FLOOD00802

• Designation Number: 355
• County: Weld
• Community: Greeley
• Stream Name: Cache La Poudre
• Title: Floodplain and Floodway Analysis
• Date: 1/1/1994
• Designation Date: 3/1/1994
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Floodplain Report/Masterplan

REVISION REQUESTOR AND COMMUNITY OFFICIAL FORM
,

Floodway Information

. Does the affected flooding source have a f100dway designated on the effective FIRM or FBFM?
[XlYes ONo

. Does the revised f100dw~elineation differ from that shown on the effective FIRM or FBFM?
lXjYes ONo

If yes, give reason: ?loodway has been reduced by the' construction of
adaauate bridge crossings.

Attach request to revise the floodway from community CEO or desigriated official.

Attach copy of either a public notice distributed by the community ~ting the community's intent
to revise the flood way or a statement by the community that it hall notified all affected property
owners and affected adjacent jurisdictions.

Does the State have jurisdiction over the floodway or it's adoption by tommunities participating in
theNFlP? IKlYes ONo .

If yes, attach a copy of a letter notifying the appropriate State agendJ of the floodway revision and
documentation of the approval of the revised flood way by the approp#ate State agency.

Proposed Encroachments

With floodways:

IA. Does the revision request involve fill, new construction, substat!!Lal improvement, or other
development in the floodway? W Yes 0 No

1 B. If yes, does the development cause the 10o-year water Burface elevation increase at any
location by more than 0.000 feet? 0 Yes !Xl No

Withoutfloodways:

2A. Does the revision request involve fill, new construction, substahtial improvement, or other
development in the 10o-yearfloodplain? '0 Yes 0 No

2B. If yes, does the cumulative effect of all development that has oq:urred since the effective
SFHA was originally identified cause the lOG-year water surfa/:e elevation increase at any
, location by more than one foot (or other surcharge limit if com$unity or state has adopted
more stringent criteria)? '0 Yes 0 No

If answer to either Items 1B or 2B is yes, please provide documentation that all requirements of
Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations have been met.

Revision Requestor Acknowledgement

. Having read NFIP Regulations, 44 CFR Ch. I, parts 59, 60, 61, 6i;, and 72, I believe that the
proposed revision []] is 0 htnot in compliance with the r.;quirements of the
aforementioned NFIP Regulations.

Community Official Acknowledgement
,
. Was this revision request reviewed by the community for compliilnce with the community's
adopted floodplain management ordinances? [JU Yes 0 No

. Does this revision request have the endorsement of the community? [KI Yes 0 No

If no to either of the above questions, please explain:

Please note that community acknowledgement and/or notificatit;n is required for all requests
as outlined in Section 65.4 (b) of the NFIP Regulations.

November 1992

Page2of5

APP1JCATlONlCERTfFJCATlON FOawS FOJl CONDrrllo...\l. LE1'fER Of' YAP REVISION, J.ETTER OVWAJ> REVISION AtfDPHYSJCAl.YAP REVlSJON