Regular Meeting of the Environmental Commission August 7, 2024 at 6:00 PM Permitting And Development Center, Events Center, Room 1405 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive Austin, Texas 78752 Some members of the Environmental Commission will be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, call or email Elizabeth Funk, Watershed Protection Department, at (512) 568-2244, Elizabeth.Funk@austintexas.gov, no later than noon the day before the meeting. The following information is required: speaker name, item number(s) they wish to speak on, whether they are for/against/neutral, email address and telephone number (must be the same number that will be used to call into the meeting). CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Haris Qureshi Peter Einhorn Mariana Krueger Melinda Schiera Hanna Cofer, Vice Chair AGENDA CALL TO ORDER Colin Nickells Jennifer Bristol, Secretary David Sullivan Richard Brimer Perry Bedford, Chair PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on July 17, 2024. 1. 1 DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS Presentation, discussion, and recommendation on the Austin-Travis County Food Plan – Angela Baucom, Food Policy Manager, Office of Sustainability Presentation, discussion, and recommendation on the Cities Connecting Children to Nature program – Melody Alcazar, Program Manager, Parks and Recreation Staff briefing on the Environmental Integrity Index: WPD’s Water Quality Monitoring Methods – Andrew Clamman, Conservation Program Manager, Watershed Protection Department Update on Environmental Commission Annual Report— Perry Bedford, Environmental Commission Chair Update from the South Central Waterfront Board on the postponement of the Combining District/Density Bonus Plan at City Council – David Sullivan Update from the Bird-Friendly Design working group on the meeting on July 23rd and plans for the next meeting – Jennifer Bristol STAFF BRIEFINGS DISCUSSION ITEMS COMMITTEE UPDATES FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. …
2. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REGULAR CALLED MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, July 17, 2024 The ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION convened Wednesday, July 17, 2024, at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Bedford called the Environmental Commission Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Perry Bedford, Jennifer Bristol, Hanna Cofer, Mariana Krueger, Haris Qureshi, David Sullivan Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Richard Brimer, Melinda Schiera Commissioners Absent: Peter Einhorn, Colin Nickells PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL in a REGULAR meeting on Santiago, TxDot APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on July 3, 2024. The minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular meeting on July 3, 2024, were approved on Commissioner Sullivan’s motion, Commissioner Bedford’s second on a 7-0 vote. Commissioners Einhorn and Nickells were absent. Commissioner Qureshi was off the dais. STAFF BRIEFINGS Update on Austin’s reservoirs monitoring and management efforts — Brent Bellinger, Conservation Program Supervisor, Watershed Protection Department Item conducted as posted. No action taken. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS Discuss and make a recommendation regarding investments the City should fund as part of Council Resolution 20240215-025: Environmental Investment Plan, as recommended by the Joint Sustainability Committee – Commissioner Haris Qureshi Item taken with item 4. 1 4. Discuss and make a recommendation in support of adding a Climate Fee to address funding for the Environmental Investment Plan, as recommended at the Joint Sustainability Committee – Commissioners Haris Qureshi, Richard Brimer, and David Sullivan A motion in support of the Environmental Investment Plan and a climate fee was made on Commissioner Qureshi’s motion, Commissioner Sullivan’s second. An amendment to add a recommendation for a citizen advisory bond committee was made by Commissioner Cofer and seconded by Commissioner Qureshi. An amendment to keep the 2025 date in Commissioner Cofer’s amendment failed on a 1-5 vote. Commissioner Krueger voted in favor. Commissioners Schiera, Brimer, Sullivan, Bristol, and Cofer voted against. Commissioners Qureshi and Bedford abstained. Commissioners Einhorn and Nickells were absent. The amendment to add a recommendation for a Citizen Advisory Bond Committee made by Commissioner Cofer and seconded by Commissioner Qureshi passed on a 7-1 vote. Commissioner Brimer voted against. Commissioners Einhorn and Nickells were absent. The original motion with Commissioner Cofer’s amendment passed on an 8-0 vote. Commissioners Einhorn and Nickells were absent. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Commissioner Krueger requested a presentation on the Austin/Travis County Food Plan, with a recommendation, seconded by Bedford. Secretary Bristol asked for …
A Food Plan for Austin-Travis County Environmental Commission August 7, 2024 Agenda ● Introductions ● What is a Food System? ● What is a Food Plan and why are we doing it? ● How did we create the Plan? ● Who participated in the Planning Process? ● Overview of Vision and Objectives ● Overview of the Goals and Strategies ● Next Steps 2 2 Some Food for Thought Food Production: Where our food comes from, including everything from farming to ranching Food Processing & Distribution: What happens to food from where it is grown to when it reaches your plate, including how food is moved and processed. Food Markets & Retails: Where food is sold, purchased, or provided cost-free. Food Consumption & Access: How we eat our food, who struggles to get enough food, and what impact our consumption has on our health. Post-Consumption & Food Waste: What happens to the parts of food we don’t eat and the impact of food waste on the environment. Food Justice: How systemic racism & colonization impact how the food system works — or doesn’t work — for each member of our community. 4 What is a Food Plan & why do we need one? ● A Food Plan sets clear Goals and Strategies to move toward a more equitable, sustainable & resilient food system ● The Food Plan builds on several other initiatives made by the County, City, and communities to tackle key food system issues. ● The Food Plan centers equity and the lived expertise of those most impacted by the current food system 5 5 Background and Authority ● In June 2021, Austin City Council directed the City Manager to initiate a planning process ● Travis County Commissioners Court approved formal participation in the plan in September 2022 ● Austin Travis County Food Plan’s Community Advisory Committee approved the Draft Food Plan in May 2024 6 6 Project Timeline Phase 0: Planning for the Plan Phase 1: Vision Development Phase 2: Goal & Strategy Development Phase 3: Review and Ground truthing September 2021 - January 2023 March - August 2023 September 2023 - February 2024 February - Summer/Fall 2024 ● ● ● ● Building Community Awareness 📰 Release of State of the Food System Report 📚 Onboarding Planning Consultant⭐ Recruitment of Community Teams🚀 ● Website launch 📶 ● World Cafes ☕ ● ● ● ● Listening Sessions & Tabling at …
DRAFT JULY 2024 2.0.2.4 AUSTIN/TRAVIS COUNTY F O O D P L A N Table of Contents Preface ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introductory Letter ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Plan Authorization ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 The Food System .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 What this Plan is and Isnʼt .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Plan Framework & Approach ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 A Plan of Plans .................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Food Plan Oversight ................................................................................................................................................................................ 16 CAC Mission Statement ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Values .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Sustainability & Equity Assessment Tool (SEAT) Values .................................................................................................................... 18 Food Plan Vision & Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Parts of the Food Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Food Plan Goals and Strategies .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 A Note on Strategies Related to Populations Who are Underserved or Historically Disadvantaged ............................................... 28 Goal 1. Land ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Goal 2. Ownership ............................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Goal 3. Livelihoods ............................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Goal 4. Preparedness ......................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Goal 5. Institutions ............................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Goal 6. Access ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Goal 7. Food Recovery ....................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Goal 8. Pro-Climate, Pro-Health ........................................................................................................................................................ 62 Goal 9. Empower ................................................................................................................................................................................ 66 Plan Implementation & Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................................ 70 Implementation Planning .................................................................................................................................................................. 71 Strategy Sequencing .......................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Implementation Network ................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Funding ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Measurement & Reporting ................................................................................................................................................................. 73 Afterword ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 74 Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 76 Appendix 1: Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix 2: Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................ 81 Appendix 3: Sustainability & Equity Assessment Tool (SEAT) ........................................................................................................... 95 Appendix 4: Strategy Implementation Details ................................................................................................................................... 99 Appendix 5: Plan Crosswalk to Existing Efforts ................................................................................................................................ 131 Appendix 6: Companion Documents ............................................................................................................................................... 133 The photos in this plan were provided by the Office of Sustainability or were licensed from stock resources. Exceptions are noted as listed. AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD PLAN Preface 1 DRAFT (JULY 2024) AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD PLAN Introductory Letter Food connects us all. Every seed planted, garden tended, acre harvested, and plate served sparks a ripple effect, impacting the system that nourishes our community. From farmers and grocery store workers to families, chefs, and health providers, we're all part of this story. While the City of Austin and Travis County continue to grow, this food plan exists to move us toward ensuring everyone has access to the nutritious food that they need to thrive. We are working for a future where food is a fundamental human right. The instability of the food system was widely felt in February 2021 when Winter Storm Uri arrived in Austin-Travis County during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. We experienced a multitude of emergencies, including food …
DRAFT JULY 2024 20 24 SUMMARY AUSTIN/TRAVIS COUNTY F O O D P L A N A food plan provides an opportunity for local government to co-create a vision and actionable goals for the local food system alongside community members, farmers and farmworkers, food retail and service workers, students, small business owners, and other partners. 2 The Food System The food system is the interconnected network of everything that happens with food — where and how it is grown, distributed, sold, consumed, wasted, or recovered. Globally, the food system is shaped by its stakeholders, practices, and the laws that regulate both. This food plan envisions the food system as five interconnected arenas with food justice at the center:1 • Food Production: Where our food comes from, including everything from farming to ranching to backyard gardening. • Food Processing & Distribution: What happens to food from where it is grown to when it reaches your plate, including how food is moved and processed. • Food Markets & Retails: Where food is sold, purchased, or provided cost-free. • Food Consumption & Access: How we eat our food, who struggles to get enough food, and what impact our consumption has on our health. • Post-Consumption & Food Waste: What happens to the parts of food we don’t eat and the impact of food waste on the environment. • Food Justice: Seeking to ensure that the benefits and risks of where, what, and how food is grown, produced, transported, distributed, accessed, and eaten are shared fairly. It represents a transformation of the current food system, including but not limited to eliminating disparities and inequities. d F o o d Processing ction & D istribution o o F R & u d o r P P o s t - & C F o o n s u o d W a Food Justice m ption Fo o d C o ste s n & A c u c F o o d M a r k e t s e t a i l e s s m ption This plan considers our local food system to include the 5-county Austin Metropolitan Statistical Area of Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties. However, the vision, objectives, goals, and strategies outlined in this plan are focused geographically on the City of Austin and Travis County. Travis County Austin 3 FOOD PLAN SUMMARY2024 Community Centered Process …
Austin Parks and Recreation Department Cities Connecting Children to Nature Initiative Update August 7, 2024 Briefing on the City’s CCCN initiative Melody Alcazar, CCCN Program Manager, Park Planning Division Cities Connecting Children to Nature (CCCN) The CCCN initiative helps city leaders and their partners ensure that all children have the opportunity to play, learn and grow in nature, from urban parks and community gardens to the great outdoors City Partners City Goals + CCCN Plans/Programs that call out CCCN Other related plans • Heat Resiliency Playbook (Office of • Community Health Improvement Plan Resiliency) (Austin Public Health) • Climate & Environmental Initiatives at • Climate Equity Plan (Office of CoA (Office of Sustainability) Sustainability) • Sustainability & Resilience Program • Food Plan (Office of Sustainability) (Parks and Recreation Dept) • Urban Forest Plan (Development • Long Range Plan (Parks and Recreation Services Dept) Dept) • Green Building Program (Austin Energy) • Comprehensive Library Strategic and Facilities Plan (Austin Public Library) • Rain to River (Watershed Protection Dept) Local Partners Guiding Resources CCCN Austin: Our Evolution City adopts Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights & begins collection of nature deficient area data Four focal strategies with Outdoor Learning Environments (OLE!) Temp, Full-Time Coordinator position funded through WPD; FTE CCCN Program Coordinator position reclassified as Program Manager Critical look at integration of racial equity lens to all strategies; Integration into City-wide plans 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-present Austin receives strategic planning & implementation grant from CCCN Focus on Green School Parks, Nature Play, Youth Leadership & FTE CCCN Program Coordinator position through PARD Five focal strategies with addition of Nature Smart Libraries Temp, Full-Time Coordinator position becomes FTE, funded through WPD + PARD; Dedicated funding for Nature Play and Joint-Use sites in City Budget CCCN Strategies NATURE SMART LIBRARIES EARLY CHILDHOOD EMERGING GREEN LEADERS GREEN SCHOOL PARKS NATURE PLAY Green School Parks Evolution PILOTS DATA COLLECTION DESIGNATION Barrington ES cistern Green School Parks: Pilots WOOLDRIDGE EX. Design plan with who does what for each feature Urban Forestry Watershed Protection Department Maintenance & Operations Transportation Parks & Recreation Partners Green School Parks: Data Collection RESEARCH ASSESSMENTS ● 2018 data collection found discrepancy in park amenities at joint use site ○ ○ 2019-2021 new amenities added 2023-present updating signage ● 2023 ESAC subcommittee formed to conduct data collection at all AISD campuses Bond sites priorities 18 complete, 5 scheduled for Aug. ○ …
Environmental Integrity Index WPD's Water Quality Monitoring Methods Environmental Commission August 7, 2024 Andrew Clamann Conservation Program Supervisor 512-974-2694 andrew.clamann@austintexas.gov 1 Biological indicators Algae Fish Invertebrates Mussels Diversity E.coli and other pathogens Trophic structure Sensitive species Emerging contaminants Pharmaceuticals PAHs PFAS Microplastics Water Quality Hydrocarbons Erosion Turbidity Sedimentation Total Suspended Solids Herbicides Glycophosate Metsulfuron-methyl Conventionals Dissolved Oxygen pH Conductivity Temperature Nutrients Ammonia Nitrogen Phosphorus Metals Arsenic Chromium Mercury Cadmium Arsenic Silver Zinc Lead Nickel Pesticides Chlordane Dieldrin Endrin BHC’s Heptachlor Methoxychlor Environmental Integrity Index (EII) 1994-2024 Six Scoring Categories • Water chemistry • Aquatic Life • Physical Integrity • Contact Recreation • Non-contact Recreation • Sediment Quarterly Water Quality • Field: pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature • Lab : Nitrate-N, Ammonia-N, TKN, Orthophosphorus, Turbidity, Total Suspended Solids Contact Recreation • E. coli bacteria Annually Aquatic Life • Benthic macroinvertebrates and Diatoms Non-Contact Recreation • Litter, odor, algae, clarity, etc Habitat • EPA visual assessment (instream & riparian) Sediment Quality • Metals, PAHs, pesticides, herbicides, etc. EII 1994-2008 EII 2008-2024 ~120 sites / 2 yrs ~50 sampled watersheds ~500 miles of creek mainstems ~120 sites / 2 yrs ~50 sampled watersheds ~500 miles of creek mainstems ~5,500 total miles of all creeks Objective retrospect Low resolution, generalized context • • Baseflow only (no stormwater component) • Observational (not statistical) • Not tied to quantifiable solutions Time for a change! Outcomes Drivers Solutions Need a model Empirical Baseflow and Stormflow data 30 years data Cluster sites by GIS similarities model everything, everywhere, all at once • • • physical chemical biological • 3,000 points • updated at will Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) GSSHA is a physics-based, distributed, hydrologic, sediment and contaminant fate and transport model that can simulate hydrologic processes in watersheds1 Details provided in QAPP EII 2.0 2 of 4 Hydraulics/Geomorphology 1(Zhang et al., 2023) ~3,000 modeled points along the stream network Points start at 320ac drainage area ~3,000ft apart along the stream network ~3,000 watersheds 9 Routine baseflow sites (remain static) 9 Stormwater sites (change ~5 years) 9 Random sites (change annually) Calibrate Validate Update Random sites Stormwater monitoring (9 sites) • • • • Continuous monitoring of flow and physicochemical (pH, conductivity, etc.) Automatic sample collection through a storm event: (nutrients, total suspended solids, etc.) Sample as many storms as necessary to calibrate the model Annual biological monitoring Routine and Random baseflow monitoring (9 sites) (9 sites) …
Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 QAPP 1 of 4 (Hydrology) Project #: 216 Project Lead: Christina Bryant Project Manager: Mateo Scoggins Introduction Environmental Integrity Index The Environmental Integrity Index (EII) is a tool that was created by the City’s Watershed Protection Department (WPD) to monitor and assess the ecological integrity and the degree of impairment of Austin watersheds (City of Austin, 2002). The goal of the EII was to produce a quantifiable method to assess the ecological integrity of Austin’s urban and non-urban streams and determine baseline conditions for targeted protective measures and restoration, thus enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of Austin. The WPD Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division (EMC) has determined the need to revise the EII by applying a new framework, based on the stream functional pyramid developed by Harman et al., (2012), to approach stream assessment and by using the enhanced Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) model to simulate hydrologic processes in watersheds. GSSHA is a physics-based, distributed, hydrologic, sediment and contaminant fate and transport model (Zhang et al., 2023). It can simulate the hydrological response of a watershed to specific hydrological and meteorological inputs. With the adoption of the stream functional pyramid approach and the simulation capability of GSSHA the Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 can be a supportive tool to analyze projects and make informed decisions in watershed management that help reduce the impact of anthropogenic influences and environmental issues and to preserve Austin’s aquatic resources. Urban Watershed Functional Pyramid The revisions to the Environmental Integrity Index (EII) program reflected in this QAPP have been largely influenced by the Stream Functions Pyramid (Figure 1) which provides a new framework for approaching stream assessment (Harman et al 2012). This tool emphasizes the critical role of foundational facets of the stream system from which all other facets are dependent. Success of the ultimate response variable (biology) is limited by all other underlying layers. Therefore, if the ultimate goal of a monitoring program is to facilitate/inform preservation or restoration of ecological integrity, then a bottom-up perspective must be used. Figure 1. Stream Functions Pyramid (Harman et al. 2012). A framework for approaching stream assessment. Applied Watershed Research staff have modified the functional pyramid to apply more directly to the urban environment and to watersheds as a unit instead of streams. The most basic difference is that Hydraulics and Geomorphology have been integrated into one layer. Figure …
Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 QAPP 2 of 4 (Hydraulics/Geomorphology) Project #: 216 Project Lead: Zhen Xu Project Manager: Mateo Scoggins Introduction Environmental Integrity Index The Environmental Integrity Index (EII) is a monitoring program that was developed in the early 1990’s by the City’s Environmental Resources Management Division to monitor and assess the ecological integrity and the degree of impairment of Austin watersheds (City of Austin, 2002). The goal of the EII was to produce a quantifiable method for assessing the water quality condition of Austin’s urban and non- urban streams and to provide a baseline from which to evaluate our water resources to target protective measures and restoration. The program aligns with the water quality component of the Watershed Protection Department’s (WPD) mission thus enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of Austin. As a monitoring program, the EII was excellent at providing valuable long term and citywide water quality, physical habitat, aquatic life use, and sediment data. Although the sites were selected to represent similar reaches (landuse, geology, etc) of each watershed, the specific locations were biased by access and the analysis did not incorporate statistics, which limited the use of its data in modeling and decision-making. Thus, after three decades of implementation, the EII was due for an update. The EII 2.0 is the latest iteration of WPD flagship monitoring program. This state-of-art monitoring program partitions all of Austin watersheds into high-resolution grids and a modeling network of ~3400 stream sites spaced 3,000ft apart on the stream centerline. It aims to provide real-time monitoring data on flow conditions, erosion potential and sediment transport, levels and fate of nutrients and contaminants, and scores on benthic macroinvertebrates and diatoms. Its deliverables could serve as the foundation for Austin residents to know watershed health conditions, for scientists to conduct innovative research, and for landowners and policy makers to determine what actions they should take for land and watershed management at various scales. Urban Watershed Functional Pyramid The conceptual framework of the EII 2.0 is the urban watershed functional pyramid, which is modified from the EPA stream functional pyramid (Figure 1) proposed by Harman (2009, 2012) and illustrates urban watershed functions in a hierarchical structure (Figure 2). The pyramid includes four functional categories with the underlying controlling variables of geology and climate. The primary direction of cause-and-effect relationships flows from the bottom of the pyramid to the top, with functions higher …
Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 QAPP 3 of 4 (Physicochemical) Project #: 216 Project Lead: Angel Santiago Project Manager: Mateo Scoggins Introduction Environmental Integrity Index The Environmental Integrity Index (EII) is a tool that was created by the City’s Watershed Protection Department (WPD) to monitor and assess the ecological integrity and the degree of impairment of Austin watersheds (City of Austin, 2002). The goal of the EII was to produce a quantifiable method to assess the ecological integrity of Austin’s urban and non-urban streams and determine baseline conditions for targeted protective measures and restoration, thus enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of Austin. The WPD Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division (EMC) has determined the need to revise the EII by applying a new framework, based on the stream functional pyramid developed by Harman et al., (2012), to approach stream assessment and by using the enhanced Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) model to simulate hydrologic processes in watersheds. GSSHA is a physics-based, distributed, hydrologic, sediment and contaminant fate and transport model (Zhang et al., 2023). It can simulate the hydrological response of a watershed to specific hydrological and meteorological inputs. With the adoption of the stream functional pyramid approach and the simulation capability of GSSHA the Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 can be a supportive tool to analyze projects and make informed decisions in watershed management that help reduce the impact of anthropogenic influences and environmental issues and to preserve Austin’s aquatic resources. Urban Watershed Functional Pyramid The revisions to the Environmental Integrity Index program reflected in this QAPP have been largely influenced by the Stream Functions Pyramid (Figure 1) which provides a new framework for approaching stream assessment (Harman et al., 2012). This tool emphasizes the critical role of foundational facets of the stream system from which all other facets are dependent. Success of the ultimate response variable (biology) is limited by all other underlying layers. Therefore, if the ultimate goal of a monitoring program is to facilitate/inform preservation or restoration of ecological integrity, then a bottom-up perspective may be the most effective. Figure 1. Stream Functions Pyramid (Harman et al. 2012). A framework for approaching stream assessment. The Applied Watershed Research Section modified the stream functional pyramid, presented by Harman et al., (2012) (Figure 1), to adapt it more directly to the urban environment and watersheds as a unit instead of streams (Figure 2). The main difference is …
Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 QAPP 4 of 4 (Biology) Project #: 216 Project Manager: Mateo Scoggins Project Lead: Andrew Clamann Introduction Environmental Integrity Index The Environmental Integrity Index (EII) is a tool that was created by the City of Austin’s Watershed Protection Department (WPD) to monitor and assess the ecological integrity and the degree of impairment of Austin watersheds (City of Austin, 2002). The goal of the EII was to produce a quantifiable method to assess the ecological integrity of Austin’s urban and non-urban streams and determine baseline conditions for targeted protective measures and restoration, thus enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of Austin. The WPD Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division (EMC) has determined the need to revise the EII by applying a new framework, based on the stream functional pyramid developed by Harman et al. (2012), to approach stream assessment by using the enhanced Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) model to simulate hydrologic processes in watersheds at any given point. GSSHA is a physics-based, distributed, hydrologic, sediment and contaminant fate and transport model (Zhang et al., 2023). It can simulate the hydrological response of a watershed to specific hydrological and meteorological inputs. With the adoption of the stream functional pyramid approach and the simulation capability of GSSHA, the Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 (EII 2.0) can be a supportive tool to analyze projects and make informed decisions in watershed management that help reduce the impact of anthropogenic influences and environmental issues and to preserve Austin’s aquatic resources. Urban Watershed Functional Pyramid The revisions to the Environmental Integrity Index program reflected in this QAPP have been largely influenced by the Stream Functions Pyramid (Figure 1) which provides a new framework for approaching stream assessment (Harman et al., 2012). This tool emphasizes the critical role of foundational facets of the stream system from which all other facets are dependent. Success of the ultimate response variable (biology) is influenced by all other underlying layers. Therefore, if the goal of a monitoring program is to facilitate/inform preservation or restoration of ecological integrity, then a bottom- up perspective may be the most effective. Figure 1. Stream Functions Pyramid (Harman et al., 2012). A framework for approaching stream assessment. For the purpose of the objectives, parameters, and scoring, of the EII 2.0 program, the WPD Applied Watershed Research (AWR) Section adapted the functional pyramid (Figure 2) to apply more directly to the urban …
Annual Internal Review This report covers the time period of 7/1/2023 to 6/30/2024 _Environmental Commission __ The Commission mission statement (per the City Code) is: Per section 2-1-144(F) of the City Code, the Environmental Commission may: 1) review and analyze the policies relating to the environmental quality of the city; (2) act as an advisory board to the city council, the city manager, and the department in their efforts to oversee the protection and integrity of the natural environment; (3) promote growth management and land use planning, minimize degradation of water resources, protect downstream areas, and promote recreation opportunities and environmental awareness; and (4) advise and recommend on any issue which the commission determines necessary or advisable for the enhancement and stewardship of the urban forest both public and private. (G) The commission shall: (1) assist the city council, the city manager, and the department in studying, promoting and enforcing environmental protection policies to assure the health, safety, welfare and quality of life of all citizens within the City's incorporated boundaries as well as those within its extraterritorial jurisdiction where the boundaries apply; and (2) oversee the development and implementation of a comprehensive plan for the planting, maintenance, and replacement of trees in the City's jurisdiction, and revise the plan as necessary. When a portion of the plan has been developed and established, it shall be submitted to the city council for adoption before implementation. (H) The commission shall advise the city council, the city manager, and the department concerning policies, projects, and programs that affect the quality of life or have the potential to affect the environment, including those that relate to or affect: Annual Review and Work Plan 7/1/2023 to 6/30/2024 Page 2 (1) water quality: (a) watershed protection; (b) urban runoff; (c) innovative wastewater treatment; (d) regional wastewater treatment; (e) improvement and protection of the Colorado River and the Edwards Aquifer; and (f) wastewater irrigation; (2) growth management and land use planning: (a) municipal utility district review; (b) capital improvement project review; and (c) the comprehensive plan; (3) construction controls for erosion and sedimentation; (4) City environmental policies regarding monitoring and enforcement; (5) solid waste disposal plan alternatives; (6) watershed protection: (a) flood control; (b) erosion control; (c) water quality; and (d) utility management; (7) roadway planning; (8) beautification; (9) recreation resources; (10) public education on environmental matters; (11) hazardous waste materials management; (12) revegetation and landscaping; …
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20240807-002 Second by: Date: August 7th, 2024 Subject: Austin/ Travis County Food Plan Motion by: Mariana Krueger WHEREAS, in 2021, the Austin City Council passed resolution NO. 20210610-039, which directed the City Manager to begin a food planning process that would center and uplift the voices of those most impacted by our current food system; after three years, the work of thousands of community members, alongside that of City and County departments, and tens of local nonprofits, has culminated in the Austin/ Travis County Food Plan, the first-ever visionary policy document of its kind here in Central Texas, and one of just a dozen of its kind nationwide; WHEREAS, as part of this planning process, the Office of Sustainability has identified that 16.8 acres of farmland are lost in Travis County every day, only 0.06% of the food consumed in Travis County is locally produced, and 14.4% of people in Travis County experience food insecurity, yet 1.24 million pounds of food are wasted every day in Austin; AND WHEREAS, in 2021, the Austin Climate Equity Plan established several goals related to sustainable food production, including protecting 500,000 acres of farmland from development in the Central Texas five-county region, and incorporating all City-owned land in a management plan that results in neutral or negative emissions; AND WHEREAS, the Austin Climate Equity Plan specifically pledged that the City of Austin would reach net-zero community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, with a strong emphasis on cutting emissions by 2030, and the Office of Sustainability has concluded that 21% of all greenhouse gas emissions created by our community are food-related; AND WHEREAS, Winter Storm Uri underscored the fragility of our food system in the wake of climate change, and the need to incorporate local food hubs, bolstered by urban agriculture efforts such as community gardens and food forests, as part of a climate resilience strategy; AND WHEREAS, in 2013, the Austin City Council recognized the importance of urban agriculture in supporting the City’s Climate and Zero Waste initiatives by adopting the Urban Farms Ordinance; AND WHEREAS, while the Austin City Council has repeatedly acknowledged the interconnectedness of our food system to our broader climate and equity goals, many initiatives have gone unfunded or under-funded, including Nourish Austin (a proposal from multiple city departments in 2021 to develop publicly-owned food hubs), and our Community Gardens Division (Table 1). 1 of 2 AND …
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20240807-003 Date: August 7, 2024 Subject: Cities Connecting Children to Nature Motion by: Jennifer Bristol Seconded by: Perry Bedford WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission was presented a staff update from Melody Alcazar, Program Manager – Cities Connecting Children to Nature, City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the CCCN initiative continues to strengthen partnerships across departments, AISD, and with NGOs across Austin; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the CCCN initiative known as Green- School-Parks ensures students and teachers have opportunities to learn and play in natural spaces; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the CCCN initiative known as Green- School-Parks ensures historically underserved neighborhoods have access to campuses where they can exercise, play, socialize, and learn. These communities lack access to parkland alternatives, which means the schools help the city achieve the goal of all residences living within a quarter mile walking distance from a park; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes school campuses with improved habitat, like the ones in the Green-School-Park program, offer increased ecosystem services such as reduction in heat island effect, storm water runoff, and carbon sequestration; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the CCCN initiative continues to raise awareness about the need for children and families to have a daily connection with nature to ensure their physical and mental health and development; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the CCCN initiative strengthens and helps achieve the climate, environmental, equity, and health goals of various departments and strategies within the city, and with the supporting NGOs; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission offers support of the Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission offers support of the Outdoor Learning Environments program. 1 THEREFORE, the Environmental Commission recommends continuing funding for the initiative. Additionally, we recommend expanded resources and support for: 1. Joint Use Agreement with AISD, and the Green-School-Parks initiative to ensure members of the community can utilize the school campus as parkland during out-of-school time. These agreements also ensure that students have daily access to greenspaces where they can play, explore and learn. 2. Recommend that the City of Austin work with AISD to find solutions to keep the public access gates open to grant access from the neighborhoods to the campuses during out-of- school-time. 3. Recommend the City of Austin find ways to better support the goals of the Children’s 4. Continue to …
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20240807-002 Second by: David Sullivan Date: August 7th, 2024 Subject: Austin/ Travis County Food Plan Motion by: Mariana Krueger WHEREAS, in 2021, the Austin City Council passed resolution NO. 20210610-039, which directed the City Manager to begin a food planning process that would center and uplift the voices of those most impacted by our current food system; after three years, the work of thousands of community members, alongside that of City and County departments, and tens of local nonprofits, has culminated in the Austin/ Travis County Food Plan, the first-ever visionary policy document of its kind here in Central Texas, and one of just a dozen of its kind nationwide; WHEREAS, as part of this planning process, the Office of Sustainability has identified that 16.8 acres of farmland are lost in Travis County every day, only 0.06% of the food consumed in Travis County is locally produced, and 14.4% of people in Travis County experience food insecurity, yet 1.24 million pounds of food are wasted every day in Austin; AND WHEREAS, in 2021, the Austin Climate Equity Plan established several goals related to sustainable food production, including protecting 500,000 acres of farmland from development in the Central Texas five-county region, and incorporating all City-owned land in a management plan that results in neutral or negative emissions; AND WHEREAS, the Austin Climate Equity Plan specifically pledged that the City of Austin would reach net-zero community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, with a strong emphasis on cutting emissions by 2030, and the Office of Sustainability has concluded that 21% of all greenhouse gas emissions created by our community are food-related; AND WHEREAS, Winter Storm Uri underscored the fragility of our food system in the wake of climate change, and the need to incorporate local food hubs, bolstered by urban agriculture efforts such as community gardens and food forests, as part of a climate resilience strategy; AND WHEREAS, in 2013, the Austin City Council recognized the importance of urban agriculture in supporting the City’s Climate and Zero Waste initiatives by adopting the Urban Farms Ordinance; AND WHEREAS, while the Austin City Council has repeatedly acknowledged the interconnectedness of our food system to our broader climate and equity goals, many initiatives have gone unfunded or under-funded, including Nourish Austin (a proposal from multiple city departments in 2021 to develop publicly-owned food hubs), and our Community Gardens Division (Table 1). 1 of …
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REGULAR CALLED MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, August 7, 2024 The ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION convened Wednesday, August 7, 2024, at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Bedford called the Environmental Commission Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Perry Bedford, Jennifer Bristol, Hanna Cofer, Colin Nickells, Melinda Schiera, David Sullivan Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Richard Brimer, Mariana Krueger Commissioners Absent: Peter Einhorn, Haris Qureshi PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Phil Thomas, Speaking against the Expedition School Dock Project Cedar Stevens, Speaking against the Expedition School Dock Project Tanya Payne, Speaking against the Expedition School Dock Project Elisa Rendon Montoya, Speaking against the Expedition School Dock Project Bertha Rendon Delgado, Speaking against the Expedition School Dock Project in a REGULAR meeting on APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on July 17, 2024. The minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular meeting on July 17, 2024, were approved on Commissioner Bristol’s motion, Commissioner Sullivan’s second on an 8-0 vote. Commissioner Nickells abstained. Commissioners Einhorn and Qureshi were absent. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 2. Presentation, discussion, and recommendation on the Austin-Travis County Food Plan – Angela Baucom, Business Process Consultant, Office of Sustainability A motion in support of the Austin Travis County Plan passed on Commissioner Krueger’s motion, Commissioner Sullivan’s second on a 9–0 vote. Commissioners Einhorn and Qureshi were absent. 1 3. Presentation, discussion, and recommendation on the Cities Connecting Children to Nature program – Melody Alcazar, Program Manager, Parks and Recreation A motion in support of the Cities Connecting Children to Nature passed on Commissioner Bristol’s motion, Commissioner Bedford’s second on a 9–0 vote. Commissioners Einhorn and Qureshi were absent. Chair Bedford called a recess at 8:12. Chair Bedford reconvened the meeting at 8:20. STAFF BRIEFINGS 4. Staff briefing on the Environmental Integrity Index: WPD’s Water Quality Monitoring Methods – Andrew Clamann, Conservation Program Manager, Watershed Protection Department Item conducted as posted. No action taken. DISCUSSION ITEMS 5. Update on Environmental Commission Annual Report— Perry Bedford, Environmental Commission Chair Item conducted as posted. No action taken. COMMITTEE UPDATES Update from the South Central Waterfront Board on the postponement of the Combining District/Density Bonus Plan at City Council – David Sullivan Item conducted as posted. No action taken. Update from the Bird-Friendly Design working group on the meeting on July 23rd and plans for the next meeting – Jennifer Bristol Item conducted as posted. No …
