My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD08975
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
FLOOD08975
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:07:26 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 4:00:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Denver
Community
All
Stream Name
All
Basin
South Platte
Title
Floodplain Delineation using HEC-2 Computer Program
Date
6/10/1986
Prepared For
State of Colorado
Prepared By
UC Denver
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />Obtaining the technical back-up for a floodway should start at the level where <br />jurisdiction has been identified in Step 1. Quite often, communities or regional <br />authorities maintain copies of these materials in their reference files. However, <br />for the majority of the floodways shown on NFIP maps, the technical back-up is <br />available from FEMA at the regional office or in Washington, DC. These data <br />have generally been microfilmed and are available at nominal charges. Another <br />source of the technical back-up may be the original floodway study contractor, <br />particularly if the floodway was not developed for the NFIP. <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />If our request can be evaluated by using the existing model with its assumptions, <br /> <br />we take the left-hand path of the decision tree. These types of changes are <br /> <br /> <br />relatively common and involve situations where we want to further optimize the <br /> <br /> <br />flood way or where we desire to shift the flood way's alignment along a stream. <br /> <br /> <br />This type of change is being done more frequently as the concept of greenways <br /> <br />and multiple-use becomes more viable. <br /> <br />If a request is sought because the original modeling assumptions were believed to <br />be in error, the right-hand side of the decision tree should be followed. <br /> <br />Usually the first requirement for consideration of a floodway revision is to <br /> <br /> <br />demonstrate to the proper jurisdiction that you understand how the original <br /> <br /> <br />floodway was developed and to use this as a baseline from which the revisions can <br /> <br /> <br />be made. <br /> <br />3. Is the Back-up Available? <br /> <br />4. Reproduce the Original Model <br /> <br />After identifying the entities having jurisdiction over the fIoodway, it is <br />appropriate to also_determine the acceptable tolerance of error in reproducing <br />the original floodway, since this model will be used as a baseline. In situations <br />where the flood way is on an NFIP map, the tolerances are explained in the <br />"Conditions and Criteria for Floodway Revisions." <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.