Tag Archive for: BMPs

Sand-Mine Structural Control BMPs Could Make Difference in Next Flood

In an effort to reduce sediment escaping into the San Jacinto River from sand mines, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has issued Draft Guidelines on Best Management Practices (BMPs). Yesterday, I discussed vegetative controls for erosion. Today, I will discuss structural control. The two types often work together or in sequence.

At the very end of this post, I make some recommendations to strengthen BMPs, and describe how to submit public comments.

Structural Controls

Structural controls do several things:

  • Divert runoff away from disturbed areas
  • Reduce runoff velocities
  • Filter sediment
  • Remove sediment by ponding.

They include the following.

Temporary Structures (Section 2.2.1)

Installed before and during construction. After removing temporary stormwater controls the areas disturbed by the temporary structures must be revegetated.

Permanent Structures (Section 2.2.2)

Permanent structures remaining after construction. Once construction of areas outside of the sand-mining pit has ceased, permanent structural control BMPs must be implemented and operational.

Diversion Ridges, Berms or Channels of Stabilized Soil (Section 2.2.3)

These divert runoff into “sediment basins.” If they remain in place more than 30 days, they must be covered with temporary or permanent vegetation. Maximum allowable drainage area is five acres.

Silt Fences (Section 2.2.4)

Silt fences capture sediment from sheet flow. Six to eight inches of the fence material must be buried in a trench about four inches deep and four inches wide. Silt fences that are not buried have no useful function. They must never be installed across streams. Fencing must be removed when sediment deposits reach one-half the fence height.

Straw Bales (Section 2.2.4 Continued)

Can also be used as sediment barriers in small areas. Maximum grade: 3:1. Water depth must not exceed one foot at any point. Bales with bindings must be entrenched a minimum of four inches and anchored with stakes. Straw bales that are not buried are improperly installed.

Sediment Basins (Section 2.2.5)

Allow retention of sediment “prior to discharge” or recycling. Side slopes must be 2:1 or less. Sediment must be removed when the volume has been reduced to 27 cubic yards per acre of drainage area. Dikes must be well compacted and vegetated. Installed prior to construction but not in flowing streams. Use diversions to direct drainage to basins.

Better structural controls might have prevented a sand mine upstream from discharging 56,000 million gallons of white sludge into the West Fork in 2019.
Riprap Outlet Protection (Section 2.2.6)

Riprap outlet protection must be placed 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 (Section 2.2.7)

Small dams across swales or drainage ditches that reduce flow velocity and erosion. Not used in flowing streams. Maximum height: two feet. Center must be at least six inches lower than the outer edges to prevent erosion around the edges. The maximum spacing between dams must be such that the toe of the upstream dam is at the same elevation as the top of the downstream dam.

Accumulated sediment must be removed from behind the check dams when it reaches one half the dam height. Erosion around dam edges must be corrected immediately, ensuring that the dam center is six inches lower than the edges.

 Construction Entrance/Exits (Section 2.2.8)

Aggregate must stabilize entrances and exits to reduce sediment tracked onto public roads. Aggregate must be at least six inches thick and 50 feet long. Tire washing may also be needed.

Housekeeping Practices (Section 2.2.9)

Petroleum products, paints, solvents, litter, debris, sanitary waste, and sediment from unstabilized areas, TCEQ BMPs specify:

  • Designated areas for equipment maintenance and repair;
  • Waste receptacles at convenient locations;
  • Regular collection of waste;
  • Protected storage areas for chemicals, paints, solvents, fertilizers, and other potentially toxic or hazardous materials; and
  • Adequately maintained sanitary facilities.
Post-Construction/Stormwater-Management Measures (Section 2.2.10)

Control measures must be installed to control pollutants in stormwater after construction is complete. These controls include, but are not limited to:

  • Retention ponds. Minimum volume is the first inch or half inch of stormwater runoff containing the first flush of pollutants.
  • Vegetated Swales and Natural Depressions. There are grass-lined areas that filter sediments from runoff, thus helping to prevent erosion. Vegetated swales must have side slopes of 4:1 or less.

General

As with vegetative controls, operators must inspect structural controls once every seven (7) calendar days. That includes controls in areas used for storage of materials; maintenance areas; plus site entrances and exits.

Operators must replace or modify ineffective or damaged structural controls “in a timely manner, but no later than the next anticipated storm event.”

Recommendations for Public Comment Structural Controls

As we saw in yesterday’s post on vegetative controls, I have often seen gaps between real and ideal. However, for this post, I realized in looking back through thousands of aerial photos today, that I have never photographed one:

  • Stabilized channel
  • Silt fence
  • Straw bale
  • Check dam
  • Outlet stabilized by riprap or
  • Vegetated swale

…on a sand mine site. Period. Let alone one that met these requirements.

I’m not saying they don’t exist. I’m just saying that I’ve never seen them on the days I flew over.

Maybe operators feel they don’t need them. Or maybe they’re just not using them for other reasons.

So once again, I recommend that you write the TCEQ and ask them to put teeth into their BMP requirements.

In addition, I recommend you request:

  • Stronger wording on the general requirement to fix damaged or ineffective structural controls in a “timely manner.” That’s just too subjective. It lets operators defer maintenance way past the point it may be needed.
  • Clarification on “prior to discharging” in section 2.2.5. Are operators capturing sediment only to discharge it into the river at a later time? What do they mean by discharge? Where?
  • Detention ponds big enough to catch an inch of rain in an area where Atlas 14 requirements specify 16.9 inches of rain in 24 hours? (Section 2.2.10) That seems wholly inadequate. Harris County Flood Control District recommends minimum detention volumes for developments at .65 acre feet per acre for areas up to 640 acres. That’s about 8 inches of rainfall.

Please submit your thoughts on structural control and other BMPs to the TCEQ by emailing Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.

The house you save could be your own.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/13/2021

1445 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.

How Vegetative Controls Can Help Sand Mines Reduce Erosion and Flooding

During Harvey, millions of cubic yards of sediment moved downstream. Some came from river bank erosion. But some also came from exposed sediment in sand mines that flank both sides of the West Fork like the one below.

West Fork Sand Mine photographed May 5, 2021. Such mines occupy 20 square miles in a 20 mile stretch between I-45 and I-69.

It’s exceedingly difficult to determine the percentages that came from various sources. Regardless, sediment built up at key places, blocking both the West Fork and its tributaries. Those blockages backed water up into thousands of homes and businesses.

The mouth bar of the West Fork (photographed after Harvey) is now gone thanks to three years and more than $100 million of dredging. Ten feet of sediment was deposited in this area during Harvey, severely restricting the conveyance of the river and contributing to the flooding of thousands of homes and businesses.

Ever since then, the Lake Houston Area Flood Prevention Initiative has lobbied the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association to adopt a comprehensive and improved set of best management practices (BMPs).

In yesterday’s post, I discussed setbacks from rivers, a major improvement in the new BMPs now being considered. Today, I will discuss vegetative controls in the Draft of Proposed BMPs, now in the public comment period. If observed, they could reduce sedimentation and flooding. If not, we could have more problems right here in River City. So please get involved.

Section 2.1 Vegetative Controls

Vegetative controls play a major role in minimizing soil exposure, erosion and runoff.

A large part of the new BMPs, Section 2.1, deals with vegetative controls. I summarize and liberally quote from that section below so that boaters, neighbors and community officials will know what the TCEQ expects mines to do. Also, the wording in one section should be strengthened to eliminate ambiguity. I will call it out below for readers so you can request the TCEQ to improve the language.

How Vegetation Helps Reduce Erosion

According to the TCEQ, “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. In areas that are outside the active sand mining operation and not expected to handle vehicle traffic, vegetative stabilization of disturbed soil is required using the BMPs described below.”

Only Plants Appropriate for Region

“Vegetative controls must consist of plants appropriate for the ecoregion where the site is located and must not include any noxious or invasive species.” They then provide links to several acceptable lists.

Weekly Inspection Required

“Site operators must inspect and document disturbed areas of the site where vegetative controls have been implemented once every seven (7) calendar days. Operators must inspect all vegetative controls to ensure that they are installed properly, appear to be operational, and minimizing pollutants in discharges, as intended.”

A sentence farther down can be improved. “Operators must replace or modify controls [that have failed] in a timely manner, but no later than the next anticipated storm event.”

Opportunity for Improvement:

TCEQ never defines the “next anticipated storm event.” For the last month, widely scattered thunderstorms have caused street flooding in parts of Houston will leaving others untouched. No one can predict with certainty whether one of those storms will park over a sand mine. This gives the sand miners an opportunity to delay repairs almost indefinitely.

See suggested change at end of post.

2.1.1  Vegetative Buffer Zones

“Vegetative buffer zones are continuous undisturbed or planted vegetated areas that surround a development, land disturbance activity or that border an intermittent stream or permanent water body. Buffer zones aid in sediment filtration and removal by blowing surface water flow through these areas. Construction site runoff must be dispersed over the entire buffer zone if possible. A minimum 100-foot buffer zone is required adjacent to perennial streams greater than 20 feet in width, 50 feet for perennial streams less than 20 feet in width, and 35 feet for intermittent streams.”

Lack of a vegetated buffer zone allows sand from this stockpile to erode into White Oak Creek. Notice large swirls of sand cascading down the slopes into the creek.

2.1.2  Sod Stabilization

Sod stabilization involves establishing long-term stands of grass with sod on exposed surfaces. When installed and maintained properly, sodding can be more than 99 percent effective in reducing erosion.

During May 2021 floods, the East Fork San Jacinto swept through the abandoned Texas Concrete Sand & Gravel Plum Grove Mine. The area circled in red was exposed to floodwaters. See below.
Close up of area above taken two months earlier, but still after site was abandoned. No sod.

Protection of Trees

“Protection of trees involves preserving and protecting selected trees that exist on the site prior to development. Mature trees provide extensive canopy and root systems that hold soil in place. Shade trees also keep soils from drying rapidly and becomingsusceptible to erosion, as well as increasing property value. Consideration must be given to the tree root structure.”

“If trees die or are no longer viable for soil stabilization for any reason, then they must be replaced within 30 days with any equivalent or better soil-stabilizing tree.” 

2.1.3  Temporary Seeding

“Temporary seeding is the planting of fast-growing annual grasses to hold the soil in areas that will not be disturbed again for 30 or more days. For long-term protection (greater than one year), permanent seeding must be initiated. Mulching helps ensure seed growth and maintains soil moisture and helps prevent erosion. It is essential when slopes are steep, the weather is hot or dry, and soil conditions are not favorable.”

Ooops. Note steep, unvegetated banks on this West Fork dike in foreground which breached multiple times.

“Tillage, with lime and fertilizer, to maintain adequate soil pH and nutrient content, may be important before seeding.”

2.1.4  Permanent Seeding

“Permanent seeding is the use of perennial grass (with trees and shrubs) to stabilize the soil. Vegetation is often not fully established until one year from planting. Inspect, repair and re-seed as needed, evaluating choice of seed and quantities of lime and fertilizer. Use temporary seeding if the time of year is not appropriate for permanent seeding.”

2.1.6  Mulching

“Mulching is the placement of hay, grass, wood chips, straw, or synthetic material on the soil. Mulch holds moisture, lessens temperature extremes, and retards erosion on steep slopes during seed establishment. Soils that cannot be seeded due to the season must be mulched to provide temporary protection. Operators must apply the mulch in an appropriate manner that prevents the mulch from leaving the site during heavy rain events.”

2.1.7  Erosion and Sediment Control Blankets

“Erosion and Sediment Control Blankets are machine-produced mats of straw or other fibers held together with netting that provide temporary or permanent stabilization in critical areas, such as slopes or channels, so that vegetation may be established. These blankets often contain seeds to help establish vegetation.”

The Artavia Development in Montgomery County appears to be routing its main drainage ditch through this old sand mine. This area perpetually eroded. This swale covered by what appears to be an erosion blanket may help reduce that in the future. Note erosion already existing to left of blanket.

2.1.8  Surface Roughening

“Surface roughening, using heavy equipment, creates horizontal grooves across the slope which reduces runoff velocity/erosion and aid the growth of seed. Roughened slopes must be immediately seeded and mulched.”

To make this work, the slopes would need to be gentle enough to catch rainwater on its way to the pond or river. Unfortunately, you don’t often see gentle slopes in San Jacinto mines, if at all.

Summary and Call to Action

Virtually all of these BMPs call for regular inspections and maintenance. The most troubling part of them is the sentence highlighted above about the next “anticipated storm.” A sand miner could build a case for ignoring virtually all of these by claiming he didn’t anticipate storms anytime soon. But by the time a storm like Harvey or Imelda approaches, or even one of the May storms that dumped 7 inches of rain on Kingwood in three hours, it would be too late to replant vegetation. It needs time to regrow.

I suggest replacing “next anticipated storm” with “must repair or replace controls immediately when damage is noted during weekly inspections.”

Please submit your thoughts on this and other BMPs to the TCEQ by emailing Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/12/2021

1444 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.

We Must Strengthen Sand-Mining BMPs: Minimum Setbacks Just Part of Solution

At long last, the State of Texas could soon adopt minimum setbacks from rivers for sand mining.

The Lake Houston Area Flood Prevention Initiative has been working with the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association (TACA) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for two years to create a set of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The BMPs would apply only to sand-mining operations in the San Jacinto River Watershed.

The TCEQ has published a draft of proposed regulations and is now seeking public comment. Comments are due by August 19.

The proposed regulations are a great step forward in one sense. They plug some gaping holes that Texas has compared to other states. However, I believe they can and should be stronger.

Texas Currently Has No Minimum Setbacks

For instance, take minimum setbacks from rivers. Right now, Texas has no minimum setback. Some mines can and do mine right up to the edge of rivers, leaving only the width of a flimsy dike made out of sand between them and a raging river when floodwaters rise.

  • Most states define 100 feet as the minimum setback.
  • Alaska sets the minimum from a public water supply at 1,000 feet.
  • But other states, such as Arizona, take another approach altogether. Instead of specifying fixed widths, they define “erosion hazard zones.”

Erosion Hazard Zones Substituted for Defined Distances in Some States

Erosion hazard zones would take into account factors such as whether mining occurred on the eroding side of a river or on the side where sand is building up. An erosion hazard zone might also take into account the steepness of the surrounding slopes. Such zones are based on site assessments by engineers and may even take into account rates of river migration.

An erosion hazard zone might also take into account being downstream from the Lake Conroe Dam which released 80,000 CFS on top of Harvey’s already prodigious floodwaters. By itself, 80,000 CFS would have been the ninth largest flood in West Fork history.

The draft regulations currently under consideration specify a minimum 100-foot buffer zone adjacent to perennial streams wider than 20 feet, 50 feet for perennial streams less than 20 feet wide, and 35 feet for intermittent streams.

To learn more about how other states and countries handle setbacks, see the links on the Sand Mining page.

Minimum Setbacks By Themselves Are Only Part of Solution

Since Harvey, I have flown up and down the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto dozens of times and taken more than 27,000 photographs.

I have witnessed many dike breaches. Sometimes they are intentional.

Sometimes a large storm causes rivers to erode into pits – a phenomenon called pit capture.

Here, one mine leaks into a second mine (abandoned in lower right), which in turn leaks into West Fork 1200 feet away.
Breach in 400-foot wide buffer zone that happened sometime after Harvey. Exact date unknown.
This mine along Caney Creek had a 150-foot-wide vegetated buffer, that held just fine through Harvey, but miraculously couldn’t survive the unnamed flood of May 2019.
Stream level photo of breach above. Note the trackhoe marks on the side of the breach.

The point is this. Even with 100 foot setbacks, many breaches still occur. If a mine wants to get rid of wastewater, it will find a way.

It can always just pump water over the side of a dike.

One of many pumping operations I have documented.

Some put pipes through dikes to ensure wastewater never exceeds a certain level.

One of many pipes I have documented.

Or they can build dikes out of materials designed to fail under pressure.

Former dike at Triple PG mine being sued by Texas Attorney General

The hundred foot setbacks would, however, make many of these practices more difficult by making them more conspicuous.

And the requirement to have the buffer zone vegetated (another BMP), would eliminate situations like the narrow strip below.

Easily erodible, unvegetated buffer strip with steep sides at mine on West Fork (foreground).

My Take

All things considered, when the penalty for non-compliance averages $800 per incident, some will continue to ignore BMPs. Not all. But some.

As of August 2018, TCEQ had raised a half-million dollars in fines for more than 13,000 incidents statewide during the previous five years. If you look just at the last half of 2017 (after Harvey), the TCEQ levied about $140,000 in fines STATEWIDE – far less than it cost to repair ONE average home in Kingwood as a result of Harvey.

That’s why I say that by itself, the width of a buffer strip will help, but not solve the problem.

How do you feel? $220 million of your tax dollars are going toward dredging. Please share your feelings with the TCEQ.

How to Make a Public Comment

Submit written comments on BMPs to Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/11/2021

1443 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.

Comments Due to TCEQ on Sand-Mining BMPs by August 19

A couple weeks ago, I posted about rules governing the application of sand mining best management practices (BMPs). Now the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is accepting public comments on the BMPs themselves. Think of the difference this way: how/when to enforce guidelines vs the guidelines themselves.

More than 90 people responded to the enforcement question. Thank you. The TCEQ left so many “outs,” it was doubtful whether sand mines would ever have had to follow any of the BMPs.

Comments Coming Due on BMPs, Not Just Rules Governing Them

Now it’s time to consider the content of the BMPs themselves and provide public comment.

We have more time this time – until August 19. So I will publish a series of posts about different aspects of the BMPs that I believe could be improved.

Here is a draft of the 24-page document listing all BMPs that the TCEQ is considering.

Today, I will simply give you an overview of the major categories of recommendations. In coming days, I will discuss major areas of concern. These will be things where, in my opinion, the sand mines in the San Jacinto watershed fall short of ideal practices in ways that directly contribute to flooding.

Some Caveats

Having said that, let me also qualify that last statement three ways:

  1. Not all sand mines are bad actors, but some are.
  2. We need sand to make concrete.
  3. Sediment comes from both man-made and natural sources. While massive amounts of sand clogged our river after Harvey, it’s unclear what proportion of that came from sand mines.

It’s easy to see that floodwaters eroded stockpiles, breached levees, and swept sediment downstream. It’s also easy to see how suboptimal sand mining practices contributed to those issues.

Sand mining increased the width of the exposed sediment adjacent to the river by an average of 33X.

USGS calculations, photographs, and first responder reports during Harvey also indicate that the velocity of the river was sufficient to transport not just sand, but large chunks of gravel.

However, it’s not clear how much suboptimal sand mining practices contributed to blockages, such as the East and West Fork Mouth Bars, Sand Island, and the giant side bar that blocked the Kingwood Diversion Ditch. Some likely also came from erosion of the river bed itself as well as upstream developers with suboptimal practices of their own.

It will take someone smarter than me to figure that how much came from where.

The Public Policy Question

It is clear, however, that we’re investing $222 million in dredging to eliminate sediment blockages that contribute to flooding. And many sand mines have shown, in my opinion, a callous disregard for the cleanup costs they externalize to the public sector. One is even currently being sued by the Texas Attorney General.

Scope of BMPs Being Proposed

The BMPs being considered by the TCEQ have to do with:

  • Vegetative and Structural Controls to help reduce erosion
  • Pre-Mining site evaluation, drainage studies and site preparation
  • Mining activities, such as dredging, processing, maintenance, and the handling of petroleum products
  • Post-Mining site stabilization, debris removal, and property grading
  • Requirements for a final stabilization report.

I will discuss each of these in coming days before the deadline. I will also show photos that illustrate how current practices fall short of BMPs and contribute to sedimentation.

Sand mine pumping wastewater directly into San Jacinto West Fork
Another sand mine discharging wastewater directly into the West Fork.

Two things ARE clear, however. We can and must do better if we want to reduce:

  • Financial hemorrhaging
  • Flooding from man-made blockages that clog our rivers.

How to Make a Public Comment

Submit written comments on BMPs to Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.

More details to follow in the coming days.

Posted By Bob Rehak on 7/8/2021

1440 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.

Take Two Minutes To Help Reduce Flooding in San Jacinto Watershed

The Lake Houston Area Grassroots Flood Prevention Initiative needs your help. The group’s four-year effort to establish best management practices (BMPs) for sand mines in the San Jacinto River basin is drawing to a close. But one of the rules needs strengthening. Leave a public comment to that effect on the TCEQ website. It should only take two minutes.

Background: Proposed Rule is No Rule At All

Here’s the concern:

311.103 General Requirements (c) Pre-mining, Mining, and Post-Mining states: “If a BMP is infeasible, the operator shall use an alternative equivalent BMP and maintain documentation of the reason onsite.  The following considerations may be used to determine if a BMP is infeasible (financial considerations; health and safety concerns; local restrictions or codes; site soils; slope; available area; precipitation pattern; site geometry; site vegetation; infiltration capacity; geotechnical factors; depth to groundwater; and other similar considerations).

Allowing twelve (+ an infinite) number of reasons to avoid implementation of BMPs provides so much latitude as to make this rule useless for community protection.

Operators need only retain documentation of their “reason” onsite for not complying, without first getting approval for substituting BMPs.

The Lake Houston Area Grassroots Flood Prevention Initiative recommends that this rule be changed to include mandatory approval by the TCEQ for any variance from standard BMPs. The group also recommends the TCEQ make approved changes available for public inspection on its website.

Leave Public Comment Before Midnight Tuesday

If you agree, please go to the following link:  https://www6.tceq.texas.gov/rules/ecomments/ and register your concern. Use your own words or feel free to cut and paste the information in red below – before Tuesday, July 27th at midnight.

I am concerned about 311.103 General Requirements (c) Pre-Mining, Mining and Post-Mining. It gives sand mine operators free license to ignore BMPs for a virtually infinite number of reasons. No approval by the TCEQ is necessary. All operators need to do is keep a note in a file onsite.

There are always those who will bend the rules for their convenience or financial gain at the expense of protecting the community.

Therefore, I urge you to change the wording in this rule so that variation from the BMPs requires approval by the TCEQ. I also urge you to publish any variations on your website for public inspection.

Hurricane Harvey showed us the dangers of sediment blockages in the San Jacinto River. Federal, State and Local Governments are spending $222 million to remove them.

Sand Island was deposited during Harvey. It is gone now…but at great expense. The Army Corps said it blocked the San Jacinto West Fork by 90%.

To reduce such blockages in the future – and their associated risk of flooding – the Lake Houston Area Grassroots Flood Prevention Initiative has been working on your behalf since Harvey to get to this point. Please take two minutes to protect four years worth of effort. Take action now.

You can read the complete text of proposed BMPs here.

And you can read all of the proposed rules governing their implementation here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/25/21

1426 Days after 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.

Flood Notes: Quick Updates on Multiple Flood Related Topics

Below are updates on seven flood-related topics from around the Lake Houston Area and Texas.

Plugging of Noxxe Wells in Forest Cove Delayed

Peter Fisher of the Texas Railroad Commission reports that its Oil & Gas Division is about eight to 10 weeks away from plugging the NOXXE wells in Forest Cove. Noxxe abandoned the lease when Harvey cleanup costs forced the company into bankruptcy. The Commission’s General Counsel notified Fisher on March 4th that another operator is attempting to take over the NOXXE leases.  “At this time we do not know for sure which wells they are interested in.  Therefore, we are currently in a holding pattern on plugging the NOXXE wells,” said Fisher. TRRC has already finished cleanup of the rusting tanks in Forest Cove, but several wells still appear to be leaking based on aerial photos that show oil on ponds and in the public water supply.

Black substance in West Fork/Lake Houston stretched for about a half mile on December 7, 2020, next to one of many abandoned Noxxe wells.

Texas GLO and Houston Declare Truce for Time Being

Last year, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) tried to claw back funds allocated to the City of Houston for several Harvey-related disaster assistance programs. Why? The City fell seriously behind deadlines, even as the reimbursement program was expiring. Then the two sides reached a settlement and the City took back some programs. Houston will continue to administer $835 million in programs – Homeowner Assistance (reimbursement program), Single Family Development, Multifamily Rental, Small Rental, Homebuyer Assistance, Buyout, Public Services and Economic Revitalization Programs.

However, the GLO included strict program benchmarks with language that includes: “Program Benchmarks: Subrecipient’s failure to achieve a Program Benchmark in the Subrecipient Agreement may result in the termination of the Program and/or funds being removed from the Contract, at the GLO’s sole discretion.” HUD’s rules include that funds be expended – not allocated – by August 2024, plus one more year for close out, or else HUD will retain the funds.

City’s Homeowner Assistance Applications

In the meantime, the GLO is keeping the City’s Homeowner Assistance Program. Many who first applied through the City have been caught in limbo due to missing, incomplete and poorly formatted documents.

On December 30, 2020, the GLO received 48,000 documents that had no discernable naming conventions, were not grouped by applicant, and were mostly unsearchable. The GLO had to open each document to determine which applicant it belongs to and file accordingly. On January 27, 2021, the GLO received a transfer of additional files that appear to be mostly environmental assessments, but once again, were not organized. The GLO has sorted the files from the City of Houston and the GLO team is contacting applicants to request missing or outdated documentation to move them towards construction.

We received data for 7,176 files, but nearly half had none or only one of the documents needed for a complete application to achieve HUD eligibility. “We are in the process of contacting all applicants to determine which ones still wish to participate and request the documents we need to complete their files,” said a GLO spokesperson.

Court Reverses Air Quality Permit for APO

Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining announced that on March 5, a district court in Austin struck down an air-quality permit for a quarry. Alabama-based Vulcan Construction Materials needed the permit to proceed with a controversial project.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) had initially granted the permit in 2019 after two years of heated legal wrangling between Vulcan, the nation’s largest producer of construction aggregates, and an alliance of Comal County citizens, community groups and Comal ISD.

459th Civil District Court Judge Maya Guerra Gamble ruled that:

  • TCEQ’s assertion that the quarry would not harm human health or welfare was not supported by evidence.
  • Vulcan’s emissions calculations were not representative and not supported by substantial evidence.
  • Vulcan’s air quality analysis did not account for cumulative impacts or emissions from the quarry and roads.
  • Vulcan’s choice of background concentration was arbitrary or capricious.
  • In the contested case hearing, the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) judge erred in allowing Vulcan to hide behind “trade secret” claims.
  • Plaintiffs were denied due process when the SOAH judge allowed Vulcan to conceal data using the “trade secret” excuse and did not allow plaintiffs to cross-examine Vulcan.

Vulcan’s proposed mining operation in the Texas Hill Country would stretch across nearly three miles of the environmentally sensitive Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, the primary water supply for over two million people in New Braunfels and San Antonio.

Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District Punts on Subsidence Again

After several filibusters, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District Board again deferred publicly adopting a position on subsidence or approving the second half of its subsidence study in a mercifully brief March 9th meeting. The District’s general manager and counsel are reportedly querying stakeholders on the subject. But time is running out before GMA-14 meeting. The LSGCD may have to call a special meeting before the next GMA-14 meeting on April 9th to resolve those issues. It will be interesting to see what they come back with. Simon Sequeira, of Quadvest, one of the largest independent water pumpers in the county is a stakeholder.

Kerr County Commissioners Support Best Management Practices for Local APOs

The adoption of best management practices by sand mines in the San Jacinto watershed has been a legislative goal of area groups since Harvey. It was during Harvey that floodwaters swept through mines and flushed sand downstream where it contributed to the flooding of thousands of homes and businesses. Now the Hill-Country group, Texans for Responsible Aggregate Management reports they have achieved a victory of sorts.

On March 1st, 2021 the Kerr County Commissioners’ Court unanimously passed a resolution supporting TRAM’s legislative goals, as well as a resolution encouraging Kerr County APOs to adopt Best Management Practices (BMPs) in order to minimize adverse health effects and nuisance issues. The resolution was sparked by concerns over West Texas Aggregate LLC’s desire for a permanent rock and concrete crusher facility near the airport east of Kerrville.

LCRA Adopts Commercial Dredging Moratorium on Highland Lakes

On February 24, 2021, The Lower Colorado River Authority Board of Directors adopted a one-year moratorium prohibiting commercial dredging on the Highland Lakes until new rules are established. This action states that LCRA will not review pending permit applications such as the Collier Materials Inc. permit application for commercial dredging on the Llano River and cancelled the public meeting scheduled for March 10, 2021.

The Board determined that new rules are necessary to address commercial dredging projects and their potential impact on water quality, aquatic life and public safety on the lakes. Over the next year, LCRA will review potential water quality impacts of commercial dredging, coordinate with other entities, and conduct a robust public and stakeholder input process.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/18/2021

1297 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.

TCEQ Accepting Public Comment on Sand Mine Practices for 30 Days

Yesterday, the TCEQ held a virtual hearing on sand-mine best management practices (BMPs). After listening to stakeholders on all sides of the issue, TCEQ agreed to allow public comment for another 30 days before making any recommendations to TCEQ commissioners.

Breakdown of Five-Hour Meeting

Yesterday’s hearing started with a description of the TCEQ rule-making process and timetable. The meeting then compared two sets of BMPs – one submitted by the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association (TACA) and the other submitted by the Lake Houston Area Flood Prevention Initiative.

  • The good news: both sides agreed on most BMPs.
  • The bad news: Substantial disagreement remains on several crucial BMPs as well as the area(s) that the BMPs will apply to.

The TCEQ then allowed three stakeholders (Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining [TRAM], the Bayou Land Conservancy and ReduceFlooding.com) to make presentations.

After lunch, the meeting resumed for two hours of discussion about the BMPs.

At the end of the meeting, everyone agreed to extend the public comment period from 15 days to 30, given the importance of the effort and Thanksgiving.

No decisions were made at yesterday’s meeting. The objective was purely to give all interested stakeholders a chance to express their opinions.

Disagreement over Where BMPs Will Apply

TACA wanted the BMPs to apply only to the main stems of the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto. The Flood Prevention Initiative wanted them to apply to the tributaries of the East and West Forks also. In other words, the entire watershed upstream of Lake Houston.

The area of enforcement proposed by the Flood Prevention Initiative includes everything upstream of the Lake Houston Dam. However, TACA wants to exclude tributaries of the East and West forks.

Areas of Disagreement

Overall, the two sides disagreed on 12 of 41 BMPs. Of the twelve, the Flood Prevention Initiative and ReduceFlooding.com identified three as crucial.

  1. Minimum setbacks from rivers
  2. Performance bonds ensuring reclamation at the end of mining
  3. Whether compliance with BMPs should be voluntary or mandatory

For a summary of the rule making process and a complete breakdown of the differences in BMPs, see this special section of the TCEQ website set up for Sand Mining BMPs.

For more information on the three crucial BMPs mentioned above, see this presentation or read below.

ReduceFlooding.com Presentation

I started my presentation by pointing out that the San Jacinto provides:

  • A source of sand for a few dozen companies
  • Water for 2 million people

Modern life would be impossible without concrete. But surviving for even a few days without clean water would be even more impossible. We must strike a balance to protect both industry and people.

Since Harvey, I have rented helicopters almost every month and taken approximately 17,500 photos of sand mines.

I’ve never claimed that sand mining was the only source of sedimentation in the river. But it is a large contributor in my opinion.

After Harvey, huge blockages showed up in the San Jacinto, such as the one below east of River Grove Park. The Army Corps found the river was 90% blocked in this area. Before they dredged it, the park flooded six times in three months on minor rains.

Such blockages led me to study sand mining best practices from around the country ever since. I tried to identify what other states did that Texas did not do. I identified ten BMPs that could help reduce sedimentation during floods.

However, I had no success in getting TACA to adopt them. Nevertheless, Bill McCabe and Dave Feille of the Lake Houston Area Flood Prevention initiative took up the challenge. Thanks to them, we are where we are today.

We have reached substantial agreement, but the sides remain far apart on three crucial measures.

The three remaining areas of substantial disagreement

The remainder of the presentation focuses on these issues.

Need for Greater Setbacks

Texas has no minimum setbacks for mines from rivers.

TCEQ
Other states specify minimum setbacks of varying widths.
This images shows the Texas Concrete Mine in Plum Grove on the East Fork and how the floodway (cross-hatched area) covers most of the mine.

This mine’s dikes breached in four places during Harvey and again during Imelda. Residents downstream described a sudden wave of water coming down on them as if a dam had broken.

The West Fork has far more mines. Between I-45 and I-69, a 20-mile distance, we have twenty square miles of sand mines, virtually all of them wholly or partially in the floodway. That makes the average width of the river one mile. And that increases the potential for erosion 33X.

One of several breaches at the Triple PG mine that remained open for months in 2019.

Because mines are so close to floodways, their dikes breach frequently. The Texas Attorney General is currently suing the mine above for more than a million dollars on behalf of the TCEQ. That’s the mine’s dredge pit in the foreground and Caney Creek in the background. The mine actually sits at the confluence of two floodways, White Oak Creek and Caney Creek. TCEQ alleges that water from one creek swept through the mine and went out to the other.

Floodwaters sweeping through mines are not the only source of sediment downstream. A mine’s dikes can also constrict floods as you see in the images below. This image shows a mine just west of I-45 and the West Fork.

Details from the red circle in the bottom image are shown in the close-up image above it. This mine walled off half the floodway with a dike approximately 50 feet high.

In all but the largest floods, such high dikes concentrate floodwater on the opposite side of the river above. That, in turn, increased velocity of water, accelerated erosion, and cost the businessman on the opposite shore more than seven acres of his property in ten years. Because floodwater had half the space to spread out, he floods more frequently and higher.

Regardless of the mechanism of erosion, the increased rate of sedimentation due to sand mining, has contributed to the buildup of sediment dams like the West Fork mouth bar (photographed above two weeks after Harvey). Such dams behind the dam contributed to flooding thousands of homes and businesses. They also are costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to remove.

Greater setbacks could have easily avoided much of this expense. Sand miners are passing their cleanup costs along to the public.

Greater setbacks would help reduce flooding. They could also help improve water quality.

See below: the day the West Fork turned white.

The TCEQ found that a dike at a mine upstream broke releasing an estimated 56 million gallons of whitish sludge into the West Fork.

The photo above shows the upstream limit of Lake Houston. The water elevation at the I-69 bridge normally matches the water elevation at the Lake Houston dam. So this IS our drinking water you’re looking at. Removing all this sludge before it reaches your tap is a large part of your water bill every month. Greater setbacks from the river could have prevented this catastrophe as well.

Performance Bonds for Reclamation

In Texas, miners need to file a reclamation plan before they start mining. But when they are done, nothing obligates them to execute the plan.

Many miners can and do walk away from mines. A performance bond filed before they start mining would ensure that money for cleanup when they were done. If they rehabilitated the property, they would get the money back. But if they did NOT, taxpayers would not have to foot the bill or leave dangerous eyesores in their midst.

At a minimum, miners should revegetate disturbed areas to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Shown above, the Texas Concrete Plum Grove Plant after the operator walked away from it more than a year ago. No attempt has yet been made at restoration, although TCEQ is pursuing them.
Shown above: (top l to r) Abandoned dredge, concrete crushing facility at abandoned mine, abandoned equipment. Bottom Left: abandoned pipe.

Need for Mandatory, not Voluntary Best Practices

TACA would like best practices to be voluntary. Can you imagine the state of the U.S. Treasury if the IRS considered paying taxes optional?

Shown above: an abandoned sand pit on North Houston Avenue in Humble. This pit has no fencing or berms around the perimeter like it should. Worse, the steep-sided slopes break off in slabs. Erosion now threaten adjacent businesses and roadways.
West Fork mine contaminated with cyanobacteria. Cyanotoxins, sometimes formed by the bacteria, are the most potent in nature according to the CDC. CDC also says there is no known cure. I caught this mine pumping bacteria-laden water into wetlands.
Mines that do not comply with regs put those that do comply at a competitive disadvantage.
Complying with safety regulations should not be optional.

The top photo above shows what happened when the Triple PG mine mined too close to a Kinder Morgan natural gas pipeline. Headward erosion during Imelda exposed it. Kinder Morgan buried a new pipeline 75 feet down. Incredibly, now the mine is mining ON TOP of the pipeline AGAIN!

The lower image shows five pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids at a West Fork mine. Headward erosion exposed them, too, when LMI mined too closely. The giant pipelines sagged like clotheslines across a 100-foot gap.

Conclusion

The six images below show the confluence of the West Fork and Spring Creek near I-69. I took them from different angles during different months, but they all show the same thing: sediment coming from the West Fork where a heavy concentration of sand mines exists. If miners voluntarily complied with best management practices, these photos would have looked far different.

West Fork from different angles is the siltier in each case.

An attempt to legislate BMPs in the last legislature failed. But we have yet another chance. Review the TCEQ site and if you see an opportunity to improve sand-mining best practices, now is the time to comment.

If you comment, make sure you explain why you feel the way you do. Don’t just say “I like X or Y.” Give your reasons. Cite your experience. That will help the TCEQ formulate regulations that make a difference.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/11/2020

1170 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 419 since 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.

TCEQ Blasts Colony Ridge, Says Construction Practices Could Adversely Affect Human Health

A seven-month-long TCEQ investigation of Colony Ridge construction practices resulted in a 184-page report that confirmed allegations of erosion and silt flowing uncontrolled into ditches and streams. The investigation resulted in a “notice of enforcement.”

TCEQ Alleges Permit Violations Affecting Human Health

TCEQ found the Colony Ridge developer in violation of its Construction General Permit for failure to install even minimum controls such as silt fences and vegetative buffer strips.

As a result, the report says the developer failed to prevent discharges that “contribute to a violation of water quality standards” and that have “a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment.”

Investigators found unstabilized and unprotected drainage channels connecting 3,678.69 acres of disturbed land to unprotected streams and creeks. Sediment now almost completely fills some of those streams. They lead to Luce Bayou and and the East Fork San Jacinto River, which empty into Lake Houston, the source of drinking water for 2 million people.

Lack of Construction Best Management Practices

Colony Ridge’s Construction General Permit does not authorize discharges into Texas surface waters. Yet investigators found:

  • Drainage ditches with unstabilized soil on their sides
  • A drainage ditch with completely destabilized sides
  • Sediment deposition in multiple creeks
  • One creek channel almost completely filled by sediment
  • Culverts blocked with sediment
  • A washed out road
  • Water samples with elevated levels of dissolved and suspended solids as high as 1370 milligrams/liter (suspended) and 6360 (solid)…
  • ...All tied to inadequate or non-existent best management practices

See photos below.

Self-Reports in Stark Contrast to TCEQ Report

In contrast, the construction superintendent’s own inspection checklists (pages 51-78) rated virtually all erosion-prevention measures that the company did employ as “acceptable.” However, he also indicated that the company did not use most common protective measures, such as vegetation, sod, silt fences and detention basins; claiming they were “not applicable.” His report on 2/19/20 contained a note indicating the construction site “Looks good.” His last weekly report before the complaint that triggered the investigation found no “action items.”

Get the Picture

Pages 139 to 159 of the report (Attachment 13) and pages 167-171 (attachment 17) show photographs of almost five dozen violations that contradict the construction manager’s reports.

Below is a sampling of ten photos from the report. The TCEQ investigator took them all on 6/16/2020. He also provided the captions. Page numbers refer to the full TCEQ report.

Downstream view of Rocky Branch Creek. Washed out road in background. Photo 2 out of 57. Page 141.
Destabilized banks along Long Branch Creek and sediment deposition in creek channel. Note: the creek channel almost completely filled in by sediment. Photo 17 of 57. Page 146.
Unstabilized drainage channels in Section 7 that are tied into Long Branch Creek. Photo 20 of 57. Page 147.
Area surrounding Long Branch Creek destabilized with no BMPs installed around the creek. Note unstabilized sediment piles next to the creek. Photo 30 of 57, Page 151.
Area surrounding Long Branch Creek destabilized with no BMPs installed around the creek. Note unstabilized sediment piles next to the creek. Photo 32 of 57, Page 151.
Sediment and debris in cement culvert that allows Long Branch Creek to flow underneath Section 5 entrance road. Photo 40 of 57. Page 154.
Sediment and debris in cement culvert that allows Long Branch Creek to flow underneath Section 5 entrance road. Photo 41 of 57. Page 154.
Inadequate BMPs in drainage ditch that leads to Long Branch Creek. Note: Undercut silt fence. Photo 44 of 57, page 155.
Sediment deposition in unnamed creek channel right before Long Branch Creek. Note sediment line on cree. Sediment line is demarcated by pocket knife in red circle. Photo 48 of 57. Page 156.
Sediment in a drainage ditch that is tied into an unnamed creek. Note over-capacitated silt fence. Photo 53 of 57. Page 158.

Personal Observations Corroborate Report

Based on personal observations, I don’t think the investigator exaggerated. On the contrary, he may not have captured the full scope the hazards. Some can only be seen from the air. As luck would have it, I flew a helicopter over Colony Ridge on the same day the investigator captured his photos. Here are two from the air and one from the ground.

Washed out ditches abounded.
The developer was clearing more land before previously developed areas could be stabilized.
Silt fence being propped up to allow raw sewage to flow underneath it into Luce Bayou, which empties into Lake Houston.

Other Strangeness

Colony Ridge hired Merit Professional Services in Flower Mound, a Dallas/Fort Worth suburb. Merit obtains stormwater pollution prevention permits and also provides stormwater inspection services. However, according to the complainant in this case, Merit claimed they only provided the permit, but not inspection services. Lack of local oversight may have been a large part of the problem.

Page 182 of the TCEQ report contains an August 12, 2020, memo from Landplan Engineering to the investigator. It states that, “Going forward, Colony has switched to Double Oak since they are headquartered in the Houston Area.” Double Oak provides the same services and then some. Their website shows they offer construction, erosion control and stormwater management.

Ironically, Double Oak Construction is a defendant in the Elm Grove lawsuits against Perry Homes and its contractors on the Woodridge Village project in Montgomery County. That case involves many of the same issues involved in both the TCEQ report and the City of Plum Grove’s lawsuit against the developer of Colony Ridge. The report does not mention exactly when Double Oak started working for Colony Ridge.

For the full TCEQ report, click here. Caution: large download, 28 megs, 184 pages.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/16/2020

1144 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 393 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.

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