11-24-2023 Current state of the Butler Landfill gravel lot after ACL Festival '23

The Butler Landfill gravel lot currently covers 3.8 acres in Zilker Park. According to FEMA maps of the 100-year floodplains in Austin, TX, the entire Butler Landfill is within the 100-year floodplain:

(source: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=barton%20springs%20pool)

Now -- in November 2023 -- the "loose gravel, temporary" landfill cap has been severely compacted. This 3.8 acre site -- located in the 100-year floodplain -- is likely functioning as impervious cover. 

I ask: 

• Is this cap condition still considered "temporary"? 

• Have the ACL uses of the revegetated west zone violated the requirements to not "disturb" the landfill cap?

• Does the current TCEQ permit for this area allow heavy vehicles to be parked beyond the driveway mats in the revegetated zone?

• Would FEMA be concerned that the Butler Landfill's "gravel lot" -- a 3.8 acre site located within the 100-year flood plain -- has been severely compacted and now functions as impervious cover?

 

The general public seems to be stuck in a situation where heavy trucks/buses/cars are allowed to drive on a parking surface constructed from environmentally mediocre materials (because grasscrete pervious pavement was deemed too expensive for a "temporary" use in 2018) on a fragile landfill cap (the trash below was still wet when the MoPac extension pilings were dug in 1986), in a parking lot that doesn’t meet the requirements for either dust (TCEQ) or shade (COA), in a situation that is agreed by various experts to be “temporary” (TCEQ, PARD, WPD) with no “expiration date” of its ongoing use as a parking lot.

Photo of the Butler Landfill trash in 1966:

Problems with dust in summer of 2023:

Below, the current shade requirements for parking lots:

 https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=286910#:~:text=Surface%20Parking%20Tree%20Islands%20apply%20to%20all%20off%2Dstreet%20parking%20lots.&text=One%20shade%20tree%20(existing%20or,from%20the%20adjacent%20travel%20lanes. 

The lack of shade is one reason that this lot is not currently COA code compliant

The west side of the landfill, west of the gravel lot, was revegetated in the spring/summer of 2023. Irrigation pipes, soil and seed were added; valuable water (during a drought) was used to encourage plant growth. It was designed in 2022 with reinforced driveways ("mats") placed below the vegetation in specific areas: I assume that these driveways were intended for ACL's access with heavy equipment. The following 2022 plan shows the locations of the driveway mats:

During ACL '23, a large area of the revegetated portion was used for storage of heavy equipment, see photo below. The damage to the vegetation is now an area much larger than the driveway mats (see pics below). 

Does the current TCEQ permit for this area allow heavy vehicles to be parked beyond the driveway mats?

Below,  the landfill cap during ACL staging 2023:

The evidence of widespread damage to the revegetated portion of the landfill cap (the light brown is the matted driveway; the dark soil is the damaged revegetated zone):

After ACL concluded, the Great Lawn was damaged and required new sod to be installed.  

As this photo shows on 11/24/23, the Butler Landfill gravel lot is currently being used to store damaged sod:

Below, by November 2023, last summer's top layer of loose rock is now largely missing. 

In its place is a severely compacted surface of impervious cement-like structure.

My questions:

• Is this cap condition still considered "temporary"? 

• Have the ACL uses of the revegetated west zone violated the requirements to not "disturb" the landfill cap?

• Does the current TCEQ permit for this area allow heavy vehicles to be parked beyond the driveway mats in the revegetated zone?

• Would FEMA be concerned that the Butler Landfill's "gravel lot" -- a 3.8 acre site located within the 100-year flood plain -- has been severely compacted and now functions as impervious cover?

Zilker Park on 10-26-23; rain from The Great Lawn flows directly into Barton Creek

According to the National Weather Service, 0.29 inches of rain fell in Austin, Texas on October 26, 2023.

The Texas aquifers are starving for water. Meanwhile, precious rain water is not captured in Zilker Park. Instead, the fertilizer-rich water of this off-leash area for dogs is allowed to runoff into the City's pristine spring-fed Barton Creek and Lady Bird Lake.

On 10-26-2023, I took three water samples of the runoff which originates on The Great lawn in Zilker Park and flows untreated directly into Barton Creek. I sent the three water samples from 10-26-23 to Texas A&M's Soil, Water and Forage Laboratory for chemical analysis. (They do not perform E-coli analysis).  

This is my summary report, followed by the source documents from the Texas A&M:

Additional photos of the "water runoff sheeting" effect of The Great Lawn:

10/23/23: Photo journal of ACL impacts on the non-irrigated zones of Zilker Park

My photo journal below shows the deepening state of damage to root systems throughout the acres of Zilker Park between Barton Springs Road and the pool/creek after ACL Fest has concluded in October 2023.

ACL uses this area of Zilker Park, south of Barton Springs Road, for extensive activities from attendee entry and processing, sound stages for concerts and heavy equipment. 

When the vegetation is destroyed in this zone, there is little support from the Parks Department because of the lack of irrigation.

The negative effects of pedestrian informal pathways -- unregulated by the Austin Parks Department for the entire summer of 2023 -- are now compounded from the massive number of ACL attendees and the heavy equipment needed for concert production in this zone.

This ecological problem will not be resolved by further neglect. The ACL organizers, the Austin Parks Department and the Austin Parks Foundation must acknowledge the current state of damage and make concerted efforts to remediate it. Acres of precious soil are simply floating away in the rain.

Full photo set is available at this link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1sE5666kBZPXGPHmApYeeyt7WdTqIDGY9?usp=sharing

What was wrong with the Zilker Park Vision Plan? PARD poverty.

The non-profit Austin Parks Foundation needs to tell the story that the City of Austin underfunds our park system. This concept is foundational for the non-profit in order to solicit donations from private donors.

In my opinion, the PARD/Planners of the shelved Zilker Park Vision Plan adopted the APF's mission as the PARD platform and agenda. No longer should PARD’s O&M and ecological remediations be funded sufficiently by the normal City budget process and periodic bond elections. For Zilker Park, PARD's new ZPVP was going to take care of that by recommending new management by a new non-profit, Zilker351. Or management by the existing non-profit, Austin Parks Foundation. Either would do.

I believe that the current leadership of PARD wishes to promote the narrative that the department is locked in a culture of “park poverty.” 

Non-profits like the Austin Parks Foundation and Zilker351 will never be advocates for the people’s mission to have more natural parks: 

Our Parks, Our Future, Community Engagement Themes 

Ten themes emerged from the numerous community engagement events and
surveys completed as part of this planning process. Those themes along with the priority needs and citywide analysis form the basis of the system-wide recommendations to follow. 

Natural Experiences 

People expressed a desire for parks that feel more natural.
This includes undeveloped, wild natural spaces; rustic finishes instead of paved areas, and more native plants. 

Unstructured Spaces 

In general, people cared less about spaces for specific programming, opting for more multi-use spaces and preserving green, natural, and open spaces. 

Green Infrastructure 

There was an interest in proactively using green infrastructure in parks to build a more resilient city. This includes stormwater management, flood protection, heat island effect mitigation, drought tolerance, and native planting/habitat areas. 

Rather than performing essential ecological restoration to protect the green of our parks, non-profits like projects where donor’s names can be put on the final product. See Waterloo Greenway as an example: https://waterloogreenway.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Waterloo_Park_Map.pdf

I ask you to examine the Austin Parks Foundation website:

 “Why give to APF?” at this link: https://austinparks.org/donate/

APF 1-2-3 reasons to donate	How PARD/Planners twisted those words in the ZPVP:
"1. Austin is growing"	“Population growth” was the reason given by the PARD/Planners why the park should have a 5,000-seat amphitheater on the Great Lawn -- a geographic area that could easily have become a 50K-seat venue. This was decided without consulting the principle stakeholder: Zilker Theater Productions. And — the inevitable logistical element was added — a 1,000-car parking garage to serve the amphitheater. The next element: a landbridge to connect the garage/amphitheater. These concept/projects were unrelated to the peak-use and overcrowding problems that trouble Zilker Park.
"2. Parks are underfunded"	"Parks are underfunded" was why the park should be under the management of the recently-formed Zilker351, a "non-profit" group with a professional parking garage architect on its board of directors.
"3. Inequitable park access"	"Inequitable access" was the logic behind why Zilker Park should be become "accessible for everyone in Austin" with new parking garages -- as if Zilker Park, by definition, currently offers inequitable access.  Many of us wondered: How could a parking garage make the park more equitable or accessible? We could never understand that equivalency. The PARD/Planners intentionally demoted the feedback of the nearby neighborhoods like Bouldin, West Austin and the ZNA. They strove to create an alternate reality: A false narrative that Zilker Park was in a war pitting one Austin neighborhood against another Austin neighborhood.  They tried to divide us to win. PARD certainly knew — but didn’t want to tell the public —  this simple truth: Zilker Park is overcrowded for about 54 days out of the year, and most visitors to the park on crowded summer days are TOURISTs.  It was never about the “controlling influence” of rich vs. poor, or nearby vs. distant neighborhoods. Zilker Park simply becomes inaccessible on days when it is a tourist attraction for visitors to Austin from all over the world.
Unresolved by the ZPVP:	The tension between conflicting goals remained unresolved in the ZPVP: To be welcoming to all and support: Ecological health of the park, and Access to the park for everyone.

Under PARD’s current operational narrative of “park poverty”, it has become difficult to determine if our city's parks are managed with an intent for care -- or -- with an intent to demonstrate damage in order to secure private donations and economic leases of parkland and facilities. The citizens of Austin desperately need a consciousness of abundance for our Parks Department.