Tag Archive for: TCEQ

How Vegetative Controls Can Help Sand Mines Reduce Erosion and Flooding

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 2.1 Vegetative Controls

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

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

How Vegetation Helps Reduce Erosion

According to the TCEQ, “Vegetation is an inexpensive and effective way to protect soil from erosion. It also decreases erosion from flowing water by reducing its velocity. Roots hold soil and increase infiltration. In areas that are outside the active sand mining operation and not expected to handle vehicle traffic, vegetative stabilization of disturbed soil is required using the BMPs described below.”

Only Plants Appropriate for Region

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

Weekly Inspection Required

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

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

Opportunity for Improvement:

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

See suggested change at end of post.

2.1.1  Vegetative Buffer Zones

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

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

2.1.2  Sod Stabilization

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

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

Protection of Trees

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

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

2.1.3  Temporary Seeding

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

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

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

2.1.4  Permanent Seeding

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

2.1.6  Mulching

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

2.1.7  Erosion and Sediment Control Blankets

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

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

2.1.8  Surface Roughening

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

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

Summary and Call to Action

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

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

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/12/2021

1444 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

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

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

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

Comments Coming Due on BMPs, Not Just Rules Governing Them

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

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

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

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

Some Caveats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Public Policy Question

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

Scope of BMPs Being Proposed

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Make a Public Comment

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

More details to follow in the coming days.

Posted By Bob Rehak on 7/8/2021

1440 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

Take Two Minutes To Help Reduce Flooding in San Jacinto Watershed

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

Background: Proposed Rule is No Rule At All

Here’s the concern:

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

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

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

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

Leave Public Comment Before Midnight Tuesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can read the complete text of proposed BMPs here.

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/25/21

1426 Days after Hurricane Harvey

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

Eight TCEQ Investigations Reprimand Colony Ridge Construction Practices

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) finalized nine investigations into Colony Ridge construction practices this week. Eight of the nine found violations. And six of the eight scolded Colony Ridge for lack of best management practices relating to erosion controls. The other two cited Colony Ridge for operating without a permit.

Summary of Violations

The TCEQ meticulously documented the findings with dozens of photos and supporting documents. The nine investigations total 2,341 pages. Below is a summary of the investigation numbers, subdivisions and violations:

  • #1699286, Sante Fe #6, operating without a permit
  • #1704908, Long Branch, best management practice (BMP) violations
  • #174909, Sante Fe #5, failure to meet final stabilization requirements, large bare areas of unstabilized soil
  • #1704910, Sante Fe #7, BMP violations, unstabilized drainage channels, damaged BMPs, improperly installed BMPs
  • #1704912, Sante Fe #8, erosion control measures not installed
  • #1404914, Sante Fe #9, erosion control measures not installed
  • #1704916, Sante Fe #10 and #11, erosion control measures not installed
  • #1704918, Sante Fe #10 and #11, no violation
  • #1707467, Sante Fe #10 and #11, operating without a permit

The best management practices and erosion control measures cited above are designed to prevent the rivers of mud seen coming from Colony Ridge. The mud has partially plugged local creeks in Plum Grove, contributing to flooding. It has also contributed to sediment buildup farther downstream near the mouth bar of the San Jacinto East Fork.

Violations apply only to TCEQ regulations, not Liberty County’s drainage standards. The Liberty County attorney is reportedly conducting a separate investigation into Colony Ridge construction practices and engineering reports.

Nature of Violations

Six of the TCEQ violations relate to best management practices and erosion control. For instance:

  • Planting grass can stabilize soils.
  • Silt fences can prevent dirt from entering ditches.
  • Rock gabions can reduce the velocity of water, thus reducing erosion.

But the investigations found little evidence of any such practices. And when they did, the measures were often ineffective due to lack of maintenance. For instance, water eroded around and under silt fences, rendering them useless.

Dirt piled on sides of ditches. No silt fences, grass, or gabions. Photo taken May 26, 2021.

When you clear thousands of acres at a time, erosion control is important to protect downstream neighbors.

Two of the other investigations found Colony Ridge operating without a valid permit.

Conditions For Obtaining Permits

The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requires developers to formulate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) as a condition of obtaining their permits. The plans should:

  • Control the perimeter of the site
  • Protect receiving waters adjacent to the site
  • Follow pollution prevention measures
  • Protect slopes and channels
  • Stabilize the site as soon as possible
  • Minimize the area and duration of exposed soils at any one time
Part of Colony Ridge expansion area covered in TCEQ investigations. Photo taken March 3, 2021.

The goals of pollution prevention plans include:

  • Retaining sediment on the property
  • Selecting, installing, inspecting, and maintaining sediment control measures in accordance with good engineering practices
  • Removing offsite accumulations of sediment that escapes the property at a frequency sufficient to minimize offsite impacts
  • Preventing litter from becoming a pollutant source in stormwater discharges
Accumulations of litter on banks of Colony Ridge ditch – definitely not a best management practice. Photo taken March 3, 2021.

Penalties Unclear at This Time

It’s unclear at this time whether the TCEQ violations will result in any fines for Colony Ridge. Typically, the TCEQ gives regulated entities a chance to remedy violations before levying fines. However, the recurring nature of these violations may call for a new approach. TCEQ has warned Colony Ridge about similar issues in the past, saying that Colony Ridge violations could adversely affect human health. However, violations continue.

Clearly, the ability to fix problems without a fine – after silt has been discharged into bayous, streams and rivers – seems like an incentive to ignore, not obey, regulations. Violators can simply fix problems if caught and, if not, take their profits to the bank.

Looking south. Photo taken May 26, 2021. Colony Ridge continues to push north with same construction practices.

Conclusions of All Nine Reports

The reports comprise almost 650 megabytes. They are far too large to post in a forum like this. However, I have captured screen shots of the reports’ conclusions for those who wish more detail.

#1699286: operating without a permit

#1704908: failure to maintain and properly install BMPs
#1740909: failure to achieve final stabilization requirements, large areas of bare soil
#1704910: Failure to maintain BMPs, install them properly and stabilize drainage channels.
#1704912: erosion control measures not installed
#1704914: failure to install even minimum erosion controls.
#1704916: no erosion control measures installed
#1704918: No violations.
#1704467: Operating without a permit.

For full reports, visit the TCEQ website.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/5/2021, based on TCEQ investigations

1376 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 Joins Aggregate Company in Appealing Revocation of Air-Quality Permit

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has joined an aggregate company it regulates in appealing a judge’s decision that voided an air-quality permit issued to the aggregate producer.

Photo of blasting used in limestone quarries. Courtesy of Stop 3009 Vulcan Quarry. According to the group, “Quarry blasting, crushing, and hauling operations emit high levels of carcinogenic particulate matter.”

Much at Stake

On March 5, 2021, two Texas Hill County environmental groups, Stop 3009 Vulcan Quarry and Friends of Dry Comal Creek won a lawsuit voiding the air-quality permit issued to Vulcan Materials. Vulcan needs the permit to turn a former ranch in Comal County into a 1500-acre open-pit limestone quarry and rock crushing plant. The property is in the middle of residential developments. It also sits atop the recharge zone for the Edwards Aquifer. That aquifer supplies drinking water for 2 million people.

The environmental groups’ celebration of the judge’s ruling was short-lived, however. On April 30th, the TCEQ joined Vulcan in filing an appeal.

Battle Started in 2017

The court battle between residents, Alabama-based Vulcan and the TCEQ has raged since June 2017 when Vulcan initially applied for a TCEQ air-quality permit. The groups objected. An administrative judge first supported the TCEQ and Vulcan. But District Court Judge Maya Guerra-Gamble overturned that decision. The most recent legal filing is an appeal of the appeal.

Response from Environmental Groups

In response, Stop 3009 Vulcan Friends of Dry Comal Creek said, “Unsurprisingly, TCEQ and Vulcan Construction Materials are filing a legal appeal, attempting to overturn the decision rendered by Judge Guerra-Gamble vacating Vulcan’s air permit. The appeal will be heard by the Third Court of Appeals.”

“While Vulcan’s motivations seem transparent, it’s a bit puzzling that TCEQ is spending taxpayer dollars and agency resources ostensibly supporting an out-of-state corporation, and in visible opposition to hundreds of Texans they are supposed to protect!”

Gist of Judge’s Ruling

I first reported on this issue on March 18, 2021. 459th Civil District Court Judge Guerra-Gamble ruled that:

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

This May 20, 2021, story by Stephanie Johnson in My Canyon Lake, an online newspaper, provides additional detail.

Whom Does TCEQ Represent?

The TCEQ describes its mission as protecting the state’s public health and natural resources consistent with sustainable economic development. Its goal is “clean air, clean water, and the safe management of waste.”

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

However, some feel that the regulators have become too close with those they regulate. And there was an attempt in this year’s legislature to transfer regulation of aggregate mines to the Railroad Commission of Texas. The bill, HB4341, died in the House Environmental Regulation Committee. Notably, it would have created criminal offenses for making false statements in official documents such as permit applications and reports.

Finding Balance Between Over-Regulation and Under-Protection

If Texas is to continue to grow, it must find the right balance between over-regulation and under-protection. We must also find ways to live with the legacy of 3-mile-wide quarries, such as the one Vulcan proposes – if that is, indeed, the only way to grow.

Below is a picture of the San Jacinto West Fork. Twenty square miles of sand mines ring the river between I-69 and I-45. This area will be scarred forever.

The giant Hallett aggregate mine on the West Fork of the San Jacinto is almost 2 miles east to west and 2 miles north to south.

Concrete lasts a few years, but the giant pits and the equipment concrete producers leave behind last forever. We must protect the environment that provides quality of life in order to attract new residents.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/4/2021

1375 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.

Guess Which Way to Colony Ridge

This is the confluence of Caney Creek (left) and the San Jacinto East Fork (right) one day after a New Year’s Eve storm dumped two inches of rain on the area, including Plum Grove and Colony Ridge. The rain turned Colony Ridge, to the right, into a river of mud again.

Looking north at the confluence of Caney Creek and the San Jacinto East Fork (right). The sediment coming from Colony Ridge is a man-made disaster in the making. Photo taken 1/1/2021.

Where the Pollution Came From

Picture courtesy of Michael Shrader, Plum Grove Resident, of Maple Branch near his home on 12/31/2020 as rains ended. Colony Ridge drainage ditch in Camino Real subdivision enters into Maple Branch and then into East Fork.
Colony Ridge Drainage Ditch. Photo taken 1/1/2021. Note lack of sediment controls such as grass, backslope interceptor swales, and silt fences. TCEQ has previously cited the development for piling dirt next to ditches like this and for lack of sediment controls, but has done nothing about it.
See caption above.
Likewise.
And note how the piles of dirt on the left have almost completely eroded away. Photo 1/1/2021.

How Long?

TCEQ continues to be a toothless tiger. Liberty County Commissioners Court sees no problem and refuses to look at the evidence. The developer saves the money. Downstream residents continue to pay the price. Business as usual.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/2/2021 with thanks to Michael Schrader

1222 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 471 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.

Flood Notes: Highlights of Current Happenings

Welcome to Flood Notes. So much has been happening lately on the flood front, it’s hard to keep up with it all. So this post will be a digest of things that affect flooding on the local, state and national fronts.

TCEQ Sand Mine Rule Making

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) held a stakeholder meeting yesterday about sand mines in the San Jacinto River watershed. TCEQ intends to post video of the meeting as well as stakeholder presentations here, but they have not yet done so. In the meantime, those who wish to see a summary of the meeting can find one here. And those who wish to make public comments can do so by emailing Outreach@tceq.texas.gov.

Humble ISD North Transportation Center Construction Update

We have had ideal construction weather in the last month and contractors at HISD’s north transportation center on Ford Road in Porter had made a lot of progress. They have completed the detention pond. More than half the remaining site is covered with concrete parking lots. And it looks as if the foundation for a building has also been poured. Humble ISD anticipates shorter routes for half the district will save taxpayers $2 million per year. The District hopes to open the Center in 2021.

Humble ISD North Transportation Center 11.7 acre site. Photo taken 11/07/2020.

Colony Ridge

This massive development in Liberty County has turned into the world’s largest trailer park. The developer of Colony Ridge keeps expanding at a record clip. Perhaps he’s anticipating a sales boom when the Grand Parkway creates better access. At the moment, he appears to be cutting and burning another 3000 acres. Nearby Plum Grove residents have complained about the smoke.

Colony Ridge expansion. Photo taken 11/1/2020.
Colony Ridge expansion. Photo taken 11/1/2020.
Colony Ridge expansion. Photo taken 11/1/2020 after a long period without rain. Notice the wet areas covered up with fill. Wetlands once criss-crossed this area.

Chlorine Creek

Plum Grove residents who live next to Colony Ridge also report the strong smell of sewage and chlorine coming from a new sewage treatment facility along Maple Branch a quarter to a half mile away. TCEQ fined the company that provides these services not long ago for the illegal discharge of 48,000 gallons of raw sewage into the same creek from a lift station.

Sewage treatment plant creating strong odors for Plum Grove residents as well as those in Colony Ridge itself.
Wastewater from this plant is apparently discharged into Maple Branch just inside the tree line at the top of the frame.
The discharged water has a heavy chlorine smell to it. All life in the creek seems to have died according to residents. That includes, fish, tadpoles, minnows, etc.

Michael Shrader, a Plum Grove resident who lives adjacent to Maple Branch, has affectionately renamed it Chlorine Creek.

HUD Approves New GLO Plans for Disaster Funding

On 11/4, Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush announced that the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approved two state action plans detailing the distribution and eligible uses of more than $285 million. The Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds will assist in long-term recovery efforts following severe flooding in 2018 and 2019 in South and Southeast Texas. To view the action plans, please visit recovery.texas.gov/action-plans. To expedite the recovery process, the GLO will directly administer and oversee the funds.

TWDB Accepting FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Requests

This one affects government officials in Cities, Counties, Special Districts, etc.. FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) grant program provides federal funding to help communities pay for cost-effective ways to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to flood prone structures that are insured under the National Flood Insurance Program. FMA program funds can be used for planning and projects. The deadline to apply to the Texas Water Development Board is December 1, 2020. For more information, please visit www.twdb.texas.gov/flood/grant/fma.asp. 

FEMA Program Helps Enforce Building Codes, Floodplain Management

FEMA announced the release of a policy to provide communities with resources to enforce building codes and floodplain management following a major disaster declaration. The “Building Code and Floodplain Management Administration and Enforcement” policy can provide funding for the first 180 days following a major declaration for:

  • Costs associated with extra hires or contracted support
  • Reviewing and processing building permits and occupancy and compliance certificates
  • Conducting building inspections and initial substantial damage field surveys
  • Reviewing disaster-related development in the floodplain
  • Providing educational services to the public on floodplain requirements.

The policy is a result of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, Section 1206. This policy applies to all major disaster declarations declared on or after August 1, 2017.

Climatologist Explains La Niña’s Impact on Texas

This interesting article in the TWDBs Texas Water Newsroom explains how La Niña can bring both droughts and hurricanes to Texas. It’s a fascinating, well written article.

Texas Coastal Study

Remember to sign up for one of the Army Corps presentations on the Texas Coastal Study virtual public meetings. Even if you live inland, the region’s economy depends on protecting the infrastructure ringing Galveston Bay.

Goodbye to Eta

CBS aired a chilling story tonight about the floods brought by Hurricane Eta. The storm dumped up to 7 inches of rain on the Carolinas. It washed out roads and bridges. In fact, a reporter was standing on one bridge when pieces of it started to fall into the raging floodwater. Very dramatic footage if you missed it.

Eta nearly tied Gordon for the longest hurricane on record. Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist, says that had the storm lasted until tomorrow, it would have taken the longevity record.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/12/2020

1171 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 Meeting on Sand Mine Best Practices Today from 9:30 to 3 CDT

The TCEQ will meet this morning with stakeholders to discuss sand mining best practices.

Date:                               November 10, 2020

Time:                               9:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. CDT

Location:                         Virtual Meeting via GoToWebinar

Public Participation:        Virtual Meeting Link

Members of the public may access the meeting via webcast by following this link: https://www.gotomeeting.com/webinar/join-webinar and entering Webinar ID 603-908-859.  It is recommended that you join the webinar and register for the meeting at least 15 minutes before the meeting begins. You will be given the option to use your computer audio or to use your phone for participating in the webinar.

The West Fork was 90% blocked at this point according to the TCEQ. That contributed to the flooding of more than 600 homes.

For those persons without computer or internet access who would like to participate in the meeting, call 844-368-7161 and enter collaboration code 435007#.

Handouts will be available at the following webpage prior to the meeting: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/stormwater/sand-mining-rulemaking

If you are unable to attend the Virtual Meeting; the meeting information, summary, and updates will be posted on the above webpage.

Background:

The petitions were filed by the Texas Aggregates and Concrete Association (TACA) and the Lake Houston Area Grassroots Flood Prevention Initiative (LHAGFPI). The petitioners requested that the commission adopt a new rule under the Watershed Protection Rules that would establish best management practices for commercial sand mining and other lawful purposes within the San Jacinto River Watershed in Montgomery, Liberty, and Harris counties.

On August 12, 2020, the commission considered the petitions and directed staff to initiate the rulemaking process and include stakeholder involvement. Through the stakeholder process, the TCEQ will determine the appropriate best management practices that are technically supported for the sand mining industry to control pollutants within stormwater discharges. The rulemaking will define specific areas within the watershed that will be regulated and add a new chapter within the 30 TAC, Chapter 311 Watershed Protection Rules.

The original petitions for rulemaking are posted on the TCEQ website at the following links:

·         TACA Petition

·         LHAGFPI Petition

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/10/2020

1169 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Sand Miner Takes Over Troubled Porter Mine While Still Violating TCEQ Regs at Plum Grove Mine

A year after the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) filed a notice of enforcement against a Plum Grove sand miner named Somaiah Kurre, it appears that Kurre still has not complied with TCEQ regulations to restore his abandoned mine. However, he has found time to take over operations at the troubled Triple PG Sand Mine in Porter. The Texas Attorney General is already suing the Porter mine. This raises two serious public policy issues.

Should miners who leave behind environmental issues at one site be allowed to operate another before fixing problems at the first?

Permits Without Performance

It also calls into question state regulations that allow sand mines to obtain operating permits without forcing them to restore mines to nature or alternative uses when done.

Other states force mines to post performance bonds for reclamation before issuing the initial permit to construct a mine. If they restore the land when done mining, they get their money back. If they don’t, the state can use it to cover the cost of cleanup without forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.

Performance bonds are common in the construction industry.

Texas should adopt a performance-bond policy. This case shows why.

Texas regulations state only that a mine needs a reclamation plan to get a permit. However, there are no regulations stating they must execute the plan.

When unscrupulous operators are done mining a site, there’s no reason for them to invest another penny in it.

Texas needs performance bonds and/or a “toxic legacy” law. Companies that abandon unsafe mines should be forbidden to operate anywhere else in the state. They just can’t be trusted.

Troubled History In Plum Grove

Texas Concrete Sand and Gravel, Inc., one of Mr. Kurre’s 16 companies, has a troubled history at its Plum Grove location. Before October 2019, TCEQ investigated it nine times for 17 alleged violations in four years. Twelve involved unauthorized discharges of industrial waste.

Previous alleged violations included failure to:

  • Prevent unauthorized discharge of industrial waste (7 investigations plus 5 complaints)
  • Renew registration
  • Document steps taken to address benchmark exceedances
  • Comply with record keeping and reporting requirements
  • Maintain compliance with permitted numeric effluent limitations
  • Sample water quality at designated outfalls.

Abandoned Without Compliance After Imelda

During Tropical Storm Imelda in September 2019, the mine’s dikes breached in four places. The mine discharged industrial wastewater and sediment into the San Jacinto East Fork. The East Fork empties into Lake Houston, the source of drinking water for 2 million Houstonians.

The company eventually fixed the breaches, but cancelled its Multisector General Permit (MSGP) and Aggregate Production Operation (APO) registration.

A company spokesperson told TCEQ investigators that the company had ceased all operations at the site.

However, the TCEQ report notes that terms of Texas-Concrete-Sand-and-Gravel’s permit still obligated the company to stabilize soil on the site or return it to an alternative post-mining use. A year later, that still hasn’t happened. Large portions of the site remain barren and disturbed.

No visible attempt has yet been made to stabilize soil, restore the land that needed it, or convert the site to an alternative use. So the company is still violating terms of its permit.

An excavator, dredge, shed, other abandoned equipment, plus bacteria- and scum-laden ponds remain. See photos below.

Photos Taken 10/25/2020

Abandoned stockpile shows signs of recent activity.
After a year with supposedly no activity, you would think some of this water would have clarified. Can you spot the five different colors of water in different ponds?
Dredge has not moved in months.
Working parts of dredge are crusted with rust.
Large part of site not stabilized. Tracks show trucks entering and leaving the mine, taking sand from the mine’s stockpile. But no signs or permits are posted at the site.

Provisions of Regulations and Permit

The requirements of the Texas Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) run more than 166 pages. But a TCEQ spokesperson summarized the relevant portions this way.

“The MSGP contains requirements … to terminate permit coverage after mining activity has ceased. The operator must demonstrate they have accomplished the final stabilization requirements: 1) completion of soil disturbing activities, 2) stabilization to minimize soil erosion, 3) ensuring stormwater runoff does not contribute to a violation of water quality standards, and 4) the site has been revegetated or left in the condition consistent with post-mining land use such as a nature park or lakes.”

“When operators have achieved final stabilization, they must submit a Notice of Termination which has been signed and certified by the responsible signatory authority as described in 30 TAC §305.44,” said the spokesperson.

The TCEQ spokesperson also said that Kurre, who fancies himself a startup impresario, is trying to negotiate payment terms for a $19,036 fine that TCEQ levied against him on April 14, 2020.

Encore Performance?

Meanwhile, another of Kurre’s companies, Texas Frac Sand Materials Inc., has taken over operations at the troubled Triple PG Sand Mine in Porter. It appears from a 9/8/2020 TCEQ investigation of that location that Kurre will operate, not own the mine.

The First Amended Petition in the Triple PG lawsuit by the Attorney General shows that Kurre took over operations at the Triple PG mine in April. However, the amended petition did not specify who the new operator was at the time.

The Texas Attorney General is suing the owners of the Triple PG Mine for more than a million dollars, plus up to $25,000 per day for the period that the mine discharged industrial wastewater into the headwaters of Lake Houston. Yep. Does this sound familiar? The Triple PG case (Cause No. D-1-GN-19-007086 in Travis County) has not yet gone to trial.

Ironically some of the alleged violations that the TCEQ charged Mr. Kurre with in Plum Grove are identical to the charges that the Attorney General lodged against the Triple PG mine in Porter.

The Many Faces of Somaiah Kurre

A search for corporate listings associated with Kurre’s name in the Texas Secretary of State database shows that he controls – wholly or partially – 16 businesses.

  1. Manjari Enterprises LLC
  2. Texas Concrete Enterprise, L.L.C.
  3. Asam LLC
  4. Texas Concrete Enterprise – II, LLC
  5. Shree Radha, LLC
  6. Texas Concrete Enterprise – IV, L.L.C.
  7. Texas Concrete Sand and Gravel, Inc.
  8. Plum Grove Material, Inc.
  9. Rohini Enterprises Inc.
  10. JSR Materials, Inc.
  11. Bright Star Stores, Inc.
  12. US Readymix Inc.
  13. US Fracsand, LLC
  14. Rama Krishna 2, LLC
  15. Texas Frac Sand Materials, Inc.
  16. Texas Concrete Sand and Gravel Enterprise, Inc.

Along the East Fork, Kurre owns or operates mines in San Jacinto, Liberty, Montgomery and Harris Counties. That possibly qualifies him as the largest operator on the East Fork.

Toxic Legacy?

Note unusual blue-green color in pond – a likely indicator of potentially dangerous bacteria.

According to the TCEQ, the color of that blue-green pool on the right in the photo above indicates that it is likely filled with cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria can produce cyanotoxins. And the CDC says that cyanotoxins are “among the most powerful natural poisons known. They can make people, their pets, and other animals sick. Unfortunately, there are no remedies to counteract the effects.”

Pond near entry road.
Not quite a nature park! Texas Concrete’s legacy in Plum Grove. No identifying signs or permits are posted at the entrance to the site, despite the truck traffic.

Sites like this can unnaturally accelerate the buildup of sediment dams in rivers. Not only do they expose sand, they expose it in the floodways of rivers and streams. After Imelda, a huge sand bar set up at the mouth of the San Jacinto East Fork . It contributed to flooding of nearby residents. The public will have to pay to remove it.

East Fork Mouth Bar after Imelda. Before Imelda, this area was 18 feet deep. Boaters say the deepest part of the channel is now three feet.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/29/2020

1157 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 405 since Imelda

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

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

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

TCEQ Alleges Permit Violations Affecting Human Health

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

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

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

Lack of Construction Best Management Practices

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

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

See photos below.

Self-Reports in Stark Contrast to TCEQ Report

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

Get the Picture

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

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

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

Personal Observations Corroborate Report

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

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

Other Strangeness

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

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

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

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/16/2020

1144 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 393 After Imelda

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