My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD09060
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
FLOOD09060
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:07:50 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 4:04:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Statewide River Rehabilitation and Flood Plain Management Needs Inventory
Date
2/18/1998
Prepared For
State of Colorado
Prepared By
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
Floodplain - Doc Type
Floodplain Report/Masterplan
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />I <br /> <br />organizations were asked if there were any threatened stream corridors with a description of which streams. <br />Next, the organization's participation in a multi-objective stream or river project was inquired and with <br />what resources the organization would be willing to commit. The next two questions deal with interest in <br />other types of flood related projects and the concern for preserving the loss of agricultural lands. Both <br />questions have a description associated with them. The fmal question is a lengthy one divulging information <br />on past and presently used mitigation measures. Each measure has been rated as poor, fair or good with <br />a possible description. <br /> <br />Institutional Issues. The need for watershed based drainage master plans is asked along with the need to <br />develop a statewide storm drainage criteria manual. Organizations were also asked if they believed there <br />was adequate funding mechanism and which funding mechanisms they would support. Needs in the realm <br />of water resources were questioned and what programs or funding sources would address those needs. The <br />next question regards the programs and supports the organization receives. Organizations were also asked <br />if there was adequate support for reproducing, communicating and disseminating water resources <br />information and if not, what priorities were higher. Finally, the question is asked about interactions with <br />the CWCB and what suggestions to CWCB they would give. <br /> <br />In summary, the compilation of the community responses and organization responses produced a database <br />with significant information embedded in each table. As a result of the database's design, the tables except <br />for the Community Information or Organization Information tables contain only responses from a <br />questionnaire (e.g. if a community did not return a questionnaire, there is no information in these tables <br />for that community). This helps simplify querying which is discussed in the next chapter. <br /> <br />III-5 <br /> <br />97-060,001 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.