Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
UtahDEM reviewer tells Castle Valley to tighten FEMA checklist items before submission
Loading...
Summary
A Utah Division of Emergency Management reviewer told Castle Valley’s mitigation committee to add specific FEMA-required language, link each hazard to mitigation actions with lead jurisdictions and fund sources, and correct citations before the town submits a Plan Review Tool for FEMA Region 8 review.
Mason Kemp of the Utah Division of Emergency Management told the Castle Valley Hazard Mitigation Committee on Oct. 8 that the town’s draft mitigation plan is a strong start but needs several specific changes to meet FEMA review standards.
Kemp said the state review begins when Castle Valley submits a Plan Review Tool (PRT). UtahDEM will review the PRT (about 30 days, depending on workload) and then forward it to FEMA Region 8, which has 45 days to complete its review. "Once we send it to them, they have 45 days to review the plan," Kemp said.
Why it matters: FEMA approval (or an "approved-pending-adoption" finding) determines whether a local plan meets federal mitigation planning requirements and can be validated for federal mitigation funding. Kemp advised using the April 2025 Planning Policy Guide and said he would send the updated guide and his comments to the town clerk.
Kemp flagged three recurring issues the town should fix before submission: (1) Add explicit language under each hazard profile stating whether a federal major disaster declaration has occurred since the last plan update (or explicitly state there were none); (2) tie every FEMA-reviewed natural hazard to at least one mitigation action, and for each mitigation action list a lead jurisdiction/department, a timeframe, and a potential cost; (3) make funding sources more specific than generic labels such as "town," "state" or "federal." "They want a lead jurisdiction or lead department listed," Kemp said, and "they want more detail than general funding categories." He suggested adding a short narrative explaining which listed items are "potential" actions and which are intended as formal mitigation actions.
Committee response: Members said their plan intentionally includes items (communication upgrades, biological or water-quality concerns) that the town values even if FEMA does not treat them as natural hazards. Kemp confirmed such items may remain in the local plan but noted FEMA will not mark non-natural hazards as meeting mitigation-action requirements. The committee expressed willingness to add municipality-specific funding and to break larger projects into smaller, discrete mitigation actions to satisfy FEMA’s PRT requirements.
Next steps: Kemp recommended the committee prepare the PRT with page-numbered citations and submit it to UtahDEM. He also described a no-cost UtahDEM technical assistance program for rural jurisdictions that can help with risk assessments and plan components if the town chooses to apply.
Kemp praised the town’s narrative and community context: "Your guys' plan was very nice to read," he said, while noting a need for targeted, checklist-style edits. He said he would send his annotated copy of the town's draft and the 2025 policy guide to the town clerk for use in finalizing the PRT. The committee agreed to continue work by email and tentatively to meet in person on Nov. 12, 2025, to finalize PRT entries.