The developers of the proposed high-rise development near River Grove Park launched a new web site today, TheHeronsKingwood.com. In it, they make many new claims designed to put the public’s concerns to rest. It had the opposite effect on me. Why?
They told the Corps the Marina would hold 640 boats. It’s 160 boats larger now. The website video states 800.
The Army Corps thinks the development is 331 acres. The website claims 364.
After telling community leaders they would hold a public meeting before the close of the comment period, they now say after.
After previously touting their connections to an Italian architectural firm, Torrisi and Procopio (which I suspected was a fake site), they now say Skidmore Owings and Merrill (SOM) developed the design. But SOM in San Francisco referred me to their legal department, which did not take my calls. The Italian site was developed in English and registered in Aruba by a Canadian Company.
They now claim that a subsidiary of Romerica Investments, the Romerica Group, will develop the project. They claim Romerica Group has existed since 2007 and is located in Houston. The Texas Secretary of State has no listing for Romerica Group. Neither do Florida, Delaware or Alberta, Canada – other known locations where the developers have incorporated. The phone number listed on the Romerica Group website is disconnected. The office was unoccupied last time I checked several weeks ago.
“Romerica Group” does not appear on any of the permit applications associated with this project at the Army Corps, City of Houston or Harris County Flood Control.
Romerica Investments does not own the property being permitted.
They claim that 25-story condominium towers are single family homes. That’s the world’s largest family!
They say that only the northern half of the development is subject to height restrictions without offering any proof that “single-family residential” deed restrictions have been removed from the southern half.
They claim they’re creating a connection to Hamblin Road (sic), which the Corps Public Notice does not mention and no one in Forest Cove seems to know about.
They claim that “Both the city and county have approved construction and permits have been issued, they have determined that the community will not have an adverse effect on surrounding communities.” This makes it sound like they have been given permits for the entire development. Not true. Neither is the second half of the statement. Developers requested a permit to start excavating the marina. They promised they would haul excavated material offsite. However, things changed by the time the Corps issued its public notice. The public notice states that they will use the fill to raise the elevation 12 feet. Hmmm. Sounds like cause to revoke those permits to me!
They again claim that raising elevations to 57 feet will make the buildings flood safe when the area has flooded over 57 feet at least six times in the last 25 years.
They call roads an alternative mode of transportation!
They think ExxonMobil is spelled Exxon Mobile.
But the best part is this! Read the disclaimer. It’s the most self-generous disclaimer in the history of words. Nobody is responsible for anything the site says. Make sure you read the fine print.
Ain’t nobody responsible for nothin’.
As always, this post represents my opinions on matters of public policy. They are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on February 12, 2019
532 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Disclaimer3.jpg?fit=1500%2C160&ssl=11601500adminadmin2019-02-12 21:02:162019-02-12 23:27:15High-Rise Developers Make New Claims, Give Themselves Most Generous Disclaimer in History of Words
Romerica Investments proposed high-rise marina property has a long history of flooding. In fact, the flooding which has gotten progressively worse through the years, has stymied one developer after another.
The property flooded 52 times since Lake Houston was built in 1955. That means it floods almost every year. And in the last year (February ’18 to January ’19). it flooded SIX times.
Timeline Shows Link Between Flooding, Sales, Lawsuit
As you review this chronology, clicking on the links will take you to the actual deeds. Here’s a timeline that shows how sales of the property relate to water and flooding. As you review it, remember all deed restrictions run with the land. That means they carry forward from one buyer to the next…unless the original entity imposing the restrictions consents to removing them.
Notice how subsequent transfers summarize restrictions in the earlier transfers: “This conveyance…is made and accepted subject to any and all … restrictions … relating to the property, but only to the extent that they are … shown of record in the herein above mentioned County…”
We could find no documents in county records removing the single-family residential restriction that Friendswood Development Company placed on the property. The developer has provided none to date.
Title and Flood History
1950 – Foster Lumber Company sells 3200 acres to City of Houston for the purpose of creating Lake Houston.
1955 – Lake Houston created.
1973 – City of Houston sells two tracts of land not inundated by Lake Houston to Friendswood Development Company and King Ranch. City puts several deed restrictions on property. The significant ones: 1) No use that could alter the reservoir capacity of Lake Houston through fill or erosion. 2) Any fill must be compensated with excavation immediately adjacent to the fill. 3) City reserved the right to enforce pollution controls on activities up to the 51 foot contour elevation line. This is significant because it would include marina operations. The Lake and river normally pool at 42.5 feet back to the US59 bridge.
1994 – In October, historic flooding hits area. Crest at US59 = 67.30 feet.
1994 – On December 30, Friendswood and King Ranch sell property to Holley-Strother Kingwood Lakes Estates, LTD. Deed restrictions limit property use to “single family residential homes with accompanying greenbelt, park, pool, recreational facilities and for no other purpose or purposes” for a period of 40 years. Also, drainage cannot be altered in a way that affects surrounding property. Finally, before the developers could begin construction, they had to get a declaration of use restrictions affecting all the property approved in writing by the grantor. This would force homebuyers to abide by the deed restrictions, too.
1998 – West Fork crests at 60.1 feet at US59 on 11/15.
2001 – 2007 – River crests above 50 feet inundating Holley-Strother property seven times in seven years.
2007 – June 18, FEMA approves new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). This put a large part of the Holley Strother property in the floodway for the first time. City of Houston also adopted a new ordinance that prohibited the City Engineer from permitting any buildings in a floodway.
Current flood map used by FEMA and CoH is dated 6/17/2007. Expansion of floodway (crosshatched area) kept Holley-Strother from developing land. COH rules prohibit building in floodway. Current developer appears to be rushing to get property permitted before flood maps are updated again. Updates will likely show all high-rise portion in floodway.
2008 – West Fork floods and crests at 62.8 feet at US59 on September 18. Holley and Strother excavate a lake on the southern portion of their land to help build up the level of the Barrington, which is still under construction. On September 30, Holley and Strother sue the City. They claim that the City Ordinance against building in the floodway constitutes “illegal taking” of their land under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
2009 – 2012 – Floods above 50 feet inundate the property three more times.
And so history repeats itself. The current rush to beat redrawing of the flood maps reminds one of the events in 2007 and 2008.
I have numerous questions about this project. About the safety of building high rises in an old meander of the San Jacinto. About the wisdom of approving a permit to build such immense structures on the edge of the floodway – when we know the flood maps will soon be revised again. About expanding a marina toward the river when the river is migrating toward the marina at the rate of 20 feet per year.
Who are These People?
Meanwhile, I’m also struggling with questions about the developers. I’m struggling to understand the maze of companies, partnerships, addresses, and registrations in other states and countries. These two men have 19 entities here in Texas alone.
This raises so many questions that I hope the Corps extends the public comment period yet again until we can learn who these men are and where their money comes from. The community needs to understand who we are dealing with. But they have not yet consented to a public meeting despite numerous requests.
As always, these are my opinions on matters of public interest. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on February 6, 2019
531 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/High-Rises-on-Flood-Plain.jpg?fit=1500%2C1013&ssl=110131500adminadmin2019-02-11 18:43:092019-02-12 09:27:14History of Proposed High-Rise Property Tied to Flooding For Decades
Imagine trying to evacuate 640 40-boats before a storm. The biggest threat to water quality is the one thing in this development that needs to be near the river: the marina.
Main Concerns
My main concerns are:
This development appears to violate legally binding deed restrictions. We can find no documents registered with the county clerk that legally change allowable land use from “single family residential” to commercial, retail and hotel high rises.
The developers many websites touting this project appear to violate rules from the SEC, FTC, FINRA, National Association of Realtors, and Texas Real Estate Commission governing real-estate investment advertising. See letter section 15 (e) XX on page 15.
The developers are foreigners who operate through a maze of companies that makes it hard to understand whom the community is dealing with.
The developers are being sued by investors for fraud.
One huge thing I believe we need: Confidence in the legitimacy of the developers.
Their refusal so far to appear at a public meeting to answer questions about their development raised red flags. I found many others. Four pages worth. See pages 16-19 in the letter. A small sampling:
Dunn and Bradstreet reports that Romerica Investments, LLC, the applicant is inactive and out of business. They have no working phone and appear to have no sales, assets, or profits.
The Romerica Group is not registered in Texas even though they say their headquarters is in Houston and that they have been doing business here since 2007.
The initial contact number listed by the Army Corps for Romerica was a “wrong number.” Contact numbers for several of the developers other companies are not in service.
Investors are suing them for fraud in District Court. (See MARIA DEL CARMEN BORBOLLA AND MARIA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ, CAUSE NO. 2018 – 07276, 157th Judicial Court, Harris County, Tx.)
The RomericaInvestments.com website was registered in 2013 and still shows a “Future Home of…” home page.
The people of Kingwood don’t need another Gucci outlet as much as they need freedom from flooding. I therefore called for a moratorium on all flood plain permitting until flood mitigation measures can be put in place and safety restored.
Conclusion
Any one of these factors by itself might be sufficient to deny the permit request. Taken together, they leave no doubt; the negatives far outweigh any positives. According to Army Corps guidelines, the permit must therefore be denied. Too many questions remain unanswered about the developers and the development to approve this permit.
Or send them in their entirety and say, “I agree!” Here’s a customizable word.doc that you can download and send. Remember to insert your name and contact information on the first page and your name again on the last page. You can then send it by clicking on the links in the letter.
I am sending my letter only in a digital format because of all the hyperlinks embedded in it.
Emailed Letters Preferred
The recipients have expressed a desire for electronic versions over paper copies anyway. Electronic makes it easier for them to forward and file the documents; no scanning necessary.
As always, the thoughts in the letter and this post represent my opinions on matters of public interest. They are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.
Posted on February 9, 2019 by Bob Rehak
529 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/boat1.jpg?fit=980%2C759&ssl=1759980adminadmin2019-02-09 18:41:352019-02-09 19:45:49Rehak Letter about Proposed High-Rise Development Spells Out New Concerns
Bill King, who has announced he will be a candidate for mayor this November, will be holding a townhall meeting on February 10 at Los Cucos from 4:30-6:30. Bill has indicated that he will discuss flooding in Kingwood, along with other issues important to our community. This is the Eventbrite link if you are interested in more information – https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bill-king-for-houston-mayor-campaign-launch-los-cucos-tickets-55079090041.
Why You Should Come
Kingwood residents need to participate in City elections this year to ensure that candidates who know about the issues facing our community, especially flooding, are elected. Therefore, I will post information on all events held by candidates for mayor or council that plan events in Kingwood.
Demonstrated Commitment to Solving Flood Issues
This is the first of those posts. I must say that Bill King’s desire to understand flooding issues throughout the City, not only in Kingwood, has impressed me. Long before, he decided to run for Mayor again, King contacted me several times to discuss flooding problems in Kingwood. We also discussed how solutions here might impact downstream communities. King even spent an entire day with me last summer slogging through sand dunes in East End Park and on Marina Drive in Forest Cove to see the problems first hand.
Townhomes destroyed by Harvey on Marina Drive in Forest Cove.
He has seen firsthand what 240,000 cubic feet of water per second can do.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/RJR_5269-e1541018437181.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-02-08 20:30:012019-02-08 20:30:04Bill King to Discuss Kingwood Flooding Issues, High-Rise Development and More at Townhall this Sunday
According to Stephen Costello, Chief Resiliency Officer for The City of Houston, the City contracted with a company called Tetra Tech to take core samples earlier this week from and around the mouth bar on the West Fork of the San Jacinto.
Why Core Samples?
The mouth bar is a giant sand bar at the mouth of the river where it meets the lake. The size of it has concerned residents throughout the Lake Houston Area since Harvey. It has the potential to back water up on both sides of the river and worsen flooding.
Some background. The Army Corps initially excluded the mouth bar from its current dredging program on the west fork. Their reason: a small part of the bar existed before Harvey. FEMA, which is funding the dredging, by law cannot spend money on remediation for things that existed before the disaster in question.
It took months for the City, FEMA and the Army Corps to agree on a way to estimate the volume of sand deposited by Harvey. The answer says Costello: something called the Stockton protocol that he says was developed after Superstorm Sandy at Stockton University in New Jersey.
Analysis Due by End of February
The core samples will be key to estimating pre- and post-Harvey volumes. Costello says engineers will look at density and color of sand grains to help estimate where sediment from one storm stops and another starts.
Costello hopes engineers will complete their analysis by the end of February. In the meantime two other efforts are proceeding simultaneously.
Search for Suitable Disposal Site Continues
The Corps will evaluate one property for suitability as above-ground storage. Separately, others are also out looking at sub-surface storage sites (i.e., old sand pits). Several have been located. The cost and safety of above ground and below ground storage will be weighed against the possibility of hauling material off by truck. Distance between the dredge and disposal sites also affects pumping costs.
All this will take time, especially if a full-blown environmental study is necessary for the above-ground option. Costello says the Corps has told him that could take four months to two years.
Evaluating Plan B
Because of delays, Costello is starting to worry that delays may cost taxpayers the opportunity to save $18 million. That’s the cost to remobilize a second dredging project if the current dredging project cannot be extended.
Accordingly, Costello is pursuing two options. The first involves praying (that’s a joke). The second involves working back through the Texas Division of Emergency Management to get FEMA to declare the mouth bar part of the original emergency mission. The Corps seems to move much faster when orders come from FEMA, several sources tell me. Maybe we should start praying too. (That’s not a joke.)
Money, according to Costello, should not be a problem. FEMA has approved the use of debris cleanup money from Harvey for dredging. He believes enough money remains in that fund to cover the City’s cost share.
Where Current Dredging Project Stands
The Corps estimates that the current dredging project is 45% complete. They hope to complete dredging by the end of April.
City contractors are still removing downed trees from Lake Houston as a result of Hurricane Harvey’s destruction. The Callan Dredge is currently working the area near Kings Harbor at the West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge. The immensity of the equipment underscores the need to keep crews working at the end of the current project on the mouth bar. Remobilizing all this equipment could cost $18 million or more if delays create a need to remobilize.
Posted by Bob Rehak on February 7, 2018
527 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CallanAtWLHP_01.jpg?fit=1500%2C722&ssl=17221500adminadmin2019-02-07 18:43:362019-02-07 18:43:42City Analyzing Samples from Mouth Bar In Hopes of Determining Volume Due to Harvey
A search for deed restrictions on property proposed for high-rise development turned up some huge surprises today. I had previously posted about height restrictions within Friendswood Commercial Development Guidelines. It turns out that the Friendswood Commercial Development Guidelines do not apply in this case – because the property was restricted to single-family residential. Specifically, I’m talking about the section of land circled below. It’s just south of the Barrington subdivision in Kingwood.
This post deals only with the section in red where most of the high rises will go, but deed restrictions also exist on other related parcels of land in the proposed development.
Relevant Property History Starts in 1994
Some concerned residents and I conducted a title search with the help of the County Clerk’s website and a friendly title company. The land in the circle has changed hands twice since 1994. Friendswood Development company sold it to Holley-Strother Kingwood Lake Estates, Ltd. on December 30, 1994. Holley and Strother sold it to the current owners in 2012. The land has actually been sold more than twice, but only among companies controlled by the same individuals. It’s also been the subject of an eight year law suit related to flood plain issues. More on those items in subsequent posts.
Key Elements of Deed Restrictions
Deed restrictions in the first sale specify four key elements:
Single-family residential
Compatible architecture in harmony with structures on adjoining land.
No alteration of drainage for surrounding areas
Applies to all subsequent buyers for a period of at least 40 years (until 2036)
That hardly looks like single-family residential housing. I talked to experts in city planning, real estate and sales. They all agreed that “single family residential” usually means “one family in one structure on one lot.”
Drainage Deed Restrictions, Too.
Hindering or obstructing existing drainage channels or ditches, which serve adjoining property owners – without the written consent of the owners – is also prohibited. (See Paragraph 8.)
The Corps’ public notice also states that the developer plans to put “285 cubic yards of fill into 771 linear feet of streams adjacent to the West Fork of the San Jacinto.” That would seem to be another deed restriction violation.
I’m not sure about you, but I moved to Kingwood, a master-planned community, because deed restrictions ensured these kinds of things did not happen.
To my knowledge, the developers have not even attempted to gain permission to disrupt drainage from other villages, such as Kingwood Lakes, Deer Cove, Trailwood and Barrington.
Deed Restrictions Binding on Successors
Another key clause in the deed restrictions reads:
Deed restrictions normally “run” with the land. Said another way, when the first buyer sells the land to a second buyer, the second buyer must abide by the same restrictions that the first buyer had, and so forth in perpetuity. Subsequent buyers may add restrictions, but notremove them without the consent of the ORIGINAL grantor. The original grantor in this case was Friendswood Development Company.
We could find no recorded documents on the County Clerk’s web site or in a title search that removed deed restrictions on this property. A former Friendswood executive told me, “If there is not a recorded document removing the restrictions, then they have not been removed.” So…
The Burden of Proof is on the Developers
I am requesting the developers to show the legally recorded document that removes the deed restrictions. However, so far they have not responded to my certified mail or phone calls requesting a public meeting.
The Corps informed me yesterday that the developer has designated Leah Manlove Howard of Manlove Advertising and PR as their new point of contact. Her contact information is:
Romerica Investments, LLC One Performance Drive Angleton, TX 77515 Telephone: 281-487-6767 POC: Ms. Leah Manlove Howard
This raises so many questions that I hope the Corps extends the public comment period yet again. The community needs to understand who we are dealing with.
As always, these are my opinions on matters of public interest. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on February 6, 2019
526 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SectionDHilighted.jpg?fit=1500%2C1153&ssl=111531500adminadmin2019-02-06 20:09:542019-02-06 20:22:46High-Rise Property May Be Deed Restricted to Single-Family Residential
Sand miners plan to gather in Austin on February 4th and 5th to meet with legislators for their annual TACA Days. TACA stands for the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association. It represents sand miners. They hope to beat back regulation of the industry that could help protect areas like Lake Houston from excessive sedimentation.
They describe the event as a series of meetings with state legislators and their staffs, which will be followed by recognition in both the House and Senate Chambers.
The flood during Hurricane Harvey breached sand mine dikes and roads up and down the West Fork. All of the mines with the exception of one are located inside the floodway – a dangerous business practice that contributes to sedimentation. However, none of the bills introduced in the Texas House so far address this issue.
TACA Plan of Attack
The invitation says that for the meetings, the group will split up into teams. Each team will have a captain who speaks for the group. Captains know the drill from previous attempts to beat back legislation. TACA has spent millions of dollars lobbying the legislature and key state officials. This is part of that effort.
The invitation closes with a plea. “The higher the participation, the greater the impact we will make with our legislators. This legislative session will involve critical issues to our industry and we need your representation.”
Guess they’re expecting a fight. In year’s past, I have been told, they’ve even brought in some of their big equipment to parade up and down streets leading to the Capitol Building.
Sadly, Not Much Legislation to Get Excited About
Four bills have been filed re: sand mining so far.
The most exciting from a Lake Houston Area resident’s perspective is HB509. State Representative Terry Wilson filed it. It:
Requires a hydrology assessment of the operation’s impact on surrounding surface and groundwater – including water availability.
Creates criminal penalties for non-compliance.Enables regulators to consider the cumulative impact of multiple APOs in an area when evaluating new applications.
Requires the operation to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.
Requires public notice of permit applications
Provides for public comment on permit applications
Makes permit approval contingent on past performance
Requires permitting agencies to publish the public comments
Allows the agencies to deny permits based on public comments
Grandfathers operations with existing permits
HB 907 filed by State Representative Dan Huberty doubles the penalties if sand mines don’t register with the TCEQ. However, most of the problems with sand mining have to do with companies that ARE registered. They are mining in the floodway which contributes to sedimentation during floods. So double the penalties on unregistered mines will create only the APPEARANCE of getting tough on mines.
HB 908, also filed by Representative Huberty, increases penalties for other violations, but calls for inspections once every two years. A lot can happen during that time. I suggested using Landsat photos to supplement monitoring of operations. Landsat flies over Montgomery County sixteen times a day and could spot breeches of dikes in near real time. Seems like it would be more effective, more efficient, and cheaper. But no mention of Landsat appears in the bill.
HB 909 calls for the TCEQ to develop and publish a set of best practices for sand mining. However, it attaches no penalties for violation of them.
I’ve talked to representative Huberty about these issues. He believes regulation should happen in small steps. I believe it should happen before the next big storm.
With the exception of HB506, TACA may have won this fight before it started. The sand miners should have a lot to be thankful for tomorrow in Austin.
As always, these are my opinions on matters of public policy. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/3/2019
523 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Subject-Mine-During-Harvey.jpg?fit=1103%2C886&ssl=18861103adminadmin2019-02-03 18:23:192019-02-03 18:23:22Sand Miners Plan TACA Days in Austin for February 4th, 5th
“Has Romerica Investments done due diligence? Is this project needed?” In my opinion, the answer is no. It consists of condominiums 65-feet high in the flood plain, plus 25-50 story retail, commercial and hotel structures arranged around a marina. That marina is in the floodway of the San Jacinto River’s West Fork.
Looking northwest from the southeastern tip of the proposed high-rise marina district Imagine 50-story high rises in the narrow strip of land between the lake and the Barrington in the background. Look below to see the scale.
But growth in the Humble ISD has slowed from 6% to 1% because of concerns over flooding. The number-one need we have now is to restore safety by mitigating flood risk. This project will worsen flood risk and there is little demand for it – especially in this location. The Corps should deny this permit until the safety of the community can be assured.
Drawn to vertical scale.
The developer plans to build more than 3 million square feet of hotel, commercial, retail and residential space in the floodplain. Yet, since Harvey, we can’t fill all the homes we have – even those on higher ground. About a quarter of the retail space in Town Center and King’s Harbor is still vacant. There’s little demand for commercial space. And existing hotels can handle travelers just fine, thank you.
Previous Attempt to Build Retail Mall in Kingwood Failed
It’s also hard to see how Kingwood’s population would support another shopping mall and theater. We already have a major 1.2 million SF regional mall right across the river in Humble. We also have three theaters with 44 screens within 5 miles. Also, consider that online shopping and streaming services, such as Amazon and Netflix, are stealing market share from malls and movie theaters all over America.
A previous attempt to build a small mall in Kingwood resulted in abject failure. The mall was on the southwest corner of Kingwood Drive and US59. After sitting vacant for years, HCA bought the structure and converted it into a community hospital.
Market Review Does Not Consider Location-Specific Factors
The market review conducted by the applicant mentioned none of this. It focused on job growth in Texas and Houston. It totally ignored the local Kingwood market and site-specific considerations. Conducted before Harvey, the survey has NOT been updated to reflect flooding concerns.
That said, most existing homes and businesses in Kingwood are on much higher ground. Raising this project 12 feet above its current elevation to 57′ won’t raise it out of harms way. Far from it. We’ve had six floods higher than that since 1994 – an average of one every FOUR years. That’s an increase over the previous 65 years when we had just three – one every 22 years..
The build-it-and-they-will-come mentality in post-Harvey Houston invites disappointment down the road. It will create white elephants that leave permanent scars on the landscape after destroying the fragile wetlands that we so desperately need to absorb and store floodwaters.
Raising Elevation Will Raise Costs
However, raising the entire project 12 feet WILL raise costs. And therefore, it will price sales and rentals far above the rest of the market – in an area (i.e., floodplain) that people are wary of after Harvey.
In my opinion, the combination of higher costs, less demand, less traffic, remote location, and local opposition will doom this project from the start.
It does not include any evaluation of local Kingwood-specific factors, such as occupancy rates.
It includes no staples of market analysis such as traffic counts or trading radius.
It does not consider the feasibility of anchor attractions, such as the marina and retail mall. For instance, can the West Fork even accommodate the volume and size of boats in the marina? Will retailers support a mall at the end of a dead-end road, four miles from the nearest highway, devoid of any through traffic, that floods every time we get four inches of rain?
It says comparable projects around the country were surveyed, but makes no mention of them. It contains no competitive analysis.
It reads like a prospectus targeted at investors, but contains no mention of risk.
The authorship of the analysis is redacted; we do not know who conducted the survey or what credentials they have.
Finally, it contains no mention of flooding or Harvey.
These omissions feel like serious flaws in Romerica’s market analysis. The Corps should not approve a permit based on such work. There is no demonstrable need to destroy these wetlands.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/1/2019
521 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Harvey-SanJac_182.jpg?fit=2000%2C1333&ssl=113332000adminadmin2019-02-01 11:13:132019-02-01 13:47:50Will High-Rise Marina Project Meet Army Corps’ Criteria for “Needed”?
Romerica Investments, LLC has applied for a permit to build a high-rise development in the floodplain of the San Jacinto River. They call the proposed development the Kingwood Marina Project. Because it involves adding 12 feet of fill material to the floodplain of the San Jacinto River, the Army Corps of Engineers has become involved. The Corps rules on any permit application that involves “discharge” of fill into “waters of the United States.”
Proposed layout for the Kingwood Marina Project.
The fill would stretch approximately three quarters of a mile from north to south along Woodland Hills Drive and approximately .85 miles from east to west on both sides of the Barrington. If you want to know what the Corps considers when making such rulings, or why and how the TCEQ interprets “water quality” for them, read on.
The Corps’ main criteria for evaluating applications includes four high-level considerations:
Need for the project
Extent and permanence of detrimental effects
Effect on wetlands
Relative weight of various additional factors
The additional factors below also apply to the proposed High-Rise Kingwood Marina Project:
Conservation
Economics
Aesthetics
General environmental concerns
Historic, cultural, scenic, and recreational values.
Fish and wildlife values
Flood hazards
Floodplain management
Land use
Navigation
Shore erosion and accretion
Recreation
Water supply and conservation
Water quality
Safety
Considerations of property ownership
Needs and welfare of the people
Public Interest Described in More Detail
“All factors which may be relevant to the proposal must be considered,” says the intro to Corps regulations on page 398. The regulations (33 CFR 320-332) then go into more detail on many of these factors. The regs elaborate on dozens of things that the law requires the Corps to evaluate.
Here’s my summary and interpretation of those that likely apply. Keep in mind that I’m looking at these with the proposed Kingwood Marina high-rise project in mind. So I have omitted some items that do not apply, such those for coastal developments. For the exact text of each, consult this Department of the Army legal document. I am not a lawyer and do not offer legal advice.
The regulations start with a discussion of four high-level, over-riding factors.
The first thing reviewers look at is the “need for the project.” If needed, they then consider the extent and permanence of any detrimental effects relative to any benefits that the project provides.
In that regard, wetlands play a major role and get special mention. But the Corps also reviews the 17 other factors listed above that have to do with “the public interest.” Then they weigh them all – pros and cons. Something that’s very important on one project may carry no weight on another. The reviewers have wide latitude to use their own judgment.
What Does the Army Corps Consider Value of Wetlands to Be?
Providing nesting, spawning, and rearing space for animals, birds and fish
Moderating natural drainage, sedimentation, salinity, flushing, and other environmental benefits
Shielding other areas from erosion or storm damage
Storing storm and flood waters
Purifying water
Providing unique natural value to a local area
Further section B (3) recognizes that although a particular alteration of a wetland may constitute a minor change, the cumulative effect of numerous piecemeal changes can result in major impairment of wetland resources. This section seems to say, “We can afford to lose some wetlands, but at a certain point, “Enough is enough!”
The Corps looks at each wetland as part of a complete and interrelated wetland environment.
Corps Consults Others on Wetlands
The district engineer may undertake, where appropriate, reviews of particular wetland areas in consultation with the:
Regional Director of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Local representative of the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture
Head of the appropriate state agency to assess the cumulativeeffect of activities in such areas (TCEQ and/or TPWD).
The Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The head of the Texas Parks and Wildlife.
The engineer must consider conservation of wildlife resources and preventing harm to them due to proposed permit activity. The Army must give full consideration to the views of those agencies when deciding whether to issue, deny or condition permits.
Water-Quality Considerations
Applications for permits for activities which may adversely affect the quality of waters of the United States will be evaluated for compliance with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards, during the construction and subsequent operation of the proposed activity. The evaluation should include the consideration of both point and non-point sources of pollution. The Clean Water Act assigns responsibility for control of non-point sources of pollution to the states. In our case, that’s the TCEQ.
Scenic and Recreational Values
Full evaluation of the general public interest requires that due consideration be given to the effect which the proposed structure or activity may have on values such as those associated with scenic rivers.
Consideration of Property Ownership
Authorization of work or structures by the Corps does not convey a property right. Nor does it authorize any injury to property or invasion of others’ rights.
An inherent aspect of property ownership is a right to reasonable private use. However, this right is subject to the rights and interests of the public in the navigable and other waters of the United States. It includes environmental protection.
Because a landowner has the general right to protect property from erosion, applications to erect protective structures will usually receive favorable consideration. However, if the protective structure may cause damage to the property of others, adversely affect public health and safety, adversely impact floodplain or wetland values, or otherwise appears contrary to the public interest, the district engineer will so advise the applicant and inform him of possible alternative methods of protecting his property.
A landowner’s general right of access to navigable waters may not create undue interference with access to, or use of, navigable waters by others. If it does, the authorization will generally be denied.
The applicant’s signature on an application is an affirmation that the applicant possesses or will possess the requisite property interest to undertake the activity proposed in the application.
In the absence of overriding public-interest factors that may be revealed during the evaluation of the permit application, a permit will generally be issued. But first, the engineer must receive favorable state determination. That state determination must take into account:
Similarly, a permit will generally be issued for Federal and Federally-authorized activities; another federal agency’s determination to proceed is entitled to substantial considerationin the Corps’ public interest review.
Threatened Species
The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) declares the intention of the Congress to conserve threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems on which those species depend. The Act requires that federal agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, use their authorities in furtherance of its purposes by carrying out programs for the conservation of threatened species, (editorial comment: such as the bald eagle which nests and feeds near this property).
Floodplain Management
Floodplains possess significant natural values and carry out numerous functions important to the public interest. These include:
Water-resources value (natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, and groundwater recharge);
Living-resource values (fish, wildlife, and plant resources);
Cultural-resource values (open space, natural beauty, scientific study, outdoor education, and recreation); and
Cultivated-resource values (agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry).
Although a particular alteration to a floodplain may constitute a minor change, the cumulative impact of such changes may result in a significant degradation of floodplain values and functions and in increased potential for harm to upstream and downstream activities.
Executive Order 11988 and Floodplains
In accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 11988, district engineers, as part of their public interest review, should avoid to the extent practicable, long and short term significant adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, as well as the direct and indirect support of floodplain development whenever there is a practicable alternative. For those activities which in the public interest must occur in or impact upon floodplains, the district engineer shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the impacts of potential flooding on human health, safety, and welfare are minimized, the risks of flood losses are minimized, and, whenever practicable the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains are restored and preserved.
In accordance with Executive Order 11988, the district engineer should avoid authorizing floodplain developments whenever practicable alternatives exist outside the floodplain.If there are no such practicable alternatives, the district engineer shall consider, as a means of mitigation, alternatives within the floodplain which will lessen any significant adverse impact to the floodplain.
Water Supply and Conservation
Water is an essential resource, basic to human survival, economic growth, and the natural environment. Water conservation requires the efficient use of water resources in all actions which involve the significant use of water or that significantly affect the availability of water for alternative uses including opportunities to reduce demand and improve efficiency in order to minimize new supply requirements. Actions affecting water quantities are subject to Congressional policy as stated in section 101(g) of the Clean Water Act which provides that the authority of states to allocate water quantities shall not be superseded, abrogated, or otherwise impaired.
Navigation
Protection of navigation in all navigable waters of the United States continues to be a primary concern of the federal government.
District engineers should protect navigational and anchorage interests in connection with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) program by recommending to EPA or to the state, if the program has been delegated, that a permit be denied unless appropriate conditions can be included to avoid any substantial impairment of navigation and anchorage.
The NPDES permit program addresses water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States.
Environmental Benefits
Some activities that require Department of the Army permits result in beneficial effects to the quality of the environment. The district engineer will weigh these benefits as well as environmental detriments along with other factors of the public interest.
Economics
When private enterprise makes application for a permit, it will generally be assumed that appropriate economic evaluations have been completed, the proposal is economically viable, and is needed in the market place.However, the district engineer in appropriate cases, may make an independent review of the need for the project from the perspective of the overall public interest. The economic benefits of many projects are important to the local community and contribute to needed improvements in the local economic base, affecting such factors as employment, tax revenues, community cohesion, community services, and property values. Many projects also contribute to the National Economic Development (NED), (i.e., the increase in the net value of the national output of goods and services
Deadline for Comments Extended to March 1
Because of the prolonged government shutdown, the Army Corps has extended the deadline for public comments on the proposed Kingwood Marina high-rise development.
Comments and requests for additional information should reference USACE file number, SWG-2016-00384, and should be submitted to:
ARMY CORPS
Evaluation Branch, North Unit Regulatory Division, CESWG-RD-E U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, Texas 77553-1229 409-766-3869 Phone 409-766-6301 Fax swg_public_notice@usace.army.mil
TCEQ
The TCEQ will evaluate water quality issues for the Corps. You can email water quality comments to 401certs@tceq.texas.gov. Please ensure that all comments reference USACE permit application no. SWG-2016-00384.
Rehak Comments To Follow
As I have studied the Corps’ and TCEQ’s decision-making processes and criteria, I have also studied possible impacts of the proposed high-rise project. I intend to send my comments to the Corps, TCEQ, Texas Parks and Wildlife, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the EPA. I will publish those when complete – hopefully by the end of this week.
As always, these represent my opinions on matters of public policy. They are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/31/2019
520 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Pieces-of-Romerica-Dev-e1546040851855.png?fit=1500%2C1095&ssl=110951500adminadmin2019-01-30 17:57:382019-01-30 18:05:55How Corps Will Evaluate High-Rise Permit Application
I received this high-rise protest letter by the Galveston Bay Foundation yesterday. The power of their logic, so well articulated, struck me like lightning. Hopefully they will help turn the tide against this ill-advised project in Kingwood. Their letter makes compelling points in a concise fashion. The text below has been reformatted for the web. Follow this link or the one at the bottom of the page to see or download a PDF of original letter.
Wetlands adjacent to Woodland Hills Drive that would be filled with 12 feet of dirt to elevate the proposed high-rise Kingwood Marina Resort. (Note: this photo was not part of the Galveston Bay Foundations’ letter. I have added it here to help illustrate some of their points.)
January 29, 2019 Evaluation Branch, North Unit Regulatory Division, CESWG-RD-E U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, Texas 77553-1229
RE: Public Notice SWG-2016-00384
To Whom It May Concern:
The applicant, Romerica Investments, LLC, proposes to discharge 68,323 cubic yards of fill material into 42.35 acres of wetlands and an estimated 285 cubic yards of fill material into 771 linear feet of streams adjacent to the West Fork San Jacinto River during the development of a marina/resort district, a commercial district, a residential district, and roadway expansion.
The project is located in waters and wetlands adjacent to the West Fork of the San Jacinto River, in Kingwood, in Harris County, Texas. The aquatic features onsite include open water, forested wetlands, emergent wetlands, and streams. The subject wetlands and waters are located in the Bens Branch-Frontal Lake Houston watershed (United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 12040101) which flows into the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and Lake Houston. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled: Moonshine Hill, Texas at latitude 30.036463° North; longitude 95.215438° West, and contains the following elements:
Marina/Resort District (107.41 acres)
The applicant proposes to discharge 19,690.7 cubic yards of fill material into a total of 12.21 acres of wetlands to construct the marina/resort district. The applicant proposes to expand the existing 15-acre lake associated with the West Fork San Jacinto River into an 80-acre marina with a maximum capacity for 640 boats. The applicant proposes to construct a new navigation channel to the south of the proposed marina and expand the existing channel on the east for better connectivity between the proposed marina and the West Fork San Jacinto River. The applicant proposes to develop the 25 acres north of the proposed marina into a resort district. The resort district will consist of a resort hotel, commercial, and residential space. The excavated fill material would be used to raise the elevation of the resort district from 45 feet to 57 feet above base flood elevation, to raise the proposed structures above the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain of the West Fork San Jacinto River.
Commercial District (64.41 acres)
The applicant proposes to discharge 959.6 cubic yards of fill material into a total of 0.59 acres of wetlands and 110 linear feet of streams to construct the commercial district. The applicant proposes to construct, within 47 acres, retail, residential, and office space. The applicant proposes to discharge fill material to raise the elevation of the commercial district from 45 feet to 57 feet over base flood elevation, to raise the proposed structures over the FEMA 100-year floodplain of the West Fork San Jacinto. The applicant proposes to expand an existing 16.25-acre lake to a 19.25-acre size to create a smaller marina area for personal watercraft parking. The applicant proposes to create a 125-foot wide interconnecting channel between the 80-acre marina and the 19.25-acre marina to provide navigable access between the two marinas and the marina/resort district and the commercial district.
Residential District (136.93 acres)
The applicant proposes to discharge 46,213.9 cubic yards of fill material into a total of 28.60 acres of wetlands and 404 linear feet of streams to construct the residential district. The applicant proposes to construct, within 64 acres, condominium structures on pier and beam foundation. The applicant will construct the pier and beam condominium structures at a height of 58.5 feet, above the FEMA 100-year floodplain of the West Fork San Jacinto River. The applicant also proposes to construct, within 6 acres of the southern portion of the residential district, 25-story condominiums with parking garages. The applicant will discharge fill material within the southern portion of the residential district to raise the proposed structures and elevations to 57 feet above the FEMA 100-year floodplain of the West Fork San Jacinto River. The applicant proposes to construct four lakes at a total of 6.75 acres throughout the western portion of the residential district. The applicant proposes to construct 1.95 miles of 41-feet-wide roadways with 60-foot-wide right-of-way throughout the residential district beginning at Woodland Hills Drive. The applicant proposes to construct 4-foot and 8-foot wide trails, with a 20-foot-wide easement, around the perimeter of the residential district using bridges over all stream and channels. The applicant proposes to avoid trees and construct the trails of natural materials. The applicant proposes to relocate the existing utility easement within the proposed 20-foot proposed pedestrian trail easement.
Woodland Hills Road Expansion (22.7 acres)
The applicant proposes to discharge 1,743.8 cubic yards of fill material into a total of 0.960 acres of wetlands and 257 linear feet of streams to construct the Woodland Hills Roadway expansion. The applicant proposes to expand Woodland Hills Drive within the existing right-of-way from two lanes to four lanes.
The applicant has stated that they have avoided and minimized the environmental impacts by configuring the location of the proposed structures and reducing the size of the proposed lakes within each district. The applicant proposed to mitigate for the proposed impacts by developing a permittee responsible mitigation site and/or purchasing credits from an approved mitigation bank within the Galveston District boundaries.
GBF Recommendation
The Galveston Bay Foundation (GBF) has reviewed Public Notice SWG-2016-00384. We are opposed to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps’) approval of this permit application as currently proposed for the following reasons:
Point #1
Water dependency, impact avoidance, indirect and secondary impacts through induced flooding and pollutant loading: The proposed resort/commercial/residential development is not a water dependent activity. However, the application materials do not include a discussion of alternatives/alternatives analysis consistent with Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines found at 40 CFR 230. Other than a one sentence description indicating that the applicant “avoided and minimized the environmental impacts by configuring the location of the proposed structures and reducing the size of the proposed lakes within each district”, we are provided no information as to how the applicant avoided and minimized impacts to the Waters of the U.S. open water, forested wetlands, emergent wetlands, and streams contained in the 331.45 acres of undeveloped woodlands including open water, forested wetlands, emergent wetlands, and streams, all of which provide for critical habitat and water quality functions.
We further note that the area is historically subject to severe flooding impacts, which could result in pollutant loading from these developed areas to the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and thus to Lake Houston, the major drinking water supply to the Houston Metro Area. Pollutants can include toxicants and nutrients contained in household cleansers, pesticides, fertilizers, and petroleum products that may be released in flood events.
From our review, it appears that most of this development is located in the 100-year floodplain, and that floodway is in the footprint of the southern marina and in portions of the resort, commercial, and residential districts’ footprint. This development will result in increased impervious cover to areas located in floodway and floodplain, which can lead to flooding of adjacent residential and commercial areas. As such, the applicant should perform hydrological analysis to ensure the design will not induce flooding to surrounding developments, which in turn can further increase risks of pollutant loading to the waterways.
Based on prior history of flooding events in this particular area, we recommend that a site more suitable for a resort/commercial/residential development, or at the least a reduced floodplain project footprint in the floodplain be sought. For the reasons listed in this section, the applicant should not be allowed to develop in any floodways.
Point #2
Assessment of impacts to Waters of the U.S. and proposed mitigation: The application materials provide no assessment of the impacts to functions and services provided by the open water, forested wetlands, emergent wetlands, and streams to be impacted, nor an assessment of the functional lift to be provided by any permittee-responsible mitigation plan. The applicant must assess the impacts to the functions and services provided by the impacted wetlands and other waters of the U.S., as required in the 2008 Final Rule for Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, as well as that of the proposed mitigation.
Point #3
Absence of mitigation plan: The application materials do not include an acceptable mitigation plan, as required by the 2008 Final Rule for Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, including all twelve required elements. Since the applicant has indicated that permittee-responsible mitigation is contemplated, a mitigation acceptable plan must be provided for the application to be complete. In addition, the applicant should provide information on the suitability and credit availability of potential mitigation banks for public review and comment. This will allow GBF and the public to make informed comments as to chosen plan’s chances of success.
Point #4
Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species, eagles, and other migratory birds: The application indicates that “bald eagles and their potential habitat were observed within the project area; however, no nests were found.” The applicant should be required to produce a survey of threatened and endangered species, as well as bald eagles and other migratory birds, for public review and comment.
Point #5
Impacts to existing conservation easement: The applicant indicates that a 17.59-acre conservation easement exists in the commercial and residential district as compensatory mitigation in Corps’ permit “SWG-99-26-012.” The applicant appears to propose mitigating for the destruction of this mitigation site through placing “21.90 acres (12.19 acres of wetlands and 8.99 acres of upland buffer) into a conservation easement.” We believe that this existing mitigation site should instead be protected in perpetuity, as was agreed upon in the original permit action. Therefore, the applicant should be required to avoid impacts to this easement from either direct or indirect impacts. Should the Corps consider approving this aspect of the application, the applicant must be required to provide a functional assessment of the impacted mitigation site and the 12.19 acres of wetlands that are intended to serve as new mitigation and show that adequate functional lift is provided.
Point #6
Marina water quality and sedimentation impacts: The applicant proposes a 640-boat capacity marina on a major tributary to Houston’s main drinking water source. Marinas have been shown to be a source of pollutants to waterways, including nutrients, bacteria and other human pathogens contained untreated boater sewage, toxicants in boat cleaners, and petroleum and heavy metals contained in fuels and bilge water. As marina water bodies usually have poor circulation, water quality problems can result. To help reduce such impacts, we highly recommend that the applicant apply and complete the steps necessary to become a certified Clean Texas Marina should the Corps grant the permit application.
In addition, maintenance dredging will need to be performed periodically. The applicant should provide a description of the dredging methods to be used and the best management practices that will be employed to prevent offsite migration of sediment and pollutants disturbed during these operations.
Point #7
Storm water runoff: The development project would result in significantly more impervious surface area within the watershed. We appreciate that the applicant has included a storm water detention basin in the proposed plan, but we are concerned it may be undersized to adequately treat the volumes of polluted runoff that will result. Research has repeatedly indicated that urban/suburban development along riparian corridors and adjacent to water bodies has a well-correlated, negative effect on instream water quality, biodiversity, and aquatic habitat. 1,2,3,4,5,6
These negative effects are often tied to increased impervious surface cover and subsequent frequent and intense disturbance of instream primary producers from increased water volumes and velocities.5 These effects are usually not temporary and persist so long as the noted land use patterns exist unless steps are taken to buffer these impacts.5,6
Deposition of herbicides and pesticides associated with developed land management can also have long lasting, complex effects within adjacent aquatic communities.7,8 Maintaining good water quality is particularly important given the continued increase in development in the watershed. As a part of the application process, we recommend that storm water volumes, handling, and quality measures be reevaluated to be certain that secondary impacts to the receiving streams will not result from increased runoff associated with increased impervious surface cover within the development footprint.
We believe that Low Impact Development best management practices need to be incorporated into the project, such as utilizing existing wetlands for water quality and quantity functions. These practices would help to maintain water quality and storm water quantity functions on site, which are vital considering the loss of wetlands adjacent to a waterway.
For example, lots should be sloped away from the canal to prevent direct runoff into these features; runoff should be controlled, minimized, and routed away from the canals and into water quality improvement features such as treatment wetlands, vegetated swales, or similar features.
8. Cumulative impacts: Considerable development is evident when reviewing the historical aerial photography of the San Jacinto River Watershed which is one of two major tributaries to Galveston Bay; impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions could have a substantial effect on water quality and aquatic resources in the region; cumulative impacts/effects should be carefully considered during evaluation of projects in this area. One of the greatest threats to habitat in the Houston-Galveston area is currently urbanization and residential development.9,10
Wetlands in Harris and surrounding Houston Metro Area counties have been shown to be quickly declining as a result of urban and rural development.10 The Galveston Bay Plan recognizes habitat destruction and its effect on fish and wildlife populations as the “single greatest environmental problem affecting the Galveston Bay System”.11 Unfortunately, much of the area is under substantial development pressure. The proposed impacts associated with this project could, when viewed in light of the total number of projects completed and/or reasonably foreseeable, have a significant impact on aquatic resources.
Prior to approval of this project, GBF recommends that the Corps and/or USEPA consider cumulative impacts to the aquatic resources of this region thoroughly. This consideration may require preparation of either an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project, or a regional EIS examining cumulative impacts to this area as a whole; this would be consistent with the federal regulations and subsequent case law regarding cumulative impacts and identifying the requirements to trigger the preparation of an EIS. 12,13,14,15
Given the concerns above, Galveston Bay Foundation recommends that the Corps deny the application as currently proposed. We strongly encourage the applicant to revise the permit application to address the items noted above and resubmit it to the Corps for issuance of a revised public notice for public review and comment.
Given the potential impacts to the receiving waters, including the Lake Houston drinking water source, from runoff pollution and potential impacts to area residents and businesses from induced flooding, we also request that the Corps conduct a public hearing on this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at (281) 332-3381 x209 or sjones@galvbay.org if you have any questions.
Footnotes:
1 Jones, E.B. Dale III, Helfman, Gene S., Harper, Joshua O., and Paul V. Bolstad. “Effects of Riparian Forest Removal on Fish Assemblages in Southern Appalachian Streams.” Conservation Biology. Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 1454-1465. December 1999.
2 Semlitsch, Raymond D., and J. Russell Bodie. “Biological Criteria for Buffer Zones around Wetlands and Riparian Habitats for Amphibians and Reptiles.” Conservation Biology. Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 1219-1228. October 2003.
3 Lerberg, Scott B, Holland, A. Frederick, and Denise Sanger. “Responses of Tidal Creek Macrobenthic Communities to the Effects of Watershed Development.” Estuaries. Vol. 23, No. 6, December 2000, pp 838-853.
4 The State of the Bay- A Characterization of the Galveston Bay Ecosystem, 2nd Ed. Galveston Bay Estuary Program Publication GBEP T-7. Lester and Gonzalez, Eds., 2002, 162 pages.
5 Moore, Aaron A., and Margaret A. Palmer. “Invertebrate Biodiversity in Agriculture and Urban Headwater Streams: Implications for Conservation and Management.” Ecological Applications. Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 1169-1177. August 2005.
6 Dodson, Stanley I., Lillie, Richard A., and Susan Will-Wolf. “Land Use, Water Chemistry, Aquatic Vegetation, and Zooplankton Community Structure of Shallow Lakes.” Ecological Applications. Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 1191-1198. August 2005.
7 Rohr, Jason R. and Patrick W. Crumrine. “Effects of an Herbicide and an Insecticide on Pond Community Structure and Processes.” Ecological Applications. Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 1135-1147. August 2005.
8 Relyea, Rick A. “The Lethal Impact of Roundup on Aquatic and Terrestrial Amphibians.” Ecological Applications. Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 1118-1124. August 2005.
9 Moulton, Daniel W. and John S. Jacob. Texas Coastal Wetlands Guidebook. Texas Sea Grant. 2000. Page 16 of 66 pages.
10 Moulton, D.W., T.E. Dahl, and D.M. Dahl. Texas Coastal Wetlands: Status and Trends, Mid-1950’s to Early 1990’s. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. March, 1997. Page 14 of 32 pages.
11 Galveston Bay Estuary Program Publication GBNEP-49, The Galveston Bay Plan; The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Galveston Bay System, 1994, 457 pages
Sincerely, (Signed) Scott A. Jones Director of Advocacy The Galveston Bay Foundation
This letter has also been posted with others on the high-rise page of this web site for your convenience.
Posted by Bob Rehak on January 30, 2019
519 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Ditch-Erosion_03-1.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-01-30 06:00:162019-01-30 06:00:23Galveston Bay Foundation Hopes to Turn Tide Against High-Rise Development
