Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mapping Plan for Colorado <br /> <br />The CWCB' s prioritization methodology considers seven (7) ranking factors. F our of those factors are <br />consistent with FEMA's ranking methodology, as indicated by the MMIP report template and spreadsheet <br />provided to each of the states. Those four "FEMA" factors, which are also of concern to the CWCB, are <br />listed below: <br /> <br />. Total population in 2000; <br />. Population growth from 1990 to 2000, by percentage; <br />. Age of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs); and <br />. Needs of unmapped communities. <br /> <br />The other three factors were developed by the CWCB to address specific needs in Colorado. Two of <br />those factors ultimately depended on professional evaluations by CWCB staff of the status of each county <br />and the communities within that county. The third factor was simply a "yes" or "no" answer to the <br />question, "did this county experience significant wildfire damage to some of its watersheds in 2002?" In <br />addition to the four factors previously mentioned, the three CWCB ranking factors are: <br /> <br />. CWCB assessment of county readiness to proceed with a floodplain mapping project and the <br />likelihood of success; <br />. CWCB assessment of overall risk to life and property from flood hazards; and <br />. Wildfire damage in 2002. <br /> <br />All seven factors will be discussed in detail later in this report. The point in this introductory discussion <br />is to convey the effort made by the CWCB and its consultants to simultaneously meet the assessment <br />needs of the federal government and of the State of Colorado. <br /> <br />1.4.2 Principle 2 - Major Role for Local Governments <br /> <br />The CWCB believes that local governments must be active participants in characterizing the floodplain <br />mapping needs of their communities. For that reason, CWCB and the MMIP consultants developed a <br />questionnaire and a worksheet to be filled out by local officials. In addition, four workshops were held in <br />various locations in Colorado to provide assistance to local officials in filling out the forms. Details about <br />these data gathering efforts are provided in Section 2. <br /> <br />Clearly this effort depended on a sense of commitment to floodplain management by local governments. <br />An important measure of this commitment is the community's participation (or non-participation) in the <br />National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It has been the position of the CWCB to encourage all <br />Colorado communities with flood hazards to join the NFIP as part of a comprehensive local program to <br />address local floodplain management needs. CWCB has offered staff and technical assistance to <br />Colorado communities that choose not to participate in the NFIP, but the agency has not funded mapping <br />projects or floods hazard mitigation projects in these communities. Consistent with that historic position, <br />CWCB does not anticipate providing a state match in mapping funds for Colorado communities that do <br />not participate in the NFIP. Within the discussion of CWCB rankings of the 64 counties, specific <br />attention is called to the non-participating communities in Colorado (approximately 1/3 of all Colorado <br />communities). <br />FEMA has charged the states with identifying the top 15% of counties, so that digital floodplain mapping <br />can be pursued in those counties. Utilizing the CWCB methodology, we have identified the top 25% of <br />the 64 counties in Colorado (16 counties) with regard to map update needs. Clearly the top 15% of <br /> <br />12/26/2002 <br /> <br />Page 5 of 38 <br />