Laserfiche WebLink
SECTIONTWO Program Plan <br />candidates for map updates will be re-ranked yearly prior to evaluating the highest-ranking group <br />qualitatively. More detailed information on the primary and secondary screening categories, <br />along with the prioritization results for fiscal year 2004, is presented in Appendix A. Below are <br />the results of both the primary and secondary prioritization results for the top group for 2004. <br />Table 2.1 <br />Prioritization of Countywide Mapping -(lst Priority Group) <br /> Primary Prioritization <br />County Ranking <br />Score Initial <br />Rank Secondary Prioritization <br />Dou las 29.8 1 In Pro ess <br />El Paso 28.8 2 Low <br />Ea le 28.6 3 In Pro ess <br />Larimer 28.6 4 High <br />Garfield 27.5 5 Medium <br />Boulder 27.3 6 In Pro ess <br />Weld 27.1 7 Medium <br />Mesa 26.6 8 High <br />Jefferson 26.3 9 Coun ide DFIRMExists <br />Adams 25.8 10 High <br />Park 25.6 11 Medium <br />Ara ahoe 25.3 12 High <br />Elbert 25.3 13 Not Partici atin in NFIP <br />Pueblo 25.0 14 Low <br />La Plata 24.8 15 Medium <br />Teller 24.7 16 Low <br />It should be noted that four of the counties listed above (Douglas, Eagle, Boulder, and Jefferson) <br />have studies that are already in existence or in progress. For each of these counties, and for an <br />additional county (Routt) it is true that DFIRMs exist or are in progress, but in each case there is <br />a substantial unmet map revision need, with a large number of stream miles needing hydrologic <br />and hydraulic (H&H) engineering updates. Those 5 counties will be included in each future <br />year's annual needs priority listing until those engineering update needs are met. It has been <br />assumed in this report that H&H engineering needs will be addressed at least to a 50% level for <br />all counties besides the 5 counties listed above. Should that prove to be an incorrect assumption, <br />other counties will also be included in future annual needs priority listings until their needs are <br />met. Clearly if only 50% of the H&H engineering needs are met, then there will inherently be <br />unmet engineering update needs. <br />Site Specific Needs Assessment - In addition to the effort to provide counties with digital flood <br />maps, the CWCB is committed to the goal of ensuring Colorado residents that those maps will <br />contain the most current and accurate flood hazard information possible. To achieve this goal, <br />the CWCB will evaluate statewide flood hazard mapping needs and will also inventory and <br />Colorado Business Case Plan (Final Draft) 2-3 <br />