FLOOD11043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mapping Plan for Colorado Figure 2 Population Ranking 2000 Population D1.8 U3.5 D5.3 107 .8.8 Sedgwick Phillips Yuma I Kit Carson Cheyenne Kiowa Bent Prowers Baca I '''~"",-:3! N W+E f:ll~~ 100 100 Mles Note: The above scores are weighted. Weighting of individual parameters is explained on pages 25 &26. 6.2 Likelihood of Floodplain Mapping Success The CWCB is aware that there are many parties interested in the success that the Map Modernization effort will enjoy once it actually begins. It is important to have the first year or two of the effort be as successful as possible. Much of the "likelihood of success" is dependent on the capabilities and commitment of the involved local governments. Local GIS' efforts will playa large part in preparing floodplain maps. Local funding will be required. Any pertinent data in the hands of local officials can help. Once the maps have been prepared, local traditions and political support with regard to floodplain management will determine how well the maps are used. CWCB has been working with Colorado communities and their floodplain managers for a very long time. The CWCB staff feels that this experience in working with local governments' and their cooperation and commitment to the NFIP should be reflected in the prioritization. This parameter was deemed the second most important parameter for prioritizing counties' floodplain mapping needs. CWCB staff scored communities individually. Communities that were represented at the workshops and/or filled out questionnaires and/or worksheets were automatically given a score of at least 3 points out of 5. After all communities were scored, countywide composite scores were assigned. Because scores were averaged between two CWCB staff members, scores of 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, or 4.5 were possible. The Table below shows the number of communities receiving various scores. 12/26/2002 Page 16 of 38