The first placement area: an active sand mine south of the Kingwood College between Sorters-McClellan Road and the West Fork. Note all the sand in the picture below. This sand mine was for sale, but the dredging spoils gave it new life. From here, sand goes to new construction projects across north Houston and southeast Montgomery County.
Looking SE at Placement Area 1, the Eagle Mine. West Fork San Jacinto in lower right. Sorters-McClellan Road cuts diagonally through top of frame above sand mine.Photo taken 1/20/2020.
Placement Area 2
The second placement area: an old pit on Townsend behind some flooded apartments in Humble.
Townsend in foreground turns from east/west to north/south. The apartments were heavily flooded during Harvey. West Fork and Army Corps Command Post in background. Some of this sand being sold too.
Placement Area 3: Berry Madden’s Property
Placement Area 3 is Berry Madden’s property south of the West Fork but north of FM1960. The water below is a back channel of the West Fork. Here, the spoils are being barged in from the mouth bar. The barges offload in the center left and the spoils are trucked inland. Should the dredgers shift over from mechanical to hydraulic dredging, this property can accommodate that.
Berry Madden’s property south of San Jacinto West Fork, west of Kings Lake Estates. Photo taken 1/20/2020. This placement area is just starting up. It will accommodate additional sand taken from the West Fork Mouth Bar. See below.
A Look at Mechanical Dredging
Currently, DRC is mechanically dredging the West Fork Mouth Bar. In hydraulic dredging, sand is pumped upstream continuously via pipeline. In mechanical, excavators scoop sand onto a barge, which shuttles it to a placement area as the pictures below show.
Excavator loads sand from west end of mouth bar onto waiting dredge.Photo by Josh Alberson 2/1/2020.Wider shot shows a second excavator and another barge working together farther east.Photo by Josh Alberson 2/1/2020.60-80 cubic yards are loaded onto a barge which is pushed upriver to Madden’s property. Photo by Josh Alberson 2/1/2020.After offloading, it returns to mouth bar for another load. Round trip time on Saturday afternoon: about 3 hours.Photo by Josh Alberson 2/1/2020.Back at the mouth bar, it’s time for a reload. Photo by Rachel Taylor, 2/1/2020.Bottoms up. Photo by Rachel Taylor, 2/1/2020.
Posted by Bob Rehak with photos from Josh Alberson and Rachel Taylor on February 2, 2020
887 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20200120-RJR_7445.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-02-02 04:19:042020-02-02 14:13:36What Happened to Sand From West Fork Dredging?
Since flooding in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest last year, the TCEQ has completed half a dozen investigations of Woodridge Village with more in the works. Woodridge Village is the troubled Perry Homes development where contractors clearcut 268 acres while installing less than 25% of the required detention capacity.
The TCEQ has repeatedly charged Perry contractors and subsidiaries with stormwater pollution violations and unauthorized discharge of sediment. Below are results of six investigations that led to a total of 13 citations. Together the 449 pages of these investigations indicate a lax attitude toward regulations, repeated failures to comply, poor coordination among vendors, and lack of awareness of responsibilities.
Investigation 1571093 of Figure Four Partners in June 2019
On June 17 and 18, 2019, TCEQ investigators cited Figure Four Partners, LTD for “failure to prevent the unauthorized discharge of sediment-laden water from the construction site which could contribute to pollution in waters of the state of Texas.” (See Investigation 1571093 and attachments.)
Investigators found Figure Four failed to implement and maintain best management practices. They tracked the illegal discharge 2.5 miles down Taylor Gully. Where the stream entered woods, lack of access prevented tracking the discharge further.
TCEQ ordered the operator to install adequate sediment controls to minimize discharges from the site.
Investigation 1579654 of Rebel Contractors in June 2019
This was an investigation of Rebel Contractors, which had responsibility for the southern 80 acres of the site.
The TCEQ report starts by noting that two previous complaints about Rebel Contractors had been referred to Montgomery County for investigation.
In this investigation, TCEQ collected water samples upstream and adjacent to the development that were not impacted. They also collected samples above the outfall from the development and downstream of it that were.
They found that total suspended solids (TSS) in the non-impacted samples ranged from 29 to 45 milligrams/liter. The impacted samples, however, ranged from 245 to 620 milligrams per liter.
Investigators also looked at total dissolved solids (TDS). Non-impacted samples ranged from 128 to 158 milligrams per liter. Impacted samples ranged from 2053 to 2804 milligrams per liter.
Water from and below the site had significantly higher TSS and TDS.
Investigators allege Rebel failed to implement and maintain effective Best Management Practices. They cited Rebel for “failure to prevent the unauthorized discharge of sediment-laden water from the construction site which could contribute to pollution in waters of the state of Texas.” They also cited Rebel for failure to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. It took Rebel six weeks to prepare and submit the plan to the TCEQ.
Investigation 1604733 of Figure Four Partners in October 2019
On October 25, 2019, investigators returned to the site and found Figure Four had violations similar to June. They ordered Figure Four, once again, to install adequate sediment controls that minimized discharges from the site. (See Investigation 1604733 and attachments.) They ordered Figure Four to install adequate controls that reduced discharges.
Investigation 1579655 of Double Oak Construction in June 2019
Double Oak Construction is responsible for clearing and grubbing on the Woodridge site. In June, TCEQ conducted an investigation during which they collected the previously mentioned water samples. They cited Double Oak for failure to prevent unauthorized discharges of sediment-laden water and failure to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
They also found that Double Oak could not identify where discharges went. They thought it was Galveston Bay.
By the end of August last year, Double Oak still had not submitted a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Investigation 1604738 of Rebel Contractors in October 2019
Second verse same as the first. Investigators found elevated levels of suspended and dissolves solids from the site relative to non-impacted areas. TCEQ alleges Rebel failed to implement and maintain Best Management Practices. They also allege discharge of pollutants, i.e., sediment-laden stormwater and failure to post a construction permit.
TCEQ ordered Rebel to control discharges and post a permit. It took Rebel 7 weeks to post the permit.
Investigation 1604741 of D&J Construction in October 2019
TCEQ cited D&J for failure to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and failure to include required information on their construction site notice.
886 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 135 since Imelda
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/2020/02/Woodridge-Erosion-by-TCEQ.jpg?fit=1200%2C910&ssl=19101200adminadmin2020-02-01 08:52:322020-02-01 08:57:21Six TCEQ Investigations Lead to 13 Citations for Woodridge Village Developer and Contractors
David Seitzinger, a Kingwood professional engineer, has studied Harvey flooding since it happened. In this letter to the SJRA Board, Seitzinger urges the SJRA to continue its seasonal lake lowering strategy until other flood mitigation measures can be implemented. Here, Seitzinger addresses one of the main causes of misunderstanding about the policy. Many Lake Conroe residents believe the lake will be lowered 1 or 2 feet from its current level (whatever that may be). However, the policy states the lake will NOT be lower below 200 or 199 from its normal target of 201. The SJRA has NOT lowered the lake since last October. Seitzinger shows that evaporation and below-normal rainfalls have taken the lake lower and kept it down, not the SJRA.
Text of Seitzinger Letter
San Jacinto River Authority P.O. Box 329 Conroe, Texas 77305 Re: Lake Level Vote
Dear Board Members,
My message to the Board is to renew and maintain the terms of the SJRA/COH Temporary Flood Mitigation Strategy for Lake Houston and Lake Conroe for 2020.
The agreement is contingent upon the dredging operation in Lake Houston. Unfortunately, the “stream mouth bar”, the most significant river obstacle, has not been removed due to FEMA and Army Corps of Engineers limits that were applied to the first dredging contract, not agreed to by the City of Houston. A new dredging contract and associated funding were released, but contractor mobilization is just starting. This is expected to delay the complete removal by at least one year.
Impact of Drought
I have read about the complaints of the Montgomery County citizens at the recent Board meeting. I think that the lowering of the level as required by the contract is not the real problem. The real problem is the “moderate drought” conditions in the Lake Conroe watershed limiting the ability to refill the lake that successfully occurred in 2018. If we look at Huntsville for watershed drought conditions, its 2019 rainfall is 13″ behind normal. Conroe, on the other hand, is 8″ ahead of normal due to the effects of Imelda that were limited to East Texas.
Watershed drought conditions are not rare occurrences. Looking back over the past 20 years, two other drought periods (2001 and 2011-14) have created low lake levels well below the current level of 199 feet. There was also a period in 2005-06, where the lake level was reduced to 197 feet for six months to repair dam damage due to Rita. I am not sure how many bulkheads were replaced and if property values dropped as a result of those lake level conditions.
Steps Being Taken to Mitigate Flooding
City of Houston and Harris County are taking rapid steps to remove flood-causing obstacles in the West Fork of the San Jacinto River that will reduce flooding risk in the Kingwood/Humble/Atascocita area.
HCFCD and SJRA are leading a comprehensive study of the San Jacinta watershed to model flooding conditions and identify mitigation strategies, which are expected to look at Lake Conroe water releases.
COH completion of the “stream mouth bar” dredging at the juncture of the West Fork and Lake Houston.
COH and CWA design and construction of additional gales at Lake Houston.
I have attached reference materials below for the history of water levels at Lake Conroe to support my lake levels and rainfall statements.
Sincerely, David Seitzinger
Lake Conroe Operation Requirements and Compliance for 2018 to 2020 To-Date
Lake level requirements by “SJRA/COH Temporary Flood Mitigation Strategy”
Lake level 2018 with complete compliance
Lake level 2019 in compliance until October 2019. Lake level is not able to recover due to low rain fall in the lake watershed. Rainfall at Huntsville is is 13 inches below normal and classified as a Moderate Drought conditions. Conroe is ahead of annual by 8 inches due to Imelda in September. Imelda rain did not fall in Lake Conroe’s watershed.
Lake Conroe Last 20 Years of Lake Levels Highlighting Low Level Periods
Rainfall 2019 History Below the Dam
Lake Conroe Water Levels
Historical Variation in Reservoir Storage
Actual Specific Historical Lake Levels
Reservoir Description by USGS
Water level at Lake Conroe has been generally stable with a typical 1- to 2-foot drop in water level during the summer. The exceptions have been in 2001 when drought conditions caused summer water level to fall 3 feet below pool and in 2005-20-06 when damage to the dam caused by Hurricane Rita required the water level to be held at 4 feet below pool for about six months.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/31/2020
855 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Lake-Level-Compliance.png?fit=2140%2C1374&ssl=113742140adminadmin2020-01-31 14:59:512020-01-31 15:00:04David Seitzinger Letter to SJRA Focuses on Lake Levels and Drought
What Happened to Sand From West Fork Dredging?
People often ask, “What happened to all that sand they took out of the river?” During the Army Corps Emergency West Fork San Jacinto Dredging Project in 2018 and 2019, they pumped approximately 2.3 million cubic yards of sand upriver to two “placement areas.”
Placement Area 1
The first placement area: an active sand mine south of the Kingwood College between Sorters-McClellan Road and the West Fork. Note all the sand in the picture below. This sand mine was for sale, but the dredging spoils gave it new life. From here, sand goes to new construction projects across north Houston and southeast Montgomery County.
Placement Area 2
The second placement area: an old pit on Townsend behind some flooded apartments in Humble.
Placement Area 3: Berry Madden’s Property
Placement Area 3 is Berry Madden’s property south of the West Fork but north of FM1960. The water below is a back channel of the West Fork. Here, the spoils are being barged in from the mouth bar. The barges offload in the center left and the spoils are trucked inland. Should the dredgers shift over from mechanical to hydraulic dredging, this property can accommodate that.
A Look at Mechanical Dredging
Currently, DRC is mechanically dredging the West Fork Mouth Bar. In hydraulic dredging, sand is pumped upstream continuously via pipeline. In mechanical, excavators scoop sand onto a barge, which shuttles it to a placement area as the pictures below show.
Posted by Bob Rehak with photos from Josh Alberson and Rachel Taylor on February 2, 2020
887 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Six TCEQ Investigations Lead to 13 Citations for Woodridge Village Developer and Contractors
Since flooding in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest last year, the TCEQ has completed half a dozen investigations of Woodridge Village with more in the works. Woodridge Village is the troubled Perry Homes development where contractors clearcut 268 acres while installing less than 25% of the required detention capacity.
The TCEQ has repeatedly charged Perry contractors and subsidiaries with stormwater pollution violations and unauthorized discharge of sediment. Below are results of six investigations that led to a total of 13 citations. Together the 449 pages of these investigations indicate a lax attitude toward regulations, repeated failures to comply, poor coordination among vendors, and lack of awareness of responsibilities.
Investigation 1571093 of Figure Four Partners in June 2019
On June 17 and 18, 2019, TCEQ investigators cited Figure Four Partners, LTD for “failure to prevent the unauthorized discharge of sediment-laden water from the construction site which could contribute to pollution in waters of the state of Texas.” (See Investigation 1571093 and attachments.)
Investigators found Figure Four failed to implement and maintain best management practices. They tracked the illegal discharge 2.5 miles down Taylor Gully. Where the stream entered woods, lack of access prevented tracking the discharge further.
TCEQ ordered the operator to install adequate sediment controls to minimize discharges from the site.
Investigation 1579654 of Rebel Contractors in June 2019
This was an investigation of Rebel Contractors, which had responsibility for the southern 80 acres of the site.
The TCEQ report starts by noting that two previous complaints about Rebel Contractors had been referred to Montgomery County for investigation.
In this investigation, TCEQ collected water samples upstream and adjacent to the development that were not impacted. They also collected samples above the outfall from the development and downstream of it that were.
They found that total suspended solids (TSS) in the non-impacted samples ranged from 29 to 45 milligrams/liter. The impacted samples, however, ranged from 245 to 620 milligrams per liter.
Investigators also looked at total dissolved solids (TDS). Non-impacted samples ranged from 128 to 158 milligrams per liter. Impacted samples ranged from 2053 to 2804 milligrams per liter.
Water from and below the site had significantly higher TSS and TDS.
Investigators allege Rebel failed to implement and maintain effective Best Management Practices. They cited Rebel for “failure to prevent the unauthorized discharge of sediment-laden water from the construction site which could contribute to pollution in waters of the state of Texas.” They also cited Rebel for failure to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. It took Rebel six weeks to prepare and submit the plan to the TCEQ.
(See Investigation 1579654 and attachments.)
Investigation 1604733 of Figure Four Partners in October 2019
On October 25, 2019, investigators returned to the site and found Figure Four had violations similar to June. They ordered Figure Four, once again, to install adequate sediment controls that minimized discharges from the site. (See Investigation 1604733 and attachments.) They ordered Figure Four to install adequate controls that reduced discharges.
Investigation 1579655 of Double Oak Construction in June 2019
Double Oak Construction is responsible for clearing and grubbing on the Woodridge site. In June, TCEQ conducted an investigation during which they collected the previously mentioned water samples. They cited Double Oak for failure to prevent unauthorized discharges of sediment-laden water and failure to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
(See Investigation 1579655 and attachments.)
They also found that Double Oak could not identify where discharges went. They thought it was Galveston Bay.
By the end of August last year, Double Oak still had not submitted a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Investigation 1604738 of Rebel Contractors in October 2019
Second verse same as the first. Investigators found elevated levels of suspended and dissolves solids from the site relative to non-impacted areas. TCEQ alleges Rebel failed to implement and maintain Best Management Practices. They also allege discharge of pollutants, i.e., sediment-laden stormwater and failure to post a construction permit.
TCEQ ordered Rebel to control discharges and post a permit. It took Rebel 7 weeks to post the permit.
(See Investigation 1604738 and attachments.)
Investigation 1604741 of D&J Construction in October 2019
TCEQ cited D&J for failure to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and failure to include required information on their construction site notice.
(See Investigation 1604741 and attachments.)
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/1/2020
886 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 135 since Imelda
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.
David Seitzinger Letter to SJRA Focuses on Lake Levels and Drought
David Seitzinger, a Kingwood professional engineer, has studied Harvey flooding since it happened. In this letter to the SJRA Board, Seitzinger urges the SJRA to continue its seasonal lake lowering strategy until other flood mitigation measures can be implemented. Here, Seitzinger addresses one of the main causes of misunderstanding about the policy. Many Lake Conroe residents believe the lake will be lowered 1 or 2 feet from its current level (whatever that may be). However, the policy states the lake will NOT be lower below 200 or 199 from its normal target of 201. The SJRA has NOT lowered the lake since last October. Seitzinger shows that evaporation and below-normal rainfalls have taken the lake lower and kept it down, not the SJRA.
Text of Seitzinger Letter
San Jacinto River Authority
P.O. Box 329
Conroe, Texas 77305
Re: Lake Level Vote
Dear Board Members,
My message to the Board is to renew and maintain the terms of the SJRA/COH Temporary Flood Mitigation Strategy for Lake Houston and Lake Conroe for 2020.
The agreement is contingent upon the dredging operation in Lake Houston. Unfortunately, the “stream mouth bar”, the most significant river obstacle, has not been removed due to FEMA and Army Corps of Engineers limits that were applied to the first dredging contract, not agreed to by the City of Houston. A new dredging contract and associated funding were released, but contractor mobilization is just starting. This is expected to delay the complete removal by at least one year.
Impact of Drought
I have read about the complaints of the Montgomery County citizens at the recent Board meeting. I think that the lowering of the level as required by the contract is not the real problem. The real problem is the “moderate drought” conditions in the Lake Conroe watershed limiting the ability to refill the lake that successfully occurred in 2018. If we look at Huntsville for watershed drought conditions, its 2019 rainfall is 13″ behind normal. Conroe, on the other hand, is 8″ ahead of normal due to the effects of Imelda that were limited to East Texas.
Watershed drought conditions are not rare occurrences. Looking back over the past 20 years, two other drought periods (2001 and 2011-14) have created low lake levels well below the current level of 199 feet. There was also a period in 2005-06, where the lake level was reduced to 197 feet for six months to repair dam damage due to Rita. I am not sure how many bulkheads were replaced and if property values dropped as a result of those lake level conditions.
Steps Being Taken to Mitigate Flooding
City of Houston and Harris County are taking rapid steps to remove flood-causing obstacles in the West Fork of the San Jacinto River that will reduce flooding risk in the Kingwood/Humble/Atascocita area.
I have attached reference materials below for the history of water levels at Lake Conroe to support my lake levels and rainfall statements.
Sincerely,
David Seitzinger
Lake Conroe Operation Requirements and Compliance for 2018 to 2020 To-Date
Lake Conroe Last 20 Years of Lake Levels Highlighting Low Level Periods
Rainfall 2019 History Below the Dam
Lake Conroe Water Levels
Historical Variation in Reservoir Storage
Actual Specific Historical Lake Levels
Reservoir Description by USGS
Water level at Lake Conroe has been generally stable with a typical 1- to 2-foot drop in water level during the summer. The exceptions have been in 2001 when drought conditions caused summer water level to fall 3 feet below pool and in 2005-20-06 when damage to the dam caused by Hurricane Rita required the water level to be held at 4 feet below pool for about six months.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/31/2020
855 Days after Hurricane Harvey