One-Click Submittal for Suggested Public Comments on Proposed Sand-Mining BMPs

For those wishing to submit comments about sand-mining Best Management Practices (BMPs), but who may feel daunted by the complexity, I’ve compiled a list. If you use a computer-based email application, you should be able to submit it with one click.

To automatically submit the suggestions, click this link.


It should address and title an email, then automatically insert the recommended text shown below. Don’t forget to insert your own contact information at the end of the email, before hitting the send button.

I have not tested the automated link with all email apps, browsers and platforms. So if you run into problems, just cut and paste the text between the separators below. Again, don’t forget to add your contact information.

Please share this with all your friends, family and neighbors. Ask them to submit the comments and share it, too.

Deadline: 8/19/21. 


Dear TCEQ,

After reviewing the Draft Proposed BMPs for Sand Mining in the San Jacinto River Basin, I have several comments that I would like you to consider.

  1. Geographic area should include “all tributaries draining into Lake Houston,” not a limited subset.
  2. Include provision that steps up enforcement. Operators already routinely violate too many of these BMPs.
  3. Introduction: Put the need for BMPs in perspective by including a sentence or two that talks about the $222 million spent by Federal, State, and Local governments to dredge the San Jacinto.
  4. Introduction: Add this thought. “The presence of the Lake Conroe dam can lull operators on the West Fork into a false sense of security. During Harvey, Lake Conroe released 79,000 CFS. All by itself, that would have qualified as the ninth largest flood in West Fork history, even if not a drop of rain had fallen anywhere else in the watershed. Such high rates of conveyance lead to high rates of erosion and sediment transport that require operators to exercise extreme caution in this environment and closely follow the BMPs below.”
  5. Introduction, include a sentence to this effect. “When deviating from standard BMPs, the operator must file documentation with the TCEQ which will be posted for public inspection and obtain written approval from the TCEQ.”
  6. Introduction: In the bullet point after “Geographic Location,” replace “hydrogeology” with “Surface and groundwater hydrology.”
  7. Introduction: After the sentence which ends with “…implemented by the sand mining operators,” Include the following. “All BMPs must be submitted to the Executive Director (ED) of the program for review and approval.” 
  8. 2.1: Replace “next anticipated storm” with “must repair or replace controls immediately when damage is noted during weekly inspections.”
  9. 2.1.1: Define the 100-foot buffer zone as “…measured from the stream bank to the closest disturbed area…”
  10. 2.1.1: After “and 35 feet for intermittent streams” insert the following: “Wider buffer zones might be necessary where riverbank erosion rates are high.”
  11. 2.2: Change Site operators must “inspect disturbed areas” to “inspect and document disturbed areas.”
  12. 2.2: After “…All structural controls must be in compliance with local rules and permitting requirements,” add: “including special restrictions for construction in a FEMA-defined floodway.”
  13. 2.2: Require that operators inspect all structural controls “once every seven (7) calendar days.”
  14. 2.2.5: Specify that “operators must measure and document the depth of sediment basins at least once a year, as well as before and after major floods.”
  15. 2.2.5: Add: “Special consideration must be given to stability of the outer dike (or levee) separating the pits from the vegetated buffer zone adjacent to the river. Lateral erosion of the river can result in breaching of the dike and potentially rerouting the river through the pit area (pit capture).”
  16. 2.2.5: Specify what operators must do “prior to discharge” to have a “permitted” discharge.”
  17. 2.2.6: In the sentence that ends with “…will not erode the receiving stream,” add “…or adjacent properties.”
  18. 2.2.10: Detention ponds big enough to hold an inch of rain seem wholly inadequate in an area where Atlas-14 specifies 16.9 inches for a 100-year event. Harris County Flood Control District recommends minimum detention volumes for developments at .65 acre feet per acre. That’s about 8 inches of rainfall. Please modify required depth.
  19. 3.1: Specify that TCEQ must approve the mine plan.
  20. 3.1: Mention that building mines in floodways requires extreme precautions for virtually every facet of mining. (This section currently makes no mention of floodways, yet virtually all San Jacinto mines are at least partially built in floodways.)
  21. 3.1: Replace the sentence that starts with “An evaluation of…” with “The susceptibility for erosion of on-site soils and lateral erosion rates of adjacent rivers must also be known in the pre-planning stages. If parts of the proposed mine are located in a FEMA-defined floodway, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice must demonstrate that the proposed encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels or erosion of upstream, downstream, or adjacent properties.”
  22. 3.2.1: After the sentence that ends with “…other than TCEQ hold jurisdiction,” replace the next sentence with “Additional erosion controls or increased buffer widths may be needed where river erosion rates are high, receiving streams are listed in the Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d), or critical facilities (e.g. bridges, pipeline or utility corridors) are adjacent to the proposed operation.”
  23. 3.2.1: Complete the sentence that starts with “Understanding site drainage can be obtained by using…” with “existing LiDAR and aerial photo images.” Delete the part about USGS Topographic maps which show a series of contour lines. Then modify the next sentence in that paragraph to read, “These images (combined with lower resolution USGS topographic maps) can be used to determine slope of the  ground surface through the site to identify drainage patterns.”
  24. 3.2.2: After the sentence that ends with “…water supply wells are located nearby,” add this sentence: “If present, waste management units must be located a minimum horizontal distance from adjacent water wells, in accordance with 16 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 76.”
  25. 3.3: Say “Topsoil material MUST be temporarily stockpiled for future use in post-mining activities.”
  26. 3.3: Add this thought. “Stockpiles may not be located in floodways.”
  27. 3.3.2: After, “…diverting upslope water around a planned area for disturbance is also good practice,” add “however, care must be taken to not have the diverted water result in increased downslope flooding.”
  28. 3.3.3: Change the sentence that starts with “Stockpile protection is most effective when…”, so that it reads, “Stockpile protection  is most effective when stockpiles are not located on the FEMA-defined floodway, are located away from concentrated flows of storm water, drainage courses, and inlets, and when are properly protected with perimeter sediment barriers and covered.”
  29. 3.3.3: After the sentence that ends with “…geoscientists certifying BMPs at the site,” add another sentence that reads, “Additional buffer width or structures may be required where critical structures such as pipeline or utility corridors are located.”
  30. 4.1: Add: “Operators should not dredge a vertical wall at the edge of buffer zones. This can lead to cave ins at the edges that decrease the width of the buffer zones. It may also not leave enough room to taper slopes enough to plant vegetation in the post-mining phase.”
  31. 4.5: Add “All fuel storage tanks must be located outside of floodways.” 
  32. 4.5: Add “New floodplain and floodway maps for the San Jacinto region should be released sometime in 2022 or 2023. Floodways are expected to expand by approximately 50%. Take this into account when planning placement of storage tanks.”
  33. 4.5: Add “Remove all fuel storage equipment and tanks before abandoning a mine.”
  34. 4.6: Add new section that includes this thought. 
  35. 5: Change the first sentence in the introduction to say, “The Post-Mining Phase stabilization plan must be approved by TCEQ, subject to input from the landowner and downstream property owners.”
  36. 5.1: Change “may” to “must” in the second sentence and delete several subsequent words so that it reads, “The following guidelines MUST be used to meet site stabilization objectives.”
  37. 6: Replace the entire introduction with the following: “Prior to operations beginning at a sand mining facility site or portion(s) of the site, an initial stabilization report must be submitted to the executive director for review and approval at (Address). The Initial Stabilization Report must, at a minimum, include and demonstrate that the items described below in section 6.1 Report Requirements will be addressed. This initial report will be updated annually to reflect current mobilization and reclamation areas.”
  38. 6.1: Add: “After completion of mining, remove all vehicles and debris that could be swept downstream in a flood.”
  39. 6.1: Under Structural Controls, after the sentence that ends with “…manage remaining onsite drainage,” add another sentence. “This includes making sure the outer dike (or levee) that separates the abandoned pits from the adjacent river is not breached due to lateral erosion of the river.”
  40. 6.1: Under High Walls, after “The permittee shall demonstrate that all remaining highwalls are stable and safe,” add the following. “This may mean leaving enough buffer between adjoining properties to taper slopes to a gradient that will allow the planing of vegetative controls that prevent erosion.”
  41. 6.1: Add: “Conservation easements on buffer areas, placed before mining, could be utilized to ensure community protection. Conservation easements placed post-reclamation would ensure that site ecology would be monitored, and restoration activities completed. An accredited land trust involved as a conservation partner would provide third-party documentation of adherence to the ecological practices outlined in these guidelines and provide community oversight that is currently missing.”
  42. Glossary: Add “Floodway (Regulatory Floodway) – the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height.”

If you would like to provide your own public comments, email Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” by the close of business tomorrow.

To see the complete text of all proposed BMPs, click here.

For more explanation about the recommended comments, see these posts:

  1. Scope and Need for Proposed BMPs
  2. Setbacks from Rivers
  3. Vegetative Controls
  4. Structural Controls
  5. Pre-Mining Planning
  6. Mining Phase
  7. Post-Mining Phase
  8. Final Stabilization

Thanks in advance for taking the time to help.

This company lost property (red circles) when a sand mine left highwalls around it that collapsed into the pit.
Photograph of same areas taken on 8/17/2021.

Each of the recommendations above has a story behind it like these pictures tell. Please help by submitting public comments.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/19/2021

1451 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.

Weekly Digest of Lake Houston Area Flood-Related News

Below is this week’s digest of flood-related news affecting the Lake Houston Area.

San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group

Save the date. The San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group (Region 6) will hold it’s next public meeting on Tuesday, August 31, 2021, from 6:30 to 7:30 PM. You must register here to receive meeting access information and an online calendar invitation.

The first regional flood plans will be due in January 2023, and the first state flood plan will be due to the Texas Legislature by September 1, 2024.

The upper watershed has a new representative to this group: Neil Gaynor from The Woodlands. Mr. Gaynor has a PhD in Geology and will serve the area well.

Liberty County Drainage District

According to the Bluebonnet News, on Tuesday August 10, Liberty County commissioners approved the creation of a drainage district to serve the entire county. County Judge Jay Knight is quoted as saying, “The goal is to mitigate flooding and enhance drainage in the entire county.” Commissioners appointed a temporary board to draw up by-laws. But the District must still be approved by voters, because this would be a taxing district.

“I don’t want Liberty County to be in the same situation as Harris County is in now with its drainage problems,” said Knight. “Now is the time for Liberty County while drainage improvements can be done cheaper and while land acquisition for those plans is much easier. It will be much more expensive if we wait….This gives us another way to make developers behave. I just wish it had been in place 20 years ago.”

Harris County Engineer Resigns

John Blount, the Harris County Engineer, resigned last week, continuing the alarming exodus of experience among Harris County department heads. When Russ Poppe, head of the Flood Control District, resigned in June, he received multiple honors and media recognition. So this time, the political leadership has reportedly put out a gag order on the media. But this letter went to Commissioners Court members and all department staff last Friday.

The 34-year veteran of the department served many different judges and commissioners. According to one engineer I talked to, he had the toughest engineering job in the county, perhaps even tougher than Poppe’s. But the silence from the media on his resignation speaks volumes.

The Engineering Department works hand in hand with the Flood Control District on many drainage projects, especially those that relate to roads, streets, highways and subdivisions. The Engineering Department is also home of the Infrastructure Resilience Team which works with the Community Flood Resilience Task Force.

Blount has agreed to stay until the Judge and Commissioners agree on a replacement…as long as that can be done before October 1.

Lake Conroe Association Pleads for Donations

With its legal challenge to the Seasonal Lake Lowering Plan being heard in MoCo District Court on August 24, the Lake Conroe Association has issued a plea for donations, saying that its legal battles “have fully consumed our lake protection reserve fund.”

For the full text of the letter, click here.

From April though July, the Lake Conroe Association filed approximately 2,800 pages of legal briefs in the case.

The case places much emphasis on drought.

Drought Monitor

The Texas Water Development Board posts a weekly drought monitor. Only problem for the Lake Conroe Association is, there isn’t any within a thousand miles. The pocket near El Paso was in drought, but they just had their wettest June/July in 127 years.

Source: Texas Water Development Board

Lake Level Report

As of Tuesday, 8/17/2021 at 11PM, Lake Conroe stood at 200.45 feet. That’s about a half foot below its conservation pool but still about a foot above the monthly mean level for August (199.6). That monthly mean goes back to 2000.

USGS data showing the average monthly levels of Lake Conroe for the 18 years before the seasonal lake lowering started. Note: the averages for August and September.

In other words, evaporation usually reduces the lake level in August as far as the SJRA has been with its seasonal lake lowering plan.

When I came across those figures, I realized that the seasonal lake lowering plan was just designed as insurance in case Mother Nature didn’t do her job in a particular year.

Shhhh. Don’t anyone tell the judge in the LCA lawsuit about Mother Nature’s “wasteful, ineffective, and deceitful program.”

Meanwhile, Lake Houston is slightly above its normal level.

Source: Coastal Water Authority via USGS.

Wayne Dolcefino Takes on MoCo

One of the world’s great investigative journalists, Wayne Dolcefino, has set his sights on Montgomery County now. A subdivision there named Carriage Hills is fighting another subdivision going in next to it. The new subdivision evidently started building streets before the plats were approved. It also failed to take its drainage to the river, so the drainage is spilling onto properties in Carriage Hills.

Photo taken May 26, 2021 of new development next to Carriage Hills on left. Looking South. Note substantial erosion already.
Also taken May 26, 2021 looking South. Note how drainage channel stops short of river. Carriage Hills is to left in heavily wooded area.

Neither the MoCo engineer, nor LJA, which does contract work for the MoCo engineer, seem overly excited about the oversight.

LJA is also reportedly working with TxDoT to build another bridge across the West Fork that will go through several Carriage Hills properties. This has the property owners upset because other routes were available that would not affect their properties.

See Dolcefino’s latest, the “Road to Ruin,” on YouTube.

Dolcefino Carriage Hills Video

TCEQ Best Management Practices for Sand Mines

TCEQ has proposed Best Management Practices for Sand Mines in the San Jacinto River Basin.

If you haven’t yet submitted your public comments, they’re due tomorrow. My last post on this subject includes links to a series of previous posts that describe gaps and areas for improvement.

If you want to help reduce future buildups of sediment in the San Jacinto, please consider sending your thoughts to Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.

Later today, I hope to post a summary of concerns that you could forward with one click.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/18/2021

1450 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.

BMPs for Final Stabilization Report Omit Crucial Elements

This is the eighth in a series about Best Management Practices (BMPs) proposed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for sand mines in the San Jacinto watershed. This post will focus on the Final Stabilization Report that operators should file after mines cease operation.

As we saw yesterday, operators abandon many mines with little thought to stabilization, cleanup, or reclamation. When that happens, mines become a blight on communities and the environment.

The seven previous posts have talked about:

  1. Scope and Need for Proposed BMPs
  2. Setbacks from Rivers
  3. Vegetative Controls
  4. Structural Controls
  5. Pre-Mining Planning
  6. Mining Phase
  7. Post-Mining Phase

Below is the text of proposed BMPs for the Final Stabilization Report. I will provide my comments at the end. Here is a link to the complete text of all BMPs proposed by the TCEQ.

Final Stabilization Report

BMPs within the final stabilization report show what the TCEQ values. One made me scratch my head and sigh “Huh?” Others represent glaring omissions. Below, see the proposed text.

6  Final Stabilization Report

Prior to operations terminating at a sand mining facility site or portion(s) of the site, a final stabilization report must be submitted to the executive director for review and approval at the following address:

  • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Stormwater Team Leader (MC-148)
  • P.O. Box 13087
  • Austin, Texas 78711-3087

The Final Stabilization Report must, at a minimum, include and demonstrate that the items described below in section 6.1 Report Requirements have been addressed.

6.1  Report Requirements

Vegetative Cover:

  • The operator shall establish perennial vegetative cover in all areas except where ponds, highwalls, permanent structures, or paved areas exist.
  • Perennial vegetative cover must be uniform (i.e. evenly distributed with no large bare areas) and have a density of at least 70 percent of the native background vegetative cover for the area.

Vehicle and Equipment Storage and Maintenance Areas:

  • The operator shall remove fluids and batteries from, and thoroughly clean all vehicles and equipment remaining on-site.
  • All fuel and chemicals must be removed from maintenance areas. Maintenance areas must be thoroughly cleaned and cleared. If maintenance areas are unpaved, these areas must have vegetative cover established.

Structural Controls:

All temporary structural controls must be removed from the site. Remaining permanent structural controls must be adequate to manage remaining on-site drainage.

Other:

  • Highwalls: The permittee shall demonstrate that all remaining highwalls are stable and safe.
  • Waste: All waste must be removed from the site and disposed in accordance with applicable TCEQ rules.
  • Landowner Agreement: If applicable, a copy of all existing agreements with landowners regarding stabilization of the site must be included.
  • Certification: The Final Stabilization Report must be signed and certified by a Texas licensed professional engineer or a Texas licensed professional geoscientist.

Comments

I have several comments on these.

The first has to do with vehicles and equipment “remaining” onsite. The BMP only requires that the operator must “thoroughly clean all vehicles and equipment remaining on site”! Really? Why not require removal?

This BMP lets operators turn old mines (and our river system) into junk yards. It’s a recipe for urban decay. Rivers flood periodically and will inundate the old equipment and abandoned vehicles. Simply cleaning it before it floods and rusts is a joke.

If operators don’t want the equipment and vehicles they should sell them to another operator or for scrap, not just clean them. Don’t turn them into a blight on the landscape or communities.

Sand mining equipment abandoned for years between downtown Humble and the West Fork.
One operator’s idea of cleaning an excavator before abandoning it. This pit is now open to the river through erosion.

Second, the Final Stabilization report BMPs make no mention of removing debris.

Give me a home…where the deer and the antelope roam! Abandoned West Fork Mine.

Third, nor do they mention removing old buildings which could attract squatters and drug users.

Abandoned East Fork Mine with rusting buildings still on site.

Fourth, they make no mention of ensuring that outer dikes (or levees) separating abandoned pits from adjacent rivers are not breached due to lateral erosion of the river.

Abandoned mine after Harvey on right, West Fork on left.
Same area today. Lateral erosion breached dike allowing sediment to escape.

Finally, as with the BMPs in previously covered sections, enforcement is an issue here, too.

So where’s the vegetative cover?
The high wall of this pit has partially collapsed endangering properties around it and people standing near it. The wall was not properly stabilized.

Public Comments Due by 7/19/21

Please submit your thoughts on the Final Stabilization Report and other BMPs to the TCEQ. Email Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/17/2021

1449 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.