More than 2000 years ago, Aristotle coined the phrase, “Nature abhors a vacuum.” But in the case of River Grove Park since Beryl, it should be, “Nature enjoys a vacuum.”
Flooded out, sanded in, and still under repair from May flooding and Beryl, humans may be visiting River Grove Park less frequently these days. But nature is filling the void.
Park Still Has Plenty to Offer
The park still has plenty to offer. I drove there today to test some new camera gear and found the park practically deserted.
A few people were using the boardwalk.
The soccer fields and playground were empty.
Disc golf is undergoing major repairs as crews clear dozens of fallen trees (from Beryl).
The main parking lot was virtually empty, thanks to sand blocking the boat dock.
So, I didn’t get the sports action shots I thought I might see. But I got something equally as impressive. Nature…up close and unspoiled.
Instead of water skiers and fishermen, great blue herons and great egrets stalked the shallows at the entrance to the Kingwood Diversion Ditch by the boat dock.
Great egret dining near the boat dock.As I crept closer, the egret prepared to swallow its catch.Note the drop of water dripping from the beak.Gulp…and it was gone.Farther out in the river, beyond the newly deposited sand bar, a great blue heron staged its own fishing expedition.
Even though River Grove repairs are far from complete, the park still has much to offer nature lovers.
Dredging Prospects
For now, the boat dock is still open for canoes, kayaks, jet skies, and other smaller watercraft that can get over the sand bar. KSA and the City are currently waiting to hear from FEMA about a possible grant to dredge the mouth of the channel. So enjoy the natural aspects of the park while you can.
Many thanks to the Kingwood Service Association for maintaining this precious gem for all Kingwood residents. Even those with feathers.
Posted by Bob Rehak
2563 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240904-DSC_0368.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2024-09-04 17:09:172024-09-05 17:49:35Nature Enjoys a Vacuum
9/3/2024 – Today, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) posted six state action-plan amendments for public comment. The amendments reallocate remaining money from federal grants for disasters between 2008 and 2019.
Includes Disaster Recovery Reallocation Program
Each of the six amendments includes a new Disaster Recovery Reallocation Program (DRRP). The DRRP will let the GLO utilize de-obligated and un-utilized funds remaining within the action plan for each disaster.
The $135 million being reallocated pales in comparison to the billions of dollars in unmet needs around the state. Better matching remaining dollars with remaining needs will help create a more resilient Texas. And simplifying the application process will help use up available money before federal deadlines expire.
Action-Plan Amendments, Deadlines, Major Changes
The GLO provided this summary of the deadlines for public comment on each amendment:
Hurricanes Ike and Dolly Amendment 7
Federally required public comment period of 7 days will end at 5:00 PM on September 11, 2024.
2015 Floods and Storms Amendment 6
Federally required public comment period of 14 days will end at 5:00 PM on September 18, 2024.
2016 Floods and Storms Amendment 8
Federally required public comment period of 14 days will end at 5:00 PM on September 18, 2024.
Hurricane Harvey $5.6 Billion Amendment 16
Federally required public comment period of 30 days will end at 5:00 PM on October 4, 2024.
Includes updates to the Harris County Homeowner Assistance, Residential Buyout, Affordable Rental and Single Family New Construction Programs.
Includes updates to the City of Houston Single Family Development and Buyout Programs.
2018 South Texas Floods Amendment 2
Federally required public comment period of 30 days will end at 5:00 PM on October 4, 2024.
Includes updates to the Specific Conditions Report in Appendix H.
2019 Disasters Amendment 3
Federally required public comment period of 30 days will end at 5:00 PM on October 4, 2024.
Includes updates to the Specific Conditions Report in Appendix G.
Submit all comments to cdr@recovery.texas.gov by 5:00 p.m. on their respective ending dates.
$135 Million Reallocated
The Hurricane Ike action plan amendment creates the DRRP. It will utilize remaining program funds from current disaster recovery grants from 2008 to 2019, with the exception of the 2011 Wildfires grant.
DRRP will expedite the expenditure of funds to comply with HUD’s timely expenditure requirements through a call for projects across multiple grants.
Each project will undergo eligibility analysis based on the grant that used to fund it.
As funds continue to be identified through the de-obligation process, they will be added to the DRRP program. All remaining funds will be reallocated to this program for each grant.
The amounts going into the DRRP “pot” total $135 million. That includes:
Based on the Dolly/Ike amendment, GLO will do a single call for projects statewide. Each agency that responds can submit up to two applications, and they will score them based on the published criteria.
Those criteria total more than 800 pages. Criteria for each of the six amendments are hyperlinked with the amounts above.
While that’s a daunting number of pages to read, GLO provides tables that show where money is going from and to, plus rules that will govern grant awards.
The GLO will perform the eligibility analysis to make applications easier. “We want this to be as simple as possible for applicants, so they will only have to submit one application and have all of the difficult analysis of eligibility and funding streams on our end,” said Brittany Eck, a GLO spokesperson.
If nothing else, these amendments dramatize how complex the flood mitigation process is. Today is 2562 days since Hurricane Harvey. But Hurricane Ike struck Houston on September 11, 2008. That’s 5836 days ago!
How to Submit Public Comments
Submit all comments to cdr@recovery.texas.gov by 5:00 p.m. on their respective ending dates to be considered. GLO requests that you please include the name and number of the action-plan amendments that you’re commenting on in the subject line.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/3/24
2562 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Harvey-Action-Plan-Amendment-16.jpg?fit=1100%2C825&ssl=18251100adminadmin2024-09-03 18:37:492024-09-04 12:31:10GLO Posts Six State Action-Plan Amendments for Public Comment
9/2/24 – On 8/26/24, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issued a report on a San Jacinto West Fork pit capture. “Pit capture” happened when the river cut through an abandoned sand pit on a point bar instead of taking the long way around it. Worldwide, many environmental consequences have been linked to such pit captures. However, the TCEQ report never mentions the phrase.
This report does not discuss other pit captures that happened elsewhere in the West and East Fork watersheds earlier this year.
San Jacinto West Fork entering pit and abandoning its normal channel on May 22.
The TCEQ report, which took four months to investigate, compile and release, did not:
Refer to any water-quality measurements, even though the complaints concerned water quality.
Address other sand-mine dike beaches and emissions in the same area
Explore downstream impacts.
Result in any reprimands, letters of enforcement, or violations.
TCEQ Finds No Problems
The four-month effort resulted in no action. Apparently, the TCEQ feels that since the pit is no longer being actively mined, it is no longer a threat to the public. It simply concludes that the incident falls within their “enforcement discretion” and they chose not to take any action.
Approximate location of entry and exit breaches relative to island with Native-American cemetery.
Who Operated This Pit?
The report also ignores a complex web of interlocking corporations involved with West Fork sand mining. They include, but are not limited to, Hallett Materials, RGI, JR Development and the Rasmussen Group, headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.
The first paragraph of the report states that the investigation was conducted to “evaluate compliance for RGI Materials, Inc. of the Porter Plant site located north of the West Fork San Jacinto River.” [Emphasis added.]
But the report lists GPS coordinates for a pond on the south and west sides of the river. It also shows photos of the pit on the south and west sides.
The report cites information obtained through a Jacob McCurry and identifies him as a Vice President of RGI Materials. But the Hallett Materials website lists Jacob McCurry as its Operations Manager.
The report never mentions Hallett, the largest operator on the West Fork. Hallett:
Operates a settling pond directly across the river from the pit that TCEQ investigated. That pond has been leaking almost continuously into the river since January through another pit that RGI used to own.
The Texas Secretary of State shows that RGI is an assumed name of Hallett Materials.
It’s all very confusing. Except for the TCEQ report’s conclusion. The TCEQ is taking no action.
Erosion of Cemetery
In 2018, I met Kurt Rasmussen at the Hallett plant. Rasmussen is part of the family that controls Hallett, RGI, and JR Development.
He gave me a tour of the captured pit on the south and west sides of the river. He also told me that Hallett was prohibited from mining that island in the middle of the pit because it is a Native American burial ground.
As a result of the pit capture, dikes no longer protect that island from the river and erosion.
Burial ground (upper left) in middle of pit captured by West Fork. Photo 5/13/24.
Unmentioned Problems with Pit Captures
The TCEQ report never mentions “pit capture.” Nor does it mention any of the problems associated with pit capture discussed in academic literature.
Where a river enters a pit, erosion typically migrates upstream (headcutting). That can lead to more river bank erosion. (You can already see it happening in the photo above on the right.)
Literature about pit captures also suggests that when rivers take a direct path through a sand pit, it can shorten the river’s length. This can increase the river’s gradient (slope) downstream, leading to faster water flow and more aggressive erosion.
Captured pits can act as sediment traps when water moves slow enough for sand to drop out of suspension. But when water moves as fast as it did in the May flood, it can stir up sediment and transport it downstream.
I measured the speed of water moving through the captured Hallett/RGI/JR Development/Rasmussen/Riverwalk pit at 5 miles per hour. That’s enough to pick up and transport large grains of sand.
This can contribute to increased sedimentation in downstream reaches, affecting water quality, habitat, and the morphology of the river.
Downstream from pit capture above at the confluence of Spring Creek and the West Fork. West Fork is on right.
That sediment began dropping out of suspension where the water slowed as it approached the headwaters of Lake Houston.
Kingwood Diversion Ditch blocked at River Grove Park, downstream from confluence above.Dredging cost estimated at about $750,000.
The increased flow velocity after a sand pit capture can also lead to downcutting that disconnects the river from its floodplain, reducing the ability of the floodplain to absorb floodwaters and support wetland habitats.
Scientific reports also say that such downcutting can reduce the level of the water table and destroy riparian vegetation.
TCEQ Ignores Downstream Consequences
TCEQ concluded with the words: “the discharge from this pond has been granted enforcement discretion.” TCEQ chose not to issue any violations.
Their decision apparently stems from the fact that the pit is no longer actively used for mining. According to the report, the current owner, Riverwalk Porter LLC, claims it intends to use the property (and presumably the graveyard within it) for “recreational purposes such as hunting and camping.”
It’s unclear how TCEQ’s ruling will affect boating on the river. The public waterway now cuts through private property. Will boaters be trespassers?
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240513-DJI_20240513075313_0604_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2024-09-02 11:05:022024-09-02 15:46:15TCEQ Report on West Fork Pit Capture Doesn’t Mention “Pit Capture”
Nature Enjoys a Vacuum
More than 2000 years ago, Aristotle coined the phrase, “Nature abhors a vacuum.” But in the case of River Grove Park since Beryl, it should be, “Nature enjoys a vacuum.”
Flooded out, sanded in, and still under repair from May flooding and Beryl, humans may be visiting River Grove Park less frequently these days. But nature is filling the void.
Park Still Has Plenty to Offer
The park still has plenty to offer. I drove there today to test some new camera gear and found the park practically deserted.
So, I didn’t get the sports action shots I thought I might see. But I got something equally as impressive. Nature…up close and unspoiled.
Instead of water skiers and fishermen, great blue herons and great egrets stalked the shallows at the entrance to the Kingwood Diversion Ditch by the boat dock.
Even though River Grove repairs are far from complete, the park still has much to offer nature lovers.
Dredging Prospects
For now, the boat dock is still open for canoes, kayaks, jet skies, and other smaller watercraft that can get over the sand bar. KSA and the City are currently waiting to hear from FEMA about a possible grant to dredge the mouth of the channel. So enjoy the natural aspects of the park while you can.
Many thanks to the Kingwood Service Association for maintaining this precious gem for all Kingwood residents. Even those with feathers.
Posted by Bob Rehak
2563 Days since Hurricane Harvey
GLO Posts Six State Action-Plan Amendments for Public Comment
9/3/2024 – Today, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) posted six state action-plan amendments for public comment. The amendments reallocate remaining money from federal grants for disasters between 2008 and 2019.
Includes Disaster Recovery Reallocation Program
Each of the six amendments includes a new Disaster Recovery Reallocation Program (DRRP). The DRRP will let the GLO utilize de-obligated and un-utilized funds remaining within the action plan for each disaster.
The $135 million being reallocated pales in comparison to the billions of dollars in unmet needs around the state. Better matching remaining dollars with remaining needs will help create a more resilient Texas. And simplifying the application process will help use up available money before federal deadlines expire.
Action-Plan Amendments, Deadlines, Major Changes
The GLO provided this summary of the deadlines for public comment on each amendment:
The six action-plan amendments are available for review at https://recovery.texas.gov/public-notices.
Submit all comments to cdr@recovery.texas.gov by 5:00 p.m. on their respective ending dates.
$135 Million Reallocated
The Hurricane Ike action plan amendment creates the DRRP. It will utilize remaining program funds from current disaster recovery grants from 2008 to 2019, with the exception of the 2011 Wildfires grant.
Each project will undergo eligibility analysis based on the grant that used to fund it.
As funds continue to be identified through the de-obligation process, they will be added to the DRRP
program. All remaining funds will be reallocated to this program for each grant.
The amounts going into the DRRP “pot” total $135 million. That includes:
Together, they total $135,000,000.
Consult Individual Plans for More Details
Based on the Dolly/Ike amendment, GLO will do a single call for projects statewide. Each agency that responds can submit up to two applications, and they will score them based on the published criteria.
Those criteria total more than 800 pages. Criteria for each of the six amendments are hyperlinked with the amounts above.
While that’s a daunting number of pages to read, GLO provides tables that show where money is going from and to, plus rules that will govern grant awards.
The GLO will perform the eligibility analysis to make applications easier. “We want this to be as simple as possible for applicants, so they will only have to submit one application and have all of the difficult analysis of eligibility and funding streams on our end,” said Brittany Eck, a GLO spokesperson.
If nothing else, these amendments dramatize how complex the flood mitigation process is. Today is 2562 days since Hurricane Harvey. But Hurricane Ike struck Houston on September 11, 2008. That’s 5836 days ago!
How to Submit Public Comments
Submit all comments to cdr@recovery.texas.gov by 5:00 p.m. on their respective ending dates to be considered. GLO requests that you please include the name and number of the action-plan amendments that you’re commenting on in the subject line.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/3/24
2562 Days since Hurricane Harvey
TCEQ Report on West Fork Pit Capture Doesn’t Mention “Pit Capture”
9/2/24 – On 8/26/24, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issued a report on a San Jacinto West Fork pit capture. “Pit capture” happened when the river cut through an abandoned sand pit on a point bar instead of taking the long way around it. Worldwide, many environmental consequences have been linked to such pit captures. However, the TCEQ report never mentions the phrase.
Several area residents filed separate complaints with the TCEQ. Even though the report lists eight separate incident numbers, TCEQ apparently conducted one investigation (#1976402) and issued one report.
This report does not discuss other pit captures that happened elsewhere in the West and East Fork watersheds earlier this year.
The TCEQ report, which took four months to investigate, compile and release, did not:
TCEQ Finds No Problems
The four-month effort resulted in no action. Apparently, the TCEQ feels that since the pit is no longer being actively mined, it is no longer a threat to the public. It simply concludes that the incident falls within their “enforcement discretion” and they chose not to take any action.
TCEQ, which the Texas Sunset Commission dubbed a “reluctant regulator,” found nothing to get upset about even though the river:
Who Operated This Pit?
The report also ignores a complex web of interlocking corporations involved with West Fork sand mining. They include, but are not limited to, Hallett Materials, RGI, JR Development and the Rasmussen Group, headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.
The report cites information obtained through a Jacob McCurry and identifies him as a Vice President of RGI Materials. But the Hallett Materials website lists Jacob McCurry as its Operations Manager.
The report never mentions Hallett, the largest operator on the West Fork. Hallett:
The Texas Secretary of State shows that RGI is an assumed name of Hallett Materials.
It’s all very confusing. Except for the TCEQ report’s conclusion. The TCEQ is taking no action.
Erosion of Cemetery
In 2018, I met Kurt Rasmussen at the Hallett plant. Rasmussen is part of the family that controls Hallett, RGI, and JR Development.
He gave me a tour of the captured pit on the south and west sides of the river. He also told me that Hallett was prohibited from mining that island in the middle of the pit because it is a Native American burial ground.
As a result of the pit capture, dikes no longer protect that island from the river and erosion.
Unmentioned Problems with Pit Captures
The TCEQ report never mentions “pit capture.” Nor does it mention any of the problems associated with pit capture discussed in academic literature.
Where a river enters a pit, erosion typically migrates upstream (headcutting). That can lead to more river bank erosion. (You can already see it happening in the photo above on the right.)
Literature about pit captures also suggests that when rivers take a direct path through a sand pit, it can shorten the river’s length. This can increase the river’s gradient (slope) downstream, leading to faster water flow and more aggressive erosion.
Captured pits can act as sediment traps when water moves slow enough for sand to drop out of suspension. But when water moves as fast as it did in the May flood, it can stir up sediment and transport it downstream.
I measured the speed of water moving through the captured Hallett/RGI/JR Development/Rasmussen/Riverwalk pit at 5 miles per hour. That’s enough to pick up and transport large grains of sand.
This can contribute to increased sedimentation in downstream reaches, affecting water quality, habitat, and the morphology of the river.
That sediment began dropping out of suspension where the water slowed as it approached the headwaters of Lake Houston.
The increased flow velocity after a sand pit capture can also lead to downcutting that disconnects the river from its floodplain, reducing the ability of the floodplain to absorb floodwaters and support wetland habitats.
Scientific reports also say that such downcutting can reduce the level of the water table and destroy riparian vegetation.
TCEQ Ignores Downstream Consequences
TCEQ concluded with the words: “the discharge from this pond has been granted enforcement discretion.” TCEQ chose not to issue any violations.
Their decision apparently stems from the fact that the pit is no longer actively used for mining. According to the report, the current owner, Riverwalk Porter LLC, claims it intends to use the property (and presumably the graveyard within it) for “recreational purposes such as hunting and camping.”
It’s unclear how TCEQ’s ruling will affect boating on the river. The public waterway now cuts through private property. Will boaters be trespassers?
So many questions! And the biggest one: Why did TCEQ not investigate other San Jacinto River Basin pit captures in active mines when its investigators were in the air?
To read the entire TCEQ report, click here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/2/24
2561 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.