As we approach the 4th anniversary of Hurricane Harvey, the Atlantic basin is currently heating up with tropical activity. As remnants of one hurricane washing across New England, two more areas of concern move toward the Northeast. A third is heading toward the northwest Caribbean. It’s still too early to tell exactly where these storms will make landfall. But the presence of so many tropical disturbances signals the need to stay alert to daily weather forecasts.
Each of these storms has a 40-60% chance of tropical formation.
Five Day Outlook for Tropical Activity
8 PM outlook on 8/23/2021 indicates the storms heading toward the NW Caribbean have a 50% chance of tropical formation in the next five days. That’s up from 30% this morning.
Retreat of High-Pressure System Over Texas
National Hurricane Center (NHC) forecasts a tropical wave over the eastern Caribbean Sea will form a broad area of low pressure over the southwestern Caribbean Sea by late week. Thereafter, environmental conditions favor gradual development while the system moves west-northwestward to northwestward over the northwestern Caribbean Sea.
In addition to that, another major low pressure area over Mexico and the Bay of Campeche could move into the Gulf by this weekend though no tropical activity is forecast at this time.
Note massive low pressure system moving into Gulf.
Jeff Lindner, Harris County meteorologist, warns that as the high pressure ridge currently sitting over Houston begins to retreat north by Wednesday, “A series of tropical waves and disturbances will move from east to west across the US Gulf coast and into coastal TX from mid week onward. With a significant influx of Gulf moisture, showers and thunderstorms will return as early as Wednesday across much of the area and last likely into next week. Locally heavy rainfall will become an increasing threat by late week and this weekend with tropical moisture firmly in place over the region.”
Historical Norms for Late August
NOAA’s Climate Center shows that the projected path of the current areas of concern should follow historical norms for this time of the year.
This diagram shows the most likely areas for formation for hurricanes in August and their prevailing tracks. Source: NOAA’s Climate Center.
This is one of the reasons why.
Current sea surface temperatures in the Gulf are running 1.5 to 2+ degrees degrees above normal for the next seven days, with the warmer areas nearer the Texas Coast.
Historical Intervals Between Major Hurricanes
NOAA’s Climate Center shows the average interval for major hurricanes striking the Houston area is about every 25 years.
NOAA’s Climate Center also tracks the average return period for MAJOR hurricanes at various points along the coastline. They show that the Houston area can expect on average one major hurricane about every 25 years.
Of course, a hurricane doesn’t have to be major to cause major damage. Allison and Imelda were just tropical storms. And averages are just that – averages. Ike in 2008 and Harvey in 2017 each attained major hurricane status and hit Houston within 9 years of each other.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/23/2021 based on information from NHC and HCFCD
1455 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/two_atl_5d0-2.png?fit=900%2C665&ssl=1665900adminadmin2021-08-23 20:07:252021-08-23 20:10:00Atlantic Basin Heating Up with Potential Tropical Activity
Late this week and early next will be the fourth anniversary of Harvey’s four day rampage through the Houston area. The storm broke so many records that NOAA retired its name. A year later, still reeling from the storm’s effects, Harris County voters approved a $2.5 billion bond issue to catch up with decades of chronic underfunding for HCFCD.
Since then, the rate of spending on flood mitigation projects has more than doubled. And the rate will accelerate even more as more projects move from engineering to construction.
High-Level Findings
Three years into a 10-year bond, HCFCD has spent slightly more than 30% of the money. That puts them exactly on track time-wise.
$251 million in contracts have been awarded to engineering companies
$552 million in contracts have been awarded for construction of capital improvements and repairs.
27 projects have completed, removing 11,000 homes from 100-year floodplains
Another 660 buyouts have been completed with another 662 in process.
Back in 2018, the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) vowed to be open and transparent with bond funds. This report shows how, when, and where it spent the public’s money.
Accurate Snapshot of Progress
Until now, HCFCD’s website was the primary means for communicating with the public. But information was scattered across hundreds of pages and updates took place incrementally. That meant information on some watersheds was current and others could be months old. That made it difficult to get an accurate snapshot of progress.
To rectify this problem, HCFCD last week released the first in a series of new monthly reports. It gives everybody in every watershed information about what’s happening that affects them…at a glance.
Types of Information Included
The first report is 37 pages and tracks spending through the end of July 2021.
It’s broken down into a series of sections that include:
An introduction that summarizes active bond projects, grants, local partner funding, buyouts, contracts awarded, projects completed, community engagement, floodplain preservation, selective clearing and turf establishment
A visual timeline that tracks the progress of projects by month and year
Key performance metrics
Recent news
A GANNT chart showing the stages and progress of every single project approved by voters
Eight maps showing cumulative spending from different sources of funding
Two maps showing the location and spending to date on all active construction and maintenance projects in the county.
The Ultimate Go-To Doc on Where Your Money Has Gone
This is the ultimate go-to document for everyone who wants to know what’s happening near them. And HCFCD vows to update it monthly.
If you compare this to articles I previously published on funding, keep in mind that this data includes:
Four more months of spending
Only spending starting August 2018 (approval of the bond fund).
So numbers may vary from posts you see on ReduceFlooding’s Funding page. I also included historical spending going back to 2000 to help put the current spending in context.
Replacing Fear with Facts
All in all, HCFCD’s monthly spending reports will advance the public dialog. It will be good to have discussions based on facts, not just fear.
Flooding is one of the most terrible things that can happen to someone. It produces lasting trauma and alters the trajectory of lives.
To complicate matters, not many people understand what a flood control project is. They may see a jogging trail in a park and not realize it is a massive flood detention basin. They may not realize that a channel through their neighborhood has been widened. And they likely don’t know how to track historical gage data to see if their neighborhoods are flooding from bayous or streets.
This report won’t solve all those problems. But it will go a long way toward helping people understand they have not been forgotten.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/22/2021
1454 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20210822-Screen-Shot-2021-08-22-at-12.37.32-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C925&ssl=19251200adminadmin2021-08-22 12:48:392021-08-22 12:57:08HCFCD Issues Update on Bond Spending In Advance of Harvey’s Fourth Anniversary
Public comment periods are not only for those who object to plans. The public may also support plans. And I plan to support the plan.
Cross section of proposed improvements to dam.
The Corps’ website contains the full public notice, which features a summary of the project, the project plans, and an analysis of the alternatives. These are much more thorough and detailed than any documents published to date. For the historical record, I have copied them to Reports Page of this website under the “Lake Houston Dam Spillway Improvement Project” tab. See:
The City of Houston proposes to improve 1,000 feet of the uncontrolled Ambursen spillway with the installation of new, controlled, Obermeyer spillway gates along the western portion of the existing Lake Houston Dam structure.
To accomplish this, the existing spillway crest would be lowered approximately 3.5 ft and fitted with an Obermeyer spillway gate structure. To further stabilize the dam structure, 150,000 cubic yards of rubble backfill will be deposited within the same 1,000 ft of the existing concrete structure.
The temporary cofferdam would be installed in sections that would enable the construction of a single Obermeyer spillway gate at a time. To facilitate access from the downstream side, backfill would then be installed within the Ambursen bays and in the downstream concrete-lined channel.
The spillway crest of the existing Ambursen spillway would then be demolished and the new concrete crest with the associated Obermeyer spillway gates and hydromechanical works would be built. The timeframe to complete this project will be approximately 18 to 24 months.
Avoidance and Minimization of Negative Impacts
The City conducted a thorough and extensive planning process to design a project that avoids and minimizes impacts to wetlands, special aquatic sites, and Waters of the United States as much as possible and feasible, while also satisfying the need.
During Hurricane Harvey, rainwater entered the lake at a rate of 430,000 cubic feet per second. An estimated 20,000 homes and businesses were flooded upstream. The reservoir passed the equivalent of its own storage capacity every half hour.
Due to the large influx of water over a short amount of time, the Lake Houston Dam was not able to release water fast enough to protect area homes, businesses, and public infrastructure from floodwater. Improvements are needed to the Lake Houston Dam to enable controlled releases ahead of major storm events and to further stabilize the 70-year-old structure.
This 36-page analysis shows the alternatives considered by project engineers. It also contains a matrix comparing the pros and cons of 11 alternatives, and which among them was the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative.
By improving the existing dam, floodwaters can be rapidly released under controlled circumstances or stored to meet drinking water needs.
Please Support
Lake Houston Area leaders identified the need for a larger release capacity early on as one of three primary objectives (upstream detention to slow down inbound water, dredging to speed up throughput, and more gates to speed up outflow).
Approximately 20,000 homes and businesses flooded when water could not get out of the lake fast enough. We need this project.
Benefits of the project include:
Reduction of flood heights
Protection of property
Faster release rate reduces uncertainty associated with pre-releases when attempting to add extra capacity to the lake in advance of approaching storms.
Saves water needed for drinking
How to Submit Comments
To support this project, email comments to the Regulatory Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District by clicking this link: Public Notice Comment Email. Make sure you reference the public notice number: SWG-2020-00271, and be sure to include your name address, and phone number.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/21/21
1453 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20210821-Screen-Shot-2021-08-21-at-12.28.01-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C546&ssl=15461200adminadmin2021-08-21 13:39:392021-08-21 13:39:46Public Comment Period on Gates Closes Monday
Two new schools in the Kingwood area are building up, not out. Hopefully, this trend will, in a small way, reduce the percentage of impervious cover and create room for detention ponds to capture stormwater runoff.
Earlier this week, I photographed Kingwood Middle School and West Fork High School construction. As of mid-August, the structural steel work for both is almost complete.
Kingwood Middle School Replacement
The site looks crowded now, but when the new three story facility is complete, athletic fields and a giant detention pond will replace the old facility.
Looking west toward Woodland Hills Drive. KMS Construction as of mid-August 2021Looking east from over Woodland Hills This view looking north makes it easy to compare the height of the old and new buildings.The structural steel work has reached its eastern limit.
To see the progress, compare the pictures above to those in previous posts.
Several weeks ago, New Caney ISD named its third high school the West Fork High School. It too will be a three story structure, and is going up between Sorters-McClellan Road and US59 south of Kingwood Drive.
Looking NNE over the new campus toward Kingwood Medical Center. Insperity, and Kingwood Drive. US59 in upper right.Wider shot looking NNW toward the West Fork shows a large detention pond in the foreground is now grassed in. However, note sediment entering the pond through storm sewers that drain the site.Looking SW toward Sorters-McClellan Road and West Fork. River is mostly hidden behind trees. For reference, note Costco in upper left.
Note the football field and track taking shape in the left middle of the frame and the field house still going up next to it.
To see the progress, compare the pictures in these posts:
New Caney ISD expects to complete construction by the summer of 2022.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/20/2021
1452 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20210819-DJI_0387-2.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2021-08-20 12:34:032021-08-20 12:34:08Education Going Higher; Construction Updates on Two New Schools
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.
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.
Geographic area should include “all tributaries draining into Lake Houston,” not a limited subset.
Include provision that steps up enforcement. Operators already routinely violate too many of these BMPs.
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.
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.”
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.”
Introduction: In the bullet point after “Geographic Location,” replace “hydrogeology” with “Surface and groundwater hydrology.”
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.”
2.1: Replace “next anticipated storm” with “must repair or replace controls immediately when damage is noted during weekly inspections.”
2.1.1: Define the 100-foot buffer zone as “…measured from the stream bank to the closest disturbed area…”
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.”
2.2: Change Site operators must “inspect disturbed areas” to “inspect and document disturbed areas.”
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.”
2.2: Require that operators inspect all structural controls “once every seven (7) calendar days.”
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.”
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).”
2.2.5: Specify what operators must do “prior to discharge” to have a “permitted” discharge.”
2.2.6: In the sentence that ends with “…will not erode the receiving stream,” add “…or adjacent properties.”
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.
3.1: Specify that TCEQ must approve the mine plan.
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.)
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
3.3: Say “Topsoil material MUST be temporarily stockpiled for future use in post-mining activities.”
3.3: Add this thought. “Stockpiles may not be located in floodways.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
4.5: Add “All fuel storage tanks must be located outside of floodways.”
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.”
4.5: Add “Remove all fuel storage equipment and tanks before abandoning a mine.”
4.6: Add new section that includes this thought.
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.”
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.”
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.”
6.1: Add: “After completion of mining, remove all vehicles and debris that could be swept downstream in a flood.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20210817-DJI_0356.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2021-08-18 20:03:342021-08-18 22:19:10One-Click Submittal for Suggested Public Comments on Proposed Sand-Mining BMPs
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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 erosionalready.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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20210526-RJR_7787.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-08-17 23:17:022021-08-18 12:03:47Weekly Digest of Lake Houston Area Flood-Related News
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.
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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20210101-RJR_4113.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-08-17 13:14:112021-08-17 13:20:34BMPs for Final Stabilization Report Omit Crucial Elements
This is the seventh 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 post-mining activities – what should happen after the mine ceases operations.
As with previous posts, I will summarize the proposed BMPs and provide my comments at the end. Here is a link to the exact text of the BMPs proposed by the TCEQ.
Proposed Post-Mining BMPs
5 Post-Mining Phase
Post-Mining stabilization may depend on an agreement with a landowner; sometimes mines lease land, but often they own it.
Activities may involve stabilization of inactive pits or borrow areas with herbaceous perennial plants.
Stabilizing the soil helps prevent wind and water erosion from causing damage. It also improves the site’s aesthetic appeal and its ability to support wildlife.
This practice applies to sand borrow areas where soil has been replaced to approximate original conditions as well as where the soil profile has been removed.
5.1 Site Stabilization
Evaluate soil characteristics to help stabilize soil and prevent erosion. The following guidelines will help meet site-stabilization objectives.
Slope stability: Cut-and-fill slopes must not exceed 2:1 to provide stability. Gentler slopes (3:1) support seeding efforts better. Avoid long slopes to help prevent erosion, and allow access for seeding, mulching, and maintenance.
Diversions: Construct diversions at tops of slopes to divert runoff away from the slope banks to a stable outlet.
Chutes: Construct aggregate lined chutes or equivalent to conduct concentrated flow of water to stable outlets.
Soil Conservation: Reclaim abandoned roads by reshaping, recontouring, and resurfacing with topsoil. Seed them to grow vegetation. Remove structures such as bridges, culverts, cattle guards, and signs. Remove remaining sand stockpiles to eliminate potential for offsite discharge during stormwater flows.
Operators must practice good soil conservation and seed bare ground during the post- mining phase to aid in minimizing and/or reducing the potential for stormwater to wash sediment loads from unvegetated areas into nearby waterways. Natural regeneration takes time and during that process much sediment could be washed away as sheet, rill or gully erosion over that period.
If active revegetation is selected, seeds that are conducive to the season and type of soil present must be used to vegetate any bare areas. Mulching (using hay or erosion control blankets, for example) also aids in seed germination and helps prevent or minimize sheet, rill and gully erosion. The NRCS office can help in the proper selection of the types of seeds and nutrients required for proper vegetative growth.
5.2 Debris and Vegetative Waste Removal
Typical debris from sand mining usually involves trees and shrubs generated from the land clearing stage of the mining process. These trees and shrubs may be placed back into the mined portion of the property and covered with overburden material.
This debris can also be stockpiled and burned if the operator complies with the outdoor burning rule in 30 TAC §§111.201 – 111.202. For more information about complying with the outdoor burning rule, operators must refer to the TCEQ guidance document Outdoor Burning in Texas (RG-049),
All waste disposal for the site must be done in accordance with TCEQ Municipal Solid Waste Rules found in 30 TAC Chapters 330, 328, and 332.
5.3 Property Grading
After completion of mining activities, operators grade the property. This minimizes non-point source stormwater pollution (i.e., sediment fines) from impacting potential pathways such as streams, creeks, tributaries, lakes, etc.
Abandoned sand mine in Plum Grove left in shambles. Not replanted. Stockpiles not removed. Equipment abandoned onsite.Same mine after heavy rains in early May. East Fork captured pit, swept through mine, and carried sediment downstream.More breaches in same mineand more sediment being swept downstream.
Rehak’s Concerns about Post-Mining BMPs
Again, these post-mining BMPs are good as far as they go. However, there are gaping omissions.
One has to do with enforcement. Another has to do with abandoned equipment. While I’ve seen one sand mine on the West Fork that took great care to convert the site to suitable and aesthetic post-mining use, typically miners just walk away from the property and leave it in shambles.
One of the biggest concerns not addressed here: abandoned equipment that leaks oil, creates eyesores, and poses safety hazards.
Abandoned mine on North Houston Avenue in Humble, just blocks from downtown.More equipment at same mine.Submerged excavator at abandoned West Fork MineAbandoned equipment at abandoned East Fork mine. Has since been removed after complaint to TCEQ.Abandoned dredge at same mine. Still there last time I looked in May.Near vertical slopes at this abandoned mine will probably never revegetate until erosion grinds them down.They also pose safety hazards for children playing nearby. This particular mine is between a paint-ball facility and a driving range.
Another post-mining issue is that reclamation depends on the good will of the miner. When all the profit has left the site, what incentive does he have to spend money to reclaim the land.
Without performance bonds to ensure post-mining reclamation, I fear that most miners will leave their property like they have in these pictures. Performance bonds are a common practice in the construction industry; they ensure satisfactory completion of a project.
Without such bonds, there can be virtually no enforcement of these post-mining BMPs. What leverage does the TCEQ have at that point? An operator could just declare bankruptcy, walk away from his obligations, and re-incorporate under a different name. The owner of one of the abandoned mines shown above has his name associated with dozens of defunct organizations.
Public Comments Due by August 19
Please submit your thoughts on Post-Mining 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 8/16/2021
1448 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/2021/08/20180617-SandMineHumble_27.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-08-16 15:05:172021-08-16 15:12:37TCEQ Proposes BMPs for Post-Mining Phase, But Is There Any Incentive to Comply at That Point?
At the present time, Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist, expects no direct impacts to the upper Texas Coast, with the possible exception of some high tides and large swells.
Greater impacts with squalls and higher seas appear more likely along the lower Texas Coast into the weekend.
As always with tropical systems, check forecasts frequently for changes. Remember, forecasts for this storm have shifted direction a whopping 90 degrees in less than a day. Yesterday afternoon, NHC forecast the storm to head toward the Florida panhandle; last night it was headed toward Texas. Today, they show it heading toward the Mexican mainland.
Cone of uncertainty for Grace. Remember: the storm has an equal chance of making landfall anywhere within the cone.
Strong trade winds will continue to push the storm west.
Air Force Reserve and NOAA Hurricane Hunters were both able to locate a center for Grace–and measured several possible areas of tropical-storm-force winds.
High pressure over the western Atlantic is forecast to slide westward over the southeastern United States during the next several days, which should keep Grace on a westward to west- northwestward trajectory for the entire 5-day forecast period.
Forecast Maps
Grace is the lower, elongated storm. The purple area is Fred. And the red area in the Atlantic is a third is tropical depression 8.Tropical-storm-force winds could hit the Mexican mainland on Friday.
All available models closely agree on the new track.
Models are starting to show consensus on Grace’s track.
Intensity Forecast
Grace’s intensity forecast remains complicated by interaction with land and the possibility of some westerly shear during the forecast period. However, the southern shift in the forecast track takes the center of Grace over very warm 30 degrees Celsius waters in the northwestern Caribbean Sea. Therefore, Lindner expects gradual strengthening.
Once the system reaches the Gulf of Mexico, shear should decrease, says Lindner, and conditions will support additional strengthening. Many models bring Grace to hurricane intensity by the end of the forecast period.
Favorable upper level and sea surface conditions along the path of Grace over the southern Gulf support some of the stronger solutions and tropical systems in this area of the Gulf tend to have a history of quick development. NHC is currently indicating Grace nearing the Mexican coast as a tropical storm, but a hurricane is certainly possible.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/16/2021 at noon based on information from NHC and HCFCD
1448 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/145633_5day_cone_no_line_and_wind.png?fit=897%2C736&ssl=1736897adminadmin2021-08-16 11:49:482021-08-16 11:55:51Grace Now Expected to Track Farther South, Turn Into Tropical Storm Tuesday
According to the 8PM EDT update from from the National Hurricane Center on Sunday, 8/15/2021, Tropical Depression Grace is now expected to track more westerly toward the Texas Coast. Earlier, forecasters predicted Grace would follow Fred’s path toward the Florida Panhandle. However, even if Grace remains on the new track, it would not reach the Texas Coast until Friday night.
Topical storm force winds could arrive almost a day earlier.
Watches and Warnings Already Up for Islands
NHC advises that there is a risk of flash, urban and small stream flooding for islands in the Caribbean.
Forecast Uncertainty Higher than Usual
NHC also advises that forecast uncertainty remains much higher than usual for Grace.
Present movement is directly west (270 degrees) at 15 mph with sustained winds of 35 mph.
Forecaster predict the storm will dump 3-6 inches over Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Four to eight inches could fall on the Dominican Republic and Haiti.
Possible Threat to Texas Later This Week
If Grace survives land interaction, it could threaten Texas later this week. It’s important to remember that the storm has an equal chance of hitting any area the cone. The cone does not represent the expected width of the storm and dangerous winds could extend well outside the cone.