Barton Springs

SH 45 Connector

SBCA STATMENT:
State Highway 45 Gap Connector

SBCA submitted the following statement to the SH 45 Gap Study:

June 30, 2023
To Hays County and City of Buda officials:

Save Barton Creek Association respectfully states our opposition to the possible construction of the SH 45 Gap Connector between RM 1626 and I-35. We recognize that on paper, it seems logical to connect the southwestern and southeastern portions of SH 45. But we would point out that when the existing portion of SH 45 SW was constructed, it stopped at RM 1626 for reasons that were considered valid at the time. We believe that these reasons are still valid.

SBCA was founded in 1979, making us one of the oldest citizens’ environmental groups in Texas. The problems that we first saw with proposed developments in the Barton Creek watershed have been repeated by problematic development proposals throughout Central Texas. SBCA has expanded our geographic mission area accordingly, and has many members and supporters in Hays County.

We want to stress that SBCA is not anti-development; we are pro-water. We believe that development can be built in some environmentally sensitive areas, if built in smart ways. But we also believe that some areas cannot bear the impact of heavy development.

One such area is the region where the SH 45 Gap Connector would be located. SBCA has been concerned about SH 45 for decades. We filed suit in 1988 against the original construction plans for what was then billed as the Outer Loop for Austin.

Some of the arguments that have been raised against building the 45 Connector are about the negative impacts that creating a western bypass to I-35 would have on Austin and Travis County. SBCA agrees with these arguments, and we note that it will be difficult for Hays County and Buda to proceed with the 45 Connector without cooperation from their northern neighbors.

Still, we know that the effect of the 45 Connector on Austin and Travis County may understandably be of lesser concern to Hays County residents who feel that this road would solve some of their own local problems. That’s why SBCA wants to address two likely negative effects that the 45 Connector would have on the current residents who live near its possible route.

The primary negative impact that should concern residents of northern Hays County is the effect that the 45 Connector could have on local water sources. Undeveloped land with no or little impervious cover is able to absorb significant amounts of rain where it falls. This has been shown to be true even for the rocky land in the western parts of Central Texas. Long and wide stretches of highway, however, will block rain from being absorbed in the soil, which will lead to a significant increase in the amount of runoff during storms. This also means an increase in runoff pollution, because impervious surfaces are never clean. The rain that falls on these surfaces will wash off whatever’s on these surfaces.

This is also true for other forms of impervious cover, including roofs and parking lots. In order to analyze the potential effects of the 45 Connector, it’s necessary to consider not just the highway itself, but the new development that it will facilitate. The exhibits for the SH 45 Gap Study that were presented at the June 15 Open House Meeting include a map showing existing and proposed developments in the vicinity of the 45 Connector. The Persimmon subdivision, proposed by MileStone Community Builders, is of particular interest because the 45 Connector would run through it.

According to the legend on the Gap Study map, Persimmon is listed as “Active Development.” This is curious, since the City of Buda has yet to approve MileStone’s plans for Persimmon. The Gap Study’s development map also includes an inset map showing the Persimmon subdivision in greater detail. This inset map shows a light-blue corridor running through the upper part of Persimmon and labeled “Future SH 45.” It’s extremely curious that MileStone has already set aside this corridor, even though the exact route for the 45 Connector has yet to be determined, according to the Gap Study. The potential impact of runoff pollution in this area would thus be magnified. Dirty runoff would come not just from the 45 Connector, but also from Persimmon and any other future developments that would be built along the highway.

What are the water sources in this area that would be impacted? The 45 Connector would cross Onion Creek — one of the last pristine streams in Texas, as defined in the Pristine Streams Bill (HB 4146) that was passed by the Texas House in 2021. The highway’s route would also run close to Bear Creek. Both streams would suffer from increased runoff pollution.

In addition, the runoff pollution created by the 45 Connector and the development that it would facilitate could have a major impact on the wells in the area, which are monitored by the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District. It’s impossible to say exactly how many wells would be affected, since no route has been chosen yet for the 45 Connector. However, it’s possible to calculate how many wells are in the vicinity of the midpoint between RM 1626 and I-35. According to BSEACD data, 150 exempt wells and 62 permitted wells are located within a 2-mile radius of this midpoint, while 9 exempt wells and 2 permitted wells are located within a 1-mile radius. While not all of these wells would be affected by the 45 Connector and its associated development, some would. SBCA asks that Hays County and the City of Buda work with BSEACD to determine exactly how many wells could be affected, and in what way.

SBCA and our members and supporters are primarily concerned about the impacts of water pollution. But we also want to address the traffic impacts of the 45 Connector, since we know that many residents of northern Hays Country feel that it’s a necessary solution to the growing traffic problems in their area, and in particular to congestion along RM 1626.

SBCA knows that these traffic problems are real. However, we also believe that Hays County and the City of Buda should give their residents realistic expectations about how much traffic relief could be expected from the 45 Connector. At this point, it does become relevant to Hays County that SH 45, combined with MoPac, would create a western bypass to I-35. Moreover, it would likely be a free bypass as opposed to SH 130, the tolled eastern bypass. What this means is that the 45 Connector will come with pre-packaged and built-in traffic. The residents of northern Hays County will not have the highway to themselves — they will have to share it with vehicles coming from and going to I-35 and MoPac.

That’s why it’s important to look at existing intersections that are comparable to a fully built-out intersection of I-35 and the southern portion of SH 45. The most relevant comparisons are the intersection of I-35 and the northern portion of SH 45 in Round Rock, and the intersection of I-35 and US 290/SH 71 in south Austin. To say that both intersections have extremely heavy traffic is an understatement. Traffic slows to a crawl at rush hour on the flyovers at these intersections, and on the interstate itself.

These two existing intersections should be studied when estimating what the potential traffic load would be on a full intersection of I-35 and the southern portion of SH 45. We recommend that Hays County and Buda work with objective experts to determine what this load would be, and what actual travel times on the 45 Connector would be — not when it opens, but 5-10 years later, when most drivers on I-35 know that they can avoid the quagmire of downtown Austin at rush hour by jumping onto the 45 Connector.

SBCA knows that many local residents have already stated that the 45 Connector is a necessary solution to existing and future traffic problems in their area. That’s why we recommend that Hays County and Buda look at other possible solutions. The 45 Connector should be evaluated not in isolation, but in comparison to other alternatives. For example, would further expansion of RM 1626 and a ramped intersection at its connection with I-35 offer more benefit for local residents?

In closing, SBCA would like to point out that the area that would be bisected by the 45 Connector is currently a large area of mostly undeveloped green space that serves as a buffer between Buda and Austin. It also serves as a habitat for valuable wildlife. According to a map prepared in 2020 by the Hays County GIS Department, the area of the 45 Connector contains potential habitat for the endangered golden- cheeked warbler. Many residents moved to northern Hays County in part for this green space. SBCA urges the Hays County Commissioners Court to explore ways to save at least some of this area as a park or preserve.

Save Barton Creek Association and our members and supporters recognize that any potential solution to the growth problems in northern Hays County will come with tradeoffs. That’s why we recommend that the Gap Study examine in detail not just the potential benefits of the 45 Connector, but its potential drawbacks too, as well as the benefits and drawbacks of other alternatives. SBCA would like to offer any help and assistance that we can provide for the Gap Study. We appreciate your consideration of our comments.

For more information, please contact Brian Zabcik, SBCA Advocacy Director, at brian@savebartoncreek.org

Newsletter

SBCA NEWSLETTER:
Creek Chronicles

Click here to subscribe

Click here for past issues

 

Barton Springs Drought Plan

SBCA EXPLAINER:
Barton Springs Drought Plan

The Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District (BSEACD) is responsible for the water that supplies both thousands of residents and Barton Springs. In this article, Craig Smith — a former BSEACD director and a current SBCA board member — explains how the district developed its drought management plan.

The crown jewel of Barton Creek and all of Austin is Barton Springs — the third-most bountiful spring in Texas, the habitat of two endangered species of salamanders, and a beloved swimming hole for thousands of human visitors each year. The springs are recharged by rain that falls in the watersheds of six local creeks (Barton, Williamson, Slaughter, Bear, Little Bear, and Onion), as well as the Blanco River. Much of the water in these streams seeps into the porous limestone formation of the massive Edwards Aquifer that lies under parts of Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels, and San Antonio. The northern portion of this underground formation is formally known as the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.

The Barton Springs aquifer is also the primary or sole source of water for more than 60,000 residents and businesses in Rollingwood, Sunset Valley, Buda, Kyle, Creedmoor, and other communities. Water that’s withdrawn from wells in the aquifer to serve these communities is water that’s not available for the swimmers and salamanders at Barton Springs. In an area such as ours that’s prone to drought — increasingly so with climate change — this competition for limited water is a recurring problem that requires reasonable regulation to satisfy all the needs.

It is the job of the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District to balance these competing demands for water. Created by the Texas Legislature in 1987, BSEACD covers most of the Barton Springs aquifer’s Recharge Zone, as well as the communities served by wells in the aquifer. Like all Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCDs) in the state, BSEACD has authority under Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code to issue permits and regulations for water wells within its boundaries.

BSEACD initially allowed existing wells — mainly larger wells providing public water supply, as well as exempt wells with limited capacity on tracts bigger than 10 acres — to keep pumping their existing volumes of water out of the aquifer. In 2004, the district completed a “sustainable yield” study to evaluate the effects of pumping on groundwater availability and spring-flow during a potential return of drought-of-record conditions similar to the 1950s, when the Barton Springs aquifer reached its lowest-recorded level. The study showed that wells in BSEACD had already reached their sustainable yield limit. Without some curtailment, already-permitted pumping during severe drought conditions would cause Barton Springs to stop flowing entirely, and would impair the volume that could be pumped from almost 20 percent of existing wells. Such an outcome was unacceptable.

Based on the sustainable yield study, the wells that were permitted prior to September 9, 2004 were designated by BSEACD with “Historical Use” status. That means that their pumping can be limited but not totally curtailed, even in a severe drought, because communities and individuals depend on them. Permits issued after September 9, 2004, are “Conditional.” They’re only fully effective when the district isn’t in a drought, but are subject to volume reduction when it is — and if necessary, total curtailment.

Even Historical permits are subject to reduction when the aquifer is in drought condition, as measured by two indicators — water flow at Barton Springs, estimated from the level in a well just above the main spring outlet, and the level in the Lovelady monitor well located near South First Street and Stassney Boulevard in Austin, which has a long history of recorded measurements. BSEACD requires every permittee to file a User Drought Contingency Plan (UDCP) describing how it will comply with prescribed reductions in event of drought. The district requires greater pumping reductions as water levels in the aquifer decline: 10% (voluntary) in a water conservation period, 20% (mandatory) in Alarm Stage drought, 30% in Critical Stage drought (the current stage), and 40% in Exceptional Stage drought. A final reduction by 50% of permitted volume, which would cause serious hardship, would take effect if the district declares an Emergency Response Period.

In 2004, BSEACD also worked on a project to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for two species of salamanders found only in Barton Springs and its aquifer, and nowhere else — the Barton Springs salamander and the Austin blind salamander. Although the district’s legal obligation to protect these endangered creatures was uncertain, it committed to managing groundwater production to avoid or minimize impact to the salamanders as much as possible. The district tried to do that while also protecting the rights of groundwater owners.

Studies of dissolved oxygen concentration and salamander mortality showed that in extreme drought, the flow for Barton Springs needed to be higher than could be achieved under BSEACD’s existing permitting and drought management program. This finding led to a recommendation that the Desired Future Condition for the Barton Springs aquifer in a severe drought should be no less than 6.5 cubic feet per second (CFS) of spring-flow. This minimum spring-flow, while even lower than the lowest flow in the record drought of the 1950s, would allow the salamanders to continue to survive, as they did then. But, it’s a volume that would leave only 5.2 CFS for human consumption. (The Desired Future Condition is the target water level for the end of the 50-year planning period that was established in House Bill 1763, passed by the Legislature in 2005.)

BSEACD realized that under its existing rules and permits, it would not be able to achieve that goal if a severe drought returned. This prompted a new focus on water conservation and demand management, including the encouragement of alternative water supplies to substitute for pumping water out of the Edwards Aquifer. Potential alternative water sources include surface water, the Trinity Aquifer that lies beneath the Edwards, and the brackish water in the Edwards Aquifer east of the “bad water line.” Supplies could also be extended through aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) facilities, in which surplus water in non-drought times is injected into a deeper aquifer such as the Trinity, from which it can be withdrawn when needed during drought. One of the district’s permittees is currently using ASR to extend its water supplies, and others are investing in ASR infrastructure. When alternative supplies are secured, firm-yield Edwards production that is retired is put permanently into an Ecological Flow Reserve and may not be re-permitted for firm-yield production. So far, 0.35 cfs of permitted production has been retired and put into the reserve.

BSEACD’s Habitat Conservation Plan was approved by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in 2018, and the district was issued a 20-year incidental take permit, protecting it from liability for the unavoidable loss of some salamanders during drought. During the decade that the HCP was being developed, the conservation measures intended to minimize the impacts of groundwater production on the endangered species became integrated into the district’s management scheme and regulatory program. Currently, the district’s Management Plan is aligned with the HCP in all material respects.

The Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District aims to limit total groundwater production from the freshwater Edwards Aquifer (including from exempt wells, to no more than 5.2 cfs during severe drought conditions), which is consistent with the objectives of the HCP and the Desired Future Condition. Achieving that aim would satisfy the water needs of both humans and wildlife.

This article is based on and borrows liberally from the Management Plan of the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District adopted on October 13, 2022.

For more information, please contact Brian Zabcik, SBCA Advocacy Director, at brian@savebartoncreek.org

Zilker Vision Plan

SBCA STATEMENT:
Zilker Park Vision Plan

This statement was presented to the Austin Environmental Commission on April 5 and will be presented to the Austin Parks Board on May 22:

The Zilker Metropolitan Park Vision Plan that is currently weaving its way through various Boards and Commissions provides much of value for our understanding of this special place. As a document, it adds to our communal knowledge. However, what is being proposed is an attempt to be all things for all people, and by so doing, fails to provide a unified vision.

As the Colorado River cascades over the Balcones Escarpment, water flows from the Edwards Plateau into the Blackland Prairie and the Coastal Plain beyond. Zilker Park sits at the eastern edge of that transition zone. The hill on which the Garden Center now lives — and at one time was connected to what is now the Nature Center before MoPac carved up the landscape — that hill is the first of the Texas Hill Country, with all that implies. Until the last couple of decades, this was the entry into wilderness, an open space covered with a canopy of diverse vegetation, a place that feels old, permeant, and essential. This land beckons us to explore a world outside our own minds, the playground of Nature.

For eons, the waters of this land have been enjoyed and celebrated by untold generations of humans. When Billy Barton moved his operation here in 1837, he laid claim to the land as he did the people he brought with him, and as no one had really done before. He began a process of shaping “his property” for his own ends. After seven generations, we are seeing the results: a modern city, growing in population exponentially, building up and out, covering the landscape with human constructions, overwhelming all that came before. What was once considered the edge of the wilderness with a great swimming hole— a place to get away from the bustle of everyday life and be reminded of our intimate connection with the wonders of creation — is now a small island of green threatened by further construction erasing its vital importance.

While the current proposal does much to document this heritage and address the negative impact of compounded human activity, it fails to provide a vision for a sustainable future. Instead, it invites more — and more intensive — human activity. During any visioning process, there comes a point when we should step back and question the proposed direction based on our understanding of the underlying values. While a scattershot of “guiding principles” are provided in the Vision Plan, they are not prioritized. Furthermore, in its description of the types of activities considered for the park, the plan places the same importance on large-scale, multi-week spectacles as on educational tours and after-school programs. It does not address the fundamental question of what uses — and at what scale — are appropriate to this site as an ecological oasis. 

Zilker Park’s heritage is one of connection to the natural world. This is even documented on page 62 of the Vision Plan: “Self-guided recreation, nature exploration activities, and visits to Barton Springs Pool make up the bulk of consistent year-round visitation to Zilker Park. Visitors come the park to swim, paddle, bike, enjoy the Great Lawn, and use the trail network within and connected to the park.”

An inventory of the facilities that have been developed here further solidifies that purpose: Zilker Garden Center, Austin Nature & Science Center, Sunshine Camp, the Girl Scout and Boy Scout Huts, Zilker Preserve, Umlauf Sculpture Gardens, Sunken Gardens, Eliza Springs, and above all else, Barton Springs Pool. The theme that runs through all those sites and their activities is in the connections that they provide with the wonders of the natural world, the greater-than-human community of which we are a part of — not apart from.

The Vision Plan's cover photo shows the overwhelming skyline of Austin with the Rock Island in the foreground. Some folks are passing a football, and prominent in the frame is a large electric utility box. It shows a generic urban environment. That could be any modern urban environment, not the edge of the Texas Hill Country and the mouth of the singular Barton Creek Canyon.

We at Save Barton Creek Association embrace the wonders of this land, and as such, cannot support this Vision Plan in its current form. We reject the idea that large-scale construction projects — except those undertaken to remediate past sins, or to provide equitable access — are necessary. We ask that this conversation continue, and that the value of this land be protected and not sold as a backdrop for inappropriate spectacle. We ask that the sensitivity of place and the appropriate scale of human activity be addressed. We wish that the integrity of the land be respected. Zilker is currently classified as a Metropolitan Park by the Austin Parks and Recreation Department. It is time that changes, and the uniqueness of Zilker is recognized as a Nature Park. 

 

Note: It is our understanding that in the Zilker Park Natural Resources Inventory & Management Guidelines, reference is made that its creation was overseen by the “Barton Creek Association board”. Save Barton Creek Association is not aware of any such organization and was not involved in the creation of that document. Furthermore, up till now, SBCA has not taken a position on the Vision Plan. Any implication by others that we have is in error.

For more information, please contact Brian Zabcik, SBCA Advocacy Director, at brian@savebartoncreek.org

Spotlight on Environmental Concerns in Barton Creek

As you may remember, the Long Branch permit plans to dump 92,000 gallons/day of treated sewage into a tributary into Barton Creek, which is the same as dumping three standard sized pools (20 ft by 40 ft) filled with wastewater into the creek every day.  SBCA is concerned about this permit because new research indicates that miles of Barton Creek would experience an increase in algae growth from the excess nutrients found in the effluent water.

Recently, we spoke to Spectrum News Austin about how the permit will have negative ecological impacts on Barton Creek and how residents can protect their waterways. Our executive director, Angela Richter, emphasized how the permit will cause excess algae in Barton Creek, which will ruin the appearance, recreational value, wildlife habitat, and water quality of the creek. Check out the news article here. 

If you are concerned about the Long Branch permit, please show your support by 1) signing the No Dumping Sewage petition and (2) writing a comment to TCEQ about your concerns (Permit No. WQ0015594001), and ask TCEQ to reject the Long Branch wastewater permit to protect Barton Creek. If your community group wants SBCA to give a presentation about the permit, please email Angela Richter at angela@savebartoncreek.org.  Let’s come together for a healthier Austin!

SBCA on CodeNEXT

Save Barton Creek Association strives to be an objective opinion on Austin’s development in regards to water quality and green space integrity. Our organization analyzes Austin’s CodeNEXT zoning code to determine the cities ability to protect our creeks, rivers and watersheds.

Read More:

https://savebartoncreek.org/codenext-viewpoint/


Security by ProtectYourWP.com