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 …
Regular Meeting of the Environmental Commission July 17, 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). Colin Nickells Jennifer Bristol, Secretary David Sullivan Richard Brimer Perry Bedford, Chair CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Haris Qureshi Peter Einhorn Mariana Krueger Melinda Schiera Hanna Cofer, Vice Chair AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 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. 1 Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on July 3, 2024. APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF BRIEFINGS Update on Austin’s reservoirs monitoring and management efforts — Brent Bellinger, Conservation Program Supervisor, Watershed Protection Department 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 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 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. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please call Elizabeth Funk, Watershed Protection Department, a(512) …
Article Environmental Factors Impacting the Development of Toxic Cyanobacterial Proliferations in a Central Texas Reservoir Katherine A. Perri 1,* , Brent J. Bellinger 2 , Matt P. Ashworth 3 and Schonna R. Manning 1 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Institute of Environment, Biscayne Bay Campus, Florida International University, 3000 NE 151st St., North Miami, FL 33181, USA; scmannin@fiu.edu 2 Watershed Protection Department, City of Austin, 505 Barton Springs Road, 11th Floor, Austin, TX 78704, USA; brent.bellinger@austintexas.gov 3 UTEX Culture Collection of Algae, College of Natural Sciences, University of Texas, Austin 204 W 24th Street, Austin, TX 78701, USA; mashworth@utexas.edu * Correspondence: kperri@fiu.edu Abstract: Cyanobacterial harmful algal proliferations (cyanoHAPs) are increasingly associated with dog and livestock deaths when benthic mats break free of their substrate and float to the surface. Fatalities have been linked to neurotoxicosis from anatoxins, potent alkaloids produced by certain genera of filamentous cyanobacteria. After numerous reports of dog illnesses and deaths at a popular recreation site on Lady Bird Lake, Austin, Texas in late summer 2019, water and floating mat samples were collected from several sites along the reservoir. Water quality parameters were measured and mat samples were maintained for algal isolation and DNA identification. Samples were also analyzed for cyanobacterial toxins using LC-MS. Dihydroanatoxin-a was detected in mat materials from two of the four sites (0.6–133 ng/g wet weight) while water samples remained toxin-free over the course of the sampling period; no other cyanobacterial toxins were detected. DNA sequencing analysis of cyanobacterial isolates yielded a total of 11 genera, including Geitlerinema, Tyconema, Pseudanabaena, and Phormidium/Microcoleus, taxa known to produce anatoxins, including dihydroanatoxin, among other cyanotoxins. Analyses indicate that low daily upriver dam discharge, higher TP and NO3 concentrations, and day of the year were the main parameters associated with the presence of toxic floating cyanobacterial mats. Keywords: freshwater cyanobacteria; cyanotoxins; dihydroanatoxin-a; harmful algal proliferations; freshwater ecology Key Contribution: First detection of dihydroanatoxin-a in central Texas, USA. 1. Introduction The global phenomena of cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms (cyanoHABs), occur- ring in the plankton, and cyanobacterial harmful algal proliferations (cyanoHAPs), arising from benthic mats, are increasing with anthropogenic eutrophication, climate change, and watershed development [1]. The impacts of cyanoHABs and cyanoHAPs include, but are not limited to, loss of surface waters for municipal and recreational purposes, chronic and acute health issues for humans and animals, and economic losses [2–4]. Globally, cyanoHAPs have been linked to rapid animal mortality …
Hydrilla Management and Bass Populations Bellinger and De Jesús Hydrilla Management Impacts on a Largemouth Bass Fishery: A Case for a Balanced Management Approach Brent J. Bellinger 1, City of Austin, Watershed Protection Department, 505 Barton Springs Road, Austin, TX 78704 Marcos J. De Jesús 2, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Management, 505 Staples Road, San Marcos, TX 78666 Abstract: Lake Austin, in central Texas, supported a popular trophy largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) fishery concomitant with conservative hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) management during the period 2002–2011. However, a change from this conservative approach to an aggressive stocking rate of triploid grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) in response to excessive hydrilla growth between 2011–2013 subsequently resulted in the eradi- cation of all submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). The loss of SAV quickly changed the angling dynamics of the reservoir, resulting in a controversial decline in the quality angling experience. The objectives of this case study were to compare how available population metrics of largemouth bass and important prey fish differed between periods of SAV presence (1997–2013) and absence (2014–2022) to inform which SAV management approach better supports a sustainable trophy fishery goal. These comparisons revealed evidence of declines in largemouth bass relative abundance (CPUE), body condition (Wr ), and growth rates when SAV became absent, but no changes in population length structure. There were no apparent changes observed in selected prey species populations between the two periods. While linking changes in fish population metrics with a single environmental attribute in a reservoir is difficult, SAV has been widely associated with quality largemouth bass fisheries. As such, our results suggest a long-term conservative triploid grass carp stocking management approach to best protect SAV habitat that supports adequate largemouth bass population performance along- side other reservoir functions. Management needs to consider multiple priorities among relevant stakeholders in support of a balanced system for all uses. Further, SAV surveys should explore use of volumetric biomass assessments in response to triploid grass carp herbivory for better supplemental stocking estimates while trying to anticipate how climate driven changes in hydrology and temperature might impact SAV extent. Key words: lake habitat, reservoir, triploid grass carp, trophy bass Journal of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 11:14–22 Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) support popular rec- reational fisheries in aquatic systems across the southern U.S. (Chen et al. 2004). In reservoirs, productive high-quality fisheries are dependent on numerous biotic …
The Reservoir Update – FY 2023 B r e n t B e l l i n g e r, P h . D . C o n s e r v a t i o n P r o g r a m S u p e r v i s o r Wa t e r s h e d P r o t e c t i o n D e p a r t m e n t J u l y 1 7 t h, 2 0 2 4 C I T Y O F A U S T I N W A T E R S H E D P R O T E C T I O N D E P A R T M E N T Projects • H o t b u t t o n t o p i c s • Aquatic vegetation – Lake Austin and Lady Bird Lake • O n - g o i n g • Reservoir monitoring • Harmful Algal Proliferations (HAPs; toxic cyanobacteria) • Sediment nutrient mitigation (lanthanum modified bentonite) • P ro j e c t s w r a p p e d u p ( i n p ro c e s s o f a n a l y z i n g / w r i t i n g ) Sediment bedforms and microplastics Zebra mussels population study • HAP monitoring at spring sites in collaboration with USGS • • • Herbivore exclosure pens • Lake Austin residential shoreline mitigation plantings C I T Y O F A U S T I N W A T E R S H E D P R O T E C T I O N D E P A R T M E N T 2 Austin Lakes Index R eservoirs maintaining “fair-to - good” condition System stressors: • Development of Lake Austin shoreline vs Lady Bird • But, aquatic vegetation mitigates shoreline modifications • Non-native vegetation • Drought –lack of flushing • Nutrients C I T Y O F A U S T I N W A T E R S H E D P R O T E C T I O N D E P A R T M E N T 3 Usual Reservoir Updates • Toxic cyanobacteria mats Year 5 of mat monitoring Year …
Joint Sustainability Committee Resolution 20240708-02: Supporting the Environmental Investment Plan WHEREAS, the purpose of the Joint Sustainability Committee is “to advise the council on matters related to conservation and sustainability; and review City policies and procedures relevant to the Austin Community Climate Plan and the Austin Climate Equity Plan, including planning, implementation, community engagement, goal setting, and progress monitoring”; and WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Joint Sustainability Committee to “promote close cooperation between the council, City management, City boards, commissions, committees, and taskforces, and individuals, institutions, and agencies concerned with the politics, procedures, and implementation of the Austin Community Climate Plan and the Austin Climate Equity Plan with the goal of coordinating all similar activities within the City and the community in order to secure the greatest public benefit”; and WHEREAS, the Joint Sustainability Committee has had working groups for the past two and a half years that have gathered information from city staff, the Austin community and experts and advocates in other cities to identify funding needs to implement the Austin Climate Equity Plan; and WHEREAS, the Joint Sustainability Committee solicited and received public input on what needs funding through the Environmental Investment Plan to meet existing environmental goals through a written form, at a public hearing on March 27, 2024, and at the April 30, 2024 Joint Sustainability Committee meeting; and WHEREAS, the public comments received by the Joint Sustainability Committee on the Environmental Investment Plan emphasized the need for action, including more funding to meet a variety of environmental and climate goals established by the City of Austin; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2019, the Council unanimously approved Resolution No. 20190808- 078 declaring a climate emergency in the City and calling to accelerate the timeline for achieving the City's climate goals; and WHEREAS, the climate crisis continues to worsen each year and the window of opportunity to preserve a livable climate is rapidly closing due to climate tipping points are likely already being reached; and WHEREAS, it is a scientific fact that greenhouse gas emissions reductions made sooner will yield climate benefits sooner and are therefore more valuable in avoiding tipping points that could make preserving a livable climate impossible; and WHEREAS, land acquisition, increasing the use of solar energy and battery storage, and tree planting are strategies that are adopted within multiple City of Austin plans (including the Climate Equity Plan, Water Forward, Austin/Travis …
Joint Sustainability Committee Resolution 20240708-03: Resolution on Climate Fee WHEREAS, it is the Joint Sustainability Committee’s responsibility to advise “on matters related to conservation and sustainability and review City policies and procedures relevant to the Austin Community Climate Plan and the Austin Climate Equity Plan, including planning, implementation, community engagement, goal setting, and progress monitoring”, and WHEREAS, the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal established by the Austin City Council in the Climate Equity Plan is to achieve “net-zero community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, utilizing a steep decline path followed by negative emissions” that translates to approximately 75% reduction in emissions by 2030; and WHEREAS the Joint Sustainability Committee identified over $2.24 billion in one time costs and $96.14 million in ongoing expenses for implementing the Austin Climate Equity Plan and associated city plans; and WHEREAS increasing pressures on the city budget and utility rates will make funding the identified sustainability needs very difficult without a new source of revenue; and WHEREAS other cities have implemented dedicated fees to fund sustainability needs; and WHEREAS the City of Austin already utilizes dedicated fees to fund certain sustainability needs, including at Austin Energy, Austin Water and Austin Resource Recovery; and WHEREAS funding from existing fees is insufficient in magnitude to fund all existing needs and existing fees can only be used to fund certain programs; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Joint Sustainability Committee recommends that the Austin City Council and the City Manager actively pursue establishing a new Green Fee to help fill the funding gap for implementing the Austin Climate Equity Plan and associated city plans, including: ● Austin Energy Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan ● Austin Strategic Mobility Plan ● Austin Resource Recovery Master Plan ● Water Forward ● Watershed Protection Strategic Plan ● Austin/Travis County Food Plan ● One Austin: Climate Resilience Action Plan ● Central Texas Regional Air Quality Plan ● Urban Forest Plan This new fee should be structured to be equitable and responsive to Austin’s wealth gaps and the fee should provide predictable revenue. A legal analysis of options that could be paid by residents, businesses, corporations and/or visitors should be conducted and presented to the City Council for consideration as soon as possible. Motion: Anna Scott Second: Alberta Phillips Vote: 11-0 Yes: Diana Wheeler, Lane Becker, Kaiba White, Heather Houser, Jon Salinas, Alberta Philipps, Anna Scott, Rodrigo Leal, Melissa Rothrock, Chris Campbell, …
1. 2. in a REGULAR meeting on ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REGULAR CALLED MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, July 3, 2024 The ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION convened Wednesday, July 3, 2024, at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Bedford called the Environmental Commission Meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Perry Bedford, Jennifer Bristol, Richard Brimer, Hanna Cofer, Haris Qureshi, Melinda Schiera and David Sullivan Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Peter Einhorn, Mariana Krueger Commissioners Absent: Colin Nickells PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Speakers Patricia Bobeck, Butler Landfill Kimerly Duda, Exposition School APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on June 5, 2024. The minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular meeting on June 5, 2024, were approved on Commissioner Sullivan’s motion, Commissioner Brimer’s second on a 7-0 vote. Commissioners Cofer and Schiera abstained. Commissioner Nickells was absent. STAFF BRIEFINGS Staff briefing on Austin's Drought Contingency Plan and Water Conservation Plan – Kevin Kluge, Water Conservation Division Manager, Austin Water Speakers: Anna Bryan-Borjas, Austin Water Kevin Kluge, Austin Water Ramesh Swaminathan, Watershed Protection 1 3. 4. 5. 6. Item conducted as posted. No action taken. Staff briefing on updates to single family residential landscape transformation activities – Kevin Kluge, Water Conservation Division Manager, Austin Water Speaker: Kevin Kluge, Austin Water Item conducted as posted. No action taken. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS Presentation, discussion and recommendation on the Community Investment Budget – Kathy Mitchell, Equity Action. Sponsored by Commissioners Sullivan and Krueger Speakers: Bobby Levenski, Save Our Springs A motion to recommend the Community Investment Budget was approved on Commissioner Sullivan’s motion, Commissioner Krueger’s second, on an 8–0 vote. Commissioner Nickells was absent. Commissioner Bristol was off the dais. COMMITTEE UPDATES Discussion on the draft recommendation from the Urban Forestry Committee on supporting Austin’s tree canopy – Richard Brimer Speakers: Bobby Levenski, Save Our Springs Item conducted as posted. No action taken. Update from the Bird-Friendly Design working group on their first meeting on July 1st – Jennifer Bristol Commissioners Sullivan and Krueger provided an update. No action taken. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT Chair Bedford adjourned the meeting at 8:35 P.M. 2
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20240717-004 Second by: Date: July 17, 2024 Subject: “Green Fee” for Environmental Investment Plan Motion by: Haris Qureshi WHEREAS, the responsibility of the Environmental Commission is “to review and analyze the policies relating to the environmental quality of the City, act in an advisory capacity on all projects and programs which affect the quality of life for the citizens of Austin and to make recommendations for standards”; AND WHEREAS, on August 8, 2019, the Council unanimously approved Resolution No. 20190808- 078 declaring a climate emergency in the City and calling to accelerate the timeline for achieving the City's climate goals; and WHEREAS, the climate crisis continues to worsen each year and the window of opportunity to preserve a livable climate is rapidly closing due to climate tipping points are likely already being reached; AND WHEREAS, the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal established by the Austin City Council in the Climate Equity Plan is to achieve “net-zero community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, utilizing a steep decline path followed by negative emissions” that translates to approximately 75% reduction in emissions by 2030; AND WHEREAS, it is a scientific fact that greenhouse gas emissions reductions made sooner will yield climate benefits sooner and are therefore more valuable in avoiding tipping points that could make preserving a livable climate impossible; AND WHEREAS, land acquisition, increasing the use of solar energy and battery storage, and tree planting are strategies that are adopted within multiple City of Austin plans (including the Climate Equity Plan, Water Forward, Austin/Travis County Food Plan, Watershed Protection Strategic Plan, and PARD Land Management Plan and Long Range Plan, and Austin Energy Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan) created with substantial public input and adopted by the Austin City Council; AND WHEREAS, increasing pressures on the city budget and utility rates will make funding the identified sustainability needs very difficult without a new source of revenue; AND WHEREAS, other cities have implemented dedicated fees to fund sustainability needs; AND WHEREAS, the City of Austin already utilizes dedicated fees to fund certain sustainability needs, including at Austin Energy, Austin Water and Austin Resource Recovery; 1 of 2 AND WHEREAS, funding from existing fees is insufficient in magnitude to fund all existing needs and existing fees can only be used to fund certain programs. THEREFORE, the Environmental Commission recommends that the Austin City Council adopt Item 93 on the July …
