Task Order HSFE06-11-J-0001 for MIDDLE BRAZOS - RiskMAP6

Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed Engagement Plan

HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Watershed Engagement Plan

Version 1.0

Task Order HSFE06-11-J-0001 for MIDDLE BRAZOS-PALO PINTO (Texas)

FEMA IDIQ Contract HSFEHQ-09-D-0369

MAY 2012

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Department of Homeland Security

Watershed Engagement Plan

Version 1.0

Task Order HSFE06-11-J-0001 for

MIDDLE BRAZOS-PALO PINTO

(Texas)

FEMA IDIQ Contract HSFEHQ-09-D-0369

MAY 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency

Department of Homeland Security

800 N. Loop 288

Denton, TX 76209

Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Discovery Engagement Plan


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 1

Discovery Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 2

Engagement ............................................................................................................................................................... 5

Watershed Community Information and Data ............................................................................................. 7

Congressional and Media Engagement ...................................................................................................... 62

Recent News Articles ................................................................................................................................ 70

Level of Engagement ................................................................................................................................. 70

Pre-Discovery Data Gathering ................................................................................................................................... 73

Watershed Selection ................................................................................................................................. 74

Engineering Review ................................................................................................................................... 89

Discovery Hydrology ................................................................................................................................. 89

Review of Peak Discharges ........................................................................................................................ 89

Frequency Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 92

Discovery CNMS Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 92

Summary of CNMS Concerns ..................................................................................................................... 94

Discovery Hydraulics and Floodplain Analysis ............................................................................................ 97

List of Figures

Figure 1: Watershed and Communities ....................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2: Grant Map .................................................................................................................................................. 60

Figure 3: Percent Urban Coverage............................................................................................................................. 61

Figure 4: Urban Changes Last 5 Years ........................................................................................................................ 77

Figure 5: Urban Changes Between 1992 and 2006 .................................................................................................... 78

Figure 6: Population Density in the Watershed ......................................................................................................... 79

Figure 7: Repetitive or Severe Repetitive Loss in the Watershed ............................................................................... 85

Figure 8: Single Claims in the Watershed .................................................................................................................. 86

Figure 9: Risk Factors and Topographic data for the Watershed ................................................................................ 88

Figure 10: Letters of Maps Change ............................................................................................................................ 91

List of Tables

Table 1: Project Area Community List ......................................................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Regional Project Team ................................................................................................................................... 5

Table 3: Federal, State, and Other Agency Contact List ............................................................................................... 8

Table 4: Watershed Data .......................................................................................................................................... 18

Table 5: Community Information .............................................................................................................................. 20

Table 6: Current FIRM Date and Status ..................................................................................................................... 62

Table 7: Congressional Contacts................................................................................................................................ 63

Table 8: Land Use in the Watershed .......................................................................................................................... 75

Table 9: Stream Miles Within the Watershed ............................................................................................................ 75

Table 10: NVUE Approximate Stream Mileage in the Watershed ............................................................................... 80


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page ii

Table 11: Disaster Declarations in the Watershed ..................................................................................................... 81

Table 12: NFIP Insurance Claims by County and Community within the Watershed ................................................... 83

Table 13: Repetitive or Severe Repetitive Loss within the Watershed ....................................................................... 84

Table 14: Watershed Risk Factor Rankings ................................................................................................................ 87

Table 15: Discharge Comparison at Community Limits .............................................................................................. 90

Table 16: LOMRs that Revise Hydrology within the Watershed ................................................................................. 90

Table 17: Comparison of one-percent-annual peak flows of Gage Frequency Analysis and Effective Discharges ........ 92

Table 18: CNMS Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 93

Table 19: CNMS Category Descriptions ..................................................................................................................... 93

Table 20: LOMRs that Revise Hydraulics within the Watershed ................................................................................. 97


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 1

Executive Summary

The Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto (HUC 12060201) encompasses an area of approximately 3,150 square miles and

extends across 11 counties in North Central Texas. Major communities include the Cities of Graham, Granbury,

Mineral Wells, Olney, Ranger and Weatherford. The population totals for this watershed exceeds 126,383 people.

Mineral Wells is one of the watershed’s largest population centers (population: 16,761), portions of Weatherford

reside in this watershed which has a population of 24,350. There are 15 populated areas inside this watershed. All

of the counties within the watershed are participating in the NFIP. However, not all communities within the

watershed participate. The Cities of Cool and Millsap, and the Town of Gordon are not participating in the NFIP.

The communities included in the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto (HUC 12060201) Watershed can be found in

Table 1 and Figure 1.

The primary river in the watershed is the Brazos River. At 840 miles long, the Brazos River is the state’s longest river

and drains the middle regions of Texas. It starts at the confluence of Salt Fork and Double Mountain Fork west of

Lubbock in the Texas Panhandle, flowing southeast past Abilene towards the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The river then

heads south through Waco, Calvert, Bryan/College Station, Richmond and into the Gulf of Mexico south of Freeport,

Texas.

Major flooding in the watershed is usually produced by intense rainfall associated with localized thunderstorms.

These thunderstorms may occur at any time during the year, but are more prevalent in the spring and summer

months. Major floods caused by the overflow of the Brazos River in the vicinity of the City of Graham have been

documented. Floods have occurred in 1876, June 1930, May 1941, September 1955, May 1957, August 1978,

October 1982, May 1990, December 1992, and August 2005. The August 1978 storm magnitude was greater than

that of any previous storm in North Central Texas and exceeded the one-percent-annual-chance flood level at many

locations in the upper Brazos River basin. Several central Texas counties including Young were declared flood-

disaster areas by the Federal government. Further south in Palo Pinto County major floods cause localized

inundation of structures along the Brazos River. The portion of this watershed that is within Parker County

experienced major floods which caused localized inundation of structures along the Brazos during storms in May

1957, October 1981, and April 1990. The upper reach of Lake Granbury (Brazos River), from the northern corporate

limits of the City of Granbury to the northern Hood county boundary, has a moderate flood damage potential

because of its riverine characteristics. There are many residential developments along the lake shores where

structures have been built below the 100-year flood elevation and are subject to flood damage. The downstream

portion of this watershed most serious problems are created by overbank flows in the Brazos River. The most

serious potential for flood damage along the Brazos River in this area is along the natural channel extending

downstream of the DeCordova Bend Dam in Hood County to Somervell County. There are no levees in the

watershed that are shown to provide protection from the base flood on the effective FIRMs.

U.S. Representative Mac Thornberry sent a Regional Congressional letter to FEMA Region 6 received March 7, 2012.

Constituent requested removal of floodplain designation from his property and the homes of other Possum Kingdom

Lake residents. Constituent submitted a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) in which FEMA determined the

floodplain designation should be removed from his house. Concern for other properties should be submitted via the

Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process. This process should be coordinated through the Chief Executive Officer of

the community by submitting scientific or technical data to FEMA to support a map revision. It should be noted that

multiple LOMAs have been filed in the Possum Kingdom Lake area.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 2

U.S. Representative Randy Neugebauer in the past has supported the appropriations request for the Salt Creek,

Graham, Texas Project. The objective of the project is to provide flood protection for residents of Graham that live

within the ten year floodplain near Salt Creek. Property tracts have been acquired by the USACE and transferred to

the Brazos River Authority.

At this time, no Partial Map Revisions (PMR) are planned.

For the Discovery process, watersheds are selected and analyzed at the HUC 8 level and evaluated using three major

factors (or trifecta factors): population, topographic data availability and risk decile. The risk decile is calculated

from nine parameters including total population density, historical population growth, predicted population growth,

housing units, flood policies, single claims, repetitive losses, repetitive loss properties and declared disasters.

Consideration of these factors and parameters has been the focus of many sections of this plan.

The measured amount of risk (or risk decile) for the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto (HUC 12060201) watershed is two.

Decile risk is calculated from nine parameters: total population density, historical population growth, predicted

population growth, housing units, flood policies, single claims, repetitive losses, repetitive loss properties and

declared disasters. The scale for risk decile ranges from one to ten. One is the highest risk decile, and ten is the

lowest risk decile. Nationally, this HUC’s risk decile rating ranks in the top 13-percent of all HUC-8 watersheds in the

United States, and top 14-percent for HUC-8 watersheds within Region 6. Considering the historical flooding events

that have happened in the last decade or so within the State of Texas, and also within Region 6, this makes the risk

decile for this watershed increasingly relevant.

There are many opportunities for partnership between Federal, State and local authorities. Several Council of

Governments (COGs) intersect portions of this watershed. Currently, the North Central Texas Council of

Governments (NCTCOG) have several counties that intersect this watershed. NCTCOG collects data within its area

that can be used in flood analysis such as aerials and terrain data. The West Central Texas Council of Governments

(WCTCOG) and NORTEX Regional Planning Commission have several counties that intersect this watershed. In

addition, Texas Natural Resources Information System (TNRIS) of the Texas Water Development Board is a

repository for data that can be used for flood studies that cover the entire watershed. Other agencies such as the

United State Geologic Survey (USGS) have pertinent information for flooding sources and landuse/landcover within

this watershed. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Fort Worth District, and Brazos River Authority (BRA) can provide localized support based on their engagement and

activities within the watershed. Additionally, it is anticipated that local governments through their departments,

such as Emergency Management and Public Works, will be able to leverage their local knowledge to fill data gaps.

These local governments will also be able to assess current information to determine its validity.

The information contained in this document represents the data collected for the watershed prior to the detailed

data analysis, which will occur during the Discovery process. Once the Discovery Report is complete, this

Engagement Plan will become an appendix to the Discovery Report.

Discovery Overview

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is currently implementing the Risk Mapping, Assessment, and

Planning (Risk MAP) Program across the nation. The purpose of Risk MAP is continued improvement of flood hazard

information for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the promotion of increased national awareness and

understanding of flood risk and the support of federal, state, and local mitigation actions to reduce risk.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 3

The vision and intent of the Risk MAP program is to deliver quality data that increases public awareness and leads to

mitigation actions that reduce risk to life and property through collaboration with state and local entities. To

achieve this vision, FEMA transformed its traditional flood identification and mapping efforts into an integrated

process to more accurately identify, assess, communicate, plan and mitigate flood risks. Risk MAP attempts to

address gaps in flood hazard data and form a solid foundation for risk assessment, floodplain management, and

provide state and local entities with information needed to mitigate flood-related risks.

The FEMA Region 6 office, in partnership with the State of Texas, began the Discovery process in the Middle Brazos-

Palo Pinto (HUC 12060201) watershed in January 2012 to gather local information and available data to determine

project viability and the need for Risk MAP products to assist communities become more resilient. FEMA, the State

of Texas and contract personnel partnered throughout the Discovery process to facilitate communications,

meetings, identification of risk, and in final reporting and documentation.

In Risk MAP, projects are analyzed on a watershed basis. Therefore, Discovery Meetings target stakeholders from

throughout the watershed on local, regional, state, and federal levels. Discovery initiates open lines of

communication and relies on local involvement for productive discussions about flood risk. Through the Discovery

process, FEMA and the State can determine which areas of the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC 8) Discovery watersheds

may be examined for further flood risk identification and assessment in a collaborative manner while taking into

consideration the information collected from local communities. The meeting provides a forum for a watershed-

wide discussion to understand how the flood risks of the communities within the watershed are related.

During Discovery, FEMA and the State of Texas reach out to local communities to:

• Gather information about local flood risk and flood hazards

• Reviewed current and historic mitigation plans to understand local mitigation capabilities, hazard risk

assessments, and current or future mitigation activities

• Include multi-disciplinary staff from within their community to participate and assist in the development of a

watershed vision


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 4

Table 1: Project Area Community List

The Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto (HUC 12060201) Watershed Engagement Plan was prepared throughout the Pre-

Discovery efforts of the Regional Project Team. The Regional Project Team is comprised of the staff shown in

Table 2.

Community Name CID

NFIP

Participant

Archer County 481078 Yes

Eastland County 480793 Yes

Ranger, City of 480205 Yes

Erath County 480218 Yes

Hood County 480356 Yes

DeCordova, City of 480469 Yes

Granbury, City of 480357 Yes

Lipan, City of 481075 Yes

Jack County 480377 Yes

Johnson County 480879 Yes

Palo Pinto County 480516 Yes

Gordon, Town of 480963 No

Graford, Town of 480964 Yes

Mineral Wells, City of 480517 Yes

Mingus, City of 480518 Yes

Strawn, City of 480965 Yes

Parker County 480520 Yes

Cool, City of 480136 No

Cresson, City of 480177 Yes

Millsap, City of 480107 No

Weatherford, City of 480522 Yes

Somervell County 481186 Yes

Stephens County 481244 Yes

Young County 480684 Yes

Graham, City of 480685 Yes

Olney, City of 480686 Yes


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 5

Table 2: Regional Project Team

Name Organization Project Role Email Office

Phone

Mobile

Phone

James Orwat FEMA R6 MT

RA

Project Monitor

(PM)

[email protected]

940-898-

5302

940-395-

3077

Ron Wanhanen FEMA R6 MT

RA

Alternate Project

Monitor (PM)

[email protected]

940-383-

7343

940-435-

9353

Diane Howe FEMA R6 MT

RA

RA Outreach [email protected]

940-898-

5171

Patricia Schaffer FEMA R6 MT

RA

Mitigation

Planning

[email protected]

940-898-

5136

David Reiff FEMA R6 MT

RA

Alternate

Mitigation

Planning

[email protected]

940-898-

5493

Rob Connell FEMA R6 MT

FMI

FM&I

Primary/Alternate

(by County) [email protected]

940-898-

5240

940-231-

2790

Mayra Diaz FEMA R6 MT

FMI

FM&I

Primary/Alternate

(by County) [email protected]

940-898-

5541

Brianne

Schmidtke

FEMA R6 MT

HMA

HMA

[email protected]

940-383-

7309

Marty Chester FEMA R6 MT

HMA

HMA

[email protected]

940-898-

5216

940-231-

2769

Cindy Wirz FEMA R6 MT

CEO

CEO Outreach

[email protected]

940-898-

5164

940-231-

2754

Nitja McGrane FEMA R6 MT

CEO

CEO Outreach

[email protected]

940-898-

5331

940-239-

2977

Jackie Chandler FEMA R6

ORA EA

External Affairs

[email protected]

940-383-

7351

940-293-

5221

Earl Armstrong FEMA R6

ORA EA

External Affairs

[email protected]

940-898-

5275

940-231-

2762

Craig Loftin USACE USACE Fort

Worth Disctrict

[email protected]

817-886-

1683

Michael Segner State of

Texas

(TWDB)

State NFIP

Coordinator

[email protected]

512-463-

3509

Greg Pekar State of

Texas (TDEM)

State Hazard

Mitigation Officer

[email protected]

512-424-

2429

Melinda Luna State of

Texas

(TWDB)

NFIP Mapping

Services

[email protected]

512-463-

9625


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 6

Name Organization Project Role Email Office

Phone

Mobile

Phone

Warren D.

Samuelson

State of

Texas (TCEQ)

Dam Safety

Program

[email protected]

512-239-

1000

Mark Marek State of

Texas(TxDOT)

Design Division -

Director

[email protected]

512-416-

2734

Barrett

Goodwin

RAMPP RAMPP Study

Manager

[email protected]

940-735-

3337

Rhonda Hurst RAMPP RSC6 and

Meeting

Coordination

[email protected]

940-735-

3338


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 7

Engagement

Watershed Community Information and Data

Figure 1: Watershed and Communities


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 8

Table 3: Federal, State, and Other Agency Contact List

Federal, State, and Other Agency Contacts for Watershed

United States Department of

Agriculture Natural Resource

Conservation Service (USDA

NRCS) (Administrative Zone 5)-

Weatherford Office

Name: Alfonso Leal

Address:

Weatherford Service Center

532 Santa Fe Drive

Weatherford, TX 76086

Phone Number:

(817) 596-2865 ext 3

(817) 596-4054 Fax

Email: [email protected]




NRCS) (Palo Pinto County)

Name: Myron Merz

Address:

Mineral Wells Service Center

415 SW 1st

Mineral Wells, TX 76067

Phone Number:

(940) 325-4828 ext 3

(940) 325-1103 Fax





NRCS) (Palo Pinto County)

Name: Austin Shero

Address:


415 SW 1st


Phone Number:

(940) 325-4828 ext 3

(940) 325-1103 Fax


Palo Pinto Soil and Water

Conservation District #518

Name: Jon Johnson

Address:


415 SW 1st


Phone Number:

(940) 325-4828 ext 3

(940) 325-1103 Fax



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 9





NRCS) (Parker County)

Name: William (Bill) Donham

Address:

Weatherford Service Center

604 N Main St

Weatherford, TX 76086-2436

Phone Number:

(817) 594-4672 ext 3

(817) 599-6109 Fax


Parker County Soil and Water


Name: Melton Harms

Address:

Agricultural Service Center

604 N Main St, Suite 100

Weatherford, TX 76086-2436

Phone Number:

(817) 594-4672 ext 3

(817) 599-6109 Fax





NRCS) (Stephens County)

Name: Tony Baeza

Address:

Breckenridge Service Center

2802 W Walker St, Ste 101

Breckenridge, TX 76424-4016

Phone Number:

(254) 559-2333

(254) 559-6550 Fax


Lower Clear Fork/Brazos Soil and

Water Conservation District #551

Name: Monte McIntire

Address:

Lower Clear Fork/Brazos

Service Center

584 US Hwy 180 East

Albany, TX 76430

Phone Number:

(325) 762-2552



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 10





NRCS) (Young County)

Name: Jerry Gleason

Address:

Graham Service Center

1591 Hwy 380 Bypass

Graham, TX 76450

Phone Number:

(940) 549-0422 ext 3

(940) 549-0133 Fax


Young County Soil and Water


Name: Chawn Jobe

Address:

Graham Service Center

1591 Hwy 380 Byp

Graham, TX 76450

Phone Number:

(940) 549-0422 ext 3

(940) 549-0133 Fax





NRCS) (Jack County)

Name: Matt Gregory

Address:

Jacksboro Service Center

244 S Main St Ste B

Jacksboro, TX 76458-2359

Phone Number:

(940) 567-5641 ext 3

(940) 567-5642 Fax


Jack County Water Control and

Improvement District (WCID)

Name: Jerry Henderson

Address:


244 S Main St Ste B


Phone Number:

(940) 567-5641 ext 3

(940) 567-5642 Fax



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 11


Jack County Soil and Water


Name: Jerry Henderson

Address:


244 S Main St Ste B


Phone Number:

(940) 567-5641 ext 3

(940) 567-5642 Fax


East Keechi Water Control and

Improvement District #556

Name: Royce Turner

Address:

P.O. Box 157

Perrin, TX 76486

Phone Number:

Email:




NRCS) (Eastland County)

Name: Shamarie Tamminga

Address:

Eastland Service Center

403 Pogue Ave

Eastland, TX 76448-3012

Phone Number:

(254) 629-1636 ext 3

(254) 629-3269 Fax


Upper Leon Soil and Water


Name: John Gerhardt

Address:

Upper Leon Service Center

301 Hwy 3381

Comanche, TX 76442

Phone Number:

(325) 356-2568





NRCS) (Erath County)

Name: Tony Huffman

Address:

Stephenville Service Center

245 S Virginia St

Stephenville, TX 76401-4344

Phone Number:

(254) 965-5093 ext 3

(254) 965-2492 Fax



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 12


Cross Timbers Soil and Water


Name: Leon Griffin

Address:

Cross Timbers Service Center

239 East McNeill

Stephenville, TX 76401

Phone Number:

(254) 965-3715





NRCS) (Hood and Somervell

Name: Bill O'Quinn

Address:

Granbury Service Center

1321 Waters Edge Dr

Granbury, TX 76048

Phone Number:

(817) 573-1666 ext 3

(817) 579-7410 Fax


Brazos Valley Soil and Water


Name: Ray Creswel

Address:

Brazos Valley Service Center

1321 Waters Edge Dr. Suite 1005

Granbury, TX 76048

Phone Number:

(817) 573-1666 ext 3

(817) 579-7410 Fax





NRCS) (Johnson County)

Name: Beau Brooks

Address:

Cleburne Service Center

109 Poindexter Ave

Cleburne, TX 76031-2519

Phone Number:

(817) 645-7711

(817) 641-7629 Fax


Johnson County Soil and Water


Name: Stan Ellison

Address:

Cleburne Service Center

105 Poindexter Ave, Suite C

Cleburne, TX 76033-4406

Phone Number:

(817) 645-7711



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 13





NRCS) (Archer County)

Name: Howard Sprague

Address:

Archer City Service Center

313 W Main

Archer City, TX 76351

Phone Number:

(940) 574-4612

(940) 574-4169 Fax


Archer County Soil and Water


Name: Glenn Thorman

Address:

Archer City Service Center

313 W Main

Archer City, TX 76351

Phone Number:

(940) 574-4612

(940) 574-4169 Fax



Agriculture National Technology

Support Center (USDA NRCS

NTSC) (National)

Name: Dr. Emil H. Horvath

Address:

Central National Technology Support Centers

501 W Felix St Bldg 23

PO Box 6567

Fort Worth, TX 76115-3404

Phone Number:

(817) 509-3221





NRCS) (State Office)

Name: Salvador Salinas

Address:

Texas State Office

101 S Main St

Temple, TX 76501-7602

Phone Number:

(254) 742-9800

(254) 742-9819 Fax


Texas State Soil and Water

Conservation Board

Name: Rex Isom

Address:

PO Box 658

Temple, TX 76503-0658

Phone Number:

(254) 773-2250

(254) 773-3311 Fax

Email: Rex Isom Executive Director: [email protected]


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 14


Texas State Soil and Water

Conservation Board Dublin

Regional Office District 5

Name: Don Brandenberger and Charlie Upchurch

Address:

611 E Blackjack St

Dublin, TX 76446-2321

Phone Number:

(254) 445-4814

(254) 445-4819 Fax

Email:

Don Brandenberger: [email protected]

Charlie Upchurch: [email protected]

Brazos River Conservation

Coalition

Name: Dr. Joshua Rosenfeld

Address:

7302 Ravenswood Road

Granbury, TX 76049

Phone Number:

(817) 573-9200


Dr. Joshua Rosenfeld, Chairman

Friends of the Brazos River

Name: Ed Lowe

Address: http://www.friendsofthebrazos.org/

Phone Number:

(214) 358-0612


Ed Lowe, President

Possum Kingdom Lake Association

Name: Monte Land

Address: http://pklakeassn.org/

Phone Number:

(214) 358-0612


Possum Kingdom Chamber of

Commerce

Name: Jackie Fewell, President

Address:

362 N. FM 2353

Possum Kingdom Lake

Graford, TX 76449

Phone Number:

(940) 779-2424


Brazos River Authority

Name: Phil Ford

Address:

P.O. Box 7255

Waco, TX 76714

Phone Number:

(888)-922-6272

Email: http://www.brazos.org/contactInfoBrazos.asp


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 15



Name: Chet Creel

Address:

P.O. Box 7255

Waco, TX 76714

Phone Number:

(888)-922-6272



Name: Michael McClendon

Address:

P.O. Box 7255

Waco, TX 76714

Phone Number:

(888)-922-6272



Name: Richard Ball

Address:

P.O. Box 7255

Waco, TX 76714

Phone Number:

(888)-922-6272


NFIP Coordinator and Flood

Mitigation and Planning (Texas

Water Development Board)

Name: Michael Segner

Address:

P.O. Box 13231

Austin, TX 78711

Phone Number:

(512) 463-3509


NFIP Mapping Services (Texas

Water Development Board)

Name: Melinda Luna

Address:

P.O. Box 13231

Austin, TX 78711

Phone Number:

(512) 463-9625


State Hazard Mitigation Officer

(Texas Division of Emergency

Management)

Name: Greg Pekar

Address:

P.O. Box 4087

Austin, TX 78773

Phone Number:

(512)424-2429



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 16


Texas Center for Environmental

Quality Dam Safety Program

Name: Warren Samuelson

Address:

TCEQ P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711

Phone Number:

(512) 239-5195


Texas Department of

Transportation - Design Division

Name: Mark Marek

Address:

125 East 11th Street

Austin, TX 78701

Phone Number:

(512) 416-2734


Texas Department of Public

Safety Division of Emergency

Management (TDEM) Region 1

Name: Phillip Mongeau

Address:

350 West Interstate 30

Garland, TX 75043

Phone Number:

(214) 717-3192




Management (TDEM) Region 1C

Name: Sherri Copeland

Address:

624 Northeast Loop 820

Hurst, TX 76053

Phone Number:

(940) 452-7757




Management (TDEM) Region 5

Name: David Solis

Address:

1302 MacDavis Lane

Lubbock, TX76401

Phone Number:

(806) 517-0581




Management (TDEM) Region 5A

Name: Becky Purser

Address:

5505 North Central Expressway

Wichita Falls, TX 76306

Phone Number:

(940) 851-5588



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 17




Management (TDEM) Region 5C

Name: Jim White

Address:

2720 Industrial Blvd.

Abilene, TX 79605

Phone Number:

(325) 795-4030


Nortex Regional Planning

Commission

Name: Dennis Wilde, Director

Address:

P.O. Box 5144

Wichita Falls, TX 76307

Phone Number:

940-322-5281


North Central Texas Council of

Governments

Name: R. Michael Eastland, Executive Director

Address:

P.O. Box 5888

Arlington, TX 76005

Phone Number:

(817) 695-9174


West Central Texas Council of

Governments

Name: Tom K. Smith, Executive Director

Address:

P.O. Box 3195

Abilene, TX 79604

Phone Number:

(325) 672-8544



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 18

Table 4: Watershed Data

Watershed Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed

Major Stream(s): Brazos River HUC 8 Code: 12060201

Multiple Regions: No Yes Regions: 6

Populated Areas:

Cities of Ranger, DeCordova, Granbury, Lipan, Mineral Wells, Mingus, Strawn,

Cool, Cresson, Millsap, Weatherford, Graham, and Olney, and Towns of Gordon

and Graford

Demographics* of Watershed

Overall

Middle Brazos-

Palo Pinto

Watershed

Demographics

Median Age: 44.5 Median Household Income: $46,801

Education:

81.5 % high school

graduate or

higher

18.1 % bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

Colleges in Ranger and near

Weatherford, retirement

communities near Lake

Granbury including City of

Decordova and Possum

Kingdom Lake. Oil and

Natural Gas exploration

throughout the watershed.

Population: 131,749 Primary Land Use: Farming / Ranching

Ethnicity*:

1.7% - African American or Black

5.6% - Some other race

14.0%- Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race)

89.8% - White alone, not Hispanic or Latino

Additional Notes: Approximate area 3,150 square miles

Upper, Middle, Lower Demographics* of Watershed

Upper Watershed:

Archer, Palo Pinto,

Stephens


Education:

79.9% high school

graduate or higher

14.6 % bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

Oil and Natural Gas

exploration

throughout the

watershed.


Ethnicity*:





Additional Notes:

Approximately the watershed area from the City of Graham upstream to the

upper watershed area equals 338 square miles.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 19

Middle

Watershed:

Eastland, Erath, Jack,

Palo Pinto, Parker,

Stephens, Young


Education:

79.6 % high school

graduate or higher

16.0 % bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

College in Ranger,

retirement communities

near Possum Kingdom

Lake. Oil and Natural gas

exploration throughout

the watershed.


Ethnicity*:





Additional Notes: Approximately the watershed area between the City of Mineral Wells

upstream to the City of Graham area equals 2114 square miles

Lower

Watershed

Erath, Hood,

Johnson, Palo Pinto,

Parker, Somervell


Education:

82.8 % high school

graduate or higher

21.4 % bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

College near

Weatherford,

retirement

communities near

Lake Granbury

including City of

Decordova. Oil and

Natural gas

exploration

throughout the

watershed.


Ethnicity*:





Additional Notes: Approximately the watershed area from the lower watershed to the City of

Mineral Wells area equals 698 square miles.

*Note: All Demographic information included in this report has been provided by the US Census

Bureau: http://www.census.gov


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 20

Table 5: Community Information

Archer County Archer County CID

Number: 481078

Contact

Information:

Name: Gary Beesinger

Title: County Judge

Phone Number: (940) 574-4811

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Kelly DeSautel

Title: Fire Marshall/

Emergency Management

Coordinator/Flood Plain

Manager

Phone Number: (940) 574-

2868

Email:

[email protected]

Website: www.co.archer.tx.us County

Judge: Gary Beesinger

Term

Ends: 12/14

Demographics*:

Rural Suburban Urban


Education:

84.0 % high school

graduate or higher

18.8% bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

Oil and Natural

Gas exploration.

Population: 9,054 Primary Land

Use:

Farming /

Ranching

FEMA History of

Engagement:

08/07/2007 - Community Assisted Visit (CAV) NFIP Administration and Enforcement

Procedures

07/31/2007 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) FEMA contact

07/17/2007 - General Technical Assistance County Emergency Coordinator was

inquiring as to the availability of training in the immediate area

Additional Stakeholder Information: Please see Federal, State, and Other agency contact information

for additional Stakeholder information within this community.

Contact

Information:

Name: Not Applicable

Organization: Not Applicable

Email: Not Applicable

Additional

Notes:

Hazard Mitigation Plan Name: NORTEX Regional Planning Commission HMP

Plan Owner:

Name: Sabina Baca

Organization: NORTEX Regional

Planning Commission


Plan Author:

Name: Sabina Baca

Organization: NORTEX

Regional Planning Commission


Plan Status: Approved Approved pending adoption In review

Expired Undergoing update In Development


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 21

Archer County Archer County CID

Number: 481078

Important

Dates: Approved: Not Applicable Expires: Not Applicable

Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan

Actions: Not Applicable

Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Eastland

County Eastland County

CID

Number: 480204

Contact

Information:

Name: Rex Fields

Title: County Judge/Emergency

Management

Coordinator/Floodplain

Administrator

Phone Number: (254) 629-1263

Email:

[email protected]

Website: www.eastlandcountytexas.com County

Judge: Rex Fields

Term

Ends: 12/14

Demographics*:


Median Age: 42.7 Median Household

Income: $32,452

Education:

77.7% high school

graduate or higher

15.5% bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

Oil and Natural Gas

exploration.

Population: 18,583 Primary

Land Use: Farming / Ranching

FEMA History of

Engagement:

09/21/2011 and 05/02/2011 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) State contact, no

permitting system in place.

01/23/2012 - General Technical Assistance County Judge and Eastland County Water

Supply proposed improvements. FEMA request that the County FPA be contacted for

the review and possible permit requirements for the project. If Federally funded,

FEMA request the project be in compliance with EO 11988 and EO 11990.




HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 22

Eastland

County Eastland County

CID

Number: 480204

Contact

Information:

Name: Angela Robinson, Chairman

Organization: Eastland Chamber of

Commerce


Additional

Notes: www.eastlandchamber.com

Hazard Mitigation Plan Name: West Central Texas COG HMP

Plan Owner:

Name: West Central Texas COG

Organization: Hazard Mitigation

Planner, West Central Texas Law

Enforcement Agency


Plan

Author:

Name: H2O Partners

Organization: Consultant

Email:

[email protected]

Plan Status: Approved

Approved pending

adoption In review

Expired Undergoing update

Important

Dates: Approved: April 15, 2006 Expires: September 30, 2010

Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

1) Flood

2) Drought

3) Winter Storm

Top Three Plan

Actions:

1) Improve emergency management radio coverage and reception

2) Purchase NOAA "All Hazards" radios for early warning and post-event information

and place in area schools/businesses/critical facilities

3) Install early warning system for hazard events

Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Eastland County City of Ranger CID Number: 480205

Contact

Information:

Name: Raymond Hart

Title: Mayor


3522

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Tim

Huckaby

Title: Floodplain

Administrator

Phone Number:

(254) 647-3522

Email: Not

Available

Name: Darwin Archer

Title: City Administrator

Phone Number: (254) 647-3522

Email:

[email protected]

Website: Not Available Mayor: Raymond Hart Term Ends: 5/13

Demographics*: Rural

Suburban Urban



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 23

Eastland County City of Ranger CID Number: 480205

Education:

75.75 % high school

graduate or higher

15.82 % bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations: Ranger College

Population: 2,468

Primary

Land

Use:

Residential

FEMA History of

Engagement:

02/22/2010 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) FPA was unable to locate ordinance or maps,

inadequate permitting system, there was little development in the floodplain.

09/23/2011 - General Technical Assistance TCEQ Employee needed city's participation status

and FPA information. The employee was directed to the Community Status Book for

participation information.

Additional Stakeholder Information: Please see Federal, State, and Other agency contact information for

additional Stakeholder information within this community.

Contact

Information:

Name: Darrell Fox

Title: Fire Chief/Emergency

Management Coordinator

Phone: (254) 647-1505


Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:




Enforcement Agency


Plan

Author

:

Name: H2O Partners





Important Dates: Approved: April 15, 2006 Expires: September 30, 2010

Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

1) Flood

2) Drought

3) Winter Storm

Top Three Plan

Actions:

1) Improve emergency management radio coverage and reception.

2) Install early warning system for hazard events

3) Develop Mutual Aid Agreements with area communities.

Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 24

Erath County Erath County CID

Number: 480218

Contact

Information:

Name: Tab Thompson

Title: County

Judge/Floodplain

Administrator


1452

Email:

[email protected]

Name: John Wooley

Title: Emergency



1496

Email:

[email protected]

[email protected]

Website: http://co.erath.tx.us

County

Judge: Tab

Thompson

Term

Ends: 12/14

Demographics*:



Education:

79.5% high school

graduate or higher

24.0% bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

Oil and Natural Gas

exploration.



FEMA History of

Engagement:

Countywide Revised revision date 11/16/2011 would have been coordination

between County and FEMA in regards to the release of these FIRMs.

7/21/2011, 1/25/2011, and 4/14/2010 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) court

order is outdated, no permitting process in place, discussed training

opportunities.

01/13/2012 - General Technical Assistance County Judge called regarding a

resident who received a letter from a lender requiring flood insurance. It was

explained the resident should talk with the lender to ensure that he achieves the

goal of either the insurance requirement or insurance cost reduction if he goes

through the trouble of a Letter of Map Amendment. The judge was sent a

website link regarding LOMAs.

01/03/2012 - General Technical Assistance County Judge called with a concern

for three properties that, according to the Flood Determination Company, are

located in the floodplain. The Flood Determination Company made this

determination when reviewing the new FIRMs. These properties are located at

745 Timber Creek Drive.

Additional Stakeholder Information : Please see Federal, State, and Other agency contact

information for additional Stakeholder information within this community.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 25

Erath County Erath County CID

Number: 480218

Contact

Information:




Additional

Notes:

Hazard Mitigation Plan Name: Not Applicable

Plan Owner:




Plan

Author:


Organization: Not

Applicable



Expired Undergoing update No Plan

Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Hood County Hood County CID

Number: 480356

Contact

Information:

Name: Darrell Cockerham

Title: County Judge


3200

Email:

[email protected]

Name: James McAusland

RS, CFM

Title: Environmental Health

Director/Floodplain

Administrator


3288

Email:

[email protected]

Website: www.co.hood.tx.us County

Judge:

Darrell

Cockerham

Term

Ends: 12/14

Demographics*: Rural Suburban Urban



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 26


Number: 480356

Education:

86.2% high school

graduate or higher

23.9% bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

Lake Granbury

retirement

communities. Oil

and Natural Gas

exploration.


Use: Farming / Ranching

FEMA History of

Engagement:



07/28/1999 - Community Assisted Visit (CAV) Floodplain management

regulations, community administration and enforcement procedures, community

floodplain management program, potential violations.

5/10/2010 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Reviewed Ordinance, FEMA maps

(date when maps must be adopted), permitting system, & provided city one page

floodplain development permit form. Discussed higher standards, two feet of

freeboard above the BFE for lowest floor of structures, definition of

development, detailed engineering studies for all FEMA SFHA Zone A areas,

training of Floodplain Administrator (CFM), Texas Water Code (overflow caused

by diversion of water), and Letters of Map Change (LOMA, LOMR-F, & LOMR).

03/24/2011 - General Technical Assistance Guidance was provided to the county

FPA about the FEMA MT-1 form

03/09/2011 - General Technical Assistance Information was provided to the FPA

regarding FEMA's Letter of Map Change status and FEMA's Community Overview

data, which indicated 418 flood insurance policies are in force.

Additional Stakeholder Information: Please see Federal, State, and Other agency contact


Contact

Information:

Name: Brian Fine

Title: Fire Marshal /


Coordinator

Phone: (817) 408-3424


Name: Joey Grisham

Organization: Granbury

and Hood County

Economic Development

Corporation

Email:

[email protected]

Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:




Plan

Author:





HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 27


Number: 480356



Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Hood County City of DeCordova CID

Number: 480469

Contact

Information:

Name: Dick Pruitt

Title: Mayor / Emergency

Management Coordinator /

Floodplain Administrator


9590

Email:

[email protected]

Website: http://cityofdecordova.com County

Judge:

Darrell

Cockerham

Term

Ends: 5/13

Demographics*:



Income: $64,505

Education:

46.9 % high school

graduate or higher

18.3 % bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

Retirement

Community


Land Use: Residential


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 28

Hood County City of DeCordova CID

Number: 480469

FEMA History of

Engagement:


between Community and FEMA in regards to the release of these FIRMs.

5/10/2010 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Reviewed Ordinance, FEMA maps

(date when maps must be adopted), permitting system, & provided city one page

floodplain development permit form. Discussed higher standards, two feet of

freeboard above the BFE for lowest floor of structures, definition of

development, detailed engineering studies for all FEMA SFHA Zone A areas,

training of Floodplain Administrator (CFM), Texas Water Code (overflow caused




Contact

Information:




Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:




Plan

Author:





Approved pending

adoption In review


Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 29

Hood County City of Granbury CID

Number: 480357

Contact

Information:

Name: Rickie Pratt

Title: Mayor / Emergency Management

Coordinator

Phone Number: (817) 573-1114


Name: Alva Cox

Title: Director of Public

Works/Floodplain

Administrator


1114 ext. 122


Website: www.granbury.org County

Judge:

Darrell

Cockerham

Term

Ends: 5/13

Demographics*:



Education:

86.5 % high school

graduate or higher

23.2 % bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

Lake Granbury

retirement

communities.


Use: Residential

FEMA History of

Engagement:

Countywide Revised revision date 08/16/2012 would have been coordination between

Community and FEMA in regards to the release of these FIRMs.

03/27/2012 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) The city is running a effective program. They

are permitting and aware of their requirements. They are going to try and attend a

conference this year and is actively attending training when available.



Contact

Information:

Name: Mary Booth

Organization: Granbury Chamber of

Commerce

Email:

http://www.granburychamber.com/contact-

us

Name: Joey Grisham

Organization: Granbury

and Hood County

Economic Development

Corporation

Email:

[email protected]

Additional

Notes:

www.granburychamber.com

http://www.granburyhoodedc.com/


Plan Owner:




Plan

Author:


Organization: Not

Applicable



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 30

Hood County City of Granbury CID

Number: 480357

Plan Status: Approved Approved pending adoption

In

review


Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Hood County City of Lipan CID

Number: 481075

Contact

Information:

Name: Mike Stowe

Title:

Mayor/Emergency

Management

Coordinator

Phone Number: (254)

646-3345

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Robin Viducic

Title: City

Secretary/Floodplain

Administrator

Phone Number: (254)

646-3340

Email:

[email protected]

Website: Not Available County

Judge:

Darrell

Cockerham Term Ends: 5/12

Demographics*:



Education:

74.1 % high school

graduate or higher


degree or higher

Special

Populations: Not Applicable

Population: 430 Primary Land

Use: Residential


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 31

Hood County City of Lipan CID

Number: 481075

FEMA History of

Engagement:



07/25/2007 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Not in the NFIP. Sending them a

NFIP Application, a city resolution, the new FEMA Flood Damage Prevention

Ordinance, high regulatory standards, and an example of a floodplain building

permit.

07/17/2007 - General Technical Assistance Provided enrollment documents and

assistance



Contact

Information:


Organization: Not

Applicable


Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:


Organization: Not

Applicable


Plan

Author:






Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 32

Jack County Jack County CID

Number: 480377

Contact

Information:

Name: Mitchell Davenport

Title: County

Judge/Emergency


Phone Number: (940)-567-

2241

Email:

[email protected]

Website: http://www.jackcounty.org County

Judge:

Mitchell

Davenport

Term

Ends: 12/14

Demographics*:



Income: $46,801

Education:

78.9% high school

graduate or higher

10.5% bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

Oil and Natural Gas

exploration.



FEMA History of

Engagement:

08/25/2009 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Reviewed Court Order, FEMA maps,

permitting system, and provided city one page floodplain development permit

form. Discussed higher standards.

01/17/2012 - General Technical Assistance Jack County DR-4029TX, Wildfires

2011 3 homes damaged 100%. No one could tell if they were in a floodzone or

not. They do have a permitting system, talked about insurance and floodplain

management.



Contact

Information:




Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:

Name: Sabina Baca


Planning Commission


Plan

Author:

Name: Sabina Baca





Approved pending

adoption In review



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 33

Jack County Jack County CID

Number: 480377

Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Johnson County Johnson County CID Number: 480879

Contact

Information:

Name: Roger Harmon

Title: County Judge

Phone Number: (817) 556-6360

Email:

[email protected]

Name: S. Erik Dumas

Title: Public Works

Director/Floodplain

Administrator


6380

Email:

[email protected]

Website: www.johnsoncountytx.org County

Judge: Roger Harmon

Term

Ends: 12/14

Demographics*:

Rural

Suburban Urban


Education:

81.7% high school

graduate or higher

16.1% bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special Populations:

Oil and

Natural Gas

exploration.

Population: 150,934 Primary Land Use: Farming /

Ranching


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 34

Johnson County Johnson County CID Number: 480879

FEMA History of

Engagement:

03/27/2012 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Johnson County is running a good

program but is currently working on modifying their permit process. This will include

a preliminary approval and EC and then a final approval with the as-built EC.

03/09/2011 - General Technical Assistance Provided guidance regarding CRS user

groups during the four-day EMI CRS class in Richardson

02/08/2011 - General Technical Assistance Provided guidance to the county FPA

regarding Conditional Letters of Map Revisions and Letters of Map Revisions

01/08/2011 - General Technical Assistance Provided information to the county FPA

(as requested) regarding training opportunities in the North Texas area



Contact

Information:

Name: Jack Snow

Title: Emergency Management

Coordinator

Phone: (817) 556-6346


Name: July Danley

Organization: Stephenville

Chamber of Commerce

Email:

[email protected]

Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:




Plan

Author:






Important Dates: Approved: Not Applicable Expires: Not Applicable

Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 35

Palo Pinto

County Palo Pinto County

CID

Number: 480516

Contact

Information:

Name: David Nicklas

Title: County Judge

Phone Number: (940)

659-1253

Email:

[email protected]

pinto.tx.us

Name: Keiffer "Buddy"

Harwell




Administrator


8456

Email:

[email protected]

pinto.tx.us

Website: www.co.palo-

pinto.tx.us

County

Judge: David Nicklas Term Ends: 12/14

Demographics*:



Education:

76.8 % high school

graduate or higher

13.7 % bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

Retirement communities

near Possum Kingdom

Lake. Oil and Natural Gas

exploration.


Use: Farming / Ranching

FEMA History of

Engagement:



10/19/2011 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Contacted the FPA Steve Perdue

regarding the recent appeals period (which only applies to the unincorporated

areas). Discussed outreach ideas. A permitting process is in place and the

community knows how to access the floodplain maps. The County may need to

revise their order in the future because of the future map revisions. The FPA is

hosting a FEMA Substantial Damage Estimator training class this month.

03/04/2010 - General Technical Assistance

Provided info of FEMA DFIRM schedule of map mod program to county FPA.

Target preliminary date for county maps is 3/30/10.



Contact

Information:


Organization: Not

Applicable


Additional

Notes:


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 36


Plan Owner:




Plan

Author:






Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Palo Pinto

County City of Gordon

CID

Number: 480963

Contact

Information:

Name: Lillie Petty

Title: Mayor


5676

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Barbara Epperson

Title: Town Clerk/Floodplain

Administrator


5676

Email:

[email protected]


Judge: David Nicklas

Term

Ends: 5/12

Demographics*:



Education:

78.2 % high school

graduate or higher


degree or higher

Special



Use: Residential

FEMA History of

Engagement:



11/01/2011 - General Technical Assistance The community is not participating in

the NFIP. Left a message for Mayor Lillie Petty to offer enrollment assistance.




HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 37

Palo Pinto

County City of Gordon

CID

Number: 480963

Contact

Information:


Harwell



Coordinator


8456

Email:

[email protected]

pinto.tx.us

Organization: Development

Corporation of Gordon


Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:




Plan Author:






Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Palo Pinto

County Town of Graford

CID

Number: 480964

Contact

Information:

Name: Carl S. Walston

Title: Mayor


2125

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Cynthia Perry

Title: City


Administrator


2125

Email:

[email protected]



Term

Ends: 5/12



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 38

Palo Pinto


CID

Number: 480964


Education:

82.04 % high school

graduate or higher


degree or higher

Special



Use: Residential

FEMA History of

Engagement:

Regional Congressional requested by Representative Thornberry for Graford (Palo

Pinto County) received 3/7/12. Constituent request removal of floodplain

designation from his property and the homes of other Possum Kingdom Lake

residents.



12/18/2008 - Community Assisted Visit (CAV) Discussed requirements and rejoined

NFIP.

10/24/2011 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Spoke with Town of Graford. They are

trying to locate the ordinance (they noted that it's most likely out of date). They

were provided with a template (Level B) and offered higher standards assistance.

They cannot locate the preliminary maps for Palo Pinto County.

05/04/2012 - General Technical Assistance City Secretary had questions about the

town's responsibilities with the upcoming maps. The Level B Ordinance was

reviewed, along with the town's requirements.



Contact

Information:


Harwell



Coordinator


8456

Email:

[email protected]

pinto.tx.us

Additional

Notes:



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 39

Palo Pinto


CID

Number: 480964

Plan Owner:




Plan

Author:






Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Palo Pinto

County Mineral Wells CID Number: 480517

Contact

Information:

Name: Mike Allen

Title: Mayor


7700

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Robert Turk

Title: Building

Official/Floodplain

Administrator

Phone Number: (940) 328-7715

Email:

buildingofficial@mineralwellstx

.gov

Name: Lance Howerton

Title: City Manager


7703

Email:

citymanager@mineralwellstx.

gov

Website: http://www.mineralwellstx.g

ov

County

Judge: David Nicklas Term Ends: 5/12

Demographics*:


Median Age: 33.

9 Median Household Income: $35,727

Education:

69.6 % high school graduate

or higher

10.2 % bachelor’s degree or

higher

Special



Use: Residential


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 40

Palo Pinto

County Mineral Wells CID Number: 480517

FEMA History of

Engagement:



10/19/2011 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Provided grant, training, and outreach information

to the new FPA regarding the recent appeals period (which only applies to the unincorporated

areas). A permitting process is in place and the community knows how to access the floodplain

maps. The City may need to revise their ordinance later because of the future map revisions.

The County FPA is hosting a FEMA Substantial Damage Estimator training class this month.

12/11/2008 - General Technical Assistance FPA had a question regarding a parking lot in the

floodway. If they don't require a no-rise, they should require a surveyors statement proving that

the lot is at the same grade as before.

Additional Stakeholder Information: Please see Federal, State, and Other agency contact information for additional

Stakeholder information within this community.

Contact

Information:


Harwell



Coordinator


8456

Email:

[email protected]

pinto.tx.us

Name: Mineral Wells Area

Chamber of Commerce

Organization: Mineral Wells Area

Chamber of Commerce


Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:




Plan Author:






Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Brazos Intake Modifications


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 41

Palo Pinto City of Mingus CID

Number: 480518

Contact

Information:

Name: Milo Moffit

Title: Mayor


5995

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Mindy Scivner

Title: City


Administrator


5995

Email:

[email protected]

Website: http://cityofmingus.com County


Term

Ends: 5/13

Demographics*:



Education:

86.13 % high school

graduate or higher


degree or higher

Special



Use: Residential

FEMA History of

Engagement:



11/07/2011 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Spoke with the FPA about the map

revisions and explained the importance of comparing the current map and the

preliminary maps (and provided snapshots of the maps). We discussed

ordinance revisions. Need to be updated prior to map effective date. Provided

information regarding insurance and grandfathering.



Contact

Information:


Harwell



Coordinator


8456

Email:

[email protected]

pinto.tx.us

Additional

Notes:



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 42

Palo Pinto City of Mingus CID

Number: 480518

Plan Owner:




Plan

Author:






Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Palo Pinto

County City of Strawn

CID

Number: 480965

Contact

Information:

Name: Carl Frazier

Title: Mayor

Phone Number: (254)

672-5311

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Danny Miller

Title: City


Administrator

Phone Number: (254)

672-5311

Email:

[email protected]

Website: www.strawntx.com County


Term

Ends: 5/12

Demographics*:



Income: $41,765

Education:

75.75 % high school

graduate or higher


degree or higher

Special


Population: 653 Primary



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 43

Palo Pinto

County City of Strawn

CID

Number: 480965

FEMA History of

Engagement:



11/07/2011 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Spoke with and emailed the City of

Strawn (Mayor and the new FPA). Palo Pinto County preliminary maps have been

released. Appeal period for the City is over. Ordinance may need to be revised

before maps go effective. For example, they may compare the current and

preliminary maps to see if the floodplain areas have changed. More people may

be required to purchase flood insurance in the future. Residents can take

advantage of grandfathering and reduced insurance rates at this point in time.

Ordinance may need to be revised before maps go effective.



Contact

Information:


Harwell


Emergency

Management

Coordinator

Phone Number: (940)

682-8456

Email:

[email protected]

pinto.tx.us

Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:




Plan

Author:





Approved pending

adoption In review


Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 44

Parker County Parker County CID

Number: 480520

Contact

Information:

Name: Mark Riley

Title: County Judge

Phone Number: (817) 598-6148

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Kirk Fuqua

Title: Director of Permitting/

Floodplain Administrator

Phone Number: (817) 598-6174

Email:

[email protected]

Website: www.parkercountyjudge.com County

Judge: Mark Riley

Term

Ends: 12/12

Demographics*:



Education:

85.4 % high school

graduate or higher

22.4 % bachelor’s degree

or higher

Special

Populations:

Oil and Natural

Gas exploration.


Use:

Farming /

Ranching

FEMA History of

Engagement:

07/08/2008 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Met with Floodplain Administrator (FPA)

Reviewed ordinance, permitting system, and FEMA flood maps. County uses elevation

certificates and permitting system. FPA is CFM and he attended training in League City in

2008. Working with FPA to update ordinance as county get new FEMA maps effective

9/26/08. Excellent program.

11/15/2011 - General Technical Assistance A homeowner is putting in an RV storage

facility and part of the property is located in Zone A. There was a discussion about flood

insurance requirements and LOMA criteria. The homeowner stated that he spoke with

FEMA and it was communicated that if the lot is under 5 acres and a BFE was not

available, one would be provided without cost. It was verified that is an option for a

LOMA, LOMR-F and a metes and bounds removal.

07/19/2011 - General Technical Assistance A company is doing oil and gas pipelines and

needed information regarding floodplain requirements. The FPA contact information was

provided. The company representative was told that floodplain requirements depend on

which zone they are working in, what activities they were performing, along with the

community's specific requirements.

02/14/2011 - General Technical Assistance A resident was looking for BFE information.

Provided contact information for the FPA and the TWDB Field Representative.

02/10/2011 - General Technical Assistance Provided the Platting Officer county

information about aquifers and referred them to the TCEQ.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 45

Parker County Parker County CID

Number: 480520



Contact

Information:

Name: Shawn Scott

Title: Fire Marshal/Emergency


Phone Number: (817) 598-0969

Email:

[email protected]

Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:




Plan Author:






Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Parker County City of Cool CID

Number: 480136

Contact

Information:

Name: Dorothy Hall

Title: Mayor

Phone Number: (940) 682-4498

Email:

Website: http://www.cityofcooltx.com County

Judge: Mark Riley

Term

Ends: Unknown

Demographics*:



Income: $23,750

Education: Not available Special


Population: 157 Primary



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 46

Parker County City of Cool CID

Number: 480136

FEMA History of

Engagement:

08/02/2007 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Not in the NFIP. Sent them a NFIP

Application, a city resolution, the new FEMA Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance,

high regulatory standards, and an example of a floodplain building permit.


assistance



Contact

Information:

Name: Shawn Scott

Title: Fire Marshal/Emergency


Phone Number: (817) 598-0969

Email:

[email protected]

Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:




Plan

Author:





Approved pending

adoption In review


Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 47

Hood, Johnson,

Parker County City of Cresson

CID

Number: 480177

Contact

Information:

Name: Bob Cornett

Title: Mayor/Emergency



4729

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Charlotte Huffman

Title: City Secretary/Floodplain

Administrator


4729

Email:

[email protected]


Judge: Mark Riley

Term

Ends: 5/13

Demographics*:



Education:

82.96% high school

graduate or higher

16.59% bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special



Use: Residential


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 48

Hood, Johnson,


CID

Number: 480177

FEMA History of

Engagement:

For the portion of Cresson within Hood Count, Countywide Revised revision date

08/16/2012 would have been coordination between Community and FEMA in regards

to the release of these FIRMs.

4/18/2012 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) The city has no development going on at

the moment. They have had no violation or issues with the flood damage prevention

ordinance and no annexations. Charlotte is aware of the requirements and has access

to their ordinance and maps when needed.

05/12/2012 - Cresson, City, Hood County. Visited (5/12/10) with City. Reviewed

Ordinance, FEMA maps (date when maps must be adopted), permitting system, &

provided city one page floodplain development permit form. Discussed higher

standards, two feet of freeboard above the BFE for lowest floor of structures,

definition of development, detailed engineering studies for all FEMA SFHA Zone A

areas, training of Floodplain Administrator (CFM), Texas Water Code (overflow caused


05/06/2010 - Cresson, City, Johnson County. Visited (5/6/10) with City. Reviewed

Ordinance, FEMA maps (date when maps must be adopted), permitting system, &

provided city one page floodplain development permit form. Discussed higher

standards, two feet of freeboard above the BFE for lowest floor of structures,

definition of development, detailed engineering studies for all FEMA SFHA Zone A

areas, training of Floodplain Administrator (CFM), Texas Water Code (overflow caused


06/23/2011 - General Technical Assistance Realtor was inquiring about the flood

zone for a property in Cresson. Provided contact information for the city and also

information that is available from the MSC.



Contact

Information:




Additional

Notes: Located in Hood, Johnson, and Parker Counties


Plan Owner:




Plan Author:






Important



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 49

Hood, Johnson,


CID

Number: 480177

Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Parker County City of Millsap CID

Number: 480107

Contact

Information:

Name: Jamie French

Title: Mayor


7446

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Roxanne Kennedy

Title: Secretary/Floodplain

Administrator


7446

Email:

[email protected]


Judge: Mark Riley

Term

Ends: 5/12

Demographics*:



Education:

75.5% high school

graduate or higher

8.2% bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special



Use: Residential

FEMA History of

Engagement:

08/01/2007 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Not in the NFIP. Sent them a NFIP

application, city resolution, floodplain building permit packet, and the new FEMA

Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.


assistance.




HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 50

Parker County City of Millsap CID

Number: 480107

Contact

Information:

Name: Shawn Scott

Title: Fire

Marshal/Emergency



0969

Email:

[email protected]

Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:




Plan

Author:






Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Parker County City of Weatherford CID

Number: 480522

Contact

Information:

Name: Dennis Hooks

Title: Mayor


0044

Email:

[email protected]

Name: James Hotopp

Title: Water/Wastewater &

Engineering

Director/Floodplain

Administrator


4257

Email:

[email protected]

Website: www.ci.weatherford.tx.us County

Judge: Mark Riley

Term

Ends: 5/12




HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 51


Number: 480522

Education:

84.9 % high school

graduate or higher

21.7 % bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special



Use: Residential

FEMA History of

Engagement:

07/11/2000 - Community Assisted Visit (CAV) by the State.

03/23/2011 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Weatherford City, Parker County.

Visited the City (City Engineer, Floodplain Administrator) on 3/23/11, reviewed

the following with the city; the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

ordinance, development definition, permitting process, permit form, map change

process, community awareness program, channel maintenance program, map

change grandfather rules for flood insurance, grant programs, substantial

improvement/damage, and higher standards. Visited several properties (one

property had erosion of the creek bank up to about 20 feet of a home) along a

creek which has stream erosion with City Engineer and one property owner.

There was erosion behind several other homes along the creek. City will contract

with an engineering firm to evaluate the erosion along the stream and make a

recommendation to the City. State will be provided a copy of the engineering

report. City Engineer will meet with property owners (six) along the creek and

discuss action(engineering firms recommendation) on the erosion issue.

02/07/2012 - General Technical Assistance Homeowner has an erosion problem

behind her house where there is a creek. The City previously was looking at to

some mitigation but subsequently did not. Region VI is aware of the situation.

01/23/2012 - General Technical Assistance A resident is concerned with erosion

and increased development resulting in more flooding. She wants the City to

consider a flood control project (or other methods to reduce runoff). The City's

drainage criteria may include these measures and the City may also incorporate

these measures into the flood ordinance as higher standards. Spoke with the

TWDB Grants team, and they have provided information about flood control

projects in the past. Followed up with an email to the FPA and offered

assistance.




HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 52


Number: 480522

Contact

Information:

Name: Paul Rust

Title: Fire Chief/Emergency



4282

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Tammy Gazzola

Organization: Weatherford

Chamber of Commerce

Email: info@weatherford-

chamber.com

Additional

Notes: http://weatherford-chamber.com


Plan Owner:




Plan Author:






Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Somervell

County Somervell County

CID

Number: 481186

Contact

Information:

Name: Mike Ford

Title: County Judge

Phone Number: (254)897-

2322

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Wade Busch

Title: Floodplain

Administrator

Phone Number:

(254)897-2239

Email:

[email protected]

Website: http://co.somervell.tx.us County

Judge: Mike Ford

Term

Ends: 12/14

Demographics*:



Income: $52,135


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 53

Somervell

County Somervell County

CID

Number: 481186

Education:

87.4 % high school

graduate or higher

28.4 % bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

Oil and Natural Gas

exploration.



FEMA History of

Engagement:

08/15/2006 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) FPA unaware of county order.

01/25/2011 - General Technical Assistance Secretary to the County Judge stated

the County had no homes damaged by the 2011 wildfires. Also, it was stated

that the County does not issue any type of building permits.



Contact

Information:

Name: Dwayne Griffin

Title: Emergency



2919

Email:

[email protected]

Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:




Plan

Author:





Approved pending

adoption In review


Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 54

Stephens

County Stephens County

CID

Number: 481244

Contact

Information:

Name: Gary L. Fuller

Title: County Judge/Floodplain

Administrator


2190

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Dan R. Young

Title:

Sheriff/Emergency

Management

Coordinator

Phone Number:

(254)559-2481

Email:

[email protected]

Website: http://www.co.stephens.tx.us County

Judge: Gary L. Fuller

Term

Ends: 12/14

Demographics*:



Income: $35,691

Education:

82.2 % high school

graduate or higher

12.2 % bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

Oil and Natural Gas

exploration.



FEMA History of

Engagement:

05/13/2009 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) They require an elevation certificate

for all mapped floodplain areas and the areas around the lake.

10/03/2011 General Technical Assistance Environmental Review: SRSUD/TWDB

Requested that the community floodplain administrator be contacted for the

review and possible permit requirements for project. It is requested the project

be compliant with EO 11988 & 11990

Additional Stakeholder Information : Please see Federal, State, and Other agency contact


Contact

Information:




Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:




Enforcement Agency


Plan

Author:

Name: H2O Partners


Email:

[email protected]


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 55

Stephens

County Stephens County

CID

Number: 481244


Approved pending

adoption In review


Important

Dates: Approved: April 15, 2006 Expires: September 30, 2010

Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

1) Flood

2) Drought

3) Winter Storm

Top Three Plan

Actions:

1) Require new construction in flood zone to be above flood level.

2) Implement maintenance program for clearing debris and vegetation from

creek beds.

3) Develop Mutual Aid Agreements with area communities.

Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

Young County Young County CID

Number: 480684

Contact

Information:

Name: John C Bullock

Title: County Judge


2030

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Marsha Sumpter

Title: 911 Director/Floodplain

Administrator


7911

Email:

[email protected]

Website: www.co.young.tx.us County

Judge:

John C Bullock

Term

Ends: 12/14

Demographics*:



Education:

76.5 % high school

graduate or higher

13.6 % bachelor’s

degree or higher

Special

Populations:

Oil and Natural

Gas exploration.


Use:

Farming /

Ranching


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 56

Young County Young County CID

Number: 480684

FEMA History of

Engagement:



03/16/2010 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Reviewed Court Order, FEMA maps,

permitting system, & provided city one page floodplain development permit


03/08/2011 - Community Assisted Call (CAC) Reviewed ordinance, FEMA maps,

permitting system, & provided city one page floodplain development permit




Contact

Information:

Name: John Hardin

Title: Emergency



0011

Email:

[email protected]

Additional

Notes:


Plan Owner:

Name: Sabina Baca


Planning Commission


Plan

Author:

Name: Sabina Baca






Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 57

Young

County City of Graham CID Number: 480685

Contact

Information:

Name: Barry White

Title: Mayor


3292

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Larry Fields

Title: City

Manager/Floodplain

Administrator

Phone Number: (940)

549-3292

Email:

[email protected]

Website: www.cityofgrahamtexas.co

m

County

Judge: John C Bullock Term Ends: 5/12

Demographics*:



Education:

73.2 % high school

graduate or higher

12.7 % bachelor’s degree

or higher

Special Populations: Not Applicable


Use: Residential

FEMA History of

Engagement:



Additional Stakeholder Information Please see Federal, State, and Other agency contact information for additional

Stakeholder information within this community.

Contact

Information:

Name: David Hooper

Title: Emergency Management Coordinator

Phone Number: (940) 549-6902


Name: Jennifer Conway, Chairman

Organization: Graham Chamber of Commerce

Email:

http://www.grahamtxchamber.com/contact_

us.html

Additional

Notes: http://www.grahamtxchamber.com/index.html


Plan Owner:

Name: Sabina Baca


Planning Commission


Plan

Author:

Name: Sabina Baca

Organization: NORTEX Regional Planning

Commission




Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 58

Young

County City of Graham CID Number: 480685

Top Three

Plan

Actions:

Not Applicable

Recent

Hazard

Mitigation

Plan Grant

Activity?

Not Applicable

Young County City of Olney CID

Number: 480686

Contact

Information:

Name: Brenda Stennett

Title: Mayor


2102

Email:

[email protected]

Name: Ronnie Cowart

Title: Code Enforcement

Officer/Emergency

Management


Administrator


3800

Email:

[email protected]


Judge:

John C Bullock

Term

Ends: 5/12

Demographics*:



Education:

70.2 % high school

graduate or higher


degree or higher

Special



Use: Residential

FEMA History of

Engagement:



Additional Stakeholder Information Please see Federal, State, and Other agency contact


Contact

Information:


Organization: Not

Applicable


Additional

Notes:



HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 59

Young County City of Olney CID

Number: 480686

Plan Owner:

Name: Sabina Baca


Planning Commission


Plan

Author:

Name: Sabina Baca


Planning Commission




Important


Top Three

hazards

mentioned:

Not Applicable

Top Three Plan


Recent Hazard

Mitigation Plan

Grant Activity?

Not Applicable

*Note: When available demographic information included in this report has been provided by the

US Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 60

Figure 2: Grant Map


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 61

Figure 3: Percent Urban Coverage


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 62

Table 6: Current FIRM Date and Status

County/Community FIRM Date FIRM Status

Archer County 01/06/1988 Original

Eastland County 09/01/2007 All Zone A, C and X - Original FIRM by Letter

Ranger, City of 07/01/1999 All Zone A, C and X - Original FIRM by Letter

Erath County 11/16/2011 Revised

Hood County 08/16/2012 Revised

Cresson, City of 08/16/2012 Original

DeCordova, City of 08/16/2012 Original

Granbury, City of 08/16/2012 Revised

Lipan, City of 08/16/2012 Revised

Jack County 06/30/1998 All Zone C and X - No Published FIRM

Johnson County 01/06/1999 Revised

Palo Pinto County 08/02/2012 Revised

Gordon, Town of 08/02/2012 Original

Graford, Town of 08/02/2012 Revised

Mineral Wells, City of 08/02/2012 Revised

Mingus, City of 08/02/2012 Revised

Strawn, City of 08/02/2012 Revised

Parker County 09/26/2008 Revised

Cool, City of 09/26/2008 All Zone A, C and X - No Elevation Determined

Millsap, City of 09/26/2008 All Zone A, C and X - No Elevation Determined

Weatherford, City of 09/26/2008 Revised

Somervell County 04/03/1995 Revised

Stephens County 01/02/1991 Original

Young County 07/18/2011 Revised

Graham, City of 07/18/2011 Revised

Olney, City of 07/18/2011 Revised

Congressional and Media Engagement

In order to achieve success with any Region 6 Risk MAP project, members of Congress and their staff members, as

well as the media must be aware and understand the study process. Not only will their understanding enable them

to communicate effectively about the study details and process, it allows for greater collaboration and coordination.

Working with FEMA External Affairs to inform both legislators and the media will improve credibility of the Risk

MAP process and opens the door to understanding risk in a more holistic, comprehensive manner. External Affairs

develops scalable, accurate strategies with input from the Regional Project Team. Briefings and other tools as

determined by External Affairs staff will be developed to raise awareness with legislators and media in the affected

watershed.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 63

All team members working on Risk MAP projects are working toward the following goals:

• Raise awareness of Risk MAP natural hazards within Region 6

• Empower communities in Region 6 to take action to mitigate their natural hazard risks

Table 7: Congressional Contacts

U.S. Senator: Kay Bailey Hutchison Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

284 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Email or email contact form:

http://www.hutchison.senate.gov/?p

=email_kay

Website:

http://www.hutchison.senate.gov/

10440 N. Central Expressway Suite

1160

Dallas, Texas 75231

Facebook:

http://m.facebook.com/kaybaileyhutc

hison

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/kaybaileyhutch

FEMA History of

Engagement:

As part of this Discovery effort and the Risk MAP process, FEMA External Affairs

has debriefed the office of Kay Bailey Hutchison prior to project initiation.

U.S. Senator: John Cornyn Term Expiration Date: 2014

Contact

Information:

517 Hart Senate Office Building



http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public

/index.cfm?p=ContactForm

Website:

http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/

5001 Spring Valley Road, Suite 1125 E

Dallas, TX 75244

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/Sen.JohnCo

rnyn

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/

FEMA History of

Engagement:


has debriefed the office of John Cornyn prior to project initiation.

U.S.

Representative: Mac Thornberry Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

2209 Rayburn House Office Building



http://thornberry.house.gov/Contact/

Website:

http://www.thornberry.house.gov/

4245 Kemp Street, Suite 506

Wichita Falls, Texas 76308

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/repmactho

rnberry

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/MacTXPress


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 64

U.S.

Representative: Mac Thornberry Term Expiration Date: 2012

FEMA History of

Engagement:

Regional Congressional 12-03-5004 sent to FEMA Region 6 3/7/2012.

Constituent requests removal of floodplain designation from his property and

the homes of other Possume Kingdom Lake residents.


has debriefed the office of Mac Thornberry prior to project initiation.

U.S.

Representative: Kay Granger Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

320 Canon HOB



https://kaygranger.house.gov/contact

-me/email-me

Website:

http://kaygranger.house.gov/

1701 River Run Road, Suite 407

Fort Worth, TX 76107

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/RepKayGra

nger

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/RepKayGranger

FEMA History of

Engagement:


has debriefed the office of Kay Granger prior to project initiation.

U.S.

Representative: John Carter Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

409 Canon HOB



https://carterforms.house.gov/email-

john2

Website:

http://carter.house.gov/

6544B South General Bruce Drive

Temple, TX 76502

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/JudgeJohn

Carter

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/judgecarter

FEMA History of

Engagement:


has debriefed the office of John Carter prior to project initiation.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 65

U.S.

Representative: Randy Neugebauer Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

1424 Longworth HOB



https://randyforms.house.gov/index.c

fm?sectionid=172

Website:

http://randy.house.gov/

500 Chestnut Street Suite 819

Abilene, TX 79602

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/rep.randy.

neugebauer

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/RandyNeugebau

er

FEMA History of

Engagement:

Supported the appropriations request for the Salt Creek, Graham, Texas

Project. Was a local, Brazos River Authority, and USACE Fort Worth district

initiative to buy out properties located in the 10 year floodplain along the Salt

Creek flooding source in Graham, Texas. Residential and Commercial properties

in the project area have been experiencing periodic urban flooding under

smaller rain events.


has debriefed the office of Randy Neugebauer prior to project initiation.

U.S.

Representative: Bill Flores Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

1505 Longworth HOB



http://flores.house.gov/index.cfm?se

ctionid=58&sectiontree=3,58

Website:

http://flores.house.gov/

One North Walnut Street, Suite 145

Cleburne, TX 76033

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/RepBillFlor

es

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/RepBillFlores

FEMA History of

Engagement:


has debriefed the office of Bill Flores prior to project initiation.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 66

Texas Senate: Senator Troy Fraser Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

P.O. Box 12068

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

(512) 463-0124


http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/se

nate/members/dist24/dist24.htm#for

m

Website:


nate/members/dist24/dist24.htm

500 Chestnut

Suite 810

Abilene, Texas 79602

(325) 676-7404

(325) 676-8060 Fax

Facebook:

Twitter:

FEMA History of

Engagement:

Initial contact was made to the office of Troy Fraser in the form of an initial

contact letter that outlined the Discovery initiative as part of the Risk MAP

process.

Texas Senate: Senator Craig Estes Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

State Capitol, Room 3E.8

P.O. Box 12068

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

(512) 463-0130

Fax: (512) 463-8874


http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Se


m

Website:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Se


2525 Kell Blvd., Suite 302


(940) 689-0191

(940) 689-0194 Fax

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Crai

g-Estes/105536816146300

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/RepBillFlores

FEMA History of

Engagement:

Initial contact was made to the office of Craig Estes in the form of an initial


process.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 67

Texas Senate: Senator Brian Birdwell Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

P.O. Box 12068

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

(512) 463-0122

(512) 475-3729




m

Website:



1315 Waters Edge Drive, Suite 116-2

Granbury, Texas 76048

(817) 573-9622

(817) 579-7172 Fax

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/BrianBirdw

ellForTexas

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/senatorbirdwell

FEMA History of

Engagement:

Initial contact was made to the office of Brian Birdwell in the form of an initial


process.

Texas House: Rep. James L. “Jim” Keffer Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

Room 1N.12, Capitol

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

(512) 463-0656

(512) 478-8805 Fax


http://www.house.state.tx.us/memb

ers/member-

page/email/?district=60&session=82

Website:


ers/member-page/?district=60

P.O. Box 857

Eastland, TX 76448

(800) 586-4515

(512) 478-8805 Fax

Facebook:

Twitter:

FEMA History of

Engagement:

Initial contact was made to the office of James L. “Jim” Keffer in the form of an

initial contact letter that outlined the Discovery initiative as part of the Risk

MAP process.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 68

Texas House: Rep. Rick Hardcastle Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

Room 4N.04, Capitol

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

(512) 463-0526

(512) 463-6003 Fax



ers/member-


Website:



1930 Fannin

Vernon, TX 76384

(940) 553-3825

(940) 553-3861 fax

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/people/Ric

k-Hardcastle/1711847511

Twitter:

FEMA History of

Engagement:

Initial contact was made to the office of Rick Hardcastle in the form of an initial


process.

Texas House: Rep. Phil King Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

Room CAP 1N.7, Capitol

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

(512) 463-0738

(512) 463-1957 Fax



ers/member-


Website:



2110 Fort Worth Hwy.

Weatherford, TX 76086

(817) 596-4796

(817) 596-8375 fax

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/PhilKingTX

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/PhilKingTX

FEMA History of

Engagement:

Initial contact was made to the office of Troy Phil King in the form of an initial


process.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 69

Texas House: Rep. Sid Miller Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

Room CAP GN.11, Capitol

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

(512) 463-0628

(512) 463-3644 Fax



ers/member-


Website:



6407 South US Hwy. 377

Stephenville, TX 76401

(254) 968-3535

(254) 968-6903 Fax

Facebook:

Twitter:

FEMA History of

Engagement:

Initial contact was made to the office of Sid Miller in the form of an initial


process.

Texas House: Rep. Rob Orr Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

Room EXT E1.414, Capitol

Extension

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

(512) 463-0538

(512) 463-0897 Fax



ers/member-


Website:



201 W. Ellison, Ste 201

Burleson, TX 76028

(817) 295-5158

(817) 295-5319 Fax

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/State-

Representative-Rob-

Orr/103109236393174

Twitter:

FEMA History of

Engagement:

Initial contact was made to the office of Rob Orr in the form of an initial contact

letter that outlined the Discovery initiative as part of the Risk MAP process.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 70

Texas House: Rep. Lanham Lyne Term Expiration Date: 2012

Contact

Information:

Room E2.820, Capitol Extension

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

(512) 463-0534

(512) 463-8161 Fax



ers/member-


Website:



3707 Maplewood, Suite 200


(940)689-0890

(940)689-0888 Fax

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/lanham.lyn

e

Twitter:

FEMA History of

Engagement:

Initial contact was made to the office of Lanham Lyne in the form of an initial


process.

Folder

Number

Date

Received Due Date

Requester/

Community State Region

Constituent’s

Concerns Notes

Regional

Congressional

12-03-5004

3/7/2012 3/14/2012

Rep.

Thornberry/

Graford (Palo

Pinto County)

TX 6

Constituent

requests removal

of floodplain

designation from

his property and

the homes of

other Possum

Kingdom Lake

residents.

Response was

sent to

Congressional

Office

Recent News Articles

Floods cause more evacuations in Texas 07/02/2007

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/2007-07-01-flooding_N.htm

Congressional correspondence regarding Brazos River Authority Support for Federal Funding for the Graham Salt

Creek Flood Control Project, Graham, Texas 03/02/2009

http://randy.house.gov/uploads/Neugebauer_letter.pdf

FY09 BRA Strategic Initiatives - Lake Granbury Debris Cleanup and Salt Creek, Graham Texas Floodplain Project

http://www.brazos.org/FA_pdf/FY09_Overview_&_Strategic_Initiatives.pdf

State of Texas Wildfire Update Incident Period: 08/30/2011 - 12/31/2011 Report Date: 03/19/2012-03/23/2012

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/dem/ThreatAwareness/wildfireUpdateDR4029.pdf


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 71

Crews still Battling Palo Pinto County Grass Fire 08/31/2011

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/08/31/crews-still-battling-palo-pinto-county-grass-fire/

Texas County to get FEMA aid after wildfire 8/17/2011

http://www.homeland1.com/business-continuity/articles/1106108-Texas-county-to-get-FEMA-aid-after-wildfires/

Volunteer Fireman Create Mobile Command Unit

http://www.fema.gov/mitigationbp/brief.do?mitssId=4746

The Texas Floods of 1990: Upstream Flooding Published Fall 1990

http://twri.tamu.edu/newsletters/texaswaterresources/twr-v16n3.pdf

New Construction in County Now Needs a Permit 01/29/2012

http://mineralwellsindex.com/local/x1296871858/New-construction-in-county-now-needs-a-permit

Public Invited to Participate in FEMA Flood Plain Mapping 10/16/2011

http://mineralwellsindex.com/x744035322/Public-invited-to-participate-in-FEMA-flood-plain-mapping

Water Board Still Considering Road, Utility, Spillway Locations 07/31/2012

http://mineralwellsindex.com/local/x1936215815/Water-board-still-considering-road-utility-spillway-locations

County Working to Create Hazard Action Plan 01/11/2007

http://mineralwellsindex.com/local/x154973142/County-working-to-create-hazard-action-plan

Palo Pinto Soil & Water Conservation District to Meet 08/31/2011

http://mineralwellsindex.com/local/x640623381/Palo-Pinto-Soil-Water-Conservation-District-to-meet

Watching the Waters Rise 06/29/2007

http://mineralwellsindex.com/x154985001/Watching-the-waters-rise

Pipes a Concern for Soil and Water District 10/01/2012

http://weatherforddemocrat.com/local/x278363424/Pipes-a-concern-for-Soil-and-Water-Conservation-District

Water Woes on Floodplain in Weatherford

http://weatherforddemocrat.com/local/x318440416/Water-woes-on-floodplain-in-Weatherford

Flooding at Issue in Other Subdivisions 02/06/2012

http://weatherforddemocrat.com/local/x980628881/Flooding-at-issue-in-other-subdivisions

Too Much Rain to Absorb 01/26/2012

http://weatherforddemocrat.com/local/x1456429481/Too-much-rain-to-absorb

Weatherford to Discuss Drainage Funding 01/23/2012

http://weatherforddemocrat.com/local/x647567887/Weatherford-to-discuss-drainage-funding

County to Develop Emergency Plans 07/13/2010


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 72

http://weatherforddemocrat.com/x540031051/County-to-develop-emergency-plans

Flood Gates Open 04/20/2010

http://weatherforddemocrat.com/x993506384/Flood-gates-open

FEMA Publishes New Johnson County Flood Risk Maps 12/14/2010

http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/johnsoncounty/x1613327824/FEMA-publishes-new-Johnson-County-flood-

risk-maps

BRA Lifts Drought Status 03/09/2012

http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/local/x1284932327/BRA-lifts-drought-status

Johnson County Dam Repairs Underway 04/16/2010

http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/johnsoncounty/x563622309/Johnson-County-dam-repairs-under-way

Erath Dams Need Repairs, Maintenance 03/14/2012

http://www.yourstephenvilletx.com/news/local/article_3e4f6ee0-6dff-11e1-8bd9-0019bb2963f4.html

Flash Floods Sweep Eastern Erath

http://www.yourstephenvilletx.com/multimedia/videos/news/youtube_99b0b0f8-99df-11e1-b6c8-

0019bb2963f4.html

Flood Clean-up Continues at Big Rocks, River Walk 02/01/2012

http://www.yourglenrosetx.com/news/article_87449774-8c81-5aca-bc2d-4981bc679881.html

Extreme Makeover on the Paluxy as Drought Turns to Flood 02/02/2012

http://www.yourglenrosetx.com/news/article_9996a96a-0c33-5a68-8b50-f42d15d68f3e.html

Breaking News: TCEQ Orders Brazos River Authority to Submit Water Plan 01/25/2012

http://www.yourglenrosetx.com/news/article_d522e976-01eb-56ee-ad37-d53b0eb5b925.html

A River Runs Through Us 03/01/2012

http://www.yourglenrosetx.com/visitors/article_d48018f0-63f6-11e1-b3c1-001871e3ce6c.html

Eagle Mountain Lake - What Goes on the Ground in an 860-Square-Mile Area 07/27/2011

http://www.springtown-epigraph.net/news/get-news.asp?id=11126&catid=3&cpg=get-news.asp

New County Flood-Plain Map 10/20/2011

http://www.lakecountrysun.com/index.asp?id=2878


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 73

Level of Engagement

The following identify the level of engagement required within the watershed as a whole based on the information

collected in the community reviews.

High (services and interaction should be over and above the base line touch points)

Congressional interest in the surrounding area within the last year

Numerous appeals and protests logged in the last update by local communities

Numerous and centralized clusters of congressional inquiries (indications of pockets of resistance and study

need areas)

One or multiple tribal entities that need to be engaged within the Discovery Process

No high quality elevation data within the watershed or data in collection (need to be careful with timeline and

explanation to keep expectations in line)

Limited digital capability within the watershed (communities not on-line and not in regular use of computers)

Limited digital capability within the watershed (large number of residents not likely to interact with digital

products or websites to collect information

Level of Engagement Review – Moderate (Baseline)

New to discovery process (most studies should fall here)

Community interaction within FEMA shows possible local interest in process and products (engaged recently

with FEMA)

Indication of digital capability by local community (community website)

Indication that residents will engage with digital data delivery if provided

Level of Engagement Review – Low

Cooperating Technical Partners (selection of project areas handled by business plan) and by CTP

Full LiDAR coverage within watershed area (all project areas possible have high quality elevation data)

Fully interactive community websites and indication that all digital avenues are currently used for community

information preparation and interaction (interactive mapping and forms on line for residents to fill out for other

services prepared and available thru the community)

Pre-Discovery Data Gathering

FEMA and the Regional Project Team were in contact with all watershed stakeholders via letters, email, and phone

calls before this Discovery meeting to request local participation. In addition to assisting scheduling the meeting,

locals were asked to help identify additional key people who should be included in the Discovery process and

acquire any data that will assist in the risk identification and assessment for the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto watershed.

In preparation for the Discovery meeting, the Regional Project Team:

• Gathered information about local flood risk and flood hazards

• Reviewed mitigation plans to understand local mitigation capabilities, hazard risk assessments, and current

or future mitigation activities

• Encouraged communities along the watershed to develop a vision for the watershed’s future

• Used all information gathered to determine which areas of the watershed may require further study

through a Risk MAP project


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 74

The Regional Project Team began outreach efforts to the local governments within the Watershed, Congressional

and public officials, NRCS, USACE Fort Worth District, TXDEM, TWDB, TCEQ, TXDOT, BRA, East Keechi Water Control

and Improvement District, North Central Texas Council of Governments, West Central Texas Council of

Governments, NORTEX Planning Commission, Friends of the Brazos River, Brazos River Conservation Coalition, and

local Chambers of Commerce to inform them of the Discovery process and to invite them to participate and

contribute information about the Watershed about water resource concerns. The following are key steps that were

taken before the Discovery meetings:

• Initial Coordination meeting with FEMA, the State of Texas (NFIP and SHMO) and contract personnel to set

the stage for co-participation and sharing of the meeting. Establish potential meeting times and locations

• Contract personnel sets logistics for the meeting date/locations/facilities

• Information letters mailed to the communities and interested groups like Chamber of Commerce, Planning

agencies, and Water Management Group

• Coordinate with FEMA departments to get community contact information of who to call for information

• Initial calls by FEMA Region 6 staff and Contract personnel to (see Initial Contact) list to request information

that may be pertinent to the watershed

• Mail invitation letters to the CEO, email invitation to other key personnel

• FEMA follows up with email with meeting information

• FEMA follows up with phone calls to personally invite communities and remind them of the meeting details

and logistics to ensure the major watershed players will be there

• FEMA coordinates internally for meeting attendees to support the project

• Invite USACE Fort Worth District to actively participate as an active member of the project team

• Congressional briefing before the meeting

• Media briefing before the meeting - or as determined appropriate by External Affairs (Public Affairs)

• Dry run with FEMA, State, USACE Fort Worth District and Contractor to distribute the meeting materials for

review and questions

Watershed Selection


factors (or trifecta factors): population, topographic data availability and risk decile. The risk decile is calculated

from 9 parameters: total population density, historical population growth, predicted population growth, housing

units, flood policies, single claims, repetitive losses, repetitive loss properties and declared disasters. Consideration

of these factors and parameters has been the focus of many sections of this plan.

For the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto watershed, out of the total 3,150 square miles, it is estimated that 3,066 square

miles are available to be developed or have development and population currently in place. Table 8 indicates the

available land for population growth and expansion.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 75

Table 8: Land Use in the Watershed

Land Use

Approximate

Square Miles Within

the Watershed

Incorporated Communities 66

Unincorporated Counties 3,084

Undevelopable Areas within watershed

Lakes / Reservoirs / Detention ponds 70

Parks / Preserves 7

Military Areas / Reservations 6

Miscellaneous Non-Developable Areas <1

The Brazos River is the most significant stream in this watershed. In addition, Lake Eddleman, Possum Kingdom

Lake, Palo Pinto Creek Reservoir, and Lake Granbury are significant water resources within the watershed. The USGS

provides a National Hydrologic Dataset (NHD) can be used to identify stream miles that reflect drainage areas of one

square mile from available topographic data. The NHD stream mileage may be used to gain a sense of the total

potential stream miles for a watershed. Using the NHD there are approximately 3,335 miles of streams in the

Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto watershed.

The Coordinated Needs Management Strategy (CNMS) Inventory provides a snapshot of the status and attributes of

currently studied streams existing within FEMA’s floodplain study inventory. In general, the stream mileage shown

in CNMS reflects streams with an approximately one-mile drainage area and that currently have effective Special

Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) designated for them. CNMS does not reflect the total potential of stream miles to be

studied within a watershed.

Table 9 compares the NHD data to the CNMS data for the watershed.

Table 9: Stream Miles Within the Watershed

Source Stream Miles

NHD Streams

(streams with a drainage area of greater than one square mile) 3,335

CNMS Streams

(streams with effective Special Flood Hazard Area) 2,597

Stream Miles not accounted for in CNMS 739

In addition to listing the miles of studied stream within a watershed, CNMS documents certain physiological,

climatological, or engineering methodological factors that may have changed since the date of the effective study.

The stream miles shown in CNMS are attributed with an evaluation of a Validation Status and Status Type that

allows an examination of the condition of a given study or group of studies. Studies which are considered Valid in

CNMS are the only studies which contribute to the New Validated or Updated Engineering (NVUE) metric. Figure is

a map showing areas of relatively higher urban change within the watershed that can be used to help determine if

streams are considered valid.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 76

The NVUE metric is used as an indicator the status of studies for FEMA's mapped SFHA Inventory. Those studies

which are categorized as ‘unverified’, typically indicate that there are some factor of change since the SFHA became

effective or may have a deficiency warranting restudy. CNMS stream mileage categorized as ‘Requires Assessment’

require further input to determine their validity – often because they represent paper inventory or non-modernized

studies. CNMS aids in identifying areas to consider for study during the Discovery process by highlighting needs on a

map, quantifying them (mileage), and providing further categorization of these needs in order to differentiate

factors that identify the needs.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 77

Figure 4: Urban Changes Last 5 Years


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 78

Figure 5: Urban Changes Between 1992 and 2006


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 79

Figure 6: Population Density in the Watershed


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 80

Within the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto watershed and using these criteria from CNMS, approximately 0 miles of Zone

A and 20 miles of Zone AE areas were identified as being unverified. Streams included in the unverified grouping

include Dry Creek, Lambert Branch, Salt Creek and Stream LB-2, with approximately 18 miles of Zone AE flagged as

requiring further assessment or, are in the current process of being studied with on-going projects. Additionally, 0

miles of Zone AH, approximately 104 miles of Zone AE and approximately 151 miles of Zone A in the watershed were

characterized as being Valid under the NVUE metrics.

A graphic of these streams is shown in Figure 9. Table 10 summarizes the Validated NVUE stream mileage from

CNMS.

Table 10: NVUE Approximate Stream Mileage in the Watershed

NVUE Validation Stream Miles

CNMS Valid Zone AE / AH 104

CNMS Valid Zone A 151

CNMS Unverified Zone AE / AH 20

CNMS Unverified Zone A 0

CNMS Zone AE / AH Requiring Further Assessment or in the process of

being studied 18

CNMS Zone A Requiring Further Assessment 2,301

All Stream Miles not accounted for in CNMS as there are no effective

SFHAs (sum of the below) 746

Stream Miles not accounted for in CNMS that would fall in land that

could be developed 702

Stream Miles not accounted for in CNMS that would fall in land that

could not be developed 44

This watershed contains structures that are managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth

District. Possum Kingdom Lake, with Morris Sheppard Dam, is owned by Brazos River Authority and was the first

water supply reservoir constructed in the Brazos River Basin. Also located in the watershed in Parker and Hood

Counties, Lake Granbury and DeCordova Bend Dam were constructed by the Brazos River Authority and are

maintained and operated by the Authority as a source of water supply. Palo Pinto Reservoir is located within Palo

Pinto County and is controlled by the Palo Pinto County Municipal Water District No. 1.

The Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed has had a history of flooding as demonstrated by numerous presidential

disaster declarations with 39 issued in the past 38 years. The State Mitigation Plan noted for Disaster Declaration

2007 DR 1709 that thunderstorms flooded dozens of Central and North Texas Counties. In addition, the State

Mitigation Plan mentions Disaster Declaration 2008 DR 1791 where Hurricane Ike struck the Galveston, Houston and

Beaumont areas. Table 11 lists recent disaster declarations for multiple hazards within the watershed.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 81

Table 11: Disaster Declarations in the Watershed

Date of

Declaration Watershed Counties Declared For Hazard

11/30/1974 Parker SEVERE STORMS & FLOODING

08/03/1978 Stephens, Young SEVERE STORMS & FLOODING

10/23/1981 Palo Pinto, Parker, Stephens SEVERE STORMS & FLOODING

05/19/1989 Archer, Hood, Jack, Johnson, Palo Pinto,

Parker, Somervell, Young

SEVERE STORMS, TORNADOES &

FLOODING

05/02/1990

Archer, Eastland, Erath, Hood, Jack,

Johnson, Palo Pinto, Parker, Somervell,

Young

SEVERE STORMS, TORNADOES &

FLOODING

12/26/1991 Eastland, Hood, Johnson, Palo Pinto,

Parker, Somervell, Young SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS

09/10/1993



Stephens, Young EXTREME FIRE HAZARD

02/23/1996 Palo Pinto, Parker EXTREME FIRE HAZARD

07/07/1997 Eastland SEVERE STORMS AND FLOODING

08/26/1998



Stephens, Young TROPICAL STORM CHARLEY

09/01/1999



Stephens, Young EXTREME FIRE HAZARDS

08/31/2000 Eastland TX - RANGER HILL FIRE - 8/30/00

10/03/2000 Parker TX - QUAIL RUN FIRE - 10/03/00

01/05/2001 Johnson TX - ALSBURY FIRE - 08/29/00

07/04/2002 Eastland SEVERE STORMS AND FLOODING

02/01/2003 Eastland, Hood, Johnson, Parker,

Somervell

LOSS OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE

COLUMBIA

09/02/2005



Stephens , Young HURRICANE KATRINA EVACUATION

09/21/2005



Stephens, Young HURRICANE RITA

09/24/2005



Stephens, Young HURRICANE RITA

01/01/2006 Eastland CARBON FIRE


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 82

Date of

Declaration Watershed Counties Declared For Hazard

01/11/2006



Stephens, Young EXTREME WILDFIRE THREAT

01/15/2006 Stephens CADDO FIRE

01/19/2006 Johnson HUNTINGTON BROOK FIRE

08/19/2006 Palo Pinto, Stephens CADDO II FIRE COMPLEX

06/29/2007 Archer, Eastland, Erath, Hood, Parker,

Stephens

SEVERE STORMS, TORNADOES, AND

FLOODING

02/28/2008 Archer NEW ARCHER FIRE

03/14/2008



Stephens, Young WILDFIRES

09/10/2008 Archer, Parker HURRICANE IKE

04/10/2009 Palo Pinto 1148 FIRE

04/10/2009 Stephens BRECKENRIDGE FIRE

03/11/2011 Jack ENMIN FIRE

04/15/2011 Palo Pinto PK WEST FIRE

04/16/2011 Eastland EAST SIDWYNICKS FIRE

04/16/2011 Palo Pinto HOHERTZ FIRE

04/16/2011 Palo Pinto PK EAST FIRE

04/17/2011 Jack BRYSON FIRE COMPLEX

04/30/2011 Archer SISK ROAD FIRE

07/01/2011 Archer, Eastland, Palo Pinto, Stephens,

Young WILDFIRES

08/30/2011 Palo Pinto 101 RANCH FIRE


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 83

Table 12 lists the number of NFIP insurance claims for the portions of the community within the Middle Brazos-Palo

Pinto Watershed.

Table 12: NFIP Insurance Claims by County and Community within the Watershed

Total NFIP Insurance Claims by Community for the Watershed

Community Claims

Archer County 8

Eastland County 40

Erath County 0

Ranger, City of 1

Hood County 63

DeCordova, City of 0

Granbury, City of 15

Lipan, City of 0

Jack County 1

Johnson County 76

Palo Pinto County 35

Gordon, Town of 0

Graford, Town of 0

Mineral Wells, City of 28

Mingus, City of 1

Strawn, City of 0

Parker County 95

Cool, City of 0

Cresson, City of 0

Millsap, City of 0

Weatherford, City of 43

Somervell County 42

Stephens County 17

Young County 29

Graham, City of 50

Olney, City of 9

In addition to NFIP claims, there are several locations of Repetitive Loss or Severe Repetitive Loss with the Middle

Brazos-Palo Pinto watershed. A concentration of these locations appears along the Brazos River, particularly in the

Southeastern part of the watershed. Table 13 summarizes these claims by county and community within the


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 84

watershed. In addition to claims, Letters of Map Amendment and Revisions are also distributed throughout the

watershed, but appear to be concentrated in the Cities of Granbury and DeCordova around Lake Granbury and in

Palo Pinto County around Possum Kingdom Lake.

Table 13: Repetitive or Severe Repetitive Loss within the Watershed

Repetitive Loss/Severe Repetitive Loss by Each Community

Community Number of

Properties

Total Claims Average Claim Per

Property

Archer County 0 0 0.0

Eastland County 0 0 0.0

Ranger, City of 0 0 0.0

Erath County 0 0 0.0

Hood County 6 15 2.5

DeCordova, City of 0 0 0.0

Granbury, City of 0 0 0.0

Lipan, City of 0 0 0.0

Jack County 0 0 0.0

Johnson County 0 0 0.0

Palo Pinto County 7 16 2.3

Gordon, Town of 0 0 0.0

Graford, Town of 0 0 0.0

Mineral Wells, City of 2 5 2.5

Mingus, City of 0 0 0.0

Strawn, City of 0 0 0.0

Parker County 8 17* 2.1

Cool, City of 0 0 0.0

Cresson, City of 0 0 0.0

Millsap, City of 0 0 0.0

Weatherford, City of 3 9 3.0

Somervell County 7 24 3.4

Stephens County 0 0 0.0

Young County 3 8 2.7

Graham, City of 4 9 2.3

Olney, City of 1 2 2.0

*One property estimated due to insufficient information


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 85

Figure 7: Repetitive or Severe Repetitive Loss in the Watershed


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 86

Figure 8: Single Claims in the Watershed


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 87

Recent or pending planned acquisitions of topographic data have been made for all of Parker County. LiDAR

acquisition for a portion of Hood County, near Lake Granbury, is in progress. Topographic coverage totals are about

15-percent for the entire watershed. Areas that are noted to be lacking updated topographic information include

the Cities of DeCordova, Graham, Granbury, Lipan, Mineral Wells, Mingus, Olney, Ranger, Strawn, Weatherford, the

Towns of Gordon and Graford, and the unincorporated areas of Archer, Eastland, Erath, Jack, Johnson, Palo Pinto,

Somervell, Stephens and Young and most of Hood County within the watershed. Only the USGS 10-meter DEM data

is available for these missing areas and is not suitable for detailed study modeling and floodplain mapping.


factors (or trifecta factors): population, topographic data availability and risk decile. Decile risk calculated from nine

parameters: total population density, historical population growth, predicted population growth, housing units,

flood policies, single claims, repetitive losses, repetitive loss properties and declared disasters. Figure 9 shows the

rank of the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed when compared nationally and regionally with other HUC 8

watersheds. It also shows Need Factor Rank as demonstrated through Coordinated Needs Management Strategy

(CNMS). The combination of factors was key to the selection of this watershed for a Discovery Project.

The scale for risk decile ranges from one to ten. One is the highest risk decile, and ten is the lowest risk decile.

Table 14 lists the overall rankings of the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed, compared nationally to other HUC 8

watersheds. This information, along with rankings of smaller HUC 12 sub-basins, helps identify stream segments or

locations where risk evaluation can be targeted is used as an overview for the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto watershed is

shown in Figure 9. This represents the HUC 12 sub-basin risk decile, the availability of topographic data, and a

combined analysis of the Risk Factors for each stream segment reflecting the information in this overview. The

combination of factors was key to the selection of this watershed for a Discovery Project.

Table 14: Watershed Risk Factor Rankings

Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed Selection Rankings

National Risk Factor Rank: 445 Region 6 Risk Factor Rank: 72

National Risk Decile: 2 Region 6 Risk Decile: 2

Average Annualized Loss: $14,616,800 Average Annualized Loss: $14,616,800

National Average Annualized

Loss Rank: 508

Region 6 Average Annualized

Loss Rank: 72

National Overall Rank: 125 Region 6 Overall Rank: 34


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 88

Figure 9: Risk Factors and Topographic Data for the Watershed


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 89

Engineering Review

After the Discovery Meetings, additional engineering overview analysis helps focus on and more clearly identify key

areas flagged as being of concern or of interest for future projects or actions in the watershed. The post-Discovery

review is targeted to areas within the watershed that have been identified as having some type of mitigation action

going forward. The Discovery process may have eliminated the need to further explore particular areas within the

watershed, so a full analysis of all engineering concerns within the watershed is not performed after the initial

Discovery process. The details provided in this section of the report add to the documents that support the need for

further mitigation actions or studies in particularly streams, reaches, or communities within the watershed.

As a first step, any engineering related comments provided by the communities during the Discovery were initially

validated. Comments were looked at both in terms of hydrologic or hydraulic issues within the watershed and with

any general floodplain or BFE related comments. Any supporting appeal or protest information, correspondence

from communities, or anecdotal information was researched and expanded on as a concern if impacts to hydrologic

analysis were substantiated.

Discovery Hydrology

A limited review of hydrologic information was performed for pre-Discovery analysis within the Middle Brazos Palo

Pinto Watershed. This research was performed by senior engineering staff who often relied on engineering

judgment, some limited analysis, and regional experience to create an overview of the state of hydrologic

information for this watershed. It was not within the scope of this project to request all back-up modeling for the

communities in the watershed. These hydrologic reviews were focused on:

• Review of peak discharges in the watershed; and

• Limited gage analysis for the watershed

For the watershed as a whole, the one-percent annual chance peak discharges were reviewed for all streams within

a community and across community boundaries looking for discharge anomalies, places where LOMRs demonstrate

that the effective discharges may be suspect on a more global basis. Any notes were added if these changes can be

eliminated as a concern due to hydrologic factors including local flood control structures, detention, flow break outs,

sinks or other natural or manmade factors that may significantly alter hydrology flows. Finally a watershed wide

high-level gage analysis was reviewed comparing the information on any available gages within the watershed that

had appropriate historical information to the effective FIS, discharges for streams with gages. This analysis could

potentially flag any anomalies that would indicate that the hydrology may be out of date, too high, or too low for

sub-basin areas within the watershed.

Review of Peak Discharges

Peak discharges were reviewed based on available FIS reports, hydraulics models, flow gages, and available LOMRs

within the watershed at the crossing of SHFA areas at corporate limits (County, City and Town). For the watershed as

a whole, there are very few streams studied by detailed and limited detailed method. A comparison of discharges

was made for the same streams across community boundaries in Table 15. With this analysis, it was revealed that

there are discrepancies at the county boundary between Parker County and Hood Counties at Brazos River. No

hydrology data is available for the streams with a Zone A designation, so these were not reviewed.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 90

Brazos River in Hood County was restudied by detailed methods in 2009 and the discharges were revised. The peak

1-percent-annual-chance discharge at county boundary is 123,300 cfs. However, the peak 1-percent-annual-chance

discharge at Brazos River in Parker County, which is upstream from Hood County, is 138,000 cfs. This discharge is

from Hood County Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report and is based on the hydrology analysis performed in a LOMR

(case Number 00-06-1661P) in 2000. The hydrology analysis in the LOMR is based on the gage frequency analysis

with period of record from 1969 to 1996 (28 records of number of peaks). The period of record is now from 1969 to

2011 (43 number of peaks). The preliminary gage frequency analysis that was based on the 43 number of peaks

resulted in a peak 1-percent-annual-chance discharge of 128,500 cfs (see Table 17). This is more consistent with the

peak discharge of 123,300 cfs from Hood County restudy in 2009. A restudy of hydrology at Brazos River at Parker

County would be recommended.

Table 15: Discharge Comparison at Community Limits

Stream Name County

Effective one-

percent annual

chance discharge

(cfs)

Effective

discharges Source Notes

Brazos River Parker 138,000 FIS report 2000 LOMR

Brazos River Hood 123,300 FIS report 2009 Restudy

Table 16 lists any LOMRs for the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed that have an impact on hydrology. There is

only one LOMR which revised hydrology and had been incorporated into FIRM database and FIS report.

Table 16: LOMRs that Revise Hydrology within the Watershed

Stream Name Case number Basis of request Notes

Brazos River 00-06-1661P Hydrology and

Hydraulics Bridge


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 91

Figure 10: Letters of Maps Change


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 92

Frequency Analysis

Frequency analyses were performed for all the gages with the number of records greater than 10 within the Middle

Brazos Palo Pinto Watershed. Frequency analyses were performed using PeakFQ computer software. The

comparison between discharges from the FIS and from gage analysis was made and listed in Table 17. The

discharges from gage analysis are significantly different from the effective FIS discharges. Number of peaks in record

at gages ranges from 20 to 86. Most gages do not have records for recent years, except the gages at Brazos River.

At this time, a gage frequency analysis is only recommended for gages at on the Brazos River and is not

recommended for other gages because of the relative low number of peaks on record and lack of records in recent

years.

Table 17: Comparison of one-percent-annual peak flows of Gage Frequency Analysis and Effective Discharges

Stream

Name

Drainage

Area from

USGS

Gage

(square

mile)

Effective

discharges

Source

Effective

one-

percent

annual

chance

discharge

(cfs)

95%

confidence

limits

lower

(cfs)

(Gage)

One-

percent

annual

chance

discharge

from

PeakQ

(Gage)

95%

confidence

limits

upper

(cfs)

(Gage)

Number

of peaks

in

record

Year Begin

-

Year End

Salk Creek

at Olney 11.8 FIS 14,700 3,477 6,523 18,100 20

1958-1977

Briar Creek

near

Graham

24.2 N/A N/A 4,416 7,248 14,850 31

1959-1989

Big Cedar

Creek near

Ivan

97 N/A N/A 21,550 50,650 181,600 25

1965-1989

Brazos

River near

Graford

14,030 N/A N/A 5,013 8,298 18,270 22

1990-2011

Brazos

River near

Palo Pinto

14,245 FIS 164,000 86,670 112,300 154,500 88

1924-2011

Palo Pinto

Creek near

Santo

573 N/A N/A 33,770 51,070 95,500 27

1925-1976

Brazos

River near

Dennis

15,671 FIS 138,000 87,420 128,500 217,000 43

1969-2011

Discovery CNMS Analysis

Table 18 shows the detailed study streams in the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto watershed that have failed one or more

validation elements during the CNMS stream reach level validation process. The CNMS validation elements attempt


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 93

to identify changes to the Physical Environment, Climate and Engineering Methodologies since the date of the

Effective Analysis (different from the Effective issuance date). Per the CNMS validation process, the study is

considered as having a need or assigned an ‘Unverified’ status, if one of seven critical elements fail, or if four or

more of the 10 secondary elements fail during stream reach level validation.

Table 18: CNMS Analysis

Stream Name County Validation Status Failed CNMS Elements

Lambert Branch Hood Unverified C5

Stream LB-2 Hood Unverified C5

Salt Creek Young Unverified C2

Dry Creek Young Unverified C7, S4

Brazos River Hood Valid S4

Brazos River Parker Valid S4

Salt Creek Young Valid S4

Stream GR-1 Young Valid S5

Farmers Branch Young Valid S5

Stream GR-2 Young Valid S5

Mud Creek Young Valid S2, S5

Table 19 provides a description of the validation elements that failed as identified in the CNMS database.

Table 19: CNMS Category Descriptions

Element

Name Issue being identified by the Element Element Description

C2 Updated and effective peak

discharges differ significantly based

on confidence limits criteria in FEMA

G&S for Flood Hazard Mapping

Partners?

This element identifies if the discharge used for

the Effective studies are outside the 68%

confidence interval for updated peak discharges

based on USGS PeakFQ program using current

gage data.

C5 Current channel reconfiguration

outside effective SFHA?

This element compares digital special flood

hazard area boundaries to current aerial

imagery to determine whether or not the flood

source channel has been reconfigured outside

of the SFHA since the date of effective study.

C7 Significant channel fill or scour? This element reviews LOMR-F determinations

and the National Bridge Inventory to determine

if significant fill or scour has occurred to the

channel since the date of study. This element is

based on judgment from several outside

sources, and is most dependent on the

confirmation from local officials in the area.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 94

Element

Name Issue being identified by the Element Element Description

S2 Repetitive losses outside the SFHA? This element fails when repetitive loses have

been noted outside of the SFHA. Repetitive

loses determined to be from an unmapped

source, or due to local drainage issues are not

considered.

S4 More than one and less than five

new or removed hydraulic structures

(bridge/culvert) impacting BFEs?

This element identifies addition or removal of

more than 1, but less than 5 hydraulic

structures along the studied streams since the

date of the effective Study. Please note,

pursuant to guidance from FEMA, all structures

identified using aerial imagery were to be

counted for this element, including footbridges.

S5 Channel improvements/Shoreline

changes?

Failure of this element indicates that channel

improvements such as straightening /

channelization or armoring have occurred since

the date of effective analysis.

Summary of CNMS Concerns

Archer County, Texas:

Archer County was not included in the CNMS Phase 3 effort. Only a very small portion of the County falls within the

Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed, and currently does not reflect any studied streams. Since this County was not

assessed during the Phase 3 effort and was populated with Non-Digital studies in the CNMS inventory, there is a

possibility some mileage may not currently be captured.

Eastland County, Texas:

Eastland County was not included in the CNMS Phase 3 effort. The Eastland County streams which fall within the

Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed include:

Non-Model Backed Approximate Studies (about 71 miles)

All studies in Eastland County in the CNMS inventory are populated as Non-Model Backed approximates with a Non-

Digital Approximate study type.

Erath County, Texas:

Erath County was included in the CNMS Phase 3 effort. The Erath County streams which fall within the Middle

Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed include:

Non-Model Backed Approximate Studies (about 142 Miles)

All streams within the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed in Erath County are redelineated, Non-Model Backed

approximate studies.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 95

Hood County, Texas:

Hood County was included in the CNMS Phase 3 effort. The Hood County Streams which fall within the Middle


VALID Model Backed Approximate Studies (about 152 Miles)

VALID Detailed Studies (about 51 Miles)

UNVERIFIED Detailed Studies (about 5 Miles)

All approximate studies in the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed portion of Hood County have been determined

to be Valid, Model-Backed approximate studies during Phase 3.

There are 8 different detail studies found in Hood County in the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed. One study on

the Brazos River was bulk validated and determined to be Updated Detail with a study date of August 1, 2009. Two

studies, Lambert Branch and Stream LB-2 were determined to be “Unverified” during the Phase 3 effort. Both

streams failed the critical element C5 for the stream channel being located outside of the SFHA. Please refer to

Table 1 of this document for element failures for each specific study.

Jack County, Texas:

Jack County was not included in the CNMS Phase 3 effort. Only a portion of the County falls within the Middle

Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed, and currently does not reflect any studied streams. Since this County was not

assessed during the Phase 3 effort and was populated with Non-Digital studies in the CNMS inventory, there is a

possibility some mileage may not currently be captured.

Johnson County, Texas:

Johnson County was included in the CNMS Phase 3 effort. The Johnson County streams which fall within the Middle


Non-Model Backed Approximate Studies (about 41 Miles)

All streams within the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed in Johnson County are digital conversion Non-model

backed approximate studies.

Palo Pinto, Texas:

Palo Pinto County was not included in the CNMS Phase 3 effort. The county was populated in the CNMS inventory

prior to the Phase 3 effort with preliminary data that has yet to be issued. The Palo Pinto County Streams which fall

within the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed include:


Unknown Detailed Studies (about 19 Miles)

None of the studied streams in Palo Pinto County have been assessed under the Phase 3 CNMS standards. Due to

the population of the CNMS inventory using draft preliminary data, there is the possibility of inconsistencies within

the data.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 96

Parker County, Texas:

Parker County was not included in the CNMS Phase 3 effort, but was assessed under the same criteria during the

Region 6 CNMS pilot. The Parker County Streams which fall within the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed include:


VALID Detailed Studies (about 36 Miles)

All approximate studies in Parker County within the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed are non-model backed

digital conversion studies.

There is only one detail study in the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed portion of Parker County, Brazos River.

After the CNMS Region 6 pilot effort, it was determined that this reach only failed element S4 for new hydraulic

structures found on the stream. The study date of the reach is December 1, 1981.

Somervell, Texas:

Somervell County was not included in the CNMS Phase 3 effort. The Somervell County Streams which fall within the



All studies in Somervell County, within the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed, are populated in the CNMS

inventory as Non-Model backed approximates with a Non-Digital Approximate study type.

Stephens, Texas:

Stephens County was not included in the CNMS Phase 3 effort. The Stephens County Streams which fall within the


Non-Model Backed Approximate Studies (about 246.5 miles)

All studies in Stephens County, within the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed, are populated in the CNMS

inventory as Non-Model backed approximates with a Non-Digital Approximate study type.

Young, Texas:

Young County was included in the CNMS Phase 3 effort. The Young County Streams which fall within the Middle



VALID Detailed Studies (about 17.5 miles)

UNVERIFIED Detailed Studies (about 15 miles)

All approximate studies in Young County within the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed are non-model backed

digital conversion studies.

Eight different detail studies have been performed in Young County in the Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto Watershed, all

having redelineated floodplains based on newer topography. Two studies, Dry Creek and Salt Creek were


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 97

determined to be “Unverified” during the Phase 3 effort. Salt Creek failed C2 for the gage discharge on the stream

being outside the 84% confidence interval. Dry Creek failed C7 for significant fill or scour noted on the reach. Please

refer to Table 18 of this document for element failures for each specific study.

Discovery Hydraulics and Floodplain Analysis

Hydraulics, floodplain, and floodways were reviewed based on the FIS reports, available hydraulic models, and

FIRMs. As a result of the research, no hydraulic modeling data was available for the streams in the Zone A

floodplains within the watershed, and research could not conclude if any redelineated streams within the watershed

were model-based. Models that support Zone A areas and redelineated streams may be available in the FEMA

library. The CNMS data also did not reflect any model-backed Zone A areas or redelineated streams for this

watershed.

With this limited hydraulic analysis, and with engineering judgment, several discontinuities in both BFEs and

floodplain boundaries for few streams were identified, with the majority of these issues located at county

boundaries. No floodway disconnects were identified in this research.

Table 20 identifies any recent LOMCs in the watershed that have impacted hydraulics and may have created

disconnects up and downstream.

Table 20: LOMRs that Revise Hydraulics within the Watershed

Stream Name Case number Basis of request Notes

Rock Creek Tributary

No.1

08-06-2504P Hydraulics

Culvert, fill placement, channel

relocation and floodway and

new topography

07-06-0680P Hydraulics Floodway, new topography

Lambert Branch

07-06-0376P Hydraulics Culvert, fill placement, and

floodway and new topography

02-06-198P Hydraulics Culvert, fill placement and

floodway

Brazos River 06-06-BG36P Hydraulics Fill placement and new

topography

The LOMRs (case numbers 08-06-2504P and 07-06-0680P) at Rock Creek Tributary No.1 and LOMRs (case number of

07-06-0376P and 02-06-198P) at Lambert Branch impact hydraulics but did not create disconnects upstream or

downstream. The LOMR (case number of 06-060BG36P) at Brazos River, that impact the hydraulics, creates a

discontinuity in Base Flood Elevations (BFEs). The LOMR revises the BFE at the downstream end at U.S. Route 377

was revised to 698 feet. However, approximately 1,000 ft upstream of U.S. Route 377, the BFE is 697 feet.

In addition to LOMRs generating discontinuity in current floodplain mapping, mismatches at corporate limits or

county boundaries often appear when community-based FIRMs and FISs are compiled together. Several

mismatches in the special flood hazard areas occur at corporate limits including:


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 98

• The hydraulics at the county boundary between Parker County and Hood Counties at Brazos River results in

a BFE discrepancy. The difference in BFE at the county boundary is approximately 3.0 feet. The BFE is lower

upstream at Parker County and is higher downstream at Hood County. The difference in BFEs is also

reflected in profiles.

• The Zone A floodplains do not match at the county boundary between Young County and Jack County. On

the Young County side the floodplain is mostly defined as Zone A and shaded Zone X but on the Jack County

side the floodplain is not defined (Zone C). There is a similar situation between Jack County and Palo Pinto

County.

• The Zone A floodplains do not match at the county boundary between Young County and Stephens County

for Duff Branch and its unnamed tributary and Davis Creek. There are no hydrology and hydraulics data

available to review for these streams.

• The Zone A floodplains do not match at the county boundary between Young County and Palo Pinto County

for all the streams crossing the county boundary. There are no hydrology and hydraulics data available to

review for these streams.

• The Zone A floodplains do not match at the county boundary between Stephens County and Palo Pinto

County for all the streams crossing the county boundary. There are no hydrology and hydraulics data

available to review for these streams.

• The Zone A floodplains do not match at the county boundary between Parker County and Palo Pinto County

for all the streams crossing the county boundary. There are no hydrology and hydraulics data available to

review for these streams.

• The Zone AE floodplains do not match at the county boundary between Parker County and Palo Pinto

County for Brazos River. There are no hydrology and hydraulics data available to review for these streams.

However, the FIS for Palo Pinto County indicates that the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the Brazos

River were taken from the Unincorporated Areas of Parker County, Texas, Flood Insurance Study. This means

that the Hydrology and hydraulic analysis are from the same models and should be consistent. A mapping

revision will be needed to eliminate the mismatch at this county boundary.

• The Zone AE floodplains do not tie in to Zone A at the county boundary between Parker County and Hood

County for Red Bank Creek. There is a gap between Zone AE and Zone A at the county boundary for Red

Bank Creek. There are no hydrology and hydraulics data available to review for this streams.

• The Zone A floodplains do not match at the county boundary between Parker County and Hood County for

Waters Branch. There are no hydrology and hydraulics data available to review for these streams.

• The Zone A floodplains do not match at the county boundary between Palo Pinto County and Hood County

for No Name Creek. There are no hydrology and hydraulics data available to review for these streams.

• The Zone A floodplains do not match at the county boundary between Erath County and Palo Pinto County

and Eastland County and Palo Pinto County for all the streams crossing the counties boundaries. There are

no hydrology and hydraulics data available to review for these streams.

• The Zone AE floodplains do not match at the county boundary between Hood County and Johnson County

for Brazos River. On the Hood County side, the floodplain is defined as Zone AE but on the Johnson County

side, the floodplain is defined as Zone A. There are no hydrology and hydraulics data available to review for

this streams.


HUC 8 - 12060201 Version 1.0 – May 2012

Page 99

• The Zone AE floodplains do not match at the county boundary between Hood County and Somervell County

for Brazos River. On the Hood County side, the floodplain is defined as Zone AE but on the Somervell County

side, the floodplain is defined as Zone A. There are no hydrology and hydraulics data available to review for

these streams.

• The Zone A floodplains do not match at the county boundary between Johnson County and Somervell

County. On the Johnson County side, the floodplain is defined as Zone A but on the Somervell County side,

the floodplain is defined Shaded Zone X. There are no hydrology and hydraulics data available to review for

these streams.

Documents

Task Order HSFE06-11-J-0001 for MIDDLE BRAZOS - RiskMAP6