News Archives - Page 254 of 277

Sierra Club Response to High-Rise Development Proposal in Flood Plain

Below is the Sierra Club response to the Army Corps’ public notice about Romerica’s proposed high-rise development in Kingwood, near River Grove Park.

The proposed high-rise development would go just beyond the tree line in the background. After Harvey, this whole area flooded six times in one year and three times in the last month. In the 80 years before Harvey, it flooded on average once every other year.

A number of people have asked me post responses that people have already sent into the Corps. Feel free to cut and paste sections that capture concerns you have.

January 1, 2019

Evaluation Branch, North Unit
Regulatory Division, CESWG-RD-E
Galveston District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1229
Galveston, Texas 77553-1229

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
401 Coordinator
MSC-150
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Dear Corps and TCEQ,

Enclosed are the comments of the Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club (Sierra Club) regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Galveston District, Section 10/404 proposed Permit Application No. SWG-2016-00384, Romerica Investments, LLC, located in waters of the United States (U.S.) and wetlands adjacent to the West Fork of the San Jacinto River, Kingwood, Harris County, Texas.

Point #1 – This proposal will…

Fill 42.35 acres of wetlands with 68,323 cubic yards of fill material on 331.45 acres.

Fill 771 linear feet of streams with 285 cubic yards of fill material.

Construct a marina/resort district of 107.41 acres and use 19,690.7 cubic yards of fill material to fill 12.21 acres of wetlands; expand an existing 15-acre lake associated with the West Fork of the San Jacinto River to an 80-acre marina with a capacity of 640 boats; construct a new navigation channel south of the proposed marina; expand the existing channel on the east to connect the marina and the West Fork of the San Jacinto River; develop 25 acres north of the marina into a resort district with commercial and residential development; construct five towers with a height of 90 feet for the western hotel area, 260 feet for the residential condominium towers, and 500 feet for the eastern hotel and condominiums; excavate fill material to raise the elevation of the entire resort district from 45 to 57 feet (13 feet total) above base flood elevation of the 100-year floodplain of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.

Construct a commercial district of 64.41 acres and use 959.6 cubic yards of fill material to fill 0.59 acre of wetlands and 110 linear feet of streams; construct on 47 acres retail, residential, and office developments; construct three towers that range from 230 to 400 feet tall for retail offices and residential condominium towers; construct a 70-foot tall mid-rise residential and retail development; construct parking garages with two below grade levels and concealed above grade levels; expand an existing 16.25-acre lake to a 19.25-acre lake (3 acre expansion) to create a marina for personal watercraft parking; create a 125-foot wide interconnecting channel between the 80-acre marina and 19.25-acre marina to provide access between the two marinas, marina/resort district, and the commercial district; excavate fill material to raise the elevation of the entire resort district from 45 to 57 feet (13 feet total) above base flood elevation of the 100-year floodplain of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.

Construct a residential district of 136.93 acres and use 46,213.9 cubic yards of fill material to fill 28.60 acres of wetlands and 404 linear feet of streams; construct on 64 acres 65-foot tall condominium structures which are on 58.5-feet tall pier/beam foundations with elevated first floor parking and with four stories that will be above the 100-year floodplain of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River; construct on 6-acres, 25-story condominiums with parking garages; place fill in the southern portion of the residential district to raise the structures and elevations to 57 feet above the 100-year floodplain of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River; construct four lakes for a total of 6.75 acres in the western portion of the residential district; construct 1.95 miles of 41-foot wide roadways within a 60-foot wide right of way in the residential district; construct 4-foot and 8-foot wide trails within a 20-foot wide easement around the perimeter of the residential district and use bridges to cross all streams and channels; relocate the existing utility easements that are in the proposed 20-foot pedestrian trail easement.

Construct a Woodland Hills Road expansion of 22.7 acres and use 1,743 .8 cubic yards of fill material to fill 0.96 acre of wetlands and 257 linear feet of streams; construct Woodland Hills Drive so it is expanded from two to four lanes, has turn lanes, and has a raised median for 1.45 miles, from 0.08 mile south of KIngwood Drive to Hamblen Road.

An unknown number of culverts and water quality ponds will be installed.

Conduct offsite permittee responsible wetland mitigation or purchase credits from an approved wetland mitigation bank.

Point #2:

Page 2, Project Description, Public Notice,now that Hurricane Harvey has revealed the full impacts of flooding in our area, before approving proposals like this one, which are in the 100-year floodplain/floodway, the Corps should require an analysis, using Harvey and other data, about the flood potential and safety of construction in the floodplain/floodway of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and its tributaries, including Bens Branch-Frontal Lake Houston Watershed, which flooded during Hurricane Harvey.

Although the full extent of the 100-year floodplain/floodway of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River in the 331.45 acres proposed for residential, commercial, resort, and marina developments is not stated in the Public Notice and Plans, most of the 300 plus acres appear to be within the 100-year floodplain/floodway. According to the Project Description,all of the Marina/Resort District of 107.41 acres, all of the Commercial District of 64.41 acres, the southern portion (we are not told how large this portion is) of the Residential District of 136.93 acres, and the Woodland Hills Road Expansion of 22.7 acres appear to be in the 100-year floodplain/floodway of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and will have to be filled a maximum of 13 feet to get above the 100-year floodplain/floodway.

Exhibits 2, Plan Overview and 9, Plan View D1, Plans,clearly show that a floodway goes right through the middle of the southern marina, commercial, hotel, and condominium resort district complex near the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and that there is a HCFCD Unit G103-00-00 drainageway that flows just southwest of the boundary of the proposed developments. In combination with dredged channels, these conduits for flood water will bring more flood water onto the site and help flood the site.

This development makes no sense because it exists right where Hurricane Harvey created some of the worst flooding in 100-year or greater floodplains/floodways; will fill and displace about 200 acres of 100-year floodplain/floodway which will raise water levels and increase the possibility of flooding for others, both up and downstream; will fill in wetlands that are crucial for soaking up water and reduced flows, velocities, and increased sedimentation of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River in its 100-year floodplain/floodway; is subject to further flooding in the future; and destroys more of the natural beauty, water quality, and wildlife habitat of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.

The Corps must require that the applicant conduct extensive and detailed hydrology and hydraulic studies of the undeveloped site, the proposed developed site, and their interaction with the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and its tributaries during floods. At least 35 stream segments and 5 lakes/ponds currently exist on the site which are all potential sources of flooding to the site. This should include an analysis of how the three channels that will be dredged will affect flooding by acting as conduits for floodwater to the rest of the site. There is no documentation provided from Harris County Flood Control District or City of Houston about how much detention and drainage mitigation are needed to keep these proposed developments from flooding themselves or others who live up or downstream. This information is needed so the public can review and comment on its adequacy.

The entire 335.45 acres is perforated with stream segments or lakes/ponds. According to the Waterbody Impact Table, Updated July 2018, there are at least 5 existing lakes that are on the property and there are at least 35 stream segments. These waterbodies will flood during the climate change induced intense rainfalls that have become common in the Kingwood area. The site is like swiss cheese and is pock-marked with lakes/ponds, stream segments, and 73 separate wetlands that exist on the 335.45 acres. The water-holding, slowing down, soaking in, and evaporation capacity of 49 of these wetlands will be directly impacted by either total or partial filling due to this proposal. Remnants of these wetlands will be less able to deal with floodwaters and will be impacted by operation and maintenance actions and activities that create erosion and sedimentation and reduce their flood mitigation capacity over time. These issues need to be addressed by the applicant, stated in the Public Notice, modeled by the applicant, and revealed to the public for review and comment.

Point #3

Page 2, Project Description, Public Notice, the applicant does not provide any documentation about how it will provide for operation and maintenance dredging of the site so that Section 10 navigation will continue over the lifetime of the developments and after floods. Periodic dredging will be required as flood waters fill the three channels and floodplains/floodways with sediment. Dredge disposal areas will be needed onsite to allow dredge material to be placed in areas where the 100-year floodplain/floodway is not affected. The Corps should require that the applicant prepare a dredge disposal management plan. The public should see this plan and review and comment on its adequacy.

A Section 10 navigation analysis should be conducted by the Corps and this analysis should be provided to the public for its review and comment. The applicant should be required to conduct modeling to determine how boat wakes and flooding will affect erosion and sedimentation of lakes, channels, streams, the West Fork of the San Jacinto River, and its 100-year floodplain/floodway.

Operation and maintenance erosion and sedimentation controls should be required in perpetuity. The applicant states that it will expand the “existing 15-acre lake associated with the West Fork San Jacinto River”. This indicates that this lake is natural and a part of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River. This means that at least 15 acres of waters of the U.S. will be altered by this proposal. Mitigation for this alteration should be required along with wetlands and streams mitigation.

Point #4

Pages 3 and 4, Avoidance and Minimization, Mitigation, and Notes, Public Notice,the Corps should require that the applicant now provide its permittee responsible mitigation plan for wetlands, streams, and waters of the U.S. and or purchase of wetland credits from wetland and stream mitigation bank(s), so the public can review and comment on its adequacy. Any wetlands or streams left after proposed developments are constructed will be impacted by developments’ actions and activities and the applicant’s operation and maintenance of developments (secondary impacts) like mowing, trampling by people, use of herbicides, use of pesticides, cutting of vegetation, fertilizer use, use of motorized machines (off-road vehicles), wildlife mortality due to cats and dogs, pet fecal material, roadkill, light pollution, noise pollution, oil and fuel spill pollution, littering, trash dumping, mosquito control, bird collisions with buildings, non-native invasive plant species spread, illegal fills or excavations, nonpoint source water pollution from impervious surface run-off, etc. There must be an analysis of developments’ actions and activities and operation and maintenance impacts and the applicant must prepare and present to the public for its review and comment developments’ actions and activities and operation and maintenance plan that will be implemented after construction.

The Sierra Club visited the site on December 31, 2018 and walked the west perimeter. The Sierra Club found in many places Dwarf Palmetto, Loblolly Pine, Yaupon Holly, Trumpet Vine, Water Oak, Sweetgum, American Elm, Laurel Oak/Willow Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak, Japanese Climbing Fern, Greenbriar vine species, Common Persimmon, American Sycamore, Cinnamon Fern, and Bald Cypress along streams and in flatwoods on the site. Much of the site is a Palmetto-Hardwood bottomland forest or a bottomland flatwoods forest.

In the more upland areas (which are needed as “buffer zones” to prevent water quality degradation over the short and long-term of conservation areas, streams, bald cypress sloughs, bottomland hardwood forested wetlands, bottomland flatwood forests, and riparian woodlands) the Sierra Club found Eastern Hophornbeam, Red Bay, Cherry Laurel, Farkleberry, American Beautyberry, Yaupon Holly, and Post Oak.

It is a concern that the Corps has not verified the Interim Hydrogeomorphic assessment and Level 1 Stream assessment. This is particularly important since a major river, the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and part of Lake Houston, will be impacted by these developments. The public should be provided this information so that it can review and comment on its adequacy. The Corps should either deny the permit application or return it to the applicant until the mitigation plan is prepared and made available for the public to review and comment. At the very least, the wetlands mitigation for such a proposal should be 10:1 which would mean an over 400 hundred acre permittee responsible wetlands mitigation project or credits from one or more wetland mitigation banks.

There is a total of 73 wetlands on site; 5 lakes/ponds (waterbodies and waters of the U.S.), and 35 stream segments. Of these wetlands, there are 41 palustrine emergent wetlands (PEM); 29 palustrine forested wetlands (PFO); and 3 palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands (PSS). This proposal will result in the degradation, partial destruction, or complete destruction of 7 stream segments whose total length is 771 linear feet and fill volume is 285 cubic yards.

Of the 41 PEM that exist on the site, 23 (56.10%) will be totally destroyed and 5 (12.20%) will be partially destroyed; of the 29 PFO that exist on the site, 8 (27.59%) will be totally destroyed and 12 (41.38%) will be partially destroyed; and of the 3 PSS that exist on the site, 2 (66.67%) will be totally destroyed. The number of wetlands that will be totally destroyed on the site is 33 (45.21% of all wetlands – all PEM + PFO + PSS) and the number of wetlands that will be partially destroyed on the site is 17 (23.29% of all wetlands – all PEM + PFO + PSS). The wetland flood detention and clean water filtration capacity of the site will be severely damaged by the proposal because 68.50% of all wetlands on the site will either be totally or partially destroyed.

When looked at from an acreage perspective, of the 87.177 total acres of wetlands on the site (Wetland Impact Table), 42.349 acres (48.58%) of all wetland acres on the site will be destroyed.

The fact that the applicant is unwilling to abide by an “existing 17.59-acre conservation easement” for another Corps permit means that the applicant cannot be trusted to ensure that any promised future mitigation for this proposal will be protected in perpetuity. The Sierra Club requests that the Corps deny this permit based upon the existence of this conservation easement in perpetuity and or require that the applicant protect the 17.59 acres and conservation easement from any impacts due to the proposed developments. This includes forgoing any commercial and residential development within or next to this conservation easement so that it is protected in perpetuity (a buffer is needed to protect the conservation easement). The applicant apparently has not placed an adequate number of acres into the conservation easement (12.19 acres of wetlands and 8.99 acres of upland buffer, or 21.18 acres) because the conservation easement is 3.59 acres short of what was required for the previous permit on the site.

This proposal violates Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, which are mandatory for the Corps to follow as part of the implementation strategy that the Clean Water Act requires. Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines require that non-water dependent actions (hotels, access roads, condominiums, residential areas or districts, commercial areas or districts, and resorts) must not be permitted to destroy wetlands which are “special aquatic sites”.

However, that is exactly what this proposal does since it would put all of these uses in jurisdictional palustrine forested wetlands (riparian woodlands and bottomland hardwood wetland forests), palustrine emergent wetlands, and palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands. Practicable alternatives exist including no development in most wetlands which would mean a smaller and less destructive proposal.

This practicable alternative is “available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.” As required by the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, “If it is otherwise a practicable alternative an area not presently owned by the applicant which could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered”.

There is no documentation in the permit application public notice that shows that the permittee has conducted a study to determine if other sites exist which could be used. As the Corps knows the presumption is that these practicable alternative sites exist in the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines “unless clearly demonstrated otherwise”. No such demonstration is evident in the information the Corps sent out with the public notice. The public must have this information, so it can review, comment.

Point #5

Page 4, Notes, Public Notice,the Corps states that project information has not been verified. The Sierra Club is concerned about Corps policy that allows the release of public notices with information furnished by the applicant that has not been verified. This puts the public in an untenable situation of not knowing if the information it reviews is valid, complete, and accurate.

The Sierra Club strongly believes that verified project information should be part of all public notices. Without verified public information the public does not know whether the information that it relies upon to make public comments is accurate and true. The Corps should change its policy and verify applicant information. After all, if the Corps, the regulatory agency that issues the permit, does not verify applicant information, then who will? The public must have this information so that it can review, comment on, and understand all the potential environmental impacts of the proposal.

Point #6

Page 4, Notes, Public Notice,the Sierra Club disagrees with the Corps that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not needed for this permit application. The Corps should require a study about the impacts this development will have, direct and indirect (secondary), and provide this information to the public for review and comment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

An EIS is required due to the permanent, loss of a large acreage of wetlands, the presence of special aquatic sites, possible aquatic resources of national importance (ARNI) that will be destroyed or degraded by the proposal, the construction of the proposal in the 100-year floodplain, and because the proposal enables or induces additional residential and commercial development directly and indirectly in the floodplain which puts people in “harm’s way”.

Some of the ways that this proposal puts people in harm’s way include the expansion of Woodland Hills will destroy existing entranceways to Barrington Kingwood Subdivision at Cotswald Blvd. and Deer Cove Trail Subdivision; destroy an existing sidewalk that goes from the FFA facility in Deer Ridge Park north on Woodland Hills Road; destroy part of River Grove Park and potentially Deer Ridge Park; destroy forests and wetlands on Hamblen Road; connect Hamblen Road to Woodland Hills Road in an area that flooded during Hurricane Harvey; increased traffic and speed of traffic will affect residents, students, and park users and could result in more injuries, deaths, damage to property, and roadkill.

Point #7

Page 5, National Register of Historic Places, Public Notice,the Corps should give a summary of what the “Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Kingwood Marina Residential District Project, Harris County, Texas”, dated March 2017 and “Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Kingwood Marina, Harris County, Texas” dated May 2016, found so the public knows about and can review and comment on the summary.

Point #8

Page 5, Threatened and Endangered Species, Public Notice,the Corps should require threatened and endangered species surveys for listed species. The results of these surveys should be reported to the public which should be given the opportunity to review and comment on the results.

Page 3, Current Site Conditions, Public Notice,it is of great concern that the applicant admits there are bald eagles in the project area, but “no nests were found.” It is not only nests that are a concern for bald eagles. The habitat of wintering and nesting bald eagles is also of concern. It is also a concern that disturbance will occur due to these developments in potential bald eagle habitat and may keep bald eagles from nesting in the project area or on the project site. There must be an adequate bald eagle survey, analysis, and plan conducted and prepared and is available to the public for review and comment.

Point #9

Page 4, Public Interest Review Factors,the Public Notice is inadequate as the basis for determining the environmental impacts of this proposal and the effect that it will have on the public interest review factors in 33 CFR 320-332, regulatory programs of the Corps, and other pertinent laws, regulations, and executive orders.

Some of the public interest review factors that must be considered and are relevant are conservation, economics, aesthetics, air quality, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, and the needs and general welfare of the people.

The public interest factors analysis is very important and is separate and larger than simply reviewing the proposed dredge/fill impacts and proposed mitigation. The Corps should prepare its analysis of public interest factors carefully when reviewing this proposal and then provide it for public review and comment.

Point #10

Page 6, Public Hearing, Public Notice, the Sierra Club requests a public hearing about this permit application and proposal. The Corps should contact all surrounding businesses, residential areas (like Trailwood Village Subdivision, Kingwood Lakes Village Subdivision, Clubs of Kingwood, Barrington Subdivision, and Kingwood Lakes South Community Association), churches (like Kingwood United Methodist Church), schools, parks (like Deer Ridge Park, River Grove Park, Boy Scout Reserve), and other entities that may be affected by the proposal, up or downstream, so that the local public can find out about, understand, and attend this public hearing and provide public comments.

Conclusion

Due to the concerns raised in this comment letter the Sierra Club requests that the Corps deny this permit application. The Sierra Club appreciates this opportunity to provide public comment on this proposed permit application. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Brandt Mannchen
Chair, Forestry Subcommittee
Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club
(Be sure to include your contact info;
I have omitted it here to protect privacy.)

New Drone Video Shows Areas for Proposed High-Rise Development

Jim Zura, owner of Zura Productions, flew his drones again on January 8 after the most recent flood went down. This time, he’s sharing two videos. The first, shot from River Grove Park, shows the area south of Barrington. The second, shot from Woodland Hills Drive at Deer Springs, shows the area north of the Barrington. Together, they show you the areas for most of the proposed new Romerica high-rise development and marina.

Drone pans approximately 120 degrees across the Romerica property from Barrington to the West Fork of the San Jacinto. End of shot zooms into the narrow area between Barrington and small lake where high rises would be built.

This video starts on Woodland Hills at Deer Springs. It pans up to reveal the northern part of the proposed high-rise development, then pans south toward Barrington.

Both videos offer panoramic views of the areas that Romerica proposes to raise by 12 feet. Raising these two areas would destroy trees and wetlands, increase the rate of runoff, and alter drainage patterns. It would also likely worsen flooding problems upstream and around the proposed development.

Not Only Human Residents Worry

Clark McCollough, a resident of Kingwood Lakes, reported that two bald eagles live near the property being permitted. He supplied this spectacular photo which I am reprinting with his permission. The developer wants to fill in wetlands near the nests and mitigate the loss of wetlands by purchasing credits somewhere else.

Eagle spotted near proposed high-rise development. Photo courtesy of Clark McCollough of Kingwood Lakes.

Register Comments on Permit Application with Army Corps

For complete details of the permit application, see this post. If no comments are received by January 31, the Corps will assume there are no objections. Do not assume that this permit will be denied just because FaceBook has a lot of negative buzz about it. The Corps does not read FaceBook. The best way to ensure this development does not happen is to write. We need every resident in Kingwood to respond. Important: In your letter, state that you want a public hearing.

Comments and requests for additional information should reference USACE file number, SWG-2016-00384, and should be submitted to:

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on January 10, 2019

499 Days after Hurricane Harvey

New, Higher Resolution Global Weather Forecasting on the Horizon

On January 8, 2019, IBM announced that it will soon introduce a new higher resolution weather-forecasting system. The IBM Global High-Resolution Atmospheric Forecasting System (GRAF) will offer 3 kilometer resolution compared to the current industry-average 13-kilometer resolution. That’s 1.25 miles instead of 8.

*IBM GRAF system will offer weather forecasters a more than 200% increase in resolution. Image credit: IBM*

The system will enable truly local forecasts as opposed to regional. And it will do so on a worldwide basis. Forecasters will soon see individual thunderstorms, not just fronts. And the system will update every hour as opposed to every six to twelve hours, which is the current industry standard. NOAA’s High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) model does run hourly at 3-kilometer resolution, but only covers the U.S. The new GRAF system will offer enhanced resolution throughout the world and predict weather as small as a thunderstorm anywhere on the planet. It should especially help regions without access to a system like HRRR.

Improvements Result from Wider Data Collection and Enhanced Processing Power.

IBM says it will crowdsource data. GRAF has the ability to collect pressure sensor readings sent from barometers found in billions of smartphones (if people opt in to share that information). GRAF will also collect data from tens of thousands of commercial aircraft constantly flying at high altitudes all around the world. IBM will process all that data on one of the three most powerful supercomputers in the world. The graphics processing unit in the computer can handle 3.5 petabytes of data. Each petabyte equals 1 million gigabytes or a billion megabytes.

Benefits of Higher Resolution

This much-improved weather system will help people and communities plan better for weather events. IBM expects it will help:

Utility companies to better position repair crews to get power back faster after a storm
Airlines to more effectively route around turbulence
Farmers to better anticipate and prepare for dramatic shifts in weather
Insurers to predict surges in weather-related claims
Better emergency response during extreme events, such as hurricanes, typhoons or tonoradoes.

The new IBM GRAF system should enable more accurate forecasts and better coordination throughout the world.

For more information, see posts about the new IBM GRAF system on Weather Underground and Weather Company sites. Also, the Washington Post had an interesting review that discusses the history of the system’s development.

My thanks to Mario Gomez, retired KHOU weather forecaster, for bringing this to my attention.

Posted by Bob Rehak on January 9, 201

498 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Before and After Harvey Images Show Impact of Sediment on West Fork Flooding

Below are two videos taken by Jim Zura of Zura Productions before and after Harvey. Together with other still images, flooding statistics and the Army Corps’ Value Engineering report, they demonstrate how radically Harvey transformed the West Fork. As you review these, keep in mind that the proposed new high-rise development in this area based its engineering on pre-Harvey assumptions.

Zura, a videographer and local drone pilot, shot this first video in 2016. River Grove Park looked pristine. Beyond it, a massive clear cut area surrounds an idyllic little lake. This is where a developer plans to build a high-rise resort around a marina. The drone then rotates to reveal a river without blockages downstream, or in front of the boat docks. In just 18 months, everything would radically change.

River Grove Before Harvey and the Sand

Hurricane Harvey brought with it massive rainfalls that washed sediment downstream, clogging the West Fork. Onshore, they reached up to five feet and stretched 450 feet inland.

*Still frame from Jim’s video compared to a shot I took from a helicopter two weeks after Harvey. The angles are slightly different but they show the same location.*

Result: a park that normally floods once every over year flooded six times in one year – three times in the last month alone – 12X greater than normal.

The Reason for Increased Flooding Frequency

It’s called reduced conveyance of the river. The Army Corps documented this in its Value Engineering Study. Here are some shots I took after Harvey from a helicopter. Consider them within the context of the videos above and below. You will understand why River Grove has been near-continuously inundated for a month. I wonder how the owners of luxury high-rise condos would feel about not being able to access their property for that long.

*To get a feeling for how much sand was left in the river by Harvey, see how much lined both shores of the West Fork.*

*Sand on both side of the river stretched 450 inland after Harvey. Nearest the river, it reached 5 feet in height through this reach of the West Fork.*

A giant sand bar 12 feet high and 1500 feet long was deposited in one event: Harvey. It blocked the drainage ditch that empties the western third of Kingwood. The proposed new high-rise development would also depend on this ditch.

I fail to see how the high-rise developer filling in hundreds of additional acres of floodplain with 12-feet of fill could have zero net impact. If every engineering survey ever submitted for a flood plain development were correct, the world would have no flooding problems.

River Grove after the Christmas flood. Water went down briefly then came back up during the next flood in early January. As of today, the soccer fields were still flooded. See the area that compares to the first video at the end of this one.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/8/2018

497 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Sand Island Losing Ground to Army Corps

Before

After

Keith Jordan, a resident of Kingwood Lake Estates, sent me the pictures below today. They show how quickly Great Lakes Dredge and Dock and the Army Corps are reducing the giant blockage nicknamed “Sand Island” south of Kingwood Country Club. Keith generously consented to let share his pictures with you. He says that much of the island has already been brought down to the water line. It used to jut up 6-10 feet. Still, much dredging remains to reduce the portion below water and restore the conveyance of the West Fork. Progress may look greater than it actually is at the moment because of persistent flooding. As of this posting, the river is still at 46.07 feet according to the USGS gage at US59. That’s about 3.5 feet above normal.

This booster pump keeps sand moving upstream to placement area #2, an old sand mine on Sorters Road south of Kingwood College.

Dredge #2 from Great Lakes Dredge & Dock has been eating away that Sand Island since moving downstream from River Grove Park.

Much of Sand Island is now at the water level.

This wider shot gives you a good feeling for how little is left.

Hopefully, we will get more recent aerial shots from our local drone pilots soon. As the West Fork returns to its normal level, we will see exactly how much of Sand Island remains.

Posted by Bob Rehak on January 6, 2019

496 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Guide to Lake Houston Area Floodplain Regulations

Guidelines for floodplain development can bewilder even professionals. Overlapping jurisdictions often have different guidelines. And guidelines often change, as Houston’s just did. Houston now manages the 100-year and 500-year floodplains differently. Cities also have building codes that include more requirements.

Site of the proposed new marina and high rise development. Shot from over the West Fork shortly after Harvey. Note sand deposited by Harvey. 25 and 50-story high-rises would be built on the narrow strip between the lake and the Barrington at the top of frame.

Overview

People ARE generally allowed to build and place fill in floodplains. However, they must follow local floodplain guidelines and obtain permits that restrict what they can do. They must also submit environmental surveys, mitigate wetlands, and provide hydrologic and hydraulic studies. In Houston, they may move earth from one location to another within a floodplain, but not add to the total volume. The general rule of thumb: zero negative impact on the conveyance of the river.

If a development destroys wetlands, wetland credits must be purchased from a mitigation bank. Mitigation banks place conservation easements on some of our most valuable wetlands. By helping to finance conservation of those areas, destruction of less valuable wetlands elsewhere may be permitted. Generally but not always, the mitigation credits must be within the same watershed. However, this is not always the case. Extenuating circumstances may exist.

KSA once considered placing East End Park in a mitigation bank as a way to help finance its long range parks plan. The conservation easement would ensure that the character of the park never changed. And the money raised would have provided needed improvements to other parks at no cost to residents.

Federal Guidelines and How They Relate to Local

FEMA establishes minimum standards for a community to enroll in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). By enrolling and administering floodplain regulations, it allows their residents the opportunity to purchase Flood Insurance through the NFIP. You must at least build at FEMA’s base flood elevation (BFE). But communities can and do set higher standards. And each may have different guidelines.

Engineers and regulators often talk about “freeboard factors.” Freeboard, a nautical term, means “the height of a ships side between the waterline and the deck.” In a flooding context, freeboard means minimum elevation above the BFE. You often see it described as “BFE + 1 ft.” Or 2 feet. Or X feet. Think of it as a safety margin. Any freeboard above the BFE is considered a local community’s higher standard.

To provide a context, below are links to some of the floodplain management orders/ordinances.

Houston Guidelines

Houston Ordinance

HOW Ordinance is Executed

Note Chapters 9 and 13. They changed on September 1, 2018. Changes address building code issues for FEMA X zones. Zone X includes the 500 year flood plain. Many such areas flooded during Harvey.

Army Corps

If a development affects a major waterway like the San Jacinto River, its wetlands, its flow, or endangered wildlife, the Army Corps will also review studies submitted as part of the permitting process. They would look at applications from the point of view of the EPA and Clean Water Act, especially Section 404. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. … For most discharges that will have only minimal adverse effects, a general permit may be suitable. This is the major focus of the permitting process now underway for the high-rise development in Kingwood.

TCEQ

The Clean Water Act also contains a section 401. It specifically focuses on how States and Tribes can use their water quality standards in Section 401 certifications to protect wetlands. States and Tribes can review and approve, condition, or deny any Federal permits or licenses that may result in a discharge to waters of United States within their borders, including wetlands. States and Tribes make their decisions to deny, certify, or condition permits or licenses primarily by ensuring the activity will comply with applicable water quality standards. In addition, States and Tribes look at whether the activity will violate effluent limitations, new source performance standards, toxic pollutants restrictions and other water resource requirements of State or Tribal law.

Jurisdictional Divides

The Houston ordinance only applies to Houston’s jurisdiction. Houston does not influence neighbors and cannot control or force their policies on other jurisdictions. That is important since Kingwood is surrounded by Humble, unincorporated Harris County (Atascocita and Huffman), and unincorporated Montgomery County.

The Key

Understand that if a developer/individual meets the requirements identified in the floodplain ordinance(s), they can develop in the floodplain (including the floodway). Floodplain administrators must follow the law. However, they try to discourage dangerous floodplain development by “working to rule.” By strictly following all rules with no wiggle room, floodplain administrators can drag permitting processes out. A knowledgeable floodplain administrator can find problems with plans, surveys, and engineering reports for years. By requesting revisions, they can make life so difficult for applicants that it affects the economics of their developments. Eventually they may decide that a project falls into that great black box called “too hard to do,” and walk away.

Words of Wisdom

A regulator told me today that the more people who protest a permit, the harder they are to ignore.

If you have concerns about the high rise development in Kingwood, make sure you register them with the Army Corps (which is currently reviewing the permitting from a CWA 404 perspective). The deadline: January 29.

Comments and requests for additional information should reference USACE file number, SWG-2016-00384, and should be submitted to:

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

Posted By Bob Rehak on January 9, 2019

498 Days Since Hurricane Harvey

How to Submit Evidence that Gets Results from the TCEQ

If you witness illegal discharges, dumping, or mining, following these guidelines will ensure the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) can act on evidence you provide. Make sure you follow proper procedures.

After Harvey, fresh sand deposits several feet thick and foul water lined the shores of the west fork of the San Jacinto adjacent to Kingwood.

Rules of Evidence

TCEQ procedures pertain to the way you gather, collect, label, and document evidence. This link contains a great deal of information about the process, requirements, etc.

A brief summary follows:

If you want TCEQ to use your information in an enforcement case, you cannot remain anonymous.
You must complete a notarized affidavit. Your contact information will be confidential. But understand that you must be willing to testify in any formal enforcement hearing.
You may not enter property of another person to document a violation. No trespass.
Follow the Commission’s procedures and protocols outlined in the link above.
If the Commission initiates an investigation, you must sign affidavits authenticating the information you provided.
You must confirm that you followed TCEQ protocols and procedures.
If the case proceeds to a formal hearing or trial, you will be required to testify. You must explain information you provided, and you may be cross-examined by the defendant’s attorney. This could include questions regarding your testimony and motives.

Given all the different types of complaints and evidence people submit, procedures can get quite complex. For instance, if you submit water samples, the TCEQ has specific requirements for testing and chain of custody.

For Photographic Evidence

Photos and videos have specific procedures. Make sure you include:

Date
Location (include site name, registration/permit/account/regulated entity number, if applicable)
Name of Person Taking Photograph
Investigation Number and Complaint Number (if applicable)
Number Sequence (e.g., 1 of 5)
Brief Description of the photograph (e.g., “Picture of discharge on north end of property;Photograph taken facing north.”)

If shooting film, also make sure you include negatives and prints.

How to Submit Evidence

It takes time and money to investigate cases. Following these guidelines ensures that that time and money will not be wasted.

You can contact TCEQ 24 hours every day about complaints. To submit a complaint under their jurisdiction :

Use their online form, OR
Call toll-free (888) 777-3186

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/5/2019

495 Days after Hurricane Harvey

How Government Shutdown Affects All Lake Houston Area Flood Mitigation Projects

Good news: The Emergency West Fork Dredging Project is still active. The government allocated funds for the project before the shutdown. Also, because FEMA designated it an emergency, it enjoys preferred status. Dredges are still dredging.

Bad news: Every other Lake Houston area flood mitigation project that depends on federal dollars is on hold.

Watershed study? 10 months and still waiting for approval.
Additional gates for Lake Houston? Hit the pause button.
More upstream detention. Deep freeze.
Additional dredging? Why rush it?

The Really Bad News

I’d say that’s the end of the story, but it’s not. Tonight the Associated Press reports that President Trump warns the shutdown could continue for months or years. Even considering the obvious hyperbole, I shudder to think of employees’ reactions. At a certain point, people put families and futures in front of jobs that pay zero. Maybe Trump could hold out for years. But a GS-7 with a bachelor’s degree and student loans to pay off? Someone making $35K per year?

The reason most people take a pay cut to go into government service is because it’s a steady gig. But yank that paycheck out from under them. Woooooosh! That’s the sound of talent and institutional knowledge creating a vacuum as it sprints out the door.

Rebraining Projects

A prolonged government shutdown will turn the Mo down Low. Lose momentum and you have to spend more energy to regain it. You lose time. You lose money. You lose talent. And when it’s over, you have to rebrain projects. Recruitment. Training. Getting people back up to speed. Clearing out backlogs…that could really last years.

Sweating Details and Bullets

So while the mouth bar project is on hold, dredging behind the mouth bar continues. Officials hoped they could save $18 million in demobilization and remobilization fees by having the mouth bar project ready to start when the Emergency Project finished. But that window is rapidly narrowing. Back in October, when we thought we had six months to work out details, everyone felt comfy and confident. Now with three months left, officials are sweating the details while residents sweat bullets. Here’s why.

Problems Likely to Migrate Downstream

As I discussed in yesterday’s post, River Grove Park has experienced greater-than-usual flooding. Crests usually experienced every other year now happen once every other month. The river has crested over 50 feet six times in 11 months. That’s likely due to the backwater effect created by “Sand Island” (as dredgers have named it). Sand Island virtually blocks off the river creating a backwater effect. See its location relative to River Grove below.

*The Army Corps has nicknamed the giant blockage immediately downstream from River Grove Park “Sand Island.”*

The next picture shows how this massive dune virtually blocks the entire West Fork. I took the picture two weeks after Harvey. During floods, when water moves quickly, Sand Island has created a ten-foot difference between water upstream and downstream.

*Sand Island causes higher-than-normal floods at greater -than -normal frequencies because of backwater effects.*

Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, the Corps’ prime contractor on this job has finished dredging through the side bar at River Grove . Now they are attacking Sand Island (see below).

*The focus of dredging has moved from the side bar at River Grove to Sand Island. Once removed, the flooding problems at River Grove will likely migrate downstream.*

As they remove this blockage, downstream residents in Atascocita Point have reported water rising higher in their yards during floods. Once dredgers completely remove Sand Island, flooding problems will likely migrate downstream to the next major blockage, the mouth bar.

The mouth bar virtually blocks the West Fork where it enters Lake Houston. It stretches from Kings Point to Atascocita Point, but is not within the scope of the current dredging project. Expansion of the scope has been halted by the government shutdown.

However, there’s a big difference between Sand Island and the Mouth Bar.

Parks, vacant land, and golf courses surround Sand Island.
People, kids and homes surround the Mouth Bar.

Let’s pray that the government shutdown ends quickly. In this area, government can really make a huge and important difference – immediately.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/5/2019

494 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Why the City Needs Regular River Surveys and Maintenance Dredging

Three months after supposedly reaching an agreement in principle to remove the mouth bar, FEMA, the Army Corps, the State and City still have no agreement in writing. From Day 1 of negotiations, FEMA and the Corps have consistently said they can’t address pre-Harvey conditions. I’m beginning to believe them. How did we reach this impasse and how can we move forward?

FEMA’s Dilemma

The Stafford Act (FEMA’s enabling legislation) prohibits FEMA from funding repairs not directly related to Harvey. But, because the City conducted no surveys after the Memorial or Tax Day Floods, it cannot prove how much came from Harvey. Yet it has asked FEMA and the Corps to remove the entire mouth bar.

The City’s Dilemma

The City of Houston has done little to maintain Lake Houston, especially the West Fork of the San Jacinto near Kingwood. Lack of regular surveys and maintenance dredging make city officials look like they’re trying to get others to clean up their mess.

Historical Perspective

Decades ago, after the 1994 flood, the City hired Brown & Root to study sedimentation in the lake, which includes about 13 miles of the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto. Engineers recommended surveying the river after every major storm and dredging when necessary to reduce the risk of flooding. They even pinpointed where sediment would likely build up and pointed out that the West Fork was capturing 42% of all the sediment coming into the lake (see page 9). However, before Harvey, the City never dredged and rarely conducted surveys – decisions that haunt us today.

The mouth bar. Sand, in part from the mines, has almost totally blocked the West Fork where it meets Lake Houston. Unofficial before/after measurements show that as much as ten feet was deposited in this area during Harvey (five below water/five above).

Sedimentation: Danger that Can No Longer Be Ignored

One insidious aspect of sedimentation is its invisibility. Like gunk in pipes, you can’t see it – until water backs up and floods your home. That’s exactly what happened to thousands of homes during Harvey. The problem which had slowly built up for years, went from sub-acute to critical almost overnight because of the massive volume of sediment deposited during Harvey.

That brings us to our present impasse.

No News is Bad News

The City, FEMA, the Army Corps and the State have argued about this for at least six months. We thought they reached agreement in principle to remove the mouth bar three months ago. But still no official announcements have been made. Sadly, it didn’t have to come to this:

If only the City had followed the advice of the experts it hired…
If only the City had maintained its property…
If only the City could document how much Harvey contributed to the blockage…
If only the City had acted years ago to limit sand mining in the floodway of the river…
…we could have been working on the mouth bar already. Instead…

Problem Becoming Demonstrably Worse

In the 80 years since we started keeping records on the West Fork at US59, the river has crested over 50 feet 40 times – once every other year. But in the last 11 months, floods have reached that height SIX times – more than once every other month. We topped 50 feet in the latest flood just minutes ago. All resulted from relatively minor rains. This sudden surge in frequency did not result from global warming.

Is it all a statistical fluke? Wetter than usual weather? El Niño? Upstream development? Perhaps some of each. But one would have to be blind to dismiss the sediment buildup in the river. A delta is marching steadily downstream, creating blockages that back water up.

*The West Fork just before Kingwood’s annexation in 1996 and after Harvey. Comparison shows advancing sediment buildups blocking the river.*

The High Cost of Ignoring Expert Advice and Routine Maintenance

Harvey brought the high cost of ignoring expert advice and routine maintenance into sharp focus. The lack of a survey that could have been conducted in a few days is costing the City months of delays and potentially tens of millions of dollars in State and Federal assistance. This exposes hundreds of thousands of residents to needless flood risk and undermines property values.

What Needs to Happen

All of this underscores the need to budget for and maintain one’s own property. Drainage fees, which we just put a lock box around, should easily handle the City’s portion of dredging projects and surveys.

How do we break this impasse?

FEMA and the Corps need to restore the conveyance of the river that existed before Harvey. Estimate it using available evidence like aerial photos and satellite images. We’ll never have an exact figure. So quit using that as an excuse to put hundreds of thousands of people at risk. Let’s get started with dredging what we can. Legally.

In return, the City could commit to annual river surveys that document the status of the river before each hurricane season.

The City also could commit to a regular maintenance dredging program to keep sediment at a sub-acute level. The annual surveys will determine the exact amounts and frequencies.

The City could also throw its weight behind legislative efforts to move sand mines out of the floodway, where they contribute to levels of sedimentation far beyond natural rates.

I’m not a mediator and I’m not the Mayor, but that sounds like a fair compromise that can protect residents as well as officials on both sides of this negotiation.

Floods don’t happen as often as police or fire emergencies, but when they do, they affect hundreds of thousands of people in ways that can be just as life altering. This is a public safety issue. Let’s go. Reach an agreement, please!

These are my opinions on matters of public policy, 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 January 4, 2019

493 Days since Hurricane Harvey

SJRA Has Released Water Continuously since December 7

Last night after posting the third flash flood warning in less than a month, several flood-weary people on FaceBook flashed back to Harvey. They questioned why the SJRA wasn’t releasing water in advance of the storm. I quickly went to SJRA.net and looked at their dashboard. They WERE releasing water. The discussion then morphed into another SJRA bloodletting, borne of fear and frustration over a month of near-continuous flood risk and a year and a half of expensive flood repairs.

I’m not here to defend the SJRA. But I suspected perception and reality were currently out of sync. So I emailed a reader’s comments to Jace Houston, general manager of the SJRA, and asked what they were doing to address his concerns.

Update from Jace Houston of SJRA on Recent Releases

Here is the response I got today. I’m reprinting it word for word.

“As you know, there’s a big information gap between what we do during storm events and what the public perceives. We’re working on some significant items to begin closing that gap.”

“We have an information piece that will go out this afternoon regarding the current rainfall event, but I thought I would mention a couple of items to you just in case you get more inquiries.”

“We’ve been releasing water non-stop since the December 7^th rainfall. It takes quite a while to safely lower the lake after its risen a couple of feet above normal level. Obviously the level jumped back up from the Christmas rainfall. Releases went back up to around 7000 cfs, and we’re still at over 3000 cfs. Rainfall has been in the forecast pretty much constantly the last 30 days, so we’re in the mode of trying to safely move it out of the lake before the next storm hits.”

“The forecast for this event is not too bad. Approximately two to three inches across our watershed. We’re only a few inches over 201’, so we should be able to manage this one similarly to the Christmas event.”

Mark Micheletti emailed this PDF to me last week. Micheletti is one of Kingwood’s two SJRA board members. The letter explains in more detail how they set the level of releases and coordinate with other agencies.

I hope this settles some nerves and reassures people.

Update on Current Conditions and Releases

At approximately 9 p.m. on January 2, the SJRA is releasing 3198 cfs. Harris County’s Flood Warning System shows the largest rainfalls so far during this event are less than 2 inches.

Jeff Lindner of Harris County Flood Control issued this update re: current rains at 7 p.m. tonight:

“A band of heavy rainfall with rainfall rates of 1.0-1.5 inches per hour is moving NNE over much of Harris County currently extending along the US 59 corridor. HCFCD gages show rainfall amounts of .75-1.5 inches with this band in an hour or less and this will likely result in some street flooding. Rises on area watersheds are likely, but creeks and bayous will be able to handle this round of rainfall.”

“Additional activity to the SW will likely move into the county over the next few hours.”

Hope that helps! Stay tuned to the National Weather Service, NOAA or your favorite source of weather information.

Here are the latest predictions from NOAA for the area around US59 and rainfall in the last 24 hours for Harris County.

*As of 9 p.m. January 2. Click here for most recent updates.*

*From Harris County Flood Warning System, as of*
*9 p.m. January 2. Click here for most recent updates.*

Posted by Bob Rehak on January 2, 2019

491 Days after Hurricane Harvey