GALVESTON BAY REPORT CARD
Overall Health of the Bay Galveston Bay is resilient, but faces an
uncertain future. The Bay’s watershed is home to the fourth- and ninth-largest
cities in the U.S., Houston and Dallas. It’s also home to three ports, and
remains a hub for the manufacturing and refining of chemicals and petroleum
products. But people, industry, and commerce often come with environmental
challenges. Galveston Bay’s most significant problems are tied to pollution,
declines in habitat acreage, and to the impacts of climate change, like sea
level rise.
That Galveston Bay could receive C for overall health despite facing these
monumental issues shows how resilient it is. It offers hope that we can continue
to make changes in the way we live to lessen the negative impact on water
quality, habitat like wetlands and seagrasses, and wildlife.
Galveston Bay is resilient, but faces an uncertain future. The Bay’s
watershed is home to the fourth- and ninth-largest cities in the U.S., Houston
and Dallas. It’s also home to three of chemicals and petroleum products. But
people, industry, and commerce often come with environmental challenges.
declines in habitat acreage, and to the impacts of climate change, like sea
level rise.
That Galveston Bay could receive C for overall health despite change our
negative impact on water quality, wetlands, seagrasses, and wildlife. But a
healthier Galveston Bay is in everyone’s interest. (About the grade: The
combined GPA for all six categories together is a 2.1, which registers in the
low C range. Unfortunately, the combined grade does not include grades for three
of our indicators: Toxics in Sediment, Litter and Trash, and Oyster Reef
Acreage* - There was not enough data available on these indicators to include
them in the overall grade. We hope you will join us in encouraging local, state,
and national leaders to pass legislation, and provide funding, that will improve
monitoring and address these issues.
* Oyster reef habitat has been monitored and the data is being processed.
We hope to be able to include current data in 2016.
2015 Galveston Bay Report Card
About the Bay
Galveston Bay is Texas’ largest bay, covering about 600 square miles. The
Galveston Bay watershed — the area of land that drains into a given body of
water — is about 24,000 square miles. It stretches northward from the Houston
metropolitan area, up the Trinity River basin, and past the Dallas-Fort Worth
area. Half the population of Texas currently lives in the Galveston Bay
watershed. The Bay’s urbanized, industrialized, and agricultural setting poses
unique challenges for water quality, habitat protection, and resource
conservation. If you live, work, or go to school in the Galveston Bay Watershed,
you can find your local watershed now.
Galveston Bay is, by definition, an estuary – a semi-enclosed coastal body
of water that has a free connection with the open sea. Within an estuary,
seawater mixes with freshwater from the land. In the case of Galveston Bay, it
is where freshwater from the Trinity and San Jacinto rivers and the extensive
bayous and creeks of the Houston-Galveston region mix with the saltwater of the
Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries are among the most productive ecosystems in the world.
They are home to a huge amount of plant and animal life, and can produce large
harvests of recreational and commercial fish and shellfish.
People are drawn to the water – and for good reason. Galveston Bay and the
habitats within its watershed provide many benefits to society, including:
• Fisheries/seafood.
• Water quality improvement.
• Erosion, flood, and storm protection.
• Regulation of local climate.
• Aesthetics and recreational opportunities such as swimming, boating, and
bird watching.
Ensuring a healthy future for Galveston Bay is ensuring that future
generations can enjoy a safe place to not only live, but also swim, boat, and
fish.
About the Project
The Galveston Bay Report Card is a citizen-driven, scientific analysis of
the health of Galveston Bay. Supported by a grant from Houston Endowment and
implemented by the Galveston Bay Foundation and the Houston Advanced Research
Center, the report card’s goal is to engage community members in meaningful
discussion about Bay health topics. The report card is also designed to inspire
people to take actions that protect and preserve the Bay. We plan to update the
report annually.
Through a series of surveys and interactive presentations, six topic
categories were identified by the Galveston Bay Foundation as health topics of
interest to the public in the fall of 2014: Water Quality, Pollution Events
& Sources, Wildlife, Habitat, Human Health Risks, and Coastal Change.
Scientists from the Houston Advanced Research Center then analyzed data and
trends for 19 indicators. What has emerged is a compelling story about Galveston
Bay, its challenges, opportunities, and greatest needs. Each indicator features
easy-to-understand grades, similar to the grades you would find in a school
report card. These indicators show specific ways you can help the Bay, as well
as data-driven infographics, additional resources, and downloadable full reports
with expanded content. There is also specific data on each indicator.
How We Grade
It is not easy to measure how “healthy” a bay system is. Estuaries are
extremely dynamic environments that change by the minute. It is not always clear
how much stress a particular component of the bay can take before it begins to
deteriorate, how fast it may deteriorate, or if recovery after deterioration is
even possible. The way an individual defines a “healthy” bay is often related to
how we, as humans, value the services that the system provides us, such as
seafood harvests, clean water for drinking and playing, and habitat that
protects and stabilizes shorelines.
The goal of the federal Clean Water Act of 1972 is to make the nation’s
waters swimmable and fishable. That goal was our guideline in measuring the
indicators for this report card. In this project, the Bay’s health is perceived
as a question of sustainability and resiliency: Do the indicator trends portray
a Bay that will continue to provide recreation, food, clean water, and
protection from storms?
Instead of trying to apply a universal grading methodology to such a
variety of Bay indicators, some degree of best professional judgment was used to
determine overall category grades and indicator grading scales. A detailed
explanation outlines how grades were calculated and when grading relied heavily
on best professional judgment based on available data. This is disclosed in the
downloadable PDFs for each indicator. Letter grades correspond to a 4.0 grade
point average scale, and are accompanied by descriptors ranging from “Excellent”
to “Critical.”
CONTACT US
Working Together For a Healthy Bay
As Texans and residents of the Galveston Bay watershed, we all carry the
responsibility of protecting and preserving the Bay for future generations. The
Bay is at the heart of immense ecological and economic productivity. It’s also a
special place to many people who enjoy its views, tranquility, and recreational
opportunities. The indicators selected for this report represent a diverse
cross-section of Bay features, but they are not intended to be all-encompassing.
We have already identified a few topics for future indicator expansion: water
clarity, chlorophyll-a concentrations (an indicator of productivity at the base
of the food chain), marine mammals and reptiles, land use/ development, harmful
algal blooms, invasive species, and species range expansions. We welcome your
comments, suggestions and ideas to improve the report card, which we plan to
update annually. A healthy environment is good for the communities we live,
work, and play in. So please share this report with your family and friends. We
encourage you to ask questions and seek innovative solutions to challenging
environmental issue. Galveston Bay Foundation
Anja Borski Scott Jones
281-332-3381 Ext. 223 281-332-3381 Ext. 209
aborski@galvbay.org sjones@galvbay.org
Houston Advanced Research Center
Erin Kinney Lisa Gonzalez
281-364-6040 281-364-6044
ekinney@HARCresearch.org lgonzalez@HARCresearch.org
Greetings Neighbors, Friends, Family of the unincorporated areas of
Galveston Bay, San Leon, Bacliff, Bayview, and Galveston Bay Foundation et
al.
Many thanks to the Galveston Bay et al for this report, no matter how
watered down it might have been.
Myself, Steve Hoyland et al at the Seabreeze news, and others, have been
saying this for years and trying to get something done, to save Galveston Bay
and adjacent Bayous.
it’s time we all step up to the plate.
I would kindly like to address something that has concerned me for a long
time, but I have not said anything. today, I break my silence. it might not be
too politically correct, but neither am i.
I would like to address what I see are pigs, that squalor in their own
feces in our communtiy, and then want you to squalor right along with them. I am
tired of the pigs that live in our area, that think it’s o.k. to crap where they
sleep, and then they want to crap on you. I am tired of people living and or
coming here and trashing our neighborhoods. it happens weekly in Bacliff. people
driving around dumping their trash in the ditch on the next block, or around the
corner. people that might take their trash (or not) to the side of the road in a
bag or box, no can, dogs get in it, or wind blows it down the road, then nobody
does nothing. it’s the old ‘oh it’s not mine now that it’s not in my yard’
mentality. just last week, one of the lawn yard crews that work Bayshore dr.
dumped their bagged up grass clippings on the side of the road. also, not too
long ago, two heavy bags of some very nasty, and very dead dumped, not sure what
it was, I did not look, just wheeled our cans over there, and rolled what ever
it was into the cans again, and let our garbage pick up pick it up, this is not
the first time, this nastiness happens all the time in Bacliff. I love Bacliff,
and I love the Bayside community, but there are some nasty ass people that live
here and pollute our communities on a weekly basis, and there is no excuse, I
don’t care how much money you have or not. I watch a very well off family take
their tree limbs down and put them on the pier, so the wind can blow them in,
that way, they did not pollute Galveston bay, and they feel good about it.
really. some just ignore their own ditches, toys, cars, boats, trash, piles of
whatever, yards flood, and then they go screaming to the county and complaining
it will not drain. look, I know the majority of us are not pigs, but you all
know what and whom I speak of, and you know where they live. something else I
noticed, for the last year, I have watch a builder next to us, trash our
neighborhood regularly with their building materials waste. I have posted photos
and complained. Million dollar plus home, and for a year during construction, I
have watched this builder trash not only our neighborhood, but Galveston Bay as
well, and the owners know it. EVERYTHING THAT GOES IN THOSE DITCHES EVENTUALLY
WINDS UP IN GALVESTON BAY. to the pigs I speak of, clean your shit up. everybody
out there should stand up and be heard when you see this. get a license plate
number, take photos, take videos, call the sheriff, enough is enough. we are
setting up better cameras that will pick up license plate numbers to those that
trash around us and across the street. we will not hesitate. and that’s why we
voted recently for the MUD trash pickup in Bacliff. I think this might help
alleviate some of the free loaders that live around our communities and think
it’s up to us, to keep their crap cleaned up. ...just saying, this is our home,
and we are tired of watching other people crap all over us with their trash, you
should be tired of this too. ...PLEASE HELP SAVE GALVESTON BAY AND OUR
COMMUNITY!
CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ
RN Number:
RN100890235
Permit No.: WQ0004086000
Singeltary Submission;
Greetings TCEQ et al,
I kindly wish to submit my strong opposition for any permit for CLEAN
HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ Permit No.: WQ0004086000, to allow any treated or
non-treated waste water, or anything else, to be allowed to be discharged into
the Dickinson Bayou watershed or nearby locations adjacent to Dickinson Bay,
inside of Galveston bay. The Public needs to be able to comment on this, and
should. The Dickinson Bayou watershed has been so strained environmentally due
to many reasons over the past decades, some reasons include Livestock, Pets,
faulty septic systems, agricultural activities, urban run-off and what all that
contains, pesticide runoff, waste water treatment plants, just to name a few,
but now we have an industrial complex that wants to grow at the mouth of
Dickinson Bayou, a Bayou that already has studies that show it’s very sluggish
in terms of tidal movement, and a Bayou that has consistently been in trouble,
year after year after decade. In my opinion, I believe one of the main reasons
that causes this, besides all the pollution, is the fact Dickinson Bayou needs
to, should have been dredged, with a continuous dredge maintained from inside
the mouth, and past the old grave yard, across those flats, on up until
Dickinson Bayou gets deep, all the way to the ship channel. The water quality in
Dickinson Bayou, has been bad for some time due to little tidal movement. Just
very recently, the Houston Chronicle ran an article on a workshop (see below in
reference materials) on how to improve Dickinson Bayou due to unacceptably high
levels of bacteria, posing possible health and environmental risks. so why would
TCEQ or anyone allow such a permit to throw more fuel to the fire? the old
spillway inlet at the mouth of Dickinson Bayou, and outlet over on the Bacliff
Side, is and has been dead in the water years and years, with no movement
through there to help oxygenate the water, we have had numerous fish kills, with
one massive flounder kill. why can the ship channel have a continuous life time
dredge for the tanker traffic, but yet never dredge Dickinson Bayou, when the
Army Corp of Eng said long ago that this needed to be done to maintain a healthy
Bayou? what are we waiting on? Via the FOIA, I received the HL&P
construction permits back in the 60’s, and the dredging that the Army Corp of
engineers said would come and be maintained constantly. That never happened.
This constant maintaining of a dredge was to be done all the way to the ship
channel, to prevent just what has happened, and it says so in the permit. see
permit PDF in my reference materials below. Until Dickinson Bayou is dredged out
and all the way to the ship channel so Dickinson Bayou can breath again,
anything else in my opinion will be futile. with no changes to the plan to
address the issue of dredging Dickinson Bayou to address the tidal flow issues,
and proper flushing of Dickinson Bayou, all your going to have is a toilet that
does not flush properly, that our children have been playing and swimming in,
and consuming the seafood there from. some kind of tourist attraction, welcome
to the Toilet Bowl.
I strongly protest, and strongly object, in totality, to Permit No.:
WQ0004086000 for CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ RN Number: RN100890235, please deny
this permit. ...
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas 77518
REFERENCE
ENFORCEMENT FOR CLEAN HARBORS
Item 35
Docket No. 2014-1366-PWS-E.
Consideration of an Agreed Order assessing administrative penalties and
requiring certain actions of Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc. in Galveston County;
RN100890235; for public drinking water violations pursuant to Tex. Health &
Safety Code ch. 341 and the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality.
Item 35 Docket No. 2014-1366-PWS-E. Consideration of an Agreed Order
assessing administrative penalties and requiring certain actions of Clean
Harbors San Leon, Inc. in Galveston County; RN100890235; for public drinking
water violations pursuant to Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 341 and the rules
of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (Jessica Schildwachter, Candy
Garrett) Approve the Agreed Order. ZC/TB; all agree.
An agreed order was entered regarding Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc., Docket
No. 2014-1366-PWS-E on April 1, 2015, assessing $234 in administrative penalties
with $234 deferred.
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. previous comment
Response to Public Comments Eight TMDLs for Indicator Bacteria in Dickinson
Bayou and Three Tidal Tributaries (Segments 1103 and 1104)
November 12, 2013
Tracking Number
Date Received
Affiliation of Commenter
Request or Comment
Summary of TCEQ Action or Explanation
001_01
004_04
08/30/2013
09/12/2013
Terry Singeltary (written)
Arlette Baudat
(oral)
The TCEQ efforts to bring back quality water, instead of polluted water to
the Dickinson Bayou and its Tributaries, are greatly appreciated. However, I
think it all will be futile, if Dickinson Bayou is not dredged out to where the
water can flow freely with the tidal movements. I believe that due to Dickinson
Bayou not being dredged and maintained properly, to allow for a maximum flow, by
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (HL&P) is/was a cause to a great many of our
problems in Dickinson Bayou, and surrounding waters. I also believe that
HL&P, the Army, or the Army Corp of Engineers should foot the total bill for
the dredging.
What was not addressed in the I-Plan was dredging up the bayou. I believe
the Corp of Engineers has approved dredging of the bayou and with more flow of
bayou you would have more dilution with the tide coming in and out and that it
would help to achieve the goal.
The TCEQ and local stakeholders in the Dickinson Bayou watershed have
agreed to work together to reduce bacteria pollution in Dickinson Bayou and its
tributaries, as described in the I-Plan document. At the same time, stakeholders
in the watershed are continuing to explore ways to decrease the effects of
pollution on Dickinson Bayou. The TCEQ does not have regulatory authority to
compel private or public entities to dredge Texas waterways to improve flow. No
changes were made to the I-Plan based on this comment.
AS I SAID before, and I will keep saying ;
*** Until Dickinson Bayou is dredged out and all the way to the ship
channel so Dickinson Bayou can breath again, anything else in my opinion will be
futile, until the Bayou can flush itself properly. ...
Workshop to look at efforts to protect, improve Dickinson Bayou
By Annette Baird
Updated 1:10 pm, Tuesday, July 14, 2015
The almost 23-mile-long Dickinson Bayou with its numerous tributaries,
including Gum Bayou, Cedar Creek and associated wetlands play a vital role in
the area's ecosystem as well as providing recreational activities such as
fishing, canoeing and swimming.
*** But the 100-square-mile watershed, from which water flows into
Dickinson and Galveston bays, has been tested with unacceptably high levels of
bacteria, posing possible health and environmental risks. ***
Livestock, faulty septic systems, agricultural activities, urban run-off
and waste from pets and wildlife such as feral hogs have pushed bacteria levels
upward, according to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Water-quality experts hope to increase awareness of the pollution and how
to reduce it through an upcoming workshop to educate residents, educators and
professionals such as geoscientists about what they can do to protect, preserve
and restore water quality in the watershed and bayou.
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service in cooperation with Clear Creek
Independent School District will host the Texas Watershed Steward workshop from
8 a.m. to noon July 21 at Clear Falls High School, 4380 Village Way, in League
City.
The workshop will include an overview of water quality and watershed
management in Texas but will primarily focus on area water quality issues,
including current efforts to improve and protect Dickinson Bayou. There will be
a discussion of watershed systems, types and sources of water pollution and ways
to improve water quality, as well as a group discussion on community-driven
watershed protection and management.
"We want to educate people about the best management practices," said
Michael Kuitu, AgriLife Extension program specialist and coordinator for the TWS
program, which is funded through a Clean Water Act grant from the Texas State
Soil and Conservation Board and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Kuitu said pollution from industrial facilities is easier to identify and
monitor, whereas pollution from other sources is much more difficult to
address.
He said the amount of bacteria varies depending on numerous factors such as
rainfall levels.
"We look at measurements to see how they trend over time," Kuitu
said.
The workshop is part of a four-day summer training program about awareness
of watersheds and wetlands for educators in Clear Creek ISD.
Terri Berry, the district's secondary science coordinator, said the
workshop aligns with the district's science curriculum and supports what
teachers are doing at the district's retention pond and wetlands site, created a
few years ago behind Education Village on Village Way.
Berry said the training program as a whole will give teachers a deeper
understanding of water stewardship so that they can help their students make the
most of work with the retention facility and help instill a desire to improve
and preserve wetlands areas where they live.
"We are trying to create awareness of the watershed and how what you do in
your yard and at your house can influence a huge area," Berry said.
The free workshop provides an opportunity to earn continuing education
credits for professionals, including engineers, certified crop advisers,
certified planners, landscape architects, professional geoscientists, Texas
Department of Agriculture pesticide license holders, certified teachers,
certified floodplain managers and some TCEQ occupational license holders.
To register for the workshop, visit tws.tamu.edu/workshops/registration.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Dickinson Bayou: A TMDL Project and Use Assessment for Bacteria Troubled
Waters
Dickinson Bayou: A TMDL Project and Use Assessment for Bacteria
A current project to survey recreational uses and develop and implement a
TMDL to reduce bacteria. The TMDL is completed; the I-Plan is in development.
Background and Goals
High concentrations of bacteria measured in Dickinson Bayou Tidal, Segment
1103, and four of its tributaries might pose a health risk for people who swim
or wade in the bayou. Bacteria from human and animal waste may indicate the
presence of disease-causing microorganisms that may cause illness. Swimming and
other forms of recreation in which people come into direct contact with the
water are referred to as contact recreation in the state's standards for the
quality of streams, lakes, and bays.
The TMDL project will characterize the sources of bacteria in the watershed
of the bayou and develop a plan to improve water quality. The goal of the TMDL
is to reduce bacteria concentrations to within acceptable risk levels for
contact recreation.
The TCEQ will also conduct a recreational use survey and attainability
analysis for part of the bayou. Recreational use-attainability analyses (RUAAs)
are conducted to determine which of the four recreational use categories is
appropriate for a particular water body. During an RUAA project, staff usually
collect:
Information on a water body, such as the presence or absence of water
recreation activities, stream flow type, stream depth Information about the
frequency and types of recreation for which the water body is currently used
Data on physical conditions in a water body
Adopted Total Maximum Daily Loads
On February 8, 2012, the commission adopted:
Eight Total Maximum Daily Loads for Indicator Bacteria in Dickinson Bayou
and Three Tidal Tributaries (PDF) On June 6, 2012, the EPA approved the TMDLs,
at which time they became part of the state’s Water Quality Management Plan.
Learn more about the Water Quality Management Plan.
Reports
Final Technical Support Document
Public Participation
Stakeholders in the watershed have formed the Dickinson Bayou Watershed
Partnership to implement activities that improve water quality in Dickinson
Bayou. Information about the Partnership’s meetings is available on their Web
site. The TCEQ is working with this existing forum to participate with the
public in developing and implementing the TMDL project. Other partners include
the Houston-Galveston Area Council, the Galveston Bay Estuary Program, and the
Texas Cooperative Extension.
Meeting Records, TCEQ-Led Meetings
Dickinson Bayou Watershed Partnership Meeting Notes 8/24/2011 • Attendees
were welcomed and the meeting was brought to order by Charriss York, Texas
Coastal Watershed Program (TCWP). • Following introductions of TCWP and Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) staff, a brief background of the
Dickinson Bayou Watershed Partnership was given • Charriss York gave a
presentation including an update on the Dickinson Bayou Bacteria Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) progress including an overview of the process for the upcoming
public comment period • Ms. York also gave an update to the Bacteria TMDL
implementation plan that workgroups have been working on since Febryary.
Management measures determine by each of the three work groups (On‐site Sewage
Facilities, Wastewater Treatment Facilities, and Animal Sources) and their
associated load reductions were discussed.
• A copy of Ms. York’s presentation can be found at:
• Questions/comments were taken throughout the presentation these include:
o Partnership members asked that in the future bacteria load reductions be
presented in a more meaningful and easy to understand fashion such as
representing the bayou as a 55 gallon barrel and pollution loads a portion of
that barrel o Questions about septic systems and who is responsible for
permitting them in the watershed o Questions about the chemicals used in
wastewater treatment facilities and how they impact the bayou o Recommendation
to include information about other types of pollution such as pharmaceuticals
SFR-066/11 January 2012 Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution in Texas: 2011
Annual Report by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Texas
State Soil & Water Conservation Board
Dickinson Bayou Watershed Protection Plan Implementation Project
Dickinson Bayou does not meet water quality standards for DO or pathogen
indicator bacteria. The Dickinson Bayou Watershed Protection Plan (WPP) outlines
a series of actions for improving the overall health of the watershed and
reducing the amount of pollutants entering the Bayou. These actions are based on
the vision and goals proposed for the watershed by a broad group of stakeholders
representing individual citizens, non-profit and commercial interests, and
local, state, and federal governmental entities.
For the initial implementation phase of the Dickinson Bayou WPP, the Texas
AgriLife Extension Service (AgriLife Extension) proposed short-term
implementation measures through a CWA Section 319 grant with the TCEQ. Several
on-the-ground demonstrations of site specific BMPs were funded through this
grant. This funding helped develop educational workshops for many different
groups, NPS-related fact sheets, a pet waste education campaign, lesson plans
for teachers, and also provided youth education using watershed models.
For on-the-ground implementation, AgriLife Extension worked with Clear
Creek School District and City of League City officials on a storm water wetland
(four acres) project at the Education Village on FM 96 in the northeast portion
of the Dickinson Bayou watershed. AgriLife Extension staff also worked with the
City of Dickinson and Keep Dickinson Beautiful to install a rain garden (0.02
acres) and a roof rain catchment cistern (0.03 acres) at the Dickinson Public
Library. In addition, AgriLife Extension staff collaborated with representatives
from the City of Dickinson to install a new watersmart landscape (0.23 acres)
consisting of native trees and shrubs around the new city hall complex. AgriLife
Extension staff also partnered with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
(TPWD) Dickinson Marine Laboratory to design and install their new watersmart
landscape (0.012 acres).
The Simple Method for calculating urban storm water loads from the Center
for Watershed Protection was used to determine load reduction from these
on-the-ground BMPs. Estimated reductions are:
Phosphorus 356 lbs
Nitrogen 770 lbs
SNIP...
see massive flounder kill right off Bacliff shoreline north and south of
the old Spillway outlet ;
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.01.012
Copyright © 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Water quality in the Dickinson Bayou watershed (Texas, Gulf of Mexico) and
health issues
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view
references and further reading you must purchase this article.
Antonietta Quigga, b, , , Linda Broachc, 1, , Winston Dentond, 2, and Roger
Mirandae, 3,
aDepartment of Marine Biology, Texas A&M University at Galveston, 5007
Avenue U, Galveston, TX 77551, United States
bDepartment of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, 3146 TAMU, College
Station, TX 77843, United States
cTexas Commission on Environmental Quality, 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H,
Houston, TX 77023, United States
dCoastal Fisheries Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Dickinson Department,
1502 FM 517 East, Dickinson, TX 77539, United States
eTexas Commission on Environmental Quality, 1200 Park 35 Circle, Austin, TX
78711, United States
Available online 24 February 2009.
Abstract
The Dickinson Bayou watershed (near Houston, Texas, Gulf of Mexico)
provides habitat for numerous coastally influenced communities of wildlife,
including scores of birds and fish. Encroaching development and impervious
surfaces are altering the habitat and degrading water quality. Herein we have
defined the current health of the bayou using water quality data collected
between 2000 and 2006. Elevated bacteria (fecal coliform, Escherichia coli and
Enterococcus) and depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations (often <3 100="" a="" algal="" are="" assist="" bayou="" be="" because="" blooms="" ca.="" chl="" concerns="" consistent="" development="" div="" ecosystem.="" eutrophication="" findings="" flushing="" g="" has="" impairments="" in="" indicate="" influence="" intrinsic="" is="" l-1="" limited="" low="" magnitude="" major="" may="" mg="" nitrogen="" nutrient="" occur="" of="" often="" on="" persist="" primary="" productivity="" rate.="" ratios="" small="" spring="" study="" summer.="" the="" this="" to="" two="" understanding="" urban="" watersheds.="" which="" while="" will="" with="">
Keywords: Bacteria; Ecosystem management; Environmental monitoring;
Eutrophication; Low dissolved oxygen; Nitrogen; Nutrients Article Outline 1.
Introduction 1.1. Study area 2. Methods 3. Results 3.1. Air temperature and
rainfall 3.2. Salinity and dissolved oxygen concentrations 3.3. Chlorophyll and
nutrients 3.4. Bacteria 4. Discussion Acknowledgements References Fig. 1. The
Dickinson Bayou watershed is located within the San Jacinto–Brazos Coastal Basin
at 29°29' N, 95°14' W, 45 km southeast of Houston, Texas.
View Within Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. 2. Average monthly (A) air temperature (°C) and (B) rainfall (cm) in
the DBW between 2000 and 2006. Error bars represent standard deviations. (C)
Annual rainfall (cm) is subject to cyclic patterns and perturbations due to
tropical storms.
View Within Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. 3. Average water column salinities (‰) measured between 2000 and 2006
from Dickinson Bay (0 km; SH I46) to the upper reach of the tidal portion of
Dickinson Bayou. The averages are presented with minimums (lower bars) and
maximums (higher bars). A log scale was used to show the range across the bayou.
View Within Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. 4. Average (24 h) DO concentrations (mg l-1) measured between 2000 and
2006 from Dickinson Bay (0 km; SH I46) to the upper reach of the tidal portion
of Dickinson Bayou. (A) Surface DO was typically 6.1 mg l-1 along the length of
the bayou with minimum DO’s (bottom bar) ranging from 0.6-2.8 mg l-1 and
maximums (top bar) from 7.9–19 mg l-1. (B) DO at >1 m depth was typically 3.5
mg l-1 in the bayou with minimums (bottom bar) ranging from 0.1–1.0 mg l-1 and
maximums (top bar) from 8.2–9.8 mg l-1. (C) Exceedances refer to the measurement
of instantaneous DO concentrations of 3 mg l-1. The fraction of exceedances in
surface (1 m) waters (white bars) was less than those in deep (>1 m) waters
(black bars). The greatest fraction of exceedances occurred in the tidal segment
of the bayou between Gum Bayou (6.4 km) and Cemetery Road (19.7 km).
View Within Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. 5. Seasonal patterns in DO concentrations varied as a function of
water depth. Surface waters were those at 1 m (A) while deep waters were those
at >1 m (B). October to April represent the cool months (white bars) while
May to September are the warm months (black bars), respectively.
View Within Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. 6. Percentage exceedances of fecal coliform measured between 2000 and
2006 from Dickinson Bay (0 km; SH I46) to the above tidal portion of Dickinson
Bayou. The main stem of the bayou (white bars) in general, had fewer exceedances
than the tributaries (black bars).
View Within Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. Summary of sampling sites visited on a regular basis between 2000
and 2006. The distances inland were calculated relative to Dickinson Bay at
SHI46 (see Fig. 1). Segment, latitude, longitude, and a brief description are
included for reference. Tributaries are in italics.
View Within Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2. Average chlorophyll concentrations (µg l-1) measured between 2000
and 2006 from Dickinson Bay to the upper reach of the tidal region. No data is
available for above the tidal reach. Values presented here are the median
chlorophyll concentrations (i.e., chl a plus phaeophytin). The range and number
of samples (N) examined is also included. Tributaries are in italics.
View Within Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3. Total nutrient concentrations (mg l-1) in the water column of
Dickinson Bayou, based on a sample size (N), collected between 2000 and 2006.
The range (min–max) was included to show the variability. Tributaries are in
italics.
View Within Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4. Bacterial counts in the surface waters of Dickinson Bayou. Minimum
and maximum values generally (but not always) reflect the lower and upper
detection limits for these tests and so were not included. Rather the % of
samples that exceeded the criteria (%E) were included as well as the number of
samples (N) measured. Fecal coliform was measured at all stations while
Enterococcus was only measured in the tidal segment and E. coli only in the
above tidal segment. Tributaries are in italics.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 409 740 4990; fax: +1 409 740 5001. 1 Tel.:
+1 713 767 3579. 2 Tel.: +1 281 534 0138. 3 Tel.: +1 512 239 6278. Sponsored
Links 24-7 Emergency On Call Water Damage Restoration - Direct Insurance Bill.
Call 281-537-8379 AroundDClockRestorationHouston.com
www.houstonmosquitosystems.com
Dickinson Bayou currently does not meet state requirements for aquatic life
or contact recreation
MAJOR FINDINGS of the study confirmed that salinity, ambient temperature,
and rainfall runoff, as well as algal blooms and organic loading influence
Dickinson Bayou’s low DO levels.
A saltwater wedge (“halocline”) was found extending from Dickinson bay
upstream to Cemetery Road.
Saltwater tends to encroach more during warmer, drier summer months. Little
or no encroachment occurs during the rainy, cooler, winter months. This
halocline creates a horizontal barrier between fresh and saltwater layers,
preventing movement of DO between the two. Zero DO was frequently measured in
the saltwater wedge, while higher DO levels were generally found above that
wedge, in the fresher water. The halocline disappeared only during high flow
periods following significant rainfall events.
Runoff from significant rainfall events contributes to the high bacteria
concentrations. Also, higher bacteria levels were found at sampling sites in
more rural settings, probably due to greater use of septic systems and rangeland
runoff.
The Dickinson Bayou watershed is experiencing land use changes as a result
of urban, commercial, and rural development. These changes will continue to
cause biological, chemical, and physical pressures on the bayou and its ability
to absorb and process the increased loading from point and nonpoint source
pollution.
The TCEQ will use the gathered data and analysis to conduct modeling on the
bayou to determine how to proceed with completing a watershed action plan for
addressing the low DO occurrence and reducing the bacterial contamination.
PROJECT LOCATION
Dickinson Bayou is located in southeast Texas in the San Jacinto-Brazos
Coastal Basin. The bayou originates north of the City of Alvin in Brazoria
County and flows east approximately 24 miles through Galveston County where is
drains to Dickinson Bay, a secondary bay of Galveston Bay. Major named
tributaries that flow to Dickinson Bayou include Gum Bayou, Benson Bayou,
Magnolia (Geisler) Bayou, Bordens Gully, Cedar Creek, and LaFlore’s Bayou.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The study was designed to evaluate water quality over a period of time at
several locations along Dickinson Bayou. The project focused on the tidal
portion of the bayou, a very sluggish water body dominated by a deep, v-shaped
channel with an average depth of 10-15 feet.
Data collection devices were deployed at each of nine sites for five
consecutive days each month from July 2000 to August of 2001. In addition, water
quality samples were taken for laboratory analysis. The U.S. Geological Survey
collected supplemental biological data. Data analysis was performed on the
resulting data values to form generalized conclusions about the bayou.
BACKGROUND
Dickinson Bayou is on the state’s list of water bodies not meeting water
quality standards for dissolved oxygen (DO) and bacteria levels. As a result,
the bayou does not meet its aquatic life use nor its contact recreation use,
creating a possible environmental and/ or public health concern. To address
these problems, a partnership was formed between the Galveston County Health
District (GCHD), the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to
conduct a special study.
Dickinson Bayou Special Study
Dickinson Bayou currently does not meet state requirements for aquatic life
or contact recreation Contact Info: Jean Wright, Special Projects Coordinator
Galveston County Health District Pollution Control Division
1205 Oak Street P.O. Box 939 La Marque, TX 77568 (409) 938-2301 (phone)
(409) 938-2271 (fax) Todd Running, Clean Rivers Program Manager
Houston-Galveston Area Council 3555 Timmons Lane, Suite 120 Houston, TX
77027-6478 (713) 993-4549 (phone) (713) 993-4503 (fax)
According to the 2005 Galveston Bay Indicators Project, the areas of
Galveston Bay with the greatest number of TCEQ criteria-level exceedences for
fecal coliform bacteria are Buffalo Bayou, the Houston Ship Channel, Clear
Creek, and Dickinson Bayou (Figure 5-60).
Briefing Paper on Lower Galveston Bay and Bayou Watersheds Lower Bay I:
Armand Bayou to Moses Lake and Adjacent Bay Waters Jim Lester, PhD. and Lisa
Gonzalez Houston Advanced Research Center Galveston Bay Status and Trends
Project Funded by the TCEQ, Galveston Bay Estuary Program
July 2005
Public Health Issues
Clear Creek and Dickinson Bayou have levels of fecal coliform bacteria that
exceed the screening levels used by TCEQ to determine which water bodies need to
be listed as impaired for historical use. Both water bodies would be considered
a health risk for contact recreation. The annual average concentrations of fecal
coliforms in water samples from both water bodies are shown for 20 years from
1983 to 2002 in the figure below. The level of pollution clearly varies
considerably over time. Swimming and other forms of contact recreation should be
avoided when the bacterial concentrations in Dickinson Bayou or Clear Creek
exceed 400 colony forming units per 100 ml of water.
Other locations for contact recreation, such as the Texas City Dike, have
no known pollution that would justify avoidance for public health reasons.
UPDATE OCTOBER 6, 2012
WHY THE FISH ARE DYING
(Part two in a series by Steve Hoyland Sr. of the Seabreeze News)
Galveston Bay Area www.SeabreezeNews.com The voice of the beautiful bayside
communities www.seabreezenews.com PH: 281.235.8885
Serving: San Leon, Bacliff, Bayview, Dickinson, Texas City, Kemah, League
City, Seabrook & Clear Lake Shores
October 4, 2012 Why The Fish Are Dying
(Part two in a series by Steve Hoyland Sr. of the Seabreeze News)
In our last issue, we reported on the massive fish kill in the area along
the shore just north of the Spillway in San Leon. While that issue was still
being printed I took two experts from an independent laboratory out in my boat
to take mud and oxygen samples at the inlet and outlet of the HL&P (Houston
Lighting & Power Co.) canal which passes through our scenic little
community. The results finally came back from the lab just three days ago, and
they are startling. On the HL&P canal inlet side that ties into Dickinson
Bayou the chemical oxygen demand (COD) was 368 (normal being 40 or less.) The
dissolved oxygen was 0.3. This dissolved oxygen level is so low where Dickinson
Bayou and the HL&P canal meet that it cannot sustain any aquatic life. The
lab analyst stated, "With the combination of these numbers this water is the
equivalent of sewer water." Coincidentally, there are currently five sewage
plants that dump into Dickinson Bayou and the HL&P canal. On top of that,
Texas City is rumored to have plans to turn the twelve hundred acres of HL&P
property into a housing project. They have proposed building a sewage treatment
facility on Dickinson Bayou between the inlet canal and the bridge, where it
would dump one million gallons of treated sewage into Dickinson Bayou every day.
What are they thinking? On the canal outlet at the Spillway, we found the
chemical oxygen demand (COD) was 358. The dissolved oxygen level was 2.8. Once
again, the water there will not sustain aquatic life. The only good news from
the testing we paid for is that there were no heavy metals detected in the mud
samples.
The HL&P canal was initially dredged in 1972. According to
specifications contained in the permit, it was to be 18 feet deep all the way
from Galveston Bay to Dickinson Bayou. The same permit contained provisions that
Dickinson Bayou was to be dredged out all the way out to the Houston Ship
Channel. This was never done, not even one time.
This is the specific wording used by the US Army Corps of Engineers in
writing to HL&P, before they issued the initial permit which created the
canal:
"The decision as to where a permit will be issued will be based on an
evaluation of the impact of the proposed work on the public interest. Factors
affecting the public interest include, but are not limited to, navigation, fish
and wildlife, water quality, economics, conservation aesthetics, recreation,
water supply, flood damage prevention, ecosystems, and in general the needs and
welfare of the people."
The above was written by the district engineer of the Galveston District,
Corp of Engineers. On May 10, 1972, Mr. D. E. Simmons, Vice President of
Environmental and Inter-Utility Affairs for Houston Lighting and Power stated in
writing to the Corp of Engineers that
"continued maintenance is planned." In response, the Corp of Engineers
issued a Public Notice on November 9, 1972 announcing plans for the HL&P
proposals which included the obligation for the utility company to perform
continued maintenance dredging. It was understood and agreed upon that the
utility would maintain the canal by periodically dredging it and the adjoining
bayou, in order to prevent what has now happened. As stated earlier, no such
dredging has ever been performed since that 1972 statement. Due to the fact that
the dredging maintenance was never performed, the HL&P canal and Dickinson
Bayou have both filled in on the ends. This has caused what is called a
''Hydraulic Effect". Hydraulic Effect on Dickinson Bayou means the bayou is
twenty-five to thirty feet deep until it gets close to the bay where it shoals
to just six or eight feet. That that the bayou cannot ever flow correctly and
get properly flushed out. All of the sediment from runoff collects into the mud
of the bayou (ie: fertilizer, pesticides, and the waste from the sewer plants.)
If the mouth of this bayou and both sides of the HL&P canal were continually
dredged as stipulated in the original permit, this hydraulic effect would not be
in play. If the bayou was dredged as stipulated in the permit, the lab analyst
said that Dickinson Bayou would healing itself immediately. He said, "Mother
Nature will eat up all the black muck with natural bacteria once there is a
normal oxygen level and good tidal flow. This applies to the canal as
well.
Dickinson Bayou and the shoreline can be fixed. It can be a vibrant,
aquatic productive estuary once again. Dolphins, alligators, and all manner of
wildlife once lived there. The reason our bayou has died is because someone
didn't do what they said they were going to do, what they were in fact obligated
to do legally.
Who is responsible for this major screw-up? I believe it is a combination
of HL&P not doing the dredging they agreed to do, and the Army Corps of
Engineers not verifying that work was performed. It all has to do with money. We
have put all of the documentation on our web site. To see the flounder kill
video and copies of the permits and the drawings of the proposed dredging that
was never done please visit ; www.SeabreezeNews.com/bayou
You do not need to be a subscriber to see this information.
A special thanks to Terry Singeltary of Bacliff for all of his help and
support. Also, thanks to Texas A&M Galveston Marine Biology Department for
their input. We are not finished with our investigation. Look for continued
coverage in the next issue of the Seabreeze News. We will be in contact with the
Galveston Bay Foundation and their attorney, seeking their knowledge and
expertise.
We hope to find some way to open up Dickinson Bayou and both sides of the
HL&P canal in order to facilitate the healing and restoration of our bayou
and shorelines, as was expressly promised in the contract.
I have never been a ''tree hugger", but we cannot stand by and allow our
coastal waters to be destroyed in the name of the almighty dollar, especially
when the solution to the main problem is so simple. If you have any information
to share or "comments please write us at the Seabreeze News or send an email to:
steve@Seabreezenews.com. Steve Hoyland Sr. www.SeabreezeNews.com Spillway inlet
outlet canal Permit 5972 Hwy 146 Bacliff Texas pdf file
www.SeabreezeNews.com/bayou
VIDEO FLOUNDER KILL
Galveston County BACLIFF TEXAS FLOUNDER FISH KILL MASSIVE AUGUST 11, 2012
see video of massive flounder kill with Seabreeze article September 6, 2012
;
Thousands of Flounder Killed on San Leon Bacliff Shoreline (AGAIN)
additional sources for flounder kill video;
*** SEE HL&P PERMIT ABOUT MAINTAINING A CONSTANT DREDGE FOR DICKINSON
BAYOU AND WHY ***
Saturday, July 18, 2015
DICKINSON BAYOU NEEDS TO BE SAVED, NO MORE TREATED OR NON TREATED WATER
DISCHARGE PERMITS
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 Galveston Bay
flounder9@verizon.net
SINGELTARY SHORT SUBMISSION
CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ
RN Number:
RN100890235
Permit No.: WQ0004086000
Singeltary Submission;
Greetings TCEQ et al,
I kindly wish to submit my strong opposition for any permit for CLEAN
HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ Permit No.: WQ0004086000, to allow any treated or
non-treated waste water, or anything else, to be allowed to be discharged into
the Dickinson Bayou watershed or nearby locations adjacent to Dickinson Bay,
inside of Galveston bay. The Public needs to be able to comment on this, and
should. The Dickinson Bayou watershed has been so strained environmentally due
to many reasons over the past decades, some reasons include Livestock, Pets,
faulty septic systems, agricultural activities, urban run-off and what all that
contains, pesticide runoff, waste water treatment plants, just to name a few,
but now we have an industrial complex that wants to grow at the mouth of
Dickinson Bayou, a Bayou that already has studies that show it’s very sluggish
in terms of tidal movement, and a Bayou that has consistently been in trouble,
year after year after decade. In my opinion, I believe one of the main reasons
that causes this, besides all the pollution, is the fact Dickinson Bayou needs
to, should have been dredged, with a continuous dredge maintained from inside
the mouth, and past the old grave yard, across those flats, on up until
Dickinson Bayou gets deep, all the way to the ship channel. The water quality in
Dickinson Bayou, has been bad for some time due to little tidal movement. Just
very recently, the Houston Chronicle ran an article on a workshop (see below in
reference materials) on how to improve Dickinson Bayou due to unacceptably high
levels of bacteria, posing possible health and environmental risks. so why would
TCEQ or anyone allow such a permit to throw more fuel to the fire? the old
spillway inlet at the mouth of Dickinson Bayou, and outlet over on the Bacliff
Side, is and has been dead in the water years and years, with no movement
through there to help oxygenate the water, we have had numerous fish kills, with
one massive flounder kill. why can the ship channel have a continuous life time
dredge for the tanker traffic, but yet never dredge Dickinson Bayou, when the
Army Corp of Eng said long ago that this needed to be done to maintain a healthy
Bayou? what are we waiting on? Via the FOIA, I received the HL&P
construction permits back in the 60’s, and the dredging that the Army Corp of
engineers said would come and be maintained constantly. That never happened.
This constant maintaining of a dredge was to be done all the way to the ship
channel, to prevent just what has happened, and it says so in the permit. see
permit PDF in my reference materials below. Until Dickinson Bayou is dredged out
and all the way to the ship channel so Dickinson Bayou can breath again,
anything else in my opinion will be futile. with no changes to the plan to
address the issue of dredging Dickinson Bayou to address the tidal flow issues,
and proper flushing of Dickinson Bayou, all your going to have is a toilet that
does not flush properly, that our children have been playing and swimming in,
and consuming the seafood there from. some kind of tourist attraction, welcome
to the Toilet Bowl.
I strongly protest, and strongly object, in totality, to Permit No.:
WQ0004086000 for CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ RN Number: RN100890235, please deny
this permit. ...
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas 77518
REFERENCE
ENFORCEMENT FOR CLEAN HARBORS
Item 35
Docket No. 2014-1366-PWS-E.
Consideration of an Agreed Order assessing administrative penalties and
requiring certain actions of Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc. in Galveston County;
RN100890235; for public drinking water violations pursuant to Tex. Health &
Safety Code ch. 341 and the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality.
Item 35 Docket No. 2014-1366-PWS-E. Consideration of an Agreed Order
assessing administrative penalties and requiring certain actions of Clean
Harbors San Leon, Inc. in Galveston County; RN100890235; for public drinking
water violations pursuant to Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 341 and the rules
of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (Jessica Schildwachter, Candy
Garrett) Approve the Agreed Order. ZC/TB; all agree.
An agreed order was entered regarding Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc., Docket
No. 2014-1366-PWS-E on April 1, 2015, assessing $234 in administrative penalties
with $234 deferred.
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. previous comment
Response to Public Comments Eight TMDLs for Indicator Bacteria in Dickinson
Bayou and Three Tidal Tributaries (Segments 1103 and 1104)
November 12, 2013
Terry Singeltary (written)
The TCEQ efforts to bring back quality water, instead of polluted water to
the Dickinson Bayou and its Tributaries, are greatly appreciated. However, I
think it all will be futile, if Dickinson Bayou is not dredged out to where the
water can flow freely with the tidal movements. I believe that due to Dickinson
Bayou not being dredged and maintained properly, to allow for a maximum flow, by
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (HL&P) is/was a cause to a great many of our
problems in Dickinson Bayou, and surrounding waters. I also believe that
HL&P, the Army, or the Army Corp of Engineers should foot the total bill for
the dredging.
The TCEQ and local stakeholders in the Dickinson Bayou watershed have
agreed to work together to reduce bacteria pollution in Dickinson Bayou and its
tributaries, as described in the I-Plan document. At the same time, stakeholders
in the watershed are continuing to explore ways to decrease the effects of
pollution on Dickinson Bayou. The TCEQ does not have regulatory authority to
compel private or public entities to dredge Texas waterways to improve flow. No
changes were made to the I-Plan based on this comment.
Workshop to look at efforts to protect, improve Dickinson Bayou
By Annette Baird
Updated 1:10 pm, Tuesday, July 14, 2015
*** But the 100-square-mile watershed, from which water flows into
Dickinson and Galveston bays, has been tested with unacceptably high levels of
bacteria, posing possible health and environmental risks. ***
High concentrations of bacteria measured in Dickinson Bayou Tidal, Segment
1103, and four of its tributaries might pose a health risk for people who swim
or wade in the bayou. Bacteria from human and animal waste may indicate the
presence of disease-causing microorganisms that may cause illness.
*** Elevated bacteria (fecal coliform, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus)
and depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations (often <3 100="" a="" algal="" are="" bayou="" be="" because="" blooms="" ca.="" chl="" concerns="" consistent="" div="" ecosystem.="" eutrophication="" flushing="" g="" has="" impairments="" in="" indicate="" intrinsic="" is="" l-1="" limited="" low="" magnitude="" major="" may="" mg="" nitrogen="" nutrient="" occur="" of="" often="" persist="" primary="" productivity="" rate.="" ratios="" spring="" summer.="" the="" this="" to="" two="" which="" while="" with="">
Dickinson Bayou Special Study
Dickinson Bayou currently does not meet state requirements for aquatic life
or contact recreation
According to the 2005 Galveston Bay Indicators Project, the areas of
Galveston Bay with the greatest number of TCEQ criteria-level exceedences for
fecal coliform bacteria are Buffalo Bayou, the Houston Ship Channel, Clear
Creek, and Dickinson Bayou (Figure 5-60).
July 2005
Public Health Issues
Clear Creek and Dickinson Bayou have levels of fecal coliform bacteria that
exceed the screening levels used by TCEQ to determine which water bodies need to
be listed as impaired for historical use. Both water bodies would be considered
a health risk for contact recreation.
*** SEE HL&P PERMIT ABOUT MAINTAINING A CONSTANT DREDGE FOR DICKINSON
BAYOU AND WHY ***
Saturday, July 18, 2015
DICKINSON BAYOU NEEDS TO BE SAVED, NO MORE TREATED OR NON TREATED WATER
DISCHARGE PERMITS
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 Galveston Bay
flounder9@verizon.net
Thank you for submitting your comments on this pending permit application.
Thank you for submitting your comments on this pending permit application. You
will receive an e-mail confirmation of your comments that you can print for your
records.
*If you do not receive an e-mail confirmation within one hour, we HAVE NOT
received your comments.
If you do not receive confirmation, please be sure to contact the Office of
the Chief Clerk immediately at 512-239-3300. Please note, successfully
submitting your comments online does not guarantee you filed them timely.
From: donotreply@tceq.texas.gov Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 9:57 PM To:
flounder9@verizon.net Subject: TCEQ Confirmation: Your public comment on Permit
Number WQ0004086000 was received.
SNIP...END...TSS
*** ANOTHER ATTACH ON DICKINSON BAYOU ***
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Dickinson Bayou: A TMDL Project and Use Assessment for Bacteria Troubled
Waters
Dickinson Bayou: A TMDL Project and Use Assessment for Bacteria
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Galveston County BACLIFF TEXAS FLOUNDER FISH KILL MASSIVE AUGUST 11, 2012
(see video of the dead flounder floating)
re-Prop-6, fresh water, and Galveston Bay,
THE very reason why I voted NO for Prop 6. just another slush fund for the
state. Galveston Bay can take no more abuse. IF it’s not the constant dredging
and the islands of toxic dredge materials there from popping up every where not
bad enough for the Galveston Bay waters, due to industry, now we have the Texas
Water Development Board and Prop 6 slush fund that will be bought off to the
highest bidder via lobbying from the farming industry, the rice farmers, to
livestock industry, to city’s that just about loose more water than they contain
and use, and that’s just a few off the top of my head. the Texas water board is
no different than anybody else, there pockets can be picked clean like any other
group, by politicians, industry, and lobbyist there from. it’s bad enough that
Texas is a nuclear dumping ground for 38 states thanks to Rick Perry and his
friends, it’s bad enough the air we breath is barely breathable thanks to Rick
Perry and his corporate buddies, but now we are going to risk our beloved
Galveston Bay, again, by risking the natural influx of fresh water into
Galveston bay, to the highest bidder. I have spoken with folks in the seafood
industry, and the restrictions they claim already on the influx of fresh water
into Galveston Bay is already hurting shrimp, oysters, and other sea life in
Galveston bay. she can’t take any more abuse from man, and that’s all she will
get from Austin with this Prop 6, that everyone was fooled into voting for.
nothing nor nobody (except God), should be a top priority over any change,
that would be detrimental in water influx into Galveston Bay, or any other bay
in Texas, nobody. ...
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Galveston Bay
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Bad Prop. 6 spending could harm Galveston Bay: Groups
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Barge and Ship Collide off Texas City oil leaking into Galveston Bay
SEE UPDATES THROUGHOUT THIS BLOG DOWN BELOW...
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Galveston Bay Oil Spill and the IKE dike VS Rice dike
Hazardous materials workers began the laborious process of flushing a
stagnant segment of Buffalo Bayou's Newman Branch on Friday after it was
contaminated by raw sewage, possibly flowing from a broken pipe.
Most heavily contaminated was a section of the waterway between Interstate
10 and Memorial Drive.
Investigators from the city health department and other agencies arrived at
the scene early Friday afternoon after nearby residents complained of the
stench. The process of flushing the bayou with water from fire hydrants began at
midafternoon.
Today, hazardous material workers plan to siphon scum from atop the water
at a collection point set up with booms near the Memorial bridge.
Stephen Dicker, an investigator with Houston Police Department's
environmental crimes unit, said workers trying to identify the source of the
leak were hampered by the uncertainty of the location of underground sewer
pipes.
Newman Branch flows north to south just east of Antoine. North of I-10, the
branch is contained in storm sewers, Dicker said.
Houston oilman Dewey Stringer, who lives near the point where the bayou
passes Memorial, said similar pollution has periodically plagued the waterway
for at least five years. Generally, however, heavy rainfall dilutes the
contamination.
Stringer, who was among residents to report the pollution to authorities,
said the odor was so severe that he and his wife found it difficult to sleep. He
had planned to relocate to Galveston this weekend and commute to work.
Stringer said he has developed eye irritation from vapors rising from the
bayou and both he and his wife have developed persistent coughs.
In the past, Stringer said official response to pollution incidents had
been lackadaisical.
Thursday night, he said, he began telephoning federal, state, county and
city agencies he thought might have jurisdiction in the matter.
"No one is saying that there isn't a problem today," he said as
investigators scurried along the bayou bank at his home. "They're all running
around with red eyes."
While complete water sample test results were not available Friday,
preliminary tests indicated the water's oxygen level was far below the level
needed to sustain aquatic life.
Investigators have seen no signs of a fish kill, Dicker said.
At the point where Newman Branch passes Stringer's house, the water Friday
afternoon was a metallic black, covered by thick pads of ivory-colored scum.
Stringer said the bayou had been in that condition about a month.
Dicker said he has investigated previous pollution cases at Newman Branch —
one involving dumping chemicals from a paint factory and one from construction
runoff.
"This is the first time we've had apparent sewage pollution," he
said.
Dicker said his investigation is complicated by the presence of both city
and subdivision sewer systems in the area.
allan.turner@chron.com
In fact, much of Buffalo Bayou is tidal. Spartina alterniflora, the salt
marsh plant in the low-tidal zone, seems to cut off upstream of the connection
with the San Jacinto, up closer to around Jensen/Runnels street. I’m not sure if
that’s due to the change in salinity or the abrupt change in topography there
(from more flat estuarine-like along the edges to a deeper, narrow
channel)
Further up the bayou, I have witnessed a dolphin at the intersection of
White Oak Bayou and Buffalo Bayou, as several newspapers described back in the
90’s; there are certainly small alligators and big fish as far upstream as it
goes. FYI, there’s also a lot of submerged junk there, too.
There is flow to Buffalo Bayou, it is regulated by a dam up near Addick’s
Reserviour, they can make it fast enough to make canoe races entertaining as
evidenced by the Buffalo Bayou Partnership’s annual race. I don’t know of any
spring-fed flow, I would find that very strange for this bayou in particular.
Ground water certainly is a major contributor from adjacent urban areas, and
major rains can cause a massive fish kill, I have an old picture of one if
anyone’s interested. I don’t know the name, but some folks at the University of
Houston - Downtown have done a little work on that.
One can see evidence of flow from floods in the trees: there are
characteristic water lines formed by trash hanging from the high points among
the branches.I would say that historically, Buffalo Bayou probably drained the
Katy Prairie, which should be somewhat more wet than it is today. Today, it
drains Addick’s. Also, the areas adjacent to the Bayou were and are drained as
well.
In conclusion, there is flow generally towards Galveston Bay, but sometimes
it reverses due to high tides and southeast winds, particularly in the summer.
Thus, it is a brackish connection between the fresh upper reaches, and the lower
saline/brackish estuary.
The Port of Houston faces the ongoing challenge of floating debris
deposited into Buffalo Bayou and floating into the Turning Basin and Galveston
Bay.
does that include floating turds. ...
still disgusted in sunny, hot, baycliff texas, where Houston still flushes
turds into Galveston bay (at-a-boy mayor), and where you cannot eat the fish and
crabs due to the PCBs and other deadly toxins, and where the deadly flesh eating
bacteria Vibrio vulnificus lives, come on down. ...TSS
TSS
