In May 1992, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a "Special Report on Flooding" after a series of storms over four months filled Addicks and Barker reservoirs up to their highest levels in history. The report recognized unique challenges and a need to address them: buying out flood-prone homes, excavating the reservoirs, buying out homes downstream were all options considered.
Original Title
Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Special Report on Flooding
In May 1992, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a "Special Report on Flooding" after a series of storms over four months filled Addicks and Barker reservoirs up to their highest levels in history. The report recognized unique challenges and a need to address them: buying out flood-prone homes, excavating the reservoirs, buying out homes downstream were all options considered.
In May 1992, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a "Special Report on Flooding" after a series of storms over four months filled Addicks and Barker reservoirs up to their highest levels in history. The report recognized unique challenges and a need to address them: buying out flood-prone homes, excavating the reservoirs, buying out homes downstream were all options considered.
9 Buffalo Bayou & Tributaries, Texas
Addicks & Barker Reservoirs
Special Report on Flooding
May 1992
us Army Corps
of Engineers
Galveston DistrictBUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TEXAS
SPECIAL REPORT ON
ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIRS
Table of Contents
iten
PURPOSE AND SCOPE... 1...
PROJECT AUTHORIZATION... . - -
PROJECT LOCATION... -...
HISTORY... - 72 eee eee
RESERVOIR OPERATIONS .. ~~. -
CURRENT CONDITIONS .......
DAMAGE ESTIMATES FOR LARGE STORMS
REAL ESTATE PROPERTY VALUES . . .
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES . . .
Alternative 1 - No Action...
Alternative 2 - Flood Warning and
Evacuation Planning
Alternative 3 - Increase Storage Capacity... .
Buyout... ...-. eee
Purchase Flowage Easements .
Excavate the Federally-owned Pool . . .
Provide Additional, Upstream, Long Term
10
10
11
a.
1
12
12
13fable of Contents (Cont'd)
Item Page
Alternative 4 - Increase the Planned Discharge Rate . . . . 13
Buy Out Damageable Properties... 2... .......43
Enlarge the Channel... ......-.......2-.. 24
Provide Additional Outlet Works and Tunnel . . soe eee 14
Change Current operating Plan... 2.2.2.2... .45
Alternative 5 ~ Divert Water from Addicks Reservoir
to Cypress Creek . 2.2... ee ee ee IS
RECOMMENDATION . 2. ee ee ee ee 8
PLATES
ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIRS 30-1a
BUFFALO BAYOU CHANNEL RECTIFICATION. 30-1C
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - PRIOR STUDIES AND REPORTS A-1
APPENDIX B - PERTINENT DATA - ADDICKS RESERVOIR B-1
APPENDIX C - PERTINENT DATA - BARKER RESERVOIR: c-1
APPENDIX D ~ PRELIMINARY REAL ESTATE VALUE ESTIMATE
ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIR D-1BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TEXAS
SPECIAL REPORT ON
ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIRS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report was prepared to provide general background
information on the existing operational conditions at Addicks and
Barker Reservoirs and give an overview of the order of magnitude
of the anticipated flooding damages which could occur off of
Government property assuming different flood events. The
possible impacts of flooding and potential alternatives to
address these flood situations will also be addressed. Due to
time and cost limitations, the scope and detail of this report
was necessarily limited. Accordingly, this report is meant to be
generally descriptive in nature and to serve as a basis for
decision makers to make recommendations concerning the need for
further, more detailed studies.
PROJECT AUTHORIZATION
Addicks and Barker Reservoirs were authorized as a part of
Buffalo Bayou, Texas Project by the Rivers and Harbors Act, on 20
June 1938. This act was subsequently modified by.the 1939 Floodcontrol Act which authorized the construction of Addicks and
Barker Dams. The project was further modified by the Flood
Control Act of 1954 which authorized straightening, enlarging,
and lining where necessary, on Buffalo, Brays and White oak
Bayous. The project was authorized for the purpose of protecting
urban development in the downstream flood plain of Buffalo Bayou
through the City of Houston. It's authorization was prompted by
the December, 1935 storm that occurred over the Buffalo Bayou
watershed.
PROJECT LOCATION
The Buffalo Bayou watershed is tributary to the san Jacinto River
and lies primarily in Harris and Fort Bend Counties in southeast
Texas. Addicks Dam is located on South Mayde Creek, a tributary
to Buffalo Bayou. Barker Dam is located on Buffalo Bayou. Both
dams are located within, and at the western edge of, the city
limits of Houston and are shown at Plate 30-1A.
HISTORY
Addicks and Barker Reservoirs are floodwater detention structures
and are significant features of the Buffalo Bayou Project. as
noted earlier, the dams were constructed in the 1940's on the
upper Buffalo Bayou watershed, and are located in the western
city limits of Houston, Texas.In addition to construction of Addicks and Barker Dams, the
project authorization provided for clearing, straightening and
enlarging, the bayou from the Houston ship Channel to the dams, 27
miles upstream. However, only 7.4 miles of the authorized
channel rectification were completed just downstream of the dams.
This reach of channel rectification is shown at Plate 30-1c.
The only other downstream improvements completed were the
construction of four retaining walls near the downtown ‘area.
Further planning or construction of the originally authorized
improvements in the main stem of Buffalo Bayou have been deferred
because of strong public opposition on the part of
conservationist and environmental groups.
‘The dams were designed in the late 30's and early 40's. The
original design criteria of the embanknents is conveyed in the
Definite Project Report, Buffalo Bayou, Texas, dated 1 June 1940.
This report also explains the logic the amount of lands acquired
for the reservoirs. Basically, lands were acquired up to an
elevation three feet above the pools which would be produced by
the 1935 storm transposed over each watershed. Construction of
Barker and Addicks Dams were completed in 1945 and 194
respectively.
The original design concept provided for five outlet conduits ateach dam. Only one of the conduits was gated, with the other
four uncontrolled. This would permit a combined uncontrolled
discharge of 15,700 cubic feet per second (cfs). In 1948, two of
the four ungated conduits were gated, which could allow an
uncontrolled discharge of 7,900 cfs down Buffalo Bayou. However,
due to damages downstream, the remaining two gates at each dam
were gated in 1963.
The dams were constructed with compacted random fill material.
This provided a suitable dam embankment for design criteria at
that time, for embankments of detention type reservoirs where
ponded water would be discharged relatively quickly. However,
with the gating of the outlet structures the ponding times became
much longer than originally intended. This resulted in problems
and concern with seepage through the dams' embankments.
Subsequently, emergency seepage control measures were
incorporated into both dams. These measures consisted of
constructing a soil bentonite slurry trench through the
embankment and pervious foundation, placement of a downstream
berm to enhance slope stability, and placement of clay blankets
to thicken the impervious cover over pervious foundation
materials. This work was accomplished between 1977 and 1982.
More recently, as a result of provisions contained in the Dam
Safety Assurance Program Addicks and Barker Dams were modified.
This program upgraded both dams to conform with current design
criteria. Remedial work consisted of two primary features.First, the crest elevation of major portions of the dams was
raised to achieve needed freeboard requirements. Second, erosion
protection was added to the lower ends of the dams so the ends
can serve as overflow spillways during major storms greater than
the Standard Project Flood (SPF) event, up to and including the
Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). The above work was accomplished
between 1986 and 1989.
RESERVOIR OPERATIONS
The existing plan for reservoir regulation is to operate the
veservoirs in a manner that will prevent damaging stages on
downstream Buffalo Bayou. This is accomplished by utilizing, to
the maximum extent possible, the available storage capacity
within the reservoirs. This is in keeping with the original
primary objective of flood control for Addicks and Barker
Reservoirs.
When there is negligible ponding in the reservoirs, and there is
no flooding on downstream Buffalo Bayou occurring nor expected,
each reservoir is operated with two gates set at one foot
openings. These settings will pass normal low flows and limits
the reservoirs' combined discharge to 500 cfs.
Since a downstream portion of the project was never completed,
the flow rate in a segment of this reach must be restricted to
2,000 cfs to preclude damages to downstream properties, alongBuffalo Bayou. Accordingly, this significantly impacts the
allowable release rate from the reservoirs.
When rains occur in the watershed which are insufficient to
produce downstream flooding, the reservoir releases are regulated
so that their combined releases plus local inflow does not exceed
2,000 cfs. This flow is monitored at the downstream control
point, the Piney Point Road gage. This control point is located
approximately 11 miles downstream of the dams.
If flooding is predicted or reported downstream, the gates will
be closed. The gates will remain closed until downstream
conditions permit system releases plus local inflows that remain
below the non-damaging capacity. The releases from each
reservoir are also regulated so as to achieve an equalization of
the available storage within each reservoir.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
When constructed in the 1940's, the reservoirs were located in a
rural area at the time. The location was considered to be a
substantial distance west of the City of Houston. Land use in
and around the reservoirs was predominately farming and
ranching. However, in the past 40 years, the extensive urban
growth of the western portion of the Houston metropolitan area
has resulted in both reservoirs being surrounded by intense
commercial and residential development.
The current hydrological design criteria for Addicks and Barker@ Dams is provided by “Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Texas,
Hydrology Report for Addicks and Barker Reservoirs,“ dated
August, 1977. The Standard Project Flood (SPF) is predicted to
result from 21 inches of precipitation in a 72-hour period. The
Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) is defined as 43 inches of
precipitation occurring over a 72-hour period. These two are
used in the development of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). The
PMF would be produced after the SPF has occurred and filled the
reservoirs, followed approximately 5 days later by the PMP. Such
an event would result in water moving around the ends of the dams
and in spilling over the concrete overflow sections. Elevations
produced by various storms are presented in Table 1.
DAMAGE ESTIMATES FOR LARGE STORMS
For the purpose of this report, preliminary reconnaissance level
estimates of single occurrence damages given different flood
frequencies were developed for the main stem of Buffalo Bayou
below the reservoirs. Data used in the development for this
estimate was obtained from the Buffalo Bayou & Tributaries, Texas
Feasibility Report completed in May 1988. Based on the :
calculations, an SPF and a 100-year event would cause $420
million and $95 million in flood losses, respectively. Both
estimates assume that the reservoirs preclude any runoff upstream
of the reservoirs.TABLE 1
Significant Elevations
Addicks Barker
Reservoir Reservoir
Elevation Elevation
fere! int Feet NGVD* Feet NGVD*
High Point of Main
Embankment 122.7 114.7
Probable Maximum Flood 118.1 110.3
Overflow Spillway Crest 117.0 +/- 108.0 +/-
Natural Ground at Ends
of Dam 212.0 106.0
Standard Project Flood 110.6 100.4
Limits of Government
‘Owned Land 2106.21 97.3
100-Year Flood 104.2 97.8
Record Pool Levels 100.58 (9 Mar 92) 95.89 (6 Mar 92)
* NGyD - National Geodetic Vertical patum (1973 adjustment)Similar estimates of potential flood damages upstream of Addicks
and Barker Reservoirs were developed using current aerial
photographs and appraisal information provided by Galveston
District Real Estate personnel. These estimates determined that
single occurrence damages for the Possible Maximum Flood would
affect over 4,000 structures valued at approximately $725 million
and cause damages of $245 million. The Standard Project Flood
would impact 2,800 structures worth $400 million and cause $100
million in damages. The 100-year event would be contained within
the reservoirs and not cause any damages outside government owned
lands
REAL ESTATE PROPERTY VALUES
In preparation of this report, it was necessary to quantify real
property values for lands upstream of the reservoirs. aA desk
appraisal of properties was developed for an area upstream of the
reservoirs whose elevations were between that of Government owned
land (106 feet NGVD for Addicks Reservoir and 97.3 feet NGVD for
Barker Reservoir) and the elevation of natural ground at the ends
of the reservoir (112 feet NGVD for Addicks and 106 feet NGVD for
Barker). The total estimated real estate value of land and
improvements is $475 million. A summary of the real estate value
estimate is provided at Appendix D.DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
The following list of potential alternative measures that could
be adopted at Addicks and Barker reservoirs to alleviate
potential flood concerns developed from various meetings during
the preparation of this special report. A brief description of
the various solutions, their advantages and disadvantages, and
the implementation steps are described where available. No
attempt was made to quantify, evaluate, select, or eliminate fron
consideration any of the alternatives at this time.
Alternative 1 - No Action
No action is the basic option always considered when alternate
courses of action are compared. No action means accepting the
existing condition and any future changes that are expected to
occur as a result of continued application of existing policies
and practices. In this case no action would mean accepting the
risk that substantial numbers of houses will be damaged by rare,
severe flood events. Residents will be forced to evacuate and
xemain in temporary housing for long periods. Health and safety
xisks will be perpetuated. The Government will continue to be
subject to potential claims for monetary losses, and the Corps
will be faced with a continuing adverse public image. No action
would also perpetuate current Limits on building permit approvals
by local governments, resulting in loss of economic. growth
10opportunities.
Iternative nd_Evacuat nin
It is anticipated that establishing a flood warning system and an
evacuation plan would provide a minimal action plan to respond to
the flood threat. Flood events that would cause damage are
xare. In the absence of a public awareness program, residents
are likely to forget or ignore the flood threat. ‘Turnover in
home ownership could also result in a significant proportion of
xesidents being unaware of the risk. A low-intensity information
Program backed by a strong, direct early warning system and an
implementable evacuation plan could substantially reduce health
and safety risks and moderately reduce flood damages.
te: = eased e_Cay
a. Buy out - The storage capacity of the reservoirs that
could be used without damage could be increased by buying and
removing the houses at risk. Residents would be relocated to
other similar homes in flood-free areas. Buy out would eliminate
all health and safety concerns as well as monetary losses.
Additional areas would also be made available for recreation.
Various levels of buy out could be implemented depending on the
balance of costs and benefits. A complete buy out of the
property up to the elevation of the ends of the dam would be
awapproximately $475 million for lands and improvement plus costs
required for acquisition. Buy out cost for property up to the
PMF elevation would be substantially higher.
b. Purchase flowage easements - The Government could
purchase flowage easements as a means to avoid damage claims in
the event of flooding. This would provide additional usable
storage area by creating a right to flood private property.
Flowage easements could be used in combination with flood warning
and evacuation planning to address health, safety and property
loss issues. Permanent occupation of structures is normally not
permitted in easement areas, because of the risks to property and
safety. However, in this case the risks already exist, and
acquiring the easements would be a positive step toward fairness
to the property owners, public awareness of the flood threat, and
elimination of legal actions on claims.
c. avate the F: owned pool - The frequency,
duration, and maximum extent of flooding on private property
could be reduced by excavation on the current Federal lands. The
additional storage that could be gained is limited to the volume
defined by the outlet elevation and the Federal property line.
The environmental consequences of this plan could be severe,
depending on the extent of habitat that would be lost to
excavation. Recreational use of the dry pool would also be
reduced.
124. Provide additional, upstream, long term storage - Rather
than increasing the size of the current reservoirs, additional
storage could be provided upstream. Long-term storage would be
required ‘in order to relieve the existing problem. Such storage
could be provided in additional large, regional dry reservoirs
similar to the existing projects, or by substantially increasing
the detention capacity required for building permits under local
regulations. Changing these small, site-specific ponds from the
current 24-hour detention requirement to a 30- to 60-day
requirement would benefit the Federal project, but at substantial
local cost.
1 ate
The current operating plan limits the discharge rate in order to
avoid erosion and flood damages to downstream properties. ‘The
same end could be achieved by a number of structural or non-
structural means, which would then permit increased discharges
and reduced risk of flooding in the upper reaches of the
reservoirs.
a. Buy out damageable properties - The downstream properties
that are at risk for flood or erosion damage could be purchased
and removed. The evacuated area could be dedicated to
environmental or recreational uses, or both. The time required
for development of a cost estimate for a buy out of these
13properties precluded its development. However, it is anticipatea
that it would be a substantial amount.
b. Enlarge the channel - The carrying capacity of the
downstream channel could be increased by enlarging,
straightening, and armoring the existing channel. Work of this
nature was an authorized element of the original comprehensive
plan for Buffalo Bayou and was to be constructed along with
Addicks and Barker Reservoirs. However, the downstream channel
work was eliminated from the project at’ local request and has
just recently been deauthorized. Since the two reservoirs were
originally designed to operate with an improved channel
downstream, this alternative would provide an effective
engineering solution. The strong environmental opposition to
channel work, which caused its deauthorization, still remains;
therefore, this alternative will not be implementable without an
upwelling of public support.
c. ide additional outlet works unnel - This
alternative would provide intakes in one or both reservoirs which
would connect to a tunnel extending the full length of Buffalo
Bayou from the reservoirs to the turning basin. Downstream of
the turning basin the channel dimensions maintained for deep i
draft navigation provide adequate capacity to carry the
additional flood flows.
14a. @_current_oper: ~ This non-structural
alternative would provide for more risk-taking in determining
reservoir releases during periods when reservoir storage
approaches damaging levels. The current standard is that
combined releases and runoff from the watershed below the
reservoirs should not exceed 2000 cubic feet per second at the
Piney Point gauge, the maximum flow rate which can be sustained
without damage. Because the runoff component must be an
estimate, any selected discharge rate contains a risk that the
standard will be exceeded, with the degree of risk being a
function of the reliability of the estimated runoff. This
alternative is based on the rationale that a low level of risk is
appropriate for all "normal" operating conditions, but that as
reservoir storage increases, such that upstream damage is
imminent, higher levels of discharge risk-taking are appropriate.
Implementation of this alternative would involve developing
techniques to quantify the risk involved so that decisions based
varying levels of risk can be made.
terna’
Creek
As proposed, this alternative would provide pumps to move water
stored in Addicks Reservoir over the watershed divide. From the
discharge point at the divide, gravity flow would deliver the
15water to Cypress Creek. Diversions would be made only when
Cypress Creek had excess capacity available. This plan is based
on the rationale that water levels in Addicks reservoir reach
critical conditions only when water must be stored over long
periods. Therefore, adequate opportunities would exist in which
Cypress Creek would have the excess capacity required to
measurably benefit the storage problem.
RECOMMENDATION
All of the alternatives described above would require detailed
investigations to determine the preferred course of action.
No permanent solutions that can be readily implemented without
further evaluation of economic, engineering, or environmental
feasibility were identified in these preliminary investigations.
This is in part due to the fact all alternatives will involve
substantial construction investments. such investments should
only be made after the benefits vs. costs and associated impacts
have been thoroughly evaluated. All of the alternatives,
including no action, have potentially significant impacts on
social or environmental values, and those impacts must be
evaluated in reaching a decision. The risk of economic loss and
the potential threat to public health and safety are large enough ‘
to warrant further evaluation. In light of the above findings it
is recommended that Federally-funded reconnaissance studies be
undertaken under the authority of Section 216 of the Flood
16Control Act of 1970 which allows the Corps to reinvestigate
completed federal projects because of changed physical and/or
economic conditions.
17[erento sesemcnsh
<3 troy
THRE SeerowAPPENDIX A
PRIOR STUDIES AND REPORTS
1. Definite Project Report, Buffalo Bayou, Texas, dated 1 June
1940.
2. Preliminary Report on Operation of Reservoir, Barker Dam,
dated July 1942.
3. Analysis of Design, Addicks Dam, dated September 1945.
4. Analysis of Design for Installation of Additional sluice
Gates, Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, dated October 1947.
5. Report on the Feasibility of Gating the Uncontrolled Conduits
at Barker and Addicks Dams, dated September 1960.
6. Design Memorandum No. 1, Rehabilitation of Addicks and Barker
Dams - Buffalo Bayou, Texas, dated 8 February 1963.
7. Design Memorandum No. 2, Master Plan for Barker Dam and
Reservoir and Addicks Dam ahd Reservoir - Buffalo Bayou, Texas,
dated 1 August 1963.
8. Summary Report on Review of Design Features of Existing Dams
under Jurisdiction of Galveston District, dated 27 March 1967.
9. Letter Report for Emergency Seepage Control, Buffalo Bayou
and Tributaries, Addicks Dam, Texas, dated May 1977.
10. GDR 500-1-5, Emergency Operation Plan, Addicks and Barker
Reservoirs, Emergency Employment of Army Resources, dated 22 June
1977.
11. Hydrology, Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Texas, Addicks and
Barker Reservoirs, dated August 1977.
12, Reconnaissance Report, Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Texas,
Major Rehabilitation of Addicks and Barker Dams, October 1977.
13. Letter Report for Spillways, Addicks and Barker Dams, Texas,
dated January 1978.
14, Dams Safety Assurance, General Design Memorandum, Addicks
and Barker Dams, Texas, dated June 1984.
ArLAPPENDIX A (cont'd)
PRIOR STUDIES AND REPORTS
15. Master Plan Update, Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Buffalo
Bayou Watershed, Houston, Texas, dated June 1986.
16. Effects on Water Quality Due to Flood-Water Detention by
Barker and Addicks Reservoirs, Houston, Texas, dated 1987.
17. U.S8.G.S. Water Resource Investigations, Report 86-4356.APPENDIX B
RTINENT DATA
DECKS RESERVO:
DRAINAGE AREA 136 square miles
DAM
Type Rolled earth embankment
Length 61,166 feet
Height (above stream bed) 48.5 fect
RESERVOIR
Elevation storage
feet Capacity
icy) (1), acre-feet
Top of Dam 122.7 -
Natural ground at ends
of dam 112.0 200,800
Maximum design water
surface 112.7 212,500
Government-owned real
estate limit 106.1 116,300
Standard Project Flood
maximum water
surface 110.6 178,600
Conduit invert The
OUTLET WORKS
5 gated conduits each ~ 8' wide x 6' high
x 252" long
Discharge-maximum design
water surface-through
5 conduits 7,852 c.f.s.
stilling basin 43.5" convex spillway;
40'long 60 wide longitudinal
stilling basin; and 105' of
xiprap lined outlet channel
(1) Elevations are feet NGVD (1973 adjustment) .
BeiAPPENDIX C
PERTINENT DATA
BARKER RESERVOIR
DRAINAGE AREA
DAK
Type
Length
Height (above stream bed)
RESERVOIR
Top of Dam
Natural ground at ends
of dam
Maximum design water
surface
Government-owned real
estate limi
Standard Project Flood
maximum water
surface
conduit invert
OUTLET WORKS
5 gated conduits
Discharge-maximum design
water surface-through
5 conduits
Stilling basin
130 square miles
Rolled earth embanknent
71,900 feet
36:5 feet
Elevation storage
ty,
feet, capac:
(NGVD) (1 acre-feet.
124.7 -
106.0 209,000
105.0 192,500
97, 3 83,400
100.4 123,700
73 o
each - 91 wide x 7" high
x 190.5 long
8,734 cfs
55.5" convex spillway; 50' long,
60" wide longitudinal’ stilling
basin; and 160‘ of riprap lined
outlet channel
(1) Elevations are feet-NGvD (1973 adjustment) .APPENDIX D
PRELIMENARY REAL ESTATE VALUE ESTIMATE
ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIRS:
FOR
8. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, GALVESTON
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
GALVESTON, TEXAS
AS OF
12 MAY 1992
BY
LEROY P. HILTON
AND
RICHARD P. WASHBURN
APPRAISAL BRANCH
REAL ESTATE DIVISION
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, GALVESTON
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
GALVESTONSALIENT FACTS
The value estimate of the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs includes
only real_estate(i.e., land and improvements). All categories of
real estate are included except exempt properties or those
Properties owned by Governmental Entities.
The area from which the properties were extrapolated is from the
existing periphery of the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs to the
natural ground at the ends of the dams which translates to 112 feet
NGVD at Addicks Reservoir and 106 feet NGVD at the Barker
Reservoir.
The value of the real estate is based upon data and information
that was readily available within a short time frame. The area
extrapolated for valuing is based upon outdated maps which do not
show all of the present developed areas.
EFFECTIVE DATE
MAY 12, 1992
TOTAL ESTIMATED REAL ESTATE VALUE
$475,000,000.00ABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE 1
AUTHORITY 1
SUBJECT 1
DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM 1
METHODOLOGY 1
VALUATION 1
ASSUMPTATIONS AND LIMITATIONS 2
CERTIFICATION 3
VALUES OF THE SUBJECT AREA EXHIBIT APURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to estimate the value of the real
estate that lies between the existing peripheal boundaries of
Addicks-Barker Reservoirs and the Spillway Design Flood.
AUTHORITY
This report was prepared in response to a request from the
Chief, Real Estate Division, to the Chief, Appraisal Branch.
SUBJECT
The subject of this report is the value of the real estate that
lies between the existing peripheal boundaries of Addicks-Barker
Reservoirs and the Spillway Design Flood.
DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM
To locate, identify and estimate the value of the above
mentioned properties in the most expeditious manner possible
using data and information which is readily available.
METHODOLOGY
The total estimated real estate value was arrived at through
the use of plat maps, property records, assessment rolls and
information obtained at the Central Appraisal Districts of Harris
and Fort Bend Counties. The information was considered current for
an overall estimate and no adjustments were made.
VALUATION
The values of the subject area are shown in Exhibit A.
PAGE 1
D-4ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
1. The value estimate reported is the estimated value of real
estate only.
2. The values and number of properties are limited by the visual
interpretation of a contour line traced from quad sheets with a
scale of 1:24,000 dated 1970. Any land form change, change in
elevation or resurvey is not recognized.
3. It is assumed that ‘there are no hidden or unapparent conditions
of the property, sub-soil, or structures which would render it more
or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions
or for the cost which may be required to discover them.
4. Information furnished by others is assumed to be true, correct
and reliable. A reasonable effort has been made to verify such
information; however, no responsibility for its accuracy is assumed
by the appraiser.
5. All mortage, liens, encumbrances, leases, etc., have been
disregarded unless so specified within this report. The property is
assumed to be under responsible ownership and competent management.
PAGE 2CERTIFICATION
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:
The statements of fact contained in this report are true and
correct. *
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited
only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are
my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and
conclusions.
I have no present or prospective interest in the properties
that are the subject of this report, and I have no personal
interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a
predetermind value or direction in value that favors the cause of
the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a
stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
Although I am familiar with the subject area, I have not made
a physical inspection of each and every property that is subject to
this report.
No one provided significant professional assistance to the
person signing this report.
PREPARED BY:
RICHARD P. WASHBURN LEROY P. HILTON
STAFF APPRAISER CHIEF, APPRAISAL BRANCH
APPRAISAL BRANCH REAL ESTATE DIVISION
REAL ESTATE DIVISION CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CORPS OF ENGINEERS GALVESTON DISTRICT
GALVESTON DISTRICT
PAGE 3
D-6ADDICKS-BARKER PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
ADDICKS.
SUBDIVISION IMPROVED VACANT = TOTAL
West Lake Place 162 $5,021,588 $10,802 $5,032,390
West Lake ‘Place 152 13,813,517 10,976 13,824,493
Bear Creek Farms
BC Estates 2,432,054 220,181 2,652,235
Pine Forest Village 7,351, 608 13,463 7,365,071
Glen Cairn Park 2,791,974, 9,925 2,761,899
Glen cairn south 2,751,974, 9,925 2,761,899
Bear Creek Village
Place 14 & 15 2,419,287 2,419,287
Bear Creek Village
Phase TI 4,344,505 30,480 4,374,985
Bear Creek West 2,894,660 2,894,660
Bear Creek Village
2, 3,486 45,070,917 31,862 45,102,779
Bear Creek Village 12 17,622,240 30,600 17,652,840
Mayde Creek Farms 14,062,796 132,417 14,195,213
Bear Creek Trails 2,858,298 24,394 2,882,692
Bradford Colony I & II
Replat ~0- 322,320 332,320
Bradford Colony I & II
Replat 6,471,676 49,458 6,521,134
EXHIBIT A
D-7ADDICKS-BARKER PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
BARKER RESIDENTIAL IN HARRIS COUNTY
SUBDIVISION IMPROVED VACANT TOTAL
Green Trails Village $26,187,352 79,887 16,267,239
Windsor Park Estates 4,796,880 1,179,164 5,976,044
Windsor Park Estates
Section 2 - 3,284,814 3,284,814
Green Trails Village 2 6,079,095 53,298 6,132,393
Barker Out Lots 1,651,012 585,024 2,236,036
Heatherwood Park Sec 1 612,927 612,927
Kelliwood in
Nottingham Country 18,762,442 5,582,932 24,345,374
Nottingham Country #10 12,824,566 718,332 13,542,898
Kelliwood & Nottingham
Country 6 & 7 7,762,620 7,762,620
Kelliwood Gardens # 1 4,811,750 13,824,838
Kelliwood Place sec 1 4,104,000 4,104,000
$69,314,435 $28,774,748 $98,089,183
ADDICKS AND BARKER RESIDENTIAL IN HARRIS COUNTY
$257, 002,588 $39,244,192 - §296,246,780
ADDICKS-BARKER TOTAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN HARRIS COUNTY
= $296,246,780.00
ADDICKS-BARKER TOTAL ACREAGE IN HARRIS COUNTY
1,000 ACRES ESTIMATED @ $40,000/AC
$40,000,000.00
TOTAL COMMERCIAL HARRIS COUNTY $40,216,210.00
EXHIBIT A
D-8SUBDIVISION
ADDICKS-BARKER PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
BARKER REAL ESTATE IN FORT BEND COUNTY
IMPROVED VACANT
Cinco M.U.D #2
Cinco Ranch Subdivision -0. 3,440,400
188 acres @ $18,300/ac
Cinco M.U.D.
#6
Kelliwood Greens Sec 2
11 imp lots @ $300,000 3,300,000
84 vac lots @ $50,275 -0- 4,223,100
308.56 acres @ 24,500 7,559,720
Pt of Willowfork Golf
Course
Cinco M.U.D.
200,000
#7
396.82 acres @ $23,000 9,126,860
Cinco M.U.D.
#38
344 acres @ $20,900 7,189,600
Cinco M.U.D.
#3
Kelliwood Terrace Sec 1 & 2
7 ea. imp lots @ $150,000 1,050,000
26 vac lots @ $32,000 832,000
200 acres @ $38,900 7,780,000
Great SW Equestrian Center 2,000,000
Cinco M.U.D.
#5
Kelliwood Greens sec 1
63 imp lots @ $295,000 18,585,000
32 vac lots @ $61,000 1,952,000
326 acres @ $37,600 12,257,600
Pt of Willowfork Golf
Course
Via Ranch
2,442,860
770 acres @ $20,900 16,093,000
54,361,280
TOTAL
3,440,400
3,300,000
4,223,100
7,559,720
200,000
9,126,860
7,189,600
1,050,000
832,000
7,780,000
2,00
18,585,000
1,952,000
12,257,600
2,442,860
16,093,000
98,032,140
$474,495,130.00 | ROUNDED
DICKS~BARKER STAT)
EXHIBIT A
D-9)
&
3
2
8