Tag Archive for: best management practices

TCEQ Again Cites Colony Ridge for Lack of Pollution Controls

This morning, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), notified me that they again cited the controversial Colony Ridge development in Liberty County for lack of pollution controls.

In early June, TCEQ reprimanded Colony Ridge after eight separate investigations into its construction practices. Last October, TCEQ said Colony Ridge construction practices had a “reasonable likelihood of endangering human health.” This new investigation showed the developer and its contractor, D. Burton Construction LLC, had still not implemented best management practices as required by regulations and the company’s own stormwater pollution prevention plan. To see aerial photos of that I took of the area under investigation in late May, click here.

Area of investigation. The dotted triangle in the lower left is the northeastern tip of Harris County.

For the full 185-page TCEQ report, click here. For a summary of the contents and findings, read below.

Summary of Findings: Investigation #1736609

On June 15, 2021, the investigator found active construction along Long Branch Creek. He noted that the slopes of the creek were not stabilized. He also found un-stabilized sediment piles along the banks of the creek, a damaged silt fence, and an unstabilized drainage channel. Additionally, the slopes of Long Branch Creek were also un-stabilized.

Continuing north into Section 12, the investigator noted more un-stabilized sediment piles on the edges of un-stabilized drainage ditches connected to Long Branch Creek. The slopes of Long Branch Creek were also un-stabilized in Section 12. While documenting active land clearing, the investigator noted an unprotected tributary that flows into Tarkington Bayou.

After reviewing the site’s stormwater pollution prevention plan, the investigator determined that Section 12 did not have erosion control measures installed as prescribed.

TCEQ Investigation #1736609

The investigation confirmed lack of best management practices at the construction site. One alleged violation was issued: Failure to install minimum controls.

From Attachment 4, “Unstabilized slopes in Long Branch Creek. Unstabilized sediment piles on the banks of Long Branch Creek.”
More unstabilized slopes and unstabi­lized sediment piles leading to Long Branch Creek from Attachment 4.

As per the Construction General Permit (CGP), D. Burton Construction LLC was required to “design install and maintain effective erosion controls and sediment controls to minimize the discharge of pollutants” and to document compliance with the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).

That part of the document takes up the first four pages.

Supporting Documentation

A series of attachments make up the the next 181 pages.

  • Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
  • Attachment 2: TCEQExit Interview sent on June 24, 2021
  • Attachment 3: Permit Information
  • Attachment 4: Investigation Photographs
  • Attachment 5: Photo Locations Map
  • Attachment 6: Flyover Photographs
  • Attachment 7: Records Request Sent on June 16, 2021
  • Attachment 8: Response to Records Request

Purpose of SWPPP and Control Measures

The primary purpose of erosion control is to protect surface waters. To do that, TCEQ says contractors should protect slopes and channels.

“Convey concentrated storm water runoff around the top of slopes and stabilize slopes as soon as possible. This can be accomplished using pipe slope drains or earthen berms or other flow controls that will convey runoff around the exposed slope.”

“Avoid disturbing natural channels and the vegetation along natural channels, if possible.”

TCEQ

The SWPPP also contains a lengthy discussion of erosion and sediment controls beginning on page 78. I recommend it for anyone who thinks he/she may be receiving eroded sediment from a construction site.

Soil Report Largely Consistent with Earlier Findings Showing Need for Detention Ponds

Starting on page 128, you can also read an extensive custom soil report from the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service.

It shows extensive wetlands in the area under development and low-permeability soils, consistent with the soils I reported on December 20 of last year. The soils are also consistent with all the ponding shown on the map above.

They suggest this area will have a high amount of runoff after development. Little water will sink into the soils. And that could increase downstream flooding, unless the developer installs sufficient detention pond capacity.

Colony Ridge is in Liberty County. But if Harris County guidelines applied, they call for .55 acre feet of detention capacity per acre (for developments greater than 640 acres). Thus, if the area under development is 1200 acres, that would call for 660 acre feet of detention ponds (or 100 acres – six and a half feet deep). I saw nothing that large during my last flyover at the end of May.

Downstream Impacts

The rivers of mud previously documented coming out of Colony Ridge have impacted Tarkington Bayou, Luce Bayou, Rocky Branch, Long Branch, and the East Fork San Jacinto. Eroded sediment from this area is likely contributing to the giant mouth bar now setting up on the East Fork. That will cost the City of Houston tens of millions of dollars to dredge.

It’s not clear at this time whether the developer has improved his erosion-control measures. Two calls to the TCEQ have not yet been returned.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/3/2021 based on TCEQ Investigation #1736609

1466 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

UH Geology Professor Weighs in with TCEQ on BMPs Related to Sand Mining

Professor Emeritus William Dupré, Ph.D., of the University of Houston’s Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences filed a 36-page report with the TCEQ on sand mining in the San Jacinto River Basin. Dupré has broard experience with geologic hazards and risk assessment. He submitted his report in support of the petition filed with the TCEQ by the Lake Houston Area Grassroots Flood Prevention Initiative to establish best management practices (BMPs) for sand mining.

The first issue that Dupré identified is flooding. “With one exception, all sand mines in the San Jacinto River Watershed are located partially or completely within the regulatory floodway, an area delineated by FEMA as having the highest potential for flooding (and erosion) along major waterways. “[T]he floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion potential…”. (Montgomery County Flood Plain Management Regulations, 2014, p.25)

Floodway Constriction

Dupré notes that partitioning large areas of the floodway from rising floodwaters by levees and dikes can result in increased flooding of adjacent areas.

A good example: sand mines on the north side the San Jacinto West Fork and I-45 have walled off half the floodplain, forcing floodwaters onto neighboring property on the south side.

Sand mines have walled off more than 200 acres west of I-45 and north of the San Jacinto West Fork. See below.
The high dikes force floodwater to the other side of the river rather than allowing it to spread out on both sides. The concentration of water in a smaller area also increases the velocity and erosion. For close-up of area inside red circle, see image below.
This shows how high the dike around the sand mine is.

Levee Failure Can Flush Pollutants into Waterways

“Flood-induced breaches in levees can also add to the problems of flooding, erosion, and sedimentation downstream,” Dupré says, flushing sediment and other pollutants into adjacent land, wetlands, and waterways. See two examples below.

In the top row, river migration eroded the pit wall which allowed the contents to drain into the West Fork near North Park Drive. In the bottom row, the entire contents of a mine pit drained into the West Fork near Bennett Estates.

In-Stream Mining Disrupts River Habitat

A. Google Earth image of point bar on the west Fork of the San Jacinto River; B. Same bar 5 months later showing un-permitted (i.e. illegal) In-stream “bar-scalping.”

“Since the passage of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977, some states have heavily restricted or banned in-stream mining, as have many countries,” writes Dupré. “These restrictions are mainly based on the significant environmental problems associated with this type of mining.”

Such mining can create major disruptions of riparian habitats by increasing the amount of sediment put into suspension. “Major channel modifications can also occur, including upstream incision (headcutting) and downstream erosion and deposition.”

BMPs Can Make Compliance with Regulations More Efficient

In his paper, Dupré next examines applicable regulations and suggests several BMPs to supplement them. He recommends that:

  • All APO’s should develop and make available to regulators and the public a Comprehensive Mine Plan and an Environmental Assessment Report on potential impacts before permits are issued.
  • Likewise, all APO’s should develop and make available to regulators and the public a Reclamation Plan before permits are issued and file a performance bond ensuring reclamation before a production permit is granted. Such permits should have significant civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance.
  • New mining should be minimized or restricted in delineated floodplains and floodways and channel migration zones (areas most like to be eroded by lateral migration and river avulsion).
  • Mines should be “prohibited within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels…. A development permit must be secured from the Flood Plain Administrator prior to the placement of fill or other encroachment in the floodway….” (Montgomery County Flood Plain Management Regulations, 2014).
  • Stockpiles should be located outside the floodway, because of the high potential for erosion (and resultant sediment pollution) during frequent flooding.

Conclusion

Dupré acknowledges that aggregate mining clearly provides valuable material and employment to the state and nation.

Nonetheless, Texas is one of the few states where sand and gravel mines remain largely unregulated. Issues related to flooding, erosion, and sedimentation create many unintended (and undesirable) environmental and economic impacts associated with sand and gravel mines – especially in the San Jacinto River watershed. “I believe there is a clear need for the requirement for BMP’s to better protect the public and the environment,” says Dupré.

TCEQ Public Comment Period Rapidly Coming to a Close For Sand Mining BMPs

On November 11, the TCEQ held a public hearing on a joint proposal between TACA and the Lake Houston Area Grassroots Flood Prevention Initiative to establish best management practices for sand mining in the San Jacinto watershed. The public comment period closes on December 11, 2020 – in just 12 days.

If you want to weigh in on the subject, you can review presentations from the hearing here. TACA and the Lake Houston Area people are in substantial agreement on most points. However, they still differ on four key issues.

  • Where should the BMPs be enforced? On the main stems of the East and West Forks or on the smaller tributaries, too?
  • Should there be performance bonds for reclamation?
  • How far from rivers should the sand mines be set back for safety reasons?
  • Should compliance with best practices should be voluntary or mandatory?

If you have comments or questions for the TCEQ, please e-mail Outreach@tceq.texas.gov. Make sure to include “Sand Mining Rulemaking” in the subject line of your e-mail.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/29/2020

1188 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Submitted Your Sand Mine Testimony Yet?

Today, October 30, 5:00 p.m. is the deadline to send testimony to the Texas House of Representatives Interim Committee on Aggregate Production Operations (APOs). The committee is looking into production practices of sand mines and other types of APOs across Texas.

Write About Your Experience

Written comments will be evaluated and considered by the committee when they make their decisions.

If you haven’t yet submitted comments, please take time to put something together—even if it’s just a few paragraphs!

Write about how YOU personally have been or will be impacted by sand mines. Pick one or two of these key issues that will most affect you personally:

???? Air quality
???? Water quality, use and availability
???? Surface and ground water contamination and flooding
???? Rapid development of APOs without adequate regulatory oversight, mine planning, or reclamation
???? Truck traffic
???? Nuisance issues: blasting, noise, odor, visible blight
???? Economic impacts, devaluation of property

How to Submit Comments

When you are ready to submit your testimony, email it to jeff.frazier_hc@house.texas.gov (jeff DOT frazier UNDERSCORE hc) or press the link below. Make sure to include:

  • Your name
  • Address
  • Phone number
  • Testimony in attachment (PDF preferred, Word Document OK, preferably five pages or less)

Deadline is 5:00 p.m., Friday, October 30, 2020.

EMAIL YOUR TESTIMONY

Not Choice Between Growth and Safety

Sand mining is necessary to make concrete and support growth. No one wants to put sand miners out of business. People do, however, have legitimate issues with egregious sand-mining practices.

They want sand produced in a manner that respects public safety, health, homes, and the environment.

Since starting this website I have created more than 200 posts about problems with the way sand mining is actually practiced in the Houston Area, and how dangerous practices contribute to flooding. To learn more, use the search phrase “sand mines” or see the index page. Here are some examples.

Sand mining in floodways on West Fork
Discharging industrial waste water into the public drinking water supply
Another discharge of industrial wastewater into the headwaters of Lake Houston
Failure to stabilize soil or restore land to alternative us after abandonment of mine.
Mining too close to natural gas pipeline and exposing it
Endangering five pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids near the West Fork San Jacinto
West Fork sand dune deposited during Harvey downstream from 20-square miles of mines in floodway. It contributed to the flooding of more than 7,000 structures.
River mining without a permit
Flooding adjacent property with floodwater
Barely plugged breach near LMI mine on West Fork
Pumping wastewater into wetlands

Don’t tolerate sand-mining practices that jeopardize your home, family and community. Write today.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/30/2020

1158 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

TCEQ Issues Notice of Violation to Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village Development

In response to complaints filed on October 23, 2019, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Houston Region Office issued a Notice of Violation to the developers of Woodridge Village. Figure Four Partners, LTD, a Perry Homes subsidiary, owns Woodridge Village, which contributed to the flooding of Elm Grove Village and North Kingwood Forest in May and September of 2019.

History of Uncorrected Violations by Perry Homes

The TCEQ originally investigated Woodridge Village in response to complaints filed after the May 7, 2019, flood. At that time, the Commission found that Perry Homes, et. al., had failed to implement and maintain effective Best Management Practices. They found that sediment-laden discharges had affected at least 2.5 miles of Taylor Gully. TCEQ sent that violation to its enforcement division.

Findings of a second investigation released today indicate that the violations continued after the first investigation.

Page 5 of the report states that pollution prevention measures implemented after the first investigation “did not appear sufficient to prevent sediment-laden discharge…”

The investigator observed tainted discharge 2.5 miles down Taylor Gully to the point where it disappears into woods and then joins White Oak Creek, Caney Creek, the East Fork, and Lake Houston. Said another way, the discharge appears to be polluting waters of the State of Texas and the drinking water for 2 million people.

Sediment laden water from Taylor Gulley where it joined the East Fork of the San Jacinto on January 11, 2020.

Investigations, such as the TCEQ’s, represent a snapshot in time. The investigator in this case visited the site on October 25, 2019. Unfortunately, observations by local residents indicate that the sediment-laden discharge continues.

TCEQ Requiring Structural Controls for Sediment

TCEQ is requiring Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors to install sediment controls on all areas under their operational control at Woodridge. “There must be adequate structural controls to minimize sediment discharges from the site,” says the TCEQ in “Recommended Corrective Action” on page 7 of the 77 page report.

Perry Contractors Also Investigated

The release of findings today indicates that four Perry contractors at this site were also investigated by the TCEQ: D&J Construction Inc., Rebel Contractors Inc, Texassite LLC, and Double Oak Construction Inc.

No New Structural Controls Appear To Be In Place Yet

No additional structural controls appear to have been installed since the last investigation on October 25th. Sediment-laden runoff from the area of wetlands on the northern section of property continues unabated, although grass planted in other areas may be helping slightly.

Looking SE toward Taylor Gully, Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest from the northwest corner of Woodridge Village. Everything slopes toward the detention pond in the upper left, but no structural controls to reduce runoff are in place. Photo taken 1/20/2020.

Unfortunately, grass planted last summer has been destroyed by new construction activity around the southern detention ponds – the area of highest concern, where water from the site enters Taylor Gully through the double culvert seen in the picture below.

Contractors have destroyed the grass and backslope interceptor swales previously constructed around the S2 detention pond.
Erosion continues to etch the walls of the S2 detention pond which should be covered with grass by now. It was substantially complete in August of last year.
Construction of the S2 pond continues months after Perry Homes promised the City of Houston construction would be complete. The pond should have been complete by the start of December.

What Next for Troubled Perry Homes and Woodridge Village?

A story in the Houston Chronicle earlier this week reported that Perry Homes was seeking a bailout for this “floodplain property” from Harris County, Montgomery County and the City of Houston. Harris County commissioners reportedly considered the proposition in executive session on Tuesday this week. However, no decision or action has yet been announced. It should also be noted that Perry Homes’ engineering company, LJA, denies a floodplain even exists on this property.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/30/2020

884 Days After Hurricane Harvey 133 After Imelda

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Bayou Land Conservancy Supports HB 909, Publishing Best Practices for Sand Mining

The Bayou Land Conservancy sent this letter today to the Committee Clerk of the House Environmental Regulation Committee. The Conservancy has allowed me to publish it:

On behalf of Bayou Land Conservancy, I urge you to vote FOR HB 909 when the Environmental Regulation Committee meets to consider this bill. Bayou Land Conservancy is a non-profit, community-supported land conservation organization that preserves land along streams for flood control, clean water, and wildlife. We preserve 14,000 acres in the Houston region, focused on the Lake Houston watershed. This includes the San Jacinto River, cited in 2006 as one of America’s most endangered rivers due to a number of threats, including the high intensity of local aggregate mining. 

HB 909 would require the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to adopt and make accessible best management practices for aggregate producers to comply with applicable environmental laws and rules. 

This adoption of best management practices would be an important, and needed, step to ensure that aggregate production in Texas is done with sensitivity to the environment and to community standards. As the population of Texas continues to grow, with the corresponding increase in construction of buildings, roads, and bridges, there is greater risk to the quality of life and safety for many communities located near mining operations. 

As one of the nation’s leading aggregate producing states, we know Texas can lead in developing higher standards. We recommend best management practices that consider community values, such as: 

  • Employ public notice and stakeholder process guidelines to ensure mining operations are in step with local priorities and concerns 
  • Maintain setbacks or standards for siting operations away from sensitive areas or those with the highest likelihood to cause impacts 
  • Develop environmental impact statements for proposed mining operations 
  • Enact mitigation standards to reclaim the project area after facility closure 
  • Utilize progressive reclamation with a step-be-step restoration of the site over time rather than waiting for final closure 
  • Require the submission of an approved reclamation plan prior to permit approval 
  • Require the certification of financial security to perform reclamation activities before permit approval 
  • Require post-use conservation easements to ensure that the floodplain is left undeveloped and can provide a community amenity opportunity. 

There is urgency for Texas to lead by enacting commonsense solutions that protect the community. 

Without development and implementation of best management practices, such as those outlined above that would keep sediment in place through floodplain preservation and mine reclamation, downstream communities will continue to be at risk of water quality degradation and flooding. 

Please vote YES on HB 909. 

(Signed) Jill Boullion 
Executive Director 

Please Support HB 909; Here’s How

Call. Write. Or testify in person TODAY. The committee meets to consider this bill tomorrow. The following representatives comprise the Environmental Regulation committee.

  • Rep. J. M. Lozano (512) 463-0463 
  • Rep. Ed Thompson (512) 463-0707
  • Rep. César Blanco (512) 463-0622
  • Rep. Kyle J. Kacal (512) 463-0412
  • Rep. John Kuempel (512) 463-0602
  • Rep. Geanie W. Morrison (512) 463-0456
  • Rep. Ron Reynolds (512) 463-0494
  • Rep. John Turner (512) 463-0576
  • Rep. Erin Zwiener (512) 463-0647
  • Committee Clerk: Scott Crownover. (512) 463-0776

If you can come to Austin to testify, please do. The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 1, in room  E1.026 of the Capitol Building. Most likely hearing time is in the evening around 8 p.m., but get I plan to get there early. Hope to see you there.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 30, 2019

609 Days since Hurricane Harvey

House Environmental Regulation Committee to Hear Testimony on Sand Mining Best Practices

Wednesday, May 1, 2019, the Texas House of Representatives Environmental Affairs Committee will hear testimony on HB 909. It would require the TCEQ to establish and publish best management practices for sand mining.

Why We Need HB 909

After Harvey, I discovered bright white trails of sand leading from sand mines upstream to massive sediment buildups in the Humble/Kingwood area. The Army Corps later acknowledged that some of our flooding was likely attributable to these massive sediment dams. No doubt some of the sand came from channel erosion, too. But we can’t do much to control that. We can, however, help reduce sediment from man-made sources with sensible regulations found in many other states, including those growing faster than Texas.

Improving Sand-Mining Best Management Practices

Texas sand mines do not follow many best management practices (BMPs) common in other parts of the country and the world. If practiced, they could help increase margins of safety, reduce risks associated with future flooding, and reduce the costs associated with cleanup. Below: the biggest opportunities for improvement.

Recommendations

Locate mines outside of floodways

Texas is the only state that does not mandate minimum setbacks from rivers for sand mines. As a result, virtually all mines in this area are built inside floodways of major rivers where floods can wash sediment downstream.

Establish performance bonds to cover the cost of cleanup

Giant sand dunes deposited during Harvey exacerbate flooding by constraining the conveyance of downstream drainage ditches and the San Jacinto river. Mining exposes downstream populations to heightened flood risk and reduces their property values. Performance bonds could ensure cleanup and repairs after floods in a timely way and force those who caused damage to bear the cost of remediation. 

Increase the width of dikes

Texas has no minimum setbacks from rivers and does not recognize erosion hazard zones. Some mines operate so close to the river that floodwaters breach their dikes repeatedly. Wider dikes:

  • Make stronger dikes that are less likely to fail and that improve safety.  
  • If forested, can slow currents as they enter and leave mines.
  • Reduce the amount of sediment picked up and carried downstream. 
  • Reduce the danger of river capture due to river migration.
River is migrating toward pit in background at the rate of 12 feet per year, in part, due to lack of vegetation protecting banks.
Decrease the slope of dikes

Other states and countries recommend gently sloping dikes to help grow vegetation, which reduces erosion. The near-vertical slope of many dikes on the San Jacinto can’t sustain vegetation.

Steep, loose dikes with no vegetation breach easily during floods.
Reduce erosion with vegetation

Planting dikes and unmined surfaces with grass and/or native trees can bind the soil, slow floodwater, reduce erosion, trap sand, and help retain sand within mine boundaries. 

Virtually all states and countries recommend planting native grasses and trees to help bind soil. Revegetating after plants have been removed can take years. Therefore, the best, cheapest and simplest practice is to leave native vegetation in place when constructing mines.

Replant areas not actively being mined 

Loose sand, exposed to floodwaters, exposes downstream communities to unnecessary risk. Replanting with native grasses and trees can bind soil, reduce water velocity during floods and reduce erosion. TCEQ reports that native grasses are 98% effective in reducing erosion. Keeping soil in place is the best way to keep it out of rivers.

Avoid clearing areas that will not soon be mined.

Delay clearing land until the last possible moment to reduce erosion risk from floodwaters. A large part of a sand mine on the East Fork was cleared, then went through three so-called “500-year storms” in the next three years – before any mining took place

This land was cleared just before consecutive 500-year floods in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Downstream communities like Kingwood paid the price. It still has not been mined.
30 acres of wetlands downstream from the mine above were covered by sand dunes up to 10 feet tall.

Protect stockpiles from flooding.

Loose sand in stockpiles is especially vulnerable during floods. During Harvey, sand mines adjacent to Kingwood lost four of six stockpiles completely. Another eroded severely. Only one escaped with little loss, the one on the highest ground, protected by a large swath of trees. 

Before Harvey, this stockpile covered 34 acres and was up to 100 feet tall. It is located at the confluence of not one, but two floodways, just upstream from the wetlands shown above.
Establish performance bonds to guarantee remediation of breaches and repurposing of mined areas once mining is complete.

Satellite images show dike breaches that have remained open 3 to 6 years. Even worse, obtaining a permit to mine in Texas requires a remediation plan, but it does not obligate mines to act on that plan when mining is complete. That creates safety hazards, eyesores, and economic development headaches for communities. 

Gaping Holes in Regs Exposed by Harvey

Harvey exposed gaping holes in Texas regulations. It underscored the importance of adopting better practices to help improve public safety, reduce damage to infrastructure, and avoid widespread flood damage to homes and businesses. Consequences of ignoring these recommendations potentially include:

  • Destruction of downstream communities through increased flooding
  • Illegal “taking” of private property
  • More loss of life
  • Unfair imposition of remediation costs on taxpayers
  • Hidden “subsidies” that distort the true cost of cement and its usage
  • Loss of faith in the ethical standards of businesses and the free enterprise system
  • Loss of faith in government institutions to protect people and property
  • Loss of home and business values
  • Reduction of property tax income to city and county governments
  • Making Texas a less desirable place to live.

Destruction like we experienced during Harvey is rarely caused by one thing. Multiple failures on multiple levels compounded each other. To the extent that sand mines contributed to the problem, they can help solve it by modifying business practices as described above.

Please Help

Texas has no simple, easy-to-read recommendations like Louisiana and other states. The few references to best management practices currently on the TCEQ web site have to do with a water-quality district on the Brazos. They do not apply to the San Jacinto.

Please support this legislation. Phone members of the House Environmental Regulation Committee.

  • Rep. J. M. Lozano (512) 463-0463
  • Rep. Ed Thompson (512) 463-0707
  • Rep. César Blanco (512) 463-0622
  • Rep. Kyle J. Kacal (512) 463-0412
  • Rep. John Kuempel (512) 463-0602
  • Rep. Geanie W. Morrison (512) 463-0456
  • Rep. Ron Reynolds (512) 463-0494
  • Rep. John Turner (512) 463-0576
  • Rep. Erin Zwiener (512) 463-0647

If you can come to Austin to testify, please do. The meeting will be in room  E1.026 of the Capitol Building. Most likely hearing time is in the evening around 8 p.m., but I plan to get there early. Hope to see you there.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 29, 2019

608 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Earth Week Part 2: Clearing Land for Sand Mining

Best management practices for sand mining in many states say that miners should avoid clearing land until they’re ready to mine it. The roots of trees and grasses help stabilize soil during floods.

Barren land exposed to three 500-year storms. Vegetation not only binds the soil, it reduces the velocity of floodwaters, reducing the potential for erosion. Picture taken on 9/14/2017 two weeks after Hurricane Harvey.

Land Cleared, Then Three 500-Year Storms

However, on Caney Creek in Porter, a sand miner cleared 60 acres right before three 500-year storms in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Except for a tiny pond at the far end of this cleared area, no mining had occurred here when I took this photo shortly after Harvey.

With little vegetation to reduce the velocity of floodwaters, the miner lost sand from this area and a significant portion of his stockpile. Below is a closer shot of the stockpile.

34-acre stockpile suffered severe erosion during Harvey.

Sand Damage Downstream from Mine

Meanwhile, downstream from the mine, when Harvey’s floodwaters subsided, Kingwood residents found 30 acres of East End Park covered with sand, including this area that was once wetlands.

Eagle Point section of Kingwood’s East End Park. After Harvey, sand dunes replaced wetlands.

Extreme events like Harvey reveal the need for regulations that protect both miners and the public.

Restoring the trails in the park cost residents hundreds of thousands of dollars. Several months after the storm, trees covered by sand started dying and continue dying to this day. Eagles, other birds, and residents have lost valuable wetlands.

Bills to Regulate Sitting Idle

State Representative Dan Huberty introduced a bill that would establish best management practices for sand miners and another bill that would require miners in the San Jacinto watershed to follow them.

  • HB 909 calls for the TCEQ to adopt and publish best management practices for sand mines.
  • HB 1671 creates penalties for non-compliance with best practices defined under HB 909.

The legislature has taken no action on either bill since:

  • The Environmental Regulation Committee received HB 909 on 2/25/19.
  • The Natural Resources committee received HB 1671 on 3/4/19.

Time Running Out

With only 37 days left in this legislative session, hopes for both bills are quickly fading. If you would like to see them enacted, please email committee members:

House Environmental Regulation Committee

House Natural Resources Committee

Click here to see my top ten recommendations for sand mining practices that could reduce erosion. Each represents an opportunity for improvement relative to other states.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/23/2019

602 Days since Hurricane Harvey with 37 Days Left in the Legislative Session

Sand Mining Best Management Practices: Louisiana vs. Texas

When it comes to communicating “best management practices” (BMPs) for sand mines, Louisiana sets the gold standard. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the Concrete & Aggregate Association of Louisiana, Inc. worked together to  develop BMPs. Their goals: to reduce the amount of sediment and turbidity in streams and rivers that result from sand and gravel mining and to improve water quality. 

This guide represents a realistic and open approach, which I appreciated. It’s also concise, candid and clearly written. For those who don’t have time to read the entire 41-page document, a  summary follows, especially of the parts that talk about sedimentation. I’ve inserted several images from the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto to contrast practices in Texas and Louisiana.

Importance of Sand and Gravel to Economy

The Introduction discusses the importance of aggregate (sand and gravel) to the Louisiana economy. Sand and gravel are essential resources for construction. In fact, they represent Louisiana’s second most valuable non-fuel natural resource.

Almost half (48%) of all the aggregate produces concrete. The second largest use (22%) is as a base material for highways, railways, runways, etc. 

Types of Mining

The document then discusses different techniques of mining: dry (by excavation) and wet (by dredging). Louisiana focuses primarily on wet, which is the type of mines we have along the San Jacinto with a few exceptions.

Importance of Storm Water Management

Page 4 contains a discussion of “Non-point Source Storm Water Management.” Non-point essentially means from rain, runoff and flooding. It occurs across an entire area as opposed to a specific point, such as a leaky fuel tank. Some key quotes:

“Sand and gravel mining operations can potentially cause off-site impacts to water quality if site planning and BMPs (Best Management Practices) are not factored into every aspect of the mining operation.”

“Sand and gravel mining operations disturb land and soil…”

“Good site planning and operation can reduce the likelihood of sediments moving off of the opera­tion…”

“The purpose of the BMP Manual is to provide informa­tion on the types of BMPs that should be utilized during every phase of the mining operation in order to prevent pollutants from leaving the mining operation.”

Dangers of Not Following BMPs

Page 5 discusses the dangers if miners do not follow best management practices.

“Siltation is considered the highest nonpoint source priority of concern in wetland areas and the second highest priority affecting lakes (1992 Report to Congress). Mining related activities have been estimated to cause 7 percent of the nation’s nonpoint source impacts to lakes and 17 percent to coastal waters. Sediments from mining operations could consist primarily of biologically inert materials which could potentially adversely affect the water body’s designated uses. Inert suspended sediments have the follow­ing detrimental impacts to the aquatic habitat:

  • Sediments smother lower forms of aquatic life in the bottom of a stream. This can destroy the aquatic life in a stream because it kills the food supply. If sedimentation continues with a high concentration of suspended solids, the stream will fail to recover. Sediment deposition may also cover fish eggs and break the life cycle; thereby, destroying the fishery uses of the stream;
  • A continued cloudy condition of a stream will deter its use for almost all recreational purposes;
  • Directly or indirectly, it can change the characteristics of a stream channel and in many instances can limit boat usage and cause additional flooding hazards;
  • In rivers that are utilized for drinking waters, silt creates an additional expense upon the water treatment and purification process for both domestic and industrial users; and
  • It decreases photosynthetic action and thereby reduces the capacity of a stream to assimilate organic matter.”

Recommendations for Soil Conservation

Page 11 marks the start of the discussion about specific BMPs. The first BMP addresses soil conservation. “Sediment loads discharged to streams must be minimized, if not eliminated altogether,” they say. “There are basically two types of controls: vegetative and structural.”

Streambank BMP Recommendations

Regarding the Streambank Best Management Practice (BMP), they say: “When native vegetation is used to maintain streambanks, there are many benefits provided to the public and environment. Near the waters’ edge, herbaceous and wetland plants help filter pollutants from the water and prevent bank erosion during high flow periods. These plants also provide habitat for fish and natural predators of mosquitoes as well as increasing aesthetical appeal. Spatial balance between native trees and shrubs on the streambank provides stability and shading. Shading from trees lowers water temperature and improves water quality by conserving the oxygen in the water.”

Note the images below. The first represents the ideal and was pulled from the Louisiana BMP guide. The others are from sand mines on the West Fork of the San Jacinto and Caney Creek in Texas.

Image of ideal stream bank from Louisiana Sand Mining Best Practices Guide.

West Fork sand mine that has been been repeatedly inundated. Note dikes which have been breached and repaired.

Another portion of the same mine that has been repeatedly inundated. Note width of dike, steepness of slopes, and lack of vegetation to retard erosion. This area is no longer actively being mined.

West Fork sand mines on 8/30/17, one day after the peak of the Hurricane Harvey flood. Note how flood water breached dikes and flowed through mines on both sides of the river. Photo courtesy of Google Earth.

Reducing Erosion through Vegetation

“Vegetation is an inexpensive and effective way to protect soil from erosion,” Louisiana says. “It also decreases erosion from flowing water by reducing its velocity. Roots hold soil and increase infiltration. Topsoil should be added where existing soils are not suitable for adequate vegetative growth.”

Vegetative controls include:

  • Maintaining buffer zones between mine and river
  • Sod stabilization techniques
  • When installed and maintained properly, sodding can be more than 99 percent effective in reducing erosion.
  • Protection of trees involves preserving and protecting selected trees that exist on the site prior to development.
  • Tillage, with lime and fertilizer, to maintain adequate soil pH and nutrient content.
  • Temporary seeding
  • Permanent seeding
  • Erosion & Sediment Control Blankets
  • Surface Roughening – Creating horizontal grooves across the slope to reduce runoff velocity/erosion and aid the growth of seed. 

 Structural Ways to Reduce Erosion

Structural controls include:

  • Diversion ridges, berms or channels of stabilized soil
  • Silt fences
  • Straw bale barriers
  • Sediment basins with banks sloped at 2:1 or less
  • Dikes – Must be well compacted and vegetated, with an outlet pipe or coarse aggregate spillway 
  • Riprap protection – at the outlet end of culverts or channels to reduce the depth, velocity and energy of water so that the flow will not erode the receiving stream.
  • Check dams – Small dams less than 2 feet high constructed across swales or drainage ditches to reduce flow velocity and erosion.
  • Aggregate stabilized site entrances – at least 50 feet long to reduce sediment tracked onto public roads. Tire washing may also be needed.
  • Good housekeeping practices for fuel, debris, sediment from unstabilized areas, etc.
  • Post-construction stormwater management measures
  • Retention ponds
  • Vegetated swales and natural depressions that filter sediments from runoff with side slopes of 4:1 or less.

Best Management Practices for Land Clearing

Regarding land clearing, Louisiana recommends:

  • Disturbed areas should be temporarily stabilized or covered as soon as possible to minimize impacts on the environment.
  • Only clear acreage needed for immediate use. Clearing or grubbing too much land too early in the construction phase of the mining operation will dramatically increase the potential for environmental impacts from surface water runoff and will increase the costs to control runoff. 
  • Allow enough undisturbed buffer at property boundaries to provides sufficient lateral support of property lines. 
  • A minimum 100-foot buffer zone is required adjacent to perennial streams and water bodies in the State of Louisiana.

In a mine on Caney Creek,this 64-acre area was cleared a year and a half before Harvey, but was not mined. The lack of vegetation made it more susceptible to erosion during the flood. Photo taken 9/14/17, two weeks after Harvey.

Site Reclamation Goals and Best Management Practices

Pages 28-31 describe best practices for site reclamation. Goals include:

  • Stabilization of inactive mining pit or borrow areas with herbaceous perennial plants
  • Stabilizing the soil
  • Preventing wind or water erosion from causing on-site or off-site damage
  • Improving the aesthetic appeal
  • Ability of the site to support wildlife

Best management practices include:

  • Revegetation, mulching
  • Grading slopes 3:1 to facilitate seeding
  • Constructing diversions at tops of slopes to divert runoff away from the slope banks to a stable outlet 
  • Constructing aggregate lined chutes or equivalent to conduct concentrated flow of water to stable outlets 
  • Reclamation of abandoned roads by reshaping, recontouring, and resurfacing with topsoil and seeding for vegetative growth
  • Removal of structures 
  • Removal of sand stockpiles
  • Removal of debris
  • Grading property to minimize potential impact to waterways

Abandoned sand mine in Humble, TX. No fencing. No grading. No vegetation on slopes. Note proximity to buildings on adjoining property and road. 

Concrete crushing operation once part of sand mine in Humble, TX. 

Education Better Than Damage Control

In the conclusion on Page 32, Louisiana states:

“One of the best ways to mitigate environmental impacts from the sand and gravel industry in Louisiana is to establish a set of volun­tary best management practices for the industry to adhere. This can be accomplished by initiating good management practices, educating our operators, and taking a more proactive stance in minimizing the problems of the past that have hurt this industry’s image. We, as industry leaders, need to be actively engaged in addressing issues and taking precautions and preemptive measures. Damage control after the fact is destructive. The world is changing and we must be adaptive to these changes – good management practices in an environmentally friendly manner are synonymous with good business practice.”

I’m sure Louisiana has problems just like Texas. But I sure do like the tone of this and what they are trying to accomplish. If Texas has a similar initiative, I can’t find it.

Posted 8/19/18 by Bob Rehak

355 days since Hurricane Harvey

Researching Sand-Mining Best Management Practices, or Lack Thereof, In Texas

“Say what?”

House Bill 571 became the law of Texas in 2011. It requires sand miners to register with the state and follow “applicable environmental laws and rules.” So I put on my Sherlock Holmes hat and tried to determine what those were. After weeks of searching, I had my first clue as to why sand mines on the San Jacinto don’t follow guidelines that are common in other states.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) website is bewildering. TCEQ documents posted online contain:

Simply googling “Texas sand mining best management practices (BMPs)” does not hit the mother lode. So you keep on searching, not knowing whether the information doesn’t exist or you’re just searching the wrong way. You keep thinking, “With a state as business-friendly as Texas, there must be a clear, simple articulation of guidelines somewhere!”

I finally gave up and asked someone at TCEQ to just send me environmental rules, regulations and BMPs for sand mining. It took three tries, but yesterday, I finally got usable information. And the answer is…! THERE ARE NONE FOR THIS PART OF TEXAS … with the exception of  a few EPA guidelines about refueling trucks within sand mines, some elements of the Clean Water Act, and a couple pages in a 133 page application.

The person helping me at TCEQ said that there appear to be:

  • No rules that include a setback distance between a sand mine and the San Jacinto River.
  • No restrictions on TCEQ permitting of sand mines in flood prone areas.

Texas does have guidelines for sand mining along the Brazos River in the John Graves scenic area of the Edwards Aquifer. However, they don’t apply to the San Jacinto River. And they have huge loopholes. For instance, see section 2.5 Stream Crossings and Buffers on Page 8. “Haul-road crossings through the buffer zones should be constructed ONLY WHEN NECESSARY [emphasis added].” 

The closest we come to articulating BMPs for sand mining along the San Jacinto: two pages within a PERMIT APPLICATION (see pages 62 and 63 of 166) to operate a sand mine. There are also some attachments to a letter from the TCEQ to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers about the nationwide permitting process in Texas (see image at top of page). Neither of these are intuitive places to search for BMPs.

The experience of researching Best Management Practices for sand mining in Texas reminded me of filling out an IRS tax form – minus all the clarity in the IRS forms.

This lack of clarity is a big part of our problem in my opinion.

So what is a burly, cigar-chomping sand miner wearing a Caterpillar gimme cap on a bulldozer supposed to do? Put the dozer in gear and make money, of course. End of rant.

Posted on June 28, 2018 by Bob Rehak

303 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Do Local Sand Mines Follow Best Management Practices?

Note: This is the first article in a series on sand mine best management practices. It focuses on insufficient natural buffers between the mines and the San Jacinto river. Subsequent posts will focus on land clearing, site reclamation practices, and more.

A comparison of sand mining actual and best management practices found that performance shortfalls in local mines exacerbate sedimentation in the San Jacinto River, contrary to assertions by the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association (TACA) that sand mining has environmental benefits.

Proximity of mines to San Jacinto River in non-flood conditions.

TACA claims that when a river floods, the current is so weak that sand and sediment are deposited inside of mines. An analysis of satellite and aerial photos shows, though, that the current is strong enough to break dikes, destroy roads, re-route the river through mines, and carry sediment downstream.

TACA sounds eerily reminiscent of Richard Pryor when his wife caught him in bed with another woman. “Who you going to believe? Me or your lyin’ eyes?”

In at least one case, a broken dike has gone unrepaired for years while pollution continues to escape into the San Jacinto, the main source of water for Lake Houston and millions of people.

Dangers of Sand Mining

Numerous states and countries acknowledge the following risks of sand mining. Most impose regulations on the industry because sand and silt washed downstream from mines can:

  • Impair water quality
  • Increase water treatment costs
  • Impair wildlife and fish habitat
  • Reduce carrying capacity of rivers and streams
  • Reduce the volume of lakes
  • Block drainage ditches
  • Contribute to flooding
  • Impose dredging expenses on taxpayers
  • Ruin recreation

Louisiana: Leader in Communicating Best Practices

The Louisiana Best Management Practices Guide to sand mining is one of the most concise, candid and clearly written guides in the world. Government and industry developed it together. The refreshingly honest introduction states:

  • “Sand and gravel mining operations can potentially cause off-site impacts to water quality if site planning and BMPs are not factored into every aspect of the mining operation.”
  • “…BMPs … should be utilized … to prevent pollutants from leaving the mining operation.”
  • “Siltation is considered the highest nonpoint source priority of concern in wetland areas and the second highest priority affecting lakes (1992 Report to Congress).”
  • “Mining related activities have been estimated to cause 7 percent of the nation’s nonpoint source impacts to lakes and 17 percent to coastal waters.”

Comparing Texas Practices to Other Areas’

Texas does not make it clear what the state’s best management practices (BMPs) for sand mines are. So how do sand mines along the San Jacinto measure up to other states’ and countries’ guidelines? Not well.

One focus of their BMPs is the use of buffer zones, setbacks and strips of vegetation to reduce erosion and control sedimentation. The minimum distance between mine and river in most cases is 100 feet. Some specify more.

  • Alaska, for instance, discourages mines from locating within 1000 feet of a public water source, i.e., the San Jacinto which feeds Lake Houston, the main drinking water source for millions of people. The minimum near other bodies of water in Alaska is 200 feet.
  • Malaysia specifies a 50 meter setback (164 feet) from all river channels.
  • Australia prohibits sand mining in sensitive areas altogether.

In Texas along the San Jacinto, miners often excavate to within 40-50 feet of rivers, and remove vegetation to build dirt roads on the remaining narrow strip between the mine and the river. These thin, sandy barriers provide little defense against floods. They have been repeatedly breached, as you will see below. The river often runs right through mines, carrying sand and sediment downstream.

Types of Barriers against Sedimentation

Louisiana mandates a minimum 100-foot buffer adjacent to perennial streams. The state recommends a dual defense against sedimentation: vegetation and structural measures. Their best practices guide states, “Vegetation is an inexpensive and effective way to protect soil from erosion. It also decreases erosion from flowing water by reducing its velocity. Roots hold soil and increase infiltration. Topsoil should be added where existing soils are not suitable for adequate vegetative growth.”

Vegetative controls include:

  • Maintaining buffer zones between mine and river
  • Sod stabilization techniques. Sodding can be more than 99 percent effective in reducing erosion.
  • Protection of trees involves preserving and protecting selected trees that exist on the site prior to development.
  • Temporary and permanent seeding

Structural controls include:

  • Diversion ridges, berms or channels of stabilized soil
  • Silt fences
  • Sediment basins with banks sloped at 2:1 or less
  • Dikes – Must be well compacted and vegetated, with an outlet pipe or coarse aggregate spillway
  • Riprap protection – at the outlet end of culverts or channels to reduce the depth, velocity and energy of water so that the flow will not erode the receiving stream.
  • Check dams – Small dams less than 2 feet high constructed across swales or drainage ditches to reduce flow velocity and erosion.
  • Aggregate stabilized site entrances – at least 50 feet long to reduce sediment tracked onto public roads. Tire washing may also be needed.
  • Good housekeeping practices for fuel, debris, sediment from unstabilized areas, etc.
  • Post-construction stormwater management measures
  • Retention ponds
  • Vegetated swales and natural depressions that filter sediments from runoff with side slopes of 4:1 or less.

A Visual Comparison

Note the images below. The first represents the ideal; it is taken from the Louisiana BMP guide. The rest are from the West Fork of the San Jacinto in the last three years.

Image of ideal stream bank from Louisiana Sand Mining Best Practices Guide. Note vegetation, grass, gradual slope and aquatic plants.

West Fork Sand Mine,  9/14/2018. During Harvey, 150,000 cubic feet per second came rushing down this narrow channel and flooded 20 square miles of exposed sand in more than a dozen different mines.

Consequences of NOT Following BMPs

The image above and the following images all come from a small area of investigation shown below.

2.1 miles from Northpark Drive and US59, and 3.1 miles upstream from the US59 bridge.

The following images demonstrate what happens when miners work too close to the river. Numbers on the first image correspond to close-ups that follow.

Inundation of sand mines during Harvey on 8/30/17. Numbers correspond to close-ups below.  All photos courtesy of Google Earth.

1 – Rapids within sand mine.

2 – Water rushing into mine, creating turbulence.

3 – Water takes a shortcut across meander through mine.

4 – Washed out road INSIDE sand mine during Harvey. 

5 -Sand bars within sand mine in conjunction with ruptured dikes prove sand was carried downstream. Photo taken on 10/28/2017 (after Harvey).

In a white paper circulated among Texas state legislators called The Societal and Environmental Benefits of Sand MiningTACA insists, “When [water invades a sand mine during a flood], the velocity of the water slows significantly, losing its ability to keep sediments in suspension and the stream or river begins to deposit its sediment load. When flood waters back into an area where a sand and gravel pit is located, the pit becomes a sediment trap for the flood waters and their sediments.” This series of photos directly refute TACA’s claims.

Why do we allow sand mines to operate in areas that flood repeatedly and violently, so near the drinking water source for millions of people?

Un-repaired Dike Still Leaks Sediment after 3 Years

Are the mines following Best Management Practices? The dike on the right in the images below ruptured in 2015 and still has not been repaired. Note sediment streaming into the West Fork.

Dike ruptured during flood in 2015 (see image below). It continues to spew sediment into the river.

Geologists say that once a river “captures” a sand mine, it repeatedly tries to take that same route in subsequent floods. This is a direct consequence of mining too close to the river. 

Cautionary Advice from India

Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines from India state, “Floodplain Extraction should be set back from the Main Channel. In a dynamic alluvial system, it is not uncommon for meanders to migrate across a floodplain. In areas where sand and gravel occurs on floodplains or terraces, there is a potential for the river channel to migrate toward the pit. If the river erodes through the area left between the excavated pit and the river, there is a potential for “river capture,” a situation where the low-flow channel is diverted though the pit. In order to avoid river capture, excavation pits should be set back from the river to provide a buffer, and should be designed to withstand the 100-year flood… Adequate buffer widths and reduced pit slope gradients are preferred over engineered structures which require maintenance in perpetuity.”

Sand Miners Externalize Costs

Because these West Fork sand mines did not consider violent floods in their design and construction criteria, taxpayers downstream bear the cost of remediation. Dredging of the West Fork will cost tens of millions of dollars – for the initial 2.1 mile phase alone! That doesn’t even include recurring and unnecessarily high costs of water treatment because of turbidity.

Posted 6/24/18 by Bob Rehak

299 days since Hurricane Harvey