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

Multi-Obiective Use of Stream Corridors. The use of multi-objective projects was asked effectively with a
fOllow-up question on the need to use these types of projects. If there was an interest in multi-objective
projects, a list of benefits was provided with space to give a description of projects incorporating multi-
objective elements. Then organizations were asked if they were aware of any threatened stream corridors
and to provide a description of the streams. Next, the organization's interest in participating in a multi-
objective stream or river project was determined and what type of resources the organization would be
willing to commit. The next two questions dealt with interest in other types of flood related projects and
the concern for preserving the loss of agricultural lands. Both questions had a description associated with
them. The final question was lengthy, divulging information on past and presently used mitigation
measures. Each measure was rated as poor, fair or good; some included descriptions.

Institutional Issues. The first question asked whether there was a need for watershed based drainage
master plans and the development of a statewide storm drainage criteria manual. Organizations were also
asked if they thought Colorado had adequate mechanisms for funding flood control, flood mitigation or
stream stabilization project and which new funding mechanisms their organization would support.
Requirements in the realm of water resources were determined and programs or funding sources that
would address those needs were obtained, The next question inquired about the programs and support
the organization receives. Organizations were also asked if there was adequate support for reproducing,
communicating and disseminating water resources information and if not, what priorities were higher.
Finally, they were asked whether their organization had interacted with the CWCB previously and what
suggestions they had for future water resources education.

In summary, the compilation of the community responses and organization responses produced a data-
base with significant information embedded in each table. As a result of the database's design, the tables,
except for the Community Information or Organization Information, tables contain only responses from a
questionnaire (e.g., if a community did not return a questionnaire, there is no information in these tables
for that community). This helps simplify querying, which is discussed in the next chapter,

THE FUTURE OF THE DATABASE

The Steering Committee wanted the Needs Database to be available to the public and local governments.
This was to be accomplished through a link to the Internet. Although the Needs Database was designed to
fully incorporate the data from the community and organizational questionnaires, some modifications need
to be done so that it can be linked to the internet and used by the general public.

At the time of this report, the database Is being modified, and the logistics of linking It to the Internet, via
the CWCB webslte, are stili being worked out. There has been some question as to the true value of
having this database available to the public at large, due to its complexity, and the lack of complete
information for all of Colorado's communities. The information on the database is currently available to
local communities and to other interested parties by contacting the CWCB.

Section V - 4