Tag Archive for: sedimentation

How Sand Mines Increased Erosion Potential by 33X During Harvey

Yesterday, I posted about how major storms transport the vast majority of the sediment that flushes down rivers. That’s a major reason to have wide buffers between mines and rivers, and to get the mines out of the floodway. One major event, as we have seen, can alter a river and people’s lives forever. However, in Texas we allow sand mining right up to the edge of the river, increasing the potential for erosion.

Scalping 20 Square Miles of Forest Increased Erosion Potential

We all know from science classes that when you remove ground cover, you increase the potential for erosion. That’s exactly what the sand mines upstream from the Humble/Kingwood area have done. They have removed about 20 square miles of ground cover to expose sand. And because virtually all of the mines are in the floodway, they effectively increase the riverbed width during floods by an average of 33X. Here’s the basis for the calculation. 

Exposed Sand in Floodwater is 33X Wider than Natural Riverbed

Between I-45 and I-69 on the West Fork, a distance of 20 miles, we have approximately 20 square miles of sand mines. So we have one square mile of mines per mile.

If you lined all mines up, end to end, you would have a swath exactly one mile wide.

But the river is, on average, only .03 miles wide. Thus, mines widen the effective riverbed width by average of 33X.

By removing all the surface vegetation, miners also increased the potential for erosion during extreme storms, such as Harvey, by 33X. 

To put a mile-wide riverbed in perspective, that’s twice as wide as the muddy Mississippi … in the Delta region. 

Sediment Dams Increase Flood Levels

That helps explain how so much sand piled up virtually overnight during Harvey. The flood was wide enough to inundate the mines. Afterwards, a nearly continuous trail of sand along both shores of the West Fork led directly to the Humble/Kingwood area as the pictures in my gallery show. In many places, this trail was more than 5 feet deep. Here’s what it looked like onshore in River Grove Park.

Note height of sand in River Grove Park relative to parking sign in background.

Plus there was far more sand in the river after the flood than before.  

If the river AND both shores were ALL higher after the storm than before, then it stands to reason that most of that sand had to come from somewhere other the river itself. 

Looking at a satellite image, the barren sand mines dominate the landscape like no other feature in the watershed. The obvious conclusion is that much of the sand came from mines like this …

West Fork Mine Complex one day after the peak of Harvey when floodwaters were already receding. Exposed sand surface increased the potential for erosion.
West Fork Mine Complex day after peak of Harvey when floodwaters were already receding. Exposed sand surface increased potential for erosion relative to river which snakes diagonally through photo. Image courtesy of Google Earth.

… and wound up in places like this.

Sand left behind by Hurricane Harvey on both flanks of the west fork of the San Jacinto River. Looking northeast toward Forest Cove where apartment buildings or townhomes were destroyed. Note sand in treetops in foreground.

Or places like those below, where it formed sediment dams, which the Army Corps says contributed to flooding.

A drainage ditch (center left) that empties the entire western third of Kingwood at River Grove Park was virtually closed off by a sandbar approximately 10 feet high and 1500 feet long. It was deposited during Harvey. An estimated 500+ homes above this point flooded.
A six foot high dune not present before Harvey virtually blocks the West Fork just south of Kingwood Country Club.
A giant sand dune has formed at the mouth of the west fork of the San Jacinto. It is not being addressed by the Army Corps dredging project but should be. Thousands of homes upstream from the blockage flooded during Harvey.

Huge Pre/Post Increases in Deposition Rates Since Sand Mining

In its final report on Hurricane Harvey, Harris County Flood Control District confirms the enormity of the deposition. It says, “Large amounts of debris and heavy sedimentation upwards of 4.0-8.0 ft in some locations have been noted especially along the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.” (See Page 7.)  But how does this compare to the deposition rate before Harvey?

Sedimentation Rate Much Higher than Before Sand Mining 

In 1983, Turner Collie & Braden, an engineering consulting firm, estimated the loss of lake capacity due to sedimentation at 311 acre-feet per year. (See page 9.)

Large-scale sand mining on the West Fork began shortly after that and has grown ever since. On the East Fork, sand mining began in the early 2000s.

The Texas Water Development Board created the difference map below by comparing data collected in 2011 with data collected from March through June of 2018. Remember, three or four of those years were drought years when very little sediment came down river. Virtually all of what you see below happened during the last three years. We can also see from satellite photos  that most of that happened during Harvey.

West Fork Difference Map. Red/orange/yellow/green areas represent decreases in sediment since last survey. Blue, violet and white represent increases.

The map above shows we gained 1.0 to 5.5+ feet of sediment in most of the 3400 acre area between the mouth bar and FM1960

Assuming we gained on average about 3 feet per acre, that means the City lost approximately 10,000 acre-feet of storage in this ONE SECTION of the lake in only three years.

Current Rate Estimated 22X Higher

That’s about an 11X increase per year compared to the Turner Collie & Braden study which measured the ENTIRE lake. However, we can also roughly adjust for the difference in lake and sample sizes shown above. Page 9 of the Brown & Root report in 2000 says that the area shown above collects a little less than half (42%) of the sediment flowing into the lake. So we can assume that 11X at least doubles to 22X. (Because there’s more in the bottom portion of the lake than the top.) 

22X is less than 33X, but consistent with earlier observations when you consider that much of the sand was deposited on shores, as you saw in the River Grove photo. 

Caused by Mining or Nature?

Some of this sand also came from urban runoff. And some undoubtedly came from other tributaries, such as Spring and Cypress Creeks, which have fewer mines. Some also came from the East Fork watershed, where there is a huge active sand mine on Caney Creek.  Regardless, 131,000 cfs cut across that statistical mile-wide swath of sand on the West Fork during Harvey. 

Analysis of satellite and aerial photos leads me to believe that the river carried millions of cubic yards of sand and sediment downstream from the mines, including their stockpiles. That sand, I believe, helped to create the blockages shown above, which contributed to flooding throughout the heavily populated Humble and Kingwood areas.

Let’s Get Sand Mines Out of the Floodway

Miners claim that the currents in Harvey were not strong enough to carry sand out of their mines. Several world-leading hydrologists that I have talked to claim the opposite. As one said, “Of course it could.”

That’s why we need to pass legislation moving mines back from the river. We can’t reduce natural sedimentation, but we can reduce man-made sedimentation by putting sand mines out of the reach of rushing floodwaters.

As always, these are my opinions on matters of public policy. They are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.

Posted by Bob Rehak on December 17, 2018

475 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Have You Given Feedback Yet to TWDB on State Flood Assessment?

Last weekend, I posted about a statewide flood assessment by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) that will help shape public policy toward flooding. After reading the report, I became concerned by the lack of a serious discussion about the role of sedimentation in flooding. So I urged readers to send feedback before Wednesday at 5pm – the close of public comment.

If you haven’t had time to read the report yet…

Consider sending an adaptation of the email below.


Address email to: 

PUBLIC-COMMENT@twdb.texas.gov

In subject line put:  

Public Comment on State Flood Assessment

First, thank you for an excellent report. I support all of your findings, but am concerned about one critical omission: sedimentation.

I live n the Humble/Kingwood/Lake Houston area. Sedimentation was and still is a major contributing factor to flooding here. The Army Corps of Engineers agrees. As a result, as taxpayers, we’re about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on dredging. It could take a year or more to unclog our river and drainage ditches.

Here’s an example of a sand bar that largely formed during Harvey, blocks the San Jacinto West Fork where it meets Lake Houston. This giant bar elevated flood levels throughout the highly populated Humble/Kingwood corridor where more than 3300 businesses and 16,000 homes were damaged or destroyed.

Sadly, a large part of the sediment we received during Harvey was preventable. It came from sand mines upstream from us on both the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto. While this sand didn’t cause the flood, it exacerbated the flood.

Moving sand mines out of the floodway would be a simple way to reduce sedimentation and flood risk. Many states have minimum setback requirements in their permitting procedures and best practice guides. Texas has no such requirement. Neither does Texas require sand mines to:

  • Reclaim land when a mine is played out.
  • Slope banks to reduce erosion and strengthen dikes.
  • Avoid clearing land until it is ready to mine.
  • Post performance bonds to cover the cost of damage they cause.

Simply observing common-sense best management practices used in other states and countries could radically reduce the sediment escaping from sand mines during floods.

Additionally, I would point out that some counties (like Montgomery) may unwittingly encourage sand mining by giving miners timber exemptions on their real estate tax that they don’t qualify for.

For instance, one Montgomery County mine on the East Fork pays $288 a year in tax on 218 acres! All because of a timber exemption that hasn’t been valid for more than a decade!

It’s a pattern. In 53 out of 53 Montgomery County sand mine properties the ReduceFlooding.com examined, not one was appraised as a sand mine! More than 90% were appraised as vacant land or ag/timber even though they were not vacant and they had no trees. So, my suggestions are to:
  • Recognize the contribution of sedimentation to flooding
  • Document sources of sedimentation
  • Encourage legislation that reduces sedimentation from the sources we can control.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

(Your Name and contact info)

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/2/2018
399 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Sand Mining Best Management Practices: Vegetation

Sand mining best practices throughout the country and the world urge operators to leave vegetation in place until they are ready to mine an area. The reason: to reduce erosion. However, approximately 60 acres of the sand mine below on the East Fork of the San Jacinto where it meets Caney Creek and White Oak Creek was cleared but not mined – just in time for two 500-year floods.

Approximately 65 acres of this mine were cleared before two five-hundred year floods, contributing to downstream sedimentation in the East Fork, even though only about three acres of the area was mined.

Removing Vegetation Risks Sedimentation Downstream

The cleared area lies totally in the 100-year flood plain and was inundated. Satellite images of the area downstream from the cleared land show a sudden buildup of sand. While the sand did not all come from the cleared area, one wonders how much sedimentation could have been prevented by following best practices.

The following sequence of images shows the rapid removal of vegetation.

The white outlined area will be totally cleared before Harvey. On April 8, 2014, it was all dense forest. 

By March 3, 2016, most of the area was cleared.

By January 23, 2017, just before Harvey, the area was entirely cleared.

Risk from Flooding

This FEMA flood hazard map shows that the entire area lies within with 100-year flood plain (aqua) and adjacent to the floodway (cross-hatched area).

Before and After: Results

This image from 2014 shows the area in question when it was still forested. Note how little sand is in the river downstream from the mine.

Here’s the same view after vegetationwas cleared and the area was inundated by Harvey in 2017. Note all the sediment in the river downstream.

Much of the sand and sediment washed downstream is invisible to satellite photos because it’s under dense forest canopy. This area (downstream the sand mine being discussed) was once wetlands. A boardwalk through those wetlands had to be excavated from several feet of sand after Harvey.

Here’s what part of the same trail looked like before it was excavated. Approximately 30 acres of the park were blanketed with dunes up to 10 feet tall after Harvey. Every trail in the park required repairs. Total cost: approximately $200,000 to Kingwood residents.

A bird’s nest that was ten feet up in a tree is now knee high. Many of the trees along the Eagle Point trail in East End Park are buried under so much sand that they are dying. 

An Ounce of Prevention

It’s impossible to tell how much of the sand above resulted from the removal of vegetation?  Previous posts showed how the mines stockpile also eroded. The river itself contributed sediment. However, if the mine were not in the flood plain and if the miners had not removed so much vegetation so far in advance of mining, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

So why do miners favor the floodplains and floodways? Why to they remove vegetation years before it will be mined? Is it all about the relentless pursuit of efficiency at the expense of safety?

Tomorrow, we will look at economics, taxation and how some well-intentioned laws passed in the late seventies to protect family farms helped fuel a boom in sand mining.

Posted September 24, 2018

391 Days since Hurricane Harvey

TCEQ Approves SJRA and City Plan to Temporarily Lower Lake Conroe

This morning, I received a press release announcing that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) had approved the joint decision by the City of Houston and the San Jacinto River Authority to temporarily lower the level of Lake Conroe during the peak of hurricane season. The lake will be lowered by two feet from 201 mean feet about sea level (msl) to 199 msl between mid-August and the end of September. This will provide buffer against flooding while the Army Corps of Engineers removes excess sediment from the West Fork deposited by Hurricane Harvey that is exacerbating flooding. Because this has legal implications and the Lake Conroe Association fought the lowering, I’m reprinting the entire text of the press release below…with special thanks to Houston City Council Member Dave Martin, Mayor Sylvester Turner,  and SJRA Board Members Kaaren Cambio and Mark Micheletti who lobbied long and hard for this. Also to all the Lake Houston and Lake Conroe residents who made the trek to testify about this issue to the SJRA board.

Text of Press Release

CITY AND SJRA RECEIVE APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH TEMPORARY FLOOD MITIGATION PROPOSAL FOR LAKE HOUSTON AND LAKE CONROE

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will use “enforcement discretion” if flood mitigation releases for Lake Houston and Lake Conroe exceed annual water rights

HOUSTON, TEXAS – Hurricane Harvey deposited tremendous amounts of silt in the West Fork of the San Jacinto River. The silt physically changed the river’s ability to safely pass flows during storms and created the need for a significant dredging project to restore the river’s capacity. As a temporary flood mitigation solution, the City of Houston and the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) proposed a temporary, joint reservoir operations strategy for Lake Houston and Lake Conroe. The temporary flood mitigation would be in place for up to two years or until the dredging project is completed.

The proposed strategy involves the pre-release of water from Lake Houston immediately prior to certain storms and the seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe’s water level during the Spring and Fall.  

A significant hurdle to final consideration of the proposed temporary strategy was a decision by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on how releases of water from the two reservoirs would be “accounted for” by the state. TCEQ issues permits that limit how much water can be diverted each year from water supply reservoirs like Lake Houston and Lake Conroe.

The proposal from Houston and SJRA highlights the difficulty of balancing the state’s long-term need for reliable water supplies with the short-term goal of protecting public health and safety while emergency measures are implemented to reduce flood risks.

In a letter to the City of Houston and SJRA on Friday, June 15, 2018, the TCEQ expressed its intent to use enforcement discretion to allow the two agencies to move forward with finalizing their temporary flood mitigation strategy.

The letter states that “if flood mitigation releases . . . result in an exceedance of the annual permitted amounts for diversion or release by SJRA of the City of Houston, the TCEQ Executive Director will exercise enforcement discretion with respect to such exceedance.” The TCEQ’s decision acknowledges the importance of accounting for all diversions from the state’s water supply reservoirs, but it also recognizes the emergency nature of the flood mitigation work being conducted in the San Jacinto River.

The City of Houston and SJRA express their sincere appreciation to the leadership and staff at the TCEQ for their thoughtful consideration of the unique flood challenges that our region is facing. We look forward to finalizing the details of our proposed joint reservoir operations strategy. Additional details on the project including a timeline will be provided as they become available.

ABOUT HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS

Houston Public Works (www.HoustonPublicWorks.org) is responsible for streets and drainage, production and distribution of water, collection and treatment of wastewater, and permitting and regulation of public and private construction covering a 627-square mile service area. Houston Public Works is accredited by the American Public Works Association. Facebook & Twitter:@HoustonPWE

ABOUT SAN JACINTO RIVER AUTHORITY

Created by the Texas Legislature in 1937, the San Jacinto River Authority is a government agency whose mission is to develop, conserve, and protect the water resources of the San Jacinto River basin.  Covering all or part of seven counties, the organization’s jurisdiction includes the entire San Jacinto River watershed, excluding Harris County.  SJRA is one of two dozen river authorities in Texas, and like other river authorities, its primary purpose is to implement long-term, regional projects related to water management and development. For more information, visit www.sjra.net.