Laserfiche WebLink
<br />actively participate in recommendations to the CWCB. The eighteen Committee members represented city <br /> <br /> <br />and county officials, state and federal agencies, water user groups, land development/reclamation interests, <br /> <br /> <br />agricultural landowners and environmental interests. Five monthly meetings were held with the committee <br /> <br /> <br />throughout the course of the study. <br /> <br /> <br />Questionnaire Development and Distribution <br />To assess the floodplain management and stream rehabilitation problems and concerns across <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado, a detailed questionnaire was developed by MWE, CWCB, and the Steering Committee. The <br /> <br /> <br />questionnaire solicited data on the following major subjects. <br /> <br /> <br />. Community Profile <br /> <br /> <br />. Floodplain Management <br /> <br /> <br />. Floodplain Related Issues (flood history; population and stm;tures in floodplain) <br /> <br /> <br />. Floodplain Mapping Needs (unmapped stream reaches; maps requiring updating) <br /> <br /> <br />. Existing/Planned Mitigation Measures <br /> <br /> <br />. Multi-Objective Use of Stream Corridors (Is there a need for a MOM project?) <br /> <br /> <br />. Institutional Issues <br /> <br />. Floodplain Regulations (Is community in FEMA program?) <br /> <br />. Drainage Criteria (Does community have criteria or drainage master plans?) <br /> <br />. Funding Mechanism Preferences <br /> <br />Based on recommendations from CWCB staff and the Steering Committee, a second questionnaire <br /> <br /> <br />was developed for distribution to special districts, environmental organizations and other water related groups. <br /> <br />On October 23, 1997, the questionnaires were mailed to 63 counties and 268 dties and towns, with a request <br /> <br />that they be returned by November 14, 1997. Similarly, questionnaires were distributed to 110 water related <br /> <br /> <br />organizations. <br /> <br />Questionnaire Responses <br /> <br />By the initial November deadline, only 10 percent of the communitiE!S had responded. In order to <br /> <br />improve the response rate, members of the consultant team made over 200 follow-up phone calls to the non- <br /> <br />responding communities. This effort dramatically improved the return rate. By the end of January, <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br />