1/22/25 – The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has proposed new Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Sand Mines. But they do nothing to address flood risk from sand mining here in the Lake Houston Area.
Sediment pollution from upstream sand mines has contributed to flooding more than 13,000 homes and businesses in the Lake Houston Area. Yet despite more than a billion dollars in damages and almost $200 million spent on dredging in the last five years, fewer than 100 people have protested the new, but ineffective BMPs as of noon today.
To encourage more people to get involved, below I’ve summarized the problems and suggested solutions that you can submit verbatim. The process should take less than two minutes.
The Problem
Local sand-mining practices accelerate and add to the rate of natural erosion. That helps create sediment blockages that reduce conveyance of rivers, back water up, and build higher flood peaks.
Sand deposited during Hurricane Harvey was 8-10 feet above the water line in places. It backed water up into Kingwood, Atascocita and Humble, and stretched 3,400 feet.East Fork Mouth Bar after Imelda grew 3,700 feet.
Both of these blockages have since been dredged. But more sand continues coming with each new flood due to questionable management practices at upstream sand mines. See suggestions below.
Be Part of The Solution
Please add your voice to those protesting the omission of BMPs that address our issues. Providing public comment. Only three days remain before the deadline Friday night.
It should only take a minute or two. Follow these simple steps.
TCEQ’s attempt to create a helpful list of Best Management Practices for Aggregate Production Operations is an exercise in willful blindness. It completely ignores issues mandated by the legislature, as well as others that reduce water quality and increase flood risk.
The issues you do address are addressed in a vague and/or self-evident manner that render them inadequate.
In addition to more specificity, I would like to see BMPs that help mines in the Houston region avoid inundation and pit capture.
Most mines on the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto were inundated last year. Floodwaters swept industrial waste downstream into Lake Houston, the drinking water supply for two million people.
The rivers also broke through the dikes of at least six of those mines. The rivers now run through pits instead of around them. This flushes sand and sediment downstream, where it reduces conveyance, blocks drainage and contributes to flooding.
Addressing these issues requires building mines on higher ground, farther from rivers.
I recommend doubling the minimum setback from 100 to 200 feet for mines in the San Jacinto watershed. That will put the mines on higher ground, farther from the floodway.
I also recommend leaving forests undisturbed in the widened buffer zone. That will reduce the velocity of floodwater and, with it, the volume of sediment carried downstream. It will also decrease the likelihood of pit capture, by increasing the amount of time that it takes a river to migrate into a mine. The forest will also help capture sediment that may escape a mine.
Finally, the wider buffers will give rivers more room to spread out during floods. Right now, dikes are supposed to protect mines from a hundred-year flood. But when mines build tall dikes on one side of a river, they double the volume of water flooding the other side. And when they build tall dikes on both sides of a river, water has no room to spread out without invading the mines. The tall dikes effectively eliminate ALL floodplains and turn rivers into erosive firehoses.
I have attached a PDF that shows visual proof of the need for BMPs that address our main sand-mining concerns in the San Jacinto Watershed.
I also support the concerns and list of alternative BMPs supported by Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining.
Send a message to Austin that you want the protection you pay taxes for. Get all your friends, neighbors and relatives to submit comments, too.
For more information about sand mining in the Houston region as it relates to the Proposed BMPs, consult these posts.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Harvey-SanJac_437-Mouth-Bar-Cropped.jpg?fit=1988%2C853&ssl=18531988adminadmin2025-01-22 15:55:152025-01-22 16:44:40Reduce Flood Risk from Sand Mining in Two Minutes
1/6/2025 – Before New Year’s Day, I posted about the lack of best management practices (BMPs) at the Foster Elementary reconstruction site in Kingwood. A contractor let sediment-laden runoff escape the site, fill the street and flow into unprotected storm drains. Photos taken yesterday after a storm front passed show that it’s still happening.
Partial List of Sediment Control BMPs for Construction Sites
The EPA considers sediment a major source of pollution. And not following best practices to control it can clog storm drains, channels and streams, raising flood risk. I quote from the Agency’s brochure: “Sediment fills up storm drains and catch basins to carry water away from roads and homes, which increases the potential for flooding.”
To reduce the potential for flooding, the EPA recommends several best practices. They include, but are not limited to:
1. Silt Fencing around the perimeter to intercept and slow down runoff, so sediment can settle before water flows off the construction site.
2. Stormwater-Inlet Protection, such as sandbags, placed around stormwater inlets to capture sediment before it enters the storm drainage system.
3. Sediment Control Logs (Wattles) filled with straw or other materials to capture sediment before it leaves the site.
4. Mulching with organic materials such as straw, hay, or wood chips to help to protect soil.
5. Sediment Basins & Traps to capture sediment from runoff until it settles out of suspension.
6. Erosion Control Mats or Blankets to stabilize disturbed soil and prevent erosion.
7. Stormwater Diversion Channels to direct runoff to sediment-control ponds or a controlled discharge areas.
8. Construction Entrance/Exit Stabilization with gravel to minimize tracking of mud onto roads from construction vehicles.
9. Geotextiles to stabilize soil.
Slight Improvement, But Still Lacking
After the last post, the Humble ISD contractor did add straw wattles (#3 – sediment control logs) in front of the main construction site entrance.
But storm drain inlets remained unprotected. And part of the perimeter lacked silt fence.
As a result, sediment still escaped the site, entered the street, and entered the storm sewer. See the photos below taken by Chris Summers, a local resident and retired commercial photographer, after a recent storm front dropped .84 inches of rain on 1/5/25.
Entrance to construction site shows wattle roll that was not present for previous storm.
While that showed some improvement, other parts of the perimeter still lacked protection and let water escape.
No silt fence.Wattle roll did not cover the critical area, letting sediment laden water escape into storm sewer.Also, inlet not protected with sand bags.
Summers says he took the photos above after the storm front on 1/5/25 passed through.
How much effort does it take to drop a couple sand bags next to a storm sewer inlet? Could it cost much more than coffee and a danish? There’s just no excuse for this.
Sound Off to the School Board
I have already emailed members of the Humble ISD school board and suggest you do, too. We have lots of good contractors in the area that know how to follow best practices.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/6/25with photos by Chris Summers
2687 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/079-031-storm-runoff.jpg?fit=1000%2C563&ssl=15631000adminadmin2025-01-06 20:38:462025-01-07 06:53:31Contractor Only Partially Complies with BMPs at Foster Elementary Reconstruction Site
12/13/24 – Proposed new Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sand mines ignore what miners are supposed to do in the case of pit captures. “Pit capture” happens when a river breaks through the dikes of a sand mine. It can have serious consequences including, but not limited to:
Increased erosion and river instability
Altered hydrology
Water quality degradation
Habitat loss and ecosystem disruption
Infrastructure risks
Channel realignment
Economic impacts (cost of mitigation)
Identifying Pit-Capture Pros and Cons
In some circumstances, pit capture can also produce benefits. The balance between benefits and risks depends on the specific geomorphological and ecological context of the river and the sand mine pit. To maximize benefits while mitigating risks, scientists recommend:
Performing a hydrological and ecological assessment before and after capture.
Using adaptive management strategies to guide the development of the captured pit.
Integrating the site into regional plans for flood control, habitat creation, or recreation.
However, the new TCEQ sand mine BMPs mention no such studies, despite the fact that at least six pits were captured on the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto during floods this year. Plus, consider this. The City is getting ready to spend another $34 million to dredge another million cubic yards of sand from the confluence of the two forks.
Instead, the new TCEQ BMPs emphasize concepts under headings such as “Be a Good Neighbor,” “Practice Good Housekeeping,” and “Select Appropriate Equipment.” This is stuff most guys learned in a middle school shop class. Under “Good Housekeeping,” one recommendation urges miners to adequately maintain sanitary facilities. But they forgot the “Wash hands after using a port-a-potty” requirement.
My overwhelming impression after reading the new BMPs was a yawn. Why bother?
The new BMPs are more notable for what they don’t include than what they do include.
And they don’t include anything about the B-52 sized elephant in the broom closet – pit capture.
River now cuts through Hallett Pit on West Fork and has abandoned its original channel (right).Pit containing wastewater now has a more direct route to river when it breaches. Note repair by maintenance road.The pit above is just one of many at the Hallett West Fork Mine which spans several square miles.
I discovered the pit capture above in June of this year. It likely occurred in the May flood. And Hallett has done nothing to mitigate it since.
Perhaps they and the TCEQ feel the benefits outweigh the consequences. But of course, they aren’t footing the $34 million dredging bill.
In August of this year, TCEQ issued a report on another pit capture slightly downstream from here. It didn’t mention this pit even though it was open at the time and multiple people filed complaints. Nor did it mention the term “pit capture.” And the report made several other mistakes. For instance, Hallett claimed the expert witness TCEQ identified works for them, the but the TCEQ listed the employee as working for a Hallett competitor. No wonder the Texas Sunset Commission called TCEQ a reluctant regulator.
Leave a Public Comment
So what’s a mere citizen who enjoys clean water to do?
The TCEQ is soliciting public comment on their new BMPs for sand mines. I know what my comment will be about. If you wish to leave a public comment:
Feedback or comment must be provided to Jess Robinson, MC 175, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. Comments may also be submitted electronically. To be considered for this project, input must be received by 11:59 p.m. on January 24, 2025, and should reference “APO BMP List Proposal.”
Construction is always the riskiest period during a development project. Especially when you clearcut 533 acres and get 17 inches of rain … in a week. However, thanks to best practices and luck, most people surrounding the Sila development in Huffman narrowly escaped what could have become a major disaster.
As the people in Woodridge Village learned repeatedly on far less rain, best practices can make all the difference. They lived near a development where stormwater detention basins were not built before the rain; the people near Sila did.
The new 553-acre Sila Project in Huffman on the East Fork of the San Jacinto seems to have had considerably less impact on neighbors. This is a story of people caught between a rising river and sheet flow coming down a slope.
Sila’s Similarities, Differences with Woodridge
Several similarities with the Woodridge project exist. Sila is big. Built on an identical slope. And clearcut. But after 17 inches of rain last week, the outcome was dramatically different.
Instead of flooding hundreds of homes below the development as Woodridge did, most residents near Sila only got water in their yards. One fish pond was ruined. At least two vehicles flooded. And at least one garage flooded.
The big differences between Sila and Woodridge?
Sila had already built stormwater detention basins. When the rain hit, a series of berms and ditches helped funnel runoff to the basins and away from neighbors. Silt fences intercepted much of the runoff. And crews replaced the fences when silt started to spill over the top.
Before looking at pictures, first let’s look at some stats that put the rainfall in perspective.
5- To 25-Year Rainfall
After Sila weathered this year’s January rains, it got slammed again in the week between April 29 and May 5 with almost 17 inches of rainfall.
That included 7 inches in one day. And half of that fell in one hour.
Of the 17 inches, 7.12 inches fell on 5/2/24 alone, with 3.48 inches in one hour.
NOAA defines a 7-day/17.1 inch rain in this area as a 25-year rainfall. Ditto for a one-hour 3.88 inch rain. Seven inches in one day, however, is only a 5-year event.
However, the East Fork peaked at FM1485 at a level equal to a 500-year flood according to Harris County Flood Control’s Flood Warning System. That’s because even heavier rain fell upstream in less time. It then reached FM1485 when heavy rains were falling there.
East Fork peaked over 77 feet at FM1485 on May 5.According to HCFCD, 77 feet is more than a 500-year rain.
Also, according to HCFCD, to date, the area near FM1485 has received more than two thirds of a year’s average annual rainfall in about one third of the year – 34.72 inches!
Pictures Taken During Week of Heavy Rains
Northwood Country Estates resident Max Kidd provided many of the following photos taken at ground level during the flood.
They show mainly severe street flooding. Thankfully, Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey’s crews had just finished cleaning roadside ditches. Otherwise these photos might have told a much worse story.
Water poured out of Sila across Northwood Country Road on 5/2, the day before the big rain.
On 5/3 and 5/4/24, Kidd took these photos.
Flooded home and vehicles.
Kidd believes the home above likely flooded from the East Fork. However, Sila runoff may have added to the flood depth.
Photos Taken After the Storm
Sila is so big that it’s hard to get it all in one shot. The aerial shots below were all taken on 5/6/24 after the rain ended.
Looking E across the southern portion of Sila. St. Tropez, a separate development is at very top of frameacross FM2100. But Sila drains to the East Fork, and St. Tropez drains to Luce Bayou.Luce later re-enters the East Fork near its mouth at the headwaters of Lake Houston.Sila had a swale behind the erosion to slow water running down a hill out of frame to the left. However, that swale filled in with sediment, according to Kidd. And water then flowed into a ditch behind the fence filling it with sediment, too. Still, some sediment flooded into the backyards of neighbors.A series of detention basins caught and channeled runoff through the development.Shortly after the rain ended, it appears that bulldozers graded perpendicular to slopes to help retain or slow down any additional rain that might fall.
In the photo below, also note the forested corridors that break up Sila runoff. While large portions have been clear cut, those that haven’t help retain sediment.
Detention basin was holding water and emptying it slowly, presumably at the pre-development runoff rate.Still, some sediment escaped the development. Note roadside ditch filling in at peak of triangle.
As I left after this photo session, I noticed workers replacing and reinforcing the silt fence above. But the photo below shows the volume of the sediment that escaped despite their efforts. A lot!
Drainage had filled in completely.Kidd’s fish pond is no longer habitableby fishdue to Sila runoff that polluted it.Lowest of the detention basins at southwestern edge of development was sending stormwater into a wetland mitigation bank before it reached the East Fork.Contractors had put silt fence at the outfall of the detention basin to help retain sediment.But then they pumped water toward the river, through a mass of muck, creating more erosion.(Can’t win ’em all.)Along the way to the river, some of the dirt will get a chance to settle out in the wetland mitigation bank.Regardless, the East Fork was running orange on 5/6/24.
No doubt, several sources contributed to the discoloration. They include Sila, other upstream developments, sand mines and natural, river-bank erosion.
Few developments that I have observed go to as much trouble to control runoff as Sila. And few bother to leave trees these days. I wish more did. We might have less sediment clogging our rivers and contributing to downstream flooding.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/9/24
2445 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240410-DJI_20240410115740_0182_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2024-05-09 07:03:052024-05-11 21:05:09They Clearcut 533 Acres, Then Got 17 Inches of Rain
To compensate for the potential shortfall, Commissioners established a flood-resilience trust with money from other Harris County departments and changed equity guidelines in June.
To help you follow this story, I make quarterly FOIA requests for Harris County Flood Control District spending and post the analyses on a dedicated funding page.
Sand-Mining Best Management Practices
Activists led by the Lake Houston Area Flood Prevention Initiative and the Bayou Land Conservancy petitioned the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to establish best management practices for sand mines in the San Jacinto watershed. We didn’t get everything we wanted, but we got a vast improvement over what we had. And the new BMPs may help reduce erosion that contributes to future floods in this area.
West Fork Sand Mine illustrates need for vegetative controls to reduce erosion.
May 9, 2021, was 1349 days after Hurricane Harvey ravaged Texas and the Gulf Coast. That’s the number of days it took the US and its allies to win World War II. But during that time we’ve had few victories in the fight against future flooding in the Lake Houston Area with the exception of dredging, So far, we’ve mainly completed studies. And many of those are still in the works.
For instance, the City of Houston has been studying ways to increase the release capacity of the Lake Houston Dam. Right now, the release capacity is one-fifteenth that of the gates on Lake Conroe. That makes it difficult to shed water quickly before and during floods. FEMA gave the City money to study the problem, but is still finalizing recommendations. The City hopes to make an announcement in January.
The Texas Attorney General is still suing the Triple PG Sand Mine in Porter on behalf of the TCEQ. There has been little movement on the case in the last 18 months. The mine’s owner changed legal counsel in July 2020. A TCEQ representative says the AG has not given up. The two sides are still in discovery.
Approximately 1700 homeowners in the Lake Houston Area sued sand mines for contributing to flooding during Harvey. The cases were consolidated in the 281st Harris County District Court under Judge Sylvia Matthews. She recently set deadlines in the first half of next year for motions, depositions, joinder, expert witness testimony and more. The case is known as “Harvey Sand Litigation.”
Various lawsuits against the SJRA for flooding during Harvey are still working their way through the legal system.
Kingwood residents reached a settlement with Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors this year over two floods that damaged hundreds of homes in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest during 2019. The incidents had to do with development of Woodridge Village, just across the Harris/Montgomery County line.
East Fork Dredging. Photographed in early December between Huffman and Royal Shores in Kingwood.Looking south toward Lake Houston.
Bens Branch and Taylor Gully Cleanouts
In Kingwood, HCFCD finished excavating both Bens Branch and Taylor Gully to help restore their conveyance. Through gradual sediment built up, both had been gradually reduced to a 2-year level of service in places. That means they would come out of their banks after a 2-year rain.
Final phase of Bens Branch maintenance between Kingwood Drive and Rocky Woods. Note Kingwood High School in upper right.
GMA-14 will take a final vote on January 5 on the final DFCs. You still have time to protest.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/31/2021
1585 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/20210303-RJR_5778.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-12-31 10:48:382021-12-31 11:09:51Top Stories of 2021 in Review
For those wishing to submit comments about sand-mining Best Management Practices (BMPs), but who may feel daunted by the complexity, I’ve compiled a list. If you use a computer-based email application, you should be able to submit it with one click.
It should address and title an email, then automatically insert the recommended text shown below. Don’t forget to insert your own contact information at the end of the email, before hitting the send button.
I have not tested the automated link with all email apps, browsers and platforms. So if you run into problems, just cut and paste the text between the separators below. Again, don’t forget to add your contact information.
Please share this with all your friends, family and neighbors. Ask them to submit the comments and share it, too.
Deadline: 8/19/21.
Dear TCEQ,
After reviewing the Draft Proposed BMPs for Sand Mining in the San Jacinto River Basin, I have several comments that I would like you to consider.
Geographic area should include “all tributaries draining into Lake Houston,” not a limited subset.
Include provision that steps up enforcement. Operators already routinely violate too many of these BMPs.
Introduction: Put the need for BMPs in perspective by including a sentence or two that talks about the $222 million spent by Federal, State, and Local governments to dredge the San Jacinto.
Introduction: Add this thought. “The presence of the Lake Conroe dam can lull operators on the West Fork into a false sense of security. During Harvey, Lake Conroe released 79,000 CFS. All by itself, that would have qualified as the ninth largest flood in West Fork history, even if not a drop of rain had fallen anywhere else in the watershed. Such high rates of conveyance lead to high rates of erosion and sediment transport that require operators to exercise extreme caution in this environment and closely follow the BMPs below.”
Introduction, include a sentence to this effect. “When deviating from standard BMPs, the operator must file documentation with the TCEQ which will be posted for public inspection and obtain written approval from the TCEQ.”
Introduction: In the bullet point after “Geographic Location,” replace “hydrogeology” with “Surface and groundwater hydrology.”
Introduction: After the sentence which ends with “…implemented by the sand mining operators,” Include the following. “All BMPs must be submitted to the Executive Director (ED) of the program for review and approval.”
2.1: Replace “next anticipated storm” with “must repair or replace controls immediately when damage is noted during weekly inspections.”
2.1.1: Define the 100-foot buffer zone as “…measured from the stream bank to the closest disturbed area…”
2.1.1: After “and 35 feet for intermittent streams” insert the following: “Wider buffer zones might be necessary where riverbank erosion rates are high.”
2.2: Change Site operators must “inspect disturbed areas” to “inspect and document disturbed areas.”
2.2: After “…All structural controls must be in compliance with local rules and permitting requirements,” add: “including special restrictions for construction in a FEMA-defined floodway.”
2.2: Require that operators inspect all structural controls “once every seven (7) calendar days.”
2.2.5: Specify that “operators must measure and document the depth of sediment basins at least once a year, as well as before and after major floods.”
2.2.5: Add: “Special consideration must be given to stability of the outer dike (or levee) separating the pits from the vegetated buffer zone adjacent to the river. Lateral erosion of the river can result in breaching of the dike and potentially rerouting the river through the pit area (pit capture).”
2.2.5: Specify what operators must do “prior to discharge” to have a “permitted” discharge.”
2.2.6: In the sentence that ends with “…will not erode the receiving stream,” add “…or adjacent properties.”
2.2.10: Detention ponds big enough to hold an inch of rain seem wholly inadequate in an area where Atlas-14 specifies 16.9 inches for a 100-year event. Harris County Flood Control District recommends minimum detention volumes for developments at .65 acre feet per acre. That’s about 8 inches of rainfall. Please modify required depth.
3.1: Specify that TCEQ must approve the mine plan.
3.1: Mention that building mines in floodways requires extreme precautions for virtually every facet of mining. (This section currently makes no mention of floodways, yet virtually all San Jacinto mines are at least partially built in floodways.)
3.1: Replace the sentence that starts with “An evaluation of…” with “The susceptibility for erosion of on-site soils and lateral erosion rates of adjacent rivers must also be known in the pre-planning stages. If parts of the proposed mine are located in a FEMA-defined floodway, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice must demonstrate that the proposed encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels or erosion of upstream, downstream, or adjacent properties.”
3.2.1: After the sentence that ends with “…other than TCEQ hold jurisdiction,” replace the next sentence with “Additional erosion controls or increased buffer widths may be needed where river erosion rates are high, receiving streams are listed in the Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d), or critical facilities (e.g. bridges, pipeline or utility corridors) are adjacent to the proposed operation.”
3.2.1: Complete the sentence that starts with “Understanding site drainage can be obtained by using…” with “existing LiDAR and aerial photo images.” Delete the part about USGS Topographic maps which show a series of contour lines. Then modify the next sentence in that paragraph to read, “These images (combined with lower resolution USGS topographic maps) can be used to determine slope of the ground surface through the site to identify drainage patterns.”
3.2.2: After the sentence that ends with “…water supply wells are located nearby,” add this sentence: “If present, waste management units must be located a minimum horizontal distance from adjacent water wells, in accordance with 16 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 76.”
3.3: Say “Topsoil material MUST be temporarily stockpiled for future use in post-mining activities.”
3.3: Add this thought. “Stockpiles may not be located in floodways.”
3.3.2: After, “…diverting upslope water around a planned area for disturbance is also good practice,” add “however, care must be taken to not have the diverted water result in increased downslope flooding.”
3.3.3: Change the sentence that starts with “Stockpile protection is most effective when…”, so that it reads, “Stockpile protection is most effective when stockpiles are not located on the FEMA-defined floodway, are located away from concentrated flows of storm water, drainage courses, and inlets, and when are properly protected with perimeter sediment barriers and covered.”
3.3.3: After the sentence that ends with “…geoscientists certifying BMPs at the site,” add another sentence that reads, “Additional buffer width or structures may be required where critical structures such as pipeline or utility corridors are located.”
4.1: Add: “Operators should not dredge a vertical wall at the edge of buffer zones. This can lead to cave ins at the edges that decrease the width of the buffer zones. It may also not leave enough room to taper slopes enough to plant vegetation in the post-mining phase.”
4.5: Add “All fuel storage tanks must be located outside of floodways.”
4.5: Add “New floodplain and floodway maps for the San Jacinto region should be released sometime in 2022 or 2023. Floodways are expected to expand by approximately 50%. Take this into account when planning placement of storage tanks.”
4.5: Add “Remove all fuel storage equipment and tanks before abandoning a mine.”
4.6: Add new section that includes this thought.
5: Change the first sentence in the introduction to say, “The Post-Mining Phase stabilization plan must be approved by TCEQ, subject to input from the landowner and downstream property owners.”
5.1: Change “may” to “must” in the second sentence and delete several subsequent words so that it reads, “The following guidelines MUST be used to meet site stabilization objectives.”
6: Replace the entire introduction with the following: “Prior to operations beginning at a sand mining facility site or portion(s) of the site, an initial stabilization report must be submitted to the executive director for review and approval at (Address). The Initial Stabilization Report must, at a minimum, include and demonstrate that the items described below in section 6.1 Report Requirements will be addressed. This initial report will be updated annually to reflect current mobilization and reclamation areas.”
6.1: Add: “After completion of mining, remove all vehicles and debris that could be swept downstream in a flood.”
6.1: Under Structural Controls, after the sentence that ends with “…manage remaining onsite drainage,” add another sentence. “This includes making sure the outer dike (or levee) that separates the abandoned pits from the adjacent river is not breached due to lateral erosion of the river.”
6.1: Under High Walls, after “The permittee shall demonstrate that all remaining highwalls are stable and safe,” add the following. “This may mean leaving enough buffer between adjoining properties to taper slopes to a gradient that will allow the planing of vegetative controls that prevent erosion.”
6.1: Add: “Conservation easements on buffer areas, placed before mining, could be utilized to ensure community protection. Conservation easements placed post-reclamation would ensure that site ecology would be monitored, and restoration activities completed. An accredited land trust involved as a conservation partner would provide third-party documentation of adherence to the ecological practices outlined in these guidelines and provide community oversight that is currently missing.”
Glossary: Add “Floodway (Regulatory Floodway) – the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height.”
If you would like to provide your own public comments, email Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” by the close of business tomorrow.
This company lost property (red circles) when a sand mine left highwalls around it that collapsed into the pit.Photograph of same areas taken on 8/17/2021.
Each of the recommendations above has a story behind it like these pictures tell. Please help by submitting public comments.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/19/2021
1451 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20210817-DJI_0356.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2021-08-18 20:03:342021-08-18 22:19:10One-Click Submittal for Suggested Public Comments on Proposed Sand-Mining BMPs
This is the eighth in a series about Best Management Practices (BMPs) proposed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for sand mines in the San Jacinto watershed. This post will focus on the Final Stabilization Report that operators should file after mines cease operation.
As we saw yesterday, operators abandon many mines with little thought to stabilization, cleanup, or reclamation. When that happens, mines become a blight on communities and the environment.
Below is the text of proposed BMPs for the Final Stabilization Report. I will provide my comments at the end. Here is a link to the complete text of all BMPs proposed by the TCEQ.
Final Stabilization Report
BMPs within the final stabilization report show what the TCEQ values. One made me scratch my head and sigh “Huh?” Others represent glaring omissions. Below, see the proposed text.
6 Final Stabilization Report
Prior to operations terminating at a sand mining facility site or portion(s) of the site, a final stabilization report must be submitted to the executive director for review and approval at the following address:
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Stormwater Team Leader (MC-148)
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
The Final Stabilization Report must, at a minimum, include and demonstrate that the items described below in section 6.1 Report Requirements have been addressed.
6.1 Report Requirements
Vegetative Cover:
The operator shall establish perennial vegetative cover in all areas except where ponds, highwalls, permanent structures, or paved areas exist.
Perennial vegetative cover must be uniform (i.e. evenly distributed with no large bare areas) and have a density of at least 70 percent of the native background vegetative cover for the area.
Vehicle and Equipment Storage and Maintenance Areas:
The operator shall remove fluids and batteries from, and thoroughly clean all vehicles and equipment remaining on-site.
All fuel and chemicals must be removed from maintenance areas. Maintenance areas must be thoroughly cleaned and cleared. If maintenance areas are unpaved, these areas must have vegetative cover established.
Structural Controls:
All temporary structural controls must be removed from the site. Remaining permanent structural controls must be adequate to manage remaining on-site drainage.
Other:
Highwalls: The permittee shall demonstrate that all remaining highwalls are stable and safe.
Waste: All waste must be removed from the site and disposed in accordance with applicable TCEQ rules.
Landowner Agreement: If applicable, a copy of all existing agreements with landowners regarding stabilization of the site must be included.
Certification: The Final Stabilization Report must be signed and certified by a Texas licensed professional engineer or a Texas licensed professional geoscientist.
Comments
I have several comments on these.
The first has to do with vehicles and equipment “remaining” onsite. The BMP only requires that the operator must “thoroughly clean all vehicles and equipment remaining on site”! Really? Why not require removal?
This BMP lets operators turn old mines (and our river system) into junk yards. It’s a recipe for urban decay. Rivers flood periodically and will inundate the old equipment and abandoned vehicles. Simply cleaning it before it floods and rusts is a joke.
If operators don’t want the equipment and vehicles they should sell them to another operator or for scrap, not just clean them. Don’t turn them into a blight on the landscape or communities.
Sand mining equipment abandoned for years between downtown Humble and the West Fork.One operator’s idea of cleaning an excavator before abandoning it. This pit is now open to the river through erosion.
Second, the Final Stabilization report BMPs make no mention of removing debris.
Give me a home…where the deer and the antelope roam!Abandoned West Fork Mine.
Third, nor do they mention removing old buildings which could attract squatters and drug users.
Abandoned East Fork Mine with rusting buildings still on site.
Fourth, they make no mention of ensuring that outer dikes (or levees) separating abandoned pits from adjacent rivers are not breached due to lateral erosion of the river.
Abandoned mine after Harvey on right, West Fork on left.Same area today. Lateral erosion breached dike allowing sediment to escape.
Finally, as with the BMPs in previously covered sections, enforcement is an issue here, too.
So where’s the vegetative cover?The high wall of this pit has partially collapsed endangering properties around it and people standing near it. The wall was not properly stabilized.
Public Comments Due by 7/19/21
Please submit your thoughts on the Final Stabilization Report and other BMPs to the TCEQ. Email Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/17/2021
1449 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20210101-RJR_4113.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-08-17 13:14:112021-08-17 13:20:34BMPs for Final Stabilization Report Omit Crucial Elements
This is the seventh in a series about Best Management Practices (BMPs) proposed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for sand mines in the San Jacinto watershed. This post will focus on post-mining activities – what should happen after the mine ceases operations.
As with previous posts, I will summarize the proposed BMPs and provide my comments at the end. Here is a link to the exact text of the BMPs proposed by the TCEQ.
Proposed Post-Mining BMPs
5 Post-Mining Phase
Post-Mining stabilization may depend on an agreement with a landowner; sometimes mines lease land, but often they own it.
Activities may involve stabilization of inactive pits or borrow areas with herbaceous perennial plants.
Stabilizing the soil helps prevent wind and water erosion from causing damage. It also improves the site’s aesthetic appeal and its ability to support wildlife.
This practice applies to sand borrow areas where soil has been replaced to approximate original conditions as well as where the soil profile has been removed.
5.1 Site Stabilization
Evaluate soil characteristics to help stabilize soil and prevent erosion. The following guidelines will help meet site-stabilization objectives.
Slope stability: Cut-and-fill slopes must not exceed 2:1 to provide stability. Gentler slopes (3:1) support seeding efforts better. Avoid long slopes to help prevent erosion, and allow access for seeding, mulching, and maintenance.
Diversions: Construct diversions at tops of slopes to divert runoff away from the slope banks to a stable outlet.
Chutes: Construct aggregate lined chutes or equivalent to conduct concentrated flow of water to stable outlets.
Soil Conservation: Reclaim abandoned roads by reshaping, recontouring, and resurfacing with topsoil. Seed them to grow vegetation. Remove structures such as bridges, culverts, cattle guards, and signs. Remove remaining sand stockpiles to eliminate potential for offsite discharge during stormwater flows.
Operators must practice good soil conservation and seed bare ground during the post- mining phase to aid in minimizing and/or reducing the potential for stormwater to wash sediment loads from unvegetated areas into nearby waterways. Natural regeneration takes time and during that process much sediment could be washed away as sheet, rill or gully erosion over that period.
If active revegetation is selected, seeds that are conducive to the season and type of soil present must be used to vegetate any bare areas. Mulching (using hay or erosion control blankets, for example) also aids in seed germination and helps prevent or minimize sheet, rill and gully erosion. The NRCS office can help in the proper selection of the types of seeds and nutrients required for proper vegetative growth.
5.2 Debris and Vegetative Waste Removal
Typical debris from sand mining usually involves trees and shrubs generated from the land clearing stage of the mining process. These trees and shrubs may be placed back into the mined portion of the property and covered with overburden material.
This debris can also be stockpiled and burned if the operator complies with the outdoor burning rule in 30 TAC §§111.201 – 111.202. For more information about complying with the outdoor burning rule, operators must refer to the TCEQ guidance document Outdoor Burning in Texas (RG-049),
All waste disposal for the site must be done in accordance with TCEQ Municipal Solid Waste Rules found in 30 TAC Chapters 330, 328, and 332.
5.3 Property Grading
After completion of mining activities, operators grade the property. This minimizes non-point source stormwater pollution (i.e., sediment fines) from impacting potential pathways such as streams, creeks, tributaries, lakes, etc.
Abandoned sand mine in Plum Grove left in shambles. Not replanted. Stockpiles not removed. Equipment abandoned onsite.Same mine after heavy rains in early May. East Fork captured pit, swept through mine, and carried sediment downstream.More breaches in same mineand more sediment being swept downstream.
Rehak’s Concerns about Post-Mining BMPs
Again, these post-mining BMPs are good as far as they go. However, there are gaping omissions.
One has to do with enforcement. Another has to do with abandoned equipment. While I’ve seen one sand mine on the West Fork that took great care to convert the site to suitable and aesthetic post-mining use, typically miners just walk away from the property and leave it in shambles.
One of the biggest concerns not addressed here: abandoned equipment that leaks oil, creates eyesores, and poses safety hazards.
Abandoned mine on North Houston Avenue in Humble, just blocks from downtown.More equipment at same mine.Submerged excavator at abandoned West Fork MineAbandoned equipment at abandoned East Fork mine. Has since been removed after complaint to TCEQ.Abandoned dredge at same mine. Still there last time I looked in May.Near vertical slopes at this abandoned mine will probably never revegetate until erosion grinds them down.They also pose safety hazards for children playing nearby. This particular mine is between a paint-ball facility and a driving range.
Another post-mining issue is that reclamation depends on the good will of the miner. When all the profit has left the site, what incentive does he have to spend money to reclaim the land.
Without performance bonds to ensure post-mining reclamation, I fear that most miners will leave their property like they have in these pictures. Performance bonds are a common practice in the construction industry; they ensure satisfactory completion of a project.
Without such bonds, there can be virtually no enforcement of these post-mining BMPs. What leverage does the TCEQ have at that point? An operator could just declare bankruptcy, walk away from his obligations, and re-incorporate under a different name. The owner of one of the abandoned mines shown above has his name associated with dozens of defunct organizations.
Public Comments Due by August 19
Please submit your thoughts on Post-Mining and other BMPs to the TCEQ. Email Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/16/2021
1448 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20180617-SandMineHumble_27.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-08-16 15:05:172021-08-16 15:12:37TCEQ Proposes BMPs for Post-Mining Phase, But Is There Any Incentive to Comply at That Point?
This is the sixth in a series on Sand Mining Best Management Practices (BMPs) proposed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). BMPs help reduce erosion and prevent pollution, but these don’t address some important issues.
Strengthening them could reduce both the magnitude and toxicity of future floods. By reducing the amount of excess sediment that enters the river, we can help reduce blockages that contribute to flooding. And by better managing fuels, we can help reduce the toxicity of stormwater runoff.
Public comments are due by August 19, 2021.
Equipment at West Fork mine separating sand and gravel.
This post will focus on the actual mining phase. For brevity, I will summarize the BMPs. But here is a link to the exact proposed text. I will also provide suggestions for improvement at the end of this post for those committed individuals still with me.
Large parts of this section describe the mining process. Some have no BMPs. I have summarized the process and tried to condense the BMPs for readability.
As we saw in the post about setbacks, simply having the setback requirement is no guarantee operators will observe it. Likewise with some of these BMPs.
I never really thought about fuel storage at a sand mine until I read these BMPs. Then I reviewed by pictures and found that few mines would comply with these proposed rules.
4.1 Dredging Activities
After stripping away overburden, dredging begins. Suction and pumping send sand and other materials to a wash plant where they are separated using a sizing screen. Water generated during the pumping process can flow back into the pit. Sand is separated from gravel and stockpiled or sent to the pit via a sand flume. Sized aggregate is stockpiled onsite until sale.
4.2 Aggregate Wash Plant Area (Wet Processing)
Process wastewater results from the production, clean-up, or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, byproduct, or waste product. Treatment of wastewater before discharge to alter its characteristics is often required to achieve compliance. Examples of treatment include pH adjustment and removal of solids through either physical or chemical means prior to discharge to surface water.
BMPs required during this portion of the mining process include proper berming and/or ditching of pump water from the dredge to the wash plant and back into the open pit.
Pump water flows back into the pit to avoid unpermitted process water from escaping.
Runoff from the stockpiles must be routed to the open pit. Rainfall runoff from stockpiles must also go to the pit.
Other BMPs include silt fencing, berms, and vegetated buffers to ensure runoff from stockpiles is controlled.
4.3 Aggregate Processing Plant Area (Dry Processing)
Some sand used for fill, bedding, etc. does not require processing, but most does. Processing for specific markets involves the use of different combinations of washers, screens, and classifiers to segregate particle sizes.
After transport to the processing plant, the wet sand (raw feed) is transported to fixed or vibrating scalping screens that separate particle sizes. Oversize material may be directed to a crusher for size reduction to produce manufactured sand. Following crushing, material returns to the screening operation for additional sizing.
Alternatively, oversize material (greater than two inches) may be used for erosion control, reclamation, or other uses.
During screening, water sprayed onto material removes clays and other deleterious material.
After classification, sand is dewatered, then conveyed to storage bins or stockpiles.
4.4 Maintenance Area(s)
Controlling contamination of stormwater is critical. Stormwater quickly picks up pollutants from improperly stored materials or spills.
Train employees to cover toxic materials, channel stormwater, and perform preventative maintenance to reduce pollutant-laden stormwater.
A Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan must be in place to implement spill prevention and response. Ongoing inspection assures that site management is having the desired effect.
Locate fuel/oil storage/handling facilities away from the main sediment and wash-water retention facility.
Equip all such facilities with approved containment, monitoring, and collection systems.
No containment system here. No runoff provisions. Note rusting 55 gallon drum.
Store fuel above ground.
Route runoff from adjacent surfaces to a retention pond that can be cleaned after a spill.
4.5 Petroleum Product Storage and Handling Area
1. Regulatory Requirements
Operators must comply with all local, state, and federal requirements for petroleum storage tanks.
TCEQ requires registration of petroleum storage tanks.
Many BMPs address proper storage, handling, and transfer of petroleum products. Some of the more important BMPs include:
Signs must be posted instructing drivers to remain with their vehicles at all times to prevent overfill spillage.
Fuel delivery drivers must be chock wheels or lock brakes prior to offloading fuel, and ensure all hoses are disconnected prior to departure.
All fuel transfer areas must have secondary containment large enough to handle the largest single compartment of any tank truck in the facility. Alternatively, discharged material must be directed to a containment pond through the use of berms and swales.
Use drip pans or buckets at disconnection points of hoses and/or piping to collect drippage of oil.
Inspect all storage tanks once per month for signs of fatigue or failure that could lead to the spillage. Document these inspections. Promptly repair any leaking, corroded, or deteriorated tanks that could discharge oil.
Examine all pollution prevention equipment once per month to ensure it is in good operating condition. Fill out and keep onsite the monthly report.
Build secondary containment structures around all bulk oil and lubricant storage tanks. They must have sufficient capacity to contain any spills caused by rupture of the tank.
No containment structures.
All secondary containment structures must have 110 percent of the capacity of the largest storage tank and must be constructed of material impervious to tank contents.
Fuel stored out in open with no containment structure.
Containment structures must have manually operated gate valves to drain rainwater. Alternatively, keep a portable pump available to drain the containment area. All manually operated valves must be locked closed when not in use.
Inspect accumulated rainwater prior to discharge to ensure that there is no petroleum sheen on it. Water with a sheen must never be discharged. It may be pumped for disposal, allowed to evaporate, or removed by some other appropriate method. TCEQ requires documentation the visual inspection.
Oil Discharge Response and Cleanup
When an oil discharge happens within the plant area, all manpower and equipment available must be utilized to prevent the discharge from reaching a navigable waterway. Stop the discharge. Control its impact to the environment.
Procedure after a discharge:
The first person to notice the discharge must immediately notify the plant superintendent; the superintendent, in turn, must simultaneously implement best management practices to capture the discharge.
Depending on the volume of the spill, the operator is required to notify TCEQ immediately, or at least within 24 hours. Operators must refer to 30 TAC Chapter 327 for complete rules and regulations regarding spills.
If possible, prevent further leakage by plug sources and/or closing valves.
A front-end loader must be immediately available to build a berm or dike with dry sand to absorb the discharge if the secondary containment should fail.
In the event of a discharge on the concrete in the shop or other hard surface, the following procedure must be used:
Absorbents must be used to keep the discharge from leaving the hard surface.
Identify the source of the discharge and fix the leak by whatever means necessary.
Place used absorbent in a drum (labeled with USED ABSORBENT, NON-HAZARDOUS). The drum must have a lid, which is kept on at all times when not in use. The drum must have the first date the used absorbent was placed in the drum. Keep drums under a roofed structure to prevent stormwater contamination.
If any discharged material has left the impervious surface, the media contaminated from the discharge must be properly removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal environmental regulations.
If the discharge is too large for plant personnel to contain, employ a contractor.
After the leak is repaired, the discharged product must be recovered from the secondary containment and appropriately managed in accordance with current state and federal regulations. If sand or surface soils are contaminated, dispose of them in accordance with current state and federal regulations.
Rehak’s Take
These BMPs address fuel management more than mining. In my opinion, both sections are good as far as they go. But I would like to see at least some BMPs added based on observations of actual practices.
Under dredging:
Operators should not dredge a vertical wall at the edge of buffer zones. This can lead to cave ins at the edges that decrease the width of the buffer zones.
Dredging next to buffer zone can cause cave-ins that reduce buffer’s width, especially when the pond wall is deep and steep.More slope would reduce the chances of buffer collapse.
Under fuel management:
Fuel depots and fuel storage tanks must be located outside of the floodway, on the highest ground possible and as far from rivers as possible. Make sure the location meets Atlas-14 requirements.
Rusting fuel storage tanks in floodway without covers or containment structures. When Atlas 14 maps are released next year, this area will be even further into the floodway.
And two more:
Remove all fuel storage equipment and tanks before abandoning a mine.
Abandoned equipment on East Fork mine has since been removed after a complaint to the TCEQ.
Finally, do not store excavation equipment underwater.
This piece of equipment has been abandoned in this mine for years.
To Submit Public Comments
Please submit your thoughts on Mining and other BMPs to the TCEQ. Email Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/15/2021
1447 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ImeldaWoodstream_001.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-08-15 17:29:382021-08-15 17:33:26Mining BMPs Could Help Reduce Toxicity of Floodwaters
According to best management practices (BMPs) being proposed by the TCEQ, pre-mining planning is one of the main ways to prevent sediment from leaving a mine.
So much sand piled up in the San Jacinto after Hurricane Harvey that it reduced the conveyance of the river, contributed to flooding, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to remove.
I consider good sand mining operations so important to the reduction of future flooding that I am publishing a series of articles on these proposed BMPs. This is the fifth. The first provided an overview. Then, I discussed:
This post will discuss BMPs for pre-mining and provide a list of suggestions for public comment at the end.
Life on the edge. Expansion of a West Fork sand mine right up the edge of the river’s cut bank. That will make this future mine especially susceptible to river migration and pit capture. It is probably not a good idea to mine this close to this part of the river.Bad pre-planning!
Miners must begin by evaluating a site for how mining will take place and what will happen to the mine when it closes. This is typically called a Mine Plan and includes:
Location of processing plant, office, support facilities, roads, product staging areas, and overburden placement.
An evaluation of the soil type(s) in the area planned for mining.
Susceptibility of these soils to erosion must be known when planning. Sands, silts and clays act differently when worked by earthmoving equipment.
3.2 Understanding Site Drainage
It is important to know pre-existing drainage patterns and where concentrated flows want to exit a site. This will determine the selection of structural control BMPs, such as culverts, to minimize adverse impacts.
3.2.1 Surface Water Flow
Identifying the receiving waters (i.e., Lake Houston, the San Jacinto, Spring Creek, Caney Creek, White Oak Creek) is vital before site preparation starts. Operators must determine all appropriate agencies with jurisdiction over the receiving waters. The TCEQ and USEPA Region 6 continuously develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for water bodies not meeting their designated uses.
Inspection during or after a rainfall event can provide a substantial amount of information regarding how surface water flows.
3.2.2 Ground Water Conditions
Understand that mining of a potable aquifer can negatively affect the yield of a potable well.
The following BMPs will help guide a ground water preservation effort:
When a new sand and gravel operation is being considered, operators must first check the Texas Water Development Board water well reports data and the TCEQ water well report viewer to determine if registered public and private drinking water supply wells are located nearby.
Perform a visual check for possible unregistered private wells or abandoned wells in the immediate vicinity of the new sand and gravel pit. If an unregistered private well or abandoned well is discovered, operators must refer to TCEQ’s Regulatory Guidance Landowner’s Guide to Plugging Abandoned Water Wells (RG-347) for more information on the necessary actions which must be taken.
3.3 Site Preparation
Only after surface water drainage and ground water conditions are thoroughly understood may site preparation be initiated.
Once initiated, operators must inspect disturbed areas (cleared, graded, or excavated) of the site at least once every seven (7) calendar days for signs of visible erosion.
3.3.1 Construction of Access and Haul Roads
Roads are a necessary component of any sand and gravel mining operation, especially on large pieces of property. Operators must take care to minimize impacts to the environment when constructing roads.
Roads must be designed to drain at all times by using crowning, graveling, compacting, ditching, and/or culverting
Proper construction and maintenance should minimize erosion by rainfall runoff, dust, and normal vehicle use. Where necessary, road surfaces must be graveled if the base does not already contain sufficient aggregate.
Crowning of Roads
Surfaces must be crowned to minimize erosion of the roadbed.
Graveling and Compacting
Graveling and compacting of road surfaces require less maintenance. It minimizes loose sediment runoff or tracking of sediment onto public roads.
Ditching and Culverting
Ditches and culverts carry runoff alongside or underneath a roadbed. They must be:
Sized for anticipated rainfall events.
Installed at the time of roadway construction
Sloped to prevent silting and allow for maintenance (i.e., digging out sediment buildup).
Kept free of debris and obstructions.
Typically, ditches can be used for routing surface water flow away from adjacent properties offsite.
Silt Fencing
Silt fencing can aid in soil erosion caused by surface runoff from roadways. The bottom must be secured beneath the ground surface to prevent under-washing.
3.3.2 Land Clearing and Grubbing Activities
Land clearing and grubbing involves removing all trees, stumps, roots and other debris from the site. It may also include removal and disposal of old, unwanted structures. Proper disposal will be discussed in a later post.
Disturb only those areas ready for immediate use. Install sediment holding basins before major site grading. They can catch and hold surface runoff before it leaves the site.
Divert upslope water around an area planned for disturbance.
Plan clearing and grubbing activities for a time of year that minimizes the impact of inclement weather on disturbed areas.
Temporarily stabilize or cover disturbed areas to minimize impacts on the environment.
Operators must only clear and grub acreage needed for activities occurring before the next anticipated storm event.
Clearing or grubbing too much land too early in construction dramatically increases the potential for surface water runoff and the costs to control it.
Operators must schedule grading to protect disturbed areas from stormwater runoff.
A minimum 100-foot buffer zone is required adjacent to perennial streams and water bodies in the State of Texas.
3.3.3 Stripping Activities
“Stripping” describes the removal of overburden on top of valuable sand reserves. Overburden is typically clay, silt, and fine sand. Operators may stockpile these materials for post-mining restoration. But the BMPs also allow disposal by placing them into a pit no longer being used.
Operators must control runoff from stockpiles.
Stockpiles should be located away from concentrated flows of storm water, drainage courses, and inlets, and protected with perimeter sediment barriers.
Operators should be able to effectively control runoff from any areas they disturb. So they should be careful not to strip too large of an area all at once. Stripping to large of an area contributes to excessive buildup of silt or clay in ditches.
Normally, operators will direct surface water to pits to keep the water table high in extended periods of dry weather.
Operators must leave enough undisturbed buffer at property boundaries to provide sufficient lateral support of property lines as determined by the licensed professional engineer or geoscientist certifying BMPs at the site.
Concerns
While I applaud what the TCEQ is trying to do, I still have concerns with several BMPs listed above and plan to make public comments on them.
Section 3.1 – Site Evaluation
This section requires a mine plan, but not approval of the plan. The plan should be approved by the TCEQ.
Most of the mines are at least partially in FEMA defined floodways. But this section makes no mention of that. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses should be performed by competent and reputable third-party engineers to show that no part of the mine will increase flood levels or erosion upstream, downstream, or to adjoining properties.
FEMA Flood Map shows most Lake Houston Area sand mines are at least partially in floodways (cross-hatched areas).
Section 3.2.1 – Surface Water Flow
Additional erosion controls or increased buffer widths may be needed where river erosion rates are high,
Also, the East Fork, West Fork, Caney Creek, White Oak Creek, Spring Creek and Lake Houston already are listed as impaired. Impairments have to do mostly with bacteria, PCB, and/or dioxin levels. All of the above already have Total Maximum Daily Loads or are scheduled to implement TMDLs soon.
I suspect the TCEQ permits some discharges from sand mines and postpones others to keep the streams under the TMDL limit. But I have also seen many TCEQ reports about un-permitted discharges. I have seen breaches in dikes remain open for months and years. I have seen rivers capture pits during storms.
The West Fork already has a bacteria problem from the Lake Conroe Dam to Lake Houston. Yet people still swim and fish in these waters. And more sand mines are expanding than closing.
I wish the TCEQ would step up inspections (especially after heavy rains) and increase fines for un-permitted discharges. Lake Houston, after all, is the source of water for more than 2 million people.
Section 3.2.2 – Ground Water Conditions
This section requires operators to study the impact on adjacent water wells, but specifies nothing to reduce the impact on them. Ooops. I suggest adding: “If present, waste management units must be located a minimum horizontal distance from adjacent water wells, in accordance with 16 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 76.”
Section 3.3.2 – Land Clearing and Grubbing Activities
Diverting upslope water around a planned area for disturbance is good; however, care must be taken to prevent diverted water from increasing downslope flooding.
When the TCEQ says operators should clear and grub an amount of acreage that they can finish “before the next anticipated storm event,” it gives them an opportunity to clear hundreds of acres at once. Who can anticipate the next large rainfall in Houston? No one. Ask the people of Elm Grove how devastating sheet flow from a large area can be when a large rain hits before additional protections (i.e., detention ponds and berms) are installed.
Section 3.3.3 – Stripping Activities
The stockpile protection measures listed are good. But I would add that stockpiles must be located outside of FEMA-defined floodways.
This mine’s stockpile is located at the confluence of two floodways: for Caney and White Oak Creeks. Note the erosion after Imelda.Photo taken October 6, 2019.
Buffer widths between mines and adjoining properties are good. But I would add that “Additional buffer width or structures may be required where pipeline or utility corridors are located.
Please submit your thoughts on pre-mining and other BMPs to the TCEQ. Email Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/14/2021
1446 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20191002-EF-WF-Aerial_601.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-08-14 17:03:102021-08-14 17:33:27BMPs for Pre-Mining Phase of Sand Mining Can Help Prevent Erosion that Contributes to Flooding
