Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mapping Plan for Colorado <br /> <br />county map for a newly incorporated municipality that has no PIS in its own name) or where CWCB <br />recommended the use of a non-FEMA map were assigned a score of 4. Communities for which a new <br />detailed FEMA study is needed were assigned a score of 5. No scores of 1 or 3 were assigned to any <br />communities. Table 6.6 below shows how many communities fell into each of the scoring categories. <br /> <br />Table 6.6 - Unmapped Communities Ranking (Communities) <br /> <br />Characteristics of Mapping Standardized Value Number of <br />Recommended by CWCS Communities <br />No flood hazard or community already 0 248 <br />mapped <br />Recommend limited detailed map 2 59 <br />Recommend use of map from other 4 14 <br />community or use of non-FEMA map <br />Recommend new FEMA detailed study 5 11 <br /> <br />Once the individual communities had been scored, composite scores were assigned to each county. Those <br />scores ranged from 0 to 5, including 1 and 3. The results are summarized in Table 6.6b below. <br /> <br />Table 6.6b - Unmapped Communities Ranking (Counties) <br /> <br />Standardized Value Number of Counties <br />0 26 <br />1 12 <br />2 17 <br />3 5 <br />4 2 <br />5 2 <br /> <br />Table 6.6b shows that more than half of the counties in the state are already substantially mapped, and <br />that a limited number of counties have a significant need for new maps. However, a significant number <br />of individual communities need floodplain maps. The ranking scores relative to "unmapped <br />communities" is illustrated in Figure 7. <br /> <br />12/26/2002 <br /> <br />Page 23 of 38 <br />