1/14/25 – Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining (TRAM) has issued a position paper that pans a new set of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for mining that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has proposed. TRAM calls TCEQ’s BMPs “sparse,” “vague,” and “self-evident.”
TRAM asks everyone concerned about flooding and other issues related to aggregate mining to write the TCEQ before the close of public comments on the new BMPs. The deadline is January 24, 2025.
TRAM has also proposed a more comprehensive list of alternative BMPs that it believes will be more effective at minimizing disturbances created by mining.
San Jacinto West Fork mine complex inundated by floodwaters illustrates need for better BMPs
TCEQ BMPs Fail to Address Legislature’s Requirements
Senate Bill 1 in the 2021 Legislative Session required TCEQ “to adopt and make accessible on the commission’s internet website best management practices for aggregate production operations regarding nuisance issues relating to dust, noise, and light…” But the BMPs ignore noise and light.
SB 1397 and House Bill (HB) 1505 in the 2023 Legislative Session then required TCEQ to adopt BMPs related to dust, water use, and water storage. But the proposed BMPs ignore water use.
TCEQ also ignored Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining’s (TRAM’s) technical team of credentialed professionals. TRAM created a vetted list of BMPs and presented it to the TCEQ for consideration. Instead of drawing from that resource…
“TCEQ spent three years (September 2021 to December 2024) to produce BMPs so sparse, vague, and self-evident, as to be completely irrelevant and useless.”
TRAM
Description of TRAM Concerns
According to TRAM, TCEQ’s draft BMPs weaken TCEQ’s effort to protect public health and natural resources by “pretending to establish new guidelines while actually saying nothing. It is a disservice to taxpayers and to the environment.”
Sparse
In regard to sparse, TRAM says, “The proposed BMP list fails to address many of the real issues associated with APOs, including issues they were directly charged with addressing.”
“While they addressed dust and water storage (albeit inadequately) the TCEQ completely overlooked the “water use” portion of their 2023 charge.” And they still haven’t addressed noise and light pollution from 2021.
“TCEQ has simply failed to comply with their mandates,” says TRAM.
Vague
TRAM also feels that the TCEQ recommendations are “too vague to be useful.” For instance, “Ensure vehicles are driven at reasonable speeds to reduce dust disturbance.” TRAM suggests posting speed limits of 10 or 15 mph for unpaved haul roads. The group believes that the value of a BMP list is in detailing what a “reasonable speed” ought to be.
TRAM gave another example of vagueness. TCEQ proposed “Use fuel-efficient and appropriately-sized equipment to reduce emissions, operation time, and the overall amount of dust you produce.” TRAM questioned what “appropriately sized” meant.
“How is anyone to assess when a BMP is being implemented,” TRAM asked, “if they are described in completely subjective terms like ‘reasonable’ and ‘appropriate’?”
Self-Evident
TRAM also cited TCEQ recommendations that were self-evident. For instance, “Be sure your stockpiles are only as high as your permit allows,” or “The further dust-producing operations are from the site boundaries, the less likely they will be to create a nuisance for any neighbors.”
“Who benefits from these self-evident recommendations and simple reminders to follow the permit requirements?” asked TRAM.
“Completely Inadequate”
TRAM summed up its concerns in two words. “This completely inadequate draft BMP list, three years in the making, only weakens TCEQ’s effort to protect public health and natural resources by pretending to establish new guidelines while actually saying nothing. It is a disservice to taxpayers and to the environment.”
Whatever BMPs TCEQ ultimately settles on, they will neither be required nor incentivized. Still, TRAM believes it is paramount that the list be thorough and well vetted. That’s because, “It will serve to educate the public about what quarry operators could be doing to be good neighbors.”
Send Feedback to TCEQ Now
TRAM and its member organizations ask that you submit public comments to TCEQ at the address or website provided below by the January 24th deadline.
Mail comments to Jess Robinson, MC 175, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. Or you may submit them electronically. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. on January 24, 2025, and should reference “APO BMP List Proposal.”
TRAM suggests mentioning the inadequacies above. The group also suggests including BMPs from TRAM’s list that are most important to you. And insisting TCEQ addresses unaddressed issues required by the Texas Legislature: water use, noise, and light pollution.
More Complete List and Thorough Descriptions Needed
Further, they suggest addressing more issues more completely. For instance, some of the many BMPs that should be included are:
Dust Control: Roads and parking areas for vehicles that will leave the site should be paved.
Light Pollution: Direct light properly and use perimeter barriers to eliminate sky glow, light trespass, and glare.
Mine Management and Truck Safety: Clear roads for school buses by not loading trucks for 30 minutes before and after school bells.
Noise: APOs should monitor the noise exposure at their property line, keeping the noise level below 65 dB if within 880 yards of a residential area, school, or house of worship, and 70 dB if not. Set noise criteria using MSHA on-site guidance and limits from nearby municipalities.
Blasting: Blasting should be monitored with seismographs, located on the perimeter (corners) of the APO property (and in some instances, adjacent or near-by properties in multiple directions).
Water quality: Vegetation is an inexpensive and effective way to protect soil from erosion and filter contaminants, protecting water quality in nearby streams and aquifers. It also protects air quality by holding dust down and filtering the air. Vegetative controls should consist of native plants appropriate for the Texas ecoregion where the site is located and must not include any noxious or invasive species.
Water use: Maximize re-use of process wastewater. Manage fine tailings to reduce volume in settling ponds. Use a tailings thickener system and/or flocculant, as many APOs do. These can provide additional recycled water, reduce water loss and also reduce land use.
Riparian health and safety: In riparian areas, reduce the risk of catastrophic “pit capture” (when a river breaks through the riverbank or constructed levy and runs through the mine pit, as has happened countless times in Texas, due to poor mining practices) by:
Maintaining an undisturbed setback of 50-200 feet from the water’s edge. Create a buffer between mining activities and the waterway.
Leaving vegetation in the buffer.
Minimizing use of heavy equipment in buffers to protect vegetation and reduce soil compaction.
ReduceFlooding.Com Suggestion
ReduceFlooding.com agrees with all of TRAM’s recommendations, but given recent erosion, I would suggest that the minimum safe distance from rivers such as the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto, be 200 feet. Fifty feet can be wiped out in one flood.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/14/25
2695 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.
1/13/25 – The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has proposed new Best Management Practices (BMPs) for mining in response to a mandate from the 2023 session of the Texas Legislature. However, in my opinion, the recommended BMPs will do little to nothing to help control sediment pollution from mines in the Lake Houston Area.
The BMPs feel like little more than a half-hearted attempt on the part of a reluctant regulator to create the illusion of environmental protection.
You can find the proposed BMPs at this page on the TCEQ website. You may submit comments on them electronically. To be considered, TCEQ must receive your input by 11:59 p.m. on January 24, 2025. Your email should reference “APO BMP List Proposal.”
Please let the TCEQ know what you think even if you disagree with me.
Notable Omissions
The TCEQ’s recommended BMPs do not really address the biggest mining issues we have in the upper San Jacinto watershed.
I urge you to urge TCEQ to develop BMPs that address:
Discharge of sediment-laden water
Pit capture (when a river starts flowing through a mine)
Periodic flooding.
The proposed BMPs do not cover these issues at all.
The final report of a TCEQ investigation into a West Fork pit capture last year didn’t even mention the phrase. Do they not consider it a problem? I sure wish the TCEQ could enlighten us on this issue. I documented seven instances of pit capture in the Lake Houston watershed last year alone. There may have been more; many mines are in remote, difficult-to-access locations.
Sediment Pollution Reduces Water Quality, Increases Flood Risk
All three of the bullet points above add up to a big problem called “sediment pollution.” Dredging costs for the City of Houston and Army Corps approached $200 million dollars as of October 2023. Better BMPs would likely have reduced or delayed that expenditure of public funds.
At an October 2023 town hall meeting in Kingwood, Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin presented this summary showing dredging costs totaling $186 million.
But those costs paled in comparison to the damages to 13,000 homes and businesses that flooded in the Lake Houston Area behind giant sand bars that formed sediment dams at the mouths of the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto.
Nor do the costs reflect extra water filtration at the City’s Northeast Water Purification plant.
To be fair, nature causes some erosion. The question is whether local mining practices accelerate it.
Photos of Sediment Pollution Related to Discharges, Pit Capture and Flooding
See the pictures below. I will submit these as part of my comments on the draft BMPs. Feel free to submit them as part of yours, too.
Confluence West Fork and Spring Creek near US59 Bridge. This is a frequent sight. Twenty square miles of mines are upstream on the right in a 20-mile reach of the river.San Jacinto East Fork capturing a mine in Plum Grove.Effluent from the Hallett Mine settling pond (white in upper right) on San Jacinto West Fork escaping into adjacent property owned by others.Close up of same effluent from same pondDike of abandoned Williams Brothers Mine (upper right) eroded by the San Jacinto West Fork (lower left) about to give way……was taken out by flooding from Hurricane Beryl shortly after I took the photo above this one.
Hallett sold the San Jacinto West Fork sand pit below to a real estate developer. Within months, the river captured the pit.
West Fork flows into the pit at the north end……and flows out at the south end.The pit in question is to the right of the S-turn in the river (middle). Here you can see both the entry (lower right) and exit (upper right) breaches in the dikes.
River Speed During Floods High Enough to Stir Up and Carry Even Largest Particles of Sand
Now, let’s discuss the speed of floodwaters and whether it’s sufficient to entrain sand in pits and carry it downstream.
Flood inundated both sides of the West Fork during May 2024.My drone measured logs floating through the captured pit at 5 MPH, more than fast enough to scoop up and carry off the largest grains of sand and other sediment.See below.Industry-standard graph shows the speed necessary to erode, transport and deposit sand/sediment of different particle sizes. Blue line indicates measured speed of water. Red indicates range of typical sand sizes.Another West Fork pit capture at the Hallett Mine after floodwaters receded. Notice how natural channel of the river has been virtually cut off.Effluent from the Hallett Mine (upstream in upper right) polluting the West Fork at the Northpark/Oakhurst Ditch (middle foreground). Water flows right to left.Reverse angle shows proximity of pollution to homes.Same ditch blocked by sand increases flood risk for those homeowners.Farther downstream, the Kingwood Diversion Ditch (top middle) also became blocked by sediment. A Harris County Flood Control District study found that the Diversion Ditch was one of the two most dangerous flooding problems in Kingwood.Broken dike at the Triple PG sand mine in Porter. Industrial waste water is flowing out of the mine into White Oak Creek which joins Caney Creek and the San Jacinto East Fork before flowing into Lake Houston.
Horrifying! Aren’t they? The truly horrifying part is that I have thousands of similar shots. These are not isolated instances.
This is THE biggest environmental problem in the Lake Houston Area. We have industrial waste polluting the drinking water supply for 2 million people and the TCEQ BMPs don’t even address the problem.
Don’t forget to reference “APO BMP List Proposal” when you submit the web form. Greater setbacks of mines from rivers could solve all the problems discussed above.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/13/25
2694 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/20240504-DJI_20240504164238_0406_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-01-13 17:53:172025-01-13 19:12:07Better Sand-Mining BMPs Needed to Control Sediment Pollution
1/11/25 – On July 15, 2020, Neel-Schaffer Engineering delivered the Kingwood Area Drainage Study to sponsors Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD), City of Houston and Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority/TIRZ 10.
HCFCD held a community meeting to discuss the results. The District delivered a 24-page high-level summary to the community at the time. However, I have now obtained the full two-volume, 620-page report and posted it on the Reports Page of ReduceFlooding.com under the Harris County Flood Control District Tab.
There were so many graphics in Volume 1, that I had to split it up into three parts to avoid the 32-meg file-size limitation of my web server. Warning: all parts comprise more than 50 megs.
But those maps contain a wealth of detail not available in the high level summary. For instance, they show floodplains down to the individual house level, the level of service for different stream segments, and which structures would flood in different mitigation scenarios and rainfall intensities.
The report focused on areas where structures would flood in less than a 100-year rainfall.
Full Reports of Follow-Up Studies Still Not Available
I posted about the high-level findings back in 2020. To refresh your memory, the report studied a large number of drainage features in Kingwood and concluded that mitigation of the Taylor Gully and the Kingwood Diversion Ditch were the two most important.
HCFCD recommended that the two projects: G103-38-00 (Kingwood Diversion Ditch) and G103-80-03.1B (Taylor Gully) move to the next phase: engineering design. Additionally, HCFCD recommended the Taylor Gully project be reanalyzed to determine how the use of Woodridge Village for detention could modify the recommended plan.
However, HCFCD has not released the full report on either. The District says it intends to present the full report on the Diversion Ditch to Commissioners Court on February 6th and may release it after that.
In the meantime, the maps in the Kingwood Area Drainage Study may be the best guide to flood risk in the area for realtors and those considering buying a home.
MAAPnext and FEMA still haven’t released the preliminary results of a massive floodplain update they have been working on since Harvey.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/11/25
2692 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KW-Area-Drainage-Sudy-Map-Kingwood-Center.jpg?fit=1100%2C594&ssl=15941100adminadmin2025-01-11 19:16:032025-01-11 19:27:17Full Kingwood Area Drainage Study Now Available Online
TRAM Pans TCEQ’s Mining BMPs, Proposes Improvements
1/14/25 – Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining (TRAM) has issued a position paper that pans a new set of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for mining that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has proposed. TRAM calls TCEQ’s BMPs “sparse,” “vague,” and “self-evident.”
TRAM asks everyone concerned about flooding and other issues related to aggregate mining to write the TCEQ before the close of public comments on the new BMPs. The deadline is January 24, 2025.
TRAM has also proposed a more comprehensive list of alternative BMPs that it believes will be more effective at minimizing disturbances created by mining.
TCEQ BMPs Fail to Address Legislature’s Requirements
Senate Bill 1 in the 2021 Legislative Session required TCEQ “to adopt and make accessible on the commission’s internet website best management practices for aggregate production operations regarding nuisance issues relating to dust, noise, and light…” But the BMPs ignore noise and light.
SB 1397 and House Bill (HB) 1505 in the 2023 Legislative Session then required TCEQ to adopt BMPs related to dust, water use, and water storage. But the proposed BMPs ignore water use.
TCEQ also ignored Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining’s (TRAM’s) technical team of credentialed professionals. TRAM created a vetted list of BMPs and presented it to the TCEQ for consideration. Instead of drawing from that resource…
Description of TRAM Concerns
According to TRAM, TCEQ’s draft BMPs weaken TCEQ’s effort to protect public health and natural resources by “pretending to establish new guidelines while actually saying nothing. It is a disservice to taxpayers and to the environment.”
Sparse
In regard to sparse, TRAM says, “The proposed BMP list fails to address many of the real issues associated with APOs, including issues they were directly charged with addressing.”
“While they addressed dust and water storage (albeit inadequately) the TCEQ completely overlooked the “water use” portion of their 2023 charge.” And they still haven’t addressed noise and light pollution from 2021.
“TCEQ has simply failed to comply with their mandates,” says TRAM.
Vague
TRAM also feels that the TCEQ recommendations are “too vague to be useful.” For instance, “Ensure vehicles are driven at reasonable speeds to reduce dust disturbance.” TRAM suggests posting speed limits of 10 or 15 mph for unpaved haul roads. The group believes that the value of a BMP list is in detailing what a “reasonable speed” ought to be.
TRAM gave another example of vagueness. TCEQ proposed “Use fuel-efficient and appropriately-sized equipment to reduce emissions, operation time, and the overall amount of dust you produce.” TRAM questioned what “appropriately sized” meant.
“How is anyone to assess when a BMP is being implemented,” TRAM asked, “if they are described in completely subjective terms like ‘reasonable’ and ‘appropriate’?”
Self-Evident
TRAM also cited TCEQ recommendations that were self-evident. For instance, “Be sure your stockpiles are only as high as your permit allows,” or “The further dust-producing operations are from the site boundaries, the less likely they will be to create a nuisance for any neighbors.”
“Who benefits from these self-evident recommendations and simple reminders to follow the permit requirements?” asked TRAM.
“Completely Inadequate”
TRAM summed up its concerns in two words. “This completely inadequate draft BMP list, three years in the making, only weakens TCEQ’s effort to protect public health and natural resources by pretending to establish new guidelines while actually saying nothing. It is a disservice to taxpayers and to the environment.”
Whatever BMPs TCEQ ultimately settles on, they will neither be required nor incentivized. Still, TRAM believes it is paramount that the list be thorough and well vetted. That’s because, “It will serve to educate the public about what quarry operators could be doing to be good neighbors.”
Send Feedback to TCEQ Now
TRAM and its member organizations ask that you submit public comments to TCEQ at the address or website provided below by the January 24th deadline.
Mail comments to Jess Robinson, MC 175, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. Or you may submit them electronically. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. on January 24, 2025, and should reference “APO BMP List Proposal.”
TRAM suggests mentioning the inadequacies above. The group also suggests including BMPs from TRAM’s list that are most important to you. And insisting TCEQ addresses unaddressed issues required by the Texas Legislature: water use, noise, and light pollution.
More Complete List and Thorough Descriptions Needed
Further, they suggest addressing more issues more completely. For instance, some of the many BMPs that should be included are:
ReduceFlooding.Com Suggestion
ReduceFlooding.com agrees with all of TRAM’s recommendations, but given recent erosion, I would suggest that the minimum safe distance from rivers such as the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto, be 200 feet. Fifty feet can be wiped out in one flood.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/14/25
2695 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.
Better Sand-Mining BMPs Needed to Control Sediment Pollution
1/13/25 – The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has proposed new Best Management Practices (BMPs) for mining in response to a mandate from the 2023 session of the Texas Legislature. However, in my opinion, the recommended BMPs will do little to nothing to help control sediment pollution from mines in the Lake Houston Area.
The BMPs feel like little more than a half-hearted attempt on the part of a reluctant regulator to create the illusion of environmental protection.
You can find the proposed BMPs at this page on the TCEQ website. You may submit comments on them electronically. To be considered, TCEQ must receive your input by 11:59 p.m. on January 24, 2025. Your email should reference “APO BMP List Proposal.”
Please let the TCEQ know what you think even if you disagree with me.
Notable Omissions
The TCEQ’s recommended BMPs do not really address the biggest mining issues we have in the upper San Jacinto watershed.
I urge you to urge TCEQ to develop BMPs that address:
The proposed BMPs do not cover these issues at all.
The final report of a TCEQ investigation into a West Fork pit capture last year didn’t even mention the phrase. Do they not consider it a problem? I sure wish the TCEQ could enlighten us on this issue. I documented seven instances of pit capture in the Lake Houston watershed last year alone. There may have been more; many mines are in remote, difficult-to-access locations.
Sediment Pollution Reduces Water Quality, Increases Flood Risk
All three of the bullet points above add up to a big problem called “sediment pollution.” Dredging costs for the City of Houston and Army Corps approached $200 million dollars as of October 2023. Better BMPs would likely have reduced or delayed that expenditure of public funds.
But those costs paled in comparison to the damages to 13,000 homes and businesses that flooded in the Lake Houston Area behind giant sand bars that formed sediment dams at the mouths of the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto.
Nor do the costs reflect extra water filtration at the City’s Northeast Water Purification plant.
To be fair, nature causes some erosion. The question is whether local mining practices accelerate it.
Photos of Sediment Pollution Related to Discharges, Pit Capture and Flooding
See the pictures below. I will submit these as part of my comments on the draft BMPs. Feel free to submit them as part of yours, too.
Hallett sold the San Jacinto West Fork sand pit below to a real estate developer. Within months, the river captured the pit.
River Speed During Floods High Enough to Stir Up and Carry Even Largest Particles of Sand
Now, let’s discuss the speed of floodwaters and whether it’s sufficient to entrain sand in pits and carry it downstream.
Horrifying! Aren’t they? The truly horrifying part is that I have thousands of similar shots. These are not isolated instances.
This is THE biggest environmental problem in the Lake Houston Area. We have industrial waste polluting the drinking water supply for 2 million people and the TCEQ BMPs don’t even address the problem.
Please register your opinion with the TCEQ at: https://tceq.commentinput.com/?id=NdefHRZiG. Help improve the quality of life for your family and community.
Don’t forget to reference “APO BMP List Proposal” when you submit the web form. Greater setbacks of mines from rivers could solve all the problems discussed above.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/13/25
2694 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.
Full Kingwood Area Drainage Study Now Available Online
1/11/25 – On July 15, 2020, Neel-Schaffer Engineering delivered the Kingwood Area Drainage Study to sponsors Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD), City of Houston and Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority/TIRZ 10.
HCFCD held a community meeting to discuss the results. The District delivered a 24-page high-level summary to the community at the time. However, I have now obtained the full two-volume, 620-page report and posted it on the Reports Page of ReduceFlooding.com under the Harris County Flood Control District Tab.
There were so many graphics in Volume 1, that I had to split it up into three parts to avoid the 32-meg file-size limitation of my web server. Warning: all parts comprise more than 50 megs.
But those maps contain a wealth of detail not available in the high level summary. For instance, they show floodplains down to the individual house level, the level of service for different stream segments, and which structures would flood in different mitigation scenarios and rainfall intensities.
The report focused on areas where structures would flood in less than a 100-year rainfall.
Full Reports of Follow-Up Studies Still Not Available
I posted about the high-level findings back in 2020. To refresh your memory, the report studied a large number of drainage features in Kingwood and concluded that mitigation of the Taylor Gully and the Kingwood Diversion Ditch were the two most important.
HCFCD recommended that the two projects: G103-38-00 (Kingwood Diversion Ditch) and G103-80-03.1B (Taylor Gully) move to the next phase: engineering design. Additionally, HCFCD recommended the Taylor Gully project be reanalyzed to determine how the use of Woodridge Village for detention could modify the recommended plan.
The District then commissioned preliminary engineering studies for each in June, 2021. It held community meetings to discuss the Taylor Gully results in December, 2022, and Diversion Ditch results in March, 2024.
However, HCFCD has not released the full report on either. The District says it intends to present the full report on the Diversion Ditch to Commissioners Court on February 6th and may release it after that.
In the meantime, the maps in the Kingwood Area Drainage Study may be the best guide to flood risk in the area for realtors and those considering buying a home.
MAAPnext and FEMA still haven’t released the preliminary results of a massive floodplain update they have been working on since Harvey.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/11/25
2692 Days since Hurricane Harvey