John, Never having seen these properties I only know the little I have read and from items posted here today. I assume Dolan Springs and falls are on land owned by the Nature Conservancy and not related to DRSNA. I would think the falls/spring to be the major attraction in addition to the pristine river and topography. How much land does the conservancy own at this site and what is the possibility that they would sell it to one of the state agencies? In any case, the state should loosen their too severe restrictions and make the property more user (tax payer) friendly. Whoever is responsible for the current use rules of the DRSNA should be replaced with someone or some group as you say, with some vision.
Fritz ________________________________ From: John Brooks [mailto:jpbrook...@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 2:30 PM To: Fritz Holt Cc: Andy Gluesenkamp; texas cavers Subject: Re: [Texascavers] A major concern of Texas river runners Well. One "con" of the existing SNA is there is NO ACCESS to Dolan Falls OR to Dolan Springs. Both of those prime things to see are on land controled by the Nature Conservancy....and they are very reluctant to let anyone onto that property. Another "Con" to the current DRSNA is the absurd management plan dealing with river access. "Normal" little people, like us, have to walk in...it's a mile and a half in....and then another 1/2 mile up river to the springs that you can access. Another "con"...or "pro" if you are a bat person....is that Fawcetts Cave isn't very accessible to Cavers. But the cave is protected. Another con is the campsites and facilities are crap....the park is poorly planned and underfunded. Come on! There are only one or two campsites that have shade! Surely there are better locations for a campground on that acreage! But most of the "cons" with the current DRSNA could be remediated by a better management plan and a little bit of funding for some improvements. Overall....I like the current DRSNA.....despite the cons....and think it is absurd to trade it for an overpriced piece of property on Lake Amistadt. And if the state wants to spend some money....why don't they buy dolan springs and dolan falls from the nature conservancy? Those two features would make the current area much more attractive and increase visitation. Or perhaps the state could spend some that money to create better river access for boaters. Or maybe the state should buy fern cave....and add it the current SNA. Anyway....I don't see what benefit comes from this land swap...the current SNA is a much more interesting piece of land...and could be made much better...with strategic aquisitions....and with a management plan that has some vision. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 28, 2010, at 12:29 PM, Fritz Holt <fh...@townandcountryins.com<mailto:fh...@townandcountryins.com>> wrote: I would really like some informed input on the pros and cons of these properties from the standpoint of accessibility and desirability of location of the 17,000 acre tract. It seems that the state natural area has neither so therefore is visited by few. I'm sure some prefer it this way. If the trade were made would it make sense to convert the property to a state park and allow greater accessibility and usage? Fritz ________________________________ From: Andy Gluesenkamp [mailto:andrew_gluesenk...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 11:44 AM To: Fritz Holt; texas cavers Subject: Re: [Texascavers] A major concern of Texas river runners I read that much of the appraised value was in the infrastructure. The new property has excellent roads and buildings already in place while DRSNA lacks decent roads and buildings. Not expressing an opinion either way, just providing info. AGG Andrew G. Gluesenkamp, Ph.D. 700 Billie Brooks Drive Driftwood, Texas 78619 (512) 799-1095 a...@gluesenkamp.com<mailto:a...@gluesenkamp.com> ________________________________ From: Fritz Holt <fh...@townandcountryins.com<mailto:fh...@townandcountryins.com>> To: SS <back2scool...@hotmail.com<mailto:back2scool...@hotmail.com>>; Robert Burnett <bburne...@austin.rr.com<mailto:bburne...@austin.rr.com>>; "speleoste...@tx.rr.com<mailto:speleoste...@tx.rr.com>" <speleoste...@tx.rr.com<mailto:speleoste...@tx.rr.com>>; "Texascavers@texascavers.com<mailto:Texascavers@texascavers.com>" <Texascavers@texascavers.com<mailto:Texascavers@texascavers.com>> Cc: Mandy Holt <mandy.h...@ers.state.tx.us<mailto:mandy.h...@ers.state.tx.us>>; Jenny Holt <jennyh...@anthonytravel.com<mailto:jennyh...@anthonytravel.com>>; Jacquetta Breedlove <bl...@vownet.net<mailto:bl...@vownet.net>> Sent: Thu, October 28, 2010 11:16:38 AM Subject: RE: [Texascavers] A major concern of Texas river runners I am certainly not knowledgeable enough to make an informed decision on this proposed land swap but it does have pluses and minuses. As far as usage, the 3,000 acre difference is of no consequence. 17,000 acres is a respectable amount of land, even in Texas. The biggest plus is the ten miles of river frontage as compared to one and a half miles. There are also some very nice and costly improvements on the smaller tract. Not sure about this but I think I read where the smaller tract was much better access and possibly a more desirable location. No mention was made of the dramatic feature, Dolan Falls. I presume that it is not on the 17,000 acre private tract. The big minus is the $8,000,000. difference that would be involved in the swap. That would buy a whole lot of improvements to the existing tract with money left over. After all, how much river frontage does one need? I would welcome answers and any corrections to my limited knowledge of this situation based on facts and not emotions. I have never made this float but hope to while I'm able. From the many pictures I have seen, I don't see the falls to be as great an obstacle as the very shallow water in some areas of the river. I have canoed and rafted the Rio Grande from Presidio to Del Rio in the 60's and 70's. Fritz -----Original Message----- From: SS [mailto:<mailto:back2scool...@hotmail.com>back2scool...@hotmail.com<mailto:back2scool...@hotmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:02 PM To: 'Robert Burnett'; <mailto:speleoste...@tx.rr.com> speleoste...@tx.rr.com<mailto:speleoste...@tx.rr.com>; <mailto:Texascavers@texascavers.com> Texascavers@texascavers.com<mailto:Texascavers@texascavers.com> Subject: RE: [Texascavers] A major concern of Texas river runners Does this make any sense at all? Pay more for less property? Why would you do this?....... What do you want to bet this is a deal to allow a developer to purchase the BETTER property in exchange for a GOOD DEAL on select tracks to certain people who helped facilitate this exchange. Or something like it. Get used to it. Its what you have to look forward to with BIG GOVERNMENT. BIG CORRUPTION. You should be stinking mad about this. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Burnett [mailto:<mailto:bburne...@austin.rr.com>bburne...@austin.rr.com<mailto:bburne...@austin.rr.com>] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:34 PM To: <mailto:speleoste...@tx.rr.com> speleoste...@tx.rr.com<mailto:speleoste...@tx.rr.com>; <mailto:Texascavers@texascavers.com> Texascavers@texascavers.com<mailto:Texascavers@texascavers.com> Subject: Re: [Texascavers] A major concern of Texas river runners Bill, Thanks for the heads up. I can't believe I haven't heard about this. . Everyone else listen up this is something in which many cavers should be interested. There are caves on DRSNA. Rune ----- Original Message ----- From: <<mailto:speleoste...@tx.rr.com>speleoste...@tx.rr.com<mailto:speleoste...@tx.rr.com>> To: <<mailto:Texascavers@texascavers.com>Texascavers@texascavers.com<mailto:Texascavers@texascavers.com>> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 2:34 PM Subject: [Texascavers] A major concern of Texas river runners Many of your know my son, Brian, who works at the downtown REI store in Austin. He has alerted me to a big concern of his regarding the Devil's River State Natural Area. This is his letter to TPWD sent yesterday: Dear Parks and Wildlife, I write this to respectfully but energetically express my disagreement with the proposed swap of the existing Devils River SNA for a smaller park that also costs 8 million more. At present I do not feel as though the public, myself included, has enough information to weigh in in an informed manner regarding the merits of this proposal.... You will not find another individual that appreciates the beauty and solitude of the existing park and river more than myself.... I have frequented the park for 15 years, by land and by river many times.... It is a pristine jewel in the parks system. To trade this resource in a hasty and seemingly 'back room' manner is simply unacceptable. The people of Texas deserve a more thorough public input period where the merits of this proposal can be deliberated on in an open and informed manner. Sincerely... Brian Steele Here's the background information. I encourage you to also get involved: This is a letter written by Tom Goynes, President of the Texas Rivers Protection Association Dear Sheila Reiter, On October 13, I received the news release that is attached below (dated October 12). It pertains to a plan that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has to trade the Devils River State Natural Area (DRSNA) plus 8 million dollars in cash for a smaller tract of land further down the Devils River known as the Devils River Ranch (DRR). The plan was first made ³public² at a brown bag lunch that the executive director of TPWD holds several times a year with a few representatives of various conservation organizations (like the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation and the Audubon Society). As far as we can tell, no representatives of paddling groups were present at that meeting. There are some major problems that we see with this land swap: 1) The state would be losing, rather than gaining natural area (from the current 19,988 acres down to 17,600 acres). And, while the state would be getting more waterfront (approximately 5 miles of ³riverfront² and 5 miles of lakefront compared with the 1.5 miles of riverfront in the DRSNA) most of that waterfront would be flat water that is adversely affected by the winds coming off Lake Amistad. It should also be noted that the DRR is adjacent to the Amistad National Recreation Area, which is 58,500 acres in size, and contains numerous opportunities for camping, hiking, boating and other outdoor activities. 2) The 8 million dollars of additional money that the state will have to pay to conclude this ³swap² will use up all of the land acquisition money available to the TPWD and still leave a shortfall of 2 million dollars. (We have been told that TPWD has 4 million dollars of land acquisition money, they will get an anonymous gift of 2 million dollars if they swap this land, and they will need to find the remaining 2 million dollars somewhere). 3) Even if the state can come up with the 8 million dollars to acquire this property, they will still need to find monies to complete a management plan (approximately $650,000) and construction and maintenance funds for this new park. There are simply better ways for the state to spend its limited resources. 4) The loss of the DRSNA will mean that fly-fishermen, canoeists and kayakers wishing to run the Devils will lose the only public campsite that currently exists between Hwy 163 and Lake Amistad. At this time, paddlers can launch early in the morning at Bakers Crossing and make it to the primitive camping area at the DRSNA (about 15 miles by river) before dark. Currently, paddlers can use the DRSNA as a put in (it could be used as a take out as well, with a change in policy) to run the ten-mile section of river from the DRSNA to the private take out in the Blue Sage Subdivision. We would suggest, as an alternative to this planned swap, that the state use its limited funds to: 1) Acquire (or develop) a put in near the Hwy 163 crossing. (If the owners of Bakers Crossing are willing to sell, that would make a great acquisition). 2) Acquire (through purchase, lease or agreement) certain river accessible sites that can be used by river users for lunch spots and/or campsites. This would help eliminate many of the "trespass" issues related to running the Devils. 3) Acquire a take out - either in the vicinity of the current Blue Sage take out, or possibly a portion of the DRR. (Paddlers don't need 17,000 acres of property for campsites, put ins or take outs - they need much smaller tracts of land). We would also suggest that the state should modify its policy at the DRSNA: Allow paddlers to have the combination to the gate to the river access area and allow paddlers to drive there to launch or take out their craft. Allow paddlers to leave their vehicles in a safe area, out of the floodway, and considerably closer to the river than the current parking area that is 1.5 miles from the river. That way, paddlers could use the DRSNA as a put in or a take out. It would also be helpful if the state would either put in composting toilets at the designated primitive campsites, or mandate that river users carry out all solid human waste. The state should encourage zero impact camping. To help eliminate altercations between river users and landowners, it might also be necessary for the state to instigate a river permit system for running the Devils, which would require certain equipment (like fire pans and portable toilets) in a manner similar to the system the National Park System employs in Big Bend National Park. If you agree with the above statements, it is very important that you convey your thoughts to the TPWD. You have three possibilities to do so: 1) Plan to attend the hearing at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, October 26 in San Antonio Texas at the Central Public Library, 600 Soledad, San Antonio, TX (210) 207-2500 2) Plan to attend the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission Meeting at 9 a.m. on November 4, in the Commission Hearing Room at TPWD headquarters, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744 3) Send a letter to Ted Hollingsworth, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744. Or e-mail him at: <mailto:ted.hollingswo...@tpwd.state.tx.us>ted.hollingswo...@tpwd.state.tx.us<mailto:ted.hollingswo...@tpwd.state.tx.us> Your opinion is important, and we need you to express it if we are to save our access to the Devils River. Thanks! Tom Goynes President Texas Rivers Protection Association 444 Pecan Park Drive San Marcos, TX 78666 512-392-6171 e-mail: <mailto:tomgoy...@mac.com> tomgoy...@mac.com<mailto:tomgoy...@mac.com> Oct. 12, 2010 Media Contact: Tom Harvey, (512) 389-4453, <mailto:tom.har...@tpwd.state.tx.us> tom.har...@tpwd.state.tx.us<mailto:tom.har...@tpwd.state.tx.us> TPWD Proposes Land Acquisition for New State Park on Devils River AUSTIN, Texas The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission on Nov. 4 will consider a proposal to acquire a 17,638-acre property for a new state park on the Devils River in Val Verde County. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department leaders will hold public meetings about the proposal Oct. 20 in Del Rio and Oct. 26 in San Antonio. The proposal would result in the exchange of the existing Devils River State Natural Area as partial payment for a privately owned ranch downriver, which would become a new state park. The ranch has significantly more river frontage and better public access as well as outstanding natural and cultural features. ³By repositioning our existing assets along the Devils River, we can increase public access to and awareness of this spectacular river, as well as expand protection of this region¹s uniquely important natural and cultural resources,² said Carter Smith, TPWD executive director. ³A permanent conservation easement on the existing state natural area property will prevent unsuitable development and ensure continued protection there,² Smith said. ³The new property, which is also protected by a conservation easement, will become a premiere park to boost the regional economy and provide enhanced recreation options to Texans for decades to come.² The ranch has 10 miles of frontage on the Devils River and Amistad Reservoir with spectacular views from mesas and canyons, and a variety of wildlife habitats. If the commission approves this proposal, TPWD is committed to a comprehensive master planning process, involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including landowners, paddlers, traditional park users, and local officials, resulting in a public use plan outlining how and when people can enjoy the property. ³The agency¹s goal is to balance landowner rights along the river with public recreational access and effective stewardship of this region¹s incredible natural and cultural resources,² says Scott Boruff, Deputy Executive Director of Operations. The department is working to inform elected officials, Devils River landowners, key stakeholder groups and the public about the proposal. The agency will hold two formal public meetings where they will explain the proposal and answer questions: 6 p.m., Wednesday, Oct. 20 Del Rio Civic Center, Mesquite Room, 1915 Veteran¹s Blvd., Del Rio, TX (830-774-8641) 6 p.m., Tuesday, Oct. 26 Central Public Library, 600 Soledad, San Antonio, TX (210) 207-2500 The public may comment on the proposal at the Nov. 4 Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission meeting in Austin. Questions or comments about the proposal can be sent by email to <mailto:ted.hollingswo...@tpwd.state.tx.us>ted.hollingswo...@tpwd.state.tx.us<mailto:ted.hollingswo...@tpwd.state.tx.us> or by regular mail to Ted Hollingsworth, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744. PHOTOS of the ranch property proposed for acquisition are available for news media use as high resolution .jpg files that can be downloaded from the News Images area of the TPWD website. On the Net: <http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/news_images/?g=devils_river_land_acqui>http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/news_images/?g=devils_river_land_acqui sition --------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our website: <http://texascavers.com/> http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com> texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com<mailto:texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:texascavers-h...@texascavers.com> texascavers-h...@texascavers.com<mailto:texascavers-h...@texascavers.com> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com> www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.103/2558 - Release Date: 12/11/09 10:06:00 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our website: <http://texascavers.com/> http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com> texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com<mailto:texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:texascavers-h...@texascavers.com> texascavers-h...@texascavers.com<mailto:texascavers-h...@texascavers.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our website: <http://texascavers.com/> http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com> texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com<mailto:texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:texascavers-h...@texascavers.com> texascavers-h...@texascavers.com<mailto:texascavers-h...@texascavers.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our website: <http://texascavers.com/> http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com> texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com<mailto:texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:texascavers-h...@texascavers.com> texascavers-h...@texascavers.com<mailto:texascavers-h...@texascavers.com>