FLOOD10351 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Organizational responses to the following selected questions are presented in Appendices A-D. These responses were grouped into four categories of responders: environmental organizations, federal, floodplain and special districts, and water organizations. Their responses provided additional comments and perspectives, which were used by the project team to formulate the "Rive Rehabilitation and Stream Corridors" Program: · Question 1 - What does your organization feel is the most significant floodplain problem relating to stream corridors in Colorado? · Question 2 - What does you organization value about stream corridors? · Question 3 - What are the most significant barriers to aChieving your organization's goals for stream corridors? · Question 4 - Does you organization believe Colorado has needs for multi-objective flood hazard mitigation or river rehabilitation projects that incorporate the following uses or benefits? · Question 5 - Does your organization know of problematic or threatened stream corridors that you feel would benefit from a multi-objective solution strategy? Needs Identification. Four major need categories have been identified based upon the findings from the survey questionnaire: planning assistance, funding implementation, public information/technical assistance, and policy and criteria, The following paragraphs summarize the community responses, identified needs, and recommendations for each of the need categories. Plannina Assistance. Stream corridor and local flooding is a significant problem for communities. Drainage plans need to be based upon a watershed drainage master plan, which provides a broader perspective to planning than has been followed in the past. Planning efforts should include: floodplain delineation, master planning for selected basins, and project planning. Future stream and river rehabilitation projects should be built as multi-objective projects rather than single purpose projects. The CWCS has recently undertaken multi-objective studies of the Arkansas, South Platte and Roaring Fork River watersheds in response to the 1995 flood events. Presently, there is no state program to deal with watershed planning needs on a pro-active basis. To date, watershed planning at the state level has been a re-active one. Future lmolementation. In order to be effective, stream corridor and floodplain management focused programs need to have additional funding. A funding strategy should be formulated to provide financial assistance for watershed planning and a revolving loan fund for project implementation and construction. The mechanism for such a program would be grants for cost shared planning and loans for project implementation and/or construction. A component of this effort would be to create a statewide revolving Section IV - 6