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 The third subsection dealt with floodplain mapping needs. For example, "Are there any streams with unmapped 1 DO-year floodplains and are the maps current for those areas already mapped?" The response to the first question may have included a map or a list of reaches and their associated miles that need to be mapped, while the second may have had an explanation of why the maps are not current. The last subsection asked about the types of flood hazard mitigation measures that the community had used and then rate their effectiveness. Each measure was to be rated with a poor, fair, or good response. An estimate of dollars expended on each mitigation measure was also provided. Multi-Obiective Use of Stream Corridors. The first question in this section asked the communities if multi-objective projects have been used and if so, have they been effective. A description was allowed if the multi-objective project was not effective. A supporting inquiry was made to see if there was an interest in multi-objective projects. A list of benefits was provided, with space to give a description of the project, location and cost estimate for each item. The last two questions asked if there was a concern for preserving the loss of agricultural lands and if there would be interest in any other type of flood related project. Both had a space for descriptions. Institutional Issues. This section begins by determining the community's regulations. Next was an inquiry concerning whether there was a need for watershed based drainage master plans, and if so, for which watersheds. The third question determined if communities thought it was beneficial to develop a statewide storm drainage criteria manual. This section also explored community funding mechanisms; do the communities have one and what would they prefer, if a choice was given. Finally, the communities were asked what significant institutional barriers there are to improving their management of stream corridors. Organizational Questionnaire Orcanizationallnformation. Basic information was requested in this section, such as the organization's name, address, zip, phone, fax, e-mail, and respondent's name and title. Organizational Profile. The mission statement or main purpose of the organization was requested along with the primary activities. Both questions had descriptive response boxes. Floodclain Manaaement. The first part of this section addressed: (1) significant flOOdplain problems relating to stream corridors, (2) the value of stream corridors, and (3) barriers to achieving stream corridor goals. The next subsection was flood related issues, which see ked to determine stream erosion and flood problems related to irrigation or water delivery facilities. A description could be included for each question. The last subsection was floodplain mapping needs, with information on flOOdplain mapping and what reaches may be unmapped or need to be revised. Section V - 3