The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20062650.tiff STATE OF COLORADO Colorado Water Conservation Board �P�Ea`n wsFR`9T Department of Natural Resources 3 m,• r,02 1313 Sherman Street,Room 721 Denver,Colorado 80203 L 3 4�9, ' Phone:(303)866-3441 �''o o �p FAX:(303)866-4474 "'. 1937 �'i www.cwcbstate.co.us �"•, !Mir 93 7 ^' August 30,2006 Bill Owens Governor Greg E.Walcher Mr. Mike Geile Executive Director Chair, Weld County Board of Commissioners Rod Kuharieh 915 Tenth Street CWCB Director Greeley,CO 80632 Dan McAuliffe Deputy Director RE: August 25,2006, Community Assistance Visit for the National Flood Insurance Program I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for having Mr. David Bauer available to meet with me at the above captioned Community Assistance Visit. I likewise wish to thank you and your staff for your cooperation in providing me with the necessary information to conduct an evaluation of your community's Floodplain Management Program. This included analysis of your Floodplain Management Ordinance adopted for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As a result of that participation, the citizens of Weld County are eligible to purchase federal flood insurance for their homes and businesses, and are likewise eligible for certain federal flood disaster assistance and federally backed loans. As a follow-up to our meeting, I am providing you with a brief summary of that evaluation,and these items are listed below for your review. 1. Weld County has participated in the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP) since March 18, 1980. 2. The City of has issued about 15 Flood Hazard Development Permits(FHDP's) in the last year. No floodplain variances were issued. 3. The City has a good permit process and a process for making flood zone determinations. The City is to be commended for its good coordination between various departments and personnel. Also,the City's record-keeping processes are very good and the files were well-kept and up-to-date. 4. The status of the floodplains in the southwestern portion of the county was discussed due to the increasing population in the area. Given that there is very limited flood hazard information in this area,I have recommended that the State consider opening discussions with FEMA and follow-up with the County as to identifying funding sources and performing studies. Base Flood Elevations would be beneficial to your citizens in these areas where the county is experiencing high growth. 5. Your staff is doing an excellent job of managing the flood threat for the community in respect to new development. The GIS being used allows for easy viewing of flood hazards with regard to new development. cc'. PL- f€ — Colorado Water Conservation Board Flood Protection•Water Supply Planning and Finance•Stream and Lake Protection n Water Supply Protection•Conservation and Drought Planning ( �E m MOM s-c i9-rz o,rty 2006-2650 p� �O cS- -2- Once again I wish to extend to you my appreciation for the cooperation provided by yourself and other staff during my visit to Weld County. Your community is doing an excellent job of administering your floodplain management program and is working well towards the goals of the NFIP. Please feel free to contact the CAV Coordinator at(303)866-3534 if you are interested any additional information or we can be of any further assistance to you. Sincerely, 0. tre_ �v� cC Karen Price, CFM On behalf of the CWCB Community Assistance Program cc: Kevin Houck,CWCB Dan Carlson,FEMA State Specialist Frank Hempen, Public Works Director David Bauer,Floodplain Administrator(letter only) Attachments: Community Visit Report CAV Narrative Report Meeting Attendance Record Flood Protection•Water Project Planning and Finance•Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection•Conservation Planning • FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B.NO.3067-0198 COMMUNITY VISIT REPORT • I Expires November 3o, 1994 PERPublic reporting burden for this form is estimated to arryVfrom hourDISrss peu eEsponnw NOTICE estimate includes the time for National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP)community officials to search existing data sources,gather the data needed,and provide information to a FEMA, or State representative who will subsequently complete the form.The information is used by FEMA to assess the effectiveness of a community's implementation of the NFIP and to offer assistance to the community where such a need is identified. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any aspect of the collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to: information collections Management, Federal Emergency, Management Agency. 500 C Street. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20472; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project(3067-0198),Washington,D.C. 20503 • INSTRUCTIONS . A Community Visit Report indicating the findings must be completed after each community visit. The report should not be completed during the meeting with the local officials or provided to the local officials to Complete. The Community Visit Report and any other relevant documentation should be completed and on file in the FEMA regional office within 30 days from the date of the visit. Section I and Section III-Part A and Part B-Self-explanatory. .�gg and IttheRmeans"Name implement NFIP)requirementsf "Address"designated and Tellephone Numberp is thetaddressoand telephone number of the local official: Attach a list of all attendees. Section IV-This section indicates the date that the CAV is closed. A CAV can be considered closed when all program deficiencies have been corrected and violations identified have been remedied to the maximum extent possible, and all follow-up action(s) have been completed. The date the CAV is closed will be completed and initialed by the FEMA regional office ONLY. Attach anyotherdowmentatba rioted to the visit,e.g.,chronology cfcontacts,correspondence,resolution of issues.community ordinance. SECTION I 1. NAME OF COMMUNITY 2. STATE 3. COMMUNITY I0 NUMBER . 4. COUNTY Weld -Coon-,+-.j -. CoIOra.A0 1 ©5 ©Z"ca, • Weld S. VISIT CONDUCTED BY 6. AGENCY • 7. DATE OF VISIT Karen Pr ice CWC3. A '^9 2ra , Carp • SECTION II 8. NAME OF LOCM.OFFKIAL 9.TELEPHONE NO. ! Bauer r a ATTACH A UST OF THE David Ci `'�0 - So 4- (it,11 (O. ATTENDEES 10. ADDRESS OF LOCAL OFFICIAL • 11 I I H Si-red.) G r-cei e i.) CO SD (0 32 • • SECTION IN-FINDINGS. ' ' PART A: Refer to subparagraph 6-2b in the NAP Guidance for Conducting CAC's and CAV's for guidance in completing questions 1-4:Circle appropriate response. 1. Are there problems with the community's floodplain management regulations? Serious Minor None 2. Are there problems with the community's administrative and enforcement Procedures? Serious Minor (N-on—e-) •3. Are there engineering or other problems with the maps or Flood Insurance Study?' � turfy ISerbut) Minor None •4. Are there any other problems in the community's floodplain management program? �� ` Serious Minor Cone) ` - S. Are there any problems with the Biennial Report data?(Attach a copy showing the updated Biennial Report information) YES NO 6. Are there any programmatic issues or problems identified?(Programmatic problems may relate to the • nation or region as-a whole,not merely to an individual community) YES NO•7, Ate there any potential violations of the community's floodplain management regulations(Chock appropriate category) - _A potential violation or violation has/have been Identified. . . X No violations have been identified . Actions are being taken on the part of the community to remedy the violations)identified during the CAV. For each structure identified as a potential violation,attach appropriate documentation per the guidance provided in subparagraph 5-2d of the NAP Guidance for Conducting Community Assistance Contacts and Community Assistance Visits. • FEMA Form 81-68,JAN 92 REPLACEcALL PREVIOUS EDITIONS - , SECTION u,(cont.) • PART B: (NARRATIVE)-Attach a narrative statement addressing each of the following. Identify each page of the narrative with the following: Name of community,date of CAV,and name of person conducting the CAV. 1. Background. Include in this section a brief statement on the reasons the community was selected for the CAV. Also,include in this section any relevant background information such as the history of the community's floodplain management program;history,of flooding in the community,a general description of the character of the flood hazard and floodplain development,availability of sites for development outside the SFHA. 2. Reference Part A questions i-4. Provide a narrative statement of the findings for a serious or minor answer in questions 1-4. 3: Programmatic Issues. Describe any programmatic issues or problems identified as a result of this CAV or as a result of a number of CAV's conducted over a period of time. Indicate whether the program or issues supports the need for a rule change,the development of a manual or guidance document,a statement of policy by FEMA,or whether the problem or issue can be resolved through the issuance of a guidance memorandum from FEMA or by the provision of technical assistance. 4. Section 1362,NFIP Flood Damaged Property Purchase Program. If properties have been aquired under Section 1362, provide a brief description for each of the following: a. Is the use of the land consistent with the community's Land Reuse Plan for open space or for recreational use? b. Are structures or other improvements located on the land,except rest rooms,open on all sides and functionally related to the open space or recreational use or are properly elevated or floodproofed? c. Is the property maintained in good condition and all debris or other improvements such as concrete slabs or foundations which are not part of the reuse plan removed? S. E.O.11988 Floodplain Management. Describe any known or probable Federally funded actions which have talpn place in the SFHA which appear to be inconsistent with E.O. 11988-Floodplain Management. • .6. Other findings. Describe in this section any other issues related to the community's floodplain management program. Examples of these activities include: post-flood mitigation programs,disaster preparedness efforts, relocation programs other than those related to Section 1362,a description of any unique or innovative floodplain management procedures or programs along with any recommendations related to transferability to other communities. 7. Follow-up. Provide a narrative statement as to the type of follow-up assistance provided at the time of the CAV or any additional follow-up-which is needed to assist the community in resolving or preventing any future program deficiencies or violations,e.g.,community needs assistance in revising its floodplain managementregulations,local officials need workshop to provide detailed information on the NFIP and its requirements,local officials need a floodproofing workshop,local officials need assistance in updating the community's permit procedures. .Include a schedule for completing any follow-up promised to the community,e.g.,recommended date for conducting a workshop. 144 8. Community Action Needed. Provide a narrative statement as to the appropriate community actions that should take place to resolve the particular issue or problems,e.g.,revise floodplain management permit form,update. floodplain management regulations,require elevation certificates. Include a schedule setting out the expected time for the community to resolve the problem or issue,or for which some type of action is expected,e.g.,expected date for adoption of the local floodplain management regulations. • SECTION IV-Completed by the FEW regional office. • DATE CAV CLOSED INITIALS • CAV Narrative Report Weld County, Colorado Community No. 080266 CAV Conducted 8/25/06 CAV Conducted by Karen Price, High Star Consulting on behalf of the Colorado Water Conservation Board 1. Background Weld County was selected for a Community Assistance Visit(CAV) as the county has not had a recent CAV and is experiencing rapid growth. The county includes 4,000 square miles of land;the eastern part of the county is very rural and the west/southwest part has most of the incorporated communities and is increasing in population. The current county population is about 180,000 with an expectation of reaching 250,000 by year 2010. Weld County has participated in the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP) since March 18, 1980. The floodplain manager for the county is David Bauer, who resides in the Public Works department. The county has numerous waterways through both the rural and more populated areas. Most recent flooding was a possible 100-year event in 1999 on the Poudre River, primarily in and around the incorporated City of Greeley, which knocked out a levee and resulted in a recent USACE study and remapping of that portion of the floodplain. In 1997, a possible 100-year event occurred in and around the incorporated City of Sterling on the South Platte. No other recent flooding has had considerable impact on the unincorporated areas of Weld County,though areas of primary concern are along the St. Vrain, Big Thompson, and Little Thompson. As stated, the areas of primary development are along the southwestern portion of the county. Unfortunately, there is primarily approximate Zone As for most of the flooding sources in the county—in populated and unpopulated areas. A combination of snowmelt and cloudbursts result in flooding in the county. Development permits are received by the planning department, who disperse portions of the permit to other relevant departments for review. Mr. Bauer's group receives the drainage portion and performs a review of Flood Hazard Development Permit(FHDP) applications at that time. About 15 FHDPs have been issued in the past year, an increase from past years. There were about 3,000 building permits issued for new/substantial improvement in the past year,with about 10,000 new lots in this past year. Permitting numbers are expected to continue to increase annually. FHDPs were generally issued to individual homeowners or businesses; larger subdivisions are encouraged to apply for Letters of Map Revision so that new structures are not in the floodplain. No variances were issued in the past year. There are floodways in the county, primarily along the South Platte. Any encroachments to the floodway were long ago,and would have been for temporary gravel pit use (since removed). No building in the floodway is allowed except agricultural-exempt structures, which still are reviewed and must meet minimum NFIP criteria for floodways including no rise. The county makes good use of a well-developed GIS program. This application allows for quick viewing of floodplain properties and facilitates good decision-making regarding floodplain management. Mr. Bauer estimates that there may be hundreds of older(pre-FIRM) structures in the floodplain. Unapproved development is identified by the staff in Public Works; a team that works very closely within their groups. A team of 15+people in the building department do field inspections, staff"keep their eyes open,"and even the noxious weed group will report back to Mr. Bauer on anything unusual found while in the field. Violations, with fines, are issued for unapproved development, and then the project is pushed through the building permit process before it can continue. Many of the incorporated areas in the county continue to annex land and grow. The county currently uses Flood Insurance Rate Maps(FIRMs) from 1982, 2005, and a variety of other dates resulting from changes to communities and adjacent county panels. The county is currently in the process of remapping, with a Digital FIRM expected by 2008. 2. Findings Weld County is doing a good job of administering the requirements of the NFIP and its local floodplain management program. Files are well-kept and there is good communication between various departments. A copy of the FHDP application was provided and included a 5-page thorough description of submittal attachments and a checklist of all required information and documentation required for review. The county has recently hired new staff to enter all past FHDPs from the hard copy files into a data system that will allow historic FHDPs to be visible in the existing GIS program. Of considerable concern is the lack of detailed flood hazard information in the high- growth areas of the county. It is recognized that it will require a lot of funding to provide base flood elevations to the extent that they are needed in this county. Primarily,the flooding sources and floodplain areas along I-25 need detailed studies: Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River,Boulder Creek, and the South Platte near Greeley. There will be a lot of growth in these currently-approximate areas over the next five years, and detailed information is sorely needed. It is recognized that large subdivisions can perform LOMRs and do studies in small areas, but the need is for the large number of individual homeowners and for properties being split into smaller lots for development. 3. Programmatic Issues None identified. 4. NFIP Flood Damaged Property Purchase Program Not applicable. 5. E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management No issues identified. 6. Other Findings None. 7. Follow-up Sent follow-up letter to community on August 30,2006. It is suggested that the CWCB discuss options with FEMA in the near fixture as to locating funding for the extensive studies that may be needed in Weld County. A follow-up mapping needs assessment may be beneficial, with Mr. Bauer and possibly some of the incorporated communities, to ascertain the real need for new study information. Although a DFIRM project is underway, the restudies needed may be a longer-term project for a large group of local partners with State and Federal support and funding. 8. Community Action Needed None needed. Signed: \6t__ v e Karen Price, CFM on behalf of the CWCB Community Assistance Program 03 Aka l'" I a0N"go M , I cn O]'4') NJ T. i Q) g O P X Q w s U `� o I -a 1 cm 0 waci Pt, , V '4.0 o p U1 > e O uLset o n"g• tilis4 ••••4 O R. W Q F—) a i > O P --i N M 4 Vi \C N OO O1 dO N-i Hello