, Option 4 was the only alternative that provided a way for pedestrians and wildlife to pass north to south without crossing freeway lanes. However, even this aspect of the Option 4 design is terribly flawed. Because it forces people and wildlife to cross 4 lanes of access roads. In the photos you can see what the first set of access roads will be like on the south side. There will be a second set on the north. It's ludicrous to pretend this would be the best design for a functional wildlife tunnel.
"I am thankful there is an ongoing review. I'm certain that a better Option which includes a truly separate pedestrian/wildlife crossing with best practices design, and a more rationally scaled and environmentally compatible structure will emerge. This area deserves better. Something which actually enhances the area and user experience.
"In short there are better options than either the status quo (Option 6) or Option 4. I would hope those interested will actually visit the site and decide for themselves if they really want another underpass to further decimate the area. What would be preferable is something better that will enhance those acres of open space we fought hard to save."
He has long opposed Option 4, the preferred option of the TPWD - the one which current El Paso TxDOT Czar, Bob Bielek, seems bound to bury. Bielek has been disingenuous about the project claiming ignorance when necessary about the public process or about the fact that the environmental and park communities have sought a way that would give safe passage into the park as well as a north-south passageway for animals and also for pedestrians and bicyclists. TxDOT uses public forums as window dressing so that they can claim that they got public input while, all of the time, planning to do exactly what they want to do - the public be damned. They seem to be doing it with Option 4. Their solution for an animal corridor previously was a extensive tunnel with access only from developed land as if animals would Google and GPS their ways through more suburban sprawl.
Dr. Bonart argues that there may be a better, cheaper, less environmentally destructive way to gain safety and corridor to the State Park and welcomes the additional time for "ongoing review". He supports his case with recent photos he took showing the height and area involved of the underpasses of the gargantuan Transmountain freeway project. Here is what he has to say]:
Click image to enlarge.
Click image to enlarge.
Click image to enlarge.
"I think continued advocacy for construction of a freeway style intersection (Option 4) at FMSP is not in either the community's or Park's best interest.
"I suggest proponents of a freeway style entrance visit the construction site to fully understand what they are advocating. (See attached photos). Currently there are 4 partially completed underpasses at Northwestern, Resler, Plexxar and Paseo. The size and spacing between these structures can be used to approximate what Option 4 will be like.
"These structures are huge. They have completely changed the character of the surrounding area a natural park like environment into a typical urban freeway. They completely divide north from south for pedestrians, wildlife, hikers, and bicyclists. Even without the road bed, the concrete edifice completely blocks the view. The planned signage and lighting once constructed will only further denature the adjacent surroundings.
"Option 4 requires the largest area to build and unnecessarily consumes too many precious acres of open space. Option 4 is overly expensive, five times the cost of better options.
"True, TPW did pick Option 4, because at the time, Option 4 was the only alternative that provided a way for pedestrians and wildlife to pass north to south without crossing freeway lanes. However, even this aspect of the Option 4 design is terribly flawed. Because it forces people and wildlife to cross 4 lanes of access roads. In the photos you can see what the first set of access roads will be like on the south side. There will be a second set on the north. It's ludicrous to pretend this would be the best design for a functional wildlife tunnel.
"I am thankful there is an ongoing review. I'm certain that a better Option which includes a truly separate pedestrian/wildlife crossing with best practices design, and a more rationally scaled and environmentally compatible structure will emerge. This area deserves better. Something which actually enhances the area and user experience.
"In short there are better options than either the status quo (Option 6) or Option 4. I would hope those interested will actually visit the site and decide for themselves if they really want another underpass to further decimate the area. What would be preferable is something better that will enhance those acres of open space we fought hard to save."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
