How Vegetative Controls Can Help Sand Mines Reduce Erosion and Flooding

During Harvey, millions of cubic yards of sediment moved downstream. Some came from river bank erosion. But some also came from exposed sediment in sand mines that flank both sides of the West Fork like the one below.

West Fork Sand Mine photographed May 5, 2021. Such mines occupy 20 square miles in a 20 mile stretch between I-45 and I-69.

It’s exceedingly difficult to determine the percentages that came from various sources. Regardless, sediment built up at key places, blocking both the West Fork and its tributaries. Those blockages backed water up into thousands of homes and businesses.

The mouth bar of the West Fork (photographed after Harvey) is now gone thanks to three years and more than $100 million of dredging. Ten feet of sediment was deposited in this area during Harvey, severely restricting the conveyance of the river and contributing to the flooding of thousands of homes and businesses.

Ever since then, the Lake Houston Area Flood Prevention Initiative has lobbied the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association to adopt a comprehensive and improved set of best management practices (BMPs).

In yesterday’s post, I discussed setbacks from rivers, a major improvement in the new BMPs now being considered. Today, I will discuss vegetative controls in the Draft of Proposed BMPs, now in the public comment period. If observed, they could reduce sedimentation and flooding. If not, we could have more problems right here in River City. So please get involved.

Section 2.1 Vegetative Controls

Vegetative controls play a major role in minimizing soil exposure, erosion and runoff.

A large part of the new BMPs, Section 2.1, deals with vegetative controls. I summarize and liberally quote from that section below so that boaters, neighbors and community officials will know what the TCEQ expects mines to do. Also, the wording in one section should be strengthened to eliminate ambiguity. I will call it out below for readers so you can request the TCEQ to improve the language.

How Vegetation Helps Reduce Erosion

According to the TCEQ, “Vegetation is an inexpensive and effective way to protect soil from erosion. It also decreases erosion from flowing water by reducing its velocity. Roots hold soil and increase infiltration. In areas that are outside the active sand mining operation and not expected to handle vehicle traffic, vegetative stabilization of disturbed soil is required using the BMPs described below.”

Only Plants Appropriate for Region

“Vegetative controls must consist of plants appropriate for the ecoregion where the site is located and must not include any noxious or invasive species.” They then provide links to several acceptable lists.

Weekly Inspection Required

“Site operators must inspect and document disturbed areas of the site where vegetative controls have been implemented once every seven (7) calendar days. Operators must inspect all vegetative controls to ensure that they are installed properly, appear to be operational, and minimizing pollutants in discharges, as intended.”

A sentence farther down can be improved. “Operators must replace or modify controls [that have failed] in a timely manner, but no later than the next anticipated storm event.”


Opportunity for Improvement:

TCEQ never defines the “next anticipated storm event.” For the last month, widely scattered thunderstorms have caused street flooding in parts of Houston will leaving others untouched. No one can predict with certainty whether one of those storms will park over a sand mine. This gives the sand miners an opportunity to delay repairs almost indefinitely.

See suggested change at end of post.


2.1.1  Vegetative Buffer Zones

“Vegetative buffer zones are continuous undisturbed or planted vegetated areas that surround a development, land disturbance activity or that border an intermittent stream or permanent water body. Buffer zones aid in sediment filtration and removal by blowing surface water flow through these areas. Construction site runoff must be dispersed over the entire buffer zone if possible. A minimum 100-foot buffer zone is required adjacent to perennial streams greater than 20 feet in width, 50 feet for perennial streams less than 20 feet in width, and 35 feet for intermittent streams.”

Lack of a vegetated buffer zone allows sand from this stockpile to erode into White Oak Creek. Notice large swirls of sand cascading down the slopes into the creek.

2.1.2  Sod Stabilization

Sod stabilization involves establishing long-term stands of grass with sod on exposed surfaces. When installed and maintained properly, sodding can be more than 99 percent effective in reducing erosion.

During May 2021 floods, the East Fork San Jacinto swept through the abandoned Texas Concrete Sand & Gravel Plum Grove Mine. The area circled in red was exposed to floodwaters. See below.
Close up of area above taken two months earlier, but still after site was abandoned. No sod.

Protection of Trees

“Protection of trees involves preserving and protecting selected trees that exist on the site prior to development. Mature trees provide extensive canopy and root systems that hold soil in place. Shade trees also keep soils from drying rapidly and becomingsusceptible to erosion, as well as increasing property value. Consideration must be given to the tree root structure.”

“If trees die or are no longer viable for soil stabilization for any reason, then they must be replaced within 30 days with any equivalent or better soil-stabilizing tree.” 

2.1.3  Temporary Seeding

“Temporary seeding is the planting of fast-growing annual grasses to hold the soil in areas that will not be disturbed again for 30 or more days. For long-term protection (greater than one year), permanent seeding must be initiated. Mulching helps ensure seed growth and maintains soil moisture and helps prevent erosion. It is essential when slopes are steep, the weather is hot or dry, and soil conditions are not favorable.”

Ooops. Note steep, unvegetated banks on this West Fork dike in foreground which breached multiple times.

“Tillage, with lime and fertilizer, to maintain adequate soil pH and nutrient content, may be important before seeding.”

2.1.4  Permanent Seeding

“Permanent seeding is the use of perennial grass (with trees and shrubs) to stabilize the soil. Vegetation is often not fully established until one year from planting. Inspect, repair and re-seed as needed, evaluating choice of seed and quantities of lime and fertilizer. Use temporary seeding if the time of year is not appropriate for permanent seeding.”

2.1.6  Mulching

“Mulching is the placement of hay, grass, wood chips, straw, or synthetic material on the soil. Mulch holds moisture, lessens temperature extremes, and retards erosion on steep slopes during seed establishment. Soils that cannot be seeded due to the season must be mulched to provide temporary protection. Operators must apply the mulch in an appropriate manner that prevents the mulch from leaving the site during heavy rain events.”

2.1.7  Erosion and Sediment Control Blankets

“Erosion and Sediment Control Blankets are machine-produced mats of straw or other fibers held together with netting that provide temporary or permanent stabilization in critical areas, such as slopes or channels, so that vegetation may be established. These blankets often contain seeds to help establish vegetation.”

The Artavia Development in Montgomery County appears to be routing its main drainage ditch through this old sand mine. This area perpetually eroded. This swale covered by what appears to be an erosion blanket may help reduce that in the future. Note erosion already existing to left of blanket.

2.1.8  Surface Roughening

“Surface roughening, using heavy equipment, creates horizontal grooves across the slope which reduces runoff velocity/erosion and aid the growth of seed. Roughened slopes must be immediately seeded and mulched.”

To make this work, the slopes would need to be gentle enough to catch rainwater on its way to the pond or river. Unfortunately, you don’t often see gentle slopes in San Jacinto mines, if at all.

Summary and Call to Action

Virtually all of these BMPs call for regular inspections and maintenance. The most troubling part of them is the sentence highlighted above about the next “anticipated storm.” A sand miner could build a case for ignoring virtually all of these by claiming he didn’t anticipate storms anytime soon. But by the time a storm like Harvey or Imelda approaches, or even one of the May storms that dumped 7 inches of rain on Kingwood in three hours, it would be too late to replant vegetation. It needs time to regrow.

I suggest replacing “next anticipated storm” with “must repair or replace controls immediately when damage is noted during weekly inspections.”

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/12/2021

1444 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.

We Must Strengthen Sand-Mining BMPs: Minimum Setbacks Just Part of Solution

At long last, the State of Texas could soon adopt minimum setbacks from rivers for sand mining.

The Lake Houston Area Flood Prevention Initiative has been working with the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association (TACA) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for two years to create a set of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The BMPs would apply only to sand-mining operations in the San Jacinto River Watershed.

The TCEQ has published a draft of proposed regulations and is now seeking public comment. Comments are due by August 19.

The proposed regulations are a great step forward in one sense. They plug some gaping holes that Texas has compared to other states. However, I believe they can and should be stronger.

Texas Currently Has No Minimum Setbacks

For instance, take minimum setbacks from rivers. Right now, Texas has no minimum setback. Some mines can and do mine right up to the edge of rivers, leaving only the width of a flimsy dike made out of sand between them and a raging river when floodwaters rise.

  • Most states define 100 feet as the minimum setback.
  • Alaska sets the minimum from a public water supply at 1,000 feet.
  • But other states, such as Arizona, take another approach altogether. Instead of specifying fixed widths, they define “erosion hazard zones.”

Erosion Hazard Zones Substituted for Defined Distances in Some States

Erosion hazard zones would take into account factors such as whether mining occurred on the eroding side of a river or on the side where sand is building up. An erosion hazard zone might also take into account the steepness of the surrounding slopes. Such zones are based on site assessments by engineers and may even take into account rates of river migration.

An erosion hazard zone might also take into account being downstream from the Lake Conroe Dam which released 80,000 CFS on top of Harvey’s already prodigious floodwaters. By itself, 80,000 CFS would have been the ninth largest flood in West Fork history.

The draft regulations currently under consideration specify a minimum 100-foot buffer zone adjacent to perennial streams wider than 20 feet, 50 feet for perennial streams less than 20 feet wide, and 35 feet for intermittent streams.

To learn more about how other states and countries handle setbacks, see the links on the Sand Mining page.

Minimum Setbacks By Themselves Are Only Part of Solution

Since Harvey, I have flown up and down the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto dozens of times and taken more than 27,000 photographs.

I have witnessed many dike breaches. Sometimes they are intentional.

Sometimes a large storm causes rivers to erode into pits – a phenomenon called pit capture.

Here, one mine leaks into a second mine (abandoned in lower right), which in turn leaks into West Fork 1200 feet away.
Breach in 400-foot wide buffer zone that happened sometime after Harvey. Exact date unknown.
This mine along Caney Creek had a 150-foot-wide vegetated buffer, that held just fine through Harvey, but miraculously couldn’t survive the unnamed flood of May 2019.
Stream level photo of breach above. Note the trackhoe marks on the side of the breach.

The point is this. Even with 100 foot setbacks, many breaches still occur. If a mine wants to get rid of wastewater, it will find a way.

It can always just pump water over the side of a dike.

One of many pumping operations I have documented.

Some put pipes through dikes to ensure wastewater never exceeds a certain level.

One of many pipes I have documented.

Or they can build dikes out of materials designed to fail under pressure.

Former dike at Triple PG mine being sued by Texas Attorney General

The hundred foot setbacks would, however, make many of these practices more difficult by making them more conspicuous.

And the requirement to have the buffer zone vegetated (another BMP), would eliminate situations like the narrow strip below.

Easily erodible, unvegetated buffer strip with steep sides at mine on West Fork (foreground).

My Take

All things considered, when the penalty for non-compliance averages $800 per incident, some will continue to ignore BMPs. Not all. But some.

As of August 2018, TCEQ had raised a half-million dollars in fines for more than 13,000 incidents statewide during the previous five years. If you look just at the last half of 2017 (after Harvey), the TCEQ levied about $140,000 in fines STATEWIDE – far less than it cost to repair ONE average home in Kingwood as a result of Harvey.

That’s why I say that by itself, the width of a buffer strip will help, but not solve the problem.

How do you feel? $220 million of your tax dollars are going toward dredging. Please share your feelings with the TCEQ.

How to Make a Public Comment

Submit written comments on BMPs to Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/11/2021

1443 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.

Harris County Commissioners Approve Atascocita Drainage Study

Harris County Commissioners today approved a drainage study for Atascocita. The agenda item read, “Recommendation to initiate and proceed with planning, right-of-way acquisition, design and construction of general drainage improvements in the Atascocita area. (San Jacinto River Watershed, Bond ID F-15, HCFCD Unit G103-00-00, Precincts 2 and 4). The bond allocates $10 million for all of that.

Project Area and Scope

Atascocita project area. Roughly half is in Precinct 2 and half in Precinct 4.

Sources at HCFCD say that the project will follow the model of the Kingwood Drainage Assessment. It will identify where the worst flooding occurs and where to attack first.

People in Atascocita have waited a long time for this project to kick off. We’re now about two weeks from the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Harvey.

When complete, this project will identify streams, channel types, ownership, current level of service, improvements, rights of way needed, cost estimates and detention estimates for all the projects considered in the Atascocita area.

One of Last Projects in Flood Bond to Start

The project had been deferred until now because it fell into the fourth quartile of the equity prioritization framework. Accordingly, the Atascocita study will be one of the last projects to be initiated in the bond program. Sources at HCFCD say that soon, all projects will have started – a major milestone.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/10/2021

1442 Days since Hurricane Harvey

FEMA Awards Nearly $250 Million to HCFCD for Sediment Removal

This morning, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) announced an award of nearly $250 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to remove accumulated sediment from eight watersheds. They include:

  • Willow Creek
  • White Oak Bayou
  • Spring Creek
  • Little Cypress Creek
  • Greens Bayou
  • Cypress Creek
  • Barker Reservoir
  • Addicks Reservoir
Cypress Creek erosion near TC Jester. Photographed on 7/24/2021.

Removing More than 2 Million Cubic Yards Deposited by Harvey

Extreme flooding from Hurricane Harvey deposited the sediment when banks eroded and in some cases collapsed.

“This award allows us to continue the huge task of removing sediment from Flood Control District channels. It is estimated that more than 2.13 million cubic yards of sediment accumulated in multiple watersheds during the storm – enough to fill 213,000 dump trucks,” said Alan Black, Harris County Flood Control District Interim Executive Director. 

$6.25 Million Leverages Almost a Quarter Billion

“It will take several years to complete construction, but this award will allow us to make repairs to the drainage system and to restore the facility back to pre-disaster design, capacity and function. The federal cost share for this project is 90 percent, which allows our local taxpayer dollars to go further. We are extremely thankful to FEMA and TDEM (Texas Division of Emergency Management),” he continued.

The Flood Control District will be responsible for the remaining 10 percent of the project cost.  However, thanks to legislation passed by the Texas State Legislature in 2019, which established the Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund – Hurricane Harvey Account, the State of Texas is expected to reimburse up to 75 percent of that local share, bringing the total cost to the Flood Control District down to approximately $6.25 million.  

Construction to Start in Late 2022

According to Black, the cutting edge methods used by the Flood Control District team have rarely, if ever, been used on such a scale and took several years of close collaboration with TDEM and FEMA to receive approval.

As we have seen with other projects since Harvey, this is a complex process involving multiple steps. The money first has to work its way down from Washington. Then HCFCD must get it from TDEM. After that come preliminary engineering, final engineering, permitting, bidding, and approvals.

HCFCD expects first construction to start sometime in late 2022.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/9/2021

1441 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Tropical Wave 94L Approaching Barbados This Morning

The National Hurricane Center (NHC) is currently tracking two tropical disturbances in the Atlantic Basin. The one closest to the Caribbean rates a 70% chance of development. The system is not currently a threat to the Gulf of Mexico but you should keep your eye on it.

Invest 94L is the red.

Invest 94L

According to the NHC, showers and thunderstorms have become more concentrated this morning in association with a low pressure system located about 150 miles east of Barbados.

Environmental conditions favor additional development. A tropical depression will likely form later today or tonight while the low moves west-northwestward at 10 to 15 mph.

The disturbance will reach portions of the Lesser Antilles tonight. It will move near the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico on Tuesday and reach Hispaniola around the middle of this week. Tropical storm watches or warnings could be required today with shorter-than-normal lead times for portions of the Lesser Antilles, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

In addition, heavy rains and flooding are likely for the Leeward Islands, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

Radar from Barbados along with satellite images show a broad and elongated area of low pressure with scattered to numerous areas of disorganized convection. Details on the exact track will be important as to determine how much the system will interact with the island chain.

Jeff Lindner, Harris County’s meteorologist warns that, “While the system is currently no immediate threat to Texas, residents should at least keep an eye on the forecast for updates over the next week.”

Second Area Less of a Threat

Disorganized showers and thunderstorms have changed little in association with an elongated low pressure area located several hundred miles east of the Lesser Antilles. Development of this system is becoming less likely during the next few days while it moves toward the west or west-southwest at around 10 mph. Formation chance through 5 days…low…20 percent.

Preparedness

The peak of hurricane season is just a little more than a month away. This is the time of year when you should become serious about preparedness if you haven’t already done so.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/9/2021 based on information from the NHC and HCFCD

1441 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Comments Due to TCEQ on Sand-Mining BMPs by August 19

A couple weeks ago, I posted about rules governing the application of sand mining best management practices (BMPs). Now the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is accepting public comments on the BMPs themselves. Think of the difference this way: how/when to enforce guidelines vs the guidelines themselves.

More than 90 people responded to the enforcement question. Thank you. The TCEQ left so many “outs,” it was doubtful whether sand mines would ever have had to follow any of the BMPs.

Comments Coming Due on BMPs, Not Just Rules Governing Them

Now it’s time to consider the content of the BMPs themselves and provide public comment.

We have more time this time – until August 19. So I will publish a series of posts about different aspects of the BMPs that I believe could be improved.

Here is a draft of the 24-page document listing all BMPs that the TCEQ is considering.

Today, I will simply give you an overview of the major categories of recommendations. In coming days, I will discuss major areas of concern. These will be things where, in my opinion, the sand mines in the San Jacinto watershed fall short of ideal practices in ways that directly contribute to flooding.

Some Caveats

Having said that, let me also qualify that last statement three ways:

  1. Not all sand mines are bad actors, but some are.
  2. We need sand to make concrete.
  3. Sediment comes from both man-made and natural sources. While massive amounts of sand clogged our river after Harvey, it’s unclear what proportion of that came from sand mines.

It’s easy to see that floodwaters eroded stockpiles, breached levees, and swept sediment downstream. It’s also easy to see how suboptimal sand mining practices contributed to those issues.

Sand mining increased the width of the exposed sediment adjacent to the river by an average of 33X.

USGS calculations, photographs, and first responder reports during Harvey also indicate that the velocity of the river was sufficient to transport not just sand, but large chunks of gravel.

However, it’s not clear how much suboptimal sand mining practices contributed to blockages, such as the East and West Fork Mouth Bars, Sand Island, and the giant side bar that blocked the Kingwood Diversion Ditch. Some likely also came from erosion of the river bed itself as well as upstream developers with suboptimal practices of their own.

It will take someone smarter than me to figure that how much came from where.

The Public Policy Question

It is clear, however, that we’re investing $222 million in dredging to eliminate sediment blockages that contribute to flooding. And many sand mines have shown, in my opinion, a callous disregard for the cleanup costs they externalize to the public sector. One is even currently being sued by the Texas Attorney General.

Scope of BMPs Being Proposed

The BMPs being considered by the TCEQ have to do with:

  • Vegetative and Structural Controls to help reduce erosion
  • Pre-Mining site evaluation, drainage studies and site preparation
  • Mining activities, such as dredging, processing, maintenance, and the handling of petroleum products
  • Post-Mining site stabilization, debris removal, and property grading
  • Requirements for a final stabilization report.

I will discuss each of these in coming days before the deadline. I will also show photos that illustrate how current practices fall short of BMPs and contribute to sedimentation.

Sand mine pumping wastewater directly into San Jacinto West Fork
Another sand mine discharging wastewater directly into the West Fork.

Two things ARE clear, however. We can and must do better if we want to reduce:

  • Financial hemorrhaging
  • Flooding from man-made blockages that clog our rivers.

How to Make a Public Comment

Submit written comments on BMPs to Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.

More details to follow in the coming days.

Posted By Bob Rehak on 7/8/2021

1440 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.

Improved TexasFlood.org Website Shows Spread of Floodwaters and Inundated Buildings by Gage Height

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) has reorganized the sea of flood-related information and redesigned the TexasFlood.org website to provide a more user-friendly resource for Texans who want to increase their flood awareness and preparedness.

Given the deadly nature of flood events and the rapid timeframe in which they can occur, remaining flood-ready is essential.

One Feature Shows Flood Spread and Inundated Buildings by Gage Height

TexasFlood.org provides fundamental information on emergency preparation for and recovery from flood events, as well as web tools to better understand flood risk, in a format that is easy to access and easy to understand.

One of the most useful new features is an interactive map that shows the spread of floodwaters based on the gage height.

Select a gage and a height and see instantly how far the floodwaters will spread. This shows spread based on the USGS Gage at FM1485 and the East fork.

I selected the height of the highest gage reading during the May floods this year at FM1485 and the East Fork. Then I zoomed in and found that 36 structures were in danger of being inundated. You can even see their locations!

Information like this is not only useful when considering purchasing a building, but also when considering whether to evacuate.

Other Useful Features

TexasFlood.org also features resources and tools that allow users to:

  • Review lake levels and river heights
  • Check current precipitation totals and weather conditions
  • Evaluate potential flood risk
  • See the impacts of different hypothetical flooding scenarios
  • Identify and connect with their local floodplain administrator
  • Learn the primary types of flooding and basics of flood insurance

The website highlights the reasons why emergency preparedness is vital to proper flood preparedness, including the importance of floodproofing and awareness of second-order damages after a flood event.

One-Stop Information Shop

The TWDB has gathered important information from other local, state, and federal entities to provide the most relevant information for Texans in one convenient online location. Hurricane season runs through November 30 each year. And historically speaking, 80% of the storms for this year are still in front of us. Just today, the National Hurricane Center highlighted another area of concern in the Atlantic, bringing the active total to three.

So TWDB encourages all Texans to check out the revamped TexasFlood.org. Learn how to pack a flood kit, download resources to prepare family, review individual flood risk, plan an evacuation route, and more.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/7/2021 based on a press release by TWDB

1439 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Digest: Updates on Six Lake Houston Area Flood-Related Stories

Below is a quick digest of six flood-related stories affecting the Lake Houston Area.

Dredging is a Slow Go

Mechanical dredgers are slowly working their way through the channel south of Royal Shores. It connects the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto. Without dredging, the dredging equipment itself would not be able to make it through the channel.

However, the pace of the dredging is painfully slow. You can see the progress by comparing the two pictures below. I took them 22 days apart.

Taken on July 11, 2021
Taken on August 2, 2021.
Google Earth shows they went a little more than 600 feet in a little more than three weeks.

At about 200 feet per week with about 2,000 more feet to go, they should reach the East Fork in about another ten weeks.

Several boaters have commented on how the dredges can wait hours for a pontoon to ferry dirt back to the placement site. Their net takeaway: very inefficient. During a July 8 meeting at the Kingwood Community Center, Stephen Costello called this method of dredging “unsustainable.” He’s sooooo right. We will run out of luck long before we run out of places to dredge.

Mechanical dredging (shown in the photos above) is far slower and less efficient than hydraulic. Great Lakes hydraulic dredges removed 500,000 cubic yards of sediment from the mouth bar area in just two months – July and August of 2019. DRC’s mechanical dredges removed another 600,000+ cubic yards in the 19 months between January 2020 and July 2021.

Interestingly, Google Earth shows that when the dredgers reach the East Fork, they will be closer to the Triple PG Sand Mine in Porter than the current placement area south of River Grove Park. The Triple PG mine will also be less than half the distance of a mine that the Army Corps previously pumped spoils to from the mouth bar– the Eagle Sorters Mine on the West Fork.

Hmmmm. Triple PG. A placement area for East Fork spoils? A return to hydraulic dredging? Interesting thoughts.

Seasonal Lowering of Lake Conroe

Seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe has started as planned. SJRA is releasing 75 cubic feet per second, according to their dashboard.

Seasonal release is shown as a City of Houston (COH) Diversion.

When the lowering started on August 2, a day late, the lake was at 200.87. So releasing 75 CFS has brought the lake down .19 feet, a little more than 2 inches. Barring large rainfalls, this rate should reach the objective of 200 feet by September 1.

The Lake Conroe Association is still fighting the lowering in Montgomery County District Court. Judge Mike Mays set a hearing date for Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 2PM.

Tropics Heating Up

Five Day Tropical Weather Outlook from National Hurricane Center

The National Hurricane Center shows two areas of concern in the Atlantic as of 2PM, Friday August 6th.

A few hundred miles south of the Cabo Verde Islands, a tropical wave (orange area) and a broad area of low pressure could turn into a tropical depression by late this weekend or early next week. Formation chance through 5 days…medium…60 percent.

Another tropical wave approaching the Lesser Antilles is a lower threat. NHC predicts development, if any, of this system will be slow and occur early next week. Formation chance through 5 days…low…20 percent.

NOAA Issues Mid-Season Hurricane Outlook

Another forecast released two days ago by NOAA says that atmospheric conditions are still conducive for an above-average hurricane season. See their predictions in the right hand column below. These numbers include the five named storms so far this season.

Attorney General Lawsuit Against Triple PG Mine Still Active

Craig Pritzlaff of the TCEQ assures me that despite visible lack of progress in the Attorney General’s lawsuit against the Triple PG mine for illegal discharges, the AG has not dropped the case. “Indeed, very few, if any, cases referred to the AG for civil prosecution are ever dropped,” he says. “Litigation, particularly environmental litigation, is a complicated and lengthy process. That process was further complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which halted court dockets across the State throughout 2020 and into 2021.”

Condos 250 Feet from 250,000 CFS

A Chinese developer is building yet more condos even closer to the West Fork in the Kings Harbor neighborhood.

See new construction bottom center. Lai finished the units at the right earlier this year.
The nearest unit above will be about 250 feet from the San Jacinto West Fork.

During Harvey, more than 250,000 cubic feet per second came through this area. It flooded homes and businesses more than 10,000 feet from the river.

The developer is also hoping to sell/develop that grassy area in the bottom center of the photo for $1.45 million.

I guess money has a short memory.

That concludes this month’s digest.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/6/2021

1438 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.

USGS Says One Third of Harris County Now Impervious Cover

Did you know that one-third of the area in Harris County now has impervious cover? That Montgomery County had a 57.12% net increase of impervious surface area between 2001 and 2019? Or that 10% of land cover in the Lower 48 states changed during that same period? I discovered these and a multitude of other fascinating facts in a recently updated United States Geological Survey (USGS) website dedicated to monitoring changes in land cover, for example, from forested to developed.

When you live in an area for a long time, it’s easy to forget what happened two decades ago. And when you move to a new area, you just accept what is and don’t worry about what was.

But USGS gives you a quick and easy way to see and quantify changes in land use down to the county level. It’s useful in telling you where flood threats could develop over time and how fast they are developing.

About the USGS National Land Cover Database

USGS recently released updated land cover maps for the lower 48 United States. They show how the country’s landscapes have changed over an 18 year period in two- to three-year increments. It’s called the United States National Land Cover Database (NLCD). And it’s the fastest way to see how your county is changing.

Updates include 2001, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2016, and 2019.

Developed using Landsat imagery, NLCD classifies land cover into 16 groups with 30-meter resolution. The data includes both land-cover and urban imperviousness changes.

USGS claims 91 percent accuracy for the NLCD data. For more detail about how NLCD was developed see: Changes to the National Land Cover Database. More than nine billion pixels make up the land-cover dataset.

The USGS National Land Cover Database’s suite of GIS mapping products even includes a layer that defines the intensity of impervious surfaces across the United States. This information is used in runoff modeling, urban heat estimation, and a variety of other applications.

Mapping Land Cover Change in U.S. Over Time

Users can visualize land cover changes in the United States by accessing the the Enhanced Visualization and Analysis (EVA) tool. The online mapping tool was developed by USGS in partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The tool allows users to select any county in the Lower-48 United States and generate a custom report on land cover change, developed areas, cropland change, and other factors.

Only one caution: the USGS site does not work with Apple’s Safari Browser. Mac users can use Firefox without problems, however. I have not tested other Mac browsers.

I ran two quick searches on Harris and Montgomery Counties by going to the EVA tool mentioned above. The findings astonished me.

Harris County Changes At a Glance

Between 2001 and 2019, in Harris County:

  • Almost one fifth of the land cover changed type (18.23%).
  • Developed portions of the county increased from 54.42% to 65.85% of the total acreage, a 20.99% percent net increase of developed area.
  • Forested parts of the county went from 10.64% to 6.29%, a percent net decrease of 40.92%.
  • The percent covered in wetlands went down from 8.28% to 7.02%, another percent net decrease of 15.24%.
  • The percentage of impervious surface increased from about a quarter to a third (26.28% to 33.39%), a percent net increase of 27.05%.
Screen showing development changes in Harris County with corresponding percentages of impervious cover. Green dots represent changes in land use. Clicking on icons in left column brings up different types of information.

MoCo Changes at a Glance

During the same period, in Montgomery County:

  • Even more land cover changed type (18.99%).
  • Developed portions of the county increased from 21.1% of the land area to 28.27%, a 33.97% net increase.
  • Impervious cover increased from 5.78% off the land area to 9.08%, a 57.12% increase.
  • Forested land decreased from 42.98% of the county to 38.96%, a 9.16% net decrease.
  • Wetlands decreased from 12.17% of the county to 11.35%, a 6.74% net decrease.
  • Agricultural land decreased from 12.28% to 10.31% of the county, a 16.04% net decrease.
Red areas represent areas in Montgomery County that changed land-cover type between 2001 and 2019.
Another screen showing areas in Montgomery County developed between 2001 and 2019.

Key Lesson

This database and GIS mapping system dramatize how quickly the region is growing and land use is changing.

Flood mitigation is or should be a two-pronged effort. We must fix problems that already exist downstream while hopefully preventing future problems from developing upstream. It’s not a just question of one county spending money to help prevent problems in another. It’s about surrounding counties protecting themselves. The outward expansion is relentless. People at the edge today will be downstream from someone else tomorrow.

There’s little anyone can do to change the FACT of development. But we can change the NATURE of development. If all new developments retained their own rain, no one would ever be doomed to the flood-mitigation treadmill of keeping up with ever-increasing amounts of upstream runoff.

Montgomery County already has a serious flooding problem of its own. Thousands of people flooded there during Harvey and Imelda.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/5/2021 based on USGS information

1437 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.

Kingwood Diversion Ditch and Taylor Gully Preliminary Engineering Projects Begin

On June 29, 2021, Harris County Commissioners approved two contracts for preliminary engineering on the Kingwood Diversion Ditch and Taylor Gully Projects. This week, I’ve been getting reports of boots on the ground. So I grabbed my camera and went looking for activity this morning. I found a soil survey truck at Kingwood Drive next to the Diversion Ditch. I also found regular surveyors on Taylor Gully about a block south of Woodridge Village.

Both activities are among the first steps in preliminary engineering. And both are among the first steps in finding flood-mitigation solutions for a huge percentage of Kingwood’s population.

This drone shot shows the surveying crew a little more than one block south of Woodridge Village on Taylor Gully.
Looking downstream in opposite direction toward Rustic Elm Bridge out of sight around bend.
The surveyors were capturing elevations of the banks, slopes, ditch bottom, and backslope swales of Taylor Gully.

Taylor Gully Objectives and Scope

HCFCD has asked Idcus, Inc. to develop up to five conceptual alternative scenarios for modifying Taylor Gully. Alternative scenarios may include:

  • Expanding Detention On Woodridge Village Site so that no channel improvements are necessary.
  • Determining amount of detention and channel improvements necessary to ensure no adverse impact all the way to Lake Houston.
  • Finding the optimum balance between maximum flood protection and minimum construction costs.
Deliverables include:
  • Channel and basin layouts
  • Estimates of benefits for various levels of storms (100-year, etc.)
  • Right-of-way requirements
  • Cost estimates for right-of-way acquisition, engineering and construction management.
  • Performance metrics, i.e., estimated acreage of land inundation, number of structures in floodplain, number of structures flooded and miles of inundated roadway.
  • A scoring matrix to rank alternatives.
Scope of Taylor Gully Project includes the two halves of Woodridge Village outlined in gold above the ditch.

Kingwood Diversion Ditch Objectives and Scope

HCFCD hired Neel-Schaffer, Inc. for preliminary Kingwood Diversion Ditch engineering. They must:

  • Evaluate existing site conditions, previous studies, other projects that could affect this one, topography, rights-of-way, utilities, and soil surveys.
  • Evaluate existing bridges
  • Conduct and H&H analysis to assess existing and proposed conditions (from 2-year to 500-year storms).
  • Analyze Channel Improvements including the:
    • Impact of TIRZ #10’s latest design to replace the Northpark Bridge
    • Diversion structure at the confluence of Bens Branch and the Diversion Channel
    • Drop structures in lieu of a concrete lined channel to minimize high velocities due to the steep grade between 
      Walnut Lane and Deer Ridge Estates Blvd.
  • Develop phased construction plans based on available funding, potential impacts and benefits.
  • Conduct two public engagement meetings and coordinate with community groups.

Deliverables include:

  • Surveys
  • Geotechnical investigations, i.e., bridge borings
  • Environmental assessment
  • “Jurisdictional” determination. Does this channel fall under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps as it nears the West Fork? If so, channel design may need to be altered.
  • Determination of detention pond requirements
  • Exploration for subsurface utilities
  • Obtaining permits from the Corps
  • Landscape architect services
Scope of Diversion Ditch Project runs from St. Martha Catholic Church in Montgomery County to the San Jacinto West Fork at River Grove Park. This is the ditch that runs past the fire station on Kingwood Drive.

Why These Two Projects First?

Both of these projects evolved from the Kingwood Drainage Analysis finalized late last year. That study identified nine channels that needed improvement. These two were recommended for immediate help because:

  • They help the largest number of people.
  • HCFCD already owns land to expand and deepen the Diversion Ditch.
  • Diversion Ditch enhancement will immediately take pressure off Ben’s Branch, and help flooding there.

Note that Ben’s Branch has already gone through a four-phase major maintenance project designed to restore its original conveyance.

Here is Harris County Flood Control District’s Summary of Results from the 600-page Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis.

A Good Sign

Both of these projects go far beyond maintenance, which portions of both of these ditches have already received. While we’re still far from construction, the work that kicked off this week will improve flood safety for a large part of Kingwood.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/4/2021

1436 Days since Hurricane Harvey