My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD10807 (2)
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
11001-12000
>
FLOOD10807 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 2:02:31 PM
Creation date
8/23/2007 11:45:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
Northeast Colorado
Title
Notheast Colorado Emergency Managers' Association Hazard Mitigation Plan
Date
10/1/2003
Prepared For
Cheyenne, Elbert, Kit Carson, Lincoln, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washin
Prepared By
Amec
Floodplain - Doc Type
Flood Mitigation/Flood Warning/Watershed Restoration
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
202
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />within Elbert County. Elbert County and the Town of Elizabeth <br />their floodplain map. Kiowa school, which serves as the <br /> <br />Action Item #4: Improve the overall stature of floodplain management <br />should consider joining the NFIP. Kiowa should seek to revise <br />community shelter, needs to be protected against floodwaters. <br /> <br />Issue Statement: Growth, and all of the impacts that accompany it, present both the greatest risk and the greatest opportunities in <br />terms of natural hazards management in Elbert County. The county can position itself now and achieve a network of protection, <br />before it experiences the consequences of continued growth. The growth in Elbert County is real. It was the second fastest growing <br />county in all of Colorado between 1990-2000. A primary consequence of growth is on drainage systems, stormwater runoff and <br />flooding. As more structures are built and more streets are paved, stormwater runoff and drainage problems will increase. Flood <br />heights will also increase <br /> <br />increased flooding, people cannot obtain <br />are more stringent than participation in <br />NFIP <br /> <br />Elbert County currently does not participate in the NFIP. Thus, development can cause <br />flood insurance, even if they wanted to. Elbert County currently has existing regulations that <br />the NFIP, and could possibly qualify for reduced insurance rates as a result, should it join the <br /> <br />The Town of Elbert, an unincorporated community within the county, was severely flooded in 1935, and as a result, % of the town <br />was destroyed. Now, the Town is beginning to grow and has seemingly lost its institutional memory. A levee has been constructed, <br />and development is occurring immediately adjacent (Post Office, new subdivision). A public education effort should be undertaken <br />to explain the impact oflevees upon floodplains and seemingly protected development. Because the Town is unincorporated, flood <br />insurance would only become available if the County joined the NFIP. <br /> <br />The Town of Elizabeth has a FEMA-issued floodplain map and has not joined the NFIP. This makes Elizabeth ineligible for PDM <br />funding, FMA funding, and flood protection funding under HMGP, even though the community is participating in this planning <br />effort (to maintain their eligibility for FEMA mitigation funding). As Elizabeth continues to experience its current growth, they will <br />begin to experience drainage, stormwater and flooding problems. The Town is currently installing some stormwater pipes while <br />paving is gong on, and some detention is being designed. Now would be the perfect time to establish a systematic and <br />comprehensive system to manage future drainage and flooding problems <br /> <br />The Town of Kiowa is experiencing a few of the problems associated with growth. Primarily, the Town has outgrown theirNFIP <br />map and it should be updated to reflect the newer areas of town, where "an implied floodplain" can be assumed. There are two areas <br />in particular; the Fawn Valley subdivision and the trailer park just behind the schools <br /> <br />Also at issue is the protection of the schools in the flood zone. The (dry) creek runs between the school building and the parking lot, <br />and while the building is semi-protected by an earthen berm, the doors are openings that would allow the school to be flooded. The <br />school District should consider obtaining removable protective barrier/floodgates for the door openings. The school is a designated <br />shelter area. <br /> <br />74 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.