|
Comments through June 5, 2008
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is a list of the kinds of comments the consultant team heard from the public on the Barton Springs Master Plan. Some of them were made in public settings, and some were made one-on-one. Many were made by e-mail. If you submitted written comments and they do not appear below, please e-mail us at: bspmasterplan@ci.austin.tx.us
Comment List:
- It is clear everyone of you involved in producing this document loves our Springs and is being very careful with everything you propose to do.
I am a life long Austinite so of course I'll have a different & vocal opinion.
- SLOW DOWN three months may seem Like a long time to you for public input but it is not. A contentious City Council presentation is in your future (maybe no matter what you you do) but more forums to exchange more information will help the process. Push back your presentation date. It may seem slow to you but it looks like a runaway freight train to me.
- Make all BSMP email responses public so all of us get an idea of volume and objections.
- I would like to see a survey of Barton Spring Swimmers that arrive in wheel chairs. Testimonials if you will. I cannot believe they would choose to enter the South side and choose to negotiate the slippery limestone entry to the pool... but maybe they would.
- The ADA section seemed very vague. Maybe we should wait and see what law is actually passed before we jump ahead.
- Forget about the South side Bathouse.
Thanks for all your work,
- One contributing source for the bacteria count in Barton Creek (and Barton Springs Pool when it floods):
One potential source of bacteria in Barton Springs Pool during flooding is a short distance upstream on Barton Creek, where Barton Creek intersects 360. At this location there is a popular access to rock climbing and trails. This past weekend, the trail coming up to the parking lot was filled with piles of dog feces which occurred approximately every 20-30 feet.
Any significant rain in this area may carry much of this down to Barton Creek. This is probably a significant contribution to the increased bacteria count that can occur with heavy rains. The amount of dog feces on the trails adjacent to the parking lot is sizable. (Surprisingly, there is much less in the way of visible dog feces in the area just downstream of Barton Springs Pool where people and dogs congregate.)
Though Bull Creek Park does not flow into Barton Creek, there has been a recent news article reporting that the bacteria count is much higher downstream than upstream.
Considerations:
- With the possibility of increased public use in the future, this may become an increasingly important issue, particularly with possible plans to allow some amount of Barton Creek to flow through Barton Springs Pool.
- It may be helpful to put multiple prominent signs, dog litter bags, and trash receptacles in this area near the parking for access to the green belt.
- Also, an assessment of water samples upstream and downstream following a rain would help quantify the contribution of this particular area to bacteria levels in Barton Creek.
- As neighbors of Austin’s beloved Barton Springs Pool, we are happy that finally some money is going to be spent on this crown jewel. It is absolutely shameful that Barton Springs has been neglected for so long. Most of the Master Plan is fine; however, I have a big problem with the idea of paving the south parking lot which is on Robert E. Lee Road. Why would the designers put an impervious cover over this land? We know that impervious cover results in non-point pollution. Instead of percolating down into the ground and slowly being cleaned, the water washes OVER the ground and picks up some of the following pollutants:
- oil from roadways;
- fertilizers from lawns;
- coliform from animal waste (many people walk their dogs and fail to pick up after them;
Impervous cover is said to be the number 1 water quality problem in the USA. Please rethink this part of the plan.
Thanks.
- COMMENT: BARTON SPRINGS MASTER PLAN
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO BE DONE IN THIS MASTER PLAN IS TO RESTORE THE BARTON SPRINGS POOL BOTTOM TO ITS PRE- 3 JULY 1992 CONDITION. RE-INSTATE POOL CLEANING PROCEDURES THAT WERE IN USE FOR DECADES PRIOR TO THIS DAY.
It is important to understand the difference between water quality and the pool bottom. It is well known that toxic pollutants enter the pool through the spring from runoff. It rides in on silt, is suspended in the water column and collects on the bottom of the pool. Unfortunately, much has been tried but not much has been done to mitagate the quality of water entering the pool. What can be done however, is cleaning the bottom of the pool. Despite the efforts of the pool staff and volunteers, the pool (bottom) has been dying a slow death ever since a minor cleaning accident on 3 July 1992. The story is know by only a few people and has largely been forgotten over the years. But the event of this day set into motion a series of events that has led Barton Springs Pool to the sorry condition it is in today. Out of sight, out of mind.
For the record then, these are my recollections relative to this issue:
7 June 1990 "PUD Rebellion" Austin City Council Meeting. Hundreds of Austinites show up at the City Council meeting to protest and urge the City Council to vote down Jim Bob Moffet's Barton Creek Mega-development. In what was an historic demonstration of citizen democracy in action, people of all ages and professions, stood before the Council that night with one basic message,"DO NOT MESS WITH BARTON SPRINGS POOL!" Mr. Moffet, who was in the audience that night, stood to defend his project saying that as a geology student at UT, he was the smartest football player on the team. And would be a good steward of Barton Creek. His remark drew a huge laugh from the crowd. Mr. Moffet's response to the people of Austin then was a vow to bankrupt the city. But the Council unanimously voted down the project, and thus began the developer war of the 90's.
1992 was a big year. The "PUD Rebellion" gave birth to the "Save Our Springs" movement. The SOS Ordinance, and the SOS Alliance owe their existence to the people who came together after that meeting to support SOS and make it a reality.
Thursday 3 July 1992 Barton Springs Pool. A lifeguard who was on pool cleaning duty that day closed the gates on the pool dam hours before he should have. He had a date that night. As a result, the pool filled up to its normal pre-cleaning level earlier than it should have. The next day several fish were found floating bell-up dead on the surface. People immediately blamed the city's use of chlorine as the cause of the fish kill.
Traditional pool cleaning procedures called for the dam gates to be opened which lowered the water level exposing the limestone bottom in the shallow water area. A diluted mix of water and chlorine was applied to the limestone surface and allowed to evaporate. This kept the shallow end free of algae and gleaming white clean limestone. Free of slippery algae, people could freely wade there without the hazard of falling. The premature raising of the water level by the lifeguard was presumed to have left unevaporated chlorine to mix with pool water killing the fish. Scientifically, however, this was never proven.
Lowering the water level also exposed "the beach" and limestone outcrops adjacent to the diving board. These areas were also cleaned using the same method as the shallow water bottom. During annual spring clean, the pool was closed, and the water level lowered. A rake was dragged width-wise in the deep end below the spring to dis-lodge accumulations of silt and nuisance aquatic growth. These methods were used for decades prior to 3 July 1992. Aquatic plant life, fish life, and crustaceans always returned. Most importantly, the clarity of the water, the white limestone bottom and a deep end, free of wall to wall algae, giving the pool a clarity seen only in Caribbean reef systems. From the perspective of a lifeguard, he or she could she the pool bottom from one end of the pool to the other.
But all that ended on the 3rd of July 1992. What is significant here is the reaction to the cleaning accident. The reaction was way out of proportion to the accident. Instead of simply counseling employee negligence, an sequence of events was set into motion, the timing of which strains credibility.
Right off the bat a Task Force was formed. Ostensibly, their mission; to come up with a non-chemical method of the cleaning pool. What they did however, was far from that mission. The members were, "scientists" from the city, state, UT, PARD management, and a few swimmers. There were immediate decisions made that created problems in the pool that began that summer persisted for sixteen years, current to this day. Some of the Task Force members are part of the "salamander scientists" who police pool maintenance today. The "chairman" of this Task Force was UT zoology professor David Hillis. Professor Hillis was a co-author of the emergency petition requesting endangered species status for the Barton Springs Salamander that was submitted in 1992. Both Hillis and the SOS leadership pushed for the salamander endangered species status.
Decisions were made that began the progressive deterioration of the pool bottom and aquatic life that persist to this day:
Immediately, all pool cleaning was suspended indefinitely. The algae that carpets the bottom of pool, began at that time and remains to this day.
The decision to treat and maintain the pool "as if" the salamander were legally listed as endangered even though it would not be for another five years. This decision blocked any restoration of the pool using traditional methods. What was allowed was never effective enough to keep up with the accumulation of toxic silt or algae.
Salamander welfare took priority over public welfare. Pool character was to revert to a "natural" state. Task Force divers planted underwater plants that were eventually smothered by algae. Pre- 3 July 1992 shallow water limestone bottom went from a gleaming white surface that people could walk on, to a slippery algae surface that caused people to slip and fall. A small "Caution: natural surface" sign was the response. Of course, for the pool to truly revert to a "natural" state, both dams would have to be removed and the pool would become a creek again. Was that their final solution?
Citizen complaints and suggestions were ignored. Public health and safety issues arose as a result of Task Force denials. They were ignored as well. Their true purpose became evident as they blocked and stalled any pool restoration for the next five years until the salamander was granted federal endangered species status in May of 1997.
Then, 8 August 1992 the SOS Ordinance became law. The SOS Alliance was formed. In an unbelievable betrayal of their supporters, the SOS leadership decided pool restoration and maintenance was worth sacrificing for the political power of controlling development using the SOS Ordinance and the pending Emergency Salamander Petition. They sold out the pool. The Task Force enabled that move by their initial decisions and subsequent actions using salamander habitat in the pool as pretext.
The reaction to the SOS Ordinance by some in the developer community was predictable. Following Jim Bob Moffet's lead, their reaction showed up in letters to the federal public comment period that accompanied the salamander endangered species petition. It was hostile, negative and threatening. Their main threat was to sue the city if "critical habitat" (of the salamander) was destroyed by cleaning the pool or public use of the pool. The strange irony was that Task Force decisions to block pool cleaning, SOS decision sacrifice pool cleaning as in exchange for the legal hammer of the endangered species law, and developer threats to shut down the pool, all had the same end result. That was the progressive deterioration of Barton Springs Pool that occurred as a result of suspension of traditional pool cleaning procedures. The algae bloom and the siltation that began in July of 1992 was not only a nuisance and health/safety hazard to people, but it came to be realized as harmful to the salamander as well. Unless you were a year-around regular swimmer, it was difficult to see the changes that were occurring in the pool. As a regular swimmer, I as many others, saw the transformation of the pool bottom through my swim goggles. Swallowing or inhaling floating clumps of algae while swimming, became a regular hazard after July 1992. The pool bottom was so dark that a lifeguard would not see a swimmer who went under with an emergency, until it was too late.
Mr. Beverly Sheffield was the retired Parks and Recreation Director was one of several senior citizen regular swimmers who often met for their daily swim at sunrise. In his 80's, Mr. Sheffield had logged every mile he swam in the springs. It took him decades, but he logged enough mileage swimming in Barton Springs to go from "New York to Los Angeles." Before he passed away, he told me he was "on his was to Hawaii." Mr. Sheffield's tenure as PARD director was a lengthy one. As director and as regular swimmer for decades. Mr. Sheffield knew Barton Springs Pool was well or better than many of the so-called salamander scientists. As such he attempted to advise this group personally and in writing. His main observation was that over the years, aquatic life in Barton Springs Pool was never harmed by traditional pool cleaning procedures. Lowering the pool water level during weekly cleaning, the use of chlorine on exposed limestone in the shallow water, using a "rake" to drag through bottom silt during the spring clean, kept the pool "Caribbean clear". Aquatic life always re-appeared healthy. Even during the drought of the mid-50's when the Eliza pool was dry for several years, he kept the pool clean using traditional methods. When the drought ended, aquatic life returned. Mr. Sheffield's advise was ignored by salamander scientists in the Task Force. As of this writing (April, 2008), salamander scientists with the backing of the federal government, prohibit lowering the pool water level when the spring flow goes below a threshold they established. Their reason being, that this drains the water level out of Eliza Springs pool, threatening the salamander. Even though they successfully pumped pool water through a fire hose into Eliza Springs pool in January of 1997- without lowering water level in Barton Springs Pool, to this day, salamander scientists prohibit lowering pool water level, often preventing regular Thursday pool cleaning.
Salamander scientists hold themselves out to be experts of the Barton Springs salamander. While the data they have depended on for years, rests on salamander numbers, without the use of an miniature ROV capable of swimming the depths of the aquifer to feedback accurate salamander numbers and true habitat, their "data" is fundamentally flawed.
Also, it is important for masterplan designers to know that the "10-A Permit" (the endangered species permit) does not say what PARD CANNOT DO in terms of pool cleaning. It only says what PARD CAN DO. It is my understanding that sometime in the mid-90's, PARD was ordered by salamander scientists never to use chlorine again in the cleaning of Barton Springs pool. Should this be the case, the traditional use of chlorine to kill algae on the shallow water limestone surface is not illegal. Its controlled use should be re-considered. Masterplan designers should re-evaluate the entire "10-A Permit" in light of the near tyrannical control over pool cleaning procedures that salamander scientists have imposed since the issuance of this permit.
And so, the night before the 4th of July, 1992, a Barton Springs life guard on routine cleaning duty would leave early because he had a date. He set into motion as series of events that has left us with the dead zone that is today, Barton Springs pool, the subject of this master plan.
The Task Force acted as pool police until they were awarded official status in 1997 with the endangered species law. Professor Hillis and his co-author Kirkpatrick, with SOS backing, used the pool accident as pretext to submit the 1992 emergency petition. Many of these folks are today's salamander scientists, official pool police.
The infamous City Council meeting in June of 1990 ranks as one of the most superb examples of citizen democracy in action I've ever seen. The message of the people, "don't mess with Barton Springs pool" gave birth to all that became SOS in subsequent years. They had the support of thousands of Austinites, (myself included). But SOS lost the forest for the trees and quietly sacrificed Barton Springs pool for the salamander law. As they head towards bankruptcy court today, the legacy they leave grows on the bottom of Barton Springs pool...wall to wall algae, and silt that holds toxic pollutants.
There isn't another city in the world that has a spring like Barton Spring as its center, It is an aquatic wonder, a health source, a literal fountain of youth. But, in the last 18 years it has been turned into a "storm water retention pond", holding run-off between the dams. Thousands of people who have moved here since July of '92 have never seen it in its true glory. This master plan is the last real chance to restore the pool to the way it was is those days. The rest is just cosmetics. Do this for Beverly Sheffield.
Barton Springs swimmer since 1984
Austin, Texas
- Please do not go hastily into big changes at our beloved Barton Springs without the savvy and caring input of the citizens who love and enjoy this national treasure. Sunning on the hillside I feel I am in my own yard with the buzz of neighbors and kids playing. Everytime I dive into the pools I feel connected to a primordial source. Any development should reflect simplicity, respect, gratitude, and reverence for our native springs.
- To Whom It May Concern:
Please see the attached comments (Select this link to open (pdf format)) on the Barton Springs Master Plan. I submit them from the point of view of both a community member who visited Barton Springs as a child and as an ecologist working to increase our understanding of the behavioral ecology of the Barton Springs Salamander and its habitat. I thank you for soliciting public commentary and applaud your efforts to make Barton Springs a better place. I only hope that you will walk the hard line necessary to ensure that all decisions made under the auspices of this plan indeed improve the ecology of the springs, with full attention paid to the science of ecology and conservation biology, which can be used to improve both salamander habitat and swimming conditions at Barton Springs. Barton Springs does not need a band-aid for its symptoms, it needs a cure; that cure is to restore as much as possible the natural flow regimes. I sincerely hope that this does not turn into another CCC/NYA-like effort to “fix” nature by adding more pavement. Thank you for your attention and best of luck in your efforts.
- Please consider these comments on the Barton Springs Pool Master Plan. I work at Save Our Springs Alliance but these comments are submitted in my individual capacity as a Barton Springs swimmer, not as a representative of Save Our Springs Alliance.
The most important consideration in remodeling or expanding the current facilities, to me, is future maintenance.
Money set aside for improvement projects must include accounts for ongoing maintenance.
When there is money to build things in good times, these same things will become a degradation and liability when the maintenance budget is cut during the lean times. It may be that much of the desire for "new" facilities at the Pool stems from the degraded and dirty state of the current facilities, and an entire remodel may not be necessary where a good cleaning and shine would go along way. The bathroom facilities at the Pool on the front side of the entrance and in the Pool are in desperate need of thorough cleaning and maintenance. I suspect that the parking lot side restrooms are PARD's responsibility and the restrooms inside are specifically the Aquatics staff responsibility, but these should all be treated as Pool facilities.
I don't like at all the idea of a bathhouse on the south side, and what makes it worse is knowing how dirty and stinky it will eventually become.
My suggestion is that any projects adopted under the Plan be required to be budgeted with 1/3 of the construction costs held in trust for maintenance. The total bill for the Plan should show the actual cost of remodeling/building and maintaining the facilities. Further, the bathhouse and facilities should be maintained by specific attendants, rather than the lifeguards who aren't interested in cleaning the bathroom. If there is a trust fund for maintenance established these jobs can't get cut and raided in response to a decline in sales tax revenue (or overzealous projections).
A final thought is just to keep in mind how disturbing a bunch of construction projects will be, and try to keep it to a minimum. There are so many times when Barton Springs is just an unbelievable oasis of quiet and peace (dirty bathrooms and all), in the middle of a busy day in the City, and it would be a shame to lose that value while trying to "upgrade" what Nature gave us.
Thanks for your consideration,
- To whom it may concern:
These are some of my thoughts about the Barton Springs Master Plan.
Grounds and trees - I generally agree with most of the proposals, however I think there is too much attention given to getting rid of pecan trees...the pecans are the "personality of the pool"...I think a little more maintenance(trimming) would get rid of any safety issues.
Building - I like the plans for both the old and new(south side) bathhouse. The plan for the south side is way overdue. It's way too far to walk from the south side to use the rest room.
If we get improved facilities on the south side...this includes parking...it will take some of the load off the crowded north side.
It is often difficult to find a parking space. The trouble with a new south bath house is that its going to need staffing and cleaning and maintenance. If a south bathhouse is built far enough "back" (close to the parking lot) it wouldn't spoil the existing view from the north side from the pool. The trail is a very good idea.
Water Quality and Water Flow Issues - I think that we will end up with a plan that will ultimately do very little to improve on what we are doing presently. The problem with what we are doing presently is that we don't do it often enough(cleaning the shallow end) This is going to be a very interesting study...I hope that the folks at Watershed are not afraid to get the best outside help/advice available. Its important for Barton Springs Pool that we get the best information possible and not just find someone who will substantiate our personal assumptions. I like Laurie and David and I think they are very interested in this project...they have the most exciting part of the master plan...I just hope that they are honest enough to not change things if the evidence does not totally warrant it.
I think that the one thing the master plan does not address is the priority of Barton Springs Pool. The pool does not get the attention that it deserves. I think that BSP should have a full time manager who's total job is Barton Springs Pool and reports directly to management. Donita has far too many other jobs to do to give the pool the attention it deserves. No other facility on the Parks and Recreation menu is as important as Barton Springs. I once read that BSP is the most visited tourist attraction in Austin...I doubt that is true, but certainly it's in the top 5.
In my view no lifeguard should be allowed to sit around and read when they are not "in the chair". If they are not watching swimmers, they should be cleaning something. When I was a lifeguard ( a million years ago) I spent more time cleaning and painting and cutting grass than I did watching swimmers.
The men's locker room is a mess...always. The floor and the benches should be washed off everyday, the toilets, mirrors and sinks cleaned everyday. The grass should be cut every week. The sidewalks should be washed off everyday. When that is finished the guards should get in the shallow end and start pushing brooms. If it wasn't for Kate, little would get done. We need a manager to take charge of Barton Springs Pool. (I sure hope the guards don't know who I am)
I guess I've expressed my ignorance enough...lets get this master plan rolling...I would like to see something get done.
- I am a long time resident of Austin and a daily swimmer at the Barbon Sjprings pool. On a normal day, I start the day with an early swim at the pool and I hope to continue doing so until the very last day of my life. Barbon Springs is one of the very reason I choose to live here. Clearly, the Spring is the shining jewel of our city. We must guard, nurture and enjoy it.
On April 5, I attended the master plan meeting at the city hall. Prior to the meeting I attempted to read the lengthy document, the master plan, but I gave it up only after an hour or so shuffling through unable to find specific information I was looking for.
At the meeting I learned the general scope of the proposal, understanding that this is only the very beginning of probably a very long process of refinement. What I did notice is that the general public is unfamiliar with the public process—how the contract is rewarded from the Parks department and other process that it follows. Unfamiliarity of the procedure led to suspicion and misunderstanding. I feel that the entire process needs to be disclosed to public and future process needs to be educated to public for better public relationship.
For the public to be aware of new ideas and plans, it takes a long time. In case of Barton Springs, emotionally and environmentally it is a highly sensitive topic. I would say it would be prudent to give public an ample notice, one to two years. Generally speaking, many people feel that there simply have not been enough time and information available to digest the whole idea.
For example, I first leaned about the master plan last fall reading the local newspaper. Now in the Spring, we’re pressured into adapting the master plan. Introduce the idea of closing the pool for a length of time such as two years or more for the renovation in the heat of the summer, the public might have a different view. The City government needs to take this into account. I personally would appreciate it if the public can weather the plan throughout all seasons and solicit ideas from the public for longer period of time.
One of the problem for me is not knowing the time line. I asked at the meeting if the team has any clue as to when and how long this would take. The answer is “we don’t know”. I said I could not support the plan without a clue of timeline -- it would be like giving a blank check. Response from that remark was something in tune of ‘then, you don’t want to improve water quality? You don’t care?’. I find that response rather surprising and very misunderstood.
Let me say it here, clear as I want the Barton Springs water to be, I care!! -- perhaps more than most people in Austin.
Overall, I am in agreement with the architectural and landscape plans. For extensive water quality issue, it needs more investigation and research, and again, some sense of time line., Last year the pool was closed for months for the gravel bar removal which did not resolved the problem. Lets not experiment with Baton Springs pool. I agree that we need to look into a comprehensive plan for the future, and i hope that the public is invited to initiate this, , but as of now, the pool is functioning reasonably well—for my buck, why fix it if not broken. Why rush?
Meanwhile, I would appreciate it if the Parks department could spend a little bit of the budget on fixing minor repairs which would make the facility almost perfect as it is now.
One last request, I would like the access to public comments that are made concerning the master plan.
- I had the opportunity to attend the Barton Springs Pool Master Plan discussion at City Hall on April 5th. During the break-out session discussing the buildings and capital improvements, Ms. Limbarger indicated that the master plan was only a starting discussion point for what might come to pass in the future (almost like simple bullet items), not a blueprint for the actual implementation. She was unclear about what procedure would be used in the future for public input and design time to allow additional considerations to determine the actual actions to be taken.
The problem here is that if the drawings and designs of the Master Plan are approved, it will be difficult in the future to make changes in what was already approved.
Please, we need to slow this process down. I agree that the criticism raised that much of the content of the Plan was predetermined based on hiring a firm that specializes in architectural design and construction is valid. I don't have a problem with the work done at Deep Eddy, though I have heard criticism of the design of the womenʼs dressing area at Deep Eddy. On the menʼs side, except for the lack of hooks on which to hang things, I think the design is quite functional.
But this talk of "returning Barton Springs to its rightful glory" sounds like boosterism which should not be part of the process.
A few specific notes about parts of the design:
- The family bathroom area as drawn causes big, undesirable changes in the men's dressing area. Placing it in the SW corner of men's dressing area instead of the SE corner would be better.
- Why the big change to move the entrance to its original place? Has there been any research on the problems they had with this location and why it was changed years ago? The current entrance provides a much more asthetically pleasing entrace, at the center of the pool. I think the bottlenecks of this entrance are an inconvenience for only very few times of the year.
- We need more thought and consideration about the need and design of a bathroom / changing area at the south entrance.
Bottom line, what's the hurry. A process that involves more of the stakeholders in a longer term design process will keep this jewel at it's current "quite good enough glory". Thanks for listening,
- I have a remarkably easy, cheap and very effective way to reduce the inevitable noise pollution of construction. It's a broadband back-up alarm that offers an alternative to traditional back up alarms that greatly improves worker safety while greatly reducing noise pollution to the surrounding areas. I've attached a pdf file of a white paper that goes into great detail about the advantages, safety concerns and technical details of the broadband back-up alarm. Also note that New York City in their recently implemented construction noise mitigation rules has listed the broadband alarm as *required* for sensitive areas such as those near schools, residences, etc. (http://nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/noise_constr_rule.pdf scroll to page 21 for relevant section)
I live in the neighborhood and walk to Barton Springs several times a week. While I'm excited about improvements to both the facility and water quality, I have to admit that I'm cringing at the thought of enduring all of the construction that will have to take place to get there. In particular, the beep beep beep of the back-up alarms on the construction vehicles.
I've been dealing with that issue for almost a year, as the staging area for one of the sewer replacement projects is right next to my apartment complex. Take my word for it, the shrill, monotonous, intermittent beep beep beep of those vehicles going all day, every day, for months on end is a miserable experience. I finally got the city to help me work with the contractor to install a broadband alarm on the vehicle permanently stationed next to the apartments and it's made a HUGE difference in our quality of life.
Here are some fact about the broadband alarm taken from and article is from Occupational Health and Safety Magazine.
http://www.ohsonline.com/articles/49094/
• Sound pollution is now considered a major health hazard.
• Broadband alarms avoid the shrill sounds associated with traditional alarms.
• Broadband alarms are more directional.
• When there are several lift trucks, listeners can distinguish the source difference.
• Broadband alarms are more easily heard by older people.
• Broadband alarms are already accepted as an alarm system (and there are other brands).
• Broadband signals don't ricochet in the manner single tones do.
• Broadband signals are less likely to produce panic reactions.
• Broadband signals produce less stress.
• Broadband sounds are less objectionable in outside areas.
Another thing that's important to know is that back-up alarms are considered an accessory item, a spec'd add-on. Changing from one brand of alarm to another does *not* constitute an 'equipment modification' and will not incur additional liability. In fact, implementing a safer, more effective warning system will *reduce* liability.
If you're wondering where the broadband back-up alarm can be obtained, contact John Gruver at OE Parts and he'll be able to get these to you.
They only cost between $90 and $165 each and can be installed in minutes with a couple of bolts and two wire connects:
John Gruver
OE Parts
903-654-0835
johngruver@txun.net
Please let me know if you'd like more information. I've done extensive research on this issue and have many more examples and links to share.
This is a small, simple, easy, inexpensive solution that will have a HUGE positive impact on the attitudes of Barton Springs patrons toward the construction.
- *When the new lighting is installed, care needs to be taken so that the new fixtures make it easy for lifeguards to see patrons swimming after dark. Putting lights behind/above the lifeguard stands would help us see light reflected directly back, instead of just glare from other distant lights.
*Having diverse, healthy trees is a great idea, but people usually come here for the grass and sunshine -- current plans seem to indicate far more canopy than is necessary. This would not be such a problem if the trees were groomed to allow more light infiltration underneath (hence more grass, less erosion, better sightlines, etc.).
*I think that a small (!) restroom facility by the south gate could hardly be a bad thing. No more peeing in the woods!
*Some moderate amount of creek management (perhaps in association with the city's well-developed Watershed Protection department) would go much farther toward reducing flooding than many dam/bypass ideas currently under discussion. An example is documented in the article "Barbara Clark and the Ephemeral San Pedro River" by George Ivey on pages ten and eleven of the November/December 1998 issue of Nature Conservancy magazine.
Staff Response: SELECT THIS LINK TO OPEN (pdf format).
- I have to be honest- I am a mother of three little ones and don't have the time to read through the entire plan, so what I want to state may already be there or may not:
I briefly read there would be a unisex bathroom - I hope this would be a one person at a time thing.
It would be absolutely beneficial to all families:
1. Add one or two childrens height toilets
2. Children's height sink
3. Children's height water fountains
4. Baby diaper changing station
5. Maybe a small nursing room with a glider chair
There are many families with children that attend Barton Springs. The above could be added to a "family area" such as the one located in the San Antonio Zoo.
From what I have had time to read and hear about the project, I think it would be wonderful and I am all for it!
Staff Response: SELECT THIS LINK TO OPEN (pdf format).
- My thoughts on the plans for Barton Springs:
-First priority is water quality. Anything that would add impermeable cover, like paving the back parking lot, would run counter to this.
-Another solar-heated shower would be nice.
-Algae control, whether manual or mechanical, would improve the swimming experience.
Staff Response: SELECT THIS LINK TO OPEN (pdf format).
- I am writing to express my thoughts and concerns regarding the proposed Barton Springs Pool (BSP) Master Plan, as outlined for public comment 2/19/2008. I would appreciate a reply letting me know how my comments will be used and what influence, if any, they and the comments of others may have on the process. When will the comments of all be made public?
General comments about the plan and how it is being managed.
In the Executive Summary, it says:
This project began with an Oct, 2006 City Council resolution...calling for consideration of water quality and salamander habit improvements, grounds improvements, infrastructure, and facilities improvements.
I understand that this was done because the City had half a million dollars a year to put toward BSP. Dollar signs lit up in the eyes of architects and builders, who have seized on the opportunity to undertake extensive development of the area.
Yes, it is important for the city to approach maintenance and planning for BSP with a long view and not to take on projects piecemeal. This is why Master Plans should exist, but they should not be seen as prescriptions for unwarranted construction, renovation, or redesign. The funds that are available would be best spent in improving things like training and salaries for the pool staff, for more public education programs, for ongoing tree and plant cultivation and care, but not to rebuild structures just because they have been poorly maintained or to build new ones to please the minority of people who want the convenience of additional rest facilities at each entrance.
I am sorry to hear that the city quickly borrowed against this newfound funding and put itself $6.5 million in debt to facilitate the overblown Phase 1 plans for “improvements” to BSP.
The “public review” process for this plan has been presented in a manner that makes it unlikely that the average citizen and park user will understand or be able to offer comments. The plan is too big and too wordy for most people to read and understand. Graphics shown in public meetings and on the Web, have been sized so that they were difficult to study. Even in the hard hard copy Master Plan, important information such as the time schedules (which will affect pool closure) are presented in a manner that makes it nearly incomprehensible. It gives the impression that the plan is a fait accomplis. My impression is that the city is only going through the motions of requesting public comment, but doesn’t really want to be swayed from its plans. I am a professional writer and editor and I’ve attended most of the public meetings about the Master Plan, yet I find it very difficult to read and comprehend the vast scope of this project and even more difficult to comment on it coherently. These notes are my attempt to do so. I am frustrated by the task. Information seems to be obfuscated. Public meetings about the Master Plan were held at the pool on days when the parking lot was closed to the public. And details of specific projects fill the document instead of clear statements about overall goals and objectives. ( I’d like to see some stated objectives that include: to improve water quality, to keep the pool open for use by the public, to mitigate environmental damage caused by proposed improvements.). The plan was not distributed electronically in a format that was easy to print, read or share. There was no formal public forum where people could see and comment on each other’s ideas.
Elements of the Master Plan that are positive and parts are negative. The plan should not be endorsed or rejected in its entirety.
When I first learned of the Master Plan, I heard a swimmer saying how at Deep Eddy, the water was fine but the bathhouse was in ruin, so money was raised to rebuild the bathhouse. At Barton Springs there is nothing serious wrong with the building facilities, but the water needs a lot of protection and cleaning. When I learned that the company writing the Master Plan was the one that designed and built the Deep Eddy bathhouse, Limbacher & Godfrey, I was surprised and wondered why this one small firm was getting such big contracts with the city. The Master Plan puts too much emphasis on facilities development and not enough on water quality management.
The couple of times I have used the Deep Eddy bathhouse, I was struck by how poorly designed it is for use in wet weather. Following a heavy rain, there was no dry place to place my things in the new bathhouse. The benches were not protected from rain, and water beaded on them, rather than draining. There were no towel hooks, no place to hang anything. The only dry space after a rainfall was in the small collection of lockers, but the water had formed into un-draining puddles right in front, where one would stand to put things in the lockers. There was no place with a mirror where women could comb their hair, except right over the sinks—and women shouldn’t brush hair right over the sinks for the hair goes down the drain and clogs the pipes. I also looked for a power outlet and only found one, right by the sinks-- again, electricity should not be close to water.
Based on what I had seen of their work at Deep Eddy, I don’t think the Master Plan should be in the hands of these architects.
I have a recollection of having had a casual encounter with Al Godfrey, meeting him for the first time at an SOS Party in 2002. I told Al that I swam every day at BSP, and he told me he was an architect and that he was talking to people about some exciting architectural planning for BSP including a new bathhouse on the south side. He put his arm on my shoulder, like a politician might, acting like we were old friends. I couldn’t say that I’ve seen him again before he surfaced in 2007 in regard to this. Could it be that this project was in the works that long ago? How come Al and Laurie are never, seen at the pool for a swim?
Tony Arnold, the project manager, has a construction background. We don’t need builders and architects making plans for Barton Springs pool, we need conservationists, hydrologists, biologists, and botanists.
I suspect others of having hidden personal agendas related to the Master Plan. I joined the group called Friends of Barton Springs Pool, but wanted to distance myself from it after the group campaigned in strong support of the Master Plan. I wonder how his support of the Master Plan was connected to the plans of local lawyer Robin Cravey to run for City Council this year. Once millions of dollars were secured for Phase 1 of the Master Plan, putting taxpayers in public debt for a decade, Robin stepped down from his leadership position with FBSP and has moved on to a larger political arena. I worry about who will be left to lead the group when it must deal with the mess (cost and schedule overruns leading to extended pool closure) caused by all the projects in the Master Plan, and I regret that the FBSP group has been weakened by the Master Plan controversy.
I am afraid that the plans, once proposed, will become taken as mandates and we will be stuck with huge construction projects, like a new bathhouse on the south side and reconstruction of the pool dams, that will close the facility to public access and/or make use of the pool limited and less pleasant for long, immeasurable periods.
The population of Austin is expected to double by 2020, but that doesn’t mean that the pool facilities should double. We need a new approach, like frequent free shuttle service from parking areas to parks. But trying to build to accommodate growth is senseless. It will just deplete the park of its natural flora and disrupt habitat of the endangered salamander.
In general, the Master Plan for BSP fails because it presents no general guidelines or principles for the project, it provides no data on pool usage, revenue or attendance.
The Main North Entrance
Don’t change the location of the ticket booth. One shouldn’t have to enter a building to enter the pool. I would like to see the space used by the classrooms used more efficiently. I would also like to see the return of a small gift shop where swimmers can buy suntan lotion, goggles, and BSP-specific gifts.
Visitors should not have to separate to enter the pool via gender-specific entrances. If the pool entrance is moved to the center. where the glass atrium is, the walkway that now exists in the women’s dressing area could be opened to the public as a mixed gender entry and the accessible toilet could become a “family” dressing room. I would be sorry for that would make the women’s area much smaller. There should be a way for people to enter and pass through the main building using the doors to the patio area (between the men’s and women’s dressing areas) which has been closed for many years.
I understand that the Master Plan proposes an alternate plan: expanding the women’s dressing area into the area now used by the pool staff, and moving them to the area that now has an open walkway and an accessible bathroom. That might be a good idea, but not at the expense of having to remove the beautiful old limestone wall that faces the pool.
The Existing Bathhouse
The Master Plan states that there is a need for additional toilets. This is unfounded. It is very rare that a woman must wait for a stall.
The plans say that the entire dressing facility could be closed for an entire swim season. This would be very disrupted and a way to make needed repairs should be found that is less intrusive.
There should be more electric sockets available for use by visitors.
Lockers should be larger--wider.
Additional solar showers would be very welcome.
The privacy stalls on the outside are little used and poorly maintained, but they don’t need to be removed. It is unnecessary. They pose no threat to our security and fears about them are unfounded and unreasonable.
The Proposed South Bathhouse.
I don’t want to see a building being built and standing at the top of the hill. Any big construction up there is going to aggravate problems of water run off. If a single toilet, like a permanent outhouse with a sink for handwashing, could be built and hidden in the woods, that would be okay, but we don't need another set of showers and definitely don’t need a family dressing room. Instead of building new toilet facilities, the toilets near the northern-most parking lot on Robert E Lee, near the ball fields, should be improved and signage pointing to them should be added so visitors can use toilets on both sides of the park.
The Proposed Accessible Path on South Side
The law does not stipulate nor require there to be more than one accessible entrance to the pool. The one on the north side fulfills the ADA requirements. It would be a mistake to cut into the woods behind the diving board to put a 5-foot wide path in there. Erosion problems are bound to increase. Note: The hike and bike trail on Barton Creek has two accessible entrances-- not every entrance is accessible, and we should not assume that every entrance to BSP must be.
Dredging Operations and Dam reconstruction
My concern is that dredging will close the pool to the public for extended periods. This should be minimized. If a “cofer” dam (sp?) is employed to drain the east end of the pool while most of the pool remains wet, the public should be allowed access to the facilities. Guards can be placed to keep people from walking around the dammed area.
The Tree Plaza
The Zilker Park snack shop should be downsized and given new management so that the snacks offered there are healthy and natural—like Barton Springs. I like the idea of removing the planter to create a more user-friendly area overlooking the pool from outside the gate (more bike racks, more seating—maybe even massage tables!) It’s great that there is wifi here, and I would like to see more shaded seating and even new electric sockets for public use (for cell phone and laptop recharging. If we are going to plan for the future, power outlets are important.
Grounds Improvements
More trees and native flora are good. The existing pecan trees are wonderful. Pecans should not be considered “dangerous.”
We’ll all be glad to see the overhead wires removed and put underground. Let’s not wait to have that done. Try to keep the disruption of public access to a minimum.
In Conclusion
I am posting these comments to the official email address for comments, bspmasterplan@ci.austin.tx.us, as well as to the informal public discussion group, bartonsprings@yahoogroup.com. I manage that yahoogroups.com list (having set it up about 12 years ago), but I am posting this simply as an individual Austin resident and a member of the Polar Bear club.
I want to remind everyone that Monday, April 21 is the deadline for public comments. I hope that by sharing my comments with the yahoogroup, I will stimulate others to think about and comment on the Master Plan. But by the time everyone on the yahoogroups.com list reads my comments, it may be too late for them to add their own.
Some of the statements I have made above are about things I have been feeling for months; others are new ideas that just occurred to me on recent reflection. I hesitated to post them for I am not prepared to enter into extended debate over particulars, should others choose to challenge my assumptions and opinions. They are simply my thoughts after trying to make sense of the large and unwieldy Master Plan document. Thank you for considering them.
Staff Response: SELECT THIS LINK TO OPEN (pdf format).
- Thank you for taking the time to hear and listen to whatever the public has to say...
For me, my major concerns are:
1. That the Master Plan DRAFT is being used as a jumping off place for all discussions regarding the Springs renovation... it is being used as a working document... as though the items within the draft have been agreed to by the ALL, not just the few "stakeholders" (FOBSP) and city workers responsible for executing this draft... It is merely a first draft and a confusingly poor one at that. In my opinion, Godfrey and Limbacher should be thanked for their work and a second team should be brought on immediately. THIS DRAFT SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL... IT IS NOT READY... IT IS NOT CLEAR.... IT IS NOT FINISHED... AND THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN A REAL CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE...
A problem with allowing the draft into the record is that it becomes a real document at that time instead of what it is... some ideas with some science behind it... and is used as teh starting point. Too many of the ideas presented are either not really good ideas or they are ideas that are too big in scope to be treated so non-challant.
2. There is little public voice on such a huge and vital issue involving the heart, soul and history of Austin. And it feels as though this is done with intention. Meetings are not announced until just before... on a website designed to confuse, decisions made at some of those meetings are ignored and rewritten in subsequent meeting which are not open to the public, and even the big discussions at city hall two weeks ago did little but isolate the attendees. We were split up into small groups and no one got to hear valuable info, insights, and concerns offered by citizens in other groups... we were not a large enough crowd to use this kind of forum... this is done to divide and conquer... in this case, divide and keep ignorant
3. There has been no charette, no meeting of the minds... the concern about this is that not all of the options are being looked at in any measurable way. We are being asked to take the advise of the consultants... Godfrey and Limbacher... who are not really consultants, but archetects... (and just for the record, how is it that they won the bid having just completed Deep Eddy?) One blazing example of questionalble logic is the ADA ramp placement. G and L have the ramp meandering through the only real natural woods left at the Springs and landing our physically challenged citizens on the most dangerous part of the Springs near the diving board... from there, any one in a chair or with a stroller has to navigate all the way around the pool on the wet cement... why do that when the southeast side has the rolling hill already cleared and would land the user at teh widest part of the pool deck and closest to the other side... then there is the ticket taking at the main entrance... why on earth would you design the building to have a place to buy tickets and then make people go to another entrance to enter... when it would be simple, more convenient, and less expensive to have both at the entrance. It makes me wonder who is watching... has anyone dared to take an exit poll at Deep Eddy... I have met very, very few women who enjoy the changes in the dressing room adn most find it horrible. Please do not let G and L design any of the Barton Springs Buildings. We live in a town with The University of Texas and international businesses... this gives us access to brilliant minds across the globe... why are we not using them... ?
May I suggest that we SLOW DOWN and only do that which is essential for Barton Springs -- improved water quality, cleaning proceedures, and safety for all of the aquatic life- including the swimmers, visitors, and salamanders...
THE NEXT MEETING ON THIS SHOULD BEGIN WITH EVERYONE PARTICIPATING JUMPING INTO THE SPRINGS or at the very least, putting their legs in... AND THEN WE CAN TALK. THERE IS WONDER AND MAGIC AND JOY BUBBLING UP FROM THE AQUIFER... PLEASE RESPECT IT AND KEEP IT SAFE FROM OVER OR UNNECESSARY DEVELOPMENT.
Thank you and I hope to attend more public imput meetings on this... please do not send this draft to council!
Staff Response: SELECT THIS LINK TO OPEN (pdf format).
- Thanks for taking my comments.
The public input portion of this Masterplan Draft proposal has been mostly non-existent.
The first comment I would like to make is that there really should be NO draft put before the council to vote on until the public has a REAL chance to have a voice in this process. Many involved with this proves would like to believe that the public has been heard but the have not.
Disregarding the publics view on such an important Austin Icon and natural resource is disrespectful to the public and the Springs herself.
Back in early March I was forwarded and email that had originated from Farhad… it was announcing the April town hall meeting. It also said that there would be “Numerous Public meetings” well the “Numerous” did not happen. There were only 2. Once at the parks board and one “Town Hall Meeting” on April 5th.
In my opinion the town Hall meeting was a disaster as it gave No New Information such as time frame and closer expectations. The structure of the meeting also divided the public up into three separate groups and then had three separate meetings within those 3 separate groups. That is NOT the way you gather a true voice of the public. That is how you water down the voice of the people and get stronger control on what goes into the ‘record’.
I was extremely disappointed by this obvious play against the voice of the people. Also, you call the public together supposedly to ‘get public feedback”, and then you make the public wait 3 hours!.... 3 hours to get to speak their concerns. And when they finally get to speak they are given 3 closely timed minutes.
That also is NOT how you gather information if you are truly concerned about the voice of the public.
I have been following this process for almost a year, I have sought out information, I have written email, and I have gone to meetings…. I can tell you this; it is VERY CLEAR that who ever is behind this is NOT interested in the voice of the public. Often to find the right info or the right meeting is like a Shell Game.
I could give a long and boring list of examples, but anyone who has been close to this situation and is Honest knows the level of Hide and seek that is going on… especially in terms the information that gets to the public. Say what you want, roll your eyes if you need the extra dramatic effect…. Btu it is True.
The situation is organized to show that it really cares about the public voice, yet it is designed to not allow the public to know enough clear information to understand the implication and consequences of the Master Plan.
That brings me to the Master Plan itself. You’ve got 6.2 million dollars and you have to charge $10/ copy if someone really wants to read this unnecessarily overweighed document. IT is a public document that potential effects the very future of Barton Springs pool and you make the Public have to buy one?? Not exactly free and open communication… AGAIN!
Equally problematic is the giant size of the document. For what you are calling a supposed ‘draft’ it sure goes into a lot of History and unnecessary detail about things that don’t really relate to the actual Master Plan. It is written in a way that make is difficult for anyone to understand what is really going on and what the Real plans for Barton Springs are. It is not designed to be clear…. It was not written with the public in mind. It is not a document that is easy to navigate or to understand although it is clear that there is a lot of Lip service paid to protecting the sensitivity of the springs all the while introducing ideas like “re-landscaping” the entire place and chopping down a LOT of the beautiful and historic trees.
I think it is really important for the city to fully consider the impact on the people of Austin such a project can have.
I think this Draft should be used as just that a Draft. I think new Consultants should be fairly chosen this time, and that more varitety of professional people should be included in the process of such an important Master plan. In my heart I do not believe Godfrey and his team are capable of correctly consulting a project of this scale. And from the negative feedback I’ve heard about what they did to the women’s bathroom at Deep Eddy; I don’t think they should be allowed to design the changes or the new bath house at Barton Springs.
I am not alone in this feeling. Please consider the long-term consequences to the pool the people and the city if the wrong consultants and architects handle this project. I feel strongly that the team of architects / consultants that are currently in charge of the project are woefully unqualified for a project of this scale.
PLEASE > Use the draft as a draft… use that unnecessarily big document as a good starting place for the next, new and better team of consultants and architects to work from.
I am asking that you do not recommend the current plan for approval. We need a new TEAM of people on t is project that will give the Springs the respect it truly deserves not just a bunch of lip service. Also this current draft does NOT include the voice of the public, and so on that basis alone should be disqualified as a useable document on a project of this scale and importance for he City of Austin.
We are not just talking about a little park renovation and the modernization of an old pool. This is BARTON SPRINGS!!!! It has historic and global significance; that so far I think has not been respected in the full light that it deserves > The two most notable ways> 1) Having a woefully unqualified group of consultants working on this and 2) to have very little real public input. We should be gathering public and professional input from other parts of the WORLD.
PLEASE TREAT THIS PROJECT WITH THE RESPECT IT DESERVES!!! Please bring in a better team of people to fully and accurately assess the needs of the pool and the best use of the 6 million dollars.
Please get some International feedback from the teams of professionals out there who might have incredible useful input and information in order to make the most of this renovation period for Barton Springs.
Please do not recommend this Draft for approval to even go before the Council. The draft is not ready. It is a FIRST draft. We need a new team of people to reassess, include the public and formulate a plane this is much simpler to understand and that takes into account the environmental and historic sensitivity of Barton Springs.
Staff Response: SELECT THIS LINK TO OPEN (pdf format).
- I have been swimming at Barton Springs on a daily, year-round basis since I moved to Austin in 1984. The pool is a glorious place and I, like many others, depend on it for mental and physical well-being. After many years of witnessing a steady deterioration in the water quality and experiencing a growing sense of despair that city officials would or could take action to address issues at the pool, I am encouraged by most of the recommendations presented in the Barton Springs Master Plan.
My primary concern at the pool is the water quality. I fully recognize that development in the aquifer recharge zone is the main factor contributing to the declining quality of water in the pool and so I have long supported efforts to control growth in these sensitive areas. In an ideal world there would be no development along Barton Creek, homeowners in the recharge zone would not use lawn fertizliers, we would not be experiencing urban sprawl in the western portion of Travis County and I could go down to the pool on the day after a heavy rainstorm certain that the water would be as clear and clean as the day before the storm.
Sadly, this is not even remotely our reality. That's why I wholeheartedly support the short-term recommendations presented in the document. I believe we must do what we can to improve conditions in the pool — for salamanders and swimmers — and that failure to act would have profoundly negative effects on the pool, its aquatic life, swimmers and the reputation of the City of Austin. I particularly support the removal of the sediment and gravel from the deep end of the pool and the initiation of water quality and flow studies to better understand pool dynamics and to help determine needed projects and their feasibility. Though I, like every daily swimmer, hope that pool closures can be minimized, I applaud city officials for taking action because I firmly believe that failure to act in the past has worsened conditions at the pool for its inhabitants and its human users. I also believe that we, as a community, can do better to protect, preserve and enhance this truly unique and fragile site and the lovely but largely neglected park that surrounds it.
Though I am currently less supportive of the some of the structural changes proposed as long-term recommendations (in particular, those listed under the headings 'ground improvements' and 'buildings' in the document), I am open-minded about their possible need as long as our top priority remains the shared goal of improving habitat for the salamander and water quality for pool users. I do support the concept for a SMALL bathhouse/changing room/toilet facility on the south side because it seems evident that restroom facilities on that side of the pool are warranted. I also support efforts to unite the spring flows, if studies show this is desirable, to restore and improve conditions at Eliza Springs and Sunken Gardens, and to better integrate these two sites into 'the Springs' experience. I also support some of the recommendations for improvements in the grounds, such as better use of native plants, rainwater collection and more aesthetically pleasing fencing, though I would never give these priority over water-quality related projects.
I have been impressed by the openness of the process to public input and though I am certain that improvements in transparency (in decision-making and budget) are always possible, I think pool users have been given adequate notification and ample opportunity to obtain information, attend meetings and forums, offer suggestions and provide comments on draft documents. I have attended several forums and feel that I was well advised in advance about meeting dates, agendas and so on. I also would like to thank the city and the consultants for seeking the input of the Scientific Advisory Committee and I hope this group will continue to be involved in the process. It may be possible for other such advisory groups of practical experts to be formed (e.g. native plant, tree and xeriscape gardening experts; green builders and architects; and possibly others) that could help inform the process and to provide a level of public confidence as the effort "to return Barton Springs to its rightful glory" proceeds.
Staff Response: SELECT THIS LINK TO OPEN (pdf format).
- I swim in Barton Springs 3 times a week, year round.
The master plan is okay but I don't want any of those big old trees cut down. Also the plan for the little wood on the south side is not right. We don't need paths and trails through it. Just get rid of the ligustrum japonicum and leave it as it is.
Most urgent problem though - KILL THE ALGAE! What happened to the water this year?
Staff Response: SELECT THIS LINK TO OPEN (pdf format).
- You have invited public comment regarding the new Barton Springs Pool Master Plan, so here it goes.
I have been a swimmer at Barton Springs for over 40 years (42 to be exact.), so have seen the steady degradation of pool and the park.. This Master Plan is a god-send for it appears to be a good guide to bringing back the pool and the immediate area. I have followed this process for well over a year and have attended many of the public meetings, especially the hearing at Barton Springs Pool and have been very impressed with the work of the city and pool staff. They listened and were responsive.
The Plan:
I like the idea of renovating and re-configuring the entrance rotunda. Much more grand entrance and more centrally located.
South Bath House. I seldom ever enter the pool from the south, so I am personally lukewarm to this idea. That being said, I also understand why it this bathhouse makes sense--handicap access and weekend access without paying the entrance fee (why, why, why should we have to pay an entrance fee to Zilker Park and two entrance fees if you are going to swim on the weekend.) Underground Utilities. No brain er. Fix Trees. As one of the prime assets of the park and the pool, work on the trees is critical. Dredging the pool.needs to be done. The approach in the plan is pretty comprehensive. but maybe a better idea will emerge. Enlarging the pool. Don't even consider. Makes no sense. Eliza Springs. Reconnect this spring to the pool. Help the little critters and bring back the sunken garden spring. I had forgotten that this even existed. Sunken Garden restoration. Funny I haven't used this spring since the pool was closed for the construction of the bypass channel.
I would like to thank the City of Austin and everyone involved for having the foresight to support the development of this Master Plan.
- I am a fourth generation Austinite, my grandfather and mother were Barton Springs lifeguards in their day. Barton Spring is listed among my favorite places on earth, I've been going there all my life. If I ever get the chance to have kids and grandkids, I'm taking them swimming at the springs. Therefore I am watching this planning process with great interest.
I would like to offer opinions based off of the project boards available on-line. Other websites have made mention of additional steps such as adding a water playground area to the shallow end... I completely repulsed by the idea of seeing plastic stuff submerged in our pristine pool, but I don't see it on the project boards??? I am trusting that all suggested changes are on your boards.
1. dam technology: I would rather see money spent on improving and protecting the creek's water quality upstream than go to expensive high-tech solutions on a dam. Keep it simple, raise the dam if you need to. Not sure why its necessary to have "vehicular traffic" able to cross the dam?
2. Algae - NO ULTRASOUND. geez. skimmers sound ok, but it seems like a huge cost for something that is only a problem just a few months out of the year. My calculation show overall it would be less money and complication to just employ a few folks to swim-n-skim for those few months? By the time you make a model to study the affects of recirculation on slalmanders etc (what 40k?) you could have hired a couple of dedicated folks for about four years worth of manual skimming and scrubbing (2 people x 25 hrs/week x 20 weeks x $10/hr). By the time its all installed if you have spent more than $500k, 50 years worth of manual skimming would have been less expensive. And you know no skimming system is lasting 50 years. Again. Aim for simplicity.
3. enlarge the pool....NO! Big Thumbs Down. I'm not opposed to having a bigger pool, its the 24" drop in water level and the corresponding loss of shallow end that I disapprove of. I think the salamanders have adapted by now.
4. improve electrical - i support
5. rehabilitat sunken gardens and eliza spring - i support
6.redesign tree court - the concepts are good, I think just give Amy's ice cream the concession stand and let them have at it! enough of that other junk, lets get some real local ice cream!!
7. tell story of the park... great!
8. tress - ok, shade is good, but so it sun after you just got out of those icy waters. Sun is very important for year round swimmers (like me). The new tree plan shades up all my favorite sun spots. Just put all your trees in the parking area where we need it most. I do like a few cypress trees mixed in.
9. lawn and ground cover - love the idea of replacing steep slopes with native plants and flowers.
10. rehabilitate existing bath house: Sounds great. but I hope when you move the entrance back to its original location you prune those tall bushes down so the view of the water is unobstructed. I also love the idea of enlarging the spectators deck area. It would give my great Aunt Ruth (87 yrs old) somewhere to sit while we swim. Right now she had no shady spots to sit, so she won't come with us.
11. new south bath house... not worth the cost. leave the south low key. If you do anything, redo the area, make it nice... flowers, nice iron fence, new guard shack etc. South bath house not necessary, especially with a big new renovated one on the north side.
Thank you for welcoming and considering public comment.
- Barton Springs is the heart and soul of our city. It is a natural resource of national and even global significance. It deserves to be treated with the highest level of respect and responsible stewardship.
Unfortunately, as owners and stewards of Barton Springs, we still do not have plan to protect the water quality of the springs and to assure that the springs are not pumped dry during the next serious drought.
Yet, most recently, the city launched a "Barton Springs Pool Master Plan" process with little notice to or involvement of the public. Though dubbed a "master plan," the draft plan, released in February, does nothing to protect the water quality or flows of Barton Springs. Instead, the plan calls for many millions of dollars of new construction, landscaping, and other changes at the pool.
While many of these improvements (such as burying the power lines) have no objection from anyone, other proposals are opposed by many of those involved, and others are only vaguely described in the draft plan.
We respectfully ask that you do two things: move ahead with the consensus items for which there is no disagreement (e.g. improving algae control, researching water flow patterns, burying overhead power lines) and, secondly, start over for everything else.
Some of the items that should be deleted from the proposed plan, or, at minimum, deserve greater attention and exploration of other options before action is taken:
1. The proposal to completely redo the main entry area around the statue.
2. The proposal to completely redo the bathhouse.
3. The proposal to build a second bathhouse, and otherwise develop, the south side of the springs.
4. The proposal to pave the south side parking lot.
5. The proposal to move the south side fence and cut down much of the forest in the small tributary behind the diving board.
6. The proposal to build a small, artificial "water park" in the shallow end of the pool.
7. The proposal to install a large crane on the south side to airlift in a barge that would float on the pool and dredge the deep end.
8. The proposal to move the main entrance to the pool from its current location in the center (and with full view) of the pool, to a que line passing through the bathhouse and dumping out in the corner of the bathhouse where views are obstructed.
Send out a request for qualifications to firms with parks planning and restoration experience (including those with experience in our state and national parks). Make clear that the process will start with inviting the entire community down to Barton Springs to walk the grounds, talk about what works currently and what doesn't, and for those areas that don't work, develop a range of choices for what to do. Use the current draft plan for background information and as one point of reference.
We should only be in a hurry to protect the water quality and quantity of Barton Springs flows. We need a "master plan" to protect the springs. As for a "facilities and grounds" plan for the pool and Zilker Park, we can take our time, start over, and do it right. In the interim, please assure there is adequate staffing to keep the pool and park safe, the algae skimmed, and the trash picked up.
- Potential opportunities to decrease the time Barton Springs Pool is closed because of flooding.
The Barton Springs Project provides a potential opportunity to decrease the amount of time that Barton Springs Pool is closed because of flooding. In 2007, because of frequent heavy rainfalls, there was an unprecedented amount of flooding (18 floods) resulting in frequent pool closures. The frequency of the events made some of the factors leading to pool closure more apparent.
What is the typical process that results in flooding of the pool? Heavy rains increase the water flow in Barton Creek upstream to the pool. The high water flow increases the amount of debris coming to the drain. The drain becomes clogged with sticks, limbs, occasional logs, and other items. Then, overflow flooding occurs over the upstream dam into the pool area resulting in silt and other debris getting into the pool. In many of the cases of flooding, the capacity of the drain to bypass the creek around the pool would have been more than adequate except for the near total covering of the drain by material that clogs the drain. At times, a dense blanket of material obscures and covers all drain holes of the intake grate.
The fact that debris blocking the upstream grate is an important factor in not allowing adequate bypass of water around the pool gives an opportunity to decrease the number of rains that flood the pool.
Clearly, the peak flow flood rates of a large number of the rainfalls are beyond the bypass grate capacity. However, the opportunity to potentially lessen the frequency of flooding exists thru considering the threshold event.
Not every flood of Barton Springs pool results from a peak flood flow rate of 10x the bypass capacity. The 18 episodes of pool flooding in 2007 occurred not only with some very heavy rainfalls, but with some much less intense rainfalls as well.
Some rainfalls will occur that are marginally above the inflow capacity of the grate. A rainfall that produces a peak flow 1.5x the inlet grate bypass capacity would cause flooding. Consider a rainfall that produces a peak flow rate of 75% of the capacity of the unobstructed inlet grate capacity. If the inlet grate is substantially obstructed by limb and debris reducing the surface area of the grate by 50% at the time of peak flow, then flooding of Barton Springs Pool will occur in a situation which otherwise would not have caused flooding. It is not that the majority of the flooding occurs from this situation, but the goal is to assess whether there might be methods to decrease the number of times that Barton Springs pool floods in addition to reducing the downtime following a flooding event.
There may or may not be an engineering solution to this problem, but this should be closely studied.
The first step would seem to be to enlarge the upstream grate area that serves as the intake for the water bypassing the pool.
Additional possible supplemental approaches are: One idea would be to construct a single intake grate in a rounded shape in order to increase the surface area of the grate. An increase in the surface area and change of the shape of the grate might decrease the tendency for it to be blocked by debris and tree limbs.
Another approach would be to create a larger exterior grate around an inner intake gate. The current intake grate is flat. If a larger exterior grate existed in a hemisphere shape and placed around the inner gate, the amount of surface area that would need to be clogged by upstream debris would be greatly increased. If the intake grate can be made more resistant to blockage by tree limbs and other debris, the Springs could tolerate larger rainfalls than the current threshold before Barton Springs is flooded by the overflow which spills over the dam. (Of course, both these possibilities would have the downside potential for making cleaning of the grates post flooding more laborious.)
Though neither of the above suggestions may be practical, redoubling the current engineering efforts in progress to create a grate/intake design for the upstream dam that would be more resistant to obstruction from debris would be potentially beneficial.
There are several issues following flooding at Barton Springs that impact the amount of time that Barton Springs Pool is closed after a flood. If an isolated single flood occurs, the time to clean the pool will be longer, since the opportunity is taken to do some general cleaning of the pool besides simply responding to the specific flood effects. However, in the case of multiple recurrent floods such as 2007 where flooding of Barton Springs pool occurred 18 times, there are issues amenable to manipulation for decreasing pool downtime.
The limiting factors appear to be:
1. The pump which removes the silt. Only a single pump can be used. Perhaps with an improved electrical grid, more powerful and effective pumps can be purchased for use in taking up the silt following flooding. (And more than one pump.) The current pump is only marginally effective.
2. Only a single fire hose can be used for cleaning. Having the capability to use more than one fire hose at a time would speed the process.
3. The current electrical and water system infrastructure allows only one pump or fire hose to be used at a time.
4. Fatigue in the workers, i.e., lifeguards and maintenance workers experienced considerable fatigue resulting from dealing with a series of multiple floods.
(In 2007 for example, the use of only a single fire hose and single pump was physically possible and the multiple pool clean ups were performed by a very fatigued staff.)
Tom Nelson, Aquatic Administration Manager, appears to be capably addressing these issues. Maintenance positions have been added and persons are being hired which will further augment the work force during the cleanup following flooding.
In addition, plans are underway to upgrade the electrical and water system so that more than one fire hose can be used at a time and more than one pump can be used when necessary. Hopefully, the final plans include storage of this needed additional equipment.
Diminishing the loss of enjoyment from users of Barton Springs as well as loss of revenue from visitors to Barton Springs will provide ample return for all these efforts. Just as an example, during last year's ACL musical fest, Barton Springs was closed throughout that event because of a flood occurring shortly before ACL opened. An open Barton Springs would have resulted in many patrons and much appreciation of the beauty of Austin by a throng of visitors, as well as increasing the coffers of Barton Springs.
The closure of Barton Springs during a hot summer day results in loss of revenue. The closure during ACL is just an example of a time when the Barton Springs Pool was closed in 2007. An open Barton Springs Pool results in more exposure to the public and more revenue than a closed Barton Springs Pool. If pool flooding downtime can be reduced, revenues will be enhanced. An open healthy Barton Springs Pool is the goal of all. The efforts by the board and members of Friends of BSP who have contributed so much time and work for the good of Barton Springs Pool are appreciated.”
-
I have been involved with two efforts that made a start at restoration of the Sunken Garden, one with the Friends of the Parks in the early 1990's, the other with the Barton Hills Neighborhood Association circa 2000. Both efforts uncovered historical data and artifacts that contributed to the background work for this element of the master plan. Both efforts eventually foundered on lack of access to the kinds of resources that would be necessary to restore the garden walls, which of course would be the sine qua non of a restoration effort.
Both efforts also had as goals the restoration of proper human access to the water. With the earlier effort, the emphasis was on "proper", as by that time the spring had begun to bear the brunt of some abuse. The Friends felt, precisely as was stated
in the draft master plan, that "if it were more actively used, it would be less vulnerable to mischief. Furthermore, more activity is likely to translate into more active community stewardship." We felt that a restoration effort would both attract more frequent and positive use, and that positive use would both displace abusers and educate them to be more sensitive to the quality of the place and particularly the water. At that time, swimming was still allowed in the pristine water, and I believe it was then, as it could be now, the finest place to take a dip in Travis County. A back float looking up at the concentric walls under the canopy of pecans in that marvelously clean, cool
water was always a transcendent experience.
By the time the Barton Hills group made a run at the project, the salamander had been listed and its presence in the spring noted, and a fence had been erected to restrict access. Nevertheless, that group also felt strongly that the pool should be swimmable.
The City's aquatic biologist overseeing the spring at the time, Robert Hanson, noted that the single great threat to the salamander from humans being in the pool was the potential that
they would be stepped on. He proposed that by laying a grate over the bottom of the pool on which people could stand, this problem would be alleviated, since the salamanders would have safe habitat in the rocks below. Furthermore, people in the water would not tolerate trash in the water and would themselves remove it on sight.
I proposed this strategy to Laurie Dries at a work day and subsequently discussed it with Al Godfrey during a lengthy discussion we had on the site during the planning process. I was disappointed to see, then, that rather than working toward re-opening the waters to swimming, the plan proposed to further institutionalize the lack of human access to the spring by erecting yet another fence. I suggest again that this is the wrong approach, and that Robert's original idea offered a viable and protective means for humans and salamanders to once again swim together in this gorgeous little spring-fed pool. Direct human contact with the water in the context of a restored and well maintained garden area, I believe, will ensure respectful treatment of the water and mutually beneficial co-habitation.
As an extra measure, webcam and wireless technology offer an inexpensive, viable way to provide security in this area, which has previously suffered from lack of visibility from the street/parking lot level.
Please amend the plan regarding Sunken Garden to embrace this goal and technique.
Thank you,
Staff Response: SELECT THIS LINK TO OPEN (pdf format).
- I am a regular Barton Springs swimmer who has written for Utne Reader and Modern Maturity about how Barton Springs is the spiritual center of Austin. Having listened to the architect on Saturday describe the nice-sounding improvements, I must conclude this: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The pool in its current state--including the women's bathhouse and the woods and limestone ledge over the shallow end--are perfect as they are. This feel could easily be ruined by so-called improvements. I agree with SOS that we should proceed with the “consensus items,” such as burying the overhead power lines, studying ways to improve habitat and water flow, planting shade trees for south side parking, improving algae control; for everything else, we should slow down. Please don't spend $6 million to …”
- improvements for water quality and flow are GOOD
- In general, keep south gate as is, or at least keep the charm and quaintness of the back entrance
- BSP open [part time] during gravel bar removal
- liability/safety?
- keeping pool open during work a goal
- More work accomplished cleaning BSP on Thursdays’ cleans, Start quicker, More staff
- Move equipment
- Watershed is not taking this lightly and any changes to Eliza will require that the risks to the salamanders in that area are minimal. That is why they are pursuing the development of another habitat of equal or better at Sunken Gardens. It is also why they have not attempted any drastic changes of the Eliza sight to date.
At present Eliza drains into the bypass tunnel and they experience some cloudiness and potential contamination during flooding events. It is also true that the Eliza outlet has some sort of relationship to the pool because when the pool is drained Eliza drains dry. This is the main reason that they limit the number of drain downs via a yearly limit(3) and a low flow limit(<54 cfs) as defined in the salamander permit.
The dilema here is that draining of the pool is an ideal way to temporarily return this environment back to it natural creek like setting but we are prevented by Eliza because of its relationship with the bypass tunnel and pool. The proposal that is being evaluated is to isolate Eliza' outlet from the effects of the pool and the bypass tunnel by creating a creek that flows into the pool on the surface as illustrated in the master plan. Then seek a change to the salamander permit to allow drain downs of the pool on regular intervals throughout the year especially during drought conditions to control algae, and flooding conditions to flush sediments from the pool. The draindowns will increase the ability of BSP Staff to manage algae keeping the pool cleaner and make it easier for Watershed to manage the main spring habitat area. Furthermore with the addition of recirculation pump system approved in the short term projects they will be able to manually flush out main spring area which could improve that habitat area, and increase the flow velocity during drain downs so that even more algae and sediments are carried away.
- - Upgrading the existing bathhouse is desperately needed; make it modern, but
retain the building's historic character.
- The proposed new south bathhouse should not be implemented; if renovations are
made to the existing bathhouse, there should be no need for a new separate
building. This structure would only increase the amount of impervious cover
(e.g asphalt, concrete) and therefore increase the runoff into the pool and
salamander habitat.
- Every action taken as a result of this plan needs to be thoroughly examined to
assess the impact it would have on the salamander population. Taking actions to
minimize the take of individuals shouldn't be satisfactory, instead design
actions which are aimed to prevent loss completely.
- Some of the changes suggested to Eliza Spring (e.g. addition of native plants,
interactive signs, new fencing, spring run) are needed. However, the removal of
the concrete bottom of the pool needs to be further researched. While concrete
is in no way natural habitat for these salamanders, it might be providing a
second layer of habitat (the concrete is not in direct contact to the bedrock
over the entire area). The addition of a spring run instead of the bypass
tunnel at Eliza would be beneficial as well. The only thing to make sure of is
that the entire spring and spring run are well protected from interference by
people. Eliza spring needs to be more secure to protect the salamander
populations there.
- Prior to any changes at Eliza, lots of work is needed at Sunken Gardens to try
to establish a healthy population of salamanders there. My main concern with
the proposed plan is that revamping the existing flagstone surfaces (walkways
around the circular walls and spring) will increase runoff into Sunken Gardens.
Instead, possibly consider a more water permeable surface, which could still be
used as walkway. It is also mentioned that the existing Sunken Garden fence
would be replaced, as the existing fence isn't very transparent. It needs to be
well realized that this location is protected salamander habitat. The fence at
this spring (as well as the fencing around Eliza) needs to be secure to ensure
this population isn't harmed.
- The proposed addition to the upper dam of BSP to allow for natural creek flow
during times of clean water would severely help with the low flow of the
existing area of the pool above the spring vents. The area of the pool adjacent
to the upper dam has algal problems which could be alleviated by the addition of
openings to the upper dam. By returning creek flow through Barton Springs pool,
it allows for the introduction of nutrients of members of existing ecological
webs into the pool. During times of poor creek quality (somehow this would need
to be regulated), the upper dam could be closed, and the water temporarily
diverted through the bypass tunnel. When normal water conditions return, the
upper dam could be opened again.
- The cause of the problems with algae in Barton Springs pool is due to the
existing "pond-like" character that the pool has. If flow was increased
(openings in the upper dam, openings in the lower dam) this could help
alleviate the presence of high levels of this algae. The algae which people dislike is a colonizing species which returns very quickly. Not all algae in the pool is disliked by people. Some species cling very closely to the rocks and isn't slick or "slimy" in touch. The majority of the rocks by the BSP spring vents are covered in this late succession (non-nuisance) algae. This is because the rocks aren't sprayed clean every week. Instead, if you allow for algal succession to take place naturally, the pool would naturally control and minimize the presence of "nuisance" algae.
- The proposed changes to the lower dam are greatly needed. Openings to this dam should be located at the bottom of the dam, and used to help wash out the accumulation of sediment at the lower end of the pool.
- It sounds that an appropriately cautious approach is being taken in regards to Eliza Springs. It would obviously be a real problem if a change was made to Eliza Springs that was thought to be beneficial but unexpectedly resulted in the opposite effect. The successful development of an equal parallel habitat that flourished for several seasons would subsequently give a margin for error for changes to be made to Eliza Springs
- The proposed changes to the lower dam are greatly needed. Openings to this dam
should be located at the bottom of the dam, and used to help wash out the
accumulation of sediment at the lower end of the pool.
- As a young college student who has been born and raised in Austin, Barton Springs is a part of many memories. After looking through the proposed changes I am very happy to see some issues recognized while others just don't seem to sit right.
In the nature aspects of renovation, all the proposals to work with water flow and purification are wonderful as we want to keep our springs open for public swimming with no health scares. Please go ahead and consider replacing dying trees and planting new ones, but at the same time keep it as natural as possible. The big trees are just part of the springs feel.
In construction topics, I am not against any new construction but just want to make sure that the same historic feeling is maintained. The bathhouse does need to be cleaned up, but not necessarily "re-done". If we want a glitzy changing room we can simply go to a country club.
In the end, Barton Springs is in need of cleaning up but not re-doing. We love our springs old and natural and have no need to see it become a glam tourist attraction. For those of us that have been frequenting the springs since childhood and want to take our own children there one day, we want things to stay the same: Austin feel, laid back atmosphere, historic and free. Thank you.
P.S. Thank you for asking for public input. It is nice to know your thoughts are taken into consideration, especially on a topic that is close to many hearts.
Staff Response: Thank you for taking the time to review the Master Plan for Barton Springs Pool. Your comments, as those of all citizens, are appreciated and an important part of this process. We will thoroughly review your and consider comments. If you have further thoughts please let us know.
- I just wanted to give my own personal input on the issue of
paving the back/south parking lot of Barton Springs Pool.
I am strongly AGAINST paving the back parking lot. There is no reason
to make more impervious and ugly groundcover in this area! It is
pretty as it is, and the dirt/gravel currently existing allows the
area to retain a more natural feel.
Thanks for considering my input on this issue!
- Removing the concrete floor that was laid over Eliza Spring is a good idea. In fact, removing most, if not all, of the floor will likely result in a significant increase in the number of salamanders occupying the pool at any given time and may increase the actual population size as well. I recommend using pneumatic jackhammers and hand tools to poke holes in the floor and remove slabs of concrete, a few square meters at a time. This will provide more opportunity for salamanders to retreat from the disturbance caused by remediation and may reduce individual mortalities. Although some take is likely to occur as a result of major (temporary) disturbance to the pool, the long-term effect on the population will be beneficial.
-
For the Barton Springs Pool master plan, how about a Nordic-style, wood-fired sauna on site? The Swedes and Finns, among others up north, are famous for sitting in the steamy hot sauna before diving into cold water -- hence the connection with Barton Springs. It would be a perfect fit! Read more about saunas here: http://www.sauna.fi/
- Please add a designated area for motor scooter/motorcycle parking at the end of the currently unpaved parking lot leading to the South Gate.
This is the neighborhood gate serving Barton Hills/Bluebonnet/Kinney Ave, etc., and it should accomodate motor scooters. With the price of gas going so high I am seeing more and more scooters each month on the neighborhood streets.
I have two scooters and ride to the park three to four times a week to run on the trail and to swim at the pool. Today when I arrived at the South Gate parking lot, there were more than a dozen motorcycles and scooters, all parked in an ad hoc fashion on the grass at the end of the parking lot. Clearly, there is a need.
Provisions have been made for bicycles, let's make equal arrangements for motor scooters.
A covered shed would be too much to ask, but at least designate an area where riders are safe coming to a stop, dismounting, and parking, out of the way of cars and people.
<
- Do not build a bathhouse at the back gate. The back gate provides a very different experience than the front gate. The front gate gives the feeling of going to a municipal pool. The back gate experience is one of going for a swim in a creek. This experience of nature at the back gate should be enhanced, not eliminated. Instead, restore and maintain the bathhouse we have, and make the back gate more natural, not more urban.
- I object to calling this a “Master Plan”, when it does not encompass those actions necessary to save the springs. The term “Master Plan” is understood to mean “comprehensive”. A plan that does not preserve spring flows and reduce pollution and pavement upstream is not comprehensive. “Barton Springs Facilities Plan” or something like that would be accurate and avoid confusion.
- Establish a framework, or set of goals (ideally agreed upon by a broad consensus of interested citizens). I believe that the framework should include these five points:
- Top priority--enhance the ecological integrity of Barton Springs and Barton Creek.
- Nothing should be included in the master plan that would set an example or precedent that would further pollute or damage Barton Springs or Barton creek by others.
- The Plan should instill in the visitor the awareness that Barton Springs is a wonder, one that should be learned about, respected and defended as well as enjoyed and shared by others.
- The Plan should specifically acknowledge that saving Barton Springs requires reducing pollution and pavement upstream.
- We should fix and enhance what we have now before making major expenditures on new facilities.
- Consider adding a sauna in the changing areas to entice people to use the pool during the winter months.
- I think that the first criteria for the location of the entrance point should be to aid new visitors. I think that new visitors would be disadvantaged by relocating the entrance to the central gallery.
- Don’t add any new parking into the master plan. Instead, add shuttle and bus drives, and add more off-site parking with shuttles to make it more convenient to go to the park.
- WATER QUALITY, WATER QUALITY, WATER QUALITY.
- Enlarge the pool. Relocate the lower dam downstream, so that all three springs can be part of the same body of water.
- Don’t add any new parking. Concentrate on restoring what we already have before undertaking new adventures, like expanding the pool.
- Open the dams up as much as possible. This should help the pool to “self-clean” during flooding. Also, if the openings are large enough, heavy equipment can drive through to help the clean up process.
- Can the bypass tunnel be eliminated?
- Don’t forget that Barton Springs is a place for community. Be sure that the plan fosters a sense of community when it’s done. It’s all about the community.
- Return the bathhouse to its original design, where tickets were purchased in the middle “glass cylinder”.
- Improve parking lot management. More bike racks.
- Can we have viewing areas on the tops of the dams?
- Try to keep the pool open as much as possible—even during construction.
- Try to do something about the hot walking surfaces on bare feet.
- Have one annual, free-admission coed skinny dipping day. That would be really cool.
- Do something about that dusty parking lot on the south side.
- Any new south bathhouse should be small, small, small.
- Install an underground sauna with direct access to the cool waters of the pool.
-
Move the diving board. Because it’s currently located in the narrowest part of the pool, it interferes with lap swimmers. Some people also object to the noise right there in the most active part of the pool.
- Better signage. There used to be a billboard–like sign telling people how to find the pool. We don’t necessarily need a billboard, but better signage—on both the north and the south side would be an improvement.
- Wayfinding. Maps and signs within the park would be really helpful to the regular and the casual park user alike.
- Better fencing. The cyclone fencing with the concertina wire atop is not fitting for “Austin’s Jewel”.
- Protect the springs by making it an Educational Study Area.
- Look for opportunities to expand the pool grounds. Enhance the natural beauty of the place.
- Come up with a tree maintenance program, so that the trees are cared for on a regular basis. The trees are in really bad shape. This plan ought to include plans to regularly plant new trees, so that the site isn’t bare if a tree gets old and needs to be cut down.
- Look for opportunities to create more social spaces.
- Build a squash court near the bathhouse. Over near the sandbox (west of the bathhouse) would be a good spot.
- Music and dancing in the park on Thursday nights!
- Make “Splash” easier to find. It’s kind of obscure now.
- Post scientific data, so that people can easily see spring flows, turbidity and so forth in real time.
- When we remodel the bathhouse, it should have a rainwater collection system.
- Don’t just cut down trees without giving people notice. We understand that trees get old and that they need to be removed when they’re dangerous. But giving people notice is really important.
- The outdoor showers are really important. Don’t put them under a roof or an umbrella or anything. I know about the state law about not mixing rain water with shower water, but I don’t care. Keep the outdoor showers outdoors.
- Don’t plant those dinky little trees. Plant larger trees.
- Tell the story of the park better. Tell the story of the aquifer and its wildlife. Tell the story of the history of the park and its development. This should include lots more information panels, and they should be located at the various points of interest.
- Improve the inlet grate to the bypass tunnel. It gets clogged too easily, and when it does, flooding in the pool is just around the corner. Maybe we could even add large limestone blocks in the upstream flow to catch debris before it even gets to the dam.
- Revive the old dance floor.
- Consider Barton Springs a marine park.
- Plant more pecans at the south entrance to Sunken Garden.
- The pool needs more drawdowns, so it can be cleaned better. May need to augment flow during low-flow periods.
- Make the pool a “green” showcase for Austin. Native plants everywhere. Replace the St. Augustine grass. Austin’s greatest natural asset should be surrounded by other natural assets.
- Treat it as a living place, as a garden. Focus on the ecosystem. Don’t laminate the park.
- Deal with upstream development. That’s the problem.
- Improve methods for cleaning debris and sediment from pool. The pool is closed too long during these operations.
- Add more staff. The pool feels neglected.
- The Zilker Ponds are cool, and would be great to restore. But they’re not a priority ahead of water quality.
- If a new south bathhouse in built, don’t put it inside the current fence line. Keep that space open for the yoga and tai chi that goes on there.
- Find natural, active methods for cleaning the pool, such as ecological alternatives to scrubbing.
- If you add a new south bathhouse, don’t change the current path down to the pool. We like it the way it is.
- Please don’t expand the pool. Keep the dog park.
- Power the bathhouse with solar energy.
- Install fish ladders in the downstream dam.
- Improve the trail leading to Sunken Gardens to help integrate it into the park experience better.
- Add a stair down to the dog park from the south side. People just trample their way through the woods now, because there’s no better way to get down there.
- Better, more secure lockers.
- Put native plant beds in areas where turf is not used.
- Connect the waters of Eliza Spring to the main pool.
- Consider augmenting spring flow during periods of drought as an emergency measure to preserve the salamander.
- Consider converting the maintenance shed into an interpretive center, or a place for better food.
- Hot tub.
- Need more public restrooms. Everybody shouldn’t have to come to the bathhouse for its restrooms. Install restrooms at the playscape at a minimum.
- Can public access to Eliza be improved?
- Consider converting the Zilker Ponds site to a water playscape.
- Convert the Caretaker’s Cottage into a new location for "Splash", a gift shop or a coffee house.
- Rebuild the Bee Cave overpass with a new stone bridge.
- More scientific emphasis on the salamander. Care needs to be taken to not damage the population with construction or other disruptive changes. We need more attention to habitat restoration, research monitoring and the captive breeding program.
- Replace the concrete retaining wall at the south edge of the pool with cut limestone to make it more natural looking.
- Lower the retaining wall on the north side of the pool down to bench height.
- Move the maintenance facility away from the edge of Barton Creek. Reuse the maintenance shed for educational programs.
- Get rid of all those power lines draping across the pool from pole to pole.
- Make the dog park more comfortable for everybody to use. It’s the only free place to swim, so we need to take care of the people who don’t have enough money to pay for the pool.
- Add a salamander sculpture near the main entrance.
- Stock the pool with native fish and aquatic plants.
- Replace some of the fencing with stone walls for privacy and to enhance the natural look.
- Restore Sunken Gardens. Get rid of the fence. Using a mesh bottom, make it possible to swim in Sunken Garden again. Sunken Garden should also be made nice enough to hold events there, like small concerts or family reunions or outdoor weddings.
- Make the pool more natural. Replace the concrete of Eliza with natural stone. Put tile art murals on the concrete walls of the bypass tunnel at the shallow end to make it more friendly looking.
- Make the Women’s side of the bathhouse more open.
To: Austin City Council, Environmental Board, Parks Board, Austin City Manager, City Staff, Laurie Limbacher, Al Godfrey, and Friends of Barton Springs Pool Board
- Save Barton Creek Association, Sierra Club Austin, Save Our Springs Alliance, Regional Group, Grey Panthers of Austin, Texas Environmental Democrats, Austin Chapter, and the people who sign and send this letter support City efforts to maintain and restore existing structures at Barton Springs pool and to retrofit water quality on site.
We believe that Barton Springs is so iconic to Austin that extended time and effort to create a transparent public process from which a comprehensive Barton Springs Pool Master Plan can emerge from community consensus will be well worth the effort now and in years to come.
On October 10, 2007 the Austin Neighborhood Council Executive committee resolved: "ANC appreciates the study of proposed improvements to Barton Springs and the surrounding park, and asks that the City Council form a task force that includes all appropriate stakeholders to begin a comprehensive master planning process before initiating major expenditures."
Soon Friends of Barton Springs Pool and consultants, Laurie Limbacher and Al Godfrey will present their work on a Master Plan for Barton Springs Pool to the City Council. We request that the entirety of this report be posted for public review and circulated among stake holder groups at least thirty days before it goes to Council.
We further advise that the Council accept this as they would any report but take no action to adopt it officially at this time as the comprehensive pool & springs "master plan" for the following reasons:
The city has granted 6.2 million dollars to accomplish, in a time frame of 3-5 years, short term projects initiated by this planning process. Since many of these items are studies and research to determine the feasibility of new construction, it is unwise to approve or imply intent for new construction until the data is in. We have at least three years to develop a Barton Springs Pool Master plan that is truly the product of city-wide community consensus.
Between 75% and 90% of the environmental damage and pollution a building project creates in its lifetime occurs during the construction phase. The city has just begun to create a new code for construction sedimentation and erosion damage control. It makes sense to wait until we know what the pollution controls will be in place before we set forth what could be a decade of poolside construction at Barton Springs.
We must also ask ourselves if new construction is appropriate to the management of an environmentally fragile natural resource that is also an historical and archeological site. Money might be better spent on water quality retrofit, maintenance, scientific and educational staff, on restoration of existing structures, on retaining natural areas in Zilker Park, and on aquifer land acquisition.
We suggest that a stake holder group of representatives from environmental and community groups be formally invited under the auspices of the Environmental Board and/or Parks Board to monitor process & proposals involving the design of future improvements to Barton Springs Pool on an ongoing basis, and that from this group, at the end of three years, a Barton Springs Master Plan report be brought to Council for adoption.
Barton Springs deserves, and the people of Austin deserve adequate time for a public process to develop something as important as a Master Plan for Barton Springs Pool.
- In general I was very pleased with the Barton Springs Master Plan draft, and I could support it without reservation. My only disagreement is that I believe the Zilker Ponds should be restored to their former pondishness.
- Move the diving board to an area near the downstream dam. For the time being disallow diving during the morning swim from 5am-8am and from 9pm-10pm to allow for lap swimming.
Stop using water to clean the walkway near the pool. This wastes water.
Put new faucets in and update any outdated showers or commodes in the locker rooms to make them more water efficient.
Use electric landscaping equipment to the extent possible inside the pool area.
Use boiling water to kill any fire ant mounds; not Andro.
Maintain a no pet policy inside the pool.
Discontinue using Pine Sol, Bleach and any other toxic cleaning products in the bathrooms.
Train the lifeguards to be more attentive to the needs of the swimmers and visitors.
Have the PARD Police enforce violations of parking on the sidewalk along Robert E. Lee and the blocking of the sidewalk by vehicle near the entrances at the South side parking lot.
Staff Response: SELECT THIS LINK TO OPEN (pdf format).
-
Comments from the April 5, 2008, Town Hall Meeting: SELECT THIS LINK TO OPEN (pdf format).
BOARD/COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Below are comments provided by Boards/Commissions.
If you have any questions or comments, call Gary Gregson at (512) 974-9475 or send us an e-mail:
bspmasterplan@ci.austin.tx.us
|
