[{"_1":2,"_105":-5,"_106":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,85,95],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6574843,"mediaKeyId","3379398-0e90f23f61cdf13852642e4d42f2954e","parentId",3379398,"title","Committee says mitigation actions must include responsible party, funding and timelines; staff to seek clarification","audioSeconds",294,"startMs",79565,"endMs",374550,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3379398-0e90f23f61cdf13852642e4d42f2954e&start=79&end=374","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6574843/Utah/Committee-says-mitigation-actions-must-include-responsible-party-funding-and-timelines-staff-to-seek-clarification","mediaUrl","author","Castle Valley Town of Castle Valley","date","2025-04-22T18:00:00Z","article","The Admitigation Committee reviewed guidance that the draft mitigation actions in its hazard-mitigation plan are missing information required by “element C‑5(b),” and directed staff to seek clarification before the group fills in details.

A staff member told the committee the plan must identify who is responsible for administering each mitigation action (office, department or agency; names not required), list potential funding sources with more specificity than “federal, state or local,” state an expected timeframe for completion (the plan may use defined labels such as “short‑term” or “long‑term”), and describe the criteria used to prioritize actions—“including an emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized in relation to the associated cost of the action.”

The committee debated whether those requirements apply to every brainstormed strategy or only to the set of actions the group selects as prioritized for the final plan. One committee member said the requirements appear aimed at finalized mitigation actions rather than every strategy compiled during planning. Another member said the distinction matters because it determines how much work the committee must complete before submission.

Committee members agreed not to complete those details for every strategy at the meeting. Instead, they asked staff to confirm whether element C‑5(b) applies only to the actions the committee formally adopts for its prioritized tracker. The group did not vote on the issue; members agreed to return the item to a future agenda after staff obtains the requested clarification.

Clarifying details raised during the discussion included examples for how the committee might define timeframes (for example, short term as 1–2 years and long term as 10–15 years, though the committee did not set final definitions) and the need to move beyond generic funding labels by identifying likely funding programs or program types where possible.

The committee also noted that any prioritization criteria should explicitly consider benefit‑to‑cost relationships and ranking metrics the committee already uses (for example, feasibility and expected cost). Staff will attempt to compile those criteria and propose language to insert into the prioritized action entries once the scope (all strategies versus prioritized actions only) is confirmed.

The committee did not adopt or reject any mitigation actions at the meeting; it recorded a direction for staff to obtain the clarification and to report back at a future meeting.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","4.22.2025 Hazard Mitigation Committee Meeting Agenda - 250422 Haz Mit","oneSentenceSummary","The Admitigation Committee reviewed guidance that the draft mitigation actions are missing required elements and directed staff to get clarification on the scope of the requirement.","taxTitle","Castle Valley, Grand County, Utah","taxId",79940,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6574830,"Committee flags need to confirm scope of on‑request structure inspections for wildfire risk",212,6561790,6774565,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3379398-0e90f23f61cdf13852642e4d42f2954e&start=6561&end=6774","/articles/6574830/Utah/Committee-flags-need-to-confirm-scope-of-onrequest-structure-inspections-for-wildfire-risk","The Admitigation Committee examined a draft mitigation item that would make a certified fire inspector available to perform structural inspections “on request” as part of wildfire mitigation activities.

Committee members clarified the difference between a formal structure inspection (for example, an inspection that completes forms from the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands or similar programs) and an advisory visit that educates property owners about defensible‑space and driveway standards. Members asked staff to confirm the scope of services the fire district is willing to provide on request and to flag items that may require a contract, fee or external referral.

No change to the plan text was adopted at the meeting. Staff was asked to contact the fire district and the identified inspector (reference in the draft as a certified fire inspector) to verify whether the district will complete state inspection forms upon request, what elements those inspections will cover (for example, driveway width, defensible space, electrical panel condition) and whether the service will be provided free or on a fee‑for‑service basis.

The committee also discussed cross‑referencing Firewise guidance and other state wildfire‑mitigation resources where appropriate. Committee members left the draft item highlighted for follow‑up and requested staff to return with clarified language.","Members discussed a draft mitigation item that refers to certified fire inspectors performing structural inspections on request. The committee asked staff to confirm whether the fire district will perform formal structure inspections and whether those services include filling out state forms or are limited to advisory assessments.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":50,"_51":92,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":93,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":94,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6574833,"Committee notes rockfall occurrences but reports no recorded structural damage",213,6300010,6513804,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3379398-0e90f23f61cdf13852642e4d42f2954e&start=6300&end=6513","/articles/6574833/Utah/Committee-notes-rockfall-occurrences-but-reports-no-recorded-structural-damage","Committee members reviewed the rockfall section of the draft mitigation plan and reported several recent rockfall occurrences but no incidents that caused structural damage to houses in Castle Valley.

Members noted rockfall events are plausible in certain locations and recommended updating the plan’s chronology with dates committee members can verify from local records or photographs. The committee suggested treating rockfall as a localized hazard with low probability of causing damage to structures in most parts of town but with higher consequence where a fall could reach a road or building.

Suggested mitigation steps included adding plans for temporary road closures and short‑term traffic management when rockfalls occur, and maintaining an incident log with dates to support future probability and magnitude assessments. No formal action or funding decision was made; staff was assigned to review records for specific dates to include in the plan.","Members reviewed recent rockfall incidents, found no recorded damage in Castle Valley, and advised updating incident dates and road‑closure procedures in the plan.",{"_33":96,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":97,"_41":98,"_43":99,"_45":100,"_47":101,"_49":50,"_51":102,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":103,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":104,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6574838,"Committee revises power‑outage and communications chapter; discusses Wi‑Fi calling, providers, radios and a mesh pilot",2073,375250,2448580,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3379398-0e90f23f61cdf13852642e4d42f2954e&start=375&end=2448","/articles/6574838/Utah/Committee-revises-poweroutage-and-communications-chapter-discusses-WiFi-calling-providers-radios-and-a-mesh-pilot","The Admitigation Committee spent the bulk of its April 22 meeting reviewing the draft plan’s power outage and communications chapters and agreed on a series of editorial and substantive changes to clarify risks and mitigation initiatives.

Committee members asked staff to remove lengthy anecdotal histories about a single telephone provider and instead present a concise list of how residents typically get telephone and Internet service in Castle Valley. The group suggested a short provider list such as: Frontier (DSL legacy), Emery (fiber optic), River Canyon Wireless (fixed Wi‑Fi) and “various satellite providers” (for example, Starlink or HughesNet). Members emphasized the plan should avoid editorial judgments such as “fairly reliable” and instead state observed performance and known limitations.

On specific communication technologies, members agreed to add Wi‑Fi calling (sometimes used by residents) and to note that voice‑over‑IP/VoIP services and Wi‑Fi calling have different technical implications for outages. Committee members reported talking with a local provider—referred to in the meeting as Royce—who has roughly 60 customers in the valley and operates a fixed‑wireless service; staff will confirm provider names and affiliations for the document.

The committee recorded several operational clarifications: many consumer telephone services rely on battery backup at provider equipment and may keep service for hours (members cited about 8 hours as a typical battery runtime for some equipment), and power outages commonly degrade Internet and VoIP/Wi‑Fi calling unless residents have an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) or satellite service.

Members noted the Capital Valley Fire Department (identified in the draft as the local fire district) no longer maintains a satellite phone; the committee asked staff to insert a sentence stating the current communications resources at the fire district and the town office base station (the committee said the town office has a radio base station and that the radios were purchased in 2018).

On mitigation initiatives, the committee discussed and generally supported three priorities: upgrading or increasing radio communications capability for emergency use; developing or updating the emergency operations plan’s communications section; and testing a low‑power mesh network (a two‑way long‑range Wi‑Fi device demonstrated at the meeting) to deliver targeted short messages across the valley without heavy infrastructure. Members discussed the feasibility, cost range and political acceptability of each:

- Radio upgrades: members estimated higher‑quality emergency radios or base‑station upgrades at roughly $800–$1,000 per unit for equipment examples discussed; they recommended treating the item as a mid‑cost (score ~3/5) project and flagged that inexpensive consumer radios may fall into a regulatory gray area and should be limited to emergency use only.

- Emergency operations communications plan: members agreed the town already maintains an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and recommended updating the EOP communications section rather than writing a separate plan; staff was asked to mark whether the communications section needs revision and to note the update frequency required by grant programs.

- Mesh network pilot: participants described a small, low‑power long‑range Wi‑Fi mesh device that can propagate short messages across neighboring units and does not require centralized backbone infrastructure. Members supported keeping a pilot in the plan as “experimental” and suggested a cost range of roughly $245 per device (shipping and configuration variables were cited), recommending staff capture a 2–4 cost range because actual implementation costs are uncertain.

Committee members also reaffirmed that River Canyon Wireless (the fixed‑Wi‑Fi provider) launched service around 2017 and that Emery provides fiber backbone access for the region; staff will verify dates and include a short historical note for context rather than full paragraphs.

The committee made no formal funding commitments but directed staff to: replace long anecdotal paragraphs with a concise provider list, add Wi‑Fi calling and VoIP clarifications, document that the fire district no longer has a satellite phone, add the town base station and the 2018 radio purchase year, and include the three mitigation initiatives above (radio upgrade, EOP communications update, and mesh‑pilot as experimental). Staff will supply cost estimates and refined wording for the prioritized actions at a future meeting.","During its April 22 meeting the Admitigation Committee reviewed edits to the power outage and communications sections of the draft plan, agreed to streamline provider history, add Wi‑Fi calling, list local providers, note the fire department no longer has a satellite phone, and pursue radio upgrades and a low‑power mesh pilot.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee says mitigation actions must include responsible party, funding and timelines; staff to seek clarification

Committee flags need to confirm scope of on‑request structure inspections for wildfire risk

Committee notes rockfall occurrences but reports no recorded structural damage

Committee revises power‑outage and communications chapter; discusses Wi‑Fi calling, providers, radios and a mesh pilot