Buffalo Bayou and ‘ Al Ci . . of Enginesrs Tributaries, Texas Galveston District RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Section 216 Study Addicks and Barker Reservoirs Houston, Texas U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston Southwestern Division October 1995BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TEXAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT ON SECTION 216 STUDY OF ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIRS AT HOUSTON, TEXAS U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, GALVESTON DISTRICTTABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PROJECT LOCATION ... PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE STUDY AUTHORITY .. PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION . . CURRENT RESERVOIR OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION . PLANNED SCOPE OF WORK FOR RECONNAISSANCE STUDY ACTUAL SCOPE OF WORK PERFORMED . . RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SUPPORTING INFORMATION RECONNAISSANCE STUDY FINDINGS AND PLAN FORMULATION ..... 12 Plan Formulation : Plan Formulation - Plan No. 1 . OTHER CONCERNS ADDRESSED . Drainage Policy Restrictions Potential Future Liability From Flooding. CONCLUSIONS . RECOMMENDATIONS .BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TEXAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT ON SECTION 216 STUDY OF ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIRS INTRODUCTION Buffalo Bayou isa tributary of the San Jacinto River in southeast Texas. The Buffalo Bayou watershed encompasses 1,034 square miles and provides drainage to about 55 percent of Harris County, including most of the metropolitan area of Houston, Addicks and Barker Reservoirs are flood detention facilities constructed by the Corps of Engineers in the late 1940's and are an integral part of an improvement plan to provide urban flood protection to Houston, Because of constraints at the time of completion of the reservoirs, a proposed downstream outlet channel was postponed and has not been completed. This Reconnaissance Report provides general background information, describes the existing operational conditions, discusses the existing and potential problems caused by changed conditions and operations, describes reconnaissance study activities and findings but does not identify a feasible solution to reduce existing problems. The report also addresses the potential liability of future flooding with the existing level of protection and the importance of keeping the current reservoir inflow restriction policy in force. Funds were included in the FY 94 Congressional appropriations to initiate reconnaissance studies under the authority of Section 216 of the 1970 Flood Control Act. The Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has expressed its willingness to. provide local sponsorship for the feasibility phase studies and potential project solutions. PROJECT LOCATION The two facilities, located adjacent to each other on the western edge of Houston, are treated as.asingle project. They were designed to reduce flood flows downstream in Buffalo Bayou throughthe city. A small portion of the 136-square mile watershed above Addicks Dam extends into adjacent Waller County to the west. Portions of the 130-square mile watershed above Barker Dam extend into both Waller and Fort Bend Counties to the west and southwest. Barker Reservoir is located on the headwaters of Buffalo Bayou and Addicks Reservoir is situated on South Mayde Creek and several other creeks that are tributaries of Buffalo Bayou. Because the reservoirs remain dry much of the time, most of the Federal lands acquired for flood detention have been leased for local recreational development and public use. When the reservoirs were completed, they were located about 15 miles west of the city limits of Houston. Today, the reservoir lands are part of the City of Houston and substantial urban development is located upstream and adjacent to the federally acquired lands. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE Addicks and Barker Reservoirs were authorized as part of the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Texas Project by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 20 June 1938. The project was subsequently modified by the 1939 and 1954 Flood Control Acts. The 1939 Act modified the local cooperation agreement. The 1954 Act authorized the revised master flood control plan for Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries. ‘The revised master plan included Addicks and Barker Reservoirs and 7.4 miles of outlet channel below the dams, which were already complete, channel enlargement of the remaining 21.9 miles of Buffalo Bayou through the city to the Houston Ship Channel turning basin; and stream enlargement of 10.4 miles of White Oak Bayou and 25.4 miles of Brays Bayou above their confluence with Buffalo Bayou. The Brays Bayou project, a separate part of the master plan, was completed in the mid 1960's. The White Oak Bayou project, including a 1.2-mile extension, was ‘completed in the early 1970's. The remaining 21.9 miles of stream enlargement in Buffalo Bayou have not been completed because of local environmental concerns expressed in 1971. The total flood control project for the main stem of Buffalo Bayou, including the reservoirs, ‘was authorized for the purpose of protecting urban development in the downstream floodplain ofBuffalo Bayou through the City of Houston and to provide an outlet channel for reservoir flood releases, Its authorization was prompted by devastating floods in 1929 and 1935. The construction of Barker Reservoir and 6.2 miles of outlet channel in Buffalo Bayou was completed in 1945. Completion of Addicks Reservoir and 1.2 miles of outlet channel from the dam to Buffalo Bayou was accomplished by 1948. Further downstream improvements in Buffalo Bayou were deferred at that time because of limited financial resources and the level of protection provided by the reservoirs, and the need to concentrate on the other authorized tributary channel improvements in the Buffalo Bayou basin. Project data on the two reservoirs as built are shown in Table 1. STUDY AUTHORITY ‘The authority to review the operations of completed projects is found in Section 216 of the 1970 Flood Control Act (PL 91-611). The law authorizes studies to review the operations of completed Federal projects and to recommend and make project modifications or change operations, when advisable, because of significantly changed physical or economic conditions. Any such modifications must be economically justified. A report entitled Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Texas, Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Special Report on Flooding, dated May 1992, was prepared by the Galveston District. It documented the known and potential problems and served as the deci Section 216 funds in the FY 94 appropriations. Portions of that document are repeated in this document for including Reconnaissance Report. A copy of this 1992 Report is included in Appendix No. 1. PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION The dams and reservoirs were designed in the late 1930's and early 1940's. The dams were constructed with compacted random earthen fill from adjacent borrow areas. The embankment material was adequate for detention type facilities where ponded water would be dischargedTABLE 2 BUFFALO BAYOU and TRIBUTARIES ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIRS, TEXAS PROJECT DATA ADDICKS BARKER RESERVOIR RESERVOIR, CONSTRUCTION (Rolled Earthen Dans! Date construction began. May 1966... . Feb 1942 Date construction completed. Dec isa 1.) Feb 1945, DAMS_AND OUTLET WORKS: Elevation of dams in feet above mean sea level (mol) . W227 aT Height of dans above stream bed in feet. a6 fl.) 3el7 Outlets, 5 gated concrete box culvert: Width and height in feet... exe 2.2... 8 KT Length of Conduite in feet. 22 5... 2) 190.5 Conduit invert elevation in fect above mel. na : B.2 ATERSHED Drainage areas upstream from dams in square miles. 136 cee BO ‘RESERVOZRS: Elevations: (feet above mean sea level) ‘Standard project flood. wees 110.6 100.4 10-year flood 106.2 97.8 Limits of government-owned land. 106.2 Dl s7a Natural ground at ends of dams. 122.0 fis 206.0 Surface areas (acres) “Standard project flood 35,402... . 13,689 100-year flood. 41,213 Lilt aaless Limite of governnent-owned Land. 32,460. 2. | 12,060 Maximum pool... 16,423 Dll aeizas Stoxage capacities (acre-feet) Standard project flood. 178,556... . . 123,653 100-year flood. 92,572... 09,498 Limite of government-owned land. 116,263 Dll eaazo Maximum storage capacity. : fees 200,800» | |! | 209,000 Hlood_of Record S Date of maximum flooding......-.2.6.0+ 9 March 1992 6 March 1992 Flood elevation in fest above mal. 100.62... 0. 95.9 Eotimated storage in acre-feet. : 7,956 2.2... 66,920 Percent of storage capacity occupied on available government-owned lands.......... 50 see 80 Percent of total available reservoir storage capacity...... 2 22... 32 Approximate frequency of occurrence in years Boy lll! 40 OTR: The Standard Project Flood (SPF) for Addicks Reservoir is approximately equivalent to the 1,000-year frequency and the Probable Maximun Flood (PMP) is greater than the 10,000- year frequency. The SPF for Barker Reservoir is approximately equivalent to the S00year frequency and the PMF is greater than the 10,000-year frequency. Addicks and Barker Reservoirs have never experienced floods as large as the SPF or the 100-year frequency flood. Blevations shown are based on U.S.C. & G.S. 1929 mean sea level datum with 1973 adjustrents.relatively quickly following flood events. Reservoir lands were acquired up to an elevation 3 feet above the pools that would have been produced by the 1935 flood centered over each of the detention basin watersheds. This resulted in the acquisition of land 5.9 feet below the maximum flood control pool elevation at Addicks Reservoir and 8.7 feet below the maximum pool at Barker Reservoir. The difference in the areas of these pools are shown on the attached project map. These government acquisitions were considered an acceptable low-frequency risk because of the relatively remote rural project location. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS Five outlet conduits were built at each facility, but only one was originally gated. This permitted a combined uncontrolled flood discharge of 15,700 cubic feet per seconds (cfs). Two additional conduits at each outlet structure required gates in 1948 to reduce reservoir releases. Gates were installed on the remaining two conduits in 1963 because of substantially changed urban conditions. Outlet discharges were significantly reduced from the original design. The installation of these gates and the need to control outflow has resulted in prolonged ponding in the reservoirs, which was not intended in the original design. This caused seepage through and under the dam embankments in the mid 1970's. Emergency seepage control measures were required for both dams in 1977. These measures consisted of constructing a soil bentonite slurry trench through the embankments and pervious foundations, placement of downiitream berms to enhance slope stability, and placement of clay blankets to thicken the impervious ever over pervious foundation materials. This work was completed in 1982. Additional modifications were made to the dams between 1986 and 1989 to comply with the ‘Dam Safety Assurance Program. The crest elevations of major portions of the dams were raised to achieve needed freeboard requirements for wind-generated wave runup. Erosion protection wasadded to the ends of the dams to serve as overflow spillways during major storms greater than the Standard Project Flood (SPF) event, up to and including the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). CURRENT RESERVOIR OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES Present operations regulate the reservoirs in a manner that prevents 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 normal day-to-day conditions exist, each reservoir is set with two conduits at an opening of one foot to pass the normal low flows. Since the downstream portion of the project was never completed, the flow rate in a segment of this reach has been restricted to 2,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to preclude damages to downstream properties along Buffalo Bayou. When rains occur in the Buffalo Bayou watershed, which are sufficient to produce local runoff, these downstream lateral flows combined with reservoir releases ‘can be no larger than 2,000 cfs. Flows exceeding this limit cause flood damages and are measured by the control point at a gaging station known as Piney Point, located approximately eleven miles downstream of the dams. When this limit is reached, the gates are closed, precluding any releases from the reservoirs. If flooding is predicted or reported downstream, the gates are closed if reservoir conditions dictate, The gates remain closed until downstream conditions permit systeni-releases plus local inflows that remain below the non-damaging capacity. Releases from the reservoirs are regulated based on equalization of the available storage within each reservoir. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION The above described operations and procedures prolong storage of flood waters in the detention facilities and require a longer period of time for complete flood releases. Substantialerosion damage is now prominent downstream in Buffalo Bayou from long-term low-flow releases. ‘There is also a potential threat of property damage upstream of the reservoir lands. The dams and reservoir lands acquired for upstream temporary reservoir storage are now surrounded by residential and commercial urban developments. Densely populated housing developments essentially fill the fringe areas between the government owned lands (GOL) and the maximum poo! elevation adjacent to Addicks Reservoir. Much of the fringe areas of Barker Reservoir are bordered by similar developments and the rest are rapidly developing. Urban development extending for miles upstream from the reservoirs has resulted in increased rainfall runoff into the detention facilities. Recent flood events have clearly identified the need for modification of the reservoir or operational changes. Rainstorms in the spring of 1992 tested the capacity of the reservoirs within the GOL, as shown in Table 1. The impoundments were the highest levels recorded and the rainfall was roughly estimated to have a recurrence frequency of about once in 30 to 40 years. The recent events indicate a potential for future flooding problems. PLANNED SCOPE OF WORK FOR RECONNAISSANCE STUDY Prior to study initiation, it was assumed there would be a wide range of feasible altematives to resolve the problems of the reservoirs, ‘These alternatives are discussed in an Information and Status Report prepared on October 29, 1993, and included in Appendix No. 1, Much of this information is repeated from a prior report entitled Special Report on Flooding, discussed earlier. It documented the existing problems and potential future problems and served as-the decision document for including Section 216 study funds in the FY 1994 appropriations. This Special Report is also included in Appendix No. 1. Both reports identify several potentially feasible alternatives that would likely be evaluated in the reconnaissance study. These alternatives are briefly described as follows: © Increase reservoir flood storage by excavation on GOL;© Increase reservoir flood storage by purchase of flowage easements in the fringe areas adjacent to GOL over existing developed properties; © Increase reservoir storage capacity by means of buy-out and relocation of developed properties; © Reduce reservoir inflows by increasing upstream storage on undeveloped lands located above existing urban developments; © Increase reservoir flood releases by buy-out of downstream damageable properties; © Increase reservoir flood releases by enlargement of the downstream Buffalo Bayou channel; © Increase reservoir flood releases by installation of additional outlet»works and diversion of flows to streams other than Buffalo Bayou; © Increase reservoir flood releases and reduce prolonged storage by changing the current operating plan; © Adopt a flood warning and evacuation plan; and © Accept existing conditions and risk through No Action. ACTUAL SCOPE OF WORK PERFORMED A review of existing hydrologic conditions and the economic field surveys indicated that the resulting lack of average annual flood damages have eliminated essentially all of the alternative solutions listed above. The level of protection now provided and the frequency of future damageable flooding under present urban development have produced this situation. Hydraulic studies under present operating conditions show that Addicks Reservoir has adequate GOL to contain floods up to a frequency of about once in 250 years. Barker Reservoir, however, has GOL to contain floods up to about once in 70 years. Although Barker Reservoir was filled to eighty percent of capacity on GOL from record flooding in 1992, as shown in Table No. 1, it still provides ahigh level of flood protection. Average annual damages above this level do not provide adequateflood damage prevention benefits to justify any appreciable project modifications. Much of the extended study time was used evaluating other less costly options that would reduce the effects of identified problems. Substantial study time was also used to assure the accuracy of available preliminary hydrologic and economic data and to develop a workable cost-effective flood damage reduction plan that might be economically justifiable. The study also assessed the legal liability of potential future flooding above Barker GOL if no changes are made, the upstream reservoir inflow restrictions policy in effect, and the environmental and cultural impacts of the proposed actions. The egal liability and reservoir inflow policy are concerns identified by the local sponsor. RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SUPPORTING INFORMATION ‘The six appendices that accompany this report present the information developed which served as the basis for the conclusions and recommendations of this reconnaissance study. Sensitivity analysis have been made to determine the reliability of prior hydraulic data and mapping elevations used from outside sources. Appendix No. 1 contains background information that provided much of the justification to conduct this reconnaissance study. It has been known for a number of years that the reservoirs do not meet desirable standards. The flood of record of March 1992 revealed the extent of the flooding problem and indicated that some solution is needed, The flood produced concern in a segment of the public, the local sponsor, the Galveston District, and the Southwestern Division. However economic evaluations for the study show that economic justification for providing solutions'of major scope and size is lacking. Appendix No. 2 describes the methods and procedures for the hydrologic analyses used in the studies. Much of the data was available from studies conducted in 197 and contained in a report dated August 1977 entitled Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Hydrology. The report is outdated because of increased urban development, in spite of reservoir inflow restrictions that were imposedon the HCFCD and the Fort Bend County Drainage District in 1981. Urban growth and expansion is again moving at an accelerated pace upstream from Barker Reservoir. On-site flood detention is required by the HCFCD and the Fort Bend County Drainage District for all new developments in all areas upstream from both reservoirs. The purpose of the requirement is to limit inflows into the reservoirs to existing conditions of 1979. The appendix also discusses the rationale and need to continue reqiuiring these upstream inflow restrictions. Hydraulic design studies were conducted for several of the larger envisioned altemative solutions prior to completion of economic studies. Design studies were near completion for increasing detention storage by excavations on GOL and for balancing storage between the two reservoirs by pumping. These studies were terminated when economic surveys and analyses were completed and it became apparent that potential benefits could not support the plans being evaluated, Some of these plans were terminated in the stage of developing quantity and cost estimates. ‘The appendix also addresses the sensitivity of the ageing data used against current conditions in the Nations 4th largest city and also located upstream on Buffalo Bayou from the Nation's second largest deep-water port. The information and the hydrologic analysis needs to be updated and refined before any actions are taken, The feasibility studies would provide an appropriate opportunity to make these updates and assure the data is reliable. Appendix No. 3 contains the methods and procedures used and results of the economic analysis. It discusses how the economic field surveys were conducted and the sensitivity of the accuracy of elevations used which were derived from other sources. The economic analysis follows standard procedures. The appendix also contains a traffic study to evaluate the cost of diverting ‘traffic around the low areas inside Addicks Reservoir on those rare occasions when State Highway No. 6 (SH6) is flooded. - Appendix No. 4 contains the preliminary costs for two of the alternative plans developed to completion, Several other plans were terminated when average annual damages were computed and 10found to inadequately support major project modifications. ‘The cost estimates presented provide the data showing the lack of economic justification for the plans discussed. The plan which showed the greatest likelihood of being economically favorable, could be implemented without measurable added cost except for traffic delays on SH6 inside Addicks Reservoir. It will be discussed in the paragraphs that follow. A few items of costs, presented in the appendix, affecting the raising of SH6 were furnished by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). This agency operates and maintains this 6-lane commuter traffic facility. Appendix No. 5 presents the real estate impacts of one of the smaller plans evaluated to completion. There are no real estate needs for the change of operations plan that showed the greatest chance of implementation, except for the legal liability of taking no action to resolve the potential future flooding upstream adjacent to GOL. Since Barker Reservoir cannot contain a 100-year flood on GOL, steps should be taken to bring the project up to this level of protection. This would be consistent with the Federal Flood Insurance Program and remove any potential for legal liability to the Federal government and the local sponsor. A district review of court cases indicates that although there might be litigation requiring legal expense, there is little likelihood that payment of damages would be required. These legal recommendations are based on existing court cases which generally protect the government from liability for infrequent flooding of agricultural and grazing lands. The analysis indicates a potential for liability if flooding is induced on valuable residential lands even on a less frequent basis. The legal discussion also supports the need to maintain reservoir inflow restrictions. . Appendix No. 6 presents the existing environmental and historic resources of the reservoirs and the impacts of the most likely implementable plan. The appendix also addresses other items of environmental concern to assure that this important evaluation is fully addressed. Coordinations have been held with a representative of the Houston Sierra Club to discuss any environmental features for proposed plans. However, the lack of economic justification precludes adding such features, uRECONNAISSANCE STUDY FINDINGS AND PLAN FORMULATION ‘The criterion for the Federal acquisition of reservoir lands for Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, as stated earlier, was based on the rainfall patterns and intensities that resulted from the devastating flood of 1935, which caused major damage to much of the downtown business district of Houston. Additional lands were acquired for Addicks Reservoir to accommodate watershed overflow from a reach of Cypress Creek located north of the reservoir, This resulted in GOL for flood detention storage and levee construction of 12,460 acres for Addicks Reservoir and 12,060 acres for Barker Reservoir. Reconnaissance study findings have revealed that, under present operating procedures and present urban development, Addicks Reservoir has adequate GOL against upstream fringe area flooding. No major project modifications are needed for Addicks Reservoir. However, it would be desirable to bring Barker Reservoir up to at least a 100-year level of protection. Average annual damages with no project in place for Barker Reservoir, were found to be about $78,000 per year, resulting from all flood events up to the Standard Project Flood (SPF). Any proposed plan would reduce this amount, depending on the level of protection provided. A plan to increase the level of protection in the fringe areas above Barker Reservoir to 100 years would reduce the damages prevented to a point where they could only support a project having first costs of about $110,000 and produce a benefit-to-cost ratio of at least unity. A plan to provide SPF protection would have to have flood damage prevention benefits of about $750,000. These findings have eliminated essentially all of the plans envisioned and listed earlier. Plan Eormulation - Several of the envisioned plans were developed and partially completed while ‘economic field surveys were being conducted. Such plans included excavating additional detention basins on GOL, pumping between reservoirs to balance storage during and following flood events, 12and adding additional outlet works to divert flood flows to other streams other than Buffalo Bayou. They were terminated when low potential benefits were determined. A plan to excavate additional detention storage on GOL would require about 122 acres of reservoir property and could only have a depth of about 10 feet to allow gravity drainage without pumping. The excavation alone would cost nearly $11 million. This would make it an nonviable project from the standpoint of economics. The cost of a plan evaluated to provide pumping of flood waters between reservoirs and elevating the level of protection in the Barker fringe area could not produce positive benefits over costs. An estimate of $1,081,000, for the implementation first costs only, is included in Appendix No. 4. The added annual maintenance and replacement costs for the pumps and traffic re-routing costs for more frequent flooding of SH6 would need to be included. This same goal could be achieved by altering the outlet gate operations, but at a slower pace. A plan investigating additional reservoir outlets for Barker Reservoir was terminated before quantities and costs were completed. Rough estimates indicate the average annual costs would be substantially higher than the available benefits. The plan has been removed from farther study. Once the levels of protection were known, another plan was evaluated to increase the protection to 100 years by buyout of developed properties. There are only nine residential properties found to be slightly below the designated 100-year flood plain. The plan would buy these properties, pay the relocation cost, and dispose of the structures. These properties are relatively new structures with average values of more than $400,000 each. “The first cost of the plan was estimated at over $4 million, The average annual cost was estimated at $314,000 per year, far beyond the scope of available benefits. Plan Formulation - Plan No, 1. Plan No. 1 is an operational change at the outlet gates of both reservoirs. The plan became the most likely plan to produce positive benefits over cost. Following 3flood events, more storage releases would be made from Barker Reservoir and smaller releases would be made from Addicks Reservoir, keeping the total outflow into downstream Buffalo Bayou the same as with present operations. It is unlikely that any major increases in total outflow will result from further studies. Outflow discharge routings indicate that Barker Reservoir could be emptied much faster and prepared for the next event while having only minor reduction effects on the capacity of Addicks Reservoir. Barker GOL could achieve 100-year protection against upstream overflow. This change in operations would raise the 1992 flood of record in Addicks Reservoir by approximately 0.40 feet about once every 30 years. This would flood two short reaches of SH6, located within the reservoir at more than 7 feet below the minimum elevation of GOL. Appendix No. 4 contains a cost estimate for raising SH6. This 6-lane highway carries high volumes of commuter traffic, reported to be about 37,000 vehicles per day . It was flooded for 1Q days in 1992, The lowest reach of this roadway is centered over the bridge crossing of South Mayde Creek and at a location just north of that area. The center 4-lane section of the bridge is old and little data is available on its load carrying capacity. The bridge was widened to 6 lanes in the early 1980's and a layer of paving was added to the entire low area of the roadway. ‘The TxDOT has indicated that the bridge will be replaced and the roadway raised again under normal maintenance and upgrade procedures in the not-too-distant future, when Federal highway funds become available. Existing flood damage reduction benefits are not adequate from Plan No. 1 to economically justify the modification of SH6. There are no costs for the change of operations portion of the plan. However, if SH6 was raised by TxDOT in the near future, there are still other costs and negative benefits that would result from Plan No. 1. Plan No. 1 would flood SH6 more frequently than at present and for longer periods of time. A frequency analysis has been made for such flooding caused by Plan No. 1. A traffic delay and re- routing cost analysis has been made and is included in Appendix No. 3. It shows the additional time value delay costs of about $20,000 per year that would result from Plan No. 1. This alone is much ‘more than the available benefits from the plan. Also, the backwater effects of higher flooding over 4SHG would cause damages to a large number of structures located in the fringe areas, This negative benefit is estimated to be nearly $19,000 per year. ‘The net flood damage prevention benefits after deducting fringe area damage caused by the plan are estimated at $1,170 per year. Assuming SHG is elevated, the cost of the plan would be limited to the traffic delay cost for having to be re-routed, which is estimated at $20,000 per year. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 0.06. There is no opportunity for Federal participation in this plan of improvement. OTHER CONCERNS ADDRESSED Drainage Policy Restrictions. Beginning in the late 1970's, private land developers upstream from the reservoirs sought permission to extend channel improvements onto GOL. This would more readily facilitate land development by reducing the regulatory floodplain. The Galveston District in 1981 compromised and allowed their request under the restrictions that channelization onto GOL be limited to "in bank" flow capacity of these channels to the 10-year 1979 conditions flow rate because of reservoir deficiencies that existed at that time, Since that time, the Corps of Engineers has completed remedial work on the dams to prevent seepage and also modified the dams for more stringent spillway requirements. Thus, seepage and spillway adequacy are no longer a concem. However, the Galveston District still sees the need to ‘maintain this restriction policy and not allow unrestricted channelization onto GOL for the following Teasons: a. Channelization onto GOL would increase the inflow of sediment into the reservoirs resulting in the loss of flood storage capacity; 15b. Channelization onto GOL would produce faster flood runoff into the reservoirs which will reduce the time margin for making gate closures at the dams. This, in turn, could result in the need for a more conservative closing policy which would result in more frequent impoundments; ¢c. Watershed development would increase runoff volumes resulting in more frequent and larger impoundments. Channel improvements will reduce flood zones resulting in more development. (Complete development will double or even triple the volume of annual runoff according to USGS WRI 3-73, p47); 4. Channel improvements would lower regulatory stream flood profiles resulting in development of the reservoir fringe at lower slab elevations. ‘This will increase flood damages resulting from reservoir impoundments (for events greater than the 100-year); e. Channel improvements would greatly increase stream flooding at the terminus of the widening within the reservoir lands. This may adversely impact lease activity and roadways; and f, Channel improvements and diversions would damage the riparian habitat along the existing streams on GOL by changing the flood regime. This concem is addressed in Appendix No. 2. Maintenance of the drainage policy restriction is further supported by the legal opinions addressed in Appendix No. 5 concerning the legal liability of upstream flooding, if no modifications are made and the Ievel of protection deteriorates.- Rapid upstream urban development is assured in the fringe areas of Barker Reservoir, There is no need to promote the acceleration of this urban growth by allowing uncontrolled development at the expense of other long range problems it will create. Potential Future Liability From Flooding. When the reservoirs were designed in the early 1940's, they were located more than 15 miles from the westem city limits of the relatively small City of Houston, Their purpose was to detain flood waters and reduce flows downstream in Buffalo Bayou 16through the downtown areas of Houston and prevent the recurrence of the effects of the 1935 flood. That storm destroyed much of the downtown area. The areas upstream from the reservoirs were grazing lands of little value. Much of the reservoir lands were purchased at prices of $5 to $10 per acre in the mid-1940's. More lands could have been purchased upstream for reservoir storage at relatively low prices, but urban development was not anticipated in this baron prairie land remote from Houston. Now nearly 50 years following reservoir completion, all of the GOL lands are within the city limits of Houston. ‘The rese:voirs have served their purpose well and have prevented many millions of dollars in downstream damages. The downstream outlet channel in Buffalo Bayou was never completed and has placed restrictions on reservoir releases. The 1992 flood of record has demonstrated that prolonged storage is now placing a threat of flooding above the limits of reservoir lands where extensive urbanization has occurred ois now developing. There is no doubt that this westem urban expansion will continue and will increase the threat of flooding. This future known scenario of development further supports the need to use good judgment and maintain the existing inflow restriction policy above the GOL. Appendix No. 5 addresses the potential of legal liability from future flooding above GOL within the reservoirs. The reconnaissance study has found a variance in the level of flood protection in the fringe areas adjacent to GOL. Addicks GOL was found to have about 250-year protection under current urban development and with present operating procedures. Unless this protection is allowed to deteriorate, it presents no liability from damages to the Federal government against lawsuit. This is based on a legal review of past court records from similar cases. Barker GOL provides about 70-year flood protection. Although 100-year protection would be desirable, court records show there is little likelihood that payment of damage would result from litigation with the present level of protection, The legal litigation cost could be expensive to the government. The details of this District evaluation are contained in the appendix. 7CONCLUSIONS ‘The reconnaissance study has found that flooding problems associated with the reservoirs is not yet as severe as first thought following the record flood of March 1992. Damages found in the fringe areas above Barker Reservoir, where the potential for future flooding is most likely, cannot support the least costly plan of improvement identified (Plan No. 1). This area is still in the developmental stage. Increased rainfall runoff will compound the problems and increase the potential for flooding. In spite of this lack of economic justification, there appears to be only a slim Possibility that litigation would lead to payment of damages from future flood events affecting the fringe areas above Barker Reservoir. This is conditional on not letting the current level of protection deteriorate and to keep the 1981 reservoir inflow policy in force. 2 It is further concluded that the current level of protection on GOL of Addicks Reservoir is not likely to deteriorate to the point of requiring project modifications. However; maintenance of the restricted reservoir inflow policy would be a prudent decision to assure that deterioration is not allowed. 18RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that this Section 216 study of Addicks and Barker Reservoirs be terminated because of insufficient economic benefits to justify project modification, as addressed in this Reconnaissance Report. It is further recommended that no further Federal actions be taken leading to feasibility-level investigations. It is suggested that other means be pursued to update the 1977 hydrologic data to confirm the findings discussed herein. ‘The Reconnaissance Report is being submitted according to the latest instruction found in Planning Guidance Letter 95-03, dated 1 August 1995. This process is described in the transmittal letter. It is recommended that the procedure be followed for completion of this authorization. \& ocr 9ST WARD, Robert B. Gatlin Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer 19BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TEXAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT ON SECTION 216 STUDY OF ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIRS APPENDIX NO, ONE BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REPORTS Tote ams ones Pe om tn nite eis in every Seal 480 2 ey ots of ow cay ofthe ial tee ncomplsignletothe NCFCD Sean @ 25 OCTOBER 1995BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TEXAS INFORMATION AND STATUS REPORT ON ‘ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIRS 29 October 1993 INTRODUCTION Addicks and Barker Reservoirs are existing flood detention facilities constructed by the Corps of Engineers in the late 1940's to provide urban flood contxol to the City of Houston, Texas. The two facilities, located adjacent to each other on the western edge of Houston, are treated as a sing”e project. They were designed to reduce flood flows downstream in Buffalo Bayou through the city. This report provides general background infor- mation, describes the existing operational conditions, discusses the existing and potential problems caused by changed urban con- ditions and reservoir operations, briefly describes upcoming Federal study activities, and identifies possible feasible alternative solutions to resolve existing proble=3. Funds are included in the FY 94 Congressional appropriations to initiate studies under the authority of Section 216 of the 1970 Flood Control Act. A xeconnaissance study will be conducted and a xeport will be prepared. If economically favorable solutions are found, the Harris County F’-sd Control District (HCFCD) has expressed its willingness to provide local sponsorship for the feasibi2ity phase studies and potential project modifications. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND CONSTRUCTTO! Addicks and Barker Reservoirs were authorized as a part of Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Texas Project by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 20 June 1938. The project was subsequently modified by the 1939 and 1954 Flood Control Acts. The 1954 Act authorized, among other things, downstream channel improvements in Buffalo Bayou, extending from the reservoirs through the business district of Houston to the Houston Ship Channel Turning Basin. ‘ The project was authorized for the purpose of protecting urban development in the downstream floodplain of Buffalo Bayou through the City of Houston and to provide an outlet channel for xeservoir flood releases. Its authorization was prompted by devastating floods of 1929 and 1935. The construction of Barker Reservoir was completed in 1945. Completion of Addicks Reservoir and 7.4 miles of outlet channel immediately downstream from thereservoirs, was accomplished by 1948. Further downstream Amprovements in Buffalo Bayou were deferred at that time because of limited financial resources and the level of protection provided by the reservoirs, in order to concentrate on other authorized tributary channel improvements in the Buffalo Bayou basin. Barker Reservoir is located on the headwaters of Buffalo Bayou and Addicks Reservoir is situated on South Mayde Creek, a tributary of Buffalo Bayou. Their locations are shown on the attached map. Because they remain dry much of the time, most of the Federal lands acquired for flood detention have been leased for local recreational development and use. When the reservoirs were completed, they were located about 15 miles west of the city Limits of Houston. Today the reservoir lands are part of the City of Houston and substantial urban development is located upstream and adjacent to the federally acquired lands. STUDY AUTHORTTY The authority to review the operations of existing completed projects is found in Section 216 of the 1970 Flood Control Act (PL 91-611). The law authorizes studies to xeview the operations of completed Federal projects and to recommend project modifica- tions, when found advisable, due to significantly changed physical or economic conditions. A report entitled Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Texas, Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Special Report on Flooding, dated May 1992, was prepared by the Galveston District. It documented the known problems that now exist and served as the decision document for including Section 216 funds in the FY 94 appropria- tions. Portions of this Information Report and Status Report are an overview of that decision document. CT LOCATION Buffalo Bayou is a tributary of the’San Jacinto River in southeast Texas. The Buffalo Bayou watershed of 1,034 square miles provides drainage to about 55 percent of Harris County, including most of the metropolitan areas of Houston. A small portion of the 129-square mile watershed above Addicks dam extends into adjacent Waller County to the west. Portions of the 2150-square mile watershed above Barker dam extend into both Waller and Fort Bend Counties to the west and southwest. PROJECT DESIGNS, MODIFICATIONS AND OPERATIONS CHANGES The dams and reservoirs were designed in the late 1930's and early 1940's. The dams were constructed with compacted random £411 from adjacent borrow areas. The embankment material was adequate for detention type facilities where ponded water would be discharged relatively quickly following flood events. Reservoir lands were acquired up to an elevation 3 feet above the pools which would be produced by the 1935 flood centered over each of the detention basin watersheds. This resulted in land acquisition being 5.9 feet below the maximum flood control pool elevation at Addicks Reservoir and 8.7 feet below the maximum pool at Barker Reservoir. The differences in areas of these pools are shown on the attached map. These government acquisitions were considered an acceptable low-frequency risk because of the relativity remote rural project location. Five outlet conduits were built at each facility with only one of the conduits being gated originally. ‘This permitted a combined uncontrolled flood discharge of-15,700 cubic feet per second (cfs). Two additional conduits at each outlet structure wexe gated in 1948. Gates were installed on the remaining two conduits in 1963 because of substantially changed urban conditions. Outlet discharges were significantly reduced from the original design. The installation of these gates has resulted in prolonged ponding in the reservoirs, not intended in the original design. This caused seepage through and under the dam embankments, Subsequently, emergency seepage contxol measures were required for both dams in 1977. These measures consisted of constructing a soil bentonite slurry trench through the embankments and Pervious foundations, placement of downstream berms to enhance slope stability, and placement of clay blankets to thicken the impervious cover over pervious foundation materials. This work was completed in 1982. Additional modifications were made to the dams between 1986 and 1989 to comply with the Dam Safety Assurance Program. ‘The exest elevations of major portions of the dams were raised to 3achieve needed freeboard requirements: Erosion protection was added to the ends of the dams to serve as overflow spillways during major storms greater than the Standard Project Flood (SPF) event, up to and including the Probable Maximum Flood (PHF). RESERVOIR OPERATIONS AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION The lack of flood carrying capacity downstream in Buffalo Bayou now xequires that reservoir flood releases, combined with lateral inflows below the dams, be limited to 2,000 cfs at a exitical monitoring station located downstream at Piney Point. The original designs, with an enlarged outlet channel in Buffalo Bayou, anticipated reservoir flood releases of 15,700 cfs. Substantial flood damages would occur above the 2,000-cfs limit. Serious erosion damage is now prominent from long-term low-flow releases, now required. There is now the potential threat of property damage upstream of the reservoir lands. The dams and reservoir lands acquired for upstream ponding are now surrounded by residential and commercial urban developments. Densely populated housing developments essentially fill the fringe areas between the government owned lands and the maximum pool elevation adjacent to Addicks Reservoir. Much of the fringe areas of Barker Reservoir axe bordered by similar developments and the remainder is now rapidly developing. This massive upstream development has xesulted in increased rainfall runoff into the reservoirs. Increased runoff coupled with reduced outlet capacity results in higher and longer duration ponding. Reservoir flood-release Limitations have clearly identified the need for additional storage capacity, as identified from recent flood events. Rainstorms in the spring of 1992 produced storage volumes within the reservoirs that substantially filled the government owned lands. ‘These recent impoundments were the highest levels xecorded and rainfall was roughly estimated to have a recurrence frequency of about once in 30 to 40 years. PLANNED SECTION 216 STUDY ACTIVITIES The present compromised operations of the reservoirs and the extent of urban development has caused the need to consider Project modifications under the authority of Section 216 of the 1970 Flood Control Act. The undeveloped areas upstroam from the 4xeservoirs have a great potential for future urban growth, thus compounding existing problems. Study funds are included in the FY 94 Appropriations. The study will be conducted following the normal two-phase Process. The reconnaissance phase studies will evaluate potentially feasible alternatives. The anticipated feasibility phase studies will be conducted in partnership with the HCFCD, the local sponsor. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS Several possible alternatives have been identified to resolve or reduce the negative impacts of the existing problems. These alternatives will be addressed in the reconnaissance phase of upcoming studies. The reconnaissance studies will require substantial efforts in hydraulic designs, soils investigations, quantity and cost estimates, real estate evaluations, economic evaluations, and environmental considerations. Studies will include an active public involvement program. The local communities, both downstream and upstream of the reservoirs, will be fully informed of the known problems and risk involved. Their views will be carefully considered in finding an appropriate solution to the problems. Because of these study requirements and the complexities of the existing problems, it is likely that the Galveston District will request that the reconnaissance phase of studies be extended from the normal 12 months to 18 months for completion. Studies have not been initiated on this project; however, prior review has identified several possible solutions to the known problems. These and others will be considered and some will be evaluated in detail, if there is potential for favorable findings. These plan options are outlined as follows: @ No action and acceptance of existing conditions and risk; ¢ Adoption of a flood warning system and evacuation plan; ¢ Increase adjacent upstream storage capacity by means of buy out and relocation of developed properties; 5¢ Increase upstream storage on undeveloped properties above developments; @ Purchase of flowage easements over existing developed properties; * — Excavate the federally-owned pool to obtain additional storage; and °@ Increase reservoir flood releases through: + Buy out of damageable properties; « Enlargement of the downstieam Buffalo Bayou channel; + Installation of additional outlet works and con- struction of an underground tunnel to the ship channel; and * Changing the current operating plan. FEASIBILITY STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION The alternatives outlined above will require investigations to some degree of detail to determine the recommended course of action. No peimanent solution can be readily implemented with- out further evaluation of the economic, engineering, and environ- mental impacts. The alternatives will most likely involve sub- stantial construction investments. Such investments should only be made after the benefits, costs, and associated impacts have been thoroughly evaluated. All of the alternatives, including no action, have potentially significant impacts on social or envi- xonmental values. The risk of economic loss and the potential threat to ptblic health and safety are large enough to warrant further evaluation. The problems associated with reservoir storage and releases are severe enough and important enough to the local community to warrant a permanent solution before the problems become more critical. One of the above described alternatives, or another which might develop, must provide a long-term plan to resolve existing problems. Lands above the reservoirs are some of the 6fastest growing areas of the Houston metroplex. Large xanches have been purchased in recent years for urban development. Rainfall, runoff will substantially increase with this expected future urban growth, thus increasing existing problems. The authorized channel improvement project for Buffalo Bayou between the reservoirs and the ship channel turning basin has been in the process of being de-authorized since January 1993 because of ‘environmental opposition. Because of severe flooding and stream bank erosion in the spring of 1992, the city of Houston, six villages along the bayou, and the HCFCD have recently xequested the project be re-activated and a solution be found to satisfy environmental concerns. Problems in this area of the downstream bayou are occurring more frequently. The problems associated with reservoir storage and releases and with the downstream reach of Buffalo Bayou are receiving increased public attention. The local sponsor, the HCFCD, is xeacting and complying with public wishes that solutions be implemented. It is likely that feasibility phase studies will be conducted and that a permanent solution will develop, because of changed conditions in watershed development and in project operating procedures. The length of time to complete these feasibility studies is unknown until the type of NED solution is identified. CONCLUSIONS The downstream flooding and erosion problems associated with flood release limitations at Addicks and Barker Reservoirs have been known for some time. They came into focus in the late 1950's and early 1960’s when control gates were xequired in 1963 for the last two conduits of the outlet works at both dams. Those flood release limitations, now requiring prolonged xesexvoir ponding, have now identified the additional reservoir storage capacity needs which have become apparent from recent flood events. These operational problems continue to increase with urban growth. The problems have been recognized and deserve the careful attention of the upcoming Section 216 study. A plan has been outlined here to address the problems associated with this important local flood control project. Provided an economically favorable solution can be found and is environmentally acceptable, the plan will resolve the problems or minimize the negative impacts.Leseno (EZ ocenurreer eesti