The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers an informative brochure titled Stormwater to Trees. It discusses how to engineer urban forests for stormwater management.
The brochure primarily targets engineers, planners, developers, architects, arborists and public officials. However, residents concerned about the loss of trees to new development may find it a useful tool to begin discussions with all of the above.
The 34-page brochure is about using trees to augment existing stormwater management systems and improve water quality while beautifying cities. It contains four major sections, briefly summarized below.
Section One: Urban Stormwater Runoff
By design and function, urban areas are covered with impervious surfaces such as roofs, streets, sidewalks, and parking lots. Rain falling on impervious surfaces cannot infiltrate the ground. Instead, it creates runoff: a problem for everyone. The runoff collects pollutants on its way to storm sewers that discharge into ditches, streams, bayous, lakes and bays.
This is how “non-point source pollution” starts. It can contaminate water supplies and affect the health of plants, fish, animals, and people. Excess runoff can also erode and damage property.
Section Two: The Role of Trees in Stormwater Management
In cities, trees can play an important role in stormwater management by reducing the amount of runoff that enters storm sewers. Trees act as mini-reservoirs that reduce and control runoff by:
Transpiration: Drawing water in through their roots and gently releasing it back into the atmosphere in the form of water vapor.
Interception: Leaves absorb rainfall, reducing the amount that hits the ground, and delaying/reducing peak flows.
Reduced Erosion: Tree canopies diminish the volume and velocity of rainfall, lessening its erosive force.
Increased Infiltration: Roots increase both the rate and absolute level of stormwater infiltration.
Phytoremediation: Trees can take up trace amounts of harmful chemicals and transform them into less harmful substances.
Increased soil volume and vegetation, including trees, maximizes potential for absorption, bioremediation and phytoremediation, according to EPA.Illustration from Stormwater to Trees.
Trees have proven value in reducing runoff and mitigating the costs of stormwater management, but their innate ability to absorb and divert rainfall has been underutilized, according to the EPA.
Therefore a major focus of this section is how to design sites for successful planting. It offers strategies for dealing with impervious surfaces and compacted soils that can stunt tree growth and shorten trees’ lifespans. For instance, pavements can be supported by pillars, piles, and structural cells, allowing for large volumes of uncompacted soil below ground.
Section Three: Stormwater Management Systems with Trees
The next section goes into more detail on each of those strategies. It discusses pros and cons of each and design considerations in various locations and applications. It also provides illustrations that help the reader quickly grasp the concepts.
This is the meat of the brochure. There’s too much in this section to summarize, but you can quickly scan it.
Major subsections include: suspended pavement and structural cells; structural soil; stormwater tree pits; permeable pavements; forested bioswales; and green streets.
Section Four; Case Studies
The final section of Stormwater to Trees contains illustrated case studies from cities across the country. Several describe 10% reductions in peak flows, a percentage consistent with academic studies elsewhere.
While that may not sound huge, it’s important if stormwater is lapping at your doorstep during heavy rains. It’s also important to remember that stormwater management is just one of the many benefits of trees. They also help clean the air, reduce energy needs, raise property values, and mitigate urban heat-island effects.
Newly elected State Representative Charles Cunningham has introduced a bill aimed at restoring sand mines to productive use after operators cease production. Cunningham filed HB1093 in December and it was referred to the House Natural Resources Committee on 3/2/2023.
Aimed at Protecting Water Supply for 2 Million People
HB1093 amends Section 28A of the Texas Water Code. It applies to aggregate production operations (APOs) located within 1500 feet of the San Jacinto. It deals with the reclamation of such mines and ensure water-quality in the river(s) around them.
The goal is to reduce adverse water-quality impacts to the San Jacinto and Lake Houston which supply drinking water to more than 2 million people. Additional benefits will accrue to recreation, wildlife, and environmental safety.
Requirements in Bill
Before abandonment, the bill requires APOs to file a reclamation plan signed by a licensed engineer. Such a plan would typically include measures such as revegetation, erosion control, grading, soil stabilization, and backfilling. The plans must also address:
Removal of materials used in production, waste, structures, roads, equipment and railroads.
Slope stability for the walls of remaining detention ponds
Closure of waste disposal areas
Costs for all of the above
Financial assurance (such as a performance bond, typical in the construction industry) designed to enable cleanup without cost to taxpayers if the operator walks away from the site or declares bankruptcy.
While we need sand to make concrete, we need clean water even more.
Why We Need This Bill
Think these issues aren’t real? They’re all around us. See the pictures below taken recently.
Dredge at abandoned mine on North Houston Avenue in Humble.More abandoned equipment at same mine.Another abandoned sand mine in Humble. No grading of slopes or vegetation that retards erosion. Note commercial structures threatened by collapsing walls of pit.Abandoned mine on East Fork in Liberty Countyshould have had soil stabilized with vegetation.Another shot from same mine. Old structures, materials not removed.And another. There are no fences to keep children from playing on this abandoned dredge.At the same mine on May 3, 2021. Note two breaches in dikes sweeping sand down the East Fork.Excavator in abandoned mine on West Fork.Collapsing dike of West Fork mine.Abandoned mine (foreground) next to recreational facility on opposite side of West Forkat I-45.
Part of Sedimentation Problem
Lake Houston has lost 20,000 acre feet due to sedimentation and continues to lose on average 380 acre feet annually.
In the 1980s, only one or two small mines existed on the San Jacinto West Fork. Today, sand mines occupy more than 20 square miles in a 20 mile reach of the river between I-69 and I-45. And many empty their pits into the river.
An active mine empties one of its pits into the abandoned mine in the foreground which drains straight into the West Fork.
The montage below shows the effect of such issues on water quality where Spring and Cypress Creeks join the West Fork. The angles vary. But in each shot, the dirtier water comes from the West Fork. This is typical and easily visible on most days.
Water coming from area with mines typically appears siltier.
Cost of Dredging
To maintain the capacity of Lake Houston and the conveyance of its tributaries, the City of Houston and Army Corps have dredged almost continuously since Harvey. To date, they have removed almost 4 million cubic yards of sediment at a cost of $226 million.
From presentation by Stephen Costello, City of Houston Chief Recovery Officer.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/20210817-DJI_0349.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-03-03 19:17:032023-03-07 11:24:33Cunningham Sponsors Bill to Ensure Restoration of Abandoned Sand Mines
Part One began by talking about how, after every major natural disaster, FEMA sends in building-code experts to examine how structures performed and make recommendations for code changes to reduce future damage. It’s part of a process of continuous improvement that could/should make us all safer.
Part One ended with one of the most poignant stories I have ever heard. After a Cat 4 Hurricane struck Florida last year, a FEMA team was driving down a street littered with the debris of gutted homes and shattered lives. Mountains of waterlogged drywall, carpeting, furniture and cherished possessions lined both sides of the street waiting to be hauled away…just as it did in Houston after Harvey and Imelda.
Kingwood debris pile after Imelda.
But when the FEMA team got to the end of the street, they saw something that stunned them – a pristine home with nothing out front. It was actually the home on the street closest to the ocean. As they paused to marvel at the miracle, the homeowner drove up. They asked him the logical question, “Did you build above code requirements?”
“Not really,” said the homeowner. “I just built to what the code required.”
He went on to elaborate how the building inspector was a real stickler. “I thought he just had it in for me because I was a hippie. I really hated the guy.”
“What do you think of him now?” asked the FEMA employees. The homeowner extended his arms and made a bowing motion as if to praise and thank the man who had been such a thorn in his side.
Billions Saved
FEMA estimates that adoption of hazard-resistant building codes saved $32 billion during the last 20 years and could save another $132 billion by 2040. Not to mention saving a lot of heartbreak and misery.
So why are people so resistant to adopting higher building codes?
Resistance on Many Levels
Part Two of the presentation examined sources of resistance to adopting higher building codes. They used Louisiana’s attempt to increase freeboard factors as an example of the the types of resistance FEMA frequently encounters from various groups.
In engineering, freeboard is is the distance codes require you to build above the current estimated 100-year flood level.
The greater the freeboard, the safer you are.
But still, people found reasons not to increase the freeboard. The second presenter examined seven sources of resistance:
Perceived conflict between statewide minimum codes and local governments that may wish to adopt higher standards.
Uncertainty about where freeboard regulations had and hadn’t been adopted already.
Debate about whether the state or local authorities should establish standards.
Questions about why FEMA isn’t making the regulations at a national level.
Perceived lack of discounts in Risk Rating 2.0 national flood insurance premiums for structures elevated to meet higher freeboard requirements.
Concern about whether fill to elevate homes would make flooding worse.
Confusion over how building code officials and floodplain managers can collaborate.
All are valid concerns. But all can be overcome. Pretty easily, it turns out.
Answers readily exist for each of these issues. For example, with #6 (probably the most valid concern), communities have adopted standards to limit fill in areas where floodwater storage is a major concern.
For the other answers, see the entire presentation. The point I really want to make is about the pushback against proven practices that save lives and property.
Why Resist Changes that Avert Human Suffering?
As I watched the presentation, the image floating through my head was of the NTSB investigating a plane crash that killed hundreds of people. Imagine if the investigation found a defective engine part caused the catastrophe. Do you think manufacturers would resist upgrading the part?
It’s unthinkable. Who would board such an airplane? What aircraft manufacturer would even lobby against the change? The negative publicity would put them out of business.
But homebuilding and the development business are different. The industry has a million players, not a handful. A few bad actors can escape notice because:
The codes are so complex that few understand them.
Lobbyists frame discussion as “acceptable risk” vs. “unacceptable costs.”
Responsibility is shared among government regulators at many levels, their political masters, and private industry.
This creates an atmosphere of plausible deniability when disaster strikes. “We were just following regulations.” (Yeah, but who lobbied against them?)
Building Codes Like Seat Belts
Some readers may remember the battles to pass and enforce seat belt laws. Even though the federal government required manufacturers to install seat belts in all new cars starting in 1968, only 14% of Americans regularly used them at first. Adoption of state laws mandating usage was spotty. And when a Michigan state rep introduced a bill in the early 1980s that levied a fine for not buckling up, he received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. American’s love their freedom so much, they can even react negatively to efforts to protect them.
Only six municipalities in all counties shown here have adopted up-to-date building codes.
So when the next disaster strikes, let the finger pointing begin.
No wait! Let’s just get a bailout from FEMA!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/1/2023
2010 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/2023/03/20230301-Screenshot-2023-03-01-at-10.33.27-AM.jpg?fit=1200%2C746&ssl=17461200adminadmin2023-03-01 11:01:492023-03-02 16:57:55Building-Code Pushback that Makes Disasters Worse
Engineering Urban Forests for Stormwater Management
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers an informative brochure titled Stormwater to Trees. It discusses how to engineer urban forests for stormwater management.
The brochure primarily targets engineers, planners, developers, architects, arborists and public officials. However, residents concerned about the loss of trees to new development may find it a useful tool to begin discussions with all of the above.
The 34-page brochure is about using trees to augment existing stormwater management systems and improve water quality while beautifying cities. It contains four major sections, briefly summarized below.
Section One: Urban Stormwater Runoff
By design and function, urban areas are covered with impervious surfaces such as roofs, streets, sidewalks, and parking lots. Rain falling on impervious surfaces cannot infiltrate the ground. Instead, it creates runoff: a problem for everyone. The runoff collects pollutants on its way to storm sewers that discharge into ditches, streams, bayous, lakes and bays.
This is how “non-point source pollution” starts. It can contaminate water supplies and affect the health of plants, fish, animals, and people. Excess runoff can also erode and damage property.
Section Two: The Role of Trees in Stormwater Management
In cities, trees can play an important role in stormwater management by reducing the amount of runoff that enters storm sewers. Trees act as mini-reservoirs that reduce and control runoff by:
Trees have proven value in reducing runoff and mitigating the costs of stormwater management, but their innate ability to absorb and divert rainfall has been underutilized, according to the EPA.
Therefore a major focus of this section is how to design sites for successful planting. It offers strategies for dealing with impervious surfaces and compacted soils that can stunt tree growth and shorten trees’ lifespans. For instance, pavements can be supported by pillars, piles, and structural cells, allowing for large volumes of uncompacted soil below ground.
Section Three: Stormwater Management Systems with Trees
The next section goes into more detail on each of those strategies. It discusses pros and cons of each and design considerations in various locations and applications. It also provides illustrations that help the reader quickly grasp the concepts.
This is the meat of the brochure. There’s too much in this section to summarize, but you can quickly scan it.
Major subsections include: suspended pavement and structural cells; structural soil; stormwater tree pits; permeable pavements; forested bioswales; and green streets.
Section Four; Case Studies
The final section of Stormwater to Trees contains illustrated case studies from cities across the country. Several describe 10% reductions in peak flows, a percentage consistent with academic studies elsewhere.
While that may not sound huge, it’s important if stormwater is lapping at your doorstep during heavy rains. It’s also important to remember that stormwater management is just one of the many benefits of trees. They also help clean the air, reduce energy needs, raise property values, and mitigate urban heat-island effects.
To review the complete brochure, click here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/4/2023 based on EPA information
2013 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Cunningham Sponsors Bill to Ensure Restoration of Abandoned Sand Mines
Newly elected State Representative Charles Cunningham has introduced a bill aimed at restoring sand mines to productive use after operators cease production. Cunningham filed HB1093 in December and it was referred to the House Natural Resources Committee on 3/2/2023.
Aimed at Protecting Water Supply for 2 Million People
HB1093 amends Section 28A of the Texas Water Code. It applies to aggregate production operations (APOs) located within 1500 feet of the San Jacinto. It deals with the reclamation of such mines and ensure water-quality in the river(s) around them.
The goal is to reduce adverse water-quality impacts to the San Jacinto and Lake Houston which supply drinking water to more than 2 million people. Additional benefits will accrue to recreation, wildlife, and environmental safety.
Requirements in Bill
Before abandonment, the bill requires APOs to file a reclamation plan signed by a licensed engineer. Such a plan would typically include measures such as revegetation, erosion control, grading, soil stabilization, and backfilling. The plans must also address:
While we need sand to make concrete, we need clean water even more.
Why We Need This Bill
Think these issues aren’t real? They’re all around us. See the pictures below taken recently.
Part of Sedimentation Problem
Lake Houston has lost 20,000 acre feet due to sedimentation and continues to lose on average 380 acre feet annually.
In the 1980s, only one or two small mines existed on the San Jacinto West Fork. Today, sand mines occupy more than 20 square miles in a 20 mile reach of the river between I-69 and I-45. And many empty their pits into the river.
The montage below shows the effect of such issues on water quality where Spring and Cypress Creeks join the West Fork. The angles vary. But in each shot, the dirtier water comes from the West Fork. This is typical and easily visible on most days.
Cost of Dredging
To maintain the capacity of Lake Houston and the conveyance of its tributaries, the City of Houston and Army Corps have dredged almost continuously since Harvey. To date, they have removed almost 4 million cubic yards of sediment at a cost of $226 million.
The City needs even more money to continue the program and it’s all at your (taxpayers’) expense.
How You Can Help
You can bet that TACA (the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association) will lobby against this bill. So show lawmakers it has your support.
Write to the Chairman of the Texas House Natural Resources Committee, Tracy O. King.
Also, submit public comments when the bill is going to be heard; I will let you know when that is. Here is the website to make Public Comments.
To learn more, consult the sand-mining page on ReduceFlooding.com.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/3/23
2012 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Building-Code Pushback that Makes Disasters Worse
On 2/28/23, I attended an excellent online FEMA seminar about building codes. It was a two-part presentation. Part One discussed how higher building codes can reduce damages from flooding. Part Two discussed building-code pushback. For example, despite all the flood damage in Texas, the State hasn’t updated its building codes since 2012 – even though the International Building Code and International Resilience Code have been updated several times since then.
That raises the question, “Why not?”
Life-Saving Codes
Part One began by talking about how, after every major natural disaster, FEMA sends in building-code experts to examine how structures performed and make recommendations for code changes to reduce future damage. It’s part of a process of continuous improvement that could/should make us all safer.
Part One ended with one of the most poignant stories I have ever heard. After a Cat 4 Hurricane struck Florida last year, a FEMA team was driving down a street littered with the debris of gutted homes and shattered lives. Mountains of waterlogged drywall, carpeting, furniture and cherished possessions lined both sides of the street waiting to be hauled away…just as it did in Houston after Harvey and Imelda.
But when the FEMA team got to the end of the street, they saw something that stunned them – a pristine home with nothing out front. It was actually the home on the street closest to the ocean. As they paused to marvel at the miracle, the homeowner drove up. They asked him the logical question, “Did you build above code requirements?”
“Not really,” said the homeowner. “I just built to what the code required.”
He went on to elaborate how the building inspector was a real stickler. “I thought he just had it in for me because I was a hippie. I really hated the guy.”
“What do you think of him now?” asked the FEMA employees. The homeowner extended his arms and made a bowing motion as if to praise and thank the man who had been such a thorn in his side.
Billions Saved
FEMA estimates that adoption of hazard-resistant building codes saved $32 billion during the last 20 years and could save another $132 billion by 2040. Not to mention saving a lot of heartbreak and misery.
So why are people so resistant to adopting higher building codes?
Resistance on Many Levels
Part Two of the presentation examined sources of resistance to adopting higher building codes. They used Louisiana’s attempt to increase freeboard factors as an example of the the types of resistance FEMA frequently encounters from various groups.
In engineering, freeboard is is the distance codes require you to build above the current estimated 100-year flood level.
But still, people found reasons not to increase the freeboard. The second presenter examined seven sources of resistance:
All are valid concerns. But all can be overcome. Pretty easily, it turns out.
Answers readily exist for each of these issues. For example, with #6 (probably the most valid concern), communities have adopted standards to limit fill in areas where floodwater storage is a major concern.
For the other answers, see the entire presentation. The point I really want to make is about the pushback against proven practices that save lives and property.
Why Resist Changes that Avert Human Suffering?
As I watched the presentation, the image floating through my head was of the NTSB investigating a plane crash that killed hundreds of people. Imagine if the investigation found a defective engine part caused the catastrophe. Do you think manufacturers would resist upgrading the part?
It’s unthinkable. Who would board such an airplane? What aircraft manufacturer would even lobby against the change? The negative publicity would put them out of business.
But homebuilding and the development business are different. The industry has a million players, not a handful. A few bad actors can escape notice because:
Building Codes Like Seat Belts
Some readers may remember the battles to pass and enforce seat belt laws. Even though the federal government required manufacturers to install seat belts in all new cars starting in 1968, only 14% of Americans regularly used them at first. Adoption of state laws mandating usage was spotty. And when a Michigan state rep introduced a bill in the early 1980s that levied a fine for not buckling up, he received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. American’s love their freedom so much, they can even react negatively to efforts to protect them.
It’s the same way with building codes. Even when they provide a greater than 10-to-1 payback and qualify you for a billion dollars in flood-mitigation funding!
If you want to see how appallingly out of date Texas building codes can be, explore these two websites.
So when the next disaster strikes, let the finger pointing begin.
No wait! Let’s just get a bailout from FEMA!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/1/2023
2010 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.