FLOOD10351

• County: Statewide
• Community: Statewide
• Title: Statewide River Rehabilitation & Flood Plain Management Needs Inventory
• Date: 12/1/1998
• Prepared For: State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources
• Prepared By: McLaughlin Water Engineers
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Floodplain Report/Masterplan

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

list of answers, A good example of this, which is not quite a yes/no response, is the effectiveness of
existing or planned mitigation measures. The questionnaire asked for a 'poor', 'fair', or 'good' rating. In
the database, however, the rating is not stored as a text but as a number. If a query of this type was
planned, the assigned number would have to be looked up in a table showing that relationship. The
number is required to properly sort the data.

Listed Resoonses. These questions asked for either a list or were left open-ended so that a community
could answer with any number or response. For instance, communities were asked to list watersheds in
need of master planning. The answers were so varied that flexibility in entering these lists was given to
the data recorder. This was a big factor in the design of the database.

Descriotive Resoonses. Descriptive responses were reserved for explanations and descriptions associated
with yes/no responses or with question asking for an opinion (this was used more in the organization
questionnaire). There was no limit on how many characters could be typed for a descriptive response.
Many times, the response mirrored the answer in the questionnaire, with minor interpretation by the data
recorder.

Community Questionnaire

Communitv Information. The community's name, county, address, zip, phone, fax, and e-mail was
requested in this section along with the respondent's name, title, address, phone, fax, and e-mail. Other
information included population, river basin, hydrologic unit number, and state congressional senate
districts.

Communitv Profile. Four questions were asked in this section, all of which are listed responses. The first
question addressed significant floodplain problems relating to stream corridors. The second question
asked what is valued about stream corridors. The third question asked respondents to discuss barriers in
achieving community goals for stream corridors, and the final question asked which person or group is
most active with community stream corridors. The type of person or group was also requested.

Floodolain Manaaement. The floodplain management section was separated into four subsections. The
first subsection explored floodplain information such as the population in the 1 DO-year and 500-year
floodplains, structures in the floodplains and the estimated assessed value of structures in the floodplains.
This subsection also asked for a list of critical facilities in the 1 DO-year floodplain.

The flood related issues subsection asked about major flood events; the year and magnitude of that
flooding and the possible explanation. In addition, erosion damage information was requested, including
linear feet of channel and acres lost to stream channel migration, The final question concerned flood
problems relating to existing irrigation or other water delivery facilities, Some communities provided
supplemental maps to delineate erosion damage.

Section V - 2