Travis County Commissioners Court

August 29, 2006
Item 38

Now, when we go into executive session, we will discuss item number 38. But some of our friends from the city of city of Austin have couple today and wish to address--come today and wish to address us in open court on this item. Let call it up at this time. 38 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding the city of city of Austin proposal to amend the canyon lands conservation plan permit issued to the city and Travis County by the united states fish and wildlife concerning the relocation of water treatment plant number 4. Good afternoon.

>> good afternoon to you.

>> my list so far is 28 questions and I have only had a few minutes to work on them. I kid you not not.

>> judge Biscoe and members of the cort court, think you for having us studentlve my name is juan asco, doing a short consistent as acting city manager for the city through the end of this month. Then I'll be back at my duties at Austin energy. What we're here today is to present to you a proposal that we had we had before the city council and they approved it last week. Involves the building of a water treatment plant out in the travis lake area. I described it in my mind as probably the most difficult decision that elected leaders ever have to make. One, that weighs a very important priority against another equally important priority. Those are the toughest decisions that we have. In this case, the need to provide clean drinking water to the residents of the city as well as the county, against a duties to preserve and minimize any impact to the environment as we go about providing these basic services. If I can turn to the presentation on slide number two. We have had our staff look at the water demand projections. We have had those reviewed by outside consultants to make sure that we have an independent appraisal, a point we're doing. And we have concluded that we need additional capacity by 2011. The city--2011. The city council elected us to implement an aggressive conservation program. We hope to have the best that we can get for the community. Even at that we don't expect to be able to move back the time frame by more than a couple years. So by 2013 we expect that the demand will exceed the amount of available drinking water supply that we have. So we have gone ahead and recommended to the council that we move ahead with water treatment plant for next level of capacity. Lake Travis is the deepest cleanest largest body of water we at our disposal. And we'd like to put a straw into that lake. It is the most favorable for diversifying our water source and also for helping us to meet that projection. We have an existing site at what we call the bull creek area. We purchased it back in 1984 for $20 million and it immediately resulted in a big storm of controversy. There is great concern over the impact that we would have to the environment. Because of the reaction, we did go out at this time to look for alternative sites. Even though the current site has been fully mitigated since 1992 and permitted as planned. The main concerns have to do with, obviously, the bull creek side being at the headwaters of bull creek for the salmander habitat as well as the effect on the golden cheeked warbler. We went ahead and commissioned a study to look at those, the tire area. Before we get into that presentation, I want to assure you that we did not up with just one site. I think that the study will point that out. There are a number of sites out there that provide flat ground with sufficient space to build a plant. The idea is which is the side that minimizes the impact to the environment. We're going to go through that. Then I'll have member of the staff present to you the impact of the different species out there. Lastly we'll finish with some next steps, so you'll know exactly how the city will move forward. With that let me turn over to steve cernen who will do the site selection study.

>> okay. It will help me to know exactly what the city did.

>> yes, sir, I can get into that right now.

>> it would help me to know this before I hear the background. I read the newspaper account account. So I know that. But if there is something a little bit more official that would help.

>> let me go over that right now before we get to the site selection study. The city council, as you know, veted its proposal before its water, wastewater commission, the environmental board, the two committees of the bal cones preserve as well as the coordinating committee, and they considered themselves. In the process a number of conditions were imposed by the various advisory body from the council. The council accepted all of those conditions, including the conditions of the sit zones advisory committee, the science advisory committee, and endorsed by the coordinating committee. The conditions impose the by the environmental board with the exception of one, which was to continue the process to see if we could find yet another site. So all those are incorporated into the motion motion. There was one recommendation made by the environmental board having to do with adding up to $350,000 for the work on the on manipulation of the habitat. Because of the wording it's not limited to 350,000. The council has directed us to do what it takes to make sure that we do everything to properly manipulate the habitat to encourage its inhabitant by the black cap. We believe that part of the recommendation is included as well. The city council in their motion did direct us to begin making plans to move into and construct a plant at the bull creek site, the original site, in the event that the recommended site at cortanian is not fully accepted or does in the meet all the criteria that we expect it to meet before it's--not meet all the criteria that we expect it to meet before it's all over over. We are basically working on two tracks right now. One, to do all the studies needed on cort onia site, and secondly, to keep in abeyance the work on the bull creek site. One more item that was included in the council's motion was to direct the staff to hold the hearings har required under chapter 26 of the state code. Any time that you take park lands or preserves or wildlife preserves, that kind of thing. So we are fully committed to doing that. In fact, the staff has already begun the process of notifying the public of the come be public hearing which will be conducted, I believe on the 28th of next month.

>> of September is when the public hearings are supposed to commence?

>> that the ?

>> that's correct.

>> I guess what you're saying, it hasn't been held yet. It may be relevant information during that public hearing that may alter or detour maybe what you're presenting here today today. I don't really know. Because thepu public hearing hasn't happened. It would be good to hear exactly what the residents of Travis County will have to say, I guess, in that public hearing. That's where I'm kind of uncomfortable because we haven't heard, nor have the public hearings been held, to gather input from the community, that may alter a change. I don't know. In folks' minds. But I hear what you're saying today. You wanted to tell us a little something about it. But I think things sometimes are predicated on decisions made after you get sufficient input in a public hearing process.

>> let me say that in the history of the preserve, we have taken land for power lines, both Austin energy, or for Austin energy, for the lcra. We have built access roads for the utilities, we have taken ease am--ease am for other utilities. We have built a water plant there. You might be aware of that. Never in its history have we held a chapter 26 hearing. We are holding it because of the concerns that have been expressed by the public for that process to occur. Of course we will proceed with it. We believe we have been very diligent in our search for potential sites. And we believe that we are recommending the very best site that minimizes the impact to the environment at this time. When the preserve was created, it anticipated that we were to have those needs out there . And it provided for it. And the people who formed the preserve certainly have my admiration for having thought of all the things that would happen and would occur and provided for them in those agreements. So all that has been provided for and we think that we are moving in accordance with thosethose, those procedures. The big change here, obviously, is that even though we have a fully mitigated site at the bull creek site, the council has directed us to find something that is more acceptable to the public and minimizes the impact to the environment.

>> I guess what I'm trying to get to is, it almost appears that what you say in the chapter 26 is a convenience or luxury. My interpretation of looking at that, it appears that it may be mandate. In other words, stuff that you got to do more so than, if I'm an understanding your comments. In other words, we're going to go ahead and have the pun hearing but it really isn't necessary. It appears that may be a mandate more so than just, I don't know if I'm the interpreting that right.

>> from the imput that we received from the public, the comments that we got, you could interpret it that way. That's certainly the way we are responding. We have decided that since it's an issue, we need to go ahead and move forward with it. We're going to continue with the process, but the permit application to submit the the--amendment to fish will not be done until after the public hearing and after the investigations are completed completed. So while we're continuing to work, if something happens that somehow prevents us or makes us conclude that pursuing the cort onia track is not going to be something that we can do, then we certainly have the alternative site. But until that happens, we will continue to move because we are under some time constraints with respect to the demand for for drinking water in 2013. So we're trying to do two things at the same time. Trying to show progress but at the same time not get too far ahead of ourselves that we can't undo the progress we have made.

>> thank you.

>> Commissioner, I'll willie con rad, the land manager for the city of city of Austin. While I do want to point out that while there is a statutory requirement for public vetting of this issue I would like to point out that the issue has been well vetted through the process that we have been through. The scientific advisory committee met and considered this three times each time with public input. Same for the citizens committee. They met three teams. The coordinating committee has met twice with public input. The city's environmental board has considered this twice with public input. The water and wastewater commission has considered it once with public input and the city council has considered it twice with public input. So while we have never addressed the chapter 26 issue until the last week formally, this issue has been well vetted with opportunity for public input in each case.

>> could I ask Commissioner Davis's question a slightly different way. Your meeting is going to be on September 28, is that correct? Yes.

>> what is the date that they have been asked to render its verdict on the cort ania site.

>> September 2.

>> is there a--september 2.

>> is there--27.

>> is there a slight dis disconnect that you are asking us to make an independent assessment as to the worthiness and kind of go through the same kind of public process and documenting as you would in a 26 hearing, and yet you're asking us to do that before you're having your own hearing where we're going to hear from a lot of folks in the community to vet many of the same questions and concerns we would be asking. It's happening the day after you're asking us to render a decision. Doesn't that seem to be backwards?

>> well, the process or the concern about the chapter 26 is something that was pretty much towards the--raised pretty much towards the end of the vetting process. In fact, the last meeting before we went to the city council is when it was raised in the environmental board. So we have included it out of of a concern for trying to deal with the concerns that have been raiseded by the public . But we don't believe that there's a conflict because we certainly do not intend to submit the minor amendment until all the steps have completed. So in that sense I don't believe we are in conflict.

>> doesn't it make sense that if you're going to have your hearing on the 2th, that you would--28th, that you would ask the Commissioners court to weigh in by the Tuesday after the public hearing so whatever happens during your process could be helpful in terms of many of the exact same people I think will be weighing in at your hearing this help us weigh in. Why the disconnect? I mean, it just doesn't look right.

>> I think, as I say, we have been under a time constraint in terms of moving the water treatment plant forward. You all knowern the city has been trying to mav this plant since 1984 we have had delays in the process, most recent we started about five years ago. It's just been something that has encountered one concern after the other. We think that we have gotten the process to the point where we have, in my mind, been as diligent as we can be in terms of assuring that this is really a much better site selection than the one that was originally selected selected. As I said, we have made provisions so that we don't step ahead of anyone prior to submitting the minor amendment.

>> I'm glad you mentioned the situation with the llcra plant and what happened in terms of getting something from the barton watershed over to the lake Austin. I was on the committee when that happened, a 12 acre tract that wound up having 12:1 mitigation by mr. Porter. It took nine months to clear the b cp coordinating committee. I'm confused how something so small that didn't involve take of endangered species, flipping from one watershed to another on an edge boundary of a preserve that now is going to be behind all the country galleria, how is it that that took nine months and we are being asked to make decisions like this? I respect the fact that you all have been dealing with this a long time. But we haven't been dealing with this. So we also have our own process over here that needs to be respected and vetted, that unfortunately, we have been bought in--if we had been brought in sooner on this we could have been running on parallel paths am help me understand why one would take nine is months and this is being in a matter of weeks.

>> Commissioner, I wasn't there, but you certainly were.

>> yep.

>> and I think your experience in government probably exceeds mine. Government, at least in this country, is an interesting matter in that it is totally democratic. That's the way it works. We, sometimes things can go about fairly quickly and other times it just snags. Again, the concerns that the public raises . I think essentially that that's what we're looking at here.

>> I'll stop at this point because I have 27 more questions and I want to be able to let them proceed on with with--proceed on with their presentation.

>> judge Biscoe and Commissioner, my name is steve cune.

>> I think it's on.

>> I'm with alan plumber and associates. We were hired by the city to conduct an alternative site evaluation too see whether there were any sites out there in the general visit vicinity that bore some expectation that they would be a good site for a water treatment plant. I want to start off just by kind of putting the background on what the search criteria was in identifying potential sites. The city has an intake site located in deep water on Lake Travis. It has been determined through numerous studies in the past that that is the best location for a water intake for a water treatment plant. So we used that as our kind of focal point for our search. Then we decided to go out in a five-mile radius around that point to look at land that could potential become a water treatment plant. We had a couple of physical constraints. We could not have land that was too lowtoo because of the water fluctuation in the lake lake. So we were looking at land above 750 feet in elevation. We also needed 50 feet of developable land. By developable, we mean generally flat, less than ten percent slopes. We needed the land that we were going to be looking for to be under developed. So what we did, we did a gis search search for land in that area. Sense we were looking for 50 developing acres, we didn't want to limit the search to just tracks of 50 acres or more because we knew that we had the ability to build several tracks into one larger tract that would con tabe the 50 acres--contain the 50 acres. We look at parcels larger than 20 acres in the five- five-mile radius. That's depicted in this map by the parcels in tan . Again as you recall, our search criteria was that the land had to be undeveloped. So we knocked out all land that was developed or was purchased with grant money and put into the bcp with an indication that undoing the grant would be something we would not be able to achieve achieve. Again, the next item that we looked at was the elevation. What you see here in the orange-tan is land that is lower than 750 and being unacceptable for the water treatment plant. What's in the blue cross hatch, again, are the parcels of 20 acres or larger that are undeveloped. Then we looked at the slopes out in the area. Again we were looking for slopes less than ten percent percent. The white area has sloped zero to five. The dark green is five to ten. The light green, orange or red are all greater than ten percent and deemed unacceptable. We also, one of the main objections to the existing site, as mr. Gars indicated, is the location or its proximity to the plateau salamander. We didn't want to go out and have all the same constraints the existing site has so we plotted all of the sitings of the salamander and then put a buffer of 1,000 foot around that and said those were areas we didn't want to be in. So then when we overlayed all those gis layers we wound up with this map, which is in the tan, areas, land that meets the physical constraints that we need, the slopes and the elevation elevations, and distance from salamanders, with the parcel, again, the blue cross hatch are parcels 0 acres and larger--20 acres and larger than undeveloped, and we identified several potential sites in that. Ahead of actually come to go this last, we worked with members of the environmental bored, the city environmental board and water and waste commission to take input on what would be appropriate criteria by which to evaluate the alternatives once they have been identified. We came up with a total of, I believe, 11 different criteria. They were fitting into three categories. Site characteristics, which is basically the physical characteristics of the site, were weighted as a total of 39 percent . Environmental characteristics, 43 percent, and overall development costs, 18 percent. I have on the map here five sites, the five that were fully evaluated. In addition to those five sites there were two more sites that we identified but we did not continue with. There was a site up to the very north end of the search area, the speed io track, that had enough land. However, it is a very remote tract and in order to be able to access it, we would be crossing numerous bcp properties as well as the access and the pipelines in and out and the powerthe pow supply to it. So we determined that that was not going to be a feasible site. The other side that we identified was immediately south of the existing bull creek site and it had basically all of the same environmental constraints that the existing site had. In addition, it is in bcp p, whereas the existing site is not. We determine it didn't offer the city any benefit to move to that site. What we are left with is site a, corst lt cort ania, site b, another site owned by the city and in the bcp, site c was the ranch, a large tract, million of which is now currently being purchased by the lander school district. The existing site, site d, then site e was a tract, a portion also in the bcp, and now the remainder of that under contract with concord concordia university. So of the five sites that we identified, three are in the bull creek macro site which is deemed to be the most important macro site in the bcp. Three sites were actually in the bcp. And all sites were in habitat or designed bcp. When we went through the matrix, the cord anian and existing got very similar scores. And following a sensitivity analysis we determined that we really couldn't distinguish between the two. In looking or going through the public process that mr. Garce and conrad talked about, one of the items discussed by numerous citizens, why did you limit yourself to 20 acres parcels why department why--don't you go down to 13458er parcels am so we went back and actually included parcels down to two acres. What you see on this map, yellow is the 20 acre parcels. Green is 2-5 and red is 5-10 blue is 10-20. You can see it didn't add a great deal to the available search. It's spread out, not really creating much that we could put together. However, there was one area that did, where having that tract did fill in a gap that we had before and that we identified as maybe a potential site. However, when we reviewed it further, it's the site that walmart is being built on right now. So it is not available. In addition, there were a number of specific tracts that were identified as potentials for us to consider. The lucas tract had been mentioned and brought to us by the county. We looked at that. The reason that it had not made the original cut was that there is not 50 acres of developable land on the tract. Further evaluation by the design engineer determined that the facilities that the city needs for the treatment plant just can't be squeezed onto what is available. In addition, there are significant environmental constraints on that site. It's a historic black cap habitat and has cultural resources identified, numerous environmental features. Another tract that was specifically identified is on the lower cort ania tract in an area called rabbit ears. Again this site did not have the 50 acres of developable land so did not meet the criteria. In addition there would be site access, shape and neighborhood issues making that site not feasible. As we continued through the public process, we continued to receive some comments from citizens that they just could not believe that these were the only two sites. Of course, there are more than just the two. But these were the two best sites. They could in the believe that there isn't a site better than those out there in this large area. And so I just wanted to put together some statistics on our search area. It is a 52 square mile search area which is a relatively large search area area. And so I can understand why people would think that you ought to be able to find something out there. But when you look at it, over half of it is already in bcp. 27 percent of it is already developed. 65 percent has sloped that are unacceptable, too steep. 24 percent of it is in the sensitive bull creek macro site. When you put all those together, the available area that would be an ideal site for somebody, meeting our slope and size requirements, undeveloped outside the bcp and bull creek, it's only four percent of the search area. So based on that after having looked at these maps for many ours, we're convinced that the cord ania site is the best site for the water treatment plant in terms of mitigating and minimizing impact. With that I'll turn it over to lisa and donald to turn it over to talk about the specific spes is that we're talking about.

>> my name is lisa donald, buy ol gift with the watershed protection and review department. My background, I've been with the city for five years years. I was with the u.s. Fish and wildlife service in Austin office for ten years. Then first started surveying back in 1987 for endangered species. I'm familiar with all of these in this whole area. So I wanted to just touch briefly on some of the concerns that have been raised by the public in the last monthmonth about the possibility of moving to the cort ania site. There's been a lot of concern, following up on what steve was saying, the black cap is at another site where we would not be en endangering even species. The alternative sites have been the lucas track and the sorn portion of the cort ani ania. As steve was saying, the lucas tract is very environmentally sensitive as wellve it's golden chief warbler habitat . It has very sensitive cars features, some with endanger endangered tee . With caves, once they are gone, you can't recreate that ecosystem. When I first started surveying in 1987, we had at that time, I believe it was seven territories up and down comanche trail between the oasis and highway 620 . We also had varios along highway 620 on the river place property but not on the cort annia property where they are right now. The 7 cort ania tract, if you were to pull off of the et wards stand you would get out of habitat and out of the carst habitat or potential carst habitat. But you bring in your own, a different set of environmental issues with habitat fragmentation and having a water treatment plant in the middle of the cort ania site. Enn then also warbler habitat there as well. So given that any site, any site in this area that's not already developed could protect, could support en endangered species, where in a--we're in a really difficult position of having to prioritize and weighing the relative risks to these different speese united states. In this particular case-- case--different species. If this particular case, if you like at the advisory report prepared in 1990, one of the guide k document for the acp, there's really no question in my mind that pulling out of bull carrying and protecting the integrity of the macrosite is such a high priority and that it is so critical to the survival of both of the golden chief warbler and the plat toe salamander. Both of the species, it's difficult if not impossible to recreate their habitat again, once it's gone, it's gone. Whereas with the cort ania, at least have you a species occupying a transitional scrub type habitat, you have the to create habitat within a few years as opposed to decades or never, and also you have a species with the ability or potential to colonize new areas. So there's a little more flexibility it's not that cort ani is not important. Of course it is. But at least that species is a little more flexible than either the warbler or the plato salamander. A little bit on the black cap, the nexting range extends from oklahoma through Texas down into mexico. Some of the largest populations are at fort hood where we heard there's an estimated 8,000 black cap in that area. Some of the other big populations are in the while life management--wildlife management in kerr county farther to the southwest. In Travis County, again, it's important for the verio and certainly conservation is an integral part of the b bcp. But Travis County is on the eastern edge of the verios range. The habitat is more patchy and isolated. Estimated numbers are probably less than 1 had00 birds as opposed to--than 100 birds as opposed to thousands at forth hood. In terms of the contribution toward long-term population viability or species survival, it's not as critical for the verio as it is for the sal er and the warbler. Nesting habitat for the black hat verio is scrub community, transition between grassland and woodland. Because it is transitional the habitat has to be continually managed to remain suitable and occupied by black cap otherwise they growth up and out of habitat either burning or mechanical manipulation of the north hood, I don't north if you guys are aware, the habitat is maintained primarily by military manure and also with fire. And then at the same time we have to continue to manage it, given suitable environmental conditions, habitat can also be manipulated to create habitat and have it become suitable within a few years. I think I have already mentioned that the verio at least has adapted or has the potential to colonize areas. The cort ania tract is one example of that where we now have 70 acres of black hat v verio habitat created over the last decades and now occupied by five territories territories. One thing I wanted to point out is that on cort ania, 70 acres, estimated that about 45 would be cleared over many years as part of the water treatment plant, so not all of the habitat with be clear. There would be 25 acres that would not be cleared. And that hopefully with the phased approach of clearing over a long period of time, simultaneously trying to create new habitat, there's not the guarantee but there's the hope, the potential that the verios, the five territories can at least shift or move over to the new habitat areas. Joel jolliville plad toe salamander is not one of the species that has been petitioned for listing by the save our springs alliance . One of our largest best populations for the salamander is immediately counsel stream of the original water treatment site in bull creek. And I mentioned earlier that at least to my knowledge you cannot recreate this habitat once it's gone. It is gone. And we have been looking in the lake Austin watershed on the cort ania site and have not found any evs of good habitat, haven't found any in that watershed the date. The golden chief warbler necessaries only in mature old growth oak juniper woot lands in central Texas. It has one of the smallest ranges of any north merge songbird. Some of the best habitat is along the escarpment between Austin and san antonio which is in the rapidly urbanizing corridor. The best habitat within its range is all under threat from urbanization. So the bcp is just really, really critical for that species. Win Travis County the larg largest--within Travis County the most contiguous blocks of warbler habitat are right here . Within the range, Travis County supports the biggest blocks. And within bull creek you have water treatment plant four almost right in the middle of upper bull creek. So not only would you have habitat loss but you would also have the habitat fragmentation that goes along with that and the edge effect. You would expect to see increased predators and parasites in the middle of the area. I think I mentioned before that it can take 50 years or more to create warbler habitat. It's not something that happens overnight for sure. I just wanted to close. I mentioned the biological advisory team report. Just a couple of quotes that I pulled out of that report. The first one is conservation of the Travis County golden achieve warbler population is central to the investigation of the entire species both because Travis County is at the center of the geographic range and because the warbler habitat is more abundant and less patchy than that of any other county the other quote is, the biological advisory team has if I wanted enough habitat to support an available warbler population in and around the bull creek watershed. With that I'll turn it over to willie con rad.

>> job, commission, I'll willie conrad again. You heard my colleagues this afternoon discuss some of the complexity about find ago suitable water treatment plant . You her lisa discuss the complexity of trying to decide how we can act in the best interest of the species that are protected under our permit. Today I've been asked to talk to you a little bit about how do we address the complexities of complying with the permit and making sure that we try to act in some man that are may be in the best interests of our permit. Just to begin my discussion discussioncious I'd like to bring up the fact that we have a habitat conservation plan called a final eis, environmental impact statement. It's the broadest public policy document that we have referred to under condition c of our federal recall permit where we are authoriz authorized and required to implement the habitat conservation plan. The habitat conservation plan provides for infrastructure, specifically water treatment plant number 4 is included in that infrastructure plan. It was always contemplated as being part of the bcp mix mix. As we move now, we want to consider, can we move the water treatment plants in a manner that would be in compliance with the plan. And the plan specifically addresses in the infrastructure plan that there are times when components of public service infrastructure may need to be realigned or moved. But as we, the city, started moving into this process, we had to keep in mind that first, while bcp contributes to recovery of black cap ver veri organizationso--verio, it was not considered critical. To quote the plan, it says the u.s. Fish and wildlife service recognizes there is not enough habitat in Travis County to provide for a minimum viable population of the species. The continued survival of black cap verio will require conservation activities in significant portions of its range outside of Travis County. Further more, the habitat conservation plan weighed in on the needs for golden achieve warbler, saying specifically that the golden cheek warbler has been referred to as the driving force of the bcp, with concerns for the warbler's viable argue belief occupy occupying center stage in the preserve design process. Basically what we understand from the habitat conservation plan is that success of protecting habitat for golden cheek warblers is contingent on success of bcp meeting that need. So we address this within the city. We decided that thinking through what was provided to us here on the habitat conservation plan, that this change would assure that there's 102 acre threat to the golden cheek warbler and their habitat that will come out of about, cp and bull creek, the most critical site in bcp. We feel that the actions that the city has proposed address protecting golden cheek warblers as well as the jolliville plat toe salamander and meet the expectations defined in our habitat conservation plan.

>> judge Biscoe and Commissioners, good afternoon. My name is chris lippy. I'm director of the Austin water utility. I'd like to take a minute to summarize the recommendation recommendations that we received from boards and commissions during the process that we were going through this summer. As mr. Conrad mentioned, there were for the most part more than one meeting for each of the boards and commissions and committees with public input. But to just summarize the findings and conclusions of these bores and commission-- commission--bores and commissions. The water and wastewater commission on August 2 approved the motion, by the way, this is, what these boards and commissions were considering was the filing of an amendment to the fish and while life bcpp permit. So water and wastewater commission approved with some conditions on August 2. The bcp citizens advisory committee approved on the 8 8th with some conditions. Bcp scientific advisory committee approved on the 15 15th. With conditions. The bcp coordinating committee then approved on August 21 with conditions. The environmental board did not rule out cort ania but recommended continuing looking for another site. Then in addition they had a number of conditions in their draft motion. All of these would have been considered by the Austin city council on the 24th. Let me, and the city council included the boards, commissions and committees' recommendations in their motion and in their item that was approved. So many of the conditions overlapped. Kind of built upon each other as the words boards and commissions considered and worded their recommendations. Some of the key conditions were that first the city re recommit to completion of the bcp. And that they bring together the bcp partners to develop a plan by March 2007 to preserve 2,000 acres of v, r rio habitat. B, that they have 1,000 acres unactive management in three areas. Next that they manage five acres of black cap habitat for each acre taken with a goal of two acres suitable for occupation. Next that the Austin water utility dedicate the existing 102 acre original bull creek site to the bcp. Next that the city dedicate the little barton tract to b bcp under dual management and maintain the ability for public access. Again, on August 4 the city council approved this item, filed an amendment to the fish and wildlife bcp permit with the conditions included in their motion. And the staff is prepared to move forward on these and implement these conditions, you know, when we get all the approvals > so, that just kind of summarizes the motion. The actions by the boards and committees and the key conditions. At this point I'll turn it back to mr. Garce.

>> before you go there, chris, a question for you. The green water treatment plant, what is the proposed future use of that water treatment plant if it is de decommissioned?

>> there's a generally plan for redevelopment of that site.

>> redevelopment. What kind of development?

>> that really hasn't been determined. I think the city will go through a rfp process similar to what was done on what's called block 21 north of city hall. So I think there will be competitive proposals taken from development groups. But generally some type of redevelopment into something that would fit into the downtown community. It would not be an industrial or a water plant. It would be redeveloped for other uses.

>> okay. Thank you.

>> just to go into a little bit the next steps. Obviously, we're here before you, asking for your consideration. We will complete the cavt investigations to find the needed changes to the infrastructure corridors because there will be so. We'll continue the preliminary engineering, do the chapter 26 hearing, and then of course we will submit the amendment to the permit. The engineering will continue throughout the process and is expected to take some time to get all that done.

>> have you done a preliminary reading from the state or the feds about the anticipated amendment that you will file?

>> yes, we have, sir.

>> judge Biscoe, very early on when city council was considering this, we first discussed this with mr. Robert pine, the field supervisor for the local field office for fish and wildlife service. In reviewing the components again of our permit and our habitat conservation plan as well as the interlocal agreement between the city and the county, this fate within the constraints that are defined in our habitat conservation plan for a minor amendment, and that we are not dim minimum issuing the amount of expected mitigation for the black cap v, rio and other species and we're doing nothing more than making a day-to-day decision basically about how the land will be used within the permit area. So mr. Pine has advised us more than once recently that we are fully on track for a minor amendment. He says he doesn't have any concerns that we would be forced into a major amend amendment. His advice to us is that they discuss this with the solicitor in all but cer but ablukuerkue. And the solicitor supports that.

>> I have a long list. I appreciate your indulgence on this. Unfortunately we have not been able to have discussion discussions in open court for the purposes of our of of stakeholders. I was able to watch the city hearings. I will trite not to repeat those. Because I'm a boring person, I did catch most of the environmental wastewater and all the other boards and commissions that have come along the way. These are kind of like e still unresolved questions or still unresolved concerns concerns. I'm going to ask the brilliant questions of our staff first so that they get their questions in. We have had the bcp permit now for ten years. A good ec portion of what you are talking about the idea that we will create new habitat for the verio. In the ten years we have had the permit, have the black cap numbers increased or decreased since 1996?

>> I don't have my document here at hand with me. The numbers I'm familiar with, Commissioner, date back to 2000. In 2000 we documented three pairs on all of bcp through our annual reports to fish and while life service. In 2001 that number increased to approximately 15 territories. When tract bought the tract known as verio ridge. Since then the number has risen to as high as 19 and I think back last year we were down to 16. In this five-year period that I'm familiar with the numbers, we have really been mostly stable. From what I understand from bcp history, the site off of loop 360 that the city owns that we call the verio research area, that area has grown out of habitat. Also just some anecdotal information that I have, for instance, the lucas track that we have been discussing historically has had some numbers of black cap veri organizationsi--verio. That number has grown out of habitat and is no longer occupied by verio. So my suspicion at this time that is the number of verio has probably de.

>> you can understand that after ten years of all of our evidence of trying to do good for what is a requirement, whether it gets changed or whether the viability has changed since it was originally talked about, to talk about something that we would lose as many as perhaps five nesting pairs, that's a big deal. You can understand that's a huge concern about the tract tract. You can see that?

>> there's a potentially that we can lose the five pairs now. In discussion with my biological staff, honestly, the jury is still out as to whether those pairs would be lost. I think the important point to note there is when they say the pairs may be loss, we don't believe those pairs are going to per ib. We don't think the ten birds are going to fall down and die somewhere. We fill that they may move to another site. The question comes then will they be successful in nesting and reproducing. We don't know that answer. The staff also is split on what will happen to these pairs. What we discussed and what we think at this time is that these pairs are going to move to the next best available habitat, which quite honestly, is on add adjacent sites in the cort a ania tract. So because we don't honestly know how these birds are going to perform, within of the things that we propose when we came out with the decision to seek a minor amendment was that within the city of's bcp program, we plan to capture and band the birds on the site so we can monitor and document how they perform. You know, with respect to getting some scientific knowledge, this is a rare opportunity for us in that we have some warning before the site is going to be developed and we can get out and band the birds, observe their movements after habitat is sequentially destroyed, and see where they go. The other side of that story if the birds actually leave the site and don't come back and we don't have any idea what happened to them, then we basically fulfilled some of our responsibility under the permit in that we have documented the take that's occurred from this action.

>> is the bull creek site currently habitat for the golden cheek warbler or the salamander within the plant construction envelope?

>> .

>> obviously not for the 102 acre site because that occupies a hill top with no springs or screens, and therefore no happen habitat for the salamander. The 1022 acre site directly add joins what's described as the main stem of bull creek that does have occupied habitat. With respect to the golden cheek warbler, it's in the what we would describe as high quality habitat for golden cheek warbler but there have been observations of birds forging there but not ing any sort of nesting or--performing any nesting or occupation activity.

>> why could not the city of Austin build and operate with no water quality degradation at the bull creek site, basically the concept that a salamander and plant could coexist in the same way that you all are making decisions on a weekly basis over at the council council relation to no water quality degray education with major development.

>> I'll take the first shot and I may refer that to nancy mcclintock also. But my an understanding is that while the city has high water quality standards in its planning and permitting process, we have not always been successful in assuring a nondegradation result from those activitiesactivities. The question is can we truly design, build and operate a plant that would result in stormwater runoff that has no degradation to it. I'm going to turn this over to nancy now that she is here.

>> pretty good answer.

>> is this on?

>> yes.

>> I will add a little bit. I'm nancy mcclintock, director of watershed protection department in the city. The bull creek area is simply so sensitive. In fact we did a study back in 1998 that determined that the bcp itself was the very most important and critical best management practice that we had to protect the water quality in bull creek. What we fear the most in the construction of a plant is construction itself d. And despite the fact that we like to think we're pretty good at controlling water quality impacts, in the long term, not we or the account or anybody else, frankly, in the country have really figured out how to do away with the impacts of construction. Erosion and sedimentation control technology simply cannot insure that we will not have construction impacts. In particular, the habitat of the salamander depends on extremely clean sub strait and many of those salamander habitat that we have in bull creek have been destroyed by construction impact from private development.

>> this is my follow-up question to that. If it is so sensitive and there are so many issues associated with the bull creek plant site, why is the sit of you a 127--city of Austin keeping as a back up upplan in case cort ani does not work out, looking at the site. Where is that not completely off the table given your testimony there?

>> essentially because it is fully permitted and mitigated and the city is facing the potential for not having enough supply of drinking water to meet demand in 2013.

>> fully mitigated for what we know today. What if the salamander becomes a species of concern or if the sos is successful in terms of a pending application before the feds related to endangered species status? The bcp, as you testified, does not cover the salamander. So, how are you going to mitigate for an enered species that is not covered in the bcp on the bull creek site?

>> Commissioner, I think at this point we simply don't have the answer for you on that. To begin with, the joel yo yoville salamander is not listed. Is of it has no status at this point under the act except that somebody filed a pe tig. There's been no--petition. There's been no 90-day finding or determination about whether to list it or notlve should the endangered species act process move forward and list the jolli jolliville blateanu salamander, we would be faced with negotiating with fish and wildlife what kind of additional mitigation would be required to do this this. But keep in mind, we're full fully mitigated, fully permitted. The salamander has no status at this point. And while we honestly hope and pray that we can find an additional site, the fact that we have responsibility to our community to ensure that we provide clean, safe drinking water to them, has forced us into a position where if we lose any other site, we have to think about moving forward with the water treatment plant here.

>> but if it has no legal status, why in your evaluation of all the sites done by the allen plumber folks, did you weigh the concerns and issues related to the sal er which, as you just said--salamander which as you just said has no legal standing or protection associated with it. Why were those concerns figured into your matrix in terms of how you rank things if indeed it has no legal status? Why did the concerns of the salamander figure in, thank you steve, whereas in a true endangered species that is listed, seems to have less points associated with it in terms of the evaluation of the sites. How did that happen?

>> without getting into the scientific aspect, it is really to me straight forward. We were looking to an alternate site to the bull creek site. Basically that's it. That was the intent. To move away from that site.

>> in more direct response to your question, the reason we considered and weighed the salamander so heavily was our community asked us to. And there were public hearings in 2005, and the community brought the issue up in city council and Austin city council directed us to consider the salamander in our site selection process. Has there ever been an infrastructure application with a single mound black cap verio occupied territory take? Is this the first?

>> not to the best of my knowledge. I have been involved with bc bcp for four years. Not to the best of my knowledge.

>> so it is the first take? Sorry, I'm not an understanding your answer.

>> with my limited knowledge in the last four years, it's the first take, yes.

>> okay. Why wouldn't other definite of development interests not also seek to put their projects in or on preserve land? I'm probably going to limit that to governmental interests as opposed to walmart is already in, target already in, cbs already in. Let's limit that to other governmentals saying, you know, we need land too and you're the big landowner out there.

>> you know, that's a constant issue that we deal with in bcp and I'm sure you're aware that your staff deal with that issue also. At this point, the easy answer is that generally speaking, we have an infrastructure management plan in our habitat cons station plan that's associate--con investigation plan associated with the interlocal agreement with the city and county that defines how we address faur infrastructure. Again, water treatment plant four was always contemplated as being an infrastructure component within bcp as well as numerous infrastructure corridors. And at this point our generally general response do infrastructure owners that come to us, and I'm sure you're aware that we have nose those going on consistently, is that any new infrastructure needs to go in within a designated or a planned infrastructure corridor. The one example the where something came to us where it was not contemplated, the example you cited earlier today with the was water treatment. That was never included except in general reference but it was not mitigated or permitted. That was a process that you described earlier today.

>> you have repeatedly said that if we don't get this going, we are putting this region's water treatment ability, capacity, at risk. You all are only talking about in this initial phase. If I go by the documents you have on your web, thank you for having so many documents on the web, you are only going to do in this initial phase, correct me if I'm wrong, 50 million gallons a day. That is correct?

>> that's correct.

>> and that is almost minus eight, what you are going to take off line with the green water treatment plant.

>> that the correct. The green--

>> 42 million gallons a day.

>> it's rated at 42 million gallons per day of capacity although in recent times it's been, has not been able to produce that much. But that's the historic rating of the green water treatment plant, that's correct.

>> when you have your documents. So basically adding on water treatment plant number 4, which according to your graphs, which are excellent, would give us sufficient capacity of 335 million gallons per day day uu, that takes us to approximately 20 2023 before you have another spike that you would want to be adding on. This is really just replacing the green water treatment plant. Ulrich was added on, that was getting to an offset and not to a place of new treatment capacity in one of the fastest growing areas of all of southwest. Why would we take the green water treatment plant off line before another site is ready to rock and roll? Because if green stays on line, ulrich at 167, Davis at 118, you're at 327 million gallons a day and at this point water treatment plant number 4 is a delayed decision as opposed to my god, we're in a horrible state of affairs. Why would you take off 42 million gallons a day before you have a replacement for 50?

>> as we looked at alternatives for Austin's next water treatment capacity, the green water treatment plant as an alternative was studied. More than a year ago we started a study that began with a condition assessment of the green water treatment plant. Then nothing that it was 80 years old, also the second phase of that was to start looking for if we move it, where would it be moved. You may remember that it was consider. The current treatment plant being over 80 years old was in very poor conditionlve that was the findings in the condition assessment. The concrete is failing and the steal is showing--steel is showing through. The bank on the creek has actually already chanced. So there's erosion and further collapse concerns. The intake structure, the facility that's actually on the water, with the pumps that draw water in there town lake into the plant, is failing. It's just a very old plant. So the conclusion of that study was that it's not feasible to rehabilitate the old plant. So one alternative is tot totally tear down, de decommission the plantcious clean the site up and rebuild. So that was one of the alternatives, rebuilding their, somewhere else for green, but going back for 25 years, the long range plan has always had a plan on Lake Travis as being the most cost effective, best solution for us, in part because the size of the green acrage is not large enough to build anything more than basically a replacement plant of 25-50 m mg d. But what astin needs is 300 and more mgd to take us on into the future. So I guess to answer your question, the glean water treatment plant was seriously considered but it will not last much longer at all. The question it brings up, why don't we bring it up and how long can we dray. The question is can we keep it on. The answer was even with a major rehabilitation, you can't count on this plant being reliable past about 20 2009 or 2010. That would be spending millions of dollars to have it on line that long. What would be needd to delay a lack travis treatment plant would be a green plant to last to 2013, 14 or 15. That would take total re reconstruction and just is not a feasible approach.

>> I'm likening this to the discussion, very serious discussions the city council had with the holy power plant and that is--holy power plant, and that is a desire to get a plant taken off line and decommissioned. And yet the council made I think appropriate, hard decisions of having to delay an alter that schedule because they could not take down something that was an essential part of the transmission system until they had other things in place. And I'm just trying to get a sense of what is the timetable on green in terms of pulling the plug. And there's there's not going tone any water capacity coming out of green because you have decided to proceed down a path and you don't have the replacement online yet.

>> let me try to difference shate between the power-- power--differentiate between the power plant versus the water plant. There is a very real desire to decommission the power plant. But that power plant is serviceable. It's an old plant. It is not efficient by today today's standards. But it can still produce power. The issues relating to the power plant have more to do with the concerns of the community that we move out of that. So we have planned it over the years but it has not been an urgent issue for us in the sense that the plant itself was failing. With respect to the water plant, we know that it will take substantial investment to keep that plant going or to replacement somewhere nearby. And therein lies the problem that the water fund is essentially very cash challenged. Its annual budget is compris comprised of 40 percent debt service of the entire amount appropriate every year. Their bond rating continues to be very attractive. But still that is a pretty sizeable load on that utility as compared against the electric utility's bond any you'll debt service-- service--annual debt service of about 15 percent of the annual budget. There's a big difference there. The concern was that if we are financially strapped then where can we best spend our dollars. If we only spend them once. That conclusion was wtp 4.

>> your documents on line say that the cost of wtp 4 is at at minimum $250 million for the 50 mgd alternative plus whatever the transmission mains are going to be. Is that an updated figure or is that pretty much the same kind of ballpark number we should be talking about?

>> that's still the ballpark number we should be talking about. Now, just to make sure, part of that cost is oversizing a number of the units. So for example, the intake down on Lake Travis is going to be sized at 300 million gallons a day. Certain of the facilities will be oversized because you only want to build those once.

>> I understand the discussions from the manager manager. You are having some ongoing discussions with the lcran about potentially whether they contribute or not but at least you're talking, to the cost of the intake, in the deep water intake. So you may have a partner there.

>> that's correct.

>> so this is 250 million plus transmission costs to basically get us to pretty much the place where we are today. No really new capacity on top of this. That's a lot of money for us to be making some decisions like this.

>> again, that's oversizing to 300 million gallons her day and sets Travis County up, our whole service area up for decades to come.

>> is it fully funded?

>> yes, it is.

>> so when you're talking 250 and more for water treatment plant number 4, wouldn't you want to have certainty as to whether you are indeed fully mitigated at the site? You're saying it is your backup plan on bull creek related to the issues related to the salamander? I think that would be a question I would ask if I'm the trustee of 300 million dollars of assets, what's the backup plan here on bull creek.

>> I think there's going to be continued studies on the environmental as we move forward and even before the permit that we're discussing today is filed. There will be certain confirmations about carst features and other environmental questions. Our plan is to answer those before the filing of the amendment.

>> exactly is, when exactly green going off line? The document on line talked about next year, '07.

>> the thing we have to wait for to take green over line is some of the work on the c home property involves taking some waterlines out of service and relocating those. So as soon as those row locations are completed-- completed--relocations are completed, we'll be in a position to be able to take green off line. Then the decision would, could be reviewed. But any type after probably 6 had ever 8 months there now, we'll be in d?r 6 had ever 8 months from--6-8 months, we'll be in a position to be able to take the green water treatment plant off line.

>> will you have an alternative straw in place that will still enable the city of you a still to be able to say that a portion of a legally feasible portion of the city's drinking water supply comes from the barton treek watershed?

>> part our recommendation on forward with the lake travis water plant was to have an intake on town lake that delivers water to either the Davis water treatment plant or the ulric ulrich plant as a backup feed for those plants.

>> what is going to happen, how much is that gap going to be in term of between when green goes off line, no straw into the Barton Creek watershed, and the completion of a new intake to feed ulrich and Davis. What's the gap?

>> it's probably going to be several years. We have to get them designing the new intake. It's the type of a project that will take several years to construct. There would be a gap in time.

>> during that two years time, that's really where you draw the legal basis for a good portion of what's in the sos ordinance, laying the predicate in terms of the sos ordinance has to do with there is a draw from the place where it is right now. So what kind of changes could be out there in terms of a developer saying, why am I being required to do things for an ordinance that no longer has its legal predicate in place? Seems like that's, I know, I have seen marty kind of, that's an interesting question. Have you all evaluated what this could mean to the sos ordinance in terms of its enforceability and any legal challenges? Because the straw would be gone, as you said, perhaps for several years.

>> I think we have to have the attorney give the level interpretation. I think town lake is still our planned part of our planned water supply. So I mean, we have, with the plans in motion to get our, get, replace an intake from the green to replacing it to another intake going another direction, and we're still in the process of evaluating intakesi won't make--

>> marty, I won't make you answer a legal question.

>> assistant city attorney. I appreciate you laying the question out there. As you indicated, that the not a question that I am able to answer in public. But I will say that it is a question that we have considered and we have been looking at.

>> very good.

>> way might emphasize the city council's desire to have a strawstraw in that lake. And I don't have any doubt but that we are going to have that straw. You're not rooking ing-- ing--looking at a permanent change.

>> strange things happen during gap times. We had an interesting drugs this morning in relation to the to. Have you done the appropriate cultural and archeological studies on the entirety of the cortana tract is this.

>> those are ongoing not only on the cortana but also on the original tract.

>> when will it be complete?

>> I don't have a time line at this point. Quite honestly, we are limiting access to the cortana tract at this point because we still have nesting black-capped virio on site.

>> I understand that. But in anticipation of a signinging off from the state in relation to the act how are you going to proceed with borings and disturbance of public lands if you have not completed those studies?

>> we haven't completed them but we have a contractor and consultants on board who have been charged to complete that as part of this process.

>> how long will that take?

>> I don't have a time line. I'm not directly involved with that contract.

>> it really goes down, I appreciate the fact that those things are underway, but is there going fob any disturbance of land prior to clearance of all questions raised with with the act.

>> good morning, I'm the project manager on the project. I can tell you when we looked at the existing water plant 4 site, we did do an arc call survey of things-- things--arcology survey. We no nothing on the site. If we find one in the research, we will look at it it. I don't know that I have a time frame. But it will be, again, before we submits the permit.

>> and with respect to those specific clearances, I guess I'd like to note that when the original water treatment plant 4 site was considered and prescribed in our habitat con investigation and plan, and therefore our permit, those requirements were not required to take place before that action was a. So at this point it's our an understanding that the culture resource clearances are not required as a condition for obtaining the permit amendment.

>> what about for doing your borings and other kind of work? We had an interesting drugs. You you--discussions this morn. You can't even do a metal de dek tor disturbance down six inches. Weaver we're talking about construction of a water treatment plant and a core sample.

>> with all due respect, the commitment and expectation is that we will comply with all federal, state and local laws and ordinances. And while I'm not familiar enough with the construction and design contract, it's still the city's full intention to comply with all of those whether we operate on the proposed new site on cortana or whether we more to water treatment plant 4 as the original site.

>> do you all have an opinion as to whether Travis County needs to hold its own chapter 26 hearing if nor no other reason, whether legally mandated or not, in the same way you have arrived at a conclusion, that it's prudent, good public policy? Whether it's really required.

>> I'll refer that to marty again.

>> Commissioner, that is a question that we think would be best answered by your own counsel.

>> okay.

>> and their legal analysis.

>> if we got to the same conclusions, it's going to take x amount of time to get through it, do we see that there might be a problem with meeting your desire of September 27 when you yourself, in trying to time out getting together chapter 26 hearing, it's the day after, you want an answer back from us. We're trying to do essentially the same thing.

>> I didn't get to your question. I'm very sorry.

>> you all are trying to do a chapter 26 hearing and conceding your own chapter 26 hearing will take you to September 28. You have asked for an answer from us by the 27th. If we indeed mirror your process and go for a chapter 26, why is there any expectation it would take us less time than what you all are trying to accomplish on a chapter 2? Seems to me if we have to go through a chapter 26 or choose to, perhaps we're not going to meet your September 27 deadline.

>> I was not aware that county was required to do a chapter 26.

>> we might think it's prudent just like you all thought it was prudent. It's a good process. Process chris, this is probably one for you. What is the ultimate capacity of ulrich. You're at 17 right now. How much further can the site be built up?

>> there's been a review and thought of taking ulrich to about 225. That was just an alternative preliminary engineering review that was done during this expansion to 167. There are some concerns with being able to fit that much on the site. So I think right now that's up in the air. It does appear possible to get some additional above and beyond the 167 that we just completed. And fortunately just opened up this summer. The bigger constraint beyond the site itself and the sides, being able to fit that much capacity at the ulrich plant, is the ability to get it into and out of the plant. So our pump station, what's called the service pump station that delivers water from lake Austin up to the plant, is sized for the 167. Then our transmission mains sending treated water out from that plant will not handle anymore than the current. So it's a major transmission system cost. It's just going, it would take a whole lot more study. At this point I guess it's question whether we expand over again at all. If so, how much that cost.

>> do you think it might cost less than 250 million at a minimum plus transmission cost? Potentially there's another 58 that could be squeezes out of there, which is more than what your first phase of water treatment plant number 4 would bring about.

>> right.

>> and could you still take green off line.

>> yeah. I'm not sure what the cost, again, it hasn't been evaluated as far as the pump stations and transmission mains that would be required to add anything more to ulrich.

>> so there has not been or there has been, a cost benefit analysis related to whether it is more prudent to try and build out ulrich, which you already own, and already has existing infrastructure there and has a lot of things you're talking about, there may need to be some pumping up of the bum pump, but there has not been a cost benefit analysis of whether to do the next phase of ulrich versus water treatment plant number 4?

>> there has. I really don't want to, I hate to get into the entire system. As you know, all of our treatment plants are inter interconnected. So the ulrich plant can serve north Austin and the Davis water treatment plant can serve south Austin even though they are all inter interconnected and we have a network, a distribution network that you can get water pretty much from any plant to any place in the city. So it's a very reliable system that we have. So there have been studies. Again, the water treatment plant 4 question or on you st?n's long range--austin's long range water treatment capacity plan has been in the works for decades and up updated every so often. Often. I think what we need to remember about the ulrich water treatment plant is that it's not only expanding the plant, getting water into the plant, getting water out of the plant, but it's getting water from ulrich to anderson mill. That's what triggers then a number of additional pump stations and transmission mains on the far side of the town. Breakbreak. Did.

>> the studies pretty much ruled out for long-term capacity, having the expansion at ulrich being able to satisfied the needs for water in the Austin area area. That's the key to the continued repeated recommendation of the water treatment plant 4 on lake travis coming out as the best alternative, is just the location and its ability then to serve the higher elevations of north Austin and northwest Austin as well as then feeds water back down to central and east Austin. [one moment please for change in captioners]

>> the possibility of a common site for water plants. We have two different water treatment processes, so it would actually still be two different water treatment plants. Austin has a lime softening treatment process, it would have to be separate treatment plans, nevertheless. The idea of a shared campus was considered. For the same reason that I think -- I think the same reason that some of the cities that are in that partnership of an lcra plant serving potentially Leander, Cedar Park and Round Rock, it was not cost effective for them to the city's site at some time in the past when that was talked about. The same rationale or the same analysis applies to the city going behavingly to Leander to build -- basically to Leander to build a plant. Out of the way nrks the wrong direction to be sending the water and then bringing the treated water back to Austin. So a quick look at that showed it not to be cost effective for us to go that far away from Austin to be building a water treatment plant. So that has been looked at and talked about some, but we're hopeful about the idea of cost sharing on some of the facilities, but at some point then we would go toward separate sites for treatment -- for Austin's water versus this lcra regional plant.

>> I apologize. Most of your documents related to ulrich were taken off the web in 2002. I highly suspect post 9-11 that might have been an appropriate decision, but how much did it cost you all to increase the capacity of ulrich from 100 million to 167 million? I'm trying to get a sense of you've done a very recent upgrade of ulrich. How much did that 67 million-gallon add on cost?

>> Commissioner, you believe this is all relevant to the -- to the item?

>> judge wharks I'm trying to get to is whether --

>> do you agree?

>> it's looking at alternatives to cortana and ulrich is is where I'm trying to find out.

>> we're not posted to do that, though. We're posted to discuss a proposal to amend the balcones canyon lands conservation plan 10-a permit regarding plant number 4.

>> right.

>> I'm not thinking that you should not cuss the city's -- discuss the city's water testimony with them, I'm just suggesting that don't have this item posted that broadly in my view. The other thing is half the questions that we've heard have been interesting questions and I assume that Austin utility customers would be interested in the answers, so I've been interested, but my interest is kind of waning because there's a spef item that we need to discuss today whether we take action or not. And so I think the court -- you're happy --

>> no, I'm happy to limit it down to just a couple more that are very specific to the cortana tract.

>> and then we'll be to today's item?

>> absolutely.

>> is is there currently zoning on the cortana tract? It.

>> it's sows of the city limits so there would not be zoning on that site.

>> you would have to go through I presume site review through the city of Austin since it is in the e.t.j., so what are the expectations of what you can do on that land related to impervious cover and getting through your own process? I'm just trying to get a sense of how you think 45 acres will be sufficient for what you naid to do there in terms of impervious cover.

>> jay, can you comment on the site development permitting?

>> we will have to comply with all of the city of Austin's permitting requirements of zoning and impervious cover. Because we haven't had this and have laid it out, I don't know that anyone has gone in and ? quote, impervious calculations yet. We do know that the site will work on the facility. We also do know that if problems come up we will have to address them.

>> that may explain why you're working on 2006. [ laughter ]

>> part of the reason that we're looking at this site is it affords us an opportunity to address some of the plant design issues without having to seek variances for things like floats or setbacks from rim rocks and other critical environmental features. But as sow appropriately pointed out you, we still did not have all the answers on thingslike karst and potential features and we've been unable to get on the site because of the virios. And Commissioner dawr try hit the nail on the hit when he said we simply don't have the luxury of the environmental reviews on this site like we had on the original 102-acre site, so that's some of the ground we're having to make up fluoride to have to meet -- in order to meet the 2015 demand. Irtion I will make sh one of my last questions judge, to be respectful of all of this. You have mentioned in your report that you didn't think the lucas site would work because there are karst features and things that split the two sites. And in your own stuff on the web, it talks about the bull creek site has indeed karst features on that site. They've been identified and mapped. There are 10 known karst features within the 102 acres. Three of the 10 were significant and you're going to do appropriate setbacks. Help me understand why you think the karst features on cortana are things you can work around and through as opposed to the karst features that are known about lucas are not -- you can't get there on the lucas tract.

>> the reason we want at minimum a 50-acre site is because it gives us some room to move things around, whereas the 30-acre site does not. And that's essentially a a -- essentially the difference between the tracts, that they both may have some of the features, but we have more room to maneuver at the cortana tract and we would have no room to maneuver at the lucas tract.

>> and what if you find something on cortana related to the karst, related to feet churz that you go, oh my, this is not going to work? What is the backup plan? And I'm not convinced that the backup plan is bull creek because you all keep testifying that bull creek is even more sensitive and you can't get over the problems of during construction related to trying to put a plant there and that you can't even get to the same non-degradation standards that you require of everybody else. Help me understand.

>> we won't know that answer fully until we finish the investigation fully, but we have a pretty good idea that cortana is going to work. So the preliminary work shows that we should not have any of those problems that you're referring to and the reason for doing a more complete study. But we have not gone there blindly. We know a little bit about the tract of land that we're proposing.

>> keep in mind that on the original bull creek site we've got 102 acres to work there. We've got significantly more identified karst features there before city council directed the utility to look again at an alternate last year, we were actively involved in doing the mitigation plan fog how that site would accommodate a water treatment plant. We're talking today about fitting a 3 million-gallon a day site on a 30-acre site. Within bull creek we considered the karst features, we've considered the setbacks and felt like that we had room to address the full plant there. The only thing that really drove us to a different site at this point again was the city council's direction that we needed to look for a site that we could consider less sensitive with respect to golden cheeked warblers and jollyville plateau salamanders.

>> back in 1984 you all did a very extensive site assessment and you came up with your top 6. I don't see cortana on the original site that was looked at even 20 years ago in terms of even being out there. I thought what interesting is that riebelin was on that list back in 1984, fwu said it wasn't available. Steiner ranch at 620, a lost opportunity. Two lcra sites, one of them on the north shore of Lake Travis, which is practically across the street, down the street from the lucas tract. The wilson property, which is now preserved land. I mean rkts cortana wasn't even looked at back in '84 when there were a whole lot more properties out there, prewal-mart, pretarget, precvs, and it didn't make the list 22 years ago. How is it that score tanya is all of a -- cortana is all after sudden such a great place in.

>> Commissioner, I think you provided part of the answer for us is that simply it's the same issue we faced with bcp acquisition now is is that we're running out of places to look, and at the time that the original '84 study was done there was a much broader spectrum of available property to look at. Today we simply don't have is that luxury.

>> you mentioned the schlumberger lot. That was being purchased. They're not buying all of the slumber 88 property. There is still a lot 1 of schlumberger acres. Have you looked at that that is not part of the preserve? It's not the preserve lot. That's lot 2.

>> while it was considered in the analysis, one of the issues that helped eliminate schlumberger was also the fact that it was not a significantly different site as opposed to the original water treatment plant. Schlumberger is adjacent to tribes five and seven of bull creek t adjoins golden cheeked warbler habitat. So with respect to the direction given by city council, it does not achieve any significant additional benefits over the original site.

>> you think that there's salamander on that 60 acres?

>> yes, there are down streams. And then have you recharge features on the uplands that contribute water to the areas that the salamanders inhas habit in the creeks.

>> my last question, judge, and I appreciate everyone iens dull against on this. You all said thearl on you discussed potential amendments, etcetera, with u.s. Fish and wildlife service. Why wasn't the county brought into those discussions? Commissioner, I can't answer that question directly. I wasn't involved in the decision to make the contact with fish and wildlife service. I was involved in a discussion between the mayor and the city manager and fish and wildlife service, so quite honestly, I can't answer why the cfts not brought in at the time.

>> and doi have more questions, judge, but I will be respectful of the fact that we are truly not on point related to this item and so I will send them along to you all to get answered in writing.

>> I have three or four. So, you have to conduct public hearings and do other due diligence required by I guess various city ordinances, the state and federal government. What if we do nothing today? Where are you left?

>> we're going to continue the process. We hope that we can continue to maig process even though some of the approvals aren't forth coming. We don't want to simply stop the process, but we understand that there are certain things that have is to happen. We're hoping that we can work on federal tracts and that sometime before -- if we don't get the various approvals, we won't get the permanent amendment fwowrks the extent we can get work to get us closer to submitting the amendment, we'll continue doing that.

>> you would like to file the amendment by what date?

>> well, the -- I got an e-mail from willie on the law. August 31st is is a magic date for the virio, right?

>> under the regulatory aspect of our permit, they've defined nesting season as running from March first to August 31st.

>> the problem is nobody told the virio that. They're still there. We have to wait until they leave.

>> but I thought I heard you say three or four times that you wouldn't file the application until you you've did you not public hearings.

>> that's correct.

>> and public hearing is late September.

>> yes, sir. And the time line that we're on right now with respect to the virios is my staff is telling me that we could expect the virios to be gron the site generally around the 15th of September, which would allow us to then go in and evaluate several potential carts sites that have been identified on the cortana site. That would gifs time to actually excavate those sites, make a biological assessment and be prepared to move forward with the permit amendment. And with shortly after getting results of the chapter 26 hearing if the chapter 26 hearing was favorable.

>> based on what I've heard today, the bull creek site presents more and greater environmental issues than cortana.

>> that's our assessment is it's more environmentally challenging and also our assessment is, as I've described in the presentation, that we would be better able to meet the expectations provided to us in our habitat conservation plan by moving from bull creek to cortana.

>> and was that the opinion of the scientific advisory committee?

>> the opinion of the scientific advisory committee is that they felt like choosing between bull creek and cortana was an awfully difficult choice to make and have it on cortana than bull creek. You.

>> in Travis County, we would review that, one, these are the two sites available, and cortana is better of these two?

>> thooncht. That'scorrect.

>> or is less --

>> less objectionable.

>> okay. Any other questions from the court?

>> was it a 6-1 vote last week? Is that what it was?

>> yes.

>> and what councilmember kim's -- did she have a different recommendation?

>> she voted against it, but she did not make a separate motion or a substitute motion.

>> I think it's fair to say that councilmember kim has always been in favor that the replacement of the green water treatment plant ought to be downstream of green as opposed to water treatment plant number #- 4 in terms of the order in which you do them. I think that's a pretty accurate statement.

>> we appreciate you coming over.

>> thank you very much, your honor.

>> thank you for coming.

>> we will discuss this item in executive session when we go there, hopefully very, very shortly, under the consultation with attorney and the real property exceptions to the open meetings act.

The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.

Last Modified: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:28 PM

August 29, 2006 Item 38

August 29, 2006
Item 38