Tag Archive for: TCEQ

How Soon We Forget!

How soon we forget. Hurricane Harvey was just 4.5 years ago. Since then I have documented dozens, if not hundreds of questionable practices that erode margins of flood safety.

It Didn’t Have to Be That Bad

Harvey was the largest rainfall event in the history of North America. However, with better regulations and construction practices, it didn’t have to be as destructive as it was.

  • Lax regulations;
  • Willful blindness;
  • Development and construction practices that pushed the safety envelope;
  • Relentless destruction of forests and wetlands near rivers and streams;
  • And homebuyers who didn’t realize their true flood risk…

…made Harvey’s destruction worse than it otherwise would have been.

No one factor by itself would explain Harvey’s destruction. But put them all together, and it’s like “death of a thousand cuts.”

The sheer volume of material – more than 1,000,000 words on this site – makes it difficult for people to see the big picture sometimes. To put 1,000,000 words into perspective, the average novel contains only about 100,000. So I’m condensing the website into a book that includes the themes below.

No One Wins Arguments with Mother Nature

During an interview with Milan Saunders and his daughter Lori, Milan said, “No one wins arguments with Mother Nature.” How profound! It doesn’t matter how many surveys, studies and engineer stamps you have on your home’s title. If you don’t:

  • Respect the rivers.
  • Give them room to roam.
  • Protect wetlands.
  • Allow plenty of margin for safety…

…you will flood.

Thought courtesy of Milan Saunders, Chairman/CEO of Plains State Bank. That’s his daughter Lori’s house during Harvey.

Understanding the Causes of Flooding

Excess sedimentation is one of them. Sediment pollution is the single most common source of pollution in U.S. waters. Approximately 30% is caused by natural erosion, and the remaining 70% is caused by human activity.

Large islands built up during Harvey blocked both drainage ditches and rivers. Below, you can see a large sand island (top) built up at the confluence of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch where it reaches the San Jacinto West Fork at River Grove Park. This sand bar reached 10-12 feet in height above the waterline and helped back water up into Trailwood, the Barrington and Kingwood Lakes and Kings Forest. Before the Army Corps dredged this island, River Grove flooded five times in six months. It hasn’t flooded since.

The Kingwood Diversion Ditch and West Fork San Jacinto were almost totally blocked by sediment dams deposited during Harvey.

The second photo above was taken a few hundred yards downstream on the West Fork from the first. It shows “Sand Island” – so nicknamed by the Army Corps. It took the Corps months to dredge this island which they say had blocked the West Fork by 90%.

A certain amount of this sedimentation can be explained by natural erosion. But mankind also contributed to the sheer volume by other practices which I will discuss below.

Respect the Rivers

The red polygons in the satellite image below surround 20-square miles of sand mines on the West Fork of the San Jacinto in a 20 mile reach of river between I-45 and I-69. That exposes a mile-wide swath of sediment to erosion during floods and increases the potential for erosion by 33x compared the river’s normal width.

Even without floods, mines sometimes flush their waste into the rivers. The shot below on the top right shows the day the West Fork turned white. The TCEQ found the source of the pollution upstream: a sand mine that had flushed 56 million gallons of sludge into the West Fork (bottom right).

Influence of sand mines of West Fork San Jacinto water quality.

End the War on Wetlands

Wetlands are nature’s detention ponds. During storms, they hold water back so it won’t flood people downstream. But we seem to want to eradicate wetlands. The images below show the Colony Ridge development in Liberty County. Wetlands (right) are being cleared (left) to make way for the world’s largest trailer park. The acceleration of runoff wiped out FM1010 during Harvey. The road still has not been repaired.

Colony Ridge in Liberty County.

Conservation Costs Much Less than Mitigation

Halls Bayou at I-69 near Fiesta. Image on left shows whole subdivisions that that to be bought out before detention ponds on right could be built.

All across Harris County, especially in older areas inside Beltway 8, apartment complexes, homes and businesses are built right next to bayous and channels. This makes it difficult to enlarge streams or build detention ponds when necessary. One study showed that preservation of floodplains is 5X more cost effective than mitigation after homes flood. Yet private developers keep crowding bayous and residents keep demanding public solutions.

Respecting Individuals’ Property Rights While Protecting Others’

In Texas, it sometimes feels that an individual’s right to do what he/she wants with property trumps others’ rights NOT to flood. You may think you’re protected by all those public servants reviewing and approving plans. But what happens when developers and contractors decide to ignore the approved plans? Here’s a prime example: the Laurel Springs RV Resort near Lakewood Cove.

The approved plans said that “Stormwater runoff shall not cross property lines.” So what did the contractors do? They pumped their stormwater over the development’s detention pond wall. When that took too long, they dug a trench through the wall. Then they laid pipes through the wall to permanently empty the sludge into the wetlands of Harris County’s new Edgewater Park.

This apparently violated the developer’s City of Houston permit, the Texas Water Code, TCEQ’s construction permit and the developer’s stormwater pollution prevention plan. Four investigations are currently swirling around this development. The contractor also cut down approximately 50 feet of trees in Edgewater Park along the entire boundary line and received a cease-and-desist letter from the Harris County Attorney. But the damage is done.

Balance Upstream and Downstream Interests

About 10% of all the water coming down the West Fork at the peak of Harvey came from Crystal Creek in Montgomery County. But the wetlands near the headwaters of Crystal Creek are currently under development. And the developer is avoiding building detention ponds with a “beat-the-peak” survey. This loophole allowed by Montgomery County says that if you get your stormwater to the river faster than the peak of a flood arrives, then you’re not adding to the peak of a flood and you don’t have to build detention ponds. So developers conduct timing surveys to reduce costs and maximize salable land.

What happens when upstream areas develop without consideration for the impact on downstream property owners.

Of course, speeding up the flow of water in a flood is the opposite of what you want to do. To reduce flooding, you should hold back as much water as possible.

The slide above shows part of a new development called Mavera at SH242 and FM1314 being built on wetlands near Crystal Creek.

The graph on the right shows what happened on Brays Bayou without suitable detention upstream. Floodwaters peak higher, sooner. Harris County has spent more than $700 million in the last 20 years to remediate flooding problems along Brays.

How much will we need to spend when more areas like Mavera get built upstream on the West Fork?

How Quickly We Forget!

FEMA’s Base-Flood-Elevation Viewer shows that in that same area, developers have already built homes that could go under 1-5 feet of water in a 100-year flood. These homes are actually in a ten-year flood zone. And yet more homes are being built nearby. On even more marginal land!

In recent years, the price of land as a percent of a new home’s cost has risen from a historical average of 25% to approximately 40% today. This puts pressure on developers to seek out cheaper land in floodplains, reduce costs by avoiding detention pond requirements, pave over wetlands, and reduce lot sizes resulting in more impervious cover. All contribute to flooding.

Of course, smart homebuyers would not make such risky investments. But few lack the expertise to gauge flood risk. Educating such homebuyers will be one of the major objectives of the book I hope to write.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/23/2022

1639 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 Says RV Resort Discharge Not Allowed by Permit

The TCEQ says discharges of sediment-laden stormwater are not allowed across public or private property under the terms of its Construction General Permit.

Two weeks ago, I photographed contractors at the Laurel Springs RV Resort construction site discharging silty stormwater from its detention pond into the wetlands and cypress ponds of Harris County’s Precinct 4 Edgewater Park.

stormwater runoff discharge
Photographed on Saturday, January 29. Laurel Springs RV Resort dug a trench through the southern wall of its undersized detention pond to discharge silty stormwater onto public property at top of frame.

Not long after that, I photographed them laying pipe in the trench to create a permanent conduit for stormwater into the park.

Response From Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

So, I emailed the photos to people at the TCEQ responsible for water quality, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, and Construction General Permits. I asked if their permit allowed them to discharge silty stormwater into Edgewater Park. The short answer: NO.

Earl Lott, Director of the Water Quality Division of the TCEQ wrote back a lengthy email. In it, he concluded…

“…[their] general permit does not give the permittee the right to use private or public property for conveyance of stormwater and certain non-stormwater discharges…”


Earl Lott, Director, TCEQ, Office of Water


CGP Covers Activities During Construction, SWP3 Prior to Construction

Mr. Lott also noted that “Large construction site operators must comply with the conditions of the stormwater Construction General Permit (CGP) TXR150000 under the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Program. The CGP requires construction operators to control pollutants in stormwater during construction activities. Construction site primary operators that disturb greater than one acre of land are required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) and implement best management practices (BMPs) prior to construction activities beginning.” [Emphasis added.]

“As part of the SWP3,” Lott continued, “a description of BMPs used to prevent and reduce pollution in stormwater must be included and the BMPs must be inspected and evaluated to determine the effectiveness of controlling stormwater leaving the property.”

“The SWP3 must include a description of any sediment control practices used to remove eroded soils from stormwater runoff, such as a sedimentation basin. These controls must minimize sediment discharges from the site,” said Lott. [Emphasis added.]

So what did the Laurel Springs RV Resort’s SWP3 and Permit obligate them to do? For the full text of this 162 page document, click here. (14 Meg Download). The first have of this document includes the SWP3. The second includes the permit to discharge under the Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System. There are many redundancies between the two. I’ll cover the SWP3 today and the Permit another day.

Concerns About SWPPP Plan

I want to make it clear that Mr. Lott’s comments related only to discharges of stormwater into Edgewater Park. However, after reading the RV Resort’s SWP3 and Permit, I have personal concerns listed below. The TCEQ may or may not share them. The TCEQ has up to 60 days from the date of an initial complaint to file a full report.

Based on my observations, contractor performance does not match contractor promises in the SWP3 in many cases. Also, several key elements of the plan were left blank. And some claims were just plain false, misleading or erroneous.

Below is a list of my concerns. You may find others.

  1. The plan is undated and appears never to have been revised even though it should have been.
  2. Clearing started in October. As Lott said, the contractor should have put pollution prevention measures in place before construction, but didn’t.
  3. Page 15 – The discussion of runoff coefficients is misleading. If sand comprised the top 18 inches of soil, water would not still be ponding on the site. We’ve had less than an inch of rain in the last 20 days. It would appear that the contractor overstated the potential for water to infiltration.
  4. Pages 16 and 17 – Construction schedule left blank.
  5. Page 18 – Says locations of support activities are included, but blanks not filled in.
  6. Page 18 – Says no wetlands have been found near site when adjoining property is full of them.
  7. Page 18 – Can’t see where they planned temporary erosion control measures during construction. Until yesterday, they had no silt fencing along the southern property line and still have no along the western property line.
  8. Page 18 – No source listed for fill materials. They have used Sprint Sand & Clay. But Sprint’s contract prohibits them placing fill in the 500-year flood plain. I have photographed the contractor spreading Sprint fill into the 500-year area.
  9. Page 22 – Contractor lists the size of the site as 20 acres and claims 20 acres are sandy loam. But then he says 20 acres out of 20 acres is 74%. Hmmmm. No wonder he has six tax forfeitures in his past.
  10. Page 22 – Contractor relied on USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for soil data. But NRCS says its data is invalid for a site of this size. It falls below the limits of resolution for NRCS sampling.
  11. Page 34 – Before clearing, contractor failed to mark the southern property line. Employees then cut down a corridor of trees approximately 50 feet wide for a distance of about 750 feet. Contractor then piled dirt in corridor which eroded into Edgewater Park.
  12. Page 40 – I can see no measures in use to slow down velocity of sheet flow.
  13. Page 40 – I can see no temporary erosion controls in place on portions of the site where they are no longer working.
  14. Page 41 – Exits have been mud pits so vehicles have tracked dirt out of the site and spread it into streets where it washes into storm sewers.
  15. Page 41 – They have perimeter protection installed only along one side and have even bypassed that.
  16. Page 42 – No protection of storm sewer inlets until yesterday (about 5 months late).
  17. Page 42 – They claim a sediment basin would put public safety as risk, but don’t explain why.
  18. Page 42 – Contractor should have drained the detention pond through a 24 inch reinforced concrete pipe leading to the City’s storm sewer system, but chose to use the wetlands in Edgewater Park instead.
  19. Page 43 – Says discharge of standing water into a storm sewer will not be allowed, but residents have photographed them doing it.
  20. Page 43 – Covers vehicles tracking dirt out of the site. It requires stabilized construction entrances and/or regular street sweeping. This is basic “good housekeeping” stuff that has been in short supply since this construction site found the spotlight.
  21. Page 44 – Says “No discharges of Stormwater…will take places under this SWPPP.” See photos above.
  22. Page 45 – Says “Maintenance and repairs will be conducted within 24 hours of inspection report.” But only in the last two days has the contractor started removing eroded dirt from the county’s park caused by the discharge weeks ago.
  23. Page 45 – Says “Sediment will be removed from sediment fences … before it reaches 50% of the above ground height of the barrier.” Sediment was placed against the new southern silt fence that already exceeds that height.
  24. Section 8 on page 45 requires the contractor to select the most effective erosion control measures for specific site conditions from a page-long list of options. The contractor chose NONE.

How To Report Violations to the TCEQ

I urge residents who live close to the RV Resort to read the SWPPP and report additional violations/problems to the TCEQ if they see them.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/13/22

1629 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.

City Inspector Finds No Problems At RV Park. 311 Says “Case Closed.” Martin’s Office Says “Not So Fast.”

After photos showed clear construction permit violations at the Laurel Springs RV Resort, a City inspector said he found no problems there. Then, 311 closed the case. But Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin’s office said another group was investigating. Martin’s chief of staff did not elaborate.

Discharging Silty Stormwater into County Park

On Saturday, I photographed the contractor digging a trench to let silty stormwater out of the detention pond into Harris County Precinct 4’s Edgewater Park.

stormwater runoff
RV Park Drains its construction pond into Harris County Precinct 4’s new Edgewater Park in background.

This violated the terms of the developer’s construction permit. The trees behind the trench belong to Harris County Precinct 4 Park System. And the construction permit clearly states that “stormwater runoff shall not cross property line.”

Note first sentence on approved drainage plan.

Discharging across property lines also violates state law. See Chapter 11.086 of the state water code.

Then on Monday morning, I photographed the contractor covering up pipe that creates a permanent outfall onto County property.

Contractors laying pipe under wall of detention pond to send stormwater into Edgewater Park
Contractors covering up pipe that will convey future discharges. Photographed yesterday.

So I filed a complaint with the City’s 311 system at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin’s District E staff.

Finally, today (Tuesday morning), I tried to photograph the drain/trench again. But contractors had covered it up and repaired the dike. If you hadn’t seen the previous pictures, you would never suspect a drainpipe was there (except for some black silt fencing around the intake which will be taken down).

By Tuesday morning, contractors had repaired the pond wall. Area circled in red is the outfall, covered with water.

Extent of Silty Runoff

The silty stormwater ran almost all the way down to Hamblen Road.

Water should have gone under Laurel Springs Lane and into the detention pond above via COH storm sewer. However, the contractor discharged it into the park instead. Note sediment-laden water in foreground.
A large portion of the park appears to be inundated with silty discharge.
Looking north toward detention pond on RV site from over Edgewater Park. Note silty water in foreground.

City Inspector Found No Violations

As I reviewed Tuesday’s images, I received an email from 311 saying the inspector found no problems and that 311 had closed the case. Obviously, the 311 operator didn’t clearly communicate the nature of my complaint. It was about stormwater runoff and construction-permit violations, not a fence line encroachment.

And clearly, the inspector didn’t:

  • Look at the approved drainage plan that showed the outfall should be going into the City storm sewer under Laurel Springs Lane.
  • Understand that draining water onto neighbor’s property violates the construction permit and state regulations.
  • Know the trees below the construction site belong to the County Park. He thought they belonged to the contractor. (See below.)
Response from 311 to complaint about construction stormwater violations. No pictures were attached despite text of email.

Inspector Felt Discharging into County Park Was Best Management Practice

To add insult to injury, the inspector characterized discharging into Edgewater Park’s vegetation as a contractor best management practice (BMP). Obviously, he thought the trees belonged to the contractor. He didn’t bother to explore who owned the land below the construction site or how far south the discharge had traveled.

Responses like this give the City a black eye.

I immediately emailed Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin’s office about the 311 response. Jessica Beemer, his chief of staff, responded that the case wasn’t really closed. She said a different group had been assigned to investigate the complaint. But, as of this writing, she did not elaborate.

The TCEQ hopes to respond to a separate complaint by tomorrow. And I met several Harris County employees investigating the construction this morning in response to other complaints.

Stay tuned. More news to follow. This isn’t over yet.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/1/2022

1617 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.

Top Stories of 2021 in Review

Below are my personal picks for the top flood-mitigation stories of 2021.

The Fight for Funding

In 2019, Commissioners Court established “equity” guidelines that prioritized projects in Low-to-Moderate Income watersheds. Then this year:

Still no word from HUD on a possible direct allocation of $750 million. We may hear in January.

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.

Relentless Development

Fueled by low interest rates and flight from city crowds during Covid, suburban and rural development surged in 2021. Flood-mitigation felt like an afterthought in many developments. We saw that with Colony Ridge in Liberty County. Colony Ridge clearcut wetlands, paved over floodplains and ignored county regs designed to reduce erosion.

In the Kingwood Area, the Laurel Springs RV resort took advantage of a grandfathering clause in permitting to build a detention pond one-half the size of current requirements. These represent just two examples of many.

The Laurel Springs RV Resort got its detention pond approved one day before stiffer regs went into effect.

After Harvey, we saw how such practices made flooding worse. How soon we forget!

Houston Housing and Community Development Meltdown

Houston’s Housing and Community Development Department, which was responsible for distributing more than a billion dollars in Harvey disaster relief funds, came unglued again this year. Last year, it sued the Texas General Land Office to keep money it couldn’t give away. This year, the Department’s Director publicly denounced the Mayor of Houston for trying to steer multi-family housing subsidies to the Mayor’s former law partner. The Mayor claimed ignorance of the partner’s involvement and announced a City Attorney investigation which never materialized.

Meanwhile, flood victims were victimized a second time. Bureaucratic bungling denied aid to people who deserved it.

World War II And Lake Houston Gates

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.

Lawsuits

The Lake Conroe Association had its lawsuit against the SJRA thrown out of court…with prejudice. The LCA hoped to prohibit the SJRA’s policy of seasonal lake lowering, which was designed to help protect the Lake Houston Area until other flood mitigation efforts could be put in place.

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.

Woodridge Village

Harris County Flood Control District purchased Woodridge Village from Perry Homes in February this year and hired a contractor to begin doubling the current floodwater-detention capacity on the site. When complete, the additional capacity will help protect homes in Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest and downstream along Taylor Gully.

Expansion of Dredging

After three and a half years of dredging in the San Jacinto West Fork, dredging has now moved to the East Fork. State Representative Dan Huberty secured $50 million earlier this year to extend the dredging program to other inlets around Lake Houston in the future.

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.

Subsidence

Years of fighting over subsidence between the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District and Groundwater Management Area 14 came to a head earlier this year. LSGCD fought any mention of subsidence in Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) for Montgomery County. GMA-14 wanted to include it, but finally recommended allowing each groundwater conservation district to make a subsidence measure optional. Unlimited groundwater pumping in southern Montgomery County could tilt Lake Houston toward homes at the northern end of the lake. That’s because subsidence would be greater there than at the Lake Houston Dam by TWO FEET.

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

TCEQ Again Cites Colony Ridge for Lack of Pollution Controls

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

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

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

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

Summary of Findings: Investigation #1736609

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

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

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

TCEQ Investigation #1736609

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

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

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

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

Supporting Documentation

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

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

Purpose of SWPPP and Control Measures

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

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

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

TCEQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downstream Impacts

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

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

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

1466 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

TCEQ Commissioners to Consider Agreed Order With Double Oak Construction on Woodridge Village Enforcement Action

The month after Woodridge Village flooded Elm Grove Village and North Kingwood Forest for the first time in May, 2019, the TCEQ investigated construction practices there. In the ensuing months, six investigations found 13 violations on the Woodridge site.

More than two years later, the charges against Double Oak Construction will finally be heard by TCEQ Commissioners in their September 9 meeting. This is basically a water quality case that has to do with pollution of Taylor Gully, the San Jacinto East Fork and Lake Houston. Charges include failure to:

  • Prevent sediment-laden discharge
  • Prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
  • Correctly identify receiving waters for the discharge
  • Implement and maintain effective best management practices.

On TCEQ Commissioners Docket for September 9

Item 29 on their docket reads:

No. 2019-1513-WQ-E. Consideration of an Agreed Order assessing administrative penalties and requiring certain actions of Double Oak Construction, Inc. in Montgomery County; RN110478583; for water quality violations pursuant to Tex. Water Code chs. 7 and 26 and the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, including specifically 30 Tex. Admin. Code ch. 60.

Water samples taken by the investigators showed that at the outfall:

  • Total Suspended Solids were 70 times higher compared to upstream
  • Total Dissolved Solids were almost 18 times higher.

Double Oak had been hired to clear and grub the site. That means removing trees and roots.

Unchecked erosion from site polluted water downstream with suspended solids 70 times higher than upstream.
Abel Vera had to grab his car to avoid slipping in ankle-deep sediment on Village Springs. Vera lives next to Woodridge.

Definition of Agreed Order

This enforcement action by the TCEQ falls into a category called an “Agreed Order.” A website called USLegal.com defines an agreed order as: “An Agreed Order refers to a written agreement submitted by the parties to a case resolving the issues between them. Once the agreed order is approved by the court and entered in its minutes, it becomes the order or decree of the court with all of the force and effect that any order would have after a full hearing prior to adjudication.” 

However, they add: “…until then, an ‘agreed order’ is no order at all, but merely an agreement of the parties. It has no significance … until a judicial … decision gives it significance.” TCEQ Commissioners will take that step on September 9.

Double Oak Penalties Unclear

Documents supplied in response to a FOIA request did not discuss what the penalties might entail for Double Oak. The company left the construction site long ago. It has since been sold to Harris County Flood Control and the City of Houston for a regional stormwater detention basin and sewage treatment plant. So it’s not as if Double Oak can make good by simply agreeing to clean up its act.

Typically, such cases involve a modest fine. The significance in this case: Double Oak apparently is admitting wrongdoing before a decision or settlement has been reached in hundreds of homeowner lawsuits downstream. More on those at a later date.

For More Information

For more on what led to the lawsuits, see:

Elm Grove Residents Look for Answers and Don’t Have to Look Far

What Went Wrong Part 1

What Went Wrong Part 2

What Went Wrong Part 3

What Went Wrong Part 4

What Went Wrong Part 5

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/31/2021

1463 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 712 Days 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.

One-Click Submittal for Suggested Public Comments on Proposed Sand-Mining BMPs

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.

To automatically submit the suggestions, click this link.


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.

  1. Geographic area should include “all tributaries draining into Lake Houston,” not a limited subset.
  2. Include provision that steps up enforcement. Operators already routinely violate too many of these BMPs.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.”
  5. 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.”
  6. Introduction: In the bullet point after “Geographic Location,” replace “hydrogeology” with “Surface and groundwater hydrology.”
  7. 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.” 
  8. 2.1: Replace “next anticipated storm” with “must repair or replace controls immediately when damage is noted during weekly inspections.”
  9. 2.1.1: Define the 100-foot buffer zone as “…measured from the stream bank to the closest disturbed area…”
  10. 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.”
  11. 2.2: Change Site operators must “inspect disturbed areas” to “inspect and document disturbed areas.”
  12. 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.”
  13. 2.2: Require that operators inspect all structural controls “once every seven (7) calendar days.”
  14. 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.”
  15. 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).”
  16. 2.2.5: Specify what operators must do “prior to discharge” to have a “permitted” discharge.”
  17. 2.2.6: In the sentence that ends with “…will not erode the receiving stream,” add “…or adjacent properties.”
  18. 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.
  19. 3.1: Specify that TCEQ must approve the mine plan.
  20. 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.)
  21. 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.”
  22. 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.”
  23. 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.”
  24. 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.”
  25. 3.3: Say “Topsoil material MUST be temporarily stockpiled for future use in post-mining activities.”
  26. 3.3: Add this thought. “Stockpiles may not be located in floodways.”
  27. 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.”
  28. 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.”
  29. 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.”
  30. 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.”
  31. 4.5: Add “All fuel storage tanks must be located outside of floodways.” 
  32. 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.”
  33. 4.5: Add “Remove all fuel storage equipment and tanks before abandoning a mine.”
  34. 4.6: Add new section that includes this thought. 
  35. 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.”
  36. 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.”
  37. 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.”
  38. 6.1: Add: “After completion of mining, remove all vehicles and debris that could be swept downstream in a flood.”
  39. 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.”
  40. 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.”
  41. 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.”
  42. 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.

To see the complete text of all proposed BMPs, click here.

For more explanation about the recommended comments, see these posts:

  1. Scope and Need for Proposed BMPs
  2. Setbacks from Rivers
  3. Vegetative Controls
  4. Structural Controls
  5. Pre-Mining Planning
  6. Mining Phase
  7. Post-Mining Phase
  8. Final Stabilization

Thanks in advance for taking the time to help.

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.

BMPs for Final Stabilization Report Omit Crucial Elements

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.

The seven previous posts have talked about:

  1. Scope and Need for Proposed BMPs
  2. Setbacks from Rivers
  3. Vegetative Controls
  4. Structural Controls
  5. Pre-Mining Planning
  6. Mining Phase
  7. Post-Mining Phase

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.

TCEQ Proposes BMPs for Post-Mining Phase, But Is There Any Incentive to Comply at That Point?

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.

The six previous posts have talked about:

  1. Scope and Need for Proposed BMPs
  2. Setbacks from Rivers
  3. Vegetative Controls
  4. Structural Controls
  5. Pre-Mining Planning
  6. Mining Phase

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 mine and 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 Mine
Abandoned 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.

BMPs for Pre-Mining Phase of Sand Mining Can Help Prevent Erosion that Contributes to Flooding

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!

Pre-Mining

For brevity, I’ll summarize each of the pre-mining BMPs. To see exact text being proposed by the TCEQ, click here.

3.1       Site Evaluation

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.

If the TMDL has already been developed, it may not allow additional inputs (discharges) to the receiving stream. Therefore, it is important to know which water bodies have had TMDLs developed for them or are scheduled for TMDLs. This information can also be found on the TCEQ’s Index of Water Quality Impairments.

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.

2020 Texas Integrated Report Index of Water Quality Impairments. Coincidentally, this reach of the river is where most local sand mines are located.

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.

Pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids dangerously exposed by erosion from sand-mining activities on both sides of a utility corridor. This was easily preventable.

To Submit Public Comments

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.