On Tuesday of this week, 46 days after the flood, the Triple PG mine was finally attempting to seal off the main breach into White Oak Creek, another tributary of Lake Houston. I took all of the photos below during the afternoon of November 4, 2019.
The TCEQ had fined Triple PG in 2015. TCEQ again fined the mine in May of this year for allowing process water to escape into the City’s drinking water for weeks. That fine totaled more than $18,000. But when it happened again in September, the Texas Attorney General sued the owners for more a million dollars.
Triple PG White Oak Creek Breach Still Open on 11.4.19
After the AG suit, I thought repairs to all breaches would follow quickly. So I rented a helicopter on 11.4.2019 to check their status. That’s when I took all the photos below. What I saw should have shocked me, but sadly, it did not.
Miners had not yet sealed the White Oak breach. And a white substance was floating out of the mine through it.
Triple PG attempts to repair breach to White Oak Creek on 11/4/2019. The narrow, washed out section of the road on the right looks like it might have been a previous attempt at a repair that failed already.
Meanwhile, Repairs to Triple PG Caney Creek Breach Failing Already
Meanwhile, the breach repair (below), first photographed on October 12, appeared to be slumping into Caney Creek already. Notice how the road is collapsing near the trees at the bottom of the frame in this photo. Glad I’m not driving heavy equipment over that road! Quick call the MSHA! Notice also the difference in the water elevation on either side.
The repair to the Caney Creek breach completed last month appears to be failing already. Looking west over Caney Creek in the foreground. Erosion is already visible in this side shot of the same repairfrom a different angle.
Water appears to be piping through the dirt in the repaired breach. Note the wet appearance in several places that also exhibit erosion near the bottom of the dike. Piping is one of the major causes of dike failure. Water seeps under the dike creating channels which undermine it.
Trapped Stormwater: A Problem for Mines in Floodways
A high and constant level of the water in a such a mine creates outward pressure on dikes that invites failure. A spokesman for the Mine Safety and Health Administration said that typically mines must find ways to get rid of excess water after heavy rains or risk breaches. Some try engineered solutions such as spillways. However, Triple PG mine also faces environmental constraints. Specifically, Triple PG cannot flush its process water into the City’s drinking water. Especially when the Attorney General is looking over their shoulder.
My conclusion. Floodways are just dangerous places to build sand mines and this mine sits in two floodways.
Six More Breaches
Here’s a second breach into Caney Creek that they haven’t even started repairing. It appears that water overflowed the pit and started traversing down the side on a diagonal. Note the tree leaning into the creek in the sandy area at the bottom.And a third breach into Caney Creek. But at least they repaired the road above this one.And a fourth breach into Caney Creek.And a second breach into White Oak Creek behind the mine’s stockpile.And the start of an exit breach along the mine’s southern perimeter where so many homes in Walden Woods flooded. To my eye, it appears that there is little or no elevation difference between the mine road and surrounding homes.So I am not even sure that this qualifies as a dike, or is just the edge of a pond.And the mother of all breaches on the north side of the mine.
Tick Tock Tick Tock
The suit filed by the Texas Attorney General seeks monetary relief of “not more than $1 million.” But here’s where it gets interesting. The Texas Water Code section 7.102 states that penalties can range up to $25,000 per day for EACH day of EACH violation. It also specifies that “Each day of a CONTINUING violation is a SEPARATE violation.”
With all of these other breaches (that the TCEQ investigators could not see when they first inspected the mine because of washed out roads), these violations could add up quickly. Let’s see. 48 days x $25,000 = $1,200,000 for each breach. If the AG amended the lawsuit, that could add up to some serious bank.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11.6.2019
799 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 48 since Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/RJR_4584.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-11-06 11:25:502019-11-06 11:26:00Triple PG Sand Mine Finally Starts Plugging Breach on White Oak Creek
This story illustrates on of the dangers of pit capture in sand mining. During the peak of Imelda, 42,000 cubic feet of floodwater per second came down Caney Creek. However, early the morning of September 19th, residents south of the Triple PG Sand Mine on Hueni Road in Porter started seeing water coming from the mine before it came up from the creek.
Escaping with Only a Minute to Spare
They started evacuating their families and animals. One Walden Woods resident told me that the water came up so fast, it covered an entire SUV within an hour. Another told me that had she waited one more minute to evacuate, she and her family would have had no way out. The force of the rushing water undermined the house and garage of a third. Farther south of the mine, residents of Dogwood Lane, Woodstream Village, Dunnam Road, and Riverchase felt the same panic.
Caney Creek Captures Triple PG Sand Pits
So what happened? A review of aerial photographs below taken on 10.2.19, almost two weeks after Imelda, showed a massive breach in the northern dike of the mine. Erosion patterns suggest the water then rushed through the mine in a north to south direction.
Trees laid down in a southerly direction at the entry point
Sand waves orient along the north-to-south direction of flow
East/west roads separating the ponds were blown out, by water flowing north to south
The mines main stockpile shows massive erosion along its western edge in a north-to-south direction
Sand is piled up against the mine’s main building along the northern side only (where the water came from)
Photo Tour of the Aftermath
All the photographic evidence suggests a classic case of pit capture. Peach Creek joins Caney Creek just north of this entry point.
Where water entered the mine from the north. Looking northwest from inside the mine and past the northern dike. Note the trees pushed into the mine by the force of the water, indicated the direction of flow.Reverse shot. Looking south into the Triple PG Sand Mine.A closer view of the same scene shows clear evidence of erosion within the mine from rushing floodwaters. The water came from directly behind the camera position. The road in the middle was blown out, but reconstructed by the time I shot this photo two weeks after Imelda. The TCEQ said they could not safely reach this part of the mine because of damaged roads.
You can see from the shot above that water barreled through this mine as if shot from a water cannon.
Close up of repairs to damaged road. Looking southwest. Sand patterns show water moving north to south. Note the sand pushed up against the north-facing back of this building.The eastern side of this stockpile was eroded from the bottom by water side-swiping it from a north-to-south direction.
No Effective Dike at Southern End of Mine
There really is no dike at the southern end of the pit, just a road around the perimeter. The ground level in the neighborhood to the south is virtually even with the level of the road. After water flowed through the pit, it flowed through neighborhood(s) to the south and damaged homes. It’s easy to see the damage immediately south of the pit and imagine the pit capture as the cause of the damage. The damage faces the mine, not Caney Creek to the east.
Floodwaters from the Triple PG mine partially knocked this home off its foundation. The owner had to jack it up and re-level it. The back of the house faces the mine and is not more than a hundred feet from it.The same homeowner’s garage. Floodwaters from the mine scoured under it. Again, the back of the garage faces the mine and is not more than a 100 feet from it.
Reasons for Pit Capture
What is pit capture? It’s when a river or stream cuts through the pit of a nearby sand/gravel mine instead of following its normal course.
How does it happen? Water starts to overtop or penetrate the dike. It creates a fissure that rapidly widens and opens a hole. Pretty soon the dike collapses and the water rushes in. The water moves from areas of high pressure and elevation to areas of low pressure and elevation. After the water moves into into the pit, it fills the pit up and needs to find a way out on the other end. Like a water ballon attached to a faucet, sooner or later dikes on the other side burst.
Why does this happen?
The mine was built in the floodway of Caney Creek on a point bar
Dikes made out of sand could not withstand the force of the water
Dikes had previously failed in the same places and left “weak points”
When the water came up, it took the path of least resistance
Texas has no minimum setbacks from rivers for mines
Texas enforces no best management practices for mines
Potential fines could reach well past a million dollars. That raises the question, “What can be done with this mine to protect residents below the mine and to protect the City of Houston’s water supply?”
Over the years, Triple PG’s owners have removed 800 acres of forest and an unknown volume of sand from the mine. The risk of pit capture is greatest were mines are deeper than the adjacent river bed and close to the river/stream. Both conditions apply in this case.
The dike between Caney Creek and the Triple PG pit is a narrow strip of unvegetated dirt, just wide enough to support a vehicle…and not compacted very well as you can see below.
This shows repairs to an exit breach to Caney Creek farther south. No geotextile fabrics or rip rap are holding the repair together. Photo courtesy of Josh Alberson. Taken 11.2.2019.This closer shot shows the same breach filled with sand and clay. You can see how flimsy the repair is. The uncompacted and unprotected soil is already eroding after two inches of rain last week.Photo courtesy of Josh Alberson. Taken on 11.2.2019.
If the courts should shut this mine down, sealing it off permanently will be difficult and costly.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11.3.2019 with images from Josh Alberson
796 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 45 since Imelda
The thoughts in this post reflect my opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Triple-PG-Mine-Looking-South-10.2.19.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-11-02 20:10:422019-11-02 20:10:53Pit Capture on Caney Creek: What Happens When A Sand Mine Builds Flimsy Dikes in Floodways
In the 2+ years since Hurricane Harvey, many East Fork residents complained that the West Fork was getting all the media attention and remediation dollars. Imelda may have just changed that narrative. An East Fork Mouth Bar rapidly increased in size during the storm.
Rapid Increase in Sedimentation Between Royal Shores and Luce Bayou
Between Luce Bayou and Royal Shores, Josh Alberson, an East Fork resident and boater says the channel recently measured as much as 18 feet deep. Last weekend, when checking cross-sections on the depth finder of his jet boat, the deepest part of the channel measured three to four feet in that same area. Here’s what it looks like from a helicopter pointing south toward Lake Houston and the FM1960 Bridge.
East Fork Mouth Bar. Photo taken one week after Imelda on 9/27/19.
It’s clear that portions of these bars preceded Imelda, just as portions of the West Fork Mouth Bar preceded Harvey. You can tell that by the vegetation. However, you can also see the immense recent growth of these bars in the areas without vegetation.
Shots taken from the boat show vast expanses of sand now clogging the East Fork.
Looking south toward the entrance to Lake Houston.Photo taken on 9/29/19.Channel between here and Luce Bayou (out of frame on the left) averaged 3-4 feet deep.Looking west toward Royal Shores from same location. Photo taken 9/29/19.Looking east toward Luce Bayou, I captured this shot of a dead tree on 9/29/19. It underscores how shallow the river is at this location. More than half the root ball sits above water.
Hundreds, Possibly Thousands of Trees Down
Upstream, hundreds, if not thousands of trees were uprooted by Imelda. The City and DRC had just completed removing such hazards. They did a thorough and beautiful job. However, Imelda will mean starting over…at least on the East Fork.
Giant Sand Bars Now Filling More than Half of River
The sand bar opposite East End Park migrated downstream. It also expanded outward and may have contributed to significant erosion on the parks northern shore. It now cuts off more than half the river. Not surprisingly The river appears to have migrated south in this area by at least 50 feet.Opposite the massive sand bar above, entire trails have been washed away in East End Park. Beware of possible bank collapse. Very dangerous conditions exist on trails. Do not use the park until repairs have been completed.The storm deposited other sand bars father upstream, like this one in the approximate area of Woodstream. It was just below where Taylor Gully enters the river at Dunham Road.
Fourth Breach Discovered at Sand Mine
Still unknown: how much of a role multiple breaches at the Triple PG mine played in sedimentation.
View of partial breach near north end of Triple PG mine from Caney Creek. Photo by Charlie Fahrmeier. Taken on 9/30/19. Above the partial breach shown in the photo above. Fahrmeier says he found the grass all laying down in one direction indicating rushing water inundated it recently. Photo taken on 9/30/19.
Role of Sand Mine Under Investigation
Dan Huberty today announced that Ken Paxton, the state attorney general, has agreed to investigate the Triple PG mine. A spokesman for the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration said investigators were headed to the site today. The TCEQ has also launched an investigation.
Clearly, the mine is not responsible for all of the sand in the river. But its location in TWO floodways, four possible breaches, and loss of a major portion of its stockpile indicate it played some role in the massive sedimentation.
Looking south across the Triple PG Mine’s main stockpile. White Oak Creek swept in from the right and Caney Creek from the left. The stockpile measures approximately 20 acres and has risen to an estimated 90-100 feet at times. On this day, 9/27/19, it was much smaller. Whether that was due to erosion or sales is unknown.Notice all the equipment laying on its side to the right of the metal buildings.
Substantial Repairs?
After a breach in May, the mine simply dumped sand in the hole which quickly eroded again. Photo taken 9/29/19.
I doubt this meets the TCEQ requirements for substantial repairs.
Close up of breach repair. It appears to be nothing but sand.Photo 9/29/19.
Whether these repairs were intended to fail or whether the operator didn’t care if they failed, the result was the same. More sand in the river. And more gunk in your drinking water supply.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/2/2019with thanks to Josh Alberson and Charlie Fahrmeier.
764 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 13 since Imelda
All thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/MouthBar9.27.19_1500dpi.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-10-01 21:38:002019-10-01 22:06:53East Fork Mouth Bar Rapidly Developing
From the date on the USFWS letter, February 28, it appears that USFWS arrived at its recommendation even before the close of the public comment period on March 1.
The applicant understated the likely impact on waters and wetlands resulting from fill material, raised buildings, infrastructure development and construction activities. They called the applicant’s proposal “misleading.”
USFWS expressed concerns about:
Bird strikes and mortalities associated with the high-rise buildings
The loss of highly functioning forested wetlands
Significant reduction in biological functions, particularly those related to fish and wildlife habitat
Water quality issues
A marina district built entirely within the floodway
The absence of appropriate stormwater management
Failure to fully disclose impacts on wetlands and surrounding properties
Inconsistencies in access road descriptions
Failure to fully disclose the project’s footprint impacts
Failure to provide an analysis of practicable alternatives to the proposed wetland and stream fill
Failure to demonstrate that the project meets the requirements of the EPA’s CWA 404(b)(1) guidelines
An incomplete compensatory mitigation plan
Improper assessment of the high level of functions of the onsite aquatic resources and surrounding upland habitats
An inadequate bald eagle survey
Disturbance and loss of bald eagle habitat.
Conclusion and Recommendation of USFWS
The USFWS recommended “permit denial due to the application’s deficiencies.”
Reaction
I’m happy that a government agency validated the concerns of residents, especially the numerous deficiencies that became so glaringly obvious during the public comment period. Example: when I asked one of the engineers at the March 18th public meeting where all the fill would be put, he couldn’t tell me. It seemed like a simple, but important question. Turns out it was.
Jill Boullion, Executive Director of the Bayou Land Conservancy said, “The Bayou Land Conservancy is gratified that US Fish & Wildlife service has confirmed our opinion that the Romerica project site is ecologically rich and diverse. It is, in its natural state, already providing the community immeasurable services. We believe the highest good for the community is to preserve this valuable resource, not develop it.”
Romerica’s spokesperson, Leah Howard Manlove, contacted me earlier this week to say that the Romerica team would meet next week to discuss their options and a plan of action. At this point, Romerica has two options: answer all the questions and concerns raised during the public comment period or quietly let the project die.
Posted by Bob Rehak on May 10, 2019
619 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and are protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/DSC06408.jpg?fit=2031%2C1648&ssl=116482031adminadmin2019-05-10 16:07:302019-05-10 19:51:28U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Urged Corps to Deny Romerica Permit
Storms during the last two days were traumatic for virtually everyone in the Kingwood area. Tragically, one person lost her life when her car hit a downed tree.
Others lost vehicles, trees, and sleep.
Torrential rains for a brief period – at the rate of 4-5 inches in an hour – flooded streets and vehicles.
They also brought water near or into homes.
Parents picking children up from school waited in rising waters as their students sheltered in place.
A small tornado may have briefly touched down near Town Center.
Kingwood Drive was shut down for hours during the Friday afternoon rush hour.
People traumatized by Harvey were re-traumatized.
People without power waited and wondered for hours about what was going on around them.
Lake Conroe: One Less Worry This Time
Despite all that, we did NOT have to worry about one thing: Lake Conroe opening its flood gates again during this storm. The seasonal lowering policy established last year worked.
The SJRA board voted to lower the lake’s level one foot to 200 mean feet above sea level (MSL) from April 1 to May 31.
That action may have saved the Lake Houston area from additional flooding in the last round of storms.
Releasing Water Continuously At Low Rate Created Extra Capacity
Lake Conroe had released water continuously since April 1 at a slow, controlled rate of 350 to 550 cubic feet per second. However, because of spring rains, Lake Conroe had only dropped about a half foot from 201 to 200.66 feet MSL. Had the releases not happened, the lake would have been an estimated 1-1.5 feet higher, according to Mark Micheletti, an SJRA board member from Kingwood. That means the lake level would have been approaching 202 feet, the level at which the SJRA automatically begins releasing water, when the storm hit. That would have forced the SJRA to release water at a higher rate that could have overloaded the downstream watershed.
Buffer Against Downstream Flooding Worked
In other words, the policy worked. The seasonal lowering provided a buffer against downstream flooding. NOAA shows a double crest on the San Jacinto West Fork at US59 during the last two days that coincided with two waves of storms. At peak flow, the river came within about two feet of going out of its banks.
An additional foot of water released from Lake Conroe would have added two feet to Lake Houston and created flooding.
About a mile downstream at River Grove Park, the water was up, but still within its banks.
Despite torrential rains last night and early this morning, the West Fork remained in its banks. The river was up, but no homes flooded from the river.
Success: No Rivers or Streams Out of Banks
At this hour, neither NOAA, the SJRA, nor Harris County Flood Control, predicts any flooding from yesterday’s storms. In fact, all streams and bayous seem to be receding at this time. That’s one less thing to worry about as we clean up from the latest storm. The SJRA’s seasonal lowering DID help.
Remember, Lake Conroe is almost twice as big as Lake Houston (33 sq. mi. vs 18.5 sq. mi.). So one foot released there translates into almost two feet here. And two feet would likely have forced the San Jacinto out of its banks for the fifth time in a year.
Kudos to the SJRA board, the City of Houston, and the TCEQ for enabling this policy. That, in conjunction with the City’s pre-release policy for Lake Houston, have made a difference.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/5/2019
614 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/hmmt2_hg-1.png?fit=600%2C465&ssl=1465600adminadmin2019-05-04 22:51:322020-01-17 08:59:15One Less Thing to Worry About in Latest Storm: How Seasonal Lowering of Lake Conroe Helped
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ’s) letter to the Corps expresses eight pages of concerns. Keep in mind that it was dated March 1. So the developer had it for TWO MONTHS. Also remember! TCEQ was reviewing ONLY water-quality issues posed by the development.
For everyone else, I have summarized the main concerns below.
Title 30, Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Chapter 279.ll(c)(l), states that “No discharge shall be certified if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, … ” “Please have the applicant clarify the purpose and need for the project, as portions of the proposed project are not aquatic-dependent.”
From the public notice, the applicant states that “they have avoided and minimized environmental impacts by configuring the location of the proposed structures and reducing the size of the lakes within each district.” “This statement does not detail how and where wetland and stream impacts were avoided or minimized. Please have the applicant explain how and where impacts to stream and wetland resources were minimized and avoided.”
“The applicant proposes to develop a mitigation site or purchase credits but says nothing more…The compensatory mitigation plan must include the objectives, site selection, the site protection instrument, baseline information, how the compensatory mitigation will provide required compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources, a mitigation work plan, maintenance plan, ecological performance standards, monitoring requirements, long-term management plan, adaptive management plan, financial assurances, and other information per the mitigation rule requirements.”
“During the site visit, the resource agencies and the applicant’s representative noticed several streams that were not accounted for in the impacts tables. Please have the applicant incorporate the additional streams and revise the total amount of project impacts accordingly.”
“There are several impacts within the commercial district that appear to be unaccounted for or are unidentified. Please have the applicant revise the impacts table to account for all resources that will be converted.”
“Please have the applicant determine if project specific locations (PSLs) such as borrow, stockpiling, staging, and equipment parking areas associated with the project will impact wetlands. These PSL impacts should be included in the accounting of total project impacts.”
“Several wetlands within the proposed project boundary will be hydrologically disconnected from the current floodplain. Please have the applicant revise the impacts tables to include wetland and stream resources that will be affected secondarily by the proposed project and address the cumulative effect of each district on the interconnectedness of the onsite wetlands.”
“Please have the applicant explain in detail what measures will be taken to avoid groundwater and surface water contamination from construction activities.”
“Please have the applicant provide a hydraulic analysis of the site to account for current site conditions, projected increased impervious surface runoff, as well as drainage patterns for the site, and describe how water quality on and off the project site will be protected from impacts such as erosion.”
“Stormwater drainage from residential and commercial lots should be routed away from the West Fork San Jacinto River, the marina, and stream resources onsite. Stormwater should be redirected and routed to stormwater treatment features before entering the aforementioned resources. Please have the applicant provide details on how the replacement of lost onsite water quality functions will be addressed.”
Other Issues Outlined in Letter
How an expanded Woodland Hills Drive would affect stream crossings
The purpose and design of the so-called “water-quality ponds”
The design of channels and marinas; their connectivity to the San Jacinto; and their impact on water quality
The impact of boat channels on water-oxygen levels
Channels that cross wetland habitat
Box culverts instead of bridges
Channel widths (100-foot wide for a channel 4-feet deep)
Channels crossing property Romerica doesn’t own
Slope of channels
Diversion of stormwater from roads and parking lots away from channels
Dead-end channels
How domestic wastewater will be collected and treated
Dissolved oxygen monitoring and reporting
Applicants characterization of stream types (intermittent vs. perennial); requests “an accurate assessment.”
Conservation easements on the property. (21.90 acres of wetlands are covered by a conservation easement located within the residential and commercial portions of the proposed development. “Please have the applicant verify that the conservation easement will be protected from potential development and ensure the preserved wetlands will not be impacted, directly or indirectly, from the construction of the proposed project.”
Start Over?
There may be no good answers to some of these questions and concerns. SWCA, CivilTech and Romerica must be re-evaluating the impact of these questions on the economics of their project.
This isn’t the type of stuff you need another week to figure out. These questions will make the developers rethink their commitment to the entire project.
Finding answers will likely involve a redesign of the project and that could cost more than the land itself.
Keep in mind that water quality was just one of 20 different areas that the Corps is evaluating.
TCEQ Didn’t Have Enough Info to Make Decision
I asked Peter Schaefer, a team leader within the TCEQ Water Quality Assessment Section, whether the TCEQ had made a recommendation to the Corps on this project. He said “No.”
The reason: “Because TCEQ did not receive a response to our comment letter, and the applicant had not begun the process of working with us and the Corps to address the concerns raised in the letter, TCEQ was not in a position to make a decision on the project,” said Schaeffer. Hence the detailed requests for more information.
Schaefer added, “A typical 404/401 permitting process would normally take several months, if not a year or more, for the applicant to address comments from TCEQ, Corps, resource agencies, and the public. Because of the magnitude and nature of this project, it would likely have required much more time, coordination, discussion, project revision(s), and perhaps additional public notice(s) to get to the point where the Corps was prepared to complete a Decision Document.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/1/2019
610 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Pieces-of-Romerica-Dev-e1546040851855.png?fit=1500%2C1095&ssl=110951500adminadmin2019-04-30 23:55:582019-05-01 00:04:00TCEQ Lists Water-Quality Concerns About Romerica High-Rise Permit
Only five more days remain to protest the proposed high-rise development near River Grove Park. The deadline for public comments? Friday, March 1.
About the High-Rise Development
Two developers from Mexico have bought up land east of Woodland Hills between Kingwood Lakes and the San Jacinto River. They hope to build 5000 condos, a retail mail, parking for 8,800 vehicles (some below ground), commercial high-rises, residential high-rises, a 50-story hotel, and a marina for 640 boats and 200 jet-skis.
Altogether, they plan to build more than 3 million square feet of residential, commercial and retail space around the Barrington. To put that in perspective, it’s roughly three times the size of Deerbrook Mall … at the end of a dead end street … four miles from the nearest highway. On the edge of the floodway. In an old meander of the San Jacinto. Without any consideration for the traffic it would add to Kingwood Drive. Or dedicating any land for additional school facilities.
What Corps and TCEQ are Considering
The Army Corps of Engineers and TCEQ are currently reviewing the developer’s proposal. The Corps is evaluating the impact of adding up to 12 feet of fill to wetlands and streams in the area against the need for the project. They also review more than a dozen other “public interest” factors, such as safety, environmental impact, navigation on the San Jacinto, sedimentation, and potential to worsen flooding. The TCEQ is evaluating water-quality issues only.
Please send this post to all your friends, neighbors, relatives, kids, etc. Have them write letters, too. If you have already submitted a letter and have thought of new concerns, you may submit an additional letter.
Email Preferred to Snail Mail
Make sure you include the project number in the subject line of your email. It’s the same for either group: SWG-2016-00384.
As always, the thoughts in these posts represent my opinions on matters of public policy. They are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on February 25, 2019
545 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Slide2-e1551063488977.jpeg?fit=305%2C540&ssl=1540305adminadmin2019-02-24 20:51:262019-02-24 21:03:27Now or Never: Friday is Last Day to Protest High-Rise Development in Floodplain Near River Grove Park
The Bayou Land Conservancy (BLC) has joined the ranks of those protesting the proposed high-rise development in Kingwood. The cutoff for submitting letters to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is March 1. Nine days remain.
The Bayou Land Conservancy letter runs 10 pages with another 12 pages of addenda. But don’t let the length deter you. The letter is both compelling and educational. For me, the education happened on two levels. First, I learned a tremendous amount of new information about an area I have lived in for 35 years. Second, I learned a lot about how to write a protest letter.
Meticulously detailed, it contains well documented references to violations or probable violations of numerous laws and regulations. It makes its points quietly without over- or understating. It also contains a graphic that telegraphs at a glance the danger of this development.
Bayou Land Conservancy Map showing the proposed development in relation to nearby structures that flooded during Harvey.
Among other things, the letter discusses insufficiencies in the developers’ documentation for:
Avoidance and minimization, two factors the Corps looks at before requiring mitigation.
Mitigation – The applicant has not provided enough documentation to determine whether mitigation was avoidable, and if not what types are required where to offset any unavoidable losses.
Dangers to threatened or endangered species.
Impact on streams and surrounding drainage
Bayou Land Conservancy also details several public interest factors relating to flood hazards:
Flood Hazards, such as insufficient elevation and location in a floodplain that will likely soon be reclassified as a floodway.
Floodplain Values – specifically that the cumulative impact on flood moderation, water quality, and living resources has not been considered.
Shore Erosion and Accretion – “The West Fork San Jacinto River currently suffers from excessive introduction and dispersal of sediments, and this project fails to address this significant local water quality problem. The environmental impacts of increased erosion and accretion, include the following: loss of important or sensitive aquatic habitat, decrease in fishery resources, loss of recreation attributes, human health concerns, loss of wetlands, nutrient balance changes, circulation changes, increases in turbidity, and loss of submerged vegetation.”
Water Quality – “…permit should be evaluated to determine the nature and degree of effect that the proposed discharge will have individually and cumulatively on water quality. Consideration should be given to water chemistry, salinity, clarity, color, odor, taste, dissolved gas levels, temperature, nutrients, and eutrophication. This portion of West Fork San Jacinto River is listed as impaired by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for not meeting pH standards. This segment is also listed for state concerns for nitrate and phosphorus based on screening levels.” Additionally BLC cites the location of the project near the major source of drinking water for the City of Houston.
Aesthetics – The lack of consistency with surrounding forest and incompatibility with local architecture.
Traffic – Concerns include both vehicular and air traffic. “This project proposes to add to the residential and commercial growth, without regard for traffic congestion.
Conclusion
Bayou Land Conservancy believes that the Public Notice lacks the information necessary to adequately consider the totality of impacts that will result from the proposed development. The environmental information provided in the Public Notice is substantially deficient, failing to meet regulations for permitting dredge and fill activities.
“BLC requests additional information and studies related to the issuance of a permit for this project be made publicly available and a public hearing…”
“The potential risks this project poses to the life, health, and safety of area residents, have not been evaluated. BLC believes the project is contrary to the public interests of protecting wetlands, floodplain functionality, water quality, and wildlife and fisheries habitat.”
For those wishing to send protest letters to additional agencies, such as US Fish & Wildlife, EPA, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Senators Cruz and Cornyn, and Congressman Crenshaw, the letter also includes addresses on page 10.
If you’re considering sending a letter, don’t wait. Time is running out. Remember, anyone can send a letter. You don’t need to be a registered voter. You just need to care.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/20/2019
540 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Screen-Shot-2019-02-20-at-7.09.38-PM-copy.jpg?fit=1500%2C1971&ssl=119711500adminadmin2019-02-20 19:32:062019-02-20 19:50:42Bayou Land Conservancy Protests High-Rise Development in Kingwood
Romerica Investments, LLC has applied for a permit to build a high-rise development in the floodplain of the San Jacinto River. They call the proposed development the Kingwood Marina Project. Because it involves adding 12 feet of fill material to the floodplain of the San Jacinto River, the Army Corps of Engineers has become involved. The Corps rules on any permit application that involves “discharge” of fill into “waters of the United States.”
Proposed layout for the Kingwood Marina Project.
The fill would stretch approximately three quarters of a mile from north to south along Woodland Hills Drive and approximately .85 miles from east to west on both sides of the Barrington. If you want to know what the Corps considers when making such rulings, or why and how the TCEQ interprets “water quality” for them, read on.
The Corps’ main criteria for evaluating applications includes four high-level considerations:
Need for the project
Extent and permanence of detrimental effects
Effect on wetlands
Relative weight of various additional factors
The additional factors below also apply to the proposed High-Rise Kingwood Marina Project:
Conservation
Economics
Aesthetics
General environmental concerns
Historic, cultural, scenic, and recreational values.
Fish and wildlife values
Flood hazards
Floodplain management
Land use
Navigation
Shore erosion and accretion
Recreation
Water supply and conservation
Water quality
Safety
Considerations of property ownership
Needs and welfare of the people
Public Interest Described in More Detail
“All factors which may be relevant to the proposal must be considered,” says the intro to Corps regulations on page 398. The regulations (33 CFR 320-332) then go into more detail on many of these factors. The regs elaborate on dozens of things that the law requires the Corps to evaluate.
Here’s my summary and interpretation of those that likely apply. Keep in mind that I’m looking at these with the proposed Kingwood Marina high-rise project in mind. So I have omitted some items that do not apply, such those for coastal developments. For the exact text of each, consult this Department of the Army legal document. I am not a lawyer and do not offer legal advice.
The regulations start with a discussion of four high-level, over-riding factors.
The first thing reviewers look at is the “need for the project.” If needed, they then consider the extent and permanence of any detrimental effects relative to any benefits that the project provides.
In that regard, wetlands play a major role and get special mention. But the Corps also reviews the 17 other factors listed above that have to do with “the public interest.” Then they weigh them all – pros and cons. Something that’s very important on one project may carry no weight on another. The reviewers have wide latitude to use their own judgment.
What Does the Army Corps Consider Value of Wetlands to Be?
Providing nesting, spawning, and rearing space for animals, birds and fish
Moderating natural drainage, sedimentation, salinity, flushing, and other environmental benefits
Shielding other areas from erosion or storm damage
Storing storm and flood waters
Purifying water
Providing unique natural value to a local area
Further section B (3) recognizes that although a particular alteration of a wetland may constitute a minor change, the cumulative effect of numerous piecemeal changes can result in major impairment of wetland resources. This section seems to say, “We can afford to lose some wetlands, but at a certain point, “Enough is enough!”
The Corps looks at each wetland as part of a complete and interrelated wetland environment.
Corps Consults Others on Wetlands
The district engineer may undertake, where appropriate, reviews of particular wetland areas in consultation with the:
Regional Director of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Local representative of the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture
Head of the appropriate state agency to assess the cumulativeeffect of activities in such areas (TCEQ and/or TPWD).
The Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The head of the Texas Parks and Wildlife.
The engineer must consider conservation of wildlife resources and preventing harm to them due to proposed permit activity. The Army must give full consideration to the views of those agencies when deciding whether to issue, deny or condition permits.
Water-Quality Considerations
Applications for permits for activities which may adversely affect the quality of waters of the United States will be evaluated for compliance with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards, during the construction and subsequent operation of the proposed activity. The evaluation should include the consideration of both point and non-point sources of pollution. The Clean Water Act assigns responsibility for control of non-point sources of pollution to the states. In our case, that’s the TCEQ.
Scenic and Recreational Values
Full evaluation of the general public interest requires that due consideration be given to the effect which the proposed structure or activity may have on values such as those associated with scenic rivers.
Consideration of Property Ownership
Authorization of work or structures by the Corps does not convey a property right. Nor does it authorize any injury to property or invasion of others’ rights.
An inherent aspect of property ownership is a right to reasonable private use. However, this right is subject to the rights and interests of the public in the navigable and other waters of the United States. It includes environmental protection.
Because a landowner has the general right to protect property from erosion, applications to erect protective structures will usually receive favorable consideration. However, if the protective structure may cause damage to the property of others, adversely affect public health and safety, adversely impact floodplain or wetland values, or otherwise appears contrary to the public interest, the district engineer will so advise the applicant and inform him of possible alternative methods of protecting his property.
A landowner’s general right of access to navigable waters may not create undue interference with access to, or use of, navigable waters by others. If it does, the authorization will generally be denied.
The applicant’s signature on an application is an affirmation that the applicant possesses or will possess the requisite property interest to undertake the activity proposed in the application.
In the absence of overriding public-interest factors that may be revealed during the evaluation of the permit application, a permit will generally be issued. But first, the engineer must receive favorable state determination. That state determination must take into account:
Similarly, a permit will generally be issued for Federal and Federally-authorized activities; another federal agency’s determination to proceed is entitled to substantial considerationin the Corps’ public interest review.
Threatened Species
The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) declares the intention of the Congress to conserve threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems on which those species depend. The Act requires that federal agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, use their authorities in furtherance of its purposes by carrying out programs for the conservation of threatened species, (editorial comment: such as the bald eagle which nests and feeds near this property).
Floodplain Management
Floodplains possess significant natural values and carry out numerous functions important to the public interest. These include:
Water-resources value (natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, and groundwater recharge);
Living-resource values (fish, wildlife, and plant resources);
Cultural-resource values (open space, natural beauty, scientific study, outdoor education, and recreation); and
Cultivated-resource values (agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry).
Although a particular alteration to a floodplain may constitute a minor change, the cumulative impact of such changes may result in a significant degradation of floodplain values and functions and in increased potential for harm to upstream and downstream activities.
Executive Order 11988 and Floodplains
In accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 11988, district engineers, as part of their public interest review, should avoid to the extent practicable, long and short term significant adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, as well as the direct and indirect support of floodplain development whenever there is a practicable alternative. For those activities which in the public interest must occur in or impact upon floodplains, the district engineer shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the impacts of potential flooding on human health, safety, and welfare are minimized, the risks of flood losses are minimized, and, whenever practicable the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains are restored and preserved.
In accordance with Executive Order 11988, the district engineer should avoid authorizing floodplain developments whenever practicable alternatives exist outside the floodplain.If there are no such practicable alternatives, the district engineer shall consider, as a means of mitigation, alternatives within the floodplain which will lessen any significant adverse impact to the floodplain.
Water Supply and Conservation
Water is an essential resource, basic to human survival, economic growth, and the natural environment. Water conservation requires the efficient use of water resources in all actions which involve the significant use of water or that significantly affect the availability of water for alternative uses including opportunities to reduce demand and improve efficiency in order to minimize new supply requirements. Actions affecting water quantities are subject to Congressional policy as stated in section 101(g) of the Clean Water Act which provides that the authority of states to allocate water quantities shall not be superseded, abrogated, or otherwise impaired.
Navigation
Protection of navigation in all navigable waters of the United States continues to be a primary concern of the federal government.
District engineers should protect navigational and anchorage interests in connection with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) program by recommending to EPA or to the state, if the program has been delegated, that a permit be denied unless appropriate conditions can be included to avoid any substantial impairment of navigation and anchorage.
The NPDES permit program addresses water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States.
Environmental Benefits
Some activities that require Department of the Army permits result in beneficial effects to the quality of the environment. The district engineer will weigh these benefits as well as environmental detriments along with other factors of the public interest.
Economics
When private enterprise makes application for a permit, it will generally be assumed that appropriate economic evaluations have been completed, the proposal is economically viable, and is needed in the market place.However, the district engineer in appropriate cases, may make an independent review of the need for the project from the perspective of the overall public interest. The economic benefits of many projects are important to the local community and contribute to needed improvements in the local economic base, affecting such factors as employment, tax revenues, community cohesion, community services, and property values. Many projects also contribute to the National Economic Development (NED), (i.e., the increase in the net value of the national output of goods and services
Deadline for Comments Extended to March 1
Because of the prolonged government shutdown, the Army Corps has extended the deadline for public comments on the proposed Kingwood Marina high-rise development.
Comments and requests for additional information should reference USACE file number, SWG-2016-00384, and should be submitted to:
ARMY CORPS
Evaluation Branch, North Unit Regulatory Division, CESWG-RD-E U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, Texas 77553-1229 409-766-3869 Phone 409-766-6301 Fax swg_public_notice@usace.army.mil
TCEQ
The TCEQ will evaluate water quality issues for the Corps. You can email water quality comments to 401certs@tceq.texas.gov. Please ensure that all comments reference USACE permit application no. SWG-2016-00384.
Rehak Comments To Follow
As I have studied the Corps’ and TCEQ’s decision-making processes and criteria, I have also studied possible impacts of the proposed high-rise project. I intend to send my comments to the Corps, TCEQ, Texas Parks and Wildlife, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the EPA. I will publish those when complete – hopefully by the end of this week.
As always, these represent my opinions on matters of public policy. They are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/31/2019
520 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Pieces-of-Romerica-Dev-e1546040851855.png?fit=1500%2C1095&ssl=110951500adminadmin2019-01-30 17:57:382019-01-30 18:05:55How Corps Will Evaluate High-Rise Permit Application
Two top retired geologists for one of the world’s largest oil companies have sent letters to the US Army Corps of Engineers and TCEQ protesting the new high-rise development in Kingwood. They raise some excellent points from a technical perspective that other letter writers have not yet addressed.
Wetlands on the site of the proposed high-rise development retain and filter water. They help protect this area from flooding and improve water quality. The proposed development would fill in wetlands like this and purchase “mitigation credits” elsewhere.
Tim Garfield and RD Kissling, who led the fight to raise awareness of the mouth bar, wrote this letter. They have kindly given me permission to share their concerns with other residents in the Lake Houston Area.
Text of Letter
January 22, 2019
Evaluation Branch, North Unit Regulatory Division CESWG-RD-E Galveston District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1229, Galveston, Texas 77553-1229
Provide feedback on Permit Application No. SWG-2016-00384
Request a Public Hearing be held before any decisions are made on this permit application.
We, and other Kingwood residents we have talked to have observed that the Project associated with Permit Application No. SWG-2016-00384, is so ill conceived in so many ways, that it “just doesn’t smell right”.
What we and other Kingwood residents absolutely don’t want is for this ill-conceived Project to go forward to the point where earth moving and tree removal takes place, then (following even a minor flooding event or economic turn) for the whole Project to fold (like adjacent Barrington development has done multiple times) leaving the San Jacinto River with another giant scar in what used to be a landmark Riparian Forest.
Re: Public Notice for Permit Application SWG-2016-00384
The USACoE states in Public Notice for Permit Application SWG-2016-00384issued on December 27, 2018, that their evaluation shall include all factors which may be relevant to the proposed Project under evaluation. Among these are: conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. They also state that the benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments.
Following our review of the proposed Project it is very clear to us that the foreseeable detriments of this project far out way any perceivable benefits as indicated by the factors listed below. These identified factors should be fully evaluated by TCEQ and the USACoE, be subject to Public Hearing and used by TCEQ and the USACoE as a basis for permit denial:
Conservation
The Project proposes to fill numerous acres of pine and hardwood riverine wetlands, home to a diverse biota, and replace that with multiple residential high rises, parking lots, commercial buildings, a high-density marina and related amenities. These proposed activities are the antithesis of conservation of a unique and increasingly rare ecosystem.
Economics
We believe there is no conceivable financial viability to the proposed Project for multiple reasons, including those detailed below:
– The “marina”, even if dredged to the depth needed to support larger boats, would feed to an un- navigable water body (The West Fork , San Jacinto River; NW Lake Houston) that contains numerous shoal areas with as little as 1-2’ of draft. The proposed marina would accrue limited benefit to the project unless the builders also committed to extensive and ongoing dredging. At normal lake/river stage (42.5′) there is now very limited access for most types of recreational boats to navigate from Lake Houston to the proposed marina area due to river sediment that has accumulated within and at the mouth of the river (stream mouth bar/SMB). To remove the stream mouth bar sediment and do maintenance dredging on the West Fork of the San Jacinto River from the proposed marina down to Lake Houston would incur dredging costs that could exceed $100M. Is the Developer willing to consider this as a cost of business needed to make the Project viable? If removal of the stream mouth bar downstream of this development is not addressed then there can be no foreseeable economically viable outcome for this Project.
– Data over the last 3 years has shown increasing frequency of flooding in this area with only moderate rainfall. Hurricane Harvey showed the economically calamitous impact of a major rain event. The SMB blocking the flow of water from the river to the lake is a significant cause of upstream flooding, and that flow barrier continues to grow. While the Developer may be able to elevate some of the development areas by infill above the (current) 100- year flood stage, the marina area – at lake level – will be subject to damage by nearly every storm that comes into the San Jacinto River Basin (e.g. adjacent River Grove Park and FFA regularly flood and still hold standing water). Can the project economics remain viable when incorporating costs of continuous flood reclamation? What client would ever purchase or take a lease on any of these facilities if they did any due diligence regarding these circumstances? If yet another major flood event hits that area either during construction or after completion (look at impact of Harvey on the new HEB development in Kingwood) – the costs of recovery would fully erode any conceivable economic viability.
– Water quality in this area is always turbid/muddy, in part due to the effects of the mines upstream which contribute sand and mud to the water and may also introduce additional toxins. That won’t likely change in the near future and is not consistent with the image or the name the developers have attached to the proposed marina basin – “Emerald Lake”. Given the difference between the true nature of this muddy water body with the artist’s renderings – what potential customers would not feel deceived upon visiting the site.
-They are building around an area – Barrington – that was built on 6+ ft of fill. Houses there had as much as 6’ of water during Harvey. To exceed most recent local flood heights in an area that appears to be in the heart of the current floodway, they would need over 12 ‘ of fill which would create two potential problems:
1) Fill and associated buildings in the floodplains would create islands, impacting flood drainage patterns and likely contribute to flooding in adjacent areas during high water. An extensive drainage and flood impact study would be needed to address this.
2) Structural integrity? The area is underlain by soft recent flood-plain sediment. Adding twelve plus additional ft of fill and building 50 story high rises on top raises questions about how deep and extensive the foundation pilings would have to go to safely carry that load and at what cost?
– Road access in/out, particularly getting to 59 – would the Developer bear the significant additional road construction costs to provide direct access to the freeway or are the plans to tie into existing already congested roadways? If the latter is the case will the Developer provide traffic flow studies that show that impact on current Kingwood residents will be minimal?
– An Indoor shopping mall is advertised in the project prospectus. Such malls are going out of business all over the country, as are movie theaters, another advertised amenity. These elements are not likely to draw customers, and they seem both dated and indicative of how old and poorly researched this promotional material is.
Aesthetics
The proposed structures and activities are the opposite of the aesthetics of the Kingwood area since its inception (“The Liveable Forest”). This aesthetic is very important to the citizens of Kingwood, and should be given full consideration in reviewing and evaluating the permit application.
General Environmental Concerns, Fish and Wildlife Values
With development rapidly encroaching Kingwood from all directions, relatively wild lands such as those proposed for development are becoming increasingly rare and valuable. To replace them with such a development would erode all beneficial aspects of this Riparian wetland for plants, animals and humans.
Wetlands
The applicant is requesting to fill or flood riverine wetlands and minimize impacts by only partially filling some various small wetland areas scattered through the site. This “minimization step” will not replace the functions and values of the filed wetlands. The Developer is also proposing to buy “offset” conversation grants to make up for the damage they are going to do to Kingwoods wetlands. This is unacceptable.
Flood Hazards and Floodplain Values
We understand that the Developer “has not applied for a Harris County Flood Control Permit”. Is the Developer going to provide studies (vetted by outside experts) that show that this development will not adversely impact an already very bad flooding situation? Can they produce hard data that would show how this development could have anything but a negative impact on future flooding events (i.e. by dredging, significant retention ponds etc)? Our concern is that the extensive wetlands that are adjacent to the West Fork of the San Jacinto River are the conveyance route for almost all of the rivers overbank flow. If the wetlands, a natural water sink, are filled in and built up the developments will both displace ground water and become obstructions to flow by diverting and pushing floodwaters into adjacent areas and further up into Kingwood than before.
In the Developer’s proposal there are estimates of how much fill dirt will be required in each area. They state that they want to elevate above the 100 year flood plain (56-58′ elevation) which is approximately 12′ above current topographic elevation.When examining their estimates of fill volume however it appears that they are assuming an average fill depth of only 1′ per designated acre.This is either a gross miscalculation or, as one of their elevation cross sections suggests, only the high-rise buildings will be elevated to this +12′ level and everything else will be left at current grade. In the first case this means that they will require significantly more fill dirt in the wetlands (i.e.12x current estimate) than proposed – with significant cost and project viability implications. In the second case, it means they have a non-viable development because during future floods they will have their tall buildings stranded as islands while everything else is at or below the 100 year flood level (i.e. commercial buildings, parking garages, marina, access roads, sewage treatment plant etc.) and subject to significant damage. Which is it and at what cost?
Land Use
Part of the proposal is that they will be using fill dirt to “fill existing streams”. Those small streams exist because they move water out of upstream areas (i.e. Kingwood) into the San Jacinto River. Has the developer modeled the impact of filling in these streams on overall drainage in Kingwood?
Water Supply and Conservation
What are waste water treatment plans for this proposed project? A development of this size cannot simply force it’s way into existing infrastructure. Part of the Development Plan must include a full, on-site waste water treatment facility. Where will this be located and will it be above the 100 year flood stage level? How about the 500 year flood stage level? What are the impacts if this treatment facility is breached by floods and discharges into the City of Houston’s primary water supply? What mitigation plans does the Developer propose? At what cost?
Water Quality
The applicant proposed to convert ground now supporting native vegetation, forested uplands and bottomland hardwood wetlands into concrete pavement. The applicant’s proposed structures and paved surfaces are designed to shed runoff as quickly as possible. The proposal will also add 1000’s of additional vehicles in the proposed development area with associated petroleum residue added to runoff. The additional fertilizer and animal feces introduced into runoff from the proposed “green space” areas, will further degrade already poor existing water quality parameters. Has the Developer submitted the proper documentation to show how they plan to mitigate these impacts? Lake Houston is the primary water supply for Houston which is growing at unprecedented rates. Are we willing to jeopardize the water supply for 2+ million people by allowing a poorly planned development to add to the stress on Houston’s water supply?
Safety
We are concerned that the proposed development will have significant negative impacts on public safety in the area. These include negative impacts of higher future flood levels and potential hazards to human health and public safety due to the significant increase in road traffic. We are concerned how drainage runoff from elevated project areas to adjacent properties and associated increased flooding risk to those properties is going to be managed? This is an issue during every rain event and one that the City of Houston has failed to manage within Loop 610 (i.e. The Heights Area). In the Heights, developers build up lots 2-3′ higher than adjacent lots and fill the lot with impermeable surfaces with no mitigation for the impact of runoff on to the adjacent lots. The Barrington neighborhood, which will be surrounded by this Development, could become the retention pond for the Development during flood events, depending on how they handle grade elevation and drainage.
Needs and Welfare of the People
Most residents of Kingwood have chosen to live in this area for its natural beauty and to escape the road congestion, high population density and high-rise building environment of the inner city. These environmental preferences are enshrined in the deed restrictions issued for every other developed area in Kingwood since its inception. These esthetic considerations that are so important to the health and welfare of the citizens of Kingwood should be given full consideration.
Conclusion: Deny
We hope in the coming months, that our concerns about these factors will be carefully evaluated by U.S.A.C.o.E. and TCEQand that a Public Hearingbe held before any decisions are made on this permit application.Without any detailed information concerning the viability of the project – including dredging costs, environmental impacts, costs of elevated future flood levels, sewage disposal plans and water quality impacts and potential hazards to human health due and public safety concerns attributed to flooding and increased traffic loads; it is our opinion that the permit application should be denied by the USACE and TCEQ upon completion of the Public Notice review period. It is also requested that any revisions and supplements to this proposed Project by this applicant or any others which involve this Project be placed on a full 30-day Public Notice in order to allow all stakeholders an opportunity to provide additional comments to USACE and TCEQ.
Respectfully,
Randal Kissling Sr. Technical Geologist Major oil company – retired Crosby Tx. 77532
Tim Garfield Chief Geologist Major oil company – retired Kingwood, 77345
The thoughts in this letter represent opinions on matters of public policy. The opinions, the authors of the letter, and this website are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and Anti-SLAPP statutes of the Great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/24,2019
513 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Ditch-Erosion_03.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-01-24 14:35:022019-01-24 14:35:56Two Top Geologists Protest High-Rise Development in Floodplain with Letter to Corps and TCEQ
