You are on page 1of 36
9 Buffalo Bayou & Tributaries, Texas Addicks & Barker Reservoirs Special Report on Flooding May 1992 us Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District BUFFALO 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 13 fable 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-1 BUFFALO 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 Flood control 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 at each 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, along Buffalo 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 10 opportunities. 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 aw approximately $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. 12 4. 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 13 properties 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. 14 a. @_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 15 water 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 16 Control Act of 1970 which allows the Corps to reinvestigate completed federal projects because of changed physical and/or economic conditions. 17 [erento sesemcn sh <3 troy THRE Seerow APPENDIX 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. ArL APPENDIX 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) . Bei APPENDIX 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 GALVESTON SALIENT 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 $475,000,000.00 ABLE 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 A PURPOSE 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-4 ASSUMPTIONS 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 2 CERTIFICATION 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-6 ADDICKS-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-7 ADDICKS-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-8 SUBDIVISION 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

You might also like