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
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
“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
Two top retired geologists for one of the world’s largest oil companies have sent letters to the US Army Corps of Engineers and TCEQ protesting the new high-rise development in Kingwood. They raise some excellent points from a technical perspective that other letter writers have not yet addressed.
Wetlands on the site of the proposed high-rise development retain and filter water. They help protect this area from flooding and improve water quality. The proposed development would fill in wetlands like this and purchase “mitigation credits” elsewhere.
Tim Garfield and RD Kissling, who led the fight to raise awareness of the mouth bar, wrote this letter. They have kindly given me permission to share their concerns with other residents in the Lake Houston Area.
Text of Letter
January 22, 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
Provide feedback on Permit Application No. SWG-2016-00384
Request a Public Hearing be held before any decisions are made on this permit application.
We, and other Kingwood residents we have talked to have observed that the Project associated with Permit Application No. SWG-2016-00384, is so ill conceived in so many ways, that it “just doesn’t smell right”.
What we and other Kingwood residents absolutely don’t want is for this ill-conceived Project to go forward to the point where earth moving and tree removal takes place, then (following even a minor flooding event or economic turn) for the whole Project to fold (like adjacent Barrington development has done multiple times) leaving the San Jacinto River with another giant scar in what used to be a landmark Riparian Forest.
Re: Public Notice for Permit Application SWG-2016-00384
The USACoE states in Public Notice for Permit Application SWG-2016-00384issued on December 27, 2018, that their evaluation shall include all factors which may be relevant to the proposed Project under evaluation. Among these are: conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. They also state that the benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments.
Following our review of the proposed Project it is very clear to us that the foreseeable detriments of this project far out way any perceivable benefits as indicated by the factors listed below. These identified factors should be fully evaluated by TCEQ and the USACoE, be subject to Public Hearing and used by TCEQ and the USACoE as a basis for permit denial:
Conservation
The Project proposes to fill numerous acres of pine and hardwood riverine wetlands, home to a diverse biota, and replace that with multiple residential high rises, parking lots, commercial buildings, a high-density marina and related amenities. These proposed activities are the antithesis of conservation of a unique and increasingly rare ecosystem.
Economics
We believe there is no conceivable financial viability to the proposed Project for multiple reasons, including those detailed below:
– The “marina”, even if dredged to the depth needed to support larger boats, would feed to an un- navigable water body (The West Fork , San Jacinto River; NW Lake Houston) that contains numerous shoal areas with as little as 1-2’ of draft. The proposed marina would accrue limited benefit to the project unless the builders also committed to extensive and ongoing dredging. At normal lake/river stage (42.5′) there is now very limited access for most types of recreational boats to navigate from Lake Houston to the proposed marina area due to river sediment that has accumulated within and at the mouth of the river (stream mouth bar/SMB). To remove the stream mouth bar sediment and do maintenance dredging on the West Fork of the San Jacinto River from the proposed marina down to Lake Houston would incur dredging costs that could exceed $100M. Is the Developer willing to consider this as a cost of business needed to make the Project viable? If removal of the stream mouth bar downstream of this development is not addressed then there can be no foreseeable economically viable outcome for this Project.
– Data over the last 3 years has shown increasing frequency of flooding in this area with only moderate rainfall. Hurricane Harvey showed the economically calamitous impact of a major rain event. The SMB blocking the flow of water from the river to the lake is a significant cause of upstream flooding, and that flow barrier continues to grow. While the Developer may be able to elevate some of the development areas by infill above the (current) 100- year flood stage, the marina area – at lake level – will be subject to damage by nearly every storm that comes into the San Jacinto River Basin (e.g. adjacent River Grove Park and FFA regularly flood and still hold standing water). Can the project economics remain viable when incorporating costs of continuous flood reclamation? What client would ever purchase or take a lease on any of these facilities if they did any due diligence regarding these circumstances? If yet another major flood event hits that area either during construction or after completion (look at impact of Harvey on the new HEB development in Kingwood) – the costs of recovery would fully erode any conceivable economic viability.
– Water quality in this area is always turbid/muddy, in part due to the effects of the mines upstream which contribute sand and mud to the water and may also introduce additional toxins. That won’t likely change in the near future and is not consistent with the image or the name the developers have attached to the proposed marina basin – “Emerald Lake”. Given the difference between the true nature of this muddy water body with the artist’s renderings – what potential customers would not feel deceived upon visiting the site.
-They are building around an area – Barrington – that was built on 6+ ft of fill. Houses there had as much as 6’ of water during Harvey. To exceed most recent local flood heights in an area that appears to be in the heart of the current floodway, they would need over 12 ‘ of fill which would create two potential problems:
1) Fill and associated buildings in the floodplains would create islands, impacting flood drainage patterns and likely contribute to flooding in adjacent areas during high water. An extensive drainage and flood impact study would be needed to address this.
2) Structural integrity? The area is underlain by soft recent flood-plain sediment. Adding twelve plus additional ft of fill and building 50 story high rises on top raises questions about how deep and extensive the foundation pilings would have to go to safely carry that load and at what cost?
– Road access in/out, particularly getting to 59 – would the Developer bear the significant additional road construction costs to provide direct access to the freeway or are the plans to tie into existing already congested roadways? If the latter is the case will the Developer provide traffic flow studies that show that impact on current Kingwood residents will be minimal?
– An Indoor shopping mall is advertised in the project prospectus. Such malls are going out of business all over the country, as are movie theaters, another advertised amenity. These elements are not likely to draw customers, and they seem both dated and indicative of how old and poorly researched this promotional material is.
Aesthetics
The proposed structures and activities are the opposite of the aesthetics of the Kingwood area since its inception (“The Liveable Forest”). This aesthetic is very important to the citizens of Kingwood, and should be given full consideration in reviewing and evaluating the permit application.
General Environmental Concerns, Fish and Wildlife Values
With development rapidly encroaching Kingwood from all directions, relatively wild lands such as those proposed for development are becoming increasingly rare and valuable. To replace them with such a development would erode all beneficial aspects of this Riparian wetland for plants, animals and humans.
Wetlands
The applicant is requesting to fill or flood riverine wetlands and minimize impacts by only partially filling some various small wetland areas scattered through the site. This “minimization step” will not replace the functions and values of the filed wetlands. The Developer is also proposing to buy “offset” conversation grants to make up for the damage they are going to do to Kingwoods wetlands. This is unacceptable.
Flood Hazards and Floodplain Values
We understand that the Developer “has not applied for a Harris County Flood Control Permit”. Is the Developer going to provide studies (vetted by outside experts) that show that this development will not adversely impact an already very bad flooding situation? Can they produce hard data that would show how this development could have anything but a negative impact on future flooding events (i.e. by dredging, significant retention ponds etc)? Our concern is that the extensive wetlands that are adjacent to the West Fork of the San Jacinto River are the conveyance route for almost all of the rivers overbank flow. If the wetlands, a natural water sink, are filled in and built up the developments will both displace ground water and become obstructions to flow by diverting and pushing floodwaters into adjacent areas and further up into Kingwood than before.
In the Developer’s proposal there are estimates of how much fill dirt will be required in each area. They state that they want to elevate above the 100 year flood plain (56-58′ elevation) which is approximately 12′ above current topographic elevation.When examining their estimates of fill volume however it appears that they are assuming an average fill depth of only 1′ per designated acre.This is either a gross miscalculation or, as one of their elevation cross sections suggests, only the high-rise buildings will be elevated to this +12′ level and everything else will be left at current grade. In the first case this means that they will require significantly more fill dirt in the wetlands (i.e.12x current estimate) than proposed – with significant cost and project viability implications. In the second case, it means they have a non-viable development because during future floods they will have their tall buildings stranded as islands while everything else is at or below the 100 year flood level (i.e. commercial buildings, parking garages, marina, access roads, sewage treatment plant etc.) and subject to significant damage. Which is it and at what cost?
Land Use
Part of the proposal is that they will be using fill dirt to “fill existing streams”. Those small streams exist because they move water out of upstream areas (i.e. Kingwood) into the San Jacinto River. Has the developer modeled the impact of filling in these streams on overall drainage in Kingwood?
Water Supply and Conservation
What are waste water treatment plans for this proposed project? A development of this size cannot simply force it’s way into existing infrastructure. Part of the Development Plan must include a full, on-site waste water treatment facility. Where will this be located and will it be above the 100 year flood stage level? How about the 500 year flood stage level? What are the impacts if this treatment facility is breached by floods and discharges into the City of Houston’s primary water supply? What mitigation plans does the Developer propose? At what cost?
Water Quality
The applicant proposed to convert ground now supporting native vegetation, forested uplands and bottomland hardwood wetlands into concrete pavement. The applicant’s proposed structures and paved surfaces are designed to shed runoff as quickly as possible. The proposal will also add 1000’s of additional vehicles in the proposed development area with associated petroleum residue added to runoff. The additional fertilizer and animal feces introduced into runoff from the proposed “green space” areas, will further degrade already poor existing water quality parameters. Has the Developer submitted the proper documentation to show how they plan to mitigate these impacts? Lake Houston is the primary water supply for Houston which is growing at unprecedented rates. Are we willing to jeopardize the water supply for 2+ million people by allowing a poorly planned development to add to the stress on Houston’s water supply?
Safety
We are concerned that the proposed development will have significant negative impacts on public safety in the area. These include negative impacts of higher future flood levels and potential hazards to human health and public safety due to the significant increase in road traffic. We are concerned how drainage runoff from elevated project areas to adjacent properties and associated increased flooding risk to those properties is going to be managed? This is an issue during every rain event and one that the City of Houston has failed to manage within Loop 610 (i.e. The Heights Area). In the Heights, developers build up lots 2-3′ higher than adjacent lots and fill the lot with impermeable surfaces with no mitigation for the impact of runoff on to the adjacent lots. The Barrington neighborhood, which will be surrounded by this Development, could become the retention pond for the Development during flood events, depending on how they handle grade elevation and drainage.
Needs and Welfare of the People
Most residents of Kingwood have chosen to live in this area for its natural beauty and to escape the road congestion, high population density and high-rise building environment of the inner city. These environmental preferences are enshrined in the deed restrictions issued for every other developed area in Kingwood since its inception. These esthetic considerations that are so important to the health and welfare of the citizens of Kingwood should be given full consideration.
Conclusion: Deny
We hope in the coming months, that our concerns about these factors will be carefully evaluated by U.S.A.C.o.E. and TCEQand that a Public Hearingbe held before any decisions are made on this permit application.Without any detailed information concerning the viability of the project – including dredging costs, environmental impacts, costs of elevated future flood levels, sewage disposal plans and water quality impacts and potential hazards to human health due and public safety concerns attributed to flooding and increased traffic loads; it is our opinion that the permit application should be denied by the USACE and TCEQ upon completion of the Public Notice review period. It is also requested that any revisions and supplements to this proposed Project by this applicant or any others which involve this Project be placed on a full 30-day Public Notice in order to allow all stakeholders an opportunity to provide additional comments to USACE and TCEQ.
Respectfully,
Randal Kissling Sr. Technical Geologist Major oil company – retired Crosby Tx. 77532
Tim Garfield Chief Geologist Major oil company – retired Kingwood, 77345
The thoughts in this letter represent opinions on matters of public policy. The opinions, the authors of the letter, and this website are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and Anti-SLAPP statutes of the Great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/24,2019
513 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Ditch-Erosion_03.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-01-24 14:35:022019-01-24 14:35:56Two Top Geologists Protest High-Rise Development in Floodplain with Letter to Corps and TCEQ
Note: This post contains a correction to Matt Zeve’s title; he is Deputy Executive Director at Harris County Flood Control.
The Army Corps of Engineers today released this graphic showing the extent of West Fork dredging progress to date. Dredging will extend from River Grove Park on the west King’s Harbor on the east.
Great Lakes subcontracted part of the job because it was time sensitive and Callan had a dredge that could start quickly. In fact, Callan began sooner than Great Lakes. Both companies spent considerable time on site assembling the dredges. Welding more than six miles of 24 inch HDPE dredge pipe and maneuvering it into place also required upfront time. Then both companies had to calibrate dredging rates with three booster pumps. Make no mistake; this is a huge undertaking.
Two months after the contract award, the first dredge moved downriver to its starting position on September 19th. A month later, on October 25th, the second dredge moved downriver. So out of the the 9 months, it took two and three months respectively just to start the dredging. Then we had three floods between December 7 and January 7 that caused pauses in the action.
Slow but Steady Progress
Backing out floods and prep time, we need to evaluate the progress shown above on a SIX month “actual-dredging” timetable, not the nine months budgeted for the entire job. Visually, it appears that they are roughly half completed and roughly half of the six months has expired. That’s reassuring. Especially knowing that the dredging has proved more difficult than expected. Crews periodically must stop to remove roots and aquatic vegetation from the dredge cutter heads.
Nagging Uncertainty Remains about Mouth Bar and Upstream
The questions readers keep asking, though, are “Will we be able to save all of that investment in upfront time?” And “Will we be able to start dredging the mouth bar before the start of next hurricane season starts on June 1?”
Corps bids showed that mobilization and demobilization cost 25% of the total job, roughly $18 million. Starting the mouth bar project as soon as the current project completes could save that money. It’s enough to do a lot more dredging. Maybe even open up the boat launch that the County hopes to build at its new Edgewater Park near US 59.
New Congressman Dan Crenshaw Jumping In
Dan Crenshaw, the Lake Houston Area’s new US Congressman seems to be jumping into flooding issues with both feet. He announced today that he has been appointed to Congressional Budget and Homeland Security committees. The budget committee assignment should put him in a good position to help accelerate flood mitigation measures.
Crenshaw has already met with Harris County with Flood Control District Deputy Executive Director Matt Zeve and Professional Engineer Ian Hudson to get an update on projects in Texas’s Second Congressional District. Those include both cleanup projects and flood mitigation projects. Crenshaw also met on Monday with Houston City Councilman Dave Martin, in which they discussed the importance of these projects. I also hear he is meeting the Army Corps and developers of the new high-rise project proposed for Kingwood.
New Congressman Dan Crenshaw (center) with Matt Zeve of Harris County Flood Control (r) and Ian Hudson (l).
Said Crenshaw, “Our district has been through so much because of Hurricane Harvey. I’m grateful for all the hard work our local and federal officials have done to prepare us for the next storm. I’m excited to get to work to ensure the people of TX-02 are able to make a full recovery and put Harvey in the rearview mirror.”
Something tells me that Crenshaw will bring the zeal of a SEAL to this job.
Posted on January 23, 2019 by Bob Rehak
512 days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/23-jan-2018-Dredging-Progress.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-01-23 17:41:232019-01-24 15:14:41Progress to Date on West Fork Dredging
Thursday night, the Kingwood Service Association (KSA) added its voice to the growing chorus concerned about a proposed high-rise development in the floodplain near River Grove Park. KSA is the largest private group in the Kingwood area. It represents more than 30 community associations, which comprise more than 70,000 residents. It also manages the five private parks in the Kingwood area including two adjacent to the proposed development along Woodland Hills Drive.
The letter addresses concerns that BOTH the TCEQ and Army Corps will consider during the permit evaluation process. TCEQ rules on water quality issues (Clean Water Act Section 401) for the Corps. The Corps rules on Section 404 concerns.
The applicant, Romerica Investments, LLC must respond to every concern submitted by residents. So email them now or forever hold your peace.
Here is the text of KSA’s letter, which is also linked on the High Rise Page in the right hand column. I inserted the pictures and captions into KSA’s letter; they are not part of the original. I put them there to help illustrate the concerns for people who may not be familiar with all of the issues surrounding this controversial development.
Text of KSA Letter
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
Enclosed are the comments of the Kingwood Service Association, 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.
The Kingwood Service Association (KSA) is a Kingwood-wide homeowners association representing thirty-two (32) residential and commercial associations in the Kingwood area. The following comments are being made on behalf of Kingwood residents concerned about the impact of the proposed development on the Kingwood community.
KSA owns and operates two parks adjacent to the proposed permit area, River Grove Park and Deer Ridge Park. During Hurricane Harvey, both of these parks flooded with 10 to 20 feet of water. River Grove Park is located on the West Fork of the San Jacinto River between the river and the proposed commercial and residential areas. This park was covered by 20 feet of water. As the flood waters receded, it left 6 feet of sand covering half of the park area. River Grove Park has flooded at least 6 times in the past 12 months. This experience raises serious concerns about the environmental impact of a development that calls for adding fill material to approximately 330 acres located north and east of River Grove Park, and which would raise the grade level of the area 12 feet from 45 feet to 57 feet.
We are very concerned about the overall impact of this development on the community because it would be built 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; 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.
In the review of this permit application, we ask the Corps to consider all relevant public interest review factors in 33 CFR 320-332 including 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.
We think that, at a minimum, the following areas should be addressed by USACE and TCEQ during the permitting process.
1. This proposal will fill 42.35 acres of wetlands with 68,323 cubic yards of fill material on 331.45 acres and fill 771 linear feet of streams with 285 cubic yards of fill material. There are significant concerns about the environmental impact of the elimination of 42.35 acres of wetlands. These concerns fall into the following areas:
a. Elimination of a natural area inhabited by eagles, deer, and other animals native to the area without sufficient mitigation in the same watershed.
Nesting bald eagles, a protected species, on West Fork of San Jacinto. Photo courtesy of Emily Murphy. The Houston Police Deportment Lake Patrol has reportedly sighted seven other eagle’s nests in the area, according to Murphy who frequently kayaks the river.
b. Decrease in the quality of the water supply for the City of Houston, which is downstream of the development, as a result of the increase in erosion and increase in deposition of sediment caused by the elimination of wetlands and the increase in infrastructure.
One of the drainage ditches that the proposed high-rise development would use is so over-burdened, that incision already is threatening existing development. Any addition to flow would destroy properties.
c. Decrease in the quality of the water supply for the City of Houston caused by the contamination of water run-off by the addition of parking spaces for 8,000 plus vehicles that could increase contaminants, such as motor oil, being washed into the San Jacinto River.
d. Increase of erosion and acceleration of deposition of sediment due to an increase in the speed of water run-off caused by the additional infrastructure, elimination of wetlands, and increase in grade level of the area.
High-rises for the proposed development would fill in wetlands where eagles fish and nest. The high-rises would also be built in an old meander of the San Jacinto West Fork, which contains unstable soil that is prone to flooding.
e. Determine the impact of filling in 42.35 acres of wetlands on eagles nesting in that area. Eagle nests have been spotted in the vicinity by Kingwood residents.
Eagles nest on the 16th hole of Kingwood Country Club’s Island Course, immediately adjacent to the proposed high-rise development.
2. Impact on the ability for residents to use the recreational facilities as a result of the increase in flooding caused by the increase of grade level from 45 feet to 57 feet that would inhibit the flow of water during significant rain events and cause the acceleration of water run-off potentially increasing erosion and accelerating the deposition of sediment in the San Jacinto River.
3. Economic impact on the villages immediately surrounding the development area as a result of the potential increase in flooding caused by the development. This could cause a significant decrease in the value of the homes located in these villages.
4. Economic impact on the community that would be caused by adding 8,000 plus vehicles to the traffic patterns of the community without a plan to mitigate this impact. The increase of this much traffic in a single area would have a negative impact on the attractiveness of purchasing a home in Kingwood, which has a reputation for being the “Liveable Forest”.
5. Completion of an environmental impact study before further consideration of this permit application. This study should include a full hydrological study of the project’s impact, an environmental impact to the large wetlands habitat without mitigation in the same watershed, and socioeconomic impact of such a huge development on an existing master planned community.
6. Impact on boat navigation on the West Fork of the San Jacinto River caused by the potential addition of 640 boats. Navigation on the West Fork has been impaired for decades and getting worse due to the acceleration of sediment deposition caused, in part, by sand mines upstream of the project area. This development has the potential to add to that sediment deposition.
This sand bar is currently not being addressed by the Emergency West Fork Dredging Project. It backs water up throughout the Humble/Kingwood area where thousands of homes and businesses flooded during Harvey. Erosion caused by the new development would add more sediment, make the marina useless, and destroy FEMA’s investment in dredging to date.
7. Require the applicant to provide 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 development and after floods.
We are requesting that the Corps schedule a public hearing on this application to allow residents to gather additional information on the proposed development and provide further comments. In addition, considering the potential significant negative impact of this development on the community, we request that the Corps and TCEQ seriously consider denying this permit application.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide public comment on this proposed permit application.
Sincerely, Dee M. Price, President Kingwood Service Association
Feel free to echo these concerns or add to them in your letters to the Army Corps and TCEQ.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/19/19
509 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2EaglesInNest.jpg?fit=1200%2C960&ssl=19601200adminadmin2019-01-18 22:53:212019-01-19 11:09:38KSA Adds to Growing Chorus of Concerns Over Proposed New High-Rise Development
The City of Houston ran out of chairs. At least 500 people tried to cram into a meeting room set to accommodate about 100. Before the meeting could start, partitions had to be opened and hundreds of chairs were added to the room.
An overflowing crowd attended the January 14 meeting at the Kingwood Community Center to learn more about the proposed new high-rise development.
Yes, we’ve had bigger meetings organized by officials that were planned for months, but none like this one. It largely happened over the weekend in response to concerns raised in FaceBook.
Meeting in Response to Imminent Deadline
Concerned citizens organized the meeting hastily in response to a rapidly narrowing window for public comments pertaining to a proposed high-rise development. By developers’ own estimates, the proposal would add more than 8,800 vehicles to already crowded Kingwood traffic. The proposal would also add 25-50 story high-rises within a hundred yards of eagle nests and rambling ranch homes. Thousands of yards of fill would be brought in to elevate the new buildings by 12 feet. Residents worry that the fill will alter drainage patterns and increase flood risk to their homes hand neighbors’.
At the Meeting
Barbara Hilburn discussed the impact on internal drainage.
Bob Rehak discussed how the Army Corps and TCEQ will evaluate permits and how to phrase comments for maximum impact.
Bill Fowler discussed the history of the Corps permitting process
Dave Martin discussed the history of the development
Dozens of residents expressed their concern
Kaaren Cambio represented Congressman Dan Crenshaw. Kim Brode (Ted Poe’s long-time assistant) is now representing Harris County District 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle. Kim also attended and sent these pictures of the crowd. Sadly, I didn’t realize Kim was in the crowd! She sent me this picture after the event and graciously allowed me to share them.
Download Key Information
I’ve summarized information about the development, how the Corps and TCEQ will evaluate applications, how to compose a response that’s on point, and where to submit your concerns. It’s all in an easy-to-download text-based PDFthat should give you 90% of what you need. You can find additional information and sample letters on this site’s new High-Rises page.
Remember, the deadline for comments is January 29.
Thank you for your overwhelming support. It was nice to learn that people are listening! In the coming days, I’ll be posting additional information about the project. Check back often.
Posted by Bob Rehak on January 14
504 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IMG_1649-e1547529190597.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-01-14 23:49:402019-01-15 00:09:55Concern over High-Rise Development Triggers Biggest Turnout for Impromptu Meeting since Annexation
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
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.)
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/RiverGroveFlood_01-e1547394963389.jpg?fit=1000%2C667&ssl=16671000adminadmin2019-01-12 14:27:252019-01-13 12:30:03Sierra Club Response to High-Rise Development Proposal in Flood Plain
Sand Island South of the Kingwood Country Club’s Island Course. I took this picture from a helicopter shortly after Hurricane Harvey. This giant dune virtually blocks the entire West Fork. Experts think it contributes to repeated flooding upstream since Harvey.
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
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IMG_5434.jpg?fit=1280%2C960&ssl=19601280adminadmin2019-01-06 22:07:552019-01-07 06:45:28Sand Island Losing Ground to Army Corps
