Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Updated Information Provided In Support of the <br />2002 Colorado Drought "Mitigation and Response Plan <br />page 5 <br /> <br />Other agencies' participation in current process <br /> <br />Other agencies' participation in the 2004 update of the Hazard Mitigation Plan is documented in <br />Appendix G and in the Executive Summarl. Etlorts specific to the drought planning portion are <br />described in the existing drought plan6. <br /> <br />Early in the process, LRE made presentations at meetings of both the Impact Task Force (ITF) <br />and W ater Availability Task Force (W A TF). (See above table for members of these task forces <br />that were in attendance.) The presentations focused on the update needs for the drought portions <br />of the 2007 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Four separate information requests were then sent to <br />members of the ITF, with specific questions related to each of the plan elements. The first <br />request focused on the planning process; the second on the risk assessment section; the third on <br />the mitigation strategy element; and the fourth on coordination of local mitigation planning and <br />the plan maintenance process. Written comments were received back from several entities; <br />follow-up meetings were requested and held with other members who had not yet responded to <br />document their input. At the W A TF meeting, an information request sheet was passed around <br />for all participants to sign. They were also asked to indicate whether their agency had any new <br />or updated information that would be relevant to the drought plan revision. Follow-up contacts <br />were made with the seven participants who indicated they had information to share. LRE also <br />attended follow-up meetings with both the ITF and W A TF to obtain additional input. A draft of <br />the final report was circulated to both the ITF and CWCB staff for comments. LRE worked <br />closely with CWCB staff throughout the preparation of this report. <br /> <br />How plan was reviewed and analyzed <br /> <br />Documenting how the plan was reviewed and analyzed is a new requirement for the 2007 update <br />process; it did not apply to the 2004 review. In 2007, as described above, the existing plan was <br />compared against the federal requirements, and portions for which updated infOlmation was <br />needed were identified. To help with this task, a multi-page working table was developed which <br />included the following information: <br />· Section or element required by the State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk <br />. Location(s) in the current plan where information on this section/element is found <br />· Identification of more recent documents where new or updated data is found <br />. List of additional updated or new data needs not included in existing documents <br />· Identification of agency to contact for this additional data <br /> <br />This working table was then used as the basis for compiling the four information request packets <br />that were sent to members of the ITF. The existing and new information compiled as the result <br />of these efforts is presented in this report Each section of the report identifies where each <br />required section is found in the existing plan; provides updated information from reports and <br />documents that have become available after the existing plan was adopted; and identifies new <br />information that was provided by the various agencies in response to the information requests. <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br /> <br />June 2007 <br />