Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mapping Plan for Colorado <br /> <br />counties will be included within the top 25%. Within the 16 top-ranked counties in Colorado there are <br />non-participating communities that are floodprone. Despite the high floodplain mapping needs ranking of <br />those counties (and, at least by inference, the individual communities within the counties), the CWCB <br />recommends that no Map Modernization funding be expended for those non-participating communities <br />until they join the NFIP. CWCB recommends that digital map panels could be laid out for those <br />communities, but that no effort should be expended to develop actual cartographic or floodplain <br />information on those blank map panels until the communities choose to join the NFIP. Instead, the funds <br />that would have been spent in those communities should be used to improve floodplain maps in <br />communities with a lower mapping needs rank that actively participate in the NFIP. The CWCB believes <br />that the community's position on participating or not participating in the NFIP is a strong indication of <br />that community's likelihood of making good use of improved maps. <br /> <br />1.4.3 Principle 3 - This Plan is a Work In Progress <br />Due to the short time frame for preparing this plan, there was a limit to the amount of research that could <br />be conducted. To identify local resources, capabilities and needs, the CWCB and its consultants <br />developed a questionnaire and a needs worksheet. To keep those forms easy to use, a number of <br />questions and the level of detail of those questions were kept simple. Much of the data for Colorado in <br />MNUSS is incomplete. Some data, such as the age of maps, is subject to much more interpretation and <br />even disagreement than might be initially apparent. <br /> <br />Some questions that are important to defining mapping needs and prioritizing them statewide could only <br />be answered through generalizations or assumptions: <br /> <br />. Is the age of a map panel based on the date printed, the age ofthe oldest floodplain information <br />on the panel, or the age of the newest information on the panel? <br /> <br />. Is population or population growth in a community representative of population or population <br />growth in floodprone portions of that community? <br /> <br />. Given the diversity of communities in Colorado (farming, and ranching communities, mining <br />communities, resort communities, front range urban communities, plains, foothills, mountains, <br />valleys) how well do historic mapping costs from a few locations in Colorado represent costs <br />throughout Colorado? <br /> <br />. How will historic costs from relatively small numbers of individual local mapping studies <br />compare with future costs of studies that are part of a large statewide program? <br /> <br />These kinds of questions can only be answered over time. There are not comprehensive and fully <br />accurate answers available at present. The planning work will have to continue into the implementation <br />period of this program. <br /> <br />1.4.4 Principle 4 - Need to Maximize Early Success <br />The magnitude of the mapping effort nationwide proposed in the President's budget initiative is far <br />beyond the historic floodplain mapping efforts ofFEMA and the states in the past 20 years or so. None <br />of the agency personnel or private consultant personnel who will implement the proposed program have <br />significant experience with such a large mapping effort. It is therefore, critical that strategies be <br />developed immediately to maximize the chances of early success. The "best" counties have to be selected <br />for the first year's mapping projects. Counties with high level GIS resources and capabilities that are <br />ready to use right away must be part of the first year's work. Communities with recent or current <br /> <br />12/26/2002 <br /> <br />Page 6 of 38 <br />