Flood Mitigation Task Force May 4, 2016 – 6:30 p.m. One Texas Center, Room 325 505 Barton Springs Road Austin, Texas CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS: Rose Marie Klee (Mayor) Jeffrey Henke (Mayor) Marvin Chaney (D-1) Ben Hodges (D-1) Ana Aguirre (D-2) Robert Kibbie (D-2) Kate Mason-Murphy (D-3) Richard Maness (D-3) Rolando Delgado (D-4) Carol Olewin (D-4) Ken Jacob (D-5) Rollin MacRae (D-5) Paul Morales (D-6) Jay Scanlon (D-6) Dale Gray (D-7) Dorsey Twidwell, Jr. (D-7) Robert Henneke (D-8) Matthew L. Rienstra (D-8) John Gleason (D-9) Elloa Mathews (D-9) Raymond Canfield (D-10) John Pitts (D-10) AGENDA CALL TO ORDER – May 4, 2016, 6:30 p.m. 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first five 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. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approve the minutes of the Flood Mitigation Task Force regular meeting of April 28, 2016 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Flood Mitigation Task Force Final Report to Council; approval process of final report b. Discuss Specific Subsections of the Flood Mitigation Task Force Final Report to Council and receive staff input on Report Subsections 4. VOTING ITEMS a. Specific Subsections of Flood Mitigation Task Force Final Report to Council 5. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS a. Future meeting topics and staff input 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 Katie Pfeil, Watershed Protection Department, at 512-974-3377 for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Flood Mitigation Task Force, please contact Katie Pfeil, Watershed Protection Department, at 512-974-3377 or katie.pfeil@austintexas.gov.
FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES May 4, 2016 1 FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES (May 4, 2016) The Flood Mitigation Task Force convened in a regular meeting on May 4, 2016 at One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road in Austin, Texas. Task Force Members in Attendance: Ana Aguirre, Marvin Chaney, Rolando Delgado, John Gleason, Dale Gray, Jeff Henke, Ken Jacob, Robert Kibbie, Rollin MacRae, Richard Maness, Elloa Matthews, Carol Olewin, John Pitts, Matthew L. Rienstra, and Dorsey Twidwell Staff in Attendance: Jean Drew, Joydeep Goswami, Jose Guerrero, Matt Hollon, Roxanne Jackson, Larry Jantzen, Pam Kearfott, Lynne Lightsey, Keith Noble, Joe Pantalion, Katie Pfeil, Scott Prinsen, Jerry Reynolds, Kathy Rock, Kevin Shunk, and Kelly Strickler Chair Matthew L. Rienstra called the Task Force meeting to order at 6:42 p.m. 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Dick Perrone (Upper Onion Creek neighborhood) spoke about his concerns with the Regional Stormwater Management Program (RSMP). 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes from the meeting of 4/25/2016 were approved on Task Force Member Dale Gray’s motion and Task Force Member John Pitts’ second on a 15-0 vote. Task Force Members Ray Canfield, Robert Henneke, Ben Hodges, Rose Marie Klee, Kate Mason-Murphy, Paul Morales, and Jay Scanlon were absent. 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Flood Mitigation Task Force Final Report to Council; approval process of final report No action taken. b. Discuss Specific Subsections of the Flood Mitigation Task Force Final Report to Council and receive staff input on Report Subsections Discussed sections 1a (“Flood Mitigation and Preparedness Strategies”), 1b (“Buyout and Variance Recommendations”), 1c (“Structure and Use of the DUF”), 1d (“Impacts to Equity and Affordability”), 1e (“Public Education”), 1f (“Standard and Green Infrastructure”), 2 (“Identify Available Funds”), 3 (“Peer Cities”), 4 (“Onion Creek Mitigation”), 5 (“Collaborating with the Environmental Commission”), and 6 (“Collaborating with Other Jurisdictions”) of the Final Report to Council. No action taken. 4. VOTING ITEMS FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES May 4, 2016 2 a. Specific Subsections of Flood Mitigation Task Force Final Report to Council Subsection 1a There was a motion by Task Force Member Dorsey Twidwell, seconded by Task Force Member Dale Gray, to adopt the non-substantive clarifications to subsection 1a provided by the Watershed Protection Department. The motion was approved on a vote of 15-0. Task Force Members Ray Canfield, Robert Henneke, Ben Hodges, Rose Marie Klee, Kate Mason-Murphy, Paul Morales, and Jay Scanlon were absent. …
2. Identify available funds, including federal, state, and local sources as well as prioritizing future capital investment for flood mitigation and management.1 Recommendations: 1. Consider issuing debt consistent with the recommendations in this report. 2. Investigate opportunities for grants or cost sharing with US Geological Survey to install additional flood-hardened rainfall and stage gauges throughout the City. 3. Evaluate and identify opportunities to share costs with private development to upgrade outdated drainage systems. 4. Examine budgetary requests of other City Departments to identify projects less critical to public safety than flood mitigation and reallocate these resources to increase staff and resources of WPD. Council should prioritize capital spending in future budgets to focus spending on mitigating the most critical flood mitigation projects and to fund necessary maintenance operations over spending money on non-critical projects that do not impact public health and safety to reduce the fiscal impact to citizens. 5. Evaluate opportunities to leverage volunteer activities to encourage greater citizen participation in keeping waterways clear. Examples include Keep Austin Beautiful and the Colorado River Alliance. Understanding that the structure may be overly complex, Council should also explore simple straightforward financial incentives to spur citizen engagement, which could occur in the form of a tax credit or similar. 6. Leverage local funding with state and federal programs and funding options where practicable; however, take into considerations potential project delays or additional project needs/spending that may be part of the matching funds. Seek additional sources of funds for acquiring properties such as the Stafford Act’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the HUD’s Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP), Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) funding (where applicable), and private partnerships. 1 The Drainage Master Plan and on-going planning activities being conducted by the Watershed Department have and continue to identify and define where the creek and local flooding problems are, the root cause of the flooding, and feasible mitigation alternatives to be considered. While the residents of Austin have expressed a strong desire to move faster to implement flood mitigation projects, there remains a need to continue planning and studies necessary to bring future projects to fruition. However, the biggest challenge has always been and will continue to be funding to implement the full scope of the Drainage Master Plan. Watershed staff provided a summary of Drainage and Watershed Bonds 1975-2015 and reported that the citizens of Austin …
3. PEER CITIES – Evaluating best practices in peer cities with similar climate and flood issues. AUSTIN: 2014 Population 912,791 Square miles 271.8 The following cites have similar climate and flood issues as Austin and have experienced major flood events and implemented flood mitigation solutions that may be of interest and benefit to the City of Austin, 1. TULSA: 2014 Population 399,682 Square miles 196.8 Tulsa has a similar flood history as Austin with frequent flooding, rapid growth and a general denial of the possibility that floods could reoccur until their “year of the floods” in 1974 and 1984 Memorial Day flood, which killed 14, injured 288, damaged or destroyed nearly 7,000 buildings and did $180 million in damages. Following that flood, Tulsa appears to have taken the initiative to prevent future flooding and relocation of people through a series of policies and ongoing actions. Actions taken included: 1. 1984 flood caused relocation of 300 flooded homeowners & a mobile home park and damaged or destroyed 7,000 buildings; 2. Introduced a total capital program for flood control and master drainage plans. 3. City Commissioners enacted a floodplain building moratorium following the 1976 flood. 4. Created Dept. of Storm water Management to centralize flood, drainage and storm water programs and funded by the City budget. 5. Storm water utility fee created to be utilized exclusively for maintenance of storm water detention facilities, stream channels, pumping stations, culverts, ditches and other drainage facilities. The current fee is $5.43 per month, based on cost of clearing 2,650 square feet of property. 6. Storm drainage management is now part of the Streets and Storm water Dept. 7. After storms & when needed, crews clear the streams and detention sites also utilizing storm water fees. On average, they clean more than 22 miles of ditches and clear about 5 miles of drainage pipe each year. 8. Phased implementation programs for large capital projects are funded by storm water fees, sales tax revenues or bond issues and utilized for acquisition of lands & construction of large water retention facilities, major drainage basin improvements and other related projects. 1 9. Building parks in the floodplains, sports fields in storm water detention locations and greenway trails on creek banks. 10. “In Tulsa, growth is welcomed – so long as it will not flood or cause flooding elsewhere.” 11. Tulsa now has the lowest flood insurance rates in the …
4.0 ONION CREEK RECOMMENDATIONS October 30, 2015, marked the latest in a series of flooding disasters that have created serious property damage and loss of life along Onion Creek over the years. Prior to this, there was the Halloween Flood 2013, in which the flood waters reached a record level of 41 feet and, for the first time, severely damaged and destroyed homes in the Upper Onion Creek neighborhood in addition to lower Onion Creek. The 2013 Halloween Flood had destroyed or severely damaged homes in Onion Creek at a total estimated cost of well over $150 million, including some city services. This dollar loss was probably much higher due to the lack of complete data from the city and affected counties. In response to the 2013 Halloween Flood on Onion Creek, the City Council had passed Resolution 20140515-028 directing the City Manager to, among other things, provide a report to Council regarding the costs associated with the purchase of homes in the Lower Onion Creek floodplain around the William Cannon Drive and Pleasant Valley Road area as well as funding options and an evaluation of the drainage fee. The 2013 and 2015 floods resulted in a need to redraw the floodplain map, but also to look more closely at possible ways to reduce the impact of future floods and preclude the need for extensive buyouts in the future. The goal of the current Onion Creek Floodplain and Flood Mitigation Study, in addition to redrawing the floodplain maps, was to eliminate potential inundation of buildings during a 1% annual chance event (ACE). It was determined by the consultants that a 3 to 5 foot reduction in the peak would be needed to achieve the target of reducing flood risk by 30%. The specific focus area of the Study was IH35 to E. Slaughter Lane, known as Upper Onion Creek, but we suggest that attention should continue to be directed to both Upper and Lower Onion Creek. In reading the Study and the cover letter from Watershed, we feel that a good job has been done by Halff Engineering, but it is still preliminary and needs further work, especially concerning upstream detention and the future issues to be faced if impervious cover controls are not implemented throughout the Onion Creek floodplain. This should be considered a high priority. Options evaluated in the study for Upper Onion Creek included: 1. Property Buyouts …
5. Collaborating with the City’s Environmental Commission (4/25/2016) The Environmental Commission has oversight of the Watershed Protection Department. On January 13, 2016, a Mmembers of the Flood Mitigation Task Force briefed the Commission on January 13, 2016 about on the progress of the FMTF, with the intent to follow up with the Commission upon completion of the final report. The FMTF recommendation for the Environment Commission are: 1. When considering acquiring properties for green space or environmental protection, consider include the benefits of flood mitigation. 2. Ensure the Watershed Protection Department is funded and staffed at a level that ensures the maintenance and upkeep of the open and closed storm water systems to ensure public safety during massive rain events. 3. Review vegetation and riparian policies along open water drainage systems to ensure the policies are benefiting the public and not causing flooding, stoppage or backups of flood water. 4. Create a public forum whereby citizens can address the oversight body of the Watershed Protection Department to voice grievances, and seek avenues for navigating the bureaucracy. 5. Develop a process for tracking and following up on citizens’ grievances and concerns. Request an annual report on the status of grievances presented to the Environmental Commission. 6. As the oversight committee of the Watershed Protection Department, review the effectiveness and efficiency of the WPD’s performance measures.
Section 6. Collaborating with other jurisdictions and agencies that have interest, expertise, and investment authority regarding flood mitigation potentially impacting areas inside and outside of the City of Austin as well as with work groups or other regional initiatives focused on flood issues and storm water management. Recommendations: 1. Form a regional council or task force comprised of water management, safety and environmental organizations to look at regional storm water management. There does not appear to be a regional authority or strategy to manage flooding incidents. City of Austin Watershed Protection Master Plan 2015 Update recommends Watershed Protection continue to partner with other jurisdictions to achieve watershed protection goals, but there is no recommendation to partner with other jurisdictions to achieve regional storm water management and flood mitigation strategies. 2. Consider partnering with the following organizations to develop the council or task force. • Hays County and its municipalities • Travis County and its municipalities • Bastrop County and its municipalities • Blanco County and its municipalities • Williamson County and its municipalities • Lower Colorado River Authority • Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District • Texas Department of Transportation • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality • Texas Water Development Board • Texas Facilities Commission • Texas General Land Office • Texas Parks and Wildlife • Texas Division of Emergency Management • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • NOAA, National Weather Service • U.S. Geological Survey • U.S. International Boundary and River Commission • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation • Department of Homeland Security • Federal Emergency Management Agency • Texas Medical Center-Houston Weather Alert System • Environmental Systems Research Institute @ Pickle Research Campus • Texas Tech University – TxDOT and hydrology research. • Texas A&M University – flood forecasting. • Rice University – post hurricane flood research. • Texas Floodplain Managers Association (TFMA) • American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)/Environmental & Water Resources Institute (EWRI)And other appropriate agencies 3. Form a Regional Flood Control District to focus on flood mitigation and stormwater management, and to fund flood mitigation programs. 4. Investigate flood management programs used by El Paso County Water Improvement District, Elephant Butte (New Mexico) Irrigation District, Tulsa, Oklahoma, City of El Paso, Texas and Louisville, Kentucky. See recommendations in Section 3. Peer Cities. 5. Encourage surrounding communities to adopt floodplain and storm drainage policies comparable to the levels of City of Austin. 6. …
Flood Mitigation Task Force 1b – Flood plain variances and flood buyout policy FLOODPLAIN VARIANCES A floodplain variance is an exception to the standard development regulations for properties within the floodplain. There is a standard process for granting administrative variances by the Watershed Protection Department Director, when a development meets all of the administrative variance criteria. When a project does not conform to the requirements for an administrative variance, the Austin City Council may take action to grant a floodplain variance to the property owner/developer. It is important to note that there are other types of variances to environmental and drainage regulations which may be granted (e.g., variances to impervious cover limitations, variances to detention and/or water quality requirements). The request for a floodplain variance should not be conflated with these other types of variances. For example, a property can be within the allowable impervious cover limits and still require a floodplain variance in order to get a development permit to remodel a bathroom, to build a second story, or to add a carport. On average, there are 3 administrative variances are granted per year (based on 2004-2015), and there is an average of 6 requests per year to Council to grant floodplain variances (based on 1995-2015). Floodplain Variances Recommendations: 1. Continue current floodplain policy as it relates to FEMA National Flood Insurance Program and Community Rating System to help reduce flood hazard insurance rates for all homeowners and property owners. 2. Continue the current floodplain policies, except as modified below, while allowing a variance process for many of the existing homes to remain or be modified in a reasonably safe manner and without damage to others. a. Require public notice for Council floodplain variances. Notice should be given to Neighborhood Groups as well as potentially-affected property owners. b. Expand the requirements of the City Code section of the floodplain management regulations that explains floodplain variances (Chapter 25-12-3 Appendix G, Sections G105) to include additional information commonly discussed at past floodplain variance hearings as defined in the Buyouts Work Group report. 3. Implement additional flood mitigation requirements if development or redevelopment is allowed in a floodplain such as: a. education for safe evacuation and safely sheltering in place. b. disclosure by seller/owner (or their representative) and education for buyer/renter of property that has been granted a floodplain variance that may constitute a health and safety risk. 1 Flood Mitigation Task …
1E. Methods and means to provide more public education and outreach to new residents and visitors to raise awareness of flash flooding potential, as well as actions and strategies for the public to remain safe Even though Austin is known as Flash Flood Alley, the city has largely been spared the scenes of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina: homeowners being rescued from their roofs by helicopter, drowning of elderly due to lack of bus drivers or buses to evacuate frail residents from nursing homes or the faces of frantic parents trying to reach children at schools cut off by high water. However, as a result of the October 2013 and 2015 extreme flood events, Southeast Austin and Travis County took the greatest hit in the loss of life and extensive property damage. The Lower Onion Creek flooding claimed eight souls with the youngest being only six months old. In the Memorial Day 2015 flood, somehow a man ended up atop a telephone pole at House Park on Lamar Blvd. escaping a rapidly rising Shoal Creek blocks away. This image as well as one of a man rescued by helicopter from a tree top near upper Onion Creek are a permanent reminder that not everyone in Austin knows the saying “Turn Around Don’t Drown”. To try and prevent the images of New Orleans being repeated here in Austin, the following education and outreach strategies are recommended for the City of Austin. General public education is critical to the safety of our population. The City’s Early Warning Flood Gauge and Rain Gauge System are a core piece, warning residents of rainfall and the potential for flooding, alerting emergency responders to crisis locations, and warning downstream communities of impending flooding. We understand the City is currently upgrading this system. Education and outreach needs to move away from the “100-year floodplain” approach and talk to people about the probability of flooding. For example, a 100-year flood has a 26% chance (about 1 in 4 chance) of occurring over a 30-year mortgage. Another way of thinking about it is that there is a 1 in 6 chance of a 100 year flood occurring in 18 years. Flooding in Austin is not confined to the FEMA-identified floodplains. The massive “water bombs,” such as the 14 inches of rain that hit the airport in 2015, can strike anywhere and can cause flooding in any neighborhood overwhelming the …
