Tag Archive for: West Fork Pit Captures

West Fork Pit Captures Still Not Addressed After a Year

6/23/25 – Two West Fork pit captures caused by floods in early 2024 are now more than a year old and untouched.

“Pit capture” is when a river punches through the dikes of a sand mine and starts flowing through it.

Photographs taken on 6/22/25 from a rented helicopter show that the San Jacinto West Fork continues to flow into and through the two sand pits. Their dikes have not been repaired. And the river has rerouted itself through the pits which are on private property. See below.

Entry Breach at former Hallett Pit now owned by Riverwalk Porter LLC. West Fork now flows into pit (upper left) rather than following its normal course (bottom right).
At the other end of the pit, the river flows back to its original channel (lower right).

Here’s a video shot in May 2024 while flying from one end of the mile-long pit to the other.

At the northern end of the Hallett mine, the West Fork has captured another pit.

Water flows toward camera position through two dike breaches, instead of taking the long (slow) way around the curve.
Looking downstream. Closer shot of entry point shows accumulated sediment in pit has already broken the water surface and that vegetation is taking over the old river bed.
Made of sand, this dike was never very high, wide or strong. Little wonder the river breached it and captured the pit.

Best management practices recommend minimum 100-foot-wide, reinforced dikes to eliminate problems like this. That obviously wasn’t the case here.

So, do pit captures encourage or discourage downstream sediment buildups that contribute to flooding?

Industry Says Sediment Falls into Pits. But Does It?

The sand mining industry would have you believe that the pits capture all sand that flows into them. That may be true in certain instances and not in others.

It depends on speed of the water. During the May 2024 flood, I used a drone to measure the speed of floodwaters moving through one of the pits at 5 MPH.

The table below shows particle sizes that water moving at various speeds can transport.

Sediment SizeDiameter (mm)Approx. Critical Flow Velocity for Initiation
Clay/Silt<0.004~0.5 ft/s (~0.34 mph)
Very Fine Sand0.004–0.062~1.5 ft/s (~1.0 mph)
Fine Sand0.062–0.2~2 ft/s (~1.3 mph)
Medium Sand0.2–0.5~3–4 ft/s (~2–2.7 mph)
Coarse Sand0.5–2.0~4–5 ft/s (~2.7–3.4 mph)
Very Coarse Sand2.0–4.0~5–6 ft/s (~3.4–4.1 mph)
Small Gravel4–16~6–7 ft/s (~4.1–4.8 mph)
Medium Gravel16–64~7–10 ft/s (~4.8–6.8 mph)

Conclusions:

  1. Sediment deposited in pits is not permanently trapped.
  2. Floods can churn up and flush out stored sediment.
  3. Sediment transport becomes episodic and pulse-like.

Modeling studies show that even in pits 20-25 feet deep, floodwaters at 5 MPH can mobilize and carry away all but the largest gravel. Consequently, experts say sand-mining pits do not serve well as permanent sediment sinks. But are they adding to the sediment load downstream?

How Pit Capture Can Add to Sediment Loads Downstream

Numerous studies have examined whether pit capture makes downstream sedimentation better or worse. Generally, they indicate that pit captures tend to make downstream sedimentation worse—especially over the long term.

To summarize, these sources generally conclude that pit capture:

  • Increases downstream erosion through “hungry water” effects.
  • Results in channel instability and sediment pulses.
  • Worsens downstream sedimentation, contrary to any short-term sediment-trapping benefit.

Therefore, management efforts typically and strongly recommend preventing pit capture through:

  • Better engineering practices
  • Increased setback distances
  • Reinforced berms
  • Strategic sediment management planning.

For More Information or a Summer-Science Project

For those interested in learning more or for a summer-science project, consult the following:

Peer Reviewed and Technical Studies:
  • Kondolf, G.M. (1997). “Hungry water: Effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels.” Environmental Management, 21(4), 533–551.
  • Kondolf, G.M. (2001). “Geomorphic and environmental effects of instream gravel mining.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 28(2-3), 225–243.
  • Kondolf, G.M. et al. (2007). “Two Decades of Geomorphic Effects of Gravel Mining in the Tuolumne River, California.” Environmental Management, 40, 571–584.
  • Collins, B.D., & Dunne, T. (1990). “Fluvial geomorphology and river-gravel mining: A guide for planners, case studies included.” U.S. Geological Survey Special Report 98, California Department of Conservation.
  • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2004). “Gravel Mining and Channel Stability: An evaluation of gravel extraction impacts on salmon habitat.”NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-66.
  • NMFS (2011). “Channel Processes and Sediment Transport: Implications for Salmon Habitat Restoration.” NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-115.
Texas-Specific Agency Reports:
  • TWDB (2020). “Lake Houston and San Jacinto River Watershed Study: Sediment Management and Flood Risk Assessment.” Texas Water Development Board, Austin, TX.
  • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) (2019–2022). Multiple investigation and enforcement reports documenting pit breaches and sediment spills from sand mines along the San Jacinto River (publicly available through TCEQ’s Central File Room and online database).
  • TCEQ (2021). “Best Management Practices for Sand Mining in the San Jacinto River Watershed.” RG-555. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Austin, TX.
  • Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) (2018). “Impacts of Gravel and Sand Mining on Instream Habitats and Fish Communities in Texas.” TPWD Inland Fisheries Division Technical Report IF-TM-2018-01.
  • SJRA (2021). “San Jacinto Regional Sediment Management Plan.” Harris County Flood Control District and SJRA joint publication.
  • Army Corps and HCFCD. “West Fork San Jacinto River Emergency Dredging Project Final Report (2019).”
  • “San Jacinto River Master Drainage Plan – Appendix F: Sediment Management (2021).”
Background and Context:
  • Langer, W. H. (2003). “A General Overview of the Technology of In-Stream Mining of Sand and Gravel Resources, Associated Potential Environmental Impacts, and Methods to Control Potential Impacts.” USGS Open File Report OF-02-153.
  • Bull, W.B., & Scott, K.M. (1974). “Impact of mining gravel from urban stream beds in the Southwestern United States.”Geology, 2(4), 171–174.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/23/25

2855 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 Report on West Fork Pit Capture Doesn’t Mention “Pit Capture”

9/2/24 – On 8/26/24, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issued a report on a San Jacinto West Fork pit capture. “Pit capture” happened when the river cut through an abandoned sand pit on a point bar instead of taking the long way around it. Worldwide, many environmental consequences have been linked to such pit captures. However, the TCEQ report never mentions the phrase.

Several area residents filed separate complaints with the TCEQ. Even though the report lists eight separate incident numbers, TCEQ apparently conducted one investigation (#1976402) and issued one report.

This report does not discuss other pit captures that happened elsewhere in the West and East Fork watersheds earlier this year.

Past catching up with Montgomery County
San Jacinto West Fork entering pit and abandoning its normal channel on May 22.

The TCEQ report, which took four months to investigate, compile and release, did not:

  • Refer to any water-quality measurements, even though the complaints concerned water quality.
  • Address other sand-mine dike beaches and emissions in the same area
  • Explore downstream impacts.
  • Result in any reprimands, letters of enforcement, or violations.

TCEQ Finds No Problems

The four-month effort resulted in no action. Apparently, the TCEQ feels that since the pit is no longer being actively mined, it is no longer a threat to the public. It simply concludes that the incident falls within their “enforcement discretion” and they chose not to take any action.

TCEQ, which the Texas Sunset Commission dubbed a “reluctant regulator,” found nothing to get upset about even though the river:

  • Has abandoned its normal channel
  • Is now running through private property
  • Is eroding a Native-American graveyard.
Approximate location of entry and exit breaches relative to island with Native-American cemetery.

Who Operated This Pit?

The report also ignores a complex web of interlocking corporations involved with West Fork sand mining. They include, but are not limited to, Hallett Materials, RGI, JR Development and the Rasmussen Group, headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.

  • The first paragraph of the report states that the investigation was conducted to “evaluate compliance for RGI Materials, Inc. of the Porter Plant site located north of the West Fork San Jacinto River.” [Emphasis added.]
  • But the report lists GPS coordinates for a pond on the south and west sides of the river. It also shows photos of the pit on the south and west sides.
  • According to the Montgomery County Appraisal District (MCAD), JR Development Inc. owned that pit until January of this year. It sold the land to Riverwalk Porter LLC on January 23.

The report cites information obtained through a Jacob McCurry and identifies him as a Vice President of RGI Materials. But the Hallett Materials website lists Jacob McCurry as its Operations Manager.

The report never mentions Hallett, the largest operator on the West Fork. Hallett:

  • Currently operates another pit captured by the West Fork about a mile north of the pit that the TCEQ investigated.
  • Operates a settling pond directly across the river from the pit that TCEQ investigated. That pond has been leaking almost continuously into the river since January through another pit that RGI used to own.

The Texas Secretary of State shows that RGI is an assumed name of Hallett Materials.

It’s all very confusing. Except for the TCEQ report’s conclusion. The TCEQ is taking no action.

Erosion of Cemetery

In 2018, I met Kurt Rasmussen at the Hallett plant. Rasmussen is part of the family that controls Hallett, RGI, and JR Development.

He gave me a tour of the captured pit on the south and west sides of the river. He also told me that Hallett was prohibited from mining that island in the middle of the pit because it is a Native American burial ground.

As a result of the pit capture, dikes no longer protect that island from the river and erosion.

Burial ground (upper left) in middle of pit captured by West Fork. Photo 5/13/24.

Unmentioned Problems with Pit Captures

The TCEQ report never mentions “pit capture.” Nor does it mention any of the problems associated with pit capture discussed in academic literature.

Where a river enters a pit, erosion typically migrates upstream (headcutting). That can lead to more river bank erosion. (You can already see it happening in the photo above on the right.)

Literature about pit captures also suggests that when rivers take a direct path through a sand pit, it can shorten the river’s length. This can increase the river’s gradient (slope) downstream, leading to faster water flow and more aggressive erosion.

Captured pits can act as sediment traps when water moves slow enough for sand to drop out of suspension. But when water moves as fast as it did in the May flood, it can stir up sediment and transport it downstream.

I measured the speed of water moving through the captured Hallett/RGI/JR Development/Rasmussen/Riverwalk pit at 5 miles per hour. That’s enough to pick up and transport large grains of sand.

This can contribute to increased sedimentation in downstream reaches, affecting water quality, habitat, and the morphology of the river.

West Fork sedimentation after upstream rainfall that rivaled Hurricane Harvey
Downstream from pit capture above at the confluence of Spring Creek and the West Fork. West Fork is on right.

That sediment began dropping out of suspension where the water slowed as it approached the headwaters of Lake Houston.

River Grove, diversion Ditch
Kingwood Diversion Ditch blocked at River Grove Park, downstream from confluence above. Dredging cost estimated at about $750,000.

The increased flow velocity after a sand pit capture can also lead to downcutting that disconnects the river from its floodplain, reducing the ability of the floodplain to absorb floodwaters and support wetland habitats.

Scientific reports also say that such downcutting can reduce the level of the water table and destroy riparian vegetation.

TCEQ Ignores Downstream Consequences

TCEQ concluded with the words: “the discharge from this pond has been granted enforcement discretion.” TCEQ chose not to issue any violations.

Their decision apparently stems from the fact that the pit is no longer actively used for mining. According to the report, the current owner, Riverwalk Porter LLC, claims it intends to use the property (and presumably the graveyard within it) for “recreational purposes such as hunting and camping.”

It’s unclear how TCEQ’s ruling will affect boating on the river. The public waterway now cuts through private property. Will boaters be trespassers?

So many questions! And the biggest one: Why did TCEQ not investigate other San Jacinto River Basin pit captures in active mines when its investigators were in the air?

To read the entire TCEQ report, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/2/24

2561 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.