Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mapping Plan for Colorado <br /> <br />experience preparing digital floodplain maps compatible with FEMA and CWCB technical requirements <br />must be part of the first year. Consultants who have such experience and expertise must perform some of <br />the first year's work. In the case of Colorado, the advantage must be taken of particular assistance that <br />may be available from the Urban Drainage & Flood Control District to make scarce resources go farther <br />in the heavily populated Denver Metro Area. <br /> <br />These and other strategies will be essential to convincing all parties involved, all the way up to the <br />members of Congress who will fund any future work, that funds are being spent wisely and efficiently <br />from the first day. <br /> <br />1.4.5 Principle 5 - Unanswered Policy Questions <br />This plan has been developed with the assumption that all identifiable floodplain mapping needs should <br />enter into cost estimates. It is very possible, even likely, that the costs developed in this plan exceed the <br />expectations of the local governments, the State of Colorado, FEMA, the President, and Congress. If the <br />costs are higher than anticipated some of the following policy questions, each of which has budgetary <br />implications, will have to be addressed: <br /> <br />. Do all of Colorado's identified floodplain mapping needs have to be addressed by the MMIP <br />budget? <br />. How many years should it take to fully implement Colorado's MMIP? <br />. If there will be only partial funding, should all 64 Colorado counties have some of their needs <br />met? <br />. Should higher priority counties have a higher proportion of their needs met than lower priority <br />counties? <br />. Should any state or federal funds be spent on MMIP work for communities that choose not to <br />participate in the NFIP? <br />. How much effort should be spent converting approximate floodplain information from a paper <br />format to a digital format? <br />. How should "quality" standards be developed and implemented to minimize expenditures of <br />money on conversion of "mediocre" or "low quality" floodplain or base map information? <br /> <br />These questions and other similar questions have to be addressed by FEMA and the CWCB before money <br />is spent making maps. <br /> <br />1.4.6 Principle 6 - Scopes of Work for Year 1 and Year 2 Implementation are <br />Important <br />Principles 3, 4, and 5 all point to the great importance of the first two years of actually preparing <br />floodplain maps and the importance of developing the Scopes of Work for those two years. The fact that <br />the MMIP is a work in progress, the need for early successes and the need to address unanswered policy <br />questions all mean that the transition from planning to preparing a Scope of Work and implementing it <br />will be a crucial time in this entire program. <br /> <br />FEMA, current CWCB staff and Urban Drainage & Flood Control District staff will all have to assist the <br />future State Floodplain Mapping Coordinator in initiating implementation quickly, thoroughly and <br />efficiently. While there are many parties who have successfully prepared floodplain maps in Colorado <br />before, nobody in Colorado has prepared so many maps in such a short time with such high expectations. <br />Even before the money has been allotted by Congress, it is in imperative that all of the parties involved <br />coordinate their efforts. The CWCB proposes to begin coordinating internally, with Urban Drainage & <br /> <br />12/26/2002 <br /> <br />Page 7 of 38 <br />