Wednesday, May 11, 2016

CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ Permit No.: WQ0004086000 Final Plea For Appeal For Hearing

CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ Permit No.: WQ0004086000 Plea For Appeal For Hearing

 

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

 

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 4:05 PM

 

To: Terry Singeltary Sr.

 

Subject: re-CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ Permit No.: WQ0004086000

 

 Greetings neighbors, for those still interested, for your files, these are the comments I received on my recent submission...kind regards, terry

 

 From: Shannon Gibson

 

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 3:32 PM

 

To: flounder9@verizon.net

 

Cc: WQAP XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

Subject: FW: CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ Permit No.: WQ0004086000

 

 Mr. Singletary,

 

 Thank you for your comments.

 

 All questions and comments raised during the public comment period and in the below email thread were addressed in the Response To Comments (RTC), filed with the Office of the Chief Clerk on 4/1/2016. The filed RTC is attached for your convenience.

 

 After filing the RTC, there is a 30-day timeframe for members of the public to submit a contested case hearing request. All that requested a contested case hearing will be heard by the commission at a future agenda meeting.

 

 Sincerely,

 

Shannon Gibson

 

Environmental Permit Specialist

 

Industrial Wastewater Permitting - MC 148

 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

 

P.O. Box 13087

 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

 

(512) 239 - 4284

 

 

From: PUBCOMMENT-OCC

 

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 10:23 AM

 

To: flounder9@verizon.net

 

Subject: CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ Permit No.: WQ0004086000

 

 Thank you for your comments. A copy of your email will be forwarded to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) staff responsible for reviewing the application. All timely filed comments will be considered by the staff prior to the final decision on the application.

 

 All requests for hearings, if timely filed and authorized by statute or rule, are considered by the Commissioners. Requests for reconsideration, if timely filed and authorized by statute or rule, may be considered by the Commissioners. However, requests for reconsideration may also be denied by the Office of General Counsel in advance of Commission consideration. If the Commissioners consider your request it will be during a regularly scheduled Commission meeting that is open to the public, and a determination will be made as to whether or not the request will be granted. You will be notified in writing when your request is scheduled for consideration. If your hearing request is granted, the matter will be referred to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). The SOAH hearing will be a formal, legal proceeding, conducted in a manner similar to civil trials in state district court. While not required, parties are usually represented by legal counsel.

 

 The TCEQ appreciates your interest in environmental issues. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Public Education Program staff at 800-687-4040.

 

 Sincerely,

 

Office of the Chief Clerk

 

 NOTE: Please do not respond to this email; it will not be answered. If you would like to submit additional comments, please use the online eComments system at: http://www.tceq.texas.gov/about/comments.html.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [mailto:flounder9@verizon.net]

 

Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:14 PM

 

To: WQAP <WQAP@tceq.texas.gov>

 

Cc: David Galindo <david.galindo@tceq.texas.gov>; Mark Palmie <Mark.Palmie@tceq.texas.gov>; Roger Miranda <roger.miranda@tceq.texas.gov>; Rules <rules@tceq.texas.gov>

 

Subject: CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ Permit No.: WQ0004086000

 

 CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ

 

 RN Number:

 

 RN100890235

 

 Permit No.: WQ0004086000

 

 Greetings again TCEQ et al,

 

 I wish to appeal to you one more time, and ask for a reconsideration of this CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ Permit No.: WQ0004086000.

 

 FOR the following reasons, myself and others in the San Leon, Bacliff, Dickinson, we wish to ask for a ‘CONTESTED CASE HEARING’.

 

 IN the recent DECISION OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, it was claimed that ;

 

 ‘’This facility does not have any ongoing or pending enforcement orders under the existing wastewater authorization, Permt No. WQ0004086000, issued December 19, 2013.’’

 

 HOWEVER, TCEQ fails to acknowledge that under previous owners, the violations were many, so bad apparently they had to change their name from DURATHERM TO CLEAN HARBORS.

 

 THESE risk factors and past violations are not acceptable for a company that wants to dump it’s so called treated wasted water into Dickinson bayou, and Dickinson Bay, a waterway that is is such bad shape, that the state of TEXAS warns people NOT to eat the fish or crabs from, and or let our children even swim in the water there. YET TCEQ wants to add more load factors for a complete collapse of this waterway.

 

 PLEASE SEE PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS THAT THE TCEQ SOME HOW FAILED TO MENTION TO THE PUBLIC;

 

 

 

 Central Registry Query - Regulated Entity Information Regulated Entity Information RN Number: RN100890235

 

 Name: DURATHERM View Prior Names

 

 Primary Business: STORMWATER INDUSTRIAL

 

 Street Address: 2700 AVENUE S, SAN LEON TX 77539

 

 County: GALVESTON

 

 Nearest City: TEXAS CITY

 

 State: TX

 

 Near ZIP Code: 77539

 

 Physical Location:

 

 INTX OF 27TH AND AVENUE S ABOUT .75 MI OF HWY 146 IN SAN LEON 2700 AVENUE S SAN LEON KEY MAP 661Y

 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Affiliated Customers – Current

 

 Your Search Returned 3 Current Affiliation Records (View Affiliation History) 1-3 of 3 Records

 

 CN Number Customer Name Customer Role Details

 

 CN600564165 DURATHERM INC OWNER OPERATOR Affiliation Info

 

 CN600564165 DURATHERM INC OWNER OPERATOR Affiliation Info

 

 CN603349820 DURATHERM ASSET ACQUISITION CORP OWNER OPERATOR Affiliation Info

 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Industry Type Codes

 

 Code Classification Name

 

 562211 NAICS Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal

 

 1311 SIC Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas

 

 4953 SIC Refuse Systems

 

 9999 SIC Nonclassifiable Establishments

 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Permits, Registrations, or Other Authorizations There are a total of 18 programs and IDs for this regulated entity. Click on a column name to change the sort order. 1-18 of 18 Records Program ID Type ID Number ID Status AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY ACCOUNT NUMBER GB0101M ACTIVE AIR NEW SOURCE PERMITS ACCOUNT NUMBER GB0101M ACTIVE AIR NEW SOURCE PERMITS AFS NUM 4816700042 ACTIVE AIR NEW SOURCE PERMITS PERMIT 7237 CANCELLED AIR NEW SOURCE PERMITS REGISTRATION 14291 ACTIVE AIR NEW SOURCE PERMITS REGISTRATION 85676 ACTIVE AIR NEW SOURCE PERMITS REGISTRATION 87443 ACTIVE IHW CORRECTIVE ACTION SOLID WASTE REGISTRATION # (SWR) 34814 INACTIVE INDUSTRIAL AND HAZARDOUS WASTE EPA ID TXD981053770 ACTIVE INDUSTRIAL AND HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT 50355 ACTIVE INDUSTRIAL AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SOLID WASTE REGISTRATION # (SWR) 34814 ACTIVE POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANNING ID NUMBER P03840 ACTIVE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM/SUPPLY REGISTRATION 0840217 ACTIVE USED OIL EPA ID TXD981053770 ACTIVE USED OIL REGISTRATION A86130 ACTIVE WASTEWATER EPA ID TX0117757 ACTIVE WASTEWATER PERMIT WQ0004086000 ACTIVE WATER LICENSING LICENSE 0840217 INACTIVE

 

 

 


 

 Central Registry Detail of:Industrial and Hazardous Waste Permit 50355

 

 For: DURATHERM (RN100890235)

 

 2700 AVENUE S, SAN LEON

 

 Permit Status: ACTIVE

 

 View Earlier Holders

 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Related Information: Commissioners' Actions

 

 Correspondence Tracking

 

 Effective Enforcement Orders

 

 Central Registry Detail of:Industrial and Hazardous Waste Permit 50355

 

 For: DURATHERM (RN100890235)

 

 2700 AVENUE S, SAN LEON

 

 Permit Status: ACTIVE

 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Effective Enforcement Orders Current TCEQ Rules Type Effective Date Docket Number Citation/Requirement Provision Violation Allegation Classification

 

 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 09/29/2012 2012-0236-MLM-E 40 CFR Chapter 279, SubChapter I, PT 279, SubPT E 279.51 ; 40 CFR Chapter 279, SubChapter I, PT 279, SubPT E 279.73 ; 30 TAC Chapter 324, SubChapter A 324.12(2) (Not applicable to CH) Failed to obtain a used oil registration and EPA ID. No. prior to conducting used oil activities, in violation of 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 324.12(2) and 40 CFR §§ 279.51 and 279.73, as documented during an investigation conducted on September 29, 2011. MODERATE

 

 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 09/29/2012 2012-0236-MLM-E 40 CFR Chapter 262, SubChapter I, PT 262, SubPT B 262.20 ; 30 TAC Chapter 335, SubChapter F 335.152(a)(4) ; PERMIT II-C-1-h (Not applicable to CH) Failed to use a new manifest for rejected wastes, in violation of 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 335.152(a)(4) and 40 CFR § 262.20 and IHW Permit No. 50355, Provision No. II-C-1-h, as documented during an investigation conducted on September 29, 2011. Specifically, waste manifests 005440020 JJK, 005373755 JJK, and 006442062 JJK were received and partially rejected, then sent back to generator without a new manifest MODERATE

 

 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 09/29/2012 2012-0236-MLM-E 40 CFR Chapter 264, SubChapter I, PT 264, SubPT CC 264.1089(b) ; 40 CFR Chapter 265, SubChapter I, PT 265, SubPT CC 265.1090(b) ; 30 TAC Chapter 335, SubChapter E 335.112(a)(21) ; 30 TAC Chapter 335, SubChapter F 335.152(a)(19) (Not applicable to CH) Failed to record inspections of the air emission control equipment, in violation of 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §§ 335.112(a)(21) and 335.152(a)(19) and 40 CFR §§ 264.1089(b) and 265.1090(b), as documented during an investigation conducted on September 29, 2011. Specifically, the Respondent did not maintain a record of the Subpart CC tank inspections for olfactory odors and visual observations. MODERATE

 

 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 09/29/2012 2012-0236-MLM-E 40 CFR Chapter 264, SubChapter I, PT 264, SubPT J 264.193(e)(1)(iii) ; 30 TAC Chapter 305, SubChapter F 305.125 ; 30 TAC Chapter 335, SubChapter F 335.152(a)(8) ; PERMIT II-C-2-h ; PERMIT V-B-3 (Not applicable to CH) Failed to maintain secondary containment free of gaps and cracks,Specifically, secondary containment A for tanks PV-18 through PV-21 had a concrete coating crack about four feet long near PV-20. Secondary containment A-1 for tanks FPV-31, the containment wall indicated some erosion and the wall edge joining the concrete base had a gap of approximately two inches. Also, the secondary containment for container storage area ("CSA")-2 Roll-off area, NOR Unit 044, Permitted unit 01, MODERATE

 

 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 09/29/2012 2012-0236-MLM-E 30 TAC Chapter 335, SubChapter A 335.2(b) ; PERMIT IV-A and IV-B (Not applicable to CH) Failed to prevent the acceptance of a shipment of unauthorized hazardous waste at the Facility, in violation of 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 335.2(b) and IHW Permit No. 50355, Provision Nos. IV-A and IV-B, as documented during an investigation conducted on September 29, 2011. Specifically, the Respondent accepted and processed a shipment of corrosive hazardous waste (hazardous waste code D002) that the Facility was not authorized to accept and process. MODERATE

 


 

 Complaints

 

 Complaint Tracking #: Glossary of Terms 158471

 

 Complaint Received Date: 08/25/2011

 

 Number Complaining: 1 Status: Glossary of Terms CLOSED Status Date: Glossary of Terms 11/08/2011 Nature: Glossary of Terms INDUSTRIAL Frequency: Glossary of Terms CURRENT Duration: Glossary of Terms ACTUAL Media: Glossary of Terms WASTE Program: Glossary of Terms INDUSTRIAL AND HAZARDOUS WASTE Priority: Glossary of Terms Within 30 Calendar Days Effect: Glossary of Terms ENVIRONMENTAL Receiving Water Body: Glossary of Terms Regulated Entity: Glossary of Terms DURATHERM County: Glossary of Terms GALVESTON

 

 Description: The complainant alleged that Waste (oils, metals, etc...) are poured all over the ground causing contamination. Consequently, storm water outfalls have to be contaminated. The place is a waste disposal nightmare.

 

 Comment: On September 20 and 27, 2011, Mr. Aron Athavaley of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Region 12-Houston Office evaluated the complaint's allegations by conducting record review and the site investigation. The complaint's allegations regarding "oil being poured on the ground" were not confirmed during this site investigation. The details of the site evaluation and regulatory issues are addressed in a separate compliance evaluation investigation (CEI) report.

 

 Action Taken: This incident was received by the TCEQ Houston Office and was assigned to the TCEQ Environmental Investigator, Aron Athavaley, for investigating the allegations and compliance status of the entity.

 


 

 Complaint Tracking #: Glossary of Terms 91331 Complaint Received Date: 05/11/2007 Number Complaining: 1 Status: Glossary of Terms CLOSED Status Date: Glossary of Terms 06/18/2007 Nature: Glossary of Terms INDUSTRIAL Frequency: Glossary of Terms CURRENT Duration: Glossary of Terms ESTIMATED Media: Glossary of Terms WASTE Program: Glossary of Terms INDUSTRIAL AND HAZARDOUS WASTE Priority: Glossary of Terms Within 30 Calendar Days Effect: Glossary of Terms ENVIRONMENTAL Receiving Water Body: Glossary of Terms Regulated Entity: Glossary of Terms DURATHERM County: Glossary of Terms GALVESTON

 

 Description: MIS-MANAGEMENT OF OILS IN SEVERAL WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AND UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGES FROM THE CONTAINMENT AND INTO THE SITE'S DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

 

 Comment: INCIDENT LOCATION IS FACILITY'S DRAINAGE DITCH AT THE NORTHWESTERN SIDE OF THE PLANT AND WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS.

 

 Action Taken: The complaint was investigated on June 4, 2007. Please see the investigation number 563131 for details.

 


 

 Emergency Response Events

 

 Investigations

 

 Notice of Violations

 

 Central Registry Detail of:Industrial and Hazardous Waste Permit 50355

 

 For: DURATHERM (RN100890235)

 

 2700 AVENUE S, SAN LEON

 

 Permit Status: ACTIVE

 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Notice of Violations Current TCEQ Rules

 

 NOV Date Status Citation/Requirement Provision Allegation Classification Self Reporting Indicator

 

 02/23/2010 RESOLVED 30 TAC Chapter 335, SubChapter A 335.9(a)(1)(G) Failed to have a description of the SAAs within the facility or during the review of the exit interview form. MODERATE NO

 

 02/23/2010 RESOLVED 40 CFR Chapter 264, SubChapter I, PT 264, SubPT C 264.15(d) ; 30 TAC Chapter 335, SubChapter F 335.152(a)(1) ; PERMIT Permit Provision III.D. Failed to adequately complete daily inspection logs on tanks, loading and unloading areas, and container storage areas. MODERATE NO

 

 02/23/2010 RESOLVED 40 CFR Chapter 262, SubChapter I, PT 262, SubPT C 262.34(a)(3) ; 30 TAC Chapter 335, SubChapter C 335.69(a)(3) Failed to properly label a three cubic yard container with the words "Hazardous Waste." MODERATE NO

 


 

 Permit Information

 


 

 DURATHERM (RN100890235) CLEAN HARBORS PART 2 Central Registry Detail of:Industrial and Hazardous Waste Permit 50355

 

 For: DURATHERM (RN100890235)

 

 2700 AVENUE S, SAN LEON

 

 Permit Status: ACTIVE

 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Correspondence Tracking - Detail Tracking No. Received/Sent Direction Type Subject Due Date End Date Document Date Method 16846727 02/05/2013 INCOMING CLASS 3 MODIFICATION ADD 4 CSA OUTSIDE OF CONTAINMENT SYSTEM 02/04/2013 OVERNIGHT

 

 Correspondence Actions Action Tracking No. Action Start Date End Date 16855487 2J NORI PUBLISHED 02/02/2013 16846729 1 APPLICATION RECEIVED 02/05/2013 16846728 2 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 02/05/2013 16848694 4F REVISIONS TO APPLICATION 02/07/2013 16855488 6J PUBLIC NOTICE 02/07/2013 16873618 2A ADMIN NOD ISSUED 02/15/2013 16977470 2B ADMIN NOD RESPONSE 03/14/2013

 


 

 *** FOR THESE REASONS, MYSELF AND OTHERS HERE ASK FOR A ‘CONTESTED CASE HEARING’.

 

 *** FOR THESE REASONS, MYSELF AND OTHERS HERE ASK THAT THIS PERMIT BE DENIED.

 

 Thank You,

 

kind regards,

 

 Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

 

P.O. Box 42

 

Bacliff, Texas USA 77518

 

flounder9@verizon.net

 

 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

 

 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 communitieswww.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.

 

 http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/tmdl/80-dickinsonbayoubacteria.html Dickinson Bayou does not meet water quality standards for DO or pathogen indicator bacteria.

 


 


 

 *** Elevated bacteria (fecal coliform, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus) and depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations (often

 


 

 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

 

Sunday, February 28, 2016

 

Oral Comments Public Meeting Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc.[8] WQ0004086000 La Marque 14 01/25/16 Dickinson Bayou

 


 

Friday, March 18, 2016

Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District (GCCPRD) will host a series of public meetings in March 2016 Storm Surge Suppression Study

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:33 PM
Subject: re-Reminder: Join us for the GCCPRD Phase 2 Public Meetings
 

re-Reminder: Join us for the GCCPRD Phase 2 Public Meetings
 

The Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District (GCCPRD) will host a series of public meetings in March 2016 to encourage public participation and feedback in the Storm Surge Suppression Study.
 
Following three major hurricanes, the last of which (Hurricane Ike) was the most expensive in Texas' history, Governor Perry issued an Executive Order creating the Governor's Commission for Disaster Recovery and Renewal. One of the Commission's recommendations was to conduct a study to determine how coastal communities can reduce the damage impact of future storms. In conjunction with that recommendation, Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston, Harris, Jefferson, and Orange Counties formed the GCCPRD as a local government corporation. The GCCPRD is now leading the Storm Surge Suppression Study, a technical, scientific-based effort to investigate opportunities to alleviate the vulnerability of the upper Texas coast to storm surge and flooding. The study is funded by the Texas General Land Office through a $3.9 million federal Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant that was awarded in September 2013. This effort is an opportunity for the GCCPRD to work collaboratively with federal, state, local, and public and private institutions to develop a plan that meets the needs of the region and the nation.
 
On February 27, 2015, the GCCPRD concluded the initial phase of the Storm Surge Suppression Study. Phase 1 included a series of public meetings in December 2014, allowing the public the opportunity to provide input. Now, as the study team concludes the major technical study that defines Phase 2, the public's continued participation and input is encouraged. Phase 2 includes storm surge modeling, alternatives development analysis, and a thorough assessment of mitigation options for the entire region. During Phase 3 of the study, the GCCPRD will use these findings to recommend a cost-effective and efficient system of flood damage reduction and surge suppression measures to help protect the six-county region.
 
Public feedback and participation has been and will be encouraged throughout the duration of the study. A series of public meetings will be held on the following dates:
The findings of Phase 2 of the study were presented at the February 23, 2016 GCCPRD board meeting, and the Phase 2 Report is available online. A large-scale public meeting is being held in each region of the study area. During each meeting, alternatives will be presented and the public is invited to participate and provide feedback to further screen and select preferred alternatives. The team is not making a recommendation for a preferred alternative at this time. Based on feedback received during Phase 2, the team will recommend a single conceptual alternative for each study region in the final phase of the study in June 2016.

The materials and format will be the same at all four meetings. Informational displays will be available for viewing, and GCCPRD representatives will provide information and answer questions. No formal presentation will be made. Materials will be available in English and Spanish.

If hearing impaired or language translation services are needed, please contact the GCCPRD consulting team at 713-868-1043 or at info@gccprd.com by March 15, 2016. GCCPRD representatives will make every reasonable effort to accommodate these needs.


Comments will be accepted at the public meetings and throughout the duration of the study. All comments regarding Phase 2 study findings should be submitted or postmarked by April 15, 2016 to be considered in Phase 3 of the study. Written comments may be mailed to the Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District in care of Col. Christopher Sallese at 3100 West Alabama St., Houston, Texas 77098 or emailed to info@gccprd.com. 

 
 
 
YES TO THE IKE DIKE!
 
NO TO ANYTHING ELSE!
 
protect us all, or nothing...
 
 
FROM MAYOR GLENN ROYAL
 
Dear Neighbors,
 
Only a few are alarmed and many think a levee dividing Seabrook will never be seriously considered, yet it has been included in a state government funded study as an alternative design to the coastal spine concept recommended by Dr. Bill Merrell with Texas A&M at Galveston. It is presented as the low cost storm surge protection option that would build a sea levee alongside SH 146 from Texas City, through Seabrook, and on toward La Porte. This would divide many of our coastal communities in half.
 
This design alternative was presented in the Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District’s (GCCPRD) Storm Surge Suppression Study Phase 2 Report. The report and additional information is located at www.gccprd.com. The GCCPRD is a local government corporation that is governed by a board of directors comprised of the county judges of Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston, Harris, Jefferson, and Orange counties plus three additional appointed members. The purpose of this storm suppression study is to analyze the feasibility of protecting our communities from storm surge and flood damages.
 
Proposed Central Region Alternative Design #1 (CR#1) is the coastal spine that would extend from High Island to San Luis Pass. This design offers the greatest protection for the entire region, including those communities along SH 146 and is the preferred alternative design in the report. The second alternative (CR#2) would be the lowest cost option offering protection to the City of Galveston and portions of the west side of Galveston Bay but none to the upper portions of the bay and ship channel. CR#2 was selected as an alternative if the Bolivar Roads gate in the CR#1 coastal spine design is not able to be constructed for technical reasons.
 
Based on cost-benefits analysis, both alternatives offer value. The study shows a benefit-to-cost ratio of 3.22 for CR#1, the coastal spine, versus 6.36 for CR#2, the SH 146 levee. However, what the 6.36 cost ratio figure doesn’t have in its’ calculation, are the financial impacts upon the communities; the potential for higher insurance (if even available) costs and declining property and home values for those on the “wrong” side of the levee. Not only would CR#2 effect home and business owners, it would include city halls, schools, police and fire stations, city drinking water facilities, and waste treatment plants. These higher operating costs will be passed on to all residents in the form of higher taxes and fees no matter what side of the levee you live on.
 
Alternative design CR#2 does not protect the Bayport maritime, petrochemical, and storage tank industrial complex. During Hurricane Ike, cargo containers onshore became battering rams as they floated with the surge. Without any protection for Bayport and the large number of containers on the docks, any possibility of adrift containers should cause great concern for the potential environmental damage to one or more ruptured petro-chemical tanks. There is even the possibility that a floating container could damage the levee breaking its integrity and cause its failure.
 
I take this GCCPRD report and its options very seriously and believe that you should to. The coastal spine approach of CR#1 should be supported for its benefits to all of us over the community destroying levee design of CR#2. There will be a high societal cost if CR#2 is selected only for its perceived better benefit-to-cost ratio that does not include community impact costs. CR#2 is an option that would sacrifice Seabrook and our coastal neighbors. If alternative design CR#2 is selected, in effect what we will have is the bay extending to the SH 146 levee inundating all properties east of SH 146.
 
What I ask of you is to join me in making your voice heard on this very important matter. I believe it is the most important issue that Seabrook has ever faced. GCCPRD is now gathering public input for the Phase 2 study. A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. where you can learn more and voice your opinion. The meeting will be held at the League City Civic Center, 400 West Walker Street, League City, Texas 77573. If you are unable to attend, you can email your comments to info@gccprd.com or via mail to Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District, c/o Col. Christopher Sallese, 3100 West Alabama St., Houston, Texas 77098.
 
Sincerely, Mayor Glenn Royal City of Seabrook
 
GCCPRD is now gathering public input for the Phase 2 study. A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. where you can learn more and voice your opinion. The meeting will be held at the League City Civic Center, 400 West Walker Street, League City, Texas 77573. If you are unable to attend, you can email your comments to info@gccprd.com or via mail to Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District, c/o Col. Christopher Sallese, 3100 West Alabama St., Houston, Texas 77098.
 
 
 
 
Greetings Mayor Royal and all our fine Neighbors down the shoreline in Seabrook, Kemah, Shore Acres, La Porte, Bayview, Sunny San Leon, Bacliff, Hillmansville, and to anyone else I might have missed that may be concerned with our federal government hanging all of us out to dry or to drown just to save Houston and it’s precious petro chemical complex and it’s precious ship channel.
 
I kindly would like to comment on this please.
 
So soon some forget. New Orleans survived Hurricane Katrina, what New Orleans did not survive was the Army Corp of Engineer and the Levee failures there from, and it does not take a rocket scientist to know, if you build a town in the bottom of a bowl, your going to have problems. we all have known since Hurricanes Katrina and Ike and before, that this community needs a storm wall at the coast to protect us all, thus, the TAMU Ike Dike was proposed to protect all of Galveston Bay, and everyone inside of it. Since then, corporate politics have taken the forefront, and science was sent to the rear of the bus. now it seems that all anyone is interested in is protecting Houston and the Petro Chemical Ship Channel, and all some of us have become is collateral damage, as those of us living east of state highway 146 from Texas City to La Porte, and everyone in-between. it’s been a decade since Katrina and about 7 years or so since Ike, and here we still sit, waiting for another study, and you can see the writing on the wall, the only thing they are waiting on is a study that only protects the Houston Ship Channel and Houston, yet hangs everyone out to dry east of State Hwy 146, to make way for a tourist recreational land on our old homesteads. those plans my fine neighbors and friends are already in the drawings, and that’s no joke. why should any of us pay to protect only the petro and chemical plants, with something that could completely wash us away? Personally, if there cannot be a IKE Dike that protects all of us, then I would rather have no Dike at al, if the only other alternative was the SSPEED Rice Dike Centennial Gate at Fred Hartman Bridge, and or the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (LSCNRA, which is the RICE DIKE in disguise, don’t take the bait). WE already know what Houston officials are capable of doing to us during an emergency i.e. protect their own, and they have done it to us in the past, all one has to do is remember Hurricane Rita and that nightmare on Interstate 45, when Houston officials got scared and evacuated everybody from Houston first, when Galveston and the 2nd tier water front was suppose to be evacuated first. Houston could care less about our Galveston Bay communities. Furthermore, Professor Merrell of TAMU and who from day one, fully supported only the IKE Dike as it was originally put forth, and agrees with the conception of what would happened to all of us if you dam up the North end of Galveston Bay. I have personally spoken with Professor Merrel at meetings and via emails, and unless he has changed his mind since, he is still dead set against anything but the original Ike Dike Proposals. If we let them our government officials, the Houston Ship Channel, and their corporate cronies dictate to us what we need, we will never get it, it’s all politics now. Building anything but the original Ike Dike first, like the coastal spines, building up SH146 25 feet and closing off bayous, or the closing of the North end of Galveston Bay under Fred Hartman Bridge, if any of these are to start first, we will never see the light of day for any Ike Dike, nor will our children and their children. We all may as well write our social security numbers on our arms now, because damming up the North End of Galveston bay, and surrounding Bayous and inlets, with the SSPEED Rice Dike proposal will only cause tsunami’s for surrounding coastal communities. we saw that during Hurricane Ike, without the North End of Galveston bay being dammed up. so, my final question, if the SSPEED Rice Dike is put forth, that only protects the Houston Ship Channel Petro Chemical complex’s, and by it’s own construction assuredly puts all of our lives at a much higher risk that live around the adjacent shoreline communities, and the Ike Dike which would protect us all is tabled, will it then be Rice University, the big petro chemical oil machine, the Port of Houston, the GLO and the Army Corp of Engineers be responsible for killing all those that were left as collateral damage living on and around the adjacent shore lines of Galveston Bay when the next big one hits? You cannot blame stupid on a Hurricane.
 
imo, if the IKE dike is not possible, then take the money and go up to the San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site and keep that crap from leaking more into Galveston Bay from the North, something that is happening as we speak.
 
plus, seems officials have already wrote us off the map to bring in hotels, motels, and waterfront recreation. what is this, eminent domain by proxy, forced intentional flooding for everyone east of SH 146 so they can build commercial waterfront real-estate?
 
*** Furthermore, this proposal leaves waterfront properties and communities east of SH- 146 vulnerable; however, it maintains the possibility of waterfront recreation and other environmental and natural coastal features.
 
page 11, the building and writing off of all surrounding coastal communities for a new recreational tourist attraction $$$
 
 
Hurricane Ike here is a view from our pier back to the garage apartment, the garage, and the main house, the day before Hurricane Ike. video scans down shoreline in front of your house James and Tammy, and then, about halfway through the video, after a big wave came crashing over the top of the hill, I went in, still well before landfall of Ike, the pier went 12 hours before Ike made landfall, or there abouts. then the video picks of the day after. HURRICANE IKE bonnie and terry day before and the day after IKE Bacliff 77518
 
 
HURRICANE IKE Bacliff, two days later, see a video from our neighbors yard, looking back to our gutted out apartment ‘mother-in-laws-house’ and garage, (see how high tide still is along Bacliff shoreline), and the big rocks in neighbors backyard and pool.
 
 
Sunday, April 5, 2015
 
Proposed Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area or Rice Dike Post Hurricane Land Grab in Disguise or Has There Been a Ike Dike Game Change Plan ?
 
 
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
 
IKE DIKE 3rd PROPOSAL CALLS FOR 'MID-BAY' GATE NEAR SAN LEON ACROSS TO SMITH POINT AREA
 
 
 
say no to the RICE DIKE and or any Centennial Gate across the end of Galveston Bay at Fred Hartman Bridge, including the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (LSCNRA, which is the RICE DIKE in disguise, don’t take the bait). ...
 
 
Thursday, November 27, 2014
 
IKE DIKE VS RICE DIKE PUBLIC INPUT SOUGHT PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF TAMU IKE DIKE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
 
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
 
*** Ike Dike Scientist Professor William Merrell sees NO chance of compromise !
 
 
Monday, April 15, 2013
 
Hurricane Ike: 5 Years Later Conference Rice Dike Proposal September 24-25, 2013
 
 
Sunday, June 9, 2013
 
RICE DIKE AND IKE DIKE ARE RIVALS NO MORE, AND HAS BACKED OFF THE PROPOSAL OF A 20-MILE 25 FOOT LEVEE ALONG SH 146
 
 
Monday, November 18, 2013
 
Is your community just collateral damage? RICE DIKE VS IKE DIKE
 
 
Friday, December 6, 2013
 
IKE DIKE TAMU VS Rice SSPEED Dike Centennial gate from Hell
 
 
October 10, 2012
 
IKE DIKE PROPOSED BY RICE UNIVERSITY hangs our Bayshore communities out to dry, IN 25 FEET OF WATER, to make way for WATERFRONT RECREATION $$$
 
 
Sunday, December 9, 2012
 
*** RICE DIKE PROPOSAL COULD DESTROY GALVESTON BAY BAYSHORE COMMUNITIES
 
 
Hurricane Ike here is a view from our pier back to the garage apartment, the garage, and the main house, the day before Hurricane Ike. video scans down shoreline in front of your house James and Tammy, and then, about halfway through the video, after a big wave came crashing over the top of the hill, I went in, still well before landfall of Ike, the pier went 12 hours before Ike made landfall, or there abouts. then the video picks of the day after. HURRICANE IKE bonnie and terry day before and the day after IKE Bacliff 77518
 
 
HURRICANE IKE Bacliff, two days later, see a video from our neighbors yard, looking back to our gutted out apartment ‘mother-in-laws-house’ and garage, (see how high tide still is along Bacliff shoreline), and the big rocks in neighbors backyard and pool.
 
 
Sunday, April 5, 2015
 
Proposed Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area or Rice Dike Post Hurricane Land Grab in Disguise or Has There Been a Ike Dike Game Change Plan ?
 
 
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
 
IKE DIKE 3rd PROPOSAL CALLS FOR 'MID-BAY' GATE NEAR SAN LEON ACROSS TO SMITH POINT AREA
 
 
 
Friday, March 11, 2016
 
New Houston Hurricane Plan Stirs the Pot
 
 
say no to the RICE DIKE and or any Centennial Gate across the end of Galveston Bay at Fred Hartman Bridge, including the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (LSCNRA, which is the RICE DIKE in disguise, don’t take the bait). ...
 
 
Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 flounder9@verizon.net on the bottom...

Friday, March 11, 2016

New Houston Hurricane Plan Stirs the Pot

New Houston Hurricane Plan Stirs the Pot

 

by Kiah Collier March 10, 2016

 

A new proposal to protect the Houston area from hurricanes is reigniting controversy, and potentially diminishing the odds that a consensus will emerge anytime soon on the best plan to safeguard the nation's fifth-largest metropolitan area.

 

Since Hurricane Ike in 2008, Texas scientists have pushed several different plans to shield the region, home to the nation's largest refining and petrochemical complex, from devastating storm surge.

 

Some accord emerged in recent years around a $6 billion-to-$8 billion Dutch-inspired concept called the “coastal spine,” creating some hope that state and federal lawmakers may have a single proposal to champion before the next big hurricane hits. The concept — an expanded version of another, dubbed the "Ike Dike" — is designed to impede storm surge right at the coast with a 60-mile seawall along Galveston Island and Bolivar Peninsula. A massive floodgate between the two landmasses would be closed ahead of a storm. Several dozen communities have endorsed the coastal spine — conceived at Texas A&M University at Galveston — along with some state lawmakers, the Texas Municipal League and at least one major industry group.

 

But a six-county coalition studying how best to proceed now says a 56-mile, mostly mainland levee system — several components of which have been proposed before by other entities — would provide a nearly equivalent level of protection while costing several billion dollars less. The catch: several Houston-area communities on the west side of Galveston Bay, including Kemah, La Porte, Seabrook, Morgan’s Point and San Leon, would be left outside the dike.

 

And officials from those communities say that is unacceptable.

 

A map in the Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District's latest report shows the "coastal spine" (yellow) and a new proposal for a levee system (purple) Enlargecredit:: The Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District (GCCPRD) A map in the Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District's latest report shows the "coastal spine" (yellow) and a new proposal for a levee system (purple) “Just the fact that it’s mentioned — I take it as a serious threat,” Seabrook Mayor Glenn Royal said.

 

The $3.5 billion proposal by the Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District, unveiled in a report last week, calls for expanding and extending an existing levee around Texas City northward along State Highway 146 and westward to the community of Santa Fe. The recovery district's plan also calls for placing a "ring" levee around the entire city of Galveston to protect it from storm surge. (During hurricanes, the island gets hit by surge once from the front and a second time from the back when surge that reaches the mainland recedes.)

 

The part of the proposed levee closest to Texas City — home to three major refineries — sits right on Galveston Bay, but most of it is set back from the water, meaning the communities between it and the bay are left unprotected.

 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a hurricane research center headquartered at Rice University also have proposed raising or building a levee along SH-146 and installing a bayside levee to protect Galveston, but the concepts have never gained much public support. The SH-146 proposal, in particular, has met staunch opposition from the communities located between the highway and the bay — a sentiment that’s not lost on the recovery district.

 

“It’s not the best — we know that,” said Col. Chris Sallese, coastal programs manager at Dannenbaum Engineering, of the proposed levee system at a Tribune event last week. The recovery district hired the local firm with a $4 million state grant to study how best to protect the greater Houston area from hurricanes, with work beginning in 2014.

 

But Sallese, a former commander of the Army Corps' Galveston District, also said there are legitimate questions about the high cost of the coastal spine and the environmental impact of installing a massive floodgate between Galveston and Bolivar to help keep storm surge from entering Galveston Bay. He said a big concern is that it would greatly hinder the flow of water between the bay, one of the region’s most productive estuaries, and the Gulf of Mexico. That could "change the hydrodynamics, morphology, and water quality of the bay," according to the recovery district's report.

 

That could mean non-compliance with federal environmental regulations such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, Sallese said. Assuming that any storm surge protection project will be federally funded, that would mean the project could not proceed.

 

Sallese said other proposals that have called for placing massive floodgates at other places in the bay to block surge face similar environmental concerns, so the study team wanted to propose something gate-free for the public and recovery district board to consider and compare to the coastal spine. And Sallese said the residents who weighed in on such a plan at a series of public hearings last year soundly rejected the idea of installing the entire levee system along the bay-front, which is lined with high-dollar homes and recreational areas.

 

"We're not trying to take anything away from the coastal spine. We’re just trying to say: If you could not build it, what could you do" instead, said Sallese, noting the study team could not delve any further into environmental impacts because of limited funding.

 

Asked about past opposition to SH-146 and ring levee concepts, Sallese said no one had ever seriously examined their feasibility or cost before.

 

According to the recovery district's report, conducted using Army Corps standards, the levee system would provide more than $1 billion in annual benefits, and — at $3.5 billion — cost much less than the coastal spine, which Sallese's team estimated would cost $5.8 billion and have about the same annual benefit.

 

The levee system therefore has a cost-benefit ratio nearly twice as high as the coastal spine, according to the report.

 

But Recovery District President Robert Eckels, a former Harris County judge, stressed that the study team found that the coastal spine's cost-benefit ratio is high, too — and that the Army Corps' cost-benefit analysis doesn't account for social and other impacts, including economic and flood damage to areas left outside the levee system.

 

The recovery district will carefully consider those other factors, he said, going on to guess that the recovery district's final recommendation will be "a combination of the two" plans.

 

Some state lawmakers have said they will champion whatever the district recommends. And the Army Corps will use it as guidance in its own, recently launched study into how best to protect the Texas coast from hurricanes, which is not expected to be done for at least five years.

 

Army Corps Project Manager Sharon Tirpak said during a recent interview that an environmental analysis will be a big part of the study and is what has been missing from all the research done so far.

 

"None of the other entities have done any of the environmental work," she said.

 

But a hybrid approach is a nonstarter for officials in bay-area communities like Seabrook — and the researchers at Texas A&M University at Galveston developing the coastal spine concept who believe it is end-all, be-all to the region's hurricane problems.

 

"It's DOA, OK?" said Morgan's Point Mayor Michel Bechtel of the proposed levee system, calling it "bullshit."

 

"It's silly to protect some of the people at the cost of the other people," he said. "And we will not be collateral damage, period."

 

Texas A&M oceanographer Bill Merrell, who conceived of the coastal spine concept, has been opposed to placing a storm surge barrier anywhere but directly on the coast because he says putting anything farther inland would protect certain areas at the expense of others.

 

"You can’t come up with anything in the bay that doesn’t hurt somebody," he said. "It's impossible."

 

Along with the bayfront communities, Merrell said the proposed levee system leaves the western end of Galveston — lined by high-dollar beach homes important to the island's tax base — completely unprotected. And he said it would do nothing to block surge from entering the Houston Ship Channel, a 52-mile shipping lane that juts off Galveston Bay. The waterway is lined with refineries, chemical manufacturing plants and various shipping terminals whose business activity makes up a sizable chunk of the state's GDP.

 

The levee system "won’t go because of public opinion," Merrell said. "The mayors around the bay aren’t going to let this dike happen — I can assure you."

 

Sallese's study team will take public comment on both the coastal spine and levee system at a series of public meetings this month before making a recommendation to the recovery district board, which may accept or reject it. A final report with recommendations is expected in June.

 

As the debate heats up, the recovery district may have an ally in the Severe Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disasters Center at Rice, which has pushed the SH-146 and Galveston ring levee concepts in recent years.

 

Center co-director Jim Blackburn also said a combination approach would be ideal.

 

"We think there is a hybrid out there that is the best of all worlds," he said.

 

Blackburn's only quibble with the recovery district's report was that it envisioned protection systems for the Houston, Beaumont and Freeport areas not being completed until 2035.

 

"That’s a scary number," he said. "I think it would be failure on all of our parts if we can’t find out how to get something underway in three to four years — and I think that’s possible."

 

Disclosure: The Texas Municipal League is a corporate sponsor of The Texas Tribune. Rice University was a sponsor in 2013. A complete list of Tribune donors and sponsors can be viewed here.

 


 

 so soon some forget. New Orleans survived Hurricane Katrina, what New Orleans did not survive was the Army Corp of Eng. and the Levee failures there from, and it does not take a rocket scientist to know, if you build a town in the bottom of a bowl, your going to have problems. we all have known since Hurricanes Katrina and Ike and before, that this community needs a storm wall at the coast to protect us all, thus, the TAMU Ike Dike was proposed to protect all of Galveston Bay, and everyone inside of it. Since then, corporate politics have taken the forefront, and science was sent to the rear of the bus. now it seems that all anyone is interested in is protecting Houston and the Petro Chemical Ship Channel, and all some of us have become is collateral damage, as those of us living east of state highway 146 from Texas City to La Porte, and everyone in-between. it’s been a decade since Katrina and about 7 years or so since Ike, and here we still sit, waiting for another study, and you can see the writing on the wall, the only thing they are waiting on is a study that only protects the Houston Ship channel and Houston, yet hangs everyone out to dry east of State Hwy 146, to make way for a tourist recreational land on our old homesteads. those plans my fine neighbors and friends are already in the drawings, and that’s no joke. why should any of us pay to protect only the petro and chemical plants, with something that could completely wash us away? Personally, if there cannot be a IKE Dike that protects all of us, then I would rather have no Dike at al, if the only other alternative was the SSPEED Rice Dike Centennial Gate at Fred Harman Bridge, and or the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (LSCNRA, which is the RICE DIKE in disguise, don’t take the bait). we all may as well write our social security numbers on our arms now, because damming up the North End of Galveston bay, and surrounding Bayous and inlets, with the SSPEED Rice Dike proposal will only cause tsunami’s for surrounding coastal communities. we saw that during Hurricane Ike, without the North End of Galveston bay being dammed up. so, my final question, if the SSPEED Rice Dike is put forth, that only protects the Houston Ship Channel Petro Chemical complex’s, and by it’s own construction assuredly puts all of our lives at a much higher risk that live around the adjacent shoreline communities, and the Ike Dike which would protect us all is tabled, will it then be Rice University, the big petro chemical oil machine, the Port of Houston, the GLO and the Army Corp of Eng. be responsible for killing all those that were left as collateral damage living on and around the adjacent shore lines of Galveston Bay when the next big one hits? You cannot blame stupid on a Hurricane. ...

 

*** Furthermore, this proposal leaves waterfront properties and communities east of SH- 146 vulnerable; however, it maintains the possibility of waterfront recreation and other environmental and natural coastal features.

 

page 11, the building and writing off of all surrounding coastal communities for a new recreational tourist attraction $$$

 


 

Thursday, November 27, 2014

 

IKE DIKE VS RICE DIKE PUBLIC INPUT SOUGHT PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF TAMU IKE DIKE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 


 

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

 

*** Ike Dike Scientist Professor William Merrell sees NO chance of compromise !

 


 

Monday, April 15, 2013

 

Hurricane Ike: 5 Years Later Conference Rice Dike Proposal September 24-25, 2013

 


 

Sunday, June 9, 2013

 

RICE DIKE AND IKE DIKE ARE RIVALS NO MORE, AND HAS BACKED OFF THE PROPOSAL OF A 20-MILE 25 FOOT LEVEE ALONG SH 146

 


 

Monday, November 18, 2013

 

Is your community just collateral damage? RICE DIKE VS IKE DIKE

 


 

Friday, December 6, 2013

 

IKE DIKE TAMU VS Rice SSPEED Dike Centennial gate from Hell

 


 

October 10, 2012

 

IKE DIKE PROPOSED BY RICE UNIVERSITY hangs our Bayshore communities out to dry, IN 25 FEET OF WATER, to make way for WATERFRONT RECREATION $$$

 


 

Sunday, December 9, 2012

 

*** RICE DIKE PROPOSAL COULD DESTROY GALVESTON BAY BAYSHORE COMMUNITIES

 


 

Hurricane Ike here is a view from our pier back to the garage apartment, the garage, and the main house, the day before Hurricane Ike. video scans down shoreline in front of your house James and Tammy, and then, about halfway through the video, after a big wave came crashing over the top of the hill, I went in, still well before landfall of Ike, the pier went 12 hours before Ike made landfall, or there abouts. then the video picks of the day after. HURRICANE IKE bonnie and terry day before and the day after IKE Bacliff 77518

 


 

HURRICANE IKE Bacliff, two days later, see a video from our neighbors yard, looking back to our gutted out apartment ‘mother-in-laws-house’ and garage, (see how high tide still is along Bacliff shoreline), and the big rocks in neighbors backyard and pool.

 


 

Sunday, April 5, 2015

 

Proposed Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area or Rice Dike Post Hurricane Land Grab in Disguise or Has There Been a Ike Dike Game Change Plan ?

 


 

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

 

IKE DIKE 3rd PROPOSAL CALLS FOR 'MID-BAY' GATE NEAR SAN LEON ACROSS TO SMITH POINT AREA

 


 


 

say no to the RICE DIKE and or any Centennial Gate across the end of Galveston Bay at Fred Hartman Bridge, including the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (LSCNRA, which is the RICE DIKE in disguise, don’t take the bait). ...

 


 

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 flounder9@verizon.net