Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />analysis of each of the regulatory, engineering and <br />flood insurance aspects of implementation. CAPEs <br />performed without investigating each of these elements <br />do not provide an adequate picture of community <br />participation. Information gathered during visits with <br />lenders and insurance agents can be used to validate <br />responses given at meetings with local officials. <br /> <br />7. The majority of States feel that both engineering and <br />planning staff should perform CAPEs together. For the <br />same reason as given in Finding #6, engineering <br />expertise is needed in many communities where CAPEs are <br />held. Elevation determinations, analyses of the <br />adequacy of floodproofing and channel modifications, the <br />need for map revisions and related issues require the <br />involvement of staff having engineering expertise. <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br /> <br />Lender and insurance agent visits should <br />be made a standard part of State CAPEs <br />and an engineer should assist in CAPE <br />performance. <br /> <br />8. There is wide variation from State to State and Region <br />to Region in CAPE procedures. Variations were found <br />among CAPE procedures in the following areas: (a) the <br />