Laserfiche WebLink
Response Procedures Update <br />The next discussion details our approach to the following elements of the RFP: <br />3.5.5 Describe lessons learned from past state droughts or relevant natural disasters, what <br />worked /what didn't work. i.e. Did response mechanisms function properly? Did the impact task <br />forces fill the role they were intended to? Was the response time adequate? Were the lines of <br />communication clear and logical? Was the necessary data collected? Was information disseminated <br />to the public in a timely manner? Etc. <br />The updated planning process will include an analysis of lessons learned that will drive <br />the development of the updated response and mitigation strategy. This will be <br />accomplished through questionnaires and planning meetings, and is related to the <br />following discussion. <br />3.3.1 A detailed outline of communication between agencies (federal, state and local), taskforces, <br />the public and media <br />AMEC will facilitate the development of streamlining and the communication procedures <br />based on planning team input. The current drought plan outlines the Water Availability <br />Task Force, Review and Reporting Task Force, and Interagency Coordinating Group <br />as all providing information exchange and reporting between the Governor and various <br />state and federal agencies. During the 2002 drought the process was streamlined and <br />the roles consolidated, with the WATF serving more directly in communicating updates <br />on the situation to the Governor, and lead state agencies communicating response and <br />mitigation activities through existing state channels. Situational communications could <br />also be improved through the use of a drought website (see the Resource Tools section <br />of this RFP). Principles of the Incident Command System that outline communication <br />procedures may also be integrated as appropriate. <br />Disaster communications with the public and media are best communicated with a clear <br />and consistent method. Often this is accomplished using a designated Public <br />Information Officer. Given that droughts are long term disasters with widespread <br />impacts, the Impact Task Force chairs, or PIOs from the respective departments, have <br />served this role in the past in communicating about specific impacts such as agriculture, <br />tourism, and wildfire. This process will also be reevaluated during the update process. <br />3.3.2 An examination of the impact taskforce composition, roles and responsibilities and <br />recommendations for ways to improve the impact taskforces. <br />AMEC will accomplish this with two approaches. The first approach will be an <br />examination through a review of the effectiveness and lessons learned from past <br />droughts, specifically the 2002 drought. Many recommendations for improvement are <br />outlined in the 2007 "Updated Information Provided in Support of the 2002 Colorado <br />Drought Mitigation and Response Plan" report. AMEC will revisit those <br />recommendations with the Planning Team and formally incorporate them into the <br />revised document. <br />The second approach will be to interview impact task force members themselves and <br />collect feedback on their past experiences and incorporate their recommendations and <br />input. <br />A third approach that the State may want to consider would be to test the revised <br />response strategy with an exercise. AMEC has experience designing and conducting <br />amecO 10 <br />