Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Memorandum/Issues/Rules <br />September 22, 1987 <br /> <br />of the NFIP. <br />occurring in <br />of occurring <br /> <br />The 100-year flood has a one percent chance <br />any given year and about a one in four chance <br />at least once during a 30-year period. <br /> <br />Proposed Rule 9.C, Conditions, is taken from the CWCB <br />pOlicy on approximate information adopted in November <br />1984. Several concerns (overreactions?) have been <br />expressed (chiefly by El Paso County) over this <br />stipulation. Their questions are 1) under what authority <br />does the Board have to tell a community that "it may not <br />exercise its zoning powers." or what it must include in its <br />zoning ordinances or regulations, 2) who should pay for the <br />detailed hydrologic and hydraulic investigation, and 3) <br />does a "case-by-case review" apply to individual lots? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />What needs to be pointed out is that approximate floodplain <br />information is generally not suitable for land use <br />regulations because it lacks a determination of flood <br />elevations to a reasonable standard of accuracy. This is <br />typically due to budget limitations when the scope of study <br />was negotiated. Approximate information is useful for <br />flagging the fact that a floodplain exists on a stream. <br />Hopefully, the method of delineating an approximate <br />floodplain is conservative, that is. it shows a wider <br />floodplain than what might be delineated using detailed <br />methods. Generally it will be in the best interests of the <br />developer to preform the required case-by-case review <br />because there is a good chance it will increase the area of <br />land which may be developed. <br /> <br />The requirement for a case-by-case review is no different <br />than what FEMA requires as a minimum requirement for <br />management of flood prone areas under FEMA Rule 60.3. <br /> <br />Proposed Rule 9.D.l, Consideration at a Communities <br />Request, provides a method of accounting for designated <br />floodplain information in a format consistent with our <br />computerized floodplain information index. It also <br />continues our informal pOlicy of designating and approving <br />floodplain information at the request of local government. <br /> <br />Proposed RUle 9.D.2, Consideration at the Board's <br />Initiative, reserves the Board's right, as it is the <br />Board's duty under the statutes, to make such designations <br />available in order to prevent flood damages. <br /> <br />Rule 10. Chanqes in Desiqnation <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />This rule prescribes a procedure for redesingating a <br />previously designated floodplain. It is often said that <br /> <br />-11- <br />