Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />SECTIONFOUR <br /> <br />Performance Goals <br /> <br />Figure 4.2 <br /> <br />Unmet Funding Scenarios for Colorado's ,lap .\lodt'rniLarion Phl" <br />(Estimated Costs and Budget Shonfalls tor ~1edium. Low. and Project~d Current Funding) <br /> <br />.\let/illm <br /> <br />Low <br /> <br />ClIrre", FwuJi"f: Projected <br />Through 2008 <br /> <br />$25.500,000 <br /> <br />$26.800,000 <br /> <br />$16.800,000 <br /> <br />$7.200,000 <br />I <br />~'=OOO <br />C <br />$50,000,000 <br /> <br /> <br />C~ <br /> <br />$4,200,000 <br /> <br />538.000,000 <br /> <br />$6.700.000 <br /> <br />l!IAntJcipated Federal Funding <br />. Anllcipated Stale and Local Cost Share <br />o Unfunded Cost of Map Modernization <br /> <br />At the current (FY OJ) funding Icnls it will not he possihle to meet FEMA's performance <br />mdrics listed in Tahle .4.1 ahoH. Colorado \....ould require full funding in order to achieve all <br />of FEtl.IA's perfonnance I11ctrics and the C\VCB's goals as outlined in this Plan. The cwen <br />would require somewhere hetween the Low and ~kdium levels listed abovc to perflmn the <br />minimum. (still unacceptable) dlgitization of the effectivc FIR~1 panels to create DFIRMs to <br />meet the 2008 population goal. Solely focusing on the perfonnance mctrics (i.e. population) with <br />little rcgard for the quality of maps would represent a tenible disservice to the residents of <br />Colorado. There arc numerous well4documented cases where new or revised hydrology and <br />hydraulics (H&II) arc desperately needed for various stream reaches throughout the state. The <br />following recommendations are provided to addrcss the lour metrics summarized in Table -+.1: <br /> <br />Element 1 (GIS :\Iaps Available On-Line) - Colorado would require the La",.: level listed <br />abovc at a minimum just to perform the digitization of the effective FIR:-'1 panels to create digital <br />flood hazard data for 85%,ofthe population by 2008. without perfomling new J1&H engineering <br />analyses. Every. county in Colorado is flood prone. but several of those counties have limited or <br />no flood hazard data. Therefore. sullicient funding is needed to generate and map new 1100d <br />hazard information with a minimum Ic'vel of engineering acceptability. revise existing Hood <br />hazard infonnalion. and to digitIze the cffecti,.c FIRM panels. as appropriatc. for creation of GIS <br />flood hazard data throughout the state. <br /> <br />Element 2 (Adopted GIS ;\Iap..) - The same recommendations described in element] apply [0 <br />this clement. The CWCB currently ,.,:orks with communities to help them update their tlaod <br />hazard ordinances. and will continue to do so in the future. Howe\.er. the tlood hazard data will <br />have to be created and/or digitized as outlined in Element I before this happens. <br /> <br />Element .3 (Dollars Leveraged) - The ewes is committed to providing cash and in-kind <br />services for 3 portion of the non-federal cost share requirements and will expect to gam similar <br />support from local governments that benctit from \tap :-'lodernization services. The CWCS will <br />ser\'e as the coordinating agency' for local governments to pro\'ide funding for mapping updates, <br />as indicated in Section 3.1.10 above. Currently the ewes is able 10 provide its share of non- <br /> <br />Colorado Business Case Plan - :'\larch lon.. <br /> <br />4-1 <br />