MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Across the United States, natural and human-caused disasters have led to increasing levels of death, injury,
property damage, and interruption of business and government services. The toll on families and individuals can
be immense and damaged businesses cannot contribute to the economy. The time, money and effort to respond
to and recover from these emergencies or disasters divert public resources and attention from other important
programs and problems. With 51 federal or state declarations, 281 other events, and a combined total of 332
disaster events recorded, the 28 jurisdictions contained within Maricopa County, Arizona and participating in
this planning effort, recognize the consequences of disasters and the need to reduce the impacts of natural and
human-caused hazards. The County and jurisdictions also know that with careful selection, mitigation actions
in the form of projects and programs can become long-term, cost effective means for reducing the impact of
natural and human-caused hazards.
The elected and appointed officials of Maricopa County and the 26 other participating jurisdictions
demonstrated their commitment to hazard mitigation in 2003-2004 by preparing the first Maricopa County
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004 Plan). The 2004 Plan was comprised of a multijurisdictional, county-wide umbrella plan and 27 jurisdiction specific annexes that addressed specific planning
elements for each jurisdiction. The 2004 Plan was approved by FEMA on November 29, 2004 and requires a
full, FEMA approved, update prior to the November 29, 2009 expiration.
In response, the Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management (MCDEM) secured a federal
planning grant and hired JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc. to assist the County and participating
jurisdictions with the update process. MCDEM reconvened a multi-jurisdictional planning team (MJPT)
comprised of veteran and first-time representatives from each participating jurisdiction, various county
departments and organizations, Arizona Division of Emergency Management, National Weather Service,
Arizona Geologic Survey, and Arizona Public Service. The MJPT met monthly through July 2009 in a
collaborative effort to review, evaluate, and update the 2004 Plan into a single, consolidated Maricopa County
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan). The Plan also contains a Tribal Annex for each of the two
participating Indian Tribes, that address Tribal specific planning elements. The Plan will continue to guide the
County and participating jurisdictions toward greater disaster resistance in full harmony with the character and
needs of the community and region.
The Plan has been prepared in compliance with Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act or the Act), 42 U.S. C. 5165, enacted under Sec. 104 the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000, (DMA 2000) Public Law 106-390 of October 30, 2000, as implemented at CFR 201.6
and 201.7 dated October, 2007. The Plan identifies hazard mitigation measures intended to eliminate or reduce
the effects of future disasters throughout the County, and was developed in a joint and cooperative venture by
members of the Maricopa County MJPT.

ES 1

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: JURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION AND FEMA APPROVAL .................................................... 1
1.1
DMA 2000 Requirements ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1
General Requirements ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2
Update Requirements ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Official Record of Adoption ........................................................................................................... 2
1.3
FEMA Approval Letter .................................................................................................................. 2

SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 5
2.1
2.2
2.3

Plan History ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Plan Purpose and Authority ........................................................................................................... 5
General Plan Description ............................................................................................................... 6

SECTION 3: PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................................................... 7
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2

Update Process Description............................................................................................................ 7
Previous Planning Process Assessment ......................................................................................... 7
Primary Point of Contact ............................................................................................................... 7
Planning Teams ............................................................................................................................. 10
Planning Team Assembly ......................................................................................................... 10
Planning Team Activities ......................................................................................................... 13
Public Involvement ....................................................................................................................... 18
Previous Plan Assessment........................................................................................................ 18
Plan Update ............................................................................................................................. 18

SECTION 4: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS ......................................................................................... 19
4.1
General ........................................................................................................................................... 19
4.2
County Overview .......................................................................................................................... 19
4.2.1
Geography ............................................................................................................................... 19
4.2.2
Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 19
4.2.3
Population................................................................................................................................ 24
4.2.4
Economy .................................................................................................................................. 26
4.3
Jurisdictional Overviews .............................................................................................................. 28
4.3.1
Avondale .................................................................................................................................. 28
4.3.2
Buckeye .................................................................................................................................... 30
4.3.3
Carefree ................................................................................................................................... 34
4.3.4
Cave Creek............................................................................................................................... 37
4.3.5
Chandler .................................................................................................................................. 42
4.3.6
El Mirage ................................................................................................................................. 44
4.3.7
Fountain Hills .......................................................................................................................... 47
4.3.8
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation ............................................................................................... 52
4.3.9
Gila Bend ................................................................................................................................. 55
4.3.10
Gilbert ...................................................................................................................................... 58
4.3.11
Glendale ................................................................................................................................... 60
4.3.12
Goodyear ................................................................................................................................. 65
4.3.13
Guadalupe................................................................................................................................ 67
4.3.14
Litchfield Park ......................................................................................................................... 70
4.3.15
Mesa ......................................................................................................................................... 73
4.3.16
Paradise Valley ........................................................................................................................ 78
4.3.17
Peoria ...................................................................................................................................... 80
4.3.18
Phoenix .................................................................................................................................... 83
4.3.19
Queen Creek ............................................................................................................................ 88
4.3.20
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community ........................................................................90
4.3.21
Salt River Project ..................................................................................................................... 95
4.3.22
Scottsdale ................................................................................................................................. 95
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page i

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.3.23
4.3.24
4.3.25
4.3.26
4.3.27

2009

Surprise ................................................................................................................................... 99
Tempe .....................................................................................................................................101
Tolleson ..................................................................................................................................104
Wickenburg ............................................................................................................................109
Youngtown..............................................................................................................................111

SECTION 5: RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 117
5.1
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.3.6
5.3.7
5.3.8
5.3.9
5.4

Hazard Identification and Screening .........................................................................................117
Vulnerability Analysis Methodology .........................................................................................121
General ..................................................................................................................................121
Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) Evaluation ................................................................121
Asset Inventory .......................................................................................................................123
Loss Estimations ....................................................................................................................124
Development Trend Analysis..................................................................................................126
Hazard Risk Profiles ...................................................................................................................126
Dam Inundation .....................................................................................................................126
Drought ..................................................................................................................................167
Extreme Heat .........................................................................................................................177
Fissure ...................................................................................................................................185
Flood / Flash Flood ...............................................................................................................191
Levee Failure .........................................................................................................................201
Severe Wind ...........................................................................................................................207
Subsidence..............................................................................................................................211
Wildfire ..................................................................................................................................217
Risk Assessment Summary .........................................................................................................225

SECTION 6: MITIGATION STRATEGY............................................................................................... 227
6.1
Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................227
6.2
Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................228
6.2.1
Jurisdictional Capabilities .....................................................................................................229
6.2.2
Previous Mitigation Activities ................................................................................................290
6.2.3
National Flood Insurance Program Participation .................................................................311
6.3
Mitigation Actions/Projects and Implementation Strategy .....................................................314
6.3.1
Previous Mitigation Actions/Projects Assessment .................................................................314
6.3.2
New Mitigation Actions / Projects and Implementation Strategy ..........................................360

SECTION 7: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES ........................................................................... 405
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4

Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................................405
Plan Update .................................................................................................................................406
Incorporation Into Existing Planning Mechanisms .................................................................406
Continued Public Involvement ...................................................................................................407

SECTION 8: PLAN TOOLS.................................................................................................................. 409
8.1
8.2

Acronyms .....................................................................................................................................409
Definitions ....................................................................................................................................410

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1: Map of general features for Maricopa County............................................................................ 20
Figure 4-2: Daily Temperatures and Extremes for Carefree Station, Arizona ............................................ 21
Figure 4-3: Daily Temperatures and Extremes for Carefree Station, Arizona ............................................ 22
Figure 4-4: Daily Temperatures and Extremes for Phoenix WSFO AP Station, Arizona .......................... 22
Figure 4-5: Monthly climate summary for the Carefree Station, Arizona ................................................... 23
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page ii

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-6: Monthly climate summary for the Gila Bend Station, Arizona ................................................. 23
Figure 4-7: Monthly climate summary for the Phoenix WSFO AP Station, Arizona ................................. 23
Figure 4-8: 2010 population density projections for Maricopa County........................................................ 25
Figure 4-9: 2010 employment concentration projections for Maricopa County .......................................... 27
Figure 4-10: City of Avondale location map ................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4-11: City of Avondale land use planning map ................................................................................... 31
Figure 4-12: Town of Buckeye location map ................................................................................................... 32
Figure 4-13: Town of Buckeye land use planning map .................................................................................. 35
Figure 4-14: Town of Carefree location map .................................................................................................. 36
Figure 4-15: Town of Carefree land use planning map.................................................................................. 38
Figure 4-16: Town of Cave Creek location map ............................................................................................. 39
Figure 4-17: Town of Cave Creek land use planning map............................................................................. 41
Figure 4-18: City of Chandler location map ................................................................................................... 43
Figure 4-19: City of Chandler land use planning map ................................................................................... 45
Figure 4-20: City of El Mirage location map .................................................................................................. 46
Figure 4-21: City of El Mirage land use planning map .................................................................................. 48
Figure 4-22: Town of Fountain Hills location map ......................................................................................... 49
Figure 4-23: Town of Fountain Hills land use planning map ........................................................................ 51
Figure 4-24: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation location map ........................................................................... 53
Figure 4-25: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation land use map .......................................................................... 54
Figure 4-26: Gila Bend location map ............................................................................................................... 56
Figure 4-27: Town of Gila Bend land use planning map ............................................................................... 57
Figure 4-28: Gilbert location map .................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 4-29: Town of Gilbert land use planning map .................................................................................... 61
Figure 4-30: Glendale location map ................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 4-31: City of Glendale land use planning map .................................................................................... 64
Figure 4-32: Goodyear location map ............................................................................................................... 66
Figure 4-33: City of Goodyear land use planning map .................................................................................. 68
Figure 4-34: Guadalupe location map ............................................................................................................. 69
Figure 4-35: Town of Guadalupe land use map .............................................................................................. 71
Figure 4-36: Litchfield Park location map ...................................................................................................... 72
Figure 4-37: City of Litchfield Park land use map ......................................................................................... 74
Figure 4-38: Mesa location map ....................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 4-39: City of Mesa land use map .......................................................................................................... 77
Figure 4-40: Paradise Valley location map...................................................................................................... 79
Figure 4-41: Town of Paradise Valley land use map ...................................................................................... 81
Figure 4-42: Peoria location map ..................................................................................................................... 82
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page iii

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-43: City of Peoria land use map ........................................................................................................ 84
Figure 4-44: Phoenix location map................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 4-45: City of Phoenix land use map ..................................................................................................... 87
Figure 4-46: Queen Creek location map .......................................................................................................... 89
Figure 4-47: Town of Queen Creek land use map .......................................................................................... 91
Figure 4-48: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community location map .................................................. 92
Figure 4-49: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community land use map ................................................. 94
Figure 4-50: Scottsdale location map ............................................................................................................... 96
Figure 4-51: City of Scottsdale land use map .................................................................................................. 98
Figure 4-52: Surprise location map................................................................................................................ 100
Figure 4-53: City of Surprise land use map................................................................................................... 102
Figure 4-54: Tempe location map................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 4-55: City of Tempe land use map ..................................................................................................... 105
Figure 4-56: Tolleson location map ................................................................................................................ 106
Figure 4-57: City of Tolleson land use map ................................................................................................... 108
Figure 4-58: Wickenburg location map ......................................................................................................... 110
Figure 4-59: Town of Wickenburg land use map.......................................................................................... 112
Figure 4-60: Youngtown location map........................................................................................................... 113
Figure 4-61: Town of Youngtown land use map ........................................................................................... 115
Figure 5-1: Average statewide precipitation variances from a normal based on 19712000 period .................................................................................................................... 168
Figure 5-2: Average statewide precipitation variances from a normal based on 1998 2009 period .................................................................................................................... 168
Figure 5-3: U.S. Drought Monitor Map for July 21, 2009 ........................................................................... 170
Figure 5-4: U.S. Seasonal Outlook, July to October, 2009 ........................................................................... 170
Figure 5-5: Arizona short term drought status map for February 2009 .................................................... 171
Figure 5-6: Arizona long term drought status map for January 2009 ........................................................ 172
Figure 5-7: 2008 heat caused/related deaths by temperature and date ...................................................... 178
Figure 5-8: Phoenix excessive heat watch/warning criteria ......................................................................... 179
Figure 5-9: NWS Heat Index chart ................................................................................................................ 180
Figure 5-10: Heat caused/related deaths by age and gender for Maricopa County in
2008 ................................................................................................................................ 182

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: List of jurisdictional primary points of contact .............................................................................. 8
Table 3-2: Summary of multi-jurisdictional planning team participants ..................................................... 10
Table 3-3: Summary of planning meetings convened as part of the plan update process ........................... 14
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page iv

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 4-1: Summary of jurisdictional population estimates for Maricopa County ..................................... 24
Table 4-2: Summary of population and employment estimates for Avondale ............................................. 30
Table 4-3: Summary of population and employment estimates for Buckeye ............................................... 33
Table 4-4: Summary of population and employment estimates for Carefree .............................................. 37
Table 4-5: Summary of population and employment estimates for Cave Creek ......................................... 40
Table 4-6: Summary of population and employment estimates for Chandler ............................................. 42
Table 4-7: Summary of population and employment estimates for El Mirage ............................................ 47
Table 4-8: Summary of population and employment estimates for Fountain Hills ..................................... 50
Table 4-9: Summary of population and employment estimates for the Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation................................................................................................................ 52
Table 4-10: Summary of population and employment estimates for Gila Bend .......................................... 55
Table 4-11: Summary of population and employment estimates for Gilbert ............................................... 58
Table 4-12: Summary of population and employment estimates for Glendale ............................................ 63
Table 4-13: Summary of population and employment estimates for Goodyear .......................................... 65
Table 4-14: Summary of population and employment estimates for Guadalupe ........................................ 70
Table 4-15: Summary of population and employment estimates for Litchfield Park ................................. 73
Table 4-16: Summary of population and employment estimates for Mesa .................................................. 76
Table 4-17: Summary of population and employment estimates for Paradise Valley................................. 78
Table 4-18: Summary of population and employment estimates for Peoria ................................................ 83
Table 4-19: Summary of population and employment estimates for Phoenix ............................................. 86
Table 4-20: Summary of population and employment estimates for Queen Creek ..................................... 90
Table 4-21: Summary of population and employment estimates for Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community ........................................................................................ 93
Table 4-22: Summary of population and employment estimates for Scottsdale .......................................... 97
Table 4-23: Summary of population and employment estimates for Surprise............................................. 99
Table 4-24: Summary of population and employment estimates for Tempe ............................................. 104
Table 4-25: Summary of population and employment estimates for Tolleson ........................................... 107
Table 4-26: Summary of population and employment estimates for Wickenburg .................................... 109
Table 4-27: Summary of population and employment estimates for Youngtown...................................... 114
Table 5-1: Summary of Summary of Initial Hazard Identification Lists ................................................... 118
Table 5-2: State and Federally Declared Natural Hazard Events That Included
Maricopa County – January 1966 to October 2008 ................................................... 119
Table 5-3: Maricopa County Historic Hazard Events – June 1955 to September 2008 ............................ 119
Table 5-4: Summary of Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) categories and risk
levels ............................................................................................................................... 122
Table 5-5: Summary of Critical and Non-Critical Facility counts by category and
jurisdiction .................................................................................................................... 125
Table 5-6: Summary of ADWR safety categories ......................................................................................... 128
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page v

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-7: Summary of NID downstream hazard classifications ................................................................ 128
Table 5-8: Summary count of NID and ADWR hazard classification dams .............................................. 129
Table 5-9: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for dam inundation (emergency
spillway flow and dam failure) ..................................................................................... 130
Table 5-10: Summary asset inventory losses due to emergency spillway flooding .................................... 132
Table 5-11: Summary asset inventory losses due to dam failure flooding .................................................. 133
Table 5-12: Summary of Maricopa County HAZUS building exposure by hazard................................... 135
Table 5-13: Summary of Avondale HAZUS building exposure by hazard................................................. 136
Table 5-14: Summary of Buckeye HAZUS building exposure by hazard .................................................. 137
Table 5-15: Summary of Carefree HAZUS building exposure by hazard.................................................. 138
Table 5-16: Summary of Cave Creek HAZUS building exposure by hazard............................................. 139
Table 5-17: Summary of Chandler HAZUS building exposure by hazard................................................. 140
Table 5-18: Summary of El Mirage HAZUS building exposure by hazard ............................................... 141
Table 5-19: Summary of Fountain Hills HAZUS building exposure by hazard ........................................ 142
Table 5-20: Summary of Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation HAZUS building exposure by
hazard ............................................................................................................................ 143
Table 5-21: Summary of Gila Bend HAZUS building exposure by hazard ............................................... 144
Table 5-22: Summary of Gilbert HAZUS building exposure by hazard .................................................... 145
Table 5-23: Summary of Glendale HAZUS building exposure by hazard ................................................. 146
Table 5-24: Summary of Goodyear HAZUS building exposure by hazard ................................................ 147
Table 5-25: Summary of Guadalupe HAZUS building exposure by hazard .............................................. 148
Table 5-26: Summary of Litchfield Park HAZUS building exposure by hazard ....................................... 149
Table 5-27: Summary of Unincorporated Maricopa County HAZUS building exposure
by hazard ....................................................................................................................... 150
Table 5-28: Summary of Mesa HAZUS building exposure by hazard........................................................ 151
Table 5-29: Summary of Paradise Valley HAZUS building exposure by hazard ...................................... 152
Table 5-30: Summary of Peoria HAZUS building exposure by hazard...................................................... 153
Table 5-31: Summary of Phoenix HAZUS building exposure by hazard ................................................... 154
Table 5-32: Summary of Queen Creek HAZUS building exposure by hazard .......................................... 155
Table 5-33: Summary of Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community HAZUS
building exposure by hazard ........................................................................................ 156
Table 5-34: Summary of Scottsdale HAZUS building exposure by hazard ............................................... 157
Table 5-35: Summary of Surprise HAZUS building exposure by hazard .................................................. 158
Table 5-36: Summary of Tempe HAZUS building exposure by hazard ..................................................... 159
Table 5-37: Summary of Tolleson HAZUS building exposure by hazard .................................................. 160
Table 5-38: Summary of Wickenburg HAZUS building exposure by hazard ........................................... 161
Table 5-39: Summary of Youngtown HAZUS building exposure by hazard ............................................. 162
Table 5-40: Summary of population sectors exposed to emergency spillway inundation ......................... 163
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page vi

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-41: Summary of population sectors exposed to dam failure .......................................................... 164
Table 5-42: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for drought ............................................................ 173
Table 5-43: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for extreme heat .................................................... 181
Table 5-44: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for fissure hazard.................................................. 186
Table 5-45: Summary of asset inventory exposure to high hazard fissure zones....................................... 188
Table 5-46: Summary of population sectors exposed to high hazard fissure zones ................................... 189
Table 5-47: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for flooding hazard ............................................... 194
Table 5-48: Summary of asset inventory exposure to high and medium hazard flooding
and corresponding loss estimates ................................................................................ 195
Table 5-49: Summary of population sectors exposed to high and medium hazard
flooding .......................................................................................................................... 197
Table 5-50: Summary of RL property statistics for Maricopa County jurisdictions ................................ 199
Table 5-51: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for levee failure ..................................................... 202
Table 5-52: Summary of asset inventory exposure to high hazard levee failure areas and
corresponding loss estimates ........................................................................................ 203
Table 5-53: Summary of population sectors exposed to high hazard levee failure areas .......................... 204
Table 5-54: Fujita Tornado Scale................................................................................................................... 209
Table 5-55: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for severe wind ...................................................... 209
Table 5-56: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for subsidence ....................................................... 212
Table 5-57: Summary of asset inventory exposure to high hazard subsidence areas ................................ 214
Table 5-58: Summary of population sectors exposed to high hazard subsidence areas ............................ 215
Table 5-59: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for wildfire ............................................................ 218
Table 5-60: Summary of asset inventory exposure to high and medium wildfire hazard
and corresponding loss estimates ................................................................................ 220
Table 5-61: Summary of population sectors exposed to high and medium wildfire
hazard ............................................................................................................................ 222
Table 5-62: Summary of hazards to be mitigated by each participating jurisdiction ............................... 225
Table 6-1-1: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Avondale .................................................. 229
Table 6-2-1: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Avondale ................................... 230
Table 6-3-1: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Avondale ........................................................................... 230
Table 6-1-2: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Buckeye ................................................... 231
Table 6-2-2: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Buckeye ..................................... 232
Table 6-3-2: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Buckeye ............................................................................. 232
Table 6-1-3: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Carefree ................................................... 233
Table 6-2-3: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Carefree .................................... 234
Table 6-3-3: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Carefree ............................................................................ 234
Table 6-1-4: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Cave Creek .............................................. 235
Table 6-2-4: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Cave Creek ............................... 236
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page vii

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-3-4: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Cave Creek ....................................................................... 236
Table 6-1-5: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Chandler .................................................. 237
Table 6-2-5: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Chandler ................................... 238
Table 6-3-5: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Chandler ........................................................................... 238
Table 6-1-6: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for El Mirage ................................................. 239
Table 6-2-6: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for El Mirage .................................. 240
Table 6-3-6: Summary of fiscal capabilities for El Mirage .......................................................................... 241
Table 6-1-7: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation ............................................................................................................................. 242
Table 6-2-7: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation .............................................................................................................. 242
Table 6-3-7: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation ...................................... 243
Table 6-1-8: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Fountain Hills.......................................... 244
Table 6-2-8: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Fountain Hills ........................... 245
Table 6-3-8: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Fountain Hills ................................................................... 245
Table 6-1-9: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Gila Bend ................................................. 246
Table 6-2-9: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Gila Bend .................................. 246
Table 6-3-9: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Gila Bend .......................................................................... 247
Table 6-1-10: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Gilbert.................................................... 248
Table 6-2-10: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Gilbert ..................................... 249
Table 6-3-10: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Gilbert ............................................................................. 250
Table 6-1-11: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Glendale ................................................. 251
Table 6-2-11: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Glendale .................................. 252
Table 6-3-11: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Glendale .......................................................................... 252
Table 6-1-12: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Goodyear ............................................... 253
Table 6-2-12: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Goodyear ................................. 253
Table 6-3-12: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Goodyear......................................................................... 254
Table 6-1-13: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Guadalupe ............................................. 255
Table 6-2-13: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Guadalupe ............................... 256
Table 6-3-13: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Guadalupe....................................................................... 256
Table 6-1-14: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Litchfield Park ...................................... 257
Table 6-2-14: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Litchfield Park........................ 258
Table 6-3-14: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Litchfield Park ............................................................... 258
Table 6-1-15: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Unincorporated
Maricopa County .......................................................................................................... 259
Table 6-2-15: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Unincorporated
Maricopa County .......................................................................................................... 260
Table 6-3-15: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Unincorporated Maricopa County ............................... 261
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page viii

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-16: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Mesa ....................................................... 262
Table 6-2-16: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Mesa ........................................ 262
Table 6-3-16: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Mesa ................................................................................ 263
Table 6-1-17: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Paradise Valley ..................................... 264
Table 6-2-17: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Paradise Valley ....................... 264
Table 6-3-17: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Paradise Valley............................................................... 265
Table 6-1-18: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Peoria ..................................................... 266
Table 6-2-18: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Peoria ...................................... 266
Table 6-3-18: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Peoria .............................................................................. 267
Table 6-1-19: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Phoenix .................................................. 268
Table 6-2-19: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Phoenix .................................... 269
Table 6-3-19: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Phoenix ........................................................................... 270
Table 6-1-20: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Queen Creek ......................................... 271
Table 6-2-20: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Queen Creek ........................... 271
Table 6-3-20: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Queen Creek ................................................................... 272
Table 6-1-21: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community ...................................................................................... 273
Table 6-2-21: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community ............................................................................ 273
Table 6-3-21: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community .................................................................................................................... 274
Table 6-1-22: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Salt River Project ................................. 275
Table 6-2-22: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Salt River
Project ............................................................................................................................ 276
Table 6-3-22: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Salt River Project ........................................................... 277
Table 6-1-23: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Scottsdale............................................... 278
Table 6-2-23: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Scottsdale ................................ 279
Table 6-3-23: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Scottsdale ........................................................................ 279
Table 6-1-24: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Surprise ................................................. 280
Table 6-2-24: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Surprise ................................... 280
Table 6-3-24: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Surprise........................................................................... 281
Table 6-1-25: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Tempe .................................................... 282
Table 6-2-25: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Tempe...................................... 282
Table 6-3-25: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Tempe ............................................................................. 283
Table 6-1-26: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Tolleson ................................................. 284
Table 6-2-26: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Tolleson ................................... 285
Table 6-3-26: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Tolleson ........................................................................... 285
Table 6-1-27: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Wickenburg ........................................... 286
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page ix

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-27: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Wickenburg ............................ 286
Table 6-3-27: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Wickenburg .................................................................... 287
Table 6-1-28: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Youngtown ............................................ 288
Table 6-2-28: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Youngtown .............................. 289
Table 6-3-28: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Youngtown ...................................................................... 289
Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions ...................... 292
Table 6-5: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions ...................... 311
Table 6-6: Summary of NFIP status and statistics for Maricopa County and
participating jurisdictions ............................................................................................ 312
Table 6-7-1: Summary of Avondale assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 315
Table 6-7 2: Summary of Buckeye assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 316
Table 6-7-3: Summary of Carefree assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 318
Table 6-7-4: Summary of Cave Creek assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 318
Table 6-7-5: Summary of Chandler assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 320
Table 6-7-6: Summary of El Mirage assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 322
Table 6-7-7: Summary of Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation assessment of previous plan
cycle mitigation actions/projects .................................................................................. 324
Table 6-7-8: Summary of Fountain Hills assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 327
Table 6-7-9: Summary of Gila Bend assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 328
Table 6-7-10: Summary of Gilbert assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 329
Table 6-7-11: Summary of Glendale assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 331
Table 6-7-12: Summary of Goodyear assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 331
Table 6-7-13: Summary of Guadalupe assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 333
Table 6-7-14: Summary of Litchfield Park assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 334
Table 6-7-15: Summary of Unincorporated Maricopa County assessment of previous
plan cycle mitigation actions/projects ......................................................................... 335
Table 6-7-16: Summary of Mesa assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 338
Table 6-7-17: Summary of Paradise Valley assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects.............................................................................................................. 340
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page x

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-18: Summary of Peoria assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects ............................................................................................................. 342
Table 6-7-19: Summary of Phoenix assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects ............................................................................................................. 344
Table 6-7-20: Summary of Queen Creek assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects ............................................................................................................. 348
Table 6-7-21: Summary of Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community assessment of
previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects.......................................................... 349
Table 6-7-22: Summary of Scottsdale assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects ............................................................................................................. 351
Table 6-7-23: Summary of Surprise assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects ............................................................................................................. 353
Table 6-7-24: Summary of Tempe assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects ............................................................................................................. 354
Table 6-7-25: Summary of Tolleson assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects ............................................................................................................. 357
Table 6-7-26: Summary of Wickenburg assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects ............................................................................................................. 357
Table 6-7-27: Summary of Youngtown assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation
actions/projects ............................................................................................................. 358
Table 6-8-1: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Avondale .................................................................................................................. 361
Table 6-8-2: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Buckeye .................................................................................................................... 362
Table 6-8-3: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Carefree ................................................................................................................... 365
Table 6-8-4: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Cave Creek .............................................................................................................. 367
Table 6-8-5: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Chandler .................................................................................................................. 368
Table 6-8-6: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for El Mirage ................................................................................................................. 370
Table 6-8-7: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation ............................................................................. 372
Table 6-8-8: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Fountain Hills .......................................................................................................... 375
Table 6-8-9: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Gila Bend ................................................................................................................. 376
Table 6-8-10: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Gilbert ...................................................................................................................... 377
Table 6-8-11: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Glendale ................................................................................................................... 378
Table 6-8-12: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Goodyear ................................................................................................................. 379
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page xi

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-13: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Guadalupe ............................................................................................................... 380
Table 6-8-14: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Litchfield Park ........................................................................................................ 380
Table 6-8-15: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Unincorporated Maricopa County ........................................................................ 381
Table 6-8-16: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Mesa ......................................................................................................................... 384
Table 6-8-17: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Paradise Valley........................................................................................................ 386
Table 6-8-18: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Peoria ....................................................................................................................... 387
Table 6-8-19: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Phoenix .................................................................................................................... 389
Table 6-8-20: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Queen Creek ............................................................................................................ 390
Table 6-8-21: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community .................................................... 393
Table 6-8-22: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Salt River Project .................................................................................................... 394
Table 6-8-23: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Scottsdale ................................................................................................................. 396
Table 6-8-24: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Surprise.................................................................................................................... 397
Table 6-8-25: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Tempe ...................................................................................................................... 398
Table 6-8-26: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Tolleson .................................................................................................................... 401
Table 6-8-27: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Wickenburg ............................................................................................................. 402
Table 6-8-28: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy
for Youngtown............................................................................................................... 402

LIST OF MAPS
Maps 1A, 1B, and 1C – Dam Spillway Flood Hazard Map(s)
Maps 2A, 2B, and 2C – Potential Dam Failure Flood Hazard Map(s)
Maps 3A, 3B, and 3C – Earth Fissure Hazard Map(s)
Maps 4A, 4B, and 4C – Flood Hazard Map(s)
Maps 5A, 5B, and 5C – Potential Levee Failure Flood Hazard Map(s)
Maps 6A, 6B, and 6C – Subsidence Hazard Map(s)
Maps 7A, 7B, and 7C – Wildfire Hazard Map(s)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page xii

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Official Resolution of Adoption
Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation
Appendix C: Public Involvement Records
Appendix D: Detailed Historic Hazard Records
Appendix E: Plan Maintenance Review Memorandums

ANNEX DOCUMENTS (under separate cover)
Tribal Plan Annex for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Tribal Plan Annex for the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS (under separate cover)
Jurisdiction-Specific Executive Summary

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page xiii

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page xiv

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

SECTION 1: JURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION AND FEMA APPROVAL
Requirement §201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include…] Documentation that the plan has been
formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County
Commissioner, Tribal Council). For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must
document that it has been formally adopted.
Requirement §201.6(d)(3): A local jurisdiction must review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development
,progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities, and resubmit it for approval within five (5) years in order to
continue to be eligible for mitigation project grant funding.

1.1

DMA 2000 Requirements

1.1.1

General Requirements
The Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan) has been prepared
in compliance with Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act of 1988 (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5165, as amended by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2000 (DMA 2000) Public Law 106-390 enacted October 30, 2000. The regulations governing the
mitigation planning requirements for local mitigation plans are published under the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Title 44, Section 201.6 (44 CFR §201.6). Additionally, a DMA 2000 compliant
plan that addresses flooding will also meet the minimum planning requirements for the Flood
Mitigation Assistance program as provided for under 44 CFR §78.
DMA 2000 provides requirements for States, Tribes, and local governments to undertake a
risk-based approach to reducing risks to natural hazards through mitigation planning 1. The local
mitigation plan is the representation of the jurisdiction's commitment to reduce risks from natural
hazards, serving as a guide for decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of
natural hazards. Local plans will also serve as the basis for the State to provide technical assistance and
to prioritize project funding.
Under 44 CFR §201.6, local governments must have a Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA)-approved local mitigation plan in order to apply for and/or receive project grants
under the following hazard mitigation assistance programs:
•
•
•
•

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL)

FEMA, at its discretion, may also require a local mitigation plan under the Repetitive Flood
Claims (RFC) program as well.
1.1.2

Update Requirements
DMA 2000 requires that existing plans be updated every five years, with each plan cycle
requiring a complete review, revision, and re-approval of the plan at both the state and FEMA level..
Maricopa County, the incorporated communities of Avondale, Buckeye, Carefree, Cave Creek,
Chandler, El Mirage, Fountain Hills, Gila Bend, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Guadalupe, Litchfield
Park, Mesa, Paradise Valley, Peoria, Phoenix, Queen Creek, Scottsdale, Surprise, Tempe, Tolleson,
Wickenburg, and Youngtown, and the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community all currently have FEMA approved hazard mitigation plans. The Plan is the result
of an update process performed by the Maricopa County jurisdictions to both update and consolidate
individual community plans developed in late 2004 and early 2005.

1

FEMA, 2008, Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 1

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
1.2

2009

Official Record of Adoption

Promulgation of the Plan is accomplished through formal adoption of official resolutions by the
governing body for each participating jurisdiction in accordance with the authority and powers granted to those
jurisdictions by the State of Arizona. Participating jurisdictions in the Plan include:
Counties

• Maricopa

Tribes

• Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation
• Salt River
Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community

Cities
• Avondale
• Chandler
• El Mirage
• Glendale
• Goodyear
• Litchfield Park
• Mesa
• Peoria
• Phoenix
• Scottsdale
• Surprise
• Tempe
• Tolleson

Towns

Other

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

• Salt River Project

Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Fountain Hills
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Guadalupe
Paradise Valley
Queen Creek
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Each jurisdiction will keep a copy of their official resolution of adoption located in Appendix A of
their copy of the Plan.

1.3

FEMA Approval Letter

The Plan was submitted to the Arizona Division of Emergency Management (ADEM), the authorized
state agency, and FEMA for review and approval. FEMA’s approval letter is provided on the following page.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 2

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

[Insert FEMA Approval Letter Here]

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 3

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 4

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION
2.1

Plan History

In 2003 and 2004, Maricopa County, two Indian Tribes, and all incorporated cities and towns in
Maricopa County, participated in a multi-jurisdictional mitigation planning effort that resulted in the
development of a multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan with separate stand-alone annexes that covered
each participating jurisdiction. The following is a list of those annexes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Maricopa County Unincorporated Area Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Avondale Hazard Mitigation Plan
Town of Buckeye Hazard Mitigation Plan
Town of Carefree Hazard Mitigation Plan
Town of Cave Creek Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Chandler Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of El Mirage Hazard Mitigation Plan
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Hazard Mitigation Plan
Town of Fountain Hills Hazard Mitigation Plan
Town of Gila Bend Hazard Mitigation Plan
Town of Gilbert Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Glendale Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Goodyear Hazard Mitigation Plan
Town of Guadalupe Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Litchfield Park Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Mesa Hazard Mitigation Plan
Town of Paradise Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Peoria Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Phoenix Hazard Mitigation Plan
Town of Queen Creek Hazard Mitigation Plan
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Scottsdale Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Surprise Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Tempe Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Tolleson Hazard Mitigation Plan
Town of Wickenburg Hazard Mitigation Plan
Town of Youngtown Hazard Mitigation Plan

Collectively and individually, these plans will be referred to herein as the 2004 Plan(s). The 2004
Plans received official FEMA approval on November 29, 2004. Additional planning was performed with the
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to upgrade their 2004 Plan to a “state level” plan, which was approved by
FEMA and retains the November 29,2004 approval date. The 2004 Plans are nearing the end of the 5-year
planning cycle and are set to expire November 29, 2009.

2.2

Plan Purpose and Authority

The purpose of the Plan is to identify natural hazards that impact the various jurisdictions located
within Maricopa County, assess the vulnerability and risk posed by those hazards to community-wide human
and structural assets, develop strategies for mitigation of those identified hazards, present future maintenance
procedures for the plan, and document the planning process. The Plan is prepared in compliance with DMA
2000 requirements and represents a multi-jurisdictional update of the 2004 Plans listed in Section 2.1.
Maricopa County and all of the Cities and Towns are political subdivisions of the State of Arizona and
are organized under Title 9 (cities/towns) and Title 11 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS). The Salt River
Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District is also a political subdivision of the State and is organized
under Title 48 of the ARS. The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation is a federally recognized sovereign nation that
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 5

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

was created by Executive Order on September 15, 1903 and is governed by a Tribal Council that is elected by
tribal members pursuant to the Tribe's Constitution. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community was
established by Executive Order on June 14, 1879 and is governed by community council comprised of a
president, vice president and tribal council. As such, each of these entities are empowered to formally plan and
adopt the Plan on behalf of their respective jurisdictions.
Funding for the development of the Plan was provided through a PDM planning grant obtained by
MCDEM through the State of Arizona from FEMA. JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology (JEF) was
retained by MCDEM to provide consulting services in guiding the update planning process and Plan
development.

2.3

General Plan Description

The Plan is generally arranged and formatted to be consistent with the 2007 State of Arizona MultiHazard Mitigation Plan (State Plan) and is comprised of the following major sections:
Planning Process – this section summarizes the planning process used to update the Plan, describes the
assembly of the planning team and meetings conducted, and summarizes the public involvement efforts.
Community Description – this section provides an overall description of the participating jurisdictions and the
County as a whole.
Risk Assessment – this section summarizes the identification and profiling of natural hazards that impact the
County and the vulnerability assessment for each hazard that considers exposure/loss estimations and
development trend analyses.
Mitigation Strategy – this section presents a capability assessment for each participating jurisdiction and
summarizes the Plan mitigation goals, objectives, actions/projects, and strategy for implementation of those
actions/projects.
Plan Maintenance Strategy – this section outlines the proposed strategy for evaluating and monitoring the
Plan, updating the Plan in the next 5 years, incorporating plan elements into existing planning mechanisms, and
continued public involvement.
Plan Tools – this section includes a list Plan acronyms and a glossary of definitions.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 6

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

SECTION 3: PLANNING PROCESS
§201.6 (b): Planning process. An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective
plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning
process shall include:
(1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
(2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities,
and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private
and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and
(3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
§201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall include…] (1) Documentation of the planning process used to develop the plan,
including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.

This section includes the delineation of various DMA 2000 regulatory requirements, as well as the identification
of key stakeholders and planning team members within Maricopa County. In addition, the necessary public
involvement meetings and actions that were applied to this process are also detailed.

3.1

Update Process Description

MCDEM applied for and received a PDM planning grant to fund a multi-jurisdictional effort to review,
update and consolidate the 2004 Plans. MCDEM solicited letters of support from all 2004 Plan towns, cities,
and Tribes to aide in the preparation of the PDM planning grant application. Once the grant was received, the
County then selected JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc. (JEF) to work with the participating
jurisdictions and guide the Plan update process. An initial project kick-off meeting between JEF and MCDEM
was convened December 4, 2008 to line out the meeting dates and agendas for the next year’s planning efforts,
and to discuss the new plan format and other administrative tasks. Initial data collection contacts were also
established. Seven planning team meetings, two make-up meetings, two tribal planning meetings, and several
other individual community outreach meetings were conducted over the period of December 2008 to September
2009, along with all the work required to collect, process, and document updated data and make changes to the
plan. Details regarding updated key contact information and promulgation authorities, the planning team
selection, participation, and activities, and public involvement are discussed in the following sections.

3.2

Previous Planning Process Assessment

The first task of preparation for the Plan update, was to evaluate the process used to develop the 2004
Plan. This was initially discussed by MCDEM and JEF in the December 4, 2008 kick-off meeting with the goal
of establishing the framework for the planning effort ahead. The 2004 Plan process employed a multijurisdictional approach with representation from each participating jurisdiction in larger multi-jurisdictional
planning team meetings wherein concepts would be presented and discussed, and homework would be assigned
for completion by each jurisdiction. MCDEM and JEF agreed to continue with the same approach due to both
limited time and budget. Another conclusion of the 2004 Plan process assessment was that the new planning
process and approach would result in a true multi-jurisdictional plan (one document for all participating
jurisdictions). This required a slightly different strategy in gathering and compiling the Plan information.
The Plan update process was presented and discussed at the first multi-jurisdictional planning team
meeting and was contrasted to the 2004 Plan approach. Over two-thirds of the planning team members were
new to the hazard mitigation planning process altogether, so there was very little institutional knowledge of the
prior process.

3.3

Primary Point of Contact

Table 3-1 summarizes the primary points of contact (PPOC) identified for each participating
jurisdiction.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 7

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 3-1: List of jurisdictional primary points of contact
Jurisdiction

Name

Avondale

Art Snapp

Department / Position

Address

Phone

Fire and Rescue Department –
Division Chief
Fire Department –Chief /
Emergency Management
Coordinator

1825 N. 107th Ave.
Avondale, AZ 85323

623.333.6000

Buckeye

Bob Costello

Carefree

Pat Farmer

530 East Monroe Avenue
Buckeye, AZ 85326

623.349.6700

bcostello@buckeyeaz.gov

480.488.3686

pat@carefree.org

Cave Creek

Adam Stein

480.488.6636

astein@cavecreek.org

Chandler

Marc Walker

480.782.2135

marc.walker@chandleraz.gov

El Mirage

Howard Munding

623.876.4248

hmunding@cityofelmirage.org

Fountain Hills

Randy Roberts

480.816.5114

rroberts@fh.az.gov

Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation

Tom Christmas

Fire Department – Fire Chief

480.789.7521

tchristmas@ftmcdowell.org

Gila Bend

Harry Parsi

Public Works – Town Engineer

928.683.2255

hparsi@gilabendaz.org

Gilbert

Sheri Gibbons

480.503.6333

sherig@ci.gilbert.az.us

Glendale

Debra Sheff

11550 W. Glendale Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85307

623.872.5008

dsheff@glendaleaz.com

Goodyear

Othell Newbill

175 N. 145th Ave.
Goodyear, AZ 85338

623.882.7221

onewbill@goodyearaz.gov

Guadalupe

Gino Turrubiartes

9241 S. Avenida del Yaqui
Guadalupe, AZ 85283

480.555.5399

gturrubiartes@guadalupeaz.org

Litchfield Park

Sonny Culbreth

214 W. Wigwam Blvd.
Litchfield Park, AZ 85340

623.935.9040

sculbreth@litchfield-park.org

Maricopa County

Cristina Herrera

2035 N. 52nd St.
Phoenix, AZ 85008

602.273.1411

cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov

Mesa

Gil Damiani

40 N. Center St., Ste. 115
Mesa, AZ 85201

480.644.2631

gil.damiani@mesaaz.gov

Paradise Valley

Robert Lee

6401 E. Lincoln Dr.
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253

480.348.3631

rlee@paradisevalleyaz.gov

Marshal’s Office – Town Marshal
Marshal’s Office – Town Marshal
/ Emergency Services Coordinator
Fire Department – Assistant Fire
Chief
Fire Department – Assistant Fire
Chief
Fire Department – Assistant Fire
Chief

Fire Department – Emergency
Manager
Office of Emergency
Management – Operations &
Training Officer
Emergency Management –
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Community Development –
Director
Assistant City Manager,
Community and Recreation
Services Director, Emergency
Management Coordinator
MCDEM – Emergency Services
Planner
Emergency Management –
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Building Safety – Building
Official

8 Sundial Circle
Box 740
Carefree, AZ 85377
37622 N. Cave Creek Rd.
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
221 E. Boston St.
Chandler, AZ 85225
13513 N El Mirage Rd
El Mirage, Arizona 85335
16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
P.O. Box 17779
Fountain Hills, AZ 85269
644 W. Pima St.
P.O. Box A
Gila Bend, AZ 85337
85 E. Civic Center Dr.
Gilbert, AZ 85296

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Email
asnapp@avondale.org

Page 8

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 3-1: List of jurisdictional primary points of contact
Jurisdiction

Name

Department / Position
Emergency Management –
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Office of Emergency
Management – Emergency
Management Coordinator
Public Safety – Division
Manager
Emergency Management –
Emergency Manager
Business Continuity and
Emergency Management –
Principal Planning Analyst
Emergency Management –
Emergency Management Officer

Peoria

Glenn Jones

Phoenix

Mike DeBenedetto

Queen Creek

Joe LaFortune

Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community

Cliff Puckett

Salt River Project

Patrick O’Toole

Scottsdale

Thomas Shannon

Surprise

Kevin Pool

Fire Department – Assistant Chief

Tempe

Tom Abbott

Fire Department – Deputy Chief

Tolleson

Bob Hansen

Fire Department – Division Chief

Wickenburg

Ronnie Miller

Police Department – Emergency
Manager

Youngtown

Mark Hannah

Public Works – Director

Address

Phone

Email

8351 W. Cinnabar Ave.
Peoria, AZ 85345

623.777.5202

glenn.jones@peoriaaz.gov

200 W. Washington St., 12th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

602.534.0642

michael.debenedetto@phoenix.gov

480.358.3502

joe.lafortune@queencreek.org

480.850.4408

cliff.puckett@srpmic-nsn.gov

602.236.5294

patrick.otoole@srpnet.com

480.312.1821

tshannon@scottsdaleaz.gov

623.222.5022

kevin.pool@surpriseaz.com

480.858.7219

tom_abbott@tempe.gov

623.936.8500

bhansen@tollesonaz.org

928.684.3152

jeepride97@yahoo.com

623.933.8286

mhannah@youngtownaz.org

22350 S. Ellsworth Rd.
Queen Creek, AZ 85242
10005 E. Osborn Rd.
Scottsdale, AZ 85256
P.O. Box 52025, MS PAB342
Phoenix, AZ 85072
8401 E. Indian School Rd.
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
14250 W. Statler Plaza, Ste. 101
Surprise, AZ 85374
1400 East Apache Boulevard
P. O. Box 5002
Tempe, AZ 85280
9169 W. Monroe St.
Tolleson, AZ 85353
155 N. Tegner, Ste. C
Wickenburg, AZ 85390
12030 Clubhouse Sq.
Youngtown, AZ 85363

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 9

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
3.4

2009

Planning Teams

Two levels of planning teams were organized for this Plan update. The first was a Multi-Jurisdictional
Planning Team (MJPT) that was comprised of one or more representatives from each participating jurisdiction.
The second level planning team was the Local Planning Team (LPT).
The role of the MJPT was to work with the planning consultant to perform the coordination, research,
and planning element activities required to update the 2004 Plans. Attendance by each participating jurisdiction
was required for every MJPT meeting as the meetings were structured to progress through the plan update
process. Steps and procedures for updating the 2004 Plans were presented and discussed at each MJPT
meeting, and homework assignments were normally given. Each meeting built on information discussed and
homework assigned at the previous meeting. The MJPT representatives also had the responsibility of liaison to
the LPT, and were tasked with:
•
•
•

Conveying information and homework received at the MJPT meetings to the LPT
Ensuring that all requested homework was completed fully and returned on a timely basis.
Arranging for review and official adoption of the Plan.

The function and role of the LPT was to:
•
•
•
•
3.4.1

Provide support and data
Assist the MJPT representative in completing each homework assignment
Make planning decisions regarding plan update components
Review the Plan draft documents

Planning Team Assembly
At the beginning of the update planning process, MCDEM organized and identified members
for the MJPT by initiating contact with all 24 incorporated towns and cities and the two Tribes that had
participated in the 2004 Plan planning effort. In December 2008, MCDEM distributed a kick-off letter
with an attached calendar of dates to the identified MJPT members announcing the start of the
planning effort. The letter template and meeting schedule are provided in Appendix B. The
participating members of the MJPT are summarized in Table 3-2. Returning planning team members
are highlighted.

Table 3-2: Summary of multi-jurisdictional planning team participants

Name

Jurisdiction /
Organization

Tom Abbott

Tempe

Jim Begansky

Maricopa County

Brian Berndt

Avondale

Meredith Bond

Maricopa County

Tom Christmas

Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation

Shannon Cluff

Mesa

Ed Copp

Salt River Project

Bob Costello

Buckeye

Department / Position
Fire Department – Deputy Chief
MCDEM – Emergency Services
Planner
Development Services –
Director
MCDEM – Office Assistant
Fire Department – Fire Chief
Fire Department – Deputy Fire
Chief
Business Continuity and
Emergency Management –
Manager
Fire Department – Chief /
Emergency Management
Coordinator

Planning Team Role
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Provided planning assistance to cities and towns
MJPT participant
Support in planning elements related to development
MJPT participant
Administrative support
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Proxy attendance for PPOC
MJPT participant
Managerial support for planning effort
Jurisdictional PPOC and lead coordinator for LPT

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 10

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 3-2: Summary of multi-jurisdictional planning team participants

Name

Jurisdiction /
Organization

Department / Position
Assistant City Manager,
Community and Recreation
Services Director, Emergency
Management Coordinator
Emergency Management –
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Office of Emergency
Management – Emergency
Management Coordinator

Planning Team Role
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT

Sonny Culbreth

Litchfield Park

Gil Damiani

Mesa

Mike DeBenedetto

Phoenix

Karl Emberg

Paradise Valley

Pat Farmer

Carefree

Glen Floe

Maricopa County

Devlin Fung

Glendale

Mike Fusco

Peoria

Michael Gease

Maricopa County

Sheri Gibbons

Gilbert

Rob Gunter

Glendale

Mark Hannah

Youngtown

Bob Hansen

Tolleson

Jennifer Henry

Maricopa County

Cristina Herrera

Maricopa County

Matt Holm

Maricopa County

Planning and Development –
Principal Planner

Dewey Horton

Buckeye

Fire Department – Assistant
Chief / Emergency Management
Coordinator

MJPT representative, jurisdictional PPOC and lead
coordinator for LPT until replaced by Bob Costello

Jason Howard

Maricopa
Association of
Governments

GIS Manager

MJPT participant
Resource for County-wide GIS data

Lee Jimenez

Maricopa County

Glenn Jones

Peoria

Lorenzo Jones

Scottsdale

Emergency Management –
Emergency Management Officer

MJPT representative, jurisdictional PPOC and lead
coordinator for LPT until replaced by Thomas
Shannon

Mike Kellogg

JE Fuller/
Hydrology &
Geomorphology,
Inc.

Project Mitigation Planner / GIS
Specialist

MJPT Consultant
GIS analysis and hazard profile mapping
Asset inventory database management

Joe LaFortune

Queen Creek

Public Safety – Division
Manager

MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT

Police Department – Lieutenant
Marshal’s Office – Town
Marshal
MCDEM – Emergency Services
Planner
Information Technology / GIS –
Senior GIS Analyst
Safety Mitigation Division –
Safety Officer
FCDMC – Floodplain
Management Services –
Floodplain Planning Specialist
Fire Department – Emergency
Manager
Office of Emergency
Management – Homeland
Security Director
Public Works – Director
Fire Department – Division
Chief
MCDEM – Emergency Services
Planner
MCDEM – Emergency Services
Planner

FCDMC – Floodplain
Management – Floodplain
Representative
Emergency Management –
Emergency Management
Coordinator

MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Provided context for past planning efforts and
assisted new PPOC.
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Provided planning assistance to cities and towns
MJPT participant
Provide GIS support and data
MJPT participant
Proxy attendance for PPOC
MJPT participant
Resource for County-wide floodplain management
data and practices
NFIP expert
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Managerial support for planning effort.
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Provided planning assistance to cities and towns
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Resource for planning and development issues
Department representative

MJPT participant
Resource for County-wide floodplain management
data and practices
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 11

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 3-2: Summary of multi-jurisdictional planning team participants

Name

Jurisdiction /
Organization

Department / Position
Fire Department – Fire Chief /
Emergency Management
Coordinator
MCDEM – Emergency Services
Planner

Scott LaGreca

Fountain Hills

Richard Langevin

Maricopa County

Pam Lansberry

Arizona Public
Service

Technical Operations – Manager

Robert Lee

Paradise Valley

Building Safety – Building
Official

Russ Loumav

Paradise Valley

*none provided*
Fire Department – Emergency
Manager
Costumer Accounts Manager –
Technical Account
Representative

Planning Team Role
MJPT participant
Managerial support for planning effort
MJPT participant
Provided planning assistance to cities and towns
MJPT participant
Resource for APS data
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Proxy attendance for PPOC
MJPT participant
Proxy attendance for PPOC

Bob Marshall

Goodyear

Dave McGhan

Arizona Public
Service

Alfred Medina

Guadalupe

Ronnie Miller

Wickenburg

Howard Munding

El Mirage

Tim Murphy

Maricopa County

FCDMC – Floodplain
Delineation – Branch Manager

Othell Newbill

Goodyear

Emergency Management –
Emergency Management
Coordinator

Chris Ochs

Glendale

Water Utility – Deputy Director

W. Scott Ogden

JE Fuller/
Hydrology &
Geomorphology,
Inc.

Project Manager

Patrick O’Toole

Salt River Project

John Padilla

Maricopa County

Harry Parsi

Gila Bend

Public Works – Town Engineer

Michael Paz

General Public
(Motorola)

Rodney Phelps

Gila River Indian
Community

Government and Public Safety –
Account Executive
Office of Emergency
Management – Emergency
Operations Specialist

Jen Pokorski

Maricopa County

FCDMC – Planning and Project
Management – Project Manager

Kevin Pool

Surprise

Fire Department – Assistant
Chief

MJPT participant
Resource for FCDMC project and planning
information.
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT

Cliff Puckett

Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian
Community

Emergency Management –
Emergency Manager

MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT

John Rae

Litchfield Park

Building Safety – Senior
Inspector

David Ramirez

Goodyear

Engineering Department – City
Engineer

Darrell Rezendes

El Mirage

Fire Department – Emergency
Management Director

MJPT participant
Proxy attendance for PPOC
MJPT participant
Proxy attendance for PPOC
Resource for city engineering standards, policies and
projects.
MJPT participant
Managerial support for planning efforts

Fire Department – Captain
Police Department – Emergency
Manager
Fire Department – Assistant Fire
Chief

Business Continuity and
Emergency Management –
Principal Planning Analyst
MCDEM – Emergency Services
Planner

MJPT participant
Resource for APS data
MJPT participant
Proxy attendance for PPOC
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Resource for FEMA floodplain delineation data and
statistics
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Resource for city water and wastewater data
MJPT Lead Consultant
Preparation and presentation of plan update elements
and materials
Co – Primary point of contact for overall planning
effort.
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Provided planning assistance to cities and towns
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT attendee
MJPT participant
GRIC liaison

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 12

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 3-2: Summary of multi-jurisdictional planning team participants

Name

Jurisdiction /
Organization

Randy Roberts

Fountain Hills

Duren Robertson

Youngtown

John Rose

Maricopa County

Mike Sabatini

Maricopa County

MCDOT – Department Manager

Sharon Sanders

Maricopa County

Planning and Development

MJPT participant

Renelle Schaffer

General Public

*none*

MJPT attendee

Fire Department – Fire
Prevention Specialist
Emergency Management –
Emergency Management Officer
Office of Emergency
Management – Operations &
Training Officer
Community Services – Division
Chief
Building Safety – Building
Official
Marshal’s Office – Town
Marshal / Emergency Services
Coordinator
Planning Department – Planning
Manager

MJPT participant
Proxy attendance for PPOC
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT

Department / Position
Fire Department – Assistant Fire
Chief
Police Department / Emergency
Management – Lieutenant
MCDOT – Survey Branch –
Survey Manager

Jim Shank

Buckeye

Thomas Shannon

Scottsdale

Debra Sheff

Glendale

Art Snapp

Avondale

Ken Sowers

Avondale

Adam Stein

Cave Creek

Tracy Stevens

Avondale

Julie Syrmopoulus

Maricopa County

Jeri Todd

Phoenix

Gino Turrubiartes

Guadalupe

Bruce Van Scyoc

Surprise

Mitch Wagner

Maricopa County

Marc Walker

Chandler

Steve Waters

Maricopa County

FCDMC – Flood Warning
Branch – Manager

Ken Waters

National Weather
Service

Phoenix Warning and Forecast
Office – Warning Coordination
Meteorologist

Pete Weaver

Maricopa County

MCDEM - Director

Sue Wood

State of Arizona

ADEM – Mitigation Division –
Program Manager

MCDEM – Public Relations
Director
Office of Emergency
Management – Administrative
Assistant II
Community Development –
Director
Fire Department – Battalion
Chief
MCDOT – Planning – Senior
Planner
Fire Department – Assistant Fire
Chief

Planning Team Role
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Proxy attendance for PPOC
MJPT participant
Resource for county roads, bridges and culverts
MJPT participant
Managerial support for planning efforts

MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Resource for codes and enforcement for city
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Resource for city planning policies and elements
MJPT participant
Public relations and county website development
resource
MJPT participant
Proxy attendance for PPOC
Administrative support for city PPOC
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Proxy attendance for PPOC
MJPT participant
Resource for countywide transportation planning
MJPT representative and jurisdictional PPOC
Lead coordinator for LPT
MJPT participant
Resource for countywide flood warning data and
history of disaster management
MJPT participant
Resource for countywide weather information and
statistics
MJPT participant
Managerial support for planning efforts
MJPT participant
Resource for State MHM Plan information
State reviewer

Lists of LPT members and their respective roles, for each jurisdiction, are provided in
Appendix B.
3.4.2

Planning Team Activities
The MJPT met for the first time on January 15, 2009 to begin the plan update process. Two
additional meetings covering the same material were conducted on January 29 and February 11, 2009
for jurisdictions unable to attend the January 15th meeting. Six more meetings were convened on about
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 13

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

a monthly basis to step through the plan review and update process. Each MJTP member was required
to bring a copy of the 2004 Plan for their jurisdiction for review and reference, and was instructed to
review the section being updated in advance of the meeting that section was discussed. Additional
copies of the plans were provided by Sue Wood of ADEM. Following each MJPT meeting, the PPOC
for each jurisdiction would convene a meeting of the LPT to work through the assigned homework as
needed. One tribal planning meeting was convened with each of the participating Tribes to develop
the extra items needed for the Tribal Annex to bring the Tribes into compliance DMA 2000 Section
201.7. There were also six other outreach meetings conducted by MCDEM staff with individual
communities to assist them in the development of the plan elements. Table 3-3 summarizes the MJPT,
Tribal, and outreach meetings convened, along with a brief list of the agenda items discussed. Detailed
meeting notes for all of the MJPT meetings are provided in Appendix B. There are no details of the
LPT meetings.
Table 3-3: Summary of planning meetings convened as part of the plan update process
Meeting Type, Date, and Location
Pre-Planning Kick-Off Meeting
December 4, 2008
MCDEM Conference Room
Phoenix, AZ
MJPT Meeting No. 1
Initial Meeting:
January 15, 2009
FCDMC – Adobe Room
Phoenix, AZ
Make Up Meetings:
January 29, 2009
JEF Conference Room
Tempe, AZ
and

•
•
•
•

Meeting Agenda
Discuss schedule of MJPT meetings
Discuss Plan outline
Strategize the MJPT list
Discuss roles of MCDEM and JEF in the overall
planning process

• Present an overview of mitigation planning and
the update process
• Team introductions
• Discussed the MJPT meeting schedule and overall
plan update schedule
• Reviewed roles of MJPT and LPT, as well as
requirements for attendance.
• Assignments included
o Identify a PPOC for each jurisdiction
o Begin organizing the LPT
o Review the current plan Risk Assessment and
Public Involvement sections.

February 11, 2009
MCDEM Conference Room
Phoenix, AZ

MJPT Meeting No. 2
February 12, 2009
MCDOT – Apache Room
Phoenix, AZ

• Introduction and quick review of major Mtg No. 1
highlights.
• Discussed the promulgation schedule in detail.
• Discussed public involvement strategy.
• Discussed 2004 Plan hazards and stepped through
an initial hazard screening and profiling process.
• Assignments included
o Begin work on performing the PI strategy
o Review historic hazard database and add to it
as necessary.
o Perform CPRI evaluation for post-screened
list of hazards

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 14

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 3-3: Summary of planning meetings convened as part of the plan update process
Meeting Type, Date, and Location

MJPT Meeting No. 3
March 19, 2009
MCDOT – Apache Room
Phoenix, AZ

Community Outreach Meeting with
Town of Wickenburg
April 13, 2009
MCDEM Conference Room
Phoenix, AZ

MJPT Meeting No. 4
April 16, 2009
FCDMC – Operations Building
Phoenix, AZ

Community Outreach Meeting with
Town of Youngtown
April 17, 2009
Public Works Office
Youngtown, AZ

Meeting Agenda
• Homework status review
• Discussed the promulgation schedule again.
• Discussed plan format and proposed change to a
truly MJ plan.
• Reviewed CPRI results and finalized list of
hazards for vulnerability analysis.
• Discussed asset inventory work, needs, and
homework.
• Assignments included
o Complete prior homework.
o Begin asset inventory work.
o Verify municipal boundaries.
o Review current Plan Maintenance section and
come prepared to discuss past activities.
• Reviewed and worked on the following homework
assignments:
o Public notice,
o Website posting,
o Hazard list,
o Prior mitigation activity list,
o Capability assessment update,
o Corporate boundary verification.
• Homework status review.
• Presented and discussed hazard profile mapping
data and hazard classifications.
• Reviewed and discussed the updating of the
current capability assessment.
• Discussed past plan maintenance activities and
strategized future plan maintenance.
• Assignments included
o Complete prior homework.
o Complete, update and revise capability
assessment worksheets
o Provide list of completed mitigation activities
over the last 5 years.
o Review current plan Mitigation Strategy
section.
• Reviewed and worked on the following homework
assignments:
o Public notice,
o Website posting,
o Hazard list,
o Prior mitigation activity list,
o Capability assessment update,
o Corporate boundary verification.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 15

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 3-3: Summary of planning meetings convened as part of the plan update process
Meeting Type, Date, and Location

MJPT Meeting No. 5
May 14, 2009
MCDOT – Apache Room
Phoenix, AZ

Community Outreach Meeting with
City of Surprise
June 9, 2009
Surprise Fire Department
Surprise, AZ
Community Outreach Meeting with
Town of Buckeye
June 10, 2009
Buckeye Fire Department
Buckeye, AZ
Community Outreach Meeting with
Town of Wickenburg
June 16, 2009

Meeting Agenda
• Homework status review.
• Reviewed and discussed the updating of the goals
and objectives.
• Discussed the review of the 2004 Plan mitigation
actions/projects and performing an assessment to
document status and determine which would carry
forward.
• Assignments included
o Complete prior homework.
o Review template goals & objectives and
review with LPT.
o Complete existing mitigation actions/projects
assessment.
• Reviewed and worked on the following homework
assignments:
o Website posting,
o Hazard list,
o Prior mitigation activity list,
o Corporate boundary verification.
• Reviewed and worked on the following homework
assignments:
o Hazard list,
o Prior mitigation activity list,
o Capability assessment.
• Reviewed and worked on the following homework
assignments:
o Mitigation actions/projects,
o Implementation strategy.

MCDEM Conference Room
Phoenix, AZ

MJPT Meeting No. 6
June 25, 2009
FCDMC – Operations Building
Phoenix, AZ

• Homework status review.
• Reviewed and discussed the results of the
vulnerability analysis.
• Discussed the process for developing new
mitigation actions/projects and the implementation
strategy.
• Brainstormed NFIP compliance action/projection
and developed implementation strategy.
• Assignments included
o Complete prior homework.
o Review details of VA results and respond
with comments/questions to JEF.
o Develop new updated list of mitigation
actions/projects with updated implementation
strategy.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 16

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 3-3: Summary of planning meetings convened as part of the plan update process
Meeting Type, Date, and Location
Community Outreach Meeting with
Town of Gila Bend
July 6, 2009

Meeting Agenda
• Reviewed and worked on the following homework
assignments:
o Worked through all assignments to get Gila
Bend caught up.

Public Works Office
Gila Bend, AZ

MJPT Meeting No. 7
July 16, 2009
FCDMC – Operations Building
Phoenix, AZ

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
Tribal Planning Meeting
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

•
•

August 27. 2009
FMYN Safety Building
Fountain Hills, AZ

•
•
•
•

Tribal Planning Meeting
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community

•
•
•

August 26, 2009
JEF Conference Room
Fountain Hills, AZ

•
•
•

Homework status review.
Final revisit of project schedule.
Discussed the second phase of public involvement.
Reviewed and edited a template resolution of
adoption.
Summarized with closing thoughts.
Assignments included
o Last chance to complete prior homework.
o Review draft as quickly as possible.
o Post updated PI announcement to websites on
or around mid September.
Reviewed Tribal plan requirements as they differ
from Local plans
Discussed and resolved Tribal assurances
language.
Developed a definition for “public”.
Discussed and summarized agency coordination
and integration of the Plan into other Tribal
mechanisms.
Discussed the cultural resource assessment.
Discussed and summarized the Tribal capability
assessment.
Discussed the mitigation strategy progress
assessment.
Reviewed Tribal plan requirements as they differ
from Local plans
Discussed and resolved Tribal assurances
language.
Developed a definition for “public”.
Discussed and summarized agency coordination
and integration of the Plan into other Tribal
mechanisms.
Discussed the cultural resource assessment.
Discussed and summarized the Tribal capability
assessment.
Discussed the mitigation strategy progress
assessment.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 17

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
3.5

Public Involvement

3.5.1

Previous Plan Assessment

2009

The public involvement strategy for the 2004 Plan development included holding several
open house meetings in regionally strategic locations to educate citizens, public officials, and business
leaders about the hazard mitigation planning process, and to gather community input into the local
Goals, Objectives, and Mitigation Actions that each of the various jurisdictions had drafted. The
meetings were publicized via newspaper announcements, websites, public notices, other means. The
resulting public response and turnout was very poor and ill-attended. The MJPT discussed the
repetition of this option and concluded that the time and expense was not warranted and an inefficient
means of getting public input.
The second opportunity for public input was provided through the normal city/town/tribal
council and/or county board of supervisors public meeting process associated with each jurisdiction’s
formal adoption of the 2004 Plan. The details of the meeting process varied from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, but typically included some form of advertisement of the meeting agenda two to four
weeks in advance of the council/board meeting. In most cases, an informal, pre-adoption presentation
of the 2004 Plan was made during a working session of the council/board. The final adoption of the
resolutions were almost unanimously done as part of a consent agenda at a formal council/board
meeting. There are no records of any public comment on the 2004 Plan adoption process. Because the
process is required for any formal council/board action and has a built-in public notification and
comment opportunity, the MJPT chose to continue using this process as one of the post-draft
mechanisms for getting the Plan update before the public.
3.5.2

Plan Update
The opportunity for public involvement and input to the plan update process was
accommodated using several venues throughout the course of the pre-draft planning. Participating
jurisdictions posted public notices to their respective websites that included a link to the full time
website maintained on the Maricopa County servers. A copy of the 2004 Plan was made available on
the County website along with all of the MJPT meeting dates, locations, and times. Additional notices
inviting public participation were published in local and regional newspapers, jurisdictional
newsletters, and flyer inserts to utility bills. Invitations to participate in the planning process were also
extended to key agencies and organizations outside of the MJPT including: Arizona Public Service,
National Weather Service, and Pinal County, Arizona Geological Survey, Gila River Indian
Community, Tohono O’Odham Nation, Luke Air Force Base and local academia.
Two responses, one phone and one letter, were received from the first round of notices and
two people from the general public attended the MJPT meetings (See Table 3-2). Both responses were
from local surgical centers explaining their capabilities to respond to a disaster and they had no input
or comment on the Plan.
A second wave of post-draft public notices were posted to jurisdiction websites and a copy of
the draft Plan was posted to the County website for review and comment. Interested citizens were also
encouraged to participate in the local community adoption process which, depending upon the
jurisdiction, include a formal public hearing and may have included a prior informal presentation.
Copies of the public notices, web pages, and newspaper notices are provided in Appendix C.
Other than those mentioned, there were no substantive public comments received.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 18

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

SECTION 4: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS
4.1

General

The purpose of this section is to provide updated basic background information on Maricopa County as
a whole and includes information on geography, climate, population and economy. Abbreviated details and
descriptions are also provided for each participating jurisdiction.

4.2

County Overview

4.2.1

Geography
Maricopa County is located in central Arizona and encompasses 9,226 square miles. Situated
in the upper Sonoran Desert and varying in elevation from 436 feet above sea level in the southwest to
7,645 feet at the northeast, the county contains several plant communities. At the lower elevations,
desert scrub punctuated with saguaro cactus predominate. The higher elevations contain woodlands
and sparse forests. Along the rivers, streams, and washes, riparian communities flourish and sustain the
majority of the diverse plant and animal life found in the county. The Salt and Verde Rivers enter the
County at the northeast quadrant, combine, and continue on a bisecting path as the Salt River until
confluencing with the Gila River in the central portion of the County near Avondale. The Gila River
then continues bisecting the County as it journeys southwesterly towards the confluence with the
Colorado River in Yuma, Arizona. The life-sustaining water this extensive river system brings to the
region has defined life in Maricopa County from the earliest Native American settlements to the
present day. Maricopa County has one of the most ample water supplies of any desert region in the
west. The watershed of the Salt and Verde Rivers is impounded behind the dams of the Salt River
Project. The Central Arizona Project canal which brings water from the Colorado River, can supply
more than a fifth of the total water for the county. In addition to this supply, the metropolitan area is
situated over a prolific aquifer. To assure an adequate water supply for future generations, the state
legislature adopted the Groundwater Management Act in 1980. This act requires careful water
management and conservation measures to ensure water will be available for the influx of people
expected in the next 20 years and beyond 2.
Several major roadways support both local and regional transportation needs in Maricopa
County. Interstates 10, 17, and 8 all intersect in or near Phoenix, and provide access to surrounding
states. Several other State and US Highways provide local and regional access throughout Arizona.
Sky Harbor International Airport, located in central Phoenix, is one of the busiest air travel facilities in
the United States.
Federal and State government entities own 50 percent of Maricopa County land, including the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (28 percent), the U.S. Forest Service (11 percent), and the State of
Arizona (11 percent). An additional 16 percent is publicly owned, and 5 percent is Indian reservation
land.
General County features are depicted in Figure 4-1.

4.2.2

Climate
The climate in Maricopa County is characterized by the mild winters and hot summers typical
of the upper Sonoran Desert regions. Temperatures and precipitation across the County vary
somewhat due to the changes in elevation and orographic influences of local mountains and valleys.
Climate statistics for weather stations within the County are produced by the Western Region Climate

2

Maricopa County Planning and Development Services, 2002, Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan, 2020 Eye to the
Future, adopted October 20, 1997, revised August 7, 2002.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 19

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-1: Map of general features for Maricopa County
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 20

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Center 3 (WRCC) and span records dating back to the early 1900’s. Locations for WRCC stations
within Maricopa County are shown on Figure 4-1.
Average temperatures within the County range from near freezing during the winter months to
over 110 degrees Fahrenheit during the hot summer months. The severity of temperatures in either
extreme is highly dependent upon the location, and more importantly the altitude, within the County.
For instance, temperature extremes in the northeastern portion of the County are notably different from
those for the lower Gila River valley.
Figures 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 present a graphical depiction of temperature variability and extremes
throughout the year for the Carefree (elevation = 2,530 ft), Gila Bend (elevation = 730 ft), and Phoenix
WSFO AP (elevation = 1,110 ft). In general, there is a ten degree reduction in temperatures between
the lower and upper elevation stations.
Precipitation throughout the County is governed to a great extent by elevation and season of
the year. From November through March, storm systems from the Pacific Ocean cross the state as
broad winter storms producing longer duration precipitation events with low intensity rainfall and
snowstorms at the higher elevations. Summer rainfall begins early in July and usually lasts until midSeptember. Moisture-bearing winds move into Arizona at the surface from the southwest (Gulf of
California) and aloft from the southeast (Gulf of Mexico). The shift in wind direction, termed the
North American Monsoon, produces summer rains in the form of thunderstorms that result largely
from excessive heating of the land surface and the subsequent lifting of moisture-laden air, especially
along the primary mountain ranges. Thus, the strongest thunderstorms are usually found in the
mountainous regions of the central southeastern portions of Arizona. These thunderstorms are often
accompanied by strong winds, blowing dust, and infrequent hail storms 4.

Figure 4-2: Daily Temperatures and Extremes for Carefree Station, Arizona

3

Most of the data provided and summarized in this plan are taken from the WRCC website beginning at the following URL:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html

4

Office of the State Climatologist for Arizona, 2004. Partially taken from the following weblink:
http://geography.asu.edu/azclimate/narrative.htm

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 21

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-3: Daily Temperatures and Extremes for Gila Bend Station, Arizona

Figure 4-4: Daily Temperatures and Extremes for Phoenix WSFO AP Station, Arizona
Figures 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7 present tabular temperature and precipitation statistics for the
Carefree, Gila Bend, and Phoenix Airport Weather Service Forecast Office (WSFO AP) Stations. It is
noteworthy that average annual precipitation more than doubles from the lower elevation of the county
to the upper regions.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 22

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-5: Monthly climate summary for the Carefree Station, Arizona

Figure 4-6: Monthly climate summary for the Gila Bend Station, Arizona

Figure 4-7: Monthly climate summary for the Phoenix WSFO AP Station, Arizona

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 23

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.2.3

2009

Population
Maricopa County is home to more than half of Arizona’s overall population, with the 2008
count estimated at nearly 4 million. In the 1990’s, the County was the fastest growing county in the
United States, gaining nearly 1 million new residents with a growth rate of 44.8 percent during that
decade. Maricopa County is expected to have over 4.2 and 5.2 million residents by the years 2010 and
2020, respectively. Table 4-1 summarizes jurisdictional population statistics for Maricopa County
communities and the County as a whole. Figure 4-8 is a map prepared by the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) that presents an illustration of 2010 population density projections for the
County.

Table 4-1: Summary of jurisdictional population estimates for Maricopa County
Jurisdiction
1990
2000
2008
2010
2020
Maricopa County
2,122,101 3,096,600 3,987,942 4,216,499 5,230,300
Major
Avondale
16,169
35,833
76,648
83,856
105,989
Buckeye
5,038
6,537
50,143
74,906
218,591
Carefree
1,666
2,920
3,948
4,418
5,816
Cave Creek
2,925
3,685
5,132
5,781
7,815
Chandler
90,533
185,300
244,376
265,107
282,991
El Mirage
5,001
7,518
33,647
38,620
38,717
Fountain Hills
1,030
20,199
25,995
27,166
33,331
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
640
829
824
839
1037
Gila Bend
1,747
1,944
1,899
2,575
3,950
Gilbert
29,188
109,935
214,820
218,009
285,819
Glendale
148,134
230,300
248,435
279,807
315,055
Goodyear
6,258
18,779
59,436
71,354
174,521
Guadalupe
5,458
5,228
5,990
5,790
5,982
Litchfield Park
3,303
3,813
5,093
5,140
7,000
Unincorporated Maricopa County
173,612
125,925
246,701
86,423
110,285
Mesa
288,091
441,800
459,682
518,944
565,693
Paradise Valley
11,671
13,629
14,444
14,790
15,224
Peoria
50,168
114,100
155,557
172,793
236,154
Phoenix
983,403 1,350,500 1,561,485 1,695,549 1,990,450
Queen Creek
2,667
4,317
23,329
34,506
55,529
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
4,852
6,403
6,822
7,087
7,308
Scottsdale
130,069
204,300
242,337
249,341
269,266
Surprise
7,122
30,886
108,761
146,890
268,359
Tempe
141,865
158,900
172,641
177,771
191,881
Tolleson
4,434
4,963
6,833
7,748
9,646
Wickenburg
4,515
5,050
6,442
11,022
13,311
Youngtown
2,542
3,007
6,522
6,820
7,275
Figures for 1990 and 2000 from US Census Bureau; Figures for 2010, and 2020 from MAG; Figures for 2008
from Arizona Department of Commerce. Litchfield Park 2010 and 2020 estimates provided by Litchfield Park

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 24

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-8: 2010 population density projections for Maricopa County
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 25

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.2.4

2009

Economy
Maricopa County was originally inhabited by Native Americans, who abandoned the area
during the 1300's for unexplained reasons. Agriculture was the prominent activity in the region and
was reestablished during the 1860's as the first European settlers migrated to the Salt River Valley.
Rapid growth and robust development have been the hallmark of Maricopa County ever since. In 1870
the town site of Phoenix was established, and on February 14, 1871, the Territorial Legislature created
Maricopa County. By 1872, there were over 700 people in the county with 5,000 acres under
cultivation. The arrival of the railroad in 1877 caused a surge in economic activity. In the early 1900s,
the larger farm parcels scattered throughout the region were divided into small farm communities such
as Chandler, Gilbert, and Tolleson. In 1902—at the request of President Theodore Roosevelt—after a
series of devastating floods, Congress passed the Reclamation Act of 1902. Shortly thereafter, the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation started construction on Theodore Roosevelt Dam east of Phoenix. Irrigated
agricultural production and population exploded after the completion of Roosevelt Dam in 1912,
providing the region with a reliable water supply. Maricopa County quickly became one of the leading
agricultural producing counties in the United States. During this period, the County also became a
winter haven for tourists.
Growth in the area continued as tourism, automobile travel, military, and industrial activities
came to the County. Construction continued on residential developments, highways, and commercial
districts, making Maricopa County an increasingly popular place to live. Until the end of World War
II, the traditional economic engines of both the State of Arizona and Maricopa County were known as
the five “Cs”: Cotton, Copper, Cattle, Climate, and Citrus. Newly established wartime industries fueled
the monumental growth of the county in the post-war era. By 1960, the population was over 660,000
people, and reached one million residents in the early 1970s. Combined with the general economic
expansion of the 1980s and the rush to the Sun Belt, Maricopa County claimed over 2.2 million
residents by 1990. Even with economic sluggishness in the early 1990s, the region continued to grow
through 2007 at rate of about four times the national average. Average and per capita 2007 incomes of
$76,465 and $26,132 per year for the greater Phoenix area, tracked closely with national averages 5.
In the last couple of years, economic growth and employment within the County have
declined significantly. For the Greater Phoenix area, the seasonally adjusted employment rate stands at
7.3 percent as compared to less than 3 percent for years prior. For many of the construction and
employment service trades, the unemployment rates are as high as 40 percent 6. Figure 4-9 is a map
prepared by MAG that projects employment densities for the year 2010.

5

Greater Phoenix Economic Council, http://www.gpec.org/media/docs/DemoandLabor%20%20Fact%20Book%20Sheet.pdf

6

Center for Workforce Development, Maricopa Community Colleges, 2009, Maricopa County Economic Workforce
Overview, http://www.maricopa.edu/bwd/pdf/Economic-WorkforceOverview.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 26

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-9: 2010 employment concentration projections for Maricopa County
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 27

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.3

2009

Jurisdictional Overviews
The following are brief overviews for each of the participating jurisdictions in the Plan.

4.3.1

Avondale
Situated along Interstate 10 approximately 15 miles west of downtown Phoenix, the City of
Avondale lies immediately east of Goodyear and west of Tolleson in the West Valley region of
Maricopa County, as shown in Figure 4-10.
The Estrella Mountain Park lies to the south of Avondale, and the Gila River Native
American Community influences the southeastern region of the City. Like most of the communities
located in the greater metropolitan area, Avondale has experienced rapid growth in both population
and land area. In 2008 the City of Avondale’s planning area encompassed nearly 94.4 square miles,
which contrasts with the 40 square miles contained in the City’s planning area in 1990.
While Avondale reflects the common growth trends of its west Valley neighbors, the City also
has a unique natural climate due to the confluence of the Agua Fria and Gila River basins which form
the Gila River junction in the southwest portion of the City. This unique feature compliments the
diverse Estrella Mountain Regional Park in the southern region of Avondale’s planning area. The
primary man-made features that influence Avondale’s land uses include: Interstate 10, which bisects
the community’s north side; a Salt River Power transmission line which runs north-south through
Avondale and meets its east-west counterpart in the south central portion of the City; and the St. Johns
and Roosevelt Irrigation District Canals which transverse the City’s north and south sides,
respectively. These features are complimented by an arterial roadway network in the portion of the
City located north of the Estrella Mountains.
Avondale was founded in 1900 and became incorporated in 1946. Avondale is governed by a
Council-Manager form of government with a seven member City Council consisting of a Mayor and
six Council members elected at-large for a term of four years. The City Council appoints the City
Manager and other officers necessary to produce an orderly administration of the City’s affairs.
As illustrated in Table 4-2, in 2000 the population of Avondale was 35,833. With
development opportunities continuing to open, this population is forecast to nearly triple to 105,989 by
2020. As a result, Avondale’s population will comprise a steadily increasing percentage of Maricopa
County’s population. Similarly, Avondale’s labor force is forecast to reflect an ever-larger share of the
region’s jobs. In 2008, there were 36,923 jobs in Avondale. The 2020 projections anticipated 37,776
jobs, which indicates that job growth in Avondale has outpaced over 12 years of projection. In addition
to having a growing population and employment role within the region, Avondale’s ratio of jobs-percapita is also forecast to rise from 0.17 in 1990 to 0.36 in 2020.
Currently, Avondale has a growing light industrial and commercial economy, a change from
its agricultural tradition. Employment projections forecast office employment as the major source of
jobs by 2020. Avondale’s major private employers include Beam Corporation/Deena Inc., Phoenix
International Raceway, SunBridge Estrella Care Center, Gateway Chevrolet and Geo, and Rudolfo
Bros. Plastering. Major public employers include the Aqua Fria School District, Estrella Mountain
Community College, and the City of Avondale.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 28

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-10: City of Avondale location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 29

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 4-2: Summary of population and employment estimates for Avondale
Population
Maricopa County
Avondale
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Avondale
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
16,169
0.76%

2000
3,072,149
35,833
1.17%

2008
3,987,942
76,648
1.92%

2010
4,134,400
83,856
1.99%

2020
5,164,100
105,989
2.37%

948,227
2,777
0.00%
0.17

1,564,900
9,000
0.58%
0.25

1,814,700
36,923
2.04%
0.48

2,112,000
20,599
1.88%
0.25

2,705,000
37,776
1.88%
0.36

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)
Highlighted cells indicate anomously low forecast estimates. Causes may include annexation of additional land into town limits, higher growth
rates than projected, etc.

Avondale’s General Plan 7, approved in June of 2002, reflects a community that is responding
to the natural and man-made features of the region, as shown in Figure 4-11. According to the City’s
build out projections, Low Density Residential areas will occupy around 18% of the City’s total land
area. These homes will be focused in the more environmentally sensitive regions near the Estrella
Mountains and the Gila River basin. Medium Density Residential, with approximately 4 units to the
acre, will occupy a majority of the City’s land area (44%), and are interspersed throughout the north
portion of the City. Pockets of high- and multi-family residential areas will develop along arterial
streets and near Interstate 10. Similarly, Neighborhood and Community-level commercial uses will
appear at many of the City’s arterial street intersections, with higher-intensity commercial growth areas
projected to develop along Interstate 10. Avondale’s General Plan also includes a Safety Element that
places an emphasis on three specific natural and man-made pressures: (1) the identification and
mitigation of noise and safety concerns associated with Luke Air Force Base, (2) geologic hazards
created by the various watercourses that affect the City, and (3) emergency response systems that are
challenged by continued residential growth.
4.3.2

Buckeye
The Town of Buckeye is positioned as the Western-most community in the greater
metropolitan area, giving the community the unique title of "Western Gateway" for the Salt River
Valley. Situated along Interstate 10 approximately 30 miles west of downtown Phoenix, the Town of
Buckeye lies immediately west of the communities of Goodyear and Surprise, as shown in Figure
4-12. Now encompassing all or portions of the west, south, and east sides of the White Tank Regional
Park, Buckeye’s historical town center—located four miles south of Interstate 10 near State Route
85—lies many miles away from what is expected to become the Town’s new growth area to the west
of the White Tank Mountains. Like most of the communities located in the greater metropolitan area,
Buckeye has been growing steadily for the past several decades. While it was once one of the smallest
communities in Maricopa County, recent annexations and growth initiatives have resulted in
Buckeye’s planning area becoming second in size only to Phoenix.

7

City of Avondale. June 2009. City of Avondale General Plan.
http://www.avondale.org/documents/City%20Departments/Water%20Resources/GIS/Other_Maps/gen_plan.PDF

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 30

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-11: City of Avondale land use planning map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 31

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-12: Town of Buckeye location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 32

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

The primary features that influence Buckeye’s land uses include: Interstate 10, which bisects
the community’s south side; the White Tank Mountains, which effectively separate Buckeye from its
eastern neighbors, and the Hassayampa River and its tributaries, which influence the north and west
sides of Buckeye. Various overhead power lines transect the community’s southern half, as does a
traditional network of arterial streets. The Sun Valley Parkway, a multi-lane, limited access roadway
proceeds north from interstate 10 through Buckeye and connects with the Town of Surprise on the
northeast section of the White Tank Regional Park.
Although prominent new growth in Buckeye will contribute steadily to the demographic,
economic, and land use climate of the West Valley, Buckeye is one of the older “outer ring” suburbs in
Maricopa County. Founded in 1888 and incorporated in 1929, Buckeye’s rural-residential character is
reinforced by its agricultural economic base—Buckeye is still among the largest producers of Pima
Cotton in Maricopa County. Buckeye’s 50,000 residents are governed under a Council-Town Manager
form of government, which includes a seven member Town Council consisting of a Mayor and six
Council members elected at-large for a term of four years. The Council appoints the Town Manager
and other officers necessary to produce an administration of the community’s affairs.
As illustrated in Table 4-3, the 2000 population of Buckeye was 6,537. With large residential
growth opportunities existing within Buckeye’s newly annexed lands, this population is forecast to
explode to 218,591 by 2020. Expectedly, Buckeye’s population will comprise a rapidly increasing
percentage of Maricopa County’s population. By 2020 it is anticipated that Buckeye will contribute
over 4% of Maricopa County’s population, compared to roughly 0.2% in 2000. Complimenting this
population increase will be a labor force that is forecast to reflect a growing share of the region’s jobs.
In 1990, Buckeye had 1,842 jobs, while 2020 projections anticipate over 57,000 jobs within the
community. In addition to having a growing population and employment role within the region,
Buckeye’s ratio of jobs-per-capita is forecast to decrease from 0.37 in 1990 to 0.26 in 2020. Today
more than 25% of Buckeye’s 50,000 working people are employed. Currently, major private and
public employers in Buckeye include the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, the Lewis Prison
Complex, Quincy Joist, Wal-mart Distribution, Schult Homes, the Arizona Department of Corrections,
Buckeye Elementary School District, the Town of Buckeye, Arizona Public Service, and Buckeye
Union High School. Buckeye has a growing light industrial and commercial economy, a change from
its agricultural tradition. Employment projections forecast office employment becoming providing a
majority share of the Town’s jobs by 2020.

Table 4-3: Summary of population and employment estimates for Buckeye
Population
Maricopa County
Buckeye
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Buckeye
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
5,038
0.24%

2000
3,072,149
6,537
0.21%

2008
3,987,942
50,143
1.26%

2010
4,134,400
74,906
1.81%

2020
5,164,100
218,591
4.23%

948,227
1,842
0.19%
0.37

1,564,900
7,100
0.45%
1.09

1,814,700
12,781
0.70%
0.25

2,112,000
22,400
1.06%
0.30

2,705,000
57,297
2.12%
0.26

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 33

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Buckeye’s General Plan 8, approved in January 2008, reflects a community that is preparing
for the massive growth influences that will be placed upon the community in the coming years.
Buckeye’s Land Use Map, shown in Figure 4-13, illustrates these future development influences.
Much of Buckeye’s future development areas are designated residential with a significant amount of
open space along the watercourse and hillside areas. Several large master planned communities are
anticipated for the areas generally north of I-10 along with other mixed use core areas.
4.3.3

Carefree
One of Maricopa County’s few slowly developing communities, the Town of Carefree is
located in the far northeast portion of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, approximately 25 miles from
downtown Phoenix. To the west, Carefree is bordered for its full length by the Town of Cave Creek.
On the south and east, it is bordered by Scottsdale and on the north by unincorporated Maricopa
County. The City of Phoenix approaches within a mile from the southwest. Developed as a planned
community in the 1950s and incorporated in 1984, the Town of Carefree has become known as a
residential town with resort-style living. Historically, the Town of Carefree was master planned to be
entirely distinct from the surrounding communities by allowing its small population to preserve a
lifestyle that integrates with the surrounding desert environment. On December 4, 1984, the Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors declared Carefree a legally incorporated town in the State of Arizona.
Illustrated in Figure 4-14, the primary east-west roadway into the area—the Carefree
Highway—has been constructed as a four-lane arterial from Interstate 17 to Cave Creek Road. Other
major roadway and infrastructure improvements to the south have been completed or are in the
planning stages by the Cities of Scottsdale and Phoenix. Most of the vacant desert that once
surrounded the Town of Carefree on the south, east, and west in the 1980’s is now developed with
semi-rural urban uses. Recent development opportunities to the north of Carefree suggest that growth
of the metropolitan area may continue with the potential to surround the Town at some point in the
future.
Today, Carefree’s residents are governed under a Council-Administrator form of government,
which includes a seven member Town Council consisting of a Mayor and six Council members elected
at-large for a term of four years. The Town Council appoints the Town Administrator and other
officers necessary to manage the daily affairs of the Town.
As illustrated in Table 4-4, in 2000 the population of Carefree was 2,920. With new
residential development opportunities rare to the Town, this population is forecast to grow only
slightly, to 5,816, by 2020. As a result, Carefree’s population will continue to comprise only a fraction
of Maricopa County’s population. Similarly, Carefree’s small labor force is forecast to parallel the
Town’s population growth by comprising a consistently small share of the region’s jobs. In 2000,
Carefree had 1,500 jobs, while 2020 projections anticipate 3,992 jobs within the community. There are
approximately 1,700 jobs presently within the community; a majority of these positions are in the
tourism, resort, and service sectors of the local economy.
Approved in June of 2002, Carefree’s General Plan reflects a community that is preserving
the historical trend of low-density residential growth that is complimented by the dramatic natural
features of the area. As illustrated in Figure 4-15 9, single-family homes and open space are expected
to remain the two dominant land use types in Carefree. Currently, nearly one-half of the acreage of
Carefree is classified as vacant, and only 1% of the Town is commercial. Furthermore, single-family
development of some type represents about 78% of all developed lands in the Town. The Town’s
growth plans indicate a continuation of this pattern. Figure 4-15 shows a Town build-out scenario that
includes only a fraction of commercial land on the Town’s southern border with the Carefree Highway

8

Town of Buckeye, http://www.buckeyeaz.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=177

9

Town of Carefree, http://www.carefree.org/vertical/Sites/%7B7E577914-08B7-498C-80137E6515AE5610%7D/uploads/%7B6E5A1642-361B-4CD6-89D0-1DE975305A8B%7D.PDF

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 34

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-13: Town of Buckeye land use planning map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 35

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-14: Town of Carefree location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 36

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 4-4: Summary of population and employment estimates for Carefree
Population
Maricopa County
Carefree
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Carefree
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
1,666
0.08%

2000
3,072,149
2,920
0.10%

2008
3,987,942
3,948
0.10%

2010
4,134,400
4,418
0.11%

2020
5,164,100
5,816
0.11%

948,227
N/A
N/A
N/A

1,564,900
1,500
0.10%
0.51

1,814,700
1,700
0.09%
0.43

2,112,000
3,270
0.15%
0.74

2,705,000
3,992
0.15%
0.69

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

and adjacent to the Town Center’s northwest corner. Similarly, a small area anticipated to
accommodate garden office uses is expected to develop in east Carefree near Pima Road, and within
the Town Center. An overwhelming proportion of the remaining land uses will be occupied by rural
and low-density residential uses.
4.3.4

Cave Creek
One of the few communities in Maricopa County that has not experienced a rapid rate of
growth, the Town of Cave Creek is located in the far northeast portion of the Greater Metropolitan
Area, approximately 25 miles from downtown Phoenix. To the east, the Town of Carefree borders
Cave Creek for its full length. On the south, it is bounded by Phoenix and on the north and west by
unincorporated Maricopa County. A community more closely associated with a frontier and cowboy
image than its “sister community” to the east—Carefree—the Town of Cave Creek exists in and near
some of the most scenic country in Maricopa County. The area that now includes the Town of Cave
Creek was originally settled in the late 1870s, and quickly became an active mining area during the
1880s. Incorporated in 1986, Cave Creek today is struggling to maintain its rural appearance while
existing in a rapidly growing region of Maricopa County.
Illustrated in Figure 4-16, the primary east-west roadway into the area—the Carefree
Highway—has been constructed as a four-lane arterial east from Interstate 17. This roadway intersects
with the primary north-south access to the area—Cave Creek Road—on the south side of the Town and
runs north, bisecting the Town. Sharing a development pattern that roughly parallels that of Carefree,
most of the vacant desert that once surrounded the Town of Cave Creek in the 1980’s is now
developed with semi-rural urban uses. Complimenting the rugged landscape of the area has been a
recent effort to preserve these natural amenities. Today the Spur Cross Ranch Conservation Area, Cave
Creek Park, and Black Mountain Summit Preserve reflect this movement, and are located on the north,
west, and southeast portions of Cave Creek, respectively. Recent development opportunities to the
south of Cave Creek, especially in north Phoenix and Scottsdale, suggest that growth of the
metropolitan area may continue with the potential to surround the Town at some point in the future.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 37

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-15: Town of Carefree land use planning map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 38

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-16: Town of Cave Creek location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 39

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Cave Creek’s residents are governed under a Council-Town Administrator form of
government, which includes a seven member Town Council consisting of a Mayor and six Council
members elected at-large for a term of four years. The Town Council appoints the Town Administrator
and other officers necessary to manage the daily affairs of Cave Creeks’ residents.
As illustrated in Table 4-5, the 2000 population of Cave Creek was 3,685. With new
residential growth in the Town slow to develop, this population is forecast to grow slightly to 5,800 by
2020. As a result, Cave Creek’s population will continue to comprise only a small portion of Maricopa
County’s population. Similarly, Cave Creek’s small labor force is also predicted to parallel the Town’s
population growth by comprising a consistently small share of the region’s employment. In 2000, Cave
Creek had 800 jobs, while 2020 projections anticipate 4,666 jobs within the community.
Table 4-5: Summary of population and employment estimates for Cave Creek
Population
Maricopa County
Cave Creek
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Cave Creek
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
2,925
0.14%

2000
3,072,149
3,685
0.12%

2008
3,987,942
5,132
0.13%

2010
4,134,400
5,781
0.14%

2020
5,164,100
7,815
0.15%

948,227
770
0.08%
0.26

1,564,900
800
0.05%
0.22

1,814,700
2,570
0.14%
0.50

2,112,000
3,564
0.17%
0.62

2,705,000
4,666
0.17%
0.60

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

With a historical development pattern that reflects the mining, ranching, and rural lifestyle of
the region, Cave Creek has struggled with the urban forces that are spreading to its borders from the
south. Land development in Cave Creek is currently guided by the General Plan that was approved by
the Town in 2005. Major portions of the Town are set aside for open space and rural or low density
residential areas, as depicted on Figure 4-17 10. A small Town Core and Commercial area straddles
Cave Creek Road to define areas of business and retail.

10

Town of Cave Creek, http://www.parkecommercial.com/pdf/generalplans/cavecreek-gp.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 40

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-17: Town of Cave Creek land use planning map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 41

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.3.5

2009

Chandler
Located approximately 19 miles east of downtown Phoenix, Chandler is located in the
southeast Maricopa County. The City of Chandler was one of the fastest growing cities in Arizona and
the United States, having grown 116 percent from 1990 to 2002. Chandler, known as the "Oasis of the
Silicon Desert" was once a quiet tree-lined farming community. It has since blossomed into a city that
is home to a dynamic high-tech industry. Its incorporated area is 63.6 square miles, and the City’s
planning area is 71.4 square miles.
Chandler is characterized by a generally flat landscape framed by views of the Santan
Mountains to the southeast and the Superstition Mountains to the east as shown in Figure 4-18. The
Loop 101 freeway passes through the west-central portion of the City, the planned 202 (Santan)
Freeway will pass through the south-central portion of the City, and the existing State Route 60
provides access just north of the City’s northern border. The Town of Gilbert borders the City to the
east, Tempe and Mesa border Chandler to the north, Phoenix forms the western border, and the Gila
River Indian Community lies to the south.
Incorporated in 1920, today Chandler’s residents are governed under a Council-Manager form
of government, which includes a seven member City Council consisting of a Mayor and six Council
members elected at-large for a term of four years. The City Council appoints the City Manager and
other officers necessary to produce an orderly administration of the City’s affairs.
As illustrated in Table 4-6, in 2000 the population of Chandler was 176,338, making it the
fifth most populated in Maricopa County equal to a 95% increase from the City’s 1990 population of
90,533. With residential development continuing to expand in Chandler this population is forecast to
grow to 282,991 by 2020. Despite this growth it is not anticipated that Chandler will comprise a
rapidly growing ratio of Maricopa’s overall resident population. This fairly stable representation is due
to Chandler’s finite land development opportunities, which are expected to be exhausted by the year
2030. Similarly, Chandler’s labor force is forecast to remain steady through build out. In 2000,
approximately 4.5% of Maricopa County’s labor force was employed in Chandler, with 6.2% forecast
to be reflected in Chandler’s labor pool in the year 2020. Chandler has a diverse economy, based in
large part on the high-tech companies who have settled there. Motorola and Intel combined have five
plants in the city, including Motorola’s Iridium and Intel’s Pentium III chip facilities. Other high-tech
companies with locations in Chandler include Rogers, Avnet, AMKOR, SpeedFam, Orbital Sciences
and Microchip Technology. Over 75 percent of the city’s manufacturing employees work in high-tech.
Major public employers include: Chandler Regional Hospital, the City of Chandler, and the Chandler
School District.

Table 4-6: Summary of population and employment estimates for Chandler
Population
Maricopa County
Chandler
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Chandler
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
90,533
4.27%

2000
3,072,149
176,338
5.74%

2008
3,987,942
244,376
6.13%

2010
4,134,400
265,107
6.41%

2020
5,164,100
282,991
5.48%

948,227
25,421
2.68%
0.28

1,564,900
71,000
4.54%
0.40

1,814,700
123,867
6.83%
0.51

2,112,000
128,244
6.07%
0.48

2,705,000
168,141
6.22%
0.59

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 42

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-18: City of Chandler location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 43

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Chandler’s General Plan, approved in November of 2008, reflects a maturing community
with limited land resources and a desire to maintain sustainable economic growth. Today significant
portion of Chandler’s 71.4 square mile planning area is developed, and over half of the developed land
uses are residential, as shown in Figure 4-20 11. The General Plan goals are to preserve enough land for
future commercial and employment opportunities with a balance of residential properties. The General
Plan also includes a Safety Element, which identifies goals, objectives and policies to prevent, reduce
and combat natural and man-made hazards. This element addresses general emergency planning,
evacuation routes, peak load water supply requirements, and clearances around structures, geologic
hazard identification, and minimum road widths.
4.3.6

El Mirage
The City of El Mirage is located approximately 15 miles northwest of downtown Phoenix in
the western portion of the Phoenix Metropolitan area. South of Peoria Avenue, El Mirage is bordered
to the west and south by the City of Glendale. It is enclosed on the west and north by the City of
Surprise. On the east, the City is bordered by the Town of Youngtown and unincorporated areas of
Maricopa County. El Mirage sits on the west bank of the Agua Fria River, which runs the length of the
City’s eastern border.
United States Highway 60 – Grand Avenue—is a divided, four to six lane road that extends from the
Town of Wickenburg southeast to Van Buren Street in the City of Phoenix. As shown in Figure 4-20,
Highway 60 diagonally traverses the north portion of El Mirage. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) Railroad runs along Grand Avenue’s east side through the City of El Mirage. The centerpiece
of El Mirage’s recreation facilities is Gateway Park, located at the northwest corner of Thunderbird
and El Mirage Roads. The Agua Fria River represents the City’s largest open space area, entailing
1,120 acres.
Originally a farming community, migrant farm workers founded El Mirage in 1937, and the
City was incorporated in 1951. El Mirage’s residents are governed under a Council-Manager form of
government, which includes a seven member City Council consisting of a Mayor and six Council
members elected at-large for a term of four years. The City Council appoints the City Manager and
other officers necessary to produce an orderly administration of the City’s affairs.
As illustrated in Table 4-7, in 2000 the population of El Mirage was 7,518. With residential
development continuing, this population is forecast to more than quadruple to 38,717 by 2020. Despite
this growth, El Mirage will not represent a dramatically increasing ratio of Maricopa County’s overall
population. El Mirage’s job to housing figures indicate a City that will struggle to achieve balance until
build-out is achieved. In 2000, approximately 0.12% of Maricopa County’s labor force was employed
in El Mirage, with employment growth up to 0.63% in 2008. Labor projections are anonymously low
for 2010 and 2020 when compared with 2008. This may be due to annexation of lands, underestimates
of growth, or other factors.
El Mirage’s General Plan, approved in 2003 and revised in 2009, guides development within
the City. Figure 4-21 12, indicates the current land use planning for the City and shows primarily
employment based uses for the southern half of the City and residential dominated uses in the northern
half. Open space mostly coincides with the Agua Fria River and commercial development is primarily
limited to small businesses located along Grand Avenue and Thunderbird Road.

11

City of Chandler, http://www.chandleraz.gov/Content/Landuse%20Element.pdf

12

City of El Mirage, 2009, http://az-elmirage2.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=619

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 44

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-19: City of Chandler land use planning map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 45

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-20: City of El Mirage location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 46

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 4-7: Summary of population and employment estimates for El Mirage
Population
Maricopa County
El Mirage
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
El Mirage
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
5,001
0.24%

2000
3,072,149
7,518
0.24%

2008
3,987,942
33,647
0.84%

2010
4,134,400
38,620
0.93%

2020
5,164,100
38,717
0.75%

948,227
991
0.10%
0.20

1,564,900
1,900
0.12%
0.25

1,814,700
11,446
0.63%
0.34

2,112,000
5,001
0.24%
0.13

2,705,000
9,276
0.34%
0.24

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)
Highlighted cells indicate anomously low forecast estimates. Causes may include annexation of additional land into town limits, higher growth
rates than projected, etc.

Of the City of El Mirage’s 9.9 square miles, less than one-third remains undeveloped. Most
new development in El Mirage is projected to occur in the area south of Peoria Avenue and north of
Grand Avenue. Numerous options also exist for residential single-family infill development in the
City’s established residential areas. These opportunities are largely related to a transit plan that
identifies a commuter rail stop in El Mirage. The City’s General Plan also includes a Safety Element,
which contains goals, objectives and policies to protect residents of the City of El Mirage from natural
and man-made disasters. This element focuses on emergency planning and measures that can be taken
to mitigate community health hazards.
4.3.7

Fountain Hills
The Town of Fountain Hills lies in the northeast quadrant of Maricopa County approximately
30 miles northeast of central Phoenix. The Town’s hillside topography, in the upper Sonoran Desert on
the eastern slope of the McDowell Mountains, provides the community with a rugged terrain and rich
natural desert vegetation. Separated from much of greater Phoenix, the Town of Fountain Hills lies
atop the McDowell Mountains, which create elevations in the Town between 1,510 and 3,170 feet—
averaging about 400-500 feet higher than other Phoenix-area communities.
As shown in Figure 4-22, the City of Scottsdale borders Fountain Hills on the west, the Salt
River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community on the south, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation on the east,
the McDowell Mountain Regional Park on the northwest, and State owned land on the northeast.
Major access to Fountain Hills is provided via Shea Boulevard, which is the Town’s primary
connection to the greater metropolitan area to the west. To the east, adjacent to the Town boundary,
Shea Boulevard intersects State Highway 87 connecting the Town to the south and east Valley,
including the Cities of Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, and also north toward the Verde River, the Salt River,
and further north to Payson and the Mogollon Rim country.
The close proximity of both the Verde River and Fort McDowell, established in the late
1800’s, brought attention to a region that rapidly became known for ranching opportunities in the area.
In 1968, still a ranching community, a large land holding in the area came into the possession of the
McCulloch Oil Corporation. In 1970 this firm directed the development of a 12,000-acre model town,
which would become the community of Fountain Hills. Among the many amenities these developers
included with this planned development would be the world’s tallest fountain, which is still the
community’s most prominent feature.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 47

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-21: City of El Mirage land use planning map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 48

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-22: Town of Fountain Hills location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 49

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

In December of 1989 the Town was incorporated, and now operates under a Council-Mayor
form of government, including a mayor and six council members elected at-large. Development of
Fountain Hills continued steadily throughout the 1990’s, with land annexed to the south.
As illustrated in Table 4-8, in 2000 the population of Fountain Hills was 20,199. With
residential development continuing to climb steadily in Fountain Hills this population has grown to
nearly 26,000 by 2008. Despite this growth Fountain Hills will comprise an increasingly diminished
percent of Maricopa County’s overall resident population. This increasing local population, but
diminished role within the County, is a reflection of the strong growth throughout the Phoenix area.
This trend also indicates the influence of relatively controlled growth in Fountain Hills, which is due
largely to the master-planned heritage of the Town. Similarly, Fountain Hills’ labor force is forecast to
reflect a very small proportion of total county jobs. Some of the community’s largest employers are
Fountain Hills School District, Safeway, MCO Properties Inc., Bashas’, and the Gaming Center at Fort
McDowell Reservation. In 2008, Fountain Hills had a labor force of 13,195 people with a 2.3%
unemployment rate.
Table 4-8: Summary of population and employment estimates for Fountain Hills
Population
Maricopa County
Fountain Hills
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Fountain Hills
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
1,030
0.05%

2000
3,072,149
20,199
0.66%

2008
3,987,942
25,995
0.65%

2010
4,134,400
27,166
0.66%

2020
5,164,100
33,331
0.65%

948,227
978
0.10%
0.95

1,564,900
4,300
0.27%
0.21

1,814,700
13,195
0.73%
0.51

2,112,000
9,954
0.47%
0.37

2,705,000
11,569
0.43%
0.35

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)
Highlighted cells indicate anomously low forecast estimates. Causes may include annexation of additional land into town limits, higher growth
rates than projected, etc.

The Fountain Hills General Plan, ratified in June of 2002, supports the themes of the original
1970’s Town concept. This plan envisioned a complete, self-supporting town of approximately 70,000
people. In 1980 this concept was revised to anticipate a build-out population of 45,000. The rugged
topography continues to be the major constraint for development in Fountain Hills. Currently, most of
the land in Fountain Hills is already platted with an existing land use or is in the developing stages of
construction. As shown through Figure 4-23 13, low to mid-density single-family homes predominate
throughout the community, and tend to follow the ridgelines. A large share of the undeveloped areas of
Fountain Hills is devoted to open space, much of which includes the necessary gulches and valleys that
facilitate runoff. Following its heritage as a planned community, Fountain Hills includes a fairly
concentrated core area that includes residential, commercial, multi-family and some industrial uses.
Highway commercial uses are scattered along Shea Boulevard to the south of Fountain Hills’ core.

13

Town of Fountain Hills, 2002, http://www.fh.az.gov/content/pdfs/planning-and-zoning/general_plan.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 50

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-23: Town of Fountain Hills land use planning map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 51

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.3.8

2009

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (FMYN) is located in the east portion of Maricopa
County approximately 23 miles northeast of downtown Phoenix. The FMYN lies adjacent to the east
side of the Town of Fountain Hills and the McDowell Mountain Park, and is linked to the north end of
the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, as shown in Figure 4-24.
With an average elevation of 1,350 feet, the area’s diverse landscape ranges from tree-lined
bottomlands to cactus studded rolling hills. This desert landscape is contrasted by the riparian areas of
the Verde River and Sycamore Creek. The 40-square mile area is now home to over 600 tribal
members, while another 300 live off the reservation.
The FMYN was created by Executive Order on September 15, 1903. The Community is
governed by a Tribal Council that is elected by tribal members pursuant to the Tribe's Constitution.
As illustrated in Table 4-9, in 1990 the population of FMYN was 640 residents. With the
reservation largely immune to the growth influences found in many Maricopa County incorporated
communities, the FMYN will experience only natural growth rates through the foreseeable future. The
2000 population was estimated to be 829 persons, while 2020 estimates put FMYN’s population at
1,037 residents.

Table 4-9: Summary of population and employment estimates for the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Population
Maricopa County
Fort McDowell Yavapai
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Fort McDowell Yavapai
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
640
0.03%

2000
3,072,149
829
0.03%

2005
3,987,942
824
0.02%

2010
4,134,400
839
0.02%

2020
5,164,100
1,037
0.02%

948,227
N/A
N/A
N/A

1,564,900
N/A
N/A
N/A

1,814,700
227
0.01%
0.28

2,112,000
1,323
0.06%
1.58

2,705,000
1,647
0.06%
1.59

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

FMYN’s prime economic activity is its casino and related facilities. Built in 1984, the Fort
McDowell Casino now occupies nearly 150,000 square feet with 950 employees. Other businesses
include a large sand and gravel quarrying operation, a concrete plant, a hotel, golf courses, and various
farming activities. Ft. McDowell’s labor force is predicted to be nearly double its population in 2010
and 2020. In 2002, Fort McDowell had a labor force of 303 people and is expected to rise to 1,647 by
2020.
Existing land use elements for FMYN are indicated on Figure 4-25 14. Open space dominates
most of the reservation land mass, with agricultural and very low density residential uses comprising
the next two largest elements.

14

Maricopa Association of Governments, 2007 (DRAFT), Municipal Planning Area Socioeconomic Profiles Maricopa
County, Arizona

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 52

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-24: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation location map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 53

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-25: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation land use map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 54

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.3.9

2009

Gila Bend
One of the few Maricopa County communities that is not adjacent to another municipality, the
Town of Gila Bend is located at the intersection of State Highway 85 and Interstate 8 approximately 65
miles southwest of downtown Phoenix, as illustrated through Figure 4-26. Prominent land features that
influence Gila Bend include the Woolsey Peak Wilderness approximately ten miles to the northwest,
the North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness to the northeast, the South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness
to the east, and the Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range to the immediate south of the community. The
Tohono O’odham Nation’s San Lucy District sits adjacent to the Town’s northern border. Incorporated
in 1962, the Town is appropriately named for a dramatic bend of the Gila River, which approaches the
community from the north before heading west to join the Colorado River. Gila Bend sits at an
elevation of 735 feet and includes approximately nine square miles, making the Town one of the
geographically smallest communities in Maricopa County.
As illustrated in Table 4-10, the population of Gila Bend in 2000 was 1,944. While growth is
anticipated to occur only moderately until 2010, Gila Bend’s proximity to the Greater Phoenix
metropolitan area is expected to create a greater increase in residential development in the years that
follow. By 2020 it is expected that Gila Bend will have a population of nearly 4,000 people.
Expectedly, Gila Bend’s population will comprise a growing share of Maricopa County’s population.
By 2020 it is anticipated that Gila Bend will contribute 0.08% of Maricopa County’s population,
compared to only 0.06% in 2000.

Table 4-10: Summary of population and employment estimates for Gila Bend
Population
Maricopa County
Gila Bend
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Gila Bend
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
1,747
0.08%

2000
3,072,149
1,944
0.06%

2008
3,987,942
1,899
0.05%

2010
4,134,400
2,575
0.06%

2020
5,164,100
3,950
0.08%

948,227
N/A
N/A
N/A

1,564,900
1,200
0.08%
0.62

1,814,700
977
0.05%
0.51

2,112,000
1,691
0.08%
0.66

2,705,000
2,760
0.10%
0.70

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

In 2000, 1,200 jobs existed in the Town, while nearly 2,800 are projected to exist by 2020.
With 90,000 acres under cultivation in the Gila Bend trade area, agriculture still forms the backbone of
the Gila Bend economy. Cotton heads the list of crops grown, along with alfalfa and grain.
Gila Bend’s General Plan, adopted November 2006, indicates a dramatic mix of land uses as
shown in Figure 4-27 15. This diverse blend is highlighted by various industrial zoning districts, as well
as several pockets of low density residential and larger agriculturally designated parcels. Higher
density residential districts exist closer to the historical core of Gila Bend, as well as industrial land
that is influenced by the Southern Pacific Railroad.

15

Town of Gila Bend, http://www.gilabendaz.org/vertical/Sites/%7B460CCFC8-4ABF-4D56-9D05343DF365E86C%7D/uploads/%7BADBAFC26-4C10-424E-B173-E59B29CAA9C6%7D.PDF

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 55

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-26: Gila Bend location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 56

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-27: Town of Gila Bend land use planning map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 57

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.3.10

2009

Gilbert
The Town of Gilbert, located in the southeast valley, was incorporated in 1920. The original
town site of just less than one square mile has grown rapidly today into a 74 square mile planning area
in southeast Maricopa County. As shown in Figure 4-28, the Town shares boundaries with the City of
Mesa, City of Chandler, Town of Queen Creek, the Gila River Indian Community, and Pinal County.
A region that is defined more by roadways than natural features, the Town's northern boundary is
Baseline Road; the eastern boundary is generally along Power Road; the southern boundary is Hunt
Highway; and the western boundary is along several roads as it jogs between Arizona Avenue and Val
Vista Road. Numerous pockets of unincorporated land dot the planning area, some of which are
entirely surrounded by the Town.
Like many communities in Maricopa County, Gilbert’s origins lie in agriculture. In 1902, the
Arizona Eastern Railway established a rail line between the towns of Phoenix and Florence. A rail
siding was established on property owned by William "Bobby" Gilbert. The siding, and the town that
sprung up around it, eventually became known as Gilbert.
Gilbert became an active farming community, fueled by the construction of the Roosevelt
Dam and the Eastern and Consolidated Canals. It remained an agricultural town for many years, and
was known as the "Hay Capital of the World" until the late 1920s.
Gilbert began to take its current shape during the 1970s when the Town Council approved a
strip annexation that encompassed 53 square miles of county land. Today Gilbert’s residents are
governed under a Council-Manager form of government, which includes a seven member Town
Council consisting of a Mayor and six Council members elected at-large for a term of four years. The
Council appoints the Town Manager and other officers necessary to produce an orderly administration
of the Town’s affairs.
As of April 2008 the population of Gilbert is estimated at nearly 215,000 persons. As
illustrated through Table 4-11, in 2000 the population of Gilbert was 109,936. With residential
development continuing to expand in Gilbert, the population is forecast to almost 286,000 by 2020.
Despite continued growth Gilbert’s ratio of overall County population is anticipated to diminish after
the Town’s growth area is built out sometime after 2020. Gilbert’s labor force is also forecast to
remain steady through build out. In 2000, 2.24% of Maricopa County’s labor force was employed in
Gilbert, with 4.36% forecast to reflect Gilbert’s labor pool in the year 2020. Commercial and industrial
development has increased significantly; in three years, Gilbert has added over 2 million square feet of
industrial and commercial space. In 2008, the town had a civilian labor force of 113,468 people and a
2.7% unemployment rate.

Table 4-11: Summary of population and employment estimates for Gilbert
Population
Maricopa County
Gilbert
As a % of County
Emplolyment
Maricopa County
Gilbert
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
29,188
1.38%

2000
3,072,149
109,936
3.58%

2008
3,987,942
214,820
5.39%

2010
4,134,400
218,009
5.27%

2020
5,164,100
285,819
5.53%

948,227
5,680
0.60%
0.19

1,564,900
35,000
2.24%
0.32

1,814,700
113,486
6.25%
0.53

2,112,000
81,852
3.88%
0.38

2,705,000
117,984
4.36%
0.41

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)
Highlighted cells indicate anomously low forecast estimates. Causes may include annexation of additional land into town limits, higher growth
rates than projected, etc.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 58

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-28: Gilbert location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 59

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Gilbert’s General Plan, ratified in 2001 and amended in April 2006, reflects a community that
is continuing the trend of single-family home construction that has propelled Gilbert to the upper ranks
of fast-growing cities in the Country. Between 1990 and 2000 Gilbert became the fastest growing
community over 100,000 residents in the United States. Estimates as of 2008 place Gilbert’s
population at 214,820 people. The pressures felt from this growth have caused Gilbert to expand all
services to the new population. Gilbert’s growth has generally moved from northwest to southeast,
mirroring the availability of sanitary sewer service. The Town’s adopted Land use Plan, shown in
Figure 4-29 16, indicates a patchwork of varying densities of single-family homes interspersed with
commercial nodes along the arterial streets. The Santan Freeway, which bisects the community, also
provides opportunities for commercial, retail, and office development. Two very large master-planned
communities located in the southeast part of Town and vacant land in all parts of the planning area will
also develop in the next ten years. The Town’s General Plan also includes a Public Facilities and
Services element, which has been prepared to provide the forecasted needs of Gilbert for public
services and infrastructure.
4.3.11

Glendale
Located on the Western portion of the greater metropolitan area, Glendale is located
approximately 13 miles from downtown Phoenix. Bordered on the east, north, and south by the City of
Phoenix, and on the west by the City of Peoria, Glendale is one of the most rapidly growing and
diverse cities in Maricopa County. Between 1990 and 2000, Glendale was the 19th fastest-growing
large city in the Country, and stands today as the fourth most populous community in Arizona.
Strategically located in the northwest region of the metropolitan area, Glendale has aggressively
pursued economic development forces to the City including the Arizona Cardinals and Phoenix
Coyotes professional sports franchises. Established in 1892 and incorporated in 1910, the City’s
planning area now stretches west into unincorporated Maricopa County to an area immediately south
of the communities El Mirage and Surprise. As shown in Figure 4-30, major access to Glendale is
provided via the Loop 101 Freeway, which enters the City from the north and meets Interstate 10 on
the south. Interstate 17 and State Highway 93 (Grand Avenue), provide alternate routes to other
communities in the metropolitan area.
Today Glendale’s residents are governed under a Council-Manager form of government,
which includes a seven member City Council consisting of a Mayor and six Council members from
various districts within the community who serve four-year terms. The City Council appoints the City
Manager and other officers necessary to produce an orderly administration of the City’s affairs.
As illustrated in Table 4-12, in 2000 the population of Glendale was 218,596. With residential
growth forecast to continue climbing through the foreseeable future, Glendale’s population is expected
to grow to over 300,000 by 2020. Despite this growth Glendale will comprise an increasingly
diminished ratio of Maricopa County’s overall resident population. This increasing local population,
but decreasing role within the County, is a reflection of the strong growth throughout the region.

16

Town of Gilbert, http://www.ci.gilbert.az.us/generalplan/land-use.cfm

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 60

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-29: Town of Gilbert land use planning map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 61

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-30: Glendale location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 62

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 4-12: Summary of population and employment estimates for Glendale
Population
Maricopa County
Glendale
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Glendale
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
148,134
6.98%

2000
3,072,149
218,596
7.12%

2008
3,987,942
248,435
6.23%

2010
4,134,400
279,807
6.77%

2020
5,164,100
308,100
5.97%

948,227
37,956
4.00%
0.26

1,564,900
84,500
5.40%
0.39

1,814,700
138,266
7.62%
0.56

2,112,000
117,110
5.54%
0.42

2,705,000
156,508
5.79%
0.51

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)
Highlighted cells indicate anomously low forecast estimates. Causes may include annexation of additional land into town limits, higher growth
rates than projected, etc.

Home to Luke Air Force Base, the Thunderbird School of International Management, and a
growing sports and entertainment district near the Loop 101 Freeway, Glendale is becoming the
commercial, industrial and educational hub of the west valley. The basis of Glendale's economic
progress throughout its 100-year history as a community has been focused on the availability of both
water and transportation. Specifically, the Arizona Canal and Roosevelt Dam assured a stable water
supply and protection from the effects of droughts and floods. As a result of these investments in the
early part of the 1900’s, Glendale became an agricultural community that specialized in lettuce,
melons, sugar beets, and cotton production. Today Luke Air Force Base, the largest fighter pilot
training base in the world, is Glendale's largest employer with over 6,000 military and civilian
employees. Luke's annual economic impact to Glendale and Arizona is estimated at over $2 billion.
Other major employers in Glendale include the Arrowhead Towne Center, Thunderbird Samaritan
Medical Center, and Honeywell.
Ratified in May of 2002, Glendale’s General Plan reflects a community that is responding to
the many diverse and dynamic land use opportunities in the region. As shown in Figure 4-31 17, land in
Glendale is available for future use in all sectors of the City. Effectively characterized as a community
with very distinct growth regions, Glendale is positioning itself to take advantage of its proximity to
the various freeways that affect the area, as well as the two most prominent economic development
features in the West Valley—Luke Air Force Base and a developing sports-based entertainment core
that is home to the NHL Coyotes, NFL Cardinals, and Super Bowl 2008. Complimenting the fairly
standard pattern of single family residential uses, commercial, business, and entertainment
development types are planned for strategic locations near transportation facilities, and various
industrial and open space uses are called for in the large impact zone created by Luke. Low-density
residential uses are also forecast to develop in the City’s westernmost region. The City’s General Plan
also includes a Public Facilities Element, which provides the foundation to ensure the provision of
adequate personnel, operations and maintenance of the services and facilities required by Goodyear’s
residents and businesses.

17

City of Glendale, http://www.glendaleaz.com/planning/documents/GlendaleLandUseMap.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 63

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-31: City of Glendale land use planning map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 64

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.3.12

2009

Goodyear
The City of Goodyear, located on the west side of the metropolitan area, was founded in 1916
by the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, which grew cotton in the area for use in its tire
manufacturing. Later, a naval air station was established in Goodyear and a subsidiary, Goodyear
Aircraft, began manufacturing flight decks for Navy seaplanes. Aerospace and food processing
industries, and its proximity to California markets, have provided Goodyear with a strong economic
base and have contributed to its rapid growth.
As illustrated through Figure 4-32, two major roadways contribute to the economic and
residential growth in the City: Interstate 10, which bisects the City’s northern region, and Maricopa
County Highway 85, which runs through central Goodyear and connects to Interstate 8. The Union
Pacific Rail Line also runs through Goodyear, providing industrial sites with rail access. The two
primary natural features that affect the City of Goodyear include the Estrella Mountains, which border
a portion of Goodyear’s east side, and the Gila River watershed, which east to west bisecting the
community. The incorporated area of Goodyear exhibits an elongated rectangular shape, ranging
between 6 and 7 miles from east to west, and 22 miles from north to south. Currently Goodyear’s
incorporated area contains approximately 117 square miles of land. The majority of its land area
exhibits slopes less than 3 percent, draining to the middle of the planning area where the Gila River
flows from east to west. The City incorporated on November 19, 1946.
Today Goodyear’s residents are governed under a Council-Manager form of government,
which includes a seven member City Council consisting of a Mayor who serves a two-year term and
six Council members elected at-large for a term of four years. The City Council appoints the City
Manager and other officers necessary to produce an orderly administration of the City’s affairs.
As illustrated in Table 4-13, in 2000 the population of Goodyear was 18,779. With large tracts
of available land expected to open for development for the foreseeable future, this population is
forecast to grow exponentially to more than 174,000 by 2020. As a result of this substantial growth,
Goodyear’s population will comprise a steadily increasing percentage of Maricopa County’s
population. Similarly, Goodyear’s labor force is forecast to reflect an ever-larger share of the region’s
jobs. In 1990, the City had 3,569 jobs, while 2020 projections anticipate nearly 74,000 jobs within the
community. Exhibiting a trend that is shown in few Maricopa County communities, Goodyear’s jobsper-capita ratio is forecast to fall from 0.57 in 1990 to 0.42 in 2020.

Table 4-13: Summary of population and employment estimates for Goodyear
Population
Maricopa County
Goodyear
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Goodyear
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
6,258
0.29%

2000
3,072,149
18,779
0.61%

2008
3,987,942
59,436
1.49%

2010
4,134,400
71,354
1.73%

2020
5,164,100
174,521
3.38%

948,227
3,569
0.38%
0.57

1,564,900
13,900
0.89%
0.74

1,814,700
22,392
1.23%
0.38

2,112,000
28,167
1.33%
0.39

2,705,000
73,622
2.72%
0.42

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 65

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-32: Goodyear location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 66

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Today, Goodyear maintains a strong economic base of a diverse group of industries ranging
from aerospace to food processing and an excellent quality of life. The three largest employers within
the City include the State of Arizona-Perryville Prison, McLane Sunwest (a division of Wal-Mart) and
Lockheed Martin Corporation. Several industries are represented in the City of Goodyear including the
aerospace industry, food processing, and manufacturing. There is also a large sector of companies
within the food processing and manufacturing industry including Poore Brothers, Snyder's of Hanover
Southwest Specialty Foods, and DelMonte Fresh Produce. Employment projections forecast office
employment as the major source of jobs by 2020.
Goodyear’s General Plan, which was ratified in November of 2003, reflects a community that
is preparing for the massive growth opportunities and stresses that the City will be addressing in the
coming decades. The Land Use Plan, shown in Figure 4-33 18, encompasses 17 land use and 3 overlay
categories including 6 residential, 2 commercial, 1 mixed-use, 2 industrial, 3 public use, 2 recreational,
and 1 preservation designations. The three overlay designations respond to the desire for future resort
development, village centers, and mixed land uses at selected locations or corridors within the planning
area. This development of Goodyear will be continually challenged by several unique features of the
region including the Luke Air Force Base flight routes, the Gila River basin, and the alignment of an
Interstate 10 companion roadway that may be developed in the coming decade.
4.3.13

Guadalupe
One of the smallest towns in Maricopa County, Guadalupe is a Native American and Hispanic
community of about 6,000 residents sitting between Phoenix and Tempe at the base of South
Mountain. Yaqui Indians founded Guadalupe around the turn of the century and the town proudly
maintains a strong cultural and ethnic identity. The Town of Guadalupe was incorporated in 1975 and
is approximately one square mile in area. Guadalupe is expected to retain its current shape because it is
surrounded by man-made boundaries: Interstate 10 and the City of Phoenix on the west; Baseline Road
and the City of Tempe on the North; the City of Tempe on the South; and the Highline Canal on the
East. These features are illustrated through Figure 6 3.
The Town was founded in 1914 and today has a council-manager form of government.
Municipal services are provided by the town or on a contractual basis, and the Maricopa County
Sheriff’s Department provides public safety services.
Over the years many Hispanic families have located in Guadalupe, and it has becoming well
known as a stopping point for Mexican immigrant workers. As illustrated in Table 4-14, in 2000 the
population of Guadalupe was 5,228. With vacant, developable land non-existent in the community, this
population has grown only slightly to 5,990 by 2008.

18

City of Goodyear, http://www.ci.goodyear.az.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=4018

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 67

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-33: City of Goodyear land use planning map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 68

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

a
Figure 4-34: Guadalupe location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 69

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 4-14: Summary of population and employment estimates for Guadalupe
Population
Maricopa County
Guadalupe
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Guadalupe
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
5,458
0.26%

2000
3,072,149
5,228
0.17%

2008
3,987,942
5,990
0.15%

2010
4,134,400
5,790
0.14%

2020
5,164,100
5,982
0.12%

948,227
330
0.03%
0.06

1,564,900
600
0.04%
0.11

1,814,700
2,570
0.14%
0.43

2,112,000
1,387
0.07%
0.24

2,705,000
1,467
0.05%
0.25

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (July 2003), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)
Highlighted cells indicate anomously low forecast estimates. Causes may include annexation of additional land into town limits, higher growth
rates than projected, etc.

Guadalupe’s labor force is forecast to reflect a slightly larger share of the region’s jobs. In
1990, the Town had 330 jobs, which have increased to 2,570 in 2008. In addition to having a
proportionately growing employment role within the region, Guadalupe’s ratio of jobs-per-capita has
also seen a rise from 0.06 in 1990 to 0.43 in 2008. Guadalupe is primarily a residential community
with retail and service businesses catering to local residents and visitors. Commercial districts include
one along Baseline Road and I-10 with several restaurants and hotels, and another on Avenida Del
Yaqui that caters to tourists and locals. El Tianguis is a Mexican-style 22,000 square-foot shopping
square, with restaurants and shops offering imported products. Manufacturing, service and agriculture
also provide jobs within the Town.
Figure 4-35 19 clearly illustrates the two most prominent land features of Guadalupe; namely,
the preponderance of residential land uses and the Town’s inability to expand beyond its current
borders. While residential land uses dominate the built environment of Guadalupe, other commercial
and industrial areas along the border with Interstate 10 and in the Town’s eastern and southern regions
also take advantage of the Town’s proximity to active regional features such as the Arizona Mills Mall
and the dynamic retail core areas in Chandler.
4.3.14

Litchfield Park
Situated north of Interstate 10 approximately 16 miles west of downtown Phoenix, the City of
Litchfield Park lies immediately east of Goodyear and north of Avondale in the West Valley region of
Maricopa County, as shown in Figure 4-36, Litchfield Park is a planned residential community.
Incorporated in 1987, Litchfield Park began in 1916 when the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
bought farmland to grow Egyptian long-staple cotton to use in tire cords. Litchfield Park eventually
became the headquarters for Goodyear Farms, which had thousands of acres under cultivation. From
1931 to 1944, it was also the test site for Goodyear auto, truck and tractor tires. In the 1960's,
Litchfield Park designed a master plan for development including several self-sufficient villages.
As illustrated in Table 4-15, in 2000 the population of Litchfield Park was 3,813. With
development opportunities opening steadily, this population is forecast to more than double to 10,305
by 2020. As a result, Litchfield Park’s population will comprise a steadily increasing percentage of
Maricopa County’s population through 2020. Litchfield Park’s labor force is forecast to reflect a
growing share of the region’s jobs until available land is developed. In 1990, Litchfield Park had 1,280
jobs, while 2020 projections anticipate 3,200 jobs within the community. Litchfield Park’s projected
percentage of Maricopa County employment is projected to remain flat at 0.12% over the next decade.

19

Maricopa Association of Governments, 2007 (DRAFT), Municipal Planning Area Socioeconomic Profiles Maricopa
County, Arizona

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 70

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

The Wigwam Golf Resort and Spa is Litchfield Park’s largest employer with over 600
employees. Luke Air Force Base, located just north of Litchfield Park, is the largest training center for
F16 fighter pilots in the world, and many Litchfield Park residents are retired military personnel.
Morton Salt has a facility just north of Litchfield Park; nearby Goodyear is home to Rubbermaid, Inc.,
Lockheed Martin and Lufthansa German Airlines Pilot School. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
is 30 miles away and provides additional job opportunities.

Figure 4-35: Town of Guadalupe land use map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 71

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-36: Litchfield Park location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 72

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 4-15: Summary of population and employment estimates for Litchfield Park
Population
Maricopa County
Litchfield Park
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Litchfield Park
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
3,303
0.16%

2000
3,072,149
3,813
0.12%

2008
3,987,942
5,093
0.13%

2010
4,134,400
5,140
0.12%

2020
5,164,100
7,000
0.14%

948,227
1,280
0.13%
0.39

1,564,900
1,200
0.08%
0.31

1,814,700
2,181
0.12%
0.43

2,112,000
2,405
0.11%
0.47

2,705,000
3,200
0.12%
0.46

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009), City of Litchfield Park
(2009)

The General Plan for Litchfield Park, adopted in 2001, is currently being updated and has
guided the development of the City for almost a decade. As shown in Figure 4-37 20, the primary manmade features that influence Litchfield Park’s land uses include an arterial roadway network and the
Wigwam Golf Course, which occupies a substantial share of this small community. Regionally the
features that most affect Litchfield Park’s environment include the Luke Air Force Base and Interstate
10. Within the City the land uses indicate a fairly balanced community, with a dispersion of low and
mid-density single family residential, and neighborhood commercial, all encircling the Wigwam Golf
Course. Future growth in the community will be made available through expansion to the City’s north
and east sides, which are currently in unincorporated Maricopa County.
4.3.15

Mesa
The City of Mesa, located in the southeast Phoenix valley, was incorporated in 1883. As
shown in Figure 4-38, the City shares boundaries with the communities of Tempe, Gilbert, Queen
Creek, and Apache Junction, and with the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community to the north. A
region that is generally defined more by a roadway network than by natural features, the environment
of north Mesa is enhanced by the presence of both the Salt River watershed and Red Mountain.
Numerous notable pockets of unincorporated land dot the planning area, some of which are entirely
surrounded by the City. As part of the greater metropolitan area, Mesa is the third-largest city in
Arizona and the nation’s 40th-largest city., today more than 430,000 people call Mesa home, taking
advantage of Mesa’s family-oriented lifestyle. Just 15 miles east of downtown Phoenix, incorporated
Mesa currently includes 129.7 square miles, with a future land area that will include more than 170
square miles.
Since its incorporation over 100 years ago, the City of Mesa has experienced tremendous
growth. Mesa’s modern history began in 1877 when a group of Mormon colonists arrived in Lehi and
built Fort Utah in the north-central portion of Mesa near the Salt River. In 1883, the City of Mesa was
officially incorporated and had an estimated 200 residents. By 1980, boundaries had expanded
significantly, increasing the City’s area to over 66 square miles.

20

City of Litchfield Park, http://az-litchfieldpark.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=31

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 73

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-37: City of Litchfield Park land use map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 74

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-38: Mesa location map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 75

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Mesa’s early development was triggered partly by the influence of military training in the
region. In 1941 two bases were constructed to provide training for World War II pilots. Falcon Field,
now Falcon Field Airport, was built for the British Royal Air Force. Williams Field, later Williams Air
Force Base, and now Williams Gateway Airport, was built for U.S. pilots. After the war, many military
families decided to settle in Mesa. The decade of the 1950's brought more commerce and industry to
Mesa, including early aerospace companies. However, until 1960 more than 50 percent of the residents
earned their living directly or indirectly from farming, mainly citrus and cotton. The 1960's through
1990's saw more high-technology companies, now over 100 firms. Health facilities grew especially
during the 1980's and 1990's to service the larger population.
The City of Mesa has an elected Mayor and six City Council members that are limited to two
consecutive terms. The City operates under a charter form of government, with the Mayor and City
Council setting policy. In 1998, a voter initiative changed the election of the council members from an
at-large system to a system of six districts. Council members serve a term of four years, with three
members elected every two years. The mayor is elected at-large every four years. The Council appoints
the City Manager and other officers necessary to produce an orderly administration of the City’s
affairs.
As shown in Table 4-16, Mesa currently has a population of over 450,000. With large vacant
areas opening for development the population of Mesa is expected to grow to nearly 566,000 by 2020.
Complimenting this massive residential growth will be commensurate job growth, which may result in
over 275,000 jobs by the year 2020. This figure will represents over 10% of the jobs occupied in
Maricopa County.
Table 4-16: Summary of population and employment estimates for Mesa
Population
Maricopa County
Mesa
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Mesa
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
288,091
13.58%

2000
3,072,149
397,125
12.93%

2008
3,987,942
459,682
11.53%

2010
4,134,400
518,944
12.55%

2020
5,164,100
565,693
10.95%

948,227
93,216
9.83%
0.32

1,564,900
172,000
10.99%
0.43

1,814,700
247,707
13.65%
0.54

2,112,000
218,085
10.33%
0.42

2,705,000
275,236
10.18%
0.49

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)
Highlighted cells indicate anomously low forecast estimates. Causes may include annexation of additional land into town limits, higher growth
rates than projected, etc.

Ratified in November of 2002, Mesa’s General Plan provides a framework for a community
that will be exposed to both growth pressures from new development, as well as revitalization and
infill issues from its older neighborhoods. As shown in Figure 4-39, the existing pattern of land use
within the approximate 170-square-mile Mesa planning area reveals two dominant land uses: small-lot,
single family detached housing, and vacant land. The majority of undeveloped land is concentrated in
the eastern third of the planning area, which illustrates the west to east growth pattern of the City.
Community and neighborhood commercial districts are located primarily along arterial roadways and
in the City’s core. The dominant industrial activity is concentrated in the northern and southeastern
portions of the planning area. Mesa’s General Plan also includes a Safety Element that addresses the
goals, objectives and policies necessary to provide a comprehensive program to deal with local, areawide, regional and national emergencies.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 76

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-39: City of Mesa land use map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 77

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.3.16

2009

Paradise Valley
Located approximately 10 miles northeast of downtown Phoenix, the Town of Paradise
Valley lies in the central region of the metropolitan area between the cities of Phoenix and Scottsdale,
as shown in Figure 4-40. Incorporated as a community in May of 1961, the Town’s founders initiated
the integration in response to concerns that the relaxed, sparsely populated desert lifestyle of their
community was in danger of eroding due to threatened annexation by and the changing density and
commercialization of neighboring Phoenix and Scottsdale. The area originally incorporated as the
Town included 2.7 square miles. By 1970, Paradise Valley had grown to 13.3 square miles, and the
population had reached 6,637 residents. By 1980, the Town had a population of approximately 11,000
residents and included roughly 14 square miles. While Paradise Valley reflects a unique focus on lowdensity, resort style living, the Town also has a rugged terrain that compliments the beautiful homes
Today Paradise Valley’s residents are governed under a Council-Manager form of
government, which includes a seven member Town Council consisting of a Mayor and six Council
members elected at-large for a term of four years. The Town Council appoints the Mayor and Town
Manager and other officers necessary to produce an orderly administration of the Town’s affairs.
As illustrated in Table 4-17, in 2000 the population of Paradise Valley was 13,629. With
development opportunities continuing to open, this population is forecast to grow only marginally to
15,224 by 2020. As a result of this modest growth, Paradise Valley’s population will comprise a
steadily decreasing percentage of Maricopa County’s population. Similarly, Paradise Valley’s labor
force is forecast to reflect a slightly decreasing share of the region’s jobs. In 1990, the Town had 4,323
jobs which increased to 7,682 by 2008. In addition to having a relatively stable population and
employment base, Paradise Valley’s ratio of jobs-per-capita is forecast to increase from 0.37 in 1990 to
0.51 in 2020. Almost all of the jobs held within the community are in the service and resort industries.

Table 4-17: Summary of population and employment estimates for Paradise Valley
Population
Maricopa County
Paradise Valley
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Paradise Valley
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
11,671
0.55%

2000
3,072,149
13,629
0.44%

2008
3,987,942
14,444
0.36%

2010
4,134,400
14,790
0.36%

2020
5,164,100
15,224
0.29%

948,227
4,323
0.46%
0.37

1,564,900
5,400
0.35%
0.40

1,814,700
7,682
0.42%
0.53

2,112,000
6,717
0.32%
0.45

2,705,000
7,707
0.28%
0.51

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)
Highlighted cells indicate anomously low forecast estimates. Causes may include annexation of additional land into town limits, higher growth
rates than projected, etc.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 78

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-40: Paradise Valley location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 79

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Paradise Valley’s General Plan, ratified in March of 2003, indicates a Town that has
positioned itself to retain the low intensity, residential development pattern that it has known for
decades. Paradise Valley is, almost without exception, a community of single-family homes. The
zoning map for the Town reflects this one use, at a preferred density of one home per acre. Other uses,
which include open space and resort industry, are permitted within this district only as a special use.
The Town’s Land Use Plan, which is shown in Figure 4-41 21, reflects the predominance of the singlefamily home in Paradise Valley. The land use breakdown for the Town indicates that Low Density
Residential will occupy over 80% of the Town, with 4% reserved for Resort/Country Club uses, and
11% in Open Space. Paradise Valley’s General Plan also includes a Public Safety/Cost of
Development Chapter that articulates the Town’s commitment to maintaining a high level of public
services in the Town, particularly those related to public safety.
4.3.17

Peoria
The City of Peoria was established in the 1880’s when local leader William J. Murphy’s
vision for the Arizona Canal was completed in 1885. The City was incorporated in 1954, with
boundaries covering only one square mile of land. The incorporated area of Peoria covers nearly 176
square miles and is currently home to over 156,000 residents. Northern Peoria’s planning area includes
a landscape dominated by the Lake Pleasant Recreational Area. This park is complimented by both the
Gila River and New River watersheds, which enter the City from the north and depart to the south. As
shown in Figure 4-42, Peoria is provided access through various arterial roadways and major
throughways. Most notably, State Route 74 provides access to the City’s north end, the Loop 101
Freeway bisects the City’s southern region, and the future Loop 303 Freeway alignment will afford
access to the central portion of the City.
Today, Peoria’s residents are governed under a Council-Manager form of government, which
includes a seven member City Council consisting of a Mayor and six Council members elected from
six districts within the City for four-year terms. The City Council appoints the City Manager and other
officers necessary to produce an orderly administration of the City’s affairs.
As illustrated in Table 4-18, in 2000 the population of Peoria was 108,462. With development
continuing to occur throughout the City the population is forecast to grow nearly 250% to more than
236,000 by the year 2020. As a result, Peoria’s population will comprise a steadily increasing
percentage of Maricopa County’s population. Peoria’s labor force is forecast to reflect an ever-larger
share of the region’s jobs. In 1990, the City had 9,216 jobs, while 2020 projections anticipate over
87,000 jobs within the community. In addition to having a growing population and employment role
within the region, Peoria’s ratio of jobs-per-capita is also forecast to rise from 0.15 in 1990 to 0.37 in
2020.
Peoria has a growing light industrial and commercial economy, a change from its agricultural
tradition. Peoria's business community is emerging as a leading center in Maricopa County. Peoria has
attracted a variety of businesses to include professional office projects, call centers, small and medium
manufacturers, biotechnology, retail, specialty centers and automotive sales operations. Along with
new businesses, “Class A” Office buildings have recently opened and many more are planned.

21

Town of Paradise Valley, http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/docs/General_Plan/GP%20012703%20Land%20Use.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 80

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-41: Town of Paradise Valley land use map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 81

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-42: Peoria location map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 82

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 4-18: Summary of population and employment estimates for Peoria
Population
Maricopa County
Peoria
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Peoria
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
60,618
0.76%

2000
3,072,149
108,462
1.17%

2008
3,987,942
155,557
1.92%

2010
4,134,400
172,793
1.99%

2020
5,164,100
236,154
2.37%

948,227
9,216
0.00%
0.15

1,564,900
28,400
0.58%
0.26

1,814,700
66,537
2.04%
0.43

2,112,000
51,300
1.88%
0.30

2,705,000
87,400
1.88%
0.37

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)
Highlighted cells indicate anomously low forecast estimates. Causes may include annexation of additional land into town limits, higher growth
rates than projected, etc.

Peoria’s General Plan, revised in 2009, reflects a community that will continue to experience
rapid residential growth, but will also secure valuable recreational and environmental amenities for the
region. The City’s Land Use Plan, illustrated in Figure 4-43 22, indicates two prevailing land uses in
Peoria—Single-Family and Open Space. A good share of the City’s Open Space will exist in and
around the Lake Pleasant region, however the Agua Fria and New Rivers will also afford additional
recreational opportunities. Much of the City’s new commercial growth is expected to occur near and
between loops 101 and 303 Freeway corridors. Future plans for a Lake Pleasant Parkway corridor that
will attract office and commercial development. Peoria’s General Plan includes a Safety Element that
identifies methods of protecting residents, businesses, and property from the threat of natural,
technological and manmade hazards and emergencies.
4.3.18

Phoenix
The City of Phoenix, located in the heart of the greater metropolitan area, dominates the
political, economic, and cultural landscape not only of Maricopa County, but also much of Arizona. In
1867, Phoenix founder Jack Swilling formed a canal company and diverted water from the Salt River,
helping to capitalize on the region’s agricultural value. In 1911, the Roosevelt Dam was completed and
water supplies—vital to growth in the region—was stabilized. Strong growth in the region began
during World War II when several military airfields were constructed in Maricopa County, and various
defense industries followed. Formally incorporated in 1881, today the City of Phoenix includes over
500 square miles, and is the nation’s sixth most populous City. Phoenix is Arizona’s capitol and is
located in the County Seat: Maricopa County.
As suggested through Figure 4-44, Phoenix has grown more north south than east west since
its inception. To the south Phoenix is bounded by the Gila River Indian Community and on the north
by unincorporated Maricopa County. Many smaller communities, including Tempe, Paradise Valley,
and Scottsdale define the City to the east, and Peoria and Glendale form the City’s western border. The
natural environment of Phoenix is typical of the Sonoran Desert climate. Rugged urban mountain

22

City of Peoria,
http://www.peoriaaz.gov/uploadedFiles/Peoriaaz/Departments/Community_Development/Planning_and_Zoning/General_Plan/Fig21LandUsePlan.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 83

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-43: City of Peoria land use map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 84

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-44: Phoenix location map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 85

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

parks, including South Mountain—the nation’s largest urban park—and the Phoenix Mountain
Preserve create a memorable skyline. The region’s catalyst, the Salt River, now runs dry through the
center of the City, and is complemented by various smaller watersheds. A massive arterial roadway
network and, more recently, the development of a large freeway system, now serve Phoenix. The
primary roadway network includes Interstates 17 and 10, with State Highway 51 and the Loop 101 and
202 Freeways also providing transportation service throughout the region. Phoenix and the region are
also served by Sky Harbor International Airport, located only two miles east of the City’s central
business district.
The City of Phoenix has an elected Mayor and eight City Council members that represent
various districts within the City. The City operates under a charter form of government, with the
Mayor and City Council setting policy. The Mayor and eight Council members serve terms of four
years. The mayor is elected at-large every four years. The Council appoints the City Manager and other
officers necessary to produce an orderly administration of the City’s affairs.
Since its incorporation over 100 years ago, the City of Phoenix has experienced tremendous
growth, becoming one of the nation’s fastest-growing large metropolitan areas. Illustrated in Table
4-19, this growth has led Phoenix to a current population of over 1.5 million people and representing
over 39% of the county’s population. Despite its prominent role within Maricopa County, Phoenix will
occupy less of the region’s overall population by the year 2020, when the 1.9 million people residing
in the City will represent only 38.5% of Maricopa County. Similarly, employment within Phoenix,
currently 815,000 workers, reflects over 44% of the County’s jobs. However, by 2020 this figure is
expected to drop to 41%. The diminished role of both population and employment in Phoenix, while
increasing dramatically, speaks to the remarkable development of both categories regionally.

Table 4-19: Summary of population and employment estimates for Phoenix
Population
Maricopa County
Phoenix
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Phoenix
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
983,403
46.34%

2000
3,072,149
1,350,500
43.96%

2008
3,987,942
1,561,485
39.16%

2010
4,134,400
1,695,549
41.01%

2020
5,164,100
1,990,450
38.54%

948,227
541,574
57.11%
0.55

1,564,900
687,574
43.94%
0.51

1,814,700
815,225
44.92%
0.52

2,112,000
937,182
44.37%
0.55

2,705,000
1,108,031
40.96%
0.56

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

Ratified in March of 2002, Phoenix’s General Plan provides a framework for a community
that will be exposed to growth pressures from new development in the north, as well as revitalization
and infill issues from its older neighborhoods. Figure 4-45 23 illustrates a very dynamic land use pattern
that reflects the massive post-war, suburban style residential growth that prevails in the central and
mid-central portions of the City, as well as consistent commercial development along the many miles
of arterial streets that symbolize the street network throughout the region. Industrial development is
expected to continue to occur primarily near Sky Harbor International Airport, as well as along the Salt
River and near the Deer Valley Airport in north Phoenix. Not known for its dramatic downtown
skyline, Phoenix is also planning for commercial and civic development in the central business district,

23

City of Phoenix, http://www.phoenix.gov/PLANNING/gpmap.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 86

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-45: City of Phoenix land use map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 87

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

as well as along the City’s “spine”—Central Avenue. Unique character will be strengthened in areas
including Ahwatukee in south Phoenix, in the historic neighborhoods that are clustered in the central
portion of the City, and near the many urban parks that characterize the recreational opportunities in
urban Maricopa County. The most rapidly developing region of Phoenix is expected to be in the north,
where unincorporated Maricopa County is already being prepared for development. The Phoenix
General Plan also addresses public safety through its Safety Element, which recommends ways to
reduce the risks of natural and man-made hazards including the following: soil and geologic hazards,
fire hazards, emergency medical service, hazardous materials, police and crime, aircraft and airport
safety, and ground transportation and emergency response programs.
4.3.19

Queen Creek
Like most of the communities located in the greater metropolitan area, Queen Creek has
experienced rapid growth in both population and land area, yet is still known as a very rural
community that is rich in agricultural and rustic lifestyles. The Town of Queen Creek is situated in the
southeastern corner of Maricopa County and a portion of western Pinal County, as shown in Figure
4-46. The Gila River Indian Community borders the southwest boundary of Queen Creek, the Town of
Gilbert lies to the immediate west, and Mesa forms the northern boundary of the Town. The San Tan
Mountains Regional Park boundary comprises the southern boundary of the planning area. Downtown
Mesa is approximately 20 miles north, yet the southernmost border of Mesa is Germann Road, which
forms the northern boundary of the Queen Creek planning area. Williams Gateway Airport, a growing
regional facility in Mesa, is only one mile north of the northern boundary of Queen Creek.
The Queen Creek planning area is 64.7 square miles while the current incorporated Town area
is approximately 26 square miles. Before it became a community Queen Creek was a home for early
Indian communities and the homesteaders who farmed and ranched along Queen Creek Wash. By the
time Arizona became a state in 1912, an organized farming town had been formed in the area. The
Town of Queen Creek formally incorporated in 1989.
Large farms throughout the area grow a variety of crops including citrus, pecans, cotton, corn,
soybeans, wheat, potatoes, and alfalfa. The Union Pacific Railroad runs northwest to the southeast
through the Town. Queen Creek Wash and Sonoqui Wash also traverse the planning area, and
periodically convey water flows generally due to flash floods. The San Tan Mountains and Goldmine
Mountains are the most dramatic landform in the area, and lie immediately to the south. The
Superstition Mountains, to Queen Creek’s northeast, can be seen from virtually anywhere within the
planning area. Major arterials in the Town are based on a grid system, with Rittenhouse Road crossing
diagonally through the region. The southern section of the Loop 202 Freeway will pass through Mesa
and Gilbert several miles to the north, and will provide primary access to the metropolitan area.
As illustrated in Table 4-20, in 2000 the population of Queen Creek was 4,317. With
development opportunities opening rapidly in the ensuing years, this population is forecast to multiply
over 20 times to 55,500 by 2020. As a result, Queen Creek’s population will comprise a steadily
increasing percentage of Maricopa County’s population. Similarly, Queen Creek’s labor force,
although small, is forecast to reflect an ever-larger share of the region’s jobs. In 1990, the Town had
just 266 jobs, while 2020 projections anticipate over 22,000 jobs within the community. In addition to
having a growing population and employment role within the region, Queen Creek’s ratio of jobs-percapita is also forecast to rise from 0.10 in 1990 to 0.40 in 2020.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 88

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-46: Queen Creek location map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 89

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 4-20: Summary of population and employment estimates for Queen Creek
Population
Maricopa County
Queen Creek
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Queen Creek
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
2,667
0.13%

2000
3,072,149
4,317
0.14%

2008
3,987,942
23,329
0.58%

2010
4,134,400
34,506
0.83%

2020
5,164,100
55,529
1.08%

948,227
266
0.03%
0.10

1,564,900
1,700
0.11%
0.39

1,814,700
2,675
0.15%
0.11

2,112,000
9,652
0.46%
0.28

2,705,000
22,213
0.82%
0.40

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

The Town of Queen Creek General Plan, adopted April 2008, provides the framework for
guiding the Town’s rapid development. The Town Land Use Plan for Queen Creek, illustrated in
Figure 4-47 24, emphasizes the creation of a concentrated, strong community core to balance other
traditional uses. Historically, the majority of the Queen Creek planning area has included agricultural
uses, with scattered residential and undeveloped areas. Newer land uses include a predominate mixture
of residential densities for most of the areas. Capitalizing on its proximity to the Williams Gateway
economic development area, much of north Queen Creek is expected to grow with commercial and
industrial uses. Supporting the community’s rural character several mixed-use projects have also been
approved and many equestrian-oriented developments have also been created.
4.3.20

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) is located approximately 17
miles northeast of Phoenix, Arizona, and is bounded by Scottsdale to the north and west, Mesa and
Tempe to the south, and Fountain Hills to the northeast. As a result of the Community’s location in the
Phoenix metropolitan area it has experienced steady population and economic growth. Primary access
to the Community is offered through both the Loop 101 and 202 Freeways, and by State Highway 87,
which runs north from Mesa to Payson through SRPMIC land. As shown through Figure 4-46, the
most visible natural features of the region include the Salt River, which runs along the southern
reservation border, and Red Mountain, a feature that exists on the Community’s east side.
The SRPMIC was established in 1879 by an Executive Order signed by President Rutherford
B. Hayes. The Executive Order enabled the Pima and Maricopa people to occupy the same 54,000
acres of fertile agricultural land as their ancestors. The Community Council, which is comprised of a
President, Vice President and seven Council members, governs the SRPMIC.
Despite urbanization to the south, west and north, the Community has maintained its natural
beauty and rural qualities. The Community offers many public facilities including six parks, two
swimming pools, a library, museum, and golf course, youth recreational centers, and two theater
complexes. In total, the Community consists of 53,600 acres, 12,000 acres of the Community are used
for agriculture and maintains 19,000 acres as a natural preserve. The land under cultivation produces a
variety of crops including cotton, melons, potatoes, onions, broccoli and carrots. Further commercial
development is planned for an area along the Community's western boundary where the Loop 101
Freeway provides access to Scottsdale and the rest of growing Maricopa County.

24

Town of Queen Creek, http://www.queencreek.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3236

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 90

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-47: Town of Queen Creek land use map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 91

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-48: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community location map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 92

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

As shown in Table 4-21, in 2000 the population of Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community was 6,403. Population projections for this jurisdiction indicate that growth is likely to top
out near the 7,300 mark in 2020, indicating a finite growth potential for the Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community. By contrast, employment estimates for the Community project a growing job
market, with over 25,000 jobs on the Salt River community by 2020. Much of this growth is
anticipated to occur on the western edges of the region, where office and commercial development is
expected to develop. In addition to having a growing employment role within the region, the Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community is also expected to demonstrate a job per capita increase from 1.14
in 2000 to a substantial 3.5 by 2020. Major employers within the Community include the Casino
Arizona, Home Depot, Target, Mervyn’s, Wal-Mart, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Tribal Government.

Table 4-21: Summary of population and employment estimates for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Population
Maricopa County
Salt River Pima-Maricopa IC
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Salt River Pima-Maricopa IC
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
4,852
0.23%

2000
3,072,149
6,403
0.21%

2005
3,987,942
6,822
0.17%

2010
4,134,400
7,087
0.17%

2020
5,164,100
7,308
0.14%

948,227
N/A
N/A
N/A

1,564,900
7,300
0.47%
1.14

1,814,700
5,977
0.33%
0.88

2,112,000
11,131
0.53%
1.57

2,705,000
25,587
0.95%
3.50

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

The SRPMIC is governed by the Community Council, which is comprised of the Community
President, Community Vice-President, and the Tribal Council. The President and Vice President are
elected at large and serve a four-year term. The Council members serve a staggered term of four (4)
years. The Community President and Vice President oversee the management of the comprehensive
government development, operations and services including: administration, general counsel, treasury,
budgets and records, gaming regulatory office, self governance, community development, economic
development, construction and engineering, education, human resources, community relations,
congressional and legislative affairs, cultural and environment, finance, fire, police, health and human
services, judicial center, public works, transportation, recreation, museum, purchasing, and learning
center.
Planned land use for the SRPMIC is presented on Figure 4-49 25. The majority of use will
remain open space and agriculture, with parcels of residential sprinkled throughout and a few clusters
of higher density residential and commercial areas.

25

Maricopa Association of Governments, 2007 (DRAFT), Municipal Planning Area Socioeconomic Profiles Maricopa
County, Arizona

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 93

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-49: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community land use map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 94

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.3.21

2009

Salt River Project
The Salt River Project (SRP) is two companies: the Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District (District) a political subdivision of the state of Arizona; and the Salt
River Valley Water Users' Association (Association), a private corporation. The District provides
electricity to retail customers in the Phoenix area. It operates or participates in seven major power
plants and numerous other generating stations, including thermal, nuclear and hydroelectric sources.
The Association delivers nearly 1 million acre-feet of water to a service area in central Arizona. An
extensive water delivery system is maintained and operated by the Association, including reservoirs,
wells, canals and irrigation laterals. For the purpose of this Plan, the District is the eligible branch of
SRP to receive funding under the DMA 2000 impacted mitigation grant programs.
The president is the chief executive officer and chairman of the Board for each organization.
The vice president fulfills the duties and responsibilities of the president during the president's absence.
Together, they serve as the day-to-day representatives of the Boards in the management of SRP.
In the District, landowners elect a president, a vice president, 14 Board members and 30
Council members. Each of the 10 voting divisions elects one Board member and three Council
members. The president, vice president and four remaining Board members are elected at-large from
all of the voting divisions.
During the Great Depression, Valley farmers were hard-pressed to make payments on the
federal loans for Theodore Roosevelt Dam and other dams on the Salt River. To help reduce payments
on the outstanding loans, the Arizona Legislature enacted a law in 1936 that allowed the formation of
the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District in 1937. As a political subdivision
of the state, the District can issue tax-exempt municipal bonds, thereby reducing interest costs and
saving SRP electric and water users millions of dollars.
As the Valley's population has grown, the District has tapped many power sources to provide
electricity to more than 929,000 customers. Besides the time-honored hydroelectric generating units at
the dams on the Salt River, the District owns or participates in 10 generating stations in the Southwest.
Customers also are served by power drawn from various other generating facilities in the Valley and
state, as well as from contractual power purchases.

4.3.22

Scottsdale
Situated in the northeast portion of Maricopa County approximately 15 miles west of
downtown Phoenix, the City of Scottsdale is bordered by several communities including Phoenix and
Paradise Valley on the west, Tempe on the south, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community on
the east, and the Tonto National Forest to the north and east, as shown in Figure 4-50. Founded in
1888, Scottsdale, has long been known as the “West’s Most Western Town”. Today the City is an
example of a community that combines a rich western heritage with civic culture and a resort lifestyle.
Contributing to these influences are several natural features that affect community lifestyle including
the McDowell Mountain Park, the McDowell Sonoran Preserve, and the Salt River to the south.
The primary man-made features that influence Scottsdale’s land uses include: the Loop 101
Freeway, which runs along the east and north portions of Scottsdale and which provides both
transportation to the rest of the Valley and also offers opportunities for commercial growth; the
Scottsdale Road corridor, which runs north-south for the length of the community, bisects Scottsdale
into east and west halves. This roadway intersects the spectrum of Scottsdale land uses, including the
Old Town shopping district in the south, the upscale shops and office areas near the Scottsdale
Airpark, and finally the preserved open lands on the City’s far north area. These facilities compliment
a wide array of resort and golf communities that have strengthened Scottsdale image as a destination
community.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 95

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-50: Scottsdale location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 96

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Scottsdale has evolved and grown since its founding in the late 1800's and incorporation in
1951, and currently includes over 184 square miles within its corporate boundary. Starting as a small
residential community sprinkled with farms and citrus groves, Scottsdale has become a community that
features a variety of land uses.
Today Scottsdale is governed by a Council-Manager form of government, which includes a
Mayor and six council members elected at-large for a period of four years.
As illustrated in Table 4-22, in 2000 the population of Scottsdale was 202,744. With vacant
land continuing to provide residential growth opportunities, this population is forecast to grow to more
than 269,000 by 2020. In spite of this continued growth in Scottsdale continued development
countywide will reduce Scottsdale’s share of the metropolitan population. Similarly, Scottsdale’s labor
force is forecast to grow substantially over the course of the coming decades to 232,800 by 2020.
However, this labor pool will also represent a shrinking share of the region’s jobs. In addition to
having a growing local population and employment pool, Scottsdale’s ratio of jobs-per-capita is also
forecast to rise from 0.58 in 1990 to 0.86 in 2020. This relationship indicates that Scottsdale has one
the healthiest balances of economy and population in the region. The Scottsdale economy today
contains, in addition to its many resorts, a diverse mix of financial services from banking to insurance
and investment; business services from advertising and public relations to software development;
computer services, professional services from major health care providers anchored by Scottsdale
Memorial Health systems, and the world renowned Mayo Clinic. A growing office and commercial
environment is also developing in and around the Scottsdale Airpark.
Table 4-22: Summary of population and employment estimates for Scottsdale
Population
Maricopa County
Scottsdale
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Scottsdale
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
130,069
6.13%

2000
3,072,149
202,744
6.60%

2008
3,987,942
242,337
6.08%

2010
4,134,400
249,341
6.03%

2020
5,164,100
269,266
5.21%

948,227
75,353
7.95%
0.58

1,564,900
152,100
9.72%
0.75

1,814,700
139,712
7.70%
0.58

2,112,000
208,073
9.85%
0.83

2,705,000
232,832
8.61%
0.86

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

Ratified in March of 2002, Scottsdale’s General Plan reflects a land use pattern, as many other
Maricopa County cities do, a preponderance of residential and open space uses, as shown in Figure
4-51 26. Scottsdale is also a community with several unique “character” areas. Most notably,
Scottsdale’s Old Town district, the Shea Boulevard Corridor, the Loop 101 Freeway region in north
Scottsdale, and the various mountain and desert preserves all contribute to the unique qualities of
Scottsdale. These regions have been identified through the General Plan process, and will be preserved
and strengthened through the continued residential growth in the ensuing years. Scottsdale’s General
Plan also includes a Public Services and Facilities Element that represents the public's investment in
the design, development and delivery of the package of service systems and programs, and the physical
facilities required to satisfy the needs of a growing community.

26

City of Scottsdale, http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/documents/generalplan/landuse.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 97

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-51: City of Scottsdale land use map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 98

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.3.23

2009

Surprise
Surprise is located 25 minutes northwest of downtown Phoenix along US Route 60/State
Highway 93 in the northwest valley of the metropolitan area. It is positioned about 13 miles west of
Interstate 17, and 18 miles north of Interstate 10. Luke Air Force Base is 2.5 miles south of the
Surprise planning area, located in the City of Glendale. The City of Surprise is bordered on the east by
the cities of Peoria and El Mirage and on the west by the Town of Buckeye. The unincorporated
retirement communities of Sun City West and Sun City lie to east of the City of Surprise, and Glendale
lies immediately to the south of Surprise. The White Tank Mountain Regional Park is located in the
southwest portion of the planning area and Lake Pleasant Regional Park is located approximately ten
miles to the northeast.
Surprise became an incorporated town on December 12, 1960 and boasted a population of
nearly 1,600 people located on a one square mile site. Today Surprise’s 31,000 residents are governed
by a Council-Manager form of government, which includes a mayor and six council members who are
elected from six council districts for four-year terms.
Over the course of nearly 50 years, Surprise has grown to a city of 74 square miles with an
estimated population of over 108,000 in 2008. The planning area contains both natural and man-made
landforms that are, and will continue to influence, the pattern of development within the city and its
planning area. At an elevation of 1,817 feet, one of the more unique natural features located within the
planning area is Bunker Peak. As shown in Figure 4-52, manmade landforms located within the
planning area include McMicken Dam. Land features that frame the planning area include White Tank
Mountain Regional Park to the west, Hieroglyphic Mountains to the northeast, and the Vulture
Mountains to the northwest.
As illustrated in Table 4-23, in 2000 the population of Surprise was 30,886. Population is
forecast to expand to 268,359 by 2020. Surprise’s population will comprise a steadily increasing
percentage of Maricopa County’s population. Similarly, Surprise’s labor force is forecast to reflect an
ever-larger share of the region’s jobs. In 1990, the City had 1,176 jobs, while 2020 projections
anticipate over 81,400 jobs within the community. In addition to having a growing population and
employment role within the region, Surprise’s ratio of jobs-per-capita is also forecast to rise from 0.17
in 1990 to 0.30 in 2020.

Table 4-23: Summary of population and employment estimates for Surprise
Population
Maricopa County
Surprise
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Surprise
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
7,122
0.34%

2000
3,072,149
30,886
1.01%

2008
3,987,942
108,761
2.73%

2010
4,134,400
146,890
3.55%

2020
5,164,100
268,359
5.20%

948,227
1,176
0.12%
0.17

1,564,900
9,000
0.58%
0.29

1,814,700
32,405
1.79%
0.30

2,112,000
31,105
1.47%
0.21

2,705,000
81,423
3.01%
0.30

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)
Highlighted cells indicate anomously low forecast estimates. Causes may include annexation of additional land into town limits, higher growth
rates than projected, etc.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 99

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-52: Surprise location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 100

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

In the past, the economy of Surprise was heavily reliant on the success of agriculture in the
region. Although farming is still one of its primary economic functions, the City’s tremendous growth
has triggered considerable employment in the construction and service sectors. The City now offers
business and industry many opportunities for growth.
Surprise’s General Plan, effective December 2005, reflects a growth rate that, if maintained,
will make Surprise one of the most populous communities in the State by the year 2010. Currently, the
landscape of Surprise is dominated by residential uses. As shown in Figure 4-53 27, this trend is
expected to continue, with residential densities diminishing the farther the distance from Surprise’s
Town Center. In addition, job growth is anticipated to occur in and around the airport and along Grand
Avenue. The Land Use Plan also anticipates the creation of various Arterial Roadways that will better
serve this new population, and applies lower densities near the environmental areas of the City
including the White Tank Mountain Regional Park and the Trilby Wash Detention basin. The Surprise
General Plan also includes a Public Services and Cost of Development Element that provides an
overview of the various public safety, public administration, and school and health facilities located
within the Surprise planning area. This element encourages the City of Surprise to provide the
necessary public facilities and services to support new and existing growth and development as well as
adequate policies in place to determine what role the public sector plays in financing public services
and facilities.
4.3.24

Tempe
The City of Tempe consists of 40 square miles in the heart of the metropolitan area. It
straddles the Salt River and is generally bounded on the east and west by freeways, with two additional
freeways bisecting the City and running across its northern section. As illustrated through Figure 4-54,
the City of Tempe is landlocked on all sides by adjacent communities: Scottsdale to the north, the Salt
River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and Mesa to the east, Chandler to the south and Guadalupe,
and Phoenix to the west. Tempe’s central location is augmented by its proximity to an intricate
freeway network that provides access to and from these surrounding communities. Arizona State
University, with a main campus of over 44,000 students, is located in Tempe. Tempe also includes
several prominent natural land features including Hayden Butte, Papago Butte and the Tempe Town
Lake, which is the only length of the Salt River in the Phoenix area that has a continuous supply of
water.
Founded in 1894, Tempe is one of the oldest communities in the Valley and historically has
been one of the most densely populated. Its position in the region is both advantageous and
challenging. Land-locked Tempe falls in the middle of a large transportation commute zone,
significantly impacting land use planning, environmental issues and public health and safety. Tempe’s
planning area is five miles wide by eight miles long, or about forty square miles. Within this area are
approximately 24.2 linear miles of freeway, 23 miles of canal, 30 miles of power lines, 14 miles of
active railroad lines, and five miles of departure/landing air flight corridor. In spite of these
tremendous right-of-way impacts, Tempe has some of the most desirable residential and commercial
areas in the Valley. Today Tempe is administered by a Council-Manager form of government that
includes a mayor and six council members elected at-large for a period of four years.
As illustrated in Table 4-24, in 2000 the population of Tempe was 158,426. As a landlocked
community that is largely built out, residential growth in Tempe is somewhat less active than in many
neighboring communities. As such, population is forecast to grow only moderately to 191,881 by
2020. However, Tempe does have more jobs in the City than residents. In 2000 the City held over
162,000 jobs, compared to 158,000 residents. Projections for 2020 indicate that this trend will
continue, with 219,500 jobs in Tempe contrasted with 191,800 citizens. Remarkably, Tempe’s ratio of
jobs-per-capita is forecast to rise from 0.66 in 1990 to 1.1 in 2020.

27

City of Surprise, http://www.surpriseaz.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1512

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 101

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-53: City of Surprise land use map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 102

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-54: Tempe location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 103

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 4-24: Summary of population and employment estimates for Tempe
Population
Maricopa County
Tempe
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Tempe
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
141,865
6.69%

2000
3,072,149
158,426
5.16%

2008
3,987,942
172,641
4.33%

2010
4,134,400
177,771
4.30%

2020
5,164,100
191,881
3.72%

948,227
93,461
9.86%
0.66

1,564,900
162,400
10.38%
1.03

1,814,700
118,675
6.54%
0.69

2,112,000
198,243
9.39%
1.12

2,705,000
219,543
8.12%
1.14

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

Tempe has a very strong and diversified economy featuring a manufacturing base of over 750
companies, and is home to the “Tech Oasis”—a cluster of over 200 high-tech companies. Other
growing industries include biotechnology, financial, and business services. Real estate has been strong
in Tempe, with property along and near the Town Lake and in the Mill Avenue corridor fueling most
growth. Arizona State University continues to be a major catalyst for jobs and tech innovation.
Tempe’s General Plan, adopted in December 2003, presents a very different land use pattern
than in most other Maricopa County Communities. Specifically, Tempe supports a series of unique
land use and institutional amenities that create a more compact and dynamic urban form. As shown in
Figure 4-55 28, Arizona State University, Mill Avenue, and the Tempe Town Lake are all identified as
primary growth areas for the community. The impact of this core development will be felt throughout
north Tempe, which also supports a growing office and industrial region in the flight path of Phoenix’s
Sky Harbor Airport lying north of the 202 Freeway. In addition, office and commercial centers will
continue to grow along the many miles of freeway and arterial street frontage in Tempe. The region of
Tempe that borders Interstate 10 in the southern portion of the City is expected to become an
especially active employment and commercial center for Tempe. Tempe’s General Plan also includes a
Public Facilities and Services Element, which: (1) provides an inventory of all existing and proposed
municipal buildings, objectives for providing for future infrastructure needs, and strategies for
maintaining sustainable structures; (2) identifies existing services provided by the City of Tempe, and
other service providers, including social service, education and utilities; and (3) identifies existing and
proposed human services, programs and facilities designed to integrate resources and opportunities to
assist residents of all ages and abilities in improving their quality of life and self-sufficiency.
4.3.25

Tolleson
Situated along Interstate 10 approximately 14 miles west of downtown Phoenix, the small
community of Tolleson lies in the west Valley region of Maricopa County, and is surrounded by the
City of Tolleson on the west and Phoenix on the north, east, and south, as shown in Figure 4-56.
Founded in 1912 and incorporated in 1929, the incorporated boundary of Tolleson measures only
about five square miles in area.

28

City of Tempe, http://www.tempe.gov/generalplan/FinalDocument/GP2030ProjectedLandUse.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 104

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-55: City of Tempe land use map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 105

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-56: Tolleson location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 106

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Once dependent on agriculture, Tolleson today has a sound commercial and industrial base.
Tolleson is served by the Papago Freeway, which is a segment of Interstate 10. Tolleson is also served
by the Loop 101, which allows traffic headed toward Flagstaff to bypass downtown Phoenix and also
connects the city to northeast Phoenix. To the west of Tolleson, Highway 85 intersects Interstate 10
and then runs south to Interstate 8 in Gila Bend. The Union Pacific rail line runs through Tolleson,
providing a number of industrial sites with rail access. Today, Tolleson is administered by a CouncilManager form of government that includes a mayor and six council members elected at-large to fouryear terms.
As illustrated in Table 6 2, in 2000 the population of Tolleson was 4,963. As a land locked
community, Tolleson’s residential base is expected to grow only slightly to 9,646 by 2020. As a result,
Tolleson’s population will comprise a steadily decreasing percentage of Maricopa County’s
population. By contrast, Tolleson’s labor force is forecast to reflect an increasing share of the region’s
jobs. In 1990, the City had 2,183 jobs, while 2020 projections anticipate nearly 20,000 jobs within the
community. In addition to having a growing population and employment role within the region,
Tolleson’s ratio of jobs-per-capita is also forecast to rise from 0.49 in 1990 to a remarkable 2.0 in
2020.
Table 4-25: Summary of population and employment estimates for Tolleson
Population
Maricopa County
Tolleson
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Tolleson
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
4,434
0.21%

2000
3,072,149
4,963
0.16%

2008
3,987,942
6,833
0.17%

2010
4,134,400
7,748
0.19%

2020
5,164,100
9,646
0.19%

948,227
2,183
0.23%
0.49

1,564,900
12,800
0.82%
2.58

1,814,700
2,891
0.16%
0.42

2,112,000
15,808
0.75%
2.04

2,705,000
19,854
0.73%
2.06

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

Tolleson has become a strong distribution hub for companies wishing to deliver products to
southwestern markets. This is primarily due to its excellent location just south of Interstate 10 and the
nearby interchange with the Loop 101 Freeway. Tolleson hosts several large employers, including
Sunland Beef, Kroger’s, Albertson’s, Salt River Project, and Sysco Food Systems. In addition to
distribution and food, fiber and natural products, the community has a strong manufacturing structure,
which accounts for a large percentage of employment.
The future land plan for Tolleson, shown in Figure 4-57 29, indicates the predominance of
industrial and commercial land use planned by the City to capitalize of the prime freeway access and
location in the West Valley. These land uses also coincide with job growth projections that will yield
many more jobs than residents in the community by 2030. As of 2006, the total housing inventory was
nearly 2,000 units, which represents an 46 percent increase since 2000.

29

Maricopa Association of Governments, 2007 (DRAFT), Municipal Planning Area Socioeconomic Profiles Maricopa
County, Arizona

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 107

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-57: City of Tolleson land use map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 108

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.3.26

2009

Wickenburg
One of Maricopa County’s most historic and scenic communities, the Town of Wickenburg
lies in north central Maricopa County on the border with Yavapai County, approximately 60 miles
from downtown Phoenix. The Town of Wickenburg is distinct from most of the communities in
Maricopa County for its isolation from the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Illustrated in Figure
4-58, Wickenburg is highlighted by the Hassayampa River and its tributaries, which are protected
through the Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness to the north of Wickenburg in Yavapai County.
Wickenburg also serves as a crossroads of various highways in northwest Maricopa County, with US
Highway 60 and Arizona Highways 93 and 89 providing access to Loa Angeles, Las Vegas, and
Prescott, respectively.
Along the town's main historic district, early businesses built structures that still exist in
Wickenburg's downtown area. In the 1900’s Wickenburg’s clean air and wide-open spaces attracted
guest ranches and resorts to the Wickenburg neighborhood. Later, the construction of Highway 60
from Phoenix to California brought even more tourists, making Wickenburg the unofficial dude ranch
capital of the World. Today, some of these ranches still offer their unique brand of Western hospitality.
Founded in 1863, Wickenburg operates under a Council Manager form of government, which
includes a seven member Town Council consisting of a Mayor and six Council members elected atlarge for a term of four years. In Wickenburg the Town Council functions as the legislature, and the
Town Manager administers community policies.
As illustrated in Table 4-26, in 2000 the population of Wickenburg was 5,050. With low
density residential growth opportunities continuing to be created in and around Wickenburg, this
population is forecast to grow to 13,000 by 2020. As a result of this slow but steady growth,
Wickenburg’s population will comprise only a modest proportion of Maricopa County’s overall
population. Similarly, Wickenburg’s small labor force is forecast to parallel the Town’s population
growth by comprising a consistently small share of the region’s jobs but is also projected to increase
modestly between 2010 and 2020. In 2000, the Town had 4,100 jobs, while 2020 projections anticipate
8,900 jobs within the community. In addition to having a growing population and employment role
within the region, Wickenburg’s ratio of jobs-per-capita is also forecast to rise from an impressive 0.42
in 1990 to 0.67 in 2020.

Table 4-26: Summary of population and employment estimates for Wickenburg
Population
Maricopa County
Wickenberg
As a % of County
Employment
Maricopa County
Wickenberg
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

1990
2,122,101
4,515
0.21%

2000
3,072,149
5,050
0.16%

2008
3,987,942
6,442
0.16%

2010
4,134,400
11,022
0.27%

2020
5,164,100
13,311
0.26%

948,227
1,878
0.20%
0.42

1,564,900
4,100
0.26%
0.81

1,814,700
2,623
0.14%
0.41

2,112,000
6,622
0.31%
0.60

2,705,000
8,921
0.33%
0.67

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 109

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-58: Wickenburg location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 110

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Wickenburg’s General Plan was adopted in August 2003, and the Land Use Plan is shown as
Figure 4-59 30. Low and medium density residential land uses dominate the Town boundaries, with
commercial strips located along the main arteries of US 80, 93, and Tegner Street. The rugged terrain
of the current town boundaries is not necessarily conducive to large-scale commercial and industrial
growth, however proposed annexations to the west and north may provide the opportunity needed to
expand those sectors. Wickenburg currently encompasses an area of 14.9 square miles, but has a
planning area that exceeds 1,300 square miles, extending west and north, with half in Yavapai County.
Within the current Town limits, the area is over one-third developed. Significant constraints on
development, such as steep terrain and natural drainage channels, render another 35% of the Town's
area unsuitable for development.
4.3.27

Youngtown
Situated in the west central portion of the greater metropolitan area approximately 15 miles
west of downtown Phoenix, the Town of Youngtown lies on the east bank of the Agua Fria River.
Located just south of United States Highway 60, the Town of Youngtown is bordered on the west by
El Mirage and on the east by the much larger retirement community of Sun City (Unincorporated
Maricopa County), as shown in Figure 4-60. In 1954, real estate broker Ben Schleifer and banker
Clarence Suggs bought 320 acres of farmland and built the first master-planned, adult community
dedicated exclusively to retirees. It was the first town occupied solely by senior citizens and has the
distinction of being designated as Chapter 1 by AARP. It is known for its more mature landscaping and
lower housing costs. In 1998, age restrictions were removed allowing all ages to enjoy community life
in Youngtown.
Youngtown’s residents are governed under a Council-Manager form of government, which
includes a seven member Town Council consisting of a Mayor and six Council members elected atlarge for a term of four years. The Town Council appoints the Town Manager who is in charge of all
Town Departments and manages the Town’s business.
As illustrated in Table 4-27, in 2000 the population of Youngtown was just over 3,000
residents. However, the Town doubled in size by 2008 and could double again if planned annexations
to the south occur. Many of these new residents are expected to be young families, which may alter the
traditionally retirement-based population of Youngtown. Future employment figures should rise along
with this new population. Youngtown’s labor force is forecast to reflect a consistently small proportion
of the region’s jobs, hovering between 0.10% and 0.16% of Maricopa County employment during the
upcoming 20 years. In 1990, the Town had 935 jobs, while 2020 projections anticipate nearly 2,000
jobs within the community. In addition to having a stable population and employment role within the
region, Youngtown’s ratio of jobs-per-capita is also forecast to drop from 0.37 in 1990 to 0.27 in 2020.
Youngtown is almost entirely a single-family residential community. Several pockets of
higher-density residential and neighborhood-level commercial uses also exist in the northern portion of
the Town. Youngtown’s General Plan was adopted in 2003, and includes the land use map shown in
Figure 4-61 31. The General Plan provides guidance for Town staff, citizens, and others doing business
with the Town to help them achieve Young-town’s vision for future land use and development. The
Plan contains seven elements: Land Use, Circulation and Transportation, Water, Open Space and
Recreation, Environmental, Growth Areas and Cost of Development. Together, these elements will
provide guidance, in the form of goals, objectives and policies, to help Youngtown staff and appointed
and elected officials make decisions about future growth and development in their community.

30

Town of Wickenburg,
http://www.ci.wickenburg.az.us/documents%5CPlanning%20and%20Building%5CGeneral%20Plan/11x17Land_Use.pdf

31

Town of Youngtown, http://www.youngtownaz.org/vertical/Sites/%7B464715DD-87E9-4AA9-9EEF3CDF5B7D33D6%7D/uploads/%7BFFC342FE-B7D1-415F-B73F-18097DF4B2E6%7D.PDF

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 111

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-59: Town of Wickenburg land use map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 112

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-60: Youngtown location map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 113

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 4-27: Summary of population and employment estimates for Youngtown
Population
1990
2000
2008
2010
3,072,149
3,987,942
4,134,400
Maricopa County 2,122,101
3,007
6,522
6,820
Youngtown 2,542
0.10%
0.16%
0.16%
As a % of County 0.12%

2020
5,164,100
7,275
0.14%

Employment
Maricopa County
Youngtown
As a % of County
Jobs per Capita

2,705,000
1,988
0.07%
0.27

948,227
935
0.10%
0.37

1,564,900
1,200
0.08%
0.40

1,814,700
1,124
0.06%
0.17

2,112,000
1,667
0.08%
0.24

Note: Interim projections for 2010 and 2020
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce (2009)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 114

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 4-61: Town of Youngtown land use map
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 115

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 116

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

SECTION 5: RISK ASSESSMENT
§201.6(c)(2): [The plan shall include…] (2) A risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities
proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient
information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from
identified hazards. The risk assessment shall include:
(i) A description of the type, location, and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall
include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.
(ii) A description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This
description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. The plan
should describe vulnerability in terms of:
(A) The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the
identified hazard areas;
(B) An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this
section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate;
(C) Providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that
mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
(iii) For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment section must assess each jurisdiction’s risks where they vary
from the risks facing the entire planning area.

One of the key elements to the hazard mitigation planning process is the risk assessment. In performing a risk
assessment, a community determines “what” can occur, “when” (how often) it is likely to occur, and “how bad”
the effects could be 32. According to DMA 2000, the primary components of a risk assessment that answer
these questions are generally categorized into the following measures:

5
5
5

Hazard Identification and Screening
Hazard Profiling
Assessing Vulnerability to Hazards

The risk assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions was performed using a
county-wide, multi-jurisdictional perspective, with much of the information gathering and development being
accomplished by the MJPT. This integrated approach was employed because many hazard events are likely to
affect numerous jurisdictions within a consolidated urban area like Maricopa County, and are rarely relegated to
a single jurisdictional boundary. The vulnerability analysis was performed in a way such that the results reflect
vulnerability at an individual jurisdictional level, and at a countywide level.

5.1

Hazard Identification and Screening

Hazard identification is the process of answering the question; “What hazards can and do occur in my
community or jurisdiction?” For this update, the list of hazards identified in the 2004 Plan were reviewed by
the MJPT with the goal of refining the list to reflect the natural hazards that pose the greatest risk to the
jurisdictions represented by this MJHMP. The planning team also chose to focus on natural hazards, with the
exception of dam and levee failure, which were considered to be closely tied to natural events and therefore
kept. The MJPT also compared and contrasted the 2004 Plan list to the comprehensive hazard list summarized
in the 2007 State Plan 33 to ensure compatibility with the State Plan. Table 5-1 summarizes the 2004 Plan and
2007 State Plan hazard lists.

32

National Fire Protection Association, 2000, Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity
Programs, NFPA 1600.

33

ADEM, 2007, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 117

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-1: Summary of Initial Hazard Identification Lists
2004 Plan Hazard List
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Dam Failure
Disease
Drought
Earthquake
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hail
Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) Event
Lightning
Severe Winds
Subsidence
Thunderstorm
Tornado
Tropical Cyclone
Wildfire

2007 State Plan Hazard List
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Fissure
Flooding/Flash Flooding
Hazardous Materials Incidents
Landslides/Mudslides
Monsoon
Subsidence
Thunderstorms/High Winds
Tornadoes/Dust Devils
Tropical Storms/Hurricane
Wildfires
Winter Storms

The review included an initial screening process to evaluate each of the listed hazards based on the
following considerations:
•
•
•
•
•

Experiential knowledge on behalf of the MJPT with regard to the relative risk associated with the
hazard
Documented historic context for damages and losses associated with past events (especially events
that have occurred during the last plan cycle)
The ability/desire of MJPT to develop effective mitigation for the hazard under current DMA 2000
criteria
Compatibility with the state hazard mitigation plan hazards
Duplication of effects attributed to each hazard

One tool used in the initial screening process was the historic hazard database referenced in 2004 Plan.
With this update, the 2004 Plan database was reviewed and revised to separately summarize declared disaster
events versus non-declared events. Declared event sources included Maricopa County Department of
Emergency Management (MCDEM), Arizona Division of Emergency Management (ADEM), Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Nondeclared sources included Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), National Weather Service (NWS), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), United States
Geological Survey (USGS), and United States Forest Service (USFS). Both data sets were updated with
additional hazard events that have occurred over the last plan cycle and were also modified to primarily
represent the period of June 1955 to February 2009. Two tables are used in this update to summarize the
historic hazard events. Table 5-2 summarizes the federal and state disaster declarations that included Maricopa
County. Table 5-3 summarizes all non-declared hazard events that meet the following selection criteria:
•
•
•
•

1 or more fatalities
1 or more injuries
Any dollar amount in property or crop damages
Significant event, as expressed in historical records or according to defined criteria above

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 118

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-2: State and Federally Declared Natural Hazard Events That Included Maricopa County –
January 1966 to October 2008
No. of

Recorded Losses

Hazard
Drought

Declarations
12

Fatalities
0

Injuries
0

Damage Costs ($)
$303,000,000

Dam Failure

0

0

0

$0

Earthquake

0

0

0

$0

Fissure

2

0

0

$2,500

Flooding / Flash Flooding

16

52

115

$594,150,000

Landslide / Mudslide

0

0

0

$0

Levee Failure

0

0

0

$0

Snow Storm

0

0

0

$0

Sleet / Freezing Rain

0

0

0

$0

Subsidence

2

0

0

$4,170,000

Thunderstorm / High Wind

4

0

0

$0

Tornado

0

0

0

$0

Tropical Storm / Hurricane

1

0

0

$375,000,000

Wildfire
18
0
0
$0
Notes: Damage Costs are reported as is and no attempt has been made to adjust costs to current dollar values

Table 5-3: Maricopa County Historic Hazard Events – June 1955 to September 2008
No. of

Recorded Losses

Hazard
Drought

Records
0

Fatalities
0

Injuries
0

Damage Costs ($)
$0

Dam Failure

1

0

0

$0

Earthquake

0

0

0

$0

Fissure

0

0

0

$0

Flooding / Flash Flooding

31

9

7

$101,610,500

Landslide / Mudslide

0

0

0

$0

Levee Failure

0

0

0

$0

Snow Storm

4

1

0

$115,000

Sleet / Freezing Rain

0

0

0

$0

Subsidence

0

0

0

$0

Thunderstorm / High Wind

193

6

144

$421,055,000

Tornado

44

0

57

$37,220,900

Tropical Storm / Hurricane

0

0

0

$0

Wildfire
4
0
0
$0
Notes: Damage Costs are reported as is and no attempt has been made to adjust costs to current dollar values
Detailed historic hazard records are provided in Appendix D.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 119

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

The culmination of the review and screening process by the MJPT resulted in a revised list of hazards
that will be carried forward with this updated mitigation plan. The 2004 Plan hazards selected for removal are
listed below and include a brief explanation of the reason for removal:
Disease – there are numerous agencies and programs at the local, state and federal levels to prevent, detect,
and respond to disease. Examples include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Arizona
Department of Health Services, Maricopa County Department of Public Health, Organization Internationale
des Epizooties, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA Plant Protection and
Quarantine, and Arizona Department of Agriculture. The MJPT chose to focus resources and attention on
other hazards and not duplicate existing efforts.
Earthquake – there are no damage causing historic seismic events recorded for Maricopa County, and the
entire county is located within a relatively low seismic risk area. The MJPT felt that the perceived low risk
did not warrant further consideration.
Hail – the MJPT acknowledges that historic hailstorms (usually associated with thunderstorm events) have
caused some damage in the past. However, mitigating hail damage is extremely difficult, if not cost
prohibitive, and the MJPT chose to not include the hazard as a line item.
Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) Event – HAZMAT events are usually addressed by Local Emergency
Planning Committees (LEPC) and Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT). This hazard is also a
human caused event and will not be addressed in this plan.
Lightning – lightning strikes are a regular part of the monsoon season and have resulted in damages, injury,
and even fatalities. For wildfire, lighting strikes are often the source of ignition. The MJPT acknowledges
that lightning is a very real hazard, however, mitigating against lightning caused damages and/or injury is
extremely difficult and further profiling was not deemed as warranted.
Several of the hazards in the 2004 Plan list may be better described as storm events wherein the effects
of the storm may pose exposure to multiple hazards. For instance, hazards associated with a Thunderstorms
may include flooding, microburst winds, tornados, and/or hail in a single event. Tropical Cyclone is another
storm event that may include damaging winds and heavy precipitation resulting in flooding. In both of these
examples, the true resulting hazards are generally flooding and damaging or severe winds. Accordingly, the
MJPT chose to consolidate or eliminate several of the 2004 Plan hazards as follows:
Thunderstorm – damaging elements associated with thunderstorms include very intense bursts of
precipitation that may result in flash-floods, micro- and macro-burst winds, hail, lightning, and occasionally
tornados. Accordingly, the hazard category of “thunderstorm” will be eliminated as the flooding and
severe wind effects are addressed already.
Tropical Cyclone – the damaging elements associated with tropical cyclones are the heavy precipitation
that results in flooding and sever winds. As with thunderstorm, these hazards are addressed elsewhere and
this category is therefore redundant.
Tornado – damage producing tornadoes are rare in Arizona and are usually associated with thunderstorm
events. Additionally, mitigation of damages due to the typical type of tornado that impacts Maricopa
County would be similar to those proposed for other severe wind events such as micro-bursts.
Accordingly, this hazard is being eliminated as a line item and will be incorporated into the Severe Wind
category.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 120

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

The MJPT has selected the following list of hazards for profiling and updating based on the above
explanations and screening process. Revised and updated definitions for each hazard are provided in Section
5.3 and in Section 8.2:
•
•
•

•
•
•

Dam Inundation
Drought
Extreme Heat

Fissure
Flood
Levee Failure

5.2

Vulnerability Analysis Methodology

5.2.1

General

•
•
•

Severe Wind
Subsidence
Wildfire

The following sections summarize the methodologies used to perform the vulnerability
analysis portion of the risk assessment. For this update, the entire vulnerability analysis was either
revised or updated to reflect the new hazard categories, the availability of new data, or differing loss
estimation methodology. Specific changes are noted below and/or in Section 5.3
For the purposes of this vulnerability analysis, hazard profile maps were developed for Dam
Inundation, Fissure, Flood, Levee Failure, Subsidence and Wildfire, to map the geographic variability
of the probability and magnitude risk of the hazards as estimated by the planning team. Hazard profile
categories of HIGH, LOW, and/or MEDIUM were used and were subjectively assigned based on the
factors discussed in Probability and Magnitude sections below. Within the context of the county
limits, the other hazards do not exhibit significant geographic variability and will not be categorized as
such.
Unless otherwise specified in this Plan, the general cutoff date for new historic or hazard
profile data is the end of February 2009.
5.2.2

Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) Evaluation
The first step in the vulnerability analysis (VA) is to assess the perceived overall risk for each
of the plan hazards using a tool developed by the State of Arizona called the Calculated Priority Risk
Index 34 (CPRI). The CPRI value is obtained by assigning varying degrees of risk to four (4) categories
for each hazard, and then calculating an index value based on a weighting scheme. Table 5-4
summarizes the CPRI risk categories and provides guidance regarding the assignment of values and
weighting factors for each category. As an example, assume that the project team is assessing the
hazard of flooding, and has decided that the following assignments best describe the flooding hazard
for their community:
•

Probability = Likely

•

Magnitude/Severity = Critical

•

Warning Time = 12 to 24 hours

•

Duration = Less than 6 hours

The CPRI for the flooding hazard would then be:
CPRI = [ (3*0.45) + (3*0.30) + (2*0.15) + (1*0.10)]
CPRI = 2.65

34

ADEM, 2003, Arizona Model Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, prepared by JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 121

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-4: Summary of Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) categories and risk levels
CPRI
Category

Degree of Risk
Description

Unlikely

Less than 6 hours

Extremely rare with no documented history of
occurrences or events.
„
Annual probability of less than 0.001.
„
Rare occurrences with at least one documented or
anecdotal historic event.
„
Annual probability that is between 0.01 and 0.001.
„
Occasional occurrences with at least two or more
documented historic events.
„
Annual probability that is between 0.1 and 0.01.
„
Frequent events with a well documented history of
occurrence.
„
Annual probability that is greater than 0.1.
„
Negligible property damages (less than 5% of critical
and non-critical facilities and infrastructure).
„
Injuries or illnesses are treatable with first aid and there
are no deaths.
„
Negligible quality of life lost.
„
Shut down of critical facilities for less than 24 hours.
„
Slight property damages (greater than 5% and less than
25% of critical and non-critical facilities and
infrastructure).
„
Injuries or illnesses do not result in permanent
disability and there are no deaths.
„
Moderate quality of life lost.
„
Shut down of critical facilities for more than 1 day and
less than 1 week.
„
Moderate property damages (greater than 25% and less
than 50% of critical and non-critical facilities and
infrastructure).
„
Injuries or illnesses result in permanent disability and
at least one death.
„
Shut down of critical facilities for more than 1 week
and less than 1 month.
„
Severe property damages (greater than 50% of critical
and non-critical facilities and infrastructure).
„
Injuries or illnesses result in permanent disability and
multiple deaths.
„
Shut down of critical facilities for more than 1 month.
Self explanatory.

4

6 to 12 hours

Self explanatory.

3

12 to 24 hours

Self explanatory.

2

More than 24 hours

Self explanatory.

1

Possibly
Probability

Likely

Highly Likely

Negligible

Limited

Magnitude/
Severity
Critical

Catastrophic

Warning
Time

Duration

Index
Value

Level ID

Assigned
Weighting
Factor

„

1

2
45%
3

4

1

2

30%

3

4

Less than 6 hours

Self explanatory.

1

Less than 24 hours

Self explanatory.

2

Less than one week

Self explanatory.

3

More than one week

Self explanatory.

4

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

15%

10%

Page 122

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.2.3

2009

Asset Inventory
With this update, a detailed asset inventory was performed to establish a more accurate
baseline data-set for assessing the vulnerability of each jurisdiction’s assets to the hazards identified in
Section 5.1. This effort constitutes a significant change to the base asset data used in the 2004 Plan,
and consequently to the entire vulnerability analysis. Details of this change are discussed later in this
section.
The 2007 State Plan defines assets as:
Any natural or human-caused feature that has value, including, but not limited to people;
buildings; infrastructure like bridges, roads, and sewer and water systems; lifelines like
electricity and communication resources; or environmental, cultural, or recreational features
like parks, dunes, wetlands, or landmarks.
The asset inventory is generally tabularized into critical and non-critical categories. Critical
facilities and infrastructure are systems, structures and infrastructure within a community whose
incapacity or destruction would:
•

Have a debilitating impact on the defense or economic security of that community.

•

Significantly hinder a community’s ability to recover following a disaster.

Following the criteria set forth by the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO), the
State of Arizona has adopted eight general categories 35 that define critical facilities and infrastructure:
1.

Telecommunications Infrastructure:
Telephone, data services, and Internet
communications, which have become essential to continuity of business, industry,
government, and military operations.

2.

Electrical Power Systems: Generation stations and transmission and distribution networks
that create and supply electricity to end-users.

3.

Gas and Oil Facilities: Production and holding facilities for natural gas, crude and refined
petroleum, and petroleum-derived fuels, as well as the refining and processing facilities for
these fuels.

4.

Banking and Finance Institutions: Banks, financial service companies, payment systems,
investment companies, and securities/commodities exchanges.

5.

Transportation Networks: Highways, railroads, ports and inland waterways, pipelines, and
airports and airways that facilitate the efficient movement of goods and people.

6.

Water Supply Systems: Sources of water; reservoirs and holding facilities; aqueducts and
other transport systems; filtration, cleaning, and treatment systems; pipelines; cooling
systems; and other delivery mechanisms that provide for domestic and industrial applications,
including systems for dealing with water runoff, wastewater, and firefighting.

7.

Government Services: Capabilities at the federal, state, and local levels of government
required to meet the needs for essential services to the public.

8.

Emergency Services: Medical, police, fire, and rescue systems.

Other assets such as public libraries, schools, museums, parks, recreational facilities, historic
buildings or sites, churches, residential and/or commercial subdivisions, apartment complexes, and so
forth, are classified as non-critical facilities and infrastructure, as they are not necessarily “critical” per
the definition set forth in Executive Order 13010. They are, however, still considered by the MJPT to
be important facilities and critical and non-critical should not be construed to equate to important and
non-important. For each asset, attributes such name, description, physical address, geospatial position,
35

Instituted via Executive Order 13010, which was signed by President Clinton in 1996.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 123

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

and estimated replacement cost were identified to the greatest extent possible and entered into a GIS
geodatabase.
The 2004 Plan used HAZUS 36 data to represent the critical and non-critical facilities for
Maricopa County jurisdictions. During the review, the MJPT determined that many of the HAZUS
facilities were not geospatially positioned correctly and felt that the dataset did not provide an adequate
or accurate depiction of the participating jurisdiction’s asset inventories. Accordingly, new asset
inventory data was developed for each community using existing GIS data sets, on-line mapping
utilities, and manual data acquisition by members of the local planning teams. Table 5-5 summarizes
the facility counts by category for each of the participating jurisdictions in this plan.
5.2.4

Loss Estimations
In the original 2004 Plan, losses were estimated by either quantitative or qualitative methods.
Quantitative methods included use of the HAZUS®-MH program or a statistical approach that was
based on historic data. None of the original computational data was available for this update, nor were
any of the statistical calculations. Accordingly, all loss estimates for this Plan update are new and
were accomplished using the procedures discussed below.
Economic loss and human exposure estimates for each of the final hazards identified in
Section 5.1 begins with an assessment of the potential exposure of critical and non-critical assets and
human populations to those hazards. Estimates of exposure to critical and non-critical assets identified
by each jurisdiction is accomplished by intersecting the asset inventory with the hazard profiles in
Section 5.3 Human or population exposures are estimated by intersecting the same hazards with 2000
Census Data population statistics that have been re-organized into GIS compatible databases and
distributed with HAZUS®-MH 37. Additional exposure estimates for general residential, commercial,
and industrial building stock not specifically identified with the asset inventory, are also accomplished
using the HAZUS®-MH database, wherein the developers of the HAZUS®-MH database have made
attempts to correlate building/structure counts to census block data.
It is duly noted that the HAZUS®-MH data population statistics may not exactly equate to the
current population statistics provided in Section 4.2 due to changes in population, GIS positioning
anomalies and the way HAZUS®-MH depicts certain census block data. It is also noted that the
residential, commercial and industrial building stock estimates for each census block may severely
under-predict the actual buildings present due to the substantial growth in the last decade and the
general lack of data for some of the more rural communities within the county, and the disparity of the
HAZUS®-MH estimates for these categories. However, without a detailed, site specific structure
inventory of these types of buildings, the HAZUS®-MH database is still the best available and the
results are representative of a general magnitude of population and residential, commercial and
industrial facility exposures to the various hazards discussed. Combining the exposure results from
the asset inventory and the HAZUS®-MH database provides a fairly comprehensive depiction of the
overall exposure of building stock and the two datasets are considered complimentary and not
redundant.

36

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, HAZUS®-MH.

37

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, HAZUS®-MH.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 124

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-5: Summary of Critical and Non-Critical Facility counts by category and jurisdiction
Non-Critical Facilities and
Infrastructure

8
10

1

15
3
2

57
6
6

3

3

2

1

2

3

1

1

33

25

77

94

68

179

100

41
10
2
1
54
53
2
94
270
3

87
8
1

183
11
2
2

108

162
1

360

96

19
38
7
4
101
6

123
6
35
422
12

4
14
6
19
9

11

3

4

2

1

2

1

18

3

3
14

19
1

6

52
1

7
12
1

214

6

5

17
1

42
14

363
6

8
1

2

51
7

4
1
10

2
14,317
(225)a
52
27

4
136
16
43
16
21

3

8

Recreational

1
7
1

Residential

Cultural

2
10
4
4
35
3
3

Business

Education

1
2

39
36
1
32
57
13
1

Emergency Services

Transportation Networks

Banking and
Finance Institutions

1
22

Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community

Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

3

Government Services

16

Gilbert

Salt River Project

Gas and Oil Facilities

10

Water Supply Systems

Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation
Gila Bend

Electrical Power Systems

Participating
Jurisdiction

Telecommunications
Infrastructure

Critical Facilities and Infrastructure

3

18

2
2

1

2

7
8

1

1
1

1

13

24
4
35
66
11

3
4
7
9
2

SRP reported a total of 511 assets that are comprised of SRP main buildings/offices, substations, switchyards,
receiving stations, and well sites. No further separation of asset categories was necessary.
1
1
17
6
54
15
18
2
1
2
1
4
8
15
1
4
1
1
3
22
5
71
1
6
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
2
2
5
2
1
2

a – Number of water supply facilities that are not a part of the underground pipe network

Economic losses to structures and facilities are estimated by multiplying the exposed facility
replacement cost estimates by an assumed exposure to loss ratio for the hazard. The exposure to loss
ratios used in this plan update are summarized by hazard in Section 5.3. It is important to note that the
exposure to loss ratios are subjective and the estimates are solely intended to provide an understanding
of relative risk from the hazards and potential losses. The reality is that uncertainties are inherent in
any loss estimation methodology due to:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 125

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

•

Incomplete scientific knowledge concerning hazards and our ability to predict their effects on
the built environment;

•

Approximations and simplifications that are necessary for a comprehensive analysis; and,

•

Lack of detailed data necessary to implement a viable statistical approach to loss estimations.

Several of the hazards profiled in this Plan update will not include quantitative exposure and
loss estimates. The vulnerability of people and assets associated with some hazards are nearly
impossible to evaluate given the uncertainty associated with where these hazards will occur as well as
the relatively limited focus and extent of damage. Instead, a qualitative review of vulnerability will be
discussed to provide insight to the nature of losses that are associated with the hazard. For subsequent
updates of this Plan, the data needed to evaluate these unpredictable hazards may become refined such
that comprehensive vulnerability statements and thorough loss estimates can be made.
5.2.5

Development Trend Analysis
The 2004 Plan development trend analysis will require updating to reflect growth and changes
in Maricopa County over the last planning cycle. The updated analysis will focus on the potential risk
associated with projected growth patterns and their intersection with the Plan identified hazards.

5.3

Hazard Risk Profiles

The following sections summarize the risk profiles for each of the Plan hazards identified in Section
5.1. For each hazard, the following elements are addressed to present the overall risk profile:
•
•
•
•

•
•

Description
History
Probability and Magnitude
Vulnerability
o CPRI Results
o Loss Estimations
o Development Trend Analysis
Sources
Profile Maps (if applicable)

Much of the 2004 Plan data has been updated, incorporated and/or revised to reflect current data and
MJPT changes, as well as an overall plan format change. County-wide profile maps are provided at the end of
the section (if applicable) and jurisdiction specific maps are included in the Executive Plan Summary for that
jurisdiction. Also, the maps are not included in the pagination count.
5.3.1

Dam Inundation
Description
There are two primary scenarios of downstream inundation risk associated with dams in
Maricopa County: (1) Emergency Spillway Discharges, and (2) Dam Failure. In the 2004 Plan, only
dam failure was addressed. For this update, the MJPT wanted to provide a distinction between the
downstream inundation risk due to emergency spillway discharges versus a dam failure. Accordingly,
vulnerability for each scenario will be assessed separately.
Dams within or impacting Maricopa County can generally be divided into two groups: (1)
storage reservoirs designed to permanently impound water and possibly generate power, and (2) single
purpose flood retarding structures (FRS) designed to attenuate or reduce flooding by impounding
stormwater for relatively short durations of time during flood events. The majority of dams within, or
upstream of, Maricopa County are FRS and are typically earthen structures equipped with emergency
spillways. The purpose of an emergency spillway is to provide a designed and protected outlet to
convey runoff volumes exceeding the dam’s storage capacity during extreme or back-to-back storm
events. Dam failures may be caused by a variety of reasons including: seismic events, extreme wave
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 126

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

action, leakage and piping, overtopping, material fatigue and spillway erosion. The risk associated
with an emergency spillway discharge is different from a dam failure for several reasons:
•

First, dams that are properly designed and maintained are considerably less likely to fail and assets
located downstream of them are more likely to be impacted by an emergency spillway discharge
than by a dam failure.

•

Second, the emergency spillway is at a fixed location(s), and therefore, the downstream inundation
limits can be more readily predicted as compared to a dam failure, which could occur anywhere
along the structure.

•

Lastly, the dynamics of the flood wave associated with an emergency spillway discharge are
different than that of a dam failure. A dam failure is an uncontrolled release of water impounded
behind a dam through a breach in the dam itself, and is usually catastrophically destructive. An
emergency spillway discharge usually increases in magnitude gradually, and then decreases
gradually as the structure drains.

History
Maricopa County has a limited history of dam failures and emergency spillway discharges that caused
damaging inundation of downstream properties. The following are examples from the records
available:
•

In January-February 1993, a major statewide precipitation event caused major spillway
releases from the Salt and Verde River system of dams, with a peak discharge of nearly
124,000 cfs from Granite Reef Dam. The unavoidable releases caused major flooding along
the Salt and Gila River all the way to the county line, with over $38 million in public and
private damages reported and the evacuation of over 200 families. The flooding also caused
the failure of Gillespie Dam 38 and forced peak spillway discharges of 25,600 cfs at Painted
Rock Dam in the southwestern part of the county (USACE, 1994).

•

In September 1997, Tropical Storm Nora moved through the western portion of Maricopa
County dumping record breaking precipitation along the way. The Narrows Dam located just
north of Maricopa County on Centennial Wash, began filling in the early part of the storm
with flows reaching a depth of over two feet in the emergency spillway before the dam itself
failed by breach in two locations. The peak discharge estimated from the dam spillway was
2,610 cfs (FCDMC, 1997).

Probability and Magnitude
The probability and magnitude of emergency spillway and dam failure discharges vary greatly
with each dam. Most of the dams located within Maricopa County function as flood retarding
structures (FRS) with a normally dry impoundment area. These FRS are typically designed to store, at
a minimum, runoff from the one percent probability storm (100-year) in the flood-pool below the crest
of the emergency spillway. Many of the FRS have sufficient capacity to store the 0.2 percent
probability storm (500-year) or greater, without emergency spillway operation. Depending on the dam
hazard classification, the emergency spillways will usually have capacity to pass the entire Inflow
Design Flood (IDF) without any overtopping of the dam itself. The IDF is based on the hazard
classification of the dam and is usually the probable maximum flood (PMF) or some fraction thereof.
Other dams impacting Maricopa County that impound water on a continuous basis (Salt and Verde
River systems for example) are typically equipped with primary and secondary spillways that are
closely monitored and operated to provide an optimized level of flood protection, freeboard and
reservoir storage for power generation, irrigation, and drinking water supplies. Probabilities and
magnitudes of spillway discharge from these systems are dependent on several variables such as
available reservoir capacity, time of year, and magnitude of storm causing the spillway discharge.

38

Gillespie Dam was an irrigation diversion structure that was not regulated as a jurisdictional dam by ADWR.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 127

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

There are two sources of data that publish hazard ratings for dams impacting Maricopa
County that are based on either an assessment of the consequence of failure and/or dam safety
considerations. The hazard ratings are not tied to probability of occurrence. The first is the Arizona
Department of Water Resources (ADWR) and the second is the National Inventory of Dams (NID).
ADWR has regulatory jurisdiction over the non-federal dams impacting the County and is
responsible for regulating the safety of these dams, conducting field investigations, and participating in
flood mitigation programs with the goal of minimizing the risk for loss of life and property to the
citizens of Arizona. ADWR jurisdictional dams are inspected regularly according to downstream
hazard potential classification. High hazard dams are inspected annually, significant hazard dams
every three years, and low hazard dams every five years. Via these inspections, ADWR identifies
safety deficiencies requiring correction and assigns each dam one of five safety ratings (listed in
increasing severity): no deficiency, safety deficiency, unsafe non-emergency, unsafe non-emergency
elevated risk, or unsafe emergency. Examples of safety deficiencies include: lack of an adequate
emergency action plan, inability to safely pass the required IDF, embankment erosion, dam stability,
etc. Further descriptions of each safety classification are summarized in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6: Summary of ADWR safety categories
ADWR Safety Rating
Definition
No Deficiency
No safety deficiencies found
One or more conditions at the dam that impair or adversely affects
Safety Deficiency
the safe operation of the dam.
Unsafe Non-emergency

Unsafe Non-emergency Elevated
Risk
Unsafe Emergency

Safety deficiencies in a dam or spillway could result in failure of
the dam with subsequent loss of human life or significant property
damage. Failure is not considered imminent.
Safety deficiencies in a dam or spillway could result in failure of
the dam with subsequent loss of human life or significant property
damage. Concern the dam could fail during a 100-yr or smaller
flood.
The dam is in imminent risk of failure.

Source: ADWR, 2009.

The NID database contains information on approximately 77,000 dams in the 50 states and
Puerto Rico, with approximately 30 characteristics reported for each dam, such as: name, owner, river,
nearest community, length, height, average storage, max storage, hazard rating, Emergency Action
Plan (EAP), latitude, and longitude. Dams within the NID database are classified by hazard potential
that is based on an assessment of the consequences of failure. Table 5-7 summarizes those
classifications and there criteria.
Table 5-7: Summary of NID downstream hazard classifications
Hazard Potential
Economic, Environmental, Lifeline
Classification
Loss of Human Life
Losses
Low
None expected
Low and generally limited to owner
Significant
None expected
Yes
Yes (but not necessary for this
High
Probable. One or more expected
classification)
Note:
The hazard potential classification is an assessment of the consequences of failure, but not an evaluation of the
probability of failure.
Source: NID

The NID database includes dams that are either:
•

High or Significant hazard potential class dams, or,

•

Low hazard potential class dams that exceed 25 feet in height and 15 acre-feet
storage, or,
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 128

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
•

2009

Low hazard potential class dams that exceed 50 acre-feet storage and 6 feet height.

There are 52 dams in the NID database that are located in Maricopa County, and 41 of those
dams are under ADWR jurisdiction. There are also four more dams located in Pinal County that are
owned and operated by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County and have a direct impact on
Maricopa County communities. Table 5-8 provides a summary of the hazard and safety classifications
by count for both the ADWR and NID databases. The location and hazard classifications for each dam
are shown on Maps 1A, 1B, 1C and 2A, 2B, and 2C.

Table 5-8: Summary count of NID and ADWR hazard classification dams
Database
Safety
Source
High
Significant
Low
Deficiency
NID
39
8
5
N/A
ADWR
36
5
4
7

Unsafe (any
sub-category)
N/A
3

NOTES:
•
Two of the unsafe dams require rehabilitation or removal and one is designated as non-emergency, elevated risk.
•
Four of the High hazard dams are located just east of Maricopa County in Pinal County.
Source: ADWR and NID, 2009

The magnitude of impacts due to emergency spillway flows and/or dam failure are usually
depicted by mapping the estimated inundation limits based on an assessment of a combination of flow
depth and velocity. These limits are typically a critical part of the emergency action plan. Of the 56
dams considered, 40 have emergency action plans.
The MJPT chose to assign profile categories separately for emergency spillway inundation
and dam failure inundation, since the perceived probability and magnitude for each is distinctly
different. For inundation resulting from emergency spillway flows, two classes of hazard risk are
depicted as follows:
HIGH Hazard = Inundation limits due to full emergency spillway flow
LOW Hazard = All other areas outside the inundation limits
For inundation resulting from a dam failure, three classes of hazard are depicted as follows:
HIGH Hazard = Dam failure inundation limits downstream of any dam classified as
“Unsafe” by ADWR.
MEDIUM Hazard = Dam failure inundation limits downstream of any dam classified
as “Safety Deficient” by ADWR.
LOW Hazard = All other areas.
Extents of the emergency spillway and dam failure inundation hazard areas are shown on
Maps 1A-C and 2A-C, respectively.
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Dam inundation CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-9.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 129

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-9: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for dam inundation (emergency spillway flow and
dam failure)
Magnitude/
Warning
CPRI
Participating Jurisdiction
Probability
Severity
Time
Duration
Score
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Possibly
Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Possibly
Unlikely
Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Possibly
Likely

Limited
Critical
Negligible
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Critical
Negligible
Critical
Negligible
Limited
Critical
Critical
Catastrophic
Catastrophic
Critical
Catastrophic
Catastrophic
Catastrophic
Negligible
Catastrophic
Catastrophic
Negligible
Catastrophic
Critical

6 – 12 hours
< 24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
12-24 hours
<1 week
>24 hours
<24 hours
>24 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
<24 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
6-12 hours
<1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
12-24 hours
<24 hours
12-24 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
<1 week
6-12 hours
<24 hours
6-12 hours
<6 hours
6-12 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
<1 week
<6 hours
<24 hours
6-12 hours
<24 hours
County-wide average CPRI =

2.15
2.05
1.35
1.40
1.40
2.30
2.50
1.10
1.00
2.10
1.45
2.15
1.45
1.85
2.80
2.35
2.00
2.80
1.85
2.15
3.10
2.55
1.85
2.20
2.50
1.20
2.90
2.90
2.04

Vulnerability – Loss Estimations
The estimation of potential losses due to inundation from either an emergency spillway flow
or a dam failure was accomplished by intersecting the human and facility assets with the inundation
limits depicted on Maps 1A, 1B, and 1C. Since no common methodology is available for obtaining
losses from the exposure values, estimates of the loss-to-exposure ratios were assumed based on the
perceived potential for damage. Any storm event, or series of storm events of sufficient magnitude to
cause an emergency spillway to operate or cause a dam failure scenario, would have potentially
catastrophic consequences in the inundation area. Floodwaves from these type of events travel very
fast and possess tremendous destructive energy. Accordingly, an average, event based loss-to-exposure
ratio for the inundation areas with a high and medium hazard rating are estimated to be 0.25. Low
rated areas are zero.
It should be noted that the MJPT recognizes that probability of an emergency spillway flow or
dam failure occurring on multiple (or all) structures at the same time is essentially zero. Accordingly,
the loss estimates presented below are intended to serve as a collective evaluation of the potential
exposure and losses to high and medium hazard emergency spillway and dam failure inundation
events.
Table 5-10 and 5-11 summarize estimations of losses to MJPT identified assets for emergency
spillway and dam failure inundation hazards. Tables 5-12 through 5-39 summarize exposure and loss
estimates to the HAZUS residential, commercial, and industrial building stock for the emergency
spillway and dam failure inundation hazards, as well as Fissure, Flooding, Levee Failure, Subsidence
and Wildfire. Table 5-12 summarizes the HAZUS based exposure and losses for the entirety of
Maricopa County. Tables 5-13 through 5-39 summarize jurisdiction specific HAZUS data exposure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 130

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

and loss estimates. Tables 5-40 and 5-41 summarize the estimated population exposed to emergency
spillway and dam failure inundation hazards.
In summary, $489.4 million and $3.7 billion in asset related losses are estimated for
emergency spillway and dam failure inundations, respectively, for all the participating jurisdictions in
Maricopa County and all high and medium hazard categories. An additional $1.5 and $23.8 billion in
losses to HAZUS defined residential, commercial, and industrial facilities is estimated for all
participating Maricopa County jurisdictions. Regarding human vulnerability, a total population of
53,424 people, or 3.51% of the total 2000 Maricopa County population, is potentially exposed to an
emergency spillway inundation event. A total population of 861,534 people, or 56.6% of the total
2000 Maricopa County population, is potentially exposed to a high or medium hazard dam failure
inundation event. The potential for deaths and injuries are directly related to the warning time and type
of event and are plausible. Given the magnitude of such an event(s), it is realistic to anticipate at least
one death and several injuries. There is also a high probability of population displacement for most of
the inhabitants within the inundation limits downstream of the dam(s).
Vulnerability – Development Trend Analysis
Most of the dams within Maricopa County serve as flood retarding structures (FRS) and
typically sit empty for most of their design life. The flood protection afforded by these structures has
encouraged development of lands immediately downstream of the structures. In some cases, the FRS
are long linear structures that intercept runoff from multiple washes and have emergency spillways that
are not always directed to a regional watercourse. All of the larger dams with some level of permanent
reservoir storage direct emergency spillway flows to the regional watercourse they are constructed on.
Emergency spillway flows from these structures typically coincide with FEMA regulated 100-year
floodplains in the downstream watercourse, and are therefore not as potentially destructive as an
emergency spillway flow from some of the FRS structures. A dam failure in any case, would be
catastrophic.
The vulnerability analysis indicates that collectively, over half of the county population is
situated within the potential downstream inundation limits of a dam failure. Prohibition of
development within those limits is not feasible. Instead, public awareness measures such as notices on
final plats and public education on dam safety are mitigation efforts employed by local county and
city/town officials. Also, Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) that establish notification procedures and
thresholds are also prepared for response to potential dam related disaster events.
Sources
Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2009,
http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/SurfaceWater/DamSafety/default.htm
Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2009, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan,
2010 Update, DRAFT.
Flood Control District of Maricopa County, 1997, Storm Report, Tropical Storm Nora – September
1997, prepared by S. D. Waters.
URS, 2004, Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Plan
US Army Corps of Engineers, 1994, Flood Damage Report, State of Arizona, Floods of 1993.
US Army Corps of Engineers, National Inventory of Dams, 2009, https://nid.usace.army.mil/

Profile Maps
Maps 1A, 1B, and 1C – Dam Spillway Flood Hazard Map
Maps 2A, 2B, and 2C – Potential Dam Failure Flood Hazard Map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 131

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-10: Summary asset inventory losses due to emergency spillway flooding

Community
County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project 39
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

39

Total Facilities
Reported by
Community

Impacted
Facilities

5,179
61
77
6
39
226
34
15
18
7
694
1,205
93
6
5
447
613
69
225
913
117
21
511
114
37
111
10
11
5

360
0
1
0
0
0
22
0
0
1
40
77
0
1
0
17
37
0
33
8
82
21
8
1
19
0
0
0
0

Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
6.95%
0.00%
1.30%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
64.71%
0.00%
0.00%
14.29%
5.76%
6.39%
0.00%
16.67%
0.00%
3.80%
6.04%
0.00%
14.67%
0.88%
70.09%
100.00%
1.57%
0.88%
51.35%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Percentage of Total
County-wide Facilities
Impacted
100.00%
0.00%
0.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.11%
0.00%
0.00%
0.28%
11.11%
21.39%
0.00%
0.28%
0.00%
4.72%
10.28%
0.00%
9.17%
2.22%
22.78%
5.83%
N/A
0.28%
5.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Estimated
Replacement Cost
(x $1000)
$1,993,560
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$122,230
$0
$0
$9,000
$611,000
$244,816
$0
$800
$0
$12,321
$90,824
$0
$38,761
$9,731
$156,502
$509,053
N/A
$0
$188,521
$0
$0
$0
$0

Estimated
Structure Loss
(x $1000)
$498,390
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30,558
$0
$0
$2,250
$152,750
$61,204
$0
$200
$0
$3,080
$22,706
$0
$9,690
$2,433
$39,126
$127,263
N/A
$0
$47,130
$0
$0
$0
$0

Facility count for Salt River Project is not included in overall County-Wide totals and all data was provided by SRP.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 132

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-11: Summary asset inventory losses due to dam failure flooding

Community

County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Salt River Project 40
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

40

Total Facilities
Reported by
Community

Impacted
Facilities

Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
HIGH

Percentage of Total
County-wide Facilities
Impacted

5,179
61
77
6
39
226
34
15
18
7
694
1,205
93
6
5
447
613
69
225
913
117

573
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
10
2
501
0
0
0
0
9
40
0
0
0
6

11.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.77%
0.00%
0.00%
55.56%
28.57%
72.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.01%
6.53%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.13%

100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.70%
0.00%
0.00%
1.75%
0.35%
87.43%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.57%
6.98%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.05%

21
511
114
37
111
10
11
5

1
40
0
0
0
0
0
0

4.76%
7.83%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.17%
N/A
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Estimated
Replacement Cost
(x $1000)

$2,414,804
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,870
$0
$0
$22,630
$12,000
$2,209,020
$0
$0
$0
$0
$49,618
$110,369
$0
$0
$0
$5,243

Estimated
Structure Loss
(x $1000)

$603,701
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,468
$0
$0
$5,657
$3,000
$552,255
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,404
$27,592
$0
$0
$0
$1,311

$54
N/A

$14
N/A

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

Facility count for Salt River Project is not included in overall County-Wide totals and all data was provided by SRP.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 133

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-11: Summary asset inventory losses due to dam failure flooding

Community

County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Salt River Project 41
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

41

Total Facilities
Reported by
Community

Impacted
Facilities

5,179
61
77
6
39
226
34
15
18
7
694
1,205
93
6
5
447
613
69
225
913
117

2390
61
27
0
0
197
34
4
1
1
82
531
66
2
1
193
155
13
130
594
92

46.15%
100.00%
35.06%
0.00%
0.00%
87.17%
100.00%
26.67%
5.56%
14.29%
11.82%
44.07%
70.97%
33.33%
20.00%
43.18%
25.29%
18.84%
57.78%
65.06%
78.63%

100.00%
2.55%
1.13%
0.00%
0.00%
8.24%
1.42%
0.17%
0.04%
0.04%
3.43%
22.22%
2.76%
0.08%
0.04%
8.08%
6.49%
0.54%
5.44%
24.85%
3.85%

21
511
114
37
111
10
11
5

19
246
49
28
96
8
1
5

90.48%
48.14%
42.98%
75.68%
86.49%
80.00%
9.09%
100.00%

0.79%
N/A
2.05%
1.17%
4.02%
0.33%
0.04%
0.21%

Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
MEDIUM

Percentage of Total
County-wide Facilities
Impacted

Estimated
Replacement Cost
(x $1000)

$12,373,888
$87,482
$53,000
$0
$0
$844,840
$267,640
$185,500
$4,000
$9,000
$360,000
$1,886,808
$90,198
$1,100
$100,000
$876,772
$382,677
$61,000
$115,275
$4,867,484
$164,070
$508,986
N/A

$55,000
$285,389
$1,157,300
$0
$5,000
$5,367

Estimated
Structure Loss
(x $1000)

$3,093,472
$21,871
$13,250
$0
$0
$211,210
$66,910
$46,375
$1,000
$2,250
$90,000
$471,702
$22,550
$275
$25,000
$219,193
$95,669
$15,250
$28,819
$1,216,871
$41,017
$127,247
N/A

$13,750
$71,347
$289,325
$0
$1,250
$1,342

Facility count for Salt River Project is not included in overall County-Wide totals and all data was provided by SRP.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 134

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-12: Summary of Maricopa County HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Building
Potential
Maricopa County HAZUS Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
County-Wide Totals 507,215
$126,956,339
26,647
$30,750,493

2009

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
7,397
$7,187,748
$164,894,580

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

13,034
466,352

$3,505,566
$115,034,095

779
24,305

$997,214
$27,941,813

241
6,765

$266,873
$6,683,366

$4,769,654
$149,659,274

20%
5%

$953,931
$7,482,964

High
Medium

19,192
269,470

$5,243,823
$65,736,310

1,138
14,407

$813,407
$18,802,871

324
3,944

$263,799
$4,422,934

$6,321,029
$88,962,115

25%
25%

$1,580,257
$22,240,529

High
Medium

251
107

$2,873
$435

$48,002
$24,879

20%
5%

$9,600
$1,244

Dam Failure

Wildfire
$29,815
$20,307

17
6

$15,313
$4,137

3
2

Spillway
High

24,111

$5,024,425

976

$906,036

294

$140,952

$6,071,413

25%

$1,517,853

High

4,106

$798,599

182

$158,800

67

$125,643

$1,083,042

20%

$216,608

High

93,741

$21,903,194

1,049

$598,084

$26,138,758

%

$0

High

474

$2,406

$76,189

%

$0

Levee Failure
Subsidence
3,935

$3,637,480

Fissure

Maricopa County HAZUS Summary
Flooding

$66,149

15

$7,634

6

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

94.51%
02.57%
91.94%

93.37%
02.76%
90.61%

94.14%
02.93%
91.21%

94.11%
03.24%
90.87%

94.73%
03.26%
91.46%

96.70%
03.71%
92.98%

High
Medium

56.91%
03.78%
53.13%

55.91%
04.13%
51.78%

58.34%
04.27%
54.07%

63.79%
02.65%
61.15%

57.70%
04.38%
53.32%

65.20%
03.67%
61.53%

High
Medium

0.07%
0.05%
0.02%

0.04%
0.02%
0.02%

0.09%
0.06%
0.02%

0.06%
0.05%
0.01%

0.06%
0.03%
0.03%

0.05%
0.04%
0.01%

High

04.75%
04.75%

03.96%
03.96%

03.66%
03.66%

02.95%
02.95%

03.97%
03.97%

01.96%
01.96%

High

0.81%
0.81%

0.63%
0.63%

0.68%
0.68%

0.52%
0.52%

0.90%
0.90%

01.75%
01.75%

High

18.48%
18.48%

17.25%
17.25%

14.77%
14.77%

11.83%
11.83%

14.18%
14.18%

08.32%
08.32%

High

0.09%
0.09%

0.05%
0.05%

0.06%
0.06%

0.02%
0.02%

0.09%
0.09%

0.03%
0.03%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 135

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-13: Summary of AVONDALE HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
AVONDALE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
4,580
$970,779

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
190
$112,339

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
42
$27,138
$1,110,256

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

9
4,572

$1,640
$969,138

2
188

$2,569
$109,770

1
42

$585
$26,554

$4,794
$1,105,462

20%
5%

$959
$55,273

High
Medium

0
4,577

$0
$970,618

0
190

$0
$112,338

0
42

$0
$27,138

$0
$1,110,094

25%
25%

$0
$277,524

High
Medium

0
0

$31
$0

0
0

$2
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$33
$0

20%
5%

$7
$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

518

$115,603

18

$10,036

2

$552

$126,191

20%

$25,238

High

1,133

$284,021

34

$22,976

6

$873

$307,870

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

AVONDALE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

100.0%
0.19%
99.81%

100.0%
0.17%
99.83%

100.0%
01.18%
98.82%

100.0%
02.29%
97.71%

100.0%
01.43%
98.57%

100.0%
02.15%
97.85%

High
Medium

99.93%
0.0%
99.93%

99.98%
0.0%
99.98%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.01%
0.01%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

11.32%
11.32%

11.91%
11.91%

09.52%
09.52%

08.93%
08.93%

05.07%
05.07%

02.03%
02.03%

High

24.74%
24.74%

29.26%
29.26%

17.76%
17.76%

20.45%
20.45%

14.21%
14.21%

03.22%
03.22%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 136

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-14: Summary of BUCKEYE HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
BUCKEYE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
1,609
$204,996

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
104
$63,794

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
27
$8,513
$277,303

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

67
1,542

$4,623
$200,373

11
93

$5,741
$57,991

2
24

$835
$7,679

$11,199
$266,042

20%
5%

$2,240
$13,302

High
Medium

0
1,502

$0
$188,721

0
86

$0
$55,896

0
22

$0
$6,779

$0
$251,397

25%
25%

$0
$62,849

High
Medium

1
0

$44
$0

2
0

$450
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$494
$0

20%
5%

$99
$0

High

35

$4,984

2

$575

1

$282

$5,841

25%

$1,460

High

11

$1,443

1

$725

0

$77

$2,246

20%

$449

High

116

$12,124

8

$3,285

2

$1,215

$16,625

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

BUCKEYE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

100.0%
04.14%
95.86%

100.0%
02.26%
97.74%

99.94%
10.42%
89.51%

99.90%
09.0%
90.90%

100.0%
08.93%
91.07%

100.0%
09.80%
90.20%

High
Medium

93.36%
0.0%
93.36%

92.06%
0.0%
92.06%

82.91%
0.0%
82.91%

87.62%
0.0%
87.62%

81.70%
0.0%
81.70%

79.63%
0.0%
79.63%

High
Medium

0.06%
0.06%
0.0%

0.02%
0.02%
0.0%

01.93%
01.93%
0.0%

0.71%
0.71%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

02.15%
02.15%

02.43%
02.43%

01.95%
01.95%

0.90%
0.90%

02.94%
02.94%

03.31%
03.31%

High

0.68%
0.68%

0.70%
0.70%

01.02%
01.02%

01.14%
01.14%

0.47%
0.47%

0.91%
0.91%

High

07.20%
07.20%

05.91%
05.91%

07.94%
07.94%

05.15%
05.15%

09.35%
09.35%

14.27%
14.27%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 137

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-15: Summary of CAREFREE HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
CAREFREE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
1,199
$364,026

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
48
$34,405

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
12
$4,672
$403,103

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

27
1,118

$7,646
$333,498

1
46

$823
$33,372

1
11

$197
$4,439

$8,667
$371,308

20%
5%

$1,733
$18,565

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

25%
25%

$0
$0

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

0

$56

0

$11

0

$0

$67

20%

$13

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

CAREFREE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

95.50%
02.24%
93.26%

93.71%
02.10%
91.61%

98.80%
02.34%
96.47%

99.39%
02.39%
97.0%

97.27%
04.82%
92.45%

99.23%
04.22%
95.01%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.02%
0.02%

0.02%
0.02%

0.02%
0.02%

0.03%
0.03%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 138

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-16: Summary of CAVE CREEK HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
CAVE CREEK (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
1,279
$235,535
84
$53,609

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
30
$12,638
$301,783

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

89
1,190

$17,519
$218,016

6
78

$5,265
$48,344

2
28

$881
$11,757

$23,665
$278,118

20%
5%

$4,733
$13,906

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

25%
25%

$0
$0

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
1

$0
$55

$0
$55

20%
5%

$0
$3

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

0

$1

0

$0

0

$0

$1

20%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

CAVE CREEK (Maricopa County) HAZUS % Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Flooding
High
Medium

100.0%
06.95%
93.05%

100.0%
07.44%
92.56%

100.0%
07.15%
92.85%

100.0%
09.82%
90.18%

100.0%
06.40%
93.60%

100.0%
06.97%
93.03%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

02.45%
0.0%
02.45%

0.44%
0.0%
0.44%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 139

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-17: Summary of CHANDLER HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
CHANDLER (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
27,825
$7,617,113

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
1,393
$1,183,011

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
378
$341,750
$9,141,874

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

564
27,260

$121,106
$7,496,006

14
1,380

$8,952
$1,174,058

4
375

$6,706
$335,045

$136,764
$9,005,109

20%
5%

$27,353
$450,255

High
Medium

2,056
22,988

$582,224
$6,328,712

61
1,156

$24,960
$953,442

18
295

$6,642
$207,184

$613,825
$7,489,338

25%
25%

$153,456
$1,872,334

High
Medium

0
1

$0
$213

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$214

20%
5%

$0
$11

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

268

$42,820

20

$20,086

5

$5,419

$68,326

20%

$13,665

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

CHANDLER (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

100.0%
02.03%
97.97%

100.0%
01.59%
98.41%

100.0%
01.0%
99.0%

100.0%
0.76%
99.24%

100.0%
01.01%
98.99%

100.0%
01.96%
98.04%

High
Medium

90.01%
07.39%
82.62%

90.73%
07.64%
83.09%

87.30%
04.35%
82.95%

82.70%
02.11%
80.59%

82.60%
04.74%
77.87%

62.57%
01.94%
60.62%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.96%
0.96%

0.56%
0.56%

01.45%
01.45%

01.70%
01.70%

01.26%
01.26%

01.59%
01.59%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 140

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-18: Summary of EL MIRAGE HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
EL MIRAGE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
1,612
$237,986

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
59
$40,473

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
25
$12,048
$290,507

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

109
1,504

$13,720
$224,266

3
55

$2,530
$37,943

2
23

$975
$11,073

$17,224
$273,282

20%
5%

$3,445
$13,664

High
Medium

0
1,612

$0
$237,986

0
59

$0
$40,473

0
25

$0
$12,048

$0
$290,507

25%
25%

$0
$72,627

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

$224,397

53

$36,925

22

$10,644

$271,966

25%

$67,991

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

20%

$0

$237,986

59

$40,473

25

$12,048

$290,507

%

$0

$7

0

$3

0

$0

$11

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
High

1,505

High

0

High

1,612

High

0

Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

EL MIRAGE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

100.0%
06.73%
93.27%

100.0%
05.77%
94.23%

100.0%
05.94%
94.06%

100.0%
06.25%
93.75%

100.0%
07.60%
92.40%

100.0%
08.09%
91.91%

High
Medium

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

93.35%
93.35%

94.29%
94.29%

90.26%
90.26%

91.23%
91.23%

88.75%
88.75%

88.35%
88.35%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.04%
0.04%

0.01%
0.01%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 141

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-19: Summary of FOUNTAIN HILLS HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
FOUNTAIN HILLS (Maricopa County)
Building
Potential
Building
Potential
HAZUS Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
4,089
$1,010,039
206
$126,112

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
65
$18,417
$1,154,569

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

176
3,912

$45,287
$964,477

8
198

$4,566
$121,478

2
62

$725
$17,687

$50,579
$1,103,642

20%
5%

$10,116
$55,182

High
Medium

0
392

$0
$98,446

0
14

$0
$6,417

0
5

$0
$1,656

$0
$106,518

25%
25%

$0
$26,630

High
Medium

0
1

$0
$154

0
0

$0
$18

0
0

$0
$6

$0
$177

20%
5%

$0
$9

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

20%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOUNTAIN HILLS (Maricopa County)
HAZUS Summary
Flooding

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

99.98%
04.31%
95.66%

99.97%
04.48%
95.49%

99.98%
04.02%
95.96%

99.95%
03.62%
96.33%

99.98%
03.59%
96.38%

99.97%
03.94%
96.03%

High
Medium

09.59%
0.0%
09.59%

09.75%
0.0%
09.75%

07.01%
0.0%
07.01%

05.09%
0.0%
05.09%

08.02%
0.0%
08.02%

08.99%
0.0%
08.99%

High
Medium

0.02%
0.0%
0.02%

0.02%
0.0%
0.02%

0.03%
0.0%
0.03%

0.01%
0.0%
0.01%

0.09%
0.0%
0.09%

0.03%
0.0%
0.03%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 142

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-20: Summary of FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION
Building
Potential
Building
Potential
(Maricopa County) HAZUS Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
138
$30,971
5
$3,717

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
0
$167
$34,855

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

12
126

$2,816
$28,153

1
4

$595
$3,119

0
0

$31
$137

$3,442
$31,409

20%
5%

$688
$1,570

High
Medium

0
46

$0
$8,914

0
1

$0
$361

0
0

$0
$1

$0
$9,276

25%
25%

$0
$2,319

High
Medium

6
2

$1,177
$633

0
0

$0
$83

0
0

$0
$4

$1,177
$720

20%
5%

$235
$36

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

20%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION % Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
(Maricopa County) HAZUS Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Flooding
High
Medium

100.0%
08.87%
91.13%

99.99%
09.09%
90.90%

99.87%
14.75%
85.13%

99.93%
16.01%
83.91%

99.94%
16.61%
83.33%

99.95%
18.30%
81.66%

High
Medium

33.23%
0.0%
33.23%

28.78%
0.0%
28.78%

19.12%
0.0%
19.12%

09.72%
0.0%
09.72%

0.33%
0.0%
0.33%

0.41%
0.0%
0.41%

High
Medium

06.16%
04.39%
01.78%

05.84%
03.80%
02.04%

01.12%
0.0%
01.12%

02.24%
0.0%
02.24%

02.57%
0.0%
02.57%

02.33%
0.0%
02.33%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 143

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-21: Summary of GILA BEND HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
GILA BEND (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
605
$49,862

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
10
$5,431

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
4
$1,468
$56,761

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

165
440

$12,603
$37,244

2
8

$1,630
$3,802

0
3

$41
$1,427

$14,273
$42,473

20%
5%

$2,855
$2,124

High
Medium

0
1

$0
$46

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$46

25%
25%

$0
$11

High
Medium

1
0

$26
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$26
$0

20%
5%

$5
$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

31

$2,222

2

$726

1

$242

$3,190

20%

$638

High

547

$40,977

8

$4,604

3

$1,220

$46,802

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

GILA BEND (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

99.89%
27.18%
72.71%

99.97%
25.27%
74.69%

100.0%
20.56%
79.44%

100.0%
30.01%
69.99%

100.0%
02.55%
97.45%

100.0%
02.79%
97.21%

High
Medium

0.24%
0.0%
0.24%

0.09%
0.0%
0.09%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High
Medium

0.13%
0.13%
0.0%

0.05%
0.05%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

05.19%
05.19%

04.46%
04.46%

20.0%
20.0%

13.37%
13.37%

18.45%
18.45%

16.50%
16.50%

High

90.33%
90.33%

82.18%
82.18%

81.90%
81.90%

84.77%
84.77%

75.23%
75.23%

83.14%
83.14%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 144

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-22: Summary of GILBERT HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
GILBERT (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
17,557
$4,870,721

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
1085
$786,313

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
300
$250,127
$5,907,161

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

482
17,075

$127,979
$4,742,730

61
1,024

$58,092
$728,220

18
282

$33,401
$216,726

$219,473
$5,687,675

20%
5%

$43,895
$284,384

High
Medium

14,160
197

$3,975,513
$43,807

851
29

$625,502
$15,754

227
11

$188,623
$7,515

$4,789,638
$67,075

25%
25%

$1,197,410
$16,769

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

High

97

$21,868

17

$7,423

5

$4,977

$34,268

25%

$8,567

High

106

$39,412

9

$8,674

2

$3,178

$51,264

20%

$10,253

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

High

3

$717

0

$27

0

$7

$751

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

GILBERT (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

100.0%
02.75%
97.25%

100.0%
02.63%
97.37%

100.0%
05.59%
94.41%

100.0%
07.39%
92.61%

100.0%
06.02%
93.98%

100.0%
13.35%
86.65%

High
Medium

81.77%
80.65%
01.12%

82.52%
81.62%
0.90%

81.22%
78.50%
02.72%

81.55%
79.55%
02.0%

79.38%
75.61%
03.77%

78.42%
75.41%
03.0%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.55%
0.55%

0.45%
0.45%

01.59%
01.59%

0.94%
0.94%

01.62%
01.62%

01.99%
01.99%

High

0.60%
0.60%

0.81%
0.81%

0.81%
0.81%

01.10%
01.10%

0.74%
0.74%

01.27%
01.27%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.02%
0.02%

0.01%
0.01%

0.01%
0.01%

0.0%
0.0%

0.01%
0.01%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 145

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-23: Summary of GLENDALE HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
GLENDALE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
32,571
$8,893,903

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
1,588
$1,324,304

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
467
$313,585
$10,531,793

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

467
32,098

$112,262
$8,779,234

21
1,565

High
Medium

0
13,392

$0
$3,815,400

0
695

High
Medium

0
0

$26,128
$1,297,913

7
460

$5,711
$307,874

$144,102
$10,385,022

20%
5%

$28,820
$519,251

$0
$672,751

0
174

$0
$83,746

$0
$4,571,897

25%
25%

$0
$1,142,974

Dam Failure

Wildfire
$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

Spillway
High

1,488

High

4

High

7,550

High

0

$474,122

105

$176,727

25

$11,414

$662,262

25%

$165,566

$753

10

$13,776

7

$14,792

$29,321

20%

$5,864

$2,076,542

349

$273,397

103

$56,386

$2,406,325

%

$0

$84

$259

%

$0

Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

GLENDALE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

$159

0

$16

0

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

99.98%
01.44%
98.55%

99.97%
01.26%
98.71%

99.95%
01.34%
98.61%

99.98%
01.97%
98.01%

100.0%
01.41%
98.59%

100.0%
01.82%
98.18%

High
Medium

41.12%
0.0%
41.12%

42.90%
0.0%
42.90%

43.78%
0.0%
43.78%

50.80%
0.0%
50.80%

37.31%
0.0%
37.31%

26.71%
0.0%
26.71%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

04.57%
04.57%

05.33%
05.33%

06.62%
06.62%

13.34%
13.34%

05.26%
05.26%

03.64%
03.64%

High

0.01%
0.01%

0.01%
0.01%

0.62%
0.62%

01.04%
01.04%

01.50%
01.50%

04.72%
04.72%

High

23.18%
23.18%

23.35%
23.35%

21.96%
21.96%

20.64%
20.64%

22.02%
22.02%

17.98%
17.98%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.03%
0.03%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 146

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-24: Summary of GOODYEAR HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
GOODYEAR (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
3,343
$826,747

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
219
$175,665

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
60
$68,724
$1,071,137

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

102
3,241

$28,918
$797,804

8
212

$9,061
$166,592

2
58

$3,411
$65,313

$41,390
$1,029,709

20%
5%

$8,278
$51,485

High
Medium

0
2,175

$0
$531,259

0
151

$0
$139,506

0
41

$0
$55,972

$0
$726,737

25%
25%

$0
$181,684

High
Medium

0
0

$4
$0

0
0

$2
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$6
$0

20%
5%

$1
$0

High

5

$562

0

$148

0

$138

$849

25%

$212

High

15

$1,534

1

$732

1

$143

$2,409

20%

$482

High

1,355

$111,463

23

$13,161

$466,224

%

$0

High

0

$2

0

$0

$40

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
$341,599

103

Fissure

GOODYEAR (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

$38

0

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

99.99%
03.05%
96.94%

100.0%
03.50%
96.50%

99.99%
03.45%
96.55%

99.99%
05.16%
94.83%

99.99%
02.96%
97.03%

100.0%
04.96%
95.04%

High
Medium

65.06%
0.0%
65.06%

64.26%
0.0%
64.26%

69.07%
0.0%
69.07%

79.42%
0.0%
79.42%

67.43%
0.0%
67.43%

81.44%
0.0%
81.44%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.15%
0.15%

0.07%
0.07%

0.19%
0.19%

0.08%
0.08%

0.44%
0.44%

0.20%
0.20%

High

0.44%
0.44%

0.19%
0.19%

0.61%
0.61%

0.42%
0.42%

0.84%
0.84%

0.21%
0.21%

High

40.54%
40.54%

41.32%
41.32%

47.11%
47.11%

63.45%
63.45%

38.26%
38.26%

19.15%
19.15%

High

0.01%
0.01%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 147

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-25: Summary of GUADALUPE HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
GUADALUPE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
655
$102,675
25
$18,215

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
1
$948
$121,838

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

43
613

$8,839
$93,836

1
24

$806
$17,408

0
1

$121
$827

$9,767
$112,071

20%
5%

$1,953
$5,604

High
Medium

0
105

$0
$18,398

0
8

$0
$5,827

0
0

$0
$661

$0
$24,887

25%
25%

$0
$6,222

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

20%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

GUADALUPE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

100.0%
06.50%
93.50%

100.0%
08.61%
91.39%

100.0%
04.74%
95.26%

100.0%
04.43%
95.57%

100.0%
06.26%
93.74%

100.0%
12.76%
87.24%

High
Medium

15.95%
0.0%
15.95%

17.92%
0.0%
17.92%

32.04%
0.0%
32.04%

31.99%
0.0%
31.99%

16.03%
0.0%
16.03%

69.74%
0.0%
69.74%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 148

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-26: Summary of LITCHFIELD PARK HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
LITCHFIELD PARK (Maricopa County)
Building
Potential
Building
Potential
HAZUS Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
586
$196,331
44
$31,908

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
11
$3,426
$231,665

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

4
582

$1,665
$194,666

0
44

$99
$31,808

0
11

$1
$3,425

$1,765
$229,900

20%
5%

$353
$11,495

High
Medium

0
586

$0
$196,331

0
44

$0
$31,908

0
11

$0
$3,426

$0
$231,665

25%
25%

$0
$57,916

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

20%

$0

High

586

$196,331

44

$31,908

11

$3,426

$231,665

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

LITCHFIELD PARK (Maricopa County)
HAZUS Summary
Flooding

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

100.0%
0.68%
99.32%

100.0%
0.85%
99.15%

100.0%
0.47%
99.53%

100.0%
0.31%
99.69%

100.0%
0.02%
99.98%

100.0%
0.02%
99.98%

High
Medium

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 149

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-27: Summary of UNINCORPORATED MARICOPA COUNTY HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
UNINCORPORTATED MARICOPA
Building
Potential
Building
Potential
COUNTY (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
56,609
$10,562,895
1,817
$1,347,631

2009

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
556
$286,840
$12,197,366

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

2,117
53,222

$359,716
$10,039,063

96
1,686

$53,584
$1,260,661

44
506

$20,366
$264,750

$433,665
$11,564,475

20%
5%

$86,733
$578,224

High
Medium

1,011
37,536

$267,178
$6,636,998

106
894

$52,279
$664,366

38
223

$28,866
$124,537

$348,323
$7,425,901

25%
25%

$87,081
$1,856,475

High
Medium

85
90

$15,356
$16,591

14
6

$14,845
$3,926

3
1

$2,872
$352

$33,073
$20,870

20%
5%

$6,615
$1,043

High

6,101

$942,314

158

$119,690

38

$23,195

$1,085,200

25%

$271,300

High

856

$145,590

29

$18,044

12

$8,216

$171,849

20%

$34,370

High

28,687

$4,932,033

658

$526,229

119

$65,832

$5,524,094

%

$0

High
100
$16,459
8
$3,615
5
$2,114
UNINCORPORTATED MARICOPA
COUNTY (Maricopa County) HAZUS
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

$22,188

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

Flooding
High
Medium

97.76%
03.74%
94.02%

98.45%
03.41%
95.04%

98.07%
05.26%
92.81%

97.52%
03.98%
93.55%

98.80%
07.87%
90.93%

99.40%
07.10%
92.30%

High
Medium

68.09%
01.79%
66.31%

65.36%
02.53%
62.83%

55.06%
05.86%
49.20%

53.18%
03.88%
49.30%

46.92%
06.79%
40.13%

53.48%
10.06%
43.42%

High
Medium

0.31%
0.15%
0.16%

0.30%
0.15%
0.16%

01.13%
0.80%
0.33%

01.39%
01.10%
0.29%

0.67%
0.45%
0.22%

01.12%
01.0%
0.12%

High

10.78%
10.78%

08.92%
08.92%

08.67%
08.67%

08.88%
08.88%

06.77%
06.77%

08.09%
08.09%

High

01.51%
01.51%

01.38%
01.38%

01.58%
01.58%

01.34%
01.34%

02.24%
02.24%

02.86%
02.86%

High

50.68%
50.68%

46.69%
46.69%

36.22%
36.22%

39.05%
39.05%

21.33%
21.33%

22.95%
22.95%

High

0.18%
0.18%

0.16%
0.16%

0.44%
0.44%

0.27%
0.27%

0.86%
0.86%

0.74%
0.74%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 150

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-28: Summary of MESA HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
MESA (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
70,114
$14,672,734

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
2,939
$2,716,664

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
855
$536,271
$17,925,668

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

488
67,774

$83,382
$14,100,820

34
2,822

High
Medium

1,952
19,323

$416,075
$3,818,458

118
715

High
Medium

0
0

$40,828
$2,636,326

6
820

$4,035
$521,179

$128,244
$17,258,325

20%
5%

$25,649
$862,916

$109,783
$789,765

41
183

$39,316
$106,105

$565,174
$4,714,328

25%
25%

$141,294
$1,178,582

Dam Failure

Wildfire
$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

$190,702

34

$17,213

$695,303

25%

$173,826

5

$4,414

3

$13,774

$18,744

20%

$3,749

Spillway
High

3,108

$487,388

148

High

3

High

4,411

$776,471

184

$97,619

52

$16,753

$890,843

%

$0

High

259

$27,030

3

$2,797

0

$9

$29,836

%

$0

Levee Failure
$556

Subsidence
Fissure

MESA (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

Flooding
High
Medium

97.36%
0.70%
96.66%

96.67%
0.57%
96.10%

97.18%
01.16%
96.02%

98.55%
01.50%
97.04%

96.57%
0.70%
95.87%

97.94%
0.75%
97.19%

High
Medium

30.34%
02.78%
27.56%

28.86%
02.84%
26.02%

28.32%
04.01%
24.32%

33.11%
04.04%
29.07%

26.10%
04.75%
21.35%

27.12%
07.33%
19.79%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

04.43%
04.43%

03.32%
03.32%

05.03%
05.03%

07.02%
07.02%

03.97%
03.97%

03.21%
03.21%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.16%
0.16%

0.16%
0.16%

0.40%
0.40%

02.57%
02.57%

High

06.29%
06.29%

05.29%
05.29%

06.25%
06.25%

03.59%
03.59%

06.14%
06.14%

03.12%
03.12%

High

0.37%
0.37%

0.18%
0.18%

0.11%
0.11%

0.10%
0.10%

0.01%
0.01%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 151

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-29: Summary of PARADISE VALLEY HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
PARADISE VALLEY (Maricopa County)
Building
Potential
Building
Potential
HAZUS Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
2,401
$1,017,857
159
$96,441

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
31
$13,349
$1,127,647

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

75
514

$32,664
$222,395

4
34

$1,733
$25,694

2
7

$503
$3,054

$34,900
$251,143

20%
5%

$6,980
$12,557

High
Medium

0
693

$0
$303,196

0
45

$0
$30,155

0
16

$0
$9,847

$0
$343,198

25%
25%

$0
$85,800

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

20%

$0

High

107

$46,915

11

$10,670

2

$383

$57,968

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

PARADISE VALLEY (Maricopa County)
HAZUS Summary
Flooding

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

24.56%
03.14%
21.42%

25.06%
03.21%
21.85%

23.90%
02.61%
21.29%

28.44%
01.80%
26.64%

28.24%
04.91%
23.33%

26.65%
03.77%
22.88%

High
Medium

28.86%
0.0%
28.86%

29.79%
0.0%
29.79%

28.21%
0.0%
28.21%

31.27%
0.0%
31.27%

51.10%
0.0%
51.10%

73.77%
0.0%
73.77%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

04.46%
04.46%

04.61%
04.61%

06.97%
06.97%

11.06%
11.06%

05.85%
05.85%

02.87%
02.87%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 152

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-30: Summary of PEORIA (Maricopa County) HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
PEORIA (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
17,798
$4,438,043
769
$604,653

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
257
$115,377
$5,158,074

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

97
17,418

$24,281
$4,343,796

6
753

$3,490
$598,776

6
252

$3,575
$111,814

$31,347
$5,054,386

20%
5%

$6,269
$252,719

High
Medium

0
12,399

$0
$3,052,813

0
526

$0
$445,942

0
153

$0
$56,932

$0
$3,555,686

25%
25%

$0
$888,922

High
Medium

0
0

Dam Failure

Wildfire
$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

Spillway
High

4,560

$1,134,538

206

$204,541

63

$20,280

$1,359,358

25%

$339,840

High

1,174

$190,464

33

$18,116

10

$2,793

$211,373

20%

$42,275

High

15,542

$3,859,978

614

$525,202

186

$86,244

$4,471,424

%

$0

High

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

PEORIA (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

$0

0

$0

0

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

98.41%
0.55%
97.86%

98.42%
0.55%
97.88%

98.80%
0.82%
97.98%

99.61%
0.58%
99.03%

100.02%
02.21%
97.81%

100.01%
03.10%
96.91%

High
Medium

69.66%
0.0%
69.66%

68.79%
0.0%
68.79%

68.45%
0.0%
68.45%

73.75%
0.0%
73.75%

59.40%
0.0%
59.40%

49.34%
0.0%
49.34%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

25.62%
25.62%

25.56%
25.56%

26.75%
26.75%

33.83%
33.83%

24.50%
24.50%

17.58%
17.58%

High

06.60%
06.60%

04.29%
04.29%

04.30%
04.30%

03.0%
03.0%

03.74%
03.74%

02.42%
02.42%

High

87.32%
87.32%

86.97%
86.97%

79.80%
79.80%

86.86%
86.86%

72.24%
72.24%

74.75%
74.75%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 153

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-31: Summary of PHOENIX HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
PHOENIX (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals 188,432
$49,106,193

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
11,334
$15,336,943

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
2,975
$3,217,141
$67,660,277

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

4,275
177,208

$1,184,608
$45,396,377

292
10,672

$332,441
$14,713,954

90
2,787

$132,119
$3,027,354

$1,649,168
$63,137,685

20%
5%

$329,834
$3,156,884

High
Medium

0
102,056

$0
$25,572,247

0
6,872

$0
$10,446,375

0
1,858

$0
$2,257,706

$0
$38,276,328

25%
25%

$0
$9,569,082

High
Medium

1
0

Dam Failure

Wildfire
$178
$0

0
0

$1
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$179
$0

20%
5%

$36
$0

Spillway
High

2,012

$576,117

96

$69,643

39

$25,564

$671,324

25%

$167,831

High

944

$218,464

43

$55,685

13

$11,271

$285,420

20%

$57,084

High

18,688

$1,020,088

323

$137,314

$6,478,721

%

$0

High

58

$108

$15,605

%

$0

Levee Failure
Subsidence
$5,321,319

1,187

Fissure

PHOENIX (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

$14,562

3

$936

0

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

96.31%
02.27%
94.04%

94.86%
02.41%
92.45%

96.74%
02.58%
94.16%

98.11%
02.17%
95.94%

96.71%
03.03%
93.68%

98.21%
04.11%
94.10%

High
Medium

54.16%
0.0%
54.16%

52.08%
0.0%
52.08%

60.63%
0.0%
60.63%

68.11%
0.0%
68.11%

62.44%
0.0%
62.44%

70.18%
0.0%
70.18%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

01.07%
01.07%

01.17%
01.17%

0.85%
0.85%

0.45%
0.45%

01.30%
01.30%

0.79%
0.79%

High

0.50%
0.50%

0.44%
0.44%

0.38%
0.38%

0.36%
0.36%

0.43%
0.43%

0.35%
0.35%

High

09.92%
09.92%

10.84%
10.84%

10.47%
10.47%

06.65%
06.65%

10.87%
10.87%

04.27%
04.27%

High

0.03%
0.03%

0.03%
0.03%

0.02%
0.02%

0.01%
0.01%

0.01%
0.01%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 154

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-32: Summary of QUEEN CREEK (Maricopa County) HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
QUEEN CREEK (Maricopa County) HAZUS Building
Potential
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
897
$163,548
56
$23,825

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
27
$10,037
$197,411

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

75
774

$12,161
$145,212

5
49

$1,623
$21,668

5
20

$2,262
$6,702

$16,046
$173,581

20%
5%

$3,209
$8,679

High
Medium

13
693

$2,833
$136,478

2
49

$882
$20,220

1
25

$352
$9,541

$4,067
$166,239

25%
25%

$1,017
$41,560

High
Medium

0
3

$0
$247

0
0

$0
$6

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$253

20%
5%

$0
$13

$137,971

51

$21,101

25

$9,873

$168,946

25%

$42,236

20%

$658

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
High

706

High

9

$2,360

1

$447

1

$481

$3,288

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

High

49

$5,882

0

$95

1

$83

$6,060

%

$0

Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

QUEEN CREEK (Maricopa County) HAZUS % Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Flooding
High
Medium

94.59%
08.35%
86.24%

96.22%
07.44%
88.79%

96.48%
08.36%
88.12%

97.76%
06.81%
90.94%

92.85%
19.29%
73.57%

89.31%
22.54%
66.77%

High
Medium

78.78%
01.49%
77.29%

85.18%
01.73%
83.45%

92.27%
03.49%
88.77%

88.57%
03.70%
84.87%

93.20%
02.58%
90.62%

98.57%
03.51%
95.06%

High
Medium

0.29%
0.0%
0.29%

0.15%
0.0%
0.15%

0.05%
0.0%
0.05%

0.02%
0.0%
0.02%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

78.76%
78.76%

84.36%
84.36%

92.26%
92.26%

88.57%
88.57%

92.70%
92.70%

98.36%
98.36%

High

01.02%
01.02%

01.44%
01.44%

0.98%
0.98%

01.88%
01.88%

02.63%
02.63%

04.79%
04.79%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

05.44%
05.44%

03.60%
03.60%

0.88%
0.88%

0.40%
0.40%

03.90%
03.90%

0.82%
0.82%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 155

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-33: Summary of SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN Building
Potential
Building
Potential
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCOMMUNITY (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
Community-Wide Totals
2,474
$375,496
108
$137,169
21
$56,720
$569,385

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

60
1,587

$15,249
$164,091

1
78

$1,623
$93,093

0
8

$1,609
$10,344

$18,482
$267,528

20%
5%

$3,696
$13,376

High
Medium

0
2,188

$0
$343,699

0
92

$0
$122,366

0
20

$0
$56,372

$0
$522,438

25%
25%

$0
$130,609

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

20%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure
SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN
COMMUNITY (Maricopa County) HAZUS % Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Flooding
High
Medium

66.57%
02.43%
64.14%

47.76%
04.06%
43.70%

73.62%
01.18%
72.44%

69.05%
01.18%
67.87%

38.62%
01.55%
37.07%

21.07%
02.84%
18.24%

High
Medium

88.45%
0.0%
88.45%

91.53%
0.0%
91.53%

85.34%
0.0%
85.34%

89.21%
0.0%
89.21%

95.89%
0.0%
95.89%

99.39%
0.0%
99.39%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 156

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-34: Summary of SCOTTSDALE HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
SCOTTSDALE (Maricopa County) HAZUS Building
Potential
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
37,830
$12,332,231
2,453
$3,369,182

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
616
$431,382
$16,132,795

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

3,041
20,067

$1,201,679
$6,953,353

173
1,368

$339,543
$1,696,669

39
358

$33,550
$286,435

$1,574,772
$8,936,457

20%
5%

$314,954
$446,823

High
Medium

0
19,639

$0
$6,045,462

0
1,198

$0
$1,615,333

0
324

$0
$273,751

$0
$7,934,546

25%
25%

$0
$1,983,636

High
Medium

0
4

$81
$1,871

0
0

$15
$101

0
0

$1
$17

$97
$1,989

20%
5%

$19
$99

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

129

$29,459

7

$2,355

2

$514

$32,327

20%

$6,465

High

6,157

$174,893

$3,385,628

%

$0

High

4

$0

$1,297

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
$2,340,395

489

$870,339

139

Fissure
$1,165

0

$132

0

% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
SCOTTSDALE (Maricopa County) HAZUS % Building
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Flooding
High
Medium

61.08%
08.04%
53.04%

66.13%
09.74%
56.38%

62.82%
07.04%
55.78%

60.44%
10.08%
50.36%

64.50%
06.33%
58.17%

74.18%
07.78%
66.40%

High
Medium

51.91%
0.0%
51.91%

49.02%
0.0%
49.02%

48.82%
0.0%
48.82%

47.94%
0.0%
47.94%

52.69%
0.0%
52.69%

63.46%
0.0%
63.46%

High
Medium

0.01%
0.0%
0.01%

0.02%
0.0%
0.02%

0.01%
0.0%
0.01%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.02%
0.0%
0.02%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.34%
0.34%

0.24%
0.24%

0.28%
0.28%

0.07%
0.07%

0.29%
0.29%

0.12%
0.12%

High

16.27%
16.27%

18.98%
18.98%

19.94%
19.94%

25.83%
25.83%

22.55%
22.55%

40.54%
40.54%

High

0.01%
0.01%

0.01%
0.01%

0.01%
0.01%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 157

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-35: Summary of SURPRISE HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
SURPRISE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
6,640
$1,320,656

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
173
$91,246

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
58
$28,956
$1,440,857

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

50
6,590

$4,545
$1,316,111

1
172

$602
$90,644

1
57

$770
$28,185

$5,918
$1,434,940

20%
5%

$1,184
$71,747

High
Medium

0
4,830

$0
$972,197

0
120

$0
$61,946

0
44

$0
$23,569

$0
$1,057,712

25%
25%

$0
$264,428

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$2

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$2

20%
5%

$0
$0

$78,378

42

$17,223

$1,115,252

25%

$278,813

$147

0

$57

$7,745

20%

$1,549

$89,464

52

$27,612

$1,398,040

%

$0

$10

0

$2

$134

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire
$0
$0

0
0

Spillway
High

4,487

High

36

High

6,381

High

1

$1,019,651

140

Levee Failure
$7,541

0

Subsidence
$1,280,964

170

Fissure

SURPRISE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

$122

0

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

100.0%
0.75%
99.25%

100.0%
0.34%
99.66%

100.0%
0.51%
99.49%

100.0%
0.66%
99.34%

100.0%
02.17%
97.83%

100.0%
02.66%
97.34%

High
Medium

72.74%
0.0%
72.74%

73.61%
0.0%
73.61%

69.22%
0.0%
69.22%

67.89%
0.0%
67.89%

74.98%
0.0%
74.98%

81.40%
0.0%
81.40%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

67.58%
67.58%

77.21%
77.21%

80.89%
80.89%

85.90%
85.90%

72.59%
72.59%

59.48%
59.48%

High

0.55%
0.55%

0.57%
0.57%

0.08%
0.08%

0.16%
0.16%

0.29%
0.29%

0.20%
0.20%

High

96.10%
96.10%

96.99%
96.99%

98.13%
98.13%

98.05%
98.05%

90.22%
90.22%

95.36%
95.36%

High

0.01%
0.01%

0.01%
0.01%

0.02%
0.02%

0.01%
0.01%

0.02%
0.02%

0.01%
0.01%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 158

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-36: Summary of TEMPE HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
TEMPE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
22,824
$6,813,557

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
1,594
$2,913,669

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
505
$1,150,565
$10,877,790

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

91
22,732

$28,062
$6,785,368

14
1,580

$78,933
$2,834,692

3
502

$5,113
$1,145,448

$112,108
$10,765,509

20%
5%

$22,422
$538,275

High
Medium

0
20,585

$0
$6,101,113

0
1,378

$0
$2,492,010

0
441

$0
$985,241

$0
$9,578,365

25%
25%

$0
$2,394,591

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$905

0

$1,373

$2,278

20%

$456

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

TEMPE (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

100.0%
0.40%
99.60%

100.0%
0.41%
99.59%

100.0%
0.88%
99.12%

100.0%
02.71%
97.29%

100.0%
0.64%
99.36%

100.0%
0.44%
99.56%

High
Medium

90.19%
0.0%
90.19%

89.54%
0.0%
89.54%

86.47%
0.0%
86.47%

85.53%
0.0%
85.53%

87.35%
0.0%
87.35%

85.63%
0.0%
85.63%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.03%
0.03%

0.03%
0.03%

0.06%
0.06%

0.12%
0.12%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 159

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table 5-37: Summary of TOLLESON HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
TOLLESON (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
937
$175,940

2009

COMMERCIAL
Building
Potential
Count
Economic Impact
66
$72,942

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
47
$234,671
$483,553

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

40
896

$8,394
$167,546

3
63

$6,995
$65,947

4
44

$8,084
$226,587

$23,473
$460,081

20%
5%

$4,695
$23,004

High
Medium

0
517

$0
$99,576

0
30

$0
$41,053

0
19

$0
$82,178

$0
$222,807

25%
25%

$0
$55,702

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

0

$0

4

$3,888

8

$62,760

$66,647

20%

$13,329

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

TOLLESON (Maricopa County) HAZUS
Summary
Flooding

% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact

High
Medium

100.0%
04.30%
95.70%

100.0%
04.77%
95.23%

100.0%
04.76%
95.24%

100.0%
09.59%
90.41%

100.0%
07.61%
92.39%

100.0%
03.44%
96.56%

High
Medium

55.20%
0.0%
55.20%

56.60%
0.0%
56.60%

44.77%
0.0%
44.77%

56.28%
0.0%
56.28%

41.03%
0.0%
41.03%

35.02%
0.0%
35.02%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

05.60%
05.60%

05.33%
05.33%

17.08%
17.08%

26.74%
26.74%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 160

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-38: Summary of WICKENBURG HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
WICKENBURG (Maricopa County) HAZUS Building
Potential
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
1,316
$172,575
83
$52,790

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
15
$12,713
$238,077

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

310
1,006

$44,201
$128,374

11
72

$8,961
$43,829

1
14

$1,267
$11,446

$54,429
$183,648

20%
5%

$10,886
$9,182

High
Medium

0
272

$0
$35,563

0
19

$0
$10,784

0
2

$0
$934

$0
$47,280

25%
25%

$0
$11,820

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

High

6

$512

0

$183

0

$149

$845

25%

$211

High

2

$320

0

$32

0

$4

$357

20%

$71

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
WICKENBURG (Maricopa County) HAZUS % Building
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Flooding
High
Medium

100.0%
23.55%
76.45%

100.0%
25.61%
74.39%

100.0%
13.46%
86.54%

100.0%
16.97%
83.03%

100.0%
08.02%
91.98%

100.0%
09.97%
90.03%

High
Medium

20.68%
0.0%
20.68%

20.61%
0.0%
20.61%

22.89%
0.0%
22.89%

20.43%
0.0%
20.43%

12.33%
0.0%
12.33%

07.35%
0.0%
07.35%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.49%
0.49%

0.30%
0.30%

0.31%
0.31%

0.35%
0.35%

01.80%
01.80%

01.17%
01.17%

High

0.15%
0.15%

0.19%
0.19%

0.08%
0.08%

0.06%
0.06%

0.14%
0.14%

0.03%
0.03%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 161

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-39: Summary of YOUNGTOWN HAZUS Building Exposure by hazard
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
YOUNGTOWN (Maricopa County) HAZUS Building
Potential
Building
Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Community-Wide Totals
871
$155,538
18
$9,761

INDUSTRIAL
SUMMARY
Building
Potential
Total of All
Loss-toCount
Economic Impact Economic Impact
Exposure
3
$725
$166,023

Total Estimated
Loss (x$1000)

Flooding
High
Medium

0
871

$0
$155,538

0
18

$0
$9,761

0
3

$0
$725

$0
$166,023

20%
5%

$0
$8,301

High
Medium

0
871

$0
$155,538

0
18

$0
$9,761

0
3

$0
$725

$0
$166,023

25%
25%

$0
$41,506

High
Medium

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

0
0

$0
$0

$0
$0

20%
5%

$0
$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

25%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

20%

$0

High

871

$155,538

18

$9,761

3

$725

$166,023

%

$0

High

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

%

$0

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

YOUNGTOWN (Maricopa County) HAZUS % Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
% Building
% Potential
Summary
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Count
Economic Impact
Flooding
High
Medium

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

High
Medium

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

High
Medium

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

High

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

100.0%
100.0%

High

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

Dam Failure

Wildfire

Spillway
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Fissure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 162

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-40: Summary of population sectors exposed to emergency spillway inundation

Community
County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gila River Indian Community
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Pinal County
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tohono O'odham Nation
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Total
Population

Population
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Exposed

Total
Population
Over 65

Population
Over 65
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Over 65
Exposed

1,522,083
15,613
3,906
1,375
2,002
86,421
3,400
8,759
309
1,010
1,091
54,901
118,654
10,967
2,558
1,350
104,385
189,697
5,769
49,884
657,658
6
2,831
6,306
92,034
13,387
80,802
156
3,085
2,093
1,675

53,424
0
71
0
0
0
3,365
0
0
0
0
163
5,258
14
0
0
9,853
5,951
0
11,470
6,002
0
2,320
0
0
8,948
0
0
0
9
0

3.51%
0.00%
1.81%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
98.96%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.30%
4.43%
0.12%
0.00%
0.00%
9.44%
3.14%
0.00%
22.99%
0.91%
0.00%
81.97%
0.00%
0.00%
66.84%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.45%
0.00%

180,521
855
342
455
246
5,156
213
1,750
17
81
48
1,834
9,169
921
125
291
43,659
25,867
868
6,555
54,037
0
145
1,086
15,440
3,460
6,138
11
316
547
887

11,271
0
5
0
0
0
211
0
0
0
0
7
159
0
0
0
4,418
1,462
0
2,506
311
0
113
0
0
2,078
0
0
0
3
0

6.24%
0.00%
1.35%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
99.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.39%
1.73%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
10.12%
5.65%
0.00%
38.22%
0.58%
0.00%
77.56%
0.00%
0.00%
60.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.51%
0.00%

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Total
Incomes
Under
$20K

Incomes
Under
$20K
Exposed

Percent of
Incomes
Under
$20K
Exposed

100,684
764
344
57
95
3,029
194
387
10
117
140
883
8,282
309
194
39
9,288
12,410
68
1,921
47,321
0
114
842
5,177
757
7,051
26
202
288
373

2,832
0
2
0
0
0
193
0
0
0
0
4
109
0
0
0
1,077
426
0
400
108
0
87
0
0
426
0
0
0
1
0

2.81%
0.00%
0.49%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
99.73%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.41%
1.31%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
11.59%
3.43%
0.00%
20.85%
0.23%
0.00%
76.23%
0.00%
0.00%
56.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.47%
0.00%

Page 163

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-41: Summary of population sectors exposed to dam failure

Community
County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gila River Indian Community
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Pinal County
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tohono O'odham Nation
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Total
Population
Over 65
HIGH

Population
Over 65
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Over 65
Exposed

Total
Incomes
Under
$20K

Incomes
Under
$20K
Exposed

Percent of
Incomes
Under $20K
Exposed

Total
Population

Population
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Exposed

1,522,083
15,613
3,906
1,375
2,002
86,421
3,400
8,759
309
1,010
1,091
54,901
118,654
10,967
2,558
1,350
104,385
189,697
5,769
49,884
657,658
6
2,831

57,873
0
0
0
0
5,980
0
0
0
0
0
44,383
0
0
0
0
2,985
4,484
0
0
0
0
41

3.80%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.92%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
80.84%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.86%
2.36%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.45%

180,521
855
342
455
246
5,156
213
1,750
17
81
48
1,834
9,169
921
125
291
43,659
25,867
868
6,555
54,037
0
145

2,310
0
0
0
0
270
0
0
0
0
0
1,429
0
0
0
0
139
470
0
0
0
0
2

1.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.23%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
77.91%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.32%
1.82%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.52%

100,684
764
344
57
95
3,029
194
387
10
117
140
883
8,282
309
194
39
9,288
12,410
68
1,921
47,321
0
114

1,023
0
0
0
0
134
0
0
0
0
0
723
0
0
0
0
24
142
0
0
0
0
1

1.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
81.83%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.25%
1.14%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.83%

6,306

0

0.00%

1,086

0

0.00%

842

0

0.00%

92,034
13,387
80,802
156
3,085
2,093
1,675

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

15,440
3,460
6,138
11
316
547
887

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

5,177
757
7,051
26
202
288
373

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 164

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-41: Summary of population sectors exposed to dam failure

Community
County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gila River Indian Community
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Pinal County
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tohono O'odham Nation
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Percent of
Total
Population
Population
Exposed
Over 65
MEDIUM
52.80%
180,521
99.97%
855
93.95%
342
0.00%
455
0.00%
246
85.48%
5,156
100.00%
213
10.25%
1,750
33.14%
17
0.06%
81
71.21%
48
0.79%
1,834
39.92%
9,169
52.65%
921
15.38%
125
100.00%
291
61.80%
43,659
25.58%
25,867
33.34%
868
67.19%
6,555
54.25%
54,037
0.00%
0
80.81%
145

Population
Over 65
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Over 65
Exposed

Total
Incomes
Under
$20K

Incomes
Under
$20K
Exposed

Percent of
Incomes
Under $20K
Exposed

106,770
855
328
0
0
4,135
213
172
0
0
34
20
3,665
707
18
291
34,308
7,474
188
5,334
29,870
0
110

59.15%
100.00%
95.93%
0.00%
0.00%
80.18%
100.00%
9.86%
2.58%
0.00%
71.16%
1.08%
39.97%
76.81%
14.51%
100.00%
78.58%
28.90%
21.63%
81.37%
55.28%
0.00%
75.78%

100,684
764
344
57
95
3,029
194
387
10
117
140
883
8,282
309
194
39
9,288
12,410
68
1,921
47,321
0
114

58,035
764
336
0
0
2,650
194
44
1
0
100
10
2,824
201
31
39
7,402
3,431
15
1,328
27,300
0
85

57.64%
100.00%
97.45%
0.00%
0.00%
87.50%
100.00%
11.43%
10.46%
0.00%
71.59%
1.08%
34.10%
65.08%
15.87%
100.00%
79.69%
27.64%
21.57%
69.16%
57.69%
0.00%
74.88%

Total
Population

Population
Exposed

1,522,083
15,613
3,906
1,375
2,002
86,421
3,400
8,759
309
1,010
1,091
54,901
118,654
10,967
2,558
1,350
104,385
189,697
5,769
49,884
657,658
6
2,831

803,661
15,609
3,670
0
0
73,872
3,400
898
103
1
777
433
47,363
5,774
393
1,350
64,515
48,515
1,923
33,516
356,803
0
2,287

6,306

5,370

85.16%

1,086

973

89.65%

842

739

87.74%

92,034
13,387
80,802
156
3,085
2,093
1,675

49,862
10,228
73,172
0
1,700
453
1,675

54.18%
76.40%
90.56%
0.00%
55.11%
21.64%
100.00%

15,440
3,460
6,138
11
316
547
887

8,711
2,463
5,729
0
176
106
887

56.42%
71.18%
93.33%
0.00%
55.84%
19.40%
100.00%

5,177
757
7,051
26
202
288
373

2,899
578
6,521
0
112
59
373

55.99%
76.34%
92.49%
0.00%
55.46%
20.50%
100.00%

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 165

93
89
£
¤
£
¤
93
£
¤

V
U
71

§
¦
¨
17

!
(
!
(

WICKENBURG

60
£
¤

#
*
!
(

V
U
74

£
¤

CAVE CREEK

V
U

60

74

PEORIA

!
(

§
¦
¨

!
(
!
(

17

!
(!
(

!
Z

GLENDALE

SURPRISE
BUCKEYE
MARICOPA COUNTY

EL MIRAGE

!
(

10

LITCHFIELD PARK

!
(

! ! U
V
! ( Z
! Z
H

§
¦
¨
10

303

85
£
¤
85
85
£
£
¤
¤

H
!!
(
!
(
Federal Dams

17

#
*
#
*
#
*

High*
Significant*
Low*

*Federal Rating

High
Significant
Low

Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

85
£
85 ¤
£
¤

V
U
V
U
V
U
51

51

51

!
(
AVONDALE

High, Safety Deficiency**
Significant, Safety Deficiency**

85
£
¤
85
£
¤

Low, Safety Deficiency**

High, Unsafe**

Maricopa County

! !

TOLLESON

60
£
¤
85
V
U

**ADWR Dam Safety Rating

Legend

! !

!
Z
!
Z
!
Z

V
U
85

GOODYEAR

Arizona Jurisdictional Dams

!
(
!
(
!
(
!
H

!
(

!
Z

§
¦
¨

!
Z(
!
(
!
(!
!
(

PHOENIX

Major Streams
Canals Washes

I

Dam Spillway Flood
Hazard Rating
High

0

40

80

160

Miles

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #1A
Maricopa County
Dam Spillway
Flood Hazard Map
as of May 2009

V
U
87

17

§
¦
¨

V
U
188

#
*
V
U
87

CAVE CREEK

#
*
!
(U
V
74

V
V U
U
74

74

PEORIA

!
(

17

§
¦
¨

60
£
¤

!
Z

V
U
87

188

!
(
!
((
!!
Z
!
(

!
Z(
!
(
!
(!
!
(

PHOENIX

60
£
¤
10

§
¦
¨
V
U
85

#
*

V V
U
V
U
V U
U
V
U
!
(
TEMPE
51

#
*

202
51

MESA

GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION

V
U
347

V
U
87

Mitigation Plan Extent

88

!
H
!
(
!
(

QUEEN CREEK

V
U
V
V U
U
587

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

60

Federal Dams

#
*

#
* High*
V
U
#
* Significant*
Low*
#
* U
V
79

79

87

*Federal Rating

!
H

I

Dam Spillway Flood
Hazard Rating
High

!
(!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
£
¤

V
U

60
60
£
£
¤
¤

CHANDLER

587

GOODYEAR

Maricopa County

288

(
!
( !

GILBERT

Legend

V
U

88
V
U

#
*

#
*
!
(
!
(

101

153

!
(

17

#
*

SALT RIVER-PIMA INDIAN RESERVATION

GUADALUPE

! !

#
*

FOUNTAIN HILLS

PARADISE VALLEY

! !

V
U

FT MCDOWELL INDIAN RESERVATION

60
£
¤

AVONDALE

288

SCOTTSDALE

!
(
!
(

!
(!
(
GLENDALE

V
U

#
*

CAREFREE

0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Arizona Jurisdictional Dams

!
(
!
(
!
(
!
H

60
£
¤

High
Significant
Low

!
Z High, Safety Deficiency**
!
Z Significant, Safety Deficiency**#
*
Low, Safety Deficiency**
!
ZU
V
177

High, Unsafe**

**ADWR Dam Safety Rating

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #1B
Maricopa County
Dam Spillway
Flood Hazard Map
as of May 2009

!
(
PHOENIX

85
£
¤

GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION
BUCKEYE

85
£
¤

GOODYEAR

85

£
¤

#
*

V
U
238

!
(
( !
V
U
347

GILA BEND

8

§
¦
¨

V
U
84

V
U
84

MARICOPA COUNTY

V
U
V
U
85

85

#
*
Federal Dams
17

#
*
#
*
#
*

High*
Significant*
Low*

*Federal Rating

Arizona Jurisdictional Dams

!
(
!
(
!
(
!
H

High
Significant
Low

Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

#
*

High, Safety Deficiency**
Significant, Safety Deficiency**
Low, Safety Deficiency**

High, Unsafe**

Maricopa County

! !

!
Z
!
Z
!
Z

**ADWR Dam Safety Rating

Legend

! !

TOHONO INDIAN RESERVATION

Major Streams
Canals Washes

I

Dam Spillway Flood
Hazard Rating
High

0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #1C
Maricopa County
Dam Spillway
Flood Hazard Map
as of May 2009

93
89
£
¤
£
¤
93
£
¤

V
U
71

17

§
¦
¨

!
(
!
(

WICKENBURG

60
£
¤

#
*
!
(

V
U
74

CAVE CREEK

60

£
¤

V
U
74

PEORIA

!
(

17

§
¦
¨

!
(
!
(

!
(!
(

!
Z

GLENDALE

SURPRISE
BUCKEYE
MARICOPA COUNTY

!
(

LITCHFIELD PARK

!
(

17

#
*
#
*
#
*

High*
Significant*
Low*

*Federal Rating

High
Significant
Low

Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

§
¦
¨

85
£
85 ¤
£
¤

85
£
¤
85
85
£
£
¤
¤

H
!!
(
!
(

TOLLESON

V
U
85

V
U
V
U
V
U
51

51

51

!
(
GOODYEAR

AVONDALE

High, Safety Deficiency**
Significant, Safety Deficiency**

85
£
¤
85
£
¤

Low, Safety Deficiency**

High, Unsafe**

Maricopa County

! !

303

60
£
¤

**ADWR Dam Safety Rating

Legend

! !

!
Z
!
Z
!
Z

( Z
V
! U
! !
! Z
H

10

Arizona Jurisdictional Dams

!
(
!
(
!
(
!
H

PHOENIX

!
(

!
Z

10

§
¦
¨

Federal Dams

!
Z(
!
(
!
(!
!
(

EL MIRAGE

Potential Dam Failure
Flood Hazard Rating

Major Streams

High

Canals Washes

Medium

I
0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #2A
Maricopa County
Potential Dam Failure
Flood Hazard Map
as of May 2009

V
U
87

17

§
¦
¨

V
U
188

#
*
CAVE CREEK

#
*
!
(U
V
74

PEORIA

!
(

74

74

74

17

§
¦
¨

74

288

!
Z

SCOTTSDALE

!
(
!
(

!
(!
(
GLENDALE
60
£
¤

VU
V
U

V
V U
U

V
U

#
*

CAREFREE

V
U
87

188

!
(
!
((
!!
Z
!
(

!
Z(
!
(
!
(!
!
(

87

60
£
¤
10

§
¦
¨
V
U
85

#
*
#
*

#
*

PARADISE VALLEY

V V
U
V
U
V U
U
V
U
!
(
TEMPE
51

202
51

MESA

202

88

GILBERT

87

347

347

!
H
!
(
!
(

QUEEN CREEK

587
587

Mitigation Plan Extent

87

! !

! !

! !

Major Streams

High

Canals Washes

Medium

Federal Dams

#
*

40

80

79

!
H

Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009

Arizona Jurisdictional Dams

#
* High*
!
(
V
U
Significant*
!
(
#
*
!
(
Low*
#
* U
V

*Federal Rating

I
0

60

79

GOODYEAR

Potential Dam Failure
Flood Hazard Rating

!
(!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
£
¤

V
U

87

101

202

(
!
( !

V
U

V CHANDLER
U
VU
U
V
GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
V U
U
V
U

Maricopa County

288

#
*

#
*
!
(
!
(

101

153

!
(

Legend

V
U

88
V
U

SALT RIVER-PIMA INDIAN RESERVATION

GUADALUPE

17

#
*

V
U

FOUNTAIN HILLS

PHOENIX

60
£
¤

TOLLESON

V
U

FT MCDOWELL INDIAN RESERVATION

MARICOPA
COUNTY

!
H

60
£
¤

High
Significant
Low

!
Z High, Safety Deficiency**
!
Z Significant, Safety Deficiency**#
*
Low, Safety Deficiency**
!
ZU
V
177

High, Unsafe**

**ADWR Dam Safety Rating

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #2B
Maricopa County
Potential Dam Failure
Flood Hazard Map
as of May 2009

!
(
PHOENIX

85
£
¤

GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION
BUCKEYE

85
£
¤

GOODYEAR

85

£
¤

#
*

V
U
238

!
(
( !
V
U
347

GILA BEND

8

§
¦
¨

V
U
84

V
U
84

MARICOPA COUNTY

V
U
V
U
85

85

#
*
Federal Dams
17

#
*
#
*
#
*

High*
Significant*
Low*

*Federal Rating

Arizona Jurisdictional Dams

!
(
!
(
!
(
!
H

High
Significant
Low

Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

#
*

High, Safety Deficiency**
Significant, Safety Deficiency**
Low, Safety Deficiency**

High, Unsafe**

Maricopa County

! !

!
Z
!
Z
!
Z

**ADWR Dam Safety Rating

Legend

! !

TOHONO INDIAN RESERVATION

Potential Dam Failure
Flood Hazard Rating

Major Streams

High

Canals Washes

Medium

I
0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #2C
Maricopa County
Potential Dam Failure
Flood Hazard Map
as of May 2009

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 166

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.3.2

2009

Drought
Description
Drought is a normal part of virtually every climate on the planet, including areas of high and
low rainfall. It is different from normal aridity, which is a permanent characteristic of the climate in
areas of low rainfall. Drought is the result of a natural decline in the expected precipitation over an
extended period of time, typically one or more seasons in length. The severity of drought can be
aggravated by other climatic factors, such as prolonged high winds and low relative humidity (FEMA,
1997).
Drought is a complex natural hazard which is reflected in the following four definitions
commonly used to describe it:
•

Meteorological – drought is defined solely on the degree of dryness, expressed as a departure of
actual precipitation from an expected average or normal amount based on monthly, seasonal, or
annual time scales.

•

Hydrological – drought is related to the effects of precipitation shortfalls on streamflows and
reservoir, lake, and groundwater levels.

•

Agricultural – drought is defined principally in terms of naturally occurring soil moisture
deficiencies relative to water demands of plant life, usually arid crops.

•

Socioeconomic – drought associates the supply and demand of economic goods or services with
elements of meteorological, hydrologic, and agricultural drought. Socioeconomic drought occurs
when the demand for water exceeds the supply as a result of weather-related supply shortfall. It
may also be called a water management drought.

A drought’s severity depends on numerous factors, including duration, intensity, and
geographic extent as well as regional water supply demands by humans and vegetation. Due to its
multi-dimensional nature, drought is difficult to define in exact terms and also poses difficulties in
terms of comprehensive risk assessments.
Drought differs from other natural hazards in three ways. First, the onset and end of a drought
are difficult to determine due to the slow accumulation and lingering effects of an event after its
apparent end. Second, the lack of an exact and universally accepted definition adds to the confusion of
its existence and severity. Third, in contrast with other natural hazards, the impact of drought is less
obvious and may be spread over a larger geographic area. These characteristics have hindered the
preparation of drought contingency or mitigation plans by many governments.
Droughts may cause a shortage of water for human and industrial consumption, hydroelectric
power, recreation, and navigation. Water quality may also decline and the number and severity of
wildfires may increase. Severe droughts may result in the loss of agricultural crops and forest products,
undernourished wildlife and livestock, lower land values, and higher unemployment.
History
Arizona has experienced 17 droughts declared as drought disasters/emergencies and 93
drought events (droughts affecting multiple years are recorded as a distinct event for each year
affected). Figures 5-1 and 5-2 depict the most recent precipitation data from NCDC regarding average
statewide precipitation variances from normal. Between 1849 and 1905, the most prolonged period of
drought conditions in 300 years occurred in Arizona (NOAA, 2003). Another prolonged drought
occurred during the period of 1941 to 1965, during which time there were no spill releases into the Salt
River (ADEM, 2001). The period from 1979-1983 appears to have been anomalously wet, while the
rest of the historical records shows that dry conditions are most likely the normal condition for
Arizona. Between 1998 and 2007, there have been more months with below normal precipitation than
months with above normal precipitation.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 167

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

12

2009

Arizona Statewide Precipitation
Annual Departure from 1971-2000 Normal (1895-2008)

10

Precipitation (in)

8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
1895
1898
1901
1904
1907
1910
1913
1916
1919
1922
1925
1928
1931
1934
1937
1940
1943
1946
1949
1952
1955
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006

-8

Year
Data from National Climatic Data Center / NESDIS / NOAA

Figure 5-1: Average statewide precipitation variances from a normal based on 1971-2000 period

Figure 5-2: Average statewide precipitation variances from a normal based on 1998-2009 period

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 168

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Maricopa County is currently in what appears to be the possible end of a drought cycle that
began in 1995. Drought conditions gradually worsened until 2003, with a brief period of relief
occurring during the period of winter 2004 to spring 2005. Each year after has resulted in less than
normal precipitation. Other noteworthy dates include 1951 and 1991, which are the only two times in
the Salt River Project's 100-year history that it has rationed water.
Compared to some areas of the State, Maricopa County and its surrounding communities are
less affected by drought due to the availability of supplies from the Central Arizona Project (CAP), the
Salt River Project (SRP), significant investments in recharge systems, and ground water sources
(Jacobs and Morehouse, June 11-13, 2003).
Probability and Magnitude
There are no commonly accepted return period or non-exceedance probability for defining the
risk from drought (such as the 100-year or 1 percent annual chance of flood). The magnitude of
drought is usually measured in time and the severity of the hydrologic deficit. There are several
resources available to evaluate drought status and even project very near future expected conditions.
The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Act of 2006 (Public Law 109430) prescribes an interagency approach for drought monitoring, forecasting, and early warning
(NIDIS, 2007). The NIDIS maintains the U.S. Drought Portal 42 which is a centralized, web-based
access point to several drought related resources including the U.S. Drought Monitor (USDM) and the
U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook (USSDO). The USDM, shown in Figure 5-3, is a weekly map
depicting the current status of drought and is developed and maintained by the National Drought
Mitigation Center. The USSDO , shown in Figure 5-4, is a six month projection of potential drought
conditions developed by the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center. The primary
indicators for these maps for the Western U.S. are the Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index and the 60month Palmer Z-index.. The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PSDI) is a commonly used index that
measures the severity of drought for agriculture and water resource management. It is calculated from
observed temperature and precipitation values and estimates soil moisture. However, the Palmer Index
is not considered to be consistent enough to characterize the risk of drought on a nationwide basis
(FEMA, 1997) and neither of the Palmer indices are well suited to the dry, mountainous western
United States.
In 2003, Governor Janet Napolitano created the Arizona Drought Task Force (ADTF), led by
ADWR, which developed a statewide drought plan. The plan includes criteria for determining both
short and long-term drought status for each of the 15 major watersheds in the state using assessments
that are based on precipitation and stream flow. The plan also provides the framework for an
interagency group which reports to the governor on drought status, in addition to local drought impact
groups in each county and the State Drought Monitoring Technical Committee. Twice a year this
interagency group reports to the governor on the drought status and the potential need for drought
declarations. The counties use the monthly drought status reports to implement drought actions within
their drought plans. The State Drought Monitoring Technical Committee uses the Standardized
Precipitation Index (SPI) for the short-term drought status and a combination of the SPI and
streamflow for the long-term drought status. Figures 5-5 and 5-6, present the most current short and
long term maps available as of the writing of this plan.
Each of the four maps show general agreement and indicate that portions of Maricopa County
currently remain in a drought condition with abnormally dry conditions and no expected improvement
or worsening over the next six months.

42

NIDIS U.S. Drought Portal website is located at: http://www.drought.gov/portal/server.pt/community/drought.gov/202

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 169

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 5-3: U.S. Drought Monitor Map for July 21, 2009

Figure 5-4: U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook, July to October 2009

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 170

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 5-5: Arizona short term drought status map for February 2009

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 171

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 5-6: Arizona long term drought status map for January 2009

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 172

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

When attempting to evaluate the probability and magnitude of drought in Maricopa County, it
is helpful to remember that potable water in Maricopa County is derived from both surface water and
groundwater. Surface water to Maricopa County users comes from two sources, the Colorado River,
(through the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal), and in-state rivers (including streams and lakes).
This surface water is a major renewable resource for the county, but can vary dramatically between
years, seasons, and locations due to the state’s desert climate. In order to lessen the impact of such
variations, water storage reservoirs and delivery systems have been constructed throughout the county,
the largest of which are located on the Salt River, Verde River, Gila River, and Agua Fria River.
The other major source of water for Maricopa County is groundwater. This water has been
pumped out of large subsurface natural reservoirs known as aquifers. While a significant supply of
water remains stored in the aquifers, groundwater has historically been pumped out much more rapidly
than it can be replenished through natural recharge, and has lead to a condition known as overdraft. In
1980, Arizona implemented the Groundwater Management Code in order to promote conservation and
long-range planning of water resources, including reducing reliance on groundwater supplies. Active
Management Areas (AMAs) were formed based on groundwater basin areas and Maricopa County is
mostly covered under the Phoenix AMA.
Reclaimed water, or effluent, is the only increasing source of water in the county, although it
constitutes only a small amount of the overall water used. As the regional population grows; however,
increasing amounts of reclaimed water will be available for agricultural, golf course, and landscape
irrigation, as well as industrial cooling, and maintenance of wildlife areas.
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Drought CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-42 below.
Table 5-42: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for drought
Magnitude/
Participating Jurisdiction
Probability
Severity
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Possibly
Unlikely
Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Unlikely
Possibly
Highly Likely
Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Possibly
Likely
Highly Likely
Possibly
Possibly
Highly Likely
Possibly
Highly Likely
Likely

Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
Critical
Limited
Limited
Negligible
Limited
Negligible
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Limited
Critical
Critical
Limited
Limited
Limited
Negligible
Limited
Limited
Critical
Critical
Critical

Warning
Time

Duration

>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
12-24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
<24 hours
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
<1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
County-wide average CPRI =

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

CPRI
Score
2.50
2.50
2.95
2.75
2.95
3.25
2.50
2.05
1.75
2.50
2.20
2.95
1.45
1.75
2.65
2.50
2.40
3.25
3.25
2.05
2.50
2.95
1.75
2.05
2.95
2.35
3.25
2.80
2.53

Page 173

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Vulnerability – Loss Estimations
No standardized methodology exists for estimating losses due to drought and drought does not
generally have a direct impact on critical and non-critical facilities and building stock. A direct
correlation to loss of human life due to drought is improbable for Maricopa County. Instead, drought
vulnerability is primarily measured by its potential impact to certain sectors of the County economy
and natural resources include the following:
•

Crop and livestock agriculture

•

Municipal and industrial water supply

•

Recreation/tourism

•

Wildlife and wildlife habitat

Sustained drought conditions will also have secondary impacts to other hazards such as
fissures, flooding, subsidence and wildfire. Extended drought may weaken and dry the grasses, shrubs,
and trees of wildfire areas, making them more susceptible to ignition. Drought also tends to reduce the
vegetative cover in watersheds, and hence decrease the interception of rainfall and increase the
flooding hazard. Subsidence and fissure conditions are aggravated when lean surface water supplies
force the pumping of more groundwater to supply the demand without the benefit of recharge from
normal rainfall.
From 1995 to 2006, Maricopa County farmers and ranchers received over $11.4 million in
disaster related assistance funding from the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) for crop and
livestock damages. Over $8.7 million of those funds were received from 1999 to 2003, which
corresponds to the most severe period of the current drought cycle. According to the USDA, 35 to 55
percent of the disaster assistance money (USDA, 2004), in the last 10 years (1994-2004) can be
attributed to drought related losses. Accordingly, at least $5-6 million of these losses are likely drought
related and $4-5 million occurred in the span of 4 years. It is therefore realistic to expect at least $1-2
million in agriculture related drought losses in a given year of severe drought conditions. Other direct
costs such as increased pumping costs due to lowering of groundwater levels and costs to expand water
infrastructure to compensate for reduced yields or to develop alternative water sources, are a
significant factor but very difficult estimate due to a lack of documentation. There are also the
intangible costs associated with lost tourism revenues, and impacts to wildlife habitat and animals.
Typically, these impacts are translated into the general economy in the form of higher food and
agricultural goods prices and increase utility costs.
Vulnerability – Development Trends
Population growth in Maricopa County will also require additional water to meet the thirsty
demands of potable, landscape, and industrial uses. All new residential, commercial, and/or industrial
developments within the County that are comprised of 6 or more parcels and at least one parcel less
than 36 acres in size, are required to demonstrate an Assured and Adequate Water Supply, as
administered by ADWR. All water service providers operating within the Phoenix AMA are required
to comply with this requirement. The ADTF is also working cooperatively with water providers within
the State to develop System Water Plans that are comprised of three components:
•

Water Supply Plan – describes the service area, transmission facilities, monthly system
production data, historic demand for the past five years, and projected demands for the
next five, 10 and 20 years.

•

Drought Preparedness Plan – includes drought and emergency response strategies, a plan
of action to respond to water shortage conditions, and provisions to educate and inform
the public.

•

Water Conservation Plan – addresses measures to control lost and unaccounted for water,
considers water rate structures that encourage efficient use of water, and plans for public
information and education programs on water conservation.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 174

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

The combination of these requirements will work to ensure that future development in
Maricopa County will address of recognize drought.
Sources
Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2009,
http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/SurfaceWater/DamSafety/default.htm
Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2001, Arizona's Plan to Mitigate Hazards – Draft.
Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2009, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan,
2010 Update, DRAFT.
Federal Emergency Management Agency,1997, Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – A
Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy.
Jacobs, Katharine and Morehouse, Barbara. June 11-13, 2003. “Improved Drought Planning for
Arizona,” from Conference on Water, Climate, and Uncertainty: Implications for Western Water
Law, Policy and Management
http://www.water.az.gov/gdtf/content/files/06262003/Improved_Drought_Planning_for_AZ_617.pdf
National Integrated Drought Information System, 2007, National Integrated Drought Information
System Implementation Plan, NOAA.
URS, 2004, Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Plan
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004, News Release No. fs0199.04,
http://www.usda.gov/Newsroom/fs0199.04.html
Profile Maps
No profile maps are provided.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 175

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 176

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.3.3

2009

Extreme Heat
Description
Extreme Heat is the combination of very high temperatures and exceptionally humid
conditions that exceed regionally based indices for perceived risk. The major human risks associated
with extreme heat are as follows:
•

Heat Cramps: May occur in people unaccustomed to exercising in the heat and generally
ceases to be a problem after acclimatization.

•

Heat Syncope: This refers to sudden loss of consciousness and is typically associated
with people exercising who are not acclimated to warm temperatures. Causes little or no
harm to the individual.

•

Heat Exhaustion: While much less serious than heatstroke, heat exhaustion victims may
complain of dizziness, weakness, or fatigue. Body temperatures may be normal or
slightly to moderately elevated. The prognosis is usually good with fluid treatment.

•

Heatstroke: Considered a medical emergency, heatstroke is often fatal. It occurs when the
body’s responses to heat stress are insufficient to prevent a substantial rise in the body’s
core temperature. While no standard diagnosis exists, a medical heatstroke condition is
usually diagnosed when the body’s temperature exceeds 105°F due to environmental
temperatures. Rapid cooling is necessary to prevent death, with an average fatality rate of
15 percent even with treatment.

In addition to affecting people, extreme heat places significant stress on plants and animals
leading to reduced agricultural yields and increased mortality rates.
History
For the period of 1992 to 2008, there were 537 deaths attributed to excessive natural heat in
Maricopa County, with 80 and 85 of those deaths occurring in 2005 and 2006, respectively (Mrela,
C.K., 2004 and MCDPH, 2009). The overwhelming majority of those deaths occurred during the hot
summer months of June, July and August. Figure 5-7 is an excerpt from the Maricopa County
Department of Public Health (MCDPH) report showing the distribution of deaths for 2008.
Probability/Magnitude
There are no recurrence or non-exceedance probabilities developed for extreme heat events in
Maricopa County. The National Weather Service (NWS) Warning and Forecast Office (WFO) in
Phoenix, with the technical support of the University of Maryland, designed a science-based,
customized, extreme heat derivation technique developed specifically for the Phoenix metropolitan
region. During Arizona’s hottest months, the NWS WFO in Phoenix issues three types of heat-related
messages, which are based on four factors – temperature, humidity, amount of cloudiness, and the
expected duration of these conditions. The combination of factors that will trigger one of these heatrelated messages varies according to the time of year. For example, a combination of factors that
would result in an excessive heat warning in early May might not result in one in mid-July. The three
NWS WFO products are:
a.

Heat Advisory – issued when the temperature is forecast to be unusually hot but not lifethreatening.

b.

Excessive Heat Watch – issued when conditions are likely to result in a life-threatening heat
emergency within the next 24 to 48 hours.

c.

Excessive Heat Warning – issued when a life-threatening heat emergency exists or is
imminent.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 177

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Note that this graph indicates two separate vertical scales, the left indicating temperature along the continual grid lines and
the right indicating number of deaths as noted by separate much smaller hash marks.

Figure 5-7: 2008 heat caused/related deaths by temperature and date
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 178

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

These products are intended to raise the public’s awareness to prevent heat illnesses from
occurring. When the NWS WFO Phoenix issues one of its heat products, it should serve as a signal that
on that day outdoor activities are not “business as usual.”. If significantly hot weather is forecast, the
NWS WFO Phoenix will issue an Excessive Heat Watch generally two to three days in advance. An
Excessive Heat Watch is a way to give the public and emergency officials a “heads up” that extreme
temperatures are expected. If significantly hot temperatures remain in the forecast for today or
tomorrow, the Excessive Heat Watch will be upgraded to an Excessive Heat Warning, indicating that
extreme heat has either arrived or is expected shortly (NWS-WFO Phoenix, 2009). Figure 5-8 shows a
table of maximum and minimum excessive heat threshold values determined for the Phoenix
metropolitan area and published by the NWS WFO Phoenix office.

Figure 5-8: Phoenix excessive heat watch/warning criteria
Another indicator of the degree of danger associated with extreme heat is the Heat Index (HI)
or the "Apparent Temperature". According the NWS, the HI is an accurate measure of how hot it
really feels when the Relative Humidity (RH) is added to the actual air temperature. Figure 5-9 is a
quick reference published by the NWS that shows the HI based on current temperature and relative
humidity, and levels of danger for HI values.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 179

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 5-9: NWS Heat Index chart
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 180

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Extreme Heat CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-43 below.
Table 5-43: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for extreme heat
Magnitude/
Warning
Participating Jurisdiction
Probability
Severity
Time
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Likely
Possibly
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Possibly
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely

Critical
Limited
Critical
Limited
Critical
Critical
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
Critical
Limited
Negligible
Limited
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Negligible
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
Critical
Limited
Critical
Critical
Critical

Duration

>24 hours
>1 week
12-24 hours
>1 week
12-24 hours
<6 hours
12-24 hours
<24 hours
>24 hours
<1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
12-24 hours
<1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
>1 week
12-24 hours
<1 week
12-24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
<1 week
<6 hours
<24 hours
12-24 hours
>1 week
12-24 hours
<1 week
>24 hours
<1 week
>24 hours
<1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
12-24 hours
<1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
<1 week
12-24 hours
<6 hours
12-24 hours
<24 hours
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
<1 week
12-24 hours
<1 week
12-24 hours
<1 week
County-wide average CPRI =

CPRI
Score
2.80
3.10
3.30
2.90
3.15
3.25
2.55
2.50
2.50
3.00
3.40
2.85
2.30
3.10
3.30
2.70
3.15
3.25
2.35
2.55
2.95
2.85
2.35
2.75
2.95
2.70
3.30
3.30
2.90

Vulnerability – Loss Estimations
Losses due to extreme heat primarily occur in the form of death and illness. According to the
MCDPH 2009 report, heat death statistics for Maricopa County for the year of 2006, 2007, and 2008
are summarized as follows:

Preliminary epidemiological studies by MCDPH bring to light a number of interesting
potential variables at play in heat-caused and heat-related deaths. One noteworthy trend is how the
deaths for 2008 track with high overnight temperatures as illustrated in Figure 5-7. Another variable
indicating increased vulnerability, is the number of deaths as they relate to age and gender, as shown in
Figure 5-10.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 181

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Figure 5-10: Heat caused/related deaths by age and gender for Maricopa County in 2008
There are currently no statistical analyses for projecting heat related deaths in Maricopa
County, however, MCDPH continues to track data and monitor the above mentioned trends and other
factors to determine if a statistical significance exists. Past history would indicate that multiple deaths
due to extreme heat are highly likely.
Vulnerability – Development Trends
In a metropolitan area, paved surfaces typically absorb and retain the heat of the day and then
slowly release that heat back into the atmosphere through the night. When large areas are paved, the
metropolitan area will develop an "urban heat island" effect, wherein temperatures in the center of the
metropolitan area become much warmer than those on the outskirts of the valley due to the storage of
heat during the day.
The metropolitan area of Maricopa County has grown dramatically in size over the last two
decades, transforming a significant portion of the once natural desert and/or agricultural farm lands,
into concrete and asphalt paved streets, roofs, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, and other
hardscapes. The result has been an intensification of the urban heat island effect and a steady increase
in the nighttime low temperature. The impacts of this expansion include increased cooling costs and
greater demand on power resources. According to the Arizona Republic, the Salt River Project
estimates that for every degree increase in temperature, the utility's 610,000 residential customers pay
$3.2 million to $3.8 million extra per month in cooling costs, or about $5 to $7 per customer per month
(Az Republic, 1998).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 182

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Sources
Arizona Department of Health Services, 2004, Prevention Bulletion, Volume 18, No. 4,
http://www.azdhs.gov/diro/pio/preventionbulletin/july04.pdf
Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2009, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan,
2010 Update, DRAFT.
Arizona Republic, Yozwiak, Steve, 1998, ‘Island' Sizzle; Growth May Make Valley An Increasingly
Hot Spot
East Valley Tribune, 2009,
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AZ_DEHYDRATED_TEEN_AZOL?SITE=AZMES&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Federal Emergency Management Agency,1997, Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – A
Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy.
Maricopa County Department of Public Health, Division of Disease Control, Office of Epidemiology
and Data Services, 2009, Heat Caused and Heat Related Death Occurrences in Maricopa County,
http://www.maricopa.gov/Public_Health/EPI/pdf/heat/2008annualreport.pdf
Mrela, C. K., 2004, Deaths from Exposure to Excessive Natural Heat Occurring in Arizona, 19922002, Arizona Department of Health Services, http://www.azdhs.gov/plan/report/heat/heat02.pdf
National Weather Service, Warning and Forecast Office – Phoenix, 2009,
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/psr/general/safety/heat/
URS, 2004, Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Profile Maps
No profile maps are provided.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 183

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

THIS PAGE INTIENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 184

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.3.4

2009

Fissure
Description
Earth fissures are linear cracks, seams, or separations in the ground that extend from the
groundwater table and are caused by tensional forces related to differential land subsidence. In many
cases, fissures form as a direct result of subsidence caused by groundwater depletion. The surface
expression of fissures ranges from less than a yard to several miles long and from less than an inch to
tens of feet wide. The longest fissure is in Pinal County, near Picacho, and is over 10 miles long. Earth
fissures occur at the edges of basins, usually parallel to mountain fronts, or above local bedrock highs
in the subsurface, and typically cut across natural drainage patterns. Fissures can alter flood patterns,
break buried pipes and lines, cause infrastructure to collapse, provide a direct conduit to the
groundwater table for contaminants, and even pose a life safety hazard for both humans and animals.
History
In Arizona, fissures were first noted near Picacho in 1927. The number of fissures has
increased dramatically since the 1950s because of groundwater depletion, first because of agriculture,
and later, because of exponential population growth. The risk posed by fissures is also increasing as the
population expands into the outlying basin edges and mountain fronts. Several fissure case histories
for the Maricopa County area are summarized below.
•

•

•

•

San Tan Mountains, Maricopa and Pinal Counties
o

Foothills—undermining at least one home, and crossing several roads; dogs trapped
in flash flood flowing through the fissure in 2007

o

Y-crack—crosses the Hunt Highway and San Tan Boulevard east of Sossaman Road;
present at least by 1969; catastrophically re-opened from 195th Street and Happy
Road to San Tan in 2005 and again in 2007, damaging roads, corrals, fences,
driveways, stranding and trapping vehicles, and killing a horse

Apache Junction/East Mesa, Maricopa County
o

Baseline and Meridian—fissure crosses diagonally under the intersection, fissure
zone over one mile long

o

Ironwood and Guadalupe—industrial facilities built on top of several fissures in the
area; fissures stop immediately east of subdivision; fissures crossing powerlines

Mesa, Maricopa County
o

Loop 202 (Red Mountain Freeway)—fissure present at least since 1970s; attempted
mitigation during construction cost $200,000

o

Sossamon Road and University Drive—fissure runs diagonally through a subdivision
along the entrance; fissure known in 1973 and subsequently backfilled

Wintersburg, Maricopa County
o

•

•

Fissure runs perpendicular to power transmission lines near Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station; made one road impassable

Scottsdale, Maricopa County
o

CAP Canal—fissure paralleling the canal opened within a few feet of the lining on
the east side in 2003

o

40th St and Cholla—discovered in 1980s

Flood retarding structures, Maricopa and Pinal Counties
o

McMicken Dam, White Tank Mountains—dam had to be removed and replaced;
cost several million dollars
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 185

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
o

2009

Powerline FRS, Apache Junction—fissure just discovered within 1200 feet of the
FRS; Flood Control District examining mitigation options

Probability/Magnitude
There are no methods of quantifiably predicting the probability and magnitude of earth
fissures. The locations of potential fissures or extension of existing fissures may be predictable in
specific areas if enough information about the subsurface material properties and groundwater levels
are available. It is a fair assurance that continued groundwater depletion will result in more fissures.
The magnitude of existing and new fissures is dependent upon several variables including the depth to
groundwater, type and depth of surficial material present, amount and rate of groundwater depletion,
groundwater basin depth, depth to bedrock, volume and rate of runoff due to precipitation entering the
fissure, and human intervention.
The Arizona Geological Survey has mapped known and suspected fissure lineaments for
certain areas of the County, with the latest update of GIS data having a version date of June 22, 2009.
In order to estimate the areas of immediate risk, the MJPT chose to use create polygons that represent a
500-foot buffer along the mapped fissures and assign a HIGH hazard risk to areas within the buffered
zone. These areas are indicated on Maps 3A, 3B, and 3C.
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Fissure CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-44 below.
Table 5-44: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for fissure hazard
Magnitude/
Warning
Participating Jurisdiction
Probability
Severity
Time
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Likely
Likely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Likely
Highly Likely
Unlikely
Possibly
Unlikely
Possibly
Likely
Possibly
Possibly
Possibly
Possibly
Unlikely
Likely
Unlikely

Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Limited
Negligible
Limited
Limited

Duration

<6 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
<24 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
>1 week
6-12 hours
<24 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
>1 week
12-24 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
<1 week
<6 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
County-wide average CPRI =

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

CPRI
Score
2.20
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.10
2.50
1.40
1.00
2.20
2.35
1.45
1.45
1.45
2.95
3.10
1.65
2.50
1.45
1.90
2.50
1.75
1.90
2.20
2.05
1.30
2.50
1.60
1.81

Page 186

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Vulnerability – Loss Estimations
The Arizona Land Subsidence Group (ALSG) prepared a white paper in 2007 (ASLG, 2007)
that summarizes fissure risk and various case studies. The following table is an excerpt from that
report listing various types of damages that either have or could occur as a result of fissures:

Historic losses in Maricopa County due to fissures are mostly minor losses associated with
damaged utilities, fences and dirt/gravel roads and driveways. The exception was the death of a horse
in the Town of Queen Creek’s Planning Area when a fissure opened up and engulfed the animal during
a July 2007 storm. It is therefore very difficult to estimate economic losses due to a lack of an
established methodology. Potential exposure of human and facility assets to high hazard fissure zones
will be estimated instead, and no estimation of economic losses will be made. Table 5-45 summarizes
the MJPT defined critical and non-critical facilities potentially exposed to a high hazard fissure zone.
Table 5-46 summarizes population sectors exposed to the high hazard fissure zones. HAZUS
residential, commercial and industrial exposures to high hazard fissure zones are summarized in Tables
5-12 through 5-39.
In summary, $27.4 million in critical and non-critical MJPT identified assets are exposed to
high hazard fissure zones County-wide. An additional $76.2 million of HAZUS defined residential,
commercial, and industrial facilities for all participating jurisdictions are exposed to a high hazard
fissure zone. Regarding human vulnerability, a total population of 834 people, or 0.05% of the total
2000 Maricopa County population, is potentially exposed to a high hazard fissure zone. The potential
for death and/or injury is possible, although no occurrences have been documented to-date. Short and
long-term displacement are also likely should structures become damaged.
Vulnerability – Development Trends
Earth fissures have been part of the landscape of southern and south central Arizona for at
least the past seventy years (ALSG, 2007). As the communities of Maricopa County grow, it is
inevitable that expansion into agricultural and undeveloped desert lands will occur, bringing the urban
interface into more and more intersection with the geologic hazards related to fissures. The AZGS and
State are working to provided better reporting and disclosure of fissure hazards, and county and local
officials are becoming more aware of the dangers of not addressing the them with development.
Sources
Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2009, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan,
2010 Update, DRAFT.
Arizona Geological Survey, 2009, Webpage entitled: Arizona’s Earth Fissure Center,
http://www.azgs.az.gov/EFC.shtml
Arizona Land Subsidence Group, 2007. Land subsidence and earth fissures in Arizona: Research and
informational needs for effective risk management, white paper, Tempe, AZ, .
http://www.azgs.az.gov/Earth%20Fissures/CR-07-C.pdf
URS, 2004, Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Profile Maps
Map 3A, 3B, and 3C – Earth Fissure Hazard Map(s)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 187

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-45: Summary of asset inventory exposure to high hazard fissure zones
Estimated
Structure Loss
(x $1000)

Community

Total Facilities
Reported by
Community

Impacted
Facilities

Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted

Percentage of Total
County-wide Facilities
Impacted

Estimated
Replacement Cost
(x $1000)

County-Wide Totals

5,179

9

0.17%

100.00%

$27,436

$0

Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project 43
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

61
77
6
39
226
34
15
18
7
694
1,205
93
6
5
447
613
69
225
913
117
21
511
114
37
111
10
11
5

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.14%
0.25%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.67%
0.16%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.85%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
11.11%
33.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
33.33%
11.11%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
11.11%
0.00%
N/A
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,000
$11,771
$0
$0
$0
$465
$200
$0
$0
$0
$4,000
$0
N/A
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
N/A
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated

43

Facility count for Salt River Project is not included in overall County-Wide totals and all data was provided by SRP.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 188

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-46: Summary of population sectors exposed to high hazard fissure zones

Community
County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gila River Indian Community
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Pinal County
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tohono O'odham Nation
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Total
Population

Population
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Exposed

Total
Population
Over 65

Population
Over 65
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Over 65
Exposed

1,522,083
15,613
3,906
1,375
2,002
86,421
3,400
8,759
309
1,010
1,091
54,901
118,654
10,967
2,558
1,350
104,385
189,697
5,769
49,884
657,658
6
2,831
6,306
92,034
13,387
80,802
156
3,085
2,093
1,675

834
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
2
1
0
0
260
293
0
0
123
0
127
0
14
3
0
0
0
0
0

0.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.25%
0.15%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
1.74%
4.48%
0.00%
0.02%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

180,521
855
342
455
246
5,156
213
1,750
17
81
48
1,834
9,169
921
125
291
43,659
25,867
868
6,555
54,037
0
145
1,086
15,440
3,460
6,138
11
316
547
887

177
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
31
120
0
0
14
0
9
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.07%
0.46%
0.00%
0.00%
0.03%
0.00%
6.36%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Total
Incomes
Under
$20K

Incomes
Under
$20K
Exposed

Percent of
Incomes
Under
$20K
Exposed

100,684
764
344
57
95
3,029
194
387
10
117
140
883
8,282
309
194
39
9,288
12,410
68
1,921
47,321
0
114
842
5,177
757
7,051
26
202
288
373

55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
33
0
0
3
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.13%
0.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
5.22%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Page 189

Dysart Rd

Reems Rd

Cactus Rd

Sarival Ave
Alsup Ave

BUCKEYE

WICKENBURG

GLENDALE

Camelback Rd

El Mirage Rd

Northern Ave

Indian School Rd

17

§
¦
¨

60EL MIRAGE
£
¤
Olive Ave

Litchfield Rd

Cotton Ln

Citrus Rd

Perryville Rd

Peoria Ave

Bethany Home Rd

93
89
£
¤
£
¤
93
£
¤

SURPRISE
71
V
U

£
¤

PHOENIX

PEORIA

V
U
74

60

CAVE CREEK

V
U
74

60
£
¤

17

§
¦
¨

LITCHFIELD PARK
Wigwam Blvd

AVONDALE

GOODYEAR

SURPRISE

BUCKEYE

SCOTTSDALE

GLENDALE

V
U
101

MARICOPA COUNTY

EL MIRAGE
PHOENIX

10

§
¦
¨
LITCHFIELD PARK
10

§
¦
¨

V
U
303

85
£
¤
85
£
¤

TOLLESON

V
V U
V U
U
85

51

153

85
£
¤

GOODYEAR
17

SALT RIVER-PIMA INDIAN RESERVATION

85
£
¤

TEMPE
AVONDALE
CHANDLER

V
U
347

85
£
¤

Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

I

Earth Fissure
Hazard Rating
High

0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; ALRIS 2006;
FCDMC 2009, AZGS 2008

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #3A
Maricopa County
Earth Fissure
Hazard Map
as of May 2009

V
U
87

CAREFREE

V
V U
U
74

17

87

FOUNTAIN HILLS
Main St
88
V
U

PARADISE VALLEY
SALT RIVER-PIMA INDIAN RESERVATION

£
¤
AVONDALE

10

§
¦
¨
V
U
85

V
U
V
U
V
V U
U
V
U
V U
V
V U
U
TEMPE
V
U
51

51

51

101

153

143

202

202

MESA

87

V
U
88

60
60
£
£
¤
¤

GILBERT

Pecos Rd

GUADALUPE
GILBERT

17

CHANDLER

347

587
587

Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

V
U

87

I

Earth Fissure
Hazard Rating
High

0

40

80
Miles

60
£
¤

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; ALRIS 2006;
FCDMC 2009, AZGS 2008

MARICOPA
COUNTY

V
U

Ocotillo Rd

Rd

V
U
V
V U
U

GOODYEAR

Legend

V
U

QUEEN CREEK

V
U

60
£
¤

Southern Ave
Baseline Ave

Chandler Heights Rd
CHANDLER Riggs Rd QUEEN CREEK
Hun
177
t Hw y
79
79

288

se
ou
nh
tte
Ri

GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION

Baseline Rd
Guadalupe Rd
Elliot Rd
Warner Rd
Ray Rd

MESA

McQueen Rd
Cooper Rd
Gilbert Rd
Lindsay Rd

60

V
U

Apache Tr

Broadway Rd

Higley Rd
Recker Rd
Power Rd
Sossaman Rd

PHOENIX

60
£
¤

Indian Bend Rd

V
U

FT MCDOWELL INDIAN RESERVATION

Val Vista Dr

60
£
¤

94th St

Scottsdale Rd

PARADISE VALLEY

V
U

Lincoln Dr188

GLENDALE

288

Via De Ventura

SCOTTSDALE

§
¦
¨

Via

Doubletree Ranch Rd

Shea Blvd

V
U
Linda

Vineyard Rd

PEORIA

SCOTTSDALE

Mountain Rd

74

Cactus Rd

Ellsworth Rd

V
U
74

ird Rd
Thunderb
104th St

CAVE CREEK

PHOENIX

Bell Rd

92nd St

87

64th St

V
U

56th St

40th St

Tatum Blvd

188

Pima Rd

V
U

Hayden Rd

17

§
¦
¨

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #3B
Maricopa County
Earth Fissure
Hazard Map
as of May 2009

PHOENIX

85
£
¤

GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION
BUCKEYE

85
£
¤

GOODYEAR

85

£
¤
V
U
238

V
U
347

GILA BEND

8

§
¦
¨

V
U
84

V
U
84

MARICOPA COUNTY

V
U
V
U
85

85

TOHONO INDIAN RESERVATION

17

Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

I

Earth Fissure
Hazard Rating
High

0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; ALRIS 2006;
FCDMC 2009, AZGS 2008

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #3C
Maricopa County
Earth Fissure
Hazard Map
as of May 2009

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 190

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.3.5

2009

Flood / Flash Flood
Description
For the purpose of this Plan, the hazard of flooding addressed in the is section will pertain to
floods that result from precipitation/runoff related events. Other flooding due to dam and levee
failures are addressed separately. The three seasonal atmospheric events that tend to trigger floods in
Maricopa County are:
•

Tropical Storm Remnants: Some of the worst flooding tends to occur when the remnants
of a hurricane that has been downgraded to a tropical storm or tropical depression enter
the State. These events occur infrequently and mostly in the early autumn, and usually
bring heavy and intense precipitation over large regions causing severe flooding.

•

Winter Rains: Winter brings the threat of low intensity; but long duration rains covering
large areas that cause extensive flooding and erosion, particularly when combined with
snowmelt.

•

Summer Monsoons: A third atmospheric condition that brings flooding to Arizona is the
annual summer monsoon. In mid to late summer the monsoon winds bring humid
subtropical air into the State. Solar heating triggers afternoon and evening thunderstorms
that can produce extremely intense, short duration bursts of rainfall. The thunderstorm
rains are mostly translated into runoff and in some instances, the accumulation of runoff
occurs very quickly resulting in a rapidly moving flood wave referred to as a flash flood.
Flash floods tend to be very localized and cause significant flooding of local
watercourses.

Damaging floods in the County can be primarily categorized as either riverine, sheet flow, or
local area flows. Riverine flooding occurs along established watercourses when the bankfull capacity
of a wash is exceeded by storm runoff and the overbank areas become inundated. There are also areas
within the County where the watercourse is broad and generally shallow with ill-defined low flow
paths and broad sheet flooding. Local area flooding is often the result of poorly designed or planned
development wherein natural flowpaths are altered, blocked or obliterated, and localized ponding and
conveyance problems result. Erosion is also often associated with damages due to flooding.
History
Flooding is clearly a major hazard in Maricopa County as shown in Tables 5-2 and 5-3.
Maricopa County has been part of 16 presidential disaster declarations for flooding and there have
been at least 31 other reported flooding incidents that met the thresholds outlined in Section 5.1. The
following incidents represent examples of major flooding that has impacted the County:
•

In March 1978, a general winter storm centered over the mountains north and east of Phoenix, 35
miles north at Rock Springs. Extrapolation of intensity-probability data for one measurement of
5.73 inches of precipitation in a 24 hour period equates to a 400 yr. storm. The main source of
flooding was due to Verde River with runoff volume exceeding reservoir storage capacity above
Bartlett Dam. Flooding also occurred along irrigation canals on north side of the Phoenix metro
area, and along tributaries of the Gila River and Queen Creek. There was one death-countywide
and $37 million in total damages (USACE, 1978). Presidential Disaster Declaration 550-DR.

•

In December 1978, a second major storm for the year hit hard with total precipitation that ranged
from less than 1 inch in the northeastern and far southwestern portions of Arizona to nearly 10
inches in the Mazatzal Mountains northeast of Phoenix. A large area of the central mountains
received over 5 inches. The main stems of the Gila, Salt, Verde, Agua Fria, Bill Williams, and
Little Colorado Rivers, as well as a number of major tributaries, experienced especially large
discharges. There were 4 deaths, $16.3 million-public and $5 million-agriculture losses estimated
for Maricopa County (USACE, 1979). Presidential Disaster Declaration 570-DR.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 191

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

•

In February 1980, severe flooding in central Arizona set record discharges (later broken in 1993)
in the Phoenix metro area on the Salt, Verde, Agua Fria and Gila Rivers, as well as on Oak Creek
in north central Arizona. The Phoenix metro area was nearly cut in half with only two bridges
remaining open over the Salt River. It took hours for people to move between Phoenix and the
East Valley using either the Mill Avenue or Central Avenue bridges. Even the Interstate 10 bridge
was closed for fear that it had been damaged. Precipitation during this period at Crown King in the
Bradshaw Mountains was 16.63 inches. Three people died statewide and damages were estimated
at $63,700,000 for Phoenix Metro Area (USACE, 1980). Presidential Disaster Declaration 614DR.

•

In January and February 1993, flooding damage occurred from winter storms associated with the
El Nino phenomenon. These storms flooded watersheds throughout Arizona by dumping
excessive rainfall amounts that saturated soils and increased runoff. Warm temperature snowmelt
exacerbated the situation over large areas. Erosion caused tremendous damage and some
communities along normally dry washes were devastated. Stream flow velocities and runoff
volumes exceeded historic highs. Many flood prevention channels and retention reservoirs were
filled to capacity and so water was diverted to the emergency spillways or the reservoirs were
breached, causing extensive damage in some cases (e.g., Painted Rock Reservoir spillway). The
new Mill Avenue Bridge and a large landfill in Mesa were washed away by the raging Salt River.
The Gillespie Dam west of Phoenix was damaged as high water spread throughout low-lying
areas. Many roads were closed and motorists were stranded by flooded dips and washes. Phoenix
alone sustained at least $4.2 million in damages from this prolonged period of heavy rains.
County-wide, $38 million in property and agricultural losses were estimated (USACE, 1993).
Presidential Disaster Declaration 977-DR.

•

In 1997, flooding from the remnants of Hurricane Nora resulted in the breaching of Narrows Dam.
The calculated 24-hour, 100-year rainfall amount in NW Maricopa County was exceeded at six
ALERT measuring sites led to flash flooding in portions of NW Maricopa County. Two earthen
dams gave way in Aguila and caused widespread flooding. One dike was located seven miles east
of Aguila and the second in the center of the Martori Farms complex. Half of the cotton crop was
lost at Martori Farms, as well as 300 to 500 acres of melons. Up to five feet of water filled
Aqguila. About 40 people were evacuated from the hardest hit area of the town. Water flowing
down the Sols Wash was so high that the Sols Wash Bridge in Wickenburg was closed for more
than two hours. There was some flooding below Sols Wash in the streets around Coffinger Park.
Several houses in the area were also flooded. Highway 71 west of Wickenburg and Highway 95
north were closed due to high water from the storm.

•

In October 2000, a large low pressure area dumped four to six inches of rain over parts of eastern
LaPaz and western Maricopa County. This caused flash flooding in the upper part of the
Centennial Wash between the Harcuvar and Harquahala mountain ranges. The heavy runoff
flowed into the town of Wenden where water ran over the highway 60 bridge. At its peak the wash
was about 3/8ths of a mile wide and 12 feet deep. The resulting high water surged through the
town of Wenden, with at least 400 residents evacuated. There was extensive damage to the town
and for many miles downstream. The reported flow was in excess of 20,000 cfs. When the flood
hit Wenden, it inundated some mobile homes, causing them to lift off their foundations and float
down the wash. An estimated 125 mobile homes were affected. One migrant worker was killed
when flood waters swept through the town during the early morning hours. Additional heavy
rainfall hit this area several days later and complicated relief efforts for many of the homeless. A
spotter in Wickenburg reported that route 93 was closed north of Wickenburg due to high water.
Sols wash was out of its banks and flooded Coffinger Park as well as nearby homes. The Vulture
Mine road was closed and motorists had to be rescued. Flood water produced considerable
damage to melon and cotton crops in northwest Maricopa County. The roads around Aguila were
closed for several hours. A total of $10.2 million in structure and crop damages was estimated
(NCDC, 2008). Presidential Disaster Declaration 1347-DR.

•

In late July – early August, 2005, one of the heaviest rainfall events of the 2005 season struck the
greater Phoenix metropolitan. Almost 3 inches of rain fell at many locations in the metro, causing
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 192

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

roofs to collapse and streets to flood quickly. Up to 120 residents at the Crystal Creek Apartments
in Phoenix were evacuated after 83 apartment units were damaged by flood waters. Additional
roof damage was reported at the Scottsdale Community College, and Osco Drug store in Mesa,
and a Frys grocery store in Tempe. In the Wickenburg area, very heavy rainfall caused flooding of
low spots and washes. The peak flow in Hartman Wash was reported as 1,200 cfs. Major damage
occurred at Bear Cat Manufacturing where a large robotic welding building was destroyed by the
flood. Losses were estimated at over $4 million (NCDC, 2009).
•

In July 2007, very heavy rainfall accompanied thunderstorms over much of Maricopa County.
Strong and gusty winds were also reported with some of the more intense storms. The storm
closed roads in north Scottsdale and at least 6 water rescues were reported. Several automatic
gauges reported between 1.5 and 2.0 inch per hour rainfall rates. Floodwaters caused $2 million in
damages at Desert Sun Elementary School in North Scottsdale.

Numerous other flood related incidents are summarized in the historic hazard database
provided in Appendix D.
Probability and Magnitude
For the purposes of this Plan, the probability and magnitude of flood hazard for Maricopa
County jurisdictions are based on the 1 percent probability floodplains delineated on FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), plus any provisional floodplain delineations used for in-house purposes
by participating jurisdictions. FEMA and participating agencies and departments of Maricopa County
jurisdictions have recently completed a map modification program to update the FIRMs for the County
into a digital FIRM (DFIRM) format. Those maps became effective in 2005 and are the basis for flood
hazard depictions in this Plan. Floodplain limits and GIS base files were provided by the FCDMC.
Two designations of flood hazard are used, with HIGH hazard areas being any “A” zone and
MEDIUM flood hazard being either all “Shaded X” zones. All “A” zones (e.g. – A, A1-99, AE, AH,
AO, etc.) represent areas with a one percent (1%) probability of being flooded at a depth of one-foot or
greater in any given year. All “Shaded X” zones represent areas with a 0.2 percent (0.2%) probability
of being flooded at a depth of one-foot or greater in any given year. These two storms are often
referred to as the 100-year and 500-year storm, respectively.
Maps 4A, 4B, and 4C present the high flood hazard areas for Maricopa County. When
viewing the maps, the following should be note:
•

Neither the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation or the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Consequently,
neither Tribe has FEMA mapped floodplains for their reservation boundaries except for
Sycamore Creek and the Verde and Salt Rivers. The Local Planning Team for each Tribe
met and discussed identifying supplemental delineations of on reservation floodplains,
and the results are indicated on the hazard profile maps.

•

With the 2005 DFIRM update, a decision was made county-wide to map most of the non
Zone A areas as Shaded Zone X without the benefit of supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic analysis. Obvious mountain and steep hillslope areas were excluded. For the
sake of map clarity, only the high flood hazard areas are shown.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 193

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Flooding CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-47 below.
Table 5-47: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for flooding hazard
Magnitude/
Warning
Participating Jurisdiction
Probability
Severity
Time
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Likely
Possibly
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Possibly
Possibly
Possibly
Highly Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Possibly
Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Possibly
Highly Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely

Limited
Critical
Limited
Limited
Negligible
Critical
Critical
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
Critical
Limited
Critical
Critical
Limited
Limited
Critical
Limited
Limited
Limited
Critical
Limited
Catastrophic
Catastrophic

Duration

12-24 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
12-24 hours
<24 hours
6-12 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<24 hours
12-24 hours
<24 hours
6-12 hours
<1 week
6-12 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
12-24 hours
>1 week
6-12 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
12-24 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
6-12 hours
<1 week
12-24 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
12-24 hours
<24 hours
6-12 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<1 week
6-12 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
6-12 hours
<1 week
12-24 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
County-wide average CPRI =

CPRI
Score
2.45
2.60
2.90
2.95
2.00
3.20
2.55
2.15
2.30
3.20
2.65
3.05
2.20
2.45
3.50
3.15
2.30
3.50
2.45
3.05
3.60
2.95
2.65
3.10
3.45
2.45
3.80
3.80
2.87

Vulnerability – Loss Estimations
The estimation of potential exposure to high and medium flood hazards was accomplished by
intersecting the human and facility assets with the flood hazard limits depicted on Maps 4A, 4B, and
4C. Loss estimates to all facilities located within the high and medium flood hazard areas were made
based on the loss estimation tables published by FEMA (FEMA, 2001). Most of the assets located
within high hazard flood areas will be subject to three feet or less of flooding. Using the FEMA tables,
it is assumed that all structural assets located within the high hazard areas will have a loss-to-exposure
ratio of 0.20 (or 20%). A loss to exposure ratio of 0.05 (5%) is assumed for assets located in the
medium hazard areas. Table 5-48 summarizes the MJPT identified critical and non-critical facilities
potentially exposed to high and medium flood hazards, and the corresponding estimates of losses.
Table 5-49 summarizes population sectors exposed to the high and medium flood hazards. HAZUS
residential, commercial and industrial exposures and loss estimates to high and medium flood hazards
are summarized in Tables 5-12 through 5-39.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 194

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-48: Summary of asset inventory exposure to high and medium hazard flooding and corresponding loss estimates

Community

Total Facilities
Reported by
Community

Impacted
Facilities

County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project 44
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

5,179
61
77
6
39
226
34
15
18
7
694
1,205
93
6
5
447
613
69
225
913
117
21
511
114
37
111
10
11
5

230
5
5
0
3
9
1
0
2
0
21
30
5
2
0
111
2
0
4
14
8
0
36
8
0
0
0
0
0

44

Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
HIGH
4.44%
8.20%
6.49%
0.00%
7.69%
3.98%
2.94%
0.00%
11.11%
0.00%
3.03%
2.49%
5.38%
33.33%
0.00%
24.83%
0.33%
0.00%
1.78%
1.53%
6.84%
0.00%
7.04%
7.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Percentage of Total
County-wide Facilities
Impacted
100.00%
2.17%
2.17%
0.00%
1.30%
3.91%
0.43%
0.00%
0.87%
0.00%
9.13%
13.04%
2.17%
0.87%
0.00%
48.26%
0.87%
0.00%
1.74%
6.09%
3.48%
0.00%
N/A
3.48%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Estimated
Replacement Cost
(x $1000)
$778,617
$2,044
$17,000
$0
$1,000
$17,400
$27,500
$0
$10,000
$0
$26,000
$51,680
$13,150
$2,100
$0
$508,981
$1,200
$0
$4,800
$74,221
$21,540
$0
N/A
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

Estimated
Structure Loss
(x $1000)
$155,723
$409
$3,400
$0
$200
$3,480
$5,500
$0
$2,000
$0
$5,200
$10,336
$2,630
$420
$0
$101,796
$240
$0
$960
$14,844
$4,308
$0
N/A
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

Facility count for Salt River Project is not included in overall County-Wide totals and all data was provided by SRP.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 195

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-48: Summary of asset inventory exposure to high and medium hazard flooding and corresponding loss estimates

Community

Total Facilities
Reported by
Community

Impacted
Facilities

County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project 45
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

5,179
61
77
6
39
226
34
15
18
7
694
1,205
93
6
5
447
613
69
225
913
117
21
511
114
37
111
10
11
5

4,745
56
68
6
34
217
32
15
16
7
673
1,169
88
4
5
325
562
26
201
888
101
21
438
57
37
111
10
11
5

45

Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
MEDIUM
91.62%
91.80%
88.31%
100.00%
87.18%
96.02%
94.12%
100.00%
88.89%
100.00%
96.97%
97.01%
94.62%
66.67%
100.00%
72.71%
91.68%
37.68%
89.33%
97.26%
86.32%
100.00%
85.71%
50.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%

Percentage of Total
County-wide Facilities
Impacted
100.00%
1.18%
1.43%
0.13%
0.72%
4.57%
0.67%
0.32%
0.34%
0.15%
14.18%
24.64%
1.85%
0.08%
0.11%
6.85%
11.84%
0.55%
4.24%
18.71%
2.13%
0.44%
N/A
1.20%
0.78%
2.34%
0.21%
0.23%
0.11%

Estimated
Replacement Cost
(x $1000)
$23,671,878
$85,438
$145,500
$9,000
$58,745
$923,216
$220,140
$411,000
$222,630
$36,000
$3,311,369
$4,029,507
$147,848
$2,700
$118,900
$1,628,007
$2,003,698
$61,000
$278,918
$7,539,077
$154,798
$509,053
N/A
$5,000
$362,429
$1,373,300
$0
$29,239
$5,367

Estimated
Structure Loss
(x $1000)
$1,183,594
$4,272
$7,275
$450
$2,937
$46,161
$11,007
$20,550
$11,131
$1,800
$165,568
$201,475
$7,392
$135
$5,945
$81,400
$100,185
$3,050
$13,946
$376,954
$7,740
$25,453
N/A
$250
$18,121
$68,665
$0
$1,462
$268

Facility count for Salt River Project is not included in overall County-Wide totals and all data was provided by SRP.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 196

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-49: Summary of population sectors exposed to high and medium hazard flooding

Community
County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gila River Indian Community
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Pinal County
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tohono O'odham Nation
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Total
Population
Over 65
HIGH

Population
Over 65
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Over 65
Exposed

Total
Incomes
Under
$20K

Incomes
Under
$20K
Exposed

Percent of
Incomes
Under $20K
Exposed

Total
Population

Population
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Exposed

1,522,083
15,613
3,906
1,375
2,002
86,421
3,400
8,759
309
1,010
1,091
54,901
118,654
10,967
2,558
1,350
104,385
189,697
5,769
49,884
657,658
6
2,831

36,084
22
84
36
137
2,171
32
369
25
246
0
1,608
1,644
618
150
6
4,678
1,026
188
297
13,873
0
224

2.37%
0.14%
2.16%
2.62%
6.82%
2.51%
0.94%
4.21%
7.97%
24.34%
0.00%
2.93%
1.39%
5.64%
5.86%
0.45%
4.48%
0.54%
3.26%
0.60%
2.11%
0.00%
7.93%

180,521
855
342
455
246
5,156
213
1,750
17
81
48
1,834
9,169
921
125
291
43,659
25,867
868
6,555
54,037
0
145

3,681
2
6
12
16
82
1
76
3
21
0
44
163
33
4
2
702
168
19
29
1,060
0
20

2.04%
0.18%
1.62%
2.63%
6.64%
1.59%
0.65%
4.32%
14.79%
25.60%
0.00%
2.40%
1.78%
3.63%
3.09%
0.53%
1.61%
0.65%
2.23%
0.44%
1.96%
0.00%
13.84%

100,684
764
344
57
95
3,029
194
387
10
117
140
883
8,282
309
194
39
9,288
12,410
68
1,921
47,321
0
114

2,261
1
4
1
5
123
1
18
1
28
0
33
160
18
11
0
274
84
1
5
990
0
9

2.25%
0.12%
1.30%
2.30%
5.54%
4.05%
0.41%
4.59%
5.48%
23.99%
0.00%
3.68%
1.94%
5.82%
5.87%
0.48%
2.95%
0.67%
1.65%
0.29%
2.09%
0.00%
7.74%

6,306

213

3.38%

1,086

40

3.66%

842

25

2.94%

92,034
13,387
80,802
156
3,085
2,093
1,675

7,421
113
306
0
182
412
0

8.06%
0.85%
0.38%
0.00%
5.91%
19.70%
0.00%

15,440
3,460
6,138
11
316
547
887

1,023
23
18
0
20
95
0

6.63%
0.66%
0.29%
0.00%
6.39%
17.39%
0.00%

5,177
757
7,051
26
202
288
373

369
8
15
0
13
64
0

7.12%
1.09%
0.21%
0.00%
6.39%
22.27%
0.00%

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 197

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-49: Summary of population sectors exposed to high and medium hazard flooding

Community
County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gila River Indian Community
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Pinal County
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tohono O'odham Nation
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Percent of
Total
Population
Population
Exposed
Over 65
MEDIUM

Population
Over 65
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Over 65
Exposed

Total
Incomes
Under
$20K

Incomes
Under
$20K
Exposed

Percent of
Incomes
Under $20K
Exposed

Total
Population

Population
Exposed

1,522,083
15,613
3,906
1,375
2,002
86,421
3,400
8,759
309
1,010
1,091
54,901
118,654
10,967
2,558
1,350
104,385
189,697
5,769
49,884
657,658
6
2,831

1,412,257
15,591
3,822
1,226
1,865
84,249
3,368
8,389
285
764
1,060
53,293
116,995
10,348
2,408
1,344
97,716
182,878
1,362
48,854
619,867
6
2,452

92.78%
99.86%
97.84%
89.18%
93.18%
97.49%
99.06%
95.77%
92.02%
75.61%
97.17%
97.07%
98.60%
94.36%
94.14%
99.55%
93.61%
96.41%
23.62%
97.94%
94.25%
100.00%
86.62%

180,521
855
342
455
246
5,156
213
1,750
17
81
48
1,834
9,169
921
125
291
43,659
25,867
868
6,555
54,037
0
145

164,793
854
337
418
229
5,074
212
1,674
15
60
48
1,790
9,004
887
121
289
42,507
25,231
139
6,500
50,324
0
112

91.29%
99.82%
98.38%
91.91%
93.36%
98.41%
99.35%
95.66%
85.16%
74.40%
100.00%
97.60%
98.21%
96.37%
96.91%
99.47%
97.36%
97.54%
15.98%
99.16%
93.13%
100.00%
77.24%

100,684
764
344
57
95
3,029
194
387
10
117
140
883
8,282
309
194
39
9,288
12,410
68
1,921
47,321
0
114

93,125
763
340
51
90
2,906
193
370
10
89
140
850
8,122
291
183
39
8,804
12,118
13
1,898
44,528
0
97

92.49%
99.88%
98.70%
90.20%
94.46%
95.95%
99.59%
95.39%
94.50%
76.01%
100.00%
96.31%
98.06%
94.17%
94.13%
99.52%
94.79%
97.64%
19.40%
98.81%
94.10%
100.00%
85.24%

6,306

3,820

60.58%

1,086

503

46.31%

842

457

54.28%

92,034
13,387
80,802
156
3,085
2,093
1,675

50,114
13,273
80,494
156
2,903
1,681
1,675

54.45%
99.15%
99.62%
100.00%
94.09%
80.30%
100.00%

15,440
3,460
6,138
11
316
547
887

7,259
3,437
6,121
11
296
452
887

47.01%
99.34%
99.71%
100.00%
93.61%
82.61%
100.00%

5,177
757
7,051
26
202
288
373

2,176
749
7,036
26
189
224
373

42.04%
98.91%
99.79%
100.00%
93.61%
77.73%
100.00%

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 198

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

In summary, $155.7 million and $1.2 billion in asset related losses are estimated for high and
medium flood hazards, for all the participating jurisdictions in Maricopa County. An additional $0.9
and $7.5 billion in high and medium flood losses to HAZUS defined residential, commercial, and
industrial facilities is estimated for all participating Maricopa County jurisdictions. Regarding human
vulnerability, a total population of 36,084 people, or 2.37% of the total 2000 Maricopa County
population, is potentially exposed to a high hazard flood event. A total population of 1,412,257
people, or 92.8% of the total 2000 Maricopa County population, is potentially exposed to a medium
hazard flood event. Based on the historic record, multiple deaths and injuries are plausible and a
substantial portion of the exposed population is subject to displacement depending on the event
magnitude.
It is duly noted that the loss and exposure numbers presented above represent a
comprehensive evaluation of the County as a whole. It is unlikely that a storm event would occur that
would flood all of the delineated high and medium flood hazard areas at the same time. Accordingly,
actual event based losses and exposure are likely to be only a fraction of those summarized above.
Vulnerability – Repetitive Loss Properties
Repetitive Loss (RL) properties are those NFIP-insured properties that since 1978, have
experience multiple flood losses. FEMA tracks RL properties and in particular to identify Severe RL
(SRL) properties. RL properties demonstrate a track record of flooding repeated flooding for a certain
location and are one element of the vulnerability analysis. RL properties are also important to the
NFIP, since structures that flood frequently put a strain on the National Flood Insurance Fund. FEMA
records dated October 31, 2007 (provided by ADWR) indicate that there are 164 identified RL
properties in Maricopa County, with a total of over $4.4 million in associated building and contents
value payments. Table 5-50 summarizes the RL property characteristics by jurisdiction.
Table 5-50: Summary of RL property statistics for Maricopa County jurisdictions

Jurisdiction
Avondale
Buckeye
Glendale
Goodyear
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Scottsdale
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg

No. of
Properties
1
7
3
1
37
3
2
2
59
5
2
39
3

No. of
Properties
Mitigated
0
0
3
0
7
1
0
0
43
5
2
0
0

Total
Payments
$9,865
$182,818
$74,392
$210,035
$1,261,865
$113,498
$31,795
$43,849
$1,316,725
$54,198
$110,570
$93,2095
$75,682

Vulnerability – Development Trends
For most Maricopa County jurisdictions, adequate planning and regulatory tools are in place
to regulate future development. The FCDMC is very proactive in delineating floodplains ahead of
development in the less populated areas of the County, and works cooperatively with all incorporated
jurisdictions to update and refine existing floodplain mapping as needed.
Sources
Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2009, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan,
2010 Update, DRAFT.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 199

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

FEMA, 2001, Understanding Your Risks; Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, FEMA
Document No. 386-2.
URS, 2004, Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 1978, Flood Damage Report, 28 February-6
March 1978 on the storm and floods in Maricopa County, Arizona, FCDMC Library #802.024.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 1979, Flood Damage Report, Phoenix
Metropolitan Area, December 1978 Flood, FCDMC Library #802.027.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 1980, Phoenix Flood Damage Survey, FCDMC
Library #802.029.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 1994, Flood Damage Report, State of Arizona,
Floods of 1993.
Profile Maps
Maps 4A, 4B, and 4C – Flood Hazard Map

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 200

93
89
£
¤
£
¤
93
£
¤

V
U
71

17

§
¦
¨

WICKENBURG

60
£
¤

V
U
74

60

£
¤

CAVE CREEK

V
U
74

PEORIA

17

§
¦
¨
GLENDALE

SURPRISE
BUCKEYE
MARICOPA COUNTY

EL MIRAGE
PHOENIX

10

§
¦
¨

LITCHFIELD PARK

V
U

10

303

§
¦
¨
85
£
¤
85
85
£
£
¤
¤

V
U
85

85
£
85 ¤
£
¤

GOODYEAR
17

TOLLESON

60
£
¤
85
V
U

V
U
V
U
V
U
51

51

51

AVONDALE

85
£
¤
85
£
¤

Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

I

Flood Hazard Rating
High

0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #4A
Maricopa County
Flood Hazard Map
as of May 2009

V
U
87

17

§
¦
¨

V
U
188

V
U
87

CAVE CREEK

V
U
74

V
V U
U
74

74

PEORIA

V
U
288

CAREFREE

SCOTTSDALE

17

§
¦
¨

V
U
87

V
U
188

FT MCDOWELL INDIAN RESERVATION

GLENDALE
60
£
¤

FOUNTAIN HILLS

PHOENIX

60
£
¤

PARADISE VALLEY
60
£
¤

AVONDALE

10

§
¦
¨
V
U
85

V
U
288

88
V
U

SALT RIVER-PIMA INDIAN RESERVATION

V V
U
V U
U
V
U
51

202

V
U
101

153

51

TEMPE

MESA

V
U
87

V
U
88

60
60
£
£
¤
¤

GUADALUPE

60
£
¤

GILBERT
GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION
17

347

79

V
U
V
V U
U
587
587

GOODYEAR

Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

V
U

QUEEN CREEK

V
U

Legend

60
£
¤

CHANDLER

V
U
79

87

I

Flood Hazard Rating
High
0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009

MARICOPA
COUNTY

V
U
177

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #4B
Maricopa County
Flood Hazard Map
as of May 2009

PHOENIX

85
£
¤

GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION
BUCKEYE

85
£
¤

GOODYEAR

85

£
¤
V
U
238

V
U
347

GILA BEND

8

§
¦
¨

V
U
84

V
U
84

MARICOPA COUNTY

V
U
V
U
85

85

TOHONO INDIAN RESERVATION

17

Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

I

Flood Hazard Rating
High

0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #4C
Maricopa County
Flood Hazard Map
as of May 2009

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.3.6

2009

Levee Failure
Description
FEMA defines levees as man-made structures, usually earthen embankments, that are
designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control or divert
the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding (FEMA, 2009). National flood
policy now recognizes the term “levee” to mean only those structures which were designed and
constructed according to sound engineering practices, have up to date inspection records and current
maintenance plans, and have been certified as to their technical soundness by a professional engineer.
FEMA has classified all other structures that impound, divert, and/or otherwise impede the flow of
runoff as “non-levee embankments”. In Maricopa County, these might be comprised of features such
as roadway and railway embankments, canals, irrigation ditches and drains, and agricultural dikes.
Currently there is no State or Federal Levee Safety Program and no official levee inventory.
It is anticipated that FEMA will institute a National Levee Safety Program in the near future. Many
levees and non-levee embankments cut across drainage features, impounding water on their upstream
side as a result of storm events. FEMA urges communities to recognize that all areas downstream of
levees and embankments are at some risk of flooding. There are no guarantees that a levee or
embankment will not fail or breach if a large quantity of water collects upstream.
Mechanisms for levee failure are similar to those for dam failure. Failure by overtopping
could occur due to an inadequate design capacity, sediment deposition and vegetation growth in the
channel, subsidence, and/or a runoff that exceeds the design recurrence interval of the levee. Failure
by piping could be due to embankment cracking, fissures, animal boroughs, embankment settling, or
vegetal root penetrations.
History
Levees (certified or not) have been used in Maricopa County for over a hundred years to
protect communities and agricultural assets, as well as to facilitate the delivery and removal of
irrigation water. These levees range from simple earthen embankments pushed up by small equipment
to large cement stabilized aggregate embankments lining both sides of a river. The structural integrity
of levees with regard to flood protection and policy has been discussed at a national level since the
early 1980s but was elevated to a high priority after the collapse and breach of New Orleans’ levees
after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
There are no documented failures of certified levees within Maricopa County, nor are there
any documented records of non-levee embankment failures.
Probability and Magnitude
There are no established probability or magnitude criteria regarding levee failure due to
variability in levee design and maintenance. For flood protection credit under the NFIP, FEMA has
established certain design criteria that are based on the 1 percent (100-year) storm event. Federally
constructed levees are usually designed for larger, more infrequent events that equate to 250 to 500
year events. All of the FEMA certified levees within Maricopa County are designed to safely convey
the 100-year event, with a factor of safety provided by a minimum additional freeboard of 3 feet.
In the latest DFIRM data for Maricopa County, FEMA has re-established new flood hazard
zones downstream of non-levee embankments and a shaded Zone X for all others. For this Plan cycle,
The MJPT chose to map the new hazard areas downstream of non-levee embankments as a HIGH
hazard. All other areas are defined as LOW.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 201

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Levee Failure CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-47 below.
Table 5-51: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for levee failure
Magnitude/
Warning
Participating Jurisdiction
Probability
Severity
Time
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Likely
Unlikely
Possibly
Possibly
Unlikely
Possibly
Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Possibly
Unlikely
Possibly
Unlikely

Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
Critical
Negligible
Critical
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Negligible
Limited
Critical

Duration

<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<1 week
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<1 week
<6 hours
<1 week
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
6-12 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
6-12 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<1 week
>24 hours
<1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
County-wide average CPRI =

CPRI
Score
2.00
1.45
1.00
1.45
1.00
1.00
1.55
1.55
1.55
2.40
1.55
1.45
1.45
1.45
2.85
1.95
2.30
2.15
2.00
1.85
2.60
1.40
1.45
1.55
2.40
1.20
2.20
2.45
1.79

Vulnerability – Loss Estimations
The estimation of potential exposure to high hazard levee failure areas was accomplished by
intersecting the human and facility assets with the levee failure hazard limits depicted on Maps 5A, 5B,
and 5C. Loss estimates to all facilities located within the high hazard levee failure areas were made
based on a loss-to-exposure ratio of 0.20 (or 20%), assuming that flood damages would be similar to
those expected for 100-year flood. Table 5-52 summarizes the MJPT identified critical and noncritical facilities potentially exposed to high hazard levee failure areas, and the corresponding estimates
of losses. Table 5-53 summarizes population sectors exposed to the high hazard levee failure areas.
HAZUS residential, commercial and industrial exposures and loss estimates to high hazard levee
failure areas are summarized in Tables 5-12 through 5-39.
In summary, $23.0 million in asset related losses are estimated for high hazard levee failures,
for all the participating jurisdictions in Maricopa County. An additional $217 million in high hazard
levee failure losses to HAZUS defined residential, commercial, and industrial facilities is estimated for
all participating Maricopa County jurisdictions. Regarding human vulnerability, a total population of
10,562 people, or 0.69% of the total 2000 Maricopa County population, is potentially exposed to a
high hazard levee failure event. Should a levee structure fail suddenly, it is plausible that death and
injury might occur. It can also be expected that a substantial portion of the exposed population is
subject to displacement depending on the event magnitude.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 202

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-52: Summary of asset inventory exposure to high hazard levee failure areas and corresponding loss estimates

Community
County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project 46
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

46

Total Facilities
Reported by
Community
5,179
61
77
6
39
226
34
15
18
7
694
1,205
93
6
5
447
613
69
225
913
117
21
511
114
37
111
10
11
5

Impacted
Facilities
58
12
1
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
9
2
0
4
7
4
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0

Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
1.12%
19.67%
1.30%
0.00%
0.00%
5.75%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.43%
0.08%
1.08%
0.00%
0.00%
2.01%
0.33%
0.00%
1.78%
0.77%
3.42%
0.00%
0.78%
0.88%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Percentage of Total
County-wide Facilities
Impacted
100.00%
20.69%
1.72%
0.00%
0.00%
22.41%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.17%
1.72%
1.72%
0.00%
0.00%
15.52%
3.45%
0.00%
6.90%
12.07%
6.90%
0.00%
N/A
1.72%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Estimated
Replacement Cost
(x $1000)
$115,097
$6,095
$0
$0
$0
$7,017
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,500
$0
$1,500
$0
$0
$46,666
$6,179
$0
$551
$35,138
$9,450
$0
N/A
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

Estimated
Structure Loss
(x $1000)
$23,019
$1,219
$0
$0
$0
$1,403
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500
$0
$300
$0
$0
$9,333
$1,236
$0
$110
$7,028
$1,890
$0
N/A
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

Facility count for Salt River Project is not included in overall County-Wide totals and all data was provided by SRP.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 203

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-53: Summary of population sectors exposed to high hazard levee failure areas

Community
County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gila River Indian Community
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Pinal County
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tohono O'odham Nation
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Total
Population
Over 65

Population
Over 65
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Over 65
Exposed

Total
Incomes
Under
$20K

Incomes
Under
$20K
Exposed

Percent of
Incomes
Under $20K
Exposed

Total
Population

Population
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Exposed

1,522,083
15,613
3,906
1,375
2,002
86,421
3,400
8,759
309
1,010
1,091
54,901
118,654
10,967
2,558
1,350
104,385
189,697
5,769
49,884
657,658
6
2,831

10,562
1,630
19
0
0
992
0
0
0
30
0
294
9
37
0
0
1,685
4
0
2,898
2,565
0
19

0.69%
10.44%
0.48%
0.02%
0.00%
1.15%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.93%
0.00%
0.54%
0.01%
0.34%
0.00%
0.00%
1.61%
0.00%
0.00%
5.81%
0.39%
0.00%
0.67%

180,521
855
342
455
246
5,156
213
1,750
17
81
48
1,834
9,169
921
125
291
43,659
25,867
868
6,555
54,037
0
145

1,615
60
1
0
0
58
0
0
0
2
0
16
0
2
0
0
736
0
0
539
119
0
0

0.89%
7.03%
0.34%
0.02%
0.00%
1.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.48%
0.00%
0.86%
0.00%
0.19%
0.00%
0.00%
1.68%
0.00%
0.00%
8.22%
0.22%
0.00%
0.09%

100,684
764
344
57
95
3,029
194
387
10
117
140
883
8,282
309
194
39
9,288
12,410
68
1,921
47,321
0
114

728
34
1
0
0
112
0
0
0
3
0
7
1
2
0
0
199
0
0
273
73
0
0

0.72%
4.43%
0.18%
0.03%
0.00%
3.68%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.16%
0.00%
0.85%
0.01%
0.57%
0.00%
0.00%
2.14%
0.00%
0.00%
14.19%
0.15%
0.00%
0.14%

6,306

0

0.00%

1,086

0

0.00%

842

0

0.00%

92,034
13,387
80,802
156
3,085
2,093
1,675

314
63
0
0
0
3
0

0.34%
0.47%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.16%
0.00%

15,440
3,460
6,138
11
316
547
887

57
24
0
0
0
1
0

0.37%
0.71%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.11%
0.00%

5,177
757
7,051
26
202
288
373

22
3
0
0
0
0
0

0.42%
0.36%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.15%
0.00%

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 204

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

It is duly noted that the loss and exposure numbers presented above represent a
comprehensive evaluation of the County as a whole. It is unlikely that a storm event would occur that
would fail all of the levees at the same time. Accordingly, actual event based losses and exposure are
likely to be only a fraction of those summarized above.
Vulnerability – Development Trend Analysis
With the new focus on residual downstream risk for the land-side of levees and a general
refocusing of national levee regulation and policy, it is likely that new and old developments in these
areas will need to be revisited to determine if additional measures are necessary for adequate flood
protection. Many structures located downstream of non-levee embankments are being re-mapped into
Special Flood Hazard Zones. New developments should be evaluated to determine if sufficient
protection is proposed to mitigate damages should the upstream structure fail.
Sources
Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2009, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan,
2010 Update, DRAFT.
FEMA, 2001, Understanding Your Risks; Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, FEMA
Document No. 386-2.
FEMA, 2009, Web page at URL: http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/lv_intro.shtm#3
URS, 2004, Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Profile Maps
Maps 5A, 5B, and 5C – Potential Levee Failure Flood Hazard Map(s)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 205

93
89
£
¤
£
¤
93
£
¤

V
U
71

17

§
¦
¨

WICKENBURG

60
£
¤

V
U
74

60

£
¤

CAVE CREEK

V
U
74

PEORIA

17

§
¦
¨
GLENDALE

SURPRISE
BUCKEYE
MARICOPA COUNTY

EL MIRAGE
PHOENIX

10

§
¦
¨

LITCHFIELD PARK

V
U

10

303

§
¦
¨
85
£
¤
85
85
£
£
¤
¤

V
U
85

85
£
85 ¤
£
¤

GOODYEAR
17

TOLLESON

60
£
¤
85
V
U

V
U
V
U
V
U
51

51

51

AVONDALE

85
£
¤
85
£
¤

Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

Potential Levee
Failure Flood
Hazard Rating
High

I
0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #5A
Maricopa County
Potential Levee Failure
Flood Hazard Map
as of May 2009

V
U
87

17

§
¦
¨

V
U
188

V
U
87

CAVE CREEK

V
U
74

V
V U
U
74

74

PEORIA

V
U
288

CAREFREE

SCOTTSDALE

17

§
¦
¨

V
U
87

V
U
188

FT MCDOWELL INDIAN RESERVATION

GLENDALE
60
£
¤

FOUNTAIN HILLS

PHOENIX

60
£
¤

PARADISE VALLEY
60
£
¤

AVONDALE

10

§
¦
¨
V
U
85

V
U
288

88
V
U

SALT RIVER-PIMA INDIAN RESERVATION

V V
U
V U
U
V
U
51

202

V
U
101

153

51

TEMPE

MESA

V
U
87

V
U
88

60
60
£
£
¤
¤

GUADALUPE

60
£
¤

GILBERT
GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION
17

347

79

V
U
V
V U
U
587
587

GOODYEAR

Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

V
U

QUEEN CREEK

V
U

Legend

60
£
¤

CHANDLER

Potential Levee
Failure Flood
Hazard Rating
High

V
U
79

87

I
0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009

MARICOPA
COUNTY

V
U
177

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #5B
Maricopa County
Potential Levee Failure
Flood Hazard Map
as of May 2009

PHOENIX

85
£
¤

GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION
BUCKEYE

85
£
¤

GOODYEAR

85

£
¤
V
U
238

V
U
347

GILA BEND

8

§
¦
¨

V
U
84

V
U
84

MARICOPA COUNTY

V
U
V
U
85

85

TOHONO INDIAN RESERVATION

17

Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

Potential Levee
Failure Flood
Hazard Rating
High

I
0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #5C
Maricopa County
Potential Levee Failure
Flood Hazard Map
as of May 2009

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 206

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.3.7

2009

Severe Wind
Description
The hazard of Severe Wind encompasses all climatic events that produce damaging winds.
For Maricopa County, Severe Winds usually result from either extreme pressure gradients that usually
occur in the spring and early summer months, or from thunderstorms. Thunderstorms can occur yearround and are usually associated with cold fronts in the winter, monsoon activity in the summer, and
tropical storms in the late summer or early fall.
Three types of damaging wind related features typically accompany a thunderstorm; 1)
downbursts, 2) straight line winds, and infrequently, 3) tornadoes.
Downbursts are columns of air moving rapidly downward through a thunderstorm. When the
air reaches the ground, it spreads out in all directions, creating horizontal wind gusts of 80 mph or
higher. Downburst winds have been measured as high as 140 mph. Some of the air curls back upward
with the potential to generate a new thunderstorm cell. Downbursts are called macrobursts when the
diameter is greater than 2.5 miles, and microbursts when the diameter is 2.5 miles or less. They can be
either dry or wet downbursts, where the wet downburst contains precipitation that continues all the
way down to the ground, while the precipitation in a dry downburst evaporates on the way to the
ground, decreasing the air temperature and increasing the air speed. In a microburst the wind speeds
are highest near the location where the downdraft reached the surface, and are reduced as they move
outward due to the friction of objects at the surface. Typical damage from downbursts includes
uprooted trees, downed power lines, mobile homes knocked off their foundations, block walls and
fences blown down, and porches and awnings blown off homes.
Straight line winds are developed similar to downbursts, but are usually sustained for greater
periods as a thunderstorms reaches the mature stage, traveling parallel to the ground surface at speeds
of 75 mph or higher. These winds are frequently responsible for generating dust storms and sand
storms, reducing visibility and creating hazardous driving conditions.
A tornado is a rapidly rotating funnel (or vortex) of air that extends toward the ground from a
cumulonimbus cloud. Most funnel clouds do not touch the ground, but when the lower tip of the funnel
cloud touches the earth, it becomes a tornado and can cause extensive damage. For Maricopa County,
tornadoes are the least common severe wind to accompany a thunderstorm.
History
According to Tables 5-2 and 5-3, Maricopa County has been included in 4 state and/or federal
disaster declarations involving thunderstorms. There are also and additional 193 thunderstorm/high
wind events and 44 tornadoes with a combined loss of approximately $460 million to structures and
agriculture, 6 deaths, and over 200 injuries. The following are examples of documented past events:
•

In January 1993, a category F2 tornado moved through Scottsdale damaging 18 homes, 4 with
major damage, and damaging many trees and signs. The most damage occurred when the tornado
moved east from 59th and Clinton to 72nd and Cholla. Controllers from the nearby Scottsdale
Airport watched this tornado move through this, north Scottsdale residential area. Damages were
estimated to exceed $5 million (NCDC, 2009).

•

In August 1993, strong winds from nearby thunderstorms exceeded 50 mph in many areas of the
Valley. Homes and businesses sustained damage, trees were uprooted and power lines were
downed. Arizona Public Service reported 10,000 customers without power. An 8-year-old boy in
Avondale was severely injured just after 1800 MST when a window burst and glass cut his jugular
vein. The roof of a convenience store was blown off, as well as some damage to a church and an
elementary school. A 1-mile section of a 69,000-volt power line near Perryville was knocked
down. High winds blew tree limbs onto power poles and took shingles off several homes.
Damages were estimated to exceed $5 million (NCDC, 2009).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 207

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

•

In September 1994, micro burst struck a school building at the Littleton Elementary School in the
community of Cashion, two miles SW of Tolleson. The roof was torn from about eight
classrooms with one teacher and eight children being injured. A National Weather Service Storm
Survey Team estimated winds of 100 mph. A teacher reported the ground covered with hail, some
golf ball-size. A weather spotter at 75th Avenue and Camelback Road reported 1.25 hail. A mile
long stretch of power poles were downed near 107th Avenue and Interstate 10. Damage to the
school was estimated in excess of $500,000 and stormwide estimates exceeded $5 million (NCDC,
2009).

•

In September 1996, a massive thunderstorm move through western half of the Phoenix
Metropolitan Area, with nearly every West Valley community reporting some damage. The
hardest hit areas were in northwest Phoenix, Glendale, and Peoria. Other towns that sustained
damage were Sun City, Surprise, El Mirage, Tolleson, Avondale, Goodyear, and Buckeye.
Approximately 400 power poles were knocked down throughout these towns, 100 owned by SRP
and 300 owned by APS. There were from 70,000 to 75,000 homeowner claims for about $100
million in damage (NCDC, 2009).

•

In August 2001, a large thunderstorm complex developed over northwest Maricopa County and
moved to the south and southwest. The thunderstorm induced gust front, at times over 60 miles
long, west to east, caused widespread electric power outages in the Gila Bend area south to Ajo in
west Pima County. In the immediate Gila Bend area, thirty-eight 230kv poles downed, and thirtynine 69kv poles were downed. A substation was damaged as well as telephone lines. The reported
wind gust of 66 knots was recorded at the Gila Bend municipal airport at 0245. As the gust front
moved further to the south and southwest, a total of 140 power poles were blown over as reported
by the Arizona Public Service. Electric power services were disrupted up to 5 days. State PCA No.
22001 (ADEM, 2009).

•

In July 2006, several cities throughout the central portion of Maricopa County had major wind
damage as a series of thunderstorms and microbursts moved across the area. According to SRP,
an estimated 65 power poles were blown down, in parts of Scottsdale, Tempe and Mesa. At one
point, about 20,000 customers were without power. APS reported about 8,000 customers were
without power. At Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, the official peak wind gust was 59 mph. However,
winds at Williams Gateway Airport gusted to 86 mph and flipped a small twin-engine plane atop
another aircraft. In Mesa, 35 schools reported damages due to the storm. Stormwide losses were
estimated to exceed $150 million.

•

In August 2008, Several waves of severe thunderstorms moved westward across the central and
eastern portions of Maricopa County with wind gusts estimated to exceed .85 mph. In Tempe, an
18 year-old man was injured by a falling tree. Winds on the ASU campus were measured at 69
mph and severely damaged the indoor football practice facility. at 16th St and Thomas.
Widespread damage occurred to homes, businesses and windows were knocked out in at least one
Phoenix high-rise. Numerous power poles were downed, and many trees uprooted. Some damage
also occurred at the Arizona State Capitol in Phoenix. Trees were uprooted at 48th street and
McDowell and nearby homes were damaged. Microburst winds hit Chandler airport and flipped at
least two planes. Over $26 million in losses were reported Valley-wide (NCDC, 2009).

Probability and Magnitude
For thunderstorms, the probability of a severe thunderstorm occurring with high velocity
winds increases as the average duration and number of thunderstorm events increases. According to
NCDC, 288 separate thunderstorm event damage reports have been filed for Maricopa County over the
past 30 years (NCDC, 2009), yielding an average of 10 damaging or potentially damaging
thunderstorm events per year. Reported damages for the same period were approximately $420
million, or $14 million per year.
The NWS issues a severe thunderstorm watch when conditions are favorable for the
development of severe thunderstorms. The local NWS office considers a thunderstorm severe if it
produces hail at least 3/4-inch in diameter, wind of 58 mph or higher, or tornadoes. When a watch is
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 208

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

issued for a region, residents are encouraged to continue normal activities but should remain alert for
signs of approaching storms, and continue to listen for weather forecasts and statements from the local
NWS office. When a severe thunderstorm has been detected by weather radar or one has been reported
by trained storm spotters, the local NWS office will issue a severe thunderstorm warning. A severe
thunderstorm warning is an urgent message to the affected counties that a severe thunderstorm is
imminent. The warning time provided by a severe thunderstorm watch may be on the order of hours,
while a severe thunderstorm warning typically provides an hour or less warning time. All of the 288
storms that are documented over the last 30 years would qualify as a severe thunderstorm.
The probability of tornadoes occurring is much less frequent than thunderstorms. For the
same 30-year period, the NCDC reports only 24 tornadoes, which averages to less than one tornado per
year. Reported damages associated with those tornadoes add up to $6.4 million or less than $270,000
per event.
Tornado damage severity is measured by the Fujita Tornado Scale, which assigns a numerical
value of 0 to 5 based on wind speeds, as shown in Table 5-54, with the letter F preceding the number
(e.g., FO, F1, F2). Most tornadoes last less than 30 minutes, but some last for over an hour. The path of
a tornado can range from a few hundred feet to miles. The width of a tornado may range from tens of
yards to more than a quarter of a mile.
Table 5-54: Fujita Tornado Scale
Category
Wind Speed
Description of Damage
F0

40-72 mph

F1

73-112 mph

F2

113-157 mph

F3

158-206 mph

F4

207-260 mph

F5

261-318 mph

Light damage. Some damage to chimneys; break branches off trees; push over
shallow-rooted trees; damage to sign boards.
Moderate damage. The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane speed. Roof
surfaces peeled off; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned;
moving autos pushed off roads.
Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished;
boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light-object missiles
generated.
Severe damage. Roofs and some walls torn off well constructed houses; trains
overturned; most trees in forest uprooted; cars lifted off ground and thrown.
Devastating damage. Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak
foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated.
Incredible damage. Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried
considerable distance to disintegrate; automobile-sized missiles fly through the
air in excess of 100-yards; trees debarked.

Source: FEMA, 1997.

Of the 24 recorded tornadoes, 15 were category F0, 8 were category F1, and 1 was category
F2. According the NCDC, there has been only one F3 tornado recorded in the history of Maricopa
County, and that was August 4, 1957.
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Severe Wind CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-55 below.
Table 5-55: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for severe wind
Magnitude/
Warning
Participating Jurisdiction
Probability
Severity
Time
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale

Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Possibly
Highly Likely
Highly Likely

Limited
Critical
Limited
Limited
Negligible
Critical
Critical
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited

<6 hours
<6 hours
12-24 hours
12-24 hours
6-12 hours
>24 hours
6-12 hours
12-24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Duration

CPRI
Score

<6 hours
<6 hours
<1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
<1 week
<1 week
<6 hours
<24 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours

2.65
3.40
3.00
2.80
2.65
3.15
3.00
2.80
2.30
3.20
3.10

Page 209

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 5-55: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for severe wind
Magnitude/
Warning
Participating Jurisdiction
Probability
Severity
Time
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Highly Likely
Possibly
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely

Negligible
Limited
Limited
Critical
Limited
Limited
Critical
Limited
Limited
Critical
Critical
Limited
Limited
Critical
Limited
Critical
Critical

2009

Duration

12-24 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<1 week
6-12 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
6-12 hours
<1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
12-24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
12-24 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
County-wide average CPRI =

CPRI
Score
2.60
2.30
3.20
3.40
3.30
3.05
3.50
2.65
2.65
3.45
3.40
2.35
3.10
3.50
2.45
3.40
3.50
2.99

Vulnerability – Loss Estimations
Exposure to severe wind events is generally the same across the County, although
communities situated close to the mountains like Carefree, Cave Creek, and Fountain Hills , may not
be as susceptible to tornadoes as other communities within the County. Based on the historic record
over the last 30 years, it is feasible to expect average annual losses of $15 million (county-wide) It is
difficult to estimate losses for individual jurisdictions within the County due to the lack of discrete
data.
Vulnerability – Development Trend Analysis
Future development will expand the exposure of life and property to the damaging effects of
severe wind events. Enforcement and/or implementation of modern building codes to regulate new
developments is probably the best way to mitigate against losses.
Sources
Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2009, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan,
2010 Update, DRAFT.
Federal Emergency Management Agency,1997, Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – A
Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy.
FEMA, 2001, Understanding Your Risks; Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, FEMA
Document No. 386-2.
URS, 2004, Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
U.S. Dept of Commerce, National Climatic Data Center, 2009, Storm Events Database, accessed via
the following URL: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms
Profile Maps
No profile maps provided.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 210

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.3.8

2009

Subsidence
Description
Subsidence occurs when the original land surface elevation drops due to changes in the
subsurface. Causes of subsidence include, but are not limited to, removal of fluids (water, oil, gas,
etc.), mine collapse, and hydrocompaction. Of these causes, hydrocompaction and mine collapse tend
to be localized events, while fluid removal may occur either locally or regionally. The main cause for
subsidence in Maricopa County is excessive groundwater withdrawal, wherein the volume of water
withdrawn exceeds the natural recharge. Once an area has subsided, it is likely the ground elevation
will not rise again due to consolidation of the soils, even if the pumped groundwater is replaced.
Subsidence causes regional drainage patterns to change. Impacts include unexpected
flooding, storm drain backwater, reversal of channel drainage patterns, and damages to infrastructure
both in the subsurface (water and electric lines, well casings, etc.) and surface (roads, canals,
drainages, surveyed benchmarks, etc.). Subsidence also causes fissures, which are discussed in Section
5.3.4.
Land-use areas that are predominantly agricultural tend to experience the most intense
subsidence due to groundwater based irrigation practices. Subsidence is not, however, restricted to
only rural areas since exponential population growth also places great demands on groundwater.
History
Active subsidence has been occurring in certain areas of Maricopa County for over 60 years
and is primarily due to groundwater overdraft. By 1980 ground-water levels had declined at least 100
feet county-wide and between 300 and 500 feet in some areas (Carpenter, 1999). These groundwater
declines have resulted in areas of significant subsidence, as summarized in the following examples:
•

Luke Air Force Base – by 1992, ground-water level declines of more than 300 feet generated
land subsidence of as much as 18 feet about 20 miles west of Phoenix on and near Luke Air
Force Base (Carpenter, 1999).

•

Queen Creek – by 1977, an area of almost 230 square miles had subsided more than 3
feet(Carpenter, 1999).

•

Harquahala Plain – subsidence of about 0.6 feet occurred in response to about 300 feet of
water-level decline(Carpenter, 1999).

•

East Mesa/Apache Junction – a total of 5.2 feet of subsidence was measured along the CAP
near the Superstition Freeway, for the period of 1971 to 2001 (AMEC, 2006).

•

Paradise Valley – between 1965 and 1982, over 5 feet subsidence occurred (Carpenter, 1999).

•

Scottsdale/CAP – canal subsided about 1 foot since construction (Carpenter, 1999).

The following are two examples of documented damages that are directly attributable to
subsidence:
•

Dysart Drain Flow Reversal – Subsidence near Luke Air Force Base led to flow reversal in a
portion of the Dysart Drain, which is an engineered flood conveyance channel. In 1992, surface
runoff from four inches of precipitation caused the sluggish Dysart Drain to spill over flooding the
base runways, damaging more than 100 homes, and forcing the base to close for 3 days. Total
damage was on the order of $3 million (ALSG, 2007).

•

Central Arizona Project Canal Repair – sections of the CAP canal in Scottsdale traverse an area
that has subsided up to 1.5 feet over a 20-year period, threatening the canal’s maximum flow
capacity. In response, CAP raised the canal lining 3 feet over a one-mile segment of affected area
at a cost of $350,000. A second and much larger subsidence area was later identified near the
Scottsdale Airpark. Plans for raising the canal lining will cost an estimated $820,000. Recently, a
third subsidence area has been identified east of the Scottsdale Airpark in the Scottsdale West
World area which will likely require further repair (ALSG, 2007).
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 211

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Land subsidence has been detected over the years using surveying techniques such as
differential leveling and high accuracy Global Positioning System (GPS) surveying. In the early
1990’s, scientists began to use a satellite based technology called Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and
interferometric processing (InSAR) to detect land surface elevation changes. InSAR has been
developed into a highly reliable land subsidence monitoring technique that has been utilized by ADWR
since 2002. ADWR has identified numerous subsidence features around the State and continues to
monitor the extent and rates of these features on an annual basis (ADWR, 2009). In Maricopa County,
ADWR monitors 7 geographical areas using InSAR and is developing data for an eighth.
Probability and Magnitude
There are no statistical probability estimates for subsidence. The magnitudes of severity
depend on geography, with estimates summarized in the previous section above. The MJPT reviewed
and chose to use the zones currently being monitored by ADWR to depict the subsidence hazard for
the County. Areas defined by ADWR as active subsidence areas were mapped as HIGH hazard zones
and all other areas were assigned a LOW hazard. The high hazard subsidence zones are presented on
Maps 6A, 6B, and 6C.
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Subsidence CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-56 below.
Table 5-56: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for subsidence
Magnitude/
Warning
Participating Jurisdiction
Probability
Severity
Time
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Possibly
Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Highly Likely
Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Possibly
Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Possibly
Possibly
Unlikely
Highly Likely
Highly Likely

Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Limited
Negligible
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Critical
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Limited
Negligible
Limited
Negligible

Duration

<6 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
>1 week
< 6 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
<1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
>6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
>1 week
>24 hours
<1 week
>24 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
>1 week
County-wide average CPRI =

CPRI
Score
2.50
1.00
1.00
1.0
1.00
1.75
2.50
1.30
1.00
2.85
2.05
1.45
1.45
1.45
2.95
2.95
1.65
1.75
1.45
1.90
2.80
1.30
1.45
2.05
2.50
1.20
2.95
2.65
1.85

Vulnerability – Loss Estimations
The estimation of potential exposure to high hazard subsidence areas was accomplished by
intersecting the human and facility assets with the subsidence high hazard limits depicted on Maps 6A,
6B, and 6C. No losses are estimated for facilities located within the high hazard subsidence areas due
to lack of appropriate loss-to-exposure data. Table 5-57 summarizes the MJPT identified critical and
non-critical facilities potentially exposed to high hazard subsidence areas. Table 5-58 summarizes
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 212

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

population sectors exposed to the high hazard subsidence areas. HAZUS residential, commercial and
industrial exposures to high hazard subsidence areas are summarized in Tables 5-12 through 5-39.
In summary, 839 MJPT identified critical and non-critical facilities with a total replacement
cost of $2.72 billion, for all the participating jurisdictions in Maricopa County, are exposed to high
hazard subsidence areas. An additional $26.14 billion in HAZUS defined residential, commercial, and
industrial facilities is exposed to high hazard subsidence areas. for all participating Maricopa County
jurisdictions. Regarding human vulnerability, a total population of 227,120 people, or 14.92% of the
total 2000 Maricopa County population, is potentially exposed to a high hazard subsidence area. It is
unlikely that death and injury might be the direct result of subsidence, however, secondary impacts
such as fissures and flooding due to slope reversal, may.
Vulnerability – Development Trend Analysis
As ADWR continues its mapping and tracking programs, more data will become available for
use in regulating future development. Public awareness of the hazard is one a key element to any
effective mitigation measure, as well as the need to slow the depletion of groundwater sources. New
regional drainage features and structures should always refer to the maps in this plan to determine the
need for special design considerations that address subsidence.
Sources
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., 2006, Earth Fissure Risk Zone Investigation Report, Powerline
and Vineyard Flood Retarding Structures, Pinal County, AZ, prepared for FCDMC under Contract
FCD 2004C503, Work Assignments 1&2.
Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2009, land subsidence website at:
http://www.azwater.gov/DWR/Content/Find_by_Program/Hydrology/land-subsidence-inarizona.htm
Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2009, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan,
2010 Update, DRAFT.
Arizona Land Subsidence Group, 2007. Land subsidence and earth fissures in Arizona: Research and
informational needs for effective risk management, white paper, Tempe, AZ, .
http://www.azgs.az.gov/Earth%20Fissures/CR-07-C.pdf
Carpenter, M.C., 1999, Land subsidence in the United States, South-Central Arizona: Earth fissures
and subsidence complicate development of desert water resources, [Galloway, D., Jones, D.R., and
Ingebritson, S.E., editors], USGS Circular 1182.
FEMA, 2001, Understanding Your Risks; Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, FEMA
Document No. 386-2.
URS, 2004, Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Profile Maps
Maps 6A, 6B, and 6C – Subsidence Hazard Map(s)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 213

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-57: Summary of asset inventory exposure to high hazard subsidence areas

Community
County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project 47
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

47

Total Facilities
Reported by
Community
5,179
61
77
6
39
226
34
15
18
7
694
1,205
93
6
5
447
613
69
225
913
117
21
511
114
37
111
10
11
5

Impacted
Facilities
839
15
6
0
0
0
33
0
7
0
5
328
27
1
2
105
26
0
153
63
7
0
39
19
37
0
0
0
5

Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
16.20%
24.59%
7.79%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
97.06%
0.00%
38.89%
0.00%
0.72%
27.22%
29.03%
16.67%
40.00%
23.49%
4.24%
0.00%
68.00%
6.90%
5.98%
0.00%
7.63%
16.67%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%

Percentage of Total
County-wide Facilities
Impacted
100.00%
1.79%
0.72%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.93%
0.00%
0.83%
0.00%
0.60%
39.09%
3.22%
0.12%
0.24%
12.51%
3.10%
0.00%
18.24%
7.51%
0.83%
0.00%
N/A
2.26%
4.41%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.60%

Estimated
Replacement Cost
(x $1000)
$2,720,988
$16,561
$12,000
$0
$0
$0
$240,140
$0
$206,000
$0
$25,000
$992,635
$43,136
$1,300
$102,100
$216,789
$101,080
$0
$139,141
$256,410
$900
$0
N/A
$0
$362,429
$0
$0
$0
$5,367

Estimated
Structure Loss
(x $1000)
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
N/A
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated
None Estimated

Facility count for Salt River Project is not included in overall County-Wide totals and all data was provided by SRP.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 214

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-58: Summary of population sectors exposed to high hazard subsidence areas

Community
County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gila River Indian Community
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Pinal County
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tohono O'odham Nation
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Total
Population
Over 65

Population
Over 65
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Over 65
Exposed

Total
Incomes
Under
$20K

Incomes
Under
$20K
Exposed

Percent of
Incomes
Under $20K
Exposed

Total
Population

Population
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Exposed

1,522,083
15,613
3,906
1,375
2,002
86,421
3,400
8,759
309
1,010
1,091
54,901
118,654
10,967
2,558
1,350
104,385
189,697
5,769
49,884
657,658
6
2,831

227,120
3,373
242
0
0
0
3,400
0
0
859
0
0
27,192
2,864
0
1,350
47,913
8,535
334
44,101
55,084
0
0

14.92%
21.60%
6.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
85.02%
0.00%
0.00%
22.92%
26.12%
0.00%
100.00%
45.90%
4.50%
5.79%
88.41%
8.38%
0.00%
0.00%

180,521
855
342
455
246
5,156
213
1,750
17
81
48
1,834
9,169
921
125
291
43,659
25,867
868
6,555
54,037
0
145

49,249
79
10
0
0
0
213
0
0
67
0
0
2,163
545
0
291
26,945
1,420
30
5,990
5,479
0
0

27.28%
9.23%
2.84%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
82.34%
0.00%
0.00%
23.59%
59.22%
0.00%
100.00%
61.72%
5.49%
3.45%
91.37%
10.14%
0.00%
0.00%

100,684
764
344
57
95
3,029
194
387
10
117
140
883
8,282
309
194
39
9,288
12,410
68
1,921
47,321
0
114

13,690
12
8
0
0
0
194
0
0
98
0
0
1,687
87
0
39
5,606
369
4
1,836
1,889
0
0

13.60%
1.60%
2.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
84.23%
0.00%
0.00%
20.37%
28.14%
0.00%
100.00%
60.36%
2.98%
6.15%
95.58%
3.99%
0.00%
0.00%

6,306

0

0.00%

1,086

0

0.00%

842

0

0.00%

92,034
13,387
80,802
156
3,085
2,093
1,675

17,373
12,826
0
0
0
0
1,675

18.88%
95.81%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%

15,440
3,460
6,138
11
316
547
887

1,862
3,268
0
0
0
0
887

12.06%
94.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%

5,177
757
7,051
26
202
288
373

763
724
0
0
0
0
373

14.74%
95.57%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 215

93
89
£
¤
£
¤
93
£
¤

V
U
71

17

§
¦
¨

WICKENBURG

60
£
¤

V
U
74

60

£
¤

CAVE CREEK

V
U
74

PEORIA

17

§
¦
¨
GLENDALE

SURPRISE
BUCKEYE
MARICOPA COUNTY

EL MIRAGE
PHOENIX

10

§
¦
¨

LITCHFIELD PARK

V
U

10

303

§
¦
¨
85
£
¤
85
85
£
£
¤
¤

V
U
85

85
£
85 ¤
£
¤

GOODYEAR
17

TOLLESON

60
£
¤
85
V
U

V
U
V
U
V
U
51

51

51

AVONDALE

85
£
¤
85
£
¤

Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

I

Subsidence
Hazard Rating
High

0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; ADWR 2008

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #6A
Maricopa County
Subsidence
Hazard Map
as of May 2009

V
U
87

17

§
¦
¨

V
U
188

V
U
87

CAVE CREEK

V
U
74

V
V U
U
74

74

PEORIA

V
U
288

CAREFREE

SCOTTSDALE

17

§
¦
¨

V
U
87

V
U
188

FT MCDOWELL INDIAN RESERVATION

GLENDALE
60
£
¤

FOUNTAIN HILLS

PHOENIX

60
£
¤

PARADISE VALLEY
60
£
¤

AVONDALE

10

§
¦
¨
V
U
85

V
U
288

88
V
U

SALT RIVER-PIMA INDIAN RESERVATION

V V
U
V U
U
V
U
51

202

V
U
101

153

51

TEMPE

MESA

V
U
87

V
U
88

60
60
£
£
¤
¤

GUADALUPE

60
£
¤

GILBERT
GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION
17

347

79

V
U
V
V U
U
587
587

GOODYEAR

Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

V
U

QUEEN CREEK

V
U

Legend

60
£
¤

CHANDLER

V
U
79

87

I

Subsidence
Hazard Rating
High

0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; ADWR 2008

MARICOPA
COUNTY

V
U
177

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #6B
Maricopa County
Subsidence
Hazard Map
as of May 2009

PHOENIX

85
£
¤

GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION
BUCKEYE

85
£
¤

GOODYEAR

85

£
¤
V
U
238

V
U
347

GILA BEND

8

§
¦
¨

V
U
84

V
U
84

MARICOPA COUNTY

V
U
V
U
85

85

TOHONO INDIAN RESERVATION

17

Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

I

Subsidence
Hazard Rating
High

0

40

80
Miles

160

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; ADWR 2008

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #6C
Maricopa County
Subsidence
Hazard Map
as of May 2009

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 216

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.3.9

2009

Wildfire
Description
A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through wildland vegetative fuels and/or urban
interface areas where fuels may include structures. They often begin unnoticed, spread quickly, and are
usually signaled by dense smoke that may fill the area for miles around. Wildfires can be humancaused through acts such as arson or campfires, or can be caused by natural events such as lightning.
If not promptly controlled, wildfires may grow into an emergency or disaster. Even small fires can
threaten lives, resources, and destroy improved properties.
The indirect effects of wildfires can also be catastrophic. In addition to stripping the land of
vegetation and destroying forest resources and personal property, large, intense fires can harm the soil,
waterways and the land itself. Soil exposed to intense heat may temporarily lose its capability to
absorb moisture and support life. Exposed soils in denuded watersheds erode quickly and are easily
transported to rivers and streams thereby enhancing flood potential, harming aquatic life and degrading
water quality. Lands stripped of vegetation are also subject to increased landslide hazards.
History
The Sonoran desert vegetation typically found in Maricopa County is less dense than other
areas of the state. That fact, combined with relative density of urban area, makes wildfire risk within
the County relatively low when compared to the more densely forested areas of the state. There is still
wildfire risk to Maricopa County as demonstrated by the following past historic events:
•

In March 2004, The Citris Fire located west of Gila Bend burned over 5,700 acres along the Gila
River included State, Private and Federal lands.

•

In June 2005, lightning touched off the Cave Creek Complex Fire in the northern part of Maricopa
County about 5 miles northeast of Carefree. The fire had threatened 440 homes in the Tonto Hills
and Camp Creek areas, as well as major power lines serving Phoenix. There were damages
reported to 11 residences and 3 out-buildings in Camp Creek (USFS, 2009).

•

In June 2008, lightning touched off the Ethan Brush Fire in the heavily vegetated Gila River bed
south of Laveen. Approximately 50 residents of 18 homes were evacuated overnight and allowed
to return the their undamaged homes the next day. The fire ultimately consumed about 7,000
acres (Az Republic, 2008).

•

In August 2008, the Robins Butte fire burned about 500 acres of the Gila River bottom located
four miles west of State Route 85, south of Palo Verde Road, and near Buckeye (Az Republic,
2008).

Probability and Magnitude
The probability and magnitude of wildfire incidents for Maricopa County are influenced by
numerous factors including vegetation densities, previous burn history, hydrologic conditions, climatic
conditions such as temperature, humidity, and wind, ignition source (human or natural), topographic
aspect and slope, and remoteness of area.
Wildfire hazard areas have been identified by the State of Arizona as a part of the 2003/04
Arizona Wildland Urban Interface Assessment (AWUIA) project (Fisher, 2004). The increasing
growth of Arizona’s rural populations, urban sprawl, and increasing wildland fuel loads ads to create a
mix of situations that is known as the wildland urban interface (WUI). The purpose of the AWUIA
was to attempt to conduct an analysis on a statewide basis using a common spatial model, for
validation of those communities listed in the federal register as WUI, and further identify possible
other communities at risk. The AWUIA approach used four main data layers:
•

TOPO – aspect and slope derived from 30 meter Digital Elevation Model data from USGS.

•

RISK – historical fire density using point data from fire record years 1986–1996 from all
wildland agencies.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 217

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
•

HAZARD – fuels, natural fire regimes and condition class.

•

HOUSE – houses and/or structures

2009

A value rating of 1-15 was used for all layers.
Two separate results were developed. The first coverage used an applied weighting scheme
that combined each of the four data layers to develop a ranking model for identifying WUI
communities at greatest risk. The second coverage, referred to as the “Land Hazard”, also applied a
weighting scheme that combined only the TOPO, RISK, and HAZARD layers, as follows:
LAND HAZARD = (HAZARD*70%)+(RISK*20%)+(TOPO*10%)
Weighing percentages were determined through discussion with the Arizona Interagency
Coordinating Group. The “Land Hazard” layer produced from this model is based on a 250-meter
raster grid (some data originated at 1,000-meter). The resultant raster values range from 1-15 and were
classified into three groups to depict wildfire hazard without the influence of structures: HIGH (values
of 10-15), MEDIUM (values of 7-9), and LOW (values of 1-6).
Additional modifications were made to the map to accurately reflect the wildfire hazard posed
by the dense the vegetation found along the Gila River and floodplain, as well as other waterways with
extraordinarily high density vegetation. Recent aerial photography was used to modify the coverages
as needed. The resulting wildfire hazard areas are presented on Maps 7A, 7B, and 7C will be used
quantitatively for the vulnerability assessment. The AWUIA also identified the following 5 WUI
communities as at risk in Maricopa County:
•

St. Johns – Moderate risk

•

Buckeye Valley – Moderate risk

•

Gila Bend – Moderate risk

•

New River – Moderate risk

•

Sunflower – Low risk

Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Wildfire CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-59 below.
Table 5-59: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for wildfire
Magnitude/
Participating Jurisdiction
Probability
Severity
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project

Likely
Likely
Highly Likely
Likely
Possibly
Possibly
Likely
Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Possibly
Likely
Unlikely
Possibly
Highly Likely
Unlikely
Possibly
Likely
Unlikely
Possibly
Likely
Likely

Limited
Limited
Critical
Critical
Negligible
Limited
Critical
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Critical
Negligible
Critical
Critical
Negligible
Limited
Critical
Critical

Warning
Time

Duration

CPRI
Score

<6 hours
<6 hours
6-12 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
6-12 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours

<1 week
<24 hours
>1 week
<1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
<1 week
<1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
>1 week
<6 hours
<1 week
<6 hours
<6 hours
>1 week
<1 week
<1 week

2.85
2.75
3.55
3.15
1.90
2.05
3.15
2.40
1.45
1.45
1.80
2.45
1.45
3.20
3.70
1.45
2.25
2.95
1.45
2.50
3.25
3.15

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 218

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 5-59: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for wildfire
Magnitude/
Participating Jurisdiction
Probability
Severity
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Likely
Possibly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Highly Likely
Possibly

Limited
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Critical
Critical

Warning
Time

2009

Duration

<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
>24 hours
<6 hours
<6 hours
<1 week
<6 hours
<1 week
County-wide average CPRI =

CPRI
Score
2.75
2.30
1.45
1.00
3.60
2.70
2.43

Vulnerability – Loss Estimations
The estimation of potential exposure to high and medium wildfire hazards was accomplished
by intersecting the human and facility assets with the wildfire hazard limits depicted on Maps 7A, 7B,
and 7C. Loss to exposure ratios of 0.20 (20%) and 0.05 (5%) were assumed to estimate losses for all
facilities located within the high and medium wildfire hazard areas, respectively. Table 5-60
summarizes the MJPT identified critical and non-critical facilities potentially exposed to high and
medium wildfire hazards, and the corresponding estimates of losses. Table 5-61 summarizes
population sectors exposed to the high and medium wildfire hazards. HAZUS residential, commercial
and industrial exposures and loss estimates to high and medium flood hazards are summarized in
Tables 5-12 through 5-39.
In summary, $3.8 million and $10,000 in asset related losses are estimated for high and
medium wildfire hazards, for all the participating jurisdictions in Maricopa County. An additional
$9.6 and $1.2 million in high and medium hazard wildfire losses to HAZUS defined residential,
commercial, and industrial facilities, is estimated for all participating Maricopa County jurisdictions.
Regarding human vulnerability, a total population of 571 and 222 people, or 0.04% and 0.01% of the
total 2000 Maricopa County population, is potentially exposed to a high and medium hazard wildfire
event, respectively. Typically, deaths and injuries not related to firefighting activities are rare.
However, it is feasible to assume that at least one death and/or injury may be plausible. There is also a
high probability of population displacement during a wildfire event, and especially in the urban
wildland interface areas.
It is duly noted that the loss and exposure numbers presented above represent a
comprehensive evaluation of the County as a whole. It is unlikely that a storm event would occur that
would flood all of the delineated high and medium flood hazard areas at the same time. Accordingly,
actual event based losses and exposure are likely to be only a fraction of those summarized above.
Vulnerability – Development Trend Analysis
By its very definition, the WUI represents the fringe of urban development at it intersects with
the natural environment. As communities push further out, more WUI is created. The County is
currently working on developing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan in cooperation with other
jurisdictions throughout the County. This document will ultimately establish a baseline for effective
mitigation against wildfire damages in the WUI of Maricopa County.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 219

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-60: Summary of asset inventory exposure to high and medium wildfire hazard and corresponding loss estimates

Community

Total Facilities
Reported by
Community

Impacted
Facilities

County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project 48
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

5,179
61
77
6
39
226
34
15
18
7
694
1,205
93
6
5
447
613
69
225
913
117
21
511
114
37
111
10
11
5

6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

48

Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
HIGH
0.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.15%
0.00%
0.00%
0.45%
0.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Percentage of Total
County-wide Facilities
Impacted
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
33.33%
0.00%
0.00%
33.33%
33.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
N/A
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Estimated
Replacement Cost
(x $1000)

Estimated
Structure Loss
(x $1000)

$19,207
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,750
$0
$0
$14,457
$3,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
N/A

$3,841
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$350
$0
$0
$2,891
$600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
N/A

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

Facility count for Salt River Project is not included in overall County-Wide totals and all data was provided by SRP.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 220

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-60: Summary of asset inventory exposure to high and medium wildfire hazard and corresponding loss estimates

Community

Total Facilities
Reported by
Community

Impacted
Facilities

County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Salt River Project 49
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

5,179
61
77
6
39
226
34
15
18
7
694
1,205
93
6
5
447
613
69
225
913
117
21
511
114
37
111
10
11
5

2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

49

Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
MEDIUM
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Percentage of Total
County-wide Facilities
Impacted
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
N/A
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Estimated
Replacement Cost
(x $1000)

Estimated
Structure Loss
(x $1000)

$204
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$204
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
N/A

$10
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
N/A

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

Facility count for Salt River Project is not included in overall County-Wide totals and all data was provided by SRP.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 221

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-61: Summary of population sectors exposed to high and medium wildfire hazard

Community
County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gila River Indian Community
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Pinal County
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tohono O'odham Nation
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Total
Population
Over 65
HIGH

Population
Over 65
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Over 65
Exposed

Total
Incomes
Under
$20K

Incomes
Under
$20K
Exposed

Percent of
Incomes
Under $20K
Exposed

Total
Population

Population
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Exposed

1,522,083
15,613
3,906
1,375
2,002
86,421
3,400
8,759
309
1,010
1,091
54,901
118,654
10,967
2,558
1,350
104,385
189,697
5,769
49,884
657,658
6
2,831

571
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
428
0
0
0
0
0
123
0
0
0
2
0
0

0.04%
0.00%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.08%
0.03%
39.23%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

180,521
855
342
455
246
5,156
213
1,750
17
81
48
1,834
9,169
921
125
291
43,659
25,867
868
6,555
54,037
0
145

30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.02%
0.01%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
40.09%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

100,684
764
344
57
95
3,029
194
387
10
117
140
883
8,282
309
194
39
9,288
12,410
68
1,921
47,321
0
114

63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.06%
0.00%
0.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
38.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

6,306

0

0.00%

1,086

0

0.00%

842

0

0.00%

92,034
13,387
80,802
156
3,085
2,093
1,675

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

15,440
3,460
6,138
11
316
547
887

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

5,177
757
7,051
26
202
288
373

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 222

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 5-61: Summary of population sectors exposed to high and medium wildfire hazard

Community
County-Wide Totals
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Gila Bend
Gila River Indian Community
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Guadalupe
Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Peoria
Phoenix
Pinal County
Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tohono O'odham Nation
Tolleson
Wickenburg
Youngtown

Percent of
Total
Population
Population
Exposed
Over 65
MEDIUM

Population
Over 65
Exposed

Percent of
Population
Over 65
Exposed

Total
Incomes
Under
$20K

Incomes
Under
$20K
Exposed

Percent of
Incomes
Under $20K
Exposed

Total
Population

Population
Exposed

1,522,083
15,613
3,906
1,375
2,002
86,421
3,400
8,759
309
1,010
1,091
54,901
118,654
10,967
2,558
1,350
104,385
189,697
5,769
49,884
657,658
6
2,831

222
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
5
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
171
0
0
0
0
0
8

0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
1.53%
0.00%
2.42%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.16%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.29%

180,521
855
342
455
246
5,156
213
1,750
17
81
48
1,834
9,169
921
125
291
43,659
25,867
868
6,555
54,037
0
145

40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
36
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
4.54%
0.00%
1.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.08%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.15%

100,684
764
344
57
95
3,029
194
387
10
117
140
883
8,282
309
194
39
9,288
12,410
68
1,921
47,321
0
114

23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
1

0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.85%
0.00%
2.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.06%

6,306

0

0.00%

1,086

0

0.00%

842

0

0.00%

92,034
13,387
80,802
156
3,085
2,093
1,675

8
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

15,440
3,460
6,138
11
316
547
887

1
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

5,177
757
7,051
26
202
288
373

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 223

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Sources
Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2009, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan,
2010 Update, DRAFT.
FEMA, 2001, Understanding Your Risks; Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, FEMA
Document No. 386-2.
Fisher, M., 2004, Arizona Wildland Urban Interface Assessment, 2003, prepared for the Arizona
Interagency Coordination Group.
http://www.azsf.az.gov/UserFiles/PDF/Arizona%20Wildland%20Urban%20Interface%20Assess
ment%2005MAR04.pdf
URS, 2004, Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Profile Maps
Maps 7A, 7B, and 7C – Wildfire Hazard Map(s)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 224

93
89
£
¤
£
¤
93
£
¤

V
U
71

17

§
¦
¨

WICKENBURG

60
£
¤

V
U
74

60

£
¤

CAVE CREEK

V
U
74

PEORIA

17

§
¦
¨
GLENDALE

SURPRISE
BUCKEYE
MARICOPA COUNTY

EL MIRAGE
PHOENIX

10

§
¦
¨

LITCHFIELD PARK

V
U

10

303

§
¦
¨
85
£
¤
85
85
£
£
¤
¤

V
U
85

85
£
85 ¤
£
¤

GOODYEAR
17

TOLLESON

60
£
¤
85
V
U

V
U
V
U
V
U
51

51

51

AVONDALE

85
£
¤
85
£
¤

Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

Wildfire Hazard Rating
High
Medium
Note: The Arizona Wildland Urban Interface
Assessment March 2004 uses four main data layer
comprised of Risk, Topography and House/Structure
Density to determine the wildfire hazard areas.

0

40

I
80

Miles
Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009
Arizona Wildland Urban Interface
Assessment, March 2004

160

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #7A
Maricopa County
Wildfire Hazard Map
as of May 2009

V
U
87

17

§
¦
¨

V
U
188

V
U
87

CAVE CREEK

V
U
74

V
V U
U
74

74

PEORIA

V
U
288

CAREFREE

SCOTTSDALE

17

§
¦
¨

V
U
87

V
U
188

FT MCDOWELL INDIAN RESERVATION

GLENDALE
60
£
¤

FOUNTAIN HILLS

PHOENIX

60
£
¤

PARADISE VALLEY
60
£
¤

AVONDALE

10

§
¦
¨
V
U
85

V
U
288

88
V
U

SALT RIVER-PIMA INDIAN RESERVATION

V V
U
V U
U
V
U
51

202

V
U
101

153

51

TEMPE

MESA

V
U
87

V
U
88

60
60
£
£
¤
¤

GUADALUPE

60
£
¤

GILBERT
GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION
17

V
U
347

Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! !

! !

! !

Major Streams
Canals Washes

V
U
79

QUEEN CREEK

V
U
V
V U
U
587
587

GOODYEAR

60
£
¤

CHANDLER

V
U
79

87

I

Wildfire Hazard Rating
High
Medium
Note: The Arizona Wildland Urban Interface
Assessment March 2004 uses four main data layer
comprised of Risk, Topography and House/Structure
Density to determine the wildfire hazard areas.

0

40

80
Miles

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009
Arizona Wildland Urban Interface
Assessment, March 2004

160

MARICOPA
COUNTY

V
U
177

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #7B
Maricopa County
Wildfire Hazard Map
as of May 2009

PHOENIX

85
£
¤

GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION
BUCKEYE

85
£
¤

GOODYEAR

85

£
¤
V
U
238

V
U
347

GILA BEND

8

§
¦
¨

V
U
84

V
U
84

MARICOPA COUNTY

V
U
V
U
85

85

TOHONO INDIAN RESERVATION

17

Legend

! !

! !

! !

Maricopa County

High

Mitigation Plan Extent

Medium

Major Streams
Canals Washes

I

Wildfire Hazard Rating

Note: The Arizona Wildland Urban Interface
Assessment March 2004 uses four main data layer
comprised of Risk, Topography and House/Structure
Density to determine the wildfire hazard areas.

0

40

80
Miles

Source: JE Fuller 2009; FEMA 2008;
ALRIS 2006; FCDMC 2009
Arizona Wildland Urban Interface
Assessment, March 2004

160

MARICOPA
COUNTY

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map #7C
Maricopa County
Wildfire Hazard Map
as of May 2009

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.4

2009

Risk Assessment Summary

The jurisdictional variability of risk associated with each hazard assessed in Section 5.3 is
demonstrated by the various CPRI and loss estimation results. Accordingly, each jurisdiction has varying levels
of need regarding the hazards to be mitigated, and may not consider all of the hazards as posing a great risk to
their individual communities. Table 5-62 summarizes the hazards selected for mitigation by each jurisdiction
and will be the basis for each jurisdictions mitigation strategy.

Carefree

x

Cave Creek

x

Severe Wind

Subsidence

Wildfire

Buckeye

Levee Failure

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Flood

x

Fissure

Extreme Heat

Avondale

Drought

Jurisdiction

Dam
Inundation

Table 5-62: Summary of hazards to be mitigated by each participating jurisdiction

x

x

x

x

x

x

Chandler

x

x

x

x

El Mirage

x

x

x

x

Fountain Hills

x

x

x

x

x

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

x

x

x

x

x

Gila Bend

x

x
x

Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
x

Guadalupe
x

Mesa

x

Peoria

x

x

Phoenix

x

x

Queen Creek

x

x

x

x

x

x

x
x

x
x

x

x

x

x

x

x
x

x

x

Salt River Project

x

x

x

Scottsdale
Surprise
x

x

x

x
x

x
x

x
x

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

Tempe

x
x

x
x

Paradise Valley

x

x
x

Litchfield Park
Unincorporated Maricopa County

x

x
x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Tolleson

x

Wickenburg

x

Youngtown

x

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

x
x

Page 225

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 226

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

SECTION 6: MITIGATION STRATEGY
§201.6(c)(3): [The plan shall include…] (3) A mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for
reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and
resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. This section shall include:
(i) A description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
(ii) A section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being
considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and
infrastructure.
(iii) An action plan describing how the actions identified in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section will be prioritized,
implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the
extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their
associated costs.
(iv) For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA
approval or credit of the plan.

The mitigation strategy provides the “what, when, and how” of actions that will reduce or possibly remove the
community’s exposure to hazard risks. According to DMA 2000, the primary components of the mitigation
strategy are generally categorized into the following:

5
5
5

Goals and Objectives
Capability Assessment
Mitigation Actions/Projects and Implementation Strategy

The entire 2004 Plan mitigation strategy was reviewed and updated by the MJPT, including a major reorganization of the mitigation strategy elements into this multi-jurisdictional plan format. Specifics of the
changes and updates are discussed in the subsections below.

6.1

Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives

The 2004 Plan goals and objectives were developed using the 2004 State Plan 50 goals and objectives as
a starting point. Each jurisdiction then edited and modified those goals and objectives to fit the mitigation
planning vision for their community. An assessment of those goals and objectives by the MJPT and the LPT for
each jurisdiction was made with consideration of the following 51:
•
•
•
•

Do the goals and objectives identified in the 2004 Plan reflect the updated risk assessment?
Did the goals and objectives identified in the 2004 Plan lead to mitigation projects and/or changes
an policy that helped the jurisdiction(s) to reduce vulnerability?
Do the goals and objectives identified in the 2004 Plan support any changes in mitigation
priorities?
Are the goals and objectives identified in the 2004 Plan reflective of current State goals?

After much discussion and comparison of the 2004 Plan goals and objectives to the 2007 State Plan,
the MJPT chose to completely drop the current list of goals and objectives in favor of preparing a multijurisdictional template of goals and objectives that are closely based on the 2007 State Plan. Reasons for the
change included:
•

The 2004 Plan goals and objectives were overly complicated and even confusing in some
instances.

•

Many of the 2004 Plan goals and objectives dealt with human-caused hazards which are no longer
part of this plan.

50

State of Arizona, 2004, State of Arizona All Hazard Mitigation Plan, prepared by URS.

51

FEMA, 2008, Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 227

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

•

The 2007 State Plan goals and objectives were much simpler and better captured the overall
planning vision of the MJPT.

•

Having a simpler, common set of goals and objectives for the multi-jurisdictional plan will make
future assessment of the progress and achievements easier.

The result of the discussions resulted in establishing one goal and four clear objectives that will be
used by all participating jurisdictions, as follows:

¾

6.2

GOAL: Reduce or eliminate the risk to people and property from natural hazards.


Objective 1: Reduce or eliminate risks that threaten life and property in the
incorporated, unincorporated, and Tribal jurisdictions within Maricopa County.



Objective 2: Reduce risk to critical facilities and infrastructure from natural hazards.



Objective 3: Promote hazard mitigation throughout the incorporated, unincorporated,
and Tribal jurisdictions within Maricopa County.



Objective 4: Increase public awareness of hazards and risks that threaten the
incorporated, unincorporated, and Tribal jurisdictions within Maricopa County.

Capability Assessment

While not required by DMA 2000, an important component of the Mitigation Strategy is a review of
each participating jurisdiction’s resources in order to identify, evaluate, and enhance the capacity of local
resources to mitigate the effects of hazards. The capability assessment is comprised of several components:

9 Legal and Regulatory Review – a review of the legal and regulatory capabilities, including
ordinances, codes, plans, manuals, guidelines, and technical reports that address hazard mitigation
activities.

9 Technical Staff and Personnel – this assessment evaluated and describes the administrative and
technical capacity of the jurisdiction’s staff and personnel resources.

9 Fiscal Capability – this element summarizes each jurisdiction’s fiscal capability to provide the
financial resources to implement the mitigation strategy.

9 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Participation – the NFIP contains specific regulatory
measures that enable government officials to determine where and how growth occurs relative to
flood hazards. Participation in the NFIP is voluntary for local governments, but the program is
promoted by FEMA as a basic first step for implementing and sustaining an effective flood hazard
mitigation program, and is a key indicator for measuring local capability as part of this
assessment.

9 Prior Mitigation Actions – the final part of the capability assessment is a summary review of prior
mitigation actions and/or projects that have been completed over the last five or so years.
For this update, the MJPT reviewed the information provided in Section 8 of the 2004 Plan, and
specifically Tables 8.1 – 8.4. The MJPT chose to keep the format of Tables 8.2 and 8.3 for reporting the
staff/personnel and fiscal resources. Table 8.1 was modified to not only report on the regulatory capabilities,
but also to summarize the codes, plans, and studies/reports used by a jurisdiction. Table 8.4 was considered to
be confusing and not beneficial, and was dropped from the plan.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 228

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
6.2.1

2009

Jurisdictional Capabilities

Tables 6-1-1 through 6-1-28 summarize the legal and regulatory mitigation capability for teach
jurisdiction. Information provided includes a brief listing of current codes, mitigation relevant ordinances,
plans, and studies/reports. Tables 6-2-1 through 6-2-28 summarize the staff and personnel resources employed
by each jurisdiction that serve as a resource for hazard mitigation. Tables 6-3-1 through 6-3-28 summarize the
fiscal capability and budgetary tools available to each participating jurisdiction. Each of these three tables are
listed below by jurisdiction.

Table 6-1-1: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Avondale
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

CODES

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ORDINANCES

•
•
•

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

STUDIES

•

2006 International Building Code
2006 International Residential Code
2006 International Mechanical Code
2006 International Plumbing Code
2006 International Energy Conservation
Code
2005 National Electrical Code
2003 International Fire Code
City of Avondale Ordinances (as Adopted)
& Weed Abatement Ordinance/Planning
International Property Maintenance Code
(IPMC) - 302.4
Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations 2006 – Chapter 5 Planned Area
Development District
General Plan/City Ordinance

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•
•

Building Official
Code Enforcement
Fire Marshal

•
•

Code Enforcement
Planning & Zoning

Capital Improvement Project Plan
Development Guidelines and Policies
City Emergency Operations Plan
Pandemic Preparedness and Response Plan
Flood Control and Response Plan
(McMicken Dam)
Nation Response Framework
State and Local Mitigation Plan (as adopted)

•
•
•
•
•

Planning & Zoning
Building Official
Fire
Code Enforcement
Safety/Risk

Maricopa County Mass Evacuation Planning
Group

•

Fire

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 229

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-1: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Avondale
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s)
or
engineer(s)
with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Ken Sowers-Chief Building Official

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction
practices
related
to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Sue McDermott-City Engineer

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Sue McDermott-City Engineer

;

Sue McDermott-City Engineer

;

Ken Sowers-Chief Building Official

;

Marilyn Derosa-GIS

;
;

Art Snapp-Fire

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

Janeen Gaskins-Grants Supervisor

Table 6-3-1: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Avondale
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 230

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-2: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Buckeye
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

CODES

ORDINANCES

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

STUDIES

•
•
•
•

2006 International Building Code
2006 International Residential Code
2006 International Mechanical Code
2006 International Plumbing Code
2005 National Electrical Code
2006 International Fuel Gas Code
2006 International Energy Conversation Code
2006 International Property Maintenance
Code
2006 International Existing Building Code
2006 International Fire Code
Zoning Ordinance
2009 Water Conservation Ordinance
2004 Town of Buckeye Hazard Mitigation
Plan (currently being updated)
2007 Town of Buckeye General Plan Update
2007 Airport Master Plan
Development Code Update (currently being
updated)
2005 Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master
Plan
2008 Trails Master Plan
Site Plan Review Requirements
Capital Improvements Plan
Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study
2008 ADOT Hazardous Materials Study
MAG Regional Transportation Study
Impact Fee Study (currently being updated)
MAG Commuter Rail Study – Yuma West
corridor (currently in progress)
Water / Wastewater Master Plan (currently in
progress)
Transportation Master Plan (currently in
progress)
Drainage Master Plan (currently in progress)
Downtown Storm Drain Improvement Plan
(currently in progress)

Responsible Department/Agency

•

Fire Department – Building
Safety Division

•
•

Community Development
Water Resources

•
•
•
•

Community Development
Community Services
Fire
Public Works

•
•
•
•

Community Services
Engineering Services
Public Works
Water Resources

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 231

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-2: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Buckeye
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s)
or
engineer(s)
with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Planning, Planners

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction
practices
related
to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Engineering, Engineers – Architecture, Architects

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Planning, Engineering, Water Services Dept, Development
Services Dept

;
;

Street, Transportation Dept

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

;
;
;
;
;

Street, Public Works, Water Services Dept
Neighborhood Services Dept, Human Services, Emergency
Management, Development Services, Fire Dept, Police Dept,
Public Works, Streets, Engineering, Architecture, Water
Services Dept
ITD, Fire Dept, Police Dept
Police Dept, Water Services Dept, Fire Dept
Fire Dept, Fire Chief
Every Dept

Table 6-3-2: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Buckeye
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 232

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-3: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Carefree
Regulatory Tools for
Description
Responsible Department/Agency
Hazard Mitigation
• 2003 International Building Code
• 2002 National Electrical Code
CODES
• 2003 International Mechanical Code
• Building Department (all)
• 1994 International Plumbing Code
• 2003 International Residential Code
• Abatement Ordinance Town Code 6-1
2006
• Adult Oriented Business Town Zoning
Ordinance 2006
• Zoning Administrator
ORDINANCES
• Dark Sky Ordinance Town Building Code
• Town Marshal
2003
• Town Council
• Noise Ordinance Town Code 6-2(P-23)
2006
• Town Zoning Ordinance 2003
• Zoning and Planning Addressing
Regulations
REGULATIONS
• Flood Control District
• Zoning Administrator
• Dust Abatement Regulations
• Town Subdivision Regulations
• Town Plan for Area Land Use In 2002
General Plan
• 2008 Town Transportation Plan
• Comprehensive Planning Amendments
• Guidelines included in 2002 General Plan
• Planning and Development included in
2002General Plan and 2006 Carefree
• Zoning Administrator
Zoning Ordinances
PLANS, MANUALS,
• Town Hydrologist
•
Development
Master
Plan
Guidelines
and/or GUIDELINES
• Town Engineer
included in Carefree 2002
General Plan
• Area Drainage Master Plan completed via
2004 Maricopa County Flood Control
District
• Watercourse Master Plan completed via
2004 Maricopa County Flood Control
District
• Dam Safety Studies / Emergency Action
Plans 2006
• Zoning Administrator
STUDIES
• Area Drainage Master Studies
• Town Hydrologist
• Corridor Studies 2007 Traffic Study
• Town Engineer
• Emergency Routes Evaluation 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 233

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-3: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Carefree
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Planning and Development - Planners
Environmental Services – Inspectors

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Planning and Development - Planners
Environmental Services – Inspectors

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Planning and Development - Planners
Emergency Management - Planners

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors

;

Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards

;

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community

;
;

Emergency manager

;

Grant writer(s)

;

None on Staff
Planning and Development - Planners
Transportation – Engineer Patrick Neal
Emergency Management – Planners
Planning and Development – GIS Staff
Emergency Management – GIS Staff
Sheriff’s Office – Marshal
Elections – Town Clerk/GIS Staff
Environmental Services – GIS Staff
Air Quality – GIS Staff
Contract On Staff – Hydrologist Erich Korsten
Emergency Management - Director/Marshal/Planners
Emergency Management - Marshal
Fire Department – Grant writer
Water Department - Manager
Planning and Development - Planners
Environmental Services – Inspectors

Others

Table 6-3-3: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Carefree
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 234

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-4: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Cave Creek
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

Description
•
•
•

CODES

ORDINANCES

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

•
•
•
•
•

STUDIES

•
•
•
•
•

2003 International Building Code
2003 International Residential Code
1994 International Plumbing Code w/ state
amendments
2003 International Mechanical Code
2003 International Fire Code
2002 National Electric Code
2007 Cave Creek Zoning Ordinance
2004 Cave Creek Sub-Division Ordinance
2005 Town of Cave Creek General Plan
2007 Town of Cave Creek Town Core and
Implementation Plan
2008 Town of Cave Creek DMP Flood
Response Plan
2008 Town of Cave Creek Master Drainage
Plan
2005 Town of Cave Creek Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan (currently being updated)
2007 Town of Cave Creek Emergency
Operations Plan
2008 Town of Cave Creek Drought Plan
2008 Town of Cave Creek Master Water
Plan
2008 Town of Cave Creek Water
Emergency Operations Plan
2007 Town of Cave Creek Sewer Master
Plan
2006 Water Acquisition feasibility Study
1998 Transportation Study Plan
2004 Development Fee Study
2009 Water Rate study
2009 Sewage Rate Study

Responsible Department/Agency

•

Chief Building Official

•

Planning and Zoning
Administrator

•
•
•
•

Maricopa County Flood
Control
Town of Cave Creek Engineer
Town Marshal
Town Utilities Manager

•
•
•

Town Engineer
Town Manager
Town Council

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 235

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-4: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Cave Creek
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Planning and Zoning Staff. Town Engineer. Town Manager.
Town of Cave Creek Building Official.

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Town of Cave Creek Building Official. Town Engineer. Town
Utilities Manager.

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Planning and Zoning Staff. Town Engineer. Town Manager.
Town of Cave Creek Building Official.

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards

;

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS

;

Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community

;

Emergency manager

;
;

Town of Cave Creek Engineer
Out Sourced
Town Marshal
Town Engineer
Utilities Manager
Town Planning Staff
Assistant Utilities Manager
Town Engineer
Town Utilities Manager
Town Marshal
District Fire Chief
Staff

Grant writer(s)
Others

;

Table 6-3-4: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Cave Creek
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 236

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-5: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Chandler
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

CODES

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ORDINANCES

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

STUDIES

•
•

2006 International Building Code
2006 International Plumbing Code
2006 International Mechanical Code
2006 International Fire Code
2006 International Residential Code
2006 National Electric Code
Chandler Code of Ordinances (Municode.com)
Chandler Code of Ordinances (Municode.com):
Flood Plain Administration Ord. No. 2970/3311
Weed Abatement Ord No. 3879
Land Use Zoning Ord. No. 3063
Engineering Standard Details and Specifications
Technical Design Manuals
Stormwater Prevention Plan
Flood Control District Floodplain Maps
Stormwater Master Plan
Chandler\Gilbert Floodplain Delineation Study
Ph 1 Eastern Canal
Chandler\Gilbert Floodplain Delineation Study
Ph 2 Consolidated Canal
Chandler\Gilbert Floodplain Delineation Study
Ph 3 Union Pacific RR and Arizona Av
Higley Area Drainage Master Plan

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Planning & Development
Services
Fire Department
City Clerk

Planning and Development
Services
Public Works
Planning and Development
Services
Public Works

Public Works
Maricopa County Flood
Control District

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 237

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-5: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Chandler
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Planning & Development – Planners

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Public Works & Planning and Development – Engineers

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Planning & Development, Public Works, Municipal Utilities –
planners and engineers

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards

;

Public Works
Public Works

;

Fire Department

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS

;

Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager

;
;
;

Information technology, Public Works, Planning &
Development, Fire, Police
Municipal Utilities,
Public Works
Fire Department

Grant writer(s)
Others

All Departments

Table 6-3-5: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Chandler
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 238

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-6: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for El Mirage
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

CODES

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ORDINANCES

•
•

•
•

•
•
•
PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

•
•
•
•

El Mirage City Code
2006 International Building Code
2006 International Fire Code
2005 National Electric Code
1997 Dangerous Building Code
2006 International Fuel Gas Code
2006 International Energy Conservation
Code
1997 Uniform Administrative Code
Chapter 19 - Off Site Construction
Chapter 30.28 - Emergency purchases
Chapter 30.65-30.70 - Civil Preparedness
and Disaster
Chapter 33 - City Court
Chapter 34 - Police and Fire Department
Chapter 50 - Water Supply System
Chapter 51 - Sewers
Chapter 52 - Sanitation
Chapter 53 - Storm Water Quality
Protection
Chapter 90 - Nuisance and Neighborhood
Preservation
Chapter 94 - Air Pollution Regulations;
Dust Control
Chapter 96 - International Fire Code and
Alarm Systems
Chapter 150 - Building Code – 2006;
International Plumbing Code – 2006;
National Electrical Code – 2005;
International Mechanical Code – 2006;
Dangerous Building Code – 1997; Mobile
and Manufactured Housing Standards;
International Energy Conservation Code –
2006; International Fuel Gas Code – 2006;
Uniform Administrative Code- 1997.
Chapter 153 - Floodplain Management
Chapter 154 - Zoning Code
• Section 21-5-13 Floodway overlay
• Section 21-5-14 Floodplain overlay
• Section 21-5-15 Airfield Impact overlay
Chapter 155 - Subdivisions
2003 General Plan
2008 Emergency action Plan for El Mirage
Employees
El Mirage Emergency Operations Plan
Engineering General Notes & Guidelines
Maricopa Association of Governments
(MAG) Standards
District Flood Control Standard

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•
•
•

City Clerk
Building Department
Fire Department
City Clerk

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Engineering
Finance
City Manager
Municipal Judge
Police Department
Public Works
Code Compliance
Fire Department

•
•
•
•
•

Planning Department
Human Resources
Fire Department
Engineering
Maricopa Association of
Governments
Maricopa County Flood
Control

•

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 239

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-6: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for El Mirage
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

Description
•

STUDIES

•
•

Flood Insurance Study by Flood Control
District of Maricopa County
Floodplain Study by Flood Control District
of Maricopa County
Dam Safety Study by Flood Control District
of Maricopa County

Responsible Department/Agency

•

Maricopa County

Table 6-2-6: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for El Mirage
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Community Development Director, City Engineer, City
Planner

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

City Engineer, Engineering Technicians, Building Official

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

City Engineer, Building Official, Fire Chief

;
;

City Engineer

;

City Engineer, Building Official, Fire Chief,

;

City GIS Technician, Information Technology Director

;
;

Fire Chief, Police Chief

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

City Engineering & Public Works staff

City Grants Coordinator

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 240

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-3-6: Summary of fiscal capabilities for El Mirage
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 241

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-7: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

TRIBAL CODES

TRIBAL
ORDINANCES

TRIBAL
REGULATIONS
PLANS, MANUALS,
GUIDELINES, and/or
STUDIES

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

2000 International Building Code
2000 National Electrical Code
2000 International Mechanical Code
2000 International Plumbing Code
2000 International Fire Code
Floodplain Management
Hazard Abatement
Subdivision
Noise
Wildfire Prevention
Addressing
Drainage/Stormwater
Site Plan Reviews
Land Use Restrictions
All, as required by Tribal Council.
(SEE TRIBAL ANNEX)

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•

Planning/Development Dept.
Fire Department

•
•
•
•

Planning/Development Dept.
Emergency Manager.
License & Property Use Dept.
Environmental Department.

•
•
•

Fire Department
Planning/Development Dept.
License & Property Use Dept
Community and Economic
Development Division.
(SEE TRIBAL ANNEX)

Table 6-2-7: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards
Floodplain Manager
Surveyors

Planning and Development - Planners/
Planning and Building - Committee
Environmental Services - Inspectors/Analysts
General Managers office – General Manager
Land Use - Manager
Housing - Manager
Planning and Development - Building Inspectors
Flood Control - Engineers
Transportation - Engineers/Consultants
Environmental Services - Air/Water Quality Testers /Analysts

;

Planning and Development - Planners
Emergency Management - Fire Chief, Police Chief,
Environmental Director, Public Works Director

;

Planning and Development – Director and Engineers

Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards

;

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS

;

Planning and Development – Planners, Engineers
Transportation – Engineers, Police Chief, Fire Chief,
Emergency Manager
Emergency Management – Police Chief, Fire Chief,
Emergency Manager, Planners
Planning and Development –Staff
Emergency Management –Staff
Police Department–Staff
Fire Department - Staff
Environmental Services –Staff

Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 242

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-7: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

;
;

Emergency Management - General Manager, Fire Chief
All Departments – Grants and Contracts Administrator

Table 6-3-7: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Accessible but historically not
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
obtained
Tribal Capital Improvement
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Programs funded by tribal enterprise
revenue
Eligible to impose direct assessments
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
for use of tribal lands
Eligible to assess Water, Sewer,
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Solid Waste, and Transfer station
fees.
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
Limited Use
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other: Grants, Inter-governmental
Eligible for federal, state, tribal
Agreements and Specific Planning and
Yes
directed grants and IGA’s
Project Grants

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 243

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-8: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Fountain Hills
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation
CODES
ORDINANCES

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

Description
•

2006 IBC, IRC, IPC, IMC, IECC, IFC.
2005 NEC. 97 UCADB

•
•

Building Safety
Fire Department

•
•
•
•
•

Amendments to the IBC,IRC,IFC
Including fire sprinklers in all structures
2002 General Plan
2006 Stormwater Management Plan
1996 – Fountain Hills Area Drainage
Master Plan
1997 - Fountain Hills Area Drainage
Master Plan, Emergency Access Plan and
Routes Evaluation
2001 - Emergency Action Plan for Golden
Eagle Park Dam Modifications
Check lists and minimum mandatory
submital documents and specifications
1994 - Fountain Hills North Floodplain
Delineation Study
1994 - Fountain Hills South Floodplain
Delineation Study
1996 - Fountain Hills Retardation
Structure Emergency Action Plan
1997 - Town of Fountain Hills, Dam
Break Analysis for Golden Eagle Park
Dam, Hesperus Wash Dam, Aspen Dam,
North Heights Dam, Sun Ridge Canyon
Dam
ISO rating for building safety

•
•

Building Safety
Fire Department

•
•

Planning and Zoning
Public Works

•
•

Public Works
Building Safety

•
•
•
•
•
•

STUDIES

Responsible Department/Agency

•

•

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 244

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-8: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Fountain Hills
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Public Works/Town Engineer/Randy Harrel, PE

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Public Works/Town Engineer/Randy Harrel, PE

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Public Works/Director/Tom Ward
Public Works/Town Engineer/Randy Harrel, PE

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community

;

Public Works/Town Engineer/ Randy Harrel, PE
None

;

Public Works/Director/Tom Ward

;

CAD Services/GIS Tech/Ken Valverde

Emergency manager

;

Grant writer(s)

;

Others

None
Scott LaGreca/Fire Chief
Public Works/ Director/ Tom Ward
Scott LaGreca/Fire Chief
Public Works/Town Engineer/ Randy Harrel, PE
None

Table 6-3-8: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Fountain Hills
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
No
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Requires citizen vote
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
No
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Requires citizen vote
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Requires citizen vote
Other
Yes
Local Sales Tax

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 245

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-9: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Gila Bend
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

Description

•

•

International Building Code

ORDINANCES

•
•

Flood Plain Management Ordinance
Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

•
•

General Plan
CIP Plan

STUDIES

•
•

Water, streets, sewer studies
Maps (FEMA, Effective date of September
2005)

CODES

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Community Development
Services
Public Works & Engineering
Community Development
Services
Public Works & Engineering
Community Development
Services
Public Works & Engineering
Community Development
Services
Public Works & Engineering
Flood Control District of
Maricopa County

Table 6-2-9: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Gila Bend
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Town Engineer

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

Contract personnel

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

Contract personnel

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

;

Managed by FCDMC
Contract personnel
Public Works Director
Fire Chief
EMS
Contract personnel
Contract personnel

;

Public Works Director
Contract personnel

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 246

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-3-9: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Gila Bend
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Water, trash and sewer fees
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other
Yes
WIFA, Rural Development

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 247

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-10: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Gilbert
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

CODES

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ORDINANCES

•
•
•
•

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

•
•
•
•
•
•

1996 Code Town of Gilbert, Arizona
2006 International Fire Code
2006 International Building Code
2006 International Residential Code
2006 International Mechanical Code
2006 International Plumbing Code
2006 International Fuel Gas Code
2006 International Energy Conservation
Code
2005 National Electrical Code
The Arizonans with Disabilities Act &
Implementing Rules
2005 Town of Gilbert Land Development
Code
1987 The Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance of the Town of Gilbert,
Arizona.
• Regulations for Construction
and Alteration of Land in
Special Flood Hazard Areas
in the Town.
• Providing for Repeal of
Conflicting Ordinances
• Providing for Severability
• Providing for Penalties
• Declaring an Emergency
Flood Plain Management Ordinance is
Chapter 34 of Town Code
2006 Town of Gilbert Storm Water
Management Program
2009 Area Drainage Master Plan
(currently underway/managed by
Maricopa Flood Control District)
2003 Gilbert Water Supply Reduction
Management Plan
2005-2011 Capital Improvement Plan
2005/2007 Town of Gilbert Emergency
Operation Plan
2001 General Plan Town of Gilbert
2005 Town of Gilbert Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan (currently being updated)
2005 Town of Gilbert Land Development
Code
2005 Town of Gilbert Public Works and
Engineering Standards and Details.
• Article 2 – Drainage
Engineering

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•

Developmental Services
Fire Department

•

Development Services

•
•
•
•

Public Works
Fire Department
Development Services
Management Office

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 248

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-10: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Gilbert
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

Description

Responsible Department/Agency

•

STUDIES

2005 Chandler/Gilbert Floodplain
Delineation Study Phase 1 “Eastern Canal
Watershed” Revised 2007.
• 2008 Chandler/Gilbert Floodplain
Delineation Study Phase 2 “Consolidated
Canal Watershed”.
• 2009 Chandler/Gilbert Floodplain
Delineation Study Phase 3 “UPRR/Arizona
Avenue Watershed”.
• 2005 Flood Insurance Study for “Maricopa
County, Arizona and Unincorporated Areas”
Volumes 1 thru 17.
• FEMA DFIRM Maps (FEMA, Effective date
of September 2005)
• Fissure/Subsidence Study - Chandler Heights
Study Area
(Includes Gilbert Area) 2007/2008. Per Ariz. Rev.
Stat. § 27-152.01(3) September 21, 2006

•
•

Public Works
Development Services

Table 6-2-10: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Gilbert
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

;

Development Services Department - Planner, Business
Development Manager, Business Development Specialists
Development Services Department - Construction practices –
Inspection & Compliance Services Manager, Building
Inspection Administrator, Senior Building Inspectors,
Inspector II’s, Inspector I’s, Fire Inspectors, Permitting & Plan
Review Manager, Senior Building Plans Examiners, Building
Plans Examiner. Infrastructure – Town Engineer,
Engineering/Traffic/Planning Administrator,
Engineering/Planning Inspection Administrator, Traffic
Engineering Inspector II’s,
Public Works Department – Infrastructure - Utility Field
Supervisors, Senior Utility Workers, Utility Workers,
Instrumentation Technician, Water Treatment Plant Mechanic,
Well Technician, Lift Station Technicians, and
Instrumentation Technicians
Development Services - Associate Engineer

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards
Floodplain Manager
Surveyors

;

Public Works Department - Public Works Director

;

Fire Department - Emergency Management Coordinator
Public Works Department - Public Works Director

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 249

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-10: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Gilbert
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards

;

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS

;

Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager

;
;

Grant writer(s)

;

Gilbert Fire Department - Emergency Management
Coordinator
Gilbert Public Works Department - Public Works Director
Support Services Department - GIS Technician I and II
GIS Database Analysis, GIS Administrator
Public Works Department - Water Quality
Supervisor/Chemist
Fire Department - Emergency Management Coordinator
Fire Department - Emergency Management Coordinator,
Police Department - Police Plan and Research Coordinator

Others

Table 6-3-10: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Gilbert
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Gas and electric are private/public
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
utilities
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 250

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-11: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Glendale
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

Description
•
•
•

CODES

ORDINANCES

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

STUDIES

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

2006 International Residential Code
International Building Code
International Mechanical Code, Uniform
Plumbing Code
Existing Building Code
2005 National Electrical Code
Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines and the City Code
City of Glendale Zoning Ordinance and
associated PAD and PRD documents,
Landscape Ordinance
Flood Plain Ordinance
Grating and Drainage Ordinance
Sub-Division Ordinance
City Department SOP’s
City of Glendale Emergency Operations Plan
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan
General Plan 2025
North Valley Specific Area Plan
Glendale Centerline
Western Area Plan
West Glendale Avenue Development Plan
Commercial and Industrial Design
Guidelines
Residential Design & Development Manual
Adopted State Erosion Standard
Engineer Design and Construction Standards
Middle New River Master Plan
2003 Maricopa County Transportation Study
2001 COG Transportation Plan
Storm Water Master Plan Update

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•

Building Safety
Engineering

•
•
•

Building Safety
Engineering
Planning

•
•
•

Emergency Management
Engineering
Planning

•
•

Transportation
Planning

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 251

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-11: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Glendale
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Planning, Planners

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Engineering, Engineers – Architecture, Architects
Building Safety-Structural Engineers and Architects

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Planning, Engineering, Utilities Dept., Building Safety

;

Engineering Dept.
Street, Public Works, Utilities Dept.
Neighborhood Services Dept, Human Services, Emergency
Management, Building Safety, Fire Dept, Police Dept, Public
Works, Streets, Engineering, Architecture, Utilities Dept.
IT Department, Fire Dept, Police Dept

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

;
;
;
;
;

Police Dept, Utilities Dept., Fire Dept
City Manager’s Office, Emergency Manager
All Depts

Table 6-3-11: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Glendale
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Community Partnerships
Finance Department/Management
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
and Budget
Function of Legislation (see COG
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
website-Appendix 18 FAQ under
levy taxes)
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Utility Department
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
Public Works Administration
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Management and Budget
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Management and Budget
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 252

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-12: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Goodyear
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

Description
•
•
•
•

CODES

•
•
•
•

ORDINANCES

•
•
•
•
•
•

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

•
•
•
•
•

STUDIES

•
•

International Building Code, 2006
International Residential Code, 2006
International Mechanical Code, 2006
International Property Maintenance Code,
2006
International Energy Conservation Code,
2006
NFPA 70, The National Electrical Code
including Annex A – G, 2006
NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities, 2006
ICC/ANSI A117.1 Accessible and Usable
Buildings and Facilities, 2006
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, 2005
Zoning Ordinance, 2009
Subdivision Regulations, 2008
Engineering Design Standards and Policies
Manual, 2007
General Plan, 2003
General Plan Amendments, 2004 through
2009
Design Guidelines, 2008
City Center Specific Plan, 2009
Storm Water Management Plan – Amended,
2006
Sonoran Valley Planning Area document,
2007
White Tank Area Drainage Master Plan,
2003
Waterman Wash Floodplain Delineation
Study, 2006
Rainbow Valley Area Drainage Master Plan,
in progress

Responsible Department/Agency

•

Fire Building and Life Safety

•

Engineering

•

Community Development

•

Community Development

Table 6-2-12: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Goodyear
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Community Development – Director
Engineering – City Engineer

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Community Development - Director
Fire Department - Chief Building Official
Engineering – City Engineer

;

Fire Department - Chief
Community Development - Director
Fire Department – Chief Building Official
Engineering – City Engineer
Contract out as needed

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 253

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-12: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Goodyear
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Floodplain Manager
Surveyors

;

Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards

;

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS

;

Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

Engineering – City Engineer
Contract out as needed
Fire Department - Chief
Community Development - Director
Fire Department – Chief Building Official
Engineering – City Engineer
Contract out as needed
Engineering – City Engineer
Engineering – GIS Coordinator
Contract out as needed
Contract out as needed

;
;

Fire Department - Chief
City Administration – Grants Administrator

Table 6-3-12: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Goodyear
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Water, sewer, and building
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
rehabilitation projects
Annual CIP Budget
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Five-year CIP
IGAs with FCDMC, MCDOT
Improvement Districts
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Community Facilities Districts
Adopted water and sewer connection
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
fees and utility usage fees
Adopted impact fees for water,
sewer, reclaimed water, water
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
resources, library, parks and
Yes
developments/homes
recreation, fire, police, public works,
general government, arterial streets,
and regional transportation
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Sell G.O. Bonds
Sell Revenue Bonds, Improvement
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
District Bonds, and Community
Faculties Bonds
Cooperative Agreement Grants and Specific
Yes
FEMA, NRCS, State Land, etc.
Planning and Project Grants

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 254

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-13: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Guadalupe
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

CODES

ORDINANCES

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

•
•
•
•
•

STUDIES
•

1997 Uniform Building Code
1994 Plumbing Code
1997 Mechanical Code
1997 Fire Code
1998 Town Code of Guadalupe
1993 Town of Guadalupe Planning &
Zoning Ordinance
1999 Town of Guadalupe Subdivision
Regulations
2009 Town of Guadalupe Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan (in process)
2010 Town of Guadalupe 5 year
Consolidated Plan (in process)
2007 Town of Guadalupe Emergency
Operation Plan
1991 Capital Improvement Program
2010 Guadalupe Master Plan
2009 Town of Guadalupe Environmental
Study
2009 Town of Guadalupe Flood Plain
Housing Study
2008 ADOT Guadalupe Rd. Pedestrian
Bridge & Pathway from South Mountain
Park to Tempe City Line

Responsible Department/Agency
•
•
•

Town Council
Town Inspector
Town Fire Department

•
•

Town Council
Town Manager

•

Community Development
Director
Town Manager

•

•
•
•

Town Manager
Community Development
Director
Town Engineer

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 255

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-13: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Guadalupe
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards
Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

Town Manager

Consultant (TriCore Engineering)

;

Guadalupe Fire Department
Consultant (TriCore Engineering)
Consultant (TriCore Engineering)

;

Town Manager

;

Guadalupe Fire Department
NA

;
;

Town Mayor
Community Development, Guadalupe Fire Department

Table 6-3-13: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Guadalupe
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Don’t Know
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Water
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
No
Incur debt through special tax bonds
No
Other
No

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 256

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-14: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Litchfield Park
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

CODES

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

2006 International Building Code
2006 International Residential Code
2006 International Plumbing Code
2006 International Mechanical Code
2003 International Fire Code
2005 National Electric Code
2006 International Energy Conservation
Code
2006 International Fuel Gas Code
2008 Litchfield Park City Code update as
needed
City of Litchfield Park Zoning Code
Ordinances
Weed Abatement Ordinance
Public Nuisance Ordinance
Property Maintenance Ordinance
Hazardous Material Storage and Disposal
Ordinance
Handbook for Arizona Communities,
Floodplain Management
Storm Water Management Plan
2008 Emergency Management Response
Guidebook
2009 Litchfield Park General Plan

•

2009 Flood Emergency Action Plan Exercise

•
•
•

ORDINANCES

•
•
•
•
•

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

STUDIES

•
•

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•

Building Department
City Clerk/ City Council

•

Planning & Zoning

•
•

Planning & Zoning
City Manager’s Office,
Emergency Management

•

City Manager’s Office,
Emergency Management

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 257

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-14: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Litchfield Park
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Planning, Planners

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Engineering, Engineers,
Building, Building Inspectors

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Planning, Engineers

;

Engineering, Engineers
Contract Surveyors

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

Contract Staff through MCSO and Rural Metro Fire
Contract Emergency Services
Contract Emergency Services

;
;

City manager, Assistant City Manager
All Departments, Individuals within each Dept.

Table 6-3-14: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Litchfield Park
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
No area of the City meets the basic
Community Development Block Grants
No
requirements due to income.
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Requires a vote of the people.
All of these services are privately
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
No
owned.
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
We have chosen not to require
Yes
developments/homes
impact fees of developers/builders.
This would be hard for us at this time
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
because we do not have a bond
rating.
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other
No

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 258

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-15: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Unincorporated Maricopa County
Regulatory Tools for
Description
Responsible Department/Agency
Hazard Mitigation
• 2006 International Building Code
• 2005 National Electrical Code
• Planning and Development
CODES
• 2006 International Mechanical Code
• 2006 International Plumbing Code
• 2006 International Residential Code
• Abatement Ordinance (P-11)
• Adult Oriented Business (P-10)
• Dark Sky Ordinance
• Planning and Development
ORDINANCES
• Military Airport Zoning Ordinance (P-16)
• Noise Ordinance (P-23)
• Zoning Ordinance (P-18)
• Planning and Development
• Addressing Regulations
• Air Quality
• Drainage Regulations
• Transportation
• Dust Abatement Regulations
REGULATIONS
• Community Development
• Subdivision Regulations
• Flood Control District
• HUD Consolidated Planning Regulations
• Floodplain Regulations

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

STUDIES

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Area Land Use Plan
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Plan
Scenic Corridors
Comprehensive Planning Amendments
Guidelines
Development Master Plan Guidelines
Area Drainage Master Plan
Watercourse Master Plan
Flood Response Plan/Emergency Actions
Flood Insurance Studies
Floodplain Delineation Studies
Dam Safety Studies
Area Drainage Master Studies
Corridor Studies
Emergency Routes/Mass Evacuation
Fissure / Subsidence Risk Studies
Air Quality Planning Area Maps

•
•
•
•

Planning and Development
Transportation
Environmental Services
Flood Control District

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Planning and Development
Environmental Services
Flood Control District
Transportation
Emergency Management
AZ Geological Survey
Air Quality

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 259

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-15: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Unincorporated Maricopa
County
Staff/Personnel Resources
Department/Agency
- Position
;
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors

;
;

Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards

;

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS

;

Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager

;
;

Grant writer(s)

;

Planning and Development - Planners
Flood Control District – Engineers/Planners
Transportation – Engineers/Planners
Environmental Services – Inspectors
Planning and Development - Planners
Flood Control District – Engineers/Inspectors
Transportation – Engineers/Surveyors
Environmental Services – Inspectors
Air Quality - Inspectors
Planning and Development - Planners
Flood Control District - Engineers
Transportation – Engineers/Planners
Emergency Management - Planners
Flood Control District – Engineers
Flood Control District – Surveyors
Transportation – Surveyors
Planning and Development - Planners
Flood Control District - Engineers
Transportation - Engineers
Emergency Management – Planners
Planning and Development – GIS Staff
Flood Control District – GIS Staff
Transportation – GIS Staff
Emergency Management – GIS Staff
Assessor’s Office – GIS Staff
Sheriff’s Office – GIS Staff
Elections – GIS Staff
Environmental Services – GIS Staff
Air Quality – GIS Staff
Flood Control District - Hydrologist
Emergency Management - Director/Planners
Emergency Management - Planner
Parks –Grant writer
Sheriff’s Office – Grant writer
Community Development – Grant writer
Human Services – Grant writer
Transportation - Grant writer/Fed. Aid Coordinator
Flood Control District – CIP Manager

Others

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 260

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-3-15: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Unincorporated Maricopa County
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
A Five-year Consolidated Plan is
Community Development Block Grants
No
prepared with the public adoption of
an Annual Action Plan.
• FCD’s CIP
• County General Fund CIP
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
• Transportation Improvement
Program
• Regional Transportation Plan
Improvement District, Direct
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Assessment Special District
Solid Waste only: Transfer station
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service No
and waste tire collection fees.
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
Limited Use
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Lease Revenue Bonds
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other: Cooperative Agreement Grants and
Yes
FEMA, NRCS, State Land, etc.
Specific Planning and Project Grants

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 261

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-16: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Mesa
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation
CODES

ORDINANCES

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

Description
•
•
•

2006 International Building Code
2006 International Fire Code
2007 National Electric Safety Code

•
•

City of Mesa Charter and Ordinances 2009
Maricopa County Flood Control Standards
and Requirements

•

City of Mesa Overhead Construction
Manual
City of Mesa Detailed Electrical Standards
2009 City of Mesa Engineering and
Design Standards

•
•
•
•

STUDIES

•
•
•

City of Mesa Electrical Load Studies
City of Mesa Storm Drain Master Plan
2009
City of Mesa Water System Master Plan
2009
City of Mesa Wastewater Master Plan
2009
City of Mesa Gas Master Plan 2005

Responsible Department/Agency
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

City of Mesa Development &
Sustainability Dept
Fire Department
Mesa City Council
City of Mesa Engineering
(Flood Plain Mgr)
City of Mesa Utilities Energy
Div (Electric)
City of Mesa Engineering

City of Mesa Utilities Energy
Div (Electric)
City of Mesa Engineering
City of Mesa Utilities Water
Div (Water)
City of Mesa Utilities Water
Div (Wastewater)
City of Mesa Utilities Energy
Div (Gas)

Table 6-2-16: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Mesa
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

City of Mesa Development Services

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

City of Mesa Engineering

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Assistant City Engineer City of Mesa

;
;

Engineering City of Mesa
Engineering City of Mesa

;

Wastewater Supervisor City of Mesa

;

City of Mesa GIS Supervisor
City of Mesa GIS Manager
City of Mesa GIS Specialist

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community

N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 262

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-16: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Mesa
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

;
;

Emergency Management Coordinator
Deputy Chief Emergency Management
City of Mesa Grant Coordinators Office

Table 6-3-16: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Mesa
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
May be done in conjunction with
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Flood Plain Master Plans
May include funding for new or
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
existing city infrastructure.
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Through City Council approval
As necessary , through city council
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
approval
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
CIP Bonds, strom drains, electrical,
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
parks, streets, fire, police, utilities.
Urban Area Security Initiative ,
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Proposition 202 (Gaming)
Other
No

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 263

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-17: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Paradise Valley
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

CODES

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

2006 International Building Code
2006 International Residential Code
2006 International Plumbing Code
2006 International Gas Code
2006 International Mechanical Code
2006 International Fire Code
2005 National Electric Code
Town Code of the Town of Paradise Valley
Floodplain Administration Ordinance (Town
Code Article 5-11)
Weed Abatement Ordinance (Town Code
Article 8-1-12)
Zoning Ordinance (Town Code Article I thru
Article XXV)
Hillside Ordinance (Town Code Article
XXII)
Paradise Valley General Plan 2003
Town of Paradise Valley Storm Drainage
Manual (3/12/87)
Capital Improvement Project Program

•

Federal Insurance Rate Map 9/30/05

•
ORDINANCES

•
•

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES
STUDIES

•
•

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•

Building Safety Division
Planning Division

•
•

Engineering Department
Planning Division

•
•

Engineering Department
Planning Division

•

Engineering Department

Table 6-2-17: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Paradise Valley
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Planning & Building Department – Director
Engineering Department – Town Engineer

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Engineering Department – Town Engineer
Building Safety Division – Building Safety Manager

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Planning & Building Department – Director

;

Engineering Department – Town Engineer
None

;

Building Safety Division – Building Safety Manager

;

Information Technology Department – IT Manager

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager

None

;

Building Safety Division – Building Safety Manager

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 264

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-17: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Paradise Valley
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Grant writer(s)

;

Planning & Building Department – Director
Planning & Building Department – Senior Planner

Others

Table 6-3-17: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Paradise Valley
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Technically eligible but PV has no
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Section 8 housing or “moderate
income” persons.
Capital Projects Accumulation Fund
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
with voter approval.
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Property Tax with voter approval.
No utilities but bill residents on
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Scottsdale Sewer. PV sets the rates.
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
Pursuant to ARS approval process.
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
With voter approval.
PV can sell bonds issued by
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Municipal Property Corporation.
Expenditures are subject to state
Other
imposed expenditure limitation law.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 265

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-18: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Peoria
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

Description

CODES

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

2006 International Building Code
2006 International Residential Code
2006 International Fire Code
2006 International Mechanical Code
2006 International Property Maintenance Code
2005 National Electrical Code
2006 International Plumbing Code
2006 International Fuel Gas Code

ORDINANCES

•

Zoning Ordinance

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•
•
•
•
•

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

•

STUDIES

•

Planning & Community
Development
Engineering
Fire
Emergency Management
Planning & Community
Development
Emergency Management

Table 6-2-18: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Peoria
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Planning, Planners

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Engineering, Engineers – Architecture, Architects

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Planning, Engineering, Water Services Dept, Development
Services Dept

;

Street, Transportation Dept
Water Services Dept & Engineering Contract Services
Neighborhood Services Dept, Human Services, Emergency
Management, Development Services, Fire Dept, Police Dept,
Public Works, Streets, Engineering, Architecture, Water
Services Dept
ITD, Fire Dept, Police Dept

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

;
;

Police Dept, Water Services Dept, Fire Dept

;
;

City Manager’s Office, Emergency Manager
Every Dept is responsible

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 266

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 6-3-18: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Peoria
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

2009

Comments

Page 267

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-19: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Phoenix
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

Description
•

CODES

ORDINANCES

•
•
•
•

Development Services
Fire
Planning
Aviation

•
•

2006 Phoenix Building Construction Code
with July 2, 2008 and April 1, 2009
Amendments
2006 Phoenix Building Code
2006 Phoenix Residential Code
2006 Phoenix Existing Building Code
2006 Phoenix Energy Conservation Code
2006 Phoenix Mechanical Code
2006 Phoenix Fuel Gas Code
2006 Phoenix Fire Code
2006 Phoenix Performance Code
2006 Uniform Plumbing Code with Phoenix
Amendments
Phoenix Zoning Code
Aviation Department Rules and Regulations

•

Phoenix Code of Ordinances

•

Law

•

2001 Phoenix General Plan (beginning
revision)
2009 City of Phoenix Major Emergency
Response and Recovery Plan
2009 Maricopa County Regional MultiHazard Mitigation Plan (currently being
updated)
2004 Water Services Department Design
Standards Manual for Water And Wastewater
Systems
2004 Street Transportation Department
Storm Water Policies and Standards
2009 Water Services Department Storm
Water Policies and Procedures
Third-party Plan Review Policies and
Standards
2008 Aviation Department Multi-Sector
General Permit Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan
Aviation Department Wildlife Management
Plan
Aviation Department Standard Operating
Procedures
Metro Phoenix Area Drainage Master Plan
Hohokam Area Drainage Master Plan

•
•
•
•
•
•

Planning
Emergency Management
Water Services
Street Transportation
Development Services
Aviation

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 268

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-19: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Phoenix
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

Description
•
•

STUDIES

•
•
•

FEMA DFIRM Maps
Dam Safety Studies and Emergency Action
Plans
7R/25L Runway Safety Area Environmental
Assessment – Conditional Letter of Map
Revision
Flood Insurance Studies (FIS)
Levee Studies

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•

Street Transportation
Aviation

Table 6-2-19: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Phoenix
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Planning Dept. – Principal Planner, Planner III, Village
Planner & Planner II
Water Services – Superintendents, Project Engineers, Civil
Engineers, Project Coordinators, Principal Engineering
Technicians, Principal Planners

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Street Transportation Dept. - Civil Engineers
Water Services – Superintendents, Civil Engineers, Project
Coordinators, Principal Engineering Technicians

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards
Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards

;
;
;
;

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS

;

Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community

;

Emergency manager

;

Planning Dept. – Principal Planner, Planner III, Village
Planner & Planner II
Water Services – Superintendents, Civil Engineers, Principal
Engineering Technician, Hydrologist
Street Transportation Dept. - Civil Engineer III
Street Transportation Dept. – Survey Teams
Water Services – Environmental Programs Coordinator, Civil
Engineers, Water Quality Inspectors
Information Technology Services – Info Tech
Analyst/Programmers and Info Tech Specialists
Fire Dept. – Fire Protection Engineer
Planning Dept. – Senior GIS Technician
Police Dept. – Senior User Technology Specialist
Street Transportation Dept. - Info Tech Analyst/ Programmer
II and Senior GIS Technician
Water Services Dept. – GIS and Senior GIS Technicians
Aviation Department – Environmental Quality Specialist
City Managers/Office of Environmental Programs –
Environmental Quality Specialists
Personnel Department – Industrial Hygienists
Water Services – Chemists, Environmental Quality Specialist,
Laboratory Technician, Environmental Programs Coordinator
City Manager’s Office - Emergency Management Coordinator

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 269

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-19: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Phoenix
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position

Grant writer(s)

;

Aviation Department – Planner II
Fire Dept. – Volunteer Coordinator and Fire Captains
Planning Dept. – Principal Planner, Planner III, Village
Planner & Planner II
Police Dept. – Police Research Analysts
Public Transit Dept

Others

Table 6-3-19: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Phoenix
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Housing, Neighborhood Services,
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
and Water Services projects
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Fees
For new developments inside impact
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
fee areas-zones only. The Impact
Yes
developments/homes
Fees are charged to new
developments.
This excludes the Water Services and
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Aviation Departments
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Excise (sales) taxes
FAA and Arizona Dept of
Transportation grants to the Aviation
Department
Other
Yes
Water resources fees, Environmental
fees, Improvement Districts

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 270

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-20: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Queen Creek
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

CODES

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ORDINANCES

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

STUDIES

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Town Code of the Town of Queen Creek
2006 International Building Code
2006 International Residential Code
2006 Uniform Plumbing Code
2006 International Mechanical Code
2006 International Fire Code
2006 International Property Maintenance
Code
2006 International Existing Building Code
2006 International Energy Conservation
Code
2006 International Urban-Wildland
Interface Code
2005 National Electrical Code
Abatement Ordinance
Adult Oriented Business
Dark Sky Ordinance
Military Airport Zoning Ordinance
Noise Ordinance
Zoning Ordinance
Addressing Regulations
Drainage Regulations
Dust Abatement Regulations
Subdivision Regulations
HUD Consolidated Planning Regulations
Floodplain Regulations
Town of Queen Creek General Plan 2008
Area Land Use Plan
Comprehensive Plans: Planning &
Development
Transportation Plan
Desert Foothills Plan
Comprehensive Planning Amendments
Guidelines
Development Master Plan Guidelines
Area Drainage Master Plan
Watercourse Master Plan

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•
•

Community Development
Fire Department
Town Clerk

•

Community Development

•
•
•

Community Development
Public Works
Flood Control District

•
•
•

Community Development
Public Works
Flood Control District

Table 6-2-20: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Queen Creek
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Community Development – Planners/Engineers
Public Works – Engineers

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 271

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-20: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Queen Creek
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Community Development – Planners/Engineers/Inspectors
Fire – Fire Inspector/Plans Examiner
Public Works – Engineers/Inspectors

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Community Development – Planners/Engineers
Fire Department – Emergency Mgnt. Coordinator
Public Works – Engineers/Inspectors

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards

;

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS

;

;

Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community

Public Works – Engineers/Inspectors
N/A
Community Development – Planners/Engineers
Fire Department – Emergency Mgnt. Coordinator
Public Works – Engineers/Inspectors
Information & Marketing – GIS Staff
N/A

Emergency manager

;

Grant writer(s)

;

Town Manager – Director
Fire Department – Emergency Mgnt. Coordinator
Information & Marketing – Grant writer
Fire Department – Emergency Mgnt. Coordinator
Parks – Grant writers
Public Works – Engineers/Project Managers

Others

Table 6-3-20: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Queen Creek
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
A Five-year Consolidated Plan is
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
prepared with the public adoption of
annual application submittals.
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Town CIP
• Fire/EMS/Law Enforcement
Property Tax
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
• Improvement Districts
• Direct Assessment Special
District
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Water and sewer service
• Wastewater
• Parks, Trails, & Open Space
• Town Buildings and Vehicles
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
• Transportation
developments/homes
• Library
• Public Safety
• Fire
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other - Cooperative Agreement Grants and
Yes
Specific Planning and Project Grants
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 272

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-21: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation
TRIBAL CODES
TRIBAL
ORDINANCES
TRIBAL
REGULATIONS
PLANS, MANUALS,
GUIDELINES, and/or
STUDIES

Description
•
•

2003 International Building Codes
2003 International Fire Codes

•
•

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Ordinance
1981 Zoning Ordinance

•
•
•

Emergency Operations Plan
Tribal Emergency Response Commission Guide
2006 General Use Plan
SEE TRIBAL ANNEX

Responsible Department/Agency
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Engineering Construction
Services
Fire Department
SRPMIC Administration
Tribal Council
Community Development
Fire Department
Tribal Emergency Response
Commission
Community Development
(SEE TRIBAL ANNEX)

Table 6-2-21: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Engineering and Construction Services (ECS), Community
Development Department (CDD)

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

ECS, Fire Department

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

ECS, Environment Protection of Natural Resources(EPRN),
CDD, Public Works

;
;

Streets, Transportation

;

Police, Fire, Emergency Management, ECS, CDD

;
;
;
;

ECS, CDD

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

Public Works, ECS

Public Works, CDD, EPRN
Fire Department
Grants and Contracts

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 273

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-3-21: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 274

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-22: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Salt River Project
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

Description
•
•

CODES

•
•
•
•

North American Electric Reliability Council
(NERC) Standard FAC-003-01 – Transmission
Vegetation Management
2007 National Electric Safety Code (NESC): Part
two (deals with overhead electric lines). Section 1
and Section 12.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI
standards)
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM standards)
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
(OSHA standards)
Meet all Municipal Codes

Responsible Department/Agency
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ORDINANCES

•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Meet Maricopa Association of Governments
(MAG) specifications
2009 SRP Crisis Management Plan
2009 SRP Business Continuity Coordination Plan
2009 Emergency Restoration Plan, Electric
System Line Maintenance
2009 Storm Operations Manual
2009 SRP Emergency Reservoir Operating
Procedures
2004 Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Plan
(currently being Updated)
2009 Business Continuity Plan #2410 – Reactive
Maintenance (Transmission/Distribution)
2009 Business Continuity Plan #2415 – Line
Clearing
1997 Water Control Manual Modified Roosevelt
Dam (Theodore Roosevelt Dam), Salt and Gila
Rivers, Arizona – US Army Corps of Engineers,
Los Angeles District
SRP Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Program.
(portfolio of approximately 70+ BIAs for risk
mitigation planning at SRP).
SRP Line Design Standards, Policies and
Procedures
SRP Electrical Clearance Standards – based on
NESC
Guidelines for Electric System Planning
Electric System Engineering Equipment Ratings
Distribution Operation Center Operating
Procedures

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintenance Services, Line
Clearing
Engineering & Construction
Services
System Operations
Power Generation
Electric System Operations &
Maintenance
Risk Management
Facility Services
Water Delivery
Water Engineering &
Transmission
Engineering & Construction
Services
Water Delivery
Water Engineering &
Transmission

Risk Management
Business Continuity &
Emergency Management
Water Engineering &
Transmission
Water Resource Operations
Electric System Line
Maintenance
Electric System Operations &
Maintenance
Engineering & Construction
Services
System Operations
Water Delivery

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 275

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-22: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Salt River Project
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

Description
•

STUDIES

•
•
•
•

Water resources planning and management at the
Salt River Project, Arizona, USA – Daniel H.
Phillips & Yvonne Reinink & Timothy E. Skarupa
& Charles E. Ester III & Jon A. Skindlov,
Irrigation and Drainage Systems, Springer
Netherlands, On line First, April 29, 2009
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) studies
on a variety of topics
Power Systems Engineering Research Center
(PSerc) studies on various topics
Annual Distribution Planning and Operating
Studies
Annual Electric System Plan

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•
•

•

Water Resource Operations
Engineering & Construction
Services
System Operations
Electric System Operations &
Maintenance

Table 6-2-22: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Salt River Project
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

•
•
•
•

SRP Land Acquisitions Dept
SRP Property Management Dept
Line Asset Management Dept – 3 Right of Way Technicians and
1 Engineer
SRP Manager, Electric System Engineering, Policies Procedures
and Standards Dept
Line Asset Management Dept – 3-5 Inspectors
Line Maintenance Engineering Dept – 5 Engineers
1 Superintendent of Water Transmission & Communications
3 Staff Scientists/Meteorologists – Water Resource Operations
Dept
1 Staff Senior Engineer (PE) – Water Resource Operations Dept
2 Staff Senior Hydrologists – Water Resource Operations Dept
Line Asset Management Dept – 3-5 Inspectors
Line Maintenance Engineering Dept – 5 Engineers

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

•
•
•
•
N/A

;

•

SRP Survey Department

•
•

1 Manager – Line Clearing Dept
2 Utility Forester/Certified Arborists – Line Clearing
Dept
SRP Business Continuity & Emergency Management Dept
Line Asset Management Dept – 3-5 Inspectors
Line Maintenance Engineering Dept – 5 Engineers
GIS Services Dept – 14 GIS Analysts
Cartographics & GIS Services Dept
Line Maintenance Engineering – 3 GIS/Design Technicians
Siting and Studies Dept - 5 Environmental Scientists
Environmental Compliance Dept – 7 Scientists
Laboratory & Field Services Dept – 6 Scientists
Business Continuity & Emergency Management Dept - 1 Staff,
Certified Emergency Manager (CEM)
Business Continuity & Emergency Management Dept - 2 Staff
Certified Business Continuity Professionals (CBCP)
Water Resource Operations Dept – Manager
Electric System Line Maintenance Dept – 3 Managers

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards

;

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS

;

Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community

;

Emergency manager

;

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 276

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-22: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Salt River Project
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Grant writer(s)

N/A

Others

•
•

Distribution Planning Department – 5 Engineers, 3 Technicians.
Distribution Operations Technical Support – 5 Operations
Specialists

Table 6-3-22: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Salt River Project
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
n/a
Community Development Block Grants
1. Structural Upgrade Initiative
(SUI). Systematically harden 69kV
assets from severe wind including
upgrading to steel and adding heavyduty steel poles to vulnerable line
segments. Approx. $3 million per
year
2. Wood Pole Asset Management
Project (WPAMP). Inspect, treat,
reinforce and replace wood poles
throughout the distribution and
transmission systems. Approx. $3.5
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
million per year
3. Capitalized Maintenance. To
replace transmission structures
system-wide between WPAMP
cycles as needed. Approx. $0.5
million per year.
4. Storm Damage. Replace storm
damaged structures with current
designs, often an upgrade from the
existing.
5. Various Capital Improvement and
Load Growth initiatives as contained
in the Electric System
No
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
SRP Performs regular maintenance
tasks on existing structures to
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes
preserve strength, functionality and
public safety.
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
n/a
developments/homes
n/a
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
n/a
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other
SRP Mobile Substation fleet

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 277

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-23: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Scottsdale
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•

CODES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ORDINANCES

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

2006 International Fire Code
2006 International Building Code
2006 International Mechanical Code
2006 International Plumbing Code
2005 National Electric Code
2006 International Energy Conservation
Code
International Residential Code
Public Nuisance and Property
Maintenance Code
Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings
Uniform Housing Code
Zoning Ordinance
Floodplain and Stormwater Ordinance
Dust Control
Environmentally Sensitive Lands
Ordinance
Foothills Overlay Zoning District
Hillside Zoning District
Historic Preservation
Subdivision Ordinance
Cityshape 2020
Scottsdale General Plan 2001
Scottsdale Visioning
Green Building Program
Transportation/Mobility Plans
Streetscapes
Area Plans
Neighborhood Planning
Downtown Plan
Citywide Design Guidelines
Desert Areas
Historic Preservation

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
STUDIES

•
•
•

Fire Department
Public Works
Water Resources
Planning, Neighborhood and
Transportation
Economic Vitality

Economic Vitality
Planning, Neighborhood and
Transportation
Public Works and Water
Resources

Planning, Neighborhood and
Transportation
Transportation and Streets
Community Services
Economic Vitality

Planning, Neighborhood and
Transportation
Transportation and Streets
Community Services
Economic Vitality

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 278

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-23: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Scottsdale
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Planning & Development – Planners
Flood Control Planner
Wastewater Planners

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Chief Engineer and General Manager, Water Services,
Development Services

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Planning, Engineering, Water Services, Development Services

;
;

Stormwater Management – Planners

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards

;

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community

;
;

Emergency manager

;
;

Grant writer(s)
Others

Streets and Transportation Department
Neighborhood Services, Human Services, Emergency
Management, Development Services, Fire Department, Police
Department, Public Works, Streets, Engineering, Architecture,
Water Services
IT Department, Fire Department, Police Department
Police Department, Water Services, Fire Department
City Manager’s Office
Emergency Management – Homeland Security Division
Every Department

Table 6-3-23: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Scottsdale
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 279

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-24: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Surprise
Regulatory Tools for
Description
Responsible Department/Agency
Hazard Mitigation
• International Series of Codes:
• Community Development
CODES
• 2006 Building, Plumbing, Electrical
• Fire
• 2006 Fire
• COS Municipal Codes: Land Development
Chapter 101,
• COS Municipal Codes: Buildings Chapter
• Community Development
105
ORDINANCES
• City Administration
• COS Municipal Codes: Storm Water
• Public Works
Management Chapter 117
• COS Municipal Codes: Unified
Development Code Chapter 122
• Addressing Regulations
• Community Development
• Drainage Regulations
REGULATIONS
• Public Works
• Dust Control Regulations
• City Administration
• Subdivision Regulations
• General Plan 2030
PLANS, MANUALS,
• Area Land Use Plan
• Community Development
and/or GUIDELINES
• Development Master Plan Guidelines
• Public Works
• Area Drainage Master Plan
• Flood Insurance Studies
• Floodplain Delineation Studies
• Community Development
STUDIES
• Area Drainage Master Studies
• Public Works
• Transportation Studies
• Martin Acres Flood Control Study

Table 6-2-24: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Surprise
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Planning and Development – Planners
Public Works – Engineer

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Public Works - Engineers

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Planning and Development – Planners
Public Works - Engineers

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards

;
;
;

Contract with Flood Control District – Engineers
Public Works – CFM Staff
GIS – GIS Staff
Planning and Development - Planners
Public Works – Staff
Police Dept – Staff
Fire Dept - Staff

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 280

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-24: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Surprise
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS

;

Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager

;

Grant writer(s)

;

GIS – GIS Staff
None
Fire Chief - Coordinator
Parks – Staff
Police – Staff
Public Works – Staff
Fire Dept – Staff

Others

Table 6-3-24: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Surprise
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
A Five-year Consolidated Plan is
Community Development Block Grants
Don’t Know
prepared with the public adoption of
an Annual Action Plan.
City General Fund CIP,
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Regional Transportation Plan
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
City Council
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes
Solid Waste, Water, Sewer
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
No
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
City Council
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
City Council
Other
Yes
FEMA, NRCS, State Land, etc.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 281

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-25: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Tempe
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation
CODES
ORDINANCES

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

STUDIES

Description

Responsible Department/Agency

•

2006 International Building code and
International Fire Code

•

Fire Department

•

Weed Abatement Ordinance

•
•

Public Works
Development Services

•

•
•

Tempe Emergency Operations Plan
Revised October 2008
Capital Improvement Plan, 2009-10,
including Storm Drain Modifications
Economic Development Plan
General Plan

•
•
•
•

Fire Department
Financial Services
Community Development
Development Services

•

Floodplain Delineation Study

•

Public Works

•

Table 6-2-25: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Tempe
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Public Works/Engineering, Planning

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Public Works/Engineering
Community Development/Building Safety

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Public Works/Engineering
Water Utilities Department

;
;

Public Works/Engineering
Public Works/Engineering
Water Utilities Department
Fire Department, Police Department, Community
Development, Public Works/Engineering, Streets
Water Utilities Department
Public Works/Engineering, Field Operations
Information Technology Department
Fire Department
Police Department
Water Utilities Department

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards

;

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS

;

Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

;
;

Fire Department
All City Departments

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 282

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-3-25: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Tempe
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Can only occur through City Council
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
and city vote.
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 283

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-26: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Tolleson
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

CODES

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ORDINANCES

•
•
•
•
•
•

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

•
•
•

STUDIES

•

2006 International Fire Code
2006 National Fire Code & Standards
2006 International Building Code
2006 International Mechanical Code
2006 International Electrical Code
2005 National Electrical Code
Tolleson City Code
2006 International Residential Code
2006 International Plumbing Code
2006 International Property Maintenance
Code
2005 International Administrative
Electrical Code
2006 International Fuel Gas Code
463 N.S. Amending the Tolleson City
Code Chapter 7 Relating to fire codes
2009 Tolleson City Ordinances
2008 Dust and Airborne Particulate
Control
2009 Zoning Code
2007 Strom Water Runoff
Pollution/Prevention
Fire Protection Handbook, 18th edition
ANSI/IIAR 2-1999, Equipment Design,
and Installation of Ammonia Mechanical
Refrigerating Systems
Fire Department Plan Review Guidelines
as adopted by Ordinance 463 N.S.
2005 Tolleson General Plan
2008 City of Tolleson Codes

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•
•
•

Fire Department
Building Department
City Clerk’s Office
Engineering Department

•
•

Fire Department
Building Department

•
•
•
•

Fire Department
Building Department
City Clerk’s Office
City Council / Staff

•

All City Departments

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 284

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-26: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Tolleson
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

City Manager’s Office, City Planner, Engineering

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Engineering, Building Departments

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Planning, Engineering, Fire Department, Police Department,
Public Works

;
;

City Manager’s Office

;

Street Department, Public Works

;

Neighborhood Services, Emergency Services, Development
Services, Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works,
Engineering, Streets

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager
Grant writer(s)
Others

Street, Public Works, Engineering

Police Department, Water Services, Fire Department

;
;

City Manager’s Office
Each Individual City Department

Table 6-3-26: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Tolleson
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Yes
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Don’t Know
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 285

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-27: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Wickenburg
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

CODES

ORDINANCES

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

STUDIES

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

2006 International Building Code
2005 National Electrical Code
2006 International Mechanical Code
2006 International Plumbing Code
2006 International Residential Code
Dark Sky Ordinance
Noise Ordinance (P-23)
Zoning Ordinance (P-18)
Addressing Regulations
Drainage Regulations
Dust Abatement Regulations
Subdivision Regulations
Area Land Use Plan
Flood Response Plan
Development Master Plan Guidelines
Area Drainage Master Plan
Watercourse Master Plan

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•

Community Development
Public Works

•
•
•

Community Development
Public Works
Manager’s Office

•
•
•

Community Development
Public Works
Manager’s Office

•
•

Community Development
Public Works

Table 6-2-27: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Wickenburg
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

Contract

;

Planning and Development - Planners
Emergency Management - Planners

;

Contract with Flood Control District – Engineers
Contract
Planning and Development - Planners
Public Works – Staff
Police Dept – Staff
Fire Dept - Staff
Emergency Management – Coordinator
Planning and Development – GIS Staff

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community
Emergency manager

Planning and Development – Planners
Public Works – Engineer

;

None

;

Emergency Management - Coordinator

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 286

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-27: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Wickenburg
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position

Grant writer(s)

;

Emergency Management - Coordinator
Parks –Grant writer
Police – Grant writer
Public Works – Grant writer
Fire Dept – Grant writer

Others

Table 6-3-27: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Wickenburg
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
A Five-year Consolidated Plan is
Community Development Block Grants
No
prepared with the public adoption of
an Annual Action Plan.
Town General Fund CIP
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Regional Transportation Plan
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Town Council
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Solid Waste, Water, Sewer, Electric
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
No
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Town Council
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
Town Council
Other: Cooperative Agreement Grants and
Yes
FEMA, NRCS, State Land, etc.
Specific Planning and Project Grants

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 287

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-1-28: Summary of legal and regulatory capabilities for Youngtown
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation

CODES

Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ORDINANCES

•
•
•
•

PLANS, MANUALS,
and/or GUIDELINES

•
•

STUDIES

•
•

2006 International Building Code.
2006 International Residential Code.
2006 International Plumbing Code.
2006 International Mechanical Code.
2006 International Fire Code.
1999 National Electric Code.
Town Code of the Town of Youngtown
Plans to adopt 2009 version of codes in
January 2010.
Town adopted various local zoning and
building codes.
2008 Town of Youngtown Planning &
Zoning Ordinance.
Town of Youngtown Floodplain Ordinance.
Various Town of Youngtown Weed &
Debris Abatement ordinances.
2008 Town of Youngtown Subdivision
Zoning Regulations
Floodplain Management Ordinances
adopted.
Debris Ordinances adopted.
2005 General Plan and Comprehensive Plan
adopted.
2005 Town of Youngtown Emergency
Operations Plan (currently being updated).
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(Adopted by SCFD).
2008 Flood Insurance Studies
2007 Floodplain Delineation Studies

Responsible Department/Agency

•
•
•

Building Safety Division
Code Compliance Division
Public Works Department

•
•

Public Works Department
Town Clerk’s Office

•
•
•

Public Works Department
Police Department
Fire Department (Town is a
member of Sun City Fire
District)

•

Public Works Department

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 288

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-2-28: Summary of technical staff and personnel capabilities for Youngtown
Staff/Personnel Resources
; Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices

;

Town Engineer.

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure

;

Town Engineer, and Building Inspector/Plans Reviewer.

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

;

Town Engineer.

;
;

Primary Responsibility: FCDMC; Secondary Responsibility:
Public Works Manager.
Town Engineer’s Staff.

;

Town Engineer; Public Works/Emergency Services Manager;
Police Chief; various Staff Members.

Emergency manager

;

Grant writer(s)

;

Public Works Manager/Emergency Services Manager; Police
Chief.
Town Engineer; Public Works Manager; Police Chief; various
Staff Members.

Floodplain Manager
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community

Others

Table 6-3-28: Summary of fiscal capabilities for Youngtown
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
Financial Resources
(Yes, No, Don’t Know)
Comments
Member of MCCD/CDAC Small
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Cities.
Capital Improvements Project funding
Yes
Local Funds.
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
Utilities, including water/sewer
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
No
owned by private providers.
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
Most of Youngtown already built
Yes
developments/homes
out; very little new growth possible.
Unlikely, however, since water/sewer
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
not owned by Town. Also, Town
does not have primary property tax.
Unlikely, however, since water/sewer
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Yes
not owned by Town. Also, Town
does not have primary property tax.
Other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 289

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
6.2.2

2009

Previous Mitigation Activities
During the last planning cycle many mitigation activities have been accomplished by the
jurisdictions within Maricopa County. Table 6-4 provides an updated summary, by jurisdiction, of
recent mitigation activities performed over the last planning cycle or generally within the last five
years. Table 6-5 summarizes projects funded through federal hazard mitigation grant money such as
FMA, HMGP or PDM.
SRP provided the following text description and overall summary of past mitigation activities,
categorized by hazard, in lieu of line item activities for Table 6-4:
Severe Wind - For the Transmission System, SRP generally addresses strong wind and mitigates its
negative effects within elements of its design process. Over the last decade the severity of wind that the
structures are designed to withstand has increased. Structures that were in place before the time of the
increased design criteria are also mitigated. Regularly spaced structures designed and practically tested
to sectionalize localized pole failures have been installed throughout the transmission system. This has
effectively contained the adverse effects of severe winds experienced during summer wind events
referred to as micro bursts. More frequent use of structures more resilient to wind have also been
installed in other key areas throughout the system including near electric substations, multi-line
corridors with a higher density of structures and on lines serving reliability critical customers.
Throughout the remainder of the system, aging structures are evaluated and ranked for replacement for
several criteria including its calculated strength at various wind speeds. All wood poles are field
inspected on a periodic basis for wood health, strength and general condition; with unhealthy structures
budgeted and scheduled for replacement. Unhealthy structures would have been at more risk to severe
wind than healthy structures.
For the Distribution System, distribution design does account for wind loading during the
design process. All wood poles are field inspected on a periodic basis for wood health, strength and
general condition; with unhealthy structures budgeted and scheduled for replacement. Unhealthy
structures would have been at more risk to severe wind than healthy structures. In a significant effort to
mitigate a multitude of possible hazards, it is important to note that over 70% of SRP’s distribution
system is underground and therefore not as susceptible to severe wind.
Wildfire - Line Clearing has a preventative maintenance program that clears vegetation from
transmission and distribution lines. Lines are patrolled regularly and vegetation cleared to ensure
vegetation does not encroach on the lines. For transmission, in addition to clearing for vertical
clearance, our line clearing program also clears lower growing dense vegetation (smaller trees and
brush), called “fuel clearing”, in an effort to reduce the fire/smoke in the event of a wildfire to better
protect the lines.
Extreme Heat - As it relates to the Distribution System, SRP has designed a looped system with
multiple ties. This mitigation concept allows flexibility to re-arrange circuits prior to summer to
balance loads (called summer switching), also allows dynamic operation of the distribution system to
establish alternate paths in case of outages or other unforeseen events common to extreme heat
situations. Mobile substations can be deployed in advance to cover and mitigate any anticipated
capacity deficiencies or after-the-fact in the case of substation transformer failure. Having mobile
substation capabilities mitigates chances of escalating outages.
SRP utilizes 69/12kV transformer emergency ratings. Utilizing the emergency rating typically
allows loading the unit 25% higher than nominal and provides flexibility to cover for peak loads and
outages, mitigating negative side effects. Outages are mitigated through continued maintenance
programs. Ongoing line clearing and line patrol programs ensure necessary electrical clearance
underneath and next to our lines, thus mitigating a variety of negative consequences of vegetation
interfering with electrical lines. SRP also continues significant investments in capital upgrade
programs. Ongoing programs such as cable replacement, feeder getaway upgrades, pad-mounted
transformer replacements, #2 and 4/0 loop splits have resulted in a more modern, robust electric
system.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 290

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Flooding - During the floods of 1993, local response efforts statewide were hindered by poor
coordination among agencies and by lack of information about the flooding threat. As a result, state,
federal and local agencies formed a Multi-Agency Task Force to address these issues. In 1997, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and ADWR sponsored the design and construction of the Arizona Statewide
Flood Warning System (AFWS) to: 1) improve collection of real-time precipitation and river stage
data; 2) strengthen or establish communication links among the agencies for better data sharing; and,
3) expand data coverage through installation of additional rain and river stage gages. The AFWS has
been operating for 10 years, with a continuing increase in the network of gages. Data are available to
emergency response managers (and also the public) statewide via the internet (www.afws.org) and
dedicated base stations. Data are transmitted to and from a three-hub computer network located at the
Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff NWS offices. SRP’s continuing involvement with the Multi-Agency
Taskforce on Flood Warning continues to be a benchmark mitigation program. The task force meets
bi-monthly at SRP facilities. SRP operates and maintains the AFWS under an agreement with ADWR.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 291

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Project Name

Project Description

Avondale

Elm Lane Storm Runoff
Diversion

Carefree

Carefree Fire Station
No. 1

Carefree

Carefree Fire Truck and
Eq.

Carefree

Chlorine Abatement

Carefree

Dream Street Wash

Carefree

Fire Department
Contract

Carefree

Fire Hydrant Project

Carefree

Water Site Elimination

Carefree

Water Site Security

Carefree

Water storage
construction

Cave Creek

Commissioning of New
Fire Station

Cave Creek

Drainage Master Plan

Review of all washes and flood plain delineations within town
boundaries and the

$200,000

Flood Response Plan

Study to determine the Town's flood prone locations, and to
develop ways to mitigate severe flooding at grade crossings.
Emergency Response Plan to respond to sever weather
conditions resulting in or likely to result in flash flooding.

$50,000

Cave Creek

Reroute storm runoff from flooding three homes at the south
end of Elm Street in Old Avondale.

Project Cost

Construction of new Town fire station to provide protection to
the citizens of Carefree in the event of fires, wild fires and
medical emergencies. This was in place of a pre existing
contract with a outside private company.
Purchase of new fire truck and equipment to supplement
implementation of new station.
Remove and replace hazardous water treatment chemicals with
less reactive and safer solid chlorine. This abated hazardous
storage sites and reduced chemical storage of any type.
The Dream Street wash was channelized and bridged to provide
a controlled flow during flash floods and for preparation of 100
year flood events.
Direct contract with Rural Metro to provide service to the Town
of Carefree, It's citizens and visitors and to man the new station
and equip.
Construction of fire hydrants and replacing supply piping to
provide better water supply in case of emergency need such as
structure or wild fires in areas that did not previously have the
infrastructure.
Some sites were eliminated to reduce targets and provide better
service to the community via larger storage systems and better
pumping facilities.
Fence, barrier and alarm systems for remote water facility sites.
Construction of new water storage facility. 150,000 gallon
concrete lifetime storage tank to provide water to our citizens
and to assist with adequate back up supplies when combined
with existing facilities
Rural Metro Fire took over an existing building within the
jurisdiction to decrease response times to fire and emergencies.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

$200,000

Funding Source
50-50 cost share
between City funds
and Flood Control
District of Maricopa
County funds

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

City of Avondale Public Works Dept.

April 2009

$5,000,000

General Fund

Town Administrator

Nov. 2007

$400,000

General Fund

Town Administrator

2006

$9,000

UCFD

Carefree Water
Dept.

2006

$950,000

CIP & General
funds

Town Engineer

2007

$1.2 Mill.
Annually

General Fund

Town Administrator

2007

$1.5 million

CIP & General
funds

Town Administrator

on going

$5,000

UCFD

Carefree Water
Dept.

2008

$25,000

UCFD

Carefree Water
Dept.

2006

$220,000

CIP & General
funds

Town Administrator

2008

Rural Metro Fire
Department

01/2007

Town Engineer

12/2008

Town Engineer

02/2007

$100,000

Rural Metro Fire
Department
Maricopa County
flood Control.
Town General fund
$200000
Maricopa County
flood Control.
Town General fund
$200000

Page 292

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
Cave Creek

Chandler

Chandler

Chandler

Project Name
Water Storage Tanks
Chandler\Gilbert
Floodplain Delineation
Study - Phase 1 Eastern
Canal
Chandler\Gilbert
Floodplain Delineation
Study - Phase 2
Consolidated Canal
Chandler\Gilbert
Floodplain Delineation
Study - Phase 3 Union
Pacific RR and Arizona
Av

Project Description
Increase the Town's Water Storage Capacity to sustain the
Town's water supply during drought periods as well as sustain
water pressure in the event of fire and the need to utilize fire
hydrants.

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

$20,000,000

General Fund

Utilities Department

05/2008

This study is a re-study of approximately 11 linear miles along
the Eastern Canal/RWCD Extension Canal between Baseline
Rd and Riggs Rd.

N/A

Flood Control
District of Maricopa
County (FCDMC)

Public Works
Department

on-going

This study is an update of the floodplain/floodway delineation
performed along the Consolidated Canal.

N/A

Flood Control
District of Maricopa
County (FCDMC)

Public Works
Department

on-going

This study is an update of the floodplain/floodway delineation
performed along the Union Pacific Railroads and portions of
Arizona Ave.

N/A

Flood Control
District of Maricopa
County (FCDMC)

Public Works
Department

on-going

Chandler

Floodplain Use Permits

On-Going approvals for floodplain use permits processed by
FCDMC.

N/A

N/A

Chandler

Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR)

On-Going Letter of Map Revisions processed by FCDMC.

N/A

N/A

1500000

Flood Control
District of Maricopa
County (FCDMC)

Public Works
Department

Oct 2009

$22,565

General
Engineering

Public Works
Department

Feb 2009

$44,580

Huval Engineering

Public Works
Department

Oct 2008

$585,000

Thompson Ranch
Dev

Public Works
Department

Sept 2008

$2,323,000

Vulcan Materials

Public Works
Department

May 2009

$60,000 to date

Tribal General
Revenue

Community and
Economic
Development
Division.

Annual Recurring

Chandler

Queen Creek Basin

El Mirage

El Mirage Market Place

El Mirage

Mirage Oasis

El Mirage

Thompson Ranch South
Parcel

El Mirage

Vulcan Levee Phase
One

Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation

Building Code
Adoptions and
Revisions

A 70 acre retention basin at the southeast corner of McQueen
Rd and Queen Creek Rd. This retention basin is part of the
recommended regional drainage plan identified in the Higley
Area Drainage Master Plan. It is designed to retain 204 acrefeet of storm water runoff from the 100-year storm identified in
the Higley Area Drainage Master Plan.
This site development was constructed at the southwest corner
of Cactus and El Mirage to bring the location into a LOMAR.
This site development was constructed at the southeast corner of
Greenway and Dysart to bring the location into a LOMAR.
This project was to channel and direct the Thompson Ranch
Subdivision stormwater run-off through the low outfall location
at the BNSF crossing.
This project was to channel and place a Levee from the Lizard
Run Wash out fall into the Agua Fria River south past the
Thompson Ranch Subdivision.
Tribal government reviewed and adopted updated construction
codes and standards to improve building safety during high
wind and other weather events.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Public Works
Department
Public Works
Department

on-going
on-going

Page 293

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation

Project Name
Hazard Mitigation
Identification Project

Negative pressure room
addition

Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation

River Restoration/Flood
Control

Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation

Waste Transfer Station

Fountain Hills

Annual Wash Hazard
Removal Program

Fountain Hills

Golden Eagle Park Dam
Modifications

Gilbert
Gilbert
Gilbert
Gilbert

Tribal General
Revenue

Department Heads

Annual recurring

$2,000 annually

Tribal General
Revenue

Fire Department
Emergency
Manager.

Annual Recurring

$10,000 to date

Tribal General
Revenue

Health Clinic
Director

2009/2010

$50,000 to date

Tribal General
Revenue

Environmental
manager

Annual Recurring

$750,000

Tribal General
Revenue

Public works
manager

2009/2010

$120,000

Town General Fund

Public Works
Department

Annual/ ongoing

$525,000

Maricopa County
FCD &Town CIP

Public Works
Department

June 2005

$160,000

Maricopa County
FCD &Town CIP

$200,000

HURF
Town of Gilbert
CIP
Town of Gilbert
CIP
Town of Gilbert
CIP

Public Works
Department
Public Works
Department
Public Works
Department
Public Works
Department
Public Works
Department

Town of Gilbert
CIP
Town of Gilbert
CIP

Public Works
Department
Public Works
Department

Bridge constructed on Higley Rd over the Sonoqui Wash as a
component to the Sonoqui Wash Channelization Project
Bridge constructed on Pecos Road over the East Maricopa
Floodway.

Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation

Gilbert

$12,000 annually

Higley Rd Bridge over
Sonoqui
Pecos Rd Bridge over
EMF

Mitigation Public
Education

Gila Bend

All department directors are responsible for reporting conditions
that pose a potential hazard to the community to the emergency
manager for mitigation analysis and possible corrective action.

Saguaro Blvd Drainage
Modifications
Neighborhood
Improvement
Germann Rd ridge over
EMF
Higley Rd Bridge over
EMF
Higley Rd Bridge over
QC Wash

Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation

Fountain Hills

Project Cost

The Emergency manager and the Health Director provided
numerous articles related to public safety and community health
activities that could be undertaken by citizens to reduce the
threat of wildfire and infectious disease spread for publication
in the community newspaper and on the local web site.
Wassaja Memorial Health Center has designed and is building a
negative pressure intake room ta accept patients possibly
contaminated through exposure to hazardous materials.
Completion date is early 2010.
Yavapai Materials gravel operation and the FMYN
Environmental Department designed and implemented a
restoration and flood control project on the Verde River to
channel high runoff through a deepened channel and divert to a
man-made lake to preserve wildland habitat and prevent
flooding of the mining operation.
Public works department designed and built a waste transfer
station to collect and sort household waste prior to delivery to
landfill to prevent seepage to groundwater and isolate hazardous
waste for proper disposal.
Remove fire hazard and drainage problems for Town owned
washes
The dam was raised, an auxiliary spillway was added and the
emergency spillway width was increased to prevent a
catastrophic flood
Added catch basins and Culvert extensions to mitigate large
street drainage flows
Constructed curb, gutter and sidewalk to better facilitate
stormwater management
Bridge constructed on Germann Road over the East Maricopa
Floodway.
Bridge constructed on Higley Road over the East Maricopa
Floodway.
Bridge constructed on Higley Rd over the Queen Creek Wash as
a component to the Queen Creek Rd Channelization Project

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

$6,500,000
$5,750,000
$1,100,000
$2,000,000
$5,250,000

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Project Description

Completion Date

January 2003
2004
January 2005
September 2009
April 2007
July 2007
January 2005

Page 294

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Gilbert

Gilbert

Project Name

Private stormwater
retention/conveyance

Queen Creek Wash
Channelization Project

Gilbert

Sonoqui Wash
Channelization Project

Glendale

Barcelona Primary
School

Project Description
The Town of Gilbert has a Specific Storm Water Retention
Policy found in the Public Works and Engineering Standards
and Details. This policy states that, " all new developments shall
provide retention for the run-off generated by the fifty-year,
twenty-four-hour storm (3-inches). The area to be considered as
generating runoff to be retained shall be the development itself
and one-half of the right-of-way of the adjacent street(s)." As a
result, a lot of stormwater retention/conveyance facilities have
been put in the Town of Gilbert as part of the development
process with private money.
The Town of Gilbert proposed improvements to Queen Creek
Wash from Recker Road to Higley Road, including replacing
the existing wash with a natural desert vegetated channel with a
100-year capacity. Improvements were previously made to the
wash upstream of Recker Road, and improvements were
designed and constructed for the reach of the wash downstream
of Higley Road as part of the District's East Maricopa Floodway
Basin projects. The Town is the lead agency for all design and
construction related tasks and will own, operate and maintain
the completed project.
In conjunction with the towns of Gilbert and Queen Creek, the
Flood Control District designed a multi-use conveyance channel
capable of carrying a 100-year flood event within the channel of
the Sonoqui Wash from Queen Creek Wash (west of Higley
Road) to Chandler Heights Road. The channel is approximately
3.5 miles long and about 140 feet to 200 feet in width; it reduces
and conveys the previous one-half-mile to three-quarter-mile
wide floodplain. Most of the land required for this channel was
dedicated by the adjacent developers. The project incorporated
the construction of five major crossings, including bridges at
Higley Road and Power Road constructed by the Town of
Gilbert and Maricopa County Department of Transportation,
respectively
Retention basins were installed on the upstream side of Grand
Avenue in conjunction with the school improvements to contain
flooding caused by the elevated roadway and adjacent railroad
tracks. Installation of the basins has allowed the floodplain to be
contained within the roadway and decreased the ponding depth
from 2 feet to 1 foot.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

Totals Unknown

Private Funds

Public Works
Department

ongoing

$890,000

34% FCD
($302,600.00)
66% Developer
($587,400.00)

Public Works
Department

July 2006

$10,155,577

50% FCD
30% Town of
Queen Creek
20% Town of
Gilbert CIP
($2,313,556.18)

Public Works
Department

March 2008

$90,000

School District

Alhambra
Elementary School
District No. 68

August 2002

Page 295

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Project Name

Glendale

Bethany Home Outfall
Channel

Glendale

Community Emergency
Notification System
(CENS)

Glendale

Grand Avenue at 43rd
Ave and 51st Ave

Glendale

Grand Avenue at 59th
Avenue

Glendale

Peoria subdivision bank
stabilization

Glendale

Reserve at Eagle
Heights Bank
Stabilization

Glendale

Storm Ready

Goodyear

Goodyear

Goodyear

Bullard Wash
Channelization Project,
Camelback Road to
Indian School Road
Bullard Wash
Channelization Project,
Thomas Road alignment
to Virginia Street
Bullard Wash
Channelization Project,
Virginia Street to I-10

Project Description
This project consisted of constructing a linear park/channel on
the upstream side of the Grand Canal to convey the 100-year
storm to the Agua Fria Freeway outfall channel. There is still
one section to be completed, but when construction is done 745
structures within the City of Glendale and City of Phoenix will
be removed from the floodplain.
Goal #3-2004 Mitigation Plan-Action 3.A.1 Develop the
Dialogical Communicator System, a reverse 911 system that
provides directional calling through the connection of the GIS
System.
Retention basins were installed on the upstream side of Grand
Avenue in conjunction with intersection improvements to
contain flooding caused by the elevated roadway and adjacent
railroad tracks. Installation of the basins has allowed the
floodplain to be contained within the roadway and decreased the
ponding depth from 2 feet to 1 foot.
A storm drain and pumping system were installed with
intersection improvements to drain ponded runoff to an
upstream retention basin allowing the floodplain to be contained
within the roadway and the ponding depth to be decreased from
2 feet to 1 foot.
Approximately 3600 linear feet of gabion mattresses were
installed along the New River to protect a new subdivision from
the 100-year storm.
Approximately 1500 linear feet of gabion mattresses were
installed along the New River to protect a new subdivision from
the 100-year storm.
Storm Ready is a nationwide community preparedness program,
sponsored by the NWS that recognizes communities who
develop plans to handle all types of severe weather, from wind
storms to extreme heat, as well as alert and educate citizens of
potentially hazardous weather conditions.
Bullard Wash, a major regional drainageway, was channelized
to mitigate the impacts of flooding through the City. The
channel was sized to convey the 100-year storm and protect
residential development.
Bullard Wash, a major regional drainageway, was channelized
to mitigate the impacts of flooding through the City. The
channel was sized to convey the 100-year storm and protect
residential.
Bullard Wash, a major regional drainageway, was channelized
to mitigate the impacts of flooding through the City. The
channel was sized to convey the 100-year storm and protect
residential and commercial development.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

$27,000,00

Flood
Control/ADOT

Flood Control
District of Maricopa
County

June 2007

$160,000

HLS Grant (Plant
CML-Vendor)

Phoenix Fire DeptMaricopa Regional
911 System

February 10, 2009

$20,000,000*
(Entire Project
Cost - Drainage
Improvement
Costs Unknown)

ADOT

ADOT

June 2006

$29,000,000*
(Entire Project
Cost - Drainage
Improvement
Costs Unknown)

ADOT

ADOT

July 2006

$900,000

Private Developer

Western Real Estate
Investors Inc.

December 2006

$375,000

Private Developer

Western Pacific
75th Avenue LLC

June 2007

$100,000

EMA Budget

Office of
Emergency
Management

August 26, 2008

$2,000,000

Private Developer

Engineering
Department

June 2006

$1,200,000

Private Developer

Engineering
Department

December 2004

$4,000,000

Improvement
District

Engineering
Department

June 2009

Page 296

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Project Name

Goodyear

Bullard Wash
Channelization Project,
Yuma Road to Lower
Buckeye Road
alignment

Goodyear

Cotton Lane Bridge
across the Gila River

Goodyear

McDowell Road Bridge
across Bullard Wash

Goodyear

Monte Vista Avenue
Bridge across Bullard
Wash

Goodyear

Van Buren Street
Bridge across Bullard
Wash

Goodyear

Virginia Street Box
Culvert across Bullard
Wash

Guadalupe

CDBG PROJECT 2005

Project Description
Bullard Wash, a major regional drainageway, was channelized
to mitigate the impacts of flooding through the City. The
channel was sized to convey the 100-year storm and protect
residential and commercial development, the Phoenix-Goodyear
Airport, and the Goodyear Ballpark and Development
Complexes.
Cotton Lane is a major arterial road that provides north-south
access across the City. The Cotton Lane Bridge provided allweather access across the Gila River in a 100-year storm. This
bridge provided a third option in the City for crossing the Gila
River.
McDowell Road is a major arterial street that provides primary
east-west access across the City. The McDowell Bridge
provided all-weather access across Bullard Wash in a 100-year
storm.
Monte Vista Avenue is a major collector road that provides
east-west access between residential and commercial areas. The
Monte Vista Avenue Bridge provided all-weather access across
Bullard Wash in a 100-year storm.
Van Buren Street is an arterial street that provides primary eastwest access across the City. The Van Buren Street Bridge
provided all-weather access across Bullard Wash in a 100-year
storm.
Virginia Avenue is a collector road that provides east-west
access between residential areas. The Virginia Street Box
Culvert provided all-weather access across Bullard Wash in a
100-year storm.
Building of curb/gutter and side walk in Sende Vista to mitigate
street flooding and direct runoff towards flood control facilities.

Guadalupe

CDBG PROJECT 2006

Guadalupe
Guadalupe

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

$400,000

City CIP

Engineering
Department

January 2009

$30,000,000

City CIP, MCDOT
CIP, and Private
Developers

Engineering
Department

January 2008

$3,500,000

Improvement
District

Engineering
Department

March 2009

$3,000,000

Improvement
District

Engineering
Department

March 2009

$2,500,000

City CIP

Engineering
Department

January 2008

$800,000

Private Developer

Engineering
Department

December 2004

190,000.00

CDBG FUNDING

Community
Development

December 2005

Building of curb/gutter and side walk in Sende Vista to mitigate
street flooding and direct runoff towards flood control facilities.

200,000.00

CDBG FUNDING

Community
Development

December 2006

CDBG PROJECT 2007

Building of curb/gutter and side walk in Sende Vista to mitigate
street flooding and direct runoff towards flood control facilities.

281,740.28

CDBG FUNDING

Community
Development

December 2007

CDBG PROJECT 2008

Building of curb/gutter and side walk in Sende Vista to mitigate
street flooding and direct runoff towards flood control facilities.

73,729.00

CDBG FUNDING

Community
Development

December 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 297

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Litchfield Park

Litchfield Park

Litchfield Park

Maricopa County

Maricopa County

Maricopa County

Maricopa County

Maricopa County

Project Name

Litchfield Park
Drainage SystemAncora Drain Phase III

Project Description
The Ancora Drain project was one phase of an overall storm
drain project that was designed to solve a flooding problem that
was occurring in a residential portion of Litchfield Park. The
project called for an extension of the drain system from Ancora
Circle South to the intersection of Desert Avenue and Dorado
Circle. The project increased the drain inlet capacity of the
storm drain system from 20 cfs to 80 cfs. The work completed
the Ancora Storm Drain system and enabled 27 homes to avoid
being flooded. The completed project provided enough relief
that it was able to move the previously impacted homes out of
the 100 year flood plain.

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

Litchfield Park,
City Manager
FEMA HMGP(8843) $120,000
$160,000
City General Fund
$40,000

Contract Engineer:
Banicki
Engineering

1996

Construction
Contractor: Pierson
Construction Corp.
City Manager;
Public Works,
Brown Engineering
and Banicki
Construction
City manager,
Public
Works/Planning,
Brown Engineering,
Banicki
Construction

Storm Drain Project
phase 1

Storm drains were installed on Old Litchfield Road south from
Sagebrush St. to Villa Nueva. This allowed storm run-off to be
taken underground to a spill way avoiding potential flooding of
residential neighborhoods.

$1.2 million

City Budget,

Storm Drain Project
Phase 2

Storm drains were installed on Neolin Ave. from Wigwam
Blvd.south to Sagebrush St. and on Old Litchfield Rd. south to
Sagebrush st. This allowed storm watew run-off to go
underground to avoid potential flooding of residential
neighborhoods.

$1.2 million

City Budget

Permanent gates installed to prevent citizens from crossing the
flood prone waterway.

$40,000

MCDOT Operating
budget (HURF)

Transportation

July 2008

River scour was endangering the stability of the structure and
this project provides protection from future flood events

$1,200,000

MCDOT TIP
(HURF)

Transportation

October 2005

River scour was endangering the stability of the structure and
this project provides protection from future flood events

$1,000,000

MCDOT TIP
(HURF)

Transportation

July 2009

Transportation

August 2008

Flood Control
District

Ongoing

67th Avenue at the Salt
River Flooding Gates
Alma School Road
North Bridge over the
Salt River Scour
Protection
Alma School Road
South Bridge over the
Salt River Scour
Protection
Cotton Lane Bridge
over the Gila River

New bridge providing additional access across a flood prone
waterway.

$50,000,000

MCDOT TIP
(HURF); Developer
contributions and
City of Goodyear
CIP

Dam Safety Program

The District's Dam Safety Activities, Structures Assessments
and Repairs, and Dam Rehabilitation Programs provide annual
maintenance, assessment, repairs, and rehabilitation of its 22
dams and various Flood retarding Structures to ensure the safety
of Maricopa County residents

N/A

Dept. Budget

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

2000

2004

Page 298

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
Maricopa County

Project Name
Flood Control Projects
FY08

Project Description
The District continues to work towards the completion of flood
control projects to reduce the potential for flooding in Maricopa
County under its Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
The District conducts new floodplain delineation studies
identifying flood hazards and restudying existing flooplain
areas, to get ahead of development, develop alternatives for
structural flood controls, develop Area Drainage Master Plans
and Watercourse Master Plans, establish regulatory
requirements for new development, and identify mitigation
opportunities. From FY06 through FY09 26 studies were
completed on 890 stream miles.
The District administers the Floodplain regulations for
Maricopa County in the unincorporated areas and 12
communities, ensuring that new development is protected from
flooding and that adverse impacts are minimized through use
limitations on floodways and other high hazard floodplains.
Under the countywide Floodprone Properties Acquisition
Program, 23 properties were acquired for structure demolition
or relocation; 3 additional properties were protected by a
floodwall.
Flood gates were replaced with an all weather ford structure that
allows local citizens access through a flood prone waterway.

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

$55,000,000

Dept. Budget

Flood Control
District

Ongoing

$20,000,000

Dept. Budget

Flood Control
District

Ongoing

N/A

Dept. Budget

Flood Control
District

Ongoing

$7,654,931

Dept. Budget

Flood Control
District

Ongoing

$200,000

MCDOT Operating
budget (HURF)

Transportation

September 2008

Maricopa County

Floodplain Delineation
Studies

Maricopa County

Floodplain Regulations

Maricopa County

FPAP

Maricopa County

Old Stage Road at New
River Concrete Ford

Maricopa County

Public Awareness

Increase public awareness about hazards through various media
- mailings, public meetings, home shows, television
commercials, internet, etc.

$5,000

Dept. Budget

Emergency
Management and
Flood Control
District

Ongoing

Maricopa County

Storm Ready
Community
Recognition

Recognized by the National Weather Service in 2005 and again
in 2008. In order for a community to be recognized a
community must complete a set of rigorous warning criteria.
One criteria is to promote the importance of public readiness
through community seminars.

$2,000

Dept. Budget

Emergency
Management

November 2005

Maricopa County

Storm Ready
Community
Recognition

Renewal of the Storm Ready Community Designation

$2,000

Dept. Budget

Emergency
Management

November 2008

Maricopa County

Weather Radios

Distributed one NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards receivers to
every public school in Maricopa County.

$10,000

Dept. Budget

Emergency
Management

November 2007

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 299

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Project Name

Mesa

Flood Control

Mesa

Replace Power Poles
along University

Paradise Valley

Community Emergency
Notification Systems
(CENS)

Project Description
City Engineering is partnering on a project with Maricopa
County in east Mesa/unincorporated area near Siphon Draw
Basin, with creating a large water retention basin.
Finally, Engineering is developing a Storm Water Master Plan
to identify areas throughout the city where water run-off during
storms has or may create problems. Once the Plan is complete
(July 09) the city will seek Bond funding to make suggested
mitigations.
Since the beginning of February a CIP project to replace all
wooden power poles with steel and concrete poles as well as
increasing the cable size from 795 to 1152 MCM. Along
University Dr between Extension Rd (800 west) and Stapley Dr
(1200 east) The cost of the project is approx $2.0 million.
all poles have been replaced, approx 2.5 miles.
The CENS was created as a method to notify citizens within a
specifiable area of a local hazard. It was recently upgraded to a
reverse 911 system.

Project Cost

Funding Source

Completion Date

undetermined

Bonds

City of Mesa
Engineering

$2,000,000

Capital
Improvement Bonds

Utilities (Energy
Division)

July 2009

$160,000

Homeland Security
Grant Fund

Maricopa Region
911 Office

February 2009

Engineering
Department

January 2005

Engineering
Department

89% complete - 4
of 36 districts
remaining

Public Works
Department until
2009, then Planning
& Building
Department

Perpetual Project

FCDMC

Jun 2008

Town of Paradise
Valley Capital
Projects
Accumulation Fund
& Maricopa County
Flood Control
District
Town of Paradise
Valley Capital
Projects
Accumulation Fund
(55%) & Arizona
Public Service
(45%)

Paradise Valley

Doubletree Ranch Road
Flood Control and Road
Improvement Project

The installation of (2) 10' x 6' box culverts was done under
Doubletree Ranch Road to handle the storm water from the
Phoenix Mountain Preserve.

$11,000,000

Paradise Valley

Utility Pole Under
Grounding Project

In reaction to the downing of multiple power lines and power
poles during wind events, the under grounding of all electric
utility was undertaken.

$40,000,000

Paradise Valley

Wash Maintenance
Inspection Project

To minimize the adverse effects of flooding during storm events
the Town has a perpetual program of inspecting major washes
every year and minor washes every other year. Property owners
are notification if routine maintenance has been performed.

$100,000

Town of Paradise
General Fund

Phoenix

10th Street Wash Storm
Drain Project

10th Street Wash Storm Drain Project replaced an open channel
between Alice Ave and the Arizona Canal Diversion Channel
with underground storm drain pipes. Goals/Objectives 5.B.3 and
5.D.2

$5,443,068

CIP/BOND &
FCDMC (50/50)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Responsible
Department

Page 300

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Project Name
23rd Ave WWTPSecurity Upgrades
24th Ave/Camelback
Road Detention basin
and Storm Drain Project
24th St WTP-Security
Upgrades
26th Ave/Verde Lane
Detention Basin and
Storm Drain Project
64th Street Security
Improvements

Project Description
Installation of fencing, card readers, cameras and conversion to
one ton chlorine gas containers. Goal 11, Objective 11.A
24th Ave/Camelback Road Detention basin and Storm Drain
Project purchased 28 homes and constructed a detention basin.
Goals/Objectives 5.B.3 and 5.D.2
Installation of fencing, card readers, cameras, and other security
facilities at the plant. Goal 11, Objective 11.A
26th Ave/Verde Lane Detention basin and Storm Drain Project
purchased 26 homes and constructed a detention basin.
Goals/Objectives 5.B.3 and 5.D.2
Upgrade the existing wall and gates at the reservoir site to
provide additional security measures. Goal/Objective 11

Phoenix

91st Ave WWTPSecurity Upgrades

Phoenix

9th Avenue Storm Drain
Project

Installation of fencing, card readers, cameras, and conversion to
one ton chlorine gas containers. Goal 11, Objective 11.A
9th Ave Storm Drain Project constructed storm drain pipes
between West Park Dam principal outlet to the Arizona Canal
Diversion Channel. Goals/Objectives 5.B.3 and 5.D.2

Phoenix

Arizona Water and
Wastewater Agency
Response Network
(AZWARN)

Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix

Phoenix

Bethany Home Road
Outfall Channel
(BHOC) - Reach B

Phoenix

Clean Air Act - Risk
Management Plan General Duty Clause

Phoenix

Critical RCEP
Improvements at
Remote Facilities

Phoenix

Customer Service Yard
Security Improvements

Development of statewide water and wastewater emergency
response network. Goal/Objective 11.A
Bethany Home Road Outfall Channel, Reach B project
purchased demolished approximately 72 floodprone properties
and constructed a multi-use detention basin. This meandering
multi-use detention basin is also used as a park feature, which
runs along the Grand Canal between 67th Ave and 73 Ave.
Goals/Objectives 5.B.3 and 5.D.2
Staff conducted facility assessments to identify storage or use of
hazardous materials that may be released beyond the property
boundary and impact the public. The volume of hazardous
materials was reduced at one facility, materials were moved at
another facility, and a management plan will be conducted at
another facility. Goal/Objective 10.A.1 and 10.C.2
This project is the implementation of the first year of critical
improvements identified in the Lift Station and Odor Control
Station RCEP study. It includes upgrades at 9 lift stations to
correct regulatory deficiencies. Goal 10, Objective 10.C
Upgrade the existing wall and gates at customer service area
yard #1 and #4 and install a fire life safety system at area yard
#4. Goal/Objective 11

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department
Water Services
Department
Street
Transportation
Department
Water Services
Department
Street
Transportation
Department
Water Services
Department

Completion Date

$10,200,000

CIP WS90200034

$11,098,757

CIP/BOND &
FCDMC (75/25)

$8,600,000

CIP WS85290019

$8,770,505

CIP/BOND &
FCDMC (50/50)

$3,000,000

CIP WS85800005

$9,200,000

CIP WS90100073

$4,499,925

CIP/BOND &
FCDMC (50/50)

$5,000

Operating Funds

Water Services
Department

March 2008

$20,588,967

CIP/BOND,
FCDMC &
Glendale (25/50/25)

FCDMC

Aug 2007

Operating Funds

Aviation
Department

April 2009

$597,500

CIP WS90400054

Water Services
Department

May 2009
(Design)

$650,000

CIP WS85800009

Water Services
Department

Ongoing

Water Services
Department
Street
Transportation
Department

July 2006
Nov 2008
July 2008
Jun 2007
Ongoing
Feb 2009
Dec 2008

Page 301

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
Phoenix

Project Name
Customer Services Pay
station-Security
Upgrades

Project Description
Installation of cameras, bullet proof glass, etc. Goal 11,
Objective 11.A
Between 2004 and 2009, three separate Dam Safety related
projects have been completed. These projects primarily dealt
with Jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional dams within the City
of Phoenix boundary. Goals/Objectives 5.C.1, 5.C.2, and 5.C.3
Installation of fencing, card readers, cameras, and other security
facilities at the plant. Goal 11, Objective 11.A
Various-Between 2004 and 2009, numerous elevation certificate
projects have been completed. These projects help reduce or
eliminate flood insurance requirements for structures located
within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
Goals/Objectives 5.B.1 and 5.B.3
Coordinated with Finance Department on five environmental
standard and special terms and conditions for contracts.
Coordinated for environmental language to be added to
contracts. This was approved by City Council Resolution
20519 in 2007. Goal/Objective 10.A.2

Project Cost

Funding Source

$1,000,000

CIP WS85700049

$3,088,269

CIP/BOND &
FCDMC (50/50)

Street
Transportation
Department

June 2006 - June
2009

$1,500,000

CIP WS85260020

Water Services
Department

December 2008

$435,399

CIP/BOND

Street
Transportation
Department

FY 2004-FY2009

Operating Funds

City Manager/
Office of
Environmental
Programs

2005-2007

Dam Safety Program

Phoenix

Deer Valley WTPSecurity Upgrades

Phoenix

Elevation Certificate
Program

Phoenix

Environmentally
Preferable Purchase
Program

Phoenix

Environmentally
Preferable Purchase
Program

Developed EPP training module for P2 University.
Goal/Objective 10.A.2

Operating Funds

Phoenix

Environmentally
Preferable Purchase
Program

Product Evaluation Teams demonstrate green products in six
categories. Goal/Objective 10.A.2

Operating Funds

Phoenix

Environmentally
Preferable Purchase
Program

Collaborated with ASU on green (EPP) purchasing.
Goal/Objective 10.B.1

Operating Funds

Phoenix

Hazardous Waste
Management

Phoenix

Lake Pleasant WTP
DBO

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Completion Date

Water Services
Department

Phoenix

Staff were trained on safe handling of hazardous wastes
including: recordkeeping and inspections for universal waste,
batteries, PCB ballasts, mercury containing equipment, and
hazardous waste accumulation areas. Goal/Objective 10.C.1
Installation of fencing, card readers, cameras, and other security
facilities with the construction of the new plant. Goal 11,
Objective 11.A

Responsible
Department

$218,000,000

City Manager/
Office of
Environmental
Programs
City Manager/
Office of
Environmental
Programs
City Manager/
Office of
Environmental
Programs

July 2006

2005

2007

2008

Operating Funds

Aviation
Department

June 2008

CIP WS85350004

Water Services
Department

July 2007

Page 302

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Phoenix

Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel
(LACC) Project

Phoenix

Lift Station 42 Security
Upgrades

Phoenix

Lift Station 43 Security
Upgrades

Phoenix

Lift Station 44 Security
Upgrades

Phoenix

Lift Station 46 Security
Upgrades

Phoenix

Lift Station 47 Security
Upgrades

Phoenix

Lift Station 51
Structural Repairs

Phoenix

Lift Station 53 Security
Upgrades

Project Description
Laveen Area Conveyance Channel is a 5.8 miles long,
approximately 200' wide meandering multi-use flood control
facility. It provides protection from flooding to the South
Phoenix/Laveen area between 43rd Ave and the Salt river. The
flood control facility, which is jointly used as a park feature
runs along Baseline Road alignment and confluences with the
Salt River west of 75th Ave. Goals/Objectives 5.B.3 and 5.D.2
Installed new gates, anti-climb appurtenances, entry control
systems, intrusion detection systems and electronic surveillance
equipment. Goal 11, Objective 11.A
Installed new gates, anti-climb appurtenances, entry control
systems, intrusion detection systems and electronic surveillance
equipment. Goal 11, Objective 11.A
Designed a new gate, access control system, and anti-climb
appurtenances. Goal 11, Objective 11.A
Installed new gates, anti-climb appurtenances, entry control
systems, intrusion detection systems and electronic surveillance
equipment. Goal 11, Objective 11.A
Installed new anti-climb appurtenances. Goal 11, Objective
11.A
This relatively new pump station experienced severe settlements
due to existing soil conditions adjacent to the canal. This project
provided necessary repairs and replacement of backfill to
prevent future settlements. Goal/Objective 9
Designed a new gate, anti-climb appurtenances, and intrusion
detection systems. Goal 11, Objective 11.A

Phoenix

Lift Station 55 Security
Upgrades

Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix

Project Name

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

$20,759,394

CIP/BOND &
FCDMC (50/50)

FCDMC

Jul 2007

$627,500

CIP WS90400040

Water Services
Department

July 2009

$981,000

CIP WS90400041

Water Services
Department

January 2009

$400,000

CIP WS90NA0484

Water Services
Department

December 2008
(Design)

$393,000

CIP WS90400043

Water Services
Department

June 2009

$18,100

CIP WS90400044

Water Services
Department

November 2008

$1,600,000

CIP WS90400022

Water Services
Department

6/1/2009

$70,600

CIP WS90400046

Water Services
Department

December 2008
(Design)

Designed a new gate, access control system, and anti-climb
appurtenances. Goal 11, Objective 11.A

$205,000

CIP WS90NA0486

Water Services
Department

December 2008
(Design)

Lift Station 56 Security
Upgrades

Designed a new access control system and new anti-climb
appurtenances. Goal 11, Objective 11.A

$150,000

CIP WS90NA0485

Water Services
Department

December 2008
(Design)

Lift Station 57 Security
Upgrades
Lift Station 61 Security
Upgrades
Lift Station 62 Security
Upgrades

Designed a new gate, anti-climb appurtenances, and intrusion
detection systems. Goal 11, Objective 11.A
Installed new anti-climb appurtenances. Goal 11, Objective
11.A
Installed new anti-climb appurtenances. Goal 11, Objective
11.A
Installed new gates, anti-climb appurtenances, entry control
systems, intrusion detection systems and electronic surveillance
equipment. Goal 11, Objective 11.A

$65,000

CIP WS90400047

$17,700

CIP WS90400048

$5,500

CIP WS90400049

$855,000

CIP WS90400042

Lift Station 64 Security
Upgrades

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Water Services
Department
Water Services
Department
Water Services
Department
Water Services
Department

November 2008
November 2008
November 2008
January 2009

Page 303

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Project Name

Project Description
Provided design for various security improvements at 12
wastewater lift stations. Improvements were constructed under
separate project numbers. In addition, provided security
improvement guidelines and standard specifications for remote
facilities. Goal 11, Objective 11.A
Various-Between 2004 and 2009, numerous local drainage
projects have been completed. These projects reduce and/or
eliminate localized drainage problems. Goal/Objective 5.D.2
Low Flow Channel was reconstructed to maintain flows and
provide connectivity from I-10 to SR143, minimize and avoid
wildlife attractants and assist with channel flow.
Goal/Objective 5.D.2
Petroleum based products identified for substitution; aqueousbased parts washers first effort. Mercury containing products
identified for substitution; lamps and thermometers eliminated.
Goal/Objective 10.A.1

Project Cost

Funding Source

Completion Date

$1,050,000

CIP WS90800003

Water Services
Department

May 2009

$15,154,444

CIP/BOND

Street
Transportation
Department

FY 2004-FY2009

CIP

Aviation
Department

June 2007

Phoenix

Lift Station Security
Improvements

Phoenix

Local Drainage Program

Phoenix

Low Flow Channel
Construction and
Maintenance

Phoenix

Pollution Prevention
Program

Phoenix

Pollution Prevention
Program

Chlorine packaging in water treatment plant operations reduced
from tanker to cylinder size. Goal/Objective 10.A.1

Operating Funds

Phoenix

Pollution Prevention
Program

Explosive potential products identified for substitution or
elimination per CAA 112r. Goal/Objective 10.A.1

Operating Funds

Phoenix

Pollution Prevention
Program

Sustainable Cities Network initiated for cities to review and
comment on best practices. Goal/Objective 10.B.1

Operating Funds

Phoenix

Pollution Prevention
Program

Train approximately 500 employees each year on hazardous
materials. Goal/Objective 10.C.1

Operating Funds

Phoenix

Pollution Prevention
Program

Conduct approximately 100 assessments at City departments
each year for compliance and P2 opportunities. Goal/Objective
10.C.2

Operating Funds

Phoenix

Real Time Water
Quality Monitoring

Installation of monitoring equipment at raw water and in water
distribution system. Goal/Objective 10

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Responsible
Department

Operating Funds

$3,000,000

CIP WS85800007

City Manager/
Office of
Environmental
Programs
City Manager/
Office of
Environmental
Programs
City Manager/
Office of
Environmental
Programs
City Manager/
Office of
Environmental
Programs
City Manager/
Office of
Environmental
Programs
City Manager/
Office of
Environmental
Programs
Water Services
Department

2005

2007

2008

2009

2004-2009

2004-2009

ongoing

Page 304

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Phoenix

Project Name

Regulatory Compliance
Excellence Program

Phoenix

Remote Sites Security
Study

Phoenix

Repetitive Loss
Program

Phoenix

Sanitary Sewer Flow
monitoring and
Inflow/Infiltration Pilot
Study

Phoenix

Sanitary Sewer Relief &
Replacement Program Project #3 - 52nd Street
- Cholla St South to the
Indian Bend Wash

Phoenix

Security Improvements
- Remote Facilities

Project Description
Installation of various improvements at 88 water remote
facilities to ensure compliance with current safety regulations.
This project will primarily improve health and safety of City
staff and prevent/minimize damage in case of an emergency or
problem involving one of these chemicals used at water remote
facilities. Goal/Objective 10
Conducted a system wide vulnerability analysis of wastewater
remote facilities to determine appropriate measures for securing
the facilities. The study also prioritized the facilities based on
criticality and location and provided a phased plan for
implementing the recommended improvements. Goal 11,
Objective 11.A
26th Ave/Verde Lane project has purchased and demolished
five repetitive loss properties. This activity was performed as a
part of the detention basin project. Five (5) properties were
eliminated from the RL list provided by FEMA. Goal/Objective
5.D.1
Inspection of sanitary sewer system to find sources infiltration
and inflow (I/I) into the system. Determine methods to reduce
I/I which can cause local surcharging, overflows, damage pipes,
and also reduce peak wet weather flows to treatment plant.
Perform pilot project to plug holes in manhole covers to
determine effectiveness in reducing inflow from this source.
Goal/Objective 7
This project involved the installation of approximately 2,000
linear feet of 42-inch diameter sewer line along 52nd Street
from Cholla Road to the Indian Bend Wash. The new sewer line
replaced an existing overcapacity 27-inch sewer line in 52nd
Street. The existing 27-inch line was removed and the new 42inch line was installed in the same location. The main project
was to replace existing Sanitary Sewers with sewers of larger
diameter, but as an ancillary project, we re-graded a drainage
channel (on the southern edge of the project boundary) to drain
stormwater out of a cul-de-sac on 52nd St, and into the Indian
Bend Wash. Previously the cul de sac would flood in wet
weather and encroach on adjacent homes. Goal/Objective 7
Installed new walls, gates, entry control systems, intrusion
detection systems and electronic surveillance equipment at 2 lift
stations. Goal 11, Objective 11.A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

$750,000

CIP WS85010029

Water Services
Department

January 2009

$647,000

CIP WS85800005

Water Services
Department

October 2006

$809,178

CIP/BOND &
FCDMC (50/50)

Street
Transportation
Department

Jan 2006

$7,200,000

CIP WS90500159

Water Services
Department

Feb 2010

$1,500,000

CIP WS90500164

Water Services
Department

Jan 2006

$1,311,600

CIP WS90800002

Water Services
Department

October 2008

Page 305

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Phoenix

Phoenix

Phoenix

Project Name
Spill Prevention
Controls and
Countermeasures Plans
- Wastewater Remote
Facilities
Spill Prevention
Controls and
Countermeasures Plans
- Water Remote
Facilities
Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans and
Spill Prevention,
Control and
Countermeasures Plans

Project Description

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

Prepare Spill Prevention Controls and Countermeasures Plans
for all the Lift Stations Remote facilities. Goal/Objective 10

$50,000

CIP WS90700043

Water Services
Department

Dec 2005

Prepare Spill Prevention Controls and Countermeasures Plans
for all the Booster Stations Remote facilities. Goal/Objective
10

$50,000

CIP WS85700074

Water Services
Department

12/1/2005

Prepare Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans, Storm Water
Management Plans and Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures Plans for water and wastewater treatment
facilities. Goal/Objective 10

$100,000

Operating Funds

Water Services
Department

June 2009

N/A

N/A

Human Services,
Public Information
Office, Emergency
Management,
Maricopa County,
and faith-based
organizations

Annual continuing
effort

$5,500,000

CIP WS90140006

Water Services
Department

11/1/2008

$7,200,000

CIP WS85320011
and WS85320013

Water Services
Department

June 2009

$10,500,000

CIP WS85230021
and WS85230028

Water Services
Department

November 2008

Phoenix

Summer Respite
Program

Phoenix

Tres Rios Full Scale

Phoenix

Union Hills WTPSecurity Upgrades

The City of Phoenix Human Services Department provides
services and respite to the homeless at the Campus Day
Resource Center. City staff continues to provide training and
information regarding heat assistance to faith-based community
partners. The partners provide hydration stations, heat refuge,
and wellness checks for the elderly and/or disabled individuals.
The City of Phoenix coordinates with St. Mary's Food Bank to
serve as the water collection and distribution point during
summer months. The Public Information Office coordinates
with Maricopa County to provide education and media
response. Information regarding the collection of summer
respite items is publicized on the "on-hold" message on the City
phone system, news releases on the City web page, articles in
the employee newsletter, and in the City water bill Notes.
Goal/Objective 7.A.1 Educate the public on the dangers of
severe weather through various media, web links and outreach
programs
The Tres Rios project includes 4.5 miles of flood control levees
to be constructed from 105th Ave to the Aqua Fria River on the
north bank of the Salt river. The second phase of the levee from
115th Ave to 123rd Ave. was completed. Goal/Objective 5
Installation of fencing, card readers, cameras, and conversion to
one ton chlorine gas containers. Goal 11, Objective 11.A

Phoenix

Val Vista WTP-Security
Upgrades

Installation of fencing, card readers, cameras, and conversion to
one ton chlorine gas containers. Goal 11, Objective 11.A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 306

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Project Name

Phoenix

Wastewater Collection
Lift Station and Odor
Control Station
Regulatory Compliance
and Excellence Program
(RCEP) Study

Phoenix

Water Distribution
System and Wastewater
Collection System
Hardening

Phoenix

Water Resources Plan
and Groundwater
Management Plan

Phoenix

Well Construction and
Improvements

Queen Creek

Box Culvert: Crismon
and Ocotillo Roads

Project Description
Conducted a system wide study of 35 wastewater collection lift
stations and odor control facilities to determine compliance with
environmental, health, and safety codes, regulations, and
standards. Additionally, the study provided recommendations
for implementation of best practices (the Excellence portion of
the study) in the delivery, handling, and storage of chemicals at
each site. The final deliverable included a phased Capital
Improvement Program to complete all compliance issues in
two-years and all excellence recommendations in 8 years. Goal
10, Objective 10.C
This project provided for hardening of the electrical units
through installation of heat wrap tape and insulation at water
remote facilities.
Goal/Objective 7
The Water Services Department has developed two key plans
that address drought-related shortages, and is finalizing a third.
The 2005 Water Resources Plan (WRP) considers the
implications of varying shortage scenarios due to long-term
drought in our source watersheds. This plan also considers
various growth levels to reflect a range of water demands. The
WRP presents 12 key strategies for further strengthening the
City's water supply portfolio to better withstand severe longterm drought. The second plan, a "Groundwater Management
Plan" identifies options and costs for expanding our well
network to assist in meeting demands during shortage. A third
plan, a "Demand Management Plan" is seeking to ensure that: 1)
water uses become more efficient over time to reduce drought
vulnerability; 2) demands can successfully curtailed with as
few impacts as possible to the economy and lifestyles; and 3)
water saved by customers can be preserved to the highest degree
possible for use during times of shortage. Goal/Objective 8.A
As part of the effort to implement the Water Resources Plan and
the Groundwater Management Plan, the City has embarked on a
program to install new wells and rehabilitate others to increase
our capability of supplying water during shortages. An Aquifer
Storage and Recovery (ASR) well was recently completed as
the first of what may be several similar wells. An ASR well
allows for the underground storage of excess water supplies
when available, and also allows the same well to "recover" the
water during shortages. Goal/Objective 8.B
Replaced a single culvert with 6 culverts to control local
flooding. The project cost was shared between the developers
of the Nauvoo Station and Crismon Heights developments.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

$187,000

CIP WS90400026

Water Services
Department

September 2007

$1,242,438

Water Services

Water Services
Department

June 2009

$1,500,000

Water Overhead

Water Services

March, 2006
(WRP) and
January 20090
(GWMP, Phase I)]

$10,000,000

Water CIP

Water Services

March, 2009

Unknown

Development
community

Community
Development
Department

2008

Page 307

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Project Name

Project Description
Replaced a single culvert with 6 culverts to control local
flooding. The project cost was shared between the Town of
Queen Creek and the developer of the Nauvoo Station
development.

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

$479,750
(Town
share=$268,935)

Town CIP and
development
community

Channelized sheet flows to box culvert.

Unknown

Development
community

Channelized sheet flows to box culvert.

Unknown

Development
community

Constructed new 6 lane bridge over Queen Creek Wash.

$5,000,000

Improvement
District

Transportation
Department

October 2007

Constructed new 6 lane underpass under railroad tracks.

$20,000,000

Improvement
District

Transportation
Department

June 2008

Constructed new 4 lane bridge to replace dip crossing.

$225,000 (Town
share)

MCDOT and Town
CIP

Public Works
Department

April 2008

Constructed new 6 lane bridge to replace existing 2 lane bridge.

$200,000 (Town
share)

MCDOT and Town
CIP

Public Works
Department

July 2004

Constructed new 4 lane bridge to replace dip crossing with
culverts.

$1,500,000

FCDMC, MCDOT,
and Town CIP

Public Works
Department

March 2005

Queen Creek

Queen Creek Wash
Channelization Project:
Power Road to Hawes
Road

The reach of Queen Creek Wash through the Town of Queen
Creek was channelized to mitigate the impacts of flooding
through the Town. The channel was sized to convey the 100year storm and effectively removed 19 homes from the flood
hazard area. Habitat removed during project construction was
mitigated in 2 new locations.

$4,500,000

FCDMC and Town
CIP

Public Works
Department

September 2006

Queen Creek

Santo Vallarta
Channelization

Channelized sheet flows within the Santo Vallarta development
from the San Tan Mountains.

Unknown

Development
community

Community
Development
Department

2008

Queen Creek

Sonoqui Wash
Channelization Project:
Higley Road to
Chandler Heights Road

The reach of Sonoqui Wash through the Towns of Gilbert and
Queen Creek was channelized to mitigate the impacts of
flooding through the towns. The channel was sized to convey
the 100-year storm and effectively removed 11 homes from the
flood hazard area. Habitat removed during project construction
was mitigated off site.

$4,800,000

FCDMC, Town
CIP, and Town of
Gilbert

Public Works
Department

February 2008

Queen Creek

Queen Creek

Queen Creek

Queen Creek

Queen Creek

Queen Creek

Queen Creek

Queen Creek

Box Culvert: Ocotillo
Road and Railroad
Crossing
Channelization:
Crismon Road at Queen
Creek Road
Channelization: Queen
Creek Road at Langley
Gateway
Ellsworth Loop Road:
New Ellsworth Loop
Road Bridge over
Queen Creek Wash
Ellsworth Loop Road:
New Ellsworth Loop
Road Underpass
New Chandler Heights
Road Bridge over
Sonqui Wash
New Power Road
Bridge over Queen
Creek Wash
New Sossaman Road
Bridge over Queen
Creek Wash

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Public Works
Department
Community
Development
Department
Community
Development
Department

December 2007

2008

2008

Page 308

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Project Name

Scottsdale

Floodplain Acquisition
Program

Scottsdale

Granite Reef Watershed

Scottsdale

Scottsdale

Scottsdale

McDowell Drive
Corridor Drainage
Improvements
Neighborhood
Stormwater
Management
Improvements
North Scottsdale Road
Corridor Drainage
Project

Scottsdale

Pima Road Drainage
System

Scottsdale

South Scottsdale Road
Drainage Corridor

Scottsdale

Upper Camelback Wash
Watershed

Scottsdale

Wet Crossing
Replacement Study

Project Description
Develop a floodplain acquisition program for major wash
corridors north of the CAP canal to ensure an effective and
efficient drainage network is maintained and/or is provided as
future development occurs.
To provide 100 year flood protection and to eliminate the
existing FEMA A zone designation which carries a mandated
need for flood insurance for the moderately priced homes in the
Granite Reef Wash corridor south of Thomas Road and to
improve drainage conditions for locations between Osborn and
Thomas Road to approximately a 10-year level of protection.
The goal of the project is to eliminate flooding up to the 10-year
event for this established neighborhood. The total watershed
area is approximately 0.9 square miles.

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

$2,366,600

Bond 2000

Stormwater
Management
Division

$42,504,100

Bond 2000, General
Fund, FCD
Contribution,
Contributions

Stormwater
Management
Division

June 2011

$3,759,624

Bond 2000

Stormwater
Management
Division

September 2008

Provide as-needed drainage improvements, which address
localized drainage and flooding problems.

$3,993,500

General Fund, InLieu Fees

Stormwater
Management
Division

June 2006

The goal of the project is to eliminate flooding up to the 10-year
event for this highly developed residential and commercial area
and to protect Scottsdale Road from off-site flows.

$9,895,100

Bond 2000, General
Fund, FCD
Contribution

Stormwater
Management
Division

September 2008

$6,398,800

Bond 2000, General
Fund

Stormwater
Management
Division

Feburary 2010

$2,967,200

Bond 2000

Stormwater
Management
Division

July 2009

$15,745,000

Bond 2000, General
Fund, FCD
Contribution

Stormwater
Management
Division

April 2012

$120,000

General Fund

Stormwater
Management
Division

June 2008

Design and construct open channel and storm drain
improvements, in conjunction with major roadway
improvements, to collect and route stormwater flows in the
Pima Road corridor southerly to the intersection with the "new"
Union Hills Drive. Flows will then be routed westerly to the
planned Loop 101 detention basin.
Construction of a storm drain and lateral connections to
alleviate street flooding in Scottsdale Road and provide
localized drainage improvements in neighborhoods along the
west side of the corridor.
The goal of this project is to, as much as feasible, reduce
flooding for this major wash corridor. The benefiting area is
highly developed with a mix of single-family, multi-family and
commercial properties. The total watershed area north of Shea
Boulevard is approximately 2.6 square miles.
The city has 70 wet wash crossings on arterial roadways north
of the CAP. Although current design standards call for dry
crossings for arterial roadways, there is no program to replace
existing wet crossings in our current CIP. This project involves
hiring a consultant to develop a cost estimate and proposed
schedule for replacement of these 70 crossings.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

December 2009

Page 309

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Project Name

Tempe

Bridge Maintenance

Tempe

Chlorine conversion

Tempe

Fire Admin Security

Tempe

Overhead Utility
Undergrounding project

Tempe

Rio Salado
Channelization

Tempe

Storm Drain
Improvements

Tempe

Water Utility Dept.
Security Improvements

Tolleson

Up-dating of codes

Wickenburg

Floodway Property
Buy-Out

Wickenburg

Storm Ready

Wickenburg

Weather Radios

Project Description
On-going preventative maintenance/inspection program to
ensure safety and structural integrity of all bridges in Tempe funds are used to make required repairs
Conversion from chlorine gas to sodium hypochlorite for
disinfection at water treatment plants. Reduce risk from terrorist
act.
Bollards and security cameras.
This project is to bury overhead power lines from the Rio
Salado to Tempe St. Lukes hospital, to strengthen/harden the
power supply to the hospital in case of emergency.
As part of the construction of Tempe Town Lake, the river bed
was channelized…
Annual program to identify projects to mitigate flooding
situations on arterial streets, residential areas, etc. Recent
projects include the intersection of Broadway Rd. and
McClintock Dr., and a section of neighborhood near Rural Rd.
and Guadalupe Rd.
Numerous enhancements to the physical security provisions at
the water treatment plants
Up-dated the city code, residential code, plumbing code, zoning
codes, city ordinances, storm water runoff pollution/prevention,
and the general plan.
Town purchased one parcel near Hassaympa River and Jack
Burden Road
Recognized by the National Weather Service in 2005 and again
in 2008. In order for a community to be recognized a
community must complete a set of rigorous warning criteria.
One criteria is to promote the importance of public readiness
through community seminars.
Distributed one NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards receivers to
every public school in Maricopa County.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Project Cost

Funding Source

Responsible
Department

Completion Date

300,000/Year

CIP

Public Works
Department

$9,000,000

CIP

Water Utility
Department

ongoing

$114,000
total project cost
estimated at
$4.5M approximately
$1.5M expended
to date.

SHSGP grant

Fire

May 2009

CIP

Public Works
Department

ongoing

can provide

CIP

Public Works
Department

mid 90's but can
get date

approx.
$300,000/yr.$1.4M over 5
years

CIP

Public Works
Department

ongoing

$3,500,000

CIP

Water Utility
Department

ongoing

N/A

N/A

All city department
and staff

2006 - 2009

$70,000

FEMA

Public Works

December 2007

$5,000 staff time

County

Emergency
Management

November 2007

Grant - $50,000

County

Police Department

November 2007

ongoing

Page 310

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-4: Summary of previous mitigation activities for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction

Project Name

Connecticut Avenue
Stormwater Mitigation
Project

Youngtown

Project Description
Stormwater collected into the alley just north of Connecticut
Avenue and east of 112th Drive, overwhelming the drain
capacity and thereby flooding homes along Connecticut Avenue
south of the alleyway. The Town of Youngtown removed
approximately five-inches of a rise just west of drain and
created a water channel to relieve pressure on drain to remove
water. Town also reworked outlet at 114th Avenue, providing
even more relief. Due to layout of overall area, problem was
not completely removed, but remediated approximately 65
percent of pre-project levels.

Project Cost

$35,000

Responsible
Department

Funding Source

Town CIP and
HURF funds.

Public Works
Department

Completion Date

March 2009

Table 6-5: Summary of previous projects in Maricopa County receiving federal mitigation grant funding
Applicant

Project Title

Project Type

Year
Begun

Year
Ended

Total Cost

75% Fed
Cost

25% NonFed Cost

Program

UNKNOWN

Allenville Relocation

Relocation

1979

1982

$3,800,000.00

$2,850,000.00

$950,000.00

ADEM/HUD

City of Litchfield Park

884-3, Litchfield Park
Drainage System

Correction of storm drainage problems

1995

1996

$160,000.00

$120,000.00

$40,000.00

HMGP

Town of Fountain
Hills

977-04, Saguaro Catch
Basins

Correction of storm drainage problems

1995

2000

$28,600.00

$21,450.00

$7,150.00

HMGP

Maricopa County DOT
City of Phoenix Water
Dept.

977-07, Union Hills Bridge
@ New River
977-08, 91st Avenue
WWTP

$1,800,000.00

$1,350,000.00

$450,000.00

HMGP

Maricopa County FCD

1347-5, Aquila Acquisition

Maricopa County
Maricopa County

6.2.3

Four lane bridge at New River

1996

1997

1997

2000

$2,500,000.00

$1,875,000.00

$625,000.00

HMGP

Acquisition

2001

2008

$732,975.00

$549,731.25

$183,243.75

HMGP

1347-5-4R MCFCD

Acquisition and Demolition

2001

2005

$977,300.00

$732,975.00

$244,325.00

HMGP

1422-2-4P Maricopa

Mitigation Plan

2002

2004

$106,806.00

$80,104.50

$26,701.50

HMGP

Erosion control

National Flood Insurance Program Participation
Participation in the NFIP is a key element of any community’s local floodplain management and flood mitigation strategy. Maricopa County
and all 24 incorporated jurisdictions participate in the NFIP at varying levels. The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community do not currently participate in the NFIP. Salt River Project is not organized like a municipality and does not regulate development,
and therefore is not a participant in the NFIP either.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 311

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Joining the NFIP requires the adoption of a floodplain management ordinance that requires jurisdictions to follow established minimum
standards set forth by FEMA and the State of Arizona, when developing in the floodplain. These standards require that all new buildings and substantial
improvements to existing buildings will be protected from damage by the 100-year flood, and that new floodplain development will not aggravate
existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties. Maricopa County and some other communities, have adopted standards that are more
stringent than the federal minimum to ensure better flood mitigation practices. As a participant in the NFIP, communities also benefit from having
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that map identified flood hazard areas and can be used to assess flood hazard risk, regulate construction practices
and set flood insurance rates. FIRMs are also an important source of information to educate residents, government officials and the private sector about
the likelihood of flooding in their community. Table 6-6 summarizes the NFIP status and statistics for each of the jurisdictions participating in this Plan.

Table 6-6: Summary of NFIP status and statistics for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Community
ID

NFIP Entry
Date

Current
Effective
Map Date

Number
of
Policies

Amount of
Coverage
(x $1,000)

Maricopa County

040037

7/2/1979

9/30/2005

2,274

$505,030

Avondale

040038

6/15/1979

9/30/2005

48

$12,143

Buckeye

040039

2/15/1980

9/30/2005

40

$8,132

Carefree

040126

7/2/1979

9/30/2005

16

$5,106

Cave Creek

040129

6/9/1988

9/30/2005

98

$25,737

Chandler

040040

7/16/1980

9/30/2005

246

$55,745

El Mirage

040041

12/1/1978

9/30/2005

13

$4,000

Fountain Hills

040135

2/10/1994

9/30/2005

31

$8,081

Provides in-house floodplain management

Gila Bend

040043

12/4/1979

9/30/2005

13

$1,751

Floodplain management provided by the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County

Gilbert

040044

1/16/1980

9/30/2005

265

$85,712

Provides in-house floodplain management

Glendale

040045

4/16/1979

9/30/2005

139

$37,074

Provides in-house floodplain management

Jurisdiction

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Floodplain Management Role
Provides floodplain management for the Unincorporated
County and the City/Towns noted below.
Provides in-house floodplain management
Floodplain management provided by the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County
Floodplain management provided by the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County
Floodplain management provided by the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County
Floodplain management provided by the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County
Floodplain management provided by the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County

Page 312

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-6: Summary of NFIP status and statistics for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Community
ID

NFIP Entry
Date

Current
Effective
Map Date

Number
of
Policies

Amount of
Coverage
(x $1,000)

Goodyear

040046

7/16/1979

9/30/2005

83

$22,091

Guadalupe

040111

4/1/1994

9/30/2005

2

$113

Litchfield Park

040128

8/19/1988

9/30/2005

7

$2,210

Mesa

040048

5/15/1980

9/30/2005

316

$78,331

Paradise Valley

040049

5/1/1980

9/30/2005

96

$33,947

Provides in-house floodplain management

Peoria

040050

11/17/1978

9/30/2005

229

$65,028

Provides in-house floodplain management

Phoenix

040051

12/4/1979

9/30/2005

5,231

$1,093,805

Provides in-house floodplain management

Queen Creek

040132

7/22/1992

9/30/2005

32

$8,668

Scottsdale

045012

9/21/1973

9/30/2005

8,358

$2,076,400

Surprise

040053

12/15/1978

9/30/2005

124

$36,590

Floodplain management provided by the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County

Tempe

040054

8/15/1980

9/30/2005

189

$44,823

Provides in-house floodplain management

Tolleson

040055

1/16/1980

9/30/2005

53

$12,403

Floodplain management provided by the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County

Wickenburg

040056

1/5/1978

9/30/2005

81

$14,540

Provides in-house floodplain management

Youngtown

040057

11/15/1978

9/30/2005

5

$846

Provides in-house floodplain management

Jurisdiction

Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation
Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian
Community

Floodplain Management Role
Provides in-house floodplain management
Floodplain management provided by the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County
Floodplain management provided by the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County
Floodplain management provided by the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County

Floodplain management provided by the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County
Provides in-house floodplain management

Not a participant in the NFIP
Not a participant in the NFIP

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 313

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
6.3

2009

Mitigation Actions/Projects and Implementation Strategy

Mitigation actions/projects (A/P) are those activities identified by a jurisdiction, that when
implemented, will have the effect of reducing the community’s exposure and risk to the particular hazard or
hazards being mitigated. The implementation strategy addresses the “how, when, and by whom?” questions
related to implementing an identified A/P.
The update process for defining the new list of mitigation A/Ps for the Plan was accomplished in three
steps. First, an assessment of the actions and projects specified in Section 8 of the 2004 Plan was performed,
wherein each jurisdiction reviewed and evaluated their jurisdiction specific list. Second, a new list of A/Ps for
the Plan was developed by combining the carry forward results from the assessment with new A/Ps. Third, an
implementation strategy for the combined list of A/Ps was formulated. Details of each step and the results of
the process are summarized in the following sections.
6.3.1

Previous Mitigation Actions/Projects Assessment
The MJPT and LPT for each jurisdiction reviewed and assessed the actions and projects
listed in Table 8-8 of their 2004 Plan (except SRP). The assessment included evaluating and
classifying each of the previously identified A/Ps based on the following criteria:

STATUS
Classification
“No Action”
“In Progress”
“Complete”

Explanation Requirement:
Reason for no progress
What progress has been made
Date of completion and final cost of
project (if applicable)

DISPOSITION
Classification
“Keep”
“Revise”
“Delete”

Explanation Requirement:
None required
Revised components
Reason(s) for exclusion.

Any A/P with a disposition classification of “Keep” or “Revise” was carried forward to
become part of the new A/P list for the Plan. All A/Ps identified for deletion were removed and are
not included in this updated plan. The results of the assessment for each of the 2004 Plan A/Ps is
summarized by jurisdiction in Tables 6-7-1 through 6-7-27.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 314

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-1: Summary of Avondale assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

3B3

Water/Wastewater
Department Security

Enter into a contract for a full assessment of
the water/ wastewater departments for security
of systems.

3B2

Citywide Security
Review

Complete citywide security review.

2A5

ICS Training

Complete mid to upper management training
for ICS and other related training.

2A4

Site Safety
Partnering

Partner with Phoenix International Raceway
and other stakeholders in matters of site
safety.

2A6

School Safety

Partner with public school systems to update
school safety.

2B1

Emergency Alerts

Enhance the City of Avondale’s capabilities to
alert its citizens in time of emergency
(English and Spanish).

3B5

EOC Upgrade

Upgrade the current EOC and recommend the
construction of a new and more secure
facility.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
City Manager, Public
Works Director
N/A
N/A
City Manager, Public
Works Director, Fire
Dept., Police Dept.
N/A
N/A
Fire Chief, City
Manager
N/A
N/A
Fire Chief
N/A
N/A

• Fire Chief
• N/A
• N/A
• Fire Chief/Emergency
Manager, City
Manager
• N/A
• N/A
• Fire Chief/Emergency
Manager, City
Manager, City
Engineer
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

In
progress

Keep

Contractor has completed COOP for
water dept. training is on going

In
progress

Keep

City SOP/EOP under review and being
updated

In
progress

Keep

Safety/risk tracking NIMS and ICS
training for management

In
progress

Keep

TLO will update the TVA for PIR

No action

Keep

Staffing shortages, will try in the fall

No action

Keep

No funding

No action

Keep

No funding

Page 315

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-1: Summary of Avondale assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Police Chief, Fire
Chief
N/A
N/A
Fire Chief
N/A
N/A

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete

Delete

6-15-09 $15.500 grant funded

In
progress

Keep

On going

8A4

PPE Equipment

Provide PPE for chemical and biological agent
protection to all members of the department.

8A5

CERT Training

Provide CERT training to all citizens and city
groups upon request.

B2

Grant Funding for
Safety

Seek grants and other funding
to promote the safety of Avondale
and its citizens.

• Fire Chief
• N/A
• N/A

In
progress

Keep

Ongoing process

3B4

Hire Emergency
Planner

Hire a full time civilian emergency
planner/manager (FY 04/05).

• Fire Chief
• N/A
• N/A

No action

Delete

No funding/hiring freeze

•
•
•
•
•

Table 6-7-2: Summary of Buckeye assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

1.C.1

Fire Code Official

Hire fire code enforcement officials/inspectors

2.C.2

Life Safety

Conduct annual life safety inspections

• Lead Agency
• Proposed Cost
• Proposed Comp
Date
• Fire Chief, Town
Engineer
• N/A
• N/A
• Fire Chief
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete

Delete

July 2007: Hired Fire Prevention
Specialist to conduct code enforcement
and review all fire plans and inspectors.

In progress

Revise

Initiated by fire inspector with ongoing
training to the fire crews.

Page 316

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-2: Summary of Buckeye assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

4.C.1

Town
Communication

Communicate Town needs better at the
County and State level

4.A.1

Hazard Mitigation
Planning

Continue to support the Hazard Mitigation
Plan by making sure the Town is represented
on related committees.

5.B.3

Storm Protection

Implement storm deployment protection
procedures (local)

6.A.1

Fire Breaks

Meet with flood control and state land to
develop cut fire breaks at key locations in the
Gila River

5.B.2

Drainage
Improvements

Provide/improve water drainage systems.

11.A.3

Enforce Codes

Enforce fire codes, require compliance

8.A.1

Water Conservation

Develop water conservation plan.

• Lead Agency
• Proposed Cost
• Proposed Comp
Date
• Fire Chief
(Emergency
Manager)
• N/A
• N/A
• Fire Chief
(Emergency
Manager)
• N/A
• N/A
• Fire Chief
(Emergency
Manager)
• N/A
• N/A
• Town Engineer,
FCDMC
• N/A
• N/A
• Public Works
Director
• N/A
• N/A
• Fire Chief
(Emergency
Manager)
• N/A
• N/A
• Town Manager, Town
Engineer
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete

Keep

Public Safety Executive Partnership.

In progress

Keep

Currently in revision.

Standard Operating Procedures
development.
In progress

Keep
Implementation and execution of
CERT and Teen CERT program.

In progress

Keep

Working in conjunction with the
Maricopa County on CWPP Plans.

In progress

Keep

Working in conjunction with the
Maricopa County on CWPP Plans.

In progress

Keep

Continue and update versions of code
compliance.

In progress

Keep

Critical Resource Planning.

Page 317

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-3: Summary of Carefree assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

1.B.1

Drainage Master
Plan

Develop a Drainage Master Plan that will
identify potential drainage hazards, solutions,
budgets and prioritization.

4.A.3

Culvert/Bridge
Construction

Encourage bridge or culvert construction
where roads are in locations susceptible to
flooding.

3.B.1

Evacuation Strategy

Further develop a Mass Evacuation strategy
for the Town of Carefree.

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Zoning Director, Town
Council
• N/A
• N/A
• Town Manager,
Contractor
• N/A
• N/A
• Town Marshall,
Sherriff’s Office
• N/A
• N/A

Status

Disposition

In
Progress

Keep

In
Progress

Keep

Completed

Keep

Explanation
Drainage Master Plan Developed in
General Plan as well as Maricopa County
Flood Control District 2007 Flood
Response Plan. Cost is not determined as
planning is ongoing use staff hours and
resources.
Dream Street Bridge completed 2007 at
cost of $950,000.00. Other construction
and crossing projects ongoing as time
and budget permits.
Evacuation Strategy determined in
Cooperation with MCSO and Carefree
Fire (Rural Metro) for both specific and
mass evacuation. Cost of flan was not
determined as it drew on staff hours and
resources. Plan is subject to ongoing
revision

Table 6-7-4: Summary of Cave Creek assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

3.B.1

Evacuation Strategy

Coordinate with Maricopa County Department
of Emergency Management to develop a Mass
Evacuation strategy for Cave Creek.

3.B.2

Evacuation Plan

Coordinate with Maricopa County Department
of Emergency Management to develop a Mass
Evacuation plan for Cave Creek.

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Emergency
Management, Rural
Metro, MCSO,
Marshal
N/A
N/A
Emergency
Management, Marshal
N/A
N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete
08/2007
$6200

Delete

Updated Town of Cave Creek
Emergency Operations Plan. Subscribed
to CodeRed Mass Notification System.

Complete
08/2007

Delete

Included in the updated Emergency
Operations Plan, August 2007

Page 318

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-4: Summary of Cave Creek assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

6.B.1

Name

Subdivision Fire
Access

Description
Ensure that subdivision regulations for new
subdivisions ensure adequate access for fire
trucks.

7.A.2

Enforce Building
Codes

Ensure building codes for construction are
enforced to prevent roof damage from high
winds.

8.B.2

Water Infrastructure
Investigation

Investigate the possibility of adding a water
facility and infrastructure on the west side of
Cave Creek.

5.A.1

Drainage Master
Plan

1.B.1

Review Building
Codes

5.A.3

Bridge/Culvert
Construction

Work with The Flood Control District of
Maricopa County (FCDMC) on Drainage
Master Plan for Cave Creek to
evaluate and mitigate flood hazards in the
Town (FCDMC).
Review existing building codes to determine if
they adequately protect new development in
hazard areas. Where feasible and necessary,
modify codes to help mitigate hazards
imposed on such development within the
limits of state statutes, while also respecting
private property rights.
Encourage bridge or culvert construction for
major arterial road in locations susceptible to
flooding.

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Planning and Zoning
Director, Engineering
• N/A
• N/A
• Planning and Zoning
Director, Engineering
Director (PW)
• Marshal
• N/A
• N/A
• Engineering Director,
Utilities Manager
• N/A
• N/A
• Planning and Zoning
Director, Town
Engineer
• N/A
• N/A
• Planning and Zoning,
Building Official
• N/A
• N/A

• Planning Director,
Town Engineer, Town
Manager
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Complete

Delete

Explanation
All new subdivisions must meet all
Engineering and all subdivision
ordinances, which require Emergency
Vehicle / Fire Department Access as per
National Standards as developed by the
IFC.

Keep

All Building permits are required to be
inspected by our Building Safety Staff
and meet all IBC Standards

Complete
5/2008
$4 Million

Keep.

Over 3.5 Million Gallons of Water
Storage was added, as well as new
pumping stations on the west side of
town.

Complete
12/08

Delete

Drainage Master Plan as well as a Flood
Response Plan were completed

Complete

Delete

Building Codes are continuously
reviewed for updates, and modifications
where required.

Delete

A feasibility study was included in the
Drainage Master Plan, on adding an all
weather crossings at certain problematic
crossings. The residents affected most
were surveyed and chose to NOT add all
weather crossings

Complete

Complete
07/07

Page 319

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-4: Summary of Cave Creek assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID
1.C.2

1.A.1

Name

Description

Fire Inspections

Town Fire Marshal routinely inspects
commercial structures

Review General
Plan

Review the existing Cave Creek general plan
and zoning ordinance to determine how these
documents help limit development in hazard
areas. Modify with additional guidelines,
regulations, and land use techniques as
necessary within the limits of state statutes,
while also respecting private property rights.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Rural Metro Fire
Department
N/A
N/A
Planning Director
N/A
N/A

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete
Annual

Keep

All Commercial structures located within
the town boundaries are inspected on an
annual basis.

In
Progress

Keep

The Town’s General Plan is a living
document and reviewed on a regular
basis.

Table 6-7-5: Summary of Chandler assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

1.A.2

Maintain General
Plan Safety
Elements

Maintain the currency of the safety element of
the Chandler General Plan, and monitor its
effectiveness at preventing and mitigating
hazards.

1.D.3

Safe Industry
Development

Seek to develop industry that is safety
compliant and sited in suitable locations;
avoid over-saturation of hazardous materials
industries.

2.A.1

Make HMP
Available to Public

Promote availability of the City of Chandler
Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMGP) in an
understandable format to civic and private
groups.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
City Manager, City
Council, Planning
Director
N/A
N/A
Fire Chief, Emergency
Manager, Planning
Director
N/A
N/A
Fire Chief
N/A
N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete

Keep

The City of Chandler General Plan will
be reviewed and updated on a regular
basis to assure that it continues to meet
the needs of the City.

Complete

Delete

The mitigation strategy will no longer
include HAZMAT or other humancaused hazards.

Complete

Keep

The City will continue to promote the
HMGP to civic and private groups.

Page 320

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-5: Summary of Chandler assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

7.A.2

Enforce Building
Codes

Continue to ensure through proper planning,
zoning and building codes that all safety
measures are in place for new building
construction and placement.

8.A.1

Drought
Management Plan

In October of 2003, the City of Chandler
adopted a Drought Management Plan. This
plan has been implemented to reduce the
impacts of potential drought.

8.B.1

11.A.1

Maintain Water
Portfolio

Maintain HMIS and
HMMP

Continue to maintain a diverse water
portfolio. Minimize any reductions to existing
supplies by protecting and secure existing
water rights, completing Indian water rights
settlements, and meeting environmental
requirements of water resources. Maximize
the use of existing assets to ensure adequate
water supply is available through groundwater
wells, surface water diversions, use of
recharged water, and encouraging the use of
reclaimed water for appropriate purposes.
Seek and utilize alternative water supplies
(CAP excess water, reclaimed water,
saline/brackish groundwater, support the
Arizona Water Bank) to increase resource
reliability and mitigate drought severity.
All facilities located within the City of
Chandler utilizing hazardous chemicals are
required to submit an electronic Hazardous
Materials Inventory Statement (HMIS) or
Hazardous Materials Management Plan
(HMMP). These are evaluated and placed into
three different Permit categories. All industry
will also comply with all current adopted fire
codes.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
City Manager, City
Council, Planning
Director
N/A
N/A
Water Resources
Manager, Fire Chief,
Emergency Manager
N/A
N/A
Water Resources
Manager, Fire Chief,
Emergency Manager
N/A
N/A

Status

Disposition

Complete

Keep

Keep

Although the plan was written in 2003, it
continues to meet the needs of the City,
and will be updated as appropriate in the
future.

Complete

Keep

Maintaining a diverse City water
portfolio is vital to ensure adequate
water is available as the City continues
to grow, and to be able to mitigate the
severity of a drought.

Complete

Delete

The mitigation strategy will no longer
include HAZMAT or other humancaused hazards.

Complete

• Fire Chief, Emergency
Manager
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Explanation
The City will continue to update codes
to the newest versions, and add
amendments to the codes where
appropriate to ensure the safety of new
building construction.

Page 321

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-5: Summary of Chandler assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

11.F.1

ECS Electronic
Reporting

12.A.2

Human-Caused
Incident Plan

12.B.3

Vulnerability
Assessment

Description
Chandler Fire Department is partnering with
the State of Arizona and Environmental
Compliance Solutions (ECS) to enhance the
electronic reporting system the State is
currently using. This enhancement is a link
between the State and ECS software (which is
internet and CD based) that once the
information is completed in the Software all
the Industries (who are using the ECS
Software) would need to do is click the submit
button to the State. This would automatically
send the Tier II report to the State of Arizona.
Create and maintain an internal document that
gives direction to all city personnel in case of
a human-caused incident.

Each Lead City Department will rank the
vulnerability of existing assets, with assistance
from the Emergency Management
Workgroup, and implement protection plans
with the highest vulnerability being
implemented first.

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Fire Chief, Emergency
Manager
• N/A
• N/A

• Fire Chief, Emergency
Manager
• N/A
• N/A
• Fire Chief, Emergency
Manager, City
Manager
• N/A
• N/A

Status

Disposition

Complete

Delete

The mitigation strategy will no longer
include HAZMAT or other humancaused hazards.

Complete

Delete

The mitigation strategy will no longer
include HAZMAT or other humancaused hazards.

Keep

Two Fire Department members have
been assigned to complete Threat
Vulnerability Assessments (TVA’s) for
buildings/assets located within the City
in conjunction with the Emergency
Management Workgroup. This will be
an on-going project with higher
vulnerability buildings/assets being
completed first.

In
Progress

Explanation

Table 6-7-6: Summary of El Mirage assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

• Lead Agency
• Proposed Cost
• Proposed Comp Date

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Page 322

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-6: Summary of El Mirage assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

1.A.1

Adopt Zoning
Ordinance

Adopt zoning ordinances prohibiting new
development in 100-year flood plain.

1.B.2

Develop Building
Codes

Develop building codes to manage new and
existing assets from flooding.

3.A.1

Multi-Agency
Coordination

Participate in multi-agency coordination
efforts to ensure cooperative plans.

4.B.1

Multi-Agency
Planning

Take active role in multi-agency plan and
actions for flood mitigation (pro-active).

4.A.1

Protection Device
Plan

Develop plan to install man-made protection
devices where needed.

7.B.1

First Responder
Training

Train First Responders and other select city
staff in hazard materials mitigation.

7.B.2

HAZMAT Training

Train with and support other local agencies in
higher level of HAZMAT. Mitigation.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Planning/Zoning
Department, Public
Works, City Council
N/A
N/A
Public Works
N/A
N/A

• City Emergency
Manager
• N/A
• N/A
• City Emergency
Manager, Public
Works
• N/A
• N/A
• City Emergency
Manager, Public
Works, City Engineer
• N/A
• N/A
• City Emergency
Manager, Emergency
Services
• N/A
• N/A
• City Emergency
Manager, Emergency
Services
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete

Revise

Change the text to reflect an annual
review

Complete
10/07

Revise

Change the text to reflect an annual
review and update as needed

In
progress

Keep

Ongoing process. El Mirage is an active
participant in the Maricopa County
Hazard Mitigation planning

Complete

Keep

Review annually

Complete

Revise

Complete

Keep

Annual refresher training is conducted

In
Progress

Delete

This and 7.B.1 are duplicating each
other.

Revise to focus the action on flood

Page 323

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-6: Summary of El Mirage assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

5.A.2

Obtain Weather
Equipment

Obtain equipment needed for weather
watching, forecasting and reporting.

5.A.1

Staff Education

Educate staff on latest information on accurate
prediction and warnings for severe weather.

5.D.1

Problem
Identification

Coordinate efforts with other local agencies to
I.D. problem areas and plans for mitigation.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
City Emergency
Manager, Emergency
Services
N/A
N/A
City Emergency
Manager
N/A
N/A
City Engineer, City
Emergency Manager,
Emergency Services,
Public Works
N/A
N/A

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete

Delete

Weather station equipment has been
installed in fire station 121.

Complete

Delete

Staff received training

In
Progress

Keep

Review as needed

Table 6-7-7: Summary of Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

1A1

Floodplain Management

Prohibit building in flood plain and river.

1A2

Flood Management
Coordination

Pursue relationship with Maricopa County
Flood Control District to improve flood
management program.

• Lead Agency
• Proposed Cost
• Proposed Comp
Date
• Economic
Development Division
• $15,000 annual staff
time
• N/A
• Economic
Development Division
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

In progress

Keep

No action

Delete

Explanation
Ongoing program with tribal
restrictions on floodplain
development. Work to date has
been funded using FMYN general
revenue funds.
Flood control is managed by U.S.
Corp of Engineers and Tribal
laws.

Page 324

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-7: Summary of Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

1B1

Development in Hazard
Areas

Review existing building codes, modify or
adopt codes to prevent development in hazard
areas.

1C1

Comprehensive Plans,
Zoning and Building
Codes

Identify and mitigate hazards associated with
new and existing developments through plan
reviews to ensure plan/code compliance.

2A1

Funding Mitigation
Actions

Pro-actively pursue pre-disaster and hazard
mitigation grants.

2B2
2B3

Mitigation Public
Education

Publish suggested mitigation actions through
print media and community website.

3A1
3A2

River Restoration

Continue restoration projects along river.
Limit development along river.

• Lead Agency
• Proposed Cost
• Proposed Comp
Date
• License and Property
Use Department
• $5,000 annual staff
time
• N/A
• Planning and
Development
Department
• $20,000 annual staff
time
• N/A
• Economic
Development Division
• $10,000 annual staff
time
• N/A
• Events/Media
Relations Department
• $2,000 annual staff
time
• N/A
• Environmental
Department
• $50,000 to date
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

In progress

Keep

In progress

Keep

In progress

Keep

In progress

Keep

In progress

Keep

Explanation
Existing tribal ordinances prohibit
development in hazard areas.
Work to date has been funded
using FMYN general revenue
funds.
All proposed development is
reviewed by Planning Advisory
Board and building officials.
Work to date has been funded
using FMYN general revenue
funds.
Grant administrator advises
department heads of available
grants, and assists with grant
proposals. Work to date has been
funded using FMYN general
revenue funds.
Mitigation suggestions are
routinely published in the monthly
tribal newspaper. Work to date
has been funded using FMYN
general revenue funds.
Bald eagle nesting sites and
wetlands habitat are monitored by
the tribal environmental
department. Work to date has
been funded using FMYN general
revenue funds.

Page 325

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-7: Summary of Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

4A1
4A2

Name

High-Risk Area Access

Description

Create access, and map the access to high-risk
areas. Provide weed abatement services in
high risk areas.

• Lead Agency
• Proposed Cost
• Proposed Comp
Date
• Public Works
Department
• $ 45,000 annually
• N/A

•
5A2

Severe Weather

Ensure building codes are enforced to prevent
damage from high winds.

•
•
•

5B1

6A3

6B1

Infrastructure Protection

Periodic assessments of infrastructure to
strengthen infrastructure against affects of
severe weather.

Public Health Nuisance

Facilitate abatement, prevention and
investigation of public health nuisance
conditions, illegal dumping activities and the
storage and handling of potentially infections
material and locations.

Infestation and Disease

Coordinate training, planning, and
communications to provide the community
with information to combat the affects of
infestations and diseases.

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

Planning and
Development
Department
$40,000 annual
staff time
N/A
Economic
Development
Division
N/A
N/A
Environmental
Department
$15,000 annual
staff time
N/A

Health Department
$12,000 annual
staff time
N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

In progress

Keep

Explanation
Maps are updated when new
roads are built, or development
requires improved access. Weed
abatement is provided annually by
public works department. Work
to date has been funded using
FMYN general revenue funds and
County DOT funding.

In progress

Keep

Currently utilizing the 2000
International Building Code.
Work to date has been funded
using FMYN general revenue
funds.

No action

Delete

Managed by public utility
companies.

In progress

Keep

In progress

Keep

Illegal dumping is monitored by
environmental and public works
departments. Infectious waste is
managed by health department
and fire department. Work to date
has been funded using FMYN
general revenue funds and bond
funds including $750,000 for a
waste transfer station.
Information is distributed to the
public through the tribal website
and monthly newspaper. Work to
date has been funded using
FMYN general revenue funds and
Indian Health Services funding.

Page 326

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-7: Summary of Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID
7A1
7C1

7A2
7B1
7B2
7D1
7D2

Name
TERC

Hazardous Materials
Management

8A1
8A2
8A3

Human Caused Hazards

8B2

CBRN
Emergency Response

8B1
8B3

Asset Protection

Description
Continue to ensure the involvement of
industry, fire, law enforcement and other key
players in the Tribal Emergency Response
Committee (TERC).
Train first responders to Operational level.
Develop emergency plans for facilities
handling hazmat. Provide emergency response
guidebooks to fire and law enforcement
personnel. Follow MCDOT/ADOT
guidelines.
Promote WMD training for all employees.
Support Urban Area Security Initiative.
Promote and expand programs aimed at
family preparedness.
Encourage Ft. McDowell Public Health to
develop and exercise their capabilities to
respond to and support a chemical, biological
or radiological event.
Lead Community Departments will be
responsible for creating plans to protect
existing assets within their area of
responsibility.

• Lead Agency
• Proposed Cost
• Proposed Comp
Date
•
Emergency
Management
•
N/A
•
N/A
•
Fire Department
•
$15,000 annual
staff time
•
N/A

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Emergency
Management
N/A
N/A
Emergency
Management
$5,000 to date
N/A
Fire ChiefEmergency
Manager, Other
Departments
$30,000 staff time to
date
N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

No action

Delete

TERC has been inactive for an
extended period.

In progress

Keep

All fire department first
responders are currently trained to
operations level. Guidebooks are
up-to-date. Other programs are
ongoing. Work to date has been
funded using FMYN general
revenue funds.

No action

Delete

WMD training is a low priority
based on short staff and other
priorities.

No action

Revise

Response plans are being
incorporated into the tribal
emergency response plan.

In progress

Keep

Explanation

Program is on-going. Assett
protection plans are included as
annexes to tribal emergency
operations plan. Work to date has
been funded using FMYN general
revenue funds.

Page 327

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-8: Summary of Fountain Hills assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

1.A.2

Review General
Plan and Ordinances

4.A.2

Channel and Storm
Drain Development

5.B.1

Brush Removal

6.A.3

8.A.1

Description
Establish periodic monitoring and review of
the Town General plan and zoning ordinances
to determine effectiveness at preventing and
mitigating hazards. Based on the results,
amend as necessary.
The Town will continue development of
channels and storm drains, similar to those
built over the years in the Town for flood
protection.
Establish standards for the clearing of brush
on town owned lands that are subject to
wildfires.

Enforce Building
Codes

Ensure building codes for construction are
strengthened to prevent roof damage from
high winds.

Risk Management
Planning

Continue to ensure the involvement of
industry, fire, law enforcement and other key
players in the Town’s Risk Management Plan
and an Emergency Response Plan for each of
the 18 pump stations.

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Planning Department,
Planning Commission,
Town Council
N/A
N/A
Public Works Director
N/A
N/A

Status

Disposition

In
Progress

Keep

This is an ongoing annual project

In
Progress

Keep

This is an ongoing annual project

• Public Works Director
• N/A
• N/A

Complete

Keep

N/A

Complete

Keep

N/A

Complete

Delete

The Town has completed the project over
the last planning cycle.

•
•
•
•
•

• Chief Building
Official, Building and
Safety Department
• N/A
• N/A
• Sanitary District
General Manager
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Explanation

Page 328

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-9: Summary of Gila Bend assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID
1.A.2

Name
Review General
Plan and Zoning
Ordinance

Description
Establish periodic monitoring and review of
the Town’s general plan and zoning ordinance
to determine effectiveness at preventing and
mitigating hazards. Based on the results,
amend as necessary.

Construction
Compliance

Ensure enough compliance inspectors are
available to ensure construction compliance.

APS Coordination

Coordinate with Arizona Public Service to
promote metal power utility poles used in new
transmission line construction and used as
replacements for existing wooden poles when
indicated or install the lines underground.

7.A.1

HAZMAT Training

Ensure all volunteer Fire Department
responders are trained at a hazmat awareness
level.

8.C.1

Limit Development
near Luke Air Force
Base

Provide Town leadership role in support of
efforts to limit development in the departure
and approach corridors for Luke Air Force
Base.

5.A.3

5.B.2

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Planning Commission,
Town Council
• N/A
• N/A
• Public Works
Department, Town
Council
• N/A
• N/A
• Local Utility Co (APS)
• N/A
• N/A
• Town Volunteer Fire
Department
• N/A
• N/A
• USAF, Planning
Commission, Town
Council
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

No action

Keep

No action

Keep

No action

Keep

No action

Delete

HAZMAT is no longer one of the
hazards in the plan.

No action

Delete

Not considered a mitigation action of
natural hazards.

Page 329

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-10: Summary of Gilbert assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

1.A.1

2.B.2

3.A.4

Name

Master Planning

Mitigation Brochure

Mitigation Links on
Town Website

Description

Through proactive adoption of applicable
master plans, land uses and developmental
agreements

Develop a mitigation brochure with
information that is vital to the those needs in
the community

Website links form Town of Gilbert Home
page to Maricopa County mitigation sites

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Planning Department,
Planning Commission,
Town Council
• N/A
• N/A

• Managers Office,
Public Works
Department, Maricopa
County, Local
Business Groups,
Local Utility Service
Providers
• N/A
• N/A
• Technology Services
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

In
Progress

Keep

No Action

In
Progress

Explanation
The Town currently uses 2006
International Codes. Future plan is to
review and adopt 2010 codes in Jan 2010
that become effective July 2010. Update
should reflect Development Services as
Lead Agency, proposed costs is staff
time and proposed completion date is Jan
2010.

Delete

Due to budget constraints this has been
and will remain difficult to develop.
However, a Mitigation page will be
developed for the website highlighting
relevant information. In addition we can
make use of the FCD brochure that
includes specific Gilbert information.

Keep

Facilitate the development of a town
webpage that will provide relevant
mitigation information to the community.
Update should reflect Emergency
Management as Lead Agency with cost
being staff time and a completion date of
June 2010.

Page 330

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-10: Summary of Gilbert assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

4.A.2

7.B.1

8.A.1

Name

East Valley
Mitigation
Stakeholders

Infrastructure
Redundancies

Water Supply
Reduction

Description

Establish an East Valley group of stakeholders
to address improvements in mitigation areas
specific to the needs of the East Valley
Community

System redundancies to critical infrastructure

Implement the appropriate stage of the water
supply reduction Management Plan as adopted
(May 2003)

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Manager Office,
Emergency
Management (Local),
Local Business
Groups, Local Utility
Service Providers
• N/A
• N/A

• Public Works, Fire &
Police, Local Utility
Services
• N/A
• N/A
• Managers Office,
Town Staff
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

In
Progress

Keep

No Action

Delete

The team found the action to be too
vague, unfamiliar to current staff and not
implemented and chose to delete it.

Keep

This plan was developed and adopted in
2003. The plan has been and will
continue to be used as appropriate during
drought conditions to mitigate drought
impact on public water supply. Update
should reflect a continued and ongoing
use of Water Conservation Plan, Public
Works as Lead Agency with proposed
costs being only staff time.

In
Progress

Explanation
We have worked closely with Maricopa
County Flood Control District on
numerous mitigation projects specific to
East Valley. East Valley Emergency
Manager (including utilities) meets bimonthly to discuss East Valley
Emergency Mgt topics. Update should
reflect ongoing meetings with East
Valley stakeholders to address any
potential needs or improvement in
mitigation. Lead agency being only
Emergency Management and costs being
staff time.

Page 331

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-11: Summary of Glendale assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

3.A.1

3.B.1

10.A.1

Name

Reverse 9-1-1

Evacuation Strategy

Industry, Fire, Law
Enforcement
Involvement

Description
Continue to work on developing the
Dialogical Communicator System, a reverse
9-1-1 system that provides directional calling
through the connection of the GIS system.

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Fire Dept. Chief,
Police Dept. Chief,
Deputy City Manager
for Public Works
N/A
N/A
Fire Dept. Chief,
Police Dept. Chief
N/A
N/A

Develop a mass evacuation strategy for the
City of Glendale.

•
•

Continue to ensure the involvement of
industry, fire, law enforcement and other key
players in the City of Glendale.

• Fire Dept. Chief,
Police Dept. Chief,
Deputy City Manager
for Public Works
• N/A
• N/A

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete

Delete

Project completion date was
February 10, 2009. The project cost was
$160,000.

Complete

Delete

The City of Glendale’s mass evacuation
strategy is in line with Maricopa
County’s Evacuation Strategy. Phase I of
this plan was completed in July 2004
and Phase II was completed in
December 2006.

No
Specific
Action

Delete

Undetermined outcome, no specific
output

Table 6-7-12: Summary of Goodyear assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID
1.A.1

Name
Review Codes and
Ordinances

Description
Review existing codes and ordinances to
determine how these documents help limit
development in hazardous areas.

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Community
Development Director,
Fire Chief
• Staff time
• July 2007

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Complete

Delete

Explanation
Codes have been updated to 2006 series
of international codes.

Page 332

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-12: Summary of Goodyear assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

2.A.2

Explore Funding
Sources

Explore variety of funding sources.

2.A.3

Promote Mitigation
Programs

Promote and share mitigation programs with
state, county, local jurisdictions, and private,
civic, and non-profit organizations.

3.A.2

3.A.7

5.A.2

Secure City Water

Storm Water
Management

Public Outreach in
the Urban Interface

Secure and protect the city water supply from
outside, outsource contamination:
a) Install supervisory control valves and data
acquisition system.
b) Install valve locks.
c) Site specific physical infrastructure security
measures.

Storm water management program.

Distribute information to persons applying for
building permits in urban interface areas.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Fire Chief/Emergency
Manager, Grant
Administrator
Staff time
N/A
Fire Chief/Emergency
Manager
Staff time
N/A
Fire Chief/Emergency
Manager, Public
Works Director
Staff time
N/A

• Fire Chief/Emergency
Manager, Public
Works Director, City
Engineer
• Staff time
• September 2008
• Fire Chief/Emergency
Manager, Community
Development Director
• Staff time
• 2005

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Complete

Delete

Staff position and internal operating
procedures have been implemented.

In
progress

Keep

On-going coordination process with
agencies and organizations continues.

Keep

a) SCADA project under construction;
scheduled completion in fourth quarter
2009. Future phases will be constructed
based as funds become available.
b) Valve locks are planned for a new
water transmission line anticipated to be
installed in 2009-2010.
c) Perimeter wall improvements were
competed at several sites in 2009.
Enhanced security measures will be
installed at other sites in the future as
funds become available.

Delete

Storm Water Management Plan was
adopted in 2003 and amended in 2006.
Annual Reports are submitted to ADEQ
every September.

Delete

Information is distributed to builders
with the issuance of building permits and
through regularly held developer
advisory forums. Proposed development
plans are sent to Maricopa County and
adjacent municipalities for comments
and coordination.

In
progress

Complete

Complete

Explanation

Page 333

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-12: Summary of Goodyear assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

5.A.4

Public Outreach in
City Newsletter

Provide information in city newsletter.

6.A.2

Public Outreach on
City Web Page

Provide information on what is needed in the
event of an emergency, through the city web
page, newsletters, and other media outlets.

6.C.1

Emergency
Notification System

Develop a City wide emergency notification
system.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
City PIO, Fire
Chief/Emergency
Manager
Staff time
N/A
City PIO, Fire
Chief/Emergency
Manager
Staff time
N/A
City PIO, Fire
Chief/Emergency
Manager
Staff time
2005

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete

Delete

Staff position and internal operating
procedures have been implemented.

Complete

Delete

Internal operating procedures for
dissemination have been implemented.

Complete

Delete

Currently have CENS available to make
notifications.

Table 6-7-13: Summary of Guadalupe assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

2.B.2

Stormwater
Education
Implementation

Implement the education and mitigation
actions as outlined in the Town’s Stormwater
Management Plan.

4.A.1

Stormwater
Management Plan
Notification

The Town will continue working on a
cooperative effort to notify developers of the
Town’s Stormwater Management Plan and
floodplain regulations early on in the
development process.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Town Engineer/Town
Council
N/A
N/A
Town Manager, Town
Engineer, Town
Inspector
N/A
N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

In
progress

Revised

New Town Engineer on board. Project
would need to be revised to complete it.

Completed

Deleted

Completed for 2009

Page 334

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-13: Summary of Guadalupe assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

1.A.2

Review General
Plan and Ordinance

8.A.1

HAZMAT Training

Description
Establish periodic monitoring and review of
the Town of Guadalupe’s general plan and
zoning ordinance to determine effectiveness at
preventing and mitigating hazards. Based on
the results, amend as necessary.
Increased training of hazardous material team
members and first responders.

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Town Inspector
N/A
N/A

• Fire Department
• N/A
• N/A

Status

Disposition

Explanation

In
progress

Revised

Town Inspector reviews every six month
to ensure compliance.

Completed

Deleted

Firemen are trained annually. Completed
for 2009.

Table 6-7-14: Summary of Litchfield Park assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
City Manager
N/A
N/A

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete

Keep

Litchfield Park boundaries are set and we
have no room to grow.

Keep

This is always a process we wish to
follow to remain current in our
information.

1.A.1

Building prohibited
map

Define area on map to prohibit building,
require specific sign-off by Luke AFB for all
plans in the area.

2.B.1

Regional
Organization
Memberships

Encourage City staff to become members of
regional organizations to share in regional
efforts and solutions to local and regional
problems.

• City Manager
• N/A
• N/A

In
Progress

5.A.1

Storm drain system

Develop and maintain a proper storm drain
system to accommodate storm run-off.

• Engineering Dept
• N/A
• N/A

In
Progress

Keep

5.A.2

Tree pruning

Keep street trees properly pruned.

• Public Works
• N/A
• N/A

In
Progress

Keep

Hazardous material
replacement
products

Develop a policy to replace the use of
hazardous materials with other products as
soon as a safe, reliable source is available and
proven to be as effective.

• Public Works/Planning
• N/A
• N/A

In
Progress

Keep

7.C

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Storm Drain plan is almost complete.
There have been three phases completed
and there remains one more phase. The
engineering Dept is now the lead dept.
This is an annual process that is a part of
maintenance for our trees that will never
end.
This is an ongoing process that we are
constantly reviewing. Public Works and
Planning Dept. is now the lead dept.

Page 335

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-15: Summary of Unincorporated Maricopa County assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Flood Control District
Project Dependent
Ongoing

Status

Disposition

Explanation

In
progress

Keep

Number of properties selected for
acquisition, relocation and floodproofing.

In
progress

Revise

The FCDMC will continue working
with County Planning and
Development on a cooperative effort
to notify developers of Area
Drainage Master Plans (ADMP’s),
Watercourse Master Plans and
floodplain regulations early on in the
development process.

Floodprone
Properties
Acquisition Policy

FCDMC staff will implement the recently
adopted Floodprone Properties
Acquisition Policy that defines existing
programs for acquisition and relocation
especially in situations where a few
structures need to be removed from the
floodway and floodplain. Floodproofing
is included in this policy.

2

Area Drainage
Master Plans

The FCDMC will continue working with
County Planning and Development on a
cooperative effort to notify developers of
Area Drainage Master Plans (ADMP’s)
and floodplain regulations early on in the
development process.

3

ITS

Develop and install Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS)

• Transportation
• $1 million
• November 2009

Completed
in 2008

Delete

Not related to natural hazard mitigation

4

Database

• Emergency
Develop and maintain a database of
Management
schools, hospitals and other key facilities
• $15,000
within a one-mile radius of HAZMAT
facilities and make that database available • November 2009
to responders to incidents at those
facilities.

Completed
in 2006

Delete

Not related to natural hazard mitigation

5

Prevent Child
Drowning

Promote child drowning prevention
programs throughout the County.

No Action

Delete

Not related to natural hazard mitigation.
Activities conducted by public safety
agencies.

1

• Flood Control District
• Staff Time
• Ongoing

• Emergency
Management
• $5,000
• November 2009

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 336

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-15: Summary of Unincorporated Maricopa County assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

6

Building Codes

7

Bridge and Box
culverts Inspection
Program

8

Research Microburst

Description

Review existing building codes to
determine if they adequately protect new
development in hazard areas. Where
feasible and necessary, modify codes to
help mitigate hazards imposed on such
development within the limits of state
statutes, while also respecting private
property rights.
Maricopa County Department of
Transportation will inspect and monitor
all structures (bridges and box culverts)
under their control on a semi-annual
basis.
Pursue partnerships with the National
Weather Service and State Universities to
research the prediction of microburst.

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Planning and
Development
• $5,000 + staff time
• November 2009

• Transportation
• $150,000
• November 2009

• Emergency
Management
• $50,000
• December 2009

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

In
Progress

Keep

Building codes regarding military base
hazard mitigation is complete other codes
are on-going.

In
Progress

Keep

1068 Number of inspections conducted
since 2004.

No action

Delete

No action due to unavailable funding.
Delete: Not related to hazard mitigation

Page 337

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-15: Summary of Unincorporated Maricopa County assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

9

10

Name

Environmental and
Epidemiological
Surveillance
Activities

Luke AFB

Description

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Public Health
$100,000
November 2009

Conduct and enhance environmental and
epidemiological surveillance activities in
those areas identified as being of high
public health importance and related to
environmental factors such as; air quality,
drinking water/public water systems and
water/wastewater treatment plant
operations, food safety and protection and
vector control activities. Surveillance
activities must include the identification
of vulnerabilities and environmental
factors that may contribute to the
transmission of the communicable
diseases associated with the operation and
presence of these facilities in Maricopa
County, as well as the implementation of
preventative action which may be applied
to reduce or eliminate the potential for
transmission of communicable illnesses.
Develop and improve the system of
coordination and communication of these
findings, trends and observations with
other federal, state and local agencies that
have similar or related interest.
Provide County leadership role in support • Emergency
Management
of efforts to limit development in the
• $100,000
departure and approach corridors for
• November 2009
Luke Air Force Base.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

In
progress

No Action

Disposition

Explanation

Delete

Recommend deletion due to this item is
not related to natural hazard mitigation.
This item is covered under public health
management practices and policies.

Delete

Emergency management has not had the
resources to take a primary role.
Recommend deletion due to this item is
covered under the County’s strategic
priorities.

Page 338

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-15: Summary of Unincorporated Maricopa County assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

11

GIS Data and
Information

12

Bridge/Culvert
Construction

13

CERT Teams

Description

Through the Maricopa County Regional
Leadership program, establish Maricopa
County as a central source for regional
geographic information system data and
information.
Encourage bridge or culvert
construction where roads are in
locations susceptible to flooding.
Provide program direction in support
and development of Community
Emergency Response Teams (CERT)
teams.

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Assessor’s Office
$500,000
November 2009

Status

Disposition

Complete

Delete

• Transportation
• $ 7M
• November 2009

In
Progress

Keep

• Emergency
Management
• $100,000
• November 2009

In
Progress

Delete

Explanation
Action accomplished and this item is
covered under the County’s strategic
priorities.
Number of projects completed = 10

17 teams have been formed since 2004.
Delete: Not related to natural hazard
mitigation

Table 6-7-16: Summary of Mesa assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

1.A.1

Update General Plan

Description
Update the City of Mesa General Plan every
five years
Continue to design, prioritize and fund storm
sewer projects as needed in the City of Mesa.

3.A.1

Fund storm/sewer
projects

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Planning, City Council
N/A
March 2009

• Development &
Sustainability Div,
City Manager, City
Council
• ??? Million +
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Completed

Delete

Project is reviewed annually and revised
every 10 years. (Due March 2011).

Delete

Several storm drain projects in N/E &
S/E Mesa are in various stages of design
and construction. No longer an action
item.

In
Progress

Page 339

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-16: Summary of Mesa assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

5.A.1

6.A.3

Name
Maintain
certification

Water resource
portfolio

7.A.2

Immunizations

7.A.3

Test drinking water

7.B.1

9.A.2

9.B.3

Description
Emergency Management Division will work
to maintain our certification as a “Storm-ready
Community”.

Continue to develop and protect a diverse
water resources portfolio.
City of Mesa Fire Department will continue to
provide immunizations.

City of Mesa Water Department will continue
to test and treat drinking water.

Surveillance

Increase surveillance at water treatment
facility.

Mitigate terrorism

City of Mesa Emergency Management will
continue to work with partners on the County,
State, and Federal level to mitigate the effects
of terrorism in the City of Mesa.

Identify at-risk
assets

Identify funding and secure assets most at
risk.

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Fire Department,
Developmental
Services, General
Services
N/A
May 2009
Water Resources Dept
N/A
N/A

Status

Disposition

Explanation

In
Progress

Delete

Conducted a Storm Watcher class and
will seek to host at least one annually.
Determined to be more preparedness and
response.

In
Progress

Delete

• Fire Department
• $20,000
• August 2009

In
Progress

Delete

• Water Resources
• >$70,000
• N/A

In
Progress

Delete

• Utilities, Police, Fire
• >$1,000,000.00
• August 2008

In
Progress

Delete

• Fire, Police
• N/A
• N/A

In
Progress

Delete

• Fire, Police, City
Manager, City Council
• N/A
• N/A

In
Progress

Delete

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Department has been reorganized, A
Water Resources Director has been
placed to manage both potable and
wastewater.
The City is committed to continue
providing immunizations to citizens and
first responders. No longer a primary
hazard.
Drinking water is tested on an annual and
continuous basis. Not really mitigation,
so will be dropped
Surveillance equipment and monitors
were installed after the Threat,
Vulnerability Assessments were
complete at the water treatments sites.
Relates more to human-caused hazards
and will be dropped
Seek funding sources to continue Target
Hardening projects. Relates more to
human-caused hazards and will be
dropped
Over the past 5 yrs several million
dollars have been spent on target
hardening and site security. This effort
will continue through Homeland security
funding. Relates more to human-caused
hazards and will be dropped

Page 340

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-16: Summary of Mesa assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID
8.A.1

Name
Training

Description
Increased training of hazardous material team
members, Bomb Technicians,
SWAT Team and all first responders.

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Fire, police
>1,000,000
N/A

Status

Disposition

In
Progress

Delete

Explanation
100 + first responders have been
certified and completed continuing
education over the past 60 months. More
response and preparedness so will be
dropped.

Table 6-7-17: Summary of Paradise Valley assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID
1.B.1

1.A.1

Name

Description
Adopt the most current International Building
Codes for use by the Town.

Building Codes

General Plan

Update the Town’s General Plan to include
goals and policies to limit development in
identified hazard areas.

Update the Zoning Ordinance with provisions
to regulate and restrict development in
identified hazard areas.
1.A.2

4.A.5

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Zoning Ordinance

Maintain Washes

Public Works Department to ensure that
washes are maintained in a debris free
condition through a regular inspection
program.

•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Town Council, Town
Planning, Community
Development
N/A
N/A
Town Council, Town
Planning, Community
Development
N/A
N/A
Town Council, Town
Planning, Community
Development,
Engineering
Department
N/A
N/A
Public Works
Department
N/A
N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation
2006 editions of the International
Building Codes were effective on July 1,
2007. Building Codes are updated every
three years so the 2009 codes will be
adopted in 2010.

Complete

Keep

Complete

Delete

The General Plan, in the Zoning
Ordinance, has been updated in 2005 to
limit develop in identified hazard areas.

Complete

Delete

The Zoning Ordinance has been updated
in 2005 to limit develop in identified
hazard areas.

In
Progress

Revise

A perpetual item that has been assumed
by the Building Safety Department.

Page 341

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-17: Summary of Paradise Valley assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID
4.B.1

Name
Channelization

Description
Engineering Department - Continued
development of designated floodplain
channelization.
Engineering Department – Continue the under
grounding project for existing utilities on
major roads thereby eliminating utility poles.

6.A.1

•
•
•

Underground
Utilities

5.A.1

Inspect Washes

8.A.1

Emergency
Operations Plan

2.A.1

•
•
•
•

Educate Public

Public Works Department – Conduct regular
inspections of washes and take corrective
action by enforcing existing ordinances to
prevent a corridor for wildfires.
Police Department, Emergency Management
Unit – Ensure the Emergency Operations Plan
is current.
Educate and inform residents, businesses and
visitors by conduct a media campaign, via
local newspaper and the Town Reporter to
publicize ways to mitigate disasters including
steps that they can protect themselves.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Engineering
Department
N/A
N/A
Town Council,
Engineering
Department,
Neighborhoods, Utility
Department,
Contractor
N/A
N/A
Public Works, Rural
Metro Fire Department
N/A
N/A
Town Council, Police
Department
N/A
N/A
Police Department
N/A
N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

No action

Delete

The Town Engineer has determined that
there is no need for any channelization.

In
Progress

Keep

Project is 86% complete.

In
Progress

Revise

A perpetual item that has been assumed
by the Building Safety Department.

Complete

Revise

The Emergency Manager position has
been transferred from the Police
Department to the Building Safety
Department.

In
Progress

Revise

The Public Education function has been
transferred from the Police Department to
the Building Safety Department.

Page 342

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-17: Summary of Paradise Valley assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

2.B.1

Name

Description
All Departments - Maintain effective
communications with state, county and local
government agencies by the various Town
departments within their respective
responsibility.

Communications

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Town Manager,
Management
Department,
Engineering
Department,
Community
Development, Public
Works, Police
Department
• N/A
• N/A

Status

Disposition

In
Progress

Keep

Explanation

A perpetual item that requires consistent
participation.

Table 6-7-18: Summary of Peoria assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID
1D1

4B3

3A3

Name
GIS Mapping

Description

Include all identified hazardous
conditions in GIS mapping to include
floodways, high wind areas, subsidence
areas, hazardous materials, etc.

Local Training

Train key city staff on appropriate actions
and measures.

Regional Training

Participate in regional training
opportunities as well as Emergency
Operations Command exercises within
City to prepare for emergencies.

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
IT, Engineering
Department
• N/A
• N/A

• Safety Coordinator,
Emergency
Coordinator
• N/A
• N/A
• T Safety Coordinator,
Emergency
Coordinator
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

In
progress

Keep

GIS staff will continue to updates maps

In
progress

Keep

EM staff will continue to train City
employees as required

In
progress

Keep

As available the City staff will participate
in regional exercises

Page 343

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-18: Summary of Peoria assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

9A1

9A1

Name

Fire Dept. Training

Police Dept.
Training

Description

All Fire Department personnel should be
trained at Operations level, currently
command staff are trained at Operations –
rest of personnel are trained at awareness
level. Plan to provide additional levels of
training by 2005
Police Department personnel should be
trained at Operations level, currently
command staff are trained at Operations –
rest of personnel are trained at awareness
level. Plan to provide additional levels of
training by 2005

10B2

Security Plans

Develop security plans for key assets and
infrastructure

5C1

Development
Control

Control development in flood areas

6C2

Flood-Proof
Measures

Encourage flood-proof measures through
building design

8A3

PSAs

Maintain Public Service Announcements
(PSAs) broadcast on Channel 11. Fliers
produced and distributed to residents.

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Fire Chief, Training
Officer
• N/A
• N/A

Status

Disposition

In
progress

Keep

Due to staffing changes this is an
ongoing issues

• Fire Chief, Training
Officer
• N/A
• N/A

In
progress

Keep

Due to staffing changes this is an
ongoing issues

Complete

Delete

TLO’s have completed security plans for
key sites

In
progress

Keep

Performed as a regular part of the
development review process

In
progress

Keep

Performed as a regular part of the
development review process

In
progress

Keep

PSAs are aired on a regular basis

• Utilities and Public
Works Department,
Emergency
Management
Coordinator, Police
Department
• N/A
• N/A
• Engineering
Department
• N/A
• N/A
• Community
Development
• N/A
• N/A
• Public Information
Manager
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Explanation

Page 344

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-18: Summary of Peoria assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

2A2

Name

Description

Drought

Research identified data limitations effecting
the relative vulnerability of assets from
drought

Mitigation Brochure

City Public Information Office to develop
mitigation brochure and to coordinate
Speakers Bureau.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
GIS, Water Resources
Division
N/A
N/A
Public Information
Officer
N/A
N/A

Status

Disposition

Explanation

In
progress

Keep

Work with city and county departments
to determine affects to the city of an
extended drought

No Action

Delete

PIO was unaware of this action was not
ready to move forward.

Table 6-7-19: Summary of Phoenix assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

Action
Item

Name

Description

1.A.1

Revise General
Plan

Revise and ratify the General Plan by the
voters every 10 years

1.A.2

Update General
Plan

Update the General Plan (every ten years)
annually, particularly the Safety Element

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Dept/Function
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Lead: Planning Dept.
Cost: General Fund
Date: 2010

• Lead: Planning Dept
• Cost: General Fund
• Date: 2010

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status
In
Progress
Due 2010

In
Progress

Disposition

Keep

Delete

Explanation
Planning every ten years revises the
General Plan based on State Statutes. The
Planning Commission recommends and
the City Council approves the updated
General Plan. The General Plan Map is a
guide to identify where future build-out
areas might or might not occur.
Planning every ten years revises the
General Plan based on State Statutes….
Same as 1.A.1

Page 345

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-19: Summary of Phoenix assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

Action
Item

1.B.1

1.C.1

Name

Update Building
Codes

Zoning
Compliance

Description

•
•
•
•

Lead Dept/Function
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Lead: Development
Services Dept. (DSD)
• Cost: General Fund
• Date: 2006 & 2008

Update and adopt a revised building code

Continue to insure that zoning stipulations are
met before construction permits are issued and
that zoning is compatible with the General
Plan

Status

Disposition

Complete

Keep

In
Progress

Keep

• Lead: Development
Services Dept.
(DSD)/Review
• Secondary: Planning
Dept/Advise & provide
re-zoning hearings &
ZA hearings
• Cost: General Fund
• Date: Ongoing

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Explanation
2006 Phoenix Building Construction
Code, Building Code, Residential Code,
Existing Building Code, Energy
Conservation Code, Mechanical Code,
Uniform Plumbing Code and 2008
National Electrical Code were all
adopted.
DSD has the responsibility to revise,
update, and adopt the building codes. The
Planning Department plays an advisory
role only.
This is a dynamic ongoing process that
changes with each permit review. The
permit reviews are made by DSD’s staff
following the zoning ordinance as a rule
book & will not issue a permit unless all
zoning stipulations are met prior to
construction (if any stips).
Planning staff at the zoning counter help
customers with zoning & General Plan
information; set up appointments for rezoning hearings and zoning adjustment
(ZA)/use permit hearings. The re-zoning
& ZA hearings are adjudicated by an
impartial contract officer hired by the
Planning Dept. Contract Officers can
add stipulations if the case is approved.
The Planning Commission & City
Council review & approve the hearing
officer findings (both can add
stipulations), & the Board of Adjustment
reviews the appeals & can overturn the
findings.

Page 346

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-19: Summary of Phoenix assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

Action
Item

1.D.1

1.D.2

Name

Open Space

Setbacks and
Buffers

Description

•
•
•
•

Lead Dept/Function
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Lead: Parks &
Recreation
• Secondary Planning
• Cost: General Fund
• Date: 2010

Continue to include in the General Plan
policies that protect the natural flow regimes
of washes and designate areas for Open Space.
Continue to identify flood-prone areas that are
potentially hazardous on the General Plan
Map as Preserves or Open Space.

Continue to apply zoning rules that require
setbacks and buffers. The Planning
Commission will add stipulations to mitigate
specific conditions on each rezoning, or
zoning adjustment hearing

• Lead: Development
Services Dept./Review
• Secondary:
Planning/Advise &
provide re-zoning
hearings and ZA
hearings
• Cost: General Fund
• Date: Ongoing

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

In
Progress

Revise

In
Progress

Revise

Explanation
The General Plan’s Open Space Element
provides policies and recommendations
to preserve lands with greater than 10%
slope, promote natural drainage areas and
native vegetation by maintaining the
natural flow regimes, and limit
commercial activities to only the
authorized use by the Parks & Recreation
Board in these preserve areas. It also
promotes adjacent land management
strategies by allowing homeowners to
clear brush that could create a fire hazard
on their lands (using fire-breaks at least
10 feet wide).
Parks and Recreation along with other
departments coordinate a strategy for
future land acquisitions to hold lands as
open space and/or as park areas. The
General Plan Map is a guide to identify
where future build-out areas might or
might not occur.

This is a dynamic ongoing process that
changes with each permit review.
….Same as 1.C.1

Page 347

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-19: Summary of Phoenix assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

Action
Item

1.E.1

2.A.1

2.A.2

Name

Data Sharing and
Communications

Public
Involvement

Publish General
Plan

Description

•
•
•
•

Lead Dept/Function
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Lead: Development
Services
• Secondary: Planning
• Cost: General Fund
• Date: 2010

Coordinate data sharing and development
communication within City departments

Solicit public input on the General Plan during
public meetings.

Publish the Safety Element along with the text
of the whole General Plan on the web.

• Lead: Planning Dept.
• Cost: General Fund
• Date: 2009 through
2010

• Lead: Planning
• Cost: General Fund
• Date: Was on-line
throughout the past 10
year period. New plan
will be published in
2010

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

In
Progress

Keep

In
Progress

Keep

In
Progress

Revise

Explanation
Data Limitations: 1) When land already
has the proper zoning entitlements,
Planning does not always know
immediately when and where
developments may occur because a given
development did not go through the rezoning or ZA process.
Action Item: 2) Planning & DSD made
some recent changes in reporting
Preliminary Permits directly to GIS staff
in Planning. Planning GIS staff: (as of
January 1, 2009), now add all the new
prelim data to a shape file for the purpose
of tracking potential future developments
geo-spatially.
Several public meetings soliciting input
will be conducted in 2009. Planning
submits a draft of the General Plan to
Village Planning Committees (VPCs) for
comment and/or approval in 2009. VPCs
have “advisory” powers of approval, not
final approval.
The General Plan Safety Element is
readily available in pdf format along with
all of the other chapters in the General
Plan. The Safety Element addresses Soil
and Geologic Hazards, Fire Hazards and
other man-made hazards.

Page 348

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-19: Summary of Phoenix assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

Action
Item

9.A.1

Name

General Plan
Development
Guidelines

Description

Continue to insure the General Plan precludes
development from geologically hazardous
areas has policies that address developments
on or down-gradient of geologically hazardous
or flood-prone areas

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Dept/Function
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Lead: Planning
Cost: General Fund
Date: 2010

Status

Disposition

In
Progress

Revise

Explanation
The General Plan’s Safety Element
provides policies to protect the
community from soil contamination,
failure erosion and geologic instability.
The General Plan’s
Natural Resources Conservation Element
provided policies that address the
protection from flooding & erosion,
natural vegetation preservation and other
wildlife issues.

Table 6-7-20: Summary of Queen Creek assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

5.B.1

Sonoqui Wash FDS

Sonoqui Wash Floodplain Delineation Study –
Determine the extent of the floodplain and
submit to FEMA for review.

7.B.3

Overhead Utility
Structures

Overhead Utility Structures – Underground
existing overhead utility structures to protect
assets from damage caused by felled structures
and wires.

5.A.1

Sonoqui Wash HMP

Extend Sonoqui Wash Hydraulic Master Plan
into Pinal County to the headwaters of the
drainage basin.

5.A.4

Channels and
Basins

Projects to develop channels and retention
basins along Queen Creek Wash and Sonoqui
Wash.

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
FCDMC, Public
Works
• N/A
• N/A

• Public Works, Local
Utility Service
• N/A
• N/A
• Pinal County, Public
Works, FCDMC
• N/A
• N/A
• Public Works,
FCDMC
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation
FCDMC has completed the Floodplain
Delineation Study for the main portion of
the Sonoqui Wash. Revise description to
address study for the Sonoqui Wash East
Branch.

In
Progress

Revise

In
Progress

Revise

A number of projects have been
completed since 2004. Revise
description to reflect identified projects.

In
Progress

Keep

Smaller design projects have been
completed to address local flooding
issues but a complete HMP has not been
undertaken.

In
Progress

Revise

A number of channelization projects have
been completed since 2004. Revise
description to reflect identified projects.

Page 349

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-20: Summary of Queen Creek assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

4.A.1

3.B.1

Name

Description
Develop Geographical Information System
(GIS)

GIS

Town EOP

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

Continue to develop Town Emergency
Operations Procedures
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Community
Development, Public
Works, Parks and
Recreation Department
N/A
N/A
MCDEM, Town
Council, Public Works,
Community
Development,
Administrative
Department
N/A
N/A

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete

Delete

Basic GIS system is operational with two
administrators assigned.

Complete

Delete

Town EOP was updated and approved in
September 2007.

Table 6-7-21: Summary of Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID
1.A.1

Name
General Plan

Description
Community Development Department to
update general plan

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Community
Development, Tribal
Council
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status
Complete

Disposition

Explanation

Delete

General plan was updated and adopted by
Tribal Council in December of 2006.
Funding for the update was provided
through SRPMIC general fund dollars.

Page 350

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-21: Summary of Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

2.A.1

2.B.1

3.A.1

Name

Public Campaign

Description

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Emergency Manager
N/A
Ongoing

Community Relations to work on public
campaign

Neighborhood
Outreach

Fire and Police to work with neighbors
through meetings (quarterly)

• Fire Chief, Police
Chief
• N/A
• Ongoing

TERC Training

Hold Tribal Emergency Response
Commission (TERC) training regarding
hazard mitigation principles

• Fire Chief, Police
Chief
• N/A
• N/A

Status

Disposition

In
progress

Keep

In
progress

Keep

Complete

Delete

In
progress

Delete

• Fire Chief, Tribal
Council
• N/A
• N/A
3.B.1

Hazard Mitigation
Plans

Emergency manager to develop hazard
mitigation plans

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Explanation
Public campaign has been put in place
and will be an ongoing project. Efforts
include numerous newspaper articles,
website developed, presentations to
Tribal Council, emergency preparedness
brochures mailed to every home in the
Community. Work to date has been
funded using SRPMIC general fund
dollars.
Emergency Manager has presented
emergency preparedness presentation at
numerous neighborhood meetings, senior
citizen meetings. This effort will
continue and will be an ongoing effort.
Work to date has been funded using
SRPMIC general fund dollars.
Tribal Emergency Response Commission
is meeting on a regular basis and
Mitigation actions are incorporated into
the meetings. Work to date has been
funded using SRPMIC general fund
dollars.
With a full time emergency manager now
in place in the Community, coordination
with local, regional, state, and federal
agencies is taking place on a daily basis.
SRPMIC is represented at all emergency
management meetings in our region.
These mitigation efforts will continue
and are now part of the Community’s
Emergency Management Program. Work
to date has been funded using SRPMIC
general fund dollars.

Page 351

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-21: Summary of Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

5.A.1

Plan Development

7.D.1

9.A.1

10.A.1

11.A.1

Description
Community Development Department,
Engineering and Construction Services, and
Public Works to develop plan

Building Surveys

Engineering and Construction Services and
Community Development Department to
survey buildings and develop list

Public Health Plan

Public Health and Cultural and Environmental
to develop a plan

Hazardous
Materials Survey

Emergency Plan

•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Fire Chief, Tribal
Council
• N/A
• N/A
• Fire Chief, Tribal
Council, ECS Director,
Community
Development, Public
Works
• N/A
• N/A
• Fire Chief, Tribal
Council, Public Health
Director, Cultural
Director
• $20,000
• N/A
• Fire Chief
• N/A
• January 2010

Fire Department to develop a hazardous
materials survey

TERC and the Emergency Manager will work
on a comprehensive list to be used in
preparation of a plan

• Fire Chief
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

No action

Delete

Explanation
Staff and resources are not available at
this time to commit to this project, and
with the recent economic impact to our
Community, this lack of resources will
remain for some time.

No action

Delete

Staff and resources are not available at
this time to commit to this project, and
with the recent economic impact to our
Community, this lack of resources will
remain for some time

Complete

Delete

A Pandemic Emergency Response Plan
was completed in 2008. Work to date has
been funded using SRPMIC general fund
dollars.

In
progress

Keep

Complete

Delete

Building surveys are being completed by
fire department. Emergency Management
is meeting with fire department to
increase the efficiency of Tier ll
reporting. This project will enhance our
knowledge and record keeping as it
relates the hazardous chemicals that are
stored in our Community. Work to date
has been funded using SRPMIC general
fund dollars.
Emergency Operations Plan was updated
in 2008. A detailed list is not needed at
this time for this plan. This may be
considered in the future if additional staff
resources change are available for this
effort. Work to date has been funded
using SRPMIC general fund dollars.

Page 352

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-22: Summary of Scottsdale assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

1.A.1

Review Ordinances

Continue to review plans and ordinances

1.B.1

Review Codes

Review codes and procedures

2.A.1

City Council Support

City Council will support actions that will
reduce the possibility of damage and
losses due to floods.

2.B.1

Planning

Work with current planning department
and builders

3.A.1

Drought Management

Implement Council-adopted drought
management plan as required.

3.B.1

Drought Impacts

Incorporate drought-related impact on
facilities into existing emergency
response plan.

3.C.1

Arizona Drought Task
Force

Participate in Governor’s Arizona
Drought Task Force to insure that
impacts on City of Scottsdale are
considered.

• Lead Agency
• Proposed Cost
• Proposed Comp
Date
• Planning and
Development
• N/A
• Continuous
• Planning and
Development
• N/A
• Continuous
• City Council,
Planning and
Development, Water
Resources Manager
• N/A
• N/A
• Planning and
Development, Local
Builders
• N/A
• N/A
• City Council, Water
Resources Manager
• N/A
• N/A
• City Council, Water
Resources Manager
• N/A
• N/A
• City Council, Water
Resources Manager
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

In
Progress

Keep

This is a continuous process where
ordinances are reviewed and revised
in applicable.

In
Progress

Keep

This is a continuous process where
coded are reviewed and revised in
applicable.

In
Progress

Keep

N/A

In
Progress

Keep

Complete

Delete

Complete

Delete

In
Progress

Keep

This was accomplished through the
City Major Emergency Operations
Plan and the City’s Continuity of
Operations Plan
This was accomplished through the
City Major Emergency Operations
Plan and the City’s Continuity of
Operations Plan
This is a continuous process.

Page 353

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-22: Summary of Scottsdale assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

3.C.2

Coordination

Coordinate with Water Resources
Department to implement drought
management plan as appropriate.

3.C.3

Water Conservation

Continue participation in ongoing joint
water conservation information programs.

Survey Assets

Conduct survey of City assets and
property to determine vulnerability in
case of water supply shortage. Modify
City emergency management and drought
management plans as necessary.

3.D.1

• Lead Agency
• Proposed Cost
• Proposed Comp
Date
• City Council, Water
Resources Manager
• N/A
• N/A
• City Council, Water
Resources Manager
• N/A
• N/A
• City Council, City
Manager, Water
Resources Manager
• N/A
• N/A

Status

Disposition

Complete

Delete

In
Progress

Keep

This is a continuous process.

Delete

This was accomplished through the
City Major Emergency Operations
Plan and the City’s Continuity of
Operations Plan

Complete

Explanation
This was accomplished through the
City Major Emergency Operations
Plan and the City’s Continuity of
Operations Plan

Table 6-7-23: Summary of Surprise assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

2.A.1

Name

PDM Funding

Description

•
•
•
•

Seek availability of funding sources for predisaster mitigation and hazard mitigation
•
•
•

5.A.2

Flood Facilities

Develop program and coordinate actions with
FCDMC to access, mitigate, upgrade and
redesign flood facilities.

•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Finance Department,
Public Works
Department,
Emergency
Management, City
Council
N/A
N/A
Public Works
Department, Local
Utilities
N/A
N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

(None
Provided)

(None
Provided)

(None Provided)

(None
Provided)

(None
Provided)

(None Provided)

Page 354

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-23: Summary of Surprise assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID
5.A.5

Name
Infrastructure
Construction Program

Description
Develop program that identifies bridge and
culvert construction in flood susceptible areas

1.A.1

Development Guidelines

Access and update guidelines that limit
development in hazard areas

3.A.2

Reverse 911 System

Develop and implement reverse 911 system
within the city

7.B.1

Severe Weather
Vulnerabilities

Develop a program to perform periodic
assessments that identifies vulnerabilities to
severe weather within the city

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Public Works
N/A
N/A

• Planning
Department/Commissi
on, City Council
• N/A
• N/A
• Emergency Services,
City Council
• N/A
• N/A
• Emergency Services,
Public Works,
Planning Department
• N/A
• N/A

Status

Disposition

Explanation

(None
Provided)

(None
Provided)

(None Provided)

(None
Provided)

(None
Provided)

(None Provided)

(None
Provided)

(None
Provided)

(None Provided)

(None
Provided)

(None
Provided)

(None Provided)

Table 6-7-24: Summary of Tempe assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

1A1

General Plan

Maintain City General Plan

2A1

Public Education

Continue with Public Education programs
through Project Impact

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
City Manager
N/A
N/A

• Fire Chief
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete

Delete

The General Plan is continually
reviewed as a regular process.

Complete

Delete

Project Impact was completed in
2004.

Page 355

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-24: Summary of Tempe assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

Description

2C3

CERT Program

Maintain CERT Program

2D1

Publicize State Programs

Seek Funding to publicize State Programs

2E1

City Codes

Maintain existing City Codes

3A1

Workshop Funding

Seek funds for workshops and conferences

5A1

Flood Control

Maintain existing Flood Control systems

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Fire Chief
N/A
N/A

• Fire Chief
• N/A
• N/A
• City Manager, All City
Departments
• N/A
• N/A
• Fire Chief
• N/A
• N/A
• Public Works, Water
Utilities
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Status

Disposition

In
Progress

Keep

Ongoing program with over 200
people trained.

Complete

Delete

Accomplished with Project Impact

Complete

Delete

City Codes are continually reviewed
as a regular process.

In
Progress

Keep

Will continue to seek funding as
available.

Keep

City of Tempe Public Works and
Water Utilities continually seek to
improve storm runoff capabilities.
City code requires through
Development Services on-site storm
water retention.

In
Progress

Explanation

Page 356

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-24: Summary of Tempe assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

7A1

Drought Management
Plan

8A1

Emergency Management
Plan

9B1

9F1

Description
The City of Tempe Water Utilities
Department has a comprehensive set of
planning documents that outline future water
systems operations, including specific drought
contingency plans and water system
operations during drought cycles. Planning
documents include the 1997 Tempe Water
Resources Plan (updated in 2002), the 1999
Tempe Integrated Water System Master Plan,
and the 2002 Drought Management Strategy
Plan. Tempe has implemented a number of
measures from these plans to diversity the
City’s water resources and to lessen the
impact of drought on our community. Tempe
will continue to develop additional
groundwater storage and recovery programs to
significantly reduce potential drought impacts.
These efforts include storing, CAP water and
reclaimed water in aquifers for future recovery
(over 85,000 acre-feet stored since the mid1990s), and capital improvement projects to
add new municipal wells and increase
recovery well pumping capacity.

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Water Utilities
N/A
N/A

Status

In
Progress

Disposition

Explanation

Keep

Tempe recognizes that our region is
experiencing drought conditions.
Tempe actively promotes drought
management plans with partnerships
with other municipalities and
agencies.

Maintain Emergency Management Plan

• Fire Chief
• N/A
• N/A

In
progress

Keep

The City Emergency Management
Plan is revised at least once every
two years, most recently in October
2008 to ensure NIMS compliance.

Maintain HAZMAT

Maintain HAZMAT

• Fire Chief
• N/A
• N/A

In
progress

Keep

The Hazardous Materials Response
Team is an ongoing program.

Maintain Cameo and
ECS

Maintain Cameo and ECS

• Fire Chief
• N/A
• N/A

In
progress

Keep

CAMEO and ESS are integral
components of emergency response
and emergency management.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 357

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-25: Summary of Tolleson assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID
1.B.3

Name
Education
Officials

•
•
•
•
•
•

Description
Public

Educate public officials on the need of
mitigation plan.

5.D.1

Flood Control

Installing more drains, require more retention
areas, and elevate property.

2.E.1

Building Codes

Review existing building codes to determine if
they adequately protect new development in
hazard areas.

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Fire Chief
N/A
N/A

• Building Department
Director, Planning
Director
• N/A
• N/A
• Building Department
Director
• N/A
• N/A

Status

Disposition

Explanation

In
Progress

Keep

This is a continuous process to keep
all old and new officials aware of
any changes.

In
Progress

Keep

Continuous with any new
developments and building coming
into the city.

In
Progress

Keep

Continuous with the any new
developments and building coming
into the city.

Table 6-7-26: Summary of Wickenburg assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

1

By Pass

2

Neighborhood
Maintenance
Ordinance

3

Setback Ordinance

Description
Encourage ADOT and MCFCD to work with
the Town to design the proposed bypass
around downtown Wickenburg with the dual
purpose of efficiently moving traffic and
protecting the adjacent neighborhoods from
the 100 year flood events on the Hassayampa
River and Sols Wash.
Develop and recommend adoption of a
neighborhood maintenance ordinance to
mitigate fire hazards in residential areas.
Develop and recommend adoption of a code
that will require a minimum setback from
regulatory floodways and washes.

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Planning and Zoning
$15 million
Dec 2009

Status

Disposition

In
progress

Revise

• Planning and Zoning
• $5,000 + staff time
• July 2010

In
Progress

Keep

• Planning and Zoning
• $5,000 + staff time
• December 2010

In
progress

Keep

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Explanation

Sols Wash was completed in March
2009.

Page 358

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-26: Summary of Wickenburg assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID
4

5

Name

•
•
•
•

Description

Public Education

Develop a section of the Town’s webpage to
address hazard mitigation measures that may
be employed by home and business owners

Camera Security

Investigate the possibility of installing
cameras at the Town’s well sites, waste water
treatment plants and other critical
infrastructure elements.

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Emergency
Management
• $10,000 + staff time
• Dec 2014
Police
$50,000
December 2014

Status

Disposition

In
Progress

Keep

In
progress

Delete

Explanation

No funding available. Project not related
to natural hazard mitigation.

Table 6-7-27: Summary of Youngtown assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

7.D.3

7.D.4

8.C.1

Name

WMD Awareness
Training

Description

Train all Public Works and Law Enforcement
in First Responder Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD) awareness

st

1st Responder Equipment

Provide Police and Public Works with 1
Responder protective equipment.

Development Guidelines

Provide Town leadership role in support of
efforts to limit development in the departure
and approach corridors for Luke Air Force
base.

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Town Manager
N/A
N/A

Status

Disposition

In
Progress

Keep

• Council
• N/A
• N/A

Complete

Delete

• Council, Mayor
• N/A
• N/A

Complete

Keep

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Explanation
All personnel were trained in NIMS
700 & 800 & ICA 100 & 200.
Additionally supervisors and
managers are being trained in ICA
300 and 400 as appropriate to
position. New hires are trained after
initial training or during FTO.
Training updated during in-service
as needed.
Purchased with funds from DHS
grant to City of Glendale for West
Valley agencies. Action item
complete, but equipment will be
replaced/upgraded as necessary.
Council and management have made
numerous policy statements in
support of these efforts. Mayor,
Town Manager and other
management personnel sit as
members of various committees.

Page 359

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-7-27: Summary of Youngtown assessment of previous plan cycle mitigation actions/projects

ID

Name

1.A.1

Master Plan

3.B.2

Shelter-in-Place
Educational Program

Description
Adopt the new Master Plan. Modify with
additional guidelines, regulations, and land
use techniques as necessary within the limits
of state statutes, while also respecting private
property rights.

•
•
•
•
•
•

Lead Agency
Proposed Cost
Proposed Comp Date
Mayor Council
N/A
N/A

Status

Disposition

Explanation

Complete

Keep

New master plan adopted, but will
be revised from time to time as
needed.

No Action

Keep

No action taken. Program will be
developed as part of emergency
operations plan.

Develop a Shelter-in-Place Educational
program

• Town Administration
• Police Staff
• Emergency Manager

Website Development

Promote the availability of information from
county webpage.

• Town Manager
• IT Consultant
• Cost estimate $6,000

In
Progress

Keep

Link will be included on Home Page
of new Town website now under
development and scheduled to be
on-line by second-quarter of
FY2010.

5.C.1

Weather Radios

Encourage the use of weather radios,
especially in schools, rest homes,
convalescent homes, retirement centers and
other locations where people congregate to
inform them of the approach of severe
weather.

• Town Manager
• Emergency Manager
• Code Compliance

No Action

Keep

Will be included in upcoming article
in Youngtown Village Reporter on
various emergency operations plans
being implemented in Town.

6.A.1

Xeriscaping

Mandate, where Appropriate, the use of
xeriscaping or desert landscaping in all Town
projects.

Complete

Delete

Mandate not enacted, however
Town recommends low/no-water
landscaping in Building Safety and
Code Compliance brochures.

5.C.2

• Town Council
• N/A
• N/A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 360

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

6.3.2

2009

New Mitigation Actions / Projects and Implementation Strategy
Upon completion of the assessment summarized in Section 6.3.1, each jurisdiction’s LPT met
and developed new A/Ps using the goals and objectives, results of the vulnerability analysis and
capability assessment, and the planning team’s institutional knowledge of hazard mitigation needs in
the community. The A/Ps can be generally classified as either structural or non-structural. Structural
A/Ps typify a traditional “bricks and mortar” approach where physical improvements are provided to
effect the mitigation goals. Examples may include channels, culverts, bridges, detention basins, dams,
emergency structures, and structural augmentations of existing facilities. Non-structural A/Ps deal
more with policy, ordinance, regulation and administrative actions or changes, buy-out programs, and
legislative actions. For each A/P, the following elements were identified:
•

ID No. – a unique alpha-numeric identification number for the A/P.

•

Description – a brief description of the A/P including a supporting statement that tells
the “what” and “why” reason for the A/P.

•

Hazard(s) Mitigated – a list of the hazard or hazards mitigated by action.

•

Community Assets Mitigated – a brief descriptor to qualify the type of assets (existing,
new, or both) that the proposed mitigation A/P addresses.

•

Estimated Costs – concept level cost estimates that may be a dollar amount or estimated
as staff time.

Once the full list of A/Ps was completed to the satisfaction of the LPT, the team then set to
work developing the implementation strategy for those A/Ps. The implementation strategy addresses
the “priority, how, when, and by whom?” questions related to the execution and completion of an
identified A/P. Specific elements identified as a part of the implementation strategy included:
•

Priority Ranking – each A/P was assigned a priority ranking of either “High”,
“Medium”, or “Low”. The assignments were subjectively made using a simple process
that assessed how well the A/P satisfied the following considerations:
o
o
o

A favorable benefit versus cost evaluation, wherein the perceived direct and indirect
benefits outweighed the project cost.
A direct beneficial impact on the ability to protect life and/or property from natural
hazards.
A mitigation solution with a long-term effectiveness

•

Planning Mechanism(s) for Implementation – where applicable, a list of current
planning mechanisms or processes under which the A/P will be implemented. Examples
could include CIPs, General Plans, Area Drainage Master Plans, etc.

•

Anticipated Completion Date – a realistic and general timeframe for completing the
A/P. Examples may include a specific target date, a timeframe contingent upon other
processes, or recurring timeframes.

•

Primary Agency and Job Title Responsible for Implementation – this would be the
agency, department, office, or other entity and corresponding job title that will have
responsibility for the A/P and its implementation.

•

Funding Source – the source or sources of anticipated funding for the A/P.

Tables 6-8-1 through 6-8-28 summarize the updated mitigation A/P and implementation
strategy for each participating Plan jurisdiction. Projects listed in italics font are recognized as being
more response and recovery oriented, but are considered to be a significant part of the overall hazard
management goals of the community.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 361

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-1: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Avondale
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.
6

1

2

3

Description
Enhance the Community Center’s abilities
to serve as cooling station during times of
extreme heat.
Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.
Partner with Phoenix International Raceway
and other stakeholders in matters of site
safety of open air seating . to mitigate
potential damages or failures due to
microburst winds.
Enhance the City of Avondale’s capabilities
to alert its citizens in time of emergency via
radio, internet and texting (English and
Spanish) to mitigate losses to human life
during a natural disaster.

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Extreme Heat

New

$150,000

High

Engineering
review/plans
approval

2011

Flood

Both

Staff time

Medium

Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations

AnnualOngoing

Medium

Engineering review,
plans approval

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Severe wind

Both

All Hazards

New

$100,000

$140,000

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

2013

Medium

Staff training, I.T.
support/public
outreach

2014

2012

4

Upgrade the current EOC and recommend
the construction of a new and more secure
facility.

All Hazards

Both

$250,000

Medium

Current standards
(NFPA) plans
review

5

Provide CERT training to all citizens and
city groups upon request.

Extreme Heat,
Severe Wind,
Drought,
Flood, Wildfire.

Both

Staff time

Low

Staff Training,
Community
volunteers

2011

7

Partner with Maricopa County Flood
Control to provide channelization of the
Agua Fria and Gila rivers.

Flooding

New

Unknown

Low

Planning, City
Engineer/
Floodplain
Regulations

2016

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Primary Agency /
Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Emergency
Manager /
Building Official /
Social Services
Planning/City
Planner
Planning/plannerEngineering/City
Engineer-Fire
Marshal/Inspector
Emergency
Manager/I.T.
Public info officer.

Emergency
Manager/I.T. Fire
Marshal, Police/
Field Ops
Emergency
Manager, Public
educator.
Planner/Emergenc
y Manager.
FCDMC

Funding
Source(s)
General Funds,
Grants
General Fund
Permit Fees
Public/privateGrants

General funds,
Grants

General Funds ,
Grants.
Ongoing grant
funding.

Grants

Page 362

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-2: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Buckeye
Mitigation Action/Project

ID No.

1

7

10

Description
Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

Meet with flood control and state land to
develop cut Wildfire breaks at key
locations in the Gila River

Develop water conservation plan.

Implementation Strategy

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Flood

Wildfire/Flood

Flood/Drought

Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Both

Staff time

High

Both

Both

Staff time

Staff time

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

High

High

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation
Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations
Participation into
Maricopa County
Wild land urban
interface
planning project/
Create West
valley interface
task force. Work
with MCDEM
and county flood
control in
establishing
program
development
Create and
establish plan
with adoption of
Town
Ordinances.
Meet the
guidelines of
Arizona Dept of
Water Resources

Anticipated
Completion
Date
AnnualOngoing

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Water resource
Director /Damon
DeQuenne/
Floodplain
Administrator

Funding
Source(s)
General
Fund
Permit Fees

On going/
Implement
into Wildfire
Department 5
year Strategic
Planning

Fire Department /
Fire Chief

General fund

Submitted for
initial start of
1-1-20010

Water Resource
Department
Director/ Damon
DeQuenne

Enterprise
funds

Page 363

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-2: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Buckeye
Mitigation Action/Project

ID No.

2

4

5

Description

Conduct annual life safety inspections

Enhance communication of Town needs
at the County and State level

Continue to support the Hazard
Mitigation Plan by making sure the
Town is represented on related
committees.

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Wildfire

New

Flood/ Wildfire
/ Severe Wind

Flood/ Wildfire
/ Severe Wind

New

New

Estimated
Cost

Staff time

Staff time

Staff time

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Priority
Ranking

Medium

Medium

Medium

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation
Formal induction
into Wildfire
Department
Strategic Plan/
Formalization of
Wildfire
Prevention
Division/
Community
Development and
Code
Enforcement
enacted as new
division under
Wildfire
Department
Establish Liaison
positions from
town to State
legislature, State
Fusion Centers,
MCDEM, Water
fusion group,
MAG and other
multi
jurisdictional
task force work
groups
Establish Liaison
positions from
town to State
legislature, State
Fusion Centers,
MCDEM, Water
fusion group,
MAG and other
multi
jurisdictional
task force work
groups

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

On going with
formalization
approved with
Town staff
and council

Wildfire
Department/
Wildfire Chief

General
Fund

On going with
Staff and
Council
approval,
subject to
local strategic
planning
groups

Town wide with
department head
approvals/Suppor
ted by Mayor and
Town Managers

General
Fund

On going with
Staff and
Council
approval,
subject to
local strategic
planning
groups

Town wide with
department head
approvals/Suppor
ted by Mayor and
Town Managers

General
Fund

Page 364

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-2: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Buckeye
Mitigation Action/Project

ID No.

6

8

Description

Implement Sever Wind deployment
protection procedures (local)

Provide/improve water drainage systems.

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Severe
Wind/Flood

Flood

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Both

Estimated
Cost

Staff time
and use of
volunteers

Priority
Ranking

Medium

Both

Staff time

Medium

Medium

9

Enforce Fire codes, require compliance

Wildfire

Both

Staff time/
new
position
($50,000)

11

Participate with Maricopa County and
other jurisdictions in the development of
a Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(CWPP)

Wildfire

Both

Staff time

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Medium

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation
Establish Public
Safety Executive
Partnership with
Pubic Works,
Wildfire, and
Police.
Incorporate
CERT program
for the Town and
implement SOP
for operational
guidelines
Implemented into
General plan in
association with
Maricopa County
Flood control
Established
adoption of
International Fire
Code 2006,
employ
additional Fire
Prevention
Specialist
Participate in
multijurisdiction
al wildfire
protection
planning
program

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

On going with
PSEP group
formalized/
CERT
implementatio
n by 1-1-2010

Police Chief/ Fire
Chief/ Pubic
Works
Director/Water
Resource
Director/
Assistant Town
Manager

General
Fund/ UASI
and SHSGP
funding via
ADHS/DHS

Part of 5 year
master plan
with 2011
goal

Public works/
Scott Lowe

CIP monies

Adopt into 5
year Fire
Department
Strategic Plan
along with Fee
Code study

Fire Department /
Fire Chief

General
fund/permit
fees

2010

Fire Department /
Fire Chief

General fund

Page 365

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-3: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Carefree
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

1

Description

Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

2

Develop a Drainage Master Plan that will
identify potential drainage hazards,
solutions, budgets and prioritization.

7

Continue development of water storage,
treatment and delivery systems to provide
adequate water during times of drought

3

Encourage bridge or culvert construction
where roads are in locations susceptible to
flooding.

Implementation Strategy

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Flood Damage

Flood

Drought

Flood

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation

Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Both

Staff time

High

Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations

High

Staff
Conferences.
Study Drainage
issues.
Make
recommendation
for projects.
Implement
projects as
funded

High

Carefree Water
Company and
Governing Board

Medium

Staff
Conferences.
Study Drainage
issues.
Make
recommendation
for projects.
Implement
projects as
funded

Both

Staff Time

Both

Specific
project
dependant

Both

Staff Time
and studies
unless
actual
project
developed
and then
cost are to
be
determined
per project.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Anticipated
Completion
Date

AnnualOngoing

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
FCDMC /
Floodplain Mgmt
and Services
Division
/Floodplain
Administrator
Mike Tibbett /
Chief Building
Inspector

Funding
Source(s)

General
Fund,
Permit Fees

Annual –
Ongoing

MichaelTibbett /
Chief Building
Inspector
Erich Korsten /
Hydrologist and
Engineer
Patrick Neal /
ROW Engineer

General
Fund,
Permit Fees,
Grants if
Available

Annual –
Ongoing

Stan Francom
Director of
Carefree Water
Company

Water Co.
Budget and
available
grants

Annual –
Ongoing

MichaelTibbett /
Chief Building
Inspector
Erich Korsten /
Hydrologist and
Engineer
Patrick Neal /
ROW Engineer

General
Fund,
Permit Fees,
Grants if
Available

Page 366

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-3: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Carefree
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Carefree
Emergency
Manager / Cave
Creek Emergency
Manager
Fire Chief
American Red
Cross

Funding
Source(s)

4

Further develop a Mass Evacuation strategy
for the Town of Carefree.

Fire or other
Natural
Disaster

Both

Staff Time

Medium

Staff / Agency
Conferences

Annual –
Ongoing

5

Site and install additional signage for wash
crossings as well as sand bags to warn and
discourage vehicular movements through
these areas during flooding events

Flood

Both

$20,000.00

Medium

Marshal’s Office
and Public
Works

Less than five
years with in
funding

Marshal and
Director of
Public Works

General
Fund

6

Perform brush cutting and median
maintenance with Town right-of-way to
mitigate fuel sources for wildfire.

Wildfire

Both

$10,000.00

Medium

Public works

Annual –
Ongoing

Public Works

General
Fund,
Streets
Budget

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

General
Fund

Page 367

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-4: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Cave Creek
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Implementation Strategy

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
FCDMC /
Floodplain Mgmt
and Services
Division
/Floodplain
Administrator

Funding
Source(s)

1

Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Staff Training,
Floodplain
Regulations

AnnualOngoing

3

Investigate the possibility of adding a water
facility and infrastructure on the west side of
Cave Creek.

Drought

Both

$27 million

High

Land is Acquired.
Design, Build, Fund
project.

2011

Cave Creek
Utilities Manager

General Fund,
GRANT
FUNDING

Both

Staff time,
RMFD
time,
County
Emergency
Mgmt
Time

High

Development of A
Community
Wildfire Prevention
Program.

Ongoing,
within 24
months goal.

Maricopa
County
Emergency
Management,
Town Marshal

General Fund,
Seek Grants

Annual
Ongoing

Cave Creek
Building Official

General Fund,
Permit fees

General Fund,
Permit Fees

6

Develop and Implement A Community
Wildfire Protection Plan

2

Ensure building codes for construction are
enforced to prevent roof damage from high
winds.

Severe Wind

Both

Staff time

Medium

Continuing
education of
Building Safety
staff. Stringent
enforcement of
Building Codes

4

Town Fire Marshal routinely inspects
commercial structures

Fire

Both

RMFD
time

Medium

Continued Site
Inspections via
RMFD

Annual
Ongoing

RMFD
Building Official

General Fund

7

Public Information Campaign to help
educate the general public on ways to
remain safe during periods of extreme heat

Medium

Public Information
Campaign, utilizing
government
mailings, website
and print media

Ongoing

Town Marshal

General Fund

Wildfire

Extreme Heat

Both

Staff time

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 368

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-4: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Cave Creek
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

5

Description
Review the existing Cave Creek general
plan and zoning ordinance to determine how
these documents help limit development in
hazard areas. Modify with additional
guidelines, regulations, and land use
techniques as necessary within the limits of
state statutes, while also respecting private
property rights.

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Flooding

Both

Estimated
Cost

Staff Time

Priority
Ranking

Low

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Continuing Review
of existing Zoning
Ordinances.

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Annual
Ongoing

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Town Zoning
Administrator,
Town Engineer,
FCDMC

Funding
Source(s)

General Fund

Table 6-8-5: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Chandler
Mitigation Action/Project

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Drought
Extreme Heat
Flood
Severe Wind

Both

Staff time

High

3

Promote availability of the City of
Chandler Hazard Mitigation Plans
(HMGP) in an understandable format to
civic and private groups.

Drought
Extreme Heat
Flood
Severe Wind

Both

Staff time

High

4

Continue to ensure through proper
planning, zoning and building codes that
all safety measures are in place for new
building construction and placement.

Flood
Severe Wind

New

Staff time

High

ID
No.
1

2

Description
Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.
Maintain the currency of the safety
element of the Chandler General Plan, and
monitor its effectiveness at preventing and
mitigating hazards.

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation
Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations
Review and
Update of the
General Plan on
a regular basis
City Emergency
Management
Group (EMG) to
review progress
bi-annually
Continue to
update codes to
the newest
versions, and add
amendments
where
appropriate

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

AnnualOngoing

Public Works/
City Engineer

General
Fund

Annual
Ongoing

Planning/
Planning Director

General
Fund

Annual
Ongoing

Fire Department/
Asst. Chief

General
Fund

Annual
Ongoing

Planning/
Planning Director

General
Fund

Page 369

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-5: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Chandler
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

6

7

5

Description
Continue to maintain a diverse water
portfolio. Minimize any reductions to
existing supplies by protecting and secure
existing water rights, completing Indian
water rights settlements, and meeting
environmental requirements of water
resources. Maximize the use of existing
assets to ensure adequate water supply is
available through groundwater wells,
surface water diversions, use of recharged
water, and encouraging the use of
reclaimed water for appropriate purposes.
Seek and utilize alternative water supplies
(CAP excess water, reclaimed water,
saline/brackish groundwater, support the
Arizona Water Bank) to increase resource
reliability and mitigate drought severity.
Continue to implement the City’s Drought
Plan.
Each Lead City Department will rank the
vulnerability of existing assets, with
assistance from the Emergency
Management Workgroup, and implement
protection plans with the highest
vulnerability being implemented first.
Continue to ensure that the City of
Chandler Drought Management Plan is
updated to meet the needs of the City to
mitigate drought severity.

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Drought

Both

Drought
Extreme Heat
Flood
Severe Wind

Drought

Both

Both

Estimated
Cost

Staff time

Staff time

Staff time

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Priority
Ranking

High

High

Medium

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation

Continue to
maintain a
diverse City
water portfolio
by reviewing and
updating on a
regular basis

Emergency
Management
Group (EMG) to
develop process,
and timeline.
Monitor progress
Continue to
review and
update the plan
as appropriate

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

Annual
Ongoing

Municipal
Utilities, Public
Works/municipal
Utilities Director

Enterprise
Fund. Impact
Fees

Annual
Ongoing

Fire Department/
Asst. Chief

General
Fund

Annual
Ongoing

Municipal
Utilities/
Municipal
Utilities Director

Enterprise
Fund

Page 370

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-6: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for El Mirage
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Implementation Strategy

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

1

Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations

AnnualOngoing

City Engineer
Maricopa County
Flood Control

General
Fund,
Permit Fees

2

Review zoning ordinances prohibiting new
development in 100-year flood plain on an
annual basis.

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations

AnnualOngoing

City Engineer
Maricopa County
Flood Control

General
Fund,
Permit Fees

5

Take active role in multi-agency plan and
actions for flood mitigation (pro-active).

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Candidate
Assessment
Report Meetings

On going

City Engineer
Maricopa County
Flood Control

General
Fund

6

Develop plan to install man-made flood
protection devices where needed.

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

On going

City Engineer
Maricopa County
Flood Control

6a

Install box culvert at the Cactus Rd & El
Mirage Rd Crossing and perform
channelization in the Lower El Mirage
Wash

Flood

Both

$6 million

High

July 2013

City Engineer
Maricopa County
Flood Control

9b

Recharge of groundwater with CAP water to
ensure the community water supply in the
event of a drought.

Drought

Both

$950,000

High

Annual

Water
Superintendent

Enterprise
Fund

3

Review annually and update existing
building codes to manage new and existing
assets from flooding.

Flood

New

$5,000

Medium

On going

Building Official
City Engineer
City Planner
Maricopa County
Flood Control

General
Fund

4

Participate in multi-agency coordination
efforts to ensure cooperative plans.

Multi-Hazard

Both

Staff time

Medium

On going

Fire Chief

General
Fund

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Consultants,
City Engineer,
Maricopa County
Flood Control
Consultants, City
Engineer,
Maricopa County
Flood Control
Coordinate water
allocation with
CAP
Review of code
changes annually
and on the ICC
code revision
cycle
Local, County,
State Emergency
Planning
Meetings

General
Fund,
Impact Fees
Grants
General
Fund,
Impact Fees
Grants

Page 371

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-6: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for El Mirage
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Implementation Strategy

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

7

Train First Responders and other select city
staff in hazard materials mitigation.

HAZMAT

Existing

Staff time

Medium

Initial and
Annual refresher
training

On going

Fire Chief

General
Fund

8

Coordinate efforts with other local agencies
to I.D. problem areas and plans for
mitigation.

Multi hazard

Both

Staff time

Medium

Local, County,
State Emergency
Planning
Meetings

On going

Fire Chief

General
Fund

9c

Interconnect water system with other water
purveyors to ensure the community water
supply in the event of a drought.

Drought

Both

$2,400

Med

Coordinate with
other water
purveyors

July 2013

Water
Superintendent

Enterprise
fund

Annual

Water Regulator
Coordinator

Enterprise
Fund

Low

Design and
produce printed
materials in
English &
Spanish

Annual

Fire Chief

General
Fund,
Grants

Low

Design and
produce printed
materials in
English &
Spanish

Annual

Fire Chief

General
Fund,
Grants

9a

Develop a conservation education program
to ensure the community water supply in the
event of a drought.

10

Educate the public on actions to take and
resources available to address community
needs following a severe wind event.

11

Educate the public on actions and resources
to protect residents that do not have
adequate ways to cool their homes in the
event of an Extreme Heat Event

Drought

Both

Severe Wind

Existing

Excessive Heat

Existing

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Low

Design and
produce printed
materials in
English &
Spanish

Page 372

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-7: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Mitigation Action/Project

ID No.

Description

Hazard(s) Mitigated

1

Prohibit building in flood plain and
river area to maintain channel and
protect riparian area .

Flood damage to
structures, business
and wildlife habitat.

9

Facilitate abatement, prevention
and investigation of public health
nuisance conditions, illegal
dumping activities and the storage
and handling of potentially
infections material and locations.

Groundwater
contamination / spread
if infectious diseases.

4

Pro-actively pursue pre-disaster
and hazard mitigation grants to
supplement tribal expenses
associated with mitigation
activities.

5

Publish suggested mitigation
actions through print media and
community website to reduce
potential for wildfire and heat
related medical emergencies .

Wildfire and threat to
population from
drought/extreme heat.

6

Continue restoration projects along
river and limit development along
river to protect wetlands,
threatened species habitat and
protect business from flooding.

Flooding of gravel and
concrete
business. Natural
resource/wetlands
habitat destruction.

7

Create access, and map the access
to high-risk areas. Provide weed
abatement services in high risk
areas to reduce risk of wildland
fire.

Large area wildland
fire damage to
environment.

All hazards mitigated
with grant funds
obtained.

Implementation Strategy
Community Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Both

Estimated
Cost
Staff time for
plan review.
$15,000
annually

Both

$750,000

Both

Determined
by required
matching
funds.
$10,000
annually

Priority
Rankin
g

High

High

Waste transfer
station is under
development.

Medium

Contract and
Grants
Administrator
oversight.

Both

Staff time.
$2,000
Annually

Medium

Existing

Staff time and
enterprise
equipment
and labor.
$50,000
Annually

Medium

Existing

Staff time and
$30,000
annually

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation
Staff training
and cooperation
with Army Corp
of Engineers and
County Flood
Control District.

Medium

Timely
information
distributed
through
newspaper and
local website.
Projects are a
cooperative
effort of tribal
environmental
department,
U.S.EPA, and
others.
Cooperative
effort by
MCDOT, Tribal
Public Works
Department, and
Fire Department.

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Annual /
recurring

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Community and
Economic
Development
Division /
Planning
manager.

Funding
Source(s)
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds

Community and
Economic
Development
Division / Public
Works Manager

Tribal
General
Revenue
and Bond
Funds

Annual /
Recurring

All Department
Directors.

Matching
funds from
tribal
general
revenue
funds.

Annual /
Recurring

Fire Department /
Emergency
Manager

Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds

Annual /
Recurring

Environmental
Department /
Environmental
manager

Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds

Annual /
Recurring

MCDOT and
FMYN Public
Works
Department /
Public Works
Manager

MCDOT
and Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds

2010

Page 373

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-7: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Mitigation Action/Project

ID No.

Description

Hazard(s) Mitigated

10

Coordinate training, planning, and
communications to provide the
community with information to
combat the affects of infestations
and diseases.

11

Train first responders to
Operational level. Develop
emergency plans for facilities
handling hazmat. Provide
emergency response guidebooks to
fire and law enforcement
personnel. Follow MCDOT/ADOT
guidelines.

Spread of hazardous
materials into
groundwater. Control
of airborne hazardous
vapors to populated
areas.

12

Encourage Ft. McDowell Public
Health to develop and exercise
their capabilities to respond to and
support a chemical, biological or
radiological event.

Contamination of
emergency medical
personnel, vehicles,
and facilities.

13

Lead Community Departments
will be responsible for creating
plans to protect existing assets
within their area of responsibility.

All that apply to each
department

2

Review existing building codes,
modify or adopt codes to prevent
development in hazard areas.

Structure damage
from severe winds and
flooding.

Spread of infectious
disease and pandemic.

Implementation Strategy
Community Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Both

Estimated
Cost
Staff time for
medical clinic
personnel and
newspaper
staff.
$12,000
annually

Priority
Rankin
g

Medium

Both

Staff time for
plan
development
and first
responder
training.
$15,000
annually

Medium

Both

$10,000

Medium

Both

$12,000
annually

New

Staff time.
$5,000
annually

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Medium

Low

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation
Articles written
by medical staff,
distributed by
newspaper and
local internet
site.
All firefighters
will maintain
operations level
response
training. ERG’s
have been
distributed.
MCDOT/ADOT
policies are
tribal guidelines.
Contamination /
isolation room is
currently being
built at the tribal
clinic.

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

Annual /
Recurring

Health Center/
Medical
Director

Tribal
General
Revenue /
Indian
Health
Service

Annual /
Recurring

Fire Department
/ Fire Chief

Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds

2010

Health Center/
Medical
Director

Indian
Health
Service

Plan
development and
protection
programs are
ongoing within
each department

Annual /
Recurring

Staff training

Annual /
Recurring

Tribal
departments/
Department
Directors
through the
Emergency
Manager.
Community and
Economic
Development
Division /
Planning Project
Manager

Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds and
Grants
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds

Page 374

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-7: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Mitigation Action/Project

ID No.

Description

Hazard(s) Mitigated

3

Identify and mitigate hazards
associated with new and existing
developments through plan
reviews to ensure plan/code
compliance.

Structure damage
from flooding,
wildfire and severe
winds.

8

Ensure building codes are enforced
to prevent damage from high
winds.

Damage to homes and
tribal businesses.

Implementation Strategy
Community Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Both

Staff time
$20,000
annually

Both

Staff time
40,000
annually

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Priority
Rankin
g

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Low

Plan reviews by
staff and on-site
inspections.

Annual /
Recurring

Low

Building plan
reviews and onsite inspections
by staff.

Annual /
Recurring

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Community and
Economic
Development
Division /
License and
Property Use
Manager
Community and
Economic
Development
Division / Chief
Building
Inspector

Funding
Source(s)
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds

Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds

Page 375

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-8: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Fountain Hills
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Estimated
Cost

1

Review building permits for
compliance with Floodplain Ordinance
and NFIP regulations.

Flood

Both

Staff time

2

Maintain washes in Town by removing
excessive brush and trim trees to
reduce the threat of wildfire

Wildfire

Both

$120,000/
yr

6

Ashbrook Wash Improvements to
include larger culverts, grading,
vegetation reduction

Flood

Existing

3

Enforce Building Codes to prevent roof
damage from high winds.

Severe Winds

4

Review General Plan and Ordinances
for mitigating hazards.

5

Channel and Storm Drain Development

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Public Works
Dept/ Town
Engineer Floodplain
Administrator
Open space
and landscape
Specialist

Funding
Source(s)

High

Staff Training,
Floodplain
Regulations

AnnualOngoing

High

Staff Review

Annualongoing

$1.5 M

High

Staff,
Flood Control
Dist
Grant
application

2014

Public Works
Director,
Town Engineer

Flood Control
Dist.
Grant

Both

Staff
Time

Medium

Staff Training
Building Codes

Annualongoing

Town Building
Official

Permit Fees

Flood, Severe
Wind,
Drought,
Extreme Heat

Both

Staff
Time

Medium

Staff review
and training

Annualongoing

EM Director,
Public Works
Director

Town Budget

Flood

Both

Staff
Time

Medium

Staff review

Annualongoing

Public Works
Director,
Town Engineer

Town Budget

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Town Budget,
Permit Fees

Town Budget

Page 376

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-9: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Gila Bend
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Implementation Strategy

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
FCDMC /
Floodplain Mgmt
and Services
Division
/Floodplain
Administrator

Funding
Source(s)

1

Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Staff Training,
Floodplain
Regulations

AnnualOngoing

2

Pursue a mutual aid compact with county
and state agencies to assist the Town with
hazard mitigation.

Flood,
Severe Winds,
Wildfire

Both

Staff Time

Medium

None

AnnualOngoing

Town
Administration /
Town Manager

N/A

3

Develop a public awareness campaign to
educate Town residents about natural
hazards impacting the community

Flood,
Severe Winds,
Wildfire

Both

$1,000

Medium

None

FY 2011

Town
Emergency
Manager

General Fund

4

Develop and construct measures to mitigate
flooding along Sand Tank and Scott Avenue
Washes

Flood

Both

$5 million

High

Town CIP and
FCDMC CIP

FY 2014

Public Works /
Director
FCDMC

FCDMC Funds
Grant Funds

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

General Fund
Permit Fees

Page 377

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-10: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Gilbert
Mitigation Action/Project

ID No.
1

Description
Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation
Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations
Coordination with
County Flood
Control & Chapter
34 of Town Code
Coordination with
Salt River Project,
the Arizona Project,
& AZ Department
of Water Resources.

Anticipated
Completion
Date
AnnualOngoing

2

Proactive adoption of applicable master
plans, land uses and developmental
agreements.

Flood

New

Staff Time

High

5

Implement the appropriate stage of the
water supply reduction Management
Plan as adopted (May 2003) to reduce
water use.

Heat

Both

Staff Time

High

6.

Gilbert will continue to participate in the
Community Rating System (CRS)
program and get credit for the various
activities that assist property owners in
receiving reduced insurance premiums.

Flood

Both

Staff Time

High

Coordination with
Flood Control
District of Maricopa
County

8.

Work closely with FCDMC – Dam
Safety to stay abreast of current
mitigation efforts and timelines at
Powerline FRS (a category 1 rating).

Ongoing

December
2010

3

4

7.

Provide pertinent weather and hazard
mitigation information to the public by
providing local weather service and
Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation
links from Town of Gilbert Home page.
Establish an East Valley group of
stakeholders to address improvements in
mitigation areas specific to the needs of
the East Valley Community.
Promote the use of weather radios,
especially in schools, hospitals and other
locations where people congregate to
inform them of the approach of severe
weather.

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Flood

Both

Staff Time

High

Coordination with
Flood Control
District -Dam
Safety

Heat/Flood/
Wind

Both

Staff Time

Medium

Work with
webmaster identify
links

Ongoing

Ongoing

Heat/Flood/
Wind

Both

Staff Time

Medium

Work with East
Valley Emergency
Managers

Heat/Flood/
Wind

Both

Staff Time

Medium

Website, media
newsletter, and
outreach

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Floodplain
Administrator
Associate
Engineer/Permit
& Plans Review
Manager
Water Resource
Coordinator &
Town Manager

Floodplain
Administrator
Floodplain
Administrator/
Emergency
Management
Coordinator
Emergency
Management
Coordinator
Emergency
Management
Coordinator
Emergency
Management
Coordinator

Funding
Source(s)
General Fund
Permit Fees
General Fund

General Fund

General Fund

General Fund

General Fund

General Fund

General Fund

Page 378

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-11: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Glendale
Mitigation Action/Project

ID No.

Description

1

Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

2

Storm Drain Project-Northern Ave. 47th
Ave-63rd Ave.

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Flood

Both

Estimated
Cost

Staff time

Priority
Ranking

High

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation
Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations
Building Code
Regulations

Anticipated
Completion
Date
AnnualOngoing

Primary Agency /
Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Building
Safety/Engineering
Engineering/Utilities

15 million
Flood

Existing

High
3.5 million

Co-locating water main

Construction
Projects already in
progress

12/2010

Utilities

Funding
Source(s)
General
Fund,
Permit Fees
CIP/MC
Flood
Control
District
CIP

3

Storm Drain Project-67th Ave, Frier
Drive to Orangewood Ave. This project
addresses localized flooding hazards.

Flood

Existing

$350,000 for
construction
and $30,000 to
$35,000 for
Construction
Administration.

4

In partnership with The Salvation Army,
provide respite care and dehydration
stations. This effort mitigates loss of life
during extreme temperature.

Extreme Heat

Existing

Staff time

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

High

Waiting for
approval

High

Facilities
Staff

Engineering

On-going

Emergency
Management

mitigation
grant
application
has been
submitted
Donations

Page 379

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-12: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Goodyear
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Implementation Strategy

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Both

Staff time

High

Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations

High

Staff Training
Project design
coordination

Q4, 2009

AnnualOngoing

Q4, 2010

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

1

Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

Flood

3

Secure and protect the city water supply
from outside, outsource contamination:
a) Install supervisory control valves and
data acquisition system.
b) Install valve locks.
c) Site specific physical infrastructure
security measures.

Contamination
of city water
supply

2

Promote and share mitigation programs
with state, county, local jurisdictions, and
private, civic, and non-profit organizations.

Multi-Hazards

Both

Staff time

Medium

Inter-agency
coordination
Staff Training

4

Determine the feasibility of hydration
station and refuge in the city.

Extreme Heat

Both

Staff time/
Volunteers

Medium

Staff training
Project manager
Inter agency coord.

Both

$415,000

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Anticipated
Completion
Date
AnnualOngoing

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
City Engineer,
Community
Development
Director
Fire
Chief/Emergency
Manager, Public
Works Director
Fire
Chief/Emergency
Manager
Fire
Chief/Emergency
Manager

Funding Source(s)
General Fund
Fees

General Fund
CIP

General Fund
Grants
General
Grants

Page 380

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-13: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Guadalupe
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

1

2

3

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Flood

Both

Staff time

Medium

Multi-Hazard

Both

Staff time

Medium

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Description
Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.
Implement the education and mitigation
actions as outlined in the Town’s
Stormwater Management Plan.
Establish periodic monitoring and review
of the Town of Guadalupe’s general plan
and zoning ordinance to determine
effectiveness at preventing and mitigating
hazards. Based on the results, amend as
necessary.

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation
Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations
Staff Training
Stormwater
General plan
Review
G.P./Zoning with
Town Manager
and Town
Inspector biyearly

Anticipated
Completion
Date

AnnualOngoing

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
FCDMC /
Floodplain Mgmt
and Services
Division /Town
Manager/Town
Inspector

Funding
Source(s)
General
Fund
Permit Fees

AnnualOngoing

Town Manager

General
Fund

Annual Ongoing

Town Inspector

General
Fund
Permit Fees

Table 6-8-14: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Litchfield Park
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.
1

Description
Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

2

Review plan for final phase of City Flood
control project in preparation to go out for
bids.

3

Review hazard Mitigation Plan for areas that
can be updated in accordance with current
warning measures that are now available
through the national Weather Bureau and
the Maricopa County Emergency Services.

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Flood

Both

To be
determined

High

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Extreme Heat

NA

Staff time

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

High

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation
Staff Training,
Floodplain
Regulations

Anticipated
Completion
Date
AnnualOngoing

Staff review,
Engineering review,
Bid process

Within five
years

Staff Training

AnnualOngoing

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Planning Dept.
/Floodplain
Administrator
Planning and
Engineering
Dept/ Chief
Engineer

General Fund,
Permit Fees

Community
Services/Emerge
ncy Management
Coordinator

General Fund

Funding
Source(s)

Grant,
General Fund

Page 381

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-14: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Litchfield Park
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Implementation Strategy

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Description

Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Community
Services/
Emergency
Management
Coordinator

Funding
Source(s)

5

Encourage City staff to become members of
regional organizations to share in regional
efforts and solutions to local and regional
problems.

General Hazard
Mitigation

Both

Staff Time

High

Staff Training

Annual Ongoing

6

Develop a policy to replace the use of
hazardous materials with other products as
soon as a safe, reliable source is available
and proven to be as effective.

HAZMAT

Both

Staff Time

High

Staff Training

Ongoing

Public Works/
Operations
Coordinator

General Fund

4

Review building permits for compliance
with International Building Code for
structure compliance to endure severe winds
and electrical strikes.

Severe Winds,
Lightning
Strike

AnnualOngoing

Planning
Dept/Building
Code
Enforcement
Officer

General Plan

Both

Staff Time

Medium

Staff Training,
Building regulations

General Fund

Table 6-8-15: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

4

Inspect and monitor all structures (bridges
and box culverts) under their control on a
semi-annual basis.

Flood

Both

$150,000

High

Transportation Plan

On-going

MCDOT /
Engineers

HURF

5

Encourage bridge or culvert construction
where roads are in locations susceptible to
flooding.

Flood

New

$7 million

High

Transportation Plan

On-going

MCDOT / Senior
Planner

HURF

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 382

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-15: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Unincorporated Maricopa County

6

Review building permits to ensure that
unincorporated Maricopa County residents
and the 12 communities for which the
District performs floodplain management
duties are safe from flooding by meeting the
NFIP requirements for development within a
Special Flood Hazard Area through
enforcement of Floodplain Regulations.

Flood

Both

Staff Time

High

Floodplain
Regulations

On-going

FCDMC /
Floodplain
Administrator

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

7

Develop a Community Wildfire Protection
Plan to identify actions that will reduce the
risk of wildfires to communities within
wildland-urban interface zones.

Wildfire

Both

$150,000

High

Community
Wildfire Protection
Plan

November
2010

Emergency
Management /
Director

State Forestry
Grant

8

Complete and start Area Drainage Master
Studies/Plans to identify flooding hazards
and mitigation solutions.

Flood

Both

ProjectDependent

High

Comprehensive
Plan

On-Going

FCDMC / Chief
Engineer & GM

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

9

Complete and start delineations/redelineations to identify flooding hazards.

Flood

Both

ProjectDependent

High

Comprehensive
Plan

On-Going

FCDMC / Chief
Engineer & GM

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

Flood / Dam
and Levee
Failure

Both

ProjectDependent

High

Comprehensive
Plan

On-Going

FCDMC / Chief
Engineer & GM

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

Flood

Both

Staff Time

High

Comprehensive
Plan

FY 2013

FCDMC / Chief
Engineer & GM

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

Flood

Existing

$4,000,000
(conceptlevel est.)

High

5-yr CIP

Fundingdependent
(Target: 2012)

FCDMC /
CE&GM in
partnership with
the Town of
Queen Creek

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

Flood

Existing

$4,000,000
(conceptlevel est.)

High

5-yr CIP

Fundingdependent
(Target: 2012)

FCDMC / Chief
Engineer & GM

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

Both

$4,000,000
(conceptlevel est.)

5-yr CIP

Fundingdependent
(Target:
2012)

FCDMC /
CE&GM in
partnership with
the City of Mesa

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

10

12

13

14

15

Operate and maintain flood control
structures operated and maintained by
FCDMC in order to prevent structural
failure and to maintain their primary
function.
Update the Flood Control District of
Maricopa County 2009 Comprehensive
Floodplain Management Plan and Program
to set the framework in mitigating flood
hazards.
Cloud Rd. & Sossaman Rd. Basin and
Outlet. Construct a flood control basin and
outlet to mitigate flooding hazard to existing
homes.
Sonoqui Wash Channelization (Main
Branch). Channelize an existing wash to
contain flood flows, protecting existing
homes.
Oak Street Basin and Storm Drain.
Construct a basin and storm drain to
mitigate flooding hazards to existing and
future homes.

Flood

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

High

Page 383

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-15: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Unincorporated Maricopa County
16

Ellsworth Rd. & McKellips Rd. Basin and
Storm Drain. Construct a basin and storm
drain to mitigate flooding hazards to
existing and future homes.

Flood

Both

$4,000,000
(conceptlevel est.)

High

5-yr CIP

Fundingdependent
(Target: 2013)

17

Arcadia Area Drainage Improvements
(Phase I). Construct flood control
infrastructure to mitigate flooding hazards to
existing homes.

Flood

Existing

$4,000,000
(conceptlevel est.)

High

5-yr CIP

Fundingdependent
(Target: 2014)

19

Flood Control Capital Improvement
Program. Construct facilities to mitigate
flooding hazards to residents of Maricopa
County.

Flood

Both

$60M / yr.

High

5-yr CIP

Ongoing

FCDMC / Chief
Engineer & GM

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

20

Design and construct new bridge and scour
protection at Gilbert Road over the Salt
River.

Flood

Existing

$15M

High

5-yr CIP

June 2012

MCDOT /
Engineer

HURF

21

Design and construct scour protection for
existing bridge over the Gila River on Old
U.S. Highway 80.

Flood

Existing

$1M

High

5-yr CIP

Jan 2011

MCDOT /
Engineer

HURF

1

Floodprone Properties Assistance Program.
Acquire property and relocate residents from
flood hazard areas, or protect homes from
flooding hazards through floodproofing.

Flood

Both

Project
dependent

Medium

Floodprone
Properties
Assistance Program

On-going

FCDMC / Chief
Engineer & GM

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

Flood

New

Staff Time

Medium

Area Drainage
Master Plan

On-going

FCDMC / Chief
Engineer & GM

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

Permit Fees

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

2

3

11

Continue working with County Planning and
Development on a cooperative effort to
notify developers of Area Drainage Master
Plans (ADMP’s) and floodplain regulations
early on in the development process.
Review existing building codes to determine
if they adequately protect new development
in hazard areas. Where feasible and
necessary, modify codes to help mitigate
hazards imposed on such development
within the limits of state statutes, while also
respecting private property rights.
Continue public education program to assist
residents in recognizing potential flooding
and erosion hazards and inform them on
how to reduce risk to life and property.

FCDMC /
CE&GM in
partnership with
the City of Mesa
FCDMC /
CE&GM in
partnership with
the City of
Phoenix

Flood
Severe Wind

New

Staff time

Medium

Building Codes

On-going

Planning and
Development,
Development
Services / Senior
Planner

Flood

Both

Staff Time

Medium

Comprehensive
Plan

On-Going

FCDMC / Chief
Engineer & GM

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

Page 384

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-15: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Unincorporated Maricopa County
18

22

Gila River Bank Stabilization (Citrus Rd. to
Perryville Rd.). Construct bank protection
along the north bank of the Gila River to
contain flooding hazards and limit river
migration to protect existing infrastructure
and homes.
Work with federal and state agencies, and
local coalitions to elevate awareness of
fissure risk zones and the problems fissures
may cause.

Flood

Both

$4,000,000
(conceptlevel est.)

Medium

5-yr CIP

Fundingdependent
(Target: 2013)

FCDMC / Chief
Engineer & GM

Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax

Fissure

Both

Staff Time

Medium

None

Ongoing

Planning and
Development
Services / Senior
Planner

General Fund

Table 6-8-16: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
City
Engineering/
Floodplain
Administrator

Funding
Source(s)

1

Broadway Rd Storm Drain Project, 76th to
84th St (partnering with MCFCD)

Flood

Both

$3.5 million

High

Strom Drain Master
Plan

Aug 2012

2

Completion of the City of Mesa Storm
Drain Master Planning document

Flood

Both

$600,000

High

Storm Drain Master
Plan

June 2009

City Engineering

Bonds

3

Construct two potable water wells to
supplement the City water supply

Drought

Both

$20 million

High

Water Distribution
Master Plan

July 2014

City Engineering

Bonds

4

Maintain continuous water supply by
continuing to install water distribution
systems throughout the City of Mesa

Drought

Both

$10 million
annually

High

Water Distribution
System Master Plan

Ongoing

City of Mesa
Water Resources
Division,
Engineering

Bond funds
Impact Fees

5

CAP, reservoir, pump and future treatment
plant at Elliot and Ellsworth

Drought

Both

$100 million

High

Water Distribution
System Master Plan

July 2014

Engineering

Bonds

6

Identify and construct the first phase
recommended by the Va Shly‘Ay Akimel
Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project
in partnership with SRPMIC and Army
Corp of Engineers

Flood
(Erosion)

High

City of Mesa
Master Plan

July 2014, 1st
construction
phase

Engineering

Bonds, grants

Both

Unknown

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Bonds

Page 385

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-16: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

7

Replace power poles between Country
Club and Extension along University with
69 KV steel and concrete poles (phase 2)

Severe Wind

Both

$4.0 million

High

City of Mesa
Electric Master Plan

July 2010

Engineering

Bonds

8

Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

City of Mesa Master
Plan,

AnnualOngoing

Engineering Dept
/ Floodplain
Administrator

General Fund,
Permit Fees

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 386

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-17: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Paradise Valley
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.
1
4

2

3

5

Description
Review building permit applications for
compliance with Floodplain Ordinance
and NFIP regulations.
Continue the under grounding project for
existing utilities on major roads thereby
eliminating utility poles.
Adopt the 2009 International Codes
(Building, Residential, Mechanical,
Plumbing & Electrical) for use by the
Town.
Conduct regular inspections of washes to
ensure that they are maintained in a debris
free condition.
Conduct regular inspections of washes and
take corrective action by enforcing
existing ordinances to prevent a corridor
for wildfires.

6

Update the current Emergency Operations
Plan.

8

Maintain effective communications with
state, county and local government
agencies by the various Town departments
within their respective responsibility.

7

Educate and inform residents, businesses
and visitors by conducting a media
campaign, via local newspaper to
publicize ways to mitigate disasters
including steps that they can protect
themselves.

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation
Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations
Capital
Improvement
Program

AnnualOngoing

Engineering
Department

General Fund,
Permit Fees

2014

Engineering
Department

Capital
Improvement
Fund

Funding
Source(s)

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Severe
Wind

Both

$3,800,000

High

Severe Wind
Subsidence

New

Staff time &
$2,000 for
books

Medium

Staff & Contractor
Training

July 1, 2010

Building Safety
Division

General Fund,
Permit Fees

Flood

Both

Staff time

Medium

Not Applicable

AnnualOngoing

Building Safety
& Public Works
Departments

General Fund

Wildfire

Both

Staff time

Medium

Not Applicable

AnnualOngoing

Building Safety
& Public Works
Departments

General Fund

General Fund

Drought
Extreme Heat
Flood
Severe Wind
Subsidence
Wildfire
Drought
Extreme Heat
Flood
Severe Wind
Subsidence
Wildfire
Drought
Extreme Heat
Flood
Severe Wind
Subsidence
Wildfire

Both

Staff time

Medium

Not Applicable

Ongoing

Building Safety
Division,
Emergency
Management
Unit

Both

Staff time

Medium

Not Applicable

Ongoing

All Departments

General Fund

Both

Staff time

Low

Not Applicable

AnnualOngoing

Building Safety
Department

General Fund

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 387

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-18: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Peoria
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.
1

2

Description
Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.
Work with the Maricopa County Flood
Control District to determine potential
effects of a flash flood or flood affecting the
city. Also provide sandbags and sand as
required.

Implementation Strategy
Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Planning and
zoning
Administrator

Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Dam Failure

Both

Staff time

High

Staff training

Ongoing

Emergency
Manager

General funds

Drought

Both

Staff time

High

Staff training

Ongoing

Emergency
Manager

General funds

EM, GIS, Public
Works, Fire &
Police
Department

General funds

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation
Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations

Anticipated
Completion
Date
AnnualOngoing

Funding
Source(s)
General Fund
Permit Fees

3

Assist with the revision of a water
conservation plan for mitigating the impact
of a drought on the public water supply.

4

Work with the Maricopa County Flood
Control District to determine potential
effects of a flash flood or flood affecting the
city. Also provide sandbags and sand as
required.

Flooding

Both

Staff time

High

Staff training

Ongoing

5

Work with the Maricopa County Flood
Control District to determine potential
effects of a levee failure.

Levee Failure

Both

Staff time

High

Staff training

Ongoing

6

Encourage a fire buffer along wild landurban interface areas.

Wildfire

New

Staff time

High

Staff training

Annual

7

Include all identified hazardous conditions
in GIS mapping to include floodways, high
wind areas, subsidence areas, hazardous
materials, etc.

All

Both

Staff time

High

Staff training

Ongoing

GIS

General funds

8

Train key city staff on appropriate actions
based on the Emergency Operations Plan.

All

New

Staff time

High

Staff training

Ongoing

Emergency
Management

General funds

9

Participate in regional training
opportunities as well as Emergency
Operations Command exercises within City
to prepare for emergencies.

All

Both

Staff time

High

Staff training

Ongoing

Emergency
Management

General funds

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

EM, GIS, Public
Works, Fire &
Police
Department
EM, GIS, Public
Works, Fire &
Police
Department

General funds

General funds

Page 388

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-18: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Peoria
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

10

11

Description
All Fire Department personnel should be
trained at Operations level, currently
command staff are trained at Operations –
rest of personnel are trained at awareness
level. Plan to provide additional levels of
training by 2005
Police Department personnel should be
trained at Operations level, currently
command staff are trained at Operations –
rest of personnel are trained at awareness
level. Plan to provide additional levels of
training by 2005

Implementation Strategy
Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

All

Existing

Staff time

High

Staff training

On going

Fire Chief

General funds

All

Existing

Staff time

High

Staff training

On going

Police Chief

General funds

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Funding
Source(s)

12

Control development in flood areas

Flood

Existing

Staff time

High

Staff training

On going

Planning and
zoning

General funds

13

Encourage flood-proof measures through
building design

Flood

Existing

Staff time

High

Staff training

On going

Community
Development

General funds

14

Maintain Public Service Announcements
(PSAs) broadcast on Channel 11. Fliers
produced and distributed to residents.

All

Existing

Staff time

High

Staff training

On going

Communications
and Public
Affairs

General funds

15

Research identified data limitations
effecting the relative vulnerability of assets
from drought

Drought

Existing

Staff time

High

Staff training

On going

Emergency
Management

General funds

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 389

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-19: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Phoenix
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.
1

2

3

4

5

Description
Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations
Continue to include in the General Plan
policies that protect the natural flow
regimes of washes and designate areas
for Open Space and Preserves
Storm Drain CIP Program. Construct
drainage facilities to mitigate flooding
hazard to residents of the City.
Coordinate data sharing and
development communication within City
departments through documentation in
GIS
Summer Respite Program to network
with faith-based organizations to provide
heat relief with hydration, respite efforts,
and wellness checks for the affected
population as needed

Hazard(s)
Mitigated
Flood

Flood;
Dam Failure

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)
Both

Both

Estimated
Cost
Staff time

Staff time

Priority
Ranking
High

High

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation
Staff training;
Floodplain
Regulations;
NFIP regulations
Land acquisition
and natural resource
protection

Anticipated
Completion
Date
Annual ongoing

Annual ongoing

Flood

Both

Variable

High

5 Year CIP

Ongoing

Flood;
Extreme Heat

New

Staff time

High

GIS

Annual ongoing

Excessive
Heat

N/A - people

Donations
totaling
$70,000
annually

High

Heat Relief
Network meetings
(occur prior to the
summer months)

Annual ongoing

March 2010

6

Revise 2002 Drought Response Plan and
Ordinance

Drought*

Both

Staff time

High

Drought Response
Plan and Ordinance

7

Develop and execute a water use
curtailment outreach program

Drought*

Both

Staff time

High

Water Services
staff

Dec 2012

8

Revise and ratify the General Plan every
ten years

Flood

Both

Staff time

Medium

State statute;
Smart Growth
requirement

2010

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Street
Transportation /
Floodplain
Manager
Parks and
Recreation /
PPPI
Administrator
Street
Transportation
Department/
Deputy Street
Transportation
Director
Planning
Department /
Planning
Researcher
Human Services
/ Deputy Human
Services Director
Water Services /
Principal Water
Resources
Planner
Water Services /
Principal Water
Resources
Planner
Planning /
Planning
Manager

Funding
Source(s)
General Fund
Phoenix Parks
Preserves
Initiative;
General Fund;
Bonds
2006 Bond
Program;
future grant
funds

General Fund
Corporate,
community, and
faith-based
contributions
Water Fund

Water Fund

General Fund

Page 390

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-19: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Phoenix
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

9

Update and adopt a revised building
code

10

Continue to insure zoning stipulations
are met before construction permits are
issued, and zoning is compatible with the
zoning ordinance

Hazard(s)
Mitigated
Flood;
Severe Wind;
Excessive
Heat
Flood;
Excessive
Heat

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Both

Staff time;
Materials

Medium

Both

Staff time

Medium

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation
Staff training;
Community
outreach;
Plan review
Zoning
Ordinance;
Staff training;
Plan review

Anticipated
Completion
Date
Annual ongoing

Annual –
ongoing

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Development
Services /
Assistant
Director
Development
Services /
Deputy Director

Funding
Source(s)
Permit fees

Permit fees

*Drought conditions will not always necessitate customer water use curtailment as ample stored water may be available. Curtailment actions would only be implemented due to
actual or impending water shortages.

Table 6-8-20: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Queen Creek
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

1

Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations

AnnualOngoing

2

Sonoqui Wash East Branch Floodplain
Delineation Study – Determine the extent of
the floodplain and submit to FEMA for
review.

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Sonoqui Wash
Floodplain
Delineation Study

2011

6

Construct Box Culvert at Sonoqui Wash
East Branch: Ellsworth and Riggs Roads

Flood

Both

$750,000

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

High

CIP

Fall 2010

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Town/
Community
Development
Dept/Floodplain
Administrator
FCDMC/
Floodplain Mgmt
and Services
Division/
Floodplain
Administrator
Town/Public
Works CIP
Division/CIP
Project Manager

Funding
Source(s)
General Fund
Permit Fees

N/A

MCDOT IGA
RRSCM Fund
General Fund
Developer
Contributions

Page 391

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-20: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Queen Creek
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)
MCDOT IGA
RRSCM Fund
General Fund
Developer
Contributions

7

Construct Box Culvert at Sonoqui Wash:
Ellsworth and Empire Roads

Flood

Both

$3,500,000

High

CIP

Fall 2010

Town/Public
Works CIP
Division/CIP
Project Manager

8

Sonoqui Wash Channelization Project:
Phase IIA Chandler Heights Road to
Ellsworth Road

Flood

Both

$17.7 mil.

High

CIP

Fall 2010

FCDMC

FCDMC IGA

9

Sonoqui Wash Channelization Project:
Phase III Riggs Road to Empire Road

Flood

Both

$15 mil.

High

FCDMC CIP

2012

FCDMC

FCDMC

11

New Riggs Road Bridge over Sonoqui Wash

Flood

Both

$4,000,000

High

MCDOT CIP

Mid-2011

MCDOT

MCDOT

3

Review Queen Creek Wash Drainage
Master Plan from Ellsworth Road to
Rittenhouse Road

Medium

Queen Creek Wash
Drainage Master
Plan

2013

5

Design and construction of the Cloud Road
& Sossaman Road Drainage Basin

Flood

Both

$6,500,000

Medium

CIP

Design:
Fall 2010
Construction:
TBD

12

New Ocotillo Road Bridge over Queen
Creek Wash between Power and Recker
Roads

Flood

Both

$2,500,000

Medium

CIP

2012

13

Conduct small area drainage master plan for
the San Tan Foothills Area

Flood

Both

$75,000

Medium

CIP

2013

14

Install water level sensors at dip crossings of
the Sonoqui Wash at Sossaman and Power
Roads

Flood

Both

$100,000

Medium

CIP

2013

Flood

Both

Staff time

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Town/
Community
Development
Dept./Floodplain
Administrator
Town/Public
Works CIP
Division/CIP
Manager
Town/Public
Works CIP
Division/CIP
Project Manager
Town/
Community
Development
Dept/Floodplain
Administrator
Town/Public
Works CIP
Division/CIP
Project Manager

General Fund

General Fund
FCDMC IGA
General Fund
LTAF
Gilbert IGA
General Fund
Grant

General Fund
Grant

Page 392

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-20: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Queen Creek
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Town/Public
Works CIP
Division/CIP
Project Manager

Funding
Source(s)
SRP Aesthetic
Funds

15

Underground 12Kv lines on all four legs of
the Ocotillo and Hawes Roads intersection

Severe Wind

Existing

$400,000

Medium

N/A

2013

4

Extend the Sonoqui Wash Hydraulic Master
Plan into Pinal County to the headwaters of
the drainage basin.

Flood

Both

Staff time

Low

Sonoqui Wash
Hydraulic Master
Plan for Maricopa
County

2014

Pinal County/
Floodplain
Administrator

General Fund

10

Sonoqui Wash Channelization Project:
Phase IIB Ellsworth Road to Crismon Road

Flood

Both

$14.5 mil

Low

CIP

2014

Town/Public
Works CIP
Division/CIP
Project Manager

General Fund

16

Construct fire breaks around the north face
of the San Tan Mountains to prevent entry
into the Box Canyon Area

Wildfire

Both

$700,000

Low

CIP

2014

Town/Fire
Dept/Public
Safety Manager

Emergency
Services Fund

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 393

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-21: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

3

1

2

Description

Fire Department to develop a
hazardous materials survey to identify
hazardous chemicals being stored in
the flood zones. This would allow us
to ensure that they are properly stored
and secured for floods that may
impact the facility where they are
stored.
Community Relations in coordination
with Emergency Management to
conduct public outreach/education on
all hazards emergency preparedness
for Community members. Community
members that are educated on what
to do in a disaster will reduce the loss
of life and property in a disaster.
Conduct study to determine how to
environmental and efficiently reduce
the fire load in the river/preserve area
to minimize the impact of a wildfire
in this area. Current area is
overgrown and has high potential for
fire that would expand to populated
areas.

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

Flood

New

N/A

High

Tribal Emergency
Response
Commission

April 2010

Fire Department

N/A

All natural
hazards

Existing

$10,000

Medium

Tribal Emergency
Response
Commission

Ongoing

Emergency
Management

Grants, SRPMIC
operating budget

Medium

Fire Department
strategic plan,
Tribal Emergency
Response
Commission

January 2012

Fire Department

BIA Forestry,
grants

Wildland fire

New

$100,000

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 394

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-22: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Salt River Project
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.
1

3

4

5

Description
Continue electric system design as a looped system
with multiple ties which is done to allow flexibility
to re-arrange circuits prior to summer to balance
loads commonly seen during extreme heat
conditions.
Cable replacement program, feeder getaway
upgrades, pad-mounted transformer replacement
program, #2 and 4/0 loop splits; to mitigate
outages during peak load times during extreme
heat conditions.
SRP continuously monitors weather, runoff and
reservoir conditions on the Salt and Verde
watersheds as they affect reservoir operations and
maintains a high level of preparedness of its
reservoir emergency operations staff. In addition,
SRP is actively involved with the Multi-Agency
Taskforce on Flood Warning and operates the
Arizona Statewide Flood Warning System under
contract with the ADWR. The purpose of the flood
warning system is to reduce the loss of life and
property and manage water resources efficiently by
providing appropriate information via a high-speed
data collection and dissemination network to local
entities and Federal Agencies, and further enhance
the system to complement our mission to save
lives and protect property.
SRP maintains a variety of mitigation programs on
the Transmission and Distribution system to
mitigate the effects and susceptibility to severe
wind events such as; pole inspection program, pole
replacement program, pole reinforcement program
and stopper-pole program. (The SRP distribution
system is 80% underground and, by design, thus
mitigates a multitude of possible hazards).

Hazard(s)
Mitigated
Extreme Heat

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)
Both

Estimated
Cost
Staff Time
(O&M)

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

High

- Annual Distribution
Planning and Operations
Studies
- 2009 Electric System
Plan (FY 2009/2010 –
2014/2015)

High

2009 Electric System Plan
(FY 2009/2010 –
2014/2015)

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Ongoing

- System Operations
- Engineering &
Construction Svcs
- Electric System
Operations & Maint

Annual Operating
Budget

Ongoing

- System Operations
- Engineering &
Construction Svcs
- Electric System
Operations & Maint

Annual Operating
Budget

Annual Operating
Budget

Annual Operating
Budget

Both

Staff Time
(O&M)

Flood

Both

Staff Time
(O&M)

High

General Plan

Ongoing

- Water Information
Technology Services
(WITS) operates the
Arizona Statewide
Flood Warning System

Severe Wind

Both

Staff Time
(O&M)

High

2009 Electric System Plan
(FY 2009/2010 –
2014/2015)

Ongoing

- System Operations
- Engineering &
Construction Svcs
- Electric System
Operations & Maint

Extreme Heat

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Funding
Source(s)

Page 395

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-22: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Salt River Project
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

6

SRP Line Clearing maintains an ongoing
preventative maintenance program that clears
vegetation from transmission and distribution lines
which are regularly patrolled and cleared of
vegetation to prevent encroachment upon lines,
thus mitigating a variety of hazards associated with
vegetation interfering with electrical lines. This
program also clears lower growing dense
vegetation (smaller trees and brush) called “fuel
clearing” to reduce fire/smoke in the event of a
wildfire.

2

Maintain fleet of mobile substations to deploy in
advance to cover and mitigate any anticipated
capacity deficiencies, thus mitigating chances of
escalating outages.

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Wildfire

Extreme Heat

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Both

Both

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Staff Time
(O&M)

High

2009 Electric System Plan
(FY 2009/2010 –
2014/2015)

Ongoing

- System Operations
- Engineering &
Construction Svcs
- Electric System
Operations & Maint

Annual Operating
Budget

Medium

- Annual Distribution
Planning and Operations
Studies
- 2009 Electric System
Plan (FY 2009/2010 –
2014/2015)

Ongoing

- Transportation
Services
- Electric System
Operations & Maint

Annual Operating
Budget

Staff Time
(O&M)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 396

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-23: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Scottsdale
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.
1
2

3

4

5

6

Description
Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.
Maintain a Drought Management Plan in
conjunction with SRP & APS to lessen the
impact of drought.
UPPER CAMELBACK WASH
WATERSHED Construct open channel and
culverts to safely convey stormwater in the
vicinity of 92nd St from Shea to Sweetwater
Rds.
GRANITE REEF WATERSHED
Construct a large storm drain down
south Pima Road to the Salt River to
collect stormwater and remove the flood
zone from approximately 1000
structures.
PIMA ROAD DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Collect neighborhood and roadway
flows as part of north Pima Road
roadway improvements and channelize
it around existing development
AUTOMATED FLOOD WARNING
SYSTEM - NORTH AREA Collects real
time rainfall and runoff data to notify
emergency services and for road closures.

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation
Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

AnnualOngoing

Public Works

General Fund
Permit Fees

Training /
Implementation

Ongoing

Public Workers
& Water
Resources

General Fund

High

Funding

06/30/2010

Public Works

Capital
Improvement /
General Fund

4,580,600

High

Funding

02/28/2011

Public Works

Capital
Improvement /
General Fund

Both

$4,962,925

High

Funding

06/30/2010

Public Works

Capital
Improvement /
General Fund

Flood

New

194,400

High

Funding

06/30/2011

Public Works

General Fund

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Drought

Both

Staff Time

High

Flood

Both

6,442,200

Flood

Both

Flood

7

Encourage Fire buffer zones along wild land
urban interface areas to mitigate damages
due to wildfire

Wildfires

Both

Staff Time

High

Training /
Education

Ongoing

Fire Department

General Fund

8

Perform Hazardous Material Response
Team & Fire Code Inspection on
Occupancies with Hazardous Materials to
ensure safe storage and use of those
HAZMATS

All Hazards

Both

Staff Time /
Equipment

Medium

Training /
Equipment

Ongoing

Fire Department

General Fund

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 397

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-23: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Scottsdale
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.
9

Description
Develop partnerships to locate and operate
hydration stations during extreme heat
events to reduce the risk to Scottsdale
citizens

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

Extreme
Heat

Both

Staff Time

Medium

Partnerships

Ongoing

Human Services

General Fund /
Donations

10

Continue expanding our ESS software
system to track resources in the event of an
incident/ event.

All Hazard

Both

Staff Time

Medium

Training

Annual Ongoing

Fire Department

General Fund

11

Maintain and continue expanding our
community emergency response team
training.

All Hazard

Both

Staff Time

Medium

Training

Ongoing

Fire Department

General Fund

Table 6-8-24: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Surprise
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
FCDMC /
Floodplain Mgmt
and Services
Division /City of
Surprise
Floodplain
Administrator

Funding
Source(s)

1

Reduce the impact of flooding in Section 10
(Martin Acres) area of City of Surprise.
Construct a new conveyance channel from
south of U.S. 60 to provide drainage away
from Martin Acres.

Flood

Both

$4,571,000

High

Floodplain
Regulations

AnnualOngoing

2

Reduce the risk of fires to communities
within wildland-interface zones by
participating in the development of a
community wildfire protection plan.

Wildfire

Both

Staff Time

High

Community
Wildfire Protection
Plan Planning
Process

November
2010

MCDEM,
Surprise Fire
Department

State Forestry
Grant

4

Develop program and coordinate actions
with FCDMC to access, mitigate, upgrade
and redesign flood facilities.

Ongoing

FCDMC /
Surprise
Floodplain
Administrator,
Engineers

General Fund

Flood

Both

Staff Time

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

High

Studies &
Regulations

G.O. Bonds
Impact Fees

Page 398

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-24: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Surprise
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Description

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

5

Develop program that identifies bridge and
culvert construction in flood susceptible
areas

Flood

Both

Staff Time

High

Studies &
Regulations

Ongoing

3

Seek availability of funding sources for predisaster mitigation and hazard mitigation

All

Both

Staff Time

Medium

Grant Policy

Ongoing

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Surprise
Floodplain
Administrator,
Engineers
City grant writers

Funding
Source(s)
General Fund

General Fund

Table 6-8-25: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tempe
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

1

Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

4

Complete Tempe Royal Palms Subdivision 12 storm drainage system
modifications

Hazard(s)
Mitigated
Flood

Flood

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)
Both

Existing

Estimated
Cost
$10,000
Staff
time/Annual
Expense
$500,000

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Priority
Ranking
High

High

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation
Staff Training,
Floodplain
Regulations,
Review of permits
Staff oversight and
contractors for
work.

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

AnnualOngoing

Public
Works/City
Engineer

Permit Fees

July 1, 2010

Public
Works/City
Engineer

Capital
Improvement
Project Bond
Funds

Page 399

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-25: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tempe
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

5

Description
The City of Tempe Water Utilities
Department has a comprehensive set of
planning documents that outline future
water systems operations, including
specific drought contingency plans and
water system operations during drought
cycles. Planning documents include the
1997 Tempe Water Resources Plan
(updated in 2002), the 1999 Tempe
Integrated Water System Master Plan, and
the 2002 Drought Management Strategy
Plan. Tempe has implemented a number of
measures from these plans to diversity the
City’s water resources and to lessen the
impact of drought on our community.
Tempe will continue to develop additional
groundwater storage and recovery
programs to significantly reduce potential
drought impacts. These efforts include
storing, CAP water and reclaimed water in
aquifers for future recovery (over 85,000
acre-feet stored since the mid-1990s), and
capital improvement projects to add new
municipal wells and increase recovery
well pumping capacity.

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Drought

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Both

Estimated
Cost

$25,000
Staff Time/
Annual
Expense

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

AnnualOngoing

Water
Utilities/Water
Utilities Manager

Enterprise Fund

High

Annual Review of
Plan to ensure
compliance with
NIMS and make any
needed revisions

AnnualOngoing

Fire Department/
Special
Operations
Deputy Chief

General Fund

AnnualOngoing

Fire Department/
Special
Operations
Deputy Chief and
Fire Marshal

General Fund

AnnualOngoing

Public
Works/City
Engineer

General Fund

Hazardous
Materials

Both

$87,000 Staff
Time/Equipm
ent

High

Provide inspections
and weekly training

Flood

Both

$20,000
Staff Time

High

Develop and review
projects on as
needed basis

All hazards

7

Maintain Hazardous Materials Response
Team and First Responder Training and
conduct Fire Code Inspections on
Occupancies with hazardous materials

9

Maintain levee protection with Maricopa
County Flood Control District in Salt
River

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Funding
Source(s)

Staff Training and
time to
maintain/update
plans

Both

Maintain Emergency Management Plan

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

High

$2,500 Staff
Time

6

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Page 400

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-25: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tempe
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

10

Miscellaneous Flood Control and Storm
Drainage Projects

Flood

Both

$300,000
Staff Time
and Project
Costs

High

2

Maintain CERT Program

All hazards

Existing

$5,000 Staff
Time/
Annual
Expense

Medium

8

Maintain Cameo and ESS

All hazards

Both

$3,000 Staff
Time

Medium

11

Participate with outside agencies to
distribute bottled water and provide
education about hazards associated with
extreme heat

Extreme
Heat

NonStructural

$1,000 of
Staff Time

Medium

3

Seek funds for workshops and
conferences, including National Incident
Management System and Arizona
Emergency Management Association
Conferences

All hazards

Both

$2,500 Staff
Time/Annual
Expense

Low

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation
Areas are
continually
evaluated and
projects are
developed to
mitigate storm
drainage problems
Quarterly Training
for existing
members and new
member classes two
times per year
Ensure that GIS is
integrated with
CAMEO and ESS
reflects available
resources
Partnering with the
Community Action
Network and
Salvation Army
Programs
Attend annual
training classes and
conferences

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation

Funding
Source(s)

AnnualOngoing

Public
Works/City
Engineer

Capital
Improvement
Projects, Bond
Funds

AnnualOngoing

Fire Department/
Special
Operations
Deputy Chief

Grant funds and
General Fund

AnnualOngoing

Fire Department/
Special
Operations
Deputy Chief

General Fund

AnnualOngoing

Water Utilites
Dept. and Fire
Dept./WUD Mgr
and Fire Chief

General Fund,
Donations

AnnualOngoing

Fire
Department/Fire
Chief

General Fund

Page 401

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-26: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tolleson
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
FCDMC /
Floodplain Mgmt
and Services
Division
/Floodplain
Administrator

Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Both

Staff time

High

Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations

AnnualOngoing

High

Flood plan
Regulations,
Drainage
knowledge

On-going

Engineer,
Building Director

General Fund,
Bonds, Grants,
Permit Fees

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

Funding
Source(s)

1

Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

5

Installing more storm drains and retention
areas to reduce impact of flooding on the
community. Goes along with new and
better codes.

Flood

Both

Unknown.
Depends
on site

2

Provide sand and bags at different locations
around the city for citizens to pick up.

Flood

Both

Staff Time
Sand at app
$100 per
ton

Medium

Staff Time

Periodical
On-going

Public Works
Director

General Fund

4

Educate public officials on the need of the
mitigation plan.

All Hazards

Both

Staff Time

Medium

Staff Time, Class
Space, Individual
availability

On-going

Fire Chief,
Division Fire
Chief

N/A

3

Continue to review plans and update codes
and ordinances within the city limits.

Flood and
Severe Wind

Both

Staff Time

Low

Research and
planning

Periodical
On-going

Building Dept.
City Senior Staff

General Fund

Flood

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

General Fund
Permit Fees

Page 402

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-27: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Wickenburg
Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

Description

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Implementation Strategy
Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s) for
Implementation

Anticipated
Completion
Date

1

Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

Flood

Both

Staff time

High

Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations

AnnualOngoing

2

Remove vegetation in washes that bisect
streets within town limits to reduce wildfire
hazard and improve stormwater conveyance
capacities.

Flood
Wildfire

Existing

$50,000

Medium

CWPP

AnnualOngoing

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
FCDMC /
Floodplain Mgmt
and Services
Division
/Floodplain
Administrator
Public Works /
Director

Funding
Source(s)

General Fund
Permit Fees

General Fund

Table 6-8-28: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Youngtown
Town of Youngtown: Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

1

2

Description
Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.

Train all Public Works and Law
Enforcement in First Responder Awareness:
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

Hazard(s)
Mitigated

Flood

Terrorism;
Wildfire

Town of Youngtown: Implementation Strategy

Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Both

Staff time

Both

Staff time

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Priority
Ranking

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation

High

Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations

High

NIMS Training
ICS 100 & 200
and NIMS 700 &
800 for all staff
members;
additionally ICS
300 for
supervisory
personnel and
ICS 400 for all
managementlevel employees

Anticipated
Completion
Date
AnnualOngoing

AnnualOngoing

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Public Works
Department /
Building
Inspector/Plans
Reviewer

Public Works
Department /
Emergency
Services
Manager; Police
Department /
Police Chief

Funding
Source(s)
General Fund,
Permit Fees

General Fund,
Permit Fees

Page 403

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Table 6-8-28: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Youngtown
Town of Youngtown: Mitigation Action/Project

ID
No.

3

6

4

Description
Provide Town leadership role in support of
efforts to limit development in the departure
and approach corridors for Luke Air Force
base.

Promote the availability of information from
county webpage.

Adopt the new Master Plan. Modify with
additional guidelines, regulations, and land
use techniques as necessary within the limits
of state statutes, while also respecting
private property rights.

Hazard(s)
Mitigated
Wildfire,
Transportation
Accident

Multi-Purpose

Flood,
Severe Wind

5

Develop a Shelter-in-Place Educational
program.

Multi-Purpose

7

Encourage the use of weather radios,
especially in schools, rest homes,
convalescent homes, retirement centers and
other locations where people congregate to
inform them of the approach of severe
weather.

Flood,
Severe Wind

Town of Youngtown: Implementation Strategy

Community
Assets
Mitigated
(Ex/New)

Estimated
Cost

Both

Staff time

Both

Staff time

New

$2,500,
plus Staff
time

Both

Less than
$1,000,
plus Staff
time

Both

Staff time

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Priority
Ranking

High

Planning
Mechanism(s)
for
Implementation
Regional
planning
committees,
including MAG,
Westcorp and adhoc groups
Write-up in
Youngtown
Village Reporter
and link on Town
website

Anticipated
Completion
Date

On-going

Primary Agency
/ Job Title
Responsible for
Implementation
Town
Management /
Mayor, Town
Manager and
Public Works
Manager

Funding
Source(s)

General Fund

Initially NLT
December 31,
2009;
thereafter ongoing

Emergency
Services
Manager / Town
Webmaster

General Fund

Medium

Regional
planning
committees,
including MAG,
Westcorp and adhoc groups

June 30, 2011

Public Works
Department /
Building
Inspector/Plans
Reviewer &
Code
Compliance
Officer & Public
Works Manager

General Fund,
Grants

Medium

Review similar
programs in other
communities;
work program to
meet local needs

Initially NLT
March 31,
2010;
thereafter ongoing as
needed

Youngtown
Police Services /
Police Chief

General Fund,
Grants

Low

Write-up in
Youngtown
Village Reporter
and link on Town
website

Initially NLT
December 31,
2009;
thereafter ongoing

Emergency
Services
Manager / Town
Webmaster

General Fund

High

Page 404

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

SECTION 7: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
§201.6(c)(4): [The plan shall include…] (4) A plan maintenance process that includes:
(i) A section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within
a five-year cycle.
(ii) A process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning
mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.
(iii) Discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.
§201.6(d)(3): Plans must be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted for approval within five years in
order to continue to be eligible for HMGP project grant funding.

According to the DMA 2000 requirements, each plan must define and document processes or mechanisms for
maintaining and updating the hazard mitigation plan within the established five-year planning cycle. Elements
of this plan maintenance section include:

5
5
5
5

Monitoring and Evaluating the Plan
Updating the Plan
Implementing the Plan by Incorporation into Other Agency or Jurisdictional Planning
Mechanisms
Continued Public Participation

Maricopa County recognizes that this hazard mitigation plan is intended to be a “living” document
with regularly scheduled monitoring, evaluation, and updating.
Section 9 of the 2004 Plan outlined specific steps for plan maintenance. A poll of the MJPT indicated
that very little, if any, formal review or maintenance occurred over the past five years. The 2004 Plan was used
by several municipalities for the development of grant applications, and was therefore indirectly reviewed on
occasion. Reasons for the lack of review included:
•
•
•

The plan maintenance requirements were not effectively communicated when changes in
personnel occurred.
A general lack of understanding regarding the importance and requirements of the maintenance
element.
A three year period of extremely rapid growth and the lack of resources or time to perform the
plan maintenance tasks.

Recognizing the need for improvement, the MJPT discussed ways to make sure that the Plan review
and maintenance process will occur over the next five years. The results of those discussions are outlined in the
following sections and the plan maintenance strategy.

7.1

Monitoring and Evaluation
The MJPT has established the following monitoring and evaluation procedures:
•

Schedule – The Plan shall be reviewed on at least an annual basis or following a major
disaster. MCDEM will take the lead to reconvene the MJPT on or around the anniversary of
the Plan (November) and will work out a suitable reporting format with ADEM. ADEM has
also committed to help with reminders to MCDEM as a double accountability. Copies of the
annual review report will also be included in Appendix E.

•

Review Content – One month prior to the MJPT review meeting, a reminder questionnaire
will be distributed to each jurisdictions’ PPOC, with the following questions:
o
o

Hazard Identification: Have the risks and hazards changed?
Goals and objectives: Are the goals and objectives still able to address current and
expected conditions?
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 405

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
o

2009

Mitigation Projects and Actions: Has the project been completed? If not complete
but started, what percent of the project has been completed? How much money has
been expended on incomplete projects? Did the project require additional funds over
the expected amount or were the costs less than expected?

During the annual meeting, each PPOC will have the opportunity to provide a report to the group of
his/her review of the Plan. The report will include their responses to the above questions and any other items
specific to their community. Documentation of the annual meeting will include notes on the results of the
meeting as well as more specific information on the reasoning behind proposed changes to the Plan.
A formal presentation of the review material will be presented to a jurisdiction’s council or board only
if a major update to the Plan is proposed prior to the next five year update, or if changes to the mitigation A/Ps
are desired to be acknowledged by the State and FEMA.

7.2

Plan Update

According to DMA 2000, the Plan require updating and re-approval from FEMA every five years. The
plan update will adhere to that set schedule using the following procedure:
9
9
9
9

7.3

One year prior to the plan expiration date, the MJPT will re-convene to review and assess the
materials accumulated in Appendix E.
The MJPT will update and/or revise the appropriate or affected portions of the plan and produce a
revised plan document.
The revised plan document will be presented before the respective councils and boards for an
official concurrence/adoption of the changes.
The revised plan will be submitted to ADEM and FEMA for review, comment and approval.

Incorporation Into Existing Planning Mechanisms

Incorporation of the Plan into other planning mechanisms, either by content or reference, enhances a
community’s ability to perform natural hazard mitigation by expanding the scope of the Plan’s influence. Over
the past planning cycle, the success of incorporating the 2004 Plan elements into other planning programs has
varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Typical ways of incorporation included:
•
•
•
•

Use of, or reference to, Plan elements in updates to general and comprehensive planning
documents.
Addition of defined mitigation A/Ps to capital improvement programming.
Inclusion of Plan elements into development planning and practices.
Resource for developing and/or updating emergency operations plans.

Many of these incorporation and implementation examples are included in Tables 6-4 and 6-7-1
through 6-7-27.
The Plan will continue to function as a standalone document subject to its own review and revision
schedule presented in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. The Plan will also serve as a reference for other mitigation and land
planning needs of the participating jurisdictions. On a county-wide basis, the Plan will be referenced in the
development of a community wildfire protection plan for Maricopa County, and will be referred to in Chapter 4
(Flooding in Maricopa County) of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan. 52 Whenever possible, each jurisdiction will
endeavor to incorporate the risk assessment results and mitigation actions and projects identified in the Plan,
into existing and future planning mechanisms. At a minimum, each of the responsible agencies/departments
noted in Tables 6-1-1 through 6-1-28 will review and reference the Plan and revise and/or update the legal and
regulatory planning documents, manuals, codes, and ordinances summarized in Tables 6-1-1 through 6-1-28, as
appropriate. Specific incorporation of the Plan risk assessment elements into the natural resources and safety
elements of the jurisdictions’ general plans and development review processes, adding or revising building
codes, adding or changing zoning and subdivision ordinances, and incorporating mitigation goals and strategies
into general and/or comprehensive plans, will help to ensure hazard mitigated future development. In addition,
52

The language primarily references the historic flood events and number of critical facilities exposed to flooding.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 406

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

an implementation strategy outlining assignments of responsibility and completion schedules for specific
actions/projects proposed in this plan are summarized in Tables 6-8-1 through 6-8-28.

7.4

Continued Public Involvement

Maricopa County is committed to keeping the public informed about the hazard mitigation planning
efforts, actions and projects. In order to accomplish this, the MJPT shall pursue the following opportunities for
public involvement and dissemination of information whenever possible and appropriate:

9 Provide a permanent webpage on the County’s website, that will house a digital copy of the Plan
and document future planning activities. Contact information for the County PPOC will be posted
as well.

9 Participate in annual events such as the County fair and other public events.
9 Perform public outreach and mitigation training meetings for targeted populations known to be in
higher risk hazard areas (i.e. – floodplain residents).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 407

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 408

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

SECTION 8: PLAN TOOLS
8.1

Acronyms

A/P ...................... Mitigation Action/Project
ADEM ............... Arizona Division of Emergency Management
ADEQ ................ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADWR ............... Arizona Department of Water Resources
AGFD ................ Arizona Game and Fish Department
ARS ................... Arizona Revised Statutes
ASCE ................. American Society of Civil Engineers
ASERC .............. Arizona State Emergency Response Commission
ASLD ................ Arizona State Land Department
ASU ................... Arizona State University
AZDEQ ............. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
AZGS ................ Arizona Geological Survey
BLM .................. Bureau of Land Management
CAP ................... Central Arizona Project
CAP ................... Community Assistance Program
CFR ................... Code of Federal Regulations
CRS ................... Community Rating System
CWPP ................ Community Wildfire Protection Plan
DEMA ............... Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs
DFIRM .............. Digital Flood Insurance Rate
DMA 2000 ......... Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
DOT ................... Department of Transportation
EHS ................... Extremely Hazardous Substance
EPA ................... Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA .............. Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act
FCDMC .............. Flood Control District of Maricopa County
FEMA ................ Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMA ................... Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program
GIS .................... Geographic Information System
HAZMAT .......... Hazardous Material
HAZUS-99 ........ Hazards United States1999
HAZUS-MH ...... Hazards United States Multi-Hazard
IFCI ................... International Fire Code Institute
LEPC ................. Local Emergency Planning Committee
MCDEM ............ Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
MCDOT ............. Maricopa County Department of Transporation
MJHMP ............. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
MMI .................. Modified Mercalli Intensity
NCDC ................ National Climate Data Center
NDMC ............... National Drought Mitigation Center
NESDIS ............. National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service
NFIP .................. National Flood Insurance Program
NFPA ................. National Fire Protection Association
NHC .................. National Hurricane Center
NIBS .................. National Institute of Building Services
NID .................... National Inventory of Dams
NIST .................. National Institute of Standards and Technology
NSF .................... National Science Foundation
NOAA ............... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRC ................... National Response Center
NWS .................. National Weather Service
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 409

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

PSDI .................. Palmer Drought Severity Index
RL ...................... Repetitive Loss
SARA ................ Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SRLP ................. Severe Repetitive Loss Properties
SRL .................... Severe Repetitive Loss
SRP .................... Salt River Project
UBC ................... Uniform Building Code
USACE .............. United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA ................ United States Department of Agriculture
USFS ................. United States Forest Service
USGS ................. United States Geological Survey
VA ...................... Vulnerability Analysis
WUI ................... Wildland Urban Interface

8.2

Definitions

The following terms and definitions are provided for reference and are taken from the 2007 State Plan
with a few minor modifications.

ARIZONA HAZARDS
Dam Failure
A dam failure is a catastrophic type of failure characterized by the sudden, rapid and uncontrolled release of
impounded water. Dam failures are typically due to either overtopping or piping and can result from a variety of
causes including natural events such as floods, landslides or earthquakes, deterioration of foundation or
compositional materials, penetration by vegetative roots or animal burrows, fissures or improper design and
construction. Such a failure presents a significant potential for a disaster as significant loss of life and property
would be expected in addition to the possible loss of power and water resources.
Drought
A drought is a deficiency of precipitation over on extended period of time, resulting in water shortage for some
activity, group or environmental sector. "Severe" to "extreme" drought conditions endanger livestock and crops,
significantly reduce surface and ground water supplies, increase the potential risk for wildland fires, increase
the potential for dust storms, and cause significant economic loss. Humid areas are more vulnerable than arid
areas. Drought may not be constant or predictable and does not begin or end on any schedule. Short term
droughts are less impacting due to the reliance on irrigation and groundwater in arid environments.
Earthquake
An earthquake is a naturally-induced shaking of the ground, caused by the fracture and sliding of rock within
the Earth's crust. The magnitude is determined by the dimensions of the rupturing fracture (fault) and the
amount of displacement that takes place. The larger the fault surface and displacement, the greater the energy.
In addition to deforming the rock near the fault, this energy produces the shaking and a variety of seismic waves
that radiate throughout the Earth. Earthquake magnitude is measured using the Richter Scale and earthquake
intensity is measured using the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.
Fissure
Earth fissures are tension cracks that open as the result of subsidence due to severe overdrafts (i.e., pumping) of
groundwater, and occur about the margins of alluvial basins, near exposed or shallow buried bedrock, or over
zones of differential land subsidence. As the ground slowly settles, cracks form at depth and propagate towards
the surface, hundreds of feet above. Individual fissures range in length from hundreds of feet to several miles,
and from less than an inch to several feet wide. Rainstorms can erode fissure walls rapidly causing them to
widen and lengthen suddenly and dangerously, forming gullies five to 15- feet wide and tens of feet deep.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 410

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Flooding
Flooding is an overflowing of water onto normally dry land and is one of the most significant and costly of
natural disasters. Flooding tends to occur in Arizona during anomalous years of prolonged, regional rainfall
(typical of an El Nino year), and is typified by increased humidity and high summer temperatures.
Flash flooding is caused excessive rain falling in a small area in a short time and is a critical hazard in Arizona.
Flash floods are usually associated with summer monsoon thunderstorms or the remnants of a tropical storm.
Several factors contribute to flash flooding: rainfall intensity and duration, topography, soil conditions, and
ground cover. Most flash flooding is caused by slow-moving thunderstorms or thunderstorms repeatedly
moving over the same area and can occur within a few minutes or hours of excessive rainfall, or a quick release
from a dam or levee failure. Thunderstorms produce flash flooding, often far from the actual storm and at night
when natural warnings may not be noticed.
Landslide / Mudslide
Landslides like avalanches are massive downward and outward movements of slope-forming materials. The
term landslide is restricted to movement of rock and soil and includes a broad range of velocities. Slow
movements, although rarely a threat to life, can destroy buildings or break buried utility lines. A landslide
occurs when a portion of a hill slope becomes too weak to support its own weight. The weakness is generally
initiated when rainfall or some other source of water increases the water content of the slope, reducing the shear
strength of the materials. A mud slide is a type of landslide referred to as a flow. Flows are landslides that
behave like fluids: mud flows involve wet mud and debris.
Levee Failure / Breach
Levee failures are typically due to either overtopping or erosive piping and can result from a variety of causes
including natural events such as floods, hurricane/tropical storms, or earthquakes, deterioration of foundation or
compositional materials, penetration by vegetative roots or animal burrows, fissures, or improper design,
construction and maintenance. A levee breach is the opening formed by the erosion of levee material and can
form suddenly or gradually depending on the hydraulic conditions at the time of failure and the type of material
comprising the levee.
Severe Wind
Thunderstorms are characterized as violent storms that typically are associated with high winds, dust storms,
heavy rainfall, hail, lightning strikes, and/or tornadoes. The unpredictability of thunderstorms, particularly their
formation and rapid movement to new locations heightens the possibility of floods. Thunderstorms, dust/sand
storms and the like are most prevalent in Arizona during the monsoon season, which is a seasonal shift in the
winds that causes an increase in humidity capable of fueling thunderstorms. The monsoon season in Arizona
typically is from late-June or early-July through mid-September.
Tornadoes are violently rotating columns of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground. The most violent
tornadoes are capable of tremendous destruction with wind speeds in excess of 250 mph. Damage paths can
exceed a mile wide and 50 miles long. The damage from tornadoes is due to high winds. The Fujita Scale of
Tornado Intensity measures tornado / high wind intensity and damage.
Tropical Storms are storms in which the maximum sustained surface wind ranges from 39-73 mph. Tropical
storms are associated with heavy rain and high winds. High intensity rainfall in short periods is typical. A
tropical storm is classified as a hurricane when its sustained winds reach or exceed 74 mph. These storms are
medium to large in size and are capable of producing dangerous winds, torrential rains, and flooding, all of
which may result in tremendous property damage and loss of life, primarily in coastal populated areas. The
effects are typically most dangerous before a hurricane makes landfall, when most damage occurs. However,
Arizona has experienced a number of tropical storms that caused extensive flooding and wind damage.
Subsidence
Land subsidence in Arizona is primarily attributed to substantial groundwater withdrawal from aquifers in
sedimentary basins. As the water is removed, the sedimentary layers consolidate resulting in a general lowering
of the corresponding ground surface. Subsidence frequently results in regional bowl-shaped depressions, with
loss of elevation greatest in the center and decreasing towards the perimeter. Subsidence can measurably change
or reverse basin gradients causing expensive localized flooding and adverse impacts or even rupture to longbaseline infrastructure such as canals, sewer systems, gas lines and roads. Earth fissures are the most
spectacular and destructive manifestation of subsidence-related phenomena.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 411

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Wildfire
Wildfire is a rapid, persistent chemical reaction that releases heat and light, especially the exothermic
combination of a combustible substance with oxygen. Wildfires present a significant potential for disaster in the
southwest, a region of relatively high temperatures, low humidity, low precipitation, and during the spring
moderately strong daytime winds. Combine these severe burning conditions with people or lightning and the
stage is set for the occurrence of large, destructive wildfires.
Winter Storm
Winter storms bring heavy snowfall and frequently have freezing rain and sleet. Sleet is defined as pellets of
ice composed of frozen or mostly frozen raindrops or refrozen partially melted snowflakes. These pellets of ice
usually bounce after hitting the ground or other hard surfaces. Freezing rain begins as snow at higher altitudes
and melts completely on its way down while passing through a layer of air above freezing temperature, then
encounters a layer below freezing at lower level to become supercooled, freezing upon impact of any object it
then encounters. Because freezing rain hits the ground as a rain droplet, it conforms to the shape of the ground,
making one thick layer of ice. Snow is generally formed directly from the freezing of airborne water vapor into
ice crystals that often agglomerates into snowflakes. Average annual snowfall in Arizona varies with
geographic location and elevation, and can range from trace amounts to hundreds of inches. Severe snow storms
can affect transportation, emergency services, utilities, agriculture and basic necessities supply to isolated
communities. In extreme cases, snowloads can cause significant structural damage to under-designed buildings.

GENERAL PLAN TERMS
Asset
Any natural or human-caused feature that has value, including, but not limited to people; buildings;
infrastructure like bridges, roads, and sewer and water systems; lifelines like electricity and communication
resources; or environmental, cultural, or recreational features like parks, dunes, wetlands, or landmarks.
Building
A structure that is walled and roofed, principally above ground and permanently affixed to a site. The term
includes a manufactured home on a permanent foundation on which the wheels and axles carry no weight.
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Systems or facilities whose incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating impact on the defense or
economic security of the nation. The Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO) defines eight categories of
critical infrastructure, as follows:
Telecommunications infrastructure: Telephone, data services, and Internet communications, which have
become essential to continuity of business, industry, government, and military operations.
Electrical power systems: Generation stations and transmission and distribution networks that create and
supply electricity to end-users.
Gas and oil facilities: Production and holding facilities for natural gas, crude and refined petroleum, and
petroleum-derived fuels, as well as the refining and processing facilities for these fuels.
Banking and finance institutions: Banks, financial service companies, payment systems, investment
companies, and securities/commodities exchanges.
Transportation networks: Highways, railroads, ports and inland waterways, pipelines, and airports and
airways that facilitate the efficient movement of goods and people.
Water supply systems: Sources of water; reservoirs and holding facilities; aqueducts and other transport
systems; filtration, cleaning, and treatment systems; pipelines; cooling systems; and other delivery
mechanisms that provide for domestic and industrial applications, including systems for dealing with water
runoff, wastewater, and firefighting.
Government services: Capabilities at the federal, state, and local levels of government required to meet the
needs for essential services to the public.
Emergency services: Medical, police, fire, and rescue systems.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 412

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K)
A law signed by the President on October 30, 2000 that encourages and rewards local and state pre-disaster
planning, promotes sustainability as a strategy for disaster resistance, and is intended to integrate state and local
planning with the aim of strengthening statewide mitigation planning.
Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR) Directorate
One of five major Department of Homeland Security Directorates which builds upon the formerly independent
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). EPR is responsible for preparing for natural and humancaused disasters through a comprehensive, risk-based emergency management program of preparedness,
prevention, response, and recovery. This work incorporates the concept of disaster-resistant communities,
including providing federal support for local governments that promote structures and communities that reduce
the chances of being hit by disasters.
Emergency Response Plan
A document that contains information on the actions that may be taken by a governmental jurisdiction to protect
people and property before, during, and after a disaster.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Formerly independent agency created in 1978 to provide a single point of accountability for all Federal
activities related to disaster mitigation and emergency preparedness, response and recovery. As of March 2003,
FEMA is a part of the Department of Homeland Security’s Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR)
Directorate.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
Map of a community, prepared by FEMA that shows the special flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones
applicable to the community.
Frequency
A measure of how often events of a particular magnitude are expected to occur. Frequency describes how often
a hazard of a specific magnitude, duration, and/or extent typically occurs, on average. Statistically, a hazard
with a 100-year recurrence interval is expected to occur once every 100 years on average, and would have a 1%
chance – its probability – of happening in any given year. The reliability of this information varies depending
on the kind of hazard being considered.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
A computer software application that relates physical features on the earth to a database to be used for mapping
and analysis.
Hazard
A source of potential danger or adverse condition. Hazards include both natural and human-caused events. A
natural event is a hazard when it has the potential to harm people or property and may include events such as
floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunami, coastal storms, landslides, and wildfires that strike populated areas.
Human-caused hazard events originate from human activity and may include technological hazards and
terrorism. Technological hazards arise from human activities and are assumed to be accidental and/or have
unintended consequences (e.g., manufacture, storage and use of hazardous materials). While no single definition
of terrorism exists, the Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as “…unlawful use of force and violence
against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment
thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Hazard Event
A specific occurrence of a particular type of hazard.
Hazard Identification
The process of identifying hazards that threaten an area.
Hazard Mitigation
Cost effective measures taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk associated with hazards and their effects.
Hazard Profile
A description of the physical characteristics of hazards and a determination of various descriptors including
magnitude, duration, frequency, probability, and extent.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 413

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

HAZUS
A GIS-based nationally standardized earthquake, flood and high wind event loss estimation tool developed by
FEMA.
Mitigate
To cause to become less harsh or hostile; to make less severe or painful. Mitigation activities are actions taken
to eliminate or reduce the probability of the event, or reduce its severity of consequences, either prior to or
following a disaster/emergency.
Mitigation Plan
A systematic evaluation of the nature and extent of vulnerability to the effects of natural hazards typically
present in a defined geographic area, including a description of actions to minimize future vulnerability to
hazards.
100-Hundred Year Floodplain
Also referred to as the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). An area within a
floodplain having a 1% or greater chance of flood occurrence in any given year.
Planning
The act or process of making or carrying out plans; the establishment of goals, policies, and procedures for a
social or economic unit.
Probability
A statistical measure of the likelihood that a hazard event will occur.
Promulgation
To make public and put into action the Hazard Mitigation Plan via formal adoption and/or approval by the
governing body of the respective community or jurisdiction (i.e. – Town or City Council, County Board of
Directors, etc.).
Q3 Data
The Q3 Flood Data product is a digital representation of certain features of FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) product, intended for use with desktop mapping and Geographic Information Systems technology. The
digital Q3 Flood Data are created by scanning the effective FIRM paper maps and digitizing selected features
and lines. The digital Q3 Flood Data are designed to serve FEMA's needs for disaster response activities,
National Flood Insurance Program activities, risk assessment, and floodplain management.
Repetitive Loss Property
A property that is currently insured for which two or more National Flood Insurance Program losses (occurring
more than ten days apart) of at least $1,000 each have been paid within any 10 year period since 1978.
Risk
The estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community;
the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage. Risk is often
expressed in relative terms such as a high, moderate, or low likelihood of sustaining damage beyond a particular
threshold due to a specific type of hazard event. It also can be expressed in terms of potential monetary losses
associated with the intensity of the hazard.
Substantial Damage
Damage of any origin sustained by a structure in a Special Flood Hazard Area whereby the cost of restoring the
structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure
before the damage.
Vulnerability
Describes how exposed or susceptible to damage an asset is. Vulnerability depends on an asset's construction,
contents, and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the
community is often related to the vulnerability of another. For example, many businesses depend on
uninterrupted electrical power–if an electric substation is flooded, it will affect not only the substation itself, but
a number of businesses as well. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct
effects.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 414

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2009

Vulnerability Analysis
The extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a given intensity in a given area. The
vulnerability analysis should address impacts of hazard events on the existing and future built environment.
Vulnerable Populations
Any segment of the population that is more vulnerable to the effects of hazards because of things such as lack of
mobility, sensitivity to environmental factors, or physical abilities. These populations can include, but are not
limited to, senior citizens and school children.
Goals
General guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. Goals are usually broad statements with long-term
perspective.
Objectives
Defined strategies or implementation steps intended to attain the identified goals. Objectives are specific,
measurable, and have a defined time horizon.
Actions/Projects
Specific actions or projects that help achieve goals and objectives.
Implementation Strategy
A comprehensive strategy that describes how the mitigation actions will be implemented.

GENERAL HAZARD TERMS
Fujita Scale of Tornado Intensity
Rates tornadoes with numeric values from F0 to F5 based on tornado winds peed and damage sustained. An F0
indicates minimal damage such as broken tree limbs or signs, while an F5 indicates severe damage sustained.
Liquefaction
The phenomenon that occurs when ground shaking (earthquake) causes loose soils to lose strength and act like
viscous fluid. Liquefaction causes two types of ground failure: lateral spread and loss of bearing strength.
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale is commonly used in the United States by seismologists seeking
information on the severity of earthquake effects. Intensity ratings are expressed as Roman numerals between I
at the low end and XII at the high end. The Intensity Scale differs from the Richter Magnitude Scale in that the
effects of any one earthquake vary greatly from place to place, so there may be many Intensity values (e.g.: IV,
VII) measured from one earthquake. Each earthquake, on the other hand, should have just one Magnitude,
although the several methods of estimating it will yield slightly different values (e.g.: 6.1, 6.3).
Monsoon
A monsoon is any wind that reverses its direction seasonally. In the Southwestern U.S., for most of the year the
winds blow from the west/northwest. Arizona is located on the fringe of the Mexican Monsoon which during
the summer months turns the winds to a more south/southeast direction and brings moisture from the Pacific
Ocean, Gulf of California, and Gulf of Mexico. This moisture often leads to thunderstorms in the higher
mountains and Mogollon Rim, with air cooled from these storms often moving from the high country to the
deserts, leading to further thunderstorm activity in the desert. A common misuse of the term monsoon is to refer
to individual thunderstorms as monsoons.
Richter Magnitude Scale
A logarithmic scale devised by seismologist C.F. Richter in 1935 to express the total amount of energy released
by an earthquake. While the scale has no upper limit, values are typically between 1 and 9, and each increase of
1 represents a 32-fold increase in released energy.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 415

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Appendix A
Official Resolution of Adoption

2009

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Appendix B
Planning Process Documentation

2009

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
List of Local Planning Team Members

Name

Jurisdiction/Agency/Organization

Art Snapp
Dan Davis
Ken Sowers
Sue McDermott
Janet Stewart
Kevin Artz
Kenin Hinderleider
Wayne Janis
Allen Iampaglia
Brian Berndt
Tracy Stevens
Janeen Gaskins
Pier Simeri
Roger Parker
Gina Montes
Nancy Gardner

City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
City of Avondale

Dewey Horton
Carl Johnson
Damon DeQuenne

Buckeye Fire Department
Buckeye Police Department
Town of Buckeye

Patrick Farmer
Gary Neiss
Janeen Dutcher

Town of Carefree
Town of Carefree
Town of Carefree

Department/Division/Branch
AVONDALE
Fire Rescue
Parks, Rec and Library
Building
Engineering
Field Operations
Finance and Budget
I.T.
Water Resources
Risk Management
Development Services
Development Services
City Managers Office
Community Relations/Public Affairs
Fire Rescue
Neighborhood/Family Services
Police
BUCKEYE
Fire/ Emergency Services
Police/ Emergency Services
Public Works/ Emergency Services
CAREFREE
Town Administration
Marshal's Office
Town Administration

Title

Planning Team Role / Description of Duties

Division Chief
Department Head
Chief Building Offical
City Engineer
Department Head
Department Head
Department Head
Department Head
Department Head
Director
Planning Manager
Grants Manager
PIO Director
Fire Marshal
Department Head
Lt-SWAT

Team Lead
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member

Assistant Chief
Sergeant
Director

Lead POC for Town of buckeye
Assist with assesments
Assist with assesments

Town Marshal
Town Administrator
Administrative Assistant

Emergency Management Coordinator and Town Marshal
EM Committee and Town Administrator
EM Committee and Administrative Assistant

Stan Francom

Town of Carefree

Water Services and Public Works

Director

EM Committee and Director of Water Services And Public Works

John Kraetz

Rural Metro

Carefree Fire Station

Fire Chief

EM Committee and Fire Chief Carefree Fire Station (Rural Metro)

CAVE CREEK
Adam Stein

Town of Cave Creek

Marshal's Office

Town Marshal

Carrie Dyrek
Mike Rigney
Wayne Anderson

Town of Cave Creek
Town of Cave Creek
Town of Cave Creek

Town Clerk
Utilities
Engineering

Ian Cordwell

Town of Cave Creek

Planning and Zoning

Michael Baxley
Usama Abujbarah
John Kraetz

Town of Cave Creek
Town of Cave Creek
Rural Metro Fire Department

Building Safety
Administration
Fire Department

Town Clerk
Asst. Utilities Manager
Town Engineer
Planning and Zoning
Administrator
Building Official
Town Manager
District Chief

Page 1 of 9

Primary Community Point of Contact, MJPT participant, local
team organizer.
Local Team
Local Team
Local Team
Local Team
Local team
local Team
Local Team

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
List of Local Planning Team Members

Name

Jurisdiction/Agency/Organization

Title

Planning Team Role / Description of Duties

City of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler

Department/Division/Branch
CHANDLER
Fire
Fire
Fire
Fire

Jeff Clark
Marc Walker
Tom Carlson
Rob McLeod

Fire Chief
Assistant Fire Chief
Assistant Fire Chief
Battalion Chief

Fire Department Senior Management
Chair for City Emergency Management Group
Fire Department Senior Management
City Emergency Management Group

Bob Mulvey

City of Chandler

Municipal Utilities

Asst. Municipal Utilities Director

City Emergency Management Group

Brian Bosshardt
Carla Boatner
Connie Reynolds
Craig Younger
Dan Cook
Dave Bigos
Ed Krupinski
Gary Hargis
Jim Weiss

City of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler

City Managers Office
City Magistrate
Risk Management
Communications and Public Affairs
Public Works
Mayor and City Council
Risk Management
Parks and Facilities
Environmental Management

Organizational Dev. Admin.
Court Administrator
Occupational Health Nurse
Public Information Officer
Deputy Director
Mayor and Council Assistant
Safety Administrator
Planner/Scheduler
Environmental Prog. Manager

City Emergency Management Group
City Emergency Management Group
City Emergency Management Group
City Emergency Management Group
City Emergency Management Group
City Emergency Management Group
City Emergency Management Group
City Emergency Management Group
City Emergency Management Group

Judy Mandt

City of Chandler

Police

Planning and Research Analyst

City Emergency Management Group

Konrad Schuknecht

City of Chandler

Community Services

Parks Insp. & Emer. Oprs Plan.

City Emergency Management Group

Mike Smith
Mitch Robinson
Paul Meissner

City of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler

Environmental Management
Information Technology
Law

Environmental Prog. Specialist
Security Administrator
Assistant City Attorney

City Emergency Management Group
City Emergency Management Group
City Emergency Management Group

Robert Combs

City of Chandler

Purchasing

Purchasing/Materials Mananger

City Emergency Management Group

Rudy Hansen
Shawn Hawkins

City of Chandler
City of Chandler

Municipal Utilities
Police

Security Coordinator
Police Lieutenant

City Emergency Management Group
City Emergency Management Group

Tiffany Anderson

City of Chandler

Police

Planning and Research Analyst

City Emergency Management Group

William Robinson
Boyd Dunn
Bob Caccamo
Trinity Donovan
Rick Heumann
Matt Orlando
Jack Sellers
Jeff Weninger

City of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler
Cityy of Chandler
City of Chandler
City of Chandler

Central Supply
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
Cityy Council
City Council
City Council

Supply Supervisor
Mayor
Vice Mayor
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member

City Emergency Management Group
City of Chandler Jurisdiction Council
City of Chandler Jurisdiction Council
City of Chandler Jurisdiction Council
City of Chandler Jurisdiction Council
Cityy of Chandler Jurisdiction Council
City of Chandler Jurisdiction Council
City of Chandler Jurisdiction Council

Darrell Rezendes
Howard Munding
Mark Smith
William Louis
Robert Senita

City of El Mirage
City of El Mirage
City of El Mirage
City of El Mirage
City of El Mirage

EL MIRAGE
Fire Department
Fire Department
Community Development
Police Department
Public Works Department

Fire Chief
Assistant Fire Chief
Senior Planner
Assistant Police Chief
Operations Superintendent

Project Manager
Facilitator
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member

Page 2 of 9

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
List of Local Planning Team Members

Name

Jurisdiction/Agency/Organization

Department/Division/Branch
Title
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY

Planning Team Role / Description of Duties

Tim Murphy

FCDMC

Floodplain Delineaiton Branch

Branch Manager

Team Member - Floodplain delineations information. levee data

Michael Gease
Lee Jimenez
Steve Waters
Jen Pokorski
Tom Renckly
Bill Jenkins

FCDMC
FCDMC
FCDMC
FCDMC
FCDMC
FCDMC

Floodplain Management Services
Floodplain Management Services
Flood Warning Branch
Planning and Project Management
Structures Management Branch
Structures Management Branch
FOUNTAIN HILLS

Floodplain Planning Specialist
Floodplain Representative
Branch Manager
Project Manager
Branch Manager
Project Manager

Team Memeber - Floodplain management, NFIP, CRS
Team Memeber - Floodplain management
Team Member - Flood warning, ALERT data, EAP
Team Member - Planning and projects
Team Member - Dam safety and management
Team Member - Dam safety and management

Scott LaGreca
Randy Roberts
Tom Ward

Fountain Hills Fire Department
Fountain Hills Fire Department
Town of Fountain Hills

Public Works

Fire Chief
Assistant Chief
Public Works Director

Julie Ghetti

Town of Fountain Hills

Administration

Deputy Town Manager

Kevin Hennis
John Kleinheinz
Pat Lay

Fountain Hills Fire Department
Maricopa County Sherrif's Office
Fountain Hills Fire Department

Tom Christmas
Jesse Delmar
Jim Alevras
Mark Frank
Alfonso Rodriguez
Joe Kanovich
Albert Parra
Clinton Pattea
Bernadine Burnette
Pamela Mott
Paul Russell
Ruben Balderas

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

Harry Parsi
Rick Buss

Town of Gila Bend
Town of Gila Bend

Sheri Gibbons

Gilbert Fire Department

Lonnie Frost
Kathy Rall

Public Works Department
Public Works Department

Fire Captain
Captain
Firefighter
FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION
Fire Department
Fire Chief
Police Department
Police Chief
Public Works
Public Works Manager
Environmental Departrment
Acting Director
Community/Economic Development
Division Director
Planning and Development
Infrastructure Coordinator
Finance Department
Chief Financial Officer
Tribal Council
President
Tribal Council
Vice president
Tribal Council
Treasurer
Tribal Council
Member
Tribal Council
Member
GILA BEND
Public Works Department
Director
Administration
Town Manager
GILBERT
Emergency Management
Emergency Management
Coordiantor
Director Public Works
Water Department
Water Resource Manager

Leader of Planning Team
Liaison to Town Officials
Represent Public Works' role in mitigation
Provide finance and planning direction/ represent Town
Administration
Provide input and support to the Team
Provide Law Enforcement input
Provide input and support to the Team

Page 3 of 9

Risk Assessment and Program Manager
Assist program manager with risk assessments
Manage on-site mitigation projects
Evaluate environmental impact of mitigation projects
Prioritize mitigation projects
Liaison with jurisdictions impacted by mitigation projects
Provide Funding for mitigation projects
Elected official representing government
Elected official representing government
Elected official representing government
Elected official representing government
Elected official representing government
CPOC and team lead
Assist in preparing all elements of the plan
Facilitator

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
List of Local Planning Team Members

Name

Jurisdiction/Agency/Organization

Department/Division/Branch
GLENDALE

Title

Planning Team Role / Description of Duties

Debra Sheff

City of Glendale

Emergency Management

Operations & Training Officer

Point of Contact/Facilitator and Local Planning Team Coordinator

Rob Gunter
Peter Kulikowski
Jessica Eastman
Jon Froke
Chris DeChant
Chris Ochs
Delvin Fung
Christina Montoya
Kerri Logan
Mike Conlin
Greg Rodzenko
Larry Broyles
Stuart Kent
Michelle Woytenko
Frank Lomeli
Christina Betz
Justine Cornelius
Matt Lively
Bryan Hill
Ken Reedy
Julie Frisoni
Kim Larson

City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale
City of Glendale

Emergency Management
Planning
Planning
Planning
Fire Department
Utilities
Information Technology
Information Technology
Transportation
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Field Operations
Field Operations
Field Operations
Field Operations
Building Safety
Police Department
Police Department
Public Works

Emergency Management Director
Planning Department Representative
Planning Department Representative
Planning Director
Fire Department Representative
Deputy Utility Director
GIS Analyst
IT Representative
Transportation Representative
GIS Coordinator
Engineering Representative
City Engineer
Field Operations Director
Deputy Field Operations Dir.
Deputy Field Operations Dir.
Field Operations Representative
Building Safety Representative
Police Representative
GIS Representative
Sr. City Representative
Asst. Deputy City Manager
Marketing & Communications Representative

City of Glendale

Community Partnerships

Homeland Security Director
Associate Planner
Planning Technician
Planning Director
Asst. Fire Chief
Deputy Utility Director
Sr. GIS Analyst
Systems Administrator
Sr. Management Assistant
GIS Coordinator
Asst. City Engineer
City Engineer
Field Operations Director
Deputy Field Operations Dir.
Deputy Field Operations Dir.
Landfill Superintendent
Building Safety Manager
Commander
Police Crime/Statistics Analyst
Deputy City Manager
Asst Deputy City Manager
Coordinator
Neighborhood Partnerships
Administrator

Matt Cohrs

Marketing & Communications

Community Partnerships Representative

GOODYEAR
Othell Newbill
Chri Nadeau
Ron Sievwright
Bill Bishop
Darrin Green
Jeff Thomas

City of Goodyear
City of Goodyear
City of Goodyear
City of Goodyear
City of Goodyear
City of Goodyear

Fire
Police
Public Works
Fire
Fire

Emergency Manager
Telecommunications Manager
Streets Superintendant
BC, Training
Captain, Training, TLO

Primary POC
Police representative
Public Works representative - asset inventory
Fire Dept representative
Fire Dept representative

David Ramirez

City of Goodyear

Engineering

City Engineer

Engineering
g
g representative
p
- mitigation
g
strategy
gy and capability
p
y
assessment

Page 4 of 9

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
List of Local Planning Team Members

Name

Jurisdiction/Agency/Organization

Fransico Montiel - Mayor
Rose Mary Arellano - Town Manager
Gino Turrubiartes
Jim Ricker
Wayne Clemens
Loren Gaitan
Loren Gaitan
Rose Mary Arellano - Town Manager
Rose Mary Arellano - Town Manager
Mark Johnston
Gino Turrubiartes
Mark Johnston

Policy Group
Emergency Services Coordinator
Community Development
Building and Safety
Fire Department
MSSO
MSSO
Public Works/Town Clerk
Human Resources
I.T.
Community Development
Finance Department

Sonny Culbreth

City of Litchfield Park

Chuck Ransom

City of Litchfield Park

John Rae

City of Litchfield Park

Ben Ronquillo

City of Litchfield Park

Cristina Herrera

Maricopa County

Julie Syrmopoulos

Maricopa County

Pete Weaver
Meredith Bond
Glen Floe
Jim Begansky
Richard Langevin
John Padilla
Jennifer Hamilton
Marcos Coria

Maricopa County
Maricopa County
Maricopa County
Maricopa County
Maricopa County
Maricopa County
Maricopa County
Maricopa
p County
y

John J. Rose

Maricopa County/Public Works

Mitch Wagner

Maricopa County/Public Works

John Morast

Maricopa County/Public Works

Kevin Kottmer

Maricopa County/Public Works

Andrzej Wojakiewicz
Wayne Butch
David Fritz

Maricopa County/Public Works
Maricopa County/Public Works
Maricopa County/Public Works

Page 5 of 9

Department/Division/Branch
GUADALUPE
Council
Operations
Community Development
Building and Safety
Fire Department
Sherriff
Sherriff
Public Works
Operations
Finance Department
Community Development
Finance Department
LITCHFIELD PARK

Title

Planning Team Role / Description of Duties

Mayor and Council
Town Manager
Director
Building Inspector
Interim Fire Chief
Deputy Officer
Deputy Officer
Town Manager
Town Manager/Town Clerk
Finance Director
Director
Finance Director

Policy Group
Emergency Services Coordinator
Planning Group
Planning Group
Emergency Services Coordinator
Emergency Services Coordinator
Planning Group
Planning Group
Planning Group
Logistics Group
Logistics Group
Finance

Asst. City M, Community &
Recreation Services
Emergency Management Coordinator
Directoranager
Building Official/Director of Field
Building/Public Works
Support, road closures, resourse provider
Operations
Building/Safety
Building and Safety inspector
Support,safety inspections
Budget management, grant requests, Emergency expendenture
Finance
Director of Finance
tracking
MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Project Coordinator/Provide direction and approve final updated
Department of Emergency Management
Emerg Srvs Planner
plan draft.
Team Member/Coordinate public involvement/public
Regional Development Services
Public Relations Director
comment/public outreach
Department of Emergency Management
Director
Team Member/Plan promulgation
Department of Emergency Management
Office Assistant
Team Member/Provide administrative support
Department of Emergency Management
Emerg Srvs Planner
Team Member/Provide assistance with cities and towns.
Department of Emergency Management
Emerg Srvs Planner
Team Member/Provide assistance with cities and towns.
Department of Emergency Management
Emerg Srvs Planner
Team Member/Provide assistance with cities and towns.
Department of Emergency Management
Emerg Srvs Planner
Team Member/Provide assistance with cities and towns.
Department of Emergency Management
Emerg Srvs Planner
Team Member/Provide assistance with cities and towns.
Department
of Emergency
GIS Programmer
GIS data support
p
g
y Management
g
g
pp
MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Survey
MCDOT/PM & Construction/Survey
Chief/Emergency Management Leader/Coordinate activities for MCDOT
Representative
MCDOT/Planning/Transportation system
Planner
Team member/Meeting participant
Planning
MCDOT/Operations
Division Manager
Team Member/Maintenance expert
MCDOT/PM & Construction/Construction
Civil Engineering Technician
Team Member/FEMA trained participant
Management
MCDOT/Engineering/Bridge
Bridge Engineer
Team Member/Structures Expert
MCDOT/Engineering/Utilities
Utilities Head
Team Member/Utilities Expert
MCDOT/Engineering/In-House Design
Design Engineer
Team Member/Road Design Expert
City Manager; Community Services

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
List of Local Planning Team Members

Name

Jurisdiction/Agency/Organization

Department/Division/Branch
MESA

Title

Planning Team Role / Description of Duties

Richard Ochoa

Energy Resources

Gas Division

Kelly Jensen

Engineering

Design and Construction projects

Fred Rustam

Engineering

Design projects

Richard Bradford

Water Resources Dept

Wastewater

Paul Calebaugh

Information Technology (ITD)

Emergency Management rep liaison to
Information Technology Div.

Emergency Management Liaison Provide expertise to the Mitigation Planning Team as it relates to
from Mesa Utilities
the Natural Gas resources
Provide general guidance to the team including construction and
Assistant City Engineer
development projects
Provide guidance to the team relating to flood plain, subsidencs
Deputy City Engineer
and fissures.
Provide general information to Emergency management as it
Assistant Director Wastewater
relates to wasterwater treatment.
Project Manager III, Business
Provide general information to Emergency management as it
Continuity Planner for ITD
relates to the ITD

Tony Bianchi

ITD

GIS

GIS Supervisor
Assistant Water Resources
Director

Provides mapping and other related information to Emerg Mngmt

Provide input to the committee relating to water quality and
quantity for the City of Mesa
Responsible for water quality via CAP, Val Vista water treatment
Water Treatment Superintendent
facilities
Provide guidance and general information relating to the City of
Gas Division Supervisor
Mesa Gas Div
Provide guidance and general information relating to the City of
Electric Division Supervisor
Mesa Electric Div
Water Reclaimation
Provide general information to the group as it relates to
Superintendant
wastewater.
City of Mesa Emergency
Chair person and group facilitator
Management Coordinator
GIS Diresdtor
Provide guidance as it relates to GIS

Susan Miller

Water Resources Dept

Water

Michael Kennedy

Water Resources Dept

Water

Larry Culp

Energy Resources

Gas Division

Scott Swain

Energy Resources

Electric Div

Ronnie Lopez

Water Resources Dept

Wastewater

Gil Damiani

Fire Dept

Emergency Management

Jeff Rush

Information Technology Division

GIS Director

Jim Bacon

Town of Paradise Valley

Administration

Town Manager

Overall responsibility.

John Bennett

Town of Paradise Valley

Police Department

Chief of Police

Responsible for emergency preparation and response as well as
the security of public buildings. The Police Department will notify
town government and staff of a hazard.

Andrew Cooper

Town of Paradise Valley

Public Works

Public Works Director

Bill Mead

Town of Paradise Valley

Engineering

Town Engineer

Carl Hollish

Town of Paradise Valley

Management Svcs

Information Technology

Responsible for maintaining communications and GIS systems.

Robert Lee

Town of Paradise Valley

Planning & Building

Building Safety Mgr

Responsible for identifying damage to public buildings and
routine inspections of washes.

Larry Rooney
Sandy Teetsel
Sherine Zaya
Walt Begley
Tim Smothers
Bill Mattingley
Stephen Bontrager
Cathy Weistling

City of Peoria
City of Peoria
City of Peoria
City of Peoria
City of Peoria
City of Peoria
City of Peoria
City of Peoria

Fire Department
IT
Public Information Office
Public Works Department
IT
Public Works Department
Utilities Department
Utilities Department

Deputy Fire Chief
Chief Technology Officer
Public Information Officer
Facilities Manager
GIS Supervisor
Public Works Director
Utilities Director
Management Analyst

advisor
advisor
advisor
advisor
advisor
advisor
advisor
advisor

Glenn Jones

City of Peoria

Fire Department

Emergency Preparedness Coord advisor

David Barnett
Hope Bratton
Mike Fusco

City of Peoria
City of Peoria
City of Peoria

IT
Fire Department
Safety

Sr. IT Technician
Administrative Assistant
safety and training officer

PARADISE VALLEY

Responsible for repair to public buildings and infrastructure after
an identified hazard. Also responsible for maintenance of the
town fleet.
Responsible for identifying damage to public infrastructure and
restricting construction on hillsides and in washes. Also
responsible to maintain Flood Plain maps.

PEORIA

Page 6 of 9

advisor
advisor
advisor

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
List of Local Planning Team Members

Name

Jurisdiction/Agency/Organization

Department/Division/Branch
PHOENIX

Title

Planning Team Role / Description of Duties

Candace Huff

City of Phoenix

Aviation/Design & Construction Services Division Special Projects Administrator

Aviation Design & Construction Liaison

Bobbie Reid

City of Phoenix

Aviation Facilities Liaison

Jeff Barton

City of Phoenix

Aaron Cook
Lance Turcato

City of Phoenix
City of Phoenix

Aviation/Facilities and Services Division
Budget & Research/Program Budgeting and
Research Division
City Auditor's Office
City Auditor's Office

Gary Minton

City of Phoenix

City Clerk's Office/Records Management Division Deputy City Clerk

Michael DeBenedetto

City of Phoenix

Jeri Todd

City of Phoenix

Liz Paulus

City of Phoenix

Tom Buschatzke

City of Phoenix

Mary Magewick

City of Phoenix

Margo Dorrough

City of Phoenix

Derek Horn

City of Phoenix

Mo Glancy

City of Phoenix

Tauny Woo

City of Phoenix

City Manager's Office/Office of Emergency
Management
City Manager's Office/Office of Emergency
Management
City Manager's Office/Office of Environmental
Programs
City Manager's Office/Water Strategy
Community and Economic
Development/Management Services Division
Community and Economic
Development
Development Services/Administration
Development Services/Commercial Services
Engineering and Architectural
Services
Engineering and Architectural
Services/Administrative Services

Felissa Washington-Smith

City of Phoenix

Colleen Nathans

City of Phoenix

Finance/Risk Management

Richard Beardsley
Steve MacFarlane

City of Phoenix
City of Phoenix

Charlie Brueggeman

City of Phoenix

Susan Robustelli

City of Phoenix

Housing/Administration
Human Services/Management Services
Information Technology/Enterprise
gy
p
Technical
Services
Law Department/Management Services
Law Department/Civil Division
Municipal Court/Civil Division
Municipal Court/Administration
Municipal Court/Management Services
Parks and Recreation/Specialized Maintenance
and Aquatics
Parks and Recreation/ Development Planning
Division
Human Resources Department
(formerly Personnel Department)
Planning Department/Administration
Police Department/
Administrative Support
Public Transit/Operations

Randell Smith

City of Phoenix

Elaine Cardwell
Denton Casey (Alternate)
Diana Noli Hill
Doug Pilcher
Jason Harrell (Alternate)

City of Phoenix
City of Phoenix
City of Phoenix
City of Phoenix
City of Phoenix

Danielle Taddy

City of Phoenix

Boyd Winfrey

City of Phoenix

Lori Steward

City of Phoenix

Max Enterline

City of Phoenix

Aviation Superintendent
Deputy Budget & Research
Director
Internal Auditor III
Deputy City Auditor

Emergency Management
Coordinator

Budgetary Liaison
Department Liaison
Department Liaison
Records and Electronic Media Liaison
City Point of Contact

Administrative Assistant II
Environmental Programs
Specialist
Water Resources Management
Advisor

Environmental Liaison
Water Resource Liaison

Management Assistant II

Department Liaison

Administrative Assistant II

Department Liaison

Assistant Development Services
Building Code/Damage Assessment Liaison
Director
Deputy Development Services
Building Code/Damage Assessment Liaison
Director
City Engineer

Engineering and Architectural Liaison

Administrative Assistant III

Engineering and Architectural Liaison

Assistant Risk Management
Administrator
Deputy Housing Director
HSD Planning Supervisor

Department Liaison
Department Liaison

Risk Management Liaison

Chief Information Security Officer Information Technology Liaison
Chief Counsel
Assistant City Attorney IV
Municipal Court Administrator
Executive Court Administrator
Management Assistant II

Legal Counsel
Legal Counsel
Department Liaison
Department Liaison
Department Liaison

Special Operations Supervisor

Department Liaison

Principal Landscape Architect

Open Space Liaison

Labor Relations Administrator

Department Liaison

Planner II

Planning/Zoning Liaison

Project Manager

Police Facilities Liaison

Management Assistant II

Department Liaison

Christine Smith

City of Phoenix

Public Works/Downtown Facilities Management

Deputy Public Works Director

Public Works and City Facilities Liaison

Wylie Bearup

City of Phoenix

Street Transportation

Street Transportation and Dam Liaison

Sandra Remy (Alternate)

City of Phoenix

Street Transportation

Street Transportation Director
Management Services
Administrator
Compliance Regulatory and
Affairs Administrator
Principal Planner

Robert Hollander

City of Phoenix

Steve Rossi

City of Phoenix

Page 7 of 9

Water Services/Compliance Regulatory and
Affairs
Water Services/Water Conservation Office

Street Transportation and Dam Liaison
Department Liaison
Drought Management Liaison

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
List of Local Planning Team Members

Name

Jurisdiction/Agency/Organization

Department/Division/Branch
QUEEN CREEK

Title

Planning Team Role / Description of Duties

Joe LaFortune

Town of Queen Creek

Fire Department

Public Safety Division Manager

Primary Coordinator; Provide infromation for fire and law
enforcement related facilities and infrastructure.

Shawny Ekadis

Town of Queen Creek

Information and Marketing Department

GIS Manager

GIS mapping of critical and non-critical facilities and infrastructure

Dick Schaner

Town of Queen Creek

Transportation Department

Director

Jim Leubner

Town of Queen Creek

Community Development Department

Engineering Division Manager

Cliff Puckett
David Bunce
Greg Anderson
Todd Auger
Jim Dorre
Gene Andreas
Stacey Gubser

Salt River Indian Community (SRPMIC)
SRPMIC
SRPMIC
SRPMIC
SRPMIC
SRPMIC
SRPMIC

SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
Emergency Management
Emergency Manager
Fire
Fire Chief
Police
Police Captain
Engineering/Construction Services
Director
Public Works
Director
Public Works
Division Manager
Community Development
Director
SALT RIVER PROJECT

Team Leader and facilitator
Team member
Team member
Team member
Team member
Team member
Team member

Patrick O'Toole

Salt River Project

Business Continuity & Emergency Management

Principal Analyst

CPOC

Provide infromation for transportation related facilities and
infrastructure information
Provide infromation for engineering related infrastructure, flood
control plans, and geological conditions.

Ed Copp

Salt River Project

Business Continuity & Emergency Management

Manager

Resource

Tim Skarupa
Yvonne Reinink
Herjinder Hawkins
Karen Powell
Wayne Wisdom

Salt River Project
Salt River Project
Salt River Project
Salt River Project
Salt River Project

Water Resource Operations
Water Resource Operations
Maintenance Engineering
Line Clearing
Electric System Operations
SCOTTSDALE

Senior Hydrologist
Senior Engineer
Manager - Distribution Design
Manager
Manager

Resource
Resource
Resource
Resource
Resource

Lorenzo Jones

City of Scottsdale

Emergency Management

Emergency Management Officer CPOC

Melanie Gibson
Brian Hancock
Kerry Swick
Bill Erickson

City of Scottsdale
City of Scottsdale
City of Scottsdale
City of Scottsdale

Project Management Assistant
GIS Analyst
Battalion Chief
Senior Storm Water Planner

Resource
Resource
Resource
Resource

Kevin Pool
Forrest Fielder
Robert Maki
Lloyd Abrams

City of Surprise
City of Surprise
City of Surprise
City of Surprise

Assistant Fire Chief
Building Official
City Engineer
GIS Manager

Local team facilitator
Building Official/Planning Department Representative
City Engineer/planned projects
GIS/I.T. support

Tom Abbott
Ray Hardy
John Osgood
Oliver Ncube
Cliff Jones

City of Tempe
City of Tempe
City of Tempe
City of Tempe
City of Tempe

Deputy Chief
Commander
Department Director
Assistant Director
Fire Chief

Coordinator
Police Liaison
Public Works Liaison
Water Utilities Liaison
Emergency Manager

John Paul Lopez
Stephen Holliday
Wendy Jackson
Steve Baumgardt
Mario Rochin
Wayne Booher
Joy McClain
Jason Earp
Bob Hansen

City Of Tolleson
City Of Tolleson
City Of Tolleson
City Of Tolleson
City Of Tolleson
City Of Tolleson
City Of Tolleson
City Of Tolleson
City Of Tolleson

Municipal Services
Planning and Development Services
Fire Department
Municipal Services
SURPRISE
Fire Department
Planning Department
Public Works Department
IT/GIS Department
TEMPE
Fire
Police
Public Works
Water Utilities
Fire
TOLLESON
City Management
IT
Human Resource
Finance
Building Department
Police Department
Community Services
Public Works
Fire Department

Deputy City Manager
Department Manager
Department Manager
Department Manager
Department Manager
Commander
Department Manager
Department Manager
Division Chief

Resource
Resource
Resource
Resource
Resource
Resource
Resource
Resource
City Lead

Page 8 of 9

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
List of Local Planning Team Members

Name

Jurisdiction/Agency/Organization

Department/Division/Branch
WICKENBURG

Title

Ronnie Miller

Town of Wickenburg

Police

Operations Director

Steve Boyle

Town of Wickenburg

Planning and Zoning

Planning Team Role / Description of Duties

Manager

Primary Community Point of Contact, MJPT participant, local
team organizer.
Team member/mitigation plan advisor

Manager
Chief
Lieutenant
Lead Technician
Town Manager

PPOC, Emergency Services Manager / Risk Manager
Resource
Resource
Resource
Managerial Support

YOUNGTOWN
Mark Hannah
Kimberly Johnson
Duren Roberton
Daniel Delgado
Lloyce Robinson

Page 9 of 9

Town of Youngtown
Town of Youngtown
Town of Youngtown
Town of Youngtown
Town of Youngtown

Public Works
Police
Police
Public Works
Administrative

Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Meeting Schedule

Meeting No. 1
January 15, 2009
Start: 9 a.m.
End: 11 a.m.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County
2801 W. Durango Street
Phoenix, AZ
Adobe Conference Room

Meeting No. 2
February 12, 2009
Start: 9 a.m.
End: 11 a.m.

Maricopa County Department of Transportation
2901 W. Durango Street
Phoenix, AZ
Apache Conference Room

Meeting No. 3
March 19, 2009
Start: 9 a.m.
End: 11 a.m.

Maricopa County Planning and Development
501 N. 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ
Gold Conference Room

Meeting No. 4
April 16, 2009
Start: 9 a.m.
End: 11 a.m.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County
2801 W. Durango Street
Operations Building
Phoenix, AZ
Dreamy Draw Conference Room

Meeting No. 5
May 14, 2009
Start: 9 a.m.
End: 11 a.m.

Maricopa County Department of Transportation
2901 W. Durango Street
Phoenix, AZ
Apache Conference Room

Meeting No. 6
June 25, 2009
Start: 9 a.m.
End: 11 a.m.

Maricopa County Department of Transportation
2901 W. Durango Street
Phoenix, AZ
Apache Conference Room

Meeting No. 7
July 16, 2009
Start: 9 a.m.
End: 11 a.m.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County
2801 W. Durango Street
Phoenix, AZ
Adobe Conference Room

Revised 01/22/09

Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
2035 N. 5 2nd Street, Phoenix, AZ 85008
(602)273-1411

In 2003 and 2004, Maricopa County, two Indian Tribes, and all incorporated cities and towns in Maricopa
County, participated in a multi-jurisdictional mitigation planning effort that resulted in the development
of a multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan with separate annexes that covered each participating
jurisdiction. The Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004 Plan) and all of the
separate annex plans received official FEMA approval on November 29, 2004. The 2004 Plan was
designed to meet the federal regulations set forth by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K),
which requires all local, county, tribal and state governments to develop a multi-hazard mitigation plan
for their respective jurisdictions in order to be eligible to receive certain hazard mitigation and public
assistance funds. The 2004 Plan is nearing the end of the 5-year planning cycle and is set to expire in
November 2009.
The Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management (MCDEM) has applied for and received a
planning grant to fund a multi-jurisdictional effort to review, update and consolidate the 2004 Plan, with
resubmittal to FEMA prior to its expiration in November 2009. MCDEM has retained JE
Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc. (JEF) to assist and guide the county, cities, towns and tribes
through the update process and to prepare the new multi-jurisdictional multi-hazard mitigation plan
(MJMHMP). The planning effort will also include the necessary planning efforts to provide Tribal Plans
for the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community should they
choose to participate again.
PLANNING TEAM FORMULATION
The first step in this planning effort will be to reconstitute the Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Planning Team (MJPT), which originally was comprised of one or more lead contacts for each
participating jurisdiction. For this update planning process, there will be two primary levels of
responsibility regarding the planning process. The first is the primary point of contact (PPOC) for the
overall planning effort and the second is the community point of contact or contacts (CPOCs). Ms.
Cristina Herrera of MCDEM will assume the PPOC role and will also serve as one of the CPOCs for the
Unincorporated Maricopa County. The following guidelines are offered to assist each community in
selecting one or more CPOCs and to aid the understanding of their role and what is expected of them in
the planning process.
PPOC – throughout the planning process, the responsibilities of the PPOC will be:
• Contact, coordinate and organize the MJPT.
• Coordinate and follow-up with county representatives and incorporated communities
regarding attendance and participation
• Organize and arrange for planning team meeting locations and facilities
CPOC – It is understood that it will likely not be possible for all interested parties from each
jurisdiction to attend every MJPT meeting. Accordingly, each jurisdiction is requested to identify at
least one and preferably two representatives to serve as the CPOCs. More are welcome if the
jurisdiction chooses. The responsibilities of these individuals will be:
• Attend EVERY planning team meeting or make sure their community is represented
otherwise. Each meeting will build on information discussed at the last meeting and
complete attendance is crucial.
• Convey information received at the MJPT meetings to a jurisdiction-level Local Planning
Team (LPT) and vice-versa.
• Ensure that all requested homework is completed fully and returned to JEF on a timely basis.
• Arrange for official adoption of plan document, when appropriate.

The roster of the LPT is left to the discretion of each jurisdiction. Because the focus is on mitigation
planning, it is important that the LPT be comprised of individuals that serve a planning and project
management role, as well as those involved in public safety and emergency management. The following
is a recommended list of potential/typical departments and divisions that should be encouraged to attend:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Public Works
Development Services
Planning and Zoning
Flood Control Districts (county)
Emergency Services (Fire, Police, Emergency Management)
Building Safety
County and City Engineers
Floodplain/Stormwater Management

Please begin the process of identifying your CPOCs and LPT members as soon as possible.
MJPT MEETING SCHEDULE
In order to meet the goal of having an approved plan by November 2009, MCDEM and JEF have prearranged a calendar for all MJPT meetings. Our initial meeting is scheduled for 9:00am to 11:00am on
January 15, 2009 and will be held in the Adobe Conference Room at the Flood Control District of
Maricopa County, 2801 West Durango Street, Phoenix, Arizona. The enclosed sheet summarizes the
remaining scheduled MJPT meeting dates, times and locations for the duration of the planning effort.
We are looking forward to working through this process with each of your communities and will be
following up with you in the next few weeks to confirm your participation in the planning effort. Should
you have any questions prior to that time, please feel free to contact either MCDEM or JEF as follows:
PPOC:
Cristina Herrera
Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management
2035 North 52nd Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008
Office: 602-273-1411
Fax: 602-275-1638
Pager: 602-201-1478
Email: cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov

Mitigation Planning Consultant:
W. Scott Ogden, P.E., CFM
JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.
8400 South Kyrene Road, Suite 201
Tempe, AZ 85284
Office: 480-222-5717
Fax: 480-839-2193
Cell: 480-299-3394
Email: scott@jefuller.com

Memorandum

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

MEETING DATE: January 15, 2009
MEETING TIME: 9:00AM – 11:00AM
MEETING LOCATION: Flood Control District of Maricopa County
2801 W. Durango St., Phoenix, AZ
Adobe Conference Room
DISTRIBUTION: Meeting Attendees
FROM:
RE:

W. Scott Ogden, P.E. - JEF

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

ATTENDEES: Brian Berndt – City of Avondale
Ed Copp – SRP
Gil Damiani – City of Mesa
Mike DeBenedetto – City of Phoenix
Karl Emberg – Paradise Valley PD
Pat Fannon – Town of Carefree
Michael Gease – FCDMC
Sheri Gibbons – Town of Gilbert
Cristina Herrera – MCDEM
Matt Holm – MC Planning/Development
Lee Jimenez – FCDMC
Glen Jones – City of Peoria
Joe La Fortune – Town of Queen Creek
Dave McGhan – APS
Alfred Medina – Town of Guadalupe FD
Ronny Miller – Wickenberg PD
Howard Munding – Town of El Mirage FD
Tim Murphy – FCDMC
Rodney Phelps – Gila River Indian Community
Jen Pokorski – FCDMC
Cliff Puckett – Salt River Indian Community
Duren Robertson – Town of Youngtown
Sharon Sanders – MC Community Development
Jim Shank - Town of Buckeye
Debra Sheff – City of Glendale
Art Snapp – City of Avondale
Ken Sowers – City of Avondale
Adam Stein – Town of Cave Creek
Tracy Stevent – City of Avondale
Jeri Todd - City of Phoenix
Steve Waters – FCDMC

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 1
JEFuller, Inc.
01/15/2009

Sue Wood – ADEM
Consultants:
Mike Kellogg – JEF
W. Scott Ogden – JEF

AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

GREETING
MITIGATION PLANNING OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTIONS
PROJECT SCHEDULE
PLANNING TEAM ROLES
MEETING ENDING
a. Review of action items

DISCUSSION
Agenda Item 1:
• C. Herrera opened the meeting, welcomed the participants, said a few words on
behalf of MCDEM and turned the meeting over to S. Ogden of JEF.
Agenda Item 2:
• S. Ogden presented an overview / review of the mitigation process and purpose for
preparing a mitigation plan. He also discussed the update process.
Agenda Item 3:
• Each participant introduced his or herself and described their perceived role on the
planning team.
• Gila River Indian Community, APS, and SRP will participate in the planning process
as needed and available, but will not be signatories to the plan.
Agenda Item 4:
• S. Ogden presented the project schedule and planned meeting dates and locations for
discussion.
• The meeting attendees chose to shift the March 12th meeting to March 19th. All other
meeting dates will remain the same.
• S. Ogden reiterated that the plan must be updated and approved at FEMA by
November 29, 2009 in order for the county and incorporated jurisdictions to remain
eligible.
Agenda Item 5:
• S. Ogden presented an overview of the levels of planning team involvement and
roles. Three levels were identified:
o Primary Point of Contact (PPOC)
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 2

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 1
JEFuller, Inc.
01/15/2009

•

•

•
•

o Community Point of Contact (CPOC)
o The PPOC and CPOC(s) will comprise the multi-jurisdictional planning team
(MJPT).
o Local Planning Team (LPT)
Each of the planning team roles and responsibilities were discussed. Each CPOC was
tasked with beginning the process of assembling a LPT. Communities represented by
individuals that are not planning to serve as the CPOC were encouraged to get that
person defined and updated by the next meeting.
It was noted that the following jurisdictions were not represented at the meeting:
o City of Chandler
o Town of Fountain Hills
o Town of Gila Bend
o City of Goodyear
o Town of Litchfield Park
o City of Scottsdale
o Town of Surprise
o City of Tempe
o City of Tolleson
o Fort McDowell Apache Tribe
Participation at the MJPT meetings is mandatory and non-participation may result in
a community being dropped from the plan.
S. Ogden and C. Herrera chose to end the meeting and begin with planning elements
at the February meeting to allow the missing jurisdictions another opportunity to
participate.

Agenda Item 6:
• Next meeting set for February 12, 2009 from 9am to 11am at MCDOT Apache Room
(2901 W. Durango St).
ACTION ITEMS:
1.
2.
3.
4.

JEF to provide list of attendees and PowerPoint presentation to all attendees
Defined CPOC’s are to begin assembling their respective LPT
Communities without the defined CPOC are to assign a person to that role ASAP.
All are to review the future meeting dates and respond to S. Ogden or C. Herrera
with any major conflicts.

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 3

Memorandum

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

MEETING DATE: January 29, 2009
MEETING TIME: 9:00AM – 11:00AM
MEETING LOCATION: Maricopa Department of Emergency Management
2035 N. 52nd Street, Phoenix, AZ
DISTRIBUTION: Meeting Attendees
FROM:
RE:

W. Scott Ogden, P.E. - JEF

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

ATTENDEES: Tom Abbott – City of Tempe
Jim Begansky - MCDEM
Glen Floe – MCDEM
Bob Hansen – City of Tolleson
Cristina Herrera – MCDEM
Jason Howard – Maricopa Association of Governments
Lorenzo Jones – City of Scottsdale
Warren Leek – MCDEM
Othell Newbill – City of Goodyear
Kevin Pool – City of Surprise
John Rose – MCDOT
Gino Turrubiartes – Town of Guadalupe
Mitch Wagner – MCDOT
Ken Waters – National Weather Service
Consultants:
Mike Kellogg – JEF
W. Scott Ogden – JEF

AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

GREETING
MITIGATION PLANNING OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTIONS
PROJECT SCHEDULE
PLANNING TEAM ROLES
MEETING ENDING
a. Review of action items

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Make-up Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 1
JEFuller, Inc.
01/29/2009

DISCUSSION
Agenda Item 1:
• S. Ogden of JEF opened the meeting and explained that this was a make-up meeting
offered for those communities that were unable to participate in the January 15th
meeting.
• The material to be presented is identical to that presented at the January 15th meeting.
Agenda Item 2:
• S. Ogden presented an overview / review of the mitigation process and purpose for
preparing a mitigation plan. He also discussed the update process.
Agenda Item 3:
• Each participant introduced his or herself and described their perceived role on the
planning team.
• The National Weather Service and MAG will participate in the planning process as
needed and available, but will not be signatories to the plan.
Agenda Item 4:
• S. Ogden presented the project schedule and planned meeting dates and locations for
discussion.
• There was some concern raised by L. Jones about a possible conflict with the Coyote
Crisis Planning Conference and the Feb 12th meeting. C. Herrera will send out a poll
of the MJPT to see if there is enough conflicts to warrant rescheduling the meeting.
• S. Ogden reiterated that the plan must be updated and approved at FEMA by
November 29, 2009 in order for the county and incorporated jurisdictions to remain
eligible.
Agenda Item 5:
• S. Ogden presented an overview of the levels of planning team involvement and
roles. Three levels were identified:
o Primary Point of Contact (PPOC)
o Community Point of Contact (CPOC)
o The PPOC and CPOC(s) will comprise the multi-jurisdictional planning team
(MJPT).
o Local Planning Team (LPT)
• Each of the planning team roles and responsibilities were discussed. Each CPOC was
tasked with beginning the process of assembling a LPT. Communities represented by
individuals that are not planning to serve as the CPOC were encouraged to get that
person defined and updated by the next meeting.
• It was noted that the following jurisdictions were still not represented at either the
January 15th or this meeting:
o City of Chandler (the representative from Chandler has made other
arrangements to receive the introductory materials).
o Town of Fountain Hills
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 2

Meeting Notes – Make-up Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 1
JEFuller, Inc.
01/29/2009

•
•

o Town of Gila Bend
o Town of Litchfield Park
o Fort McDowell Apache Tribe
Participation at the MJPT meetings is mandatory and non-participation may result in
a community being dropped from the plan.
S. Ogden ended the meeting and summarized action items for the next meeting. and
begin with planning elements at the February meeting to allow the missing
jurisdictions another opportunity to participate.

Agenda Item 6:
• Next meeting set for February 12, 2009 from 9am to 11am at MCDOT Apache Room
(2901 W. Durango St).
ACTION ITEMS:
1.
2.
3.
4.

JEF to provide list of attendees and PowerPoint presentation to all attendees
Defined CPOC’s are to begin assembling their respective LPT
Communities without the defined CPOC are to assign a person to that role ASAP.
All are to review the future meeting dates and respond to S. Ogden or C. Herrera
with any major conflicts.
5. C. Herrera will take a poll of MJPT members to see if enough conflict exists with
the Coyote Crisis Planning Conference to warrant changing the Feb 12th meeting
date.

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 3

Memorandum

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

MEETING DATE: February 11, 2009
MEETING TIME: 9:00AM – 11:00AM
MEETING LOCATION: JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.
8400 S. Kyrene Road, Suite 201
Tempe, AZ 85284
DISTRIBUTION: Meeting Attendees
FROM:
RE:

W. Scott Ogden, P.E. - JEF

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

ATTENDEES: Tom Christmas – Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Cristina Herrera – MCDEM
John Rae – Town of Litchfield Park
Randy Roberts – Town of Fountain Hills
Marc Walker – City of Chandler
Consultants:
W. Scott Ogden – JEF

AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

GREETING
MITIGATION PLANNING OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTIONS
PROJECT SCHEDULE
PLANNING TEAM ROLES
MEETING ENDING
a. Review of action items

DISCUSSION
Agenda Item 1:
• S. Ogden of JEF opened the meeting and explained that this was a make-up meeting
offered for those communities that were unable to participate in the January 15th
meeting.
• The material to be presented is identical to that presented at the January 15th meeting.
Agenda Item 2:
• S. Ogden presented an overview / review of the mitigation process and purpose for
preparing a mitigation plan. He also discussed the update process.

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Make-up Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 1
JEFuller, Inc.
02/11/2009

•

T. Christmas encouraged HMP newcomers that the process was not overwhelming
and relatively easy to get through.

Agenda Item 3:
• Each participant introduced his or herself and described their perceived role on the
planning team.
Agenda Item 4:
• S. Ogden presented the project schedule and planned meeting dates and locations for
discussion.
• S. Ogden reiterated that the plan must be updated and approved at FEMA by
November 29, 2009 in order for the county and incorporated jurisdictions to remain
eligible.
• The plan adoption process was discussed and S. Ogden explained how the process
would occur.
o The plan would be developed to a final draft stage and then submitted to
ADEM and FEMA for review. Submittal target is first week of August.
o Once FEMA was satisfied with the document, they would then issue a
letter to each community effectively stating that the MCMJMHMP is
approvable pending adoption. The iteration time will probably be 1-2
months.
o Each jurisdiction will then take the plan before their council/board and
obtain an official resolution of adoption and forward that resolution to
ADEM and FEMA, and copy C. Herrera and JEF.
o FEMA will establish the “official” plan approval date as the date when
they receive the first resolution to establish the point at which the 5-year
plan cycle begins.
o Each jurisdiction will be officially approved only after they have
submitted their respective resolution of adoption.
o S. Ogden pointed out that this process will allow for an official approval
of the multi-jurisdictional plan without having to wait on any particular
community that may be lagging the rest.
Agenda Item 5:
• S. Ogden presented an overview of the levels of planning team involvement and
roles. Three levels were identified:
o Primary Point of Contact (PPOC)
o Community Point of Contact (CPOC)
o The PPOC and CPOC(s) will comprise the multi-jurisdictional planning team
(MJPT).
o Local Planning Team (LPT)
• Each of the planning team roles and responsibilities were discussed. Each CPOC was
tasked with beginning the process of assembling a LPT. Communities represented by
individuals that are not planning to serve as the CPOC were encouraged to get that
person defined and updated by the next meeting.
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 2

Meeting Notes – Make-up Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 1
JEFuller, Inc.
02/11/2009

•
•
•
•

S. Ogden will provide an Excel worksheet to each CPOC for them to list the LPT
members and their respective roles and duties.
It was noted that the following jurisdictions were still not represented at either the
January 15th , January 29th, or this meeting:
o Town of Gila Bend (expected to be at the Feb 12th meeting.)
Participation at the MJPT meetings is mandatory and non-participation may result in
a community being dropped from the plan.
S. Ogden ended the meeting and summarized action items for the next meeting. and
begin with planning elements at the February meeting to allow the missing
jurisdictions another opportunity to participate.

Agenda Item 6:
• Next meeting set for February 12, 2009 from 9am to 11am at MCDOT Apache Room
(2901 W. Durango St).
ACTION ITEMS:
1. JEF to provide list of attendees, meeting notes and PowerPoint presentation to all
attendees
2. Defined CPOC’s are to begin assembling their respective LPT.
3. JEF will develop and provide a template spreadsheet for listing the LPT members
and their respective role and duties.
4. All are to review the future meeting dates and respond to S. Ogden or C. Herrera
with any major conflicts.

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 3

Memorandum

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

MEETING DATE: February 12, 2009
MEETING TIME: 9:00AM – 11:15AM
MEETING LOCATION: Maricopa County Department of Transportation
2901 W. Durango St., Phoenix, AZ
Apache Conference Room
DISTRIBUTION: Meeting Attendees
FROM:
RE:

W. Scott Ogden, P.E. - JEF

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

ATTENDEES:
Tom Abbott
Jim Begansky
Meredith Bond
Tom Christmas
Ed Copp
Gil Damiani
Karl Emberg
Devlin Fung
Pat Farmer
Michael K .Gease
Sheri Gibbons
Cristina Herrera
Matt Holm
Dewey Horton
Lee Jimenez
Glenn Jones
Lorenzo Jones
Joe LaFortune
Pam Lansberry
Bob Lee
Bob Marshall
Tim Murphy
Chris Ochs
Harry Parsi
Michael Paz
Kevin Pool
Cliff Puckett
John Rae
Darrell Rezendes
Randy Roberts
John J. Rose
Mike Sabatini
Debra Sheff
Adam Stein
Jeri Todd
Gino Turrubiartes

City of Tempe
Maricopa County
Maricopa County
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Salt River Project
City of Mesa
Town of Paradise Valley
City of Glendale
Town of Carefree
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Town of Gilbert
Maricopa County
Maricopa County
Town of Buckeye
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
City of Peoria
City of Scottsdale
Town of Queen Creek
APS
Town of Paradise Valley
City of Goodyear
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
City of Glendale
Town of Gila Bend
Motorola
City of Surprise
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
City of Litchfield Park
Town of El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Maricopa County
City of Glendale
Town of Cave Creek
City of Phoenix
Town of Guadalupe

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 2
JEFuller, Inc.
02/12/2009
Bruce Van Scyoc
Marc Walker
Steve Waters
Ken Waters
Sue Wood
Consultants:
Mike Kellogg
W. Scott Ogden

City of Surprise
City of Chandler
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
National Weather Service
Arizona Division of Emergency Management
JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.
JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

INTRODUCTIONS / MISC
PROMULGATION SCHEDULE
PURLIC INVOLVEMENT
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION/PROFILING
HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS

DISCUSSION
Agenda Item 1:
• S. Ogden opened the meeting, welcomed the participants, and proceeded with asking
all participants to introduce themselves and state their perceived role in the project.
• NOTE – The following jurisdictions were not represented at the meeting:
o Tolleson
o Wickenburg
o Youngtown
Agenda Item 2:
• S. Ogden presented an overview of the promulgation schedule and emphasized the
role each jurisdiction would play in the plan update process.
• S. Ogden reiterated that the plan must be updated and approved at FEMA by
November 29, 2009 in order for the county and incorporated jurisdictions to remain
eligible.
• S. Ogden reiterated the overall project schedule which included:
o Draft Plan submitted to the entire project team by July 1, 2009
o Two-week review period for all team members to submit comments
o Final Draft Plan completed by August 1, 2009
o Final Draft Plan submitted to ADEM and FEMA for review within the
first week of August
o Anticipated 1- to 2-month FEMA review period
o Anticipated FEMA “approval pending adoption” letter by October 1, 2009
o All jurisdictions to submit official resolution of adoption of the plan
before November 29, 2009.
o Official FEMA approval date of the plan will begin upon FEMA receipt of
the first jurisdiction resolution letter.
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 2

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 2
JEFuller, Inc.
02/12/2009

Agenda Item 3:
• S. Ogden presented information on the FEMA requirements for public involvement in
the plan.
• The MJPT discussed various methodologies that could be employed by each
jurisdiction to satisfy the requirement. Ideas discussed included conducting public
meetings on a regional basis or prior to regular council workshops on a community
basis, preparing public notices and publishing them in the local newspaper, and
presenting the plan information to the councils and boards during regular worksessions. The pros and cons of each option were discussed. Regional public
presentations were used during the 2004 planning effort and the efforts were very
poorly attended. Public notices on websites and in newspapers were deemed to be a
more efficient way of getting the word out.
• C. Herrera noted that the County has a posting on their website that includes a brief
description of the DMA2K planning and update process, the MJPT meeting schedule,
and the current 2004 Plan. The posting will be maintained throughout the planning
process and the draft plan will also be posted for comment once it is available.
• Each jurisdiction agreed to place a brief notification excerpt of the plan update on
their individual website with a link to the county website which contains the details of
the plan and a digital copy of the existing plan.
• Each jurisdiction will place a public notification of the plan update in their local
newspaper and their community section of the Arizona Republic (if applicable). A
template for the notification will be drafted by MCDEM / JEF and distributed for use
by the jurisdictions.
Agenda Item 4:
• S. Ogden introduced the Risk Assessment component of the plan update. Specifically
hazard identification and hazard profiling.
• The list of ADEM approved natural hazards was presented and discussed. S. Ogden
noted that the state no longer includes any human-caused hazards since DMA2K
related funding is not available for mitigation of human-caused hazards. The MJPT
discussed the idea and agreed to focus on natural hazards only for this update.
• A productive group discussion of the natural hazards ensued which resulted in the
following hazards unanimously being dropped from the list:
o Snow Storm
o Earthquake
o Sleet and Freezing Rain
Extreme Heat was unanimously decided to be added to the hazards list. The MJPT
also discussed combining the Tropical Storm/Hurricane hazard with the
Flooding/Flash Flooding category, since most damages from a tropical storm in
Maricopa County are flood related.
• S. Ogden stressed that FEMA will require at least one mitigation action/project to be
developed for each hazard listed in the plan and that each community may decide
which hazards they would like to consider.

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 3

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 2
JEFuller, Inc.
02/12/2009

•
•

S. Ogden introduced the calculated priority risk index (CPRI) and how it will be used
in the plan update process. Each category was discussed and a hard copy handout
listing the criteria for each category was distributed.
S. Ogden showed a blank CPRI spreadsheet and demonstrated how each jurisdiction
is to populate the sheet with their specific information. Each jurisdiction
representative was informed that a digital copy of the spreadsheet would be sent to
them to complete and return to JEF.

Agenda Item 5:
• Homework assignments include:
o Complete and return the LPT list using the template file provided by JEF
o Review historic hazard event database and provide additional records to
JEF.
o Complete and return the CPRI worksheet
o Check calendars for major conflicts with projected schedule
o Coordinate website linking with Maricopa County website posting
o Prepare and submit public notice to the local newspaper using the template
document to be provided by MCDEM / JEF.
• Next meeting set for March 19, 2009 from 9am to 11am at the Maricopa County
Planning & Development office (501 N. 44th Street, Phoenix).
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Each jurisdiction will place a brief description of the plan update on their website
with a link to the county MCDEM website
2. C. Herrera will forward the contact information for the county public relations
representative (Julie Syrmopoulos) to each team member.
3. MCDEM / JEF will draft a template public notice and distribute it to the MJPT
for publication in their local newspaper and their community section of the
Arizona Republic (if applicable).
4. S. Ogden will send the historic hazard event database to the MJPT for review.
Additional records shall be provided to JEF for insertion if available.
5. S. Ogden will send a digital copy of the CPRI spreadsheet to each jurisdiction
with instruction to complete and return.
6. All are to review the future meeting dates and respond to S. Ogden or C. Herrera
with any major conflicts.
7. S. Ogden will forward a Local Planning Team template document for listing each
member of a jurisdiction’s LPT, to be completed and returned.

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 4

Memorandum

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

MEETING DATE: March 19, 2009
MEETING TIME: 9:00AM – 11:15AM
MEETING LOCATION: Maricopa County Planning and Development
501 N. 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ
DISTRIBUTION: Meeting Attendees
FROM:
RE:

W. Scott Ogden, P.E. - JEF

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

ATTENDEES:
Tom Abbott
Jim Begansky
Meredith Bond
Tom Christmas
Gil Damiani
Mike DeBenedetto
Pat Farmer
Michael K .Gease
Sheri Gibbons
Bob Hansen
Cristina Herrera
Dewey Horton
Lee Jimenez
Glenn Jones
Lorenzo Jones
Joe LaFortune
Scott LaGreca
Richard Langevin
Bob Lee
Howard Munding
Othell Newbill
Chris Ochs
Patrick O'Toole
Harry Parsi
Kevin Pool
Cliff Puckett
Debra Sheff
Art Snapp
Adam Stein
Jeri Todd
Mitch Wagner
Marc Walker
Ken Waters

City of Tempe
Maricopa County
Maricopa County
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
City of Mesa
City of Phoenix
Town of Carefree
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Town of Gilbert
City of Tolleson
Maricopa County
Town of Buckeye
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
City of Peoria
City of Scottsdale
Town of Queen Creek
Town of Fountain Hills
Maricopa County
Town of Paradise Valley
Town of El Mirage
City of Goodyear
City of Glendale
Salt River Project
Town of Gila Bend
City of Surprise
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
City of Glendale
City of Avondale
Town of Cave Creek
City of Phoenix
Maricopa County
City of Chandler
National Weather Service

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 3
JEFuller, Inc.
03/19/2009

Steve Waters
Sue Wood

Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Arizona Division of Emergency Management

Consultants:
Mike Kellogg
W. Scott Ogden

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.
JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

PROJECT STATUS REVIEW
PROMULGATION SCHEDULE REVIEW
CPRI REVIEW – FINAL HAZARD LIST
ASSET INVENTORY INTRODUCTION
OTHER DATA NEEDS

DISCUSSION
Agenda Item 1:
• C. Herrera opened the meeting by thanking all participants for their attendance. She
then turned the meeting mover to S. Ogden.
• NOTE – The following jurisdictions were not represented at the meeting:
o Gila River Indian Community
o Guadalupe
o Litchfield Park
o Wickenburg
o Youngtown
• S. Ogden discussed the status of the public involvement template documents. The
documents will be ready for distribution to the participating jurisdictions within the
next two weeks. He commended those jurisdictions who have already posted a notice
of the Plan Update on their website.
• S. Ogden discussed the status of the local planning team lists (previous homework
assignment). As of the date of this meeting the following jurisdictions had not
submitted their local planning lists:
o Carefree
o Gila Bend
o Guadalupe
o Litchfield Park
o Wickenburg
o Youngtown
• S. Ogden discussed the status of the CPRI evaluations. As of the date of this meeting
the following jurisdictions had not submitted their CPRI evaluations:
o Gila Bend
o Litchfield Park
o Wickenburg
o Youngtown
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 2

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 3
JEFuller, Inc.
03/19/2009

Agenda Item 2:
• S. Ogden reviewed the key milestone dates for the project. Those discussed included:
o Step 1
ƒ A full draft of the Plan to be submitted to the Multi-Jurisdiction
Planned Team (MJPT) by July 1.
ƒ MJPT two-week review period.
ƒ Final draft of the Plan to be completed by August 1.
o Step 2
ƒ Submit draft Plan to ADEM and FEMA within the first week of
August
ƒ Expected 1-2 month FEMA review period.
o Step 3
ƒ Anticipated receipt of FEMA “approvable pending adoption” letter
by October 1.
o Step 4
ƒ Jurisdictions will promulgate and submit official resolution of
adoption to ADEM and FEMA.
o Step 5
ƒ FEMA will set the “official” plan approval date to the date of the
first resolution received.
• S. Odgen discussion potential Plan document formats. The potential formats
included:
o Plan Format 1 – This format is a true multi-jurisdictional plan and will
include all jurisdictional information in one document that may possibly
spread across two volumes. Under this format, each Tribe will have a
separate Annex to provide the additional material required for a Tribal
Plan. This format will include a 5-10 page Executive Summary for each
jurisdiction that summarizes the critical elements of the plan for that
jurisdiction and could be used to distribute to city councils, boards, etc.
o Plan Format 2 – This format will include a primary volume containing
information pertinent to all jurisdictions with separate Annex volumes for
each jurisdiction.
o Several members of the MJPT requested one-week to discuss the Plan
format options with their local planning team. S. Ogden agreed to a oneweek time frame.
o The MJPT decided in general to adopt the Plan Format 1 as it will best
represent a true Multi-Jurisdictional Plan, will be more efficient and will
best demonstrate the spirit of multi-jurisdictional cooperation. This
decision was made pending any serious objections by those communities
doing further checking.
Agenda Item 3:
• S. Ogden distributed a CPRI summary table listing each jurisdiction’s CPRI
worksheet results (except those not reporting). The table also listed the average CPRI
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 3

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 3
JEFuller, Inc.
03/19/2009

•

score for each hazard included in the CPRI worksheet. The two lowest hazard
averages were Landslide/Mudslide and Levee Failure.
S. Ogden led a discussion to review and revise the hazard categories based on the
CPRI results.
o The hazard of Landslide/Mudslide was discussed and the MJPT was
questioned as to what communities had a serious desire to provide
mitigation for this hazard. MCDOT and Paradise Valley were the only
communities to respond and most of the concern was due to slides that
resulted from wildfire or minor rockslides. After further discussion, the
MJPT chose to drop Landslide/Mudslide from the list.
o A proposal to merge the Thunderstorm/High Wind and Tornado
categories into a new category titled Severe Wind Event was discussed.
The reasoning is that the damaging element for both Thunderstorm/High
Wind and Tornado is the severe wind as well as any reasonable mitigation
strategies. The thunderstorm component of hail was discussed and it was
decided by the MJPT that the hazard was not significant enough to warrant
further consideration. The MJPT agreed to the merging.

Agenda Item 4:
• S. Ogden presented a discussion on the asset inventory part of the Vulnerability
Analysis component of the Plan, including a definition for critical facilities and
infrastructure and a list of general categories. A memorandum providing detailed
guidance for developing the asset inventory was distributed.
• S. Ogden presented the database format in which the asset inventory information is to
be organized.
• The following were discussed in detail:
o Critical Facilities – the definition of Critical Facilities was given and
discussed.
ƒ Each jurisdiction was instructed to use the definition in
determining whether an asset is assigned a Critical or Non-Critical
classification.
ƒ Critical Facility general categories were listed and discussed.
o Non-Critical Facilities – this category is to be used for all assets not
assigned a Critical Facility classification.
ƒ Non-Critical Facility general categories were listed and discussed.
• S. Ogden discussed and presented examples of the “starter” dataset of assets that will
be provided to each jurisdiction by JEF. These “starter” datasets were derived from a
database file provided to JEF by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG).
• S. Ogden informed the MJPT that the “starter” set will be distributed to each
jurisdiction within three business days following the meeting. Each jurisdiction was
instructed to review complete, and/or modify the “starter” asset dataset to reflect the
assets they wish to have included in the Vulnerability Analysis component of the
Plan.
• Several members of the MJPT expressed concern about sharing information on
critical facilities within their jurisdictions due to restrictions placed on dissemination
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 4

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 3
JEFuller, Inc.
03/19/2009

•

of asset inventory data by state and federal agencies. A statewide critical
infrastructure information system is currently being housed at the Arizona Counter
Terrorism Information Center (ACTIC) in Phoenix. Communities participating with
ACTIC are leery of violating security agreements by providing data to JEF for the
vulnerability analysis. MCDEM assured the MJPT that JEF signed a non-disclosure
agreement as a part of their contract.
M. Benedetto will schedule a meeting with ACTIC to discuss the concerns and S.
Ogden agreed to attend and present the need for the data on behalf of the MJPT.

Agenda Item 5:
• S. Ogden discussed two other data sets needed from each community:
o City Boundaries – each community needs to provide JEF with the most
current municipal boundary. Preferred format would be as GIS shapefiles.
JEF will prepare check plots for verification by each community that does
not send shapefiles.
o Future Critical Facilities – each community shall provide information
regarding planned future critical facilities on a 5-year horizon.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. MJPT to discuss Plan Format needs with local planning team as needed and report
back to S. Ogden no later than March 27th.
2. S. Ogden will distribute an email with a list of the MJPT selected hazards and will
request each jurisdiction to provide a return email listing the hazards that the
community will develop mitigation actions/projects for. The return list is due by
April 3, 2009.
3. M. Benedetto will schedule a meeting with ACTIC to discuss the asset inventory
concerns and S. Ogden will attend and present the need for the data on behalf of
the MJPT.
4. S. Ogden will distribute the “starter” asset inventory dataset to each jurisdiction
within three business days of the March 19 meeting. Each jurisdiction shall
review, complete, and/or modify the list and provide to JEF by April 14th, 2009.
5. Each jurisdiction (except the county) will provide JEF with the most current
municipal boundary. Preferred format would be GIS shapefiles. JEF will prepare
check plots for verification by each community that does not send shapefiles.
6. Each community shall provide information regarding planned future critical
facilities that are intended for construction in the next 5-years. Information can be
a written summary or provided in manner similar to the asset inventory data.
Next Meeting
April 16, 2009
9am to 11am
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Operations Building – Dreamy Draw Conference Room
2801 W. Durango, Phoenix
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 5

Memorandum

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

MEETING DATE: April 16, 2009
MEETING TIME: 9:00AM – 11:00AM
MEETING LOCATION: Flood Control District of Maricopa County
2801 W. Durango Street
Phoenix, AZ 85009
DISTRIBUTION: Meeting Attendees
FROM:
RE:

W. Scott Ogden, P.E. - JEF

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

ATTENDEES:
Tom Abbott
Meredith Bond
Tom Christmas
Sonny Culbreth
Gil Damiani
Mike DeBenedetto
Pat Farmer
Mike Fusco
Michael K .Gease
Bob Hansen
Cristina Herrera
Dewey Horton
Glenn Jones
Lorenzo Jones
Bob Lee
Warren Leek
Ronnie Miller
Tim Murphy
Chris Ochs
Patrick O'Toole
Harry Parsi
Cliff Puckett
Darrell Rezendes
Randy Roberts
John J. Rose
Debra Sheff
Art Snapp
Adam Stein
Julie Syrmopoulos
Jeri Todd
Mitch Wagner
Marc Walker
Ken Waters
Tom Abbott
Meredith Bond

City of Tempe
Maricopa County
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
City of Litchfield Park
City of Mesa
City of Phoenix
Town of Carefree
City of Peoria
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
City of Tolleson
Maricopa County
Town of Buckeye
City of Peoria
City of Scottsdale
Town of Paradise Valley
Maricopa County
Town of Wickenburg
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
City of Glendale
Salt River Project
Town of Gila Bend
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Town of El Mirage
Town of Fountain Hills
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
City of Glendale
City of Avondale
Town of Cave Creek
Maricopa County
City of Phoenix
Maricopa County
City of Chandler
National Weather Service
City of Tempe
Maricopa County

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 4
JEFuller, Inc.
04/16/09
Consultants:
Mike Kellogg
W. Scott Ogden

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.
JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.

HOMEWORK STATUS
HAZARD PROFILE MAPPING DATA
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT REVIEW/UPDATE
PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES REVIEW/UPDATE

DISCUSSION
Agenda Item 1:
• Public Involvement: First Phase: S. Ogden reviewed the public notification
methodologies that were decided by the MJPT in previous meetings. Template
documents were distributed to the MJPT on 4/13/09 with instructions for each
jurisdiction to:
o Place a notice of the MJHMP Update on their website with a link to the
county website.
o Publish a notice of the MJHMP Update in their local newspaper.
• S. Ogden informed the MJPT that each jurisdiction needs to send him the
following regarding their public notification:
o Link to their website posting
o Copy of the newspaper article or scanned files of the banner page and
page on which the notice appears.
• S. Ogden provided a printed status update sheet that listed each jurisdiction’s
status for submittal/completion of the following:
o PI website posting
o PI newspaper notice
o Receipt of CPRI files
o Local team list
o Mitigation hazard list
o Jurisdictional Boundary confirmation
o Logo
o Asset inventory information
• S. Ogden discussed each item and the importance of meeting the data submittal
deadlines.
Agenda Item 2:
• S. Ogden presented the data that will be used in the Vulnerability Assessment
component of the plan update. The hazard classification distribution (High,
Medium, or Low) for each dataset was presented and discussed. The following
hazard datasets were presented:
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 2

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 4
JEFuller, Inc.
04/16/09

o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Dam Failure
Drought
Extreme Heat
Fissure
Flooding
Levee Failure
Subsidence
Severe Wind
Wildfire

Agenda Item 3:
• S. Ogden outlined the five primary purposes of the Capability Assessment
component of the plan update:
o Identify legal and regulatory capabilities of each jurisdiction.
o Identify administrative and technical resources of each jurisdiction.
o Identify community fiscal capabilities.
o Assess mitigation capability of each jurisdiction’s departments.
o Summarize past mitigation activities and projects with the five-year period
since the plan adoption.
• S. Ogden proposed that the Table 8.1 in the current plan be revised to a new
format that was presented at the meeting. The MJPT concurred with the proposed
change.
• S. Ogden proposed that Table 8.4 in the current plan be dropped from the updated
plan. The MJPT concurred with dropping Table 8.4 from the updated plan.
• S. Ogden requested each Jurisdiction provide updated information for Tables 8.1
through 8.3 in the current plan. The updated information will be incorporated into
the updated plan.
• S. Ogden requested that each jurisdiction provide/list the major mitigation
activities/projects that were performed over the last planning cycle (5 years). JEF
will provide a template document for use by the MJPT.
Agenda Item 4:
• S. Ogden reviewed the maintenance requirements as outlined in the current plan
(Section 9.1) which include:
o Annual review of the plan by each Jurisdiction
o Preparation of annual summary review memorandums
• S. Ogden reviewed the required plan procedures as outlined in Section 9.2 of the
current plan.
o The MJPT was asked to self-evaluate their compliance of Section 9.2
since the plan adoption.
• S. Ogden reviewed the required plan procedures as outlined in Section 9.3 of the
current plan.
o The MJPT was asked to self-evaluate their compliance of Section 9.3
since the plan adoption.

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 3

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 4
JEFuller, Inc.
04/16/09

•
•

C. Herrera proposed that the updated plan include language that states each
Jurisdiction will present the updated plan to their local Board of Supervisors or
other governing body only if a major update to the Plan is proposed.
C. Herrera proposed that the MJPT convene every November to review the plan.
MCDEM will take the lead in re-convening the MJPT for the annual review and
will work with ADEM on the format for review results to be submitted to ADEM.

ACTION ITEMS:
1. Each Jurisdiction was asked to complete their public involvement component of
the plan. They were asked to send S. Ogden the following:
a. Link to their jurisdiction website posting of the plan update
b. Copy of the newspaper article or other source used for the public notice of
the plan update.
2. Each Jurisdiction was asked to review the information in Tables 8.1 to 8.3 in the
current plan and submit revised information to S. Ogden.
3. C. Herrera will submit a write-up outlining the revised plan maintenance
discussion that will compose Section 9.2 in the updated Plan.
4. S. Ogden will drop Table 8.4 for the updated plan.
5. Each Jurisdiction must submit their completed Asset Inventory sheets to S. Ogden
by April 27th.
6. Each Jurisdiction must submit their revised Capability Assessment (Section 8)
tables to S. Ogden by May 14th.
7. Each Jurisdiction must submit their list of mitigation activities that have occurred
since the plan adoption by May 14th.
Next Meeting
May 14, 2009
9am to 11am
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Apache Conference Room
2901 W. Durango, Phoenix

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 4

Memorandum

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

MEETING DATE: May 14, 2009
MEETING TIME: 9:00AM – 11:00AM
MEETING LOCATION: Maricopa County Dept. of Transportation
2901 W. Durango Street
Phoenix, AZ 85009
DISTRIBUTION: Meeting Attendees
FROM:
RE:

W. Scott Ogden, P.E. - JEF

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

ATTENDEES:
Tom Abbott
Jim Begansky
Tom Christmas
Sonny Culbreth
Gil Damiani
Mike DeBenedetto
Pat Farmer
Sheri Gibbons
Mark Hannah
Bob Hansen
Cristina Herrera
Dewey Horton
Lee Jimenez
Glenn Jones
Lorenzo Jones
Joe LaFortune
Bob Lee
Ronnie Miller
Howard Munding
Tim Murphy
Othell Newbill
Patrick O'Toole
Harry Parsi
Kevin Pool
Cliff Puckett
Randy Roberts
Renelle Schaffer
Debra Sheff
Art Snapp
Adam Stein
Mitch Wagner
Marc Walker
Steve Waters
Ken Waters

City of Tempe
Maricopa County
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
City of Litchfield Park
City of Mesa
City of Phoenix
Town of Carefree
Town of Gilbert
Town of Youngtown
City of Tolleson
Maricopa County
Town of Buckeye
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
City of Peoria
City of Scottsdale
Town of Queen Creek
Town of Paradise Valley
Town of Wickenburg
Town of El Mirage
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
City of Goodyear
Salt River Project
Town of Gila Bend
City of Surprise
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Town of Fountain Hills
General public
City of Glendale
City of Avondale
Town of Cave Creek
Maricopa County
City of Chandler
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
National Weather Service

Consultants:
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 5
JEFuller, Inc.
5/14/2009
Mike Kellogg
W. Scott Ogden

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.
JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

PROJECT STATUS REVIEW
REVIEW MITIGATION GRANT DATABASE
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES UPDATE
EXISTING ACTION/PROJECT ASSESSMENT
HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS

DISCUSSION
Agenda Item 1:
• S. Ogden reviewed the overall status of the project and the individual project
tasks. The following table reflects the status of each project task per jurisdiction
at the time of the meeting. The following project tasks were discussed:
o Public Involvement
ƒ Website posting
ƒ Newspaper notice/article
o Calculated priority risk index (CPRI)
o Local team list
o Mitigation hazard list
o Jurisdictional boundary confirmation
o Jurisdiction logo submittal
o Asset inventory
o Capability assessment
o Prior mitigation activity

Agenda Item 2:
• S. Ogden distributed a hard copy handout listing the historic mitigation grant
projects within Maricopa County as recorded in the Arizona Division of
Emergency Management database.
• S. Ogden asked each jurisdiction to review the list and to provide additional
information if one of their past projects was included in the list. The additional
information requested was a brief write-up on the project’s “what” (description of
project details) and “why” (reason for project), plus any other missing
information.

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 5
JEFuller, Inc.
5/14/2009

Jurisdiction

PI Website
Posting
DUE 5/31/09

PI
Newspaper
Notice/Article
DUE 5/31/09

p. 3

CPRI
DUE 4/27/09

Local
Team List
DUE
4/27/09

Mitigation
Hazard List
DUE 4/27/09

Jurisdictional
Boundary
Confirmation
DUE 4/27/09

Logo
DUE
4/27/09

Asset
Inventory
DUE
4/27/09

Capability
Assessment
DUE 5/14/09

Prior Mitigation
Activity
DUE 5/14/09

MARICOPA
COUNTY
(UNINC)

Received

Partially
Complete

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Partially Complete

AVONDALE

Not Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received
Not
Received

CAREFREE

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

CAVE CREEK

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

CHANDLER

Received

Not Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

EL MIRAGE

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Received

Received

Received

FOUNTAIN HILLS

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Received

Not Received

Received

Received

Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received

Received

Received

Received

Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received

Received

BUCKEYE

Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received

GILBERT

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

GLENDALE

Received

Not Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

GOODYEAR

Not Received

Not Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Received

Received

Received
Partially
Complete

GUADALUPE

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

LITCHFIELD
PARK

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received
Not
Received

Received

Received

Not Received

Received

Received
Partially
Complete

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

GILA BEND

MESA
PARADISE
VALLEY

Received

Not Received
Partially
Complete

Received

Received

Received

Received

PEORIA

Received

Received

Received

PHOENIX

Received

Received
Partially
Complete

Received

Received

Not Received
Partially
Complete

Received

Received

Received
Not
Received

Received

Received

Received

QUEEN CREEK
SCOTTSDALE

Not Received
Received

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Received
Partially
Complete
Not
Received

Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Partially
Complete
Not
Received
Not
Received

Not Received
Not Received
Not Received
Not Received
Received
Not Received
Not Received
Received
Not Received
Not Received
Not Received
Not Received
Not Received
Not Received
Not Received
Partially Complete
Not Received
Not Received

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 5
JEFuller, Inc.
5/14/2009

p. 4

Logo
DUE
4/27/09

Not Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received
Not
Received

Not Received

Received

Received

Received

Received
Not
Received

Received

Received

Received

Received
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not
Received

Not Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

N/A

Not
Received

Not Received

PI
Newspaper
Notice/Article
DUE 5/31/09

CPRI
DUE 4/27/09

Local
Team List
DUE
4/27/09

Not Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Received

Received

Received

TOLLESON

Not Received

Not Received

Received

Received

WICKENBURG

Not Received

Not Received

Received

Received

YOUNGTOWN

Not Received

Not Received

Received

FT McDOWELL
YAVAPAI
NATION

Not Received

Partially
Complete

Received

Received

SURPRISE
TEMPE

SALT RIVER
PIMA-MARICOPA
IC
SALT RIVER
PROJECT

Received

N/A

Asset
Inventory
DUE
4/27/09
Not
Received

Jurisdictional
Boundary
Confirmation
DUE 4/27/09

PI Website
Posting
DUE 5/31/09

Jurisdiction

Received

Received

Mitigation
Hazard List
DUE 4/27/09
Not
Received
Not
Received
Not
Received

Received

Received

Received

Capability
Assessment
DUE 5/14/09

Prior Mitigation
Activity
DUE 5/14/09

Not
Received

Not Received
Received
Not Received
Not Received
Not Received

Agenda Item 3:
• S. Ogden discussed the Goals and Objectives (G&O) component of the Plan Update and reviewed the DMA2000
requirements. Criteria for the update and evaluation used by the MJPT included consideration of the G&Os:
o Past effectiveness of addressing the mitigation needs of the community
o Relevance to current mitigation needs
o Conformance to State G&Os
• All participants were directed to Section 8 of their current plans to review the G&Os currently compiled. Handouts of the
G&Os documented for Unincorporated Maricopa County were also distributed for those who forgot their plans, since most of
the G&Os were similar across all plans. A copy of the State’s G&Os was also distributed for reference.

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 5
JEFuller, Inc.
5/14/2009

•

•

•

S. Ogden led a MJPT team group discussion on the process of updating the G&Os
for the Plan Update. The following are highlights of those discussions:
o Many of the communities felt that the current G&Os were cumbersome,
overly detailed, and even confusing.
o The number of G&Os made the annual reviews very time consuming.
o Some team members expressed a desire to simplify the G&Os as much as
possible and liked the simplicity of the State’s G&Os.
S. Ogden offered the following options for updating the G&O list:
o Option 1: Leave the Goals and Objectives section of the current plan asis.
o Option 2: Revise the current Goals and Objectives section of the current
plan with updated language.
o Option 3: Adopt a slightly modified version of the State G&Os as a base
set for the updated multi-jurisdictional plan and then have each
community add or augment as they deemed fit.
o Option 4: Develop all new G&Os through a carding session.
The MJPT unanimously decided to go with Option 3.
S. Ogden assigned each jurisdiction to review their current plan’s G&Os to see if
they wanted to keep anything not adequately addressed by the base set of G&Os,
develop any supplemental G&Os, and respond with their final list of G&Os to S.
Ogden.

Agenda Item 4:
• S. Ogden discussed the Mitigation Actions and Projects (A/Ps) section of the Plan
Update. Specifically, the MJPT will go through three steps of updating the
section. Those steps include:
o Step 1 - Review and evaluate the mitigation A/Ps as listed in the current
plan.
o Step 2 - Identify any new mitigation A/Ps to be included in the updated
plan (to be discussed in detail at the next meeting).
o Step 3 - Rank the updated mitigation A/Ps for the updated plan (to be
discussed in detail at the next meeting).
• The mitigation A/Ps to be reviewed are included in Table 8.8 of the current plan,
and S. Ogden presented and explained a template document and process for use in
assessing the existing mitigation A/Ps listed therein. For each mitigation action
the jurisdiction shall provide an assessment of the project status and disposition as
follows:
o For status, each A/P shall be evaluated and assigned one of the following
descriptors: No Action, In Progress, or Complete
o For disposition, the descriptors will be either Keep, Revise, or Delete
o A brief explanation for each descriptor assignment shall be made to
provide the background for the decision.

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 5

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 5
JEFuller, Inc.
5/14/2009

Agenda Item 5: HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS
• Each jurisdiction is to review their current plan’s G&Os to see if they want to
keep anything not adequately addressed by the base set of G&Os, develop any
supplemental G&Os, and respond with their final list of G&Os to S. Ogden (DUE
BY JUNE 25TH).
• Review and evaluate the current plan’s mitigation A/P list in Table 8-8, using the
criteria discussed in the meeting and the worksheet to be distributed by S. Ogden
to each jurisdiction (DUE BY JUNE 25TH).
• Complete and return the mitigation actions and project table that will be
distributed.
Next Meeting
June 25, 2009
9am to 11am
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Operations Building – Dreamy Draw Conference Room
2801 W. Durango, Phoenix

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Memorandum

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

MEETING DATE: June 25, 2009
MEETING TIME: 9:00AM – 11:00AM
MEETING LOCATION: Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Operations Building – Dreamy Draw Conference Room
2801 W. Durango Street
Phoenix, AZ 85009
DISTRIBUTION: Meeting Attendees
FROM:
RE:

W. Scott Ogden, P.E. - JEF

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

ATTENDEES:
Tom Abbott
Jim Begansky
Tom Christmas
Sonny Culbreth
Gil Damiani
Mike DeBenedetto
Pat Farmer
Michael K .Gease
Sheri Gibbons
Mark Hannah
Bob Hansen
Jennifer Henry
Cristina Herrera
Dewey Horton
Lee Jimenez
Glenn Jones
Lorenzo Jones
Joe LaFortune
Richard Langevin
Bob Lee
Howard Munding
Tim Murphy
Patrick O'Toole
John Padilla
Harry Parsi
Cliff Puckett
Randy Roberts
Debra Sheff
Art Snapp
Adam Stein
Jeri Todd
Mitch Wagner

City of Tempe
Maricopa County
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
City of Litchfield Park
City of Mesa
City of Phoenix
Town of Carefree
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Town of Gilbert
Town of Youngtown
City of Tolleson
Maricopa County
Maricopa County
Town of Buckeye
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
City of Peoria
City of Scottsdale
Town of Queen Creek
Maricopa County
Town of Paradise Valley
Town of El Mirage
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Salt River Project
Maricopa County
Town of Gila Bend
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Town of Fountain Hills
City of Glendale
City of Avondale
Town of Cave Creek
City of Phoenix
Maricopa County

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 6
JEFuller, Inc.
6/25/2009

p. 2

Marc Walker
Steve Waters
Ken Waters

City of Chandler
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
National Weather Service

Consultants:
Mike Kellogg
W. Scott Ogden

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.
JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

WELCOME TO PETE WEAVER – MCDEM DIRECTOR
STATUS REVIEW
VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
NEW MITIGATION ACTIONS/PROJECTS
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS

DISCUSSION
Agenda Item 1:
• S. Ogden introduced Pete Weaver, the new Director of Maricopa County Division
of Emergency Management.
• Pete Weaver addressed the MJPT and informed them of the upcoming County
Wildfire Protection Program (CWPP)
Agenda Item 2:
• S. Ogden distributed the following hard copy handouts:
o Homework Status Worksheet
o Preliminary results of the Vulnerability Analysis (VA) including a general
summary of community asset exposure and loss estimates, population
exposure and risk estimates, and detailed building exposure and loss
estimates by jurisdiction.
o Template example of the Mitigation Actions and Projects table that will be
included in the plan document.
• S. Ogden reviewed the overall status of the project and the individual project
tasks. The following table reflects the status of each project task per jurisdiction
at the time of the meeting. The following project tasks were discussed:
o Public Involvement
ƒ Website posting
ƒ Newspaper notice/article
o Calculated priority risk index
(CPRI)
o Local team list

o Mitigation hazard list
o Jurisdictional boundary
confirmation
o Jurisdiction logo submittal
o Asset inventory
o Capability assessment

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 6
JEFuller, Inc.
6/25/2009

o Prior mitigation activity
o Goals and objectives confirmation
o Example mitigation actions/projects
assessment

p. 3

o New Mitigation actions/projects and
implementation strategy

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 6
JEFuller, Inc.
6/25/2009

p. 4

PI
Website
Posting
DUE
5/31/09

PI
Newspaper
Notice/Article
DUE 5/31/09

CPRI
DUE
4/27/09

Local
Team
List
DUE
4/27/09

Mitigation
Hazard
List
DUE
4/27/09

Jurisdictional
Boundary
Confirmation
DUE 4/27/09

Logo
DUE
4/27/09

Asset
Inventory
DUE
4/27/09

Capability
Assessment
DUE
5/14/09

Prior
Mitigation
Activity
DUE
5/14/09

Goals &
Objectives
Confirmation
DUE 6/25/09

Ex Mitigation
Actions/Projects
Assessment
DUE 6/25/09

New Mitigation
A/P and
Implementation
Strategy
DUE 7/16/09

MARICOPA
COUNTY
(UNINC)

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Received

AVONDALE

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

OK As-is

Received

Not Received

Partially
Complete

OK As-is

Received

Not Received

Jurisdiction

BUCKEYE

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Partially
Complete

CAREFREE

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

OK As-is

Received

Not Received

CAVE CREEK

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Received

Not Received

Not Received

CHANDLER

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

OK As-is

Received

Not Received

EL MIRAGE

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Received

OK As-is

Partially
Complete

Not Received

OK As-is

Not Received

Not Received

FOUNTAIN
HILLS

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

GILA BEND

Not
Received

Not Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not
Received

Not
Received
Not
Received

GILBERT

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

OK As-is

Received

Not Received

GLENDALE

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Received

Not
Received
Not
Received

Not
Received
Not
Received

Not Received

Not Received

Not Received

Not Received

Received

Not Received

GOODYEAR

Received

Not Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Past
Deadline

GUADALUPE

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

LITCHFIELD
PARK

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Received

Not Received

Not Received

MESA

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Received

PARADISE
VALLEY

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Received

PEORIA

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not
Received

Not
Received

Not Received

Not Received

Not Received

PHOENIX

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

OK As-is

Received

Not Received

QUEEN
CREEK

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

OK As-is

Not Received

Not Received

Received

Past
Deadline

Received

Received

OK As-is

Received

Not Received

Not
Received

Not Received

Not Received

Not Received

Received

OK As-is

Received

Not Received

SCOTTSDALE

Received

SURPRISE

Not
Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not
Received

TEMPE

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Received

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 6
JEFuller, Inc.
6/25/2009

Jurisdiction

TOLLESON
WICKENBURG
YOUNGTOWN

Mitigation
Hazard
List
DUE
4/27/09
Not
Received

p. 5

PI
Website
Posting
DUE
5/31/09

PI
Newspaper
Notice/Article
DUE 5/31/09

CPRI
DUE
4/27/09

Local
Team
List
DUE
4/27/09

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not
Received
Partially
Complete

Received

Received

Received

Not
Received

Jurisdictional
Boundary
Confirmation
DUE 4/27/09

Logo
DUE
4/27/09

Asset
Inventory
DUE
4/27/09

Capability
Assessment
DUE
5/14/09

Received

Received

Past
Deadline

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not
Received

Goals &
Objectives
Confirmation
DUE 6/25/09

Ex Mitigation
Actions/Projects
Assessment
DUE 6/25/09

New Mitigation
A/P and
Implementation
Strategy
DUE 7/16/09

Not Received

Not Received

Not Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Received

Received

Not Received

Received

Not Received

Prior
Mitigation
Activity
DUE
5/14/09
Not
Received

FT
McDOWELL
YAVAPAI
NATION

Partially
Complete

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not
Received

OK As-is

Received

Not Received

SALT RIVER
PIMAMARICOPA IC

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

OK As-is

Received

Not Received

SALT RIVER
PROJECT

Received

N/A

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

N/A

Received

Received

OK As-is

N/A

Not Received

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 6
JEFuller, Inc.
6/25/2009

•
•

Several Jurisdictions expressed concerns regarding the Goals and Objectives
(G&O) language that was discussed at the May 14, 2009 meeting. S. Ogden led a
MJPT team group discussion to revise the G&O language.
The MJPT unanimously decided to revise Objective 1 in the G&O statement to
the following: Reduce or eliminate risks that threaten life and property in the
incorporated, unincorporated, and Tribal jurisdictions within Maricopa County.

Agenda Item 3:
• S. Ogden reviewed the preliminary VA result tables with MJPT team and
explained the computational methodology and summarized results in detail.
• Each jurisdiction was asked to take the VA summary tables back to their local
teams, review the results, and respond with any questions or concerns.
• The Town of Gilbert (Gilbert) had expressed concern regarding the results of the
preliminary VA that was presented at the May 14, 2009 meeting. Gilbert had
included a comprehensive inventory of their water/wastewater piping system in
their asset inventory dataset. As a result, Gilbert’s assets made up more than 70%
of the total assets for all jurisdictions within the county. At the June 25 meeting,
Gilbert and several other jurisdictions expressed concerns that the Gilbert asset
information was skewing the summary results. The MJPT discussed the issue and
unanimously decided that Gilbert’s water/wastewater piping system information
would be excluded from the county-wide VA summary tables, but would be
included in Gilbert individual VA summary tables.
Agenda Item 4:
• S. Ogden reviewed the 3-Step Mitigation Actions/Projects (A/Ps) update process
that was introduced at the May 14, 2009 meeting. The steps include:
o Step 1 - Review and evaluate the mitigation A/Ps as listed in the current
plan (discussed during the May 14, 2009 meeting).
o Step 2 - Identify any new mitigation A/Ps to be included in the updated
plan.
o Step 3 - Rank the updated mitigation A/Ps for the updated plan.
• S. Ogden discussed Step 2 in detail with MJPT. S. Ogden discussed the following
mitigation measure categories and gave examples for each:
o Prevention
ƒ Land development regulations
ƒ Open space preservation
ƒ Planning and zoning ordinances
ƒ Storm water management plans
ƒ CIP
o Property protection
ƒ Acquisition
ƒ Relocation
ƒ Rebuilding
ƒ Floodproofing
o Public education/awareness
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 6

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 6
JEFuller, Inc.
6/25/2009

•

•

ƒ Inform people about hazards and how to reduce damages/injury
ƒ Directed toward property owners, businesses, and visitors
o Natural resource protection
ƒ Erosion and sediment control
ƒ Wetlands protection
ƒ Public open space expansion
ƒ Environmental restoration
o Emergency services
ƒ Protection of warning capability
ƒ Protection of critical facilities
ƒ Protection of infrastructure for emergency response
o Structural projects
ƒ Reservoirs
ƒ Levees and floodwalls
ƒ Diversions
ƒ Channel construction and modifications
ƒ Storm sewers
S. Ogden reviewed the Mitigation A/Ps table template handout with the MJPT.
The template handout included two example mitigation A/Ps. S. Ogden asked
each jurisdiction to complete the table with the mitigation A/Ps from their existing
plans and any new mitigation A/Ps that they would like to include in the plan
update.
S. Ogden provided the following additional guidelines for completing the
mitigation A/Ps tables:
o Each jurisdiction must have at least one A/P for each hazard they
identified in their community
o Be specific with the project descriptions
o Include any A/Ps in which they indent to seek grand funding
o Tell the “what” and “why” in the project descriptions
o Must have at least one mitigation A/P that addresses compliance with the
NFIP

Agenda Item 5: HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS
• Each jurisdiction is to review and complete any past assignments shown as Not
Received or Partially Complete in the assignment table.
• Each jurisdiction is to identify any NEW mitigation A/Ps and accompanying
mitigation strategies for their communities.
• Each jurisdiction is to complete the mitigation A/Ps table that will be distributed
to them by S. Ogden following the June 25, 2009 meeting.
Next Meeting
July 16, 2009
9am to 11am
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Adobe Conference Room
2801 W. Durango, Phoenix
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Memorandum

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

MEETING DATE: July 16, 2009
MEETING TIME: 9:00AM – 11:00AM
MEETING LOCATION: Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Operations Building – Dreamy Draw Conference Room
2801 W. Durango Street
Phoenix, AZ 85009
DISTRIBUTION: Meeting Attendees
FROM:
RE:

W. Scott Ogden, P.E. - JEF

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

ATTENDEES:
Tom Abbott
Tom Christmas
Ed Copp
Sonny Culbreth
Gil Damiani
Mike DeBenedetto
Pat Farmer
Mark Hannah
Bob Hansen
Jennifer Henry
Cristina Herrera
Dewey Horton
Lee Jimenez
Glenn Jones
Joe LaFortune
Richard Langevin
Russ Loumav
Ronnie Miller
Tim Murphy
John Padilla
Harry Parsi
Cliff Puckett
David Ramirez
Randy Roberts
John Rose
Debra Sheff
Art Snapp
Adam Stein
Kerry Swick
Julie Syrmopoulus
Jeri Todd
Mitch Wagner

City of Tempe
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Salt River Project
City of Litchfield Park
City of Mesa
City of Phoenix
Town of Carefree
Town of Youngtown
City of Tolleson
Maricopa County
Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
Town of Buckeye
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
City of Peoria
Town of Queen Creek
Maricopa County
Town of Paradise Valley
Town of Wickenburg
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Maricopa County
Town of Gila Bend
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Town of Goodyear
Town of Fountain Hills
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
City of Glendale
City of Avondale
Town of Cave Creek
City of Scottsdale
Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
City of Phoenix
Maricopa County Department of Transportation

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 7
JEFuller, Inc.
7/16/2009

Marc Walker
Steve Waters
Ken Waters

City of Chandler
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
National Weather Service

Consultants:
W. Scott Ogden

JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

p. 2

AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

STATUS REVIEW
PROJECT SCHEDULE
PHASE 2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION TEMPLATE
HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS
CLOSING THOUGHTS

DISCUSSION
Agenda Item 1:
• S. Ogden distributed an updated copy of Homework Status Sheet and discussed
the outstanding items. A copy of the status sheet is shown below.
• S.Ogden stressed that the last two columns were critical to those communities
receiving FEMA approval and must be provided.
• A new deadline of Wednesday, July 22 was given to complete all homework.
Failure to meet this deadline will jeopardize the community’s continued
participation.
Agenda Item 2:
• S. Ogden distributed a gant chart timeline showing the planning elements
remaining and milestones. The following is a summary:
o Draft Plan will be sent to the MJPT and ADEM for review on Aug 1st.
o MJPT and ADEM will complete review in 4 weeks. The legal review
should occur during this period as well. The majority of the MJPT felt
that the legal review would be fine at this time and should not have to be
revisited. S. Ogden encouraged the MJPT to remind legal staff that this is
an update to an already established document.
o JEF will address all comments and prepare a final draft for submittal to
FEMA. Target submittal date is Sept 15th.
o FEMA review is estimated at 6 weeks.
o JEF will respond to FEMA comments and anticipates receiving the
“approvable pending adoption” letter by mid Nov.
o Each jurisdiction will then promulgate (get official adoption through a
resolution) and send the resolutions to FEMA and ADEM, copying
MCDEM and JEF.
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 7
JEFuller, Inc.
7/16/2009

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 3

Meeting Notes – Maricopa County MJPT Meeting No. 7
JEFuller, Inc.
7/16/2009

Agenda Item 3:
• S. Ogden reviewed the public involvement requirements with focus on the period
of comment after the draft is prepared and prior to promulgation.
• The MJPT discussed the options available and concluded that an updated post
would be made to each jurisdiction’s website informing the public that the draft
was completed and available for comment. The actual draft would reside on the
County’s permanent website. Each community would also follow normal open
meeting laws during the resolution adoption period as well.
• JEF will deliver revised language for use on the websites and the target date for
the repost is on or around Sept 15th.
Agenda Item 4:
• S. Ogden distributed a draft template resolution for use by each community in
adopting the Plan. The MJPT read through the draft and made a few edits.
• The final template shall be used as basis for each community, however, all
resolutions do not have to be identical.
Agenda Item 5: HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS
• Complete past assignments ASAP. Final deadline of July 22nd.
• Review draft and make arrangements for legal review within the 4 week period.
• Perform Phase 2 notice on or around Sept 15th. JEF will distribute language for
the websites
• Begin to plan for resolution adoption by initiating discussions with board and
council members.
Agenda Item 6:
• J. Syrmopoulus made some closing remarks on behalf of MCDEM and gave
details regarding the upcoming Community Wildfire Protection Plan. She
encouraged everyone to stay involved.

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Update

p. 4

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Appendix C
Public Involvement Records

2009

W. Scott Ogden
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Art Snapp [asnapp@avondale.org]
Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:48 PM
W. Scott Ogden
FW: Media Release/Avondale takes part in Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Process

From: Ingrid Melle
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:40 PM
To: Ingrid Melle
Subject: Media Release/Avondale takes part in Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Process

Avondale Public Information Office
For immediate release: May 13, 2009
Contact: Ingrid Melle, Public Information, (623) 333-1614

Avondale takes part in Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Process
The City of Avondale has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions around the Valley to
review and update the existing individual multi-hazard mitigation plans and consolidate them into a single
multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation plan. The goal of this mitigation planning effort is to reduce or
eliminate long-term risk to life and property from natural hazard events.
“Mitigation is not how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires, but rather how we as a community
prevent the impact of such things in the first place,” said Chief Art Snapp of Avondale Fire-Rescue. “It is clear
that a focus on hazard mitigation will likely go a long way to benefiting the overall well-being of the residents
of Avondale.”
The mitigation planning process involves identifying and profiling the natural or human caused hazards most
likely to occur in a community, assessing the vulnerability to these hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and
projects that mitigate the associated risks. The development of this mitigation plan will also ensure eligibility
for certain hazard mitigation grants and public assistance funds.
Public input on the mitigation planning process is important and residents are encouraged to educate themselves
about the existing plan and offer comments on the update process. For more information, please visit the multijurisdictional planning website at www.maricopa.gov/emerg_mgt or contact Art Snapp, Avondale Fire-Rescue
at asnapp@avondale.org , 623-333-6110 or Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of Emergency
Management at cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov; (602)273-1411.
###

1

Buckeye news . . .
For Immediate Release

Contact: Bob Bushner
623-349-6005 (w)
623-695-3175 (c)

Buckeye Working With County, Other Municipalities to Prepare for Natural Emergencies
Buckeye, Ariz. (April 29, 2009) – The Town of Buckeye is joining forces with Maricopa
County and other municipalities to consolidate emergency planning services into a single
multi-jurisdictional plan.
The goal of the planning effort is to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to life
and property from natural hazard events. The plan will not look at how communities
respond to emergencies like floods or wildfires, but rather how to prevent the impact of
those natural hazard events in the first place.
The planning process will identify and profile the natural hazards most likely to
occur in a community, assess the vulnerability to those hazards and establish goals,
actions and projects that will reduce the associated risks.
The planning will also to make communities eligible for certain hazard reduction
grants and public assistance funds.
Maricopa County officials are seeking public input on the existing plan and the
continued planning process. For more information, visit the planning website at
www.maricopa.gov/emerg_mgt or contact Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Government, cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov.

- 30 -

Message

Page 1 of 3

Jim Keen
From:

coins@carefree.govoffice.com

Sent:

Friday, April 17, 2009 3:40 PM

To:

jim@carefree.org

Subject: COINS Info Cave Creek Major Plan Amends, Emerg. Mgmt. & Events

3:35PM Arizona Local Time
TOWN OF CAVE CREEK MAJOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS

The Town of Cave Creek has received four (4) major General Plan amendment applications.
1. Convert 20.5 acres of land south of the southeast corner of Carefree Highway and Cave Creek Road
from its existing residential classification to a commercial classification for a Walmart store.
2. Convert 25 acres of land at the southwest corner of Carefree Highway and Cave Creek Road from its
existing residential classification to a commercial classification.
3. Convert approximately 4 acres at the northeast corner of Carefree Highway and 48th Street from its
existing residential classification to a commercial classification.
4. Change the major amendment criteria from the current standard of one (1) acre to a proposed standard
of twenty (20) acres.
According to the Town of Cave Creek, the following public hearing dates are scheduled to consider these
major amendments.
DATE
June 4, 2009

EVENT
Planning Commission

SUBJECT
Recommendation to Town
Council on all major
amendments.
June 15, 2009
Town Council
Final consideration of all major
amendments and 1st reading to
rezone Walmart's parcels.
June 22, 2009
Town Council
The 2nd and final
consideration/reading of
Walmart's rezoning application.
*All meetings will take place at the Cave Creek Town Hall at 7 PM. Please check with the Town of Cave Creek for any
changes in this schedule.

In association with these major General Plan amendments there are three (3) different citizen participation
meetings coming up in May.
May 6, 2009

DATE

LOCATION
Black Mtn. Baptist Church

May 11, 2009

Cave Creek Town Hall

May 12, 2009

Cave Creek Town Hall

4/17/2009

SUBJECT
Request to change 20.5 acres
from residential to commercial
land uses and rezone to
commercial for a Walmart
supercenter store at the south of
the southeast corner of Carefree
Highway and Cave Creek Road.
Modify major amendment criteria
from 1 to 20 acres.
Request to change 25 acres

Message

Page 2 of 3

from residential to commercial
land uses at the southwest
corner of Carefree Highway on
Cave Creek Road.
*Please check with the Town of Cave Creek to verify meeting times and locations.

If you have concerns with any of these requests, please mark your calendars and plan on attending these
critical meetings. Your voice is an important part of this process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Input Invited
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Begins
Hazard mitigation planning is the process used to identify risks and vulnerabilities associated
with natural disasters and to develop long-term strategies for protecting people and property
in future hazard events. The process results in a mitigation plan that offers a strategy for
breaking the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage and a framework
for developing feasible and cost-effective mitigation projects. Under the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), state, county, local and tribal governments are required to
develop and maintain a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan as a condition for receiving
certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance and mitigation grants.
A multi-jurisdictional planning team comprised of representatives from Maricopa County, the
Town of Carefree, and various other towns, cities and tribal governments located within the
county, will be meeting regularly to review, revise and update the current Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan. The planning team will be meeting regularly to review, revise, and/or update
the following plan elements:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Natural hazards that may impact or have impacted the community
Profiles of the most relevant hazards
Vulnerability assessment to the identified hazards
Goals and objectives for hazard risk reduction/elimination
Mitigation actions/projects to achieve the stated goals and objectives
Plan maintenance strategy for the next 5-year cycle

An updated draft of the plan is expected in July 2009. For additional information, please visit
www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_mgt or contact your community’s representative below:
Town of Carefree
Carefree Marshal’s Office
Marshal Patrick Farmer
480-488-3686
100 Easy Street Box 740
Carefree, Arizona
85377
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Upcoming Events
Desert Foothills Theater's
2nd Annual Foothills Follies
4/17/2009

Message

Page 3 of 3

Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 5:00PM
Carefree Gardens Amphitheater
101 Easy Street

Terrific Talent…Celebrate the return of hometown favorites and the work of some incredible
performing artists. Last year's event included this season's American Idol contestant, Scott
MacIntyre and his wonderful family. You just never know what great talent you'll see. Foothills
Follies is an audition-in showcase of talent that features past and present DFT artists as well
as other talent from around the area.
Tickets $10 adults; $5 students (with ID).
Purchase online at http://www.desertfoothillstheater.com
or call 480-488-1981

To unsubscribe from this email list please click on the following Link: Click Here
or copy the following address and paste it into your browser:
http://carefree.govoffice.com/index.asp?type=UNSUBSCRIBE&SEC={9387A32C-7B0B-4CFFB2A5-B19E3FF5D1D9}&action=unsubscribe&emailaddress=jim@carefree.org

4/17/2009

East Valley/ Scottsdale Tribune: Chandler looks for input on preventing disasters

Page 1 of 1

May 16, 2009

Chandler looks for input on preventing disasters
By Mike Branom
Tribune

Chandler residents are being encouraged to give their opinions on how the city can best prevent disasters.
The multihazard mitigation plan identifies vulnerabilities associated with natural disasters and develops longterm strategies for reducing or eliminating those risks. The plan doesn’t address how the city should respond
to emergencies, such as wildfires and floods, but rather the steps necessary to prevent or minimize the
impact of such events.
Under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, governments are required to develop and maintain a
FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan as a condition for receiving certain types of nonemergency disaster
assistance funds and mitigation grants.
Chandler’s plan can be found online at www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_Mgt. Feedback can be provided through
next month to Assistant Fire Chief Marc Walker at (480) 782-2135 or marc.walker@chandleraz.gov
[http://mailto:marc.walker@chandleraz.gov].
An updated plan is expected to be completed by the end of July.

© 2009 Freedom Communications / Arizona. Permission granted for up to 5 copies. All rights reserved.
You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typing http://license.icopyright.net/3.7220?icx_id=139259
into any web browser. Freedom Communications / Arizona and East Valley/ Scottsdale Tribune logos are registered trademarks of
Freedom Communications / Arizona . The iCopyright logo is a registered trademark of iCopyright, Inc.

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MzQ5NzEyNw%3D%3D

5/18/2009

City of Chandler, Arizona

Page 1 of 2

May 15, 2009
CONTACT CHANDLER
CITY SERVICES - A TO Z
CHANDLER CHANNEL 11
COUNCIL AGENDA
DEPARTMENTS
DOWNTOWN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EN ESPAÑOL
E-SERVICES
GREEN INITIATIVES
HELPFUL COMMUNITY LINKS
INFOMAP
JOBS WITH CHANDLER
ONLINE TAX AND LICENSE
PHONE NUMBERS
STREAMING VIDEO
SHOP CHANDLER
UNIFIED DEV MANUAL
UTILITY BILL PAYMENTS

City Meetings Calendar

5.18.2009 | Public Safety
Personnel Retirement
Board (Fire)
55 N. Arizona Place
5.18.2009 | Public Safety
Personnel Retirement
Board (Police)
5.19.2009 | Community
Services Department
Council Subcommittee
5.20.2009 | Planning &
Zoning Commission
Study Session
22 S. Delaware St.
more...

Public invited to provide input on multi-hazard
mitigation plan
The City of Chandler is seeking public input regarding proposed updates to the City’s multi-hazard
mitigation plan, which identifies a community’s risks and vulnerability associated with natural
disasters and develops long-term strategies for reducing or eliminating the risk and protecting
people and property in future hazard events. The plan does not address how the City responds to
emergencies like wildfires and floods, but rather the steps necessary for the community to take in
order to prevent or minimize the impact of such emergencies in the first place.
Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), state, county, local and tribal
governments are required to develop and maintain a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan as a
condition for receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance funds and mitigation
grants.
Chandler residents are encouraged to participate in this important mitigation planning process by
educating themselves about the existing plan and then offering comments and suggestions for the
update. The plan is online at www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_Mgt/links.aspx and feedback can be
provided through the end of June to Chandler Assistant Fire Chief Marc Walker at 480-782-2135 or
marc.walker@chandleraz.gov.
This process will enable Chandler to develop a mitigation plan that offers a strategy for assessing
the vulnerability to disaster damage, and establishing feasible goals and cost-effective projects that
mitigate the associated risks. Chandler officials will then work with the Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management and other jurisdictions around the Valley to review and
update all of the existing multi-hazard mitigation plans in these individual communities, and
consolidate them into a single multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation plan.
The multi-jurisdictional planning team will be meeting regularly to review, revise, and/or update the
following plan elements:
z
z
z
z
z
z

Natural hazards that may impact or have impacted the community
Profiles of the most relevant hazards
Vulnerability assessment to the identified hazards
Goals and objectives for hazard risk reduction/elimination
Mitigation actions/projects to achieve the stated goals and objectives
Plan maintenance strategy for the next 5-year cycle

An updated draft of the plan is expected to be completed by the end of July 2009.

z www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_Mgt/PDF/Maricopa County Final Plan.pdf

Chandler Events Calendar

5.21.2009 | Downtown
Chandler Farmers Market
Dr. A. J. Chandler Park
5.28.2009 | Downtown
Chandler Farmers Market
Dr. A. J. Chandler Park
5.29.2009 | Pirates &
Princesses
Dr. A.J. Chandler Park

http://www.chandleraz.gov/newsrelease.aspx?N_UID=1393

5/18/2009

City of Chandler, Arizona

Page 2 of 2

6.4.2009 | Downtown
Chandler Farmers Market
Dr. A. J. Chandler Park
more...

5/18/2009

Search | Site Map | Contact Chandler | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Help

http://www.chandleraz.gov/newsrelease.aspx?N_UID=1393

5/18/2009

Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Update

A multi-jurisdictional planning team comprised of representatives from Maricopa
County, the City of Litchfield Park and various other towns, cities and tribal
governments located within the county, have been meeting regularly to review,
revise and update the current Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The planning team
has been meeting regularly to review, revise, and/or update the following plan
elements:
Natural hazards that may impact or have impacted the community
Profiles of the most relevant hazards
Vulnerability assessment to the identified hazards
Goals and objectives for hazard risk reduction/elimination
Mitigation actions/projects to achieve the stated goals and objectives
Plan maintenance strategy for the next 5-year cycle
An updated draft of the plan is expected in July 2009. For additional information,
please visit www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_mgt or contact your community’s
representative below:
Sonny Culbreth; sculbreth@litchfield-park.org

NOTE: The above was published in the July-October City Line, which is mailed to every citizen within
Litchfield Park

Mesa Fire Department
For Release: 06/23/09
Contact: Gil Damiani
Assistant Fire Chief/City of Mesa Emergency Management Coordinator
480-644-2631
Gil.damiani@mesaaz.gov

City of Mesa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning
The City of Mesa has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions around the Valley to
review and update the existing individual multi-hazard mitigation plans and consolidate them into a single
multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation plan. The goal of this mitigation planning effort is to reduce or
eliminate long-term risk to life and property from natural hazard events.
Mitigation is not how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires, but rather how we as a
community prevent the impact of such things in the first place. The mitigation planning process involves
identifying and profiling the natural hazards most likely to occur in a community, assessing the vulnerability
to these hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and projects that mitigate the associated risks. The
development of this mitigation plan will also ensure eligibility for certain hazard mitigation grants and
public assistance funds.
Public input on the mitigation planning process is important and residents are encouraged to educate
themselves about the existing plan and offer comments on the update.
For more information:
•

Visit the multi-jurisdictional planning website at: www.maricopa.gov/emerg_mgt

•

Or contact:
o

Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov

o

Gil Damiani-Assistant Chief, Mesa Fire Department, City of Mesa Emergency Management
Coordinator gil.damiani@mesaaz.gov
-30-

Peoria updating plan on dealing with hazards

Page 1 of 1

Peoria updating plan on
dealing with hazards

• Profiles of the most relevant hazards.

May. 4, 2009 12:30 PM
The republic|azcentral.com

• Vulnerability assessments to identify
potential hazards.

The Peoria Fire Department emergency
preparedness unit is teaming with the
Maricopa County Emergency Management
Department to gather public input on
updating its multihazard mitigation plan.

• Goals and objectives for hazard reduction
and elimination.

Hazard-mitigation planning is a process
used by government officials to identify risks
and vulnerabilities that could be associated
with natural disasters.
Officials will develop a long-term strategy
for breaking the cycle of disaster damage,
reconstruction and repeated damage.
Governments are required to develop and
maintain these plans as a condition for
receiving certain types of federal grants.
A planning team that includes Peoria
officials will meet regularly to review, revise
and update the plan.
The following elements will be topics of
discussion:

• Mitigation actions and projects to achieve
the previously stated goals and objectives.

• Plan maintenance strategy forecast for
the next five year cycle.
Peoria is taking residents' comments and
suggestions through May 31. The local
governments are expected to draft a plan by
July.
Send comments or suggestions to Glenn
Jones, the Peoria Fire Department's
emergency preparedness coordinator, by
phone at 623-773-5207 or by email at
glenn.jones@peroriaaz.gov.
For more information, visit www.maricopa.
gov/Emerg_mgt .

• Natural hazards that may affcet the
community.
Advertisement

http://www.azcentral.com/community/peoria/articles/2009/05/04/20090504gl-peohazard050... 5/5/2009

New Queen Creek ZIP code ...... 2
Water rate increase .................... 2

The Queen Creek Fire Department
recently purchased a new water tender
truck and technical rescue trailer. The
tender truck carries 3,000 gallons of
water and can pump 1,000 gallons a
minute. The truck is also equipped
with two fold-out 3,000 gallon tanks,
allowing it to leave the site of a fire to
replenish the water supply. The technical
rescue trailer, purchased with grant
funds awarded from the state, allows
firefighters to perform rescue operations
in confined spaces and trenches. For
more information, call 480-358-3360 or
visit www.queencreek.org.

Library green features ............... 3
Hazard mitigation plan .............. 3
Shop Queen Creek .................... 4
Farmers’ Market ........................ 4

The Town’s official
newsletter first began as a
quarterly publication in 2000.
In May 2005, the About Town
newsletter made its debut in its
new monthly format. The Town
began providing more specialized
information through the Town
Center Connection insert, which
launched in the fall of 2006, and
the QCPAC Performance Program
insert beginning fall of 2007.

Office Hours
Monday-Thursday, 7 a.m.-6 p.m.
Friday-Sunday, closed
Town Hall
22350 S. Ellsworth Road
Queen Creek, AZ 85242
Phone: 480-358-3000
Traffic: 480-358-3132
Fax: 480-358-3189
Development Services
Phone: 480-358-3003
Inspections: 480-358-3030
Parks and Recreation
Phone: 480-358-3700
Town of Queen Creek Water
Phone: 480-358-3450

www.queencreek.org
In accordance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, this publication can
be made available in an alternative
format, if requested. It can also be
made available in Spanish. Si desea
esta información en español por favor
llame al teléfono 480-358-3000.

As one of several measures to economize
and use less resources, the Town of Queen Creek
has decided to convert the monthly About Town
newsletter to an online-only service with an option
for e-mail subscriptions. Although the Town
recently implemented cost-saving measures for the
newsletter, the transition online will save the Town
additional funds in publication and postage costs.
This issue of the newsletter will be the last
print publication before it transitions to the online
format. Because the Town wants residents to
continue to receive the timely, detailed information
provided in the past by the print newsletter,
residents are encouraged to subscribe the new
e-newsletter. Along with interesting feature stories,
the online newsletter will provide current Town
news and statistics, project updates, answers to
residents’ questions and links to the Town’s Web
site for more information.

The second of three annual water rate increases will go into effect on July 1. The rate
plan approved last year by the Town Council includes three incremental increases over
three years, beginning in July 2008 and increasing in July each year through July 2010.
The rate increases will help to finance the debt incurred to acquire the former Queen
Creek Water Company as well as to pay for system improvement costs. The increases are
necessary to generate sufficient revenue for the Town to make its debt service payments.
Additionally, the increase helps the Town maintain quality service and keep up with the
mandates that state and federal government agencies continually require of water utilities.
The Town’s three-tier rate structure rewards water conservation; those who use less
water will pay less. For tips and information about conserving valuable water resources,
visit www.queencreek.org or call 480-358-3450.
This schedule is calculated using a monthly minimum rate for the first 1,000 gallons and adding a
proposed scaled rate by usage. The figures below are examples based on the usage of typical customers.

Type of Use

Usage

Residential - 3/4” Meter
Commercial - 3/4” Meter
Flood Irrigation - 2”

10,000 gallons
20,000 gallons
45 minutes

Three Year Rate Increase Plan
July 2008 July 2009 July 2010 Adjustment
Adjustment
Adjustment
$29.00
$31.90
$34.29
$49.00
$53.90
$57.94
$25.25
$30.27
$34.30

The Queen Creek Library is the first municipal building in the Town of Queen Creek
constructed under the Town’s Green Building Policy and registered under the U.S Green
Building Council to apply for its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
certification program. The new library features state-of-the-art construction practices and
materials that decrease energy consumption, save money, reduce environmental impacts,
and provide a healthy interior environment.

Queen Creek

L IBRA RY

Queen Creek’s Green Building Policy requires new
public construction and major remodels of greater than
5,000 square feet to be built to LEED-certified standards.
LEED is a nationally accepted benchmark for the
design, construction and operation of green buildings.
A point rating system is used to qualify projects for
LEED certification. Points are given in the following
environmental impact areas: sustainable sites, water
efficiency, energy and atmosphere, indoor environmental
quality, innovation and design process.
Residents are encouraged to follow a self-guided green
building walking tour to see the library’s green features.
Green Building Walking Tour brochures (see image to the
left) will soon be available in the community information
racks in the library lobby. The map in the brochure shows
points of interest around the site, with descriptions about
each feature. Smaller signs with coordinating descriptions
will also soon be posted at the site to indicate the location
of the points of interest.
For more information, visit www.queencreek.org and
select “Library” under the “Community” drop-down list.

Under the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000, state, county, local
and tribal governments are
required to develop and maintain
a hazard mitigation plan as a
condition for receiving certain
types of non-emergency disaster
assistance and mitigation grants.
Hazard mitigation planning
is used to identify risks and
vulnerabilities associated with
natural disasters and to develop
long-term strategies for protecting
people and property in future
hazardous events. The process
results in a plan that offers a
strategy for breaking the cycle of
disaster damage, reconstruction
and repeated damage as well as a
framework for developing feasible
and cost-effective mitigation
projects.
A planning team comprised
of representatives from Maricopa
County, the Town of Queen Creek
and various other towns, cities and
tribal governments located within
the county will meet regularly
to review, revise and update the
current Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan. The team will address the
following plan elements:
• Natural hazards that may impact
or have impacted the community
• Profiles of the most relevant
hazards
• Assessment of vulnerability to
the identified hazards
• Goals and objectives for hazard
risk reduction or elimination
• Mitigation actions and projects
to achieve the stated goals and
objectives
• Plan maintenance strategy for the
next five-year cycle
An updated draft of the plan is
expected to be completed in July
2009. For more information, call
Joe LaFortune at 480-358-3502
or visit www.queencreek.org and
scroll over “Public Safety” under
the “Department & Services”
drop-down list.

Public Input Invited

Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Begins
Hazard mitigation planning is the process used to identify risks and vulnerabilities associated with
natural disasters and to develop long-term strategies for protecting people and property in future
hazard events. The process results in a mitigation plan that offers a strategy for breaking the cycle
of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage and a framework for developing feasible
and cost-effective mitigation projects. Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106390), state, county, local and tribal governments are required to develop and maintain a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan as a condition for receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster
assistance and mitigation grants.
A multi-jurisdictional planning team comprised of representatives from Maricopa County, the City
of Tempe and various other towns, cities and tribal governments located within the county, will be
meeting regularly to review, revise and update the current Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The planning team will be meeting regularly to review, revise, and/or update the following plan elements:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Natural hazards that may impact or have impacted the community
Profiles of the most relevant hazards
Vulnerability assessment to the identified hazards
Goals and objectives for hazard risk reduction/elimination
Mitigation actions/projects to achieve the stated goals and objectives
Plan maintenance strategy for the next 5-year cycle

An updated draft of the plan is expected in July 2009. For additional information, please visit www.
maricopa.gov/Emerg_mgt or contact your community’s representative below:

Tom Abbott
City of Tempe Fire Department

480-858-7219
tom_abbott@tempe.gov

Published on Local Channel 11 from May 5-19, 2009

Public Input Invited
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Begins
Hazard mitigation planning is the process used to identify risks and vulnerabilities
associated with natural disasters and to develop long-term strategies for protecting
people and property in future hazard events. The process results in a mitigation plan
that offers a strategy for breaking the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and
repeated damage and a framework for developing feasible and cost-effective mitigation
projects. Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), local
governments are required to develop and maintain a FEMA approved hazard mitigation
plan as a condition of eligibility for receiving non-emergency federal hazard mitigation
grants.
A multi-jurisdictional planning team comprised of representatives from Maricopa
County, El Mirage and Surprise, and various other towns, cities and tribal governments
located within the county, will be meeting regularly to review, revise and update the
current Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The planning team will be meeting regularly to
review, revise, and/or update the following plan elements:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Natural hazards that may impact or have impacted the community
Profiles of the most relevant hazards
Vulnerability assessment to the identified hazards
Goals and objectives for hazard risk reduction/elimination
Mitigation actions/projects to achieve the stated goals and objectives
Plan maintenance strategy for the next 5-year cycle

An updated draft of the plan is expected in July 2009. For additional information, please
visit www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_mgt or contact your community’s representative
below:
City of El Mirage Fire Department at 623-583-7968
City of Surprise Fire Department at 623-222-5000

Avondale AZ - Official Website

Page 1 of 1

Home | Events Calendar | Department Directory | Resource Directory | Document Center | Job Postings | Archive Center

June 1
City Council Regular
Meeting

City at a Glance

June 1
Muncipal Arts Committee

Mayor & Council
City Government
City Council Meetings
City Departments &
Services
Job & Volunteer
Opportunities

June 4 - June 6
Avondale Seniors to
Hold Rummage Sale
Fundraiser

Welcome to the City of Avondale, Arizona!
With almost 70,000 current residents and
ranked as one of the fastest growing
communities in Maricopa County, Avondale
has come a long way from its agricultural
past. (For more, click here.)

[View All Events]

City Hall, Avondale Civic Center

Resident Services

1. Where is City Hall

Business Services

located?

Codes & Ordinances

2. When are City
Council meetings
held?

Elections & Voter
Registration

'GREEN FRIDAY' REMINDER - City Hall is closed
on Fridays. City Hall is open for business Monday
through Thursday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. to provide
two extra hours of customer service.

Community Links
Stimulus Projects
Maps

3. What are City Hall
hours?
[View All General City
Information]

Pay My Utility Bill
Contact Us
Free Breakfast and Lunch Meal Distribution Sites for Youth
This Summer, Avondale is host to fifteen locations that will be serving wholesome
summer meals for youth ages 1 to 18. Programs are funded by grants provided by the
USDA. [Read on...]
Come to a D-backs Game and Represent Avondale!
As part of the Diamondbacks Arizona Home Town Series, Avondale will be the guest
community at the Diamondbacks vs. Los Angeles Dodgers game Saturday, August 15 at
Chase Field. [Read on...]

Buy a Home in Avondale
Sam Garcia Western
Avenue Library
Civic Center Library
Bulk Trash Information
New Water Service
Application
Care1st Resource
Center
[View More Links]

Avondale Offers Businesses the Invitation to Become a Sponsor
There are many opportunities for businesses to support the vision and work of the City of
Avondale. [Read on...]
Household Hazardous Waste, Shred-A-Thon and Electronics Recycling Event
Spring cleaning? Avondale residents are invited to take part in the city’s Household
Hazardous Waste, Shred-A-Thon and Electronics Recycling Event, scheduled for
Saturday, June 6. [Read on...]
Avondale takes part in County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Process
The mitigation planning process involves identifying and profiling the natural or human
caused hazards most likely to occur in a community.... [Read on...]
City News Releases
Click here to access all Avondale News Releases. [Read on...]

Copyright Notices | Powered By CivicPlus

http://www.avondale.org/

5/28/2009

Avondale AZ - Official Website

Page 1 of 2

Home | Events Calendar | Department Directory | Resource Directory | Document Center | Job Postings | Archive Center
You are here: Home > News Flash

News Flash - Selected
City at a Glance
Mayor & Council
City Government

View Archived

Avondale takes part in County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Process
The City of Avondale has joined forces with Maricopa County to review and update the existing
individual multi-hazard mitigation plans. The mitigation planning process involves identifying and
profiling the natural or human caused hazards most likely to occur in a community, assessing the
vulnerability to these hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and projects that mitigate the
associated risks. [Additional info...]

City Council Meetings
City Departments &
Services
Job & Volunteer
Opportunities
Resident Services

News Flash - All
News Flash - Home

View Archived
View Archived

Free Breakfast and Lunch Meal Distribution Sites for Youth
Working through the Arizona Department of Education, 15 organizations across Avondale are
providing summer meals for all youth and students. Sites in Avondale include:

Business Services
Codes & Ordinances
Elections & Voter
Registration
Community Links
Stimulus Projects
Maps
Pay My Utility Bill
Contact Us

Agua Fria HS, 530 E Riley Dr
Bradley Academy, 200 N Dysart Rd
Canyon Breeze Elementary, 11675 W Encanto Blvd
Estrella HS, 510 N Central Ave
Garden Lakes Elementary, 10825 W Garden Lakes Pkwy
La Mission Jubilee Church, 11147 W Buckeye Rd
Lattie Coor School, 1406 N Central Ave
Michael Anderson Elementary, 45 S 3rd Ave
Neighborhood Housing Service, 19 N Central Ave
Norton Circle Housing Development, 304 S 5th Ave
Quentin Elementary, 11050 W Whyman Ave
Rio Vista Elementary, 10237 W Encanto Blvd
Rose Terrace Apartments, 525 E Harrison Dr
Salvation Army, 11 N 3rd Ave
Sam Garcia Western Ave Library, 495 E Western Ave
For specific information about the program or specific hours for each site, please contact the
Arizona Department of Education at 602-542-8700 or 800-352-4558.
Dept of Education Summer Food website
Come to a D-backs Game and Represent Avondale!
Avondale Day is an exclusive Arizona Diamondbacks Arizona Hometown Day! Game time is 1:10
p.m.
Arizona Diamondbacks are offering discount tickets in honor or Avondale Day. The tickets, which
usually sell for $20, will be priced at $15. The Diamondbacks are also offering limited ‘All-youcan-Eat’ seats that come with all the food you can eat, including hot dogs, popcorn, peanuts, and
chips, soft drinks and bottled water, priced at a special $35 per seat.
Discount tickets are in select seat locations:
- Standard Seats - $15 (game ticket price) - Lower Level Bullpen Reserve, section 106
- All You Can Eat Seats - $35 (includes game ticket AND FOOD) - section 222
Tickets must be pre-purchased by August 11. To purchase discount tickets, go to
www.dbacks.com/groups;
Sign In: avondale - Password: hometown
Questions? Call Arizona Diamondbacks Group Tickets Sales at (602) 462-4121 BUY TICKETS
Avondale Offers Businesses the Invitation to Become a Sponsor

http://www.avondale.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=495

5/28/2009

Avondale AZ - Official Website

Page 2 of 2

There are many opportunities for businesses to support the vision and work of the City of
Avondale. Sponsorships provide companies and organizations an opportunity to achieve a high
degree of visibility within the local community, through customized programs that fit specific
marketing and sales goals.
Find out more, Visit www.avondale.org/sponsorship .
Partner with us on a special event! Adopt a tree, park bench or a soccer field! Purchase a piece
of public art! Our sponsorship program can provide positive exposure for business products and
services.
[Additional info...]
Household Hazardous Waste, Shred-A-Thon and Electronics Recycling Event
Spring cleaning? Avondale residents are invited to take part in the city’s Household Hazardous
Waste, Shred-A-Thon and Electronics Recycling Event, scheduled for Saturday, June 6 from 8 to
11 a.m. Items will be collected at Coldwater Park, 10 N. Eliseo Felix Way in Avondale.
WHEN: Saturday, June 6, 8 a.m. to 11 a.m.
WHERE: 10 N. Eliseo Felix Way; Coldwater Park (from Dysart Road, enter from Western Ave.)
COST: There is no charge; however, AVONDALE residents will be required to show proof of
residency (i.e. drivers license, copy of recent water bill) to drop off items.
[Additional info and guidelines...]
City News Releases
Click here to access all Avondale News Releases. www.avondale.org/NEWS

Copyright Notices | Powered By CivicPlus

http://www.avondale.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=495

5/28/2009

Avondale AZ - Official Website

Page 1 of 1

Home | Events Calendar | Department Directory | Resource Directory | Document Center | Job Postings | Archive Center
You are here: Home > Archive Center

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City at a Glance
Mayor & Council
City Government
City Council Meetings
City Departments &
Services
Job & Volunteer
Opportunities
Resident Services
Business Services
Codes & Ordinances
Elections & Voter
Registration
Community Links
Stimulus Projects
Maps
Pay My Utility Bill
Contact Us

For immediate release: May 13, 2009
Contact: Ingrid Melle, Public Information, (623) 333-1614
Avondale takes part in Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Process
The City of Avondale has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions around the
Valley to review and update the existing individual multi-hazard mitigation plans and consolidate
them into a single multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation plan. The goal of this mitigation
planning effort is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from natural hazard
events.
“Mitigation is not how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires, but rather how we as a
community prevent the impact of such things in the first place,” said Chief Art Snapp of Avondale
Fire-Rescue. “It is clear that a focus on hazard mitigation will likely go a long way to benefiting the
overall well-being of the residents of Avondale.”
The mitigation planning process involves identifying and profiling the natural or human caused
hazards most likely to occur in a community, assessing the vulnerability to these hazards, and
establishing goals, actions, and projects that mitigate the associated risks. The development of
this mitigation plan will also ensure eligibility for certain hazard mitigation grants and public
assistance funds.
Public input on the mitigation planning process is important and residents are encouraged to
educate themselves about the existing plan and offer comments on the update process. For more
information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional planning website at
www.maricopa.gov/emerg_mgt or contact Art Snapp, Avondale Fire-Rescue at
asnapp@avondale.org , 623-333-6110 or Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of
Emergency Management at cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov; (602)273-1411.

Copyright Notices | Powered By CivicPlus

http://www.avondale.org/Archive.aspx?ADID=2543

5/28/2009

Buckeye, AZ - Official Website - Fire

Page 1 of 1

Home | News | Calendar | Careers | Documents | Archives | Español | Accessibility

You are here: Home > Departments > Public Safety > Fire
Administration
CERT

Public Education

- What is the Protection Class
Rating for my home?
- How does my club or
organization arrange a tour of
the fire station?
- How do I schedule a fire
inspection?

Recruitment

[View All Fire Department]

Fire Prevention

Town of Buckeye Fire Department
"To be the Best and Build for the Future"

Honor Guard
Operations

Safety Tips
Station Locations
Training Tower

404 South Miller Road
Buckeye, Arizona 85326
Weather Forecast

P: (623) 349-6700 F: (623) 349-6750

Administrative Hours:
Monday - Thursday
7:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m.
email
Insurance Companies
Buckeye Firefighters Union
Hazard Mitigation Statement
Job Opportunities
Fire Department FAQ's
Customer Survey
View More Links

The Buckeye Fire Department provides fire protection and
advanced life support care for the Town of Buckeye. The Fire
Department is a full time (career) organization serving the
community from six fire stations with approximately 87 staff
positions.
Currently, the department has six Class A
pumpers, two 100 foot aerial trucks, a technical rescue support
vehicle, two brush trucks, two command vehicles and six staff
vehicles. All line staff are certified firefighters and
approximately 50% are Para-medics.
The Fire Department is a member of the nationally recognized
valley wide automatic aid consortium in which all participants
are dispatched via computer through the use of an automatic
vehicle
locater
system
regardless
of
the jurisdiction.
This insures the closest appropriate unit and resources will
respond and automatically access all of the fire resources of the
greater Phoenix area.

Town of Buckeye
1101 East Ash Ave
Buckeye, AZ 85326
623-349-6000

Buckeye Fire is very active in training and recruitment and
currently has an Intergovernmental Agreement with Glendale
Community College for cooperative training and certification
programs. We are actively involved in promoting community
awareness and public education starting in the grade
schools with staff assigned to each school and continuing into
high school with cooperative vocational training. Trainers
conduct fire safety programs, first aid training, CRR and various
training programs throughout the community and on an
ongoing basis.
Home | Contact Us | Internet Policy | Site Map
Copyright Notices | Powered by CivicPlus

http://www.buckeyeaz.gov/index.asp?nid=88

3/17/2009

Emergency Services
Division of the Buckeye Fire Department
Phone: (623) 349-6700
Fax: (623) 349-6750
Address
1101 E. Ash
Buckeye, Arizona 85326
Dewey Horton, Assistant Fire Chief
Email dhorton@buckeyeaz.gov
Bob Costello, Fire Chief
Email bcostello@buckeyeaz.gov
In an effort to assist coordination and prepare for the four phases of Emergency
preparedness, this division is bringing the Town of Buckeye into the Maricopa County
Hazard Mitigation Planning process. These phases include: Mitigation (the effort to
minimize the impact of a disaster), Preparedness (planning/training) Response (the
response and coordination of resources to an incident), Recovery (restoration of town
services as quickly as possible). The Emergency Services Officer represents the Town of
Buckeye on local, regional and national issues relating to emergency management and
homeland security issues.
Current Projects:
The Town of Buckeye is currently in the process of updating its Hazard Mitigation Plan,
which will assist in establishing a baseline for future policies and developmental tools in
ensuring the most appropriate disaster planning projects are identified and undertaken for
the town.
Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management (MCDEM) will act as lead
agency for the 24 participating Towns and Cities, along with 2 of the county tribal
nations. Once fully implemented, a significant reduction of future risk and potential
losses should be anticipated in the event of a disaster, whether manmade, natural or
through terrorist activities. Implementation of the various aspects of the plan will be the
responsibility of the participating agencies involved with this update.
For more information or to submit comments, call (602) 273-1411 or visit Maricopa
County Department of Emergency Management web site.

Cave Creek, AZ - Official Site

Page 1 of 1

Home | Calendar | Document Center | Contact Us

Search

Town Code
E-Services
Employment
How Do I...?
E-News Signup
CodeRed
Cave Creek Film & Art
Festival

Experience the True Arizona in Cave Creek - eclectic
shopping, art galleries and the unrivaled beauty of the
Sonoran Desert. More than 30 restaurants to choose from,
everything from fine dining to cowboy cook-outs. Horseback
riding, rodeos, country and western dancing, museums, parks
and nature preserves, hiking and biking and old mining tours.

OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION KICK-OFF EVENT
Be a part of the F.O.R.C.E. (Friends of Recreation, Conservation
and the Environment)! Join the Town of Cave Creek, Desert
Foothills Land Trust for an inaugrual fund-raising event to acquire
over 4,000 acres of State Trust Land. [Read on...]

Mar. 10
Board of Adjustment Meeting - CANCELLED
Apr. 6
Regular Town Council Meeting
Apr. 16
Planning Commission Meeting - CANCELLED

APRIL IS WATER AWARENESS MONTH
The connection between water and the month of April goes back at
least as far as the 14th Century, when Geoffrey Chaucer opened
his classic “Canterbury Tales” with the observation that April was
when the plants’ roots began to receive water. [Read on...]
Emergency Management Planning Process
The Town of Cave Creek is currently partnering with Maricopa
County as well as 23 municipal jurisdictions to update and
consolidate the Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Public input is welcome and encouraged. [Read
on...]
Town of Cave Creek
37622 N. Cave Creek Rd.
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
480 · 488 · 1400
Fax 480 · 488 · 2263
Accessibility | Site Map | Powered by CivicPlus | Copyright Notices

http://www.cavecreek.org/

4/16/2009

Cave Creek, AZ - Official Site

Page 1 of 2

Home | Calendar | Document Center | Contact Us

Search

Town Code
E-Services

You are here: Home > News & Announcements

Employment
How Do I...?

Find out what's happening in the city. Below is a list of current news releases.

E-News Signup
CodeRed
Cave Creek Film & Art
Festival

News & Announcements - Selected
Emergency Management Planning Process
The Town of Cave Creek is currently partnering with Maricopa County as well as 23 municipal jurisdictions to
update and consolidate the Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Public input is
welcome and encouraged. For more information or to submit comments, please call 602-273-1411 or visit the
Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management Web site. [Emergency Management Web site]

News & Announcements - All

View Archived

News & Announcements - Home
OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION KICK-OFF EVENT
Be a part of the F.O.R.C.E. (Friends of Recreation, Conservation and the
Environment)! Join the Town of Cave Creek, Desert Foothills Land Trust for an
inaugrual fund-raising event to acquire over 4,000 acres of State Trust Land.
Maricopa County Parks is hosting an afternoon of events featuring displays
from Wild At Heart and Cave Creek Regional Park's collection of live reptiles
and invertebrates and music by Rondavous Trio.
The event will be held at the new Cave Creek Regional Park Nature Center
from 2:00pm to 6:00pm on Saturday April 18th, 2009.
Tickets for this event are $25.00 (children under 12 are free) and are available
at Town Hall or call 480-488-6600 for more ticket information. The ticket
entitles the entrant to one glass of wine or beer. Complimentary soft drinks and water will also be provided.
[Event Flyer]
APRIL IS WATER AWARENESS MONTH
The connection between water and the month of April goes back at least as far
as the 14th Century, when Geoffrey Chaucer opened his classic “Canterbury
Tales” with the observation that April was when the plants’ roots began to
receive water.
Back in the future, former Gov. Janet Napolitano chose April as Water
Awareness Month for similar reasons – it is the time when outdoor water use
increases for gardens, landscaping, and pools. April also is a great time to
focus on ways we can all be better water stewards.
ADWR asks the public to do its part in educating, celebrating, and taking
action to promote conservation.
“All citizens of Arizona should use water as efficiently as possible and practice
a low water-use lifestyle as a way to help ensure a long-term sufficient water
supply,” said ADWR Director Herb Guenther. “There are many ways to strengthen Arizona’s ‘culture of
conservation’ and through our combined efforts we will succeed,” Guenther added.

http://www.cavecreek.org/CivicAlerts.asp?AID=55

4/16/2009

Cave Creek, AZ - Official Site

Page 2 of 2

At the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), we are answering our own call by conducting a
series of workshops and webinars on water conservation practices; participating in school water-use audits,
promoting xeriscape, offering leak-detection opportunities to Arizona water providers and providing lowwater-use pre-rinse spray valves to Arizona eateries; and participating at various water-education events
around the state, including Make a Splash with Arizona Project WET Water Festivals.
Sources of information on conservation are nearly inescapable; they’re everywhere you look – especially on
our website: www.azwater.gov. [Department of Water Resources web site...]
ANNEXATION OF STATE TRUST LANDS
On October 20, 2008 the Arizona State Selection Board, comprised of the Governor, State Treasurer and
State Attorney General approved the annexation of approximately 8.8 miles of Arizona State Trust Land to be
annexed into the Town of Cave Creek. [Full text with map]
Online Open Space Survey
The Town of Cave Creek is in the process of acquiring approximately 4,000 acres of State Trust Land for
Open Space.
We would like to hear from you! Let us know how you think the new Open Space should be used. Please
follow the link below to fill out an on-line survey. [Online Open Space Survey]

Town of Cave Creek
37622 N. Cave Creek Rd.
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
480 · 488 · 1400
Fax 480 · 488 · 2263
Accessibility | Site Map | Powered by CivicPlus | Copyright Notices

http://www.cavecreek.org/CivicAlerts.asp?AID=55

4/16/2009

Emergency Preparedness

Page 1 of 2

Emergency Preparedness
CONTACT CHANDLER
CITY SERVICES - A TO Z
CHANDLER CHANNEL 11
COUNCIL AGENDA
DEPARTMENTS
DOWNTOWN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EN ESPAÑOL
E-SERVICES
HELPFUL COMMUNITY LINKS
INFOMAP
JOBS WITH CHANDLER
ONLINE TAX AND LICENSE
PHONE NUMBERS
STREAMING VIDEO
SHOP CHANDLER
UNIFIED DEV MANUAL
UTILITY BILL PAYMENTS

City Meetings Calendar

The City of Chandler provides this information to better prepare residents
in the event of some type of emergency or disaster situation.
Publications
z Emergency Preparedness Guide for Homeowners (PDF) - This guide is provided by the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, the Homeownership Alliance and Habitat for Humanity to assist in
planning for an emergency.
z For more on emergency preparedness, visit the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Web site.

Emergency Situation Information & Tips
z
z
z
z

Storms/Monsoons
Power Outages
Heat Wave
Homeland Security

z Hazardous Materials
z Water Contamination
z Palo Verde Nuclear Emergency

Emergency Communications
The City of Chandler will make every attempt to adequately inform citizens in the event of an
emergency situation. If there is an emergency event, the City's Web site, Chandler Channel 11,
and Public Safety TV 98 will be updated with specific information in the event of a real emergency
or disaster situation. If there is an emergency event and you would like more information, please
use the following resources:

4.20.2009 | Public
Housing Authority
Commission
22 S. Delaware St.
4.20.2009 | City Council
Study Session
22 S. Delaware St.
4.21.2009 | Mayor's
Committee for the Aging
125 E. Commonwealth Ave.
4.21.2009 | Architectural
Review Committee
215 E. Buffalo St.
more...
Chandler Events Calendar

4.22.2009 | Council Open
House
745 E. Germann Rd.
4.23.2009 | Downtown
Chandler Farmers Market
Dr. A. J. Chandler Park
4.23.2009 | Public
Housing Authority
Commission

4.25.2009 | City of
Chandler Birthday Party
San Marcos Courtyard

Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
The City of Chandler has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions around the
Valley to review and update the existing individual multi-hazard mitigation plans and consolidate
them into a single multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation plan. The goal of this mitigation
planning effort is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from natural hazard
events. Mitigation is not how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires, but rather how we
as a community prevent the impact of such things in the first place. The mitigation planning process
involves identifying and profiling the natural hazards most likely to occur in a community, assessing
the vulnerability to these hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and projects that mitigate the
associated risks. The development of this mitigation plan will also ensure eligibility for certain hazard
mitigation grants and public assistance funds. Public input on the mitigation planning process is
important and residents are encouraged to educate themselves about the existing plan and offer
comments on the update. For more information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional planning
website or contact:
Marc Walker, Chandler Fire Department, 782-2135 or Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department
of Emergency Management, cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov.

Television - Local News Stations (Non Cable)

Chandler Emergency Center Hotline
(480) 782-2990

Channels 3, 5, 10, 12 and 15
Chandler Police Back-Up Phone System
(480) 963-0911
(480) 963-6601
(480) 963-6602

........
Radio - Local News Stations
Check most A.M. Stations

Agency
Chandler Fire Department
z Emergency (Police/Fire)
z Non-Emergency

http://www.chandleraz.gov/default.aspx?pageid=67

z 9-1-1
z 480-782-2120

4/20/2009

Homeland Security

Page 1 of 1

Homeland Security Information
CONTACT CHANDLER
CITY SERVICES - A TO Z
CHANDLER CHANNEL 11
COUNCIL AGENDA
DEPARTMENTS
DOWNTOWN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EN ESPAÑOL
E-SERVICES
HELPFUL COMMUNITY LINKS
INFOMAP
JOBS WITH CHANDLER
ONLINE TAX AND LICENSE
PHONE NUMBERS
STREAMING VIDEO
SHOP CHANDLER
UNIFIED DEV MANUAL
UTILITY BILL PAYMENTS

The City of Chandler is providing this
information to better prepare
residents in the event of some type
of emergency or disaster situation
related to Homeland Security issues.
FEDERAL
z Dept. of Homeland Security
z Federal Bureau of Investigation - FBI
z Federal Emergency Management Agency -

FEMA
z Ready.gov
z Center for Disease Control
z CitizenCorps.gov

STATE
City Meetings Calendar

4.20.2009 | Public
Housing Authority
Commission
22 S. Delaware St.

z Arizona Homeland Security
z Community Information & Referral

COUNTY
z Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management

The City of Chandler has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions around the
Valley to review and update the existing individual multi-hazard mitigation plans and consolidate
them into a single multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation plan. The goal of this mitigation
planning effort is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from natural hazard
events. Mitigation is not how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires, but rather how we
as a community prevent the impact of such things in the first place. The mitigation planning process
involves identifying and profiling the natural hazards most likely to occur in a community, assessing
the vulnerability to these hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and projects that mitigate the
associated risks. The development of this mitigation plan will also ensure eligibility for certain hazard
mitigation grants and public assistance funds. Public input on the mitigation planning process is
important and residents are encouraged to educate themselves about the existing plan and offer
comments on the update. For more information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional planning
website or contact:
Marc Walker, Chandler Fire Department, 782-2135 or Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department
of Emergency Management, cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov.

4.20.2009 | City Council
Study Session
22 S. Delaware St.
4.21.2009 | Mayor's
Committee for the Aging
125 E. Commonwealth Ave.
4.21.2009 | Architectural
Review Committee
215 E. Buffalo St.
more...
LOCAL
Chandler Events Calendar

City of Chandler Emergency Operations Center Information

4.22.2009 | Council Open
House
745 E. Germann Rd.

z Be Prepared - Steps that every Chandler resident can take to prepare themselves

and their family for emergency situations.
z Chandler's Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) - C.E.R.T. is hands-on

4.23.2009 | Downtown
Chandler Farmers Market
Dr. A. J. Chandler Park
4.23.2009 | Public
Housing Authority
Commission

disaster preparedness training for residents from the Chandler Fire Department
OTHER
Red Cross
z Terrorism: Preparing for the Unexpected
z En Español

4.25.2009 | City of
Chandler Birthday Party
San Marcos Courtyard
more...

4/20/2009

Search | Site Map | Contact Chandler | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Help

http://www.chandleraz.gov/default.aspx?pageid=321

4/20/2009

Emergency Preparedness

Page 2 of 2

Chandler Police Department
more...
Emergency (Police/Fire)
Non-Emergency
Need an Officer
Front Desk
City of Chandler

9-1-1
480-782-4130
480-782-4130
480-782-4000

z
z
z
z

z
z
z
z

z After Hours Help
z General Information

z 480-782-4130
z 480-782-2220

State of Arizona
z Emergency Management
Utility Companies
z
z
z
z
z

APS
SRP
Southwest Gas
Cox
Qwest

z 602-244-0504

z
z
z
z
z

602-371-7171
602-271-GASS
602-277-1000
1-800-573-1311
602-236-8811

Miscellaneous
z American Red Cross
z Federal Emergency Management

z 602-336-6660
z 1-800-462-9029

Agency (FEMA)
z Chandler Community Response

Team

Helpful Links

4/20/2009

Search | Site Map | Contact Chandler | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Help

http://www.chandleraz.gov/default.aspx?pageid=67

4/20/2009

Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona | Fire Department

Page 1 of 2

The Town of Fountain Hills
The Official Website of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona

Fountain Hills Rural/Metro Fire Department
The Fountain Hills Rural Metro Fire Department is made up of a dynamic body of men and
women who work to ensure the safety of Fountain Hills’ residents. While the Town owns the
equipment and firehouses, the Town of Fountain Hills contracts with Rural-Metro for the
personnel. This relationship has proven cost-effective and provided seamless service to
residents in Fountain Hills. The Fire Department is lead by Chief Scott LaGreca and Assistant
Chief Randy Roberts.

People
z
z

Fire Chief: Scott LaGreca
Assistant Fire Chief / Fire Marshal: Randy Roberts

Emergency Education
z
z
z
z

What to do in common emergencies
What to do with snakes
CARE: Crisis Activated Response Effort of Fountain Hills
Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan

To download the Town of Fountain Hills official Emergency Operations Plan PDF, click here.
(Please note, this is a 133-page document)

Contact Information
Get Involved
z
z

Public Safety Advisory Commission (pdf)
Fire Department Explorers

Office Location & Hours
16705 E. Ave. of the Fountains
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 - Map
7:00 AM to 6:00 PM M-Th

Contact Information

http://www.fh.az.gov/fire-department/

5/12/2009

Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona | Fire Department

z
z
z

Page 2 of 2

Tel: 480-816-5100
Fax: 480-837-3145
All Contact Information

Other Resources
z
z
z
z

Fountain Hills Mission Statement
A.D.A. Notice
Arizona @ Your Service
Current Weather

http://www.fh.az.gov/fire-department/

5/12/2009

Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona | Scott LaGreca

Page 1 of 1

The Town of Fountain Hills
The Official Website of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona

Multi-hazard Migitation Plan
The mitigation planning process involves identifying and profiling the natural hazards most
likely to occur in a community, assessing the vulnerability to these hazards, and establishing
goals, actions, and projects that mitigate the associated risks. The development of this
mitigation plan will also ensure eligibility for certain hazard mitigation grants and public
assistance funds.
Public input on the mitigation planning process is important and residents are encouraged to
educate themselves about the existing plan and offer comments on the update.
For more information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional planning website at
www.maricopa.gov/emerg_mgt or contact Chief Scott LaGreca, Fire Chief/Emergency
Management Coordinator at SLaGreca@fh.az.gov or Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management at cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov.

Office Location & Hours
16705 E. Ave. of the Fountains
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 - Map
7:00 AM to 6:00 PM M-Th

Contact Information
z
z
z

Tel: 480-816-5100
Fax: 480-837-3145
All Contact Information

Other Resources
z
z
z
z

Fountain Hills Mission Statement
A.D.A. Notice
Arizona @ Your Service
Current Weather

http://www.fh.az.gov/fire-department/mitigation-plan/

5/12/2009

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

Home

Tribal Government

Community

Page 1 of 1

Departments

History & Culture Employment

Destination & Enterprises

Events

Up Coming Events
Gathering of the Pais
Gathering of the Pais Map
FMYN Graduation Dinner Celebration
(For FMYN Graduates Only)

Celebrate the 61th Native American
Right to Vote
The Lori Piestewa National Native
American Games
The 27th Annual Orme Dam Victory
Days Celebration

Department Information
Police Department
Fire Department
Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plan 2009
Legal Department
Prop 202 Application
Library
Library Community Garden (Pre-Prep)

News
FMYN President Top Honors at NIGA

http://www.ftmcdowell.org/

7/1/2009

Public Input Invited
The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions
around the Valley to review and update the existing individual multi-hazard mitigation plans and
consolidate them into a single multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation plan. The goal of this
mitigation planning effort is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from natural
hazard events. Mitigation is not how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires, but rather
how we as a community prevent the impact of such things in the first place.
The mitigation planning process involves identifying and profiling the natural hazards most likely to
occur in a community, assessing the vulnerability to these hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and
projects that mitigate the associated risks. The development of this mitigation plan will also ensure
eligibility for certain hazard mitigation grants and public assistance funds.
Public input on the mitigation planning process is important and residents are encouraged to educate
themselves about the existing plan and offer comments on the update. For more information, please
visit the multi-jurisdictional planning website at: www.maricopa.gov/emerg_mgt or contact:

FMYN Fire Chief, Tom Christmas
tchristmas@ftmcdowell.org
or
Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management,
cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov

Fire Department Home Page

Page 1 of 2

Home Page
Quick Links

· Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
·
·
·
·
·

Fire Fighter Recruitment
Gilbert Fire Department Honor Guard
Station Tours and Other Community Events for the Town of Gilbert
View map of current and future Fire Station Facilities
Water Safety

· Volunteering Programs - Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), Fire
Corps Program
· Continuous Chest Compressions CPR Class Schedule

Mission Statement
Our Vision
To become the finest fire service organization possible by utilizing and developing our
members to their fullest potential, maximizing our use of the resources available to us, and
being responsive to the growth and changing needs of our community.
Our Mission
To protect the lives, property, and environment of the people who live, work, play, and travel
in Gilbert by:
z
z
z

Rapid and effective emergency response;
Innovative prevention, enforcement, and education efforts;
Maintenance of a highly trained and dedicated work
force.

Our Values
Human Life – our top priority.
Service – our reason for existence.
Excellence – our goal
Integrity – the basis for trust.
Accountability – personal and professional.
Cooperation – to achieve common goals.
Innovation – for creative problem solving.
Education – for growth

http://www.ci.gilbert.az.us/fire/default.cfm?style=print

3/17/2009

Emergency Management Division

Page 1 of 1

Emergency Management Division
Current Projects and Initiatives

The Town of Gilbert is updating its Hazard Mitigation Plan, which establishes a framework of policies
and tools to be developed to ensure the most appropriate and equitable hazard mitigation planning
projects are identified and undertaken. Maricopa County will lead this update effort and involve all 24
municipalities and two of the county’s tribal nations. Once fully implemented, a significant reduction
of future risk and potential losses should be realized in the event of a disaster. Implementation of the
various aspects of the plan will be the responsibility of the various jurisdictions and agencies involved
in the update. For more information or to submit comments contact Sheri Gibbons, Emergency
Management Coordinator at 480-503-6333 or visit the Maricopa County Department of Emergency
Management Web site.
Quick Links

· 72-Hour Kits
· CERT Program
· Power Outage
Links to Other Websites:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

American Red Cross
AZ 2-1-1 Online
Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Homeland Security - Ready.gov
Maricopa County Emergency Management
World Health Organization

http://www.ci.gilbert.az.us/fire/emergencymgmt.cfm?style=print

3/18/2009

Glendale, AZ - City Clerk

Page 1 of 2

Arizona Memory Project | City Charter | Contact Information
Council Meeting Minutes and Agendas | Elected Official Forms | Elections | FAQs
Municipal Code Book | Passports | Political Committees
Public Records Requests | Useful Links | Home

City Clerk - Public Notices
ALL DEPARTMENTS
ALL SERVICES
Bid Opportunities
Boards and Commissions
City Clerk
Development Services
Economic Development
En Español
Events and Festivals
From the Heart
Glendale 11
Improvements
Jobs with Glendale
Library
Neighborhood Services
Online Bill Pay
Online Services
Parks and Recreation
Press Room
Public Meetings
Public Notices
Volunteer!

The City of Glendale City Clerk’s Office is providing these public notices for informational purposes The
official posting site of the City of Glendale is the board located outside the Council Chambers. If you have a
question about a city public notice, a hearing or any related topic, please contact the City Clerk’s office.
These notices are grouped by the issuing department and sorted in chronological order. All of these
documents require the Adobe Acrobat Reader which can be downloaded for free at www.adobe.com.
Mayor and Council
Community Meetings & Events 5/8/09
GSC 5/5/2009
Community Meeting & Events 5/4/2009
Community Meeting & Events 4/17/2009
Community Meeting & Events 4/24/09
Airport
Aviation Advisory Committee 5/9/2009
Arts
Arts Commission Agenda 4/27/2009
Arts Commission Agenda 4/27/09
Community Revitilization

Mayor's Bulletins
In the Community
Home Page

Citizens Avisory Commission Agenda 5/6/09
Public Notice (Monthly) 05/01/09
Economic Development

Council Members
District News
Home page

Meet Ed Beasley
Executive Team
Home Page

America Supports You
Arena
Downtown Dining District
Glendale's Got Game
Luke Air Force Base
Pentagon Channel
Stadium
VisitGlendale.com
Westgate City Center

Western Maricopa Enterprise Zone 4/30/09
Emergency Management
Notice of Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 5/8/09
Emergency Management Public Involvement 5/7/09
Engineering
Notice to Contractors No. 089005 5/7/09
RFQ- Civic Center Construction Manager Project No. 089009 4/23/09
Human Resources
Persons with Disabilities 4/21/09
Materials Control
Notice of Unclaimed Personal Property (Weapons) 05/01/09
Materials Management
Notice of Unclaimed Personal Property 5/8/09
Notice of Proposal No. 09-15 5/8/09
Notice of Proposal No. 09-10 5/8/09

http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/publicnotices.cfm

5/11/2009

Glendale, AZ - City Clerk

Page 2 of 2

Learn more about social
media

Notice of Proposal No. 09-14 4/24/09
Parks and Recreation
Parks & Recreation Advisory 5/11/09
Planning
Notice of Public Hearing CUP09-02 5/8/09
BOA Agenda 5/14/09
Planning Commission Agenda 5/7/09
Historic Preservation Commission 4/23/09
Transportation
CTOC 5/7/2009
Citizens Advisory Bicycle Advisory 5/4/2009
Utilities
Notice of Public Hearing- Increase in Rates 5/8/09

Contact Us | FAQs | History of Glendale | How to Get Around Glendale | Links | Help | Press Room | Policies © 2009 City of Glendale,
Arizona

http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/publicnotices.cfm

5/11/2009

Public Input Invited
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Begins
Hazard mitigation planning is the process used to identify risks and vulnerabilities
associated with natural disasters and to develop long-term strategies for protecting
people and property in future hazard events. The process results in a mitigation plan
that offers a strategy for breaking the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and
repeated damage and a framework for developing feasible and cost-effective mitigation
projects. Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), state,
county, local and tribal governments are required to develop and maintain a FEMA
approved hazard mitigation plan as a condition for receiving certain types of nonemergency disaster assistance and mitigation grants.
A multi-jurisdictional planning team comprised of representatives from Maricopa
County, City of Glendale and various other towns, cities and tribal governments located
within the county, will be meeting regularly to review, revise and update the current
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The planning team will be meeting regularly to review,
revise, and/or update the following plan elements:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Natural hazards that may impact or have impacted the community
Profiles of the most relevant hazards
Vulnerability assessment to the identified hazards
Goals and objectives for hazard risk reduction/elimination
Mitigation actions/projects to achieve the stated goals and objectives
Plan maintenance strategy for the next 5-year cycle

An updated draft of the plan is expected in July 2009. For additional information, please
visit www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_mgt or contact your community’s representative
below:
City of Glendale Office of Emergency Management
dsheff@glendaleaz.com

Goodyear, AZ - Official Website

CERT
Emergency Plans and
Exercises
Multi-Jurisdictional, MultiHazard Mitigation
Public Awareness
Seasonal News
Training

Page 1 of 1

You are here: Home > Departments/Divisions > Fire > Emergency Management > Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi-Hazard Mitigation

Emergency Management
Multi-Jurisdictional, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan

The City of Goodyear has joined forces with Maricopa County and other
jurisdictions around the Valley to review and update the existing individual multihazard mitigation plans and consolidate them into a single multi-jurisdictional,
multi-hazard mitigation plan. The goal of this mitigation planning effort is to
reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from natural hazard
events. Mitigation is not how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires,
but rather how we as a community prevent the impact of such things in the first
place.

The mitigation planning process involves identifying and profiling the natural hazards most
likely to occur in a community, assessing the vulnerability to these hazards, and
establishing goals, actions, and projects that mitigate the associated risks. The development
of this mitigation plan will also ensure eligibility for certain hazard mitigation grants and
public assistance funds.

Public input on the mitigation planning process is important and residents are encouraged to educate themselves about the
existing plan and offer comments on the update. For more information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional planning website
or contact:
Othell T. Newbill III, CEM, City of Goodyear Emergency Management Coordinator,
onewbill@goodyearaz.gov
or
Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management,
cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov
Top
Last Updated: 5/28/2009

City of Goodyear • 190 N. Litchfield Road • Goodyear AZ 85338 • Phone 623-932-3910 • Toll-Free 1-800-872-1749
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Webmaster | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact Us

Weather Forecast

http://www.ci.goodyear.az.us/index.aspx?NID=2715

6/2/2009

Litchfield Park, AZ - Emergency Management

Page 1 of 1

Home | Calendar | Employment | Document Archives | Staff Directory | Site Map | Contact Us

You are here: Home > Departments > Community & Recreation Services > Community Services >
Emergency Management

Block Watch
City Parks
Emergency Management
GAIN
Media Communications
Refuse/Recycling
Special Events
Valley Metro Bus

City of Litchfield Park
214 W. Wigwam Blvd.
Litchfield Park, AZ 85340
Phone: (623) 935-5033
Fax: (623) 935-5427
Recreation Center
(623) 935-9040

Emergency Management
Overview

The City of Litchfield Park has joined forces with Maricopa County and other
jurisdictions around the Valley to review and update the existing individual multihazard mitigation plans and consolidate them into a single multi-jurisdictional, multihazard mitigation plan. The goal of this mitigation planning effort is to reduce or
eliminate long-term risk to life and property from natural hazard events. Mitigation is
not how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires, but rather, how we, as
a community, prevent the impact of such things in the first place.
The mitigation planning process involves identifying and profiling the natural hazards
most likely to occur in a community, assessing the vulnerability to these hazards,
and establishing goals, actions and projects that mitigate the associated risks. The
development of this mitigation plan will also ensure eligibility for certain hazard
mitigation grants and public assistance funds.
Public input on the mitigation planning process is important and residents are
encouraged to educate themselves about the existing plan and offer comments on
the update.
For more information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional planning website at
www.maricopa.gov/emerg_mgt/

Contact Information

City of Litchfield Park Emergency Management
email
Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
email
Copyright Notices | Powered by CivicPlus | Accessibility

http://www.litchfield-park.org/index.asp?NID=636

4/20/2009

Maricopa County, Arizona

Page 1 of 2

Site Map | Search | Phone Directory | Departments | Services | Email Alerts

December 29, 2008
In the Headlines

Search

My Maricopa.gov

Go

Personalize Maricopa.gov

Rescue Groups Helping to Save Lives

Quick Links
Assessor / Parcel Information

MCACC's rescue partners are saving more lives over
the holidays.

Awarded Contracts
Bid Solicitations

Find My Information...

more details...

Board of Supervisors

Based on MY Address, find...
My Schools, My Taxes,
My Assessor Parcel Info,
My Voting Precinct,
My Congressional District,
My Supervisoral Dist,
My Justice Precinct, GIS
Maps & more... Click Here

Case History
County at a Glance
Diversity
Employment

County Spotlight

GIS Maps & Services

>>

Emergency Mgmt / Homeland Security

Recorded Docs
Request for Public Records Forms

Maricopa County Environmental Services is involved
in many different types of Environmental Health and
Safety issues. Did you know that the Environmental
Services Department is the custodian of the public
records for reported Clandestine Drug Labs
throughout Maricopa County? Search any Health and
Safety complaints we have on record at Complaints
Research Corner.

Restaurant Ratings
Self Service Center
Tax Information

Other Sites

Cities In Maricopa
AZ State Services
Local News - Phoenix
Southwest Valley home-price drops sharpest
in metro Phoenix

National Threat Level
Currently: ELEVATED - YELLOW

Maricopa County Homeland Security

View a predefined report at Environmental Services:
Clandestine Drug Lab Records
Weather - Phoenix

Boys die after brutal beating at Valley park
Avondale food bank struggling to fill need
Council dislikes Goodyear Palms Plaza
project's signs

Other County News
PM-2.5 Health Watch on December 29th

Avondale considers condemning water
company

12/29/2008

There is a PM-2.5 Health Watch in effect for Monday, December 29, 2008 from
midnight to midnight [24-hour period]. ....More Details

Semi overturns on I-10 in Southwest Valley

Temperature: 60 ° F
Skies: Mostly Cloudy
Humidity: 72%
Wind: SE 9 mph
Visibility: 10.0
Dewpoint: 51
Updated: 12/17/08 10:51 AM MST
Local Pollen Reports
Airport Conditions
Lawn and Garden Weather

More News..

Consider Clean Air this Holiday Season; Don’t Burn
Events
<

Personalize this area to get
information specific to your
address and the community
which you live in.

Environmental Services: Clandestine Drug Lab
Records

Parks

December 2008

>

S

M

T

W

T

F

S

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

http://www.maricopa.gov/Default.aspx

12/23/2008

Maricopa County is taking a proactive approach this winter season and educating
folks about the hazards of burning wood as well as gift wrapping paper ....More
Details

Weather data provided by
weather.com®

Trivia

12/29/2008

Maricopa County, Arizona

Page 2 of 2

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

County Begins Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2

3

Maricopa County recently secured a grant from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to update the county’s Multi-Jurisdictional MultiHazard ....More Details

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12/12/2008

Public Health marks 20th anniversary of World AIDS Day

View Full Calendar
County Observed Holidays

What professional sports team plays in a
stadium owned by Maricopa County?
Click for Answer

12/12/2008

MCDPH marks 20th anniversary of World AIDS Day with community wide event.
The Valley's Red Ribbon created at the event is a possible World Record! ....More
Details

PET PHOTOS WITH SANTA

12/2/2008

PETCO OFFERING PICTURES WITH SANTA ....More Details

First Flu Case of the Season

11/26/2008

Although Valley temperatures continue to loom into the mid 80's this week, the flu
is right on schedule. Today, the Arizona Department of Health Servi ....More
Details

Public Health Urges Residents to Get Vaccinated Against Flu
11/26/2008

Maricopa County Public Health Director, Dr. Bob England, Fire Chief Bob Khan
and the American Lung Association encourage all families to get
immunized ....More Details

Get involved, not infected! World AIDS Day 2008 Dec. 1st

11/26/2008

Maricopa County Department of Public Health (MCDPH) and the Arizona
Department of Public Health (ADHS) encourage all community members to
continue edu ....More Details

More County News ...

©2008 Maricopa County
Maricopa Home

Site Map

Legal Information

Privacy/Security Policies
Maricopa County || 301 W. Jefferson St. || Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-3011

http://www.maricopa.gov/Default.aspx

12/29/2008

pr_detail

Page 1 of 1

NEWS

for immediate release
MARICOPA COUNTY
Emergency Management
2035 North 52nd Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008

www.maricopa.gov

County Begins Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

Maricopa County recently secured a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) to update the county’s Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. This plan
establishes a framework of policies and tools to be developed to ensure the most appropriate
and equitable disaster planning projects are identified and undertaken in Maricopa County.
The current plan was originally written in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
and subsequently approved by FEMA in November of 2004. It requires an update every five
years.
Maricopa County will lead this update effort and involve all 24 municipalities and two of the
county’s tribal nations. Once fully implemented, a significant reduction of future risk and
potential losses should be realized in the event of a disaster. Implementation of the various
aspects of the plan will be the responsibility of the various jurisdictions and agencies
involved in the update.
Maricopa County will regularly post the progress of the plan update on its website. While
stakeholder meetings are intended for the individual agencies involved, the public is
welcome and encouraged to review the material below, submit comment and track the
progress of this plan update.
2004 Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Stakeholder Meeting Schedule
About Mitigation Planning/History & Background/Plan Update Process
For more information or to submit comments and questions, call the Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management at 602-273-1411 or one of the contacts below:
Cristina Herrera, Emergency Planner
Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management
2035 North 52nd Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008
(602)273-1411
Fax: (602)275-1638
Pager: (602)201-1478

W. Scott Ogden, P.E., CFM
Mitigation Planning Consultant
JE Fuller
8400 S. Kyrene Road, Suite 201
Tempe, AZ 85284
(480)222-5717
Fax: (480)839-2193
Cell: (480)299-3394

<< Back

http://www.maricopa.gov/pr_detail.aspx?releaseID=974

12/29/2008

Emergency Management Department of Maricopa County

Page 1 of 2

Site Map | Search | Phone Directory | Departments | Services | Email Alerts

HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING
What is hazard mitigation planning?
Hazard mitigation planning is a process for State, local, and Indian Tribal governments to identify policies, activities,
and tools to implement mitigation actions. Mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk
to life and property from a hazard event. This process has four steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Organizing resources;
Assessing risks;
Developing a mitigation plan; and
Implementing the plan and monitoring progress.

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
In 2003 and 2004, Maricopa County, two Indian Tribes, and all incorporated cities and towns in Maricopa County,
participated in a multi-jurisdictional mitigation planning effort that resulted in the development of a multi-jurisdictional
hazard mitigation plan with separate plans that covered each participating jurisdiction. The Maricopa County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004) and all of the separate plans received official Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) approval on November 29, 2004. The 2004 Plan was designed to meet the federal
regulations set forth by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which requires all local, county, tribal and state
governments to develop a multi-hazard mitigation plan for their respective jurisdictions in order to be eligible to receive
certain hazard mitigation and public assistance funds.
The 2004 Plan is nearing the end of the 5-year planning cycle and is set to expire in November 2009. The Maricopa
County Department of Emergency Management (MCDEM) applied for and received a planning grant to fund a multijurisdictional effort to review, update and consolidate the 2004 Plan, with resubmittal to FEMA prior to its expiration in
November 2009.
Plan Update Process
MCDEM initiated the update process in December 2008. The plan update process will require the regrouping of the
Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team, which originally was comprised of one or more lead contacts from
each participating jurisdiction as well as public utilities, hospitals, police, fire and sheriff’s departments, and other
public and private entities.
Input must be obtained from neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation
activities and agencies having authority to regulate development including businesses, academia and other private
and non-profit interests. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team will be meeting regularly to review, revise, and/or
update of the following elements:
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z

Previously identified hazards that may impact or have impacted the community
Profiles of the most relevant hazard events
Assessment of vulnerability to hazards
Assessment of the communities’ capability to mitigate hazards
Hazard mitigation goals and objectives for the community
Hazard mitigation actions and/or projects
Implementation strategy for the plan
Plan maintenance strategy for the next 5-year cycle

http://www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_Mgt/links.aspx

4/20/2009

Emergency Management Department of Maricopa County

z

Page 2 of 2

Write and officially adopt plan

STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
To meet the goal of having an approved plan by November 2009, a meeting calendar running from January 2009 to
July 2009 has been established.
Stakeholder Meeting #1 - Minutes
Stakeholder Meeting #1 - Material
Stakeholder Meeting #1 - State Hazard Mitigation Measures checklist
Stakeholder Meeting #2 - Minutes
Stakeholder Meeting #2 – CPRI Guidance
Stakeholder Meeting #2 – Calculation Template
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The public is welcome to attend of the stakeholder meetings and encouraged to participate and comment on the plan
during its drafting stages and prior to seeking final approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. To
submit comments online, please use the links below.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
For more information or to submit comments and questions, call the Maricopa County Department of Emergency
Management at 602-273-1411 or one of the contacts below:
W. Scott Ogden, P.E., CFM
Mitigation Planning Consultant
JE Fuller
8400 S. Kyrene Road, Suite 201
Tempe, AZ 85284
(480)222-5717
Fax: (480)839-2193
Cell: (480)299-3394

Cristina Herrera, Emergency Planner
Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management
2035 North 52nd Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008
(602)273-1411
Fax: (602)275-1638
Pager: (602)201-1478

>> Partner Agencies

>> Information Central

>> Quick Links

AZ Emergency Management

Events Calendar

AZ Dept. of Homeland Security

Preparedness
FEMA

Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC)

U.S. D ept. of Homeland Security

Community Emergency
Red Cross

Response Team (CERT)

Transportation Security

Palo Verde Nuclear

Administration (TSA)

Generation Station Special
Assistance Survey

Search Emergency Management

Home

Go

Contact Us

Sitemap

©2009 Maricopa County
Maricopa Home

Site Map

Legal Information

Privacy/Security Policies

Maricopa County || 301 W. Jefferson St. || Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-3011

http://www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_Mgt/links.aspx

4/20/2009

Emergency Preparedness

Emergency
9-1-1
Fire NonEmergency
480-644-2101
Police NonEmergency
480-644-2211
Utilities
Gas leaks/odors
480-644-4277
Problems with
gas/sewer/water
480-644-2221
Power outage
480-644-2265
After hours,
weekends/holidays
480-644-2262
Site Links
Emergency
Preparedness
home
Sandbags

Page 1 of 2

What is a Hazard Mitigation Plan?
A Hazard Mitigation Plan is a process for State, local, and Indian Tribal governments to identify policies,
activities, and tools to implement mitigation actions. Mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or
eliminate long-term risk to life and property from a hazard event. This process has four steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.

organizing resources;
assessing risks;
developing a mitigation plan; and
implementing the plan and monitoring progress.

Your opportunity to contribute:
The City of Mesa is gathering information to complete a Hazard Mitigation Plan. Maricopa County will lead this
effort and involve all 24 county municipalities and two of the county's tribal nations.
Once fully implemented, a reduction of future risk and potential losses should be realized in the event of a
disaster. Implementation of the various aspects of the plan will be the responsibility of the various
jurisdictions and agencies involved in the update.
For more information or to submit comments and questions, call the Maricopa County Department of
Emergency Management at 602-273-1411 or one of the contacts below:
Cristina Herrera, Emergency Planner
Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management
2035 North 52nd Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008
(602)273-1411
Fax: (602)275-1638
Pager: (602)201-1478

W. Scott Ogden, P.E., CFM
Mitigation Planning Consultant
JE Fuller
8400 S. Kyrene Road, Suite 201
Tempe, AZ 85284
(480)222-5717
Fax: (480)839-2193
Cell: (480)299-3394

Pandemic Flu Task
Force
How to Prepare for
an Emergency
Countering
Terrorism
Four Steps to
Safety

"Preparing People to Help Themselves"

Knowing how to respond in an emergency situation can mean the difference between life and death. To teach
Emergency
residents to be better prepared the City of Mesa and the Mesa Fire Department offers Community
Preparedness Links
Emergency Response Team (CERT) training.
Assistant Chief Gil
Damiani

Applications are currently being accepted for the classes beginning April 4. For more information visit our
web page. To register for class please call 480-644-2780.

Community
Emergency
Response Team
Citizen Corps
Información en
Español

Emergency Preparedness
Emergency response during a natural or man-made disaster is coordinated through the City of Mesa Fire
Department's Emergency Management center. During a disaster, residents and visitors in the Mesa area are
advised to visit www.Mesaaz.gov or tune to Mesa Channel 11 or local radio and television stations for

http://mesaaz.gov/emergency/

4/16/2009

Emergency Preparedness

Page 2 of 2

information.
The City of Mesa provides the following information to help you plan for unexpected emergencies. Fire and
Police respond quickly during these events; however, it is important for residents to prepare to ensure the
comfort and safety of their families and homes.

FAMILY PREPAREDNESS GUIDE
Be Prepared

Potential Hazards

z How to prepare

z Explosion

Teams and Related Information
z Community Emergency

Response Team
z Four steps to

z Biological Threat

safety

z Amateur Radio Emergency

Response Volunteers
z Preparing for a

Terrorist Bombing

z Countering

terrorism

z Pandemic Flu Task Force
z Nuclear Threat

z Emergency

z Related links

preparedness
classes

z Chemical Threat
z Maricopa County

z Emergency

Evacuation Plan

z Terrorist Attack

z Radiation

z Avian flu

z Pandemic flu plan

z Heat emergency

Emergency Management
602-273-1411

z Arizona Division of Emergency

Management

z EIN-Arizona Emergency

Information Network
z Extended power

z Preparing for

Video

outage

pandemic flu

z Mesa Channel 11 What's On

Fire: Emergency Preparedness
z Natural Disasters

z Seasonal vs.

(wildfires, fires)

Pandemic flu

Current and Past Events

2009
z 1200 Volunteers needed for

z What is a flu

Crisis Response Drill...Coyote
Crisis Campaign

pandemic?

z West Nile Virus

2008
z Emergency Preparedness Expo

at Bass Pro Shops September
27, 2008

Copyright 2008 City of Mesa

http://mesaaz.gov/emergency/

Add to MyMesa | Contact Info | Feedback | En Español | Policies | User Survey

4/16/2009

Meetings and Events

Page 1 of 2

MEETINGS & EVENTS
Public Meeting Agendas
Calendar of Events 04/17
· Arts Advisory Committee
· Board of Adjustment
· Hillside Building Committee
· Historical Advisory Committee
· Mary Ann Brines Exceptional Performance Award
Committee
· Mummy Mountain Preserve Trust
· Municipal Property Corporation Summary
· Personnel Appeals Board
· Planning Commission
· Public Safety Personnel Retirement Board
· Town Council
- Notice of Possible Quorum for February
- Water Utility Committee

Staff reports and meeting information packets are available for public r

PUBLIC NOTICE
Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Town of Paradise Valley has joined forces with Maricopa
County and other jurisdictions around the Valley to review
and update the existing individual multi-hazard mitigation
plans and consolidate them into a single multi-jurisdictional,
multi-hazard mitigation plan. The goal of this mitigation
planning effort is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life
and property from natural hazard events. Mitigation is not
how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires,

http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/Townhall/Events.htm

4/20/2009

Meetings and Events

Page 2 of 2

but rather how we as a community prevent the impact of
such things in the first place.
The mitigation planning process involves identifying and
profiling the natural hazards most likely to occur in a
community, assessing the vulnerability to these hazards,
and establishing goals, actions, and projects that mitigate
the associated risks. The development of this mitigation
plan will also ensure eligibility for certain hazard mitigation
grants and public assistance funds.
Public input on the mitigation planning process is important
and residents are encouraged to educate themselves about
the existing plan and offer comments on the update. For
more information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional
planning website at: www.maricopa.gov/emerg_mgt or
contact:
Bob Lee, Town of Paradise Valley Building Safety Manager,
rlee@paradisevalleyaz.gov
or Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of
Emergency Management,
cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov
· Home · Town Government · Schools · Places of Worship ·
· Visitor Information · Mummy Mountain Preserve Trust · Goldwater Memorial ·
Town Hall
6401 East Lincoln Drive
Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253
©2001-2009 Town of Paradise Valley

04/17/2009 18:34:08

http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/Townhall/Events.htm

4/20/2009

Emergency and Safety - - Emergency Home

Page 1 of 1

Home | Jobs | Calendar | News | Sign Up for eNews | Legal | Contact Us

Search Peoria

Emergency Home
Getting Started
Disaster Preparedness
Environmental Preparedness
Weather Preparedness
Peoria Home Page > Government (Misc) > Emergency and Safety

Getting Involved
Contact Information
Kids Corner

Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The key to safety and preparedness ...knowing what to do and when to do it.
Welcome to the City of Peoria's Emergency Preparedness website. On this website you can find
information for disaster, weather, and environmental preparedness along with how to get involved and
how to get started with your own personal emergency preparedness program.
The City of Peoria has elected to participate in the Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan sponorsed by Maricopa
County. For more information and up to date status, please click here.
Have a question? Send us a quick e-mail at EmergencyInfo@PeoriaAz.gov, or contact us by phone at
623-773-5207. We are more than happy to help you get what you need!

Resources and Information

This page was last updated on 4/13/2009 - Copyright © 2009 - City of Peoria, Arizona. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Statement
If you have any questions regarding this Web site please contact the webmaster at Webmaster@peoriaaz.gov

http://www.peoriaaz.gov/Content2.asp?id=2161

4/13/2009

Emergency Management Program

Phone Directory

Mayor / City Council

Page 1 of 1

Departments

GO

E-Services

En Español

Residents

Public Safety

Businesses

Transportation

Visitors & Newcomers

Culture & Recreation

City Government
Employment
Environment & Sustainability

Emergency
Management Home

Emergency Management Program

State, County, and
Local Links
National Links
Resources for
People with
Disabilities
Weather and Natural
Disaster Links
Disaster Relief Links

The Emergency Management Coordinator is responsible for managing the city’s Emergency
Management Program during each of the four phases of Emergency Management, which
include: response, recovery, preparedness, and mitigation planning. The Emergency
Management Coordinator is also responsible for:

Resource Library
z
z
z

z
z

Coordinating training programs and emergency operations drills.
Assisting departments with their emergency and mitigation plans.
Operating the Emergency Operations Center when necessary to manage the
distribution of city services and resources to respond to and recover from a mancaused or natural event of significant impact to the city.
Administering the submittal process for federal and state reimbursement claims for the
city’s costs during emergency operations.
Managing grant funding that is received through various grant programs established
under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

IF YOU ARE EXPERIENCING AN EMERGENCY AT THIS MOMENT, CALL 9-1-1.
For more information, call 602-534-0642.

Note: The city of Phoenix is currently in the process of updating their Hazard Mitigation Plan in
coordination with the Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management. For additional
information on this process, please visit the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan website hosted by
Maricopa County http://www.maricopa.gov/pr_detail.aspx?releaseID=1004.

http://phoenix.gov/EMERGENCYMGMT/index.html

4/16/2009

Queen Creek : Hazard Mitigation Plan

Page 1 of 1

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The Town has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions around the Valley to review and update
the existing individual multi-hazard mitigation plans to consolidate into a single multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard
mitigation plan. The goal of this mitigation planning effort is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and
property from natural hazard events. Mitigation is not how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires,
but rather how we as a community prevent the impact of such things in the first place.
The mitigation planning process involves identifying and profiling the natural hazards most likely to occur in a
community, assessing the vulnerability to these hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and projects that mitigate
the associated risks. The development of this mitigation plan will also ensure eligibility for certain hazard
mitigation grants and public assistance funds.
Public input on the mitigation planning process is important. Residents are encouraged to learn about the existing
plan and provide comments on the update. For more information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional planning
site Web site or contact:
z Joe LaFortune Town of Queen Creek, Public Safety Division Manager
z Cristina Herrera Maricopa County, Department of Emergency Management

http://www.queencreek.org/Index.aspx?page=721

5/18/2009

Salt River Fire Department: Emergency Management

Page 1 of 3

Home • Community • Government • History & Culture • Economic Development • Enterprises • Employmen

River Fire
partment
out SRFD
Vision, & Values
ry of SRFD
er Recruitment

Office of the Emergency Manager
Thank you for visiting the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) Emergency Management site!
It is important that our Community members know that the SRPMIC Government is working very hard to ensure that our Community is p
for any type of disaster that may impact the safety or quality of life for our members. Staff in all areas of Government are involved in this
prevent, plan, respond, and recover from a disaster or major event in our Community.

D Explorers
n Locations
tion Services

One of the most critical components for an effective disaster plan is having Community Members that are educated and prepared on wh
when disaster strikes.
We hope that you will use this website to not only educate yourself on what our Community staff is doing in the area of emergency prepa
but perhaps more importantly, what you and your family can do to prepare for a disaster before it strikes. Please feel free to contact the
Emergency Management Office if you have additional questions on our Community or your family’s emergency preparedness needs.

cy Management
For additional questions, you can contact Cliff Puckett, the Community's Emergency Manager, at 480 850-4408.
unity Safety

Consolidated Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan
pful Links

D Employee
ools Page

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions around the Valley to rev
update the existing individual multi-hazard mitigation plans and consolidate them into a single multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation
goal of this mitigation planning effort is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from natural hazard events. Mitigation is
we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires, but rather how we as a community prevent the impact of such things in the first pla
The mitigation planning process involves identifying and profiling the natural hazards most likely to occur in a community, assessing the
vulnerability to these hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and projects that mitigate the associated risks. The development of this m
plan will also ensure eligibility for certain hazard mitigation grants and public assistance funds.
Public input on the mitigation planning process is important and residents are encouraged to educate themselves about the existing plan
comments on the update. For more information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional planning website or contact: SRPMIC Emergency Ma
Puckett (cliff.puckett@srpmic-nsn.gov) at 480 850-4408 or Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
(cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov).

Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
The Salt River Fire Department's Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
Program educates people about disaster preparedness for hazards that may impact
their Community and trains them in basic disaster response skills, such as fire safety,
light search and rescue, team organization, and disaster medical operations.
Using the training learned in the classroom and during exercises, CERT members
can assist others in their neighborhood or workplace following an event when
professional responders are not immediately available to help.
CERT members also are encouraged to support emergency response agencies by
taking a more active role in emergency preparedness projects in their community.
For more information please call Salt River Fire Admin at 480.850.8240 for the next
available training session.

Disaster Strikes ... Are you prepared?
In the year 2007 the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community took a big step in enhancing the safety of our Community. This step w
a full time emergency manager to improve our readiness for a disaster or major event that could have a negative impact on our Commu
members, our land, and our quality of life. Just hiring an emergency manager is only one critical component to having an effective Comm
emergency plan. One of the most critical components for an effective plan is having Community members that are educated and prepar

http://www.srpmic-nsn.gov/government/fire/emergency.asp

5/4/2009

Salt River Fire Department: Emergency Management

Page 2 of 3

emergency plan. One of the most critical components for an effective plan is having Community members that are educated and prepar
to do when disaster strikes.
The following chart is a basic way to prepare yourself and your family for an emergency situation. For more information you can contact
Puckett, the Community Emergency Manager, at 480 850-4408, or go to the American Red Cross website.
Be Prepared. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3.

Get tips on how to create a Find out how to keep an
Learn about the basic
survival kit for any
eye on your emergency
decisions you and your
situation.
situation and adapt to
family should be prepared
changing circumstances.
to make in case of an
emergency.
• Make a Kit
Visit www.az211.gov to get
• Portable Kit
• Water & Food
updates.
• Prepare a Plan
• Having a Family Plan
• First Aid Kit
• Deciding to Stay or Go
• Clean Air
Call the Community
• Pet Preparedness Plan
• Special Needs
Emergency Hotline at 480
• Special Item Needs
• Warmth
850-4111.
• Utility Breakdown Plan
• Financial Security
• School Plan
• Pet Items
Answer your telephone which
• Employer Preparedness
• Supply Checklist
may have an emergency
• In a Moving Vehicle
message from emergency
responders advising you of
appropriate action to take.

Emergency Shelter in Place ... Do you know how?
Most people know that there is a chance that they may be asked to evacuate if there is an emergency such as a chemical spill in their a
evacuating, most people would go to a shelter that would be set up by emergency workers, or some would prefer to go to a friend or rela
house until it is safe to return. What if the emergency instructions were not to evacuate, but to "shelter in place". Do you know what this
Would you know what to do to protect yourself and your family? If the answer is "no", you are not alone. Most people are very confused
"shelter in place" really means.
Sheltering in place simply means that you stay in your residents, or current location such as work, and take some general precautions s
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z

Close and lock all windows and exterior doors.
If you are told there is danger of explosion, close the window shades, blinds, or curtains.
Turn off all fans, heating and air conditioning systems.
Close the fireplace damper.
Get your family disaster supplies kit and make sure the radio is working.
Go to an interior room without windows that's above ground level.
In the case of a chemical threat, an above-ground location is preferable because some chemicals are heavier than air, and may
basements even if the windows are closed.
Bring your pets with you, and be sure to bring additional food and water supplies for them.
It is ideal to have a hard-wired telephone in the room you select. Call your emergency contact and have the phone available if yo
report a life-threatening condition. Cellular telephone equipment may be overwhelmed or damaged during an emergency.
Use duct tape and plastic sheeting (heavier than food wrap) to seal all cracks around the door and any vents into the room.
Keep listening to your radio, television, telephone until you are told all is safe or you are told to evacuate. Local officials may call
evacuation in specific areas at greatest risk in your community.

So remember, evacuating is not the only choice in a disaster or hazardous situation. Sometimes the safest thing for you and your family
shelter in place, and now you know how to do this.

Emergency Messages Delivered to Your Phone
You pick up your telephone at home and it is obviously one of those recorded messages that we all get, usually advertising something .
could actually be a recorded emergency message that is being sent to your home to advise you and your family of a hazardous situation
Our Community is part of the Community Emergency Notification System, known as CENS. CENS is a phone notification system that ca
emergency information to thousands of home phones in a matter of minutes. If there was a large scale emergency in our Community, th
be one of the tools that our Public Safety personnel would use to notify our Community Members, Community Staff, and business in our
Community about the event. The recorded message would advise you of the event and give you some general instructions as to what to
example if they wanted you to evacuate the area, they would state this and give a location of where you could go for assistance. In som
situations, it is best to stay in your home. Emergency workers call this shelter in place. This CENS system could notify you to shelter in p
give brief instructions on how to do this.
This system can only be used for a true emergency and the use of it is regulated and monitored. There is also a significant cost to use th
which also controls this system from being improperly used. Some additional facts about CENS are as follows:
z

It will not leave a message on your cell phone
If
h
ll ID it ill
"P i it Al t"

"Al t C ll"

http://www.srpmic-nsn.gov/government/fire/emergency.asp

5/4/2009

Salt River Fire Department: Emergency Management

z
z
z
z

Page 3 of 3

If you have caller ID it will come up "Priority Alert" or "Alert Call"
It is designed to leave a message on an answering machine
It will call back automatically if it gets a busy signal
This system is only available to the Maricopa County region

So, the next time you pick up the phone and are tempted to hang up because you think that it is just a recorded advertisement, think aga
could be an emergency message from emergency workers trying to deliver important information to you in an effort to keep you and you
safe.
For additional questions on this system, you can contact Cliff Puckett, the Community’s Emergency Manager, at 480 850-4408.

[ Home ] [ Community ] [ Government ] [ History & Culture ] [ Economic Development ] [ Enterprises ] [ Employment ] [ Site Map ]

005 East Osborn Road · Scottsdale, Arizona 85256 · 480.850.8000
ights reserved copyright © 2001-2009 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

http://www.srpmic-nsn.gov/government/fire/emergency.asp

5/4/2009

Emergency Management

Page 1 of 2

Text Only

RESIDENTS

BUSINESS

VISITORS

ONLINE SERVICES

JOBS

SEARCH

RSS

Home / Departments & Divisions / Fire / Emergency Management

Emergency Management

DIVISIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
COMMUNITY RELATIONS

A DIVISION OF FIRE

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Phone: (480) 312-1821
Fax: (480) 312-1887

FIELD OPERATIONS

Physical Address
8401 E. Indian School Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85251

TRAINING AND
DEVELOPMENT/EMERGENCY
SERVICES

FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY

Lorenzo Jones, Emergency Management Officer
Email: ljones@ScottsdaleAZ.gov

ALL DEPARTMENTS
CITY ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Kerry Swick, Battalion Chief
Email: kswick@ScottsdaleAZ.gov

(PDF/100KB/1P)

The Emergency Management - Homeland Security Division is responsible for
preparing for and carrying out all emergency functions necessary to mitigate,
prepare for, respond to, and recover from significant incidents and disasters
caused by all hazards, whether natural, technological, or human caused.
The Division coordinates all four phases of emergency preparedness. The
four phases are: Mitigation (efforts to minimize the impact of a disaster),
Preparedness (planning/training), Response (the response and
coordination of resources to an incident), Recovery (restoration of City
services as quickly as possible). The Emergency Management Officer
represents the City of Scottsdale on local, regional and national issues
relating to emergency management and homeland security.

Current Projects and Initiatives:
The City of Scottsdale is updating its Hazard Mitigation Plan, which establishes a framework
of policies and tools to be developed to ensure the most appropriate and equitable hazard
mitigation planning projects are identified and undertaken.
Maricopa County will lead this update effort and involve all 24 municipalities and two of the
county’s tribal nations. Once fully implemented, a significant reduction of future risk and
potential losses should be realized in the event of a disaster. Implementation of the various
aspects of the plan will be the responsibility of the various jurisdictions and agencies
involved in the update.
For more information or to submit comments, call 602-273-1411 or visit the Maricopa
County Department of Emergency Management

Web site.

http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/departments/Fire/Emergency_Management.asp

3/17/2009

Emergency Management

Page 2 of 2

Home | Residents | Business | Visitors | Online Services
Events | Jobs | Services | Departments | City News
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact Us
© 2008 City of Scottsdale. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/departments/Fire/Emergency_Management.asp

3/17/2009

Tempe Fire Department

Page 1 of 2

find:
Department Information Community Education Emergency Preparedness Fire Prevention Recruitment Services Provided
Text Menu
Residents

Visitors

Business

Government

In Tempe it is Friday, March 13, 2009 10:34:48 AM

Disaster/Terrorist Emergency Preparedness
Since September 11, 2001 we now live in a different world than we did before. We are now more aware of our vulnerabilities,
more appreciative of our freedoms and more understanding that we have a personal responsibility for the safety of our families,
our neighbors and our nation.
The Tempe Fire Department is concerned about the well-being of our citizens either through a natural disaster or a terrorist
emergency. We know that disaster preparedness works. We can take action now that will help protect our families, reduce the
impact an emergency has on our lives and deal with the chaos if an incident occurs near us. The following information was put
together to assist the citizens of Tempe in preparing for any type of emergency.

Disaster Supply Kit Checklist
The following checklist will help you assemble a disaster supply kit that meet the needs of your household.

Are You Ready? A Guide To Citizen Preparedness
The publication provides practical information on how your family can prepare for any disaster. It includes up-todate hazard specific safety tips and information about preparedness and protection.

National Security Emergencies For Kids
This website contains information geared for children on what is terrorism and what they can do to assist their
families in preparing for any type of disaster.

Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT)
Local government prepares for everyday emergencies. However, there are emergencies and disasters that can
overwhelm the community's immediate response capability. While adjacent jurisdictions, State and Federal
resources can activate to help, there may be a delay for them getting to those who need help. The primary reason
for CERT training is to give people the decision-making and physical skills to offer immediate assistance to family
members, neighbors, and associates. While people will respond to others in need without the training, the goal of
the CERT program is to help them do so effectively and efficiently without placing themselves in unnecessary
danger.

Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
The City of Tempe is participating in the 2009 revision to the Maricopa County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Tempe’s planning process is open to public comment and attendance of development meetings. Please check
back shortly for the schedule of meetings.

""

http://www.tempe.gov/fire/EmergencyPreparedness/EmergencyPreparedness.htm

3/13/2009

Tolleson AZ - Official Website

Page 1 of 1

Home | Calendar | City Directory | Documents | Business Directory | Jobs | Archive

You are here: Home > Archive Center

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives
City Notices - May 28/June 4 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Fire Department Mitigation Plan
Public Hearing Notice
How Do I...?
About Tolleson
Job Opportunities
Mayor and Council
Agendas and Minutes
Codes and Ordinances
RFP/RFQ Bid
Documents

This archive is a document file. Click on the link below to open it, or right-click to save the
document or open it in a new window.
05 28 06 04 09 Fire Dept Mitigation Public Notice.pdf (44 kb)
Some files located here may require the use of Adobe Acrobat Reader. The link provided will take
you to the Adobe site where you can download the latest version.

Copyright Notices | Powered by CivicPlus | Sitemap | Accessibility

http://www.tollesonaz.org/archive.aspx?AMID=&Type=&ADID=651

6/17/2009

The City of Tolleson has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions around the Valley to
review and update the existing individual multi‐hazard mitigation plans and consolidate them into a
single multi‐jurisdictional, multi‐hazard mitigation plan. The goal of this mitigation planning effort is to
reduce or eliminate long‐term risk to life and property from natural hazard events. Mitigation is not
how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires, but rather how we as a community prevent
the impact of such things in the first place.
The mitigation planning process involves identifying and profiling the natural hazards most likely to
occur in a community, assessing the vulnerability to these hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and
projects that mitigate the associated risks. The development of this mitigation plan will also ensure
eligibility for certain hazard mitigation grants and public assistance funds.
Public input on the mitigation planning process is important and residents are encouraged to educate
themselves about the existing plan and offer comments on the update. For more information, please
visit the multi‐jurisdictional planning website at: www.maricopa.gov/emerg_mgt or contact:

Bob Hansen
Division Fire Chief
623 936 8500
bhansen@tollesonaz.org
or
Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management,
cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov

Wickenburg AZ - Official Website - Emergency Operations - Hazard Mitigation

Page 1 of 2

Home | Events Calendar | Staff Directory | Resource Directory | Document Center | Archive Center
You are here: Departments > Police Department > Divisions > Emergency Operations - Hazard Mitigation

PUBLIC INPUT INVITED
Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan Update Begins

Administration
Records
Investigations
Patrol
Communications /
Dispatch
Emergency Operations
- Hazard Mitigation
Animal Control

Hazard mitigation planning is the process used to identify risks and vulnerabilities associated with
natural disasters and to develop long-term strategies for protecting people and property in future
hazard events. The process results in a mitigation plan that offers a strategy for breaking the
cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction and repeated damage and a framework for developing
feasible and cost-effective mitigation projects. Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public
Law 106-390), state, county, local and tribal governments are required to develop and maintain a
FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan as a condition for receiving certain types of nonemergency disaster assistance and mitigation grants.
A multi-jurisdictional planning team comprised of representatives from Maricopa County, Town of
Wickenburg and various other towns, cities and tribal governments located within the county, will
be meeting regularly to review, revise and update the current Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The
planning team will be meeting regularly to review, revise and/or update the following plan
elements:

• Natural hazards that my impact or have impacted the community
•
•
•
•
•

Profiles of the most relevant hazards
Vulnerability assessment to the identified hazards
Goals and objectives for hazard risk reduction / elimination
Mitigation actions / projects to achieve the stated goals and objectives
Plan maintenance strategy for the next 5-year cycle

An updated draft of the plan is expected in July 2009. For additional information, please visit
www.maricopa.gov/emerg_mgt or contact your community?s representative below:

http://www.ci.wickenburg.az.us/index.aspx?nid=595

7/8/2009

Wickenburg AZ - Official Website - Emergency Operations - Hazard Mitigation

Page 2 of 2

Copyright Notices | Powered By CivicPlus

http://www.ci.wickenburg.az.us/index.aspx?nid=595

7/8/2009

Avondale AZ - Official Website

Page 1 of 2

You are here: Home > News Flash

News Flash - Selected

View Archived

County Hazard Mitigation Plan available for review
The City of Avondale has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions around the
Valley to review and update the existing multi-hazard mitigation plans and consolidate them into
one multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation plan.
A final draft of the 2009 Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (PLAN) is
now available for review and comment.
The goal of this mitigation planning effort is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and
property from natural hazard events. Mitigation is not how we respond to emergencies like floods
and wildfires, but rather how we as a community might lessen or even prevent the impact of such
things in the first place.
The mitigation planning process involved identifying and profiling the natural hazards most likely
to occur in a community, assessing the vulnerability to these hazards, and establishing goals,
actions, and projects that mitigate the associated risks. The update of this mitigation PLAN will
also ensure the community’s continued eligibility for non-emergency, federal hazard mitigation
grants.
Residents are highly encouraged to review the updated PLAN and offer comments.
For more information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional planning website at:
http://www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_Mgt/links.aspx
or contact:
Art Snapp Division Chief, Avondale Fire Rescue
at 623 333-6000;asnapp@avondale.org or Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of
Emergency Management, cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov
[Jurisdictional Planning Website]

News Flash - All
News Flash - Home

View Archived
View Archived

VOTE Avondale!
Avondale voters can cast their ballots early at City Hall beginning October 8. The General
Election is scheduled for November 3. Last day to register to vote for the General Election is
October 5, 2009. Early voting for the General Election is October 8 to October 29.
The ballot will ask voters to consider an extension to the city's Alternative Expenditure Limitation
commonly referred to as "Home Rule" and will include five (5) propositions related to
amendments to the City Charter.
[Additional info...]
Calling All Gardeners
If you are interested in a community garden in Avondale, Councilmember Stephanie Karlin would
like to hear from you.
Please contact Sammi Curless at 623-333-1600 or emailpublicinformation@avondale.org.
General Plan Update 2030

http://www.avondale.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=544

10/28/2009

Avondale AZ - Official Website

Page 2 of 2

What do you like about the City? What needs improvement? This is your opportunity to say how
the City should develop over the next 20 years. Take Our Survey
Participate in Resident Survey - NOW online!
Avondale Residents not able to attend the Resident Appreciation Night are urged to provide the
City with survey feedback in regards to City services and quality of life as residents. One lucky
winner of the online resident survey poll and one from the event will win a gift card to Harkins
Theaters. Online surveys can be found at www.avondale.org/survey until October 29, 2009.
Click Here to access Survey
Support Luke Air Force Base
Luke Forward was created to bring together supporters of Luke Air Force Base in one place to
share information about how to help secure a follow-on mission for the Base. Visit the Luke
Forward website
H1N1 Flu Public Inquiry Hotline
The Community Information and Referral (CIR) public inquiry hotline is now open to receive
questions about the impact of H1N1 Flu on our community.
The public may call 602-263-8856 or 800-352-3792 – 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to speak
with bi-lingual staff about general questions about H1N1 Flu, learn how it is affecting our local
community as well as learn websites and telephone numbers for more information.
Additionally, the Maricopa County Department of Public Health has preparedness information
available on their website, which offers specific guidance for individuals, employers, schools and
community groups about how to become prepared for a health emergency. Maricopa County
Health Department Website
NEWS RELEASES
For access to all media releases sent out via the Public Information office visit
www.avondale.org/news [Avondale Press Releases]

Copyright Notices | Powered By CivicPlus

http://www.avondale.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=544

10/28/2009

El Mirage, AZ - Official Website

Page 1 of 1

Home | Events Calendar | Staff Directory | Business Directory | Document Center | Job Postings | Archive Center

Fire Department Welcome
Fire Department Sections

You are here: Home > City Pages > Fire Department Page

Fire Department

Save Haven for Newborn
Infants
Resources
CPR Classes
Request a Fire Inspection
Fire Department FAQ
Vial of Life Program
Maricopa County Hazard
Mitigation Plan
Search

Fire Department
PO Box 26
13513 N El Mirage Rd
El Mirage, Arizona 85335
Administration:
Phone: (623) 583-7968
Fax: (623) 583-5287
TDD: (623) 933-3258
Administration Hours:
Monday - Friday
8:00 am - 5:00 pm
(Excluding Holidays)

Contacts:
Darrell Rezendes
Fire Chief
(623) 876-4242
Howard Munding
Assistant Fire Chief
(623) 876-4249
Marilyn Alexander
Administrative Assistant
(623) 876-4243

The El Mirage Fire Department proudly serves the 40,000 residents of the fastest growing city
in the state of Arizona. Engine 121 responded to 2,390 calls in 2007. On average, each call
lasts 1 hour. The department currently has 10 Firefighter/Paramedics and 8 Firefighter/EMTs
who provide fire suppression and emergency medical services. The department also provides
a wide range of non-emergency services including blood-pressure screening, CPR training,
and fire safety public education.
We welcome you to explore our website and learn more about our department.

Our Mission:
“We, the members of the El Mirage Fire Department, dedicate our efforts to provide for the
safety and welfare of the public through preservation of Life, Property and the Environment”.

Fire Department FAQ
1. Does the City offer CPR Classes…?
2. Where can I get my blood pressure checked…?
3. How can I get a fire report…?
View All FAQs...Fire Department FAQ
City Hall: 12145 NW Grand Ave, P.O. Box 26, El Mirage, Arizona 85335 Ph:623-972-8116 TDD: 623-933-3258
Powered by CivicPlus | Copyright Notices

Home | Events Calendar | Staff Directory | Business Directory | Document Center | Job Postings | Archive Center

http://az-elmirage2.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=321

10/23/2009

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

The City of El Mirage has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions around the Valley
to review and update the existing multi-hazard mitigation plans and consolidated them into one multijurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation plan. A final draft of the 2009 Maricopa County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (PLAN) is now available for review and comment.
The goal of this mitigation planning effort is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property
from natural hazard events. Mitigation is not how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires,
but rather how we as a community might lessen or even prevent the impact of such things in the first
place.
The mitigation planning process involved identifying and profiling the natural hazards most likely to
occur in a community, assessing the vulnerability to these hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and
projects that mitigate the associated risks. The update of this mitigation PLAN will also ensure the
community’s continued eligibility for non-emergency, federal hazard mitigation grants.
Residents are highly encouraged to review the updated PLAN and offer comments. For more
information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional planning website at:
http://www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_Mgt/links.aspx
or contact:

Howard Munding, El Mirage Assistant Fire Chief, hmunding@cityofelmirage.org
or
Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management,
cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov

Emergency Management Division

Page 1 of 1

Emergency Management Division
Current Projects and Initiatives
The Town of Gilbert has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions around the
Valley to review and update the existing multi-hazard mitigation plans and consolidate them into
one multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation plan. A final draft of the 2009 Maricopa County
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (PLAN) is now available for review and comment.
Residents are highly encouraged to review the updated PLAN and offer comments. For more
information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional planning website at the Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management or contact Sheri Gibbons, Gilbert Fire Department
or Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management.
Quick Links
· 72-Hour Kits
· CERT Program
· Power Outage
Links to Other Websites:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

American Red Cross
AZ 2-1-1 Online
Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Homeland Security - Ready.gov
Maricopa County Emergency Management
World Health Organization

http://www.ci.gilbert.az.us/fire/emergencymgmt.cfm?style=print

10/26/2009

Emergency Management Department of Maricopa County

Page 1 of 2

Site Map | Search | Phone Directory | Departments | Services | Email Alerts
Boards & Meetings
Community Resources
County Leadership
Courts / Legal Matters
Doing Business With Us
Education & Youth
Elections & Voting
Forms & Applications
Health & Wellness
Information Resources
Property & Zoning
Public Safety
Parks, Recreation &
Libraries
Transportation

>> Current Status

Emergency Management News

Local Emergency Planning Committee to Meet

10/19/2009

The Local Emergency Planning Committee will hold its regular quarterly meeting
on Wednesday, October 21 at 6:00 p.m., at the Chandler Community
Center ....More Details

Public Input Sought for Hazard Mitigation Plan

10/6/2009

Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management has completed the
final draft of the Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
(P ....More Details
>> Emergency Management Events
<

October 2009

>

S

M

T

W

T

F

27

28

29

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Central Region Citizen Corps Nationally Recognized

8/17/2009

Central Region Citizen Corps received an Honorable Mention in national
competition among the nation's Citizen Corps Councils. ....More Details

S

Maricopa County Public Health Message on Swine Flu

4/27/2009

The Maricopa County Department of Public Health has been closely monitoring
events related to H1N1 Flu cases. ....More Details

MCDEM Employee Garners Red Cross Award

4/20/2009

John Padilla, Maricopa County Emegency Management, for the Good Neighbor
award which is given to someone for innovative solutions to help meet the
nee ....More Details

More EM News ...
>> Partner Agencies

>> Information Central

>> Quick Links

AZ Emergency Management
Events Calendar
AZ Dept. of Homeland Security

Preparedness
FEMA

Local Emergency Planning
U.S. D ept. of Homeland Security
Red Cross

http://www.maricopa.gov/emerg_mgt/default.aspx

Committee (LEPC)
Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT)

10/26/2009

Emergency Management Department of Maricopa County

Page 2 of 2

Transportation Security

Palo Verde Nuclear

Administration (TSA)

Generation Station Special
Assistance Survey

Search Emergency Management

Home

Go

Contact Us

Sitemap

©2009 Maricopa County
Maricopa Home

Site Map

Legal Information

Privacy/Security Policies

Maricopa County || 301 W. Jefferson St. || Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-3011

http://www.maricopa.gov/emerg_mgt/default.aspx

10/26/2009

pr_detail

Page 1 of 1

NEWS

for immediate release
MARICOPA COUNTY
Emergency Management
2035 North 52nd Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008

www.maricopa.gov

Public Input Sought for Hazard Mitigation Plan

Public Comments Requested on
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
Maricopa County - October 6, 2009
Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management has completed the final draft of
the Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan which is now
available for public review and comment.
The purpose of the Plan is to guide and define hazard mitigation planning strategies to better
protect the people and property of Maricopa County from the effects of natural hazard events.
Preparation of the Plan will also meet eligibility requirements for non-emergency federal
mitigation funds. Twenty-four (24) incorporated cities and towns, two tribes, and one other
governmental organization located in Maricopa County actively participated in this cooperative
effort. The updated Plan final draft is available to view on this web page.
As with all plans that impact the public, Maricopa County and the participating jurisdictions and
organizations value the input of the residents abd encourage the review the final draft plan. You
may email your comments to the following:

Pete Weaver, Emergency Management Director or Cristina Herrera, Mitigation Planner.
Public comments will be accepted through October 16, 2009.

<< Back

http://www.maricopa.gov/pr_detail.aspx?releaseID=1216

10/26/2009

Emergency Management Department of Maricopa County

Page 1 of 3

Site Map | Search | Phone Directory | Departments | Services | Email Alerts

HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING

UPDATE: Public Comments Requested on Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
Plan
Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management has completed the final draft of the Maricopa
County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan) which is now available for public review and
comment. The purpose of the Plan is to guide and define hazard mitigation planning strategies to better
protect the people and property of Maricopa County from the effects of natural hazard events. Preparation of
the Plan will also meet eligibility requirements for non-emergency federal mitigation funds. Twenty-four (24)
incorporated cities and towns, two tribes, and one other governmental organization located in Maricopa
County actively participated in this cooperative effort. The updated Plan final draft is available to view below.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Executive Summary and Table of Contents (<1MB)
Section 1: Jurisdictional Adoption and FEMA Approval (<1MB)
Section 2: Introduction (<1MB)
Section 3: Planning Process (<1MB)
Section 4a: Community Descriptions (3.5MB)
Section 4b: Community Descriptions (continued) (4MB)
Section 5: Risk Assessment (5MB)
Section 6: Mitigation Strategy (1MB)
Section 7: Plan Maintenance Procedures (<1MB)
Section 8: Plan Tools (<1MB)
Appendix A (<1MB)
Appendix B (3MB)
Appendix C (5.5MB)
Appendix D (<1MB)
Appendix E (<1MB)

As with all plans that impact the public, Maricopa County and the participating jurisdictions and organizations
value the input of the citizens that the plan may impact. Local citizens are encouraged to review the final draft
plan. You may email your comments to the following:
Pete Weaver, Emergency Management Director peteweaver@mail.maricopa.gov
Or
Cristina Herrera, Mitigation Planner cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov
Public Comments will be accepted through October 16, 2009

What is hazard mitigation planning?
Hazard mitigation planning is a process for State, local, and Indian Tribal governments to identify policies, activities, and tools
to implement mitigation actions. Mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and
property from a hazard event. This process has four steps:

http://www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_Mgt/links.aspx

10/26/2009

Emergency Management Department of Maricopa County

1.
2.
3.
4.

Page 2 of 3

Organizing resources;
Assessing risks;
Developing a mitigation plan; and
Implementing the plan and monitoring progress.

Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
In 2003 and 2004, Maricopa County, two Indian Tribes, and all incorporated cities and towns in Maricopa County, participated
in a multi-jurisdictional mitigation planning effort that resulted in the development of a multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan
with separate plans that covered each participating jurisdiction. The Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
Plan (2004) and all of the separate plans received official Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approval on
November 29, 2004. The 2004 Plan was designed to meet the federal regulations set forth by the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000, which requires all local, county, tribal and state governments to develop a multi-hazard mitigation plan for their respective
jurisdictions in order to be eligible to receive certain hazard mitigation and public assistance funds.
The 2004 Plan is nearing the end of the 5-year planning cycle and is set to expire in November 2009. The Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management (MCDEM) applied for and received a planning grant to fund a multi-jurisdictional effort
to review, update and consolidate the 2004 Plan, with resubmittal to FEMA prior to its expiration in November 2009.
Plan Update Process
MCDEM initiated the update process in December 2008. The plan update process will require the regrouping of the Maricopa
County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team, which originally was comprised of one or more lead contacts from each participating
jurisdiction as well as public utilities, hospitals, police, fire and sheriff’s departments, and other public and private entities.
Input must be obtained from neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities and
agencies having authority to regulate development including businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests.
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team will be meeting regularly to review, revise, and/or update of the following elements:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Previously identified hazards that may impact or have impacted the community
Profiles of the most relevant hazard events
Assessment of vulnerability to hazards
Assessment of the communities’ capability to mitigate hazards
Hazard mitigation goals and objectives for the community
Hazard mitigation actions and/or projects
Implementation strategy for the plan
Plan maintenance strategy for the next 5-year cycle
Write and officially adopt plan

STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
To meet the goal of having an approved plan by November 2009, a meeting calendar running from January 2009 to July 2009
has been established.
Stakeholder Meeting #1 - Minutes
Stakeholder Meeting #1 - Material
Stakeholder Meeting #1 - State Hazard Mitigation Measures checklist
Stakeholder Meeting #2 - Minutes
Stakeholder Meeting #2 – CPRI Guidance
Stakeholder Meeting #2 – Calculation Template
Stakeholder Meeting #3 – Minutes
Stakeholder Meeting #4 – Minutes
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The public is welcome to attend of the stakeholder meetings and encouraged to participate and comment on the plan during its
drafting stages and prior to seeking final approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. To submit comments
online, please use the links below.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
For more information or to submit comments and questions, call the Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
at 602-273-1411 or one of the contacts below:
W. Scott Ogden, P.E., CFM
Mitigation Planning Consultant
JE Fuller
8400 S. Kyrene Road, Suite 201
Tempe, AZ 85284
(480)222-5717
Fax: (480)839-2193

Cristina Herrera, Emergency Planner
Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management
5630 E. McDowell Road
Phoenix, AZ 85008
(602)273-1411
Fax: (602)275-1638

>> Partner Agencies

>> Information Central

http://www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_Mgt/links.aspx

>> Quick Links

10/26/2009

Emergency Management Department of Maricopa County

Page 3 of 3

AZ Emergency Management
Events Calendar
AZ Dept. of Homeland Security

Preparedness
FEMA

Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC)

U.S. D ept. of Homeland Security

Community Emergency

Red Cross

Response Team (CERT)

Transportation Security

Palo Verde Nuclear

Administration (TSA)

Generation Station Special
Assistance Survey

Search Emergency Management

Home

Go

Contact Us

Sitemap

©2009 Maricopa County
Maricopa Home

Site Map

Legal Information

Privacy/Security Policies

Maricopa County || 301 W. Jefferson St. || Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-3011

http://www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_Mgt/links.aspx

10/26/2009

Meetings and Events

Page 1 of 2

MEETINGS & EVENTS
Public Meeting Agendas
Calendar of Events 10/02
· Arts Advisory Committee
· Board of Adjustment
· Hillside Building Committee
· Historical Advisory Committee
· Mary Ann Brines Exceptional Performance Award Committee
· Mummy Mountain Preserve Trust
· Municipal Property Corporation Summary
· Personnel Appeals Board
· Planning Commission
· Public Safety Personnel Retirement Board
· Town Council
- Water Utility Committee
· Notice of Possible Quorum for October

Staff reports and meeting information packets are available for public review at Town Hall.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Hazard Mitigation Plan

The Town of Paradise Valley has joined forces with Maricopa County and other
jurisdictions around the Valley to review and update the existing multi-hazard
mitigation plans and consolidate them into one multi-jurisdictional, multihazard mitigation plan. A final draft of the 2009 Maricopa County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (PLAN) is now available for review and
comment.
The goal of this mitigation planning effort is to reduce or eliminate long-term
risk to life and property from natural hazard events. Mitigation is not how we

http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/Townhall/Events.htm

10/15/2009

Meetings and Events

Page 2 of 2

respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires, but rather how we as a
community might lessen or even prevent the impact of such things in the first
place.
The mitigation planning process involved identifying and profiling the natural
hazards most likely to occur in a community, assessing the vulnerability to
these hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and projects that mitigate the
associated risks. The update of this mitigation PLAN will also ensure the
community’s continued eligibility for non-emergency, federal hazard mitigation
grants.
Residents are highly encouraged to review the updated PLAN and offer
comments. For more information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional planning
website at:
http://www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_Mgt/links.aspx
or contact: Bob Lee, Town of Paradise Valley Building Safety Manager,
rlee@paradisevalleyaz.gov
or
Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management,
cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov
· Home · Town Government · Schools · Places of Worship ·
· Visitor Information · Mummy Mountain Preserve Trust · Goldwater Memorial ·
Town Hall
6401 East Lincoln Drive
Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253
©2001-2009 Town of Paradise Valley

10/14/2009 11:16:43

http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/Townhall/Events.htm

10/15/2009

Print Page

Page 1 of 1

Emergency and Safety
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan

The City of Peoria has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions around the Valley to review and
update the existing multi-hazard mitigation plans and consolidate them into one multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard
mitigation plan. A final draft of the 2009 Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (PLAN) is now
available for review and comment.

The goal of this mitigation planning effort is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from natural
hazard events. Mitigation is not how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires, but rather how we as a
community might lessen or even prevent the impact of such things in the first place.

The mitigation planning process involved identifying and profiling the natural hazards most likely to occur in a
community, assessing the vulnerability to these hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and projects that mitigate the
associated risks. The update of this mitigation PLAN will also ensure the community’s continued eligibility for nonemergency, federal hazard mitigation grants.
Residents are highly encouraged to review the updated PLAN and offer comments.

For more information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional planning website at:
www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_Mgt/links.aspx or contact:

Glen Jones at EmergencyInfo@PeoriaAz.gov, or Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of Emergency
Management, cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov.
10/14/2009 11:39:55 AM
http://www.peoriaaz.gov/content2.asp?id=29568

This Page was last updated on 10/14/2009 - Copyright © 2009 - City of Peoria, Arizona. All Rights Reserved.
If you have any questions regarding this web site please contact the Webmaster at Webmaster@peoriaaz.gov

http://www.peoriaaz.gov/printcontent.asp?ID=29568

10/14/2009

Office of Emergency Management

Phone Directory

Page 1 of 2

Mayor / City Council

Departments

E-Services

GO

En Español

Residents

Public Safety

Businesses

Transportation

Visitors & Newcomers

Culture & Recreation

City Government
Employment
Environment & Sustainability

Emergency
Management Home

Office of Emergency Management

State, County, and
Local Links
National Links
Resources for
People with
Disabilities
Weather and Natural
Disaster Links
Disaster Relief Links

The city of Phoenix has partnered with Maricopa County and other
towns, cities, and tribal governments located within the county to
review and update the existing multi-hazard mitigation plans, and to
consolidate the plans into one multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard
mitigation plan. A final draft of the 2009 Maricopa County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan) is now available for review
and comment.

Resource Library

The goal of mitigation planning efforts is to reduce or eliminate longterm risk to life and property from natural hazard events. Mitigation is
not how a jurisdiction responds to emergencies like floods and
wildfires, but rather how preventative measures taken by a jurisdiction
might lessen or even eliminate the impact of natural hazards.
The mitigation planning process involved identifying and profiling the
natural hazards most likely to occur in a jurisdiction, assessing the
vulnerability to the hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and
projects that mitigate the associated risks. The update of this
mitigation Plan will also ensure participating jurisdictions remain eligible
for non-emergency, federal hazard mitigation grants.
Residents are highly encouraged to review the updated Plan and offer
comments. For more information, please visit the multi-jurisdictional
planning website at:
http://www.maricopa.gov/Emerg_Mgt/links.aspx
or contact:
Michael DeBenedetto or Jeri Todd
Phoenix Office of Emergency Management
michael.debenedetto@phoenix.gov
jeri.todd@phoenix.gov
602-534-0642

http://phoenix.gov/EMERGENCYMGMT/hazmit.html

11/2/2009

Office of Emergency Management

Page 2 of 2

or
Cristina Herrera, Maricopa County Department of Emergency
Management
cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov

Last modified on 10/19/2009 09:46:32
Contact Us
Accessibility
Privacy Policy
Security
© Copyright 2009 City of Phoenix, all rights reserved

Technical Help

http://phoenix.gov/EMERGENCYMGMT/hazmit.html

Shop Phoenix

11/2/2009

Salt River Fire Department: Emergency Management

Page 1 of 3

Home • Community • Government • History & Culture • Economic Development • Enterprises •

Office of the Emergency Manager
ues

Thank you for visiting the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) Emergency Management site!
It is important that our Community members know that the SRPMIC Government is working very hard to ensure that our C
for any type of disaster that may impact the safety or quality of life for our members. Staff in all areas of Government are in
prevent, plan, respond, and recover from a disaster or major event in our Community.

nt
One of the most critical components for an effective disaster plan is having Community Members that are educated and pr
when disaster strikes.
We hope that you will use this website to not only educate yourself on what our Community staff is doing in the area of em
but perhaps more importantly, what you and your family can do to prepare for a disaster before it strikes. Please feel free t
Emergency Management Office if you have additional questions on our Community or your family’s emergency preparedn
For additional questions, you can contact Cliff Puckett, the Community's Emergency Manager, at 480 850-4408.
ent

Consolidated Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community has joined forces with Maricopa County and other jurisdictions around th
update the existing multi-hazard mitigation plans and consolidate them into one multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation
2009 Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (PLAN) is now available for review and comment.
The goal of this mitigation planning effort is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from natural hazard ev
how we respond to emergencies like floods and wildfires, but rather how we as a Community might lessen or even preven
things in the first place.
The mitigation planning process involved identifying and profiling the natural hazards most likely to occur in a Community,
vulnerability to these hazards, and establishing goals, actions, and projects that mitigate the associated risks. The update
will also ensure the Community’s continued eligibility for non-emergency, federal hazard mitigation grants.
Residents are highly encouraged to review the updated PLAN and offer comments. For more information, please visit the
planning website or contact SRPMIC Emergency Manager, Cliff Puckett at 480 850-4408 or cliff.puckett@srpmic-nsn.gov
Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management, cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov

Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
The Salt River Fire Department's Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
Program educates people about disaster preparedness for hazards that may impact
their Community and trains them in basic disaster response skills, such as fire safety,
light search and rescue, team organization, and disaster medical operations.
Using the training learned in the classroom and during exercises, CERT members
can assist others in their neighborhood or workplace following an event when
professional responders are not immediately available to help.
CERT members also are encouraged to support emergency response agencies by
taking a more active role in emergency preparedness projects in their community.

http://www.srpmic-nsn.gov/government/fire/emergency.asp

10/20/2009

Salt River Fire Department: Emergency Management

Page 2 of 3

For more information please call Salt River Fire Admin at 480.850.8240 for the next
available training session.

Disaster Strikes ... Are you prepared?
In the year 2007 the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community took a big step in
enhancing the safety of our Community. This step was to hire a full time emergency
manager to improve our readiness for a disaster or major event that could have a
negative impact on our Community members, our land, and our quality of life. Just
hiring an emergency manager is only one critical component to having an effective
Community emergency plan. One of the most critical components for an effective
plan is having Community members that are educated and prepared on what to do
when disaster strikes.
The following chart is a basic way to prepare yourself and your family for an
emergency situation. For more information you can contact Cliff Puckett, the Community Emergency Manager, at 480 850
American Red Cross website.
Be Prepared. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3.

Learn about the basic
Get tips on how to create a Find out how to keep an
decisions you and your
survival kit for any
eye on your emergency
family should be prepared
situation.
situation and adapt to
to make in case of an
changing circumstances.
• Make a Kit
emergency.
Visit www.az211.gov to get
• Portable Kit
• Prepare a Plan
• Water & Food
updates.
• Having a Family Plan
• First Aid Kit
Call the Community
• Deciding to Stay or Go
• Clean Air
Emergency Hotline at 480
• Pet Preparedness Plan
• Special Needs
850-4111.
• Special Item Needs
• Warmth
• Utility Breakdown Plan
• Financial Security
Answer your telephone which
• School Plan
• Pet Items
may have an emergency
• Employer Preparedness
• Supply Checklist
message from emergency
• In a Moving Vehicle
responders advising you of
appropriate action to take.

Emergency Shelter in Place ... Do you know how?
Most people know that there is a chance that they may be asked to evacuate if there is an emergency such as a chemical
evacuating, most people would go to a shelter that would be set up by emergency workers, or some would prefer to go to
house until it is safe to return. What if the emergency instructions were not to evacuate, but to "shelter in place". Do you kn
Would you know what to do to protect yourself and your family? If the answer is "no", you are not alone. Most people are v
"shelter in place" really means.
Sheltering in place simply means that you stay in your residents, or current location such as work, and take some general
Close and lock all windows and exterior doors.
If you are told there is danger of explosion, close the window shades, blinds, or curtains.
Turn off all fans, heating and air conditioning systems.
Close the fireplace damper.
Get your family disaster supplies kit and make sure the radio is working.
Go to an interior room without windows that's above ground level.
In the case of a chemical threat, an above-ground location is preferable because some chemicals are heavier than
basements even if the windows are closed.
• Bring your pets with you, and be sure to bring additional food and water supplies for them.
• It is ideal to have a hard-wired telephone in the room you select. Call your emergency contact and have the phone
report a life-threatening condition. Cellular telephone equipment may be overwhelmed or damaged during an emer
• Use duct tape and plastic sheeting (heavier than food wrap) to seal all cracks around the door and any vents into t

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

http://www.srpmic-nsn.gov/government/fire/emergency.asp

10/20/2009

Salt River Fire Department: Emergency Management

Page 3 of 3

• Keep listening to your radio, television, telephone until you are told all is safe or you are told to evacuate. Local off
evacuation in specific areas at greatest risk in your community.
So remember, evacuating is not the only choice in a disaster or hazardous situation. Sometimes the safest thing for you a
shelter in place, and now you know how to do this.

Emergency Messages Delivered to Your Phone
You pick up your telephone at home and it is obviously one of those recorded messages that we all get, usually advertisin
could actually be a recorded emergency message that is being sent to your home to advise you and your family of a haza
Our Community is part of the Community Emergency Notification System, known as CENS. CENS is a phone notification
emergency information to thousands of home phones in a matter of minutes. If there was a large scale emergency in our C
be one of the tools that our Public Safety personnel would use to notify our Community Members, Community Staff, and b
Community about the event. The recorded message would advise you of the event and give you some general instruction
example if they wanted you to evacuate the area, they would state this and give a location of where you could go for assis
situations, it is best to stay in your home. Emergency workers call this shelter in place. This CENS system could notify you
give brief instructions on how to do this.
This system can only be used for a true emergency and the use of it is regulated and monitored. There is also a significan
which also controls this system from being improperly used. Some additional facts about CENS are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•

It will not leave a message on your cell phone
If you have caller ID it will come up "Priority Alert" or "Alert Call"
It is designed to leave a message on an answering machine
It will call back automatically if it gets a busy signal
This system is only available to the Maricopa County region

So, the next time you pick up the phone and are tempted to hang up because you think that it is just a recorded advertisem
could be an emergency message from emergency workers trying to deliver important information to you in an effort to kee
safe.
For additional questions on this system, you can contact Cliff Puckett, the Community’s Emergency Manager, at 480 850-4

Home ] [ Community ] [ Government ] [ History & Culture ] [ Economic Development ] [ Enterprises ] [ Employment ] [ Site Map

Osborn Road · Scottsdale, Arizona 85256 · 480.362.7400
copyright © 2001-2009 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

http://www.srpmic-nsn.gov/government/fire/emergency.asp

10/20/2009

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Cristina Herrera - EMERMGTX
W. Scott Ogden;
FW: Comments on Mitigation of Natural Emergencies
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:37:45 AM

Here you go.
Cristina Herrera
Emergency Services Planner
Maricopa County Dept of Emergency Management
5630 E. McDowell Road
Phoenix, AZ 85008
(602)273-1411

From: Pete Weaver - EMERMGTX
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 1:02 PM
To: 'Robert Marsh'
Cc: Chief Gil Damiani (Gil.Damiani@mesaaz.gov)
Subject: RE: Comments on Mitigation of Natural Emergencies

Mr. Marsh,
Thank you for taking time to review the Maricopa County
Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Your comments
are greatly appreciated. Yes, the Plan is quite lengthy and
includes much information. The Plan describes the
purpose and the process taken to update the 2004 Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan which must be
conducted every five years.
The current FEMA requirement for this type of plan is to
address natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.
Grant funding opportunities may be secured as a result of
developing a Hazard Mitigation Plan to fund projects that
will reduce or eliminate losses from future disasters. For
example, elevation of a home to reduce the risk of flood
damages as opposed to buying sandbags and pumps to
fight the flood.

The Plan does not discuss the protection of the county’s
mass transportation system specifically. However, the
Plan does identify disaster prone areas for the natural
hazards that can affect the County region which includes
the mass transportation system and other critical
infrastructure.
The participating jurisdictions evaluated their city programs
to determine their capabilities on implementing hazard
mitigation activities. They reported their capabilities in a
report form that asked for a “yes/no/don’t know” response.
This is a continuous planning process in which those areas
with gaps are addressed and updated annually.
Continued public involvement is very important in the
hazard mitigation planning process. Therefore, making
this document available to the public for comments is
important. When there is information in the plan that is
considered to be sensitive or classified information, a
secured log on to access the plan will be explored. We
commend you for your understanding that sensitive
information should be secure. Other planning efforts for
the “non-natural” are underway and will be addressed in a
secure legal manner to safeguard the public.
We would like to add that the City of Mesa Emergency
Management is very pro-active in planning, response,
mitigation and recovery processes and should also be
commended for their efforts on these joint projects.
Again, thank you for taking the time to provide public
comments to the Maricopa County Multi-jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan. Please let us know if we may be of
further assistance.
Respectfully,
Pete Weaver, CEM, MPA

Director, Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
5630 E McDowell Road,
Phoenix, AZ 85008
Phone: 602-273-1411
Fax: 602-275-1638
E-mail: peteweaver@mail.maricopa.gov

From: Robert Marsh [mailto:robertmarsh@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:25 PM
To: Pete Weaver - EMERMGTX; Cristina Herrera - EMERMGTX
Subject: Comments on Mitigation of Natural Emergencies
Hello Mr. Weaver,
Quickly reviewing the plan I have some comments and questions for you.
Honestly, I did not read all the items.
Why would there be any city programs for the county where the response
from the county is “don’t know”?
Is there any plan to make access to this information available by secure log
on, rather than available to the general public?
Where is the discussion of protecting our county mass transportation system?
Is there a discussion somewhere about items which would be man made
disasters which would become natural disasters, other than contamination of
the water supply, such as plane crashes, dirty bombs, bus or car
highjackings for suicide missions, etc.?
Looks like a lot of work went in to formulating your plans. Congratulations on
completing them.
Sincerely,
Robert Marsh
5013 E. Flossmoor Ave.
Mesa, AZ 85206-2834

480-529-2936

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Appendix D
Detailed Historic Hazard Records

2009

State and Federally Declared Natural Hazard Events That Included Maricopa County
January 1966 to October 2008
No. of
Recorded Losses
Hazard
Declarations Fatalities Injuries
Damage Costs ($)
Drought
12
0
0
$303,000,000
Dam Failure
0
0
0
$0
Earthquake
0
0
0
$0
Fissure
0
0
0
$0
Flooding / Flash Flooding
16
52
115
$594,150,000
Landslide / Mudslide
0
0
0
$0
Levee Failure
0
0
0
$0
Snow Storm
0
0
0
$0
Sleet / Freezing Rain
0
0
0
$0
Subsidence
0
0
0
$0
Thunderstorm / High Wind
4
0
0
$0
Tornado
0
0
0
$0
Tropical Storm / Huricane
1
0
0
$375,000,000
Wildfire
18
0
0
$0
Notes:
g Costs are reported
p
p has been made to adjust
j costs to current dollar
- Damage
as is and no attempt
values

State of Arizona Declaration
Date

Hazard

2/24/1966 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Date

$43,673 04/30/66

ID

217-DR

9/15/1970 Flooding / Flash Flooding

$12,977 09/22/70

294-DR

6/15/1972 Flooding / Flash Flooding

$16,158 07/03/72

343-DR

4/28/1973
4/22/1975
11/7/1976
9/2/1977

Wildfire
Wildfire
Flooding / Flash Flooding
Infestation

3/2/1978 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Damage Estimates

Federal Presidential Declaration

State PCA No. Expenditures

$36,718
$8,923
$186,950

$485 718 03/04/78
$485,718

550-DR

Expenditures

Counties Affected

Graham, Greenlee,
$3,256,224 Maricopa, Pima,
Pinal

Apache, Coconino,
$9,613,107 Gila, Maricopa,
Navajo, Yavapai

$10,879,002

Maricopa, Pima,
Pinal
Statewide
Statewide
Maricopa
Statewide

$67 122 627 Statewide
$67,122,627

Description

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Flooding
Cotton Crop Pesticide Application
Warm temeratures accompanied by heavy rain filled reservoirs behind all of
the dams on the Salt and Verde Rivers and forced large volumes of runoff
to be released. This was the largest flow of water down the Salt since
1891. The released water overflowed the channel and flooded residential
areas and farmlands. During the same period storm fronts passing over the
state caused flash flooding and destruction. 9.53 inches of rainfall occurred
on Mt Lemmon. Overflows of the Gila River flooded Duncan and 10002000 acres of farmland in Safford Valley. The Rillito Creek, Pantano and
Tanque Verde Creeks in Tucson were near bankfull. Total damage was
approximately $65.9 million, of which $37 million was attributed to
Maricopa County alone. Thousands of homes were damaged and 116
homes were destroyed. More than 7,000 people had to be sheltered and
four people lost their lives.

12/16/1978 Flooding / Flash Flooding

3/29/1979 Thunderstorm / High Wind
4/16/1979 Wildfire

$11,528

$1,909,498 12/21/78

$8,000,000

$39,284
$204,207

$113,561,122 Statewide

Maricopa
Statewide

$8,000,000 ADEM, 2008
$0
$0
$0
$0

4

$65 900 000
$65,900,000

ADEM, 2008
ADEM, 2008
ADEM, 2008
ADEM, 2008

ADEM, 2008; Tucson
NWS, 2008 at
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/
$65 900 000
$65,900,000
twc/hydro/floodhis.php;
AFMA Flood Happens,
Fall 2003

$0 ADEM, 2008

Statewide

570-DR

Sources

ADEM, 2008; AFMA
$0 Floods Happen, Spring
2003.

23

For Maricopa County - the storm centered over the mountains north and
east of Phoenix, 35 miles north at Rock Springs. Extrapolation of intensityprobability data: 5.73 in./ 24 hr. equates to a 400 yr. storm. Main source
of flooding due to Verde River with runoff volume exceeding reservoir
storage capacity above Bartlett Dam. Flooding also occurred along
irrigation canals on north side of metro area, and along tributaries of the
Gila River and Queen Creek. 1 death-countywide. Total damage costs: $37
million: $3.1 million-residential, $16 million-public, $4 million-agriculture,
$7.8 million-industrial, $0.75 million-commercial. "Flood Damage Report,
28 February-6 March 1978 on the storm and floods in Maricopa County,
Arizona", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angles District, FCDMC
Library #802.024.
4/21/1978 Wildfire

Total

ADEM, 2008; Tucson
NWS, 2008 at
$0
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/
twc/hydro/floodhis.php ;

Floods; state/federal disaster declared. A cold winter storm put up to 1.26
inches of rain in many areas of Tucson. Eleven accidents from slick roads
and flooding produced most of the damage in the Tucson area.
The unprecedented flash floods in the central mountains of Arizona
Saturday afternoon and evening September 5th, transformed a weekend
camping holiday into a nightmarish tragedy for many persons. Never
before in the State's recorded weather history had it rained so hard or so
much in one day and never before had so many mountain streams and
normally dry washes risen so rapidly or filled so fast with raging torrents.
All-time previous record crests were exceeded. The 23 lives lost make this
the greatest natural disaster in the history of the State. All who lost their
lives were away from home and all but four were in automobiles. Fourteen
died attempting to flee campgrounds in the headwaters area of Tonto Creek
just below the Mogollon Rim and about 30 miles northeast of Payson.
Tropical storm Norma produced heavy precipitation along and east of the
Baboquivari Mountains and northward to Tucson and Avra Valley. Rapid
runoff washed out roads and several bridges near Tucson and flooded
homes
Flood damages in Maricopa County were over $8,000,000. Scottsdale and
Phoenix were hit the hardest.

Crop/Livestock

Following the spring flooding, Arizona was hit hard again in December
16th-20th. Total precipitation ranged from less than 1 inch in the
northeastern and far southwestern portions of Arizona to nearly 10 inches
in the Mazatzal Mountains northeast of Phoenix. A large area of the central
mountains received over 5 inches. The main stems of the Gila, Salt, Verde,
Agua Fria, Bill Williams, and Little Colorado Rivers, as well as a number
of major tributaries, experienced especially large discharges. The flooding
areas with the most significant damages included the Little Hollywood
District near Safford and major portions of Duncan, Clifton, Winslow, and
Williams. Damages were estimated at $39,850,000. 10 people die and
thousands are left homeless. Severe damage to roads and bridges. For
Maricopa County, 4 deaths, $16.3 million-public and $5 million-agriculture
losses estimated. ["Flood Damage Report, Phoenix Metropolitan Area,
December 1978 Flood", November 1979, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
FCDMC Library #802.027]
High winds and flooding

10

$39,850,000

ADEM, 2008; Tucson
NWS, 2008 at
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/
$39,850,000
twc/hydro/floodhis.php;
AFMA Flood Happens,
Fall 2003

$0 ADEM, 2008
$0 ADEM, 2008
Page 2 of 8

Federal Presidential Declaration

State of Arizona Declaration
Date

Hazard

State PCA No. Expenditures

2/13/1980 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Date

$1,958,611 02/19/80

ID

614-DR

$298,845

6/2/1980 Wildfire

Maricopa, Gila,
Yavapai, Mohave ,
White Mt. Apache
Tribe, San Carlos
Apache Tribe, Fort
$42,744,642 Gila River Indian
Community, Fort
McDowell Indian
Community, Salt
River Indian
Community

Statewide

6/26/1981 Wildfire
6/30/1981 Wildfire
6/30/1982 Wildfire

$256,904
$492,635

7/23/1984 Flooding / Flash Flooding

$55,373 1/15/1985 730-DR

10/14/1986
03/17/1987

Infestation
Wildfire

EUZ60C
EUZSLD

$48,897

08/12/1987

Drought

EUZ7AU

$14,941

03/17/1990

Wildfire

EUFIR

09/07/1990

Flooding / Flash Flooding

EUZ901

2/14/1992 Flooding / Flash Flooding

EUZ922

$1,175,040 12/06/90

884-DR

$35,000

01/08/1993

Flooding / Flash Flooding

93003

09/09/1993

Wildfire

94002

$30,072,157 01/19/93

$200,000

6/30/1994 Wildfire

Wildfire

Damage Estimates
Counties Affected

977-DR

Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Mohave, Yuma,
$505,323
Maricopa
Maricopa
Statewide
Maricopa, Pima,
Pinal
Statewide
Mohave, Gila, Pima,
$5,875,202 Pinal, Yavapai,
Graham, Coconino,
Maricopa
Maricopa

$104,069,362 Statewide

Statewide

$600,000

Fatalities

Injuries

Severe flooding in central Arizona. Record discharges (later broken in
1993) were recorded in the Phoenix metro area on the Salt, Verde, Agua
Fria and Gila Rivers, as well as on Oak Creek in north central Arizona. The
Phoenix metro are is almost cut in half as only two bridges remain open
over the Salt River. It takes hours for people to move between Phoenix and
the East Valley using either the Mill Avenue or Central Avenue bridges.
Even the Interstate 10 bridge is closed for fear that it has been damaged.
Precipitation during this period at Crown King in the Bradshaw Mountains
was 16.63 inches. Three people die. Salt River has a peak flow of 170,000
cubic feet per second. Damages estimated at $63,700,000 for Phoenix
Metro Area. [Phoenix Flood Damage Survey, February 1980, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Los Angles District, FCDMC Library #802.029]

3

3

Property

$63,700,000

Crop/Livestock

$3,000,000

Total

Sources

$66,700,000 ADEM, 2008

$0 ADEM, 2008
AZ Executive Order 81-5: [Terminating the Declaration of a State of
Emergency of June 16, 1980 (caused by a severe forest and grassland fire
contingency) and returning all unexpended funds authorized by A.R.S. º 35192 to the General Fund.

$0 ADEM, 2008

$0 ADEM, 2008
$0 ADEM, 2008
$0 ADEM, 2008

Fire suppression assitance

Flooding and Wind Damage

$0 ADEM, 2008

Imported Red Fire Ants
Wildland fires statewide

$0 ADEM, 2008
$0 ADEM, 2008

Southern Arizona drought

$0 ADEM, 2008

Wildland fire contingency

$0 ADEM, 2008

Severe storms caused monsoon rains from July 8 through September 14,
1990. Heavy rains and high winds caused flash flooding and wind damage.
Havasupai reservation received heavy flood losses. Three lives were lost.
Flooding on Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community
During January and February 1993, winter rain flooding damage occurred
from winter storms associated with the El Nino phenomenon. These storms
flooded watersheds throughout Arizona by dumping excessive rainfall
amounts that saturated soils and increased runoff. Warm temperature
snowmelt exacerbated the situation over large areas. Erosion caused
tremendous damage and some communities along normally dry washes were
devastated. Stream flow velocities and runoff volumes exceeded historic
highs. Many flood prevention channels and retention reservoirs were filled
to capacity and so water was diverted to the emergency spillways or the
reservoirs were breached, causing extensive damage in some cases (e.g.,
Painted Rock Reservoir spillway). Ultimately, the President declared a
major federal disaster that freed federal funds for both public and private
property losses for all of Arizona’s fifteen counties. Damages were
widespread and significant, impacting over 100 communities. Total public
and private damages exceeded $400 million and eight deaths and 112
injuries were reported to the Red Cross (FEMA, April 1, 1993; ADEM,
March, 1998).

3

$0 ADEM, 2008
$0 ADEM, 2008

8

112

$330,000,000

$70,000,000

$400,000,000 ADEM, 2008

$0 ADEM, 2008

$0 ADEM, 2008

Statewide

Statewide wildfire suppression - State Land Department
AZ Executive Order 94-9: In Accordance with Established Emergency
Procedures declare a state of emergency in Apache, Cochise, Coconino,
Gila, Graham, Greenlee, LaPaz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal,
Santa Cruz, Yavapai and Yuma counties due to wildfire conditions
pursuant to A R S º 37 623 02 effective June 30 1994
Statewide wildfire suppression - State Land Department
On February 15, 1995, the Governor proclaimed an emergency due to
flooding in Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, Yavapai, and Yuma Counties. The
proclamation included an allocation of $100,000 for emergency measures
and recovery costs. The proclamation was amended to include Graham,
Greenlee, LaPaz, navajo, and Pinal Counties.

$0 ADEM, 2008

Wheat (karnal bunt)
Statewide wildfire suppression - State Land Department

Statewide

95003

Description

Statewide

6/16/1980 Wildfire

10/14/1994

Expenditures

02/15/1995

Flooding / Flash Flooding

95007

$1,525,663

Coconino, Gila,
Graham, Geenlee, La
Paz, Maricopa,
Navajo, Pinal,
Yavapai, Yuma

03/13/1996
05/16/1996
06/07/1996
08/15/1996

Infestation
Wildfire
Drought
Thunderstorm / High Wind

96003
96004
96005
97001

$796,456
$1,000,729
$211,499
$2,642,140

Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Maricopa

$0 ADEM, 2008

$0
$0
$0
$0

ADEM, 2008
ADEM, 2008
ADEM, 2008
ADEM, 2008

Page 3 of 8

Federal Presidential Declaration

State of Arizona Declaration
Date

Hazard

State PCA No. Expenditures

Date

ID

Expenditures

Damage Estimates
Counties Affected

Description

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Crop/Livestock

Total

Sources

09/24/1997

Tropical Storm / Huricane

98002

$2,318,259

Statewide

Hurricane Nora - $200 million property damage. An estimated $150 to
$200 million in damage was sustained by crops throughout Yuma County
due mainly to flooded crops. About $30 to $40 million was to lemon trees.
The heavy rain was attributed to Tropical Storm Nora. Flooding from
Hurricane Nora results in the breaching of Narrows Dam. The calculated
24-hour, 100-year rainfall amount in NW Maricopa County was exceeded
at six ALERT measuring sites. 3 to 5 inches of rain which fell from Nora
led to some flash flooding inportinons of northwest Maricopa County. Two
earthen dams gave way in Aguila and caused widespread flooding. One
dike was located seven miles east of Aguila and the second in the center of
the Martori Farms complex. Half of the cotton crop was lost at Martori
Farms, as well as 300 to 500 acres of melons. Up to five feet of water
filled Aqguila. About 40 people were evacuated from the hardest hit area
of the town. Water flowing down the Sols Wash was so high that the Sols
Wash Bridge in Wickenburg was closed for more than two hours. There
was some flooding below Sols Wash in the streets around coffinger Park.
Several houses in the area were flooded. Highway 71 west of Wickenburg
and Highway 95 north were closed due to high water form the storm.

01/20/1999
05/06/1999

Infestation
Wildfire

99001
99004

$177,702
$4,894

Statewide
Statewide

Red Imported Fire Ant Emergency
Statewide wildland fire emergency

$0 ADEM, 2008
$0 ADEM, 2008

Statewide

PCA 99006; Statewide Drought Emergency, Declared June 23, 1999: Lack of precipitation
had significantly reduced surface and ground water supplies and stream flows. The drought
continues to endanger crops, property and livestock of the citizens of Arizona. This
proclamation has been extended to June 23, 2003, as this is still a threatening situation. USDA
Programs offer Arizona Ranchers Drought Relief, (Phoenix) - Federal officials this week
announced three programs designed to ease the impact of Arizona's drought on the state's
ranching industry and the state's natural resources. Gov. Jane Dee Hull in June issued a
drought declaration for the state, initiating a federal review process that culminated in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's determination that Arizona agriculture could qualify for drought
assistance. The following are brief descriptions of the three assistance packages for which
Arizona ranchers may qualify: Those ranching operations that earlier this year reduced herd
sizes in response to poor pasture conditions and lack of water due to the drought can receive
capital gains tax deferment if those herds are replaced within two years, according to the
Internal Revenue Service. It is recommended that businesses consult their tax specialist or the
IRS for further details. For more information, contact Joe Lane, Associate Director of Animal
Services Division, at (602) 542-3629. The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service has
received an initial $6 million through its Emergency Watershed Program (EWP) to treat shortand
d llong-term
t
damage
d
to
t rangeland
l d andd cropland
l dd
due tto ddrought.
ht R
Ranchers
h andd farmers
f
can
receive financial assistance to implement recovery measures that will retard runoff and reduce
the threat of future flooding and erosion hazards. For more information, contact Mike
Sommerville, State Conservationist, at (602) 280-8810. The USDA Farm Services Agency has
emergency drought assistance loans available. For more information, contact George
Arredondo, USDA/FSA State Executive Director, at (602) 640-5200. Arizona's dry winter and
low snowpack mostly impacted the state's ranching industry due to poor pasture conditions.
Summer rains have improved rangelands throughout Arizona. According to the USDA
Arizona Agricultural Statistics Service, as of Aug. 15, range and pasture condition was reported
as 6 percent poor, 21 percent fair, 39 percent good, and 34 percent excellent. As much as 99
percent of Arizona's crops are irrigated, generally mitigating short-term drought impacts.

$0 ADEM, 2008

6/23/1999 Drought

8/13/1999 Drought

99006

08/13/99

USDA

GLICKMAN DECLARES PENNSYLVANIA, 13 ARIZONA
COUNTIES AS DISASTER AREAS AND ANNOUNCES
ADDITIONAL DROUGHT ASSISTANCE Release No. 0334.99,
WASHINGTON, August 13, 1999 Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman
today declared all of Pennsylvania and 13 counties in Arizona as
agricultural disaster areas due to drought. The declaration makes farmers
Apache, Cochise,
in those areas and all contiguous counties eligible for emergency lowCoconino, Gila,
interest loans and other assistance to help cover losses from the drought.
Graham, Greenlee,
In Arizona, today's disaster declaration applies to Apache, Cochise,
Maricopa, Mohave, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima,
Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yuvapai Counties. Also eligible, because they are
Santa Cruz, Yavapai contiguous, are La Paz and Yuma Counties. Glickman has already
declared all or part of Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia as
disaster areas. Due to the close proximity to these states, certain counties
in California, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Nevada, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Utah also qualify for emergency loan
assistance.

$200,000,000

$175,000,000

$375,000,000 ADEM, 2008

$0 ADEM, 2008

Page 4 of 8

Federal Presidential Declaration

State of Arizona Declaration
Date

Hazard

9/21/1999 Thunderstorm / High Wind

State PCA No. Expenditures

20004

Date

$2,961,207 10/15/99

ID

1304-DR

6/23/2000 Drought

07/21/2000

10/23/2000

Drought

Flooding / Flash Flooding

6/23/2001 Drought

07/21/00

21104

$1,054,182 10/27/00

USDA

1347-DR

Expenditures

Damage Estimates
Counties Affected

Description

$89,017 Maricopa, Cochise

Disaster Summary for FEMA-1304-DR, Arizona. Declaration Date: Oct.
15, 1999. Incident Type: severe storms, high winds and flooding. Incident
Period: Sept. 14 through Sept. 23, 1999. Counties Declared and Types of
Assistance as of Oct. 15, 1998: Maricopa county for the Individual
Assistance program. (1) All counties in the state are eligible to apply for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

Statewide

Annual extension of PCA 99006; Statewide Drought Emergency, Declared
June 23, 1999: Lack of precipitation had significantly reduced surface and
ground water supplies and stream flows. The drought continues to
endanger crops, property and livestock of the citizens of Arizona. This
proclamation has been extended until further notice, as this is still a
threatening situation.

Apache, Cochise,
Graham, Greenlee,
Pima, Pinal, Santa
Cruz, Gila,
Maricopa, Navajo,
Yuma

GLICKMAN DECLARES 7 ARIZONA COUNTIES AGRICULTURAL
DISASTER AREAS: Washington, July 17, 2000 - Agriculture Secretary
Dan Glickman today declared seven of Arizona's 15 counties as agricultural
disaster areas due to drought, making farmers in those areas and 12
neighboring counties, including counties in Utah, New Mexico and
Colorado, eligible for emergency low-interest loans. "Farmers and ranchers
in Arizona are experiencing real difficulties this year due to drought," said
Glickman. "USDA emergency low-interest loans are available to help
producers to cover some of their losses." Glickman's disaster declaration
covers 7 of Arizona's 15 counties: Apache, Cochise, Graham, Greenlee,
Pima, Pinal and Santa Cruz. Four other contiguous Arizona counties also
are covered by the declaration (Gila, Maricopa, Navajo and Yuma) and
therefore are eligible for the same benefits. Other contiguous counties in
New Mexico are Catron, Cibola, Grant, Hidalgo, McKinley, and San Juan
counties. San Juan county in Utah and Montezuma county in Colorado are
included in the declaration as contiguous counties. This designation makes
qualified family-sized farm operators in both primary and contiguous
counties eligible for emergency low-interest loans from USDA. Farmers in
eligible counties have eight months to apply for the loans. Each loan
application is considered on its own merits, taking into account the extent of
losses, security available, repayment ability, and other eligibility
requirements. USDA previously approved emergency haying and grazing
on Conservation Reserve Program acreage, providing assistance to
approved producers whose pastures have been decimated by drought. For
f h information,
further
i f
i farmers
f
may contact their
h i llocall F
Farm S
Service
i A
Agency
offices or visit website:
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/disaster/assistance1.htm.

Cochise, La Paz,
$5,251,582 Maricopa, Pinal,
Santa Cruz

Statewide

In the early morning hours of Sunday October 22, a large low pressure area
dumped four to six inches of rain over parts of eastern LaPaz and western
Maricopa County. This caused flash flooding in the upper part of the
Centennial Wash between the Harcuvar and Harquahala mountain ranges.
The heavy runoff flowed into the town of Wenden where water ran over the
highway 60 bridge. At its peak the wash was about 3/8ths of a mile wide
and 12 feet deep. The resulting high water surged through the town of
Wenden with at least 400 residents evacuated. There was extensive damage
to the town and for many miles downstream. The reported flow was in
excess of 20,000 cfs. When the flood hit Wenden, it inundated some mobile
homes, causing them to lift off their foundations and float down the wash.
An estimated 125 mobile homes were affected. One migrant worker was
killed when flood waters swept through the town during the early morning
hours. Additional heavy rainfall hit this area several days later and
complicated relief efforts for many of the homeless. A spotter in
Wickenburg reported that route 93 was closed north of Wickenburg due to
high water. Sols wash was out of its banks and flooded Coffinger Park as
well as nearby homes. The Vulture Mine road was closed and motorists
had to be rescued. Flood water produced considerable damage to melon
and cotton crops in this rural area of northwest Maricopa County. The
roads around Aguila were closed for several hours.
Annual extension of PCA 99006; Statewide Drought Emergency, Declared
June 23, 1999: Lack of precipitation had significantly reduced surface and
ground water supplies and stream flows. The drought continues to
endanger crops, property and livestock of the citizens of Arizona. This
proclamation has been extended until further notice, as this is still a
threatening situation.

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Crop/Livestock

Total

Sources

$0 ADEM, 2008

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$3,000,000 ADEM, 2008

$0 ADEM, 2008

1

$8,200,000

$2,000,000

$10,200,000

ADEM, 2008
NCDC, 2008

$0 ADEM, 2008

Page 5 of 8

Federal Presidential Declaration

State of Arizona Declaration
Date

08/17/2001

05/17/2002

Hazard

Thunderstorm / High Wind

Drought

State PCA No. Expenditures

22001

Date

ID

07/18/2002

Drought

07/11/02

07/18/02

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Crop/Livestock

Total

Sources

$0

Statewide

VENEMAN DESIGNATES ARIZONA AS DROUGHT DISASTER
AREA, Governor Hull and Veneman Tour Fire Areas and Assess Damage
in Prescott National Forest Areas: PHOENIX, Ariz., May 17, 2002-Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman today designated the entire state of
Arizona as a drought disaster area. This designation makes Arizona
farmers and ranchers immediately eligible for USDA emergency farm loans
due to losses caused by drought this year.

$0 ADEM, 2008

Statewide

the Arizona Game and Fish Department placed an emergency ban on the
importation of live hoofed animals (e.g., deer and elk) into Arizona due to a
fear of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). CWD is a disease closely
related to “mad cow disease” in cattle and scrapie in domestic sheep and
goats but affects dear and elk.

$0 ADEM, 2008

Statewide

Annual extension of PCA 99006; Statewide Drought Emergency, Declared
June 23, 1999: Lack of precipitation had significantly reduced surface and
ground water supplies and stream flows. The drought continues to
endanger crops, property and livestock of the citizens of Arizona. This
proclamation has been extended until further notice, as this is still a
threatening situation.

$0 ADEM, 2008

USDA

Statewide

VENEMAN ANNOUNCES EXPANSION OF CRP EMERGENCY
HAYING AND GRAZING PROGRAM FOR WEATHER-STRICKEN
STATES, WASHINGTON, July 11, 2002 - Agriculture Secretary Ann M.
Veneman today approved 18 states for Conservation Reserve Program
emergency haying and grazing statewide, making all CRP participants in
these states basically
basicall eligible for this emergency
emergenc measure.
meas re Veneman also
said USDA will waive rental reduction fees to encourage donation of hay to
farmers and ranchers in immediate need. "Drought and severe weather
conditions have depleted hay stocks and grazing lands across the country,"
said Veneman. "This approval provides immediate relief to livestock
producers and encourages donations of hay to producers who need
immediate assistance." The 18 approved states are: Arizona, Colorado,
Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.ARIZONA FARMERS FACING
CATASTROPHE ... Arizona officials are saying that the losses from the
livestock industry alone last year will be upward of $300 million. …

USDA

VENEMAN DESIGNATES COUNTIES IN ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA,
TEXAS AND VIRGINIA AS DISASTER AREAS, Decision Allows
Farmers and Ranchers to Receive Emergency Farm Loans:
WASHINGTON, July 18, 2002 -- In continuing efforts to expedite
emergency disaster declarations in areas hit hard by adverse weather
conditions, Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman today designated
Maricopa, Pima,
counties in Arizona, California, Texas and Virginia as agricultural disaster
Pinal in the Tohono areas. This designation makes farmers and ranchers with losses
O'Odham Nation
immediately eligible for USDA emergency (EM) farm loans. "These
emergency declarations will provide farmers and ranchers with much
needed assistance to recover from these natural disasters," said Veneman.
"We continue to utilize all existing authorities to provide relief for weatherstricken areas." In Arizona, Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties in the
Tohono O'Odham Nation were named primary disaster areas due to
drought.

USDA

6/23/2002 Drought

Drought

Description

Maricopa, Pima

5/18/2002 Infestation

07/11/2002

Damage Estimates
Counties Affected

A large thunderstorm complex developed over northwest Maricopa County
and moved to the south and southwest. The thunderstorm induced gust
front, at times over 60 miles long, west to east, caused widespread electric
power outages in the Gila Bend area south to Ajo in west Pima County. In
the immediate Gila Bend area, thirty-eight 230kv poles downed, and thirtynine 69kv poles downed. A substation was damaged as well as telephone
lines. The reported wind gust of 66 knots was recorded at the Gila Bend
municipal airport at 0245. As the gust front moved further to the south and
southwest, a total of 140 power poles were blown over as reported by the
Arizona Public Service. Electric power services were disrupted up to 5
days.

$11,805

05/17/02

Expenditures

$300,000,000

ADEM, 2008
NCDC, 2008

$300,000,000 ADEM, 2008

$0 ADEM, 2008

Page 6 of 8

Federal Presidential Declaration

State of Arizona Declaration
Date

Hazard

5/2/2003 Wildfire

State PCA No. Expenditures

23003

Date

ID

Expenditures

$2,378,020

Statewide

6/23/2003 Drought

12/29/2004 Flooding / Flash Flooding

2/16/2005 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Damage Estimates
Counties Affected

Statewide

25004

25005

$2,131,217 2/17/2005 1581-DR

$4,669,352 3/14/2005 1586-DR

$5,986,604

$9,536,276

Gila, Graham,
Greenlee, Pinal,
Yavapai, Maricopa,
Mohave

Gila, Graham,
Greenlee, Pinal,
Yavapai, Maricopa,
Mohave

Description

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Forest Health Emergency - As a result of the on-going drought conditions
the forests within our state have been infested with the Pine Bark Beetle.
This proclamation will expedite the clearing of dead, dying and diseased
trees and other vegetation that interfere with emergency response and
evacuation needs.
Annual extension of PCA 99006; Statewide Drought Emergency, Declared
June 23, 1999: Lack of precipitation had significantly reduced surface and
ground water supplies and stream flows. The drought continues to
endanger crops, property and livestock of the citizens of Arizona. This
proclamation has been extended until further notice, as this is still a
threatening situation.
A strong Pacific storm system moved across Arizona December 28th and
29th with heavy rainfall. The heavy rain and melting snow resulted in
excessive runoff in many areas from Williams to Flagstaff to Winslow and
south to Prescott and Black Canyon City. High water, mudslides, and rock
slides resulted in numerous road closures and evacuations in the area. Many
creeks experienced significant rises. Seventy people were evacuated in
southwest Flagstaff when water over-topped an earthen flood control dam.
A dozen neighborhoods (about 300 people) along Oak Creek were
evacuated in the Sedona area and two neighborhoods down stream. A 14
mile section of Highway 89 between Flagstaff and Sedona was closed
because of rock slides. High water on the Verde River forced evacuations in
Cornville and Bridgeport. Four RVs were lost in Oak Creek at the Page
Springs RV park while 23 vehicles were removed before the water rose too
high. About 100 people were evacuated in Black Canyon City in two
different mobile-home parks. Portions of Navajo Route 71 and Old Navajo
Route 2 were closed northeast of Winslow when the Little Colorado River
overflowed the banks. Six families were evacuated near Bird Springs on the
Navajo Reservation. All thirty-one low water crossings and seven other
streets were closed in Prescott due to flooding. Two passengers were
rescued from a stranded vehicle in Prescott. Preliminary counts indicate that
as many as 150 homes may have sustained damages up to approximately
one million dollars. Roads and bridges sustained an additional one million
dollars damage.
A strong storm system drew moist subtropical air from the Pacific to give northern
Arizona widespread moderate to heavy rains. This precipitation event began
Thursday night (02/10) and lasted through the early hours on Sunday (02/13).
Rainfall totals of 2 to 3 inches were common in many locations...with locally heavier
amounts found in portions of Yavapai and Northern Gila counties. Flooding caused
road closures in Black Canyon City, Walker, Pinedale, and Globe. Paper Mill Road
in Snowflake was washed out by the flood waters. Highway 377 was closed due to
flooding between Heber and Holbrook. A trailer park in Black Canyon City was
evacuated before the water rose into the parking lot. No trailers were damaged.
Minor pasture flooding was reported in Cornville. A trailer park in the community of
Tonto Creek was evacuated. Flood waters entered homes in Porter Creek Estates
(near Show Low). The Gila River at the Town of Duncan had moderate flooding and
the smaller dikes broke allowing water to backup into the town. Damage occurred to
a residence near Duncan High School, and a trailer downstream of the high school.
Also, U.S. Highway 70 near the high school was covered with four feet of water and
the approach ramps to the highway were overtopped with flowing water. East
Avenue and low lying areas in the west end of the Town of Duncan were evacuated
on the evening of Saturday February 12, 2005. The railroad tracks also on the west
end of Duncan were covered with water and power went out in the west side of the
town. The San Francisco River at the Town of Clifton had minor flooding reported.
There was no damage reported in the Town of Clifton. However, there was water to
the bottom of the Railroad Bridge which stopped railroad traffic from the Morenci
Mine and minor overflow of the river in the northern end of Clifton. Also, the town
gates, designed to divert water away from the Town of Clifton were closed, isolating
the town from road and railroad access from the north. The Town of Solomon at the
Gila River reported minor flooding. The Solomon Road, Pima Road, and Thatcher
Road bridge approaches were all flooded and closed. U.S. Highway 70 Bridge near
Bylas was also flooded and closed.

Crop/Livestock

Total

Sources

$0 ADEM, 2008

$0 ADEM, 2008

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

ADEM, 2008
NCDC, 2008

$1,500,000

$1,500,000

ADEM, 2008
NCDC, 2008

Page 7 of 8

Federal Presidential Declaration

State of Arizona Declaration
Date

Hazard

2/22/2006 Wildfire

State PCA No. Expenditures

26006

$192,390

Date

ID

Expenditures

Damage Estimates
Counties Affected

Description

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Crop/Livestock

Total

Sources

Statewide

On February 22, 2006, the Governor declared an emergency due to the
driest winter in recorded history coupled with above average temperatures
and the earliest recorded start to a wildfire season. The entire state was
threatened by extreme wildfire hazards. The 2006 state wildfire
presuppression resources strategy required additional financial support. The
declaration provided $200,000 for pre-suppression resources to the Arizona
State Land Department, Office of State Forester and the Arizona Division
of Emergency Management.

$0 ADEM, 2008

$0 ADEM, 2008

$0 ADEM, 2008

6/23/2006 Infestation

26008

$743,000

Cochise, Maricopa,
Pima, Pinal, Santa
Cruz, Yuma

Glassy-winged sharpshooter infestation - The Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter
is a known vector of Xyella fastidiosa, a bacteria that causes plant diseases
such asPierce’s disease of grapes, almond leaf scorch, alfalfa dwarf,
oleander leaf scorch, and citrus verigated chlorosis, that threaten the
viability of wine, citrus and other agricultural and horticultural industries as
well as public landscapes. The Glassy-Winged has been detected in Arizona
in a small isolated location in the city of Sierra Vista, Cochise County.
The Arizona Department of Agriculture has been placing detection traps,
monitoring and eradicating the Sharpshooter.

9/14/2007 Flooding / Flash Flooding

28002

$200,000

Maricopa, Mohave

On September 14, 2007, the Governor declared a state of emergency for a
series of potent monsoon storms and flash floods throughout several
communities in Arizona, specifically Mohave County, the Town of Cave
Creek and the Town of Mammoth from July 21 – August 6, 2007 and
allocated $200,000 to this emergency.

Page 8 of 8

Hazard
Drought
Dam Failure
Earthquake
Fissure
Flooding / Flash Flooding
Landslide / Mudslide
Levee Failure
Snow Storm
Sleet / Freezing Rain
Subsidence
Thunderstorm / High Wind
Tornado
Tropical Storm / Hurricane
Wildfire

Maricopa County Historic Hazard Events
June 1955 to September 2008
Recorded Losses
No. of
Records
Fatalities Injuries
Damage Costs ($)
0
0
0
$0
1
0
0
$0
0
0
0
$0
2
0
0
$2,500
31
9
7
$101,610,500
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
$0
4
1
0
$115,000
0
0
0
$0
2
0
0
$4,170,000
193
6
144
$421,055,000
44
0
57
$37,220,900
0
0
0
$0
4
0
0
$0

Notes:
- No attempt has been made to adjust Damage Costs to current dollar values

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Property

Source

26-Sep-97 Dam Failure

Tropical Storm Nora moved through the western portion of Maricopa
County dumping record breaking precipitation along the way. The
Narrows Dam located just north of Maricopa County on Centennial
Wash, began filling in the early part of the storm with flows reaching
a depth of over two feet in the emergency spillway before the dam
itself failed by breach in two locations. The peak discharge estimated
from the dam spillway was 2,610 cfs. No downstream damages were
reported.

0

0

$0

$0

$0 FCDMC, 2009

01-Mar-01 Dense Fog

Dense fog was reported over much of south central Arizona around
sunrise. Three fog-related accidents left 8 people hurt near the
intersection of Arizona 347 and Arizona 238 just north of the town of
Maricopa. The accidents forced the closure of route 347 from
Maricopa to I-10 until about 10:30 am.

0

8

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

30

0

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

Arizona Land Subsidence
Group, 2007. Land
subsidence and earth
fissures in Arizona:
Research and informational
$0
needs for effective risk
management, white paper,
Tempe, AZ,
http://www.azgs.az.gov/Eart
h%20Fissures/CR-07-C.pdf

This was the third warmest July on record in Phoenix. The average
monthly temperature was 97.3 degrees, just 4 tenths of a degree shy
of the record warmest July which was set in 2003. The average
maximum temperature for the month was 109.5 compared to a
normal of 106.6 degrees.
Several daily high temperature records were tied or broken, including
115 degrees on July 12, 114 degrees on July 13, and 116 degrees on
July 17, the hottest day of the month.

12-Jul-05 Extreme Heat / Cold

The average minimum temperature for July was 85.0 degrees,
compared to a normal of 82.9. The daily low temperature records that
were tied or broken included July 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21st. The low
temperature on July 17 was 93, just 3 degrees shy of the hottest
minimum ever in Phoenix.
The onset of the wet season, usually around the 7th, was delayed until
the 17th. Even after July 17, there was not much humidity, and the
total rainfall for the month at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport was only .16
inches.
Authorities have attributed 30 deaths to heat, nearly all victims were
homeless. M97PH, M66OU, M37VE, F75PH, F75PH, F75PH,
M62OT, F81PH, M65OT, M65OT, M65OT, M65OT, M65OT,
M65OT, M65OT, M65OT, M65OT, M65OT, M65OT, M65OT,
M65OT, M65OT, M65OT, M55OT, M55OT, M55OT, M55OT,
M55OT, M55OT, M55OT

25-Aug-05 Fissure

21-Jul-07 Fissure

A fissure in Queen Creek was reopened due to runoff from a
thunderstorm causing damages to utlities, fences and driveway access.
The event led led to the enactment of HB2639, which called for a
statewide identification and public disclosure of fissure hazards.

Queen Creek

0

0

$0

$0

The "Y-Crack" fissure was reopened due to runoff from a
thunderstorm causing damages to utilities, fences, and vehicles. In
one location, the fissure opened up to about 10 feet wide and 12-15
deep under a horse in it's corral, engulfing and killing the horse.

Chandler Heights

0

0

$0

$2,500

$2,500 AZGS, 2007

Page 2 of 27

Date

Hazard

15-Jun-72 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Description

Location

Flood damages in Maricopa County were over $8,000,000.
Scottsdale and Phoenix were hit the hardest.

Fatalities
0

Injuries
0

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Property
$8,000,000

Source

$8,000,000 ADEM, 2008

02-Mar-78 Flooding / Flash Flooding

For Maricopa County, the storm centered over the mountains north
and east of Phoenix, 35 miles north at Rock Springs. Extrapolation of
intensity-probability data: 5.73 in./ 24 hr. equates to a 400 yr. storm.
Main source of flooding due to Verde River with runoff volume
exceeding reservoir storage capacity above Bartlett Dam. Flooding
also occurred along irrigation canals on north side of metro area, and
along tributaries of the Gila River and Queen Creek. 1 deathcountywide. Total damage costs: $37 million: $3.1 millionresidential, $16 million-public, $4 million-agriculture, $7.8 millionindustrial, $0.75 million-commercial. "Flood Damage Report, 28
February-6 March 1978 on the storm and floods in Maricopa County,
Arizona", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angles District,
FCDMC Library #802.024.

08-Jan-93 Flooding / Flash Flooding

The new Mill Avenue Bridge was washed away by the raging Salt River. A
large landfill in Mesa was washed away. The Gillespie Dam west of
Phoenix was damaged as high water spread throughout low-lying areas.
Many roads closed and motorists stranded by flooded dips and washes.
Phoenix alone sustained at least $4.2 million in damages from this
prolonged period of heavy rains. This January was the wettest January on
record with 5.22 inches at the airport. It was also the 4th all- time wettest
month. Total rainfall for both December and January was 8.30 inches; this
was the greatest ever for any two consecutive months. Arizona experienced
its worst flooding in a decade as record rainfall and associated flooding
forced many from homes and disrupted business. The Red Cross reported
678 dwellings destroyed or damaged. Early estimates of damage were at
least $56 million statewide. A Presidential Federal Disaster Declaration
was requested and signed by the President on January 19th. Several storm
systems affected the state before the major storm arrived during the night of
J
January
7-8.
7 8 Significant
Si ifi t precipitation
i it ti off two
t to
t three
th inches
i h were reported
t d
in a few sites between Phoenix and the Mogollon Rim. Moist low-level
flow was forced upward and resulted in heavy rain and snow in the highest
elevations. Periods of heavy rainfall resulted from the interaction of
dynamic forcing and convective instability. The most significant flash flood
events occurred when convective rains fell on watersheds already saturated
from earlier rainfall. Another factor contributing to the unusually high
runoffs and associated flooding was snow melt. The snow level during the
6th to the 8th rose to about 8,500 feet, several thousand feet above typical
snow levels. In summary, the combination of a northward-displaced
subtropical jet, with its abundant moisture supply and associated
disturbances, and a southward-displaced polar jet, with its storm track, led
to the abnormally wet period from just after Christmas to mid-January.

Countywide

20-Jan-93 Flooding / Flash Flooding

While attempting to cross the swollen Agua Fria River, a man fell off
his horse and drowned. His body was found 3 miles
downstream.(M21O)

New River

1

0

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

12-Feb-93 Flooding / Flash Flooding

The National Guard was called out to repair and reinforce the dike
around San Lucy cemetery, near Gila Bend. Three houses north of
Gila Bend were innundated from the rising water from Painted Rock
Reservoir. Crops and fields were also inundated by floodwaters.

Gila Bend

0

0

$50,000

$5,000,000

$5,050,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Feb-95 Flooding / Flash Flooding

A man died and three others were injured in a vehicle accident during
a heavy down pour of rain. (M47V)

Phoenix

1

3

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

1

0

0

1

$33,000,000

$34,500,000

$4,000,000

$3,500,000

Flood Damage Report, 28
February-6 March 1978 on
the storm and floods in
Maricopa County, Arizona,
$37,000,000
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Los Angles
District, FCDMC Library
#802.024.

Flood Damage Report, State
of Arizon, Floods of 1993,
U.S. Army Corps of
$38,000,000 Engineers, Los Angles
District August 1994.
District,
1994
NCDC, 2008

Page 3 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Property

Source

15-Feb-95 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Heavy rains fell on the Salt and Verde water sheds during February
the 13th through the 15th. This combined with rain falling on snow
pack in the higher mountains of central and northern Arizona lead to
flooding and flash flooding. The Verde and Salt water sheds
averaged 2.16 and 1.27 inches of rain, respectively, between the
morning of February the 13th and the morning of February the 15th.
During the night of February the 14th, remote rain gages at Camp
Wood, Highland Pine, and Groom Creek, located in the Bradshaw
Mountains, reported 5.12 inches of rain, 4.5 inches, and 4.3 inches,
respectively. Record flows were observed on the Verde River, at
Camp Verde, when the flow peaked at 70,000 cubic feet per second.
Flooding was observed downstream at Cornville, where about 60
families were evacuated, another 20 families were evacuated from
Camp Verde. Rest areas on Interstate 17, 12 northeast Camp Verde
were under water. Automobile size boulders blocked Highway 87,
north of Payson. Several people were rescued from Turtle Island, in
Oak Creek Canyon. Low land flooding occurred along the
Hassayampa and Agua Fria Rivers, also along Tonto Creek. Flood
waters from the Hassayampa River, near Wickenburg, washed out
300 to 400 feet of fence, some granite fill, and a blimp hangar.
Damage was estimated at $5,500. Five bridges in Coconino County,
around the Sedona area sustained minor damage, estimated at
$80,000. The park area of Los Abrigados Resort, near Sedona, was
completely under water, and a gazebo was destroyed. Damage was
estimated at $20,000. Numerous roads were under water and
damaged in Oak Creek Canyon, Kachina Village, and behind Lake
Mary. These damages were estimated at $500,000.

Wickenburg

0

0

$5,500

$0

$5,500 NCDC, 2008

28 M 98 Flooding
28-Mar-98
Fl di / Fl
Flashh Flooding
Fl di

Three members of a Boy Scout troop perished after their sport utility
vehicle was swept out from under them. The scouts tried to cross a
running wash near Sunflower. Occasionally heavy rain showers
persisted in the area throughout the afternoon and early evening.

S fl
Sunflower

3

0

$0

$0

$0 NCDC
NCDC, 2008

14-Jul-99 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Major storm hit most of the Phoenix metropolitan area with numerous
reports of street flooding. At least a half-dozen swift-water rescues,
including a dramatic rescue by MCSO helicopter covered by local
TV. No major injuries. Freeways and other major roads flooded.
Three elderly south Phoenix women momentarily were trapped when
their mobile home collapsed in driving rain. The roof of a major
business collapsed in Phoenix.

Mesa

0

0

$80,000

$0

$80,000 NCDC, 2008

21-Oct-00 Flooding / Flash Flooding

A spotter in Wickenburg reported that route 93 was closed north of
Wickenburg due to high water. Sols wash was out of its banks and
flooded Coffinger Park as well as nearby homes. The Vulture Mine
road was closed and motorists had to be rescued. Flood waters
produced considerable damage to melon and cotton crops in this rural
area of northwest Maricopa County. The roads around Aguila were
closed for several hours.

Aguila

0

0

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$3,000,000 NCDC, 2008

Page 4 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Property

Source

27-Oct-00 Flooding / Flash Flooding

The second major storm in a week left considerable flooding in both
rural and urban areas. A trailer park in Aguila and another in
Buckeye had to be evacuated. Homes in Peoria, Youngtown,
Surprise and surrounding areas reported flooding. The hardest hit
was the Ventana Lakes subdivision of Peoria. This area expeienced
record or near record monthly rainfall totals; one unofficial gauge 15
miles east of Aguila registered 8.79 inches for the month! A gauge
in Aguila had 5.05 inches for the month. Department of
Transportation estimate of damage to roads and bridges alone was
$1,000,000. Dikes and ditches in the agricultural areas sustained
major damage in addition to crop losses.

Aguila

0

0

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$3,000,000 NCDC, 2008

13-Aug-03 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Flash flood in Sols Wash swept the vehicle downstream from Vulture
Mine Road

Wickenburg

1

0

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

28-Aug-03 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Locally heavy rainfall affected a large part of the Phoenix metro area
late Tuesday the 26th. The heaviest rain fell north of Sun City where
one gage near Surprise recorded about 4 inches. More than 2 inches
fell at Antelope Creek near Wickenburg. Washes overflowed and
roads were flooded. Several swift water rescues were performed
between 183rd Avenue and 187th Avenue. Several homes were
damaged by flooding .

North Central Portion

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

04-Sep-03 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Flash Flooding at the entrance to the White Tank Mountain Regional
Park near the intersection of Olive Rd and Citrus Rd. Very heavy rain
occurred in the area between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM MST. A vehicle
with two male occupants was swept off of Olive Rd. around 8:30 PM
MST. The two occupants attempted to leave the vehicle and were
swept down the wash approximately 60 yards. A swift water rescue
by law enforcement had to be conducted after they became trapped in
rushing water approximately 3 feet deep. The individuals suffered
minor injuries (cuts and bruises) as a result of the incident.

Waddell

0

2

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

30-Jul-05 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Very heavy rainfall, about 2 inches per hour, caused flooding of low
spots and washes. The peak flow in Hartman Wash, was reported as
1200 cfs. Major damage occurred at Bear Cat Manufacturing where a
large robotic welding building was destroyed by the flood.

Wickenburg Muni Arpt

0

0

$3,000,000

$0

$3,000,000 NCDC, 2008

02-Aug-05 Flooding / Flash Flooding

One of the heaviest rainfall events of the 2005 season struck the
greater Phoenix metropolitan. Almost 3 inches of rain fell at many
locations in the metro, causing roofs to collapse and streets to flood
quickly. Up to 120 residents at the Crystal Creek Apartments in
Phoenix were evacuated after 83 apartment units were damaged by
flood waters. Additional roof damage was reported at the Scottsdale
Community College, and Osco Drug store in Mesa, and a Frys
grocery store in Tempe.

Phoenix

0

0

$1,000,000

$0

$1,000,000 NCDC, 2008

09-Aug-05 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Heavy rains during the afternoon flooded highways and roads. A few
business buildings and residential homes were damaged by flash flood
waters. An off-duty National Weather Service employee reported that
a two hour rainfall of 3.18 inches occurred prior to 17:30 MST.

Mesa

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

Page 5 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Source

09-Aug-05 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Heavy rains from widespread thunderstorms caused flash flood
waters to over-flow washes from New River east to the Seven Springs
area and Camp Creek. Rainfall runoff was higher than normal in the
Cave Creek Complex area and contributed significantly to the rapid
flooding. The first fatality involved a pickup truck with a horse trailer;
the driver attempted to drive on a flooded road and the vehicle was
swept away drowning the driver. The second fatality involved a seven
year old girl who was being evacuated from a home along Camp
Creek. The rescuer and the young girl attempted to cross the flooded
creek on foot where the girl slipped from the grasp of the adult and
was swept away and drowned.

New River

2

0

$300,000

$0

$300,000 NCDC, 2008

31-Aug-06 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Very heavy rainfall...up to 1.61 inches...left many washes and streets
flooded in the Wittmann area. Up to 6 inches of water was flowing
across U.S. 60 at one point. One half inch of rain fell in Wickenburg
in less than an hour. Small hail accompanied some of the heavy
showers and thunderstorms.C227

Wittmann

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

09-Sep-06 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Several roads reported flooded in town after torrential rainfall hit in a
short period. One gauge indicated nearly 2 inches in 30 minutes. A
wash overflowed its banks, flooding a nearby home with water up to
18 inches deep.

Wickenburg

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

21-Jul-07 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Heavy rains fell at Queen Creek, with 1.61 inches at the Queen Creek
landfill and 1.54 inches at East Maricopa Floodway and Queen Creek
Road. High water forced road closures at Hunt and Ellsworth and the
Magic Ranch subdivision. At least one car stalled in high water at
Hunt Highway and Hawes.Portions of three counties experience flash
flooding.

Queen Creek

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

23-Jul-07 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Thunderstorms and very heavy rainfall spread across much of the
area A spotter in Carefree reported 1.5
area.
1 5 inches of rain in less than one
hour...and many roads and low spots were flooded. A wastewater
treatment plant and a park was damaged in Carefree. Flooding was
reported in Queen Creek, where a water line was damaged from the
flash flood and resulted in the closure of Higley Road. A large ground
fissure resulted from flooding at Queen Creek and 195th Street, and
near Happy Road south of San Tan Blvd. One horse was reported
killed in this fissure. |Very moist and unstable air resulted in
widespread showers and thunderstorms across much of South-Central
Arizona. Many roads and low spots became flooded by late afternoon.

Cave Creek

0

0

$200,000

$0

$200,000 NCDC, 2008

25-Jul-07 Flooding / Flash Flooding

About 1.5 inches of rain in less than an hour resulted in flooding in
Wickenburg. Torrential rainfall rates, about 2 inches per hour, fell in
Phoenix. A roof of a central Phoenix Safeway store caved in due to
the rainfall. Phoenix Fire Department rescued a 12 year-old from a
flooded area near 35th Avenue and Loop 101.Scattered
thunderstorms and moderate to heavy rainfall spread across many
desert areas.

Wickenburg

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

26-Jul-07 Flooding / Flash Flooding

A vehicle attempted to cross a flooded roadway and became stranded
and quickly flipped over. Bystanders at nearby Phoenix International
Raceway pulled four young people from the pickup. TV images
showed the bystanders breaking out the windows, reaching inside the
overturned pickup, and tossing the two young childrem to other
rescuers.Afternoon thunderstorms and very heavy rainfall resulted in
flooding.

Avondale

0

1

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

Page 6 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Source

30-Jul-07 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Locally heavy rains resulted in flooded streets and considerable water
in washes and other low-lying areas. A car stalled at Country Club
Drive underneath the Broadway Road bridge where about 2 feet of
water had accumulated. Several water rescues were made when
vehicles became stuck in flooded areas on Carefree highway.|Heavy
rains first hit the northwest part of Maricopa County, then spread into
the Metro Phoenix area. Many streets were flooded, trees downed and
considerable property damage.

Aguila

0

0

$150,000

$0

$150,000 NCDC, 2008

31-Jul-07 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Roads closed in north Scottsdale. At least 6 water rescues. Several
automatic gauges reported between 1.5 and 2.0 inch per hour rainfall
rates. Floodwaters caused $2 million of damage at Desert Sun
Elementary School in North Scottsdale.Very heavy rainfall
accompanied thunderstorms over much of Maricopa County. Strong
and gusty winds were also reported with some of the more intense
storms.

Scottsdale Muni

0

0

$2,000,000

$0

$2,000,000 NCDC, 2008

01-Dec-07 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Several spotters reported flooding of roads in the Cave Creek area.
Washes and low spots draining into the Cave Creek were also
flooded. Additional reports of flooding were received. One of the
heaviest 24 hour amounts was 3.94 inches at Fraesfield Mountain in
Carefree.Locally heavy rains and the resulting runoff contributed to
flooded roads in North Central Maricopa County.

Cave Creek

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

07-Jan-08 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Emergency crews rescued a 61 year old man who attempted to drive
his pickup truck across Cave Creek Wash at Desert Hills Road.The
last in a series of storm systems resulted in heavy rainfall in a few
areas. Carefree Ranch reported a 24 hour total of 1.30 inches on
Monday. The runoff from these recent rains left some low spots and
highway dips flooded. Motorists who tried to cross low spots and
washes in northern Maricopa County had to be rescued.

Cave Creek

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

13-Jul-08 Flooding / Flash Flooding

A record daily maximum rainfall of 1.30 inches was set at Sky Harbor
Airport. Other reports of heavy rain included .90 inch in 20 minutes in
Tempe, and 1.00 inch in 20 minutes near Wickenburg.Showers and
th d t
thunderstorms
produced
d d very heavy
h
rainfall
i f ll totals
t t l across parts
t off
South-Central Arizona.

Sky Harbor Int Arpt

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

13-Jul-08 Flooding / Flash Flooding

Numerous streets and highways reported flooded in Phoenix and
Tempe. One spotter near Guadalupe and McClintock picked up 2 1/2
inches in just 45 minutes. One unofficial report near Baseline and I-10
included 3.75 inches from this storm. A roof of a charter school in
Ahwatukee was reported to have collapsed from the accumulated rain
water.Showers and thunderstorms produced very heavy rainfall totals
across parts of South-Central Arizona.

Buckhorn

0

0

$400,000

$0

$400,000 NCDC, 2008

Many reports of large hail that accompanied several waves of
thunderstorms across the city of Phoenix.Several waves of severe
thunderstorms moved westward across the central and eastern
portions of Maricopa County. Upper level winds were stronger than
usual, and copious moisture combined with warm temperatures
allowed storms to redevelop well into the night. Winds over 80 mph
were noted in parts of Phoenix and Tempe. Nearly continuous
lightning was also observed during the peak of the activity.
Fortunately, no fatalities were associated with these severe storms.

West Chandler

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

28-Aug-08 Flooding / Flash Flooding

06-Jan-97 Snow Storm

A cold winter storm created snowfall at unusually low elevations. A
trace of snow was recorded at Tucson, and 4 to 10 inches at
elevations between 4000 and 6000 feet. This storm closed schools,
stranded many motorists, caused broken water pipes, and caused the
death of many ostriches at commercial farms.C103

Page 7 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Property

Source

01-Apr-99 Snow Storm

Rain, wind, and snow in the mountains spread across a large part of
Arizona. Snow was reported at the 3600 foot elevation in Carefree,
north of Phoenix. Several inches of snow fell in parts of Gila County
where roofs were damaged and trees taken down by snow at Top of
the World, near Globe. Three inches of snow canceled play Friday at
the Tradition golf tournament in north Scottsdale, and the final round
on Sunday was canceled. A rock slide disrupted traffic at Gonzalez
Pass west of Miami, Arizona.

0

0

$10,000

$0

$10,000 NCDC, 2008

05-Mar-00 Snow Storm

Snow accumulated to between 2 and 4 inches in the higher elevations
of southern Gila county and northern Maricopa county. A hiker died
along the Seven Springs trail, northwest of Bartlett Lake, due to
hypothermia.

1

0

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

11-Mar-06 Snow Storm

Power to a number of communities was knocked out as heavy snow
broke tree limbs and took out power lines. At one point, 20,000 APS
customers were without power, mainly affecting Globe, Miami, and
Superior. Numerous trees and branches were down at the Boyce
Thompson Arboretum near Superior. Unusually heavy snow was
reported from observers in areas to the north and east of the Phoenix
metro area, with 10 inches on the ground at Punkin Center. Heavy
rainfall also occurred at Queen Creek, where one gauge recorded 3.39
inches up to 9 pm Saturday. This event also ended the 143-day
record long streak of days without any measurable rain in Phoenix.

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

20-Sep-92 Subsidence

Subsidence near the base led to flow reversal in a portion of the
Dysart Drain, an engineered flood conveyance. On September 20,
1992, surface runoff from four inches of precipitation caused the
sluggish Dysart Drain to spill over flooding the base runways,
damaging more than 100 homes, and forcing the base to close for 3
days. Total damage was on the order of $3 million

01-Jan-92 Subsidence

Sections of the CAP canal in Scottsdale traverse an area that has
subsided up to 1.5 feet over a 20-year period, threatening the canal’s
maximum flow capacity. In response, CAP raised the canal lining 3
feet over a one-mile segment of affected area at a cost of $350,000. A
second and much larger subsidence area was later identified near the
Scottsdale Airpark. Plans for raising the canal lining will cost an
estimated $820,000. Recently, a third subsidence area has been
identified east of the Scottsdale Airpark in the Scottsdale WestWorld
area. This happened in spite of the fact that during the original design
phase, CAP Engineers showed considerable foresight in mapping a
route to minimize the likelihood of encountering zones of subsidence

29-Jul-85 Thunderstorm / High Wind
29-Jul-85 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Litchfield Park

Scottsdale

0

0

$3,000,000

$0

Schumann, H. H. (1995).
Land Subsidence and Earth
fissure hazards near Luke
Air Force Base, Arizona. In
K. R. Prince, D. L.
Galloway, & S. A. Leake
(Eds ) U.S.
(Eds.),
U S Geological
Survey subsidence interest
$3,000,000 group conference, Edwards
Air Force Base, Antelope
Valley, California,
November 18–19,
1992—abstracts and
summary (pp. 18-21).
Sacramento, CA: U.S.
Geological Survey. (OpenFile Report No. 94-532)

Gelt, J. (1992, Summer).
Arroyo, 6(2). University of
Arizona Water Resources
Research Center (Ed.).
$1,170,000
Retrieved from
http://www.ag.arizona.edu/A
ZWATER/arroyo/062land.ht
ml

0

0

$1,170,000

$0

0
0

6
6

$0
$0

$0
$0

$0 NCDC, 2008
$0 NCDC, 2008
Page 8 of 27

Date
29-Jul-85
25-Jun-86
29-Oct-87
10-Jul-88
28-Jul-88
29-Jul-88
14-Oct-88
17-Aug-89

Hazard

Description

Location

Thunderstorm / High Wind
Thunderstorm / High Wind
Thunderstorm / High Wind
Thunderstorm / High Wind
Thunderstorm / High Wind
Thunderstorm / High Wind
Thunderstorm / High Wind
Thunderstorm / High Wind

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

12
1
4
6
1
1
3
1

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

Source
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008

Large trees were blown down and a plate glass window was
destroyed.

Phoenix

0

0

$500

$0

$500 NCDC, 2008

12-May-93 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Straight line winds snapped off about 20 power poles, blew shingles
off the roof of the Super 8 motel, and damaged a storage shed. Power
was off for much of this area for most of the day.

Gila Bend

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

05-Aug-93 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Strong winds from nearby thunderstorms exceeded 50 mph in many
areas of the Valley. Homes and businesses sustained damage, trees
were uprooted and power lines were downed. Arizona Public Service
reported 10,000 customers without power. An 8-year-old boy in
Avondale was severely injured just after 1800 MST when a window
burst and glass cut his jugular vein. The roof of a convenience store
was blown off, as well as some damage to a church and an elementary
school. A 1-mile section of a 69,000-volt power line near Perryville
was knocked down. High winds blew tree limbs onto power poles
and took shingles off several homes.

Mesa

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

05-Aug-93 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Strong winds from nearby thunderstorms exceeded 50 mph in many
areas of the Valley. Homes and businesses sustained damage, trees
were uprooted and power lines were downed. Arizona Public Service
reported 10,000 customers without power. An 8-year-old boy in
Avondale was severely injured just after 1800 MST when a window
burst and glass cut his jugular vein. The roof of a convenience store
was blown off, as well as some damage to a church and an elementary
school. A 1-mile section of a 69,000-volt power line near Perryville
was knocked down. High winds blew tree limbs onto power poles
and took shingles off several homes.

Avondale

0

1

$5,000,000

$0

$5,000,000 NCDC, 2008

06-Aug-93 Thunderstorm / High Wind

One mobile home overturned due to high winds. Several power poles
blown down near Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. About
5,000 homes near Sun City were left without electricity.

Phoenix

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

08-Aug-93 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Thunderstorms downed power lines and caused minor damage to a
home.

Buckeye

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

09-Aug-93 Thunderstorm / High Wind

The Mountain Gate Mobile Home Park was hit by strong winds from
thunderstorms that moved north through the city. Seventy-six units
were damaged, with six being destroyed and four having major
damage. About 10,000 customers lost power for varying amounts of
time.

Phoenix

0

0

$500,000

$0

$500,000 NCDC, 2008

20-Aug-93 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Many roofs were damaged as this storm moved rapidly north through
Mesa. Most of the damage was near Brown and Power roads. In
nearby Fountain Hills, more homes sustained roof damage, trees
uprooted as winds reached an estimated 70 mph. In the area, up to
36 power poles were downed by the high winds.

Fountain Hills

0

0

$500,000

$0

$500,000 NCDC, 2008

20-Aug-93 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Many roofs were damaged as this storm moved rapidly north through
Mesa. Most of the damage was near Brown and Power roads. In
nearby Fountain Hills, more homes sustained roof damage, trees
uprooted as winds reached an estimated 70 mph. In the area, up to
36 power poles were downed by the high winds.

Mesa

0

0

$500,000

$0

$500,000 NCDC, 2008

08-Feb-93 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Page 9 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Property

Source

11-Mar-94 Thunderstorm / High Wind

A seven car accident was blamed on low visibility due to dense
blowing dust at Interstate 10 and Maricopa Road. Two minor injuries
were reported.

Tempe

0

2

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

25-May-94 Thunderstorm / High Wind

About ten trees, one of which was a 60-foot-tall Eucalyptus tree, were
uprooted or snapped in half by a thunderstorm microburst which
roared through a condominium complex in far north Scottsdale.
Some tiles were ripped off roofs, and a few car windows were also
broken. One car was severely damaged when the Eucalyptus tree
toppled onto it.

Phoenix

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

28-Jul-94 Thunderstorm / High Wind

A cluster of severe thunderstorms moved west across the Phoenix
metropolitan area between 7 and 8 pm. The thunderstorms toppled
and uprooted large trees, blew shingles off roofs, and downed power
lines. Lightning also struck a manufacturing plant, and the resulting
fire destroyed the building and its contents.

Phoenix

0

0

$5,000,000

$0

$5,000,000 NCDC, 2008

02-Sep-94 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Severe thunderstorms ripped through the greater Phoenix area with
winds in Chandler estimated between 60-65 mph. A weather spotter
at 7th St. and Glendale Ave. measured 1.75 inch rain in 50 minutes.
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, received 1.36 inch. Extensive street
flooding was reported around the valley with water three to five feet
deep in some underpasses. Numerous trees, both medium and large
were blown down. A house caught fire from lightning. A roof and
air conditioning unit were blown off a house on 15th Ave., south of
Indian School Road. Over 129,000 customers lost power. Seventy
power poles were blown down in the Queen Creek area, and another
50 poles near 7th Avenue and Baseline Road. Thunderstorm winds
blew out a store front window causing an estimated $6000 damage.
A 22-year-old man was killed by lightning while trying to retrieve his
vehicle in a parking lot. (O22M)

Chandler

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

02-Sep-94 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Severe thunderstorms ripped through the greater Phoenix area with
winds in Chandler estimated between 60-65 mph. A weather spotter
at 7th St.
St and Glendale Ave.
Ave measured 1.75
1 75 inch rain in 50 minutes.
minutes
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, received 1.36 inch. Extensive street
flooding was reported around the valley with water three to five feet
deep in some underpasses. Numerous trees, both medium and large
were blown down. A house caught fire from lightning. A roof and
air conditioning unit were blown off a house on 15th Ave., south of
Indian School Road. Over 129,000 customers lost power. Seventy
power poles were blown down in the Queen Creek area, and another
50 poles near 7th Avenue and Baseline Road. Thunderstorm winds
blew out a store front window causing an estimated $6000 damage.
A 22-year-old man was killed by lightning while trying to retrieve his
vehicle in a parking lot. (O22M)

Tempe

1

0

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

04-Sep-94 Thunderstorm / High Wind

About 100 trees were uprooted by thunderstorm winds at a Scottsdale
country club. Damage was estimated at $50,000.

Scottsdale

0

0

$500,000

$0

$500,000 NCDC, 2008

13-Sep-94 Thunderstorm / High Wind

A micro burst struck a school building at the Littleton Elementary
School in the community of Cashion, two miles SW of Tolleson. The
roof was torn off about eight classrooms with one teacher and eight
children being injured. A National Weather Service Storm Survey
Team estimated winds of 100 mph. A teacher reported the ground
covered with hail, some golf ball-size. A weather spotter at 75th
Avenue and Camelback Road reported 1.25 hail. A mile long stretch
of power poles were downed near 107th Avenue and Interstate 10.
Damage to the school was estimated in excess of $500,000.

Cashion

0

9

$5,000,000

$0

$5,000,000 NCDC, 2008

Page 10 of 27

Date

Hazard

21-Feb-95 Thunderstorm / High Wind

28-Jul-95 Thunderstorm / High Wind

27-Sep-95 Thunderstorm / High Wind

28-Sep-95 Thunderstorm / High Wind
01-Nov-95 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Description

Fatalities

Injuries

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Property

Source

Three ground crew personnel were injured by a lightning strike, at
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. An aircraft was being moved when
lightning struck the tail of the plane.

Phoenix

0

3

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

Strong microburst winds from a high-based thunderstorm moved
through the Litchfield Park area around 2050 MST. A spotter in
Litchfield Park reported roof and tree damage. At the Wigwam
Resort, a palm tree and tennis court lights were blown over. At 2305
MST, a store window in Mesa was blown out by microburst winds.
Thunderstorm winds up to 70 mph were reported in northwest
Phoenix which blew off roofing material, and downed trees and
power lines. A high school gymnasium in Scottsdale sustained roof
damage from microburst winds which will cost around $98,000 to
repair.

Scottsdale

0

0

$98,000

$0

$98,000 NCDC, 2008

A wet microburst hit the town of Queen Creek. A tree was blown
over onto a house. A large potato storage shed was destroyed. Wood
and metal from the shed along with hail were blown into 12 nearby
school buses damaging them all. An office roof was torn off at
Queen Creek High School. The high school also had four other roofs
and numerous air conditioning units damaged as well as broken
windows. An estimated 4,000 to 6,000 acres of cotton in nearby
fields were destroyed by wind and hail.

Queen Creek

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

Chandler

0

0

$1,500

$0

$1,500 NCDC, 2008

Phoenix

0

1

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

Apache Junction

0

1

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

Mesa

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

0

0

$30,000

$0

$30,000 NCDC, 2008

An 80-foot tree crashed into a mobile home bedroom. Numerous
reports of downed trees in the area.
In Glendale, a Salt River Project utility worker received a minor shock
when lightning struck about 150 feet away from his pickup. He was
treated at the scene and released.

01-Feb-96 Thunderstorm / High Wind
25-Feb-96 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Location

Thunderstorm winds caused damage to 10 mobile homes at the
Silveridge RV Resort in East Mesa.

25-Jul-96 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Strong thunderstorm winds with visibilities reduced by dust toppled a
double wide mobile home in transit on I-10 near Picacho.

25-Jul-96 Thunderstorm / High Wind

An Aircoupe aircraft was damaged beyond repair when strong winds
flipped the plane over. Minimal damage was sustained by two other
planes when one blew into the other. Out of a total of 116 hangars at
the Chandler Airport, 24 were damaged. Two hangars had door
sections torn loose. One hangar door was blown 200 feet.

Chandler Arpt

0

0

$30,000

$0

$30,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Aug-96 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Every town in the western half of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area
reported some damage. The hardest hit areas were in northwest
Phoenix, Glendale, and Peoria. Other towns that sustained damage
were Sun City, Surprise, El Mirage, Tolleson, Avondale, Goodyear,
and Buckeye. Approximately 400 power poles were knocked down
throughout these towns, 100 owned by SRP and 300 owned by APS.
There were from 70,000 to 75,000 homeowner claims for about $100
million in damage.

Phoenix

0

0

$100,000,000

$0

$100,000,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Aug-96 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Two juvenile detention centers, the Adobe Mountain Secure Facility
and the Black Canyon Secure Facility, both in north Phoenix,
sustained an estimated $250,000 combined damage when strong
winds damaged a perimeter fence, blew out a plastic glass window
and damaged severaly roofs at the complex. Two support pillars
under construction at the Interstate 17 and Loop 101 interchange in
north Phoenix buckled from the high winds, with an estimated
$250,000 damage.

Phoenix

0

0

$500,000

$0

$500,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Aug-96 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Several large trees were blown over, power poles were blown down,
mobile homes were overturned, and buildings were ripped apart. A
window was blown out of a mobile home injuring a young woman.

Buckeye

0

1

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

Page 11 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Property

Source

14-Aug-96 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Glendale was one of the hardest hit areas after very powerful
thunderstorms ripped through the area. The storm collapsed a the roof
of an apartment complex and blew metal dumpsters weighing up to
two tons into roadways. Sahuaro Ranch School, 10401 N. 63rd Ave.,
lost part of its roof. An Albertsons grocery store at 59th Avenue and
Beardsley Road was battered by the storm, leaving three people hurt.
The storm did extensive damage to the roof of Arrowhead
Community Hospital, 18701 N. 67th Avenue. At the Northwest
Garden Apartments, 9350 N. 67th Avenue, residents were evacuated
after the storm collapsed the roof over eight units. Shingles and
twisted sheets of park awnings were scattered across the complex. At
the Adobe Mountain Juvenile Correctional Facility, one staff member
was slightly injured when windows blew out in one of the units.
Fences around the perimeters of the facility were damaged by falling
trees. About 40 vehicles were damaged, two of them hit by a
dumpster blown through the parking lot.

Glendale

0

4

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

22-Aug-96 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Gusty thunderstorm winds caused damage and a few injuries at a
Fry's Food Store at the intersection of Power Road and Baseline Road
in East Mesa. The winds lifted a 2000 pound tent and slammed it
against a truck. The glass-covered artwork beneath the tent shattered
and caused minor cuts to two people. A teenage boy was thrown into
a grocery cart corral and treated at a local hospital for back injuries.
Several cars in the parking lot sustained dents from flying debris.

Mesa

0

3

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

Mesa

0

0

$63,000

$0

$63,000 NCDC, 2008

Mesa

0

0

$90,000

$0

$90,000 NCDC, 2008

0

25

$200,000

$0

$200,000 NCDC, 2008

02-Sep-96 Thunderstorm / High Wind
02-Sep-96 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Lightning-induced fire caused extensive damage to a home in the
6100 block of East Inglewood Street.
Lightning struck a home in the 1300 block of South Nassau which
started a blaze in the attic and caused extensive structural damage and
damage to the home's contents.

10-Jul-97 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Downburst winds from nearby thunderstorms kicked up a thick cloud
of dust as it moved across plowed fields. This cloud of dust then
moved across interstate 10 between Red Rock and Picacho reducing
visibilities to zero at times. This resulted in 12 collisions involving
about 30 vehicles. Twenty-five people were injured, but 19 were only
minor.

26-Aug-97 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Lightning struck a house in Chandler slightly injuring a woman. It
struck phone lines, power lines, and plumbing in the house igniting a
blaze which caused an estimated $50,000 damage to the upstairs
bathroom, bedrooms, and attic. The woman was injured while talking
on the phone when the lightning travelled along the phone cord and
grazed her face and neck.

Chandler

0

1

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

About 60 power poles damaged or destroyed by winds gusting to at
least 60 mph. Along Power Road some lines fell onto several cars.

Mesa

0

0

$500,000

$0

$500,000 NCDC, 2008

Winds took down 6 power poles, and forced the closure of I-10 for 1
1/2 hours. A squad car from the Buckeye Police Department received
minor damage when crushed by a falling power pole. Two private
planes from Pierce Aviation were destroyed and several other planes
were damaged by high winds. The roof of the administration building
was damaged by the storm.

Buckeye

0

0

$150,000

$0

$150,000 NCDC, 2008

31-Jul-98 Thunderstorm / High Wind

11-Aug-98 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Page 12 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Property

Source

12-Aug-98 Thunderstorm / High Wind

A strong to severe complex of storms formed northeast of
Wickenburg and moved to the southwest and intensified. The storms
produced severe damage to at least 2 aircraft at the Wickenburg
airport. About 6 power poles were blown down, and evaporative
coolers were blown off roofs. Large tree limbs were broken off in
Wickenburg. Sheriff's deputies rescued a boater and eight passengers
on Lake Pleasant.

Wickenburg

0

0

$300,000

$0

$300,000 NCDC, 2008

25-Oct-98 Thunderstorm / High Wind

For the third time on this day, Fountain Hills was hit by high winds
that blew sand and debris into streets along with hail and heavy rain.

Fountain Hills

0

0

$10,000

$0

$10,000 NCDC, 2008

25-Oct-98 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Winds collapsed a mobile home, and blew the roof off another home
on the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.

Phoenix

0

0

$10,000

$0

$10,000 NCDC, 2008

15-Dec-98 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Lightning struck the plywood roof of a home under construction. A
worker was killed when the lightning bolt traveled down a wooden
rafter and hit him in the head. Three other workers received minor
injuries from this lightning.

Paradise Vly

1

3

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

05-Jul-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Three U.S. Forest Service firefighters were stunned or paralyzed for a
few minutes as lightning hit the ground near them. They also suffered
some burns on the feet and shoulders.C114

Carefree

0

3

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

06-Jul-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

The widespread dust storm sharply reduced visibility along Interstate
10, about 7 miles northeast of Casa Grande. One motorist was killed
as a series of wrecks were reported in a 25-mile section of the
freeway.

1

14

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

06-Jul-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Lightning triggered a house fire in the 8300 block of N. Via Mia.

Scottsdale

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

06-Jul-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Winds blew down trees, power lines and traffic lights in parts of the
East Valley. Blowing dust cut the visibility at Sky Harbor airport,
delaying up to 50 flights. Many streets flooded and 3 motorists in Sun
City were rescued. SRP reported 20 power poles down.

Mesa

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

06 J l 99 Th
06-Jul-99
Thunderstorm
d t
/ Hi
Highh Wind
Wi d

Very strong winds downed trees and power poles. Although no
i j i were reported,
injuries
d 20 wooden
d power poles
l supporting
i 69,000
69 000
volt power lines snapped in Fountain Hills, according to SRP crews.

F t i Hills
Fountain
Hill

0

0

$100
$100,000
000

$0

$100
$100,000
000 NCDC
NCDC, 2008

07-Jul-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

An entire line of power poles down along McDowell Road between
Longmore and Dobson roads.

Scottsdale

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

07-Jul-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Widespread area of very strong winds, damaged homes and cut
power to at least 11,500 customers around the metropolitan area.
Trees and limbs were downed. Official winds to 57 mph were
clocked at 43rd Ave and lower Buckeye Road. President Clinton,
arrived in Phoenix just before the blinding dust storm moved in.
There were delays of up to 90 minutes at the airport. Numerous
streets were flooded
including streets in Scottsdale, Laveen, Ahwatukee, and Tatun Blvd.
No serious injuries reported.

Phoenix

0

0

$70,000

$0

$70,000 NCDC, 2008

10-Jul-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

High winds tore off a portion of a roof and pushed over a camper on
Van Buren Street east of Palo Verde Road. In addition, power poles
were blown down just outside of Buckeye.

Buckeye

0

0

$30,000

$0

$30,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Jul-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

A home in the 3800 block of East San Remo in east Gilbert was
struck by lightning causing a 2 foot hole in the concrete shingles on
the roof. No fire was involved but most electrical appliances were
damaged.C124

Gilbert

0

0

$10,000

$0

$10,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Jul-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Power poles down.

Mesa

0

0

$15,000

$0

$15,000 NCDC, 2008

23-Jul-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Power poles damaged at 7th Ave and Fillmore. Numerous water
rescues due to flooded streets and washes running. Flights at Sky
Harbor airport were delayed about a half hour.

Phoenix

0

0

$30,000

$0

$30,000 NCDC, 2008

Page 13 of 27

Date

Hazard

25-Jul-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Description
Buildings damaged or destroyed. One mobile home was tossed about
30 feet down an embankment.
Lightning struck and killed a motorcyclist and injured another near
Bartlett Dam.

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Property

Source

Palo Verde

0

2

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

Fountain Hills

1

1

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

10-Aug-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Microburst winds and heavy rain developed over much of north
Phoenix around 430 pm. As many as 20 power poles were downed by
the high winds, and torrential rain near Rose Garden Lane between
19th and 25th avenues. This left a half-dozen people trapped in their
vehicles, but no injuries. At least 17,000 customers were left without
power. One motorist escaped injury when steel construction beams
were blown onto his vehicle at a freeway construction site at
Beardsley and 23rd Avenue. A large moving truck was toppled onto
its side by high winds at 19th Avenue and Deer Valley Road..

Phoenix

0

0

$500,000

$0

$500,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Aug-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Thunderstorms moved through east Mesa with high winds and rain.
At least 20 power poles were reported down with most damage near
80th Street and Southern. Occupants of seven vehicles were trapped
in their cars and had to be rescued. Two individuals suffered minor
injuries.

Mesa

0

2

$30,000

$0

$30,000 NCDC, 2008

19-Aug-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Dense blowing dust and blowing sand accompanied strong winds and
heavy rain in much of the metropolitan area. At least one air
conditioner was blown from a roof in Phoenix. Flights in and out of
Sky Harbor airport were delayed by as much as 90 minutes during the
height of the storm. Near zero visibility was reported with winds of 45
mph.

Phoenix

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

22-Aug-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Strong winds blew three large concrete walls down at a construction
site near 30th Street and Broadway.
Winds kicked up dust and sand which lowered visibility to less than
1/4 mile in many areas.

Phoenix

0

0

$15,000

$0

$15,000 NCDC, 2008

27-Aug-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Torrential rain, hail and high wind swept through mainly the west
Phoenix area. The remnants of hurricane Bret left as much as 2.35
inches of rain in half an hour at 43rd Avenue and Thomas Road.
Several sections of a roof at the Desert Sky Mall collapsed due to the
microburst wind and rain. No injuries were reported, although several
thousand people had to be evacuated. Sections of the roof collapsed
just 10 minutes after the evacuations. Numerous power poles were
downed between 33rd Ave and 83rd Ave. Department of Public
Safety shut down I-10 for about 3 hours after power lines fell. Major
street flooding was also reported, and Phoenix firefighters rescued
two motorists from flooded washes in the 9000 block of N. 11th
Street and 1200 block of E. Cheryl Drive. About 50 flights from Sky
Harbor airport were delayed up to 2 hours due to rain and wind..

Phoenix

0

0

$300,000

$0

$300,000 NCDC, 2008

31-Aug-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

A 21 year-old woman near Williams Gateway airport received a
shock from lightning as she spoke on the telephone.

Mesa

0

1

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

Sun Lakes

0

1

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

Gilbert

0

1

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

27-Jul-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

31-Aug-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind
31-Aug-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

A worker was struck by lightning while installing an air conditioner in
a new home in Sun Lakes.C133
A Gilbert backhoe driver in the 100 block of E. Guadalupe Road was
injured and treated for minor injuries when his machinery was struck
by lightning.

Page 14 of 27

Date

Hazard

31-Aug-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

14-Sep-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind
14-Sep-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

14-Sep-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

19-Sep-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Description
A large area of the East Valley experienced high winds and heavy
rain. Williams Gateway airport traffic controllers evacuated the tower
during very strong winds that peaked at 83 mph at 1:49 pm MST. A
nearby fire station roof was damaged by the wind. Roof damage was
reported at the VF Factory Outlet stores in Mesa with subsequent
water damage. At least one residence in the 1800 block of S. 74th
Street was damaged. A number of trailer homes had roof damage.
Four people were injured on US 60 east of Greenfield Road involving
at least 4 vehicles Department of Public Safety closed the road for
about two hours. Rain totals included 1.89 inches in east Mesa and
.98 inch in Fountain Hills.
Considerable damaage in NW Phoenix and Peoria due primarily to
strong wind.
A 32-year old woman was knocked unconscious as lightning struck a
nearby tree.
Winds blew down power poles, trees, and caused considerable
damage to homes and businesses in the East Valley. A family in
Mesa was trapped inside their vehicle for about an hour after power
poles crashed down around them. Power outages affected at least
8,500 customers in the East Valley. The Mesa Regal RV Resort
suffered major damage as three trailers were totally destroyed. An
airplane was flipped over at Falcon Field with damage to hangar
doors. Sky Harbor airport reported numerous flight delays.

Major roof damage at a strip mall on East Indian School Road.

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Property

Source

Mesa

0

4

$200,000

$0

$200,000 NCDC, 2008

Phoenix

0

0

$2,000,000

$0

$2,000,000 NCDC, 2008

Mesa

0

1

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

Chandler

0

2

$5,000,000

$0

$5,000,000 NCDC, 2008

Scottsdale

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

19-Sep-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Four homes were reported damaged, with ceiling leaks, damaged
windows, minor and major roof damage, and one home partially
habitable. C141

Laveen

0

0

$165,000

$0

$165,000 NCDC, 2008

19-Sep-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Microburst winds struck the Desert Sands Trailer Park where at least
14 homes were totally destroyed and about 340 homes were
damaged. Over 200,000 customers lost power after more than 40
power poles were snapped by the winds and rain. Talley Industries, on
Greenfield Road received about $500,000 in damage as a large
portion of the roof was removed by wind. A large truck was
overturned near 80th Street and Baseline Road. Trees were uprooted
in nearby Gilbert.

Mesa

0

2

$30,000,000

$0

$30,000,000 NCDC, 2008

03-Dec-99 Thunderstorm / High Wind

A dry cold front moving across southern Arizona brought gusty winds
and areas of blowing dust. A peak wind of 58 mph occured at
Douglas. In northern Greenlee county a tree was blowin across
Highway 191 blocking traffic just south of Hanagan Meadow.

0

0

$10,000

$0

$10,000 NCDC, 2008

21-Feb-00 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Thunderstorms moved through much of the metro Phoenix area.
Strong and gusty winds with blowing dust and small hail accompanied
the rain. A light pole was reported blown down at 75th Ave and
Mulberry.

Phoenix

0

0

$3,000

$0

$3,000 NCDC, 2008

29-Jun-00 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Two men riding their motorcycles westbound on I-10 were caught in
a thunderstorm. They pulled off the road and got off their bikes.
While standing around the bikes, lightning struck very close, and
knocked the two men unconcious. They were treated and released at a
nearby hospital.

Tonopah

0

2

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

A line of thunderstorms formed rapidly over northern Maricopa
County and affected many communities from Wickenburg to
Carefree. The town of Wittman was especially hard hit as 38 power
poles were downed by very high winds. Arizona Public Service also
reported 1600 customers lost power.

Phoenix

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

05-Aug-00 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Page 15 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Property

Source

07-Aug-00 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Winds blew down power poles and lines. Heavy rain resulted in a
large roof collapse at a business near 35th Ave and Bell. Some
homes sustained damage. Urban street flooding was also widespread
across the northern sections of the city.

Phoenix

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

11-Aug-00 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Severe thunderstorm winds tore part of the roof off a boat house on
Apache Lake.

Mesa

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

17-Aug-00 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Microburst winds struck a large area of East Mesa during the evening.
The hardest hit area was between Lindsay and Gilbert Roads and
between Baseline and Southern Ave. Strong winds flipped trailers,
blew out windows, and knocked down about 20 power poles. Some
motorists were injured and stranded as the power poles fell onto the
roadway. Fifteen people had to be rescued from their cars, and four
people from one car were taken to a hospital for treatment. Storms
also hit parts of east Phoenix, and high winds cut visibility along I-10
near Casa Grande.

Mesa

0

4

$500,000

$0

$500,000 NCDC, 2008

04-Oct-00 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Thunderstorms developed over a large area of the metropolitan area.
Lightning struck the towers on Mummy Mountain and knocked out
the Paradise Valley Police Department communication system.
Lightning was also blamed on causing a house fire on 35th Avenue
and starting tree fires in Scottsdale.
High winds were reported at 16th and Roosevelt and at 23rd Avenue
and Dobbins where power poles were knocked down. Small hail
accompanied these storms.C150

Phoenix

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

19-Oct-00 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Man struck by lightning at Williams Gateway Airport.

Mesa

0

1

$0

$0

$0 NCDC, 2008

18-May-01 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Winds damaged shingles, flipped a heavy table, and reduced visibility
to near zero.

Wickenburg

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

18-May-01 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Winds took down 3 power poles about 5 miles east of Tonopah.
Power was out for about 2 days in a 30 mile radius.

Wintersburg

0

0

$10,000

$0

$10,000 NCDC, 2008

04-Jul-01 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Mesa firefighters responded to 14 fires caused by lightning during a
90 minute period. One house in the 7100 block of East Dewan
sustained about $30,000 in damage. Other lightning strikes caused
fires in palm trees.

Mesa

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Jul-01 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Winds blew sheds and trees down while damaging several homes in
the area. C160

Wittmann

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Jul-01 Thunderstorm / High Wind

A microburst hit parts of Scottsdale and Tempe with very strong
winds and heavy rain. Many homes and businesses sustained damage,
with at least 19 power poles blown down. One pole landed on a
vehicle near Scottsdale and Indian Bend roads, killing the driver.
About 6,000 residents were left without power, including the nearby
Radisson Resort. Winds ripped the roofs off four homes in the
McCormick Ranch area, and dumped them up to two blocks away.
Numerous trees were uprooted.

Scottsdale

1

0

$5,000,000

$0

$5,000,000 NCDC, 2008

17-Jul-01 Thunderstorm / High Wind

As many as 8 power lines downed by high winds near 113th Avenue
and Southern. High winds also blew down a large electronic
information display billboard at Phoenix International Raceway.

Tolleson

0

0

$250,000

$0

$250,000 NCDC, 2008

25-Jul-01 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Thunderstorm winds took down numerous power lines and as many
as 12 power poles in and near Glendale. The hardest hit area was
91st Avenue and Glendale Road. A 42 year old man was struck by
lightning as he stood in the doorway of his west Phoenix home. With
his hand on the doorknob, lightning passed through his body and
exited through his right foot.

Glendale

0

1

$30,000

$0

$30,000 NCDC, 2008

Severe thunderstorm wind, possible microburst, destroys mobile
home trapping 2 occupants inside the mobile home near 27th Ave and
Deer Valley Rd.

Phoenix

0

1

$30,000

$0

$30,000 NCDC, 2008

Several trees uprooted and blown across roads and streets in
Ahwatukee. Patio roof damaged by winds.

Phoenix

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Aug-01 Thunderstorm / High Wind
09-Jul-02 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Page 16 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

09-Jul-02 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Dense blowing dust accompanied winds that gusted to about 60 mph.
A small airplane was damaged while trying to land at Falcon Field.
Thunderstorms developed over the East Valley, and microburst winds
struck in Mesa, along University Drive between Extension and
Country Club. About 20 power poles were blown down leaving
7,500 homes without power in this area .

Mesa

0

0

13-Jul-02 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Lightning struck a home in the 5600 block of N. Saguaro Road,.

Paradise Vly

0

14-Jul-02 Thunderstorm / High Wind

The first of two microburst events occurred on the airport at 1300
Airlane Blvd.C165

(Phx)Sky Harbor Arpt

0

14-Jul-02 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Microburst winds heavily damaged the Arizona Public Service power
sub-station at 7th Ave and Thomas. Widespread damage was
reported across the greater Phoenix metropolitan area caused by the
storm's high winds and heavy rainfall with up to 2 inches in 90
minutes. Utility companies reported that 22 power poles were
downed, leaving at least 47,000 homes and businesses without power
electricity for many hours. Homes in Scottsdale and Ahwatukee were
struck by lightning and set on fire.

Phoenix

14-Jul-02 Thunderstorm / High Wind

The second of two microburst events struck on the airport at the
Postal facility and the West economy parking lot. A large
thunderstorm complex, with strong microburst winds estimated at
100 mph struck Sky Harbor International Airport. Southerly winds
and dense blowing dust initially spread across the East valley and
converged with a fast-moving thunderstorm in North Phoenix. These
merging systems developed into a severe thunderstorm with winds
that uprooted trees, took down power poles and damaged homes and
businesses near the airport. Several hangars sustained major damage.
Flying debris damaged five commercial aircraft, several private planes
and hundreds of cars in the nearby parking lots. Numerous flights
were diverted during the overnight hours due to the debris that was
scattered on the runway.

23-Jul-02 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Property

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Source

$80,000

$0

$80,000 NCDC, 2008

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

0

$20,000,000

$0

$20,000,000 NCDC, 2008

0

0

$20,000,000

$0

$20,000,000 NCDC, 2008

(Phx)Sky Harbor Arpt

0

0

$30,000,000

$0

$30,000,000 NCDC, 2008

At least 2 trees blown down in north Scottsdale. Heavy rain and
lightning were blamed for the collapse of a section of a roof of the
Goodwill store in south Scottsdale. One man inside the store suffered
minor injuries. Trees and cactus blown down in Glendale.

Scottsdale

0

1

$200,000

$0

$200,000 NCDC, 2008

06-Sep-02 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Microburst winds damaged or destroyed over 100 homes at the Blue
Sky Mobile Estates Park in Glendale. Winds also damaged over 100
vehicles at car dealerships near 51st Avenue. Nearby roofs were
damaged and power poles were blown down. C168

Glendale

0

0

$1,000,000

$0

$1,000,000 NCDC, 2008

07-Sep-02 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Numerous reports of large hail throughout the West Valley, including
Sun City, Peoria, and Phoenix. Winds to over 60 mph damaged
homes, blew down power poles and uprooted trees. Streets were
flooded in the West Valley as rain totals were as much as 1.85 inches.
Arizona Public Service and Salt River Project estimated over 11,000
customers were without power.

Goodyear

0

0

$200,000

$0

$200,000 NCDC, 2008

20-Jul-03 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Lightning struck the chimney of a house in the 8900 block of East
Pershing Avenue. The bolt knocked out the fireplace and the drywall
of the living room, but caused no fire as the current discharged
somewhere in the bottom of the fireplace.

Scottsdale

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

Page 17 of 27

Date

Hazard

29-Jul-03 Thunderstorm / High Wind

14-Aug-03
14-Aug-03
14-Aug-03
14-Aug-03
14-Aug-03

Description
Thunderstorms were widespread across Maricopa County, from
Queen Creek to Wittmann from 1925 MST to 2130 MST. Microburst
winds hit the north part of Tempe and took out stoplights at most of
the city's major intersections. Winds tore down tree limbs and caused
power outages, with about 30,000 customers losing power. Lightning
struck trees and homes, and some street flooding was reported.
Chandler airport had a peak wind speed of 64 mph at 8 pm. Sky
Harbor airport closed its runways for about 40 minutes, until 9 pm, as
winds peaked at 56 mph. Phoenix Fire Department responded to six
house fires, 20 tree fires, 75 downed power lines, and numerous
fender benders.

Thunderstorm / High Wind
Thunderstorm / High Wind
Thunderstorm / High Wind
Thunderstorm / High Wind
Thunderstorm / High Wind

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Source

Chandler Arpt

0

0

$200,000

$0

$200,000 NCDC, 2008

Queen Creek
Buckeye
Phoenix
Wittmann
Phoenix

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

$5,000
$10,000
$25,000
$30,000
$100,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$5,000
$10,000
$25,000
$30,000
$100,000

NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008

14-Aug-03 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Lightning was blamed on a fire which destroyed a house in Sun City
West.

Sun City

0

0

$150,000

$0

$150,000 NCDC, 2008

22-Aug-03 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Severe thunderstorms struck this area with high winds blowing down
power poles and lines. Homes and businesses were damaged. Salt
River Project reported about 200 power poles down in the area near
Ellsworth and Ocotillo road, Up to 5,000 customers were left without
power. Power was restored the following day to 2,000 households
and fully restored by Monday. Hundreds of mature trees blown down
and onto streets and homes. Windshields on a number of vehicles
were blown out. Winds caused a building to collapse, killing a horse.
Several aircraft were overturned by high winds, and a construction
trailer in Queen Creek was destroyed.

Queen Creek

0

0

$300,000

$0

$300,000 NCDC, 2008

Scottsdale

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

Phoenix

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

Thunderstorm winds blew power lines down in Mesa. A home in the
2200 block of west McNair in Chandler was destroyed by fire when 3
palm trees nearby were struck by lightning and the fire spread to the
home.

(Chd)Williams Afb

0

0

$150,000

$0

$150,000 NCDC, 2008

15-Aug-04 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Home heavily damaged by winds from severe thunderstorm as
reported by county relief aid volunteers.

Aguila

0

0

$60,000

$0

$60,000 NCDC, 2008

15-Aug-04 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Severe thunderstorms developed along the Maricopa and northwest
Pinal County line, in vicinity of Sun Lakes. Damaging high winds,
multiple microbursts, were primarily in the southern side of Sun
Lakes, and the adjacent desert to the south of the community in Pinal
County (6 N Bapchule). 80 manufactured mobile homes sustained
heavy damage, roofs, carports, sheds, and awnings, and 25 medium to
large trees were uprooted.

Sun Lakes

0

0

$200,000

$0

$200,000 NCDC, 2008

Cave Creek

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

26-Aug-03 Thunderstorm / High Wind
14-Jul-04 Thunderstorm / High Wind

24-Jul-04 Thunderstorm / High Wind

18-Sep-04 Thunderstorm / High Wind
17-Jul-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind
17-Jul-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind

17-Jul-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Power pole and line down resulted in power outage to about 2,000
customers.
Winds damaged buildings and ripped limbs from trees. About 1,800
customers in Phoenix were left without power after power poles and
lines were downed by strong winds.

Strong winds severely damaged a large part of the Cave Creek
Roadhouse in Cave Creek.C189
Winds took down tree branches and damaged a car near Hayden and
Thomas Roads.
House fire reported at 11620 N 114th Drive. At least 4 palm tree fires
were reportedly started by lightning strikes.
Power lines down in south Phoenix. At the height of the storm, more
than 40,000 APS customers were without power. The Phoenix Fire
Department responded to 200 calls for service. Two large trees were
uprooted at the Wigwam Resort and Golf Club.

Phoenix

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

Youngtown

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

Phoenix

0

0

$70,000

$0

$70,000 NCDC, 2008

Page 18 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Source

18-Jul-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Winds briefly peaked at 77 mph as microburst struck the airport.
Windows were damaged at terminal 4.C193

(Phx)Sky Harbor Arpt

0

0

$15,000

$0

$15,000 NCDC, 2008

23-Jul-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Dozens of trees were blown down, with many cars and homes
sustaining damages due to the winds. Most of the damage was in the
Springfield Resort Community near Riggs and McQueen roads.

Chandler

0

0

$70,000

$0

$70,000 NCDC, 2008

Buckeye

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

Mesa

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

26-Jul-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Power lines down, trees uprooted, and shingles blown off roofs across
a large portion of northwest Phoenix. At least 30 trees were downed
by winds at the Palm Ridge Rrecreation Center in Sun City West. One
automatic weather station at the White Tank mountains measured the
60 mph gust.

Sun City

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

31-Jul-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Power lines and trees down near I-17 and Glendale. Winds reached
53 mph in Fountain Hills and caused areas of blowing dust across
Mesa and Tempe. As many as 8 boats were capsized on Tempe
Town Lake.

Fountain Hills

0

0

$10,000

$0

$10,000 NCDC, 2008

Peoria

0

0

$500,000

$0

$500,000 NCDC, 2008

New River

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

09-Aug-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Strong thunderstorms over east Phoenix metropolitan valley caused
lightning which struck up to 13 homes in a Mesa neighborhood.
Dramatic damage occurred as a result of the lightning; windows were
blown out of the houses, drywall was damaged, electric power service
meters and circuit breakers were destroyed, electric transformers
were blown out of the ground.

Mesa

0

0

$350,000

$0

$350,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Aug-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind

As many as 12 electric utility power poles were blown down by
severe thunderstorm winds. The storm winds also damaged the roof
of the Paloma school building, and toppled a large tree onto a house.

Gila Bend

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

09-Sep-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Several power poles snapped as microburst winds struck near
Extension Road and west Eighth Avenue. The downed power lines
created temporary chaos as children were not allowed to leave three
schools, and vehicles were not allowed into the area due to the live
wires. About 4,000 people were left without power because of the
storm.C207

Mesa

0

0

$30,000

$0

$30,000 NCDC, 2008

07-Jun-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Winds associated with thunderstorms uprooted trees and brought
down power lines to parts of the Phoenix metropolitan area. About
6,000 SRP customers were without power in the Gilbert area. Dense
blowing dust also resulted in very low visibility, delaying flights at Sky
Harbor airport.

Tempe

0

0

$300,000

$0

$300,000 NCDC, 2008

25-Jun-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Strong winds from nearby thunderstorms damaged traffic signals in
Scottsdale.

Scottsdale

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

30-Jun-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Power poles downed by high winds which reached as high as 59 mph
at Falcon Field. About 16,000 homes were without power at the
height of the storm. Dense blowing dust, with zero visibility was
reported on the Superstition Freeway.

Mesa

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

06-Jul-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Microburst winds damaged windows and doors. Camper damaged at
a truck stop along Interstate 10.

Tonopah

0

0

$10,000

$0

$10,000 NCDC, 2008

15-Jul-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Strong and gusty winds, estimated at 45 to 50 mph caused near zero
visibility in a number of locations around the metro Phoenix area.
Some power outages were reported, mainly in the West Valley area
near Buckeye.

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

18-Jul-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Power poles down and roofs damaged due to strong thunderstorm
winds.

0

0

$30,000

$0

$30,000 NCDC, 2008

24-Jul-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind
25-Jul-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind

31-Jul-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind
07-Aug-05 Thunderstorm / High Wind

About 41 power poles blown down by strong winds along route 85
between Buckeye and Gila Bend.
Trees down and shingles blown off roofs. Near Greenfield and
Broadway roads in Mesa, 1.75 inches of rain was reported. Power
was out for 600 SRP customers in Chandler.

Lightning caused a fire at a North Peoria home, completely destroying
it.
Trees and utility power poles blown down.C79

Mobile

Page 19 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Source

18-Jul-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Considerable damage to two aircraft at Williams Gateway Airport. A
twin engine plane was flipped onto a single engine plane when
microburst winds struck the airport.

Chandler Williams Af

0

1

$1,000,000

$0

$1,000,000 NCDC, 2008

21-Jul-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Strong winds affected parts of Scottsdale, Cave Creek and Carefree.
Power lines were knocked down leaving about 16,800 customers
without power. The strongest wind recorded at Scottsdale airport was
61 mph.C219

Cave Creek

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

25-Jul-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Several cities throughout the central portion of Maricopa County had
major wind damage as a series of thunderstorms and microbursts
moved across the area. According to the Salt River Project, an
estimated 65 power poles were blown down, in parts of Scottsdale,
Tempe and Mesa. At one point, about 20,000 customers were
without power. Arizona Public Service reported about 8,000
customers were without power. At Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, the
official peak wind gust was 59 mph. However, winds at Williams
Gateway Airport gusted to 86 mph and flipped a small twin-engine
plane atop another aircraft. In Mesa, 35 schools reported damages
due to the storm. In addition to numerous trees and homes damaged
by winds, locally heavy rainfall caused some flooding of streets
thoughout the Valley. One of the heaviest amounts was 2.70 inches at
Crossroads Park.

Central Portion

0

1

$150,000,000

$0

$150,000,000 NCDC, 2008

10-Aug-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Power lines down across an area estimated to be about a mile long.

Goodyear

0

0

$40,000

$0

$40,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Aug-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Numerous trees reported down throughout Estrella Mountain Park.

Goodyear

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

21-Aug-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Lightning caused a fire to 500 tons of hay on the Salt River Indian
Reservation.

Phoenix

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

21-Aug-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Severe thunderstorms and very heavy rain spread across most of the
East Valley. Power lines and power poles were down, street signs and
vehicles were damaged. Chandler airport recorded peak winds of 57
mph along with dense blowing dust at 6:40 pm. One spotter estimated
the strongest winds at 70 mph near University and Brown, in Mesa.
Streets and low spots were flooded.

Mesa

0

0

$200,000

$0

$200,000 NCDC, 2008

22-Aug-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Strong winds tore shingles from roofs, snapped a flag pole and caused
other damage as storms moved toward the northwest. SRP reported a
total of about 50 power poles knocked down during the storms of
August 21 and August 22. Combined figures show an estimated
18,000 customers were without power at the height of the storms.

Glendale

0

0

$200,000

$0

$200,000 NCDC, 2008

24-Aug-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Lightning caused a house fire near Country Club and Brown Road.

Mesa

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

Phoenix

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

Wickenburg

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

12-Apr-07 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Wind gusts over 40 mph were widespread across the Phoenix area,
with a peak gust of 54 mph reported in Fountain Hills.A sharp cold
front whipped through Arizona resulting in winds well over 40 mph
and dense blowing dust with visibility less than a quarter mile. Some
roof damage was also reported in Parker.

0

0

$1,000

$0

$1,000 NCDC, 2008

28-Apr-07 Thunderstorm / High Wind

A major dust storm with visibility less than 1/4 mile in spots, along
with winds of 40 to 50 mph, moved quickly across the Phoenix
metropolitan area during the afternoon. Trees were knocked over,
power outages were reported, and flight delays affected Sky Harbor
airport.Unusual heat for so early in the season, together with increased
moisture, resulted in widespread light showers, very strong winds and
areas of dense blowing dust and sand.

0

0

$10,000

$0

$10,000 NCDC, 2008

03-Sep-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind
09-Sep-06 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Thunderstorm winds brought down trees and branches near 16th
Street and Greenway.
Eight large trees, more than a foot in diameter, blown down near
downtown Wickenburg.C242

Page 20 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Source

19-Jul-07 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Power line downed by high winds. Winds gusted to 55 mph at Sky
Harbor airport. While walking in his yard, a man touched the live wire
and was electrocuted.Power line downed by high winds in North
Phoenix.

Phoenix

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

30-Jul-07 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Trees and power lines were downed through parts of Gilbert.
Streetlights were also reported to be down due to the winds. Utility
poles and at least one large billboard in the East Valley were damaged
by winds.Heavy rains first hit the northwest part of Maricopa County,
then spread into the Metro Phoenix area. Many streets were flooded,
trees downed and considerable property damage.

Phoenix

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Aug-07 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Lightning struck a home near 51st Ave and Indian School Road. No
major damage was reported, but a small attic fire was quickly put
out.Scattered thunderstorms formed over parts of Phoenix with
locally strong winds at the airport.

Phoenix

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

16-Aug-07 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Authorities in the Gila River Indian Community estimated winds as
high as 80 mph.Scattered thunderstorms pushed through parts of the
East Valley, knocking down power lines.

Avondale

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

01-Sep-07 Thunderstorm / High Wind

A microburst struck a Chandler RV and trailer park, damaging at least
one trailer and taking down power lines and uprooting trees.Dense
blowing dust with low visibility spread throughout many East Valley
communities. In addition, thunderstorms brought gusty winds to near
60 mph in Apache Junction.

Chandler

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

15-Sep-07 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Between Buckeye and Gila Bend trees were uprooted...signs blown
down and one roof blown off a shop. Two miles south of Cotton
Center a power pole snapped because of the winds.Strong winds from
nearby thunderstorms affected some communities near Gila Bend.

Cotton Center

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

16-Sep-07 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Large trees down...including a 50 foot pine tree near Southern avenue
and Greenfield road. Four homes damaged near Sossaman road and
Main street. Power lines were down near Main street and Southern
avenue.Thunderstorms developed over the far East Valley resulting in
damage to homes,
homes power lines and trees.
trees

Mesa Falcon Arpt

0

0

$200,000

$0

$200,000 NCDC, 2008

04-Feb-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Lightning started an attic fire in Sun City and a house fire in
Glendale.Thunderstorms brought rain, hail and lightning to portions
of the Phoenix area on Monday afternoon.

Sun City

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

20-Feb-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Lightning resulted in considerable damage to various electrical and
electronic systems at the Pioneer Elementary School in Glendale. A
nearby eucalyptus tree was also struck, which resulted in pieces of
wood or bark exploding outward in all directions. Minor damage
occurred to one side of a home near the school.A strong low pressure
system and associated cold front moved across the region.
Thunderstorms developed late in the evening and moved eastward
across the northern sections of Maricopa County. Small hail and
frequent lightning was observed with the strongest storms.

Glendale Muni Arpt

0

0

$30,000

$0

$30,000 NCDC, 2008

25-Jun-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

The Ethan Fire was sparked by lightning on the 25th, and grew to
over 5,000 acres several days later. Estimated cost to fight the fire
was about $700,000.Late afternoon thunderstorms moved across
portions of the Phoenix metropolitan area. One cloud to ground
lightning strike apparently started a brush fire near the Gila River
southwest of Phoenix.

Avondale

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

03-Jul-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Lightning was blamed in starting a fire in the attic of a Tempe home.
Tempe Fire responded to two other weather related
fires.Thunderstorms moved through parts of the East Valley, and
cloud to ground lightning started a fire in the attic of a home.

Tempe

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

0

0

Page 21 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Source

04-Jul-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Scottsdale airport recorded peak winds of 53 mph during
thunderstorms. Winds at Sky Harbor airport reached as high as 39
mph and some tents at the Tempe Town Lake fireworks display were
blown down.Sufficient moisture and instability together with an
outflow boundary from the east was sufficient to trigger
thunderstorms in Phoenix.

Scottsdale Muni Arpt

0

0

$2,000

$0

$2,000 NCDC, 2008

10-Jul-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Streets and highways became flooded and some road closures were
reported after rainfall rates exceeded 2 inches per hour in the heaviest
storms. One spotter in East Mesa had a total of 2.50 inches.Strong
and locally damaging winds affected portions of South-central
Arizona during the evening hours.

Sunnyslope

0

0

$200,000

$0

$200,000 NCDC, 2008

10-Jul-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Winds caused power outages and property damage due to microburst
winds as high as 65 mph. Winds blew down a tree near 78th Street
and McDonald which damaged a covered parking structure.Strong
and locally damaging winds affected portions of South-central
Arizona during the evening hours.

Buckhorn

0

0

$400,000

$0

$400,000 NCDC, 2008

13-Jul-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Winds from a microburst blew down about 25 trees and damaged
light poles at Mesa Community College. A security officer was
slightly injured when the strong winds blew him from his golf
cart.Showers and thunderstorms produced very heavy rainfall totals
across parts of South-Central Arizona.

Mcqueen

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

21-Jul-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Microburst winds took down a total of 55 power poles in Mesa,
leaving as many as 12,000 SRP customers without power. About 31
homes were damaged at a trailer park on North Recker, 4 of those
had roofs blown off. On Southern Ave near Power Road, 15 poles
were knocked down with lines impacting 7 vehicles, including a bus.
The peak wind speed at Falcon Field was 44 mph at 7:47 pm. In
Mesa, power poles were knocked down, trapping 6 vehicles,
including a bus. One of the injuries was from cuts from broken
glass.Numerous power poles were blown down and homes were
damaged in East Mesa when severe thunderstorms hit the area.

Twin Knolls

0

2

$1,000,000

$0

$1,000,000 NCDC, 2008

26-Jul-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Power poles and trees were reported down at Chandler Heights and
Greenfield roads, as well as Ocotillo and Higley and at Ocotillo and
Power roads.Brief strong winds caused isolated damage to parts of
the Southeast Valley.

Chandler Heights

0

0

$15,000

$0

$15,000 NCDC, 2008

05-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Power lines down near 7th Street and Northern.Winds gusted to 51
mph at Sky Harbor airport.

Sunnyslope

0

0

$2,000

$0

$2,000 NCDC, 2008

07-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Power poles down in central Phoenix.Very strong winds from
thunderstorms took down trees, power lines and left thousands of
customers without power. Very heavy rain resulted in flooded roads.

Phoenix

0

0

$10,000

$0

$10,000 NCDC, 2008

07-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Brush fire was started by lightning and grew to about 425 acres. No
structures were involved in the fire.Very strong winds from
thunderstorms took down trees, power lines and left thousands of
customers without power. Very heavy rain resulted in flooded roads.

Buckeye

0

0

$10,000

$0

$10,000 NCDC, 2008

07-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Large branches blown from trees.Very strong winds from
thunderstorms took down trees, power lines and left thousands of
customers without power. Very heavy rain resulted in flooded roads.

Sunnyslope

0

0

$10,000

$0

$10,000 NCDC, 2008

07-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Power poles and lines reported blown down. As many as 70 poles
were down in the Buckeye area alone.Very strong winds from
thunderstorms took down trees, power lines and left thousands of
customers without power. Very heavy rain resulted in flooded roads.

Valencia

0

0

$70,000

$0

$70,000 NCDC, 2008

Page 22 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Source

14-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Winds at Chandler Airport reached 50 knots as severe thunderstorms
moved toward the west.The southern and central portions of Arizona
were very moist and unstable. Storms developed and moved toward
the southwest and strong winds kicked up widespread areas of
blowing dust. A Severe Thunderstorm Watch was in effect for much
of the evening.

Chandler Arpt

0

0

$10,000

$0

$10,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Several crashes on the Loop 202 were blamed on strong winds and
rain. Power outages were reported after winds and rain moved
through the East Valley. SRP reported about 3,000 customers were
left without electricity...and APS reported 2,000 customers without
power.The southern and central portions of Arizona were very moist
and unstable. Storms developed and moved toward the southwest and
strong winds kicked up widespread areas of blowing dust. A Severe
Thunderstorm Watch was in effect for much of the evening.

Papago Arpt

0

0

$25,000

$0

$25,000 NCDC, 2008

14-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Strong winds reported at Brown and Mesa. Trees were damaged.The
southern and central portions of Arizona were very moist and
unstable. Storms developed and moved toward the southwest and
strong winds kicked up widespread areas of blowing dust. A Severe
Thunderstorm Watch was in effect for much of the evening.

Mesa

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

25-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Microburst winds hit Chandler airport and flipped at least two planes.
Winds also damaged a fence and other property. Northeast winds
peaked at 67 mph at 3:25 pm.Thunderstorm winds over 70 mph
damaged planes at Chandler Municipal Airport. Strong winds also
blew down trees and damaged some homes in the Chandler area.
Dense blowing dust was also reported.

Sun Lakes

0

0

$1,000,000

$0

$1,000,000 NCDC, 2008

28-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Trees and power lines down.Several waves of severe thunderstorms
moved westward across the central and eastern portions of Maricopa
County. Upper level winds were stronger than usual, and copious
moisture combined with warm temperatures allowed storms to
redevelop
d l well
ll iinto the
h night.
i h Wi
Winds
d over 80 mph
h were noted
d iin parts
of Phoenix and Tempe. Nearly continuous lightning was also
observed during the peak of the activity. Fortunately, no fatalities
were associated with these severe storms.

Sunnyslope

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

28-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Easterly winds gusted up to 65 knots at Sky Harbor airport. Several
aircraft and at least one terminal building was damaged, with debris
blown onto the runways and adjacent areas. About 500 people were
stranded in the terminals overnight due to flight delays and power
outages.Several waves of severe thunderstorms moved westward
across the central and eastern portions of Maricopa County. Upper
level winds were stronger than usual, and copious moisture combined
with warm temperatures allowed storms to redevelop well into the
night. Winds over 80 mph were noted in parts of Phoenix and Tempe.
Nearly continuous lightning was also observed during the peak of the
activity. Fortunately, no fatalities were associated with these severe
storms.

Sky Harbor Int Arpt

0

0

$2,000,000

$0

$2,000,000 NCDC, 2008

Page 23 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Source

28-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

A trained spotter reported a wind gust of 85 mph at 16th St and
Thomas. Widespread damage occurred to homes, businesses and
windows knocked out in at least one high-rise. Numerous power
poles were taken down, and many trees uprooted. Some damage also
occurred at the Arizona State Capitol in Phoenix.Several waves of
severe thunderstorms moved westward across the central and eastern
portions of Maricopa County. Upper level winds were stronger than
usual, and copious moisture combined with warm temperatures
allowed storms to redevelop well into the night. Winds over 80 mph
were noted in parts of Phoenix and Tempe. Nearly continuous
lightning was also observed during the peak of the activity.
Fortunately, no fatalities were associated with these severe storms.

Phoenix

0

0

$20,000,000

$0

$20,000,000 NCDC, 2008

28-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Numerous trees blown down by strong winds.Several waves of severe
thunderstorms moved westward across the central and eastern
portions of Maricopa County. Upper level winds were stronger than
usual, and copious moisture combined with warm temperatures
allowed storms to redevelop well into the night. Winds over 80 mph
were noted in parts of Phoenix and Tempe. Nearly continuous
lightning was also observed during the peak of the activity.
Fortunately, no fatalities were associated with these severe storms.

Litchfield

0

0

$25,000

$0

$25,000 NCDC, 2008

28-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Microburst winds observed in Mesa near Recker and Brown.Several
waves of severe thunderstorms moved westward across the central
and eastern portions of Maricopa County. Upper level winds were
stronger than usual, and copious moisture combined with warm
temperatures allowed storms to redevelop well into the night. Winds
over 80 mph were noted in parts of Phoenix and Tempe. Nearly
continuous lightning was also observed during the peak of the activity.
Fortunately, no fatalities were associated with these severe storms.

Mesa Falcon Arpt

0

0

$30,000

$0

$30,000 NCDC, 2008

28-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

In Tempe, an 18 year-old man was injured by a falling tree. Winds on
the ASU campus were measured at 69 mph and severely damaged the
indoor football practice facility.Several waves of severe
thunderstorms moved westward across the central and eastern
portions of Maricopa County. Upper level winds were stronger than
usual, and copious moisture combined with warm temperatures
allowed storms to redevelop well into the night. Winds over 80 mph
were noted in parts of Phoenix and Tempe. Nearly continuous
lightning was also observed during the peak of the activity.
Fortunately, no fatalities were associated with these severe storms.

Tempe

0

1

$4,000,000

$0

$4,000,000 NCDC, 2008

28-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Trees uprooted at 48th street and Mcdowell. Nearby homes
damaged.Several waves of severe thunderstorms moved westward
across the central and eastern portions of Maricopa County. Upper
level winds were stronger than usual, and copious moisture combined
with warm temperatures allowed storms to redevelop well into the
night. Winds over 80 mph were noted in parts of Phoenix and Tempe.
Nearly continuous lightning was also observed during the peak of the
activity. Fortunately, no fatalities were associated with these severe
storms.

Kendall

0

0

$500,000

$0

$500,000 NCDC, 2008

Page 24 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Property

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Source

28-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Very strong wind gusts reported at Estrella Parkway and
Elliott.Several waves of severe thunderstorms moved westward
across the central and eastern portions of Maricopa County. Upper
level winds were stronger than usual, and copious moisture combined
with warm temperatures allowed storms to redevelop well into the
night. Winds over 80 mph were noted in parts of Phoenix and Tempe.
Nearly continuous lightning was also observed during the peak of the
activity. Fortunately, no fatalities were associated with these severe
storms.

Estrella

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

29-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Top wind speeds of 55 to 65 mph were common across many areas.
One report was a measured speed of 60 mph at 91st avenue and
Jomax. A 58 mph gust was measured at the White Tank mesonet
location. A wood fence was damaged and a trailer was overturned in
Waddell.Winds near 60 mph were associated with some
thunderstorms in the Phoenix area.

Ennis

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

29-Aug-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Spotter reported a very heavy rainfall rate of 3.19 inches per hour
during a 10 minute period.Strong winds from nearby thunderstorms
caused significant damage to homes in this area.

Cave Creek

0

0

$2,000

$0

$2,000 NCDC, 2008

10-Sep-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

About 6 power poles were downed, resulting in power outages for as
many as 4500 customers in Queen Creek.Showers and thunderstorms
developed across much of southwest and south-central Arizona. A
few storms became severe, with strong winds, hail and very heavy
downpours.

Queen Creek

0

0

$12,000

$0

$12,000 NCDC, 2008

10-Sep-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Numerous power poles down near 424th and Indian School, or about
2 miles west of Tonopah.Showers and thunderstorms developed
across much of southwest and south-central Arizona. A few storms
became severe, with strong winds, hail and very heavy downpours.

Tonopah

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

10-Sep-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

A trained spotter reported a wind gust of 60 mph along with pea sized
hail at McClintock and Guadalupe.Showers and thunderstorms
developed across much of southwest and south-central Arizona. A
few storms became severe, with strong winds, hail and very heavy
downpours.

Tempe

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

11-Sep-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

According to Arizona Public Service, 48 power poles across a
distance of 3 miles were blown down along Old Highway 80 between
Buckeye and Gila Bend. Winds were measured up to 56 mph on the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station tower.Thunderstorms moved
steadily toward the northeast during the afternoon hours. As a result,
locally heavy rain, strong winds, and very low visibility due to dust
and sand moved across the deserts.

Arlington

0

0

$100,000

$0

$100,000 NCDC, 2008

11-Sep-08 Thunderstorm / High Wind

Winds were estimated to reach as high as 60 mph along with visibility
to less than 1/4 mile in blowing dust.Thunderstorms moved steadily
toward the northeast during the afternoon hours. As a result, locally
heavy rain, strong winds, and very low visibility due to dust and sand
moved across the deserts.

Tonopah

0

0

$20,000

$0

$20,000 NCDC, 2008

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0

$25,000
$250
$2,500
$25,000
$2,500
$30
$30
$25,000
$250,000
$25,000
$25,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

13-Jun-55
25-Jul-56
04-Aug-57
29-Aug-57
11-Mar-58
11-May-58
24-Sep-58
22-Jul-61
08-Sep-61
29-Jul-67
19-Dec-67

Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado

$25,000
$250
$2,500
$25,000
$2,500
$30
$30
$25,000
$250,000
$25,000
$25,000

NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
Page 25 of 27

Date
04-Jul-68
20-Jul-68
03-Oct-68
01-Aug-69
05-Sep-70
30-Aug-71
14-Sep-71
18-Oct-71
13-Jun-72
21-Jun-72
23-Jul-72
12-Aug-72
10-Sep-72
24-Aug-74
05-Sep-81
05-Sep-81
12-Aug-82
08-Aug-83
16-Aug-83
09-Aug-84
29-Aug-87
04-Jan-89
06-Jan-92
06-Jan-92
13-Feb-92
13-Feb-92
23-May-92
23-May-92

Hazard

Description

Location

Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado
Tornado

Fatalities

Injuries

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
3
3
2
0
41
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Damage Estimates
Property
Crop/Livestock
Total
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$250,000
$250,000
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$25,000,000
$25,000,000
$0
$30
$30
$0
$30
$30
$0
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$0
$2,500
$2,500
$0
$250,000
$250,000
$0
$250,000
$250,000
$0
$30
$30
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$250,000
$250,000
$0
$250,000
$250,000
$0
$250
$250
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$2,500
$2,500
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$250
$250
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0

Source
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008
NCDC, 2008

17 Jan 93 Tornado
17-Jan-93

Eighteen homes sustained damage, 4 with major damage, many trees
and signs blown over by tornado. Most damage occurred when the
tornado moved east from 59th and Clinton to 72nd and Cholla
Cholla.
Controllers from the nearby Scottsdale Airport watched this tornado
move through this ,north Scottsdale residential area.

Phoenix To

0

0

$5 000 000
$5,000,000

$0

$5 000 000 NCDC,
$5,000,000
NCDC 2008

08-Feb-93 Tornado

A sheriff's deputy was the first to spot this weak tornado in this area.
The New River residents described the sound as similar to a freight
train. The tornado created a suction that made it impossible to open a
door for a brief period. A palo verde tree was uprooted and the
tornado lifted the roof off a house.

New River

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

08-Feb-94 Tornado

A strong winter storm moved across the state and spawned a tornado
in the small town of El Mirage. Damage was mainly limited to roofs,
although the tornado was strong enough to move a parked pickup
truck about six feet and damaged a metal storage shed.

Phoenix

0

0

$50,000

$0

$50,000 NCDC, 2008

07-Mar-94 Tornado

A pilot reported a weak tornado briefly touching down just south of
the Foothills Golf Course. Some roof damage occurred to a large
maintenance building.

Phoenix

0

0

$5,000

$0

$5,000 NCDC, 2008

13-Feb-95 Tornado

A National Weather Service Survey Team concluded a weak (F1)
tornado occurred at the General Motors Desert Proving Grounds
facility. Moderate damage was observed. A roof was damaged and
about 20 vehicles were damaged and moved around. One vehicle
was lifted, moved several feet, and set down inside a roped off area
containing solar exposure equipment. The tornado moved northeast
and lasted about five minutes. Damage was initially estimated around
$200,000.

Phoenix

0

0

$200,000

$0

$200,000 NCDC, 2008

Page 26 of 27

Date

Hazard

Description

10-Jun-96 Tornadoe / Dust Devil

Half of a roof was blown off a house in Tucson near River and
Campbell streets. No thunderstorms in area so most likely cause was
a very strong dust devil.

3/30/2004 Wildfire

In March 2004, The Citris Fire located west of Gila Bend burned over
5,700 acres along the Gila River included State, Private and Federal
lands.

Location

Fatalities

Injuries

Damage Estimates
Crop/Livestock
Total

Property

Source

0

0

$15,000

$0

Gila Bend

0

0

$0

$0

$0 URS, 2004

In June 2005, lightning touched off the Cave Creek Complex Fire in
the northern part of Maricopa County about 5 miles northeast of
Carefree. The fire had threatened 440 homes in the Tonto Hills and
Camp Creek areas, as well as major power lines serving Phoenix.
There were damages reported to 11 residences and 3 out-buildings in
Camp Creek.

Carefree

0

0

$0

$0

$0 USFS, 2009

6/25/2008 Wildfire

In June 2008, lightning touched off the Ethan Brush Fire in the
heavily vegetated Gila River bed south of Laveen. Approximately 50
residents of 18 homes were evacuated overnight and allowed to return
the their undamaged homes the next day. The fire ultimately
consumed about 7,000 acres.

Laveen

0

0

$0

$0

$0 Az Republic, 2008

8/1/2008 Wildfire

In August 2008, the Robins Butte fire burned about 500 acres of the
Gila River bottom located four miles west of State Route 85, south of
Palo Verde Road, and near Buckeye.

Buckeye

0

0

$0

$0

$0 Az Republic, 2008

6/1/2005 Wildfire

$15,000 NCDC, 2008

Page 27 of 27

MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Appendix E
Plan Maintenance Review Reports

2009