HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022.0301.TCRM.Exhibit.MJHM PlanMaricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2021
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ES 1
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 54 federal or state declarations and a total of 524 other recorded events, 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 27 other participating jurisdictions
demonstrated their commitment to hazard mitigation in 2014-2015 by preparing the second update of the
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2015 Plan). The 2015 Plan covered all 28
participating jurisdictions and was approved by FEMA on December 22, 2015. To remain compliant with the
congressional regulations, the county and jurisdictions must perform a full plan update and obtain state and
FEMA approval.
In response, the Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management (MCDEM) secured a federal
planning grant and hired JE Fuller/ Hydrology and 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, and other various
county, state, and federal departments and organizations such as the National Weather Service and Arizona
Public Service. The MJPT met approximately every six-weeks beginning in July 2020 and finishing December
2020. Subsequent “catch up” meetings were conducted through February 2021 to assist several communities
with finalizing assignments and the first draft of the updated 2021 Plan was issued in March 2021. The
meetings and MJPT worked in a collaborative effort to review, evaluate, and update the 2015 Plan keeping the
single, consolidated multi-jurisdictional plan format and approach. Tribal Plan elements for each of the two
participating Indian Tribes, were also updated to address Tribal specific planning requirements. The 2021 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 44 CFR
§201.6 and §201.7 dated October, 2007. The Plan includes risk assessments for multiple natural hazards, a
public outreach effort at two phases of the planning process, and development of a mitigation strategy that
incorporates measures intended to eliminate or reduce the effects of future disasters throughout the County.
The development of the various 2021 Plan elements was accomplished through a joint and cooperative venture
by members of the Maricopa County MJPT, with MCDEM serving as the lead agency and primary point of
contact for the planning effort.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page i
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 ........................................................................................ 2
1.2 Official Record of Adoption ............................................................................................. 2
1.3 Tribal Assurances ............................................................................................................. 3
1.4 FEMA Approval Letter .................................................................................................... 3
SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Plan History ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Plan Purpose and Authority ............................................................................................ 6
2.3 General Plan Description ................................................................................................. 6
SECTION 3: PLANNING PROCESS ............................................................................................. 9
3.1 Update Process Description ............................................................................................. 9
3.2 Previous Planning Process Assessment ........................................................................... 9
3.3 Planning Team ................................................................................................................ 10
3.3.1 General ........................................................................................................... 10
3.3.2 Primary Point of Contact ................................................................................ 10
3.3.3 Planning Team Assembly ................................................................................ 10
3.3.4 Planning Team Activities ................................................................................ 13
3.3.5 Agency/Organization Participation ................................................................ 18
3.4 Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 20
3.4.1 Previous Plan Assessment............................................................................... 20
3.4.2 Plan Update .................................................................................................... 21
3.4.3 Tribal Definitions of “Public” ........................................................................ 22
3.5 Reference Documents and Technical Resources .......................................................... 22
3.6 Plan Integration into Other Planning Mechanisms ..................................................... 25
3.6.1 Past Plan Incorporation/Integration Assessment ........................................... 25
3.6.2 Five Year Plan Integration/Incorporation Strategy ....................................... 25
3.6.3 Plan Incorporation Process ............................................................................ 50
SECTION 4: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................. 59
4.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 59
4.2 County Overview ............................................................................................................ 59
4.2.1 Geography....................................................................................................... 59
4.2.2 Climate ............................................................................................................ 60
4.2.3 Population ....................................................................................................... 64
4.2.4 Economy .......................................................................................................... 67
4.2.5 Development Trends for Unincorporated Maricopa County.......................... 68
4.3 Jurisdictional Overviews ................................................................................................ 68
4.3.1 Avondale ......................................................................................................... 70
4.3.2 Buckeye ........................................................................................................... 77
4.3.3 Carefree .......................................................................................................... 82
4.3.4 Cave Creek ...................................................................................................... 86
4.3.5 Chandler ......................................................................................................... 90
4.3.6 El Mirage ........................................................................................................ 94
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page ii
4.3.7 Fountain Hills ................................................................................................. 97
4.3.8 Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation .................................................................... 101
4.3.9 Gila Bend ...................................................................................................... 105
4.3.10 Gilbert ........................................................................................................... 108
4.3.11 Glendale ........................................................................................................ 113
4.3.12 Goodyear....................................................................................................... 117
4.3.13 Guadalupe ..................................................................................................... 121
4.3.14 Litchfield Park .............................................................................................. 124
4.3.15 Mesa .............................................................................................................. 127
4.3.16 Paradise Valley ............................................................................................. 132
4.3.17 Peoria ............................................................................................................ 134
4.3.18 Phoenix ......................................................................................................... 137
4.3.19 Queen Creek.................................................................................................. 143
4.3.20 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community ............................................. 147
4.3.21 Salt River Project .......................................................................................... 151
4.3.22 Scottsdale ...................................................................................................... 151
4.3.23 Surprise ......................................................................................................... 155
4.3.24 Tempe ............................................................................................................ 159
4.3.25 Tolleson ......................................................................................................... 165
4.3.26 Wickenburg ................................................................................................... 168
4.3.27 Youngtown..................................................................................................... 172
SECTION 5: RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 175
5.1 Hazard Identification and Screening .......................................................................... 175
5.2 Vulnerability Analysis Methodology .......................................................................... 180
5.2.1 General ......................................................................................................... 180
5.2.2 Climate Change ............................................................................................ 180
5.2.3 Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) Evaluation ...................................... 182
5.2.4 Asset Inventory .............................................................................................. 182
5.2.5 Loss/Exposure Estimations ........................................................................... 185
5.2.6 Development Trend Analysis ........................................................................ 187
5.3 Hazard Risk Profiles .................................................................................................... 187
5.3.1 Dam Inundation ............................................................................................ 188
5.3.2 Drought ......................................................................................................... 205
5.3.3 Extreme Heat ................................................................................................ 216
5.3.4 Fissure........................................................................................................... 230
5.3.5 Flood / Flash Flood ...................................................................................... 239
5.3.6 Levee Failure ................................................................................................ 253
5.3.7 Severe Wind .................................................................................................. 262
5.3.8 Subsidence..................................................................................................... 271
5.3.9 Wildfire ......................................................................................................... 282
5.4 Risk Assessment Summary .......................................................................................... 296
SECTION 6: MITIGATION STRATEGY ................................................................................... 297
6.1 Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................................................... 297
6.2 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................. 298
6.2.1 Jurisdictional Capabilities ............................................................................ 298
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page iii
6.2.2 Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Pre- and Post-Disaster Hazard
Management ................................................................................................ 392
6.2.3 Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community Pre- and Post-Disaster
Hazard Management ................................................................................... 393
6.2.4 National Flood Insurance Program Participation ....................................... 395
6.3 Mitigation Actions/Projects and Implementation Strategy ...................................... 422
6.3.1 Previous Mitigation Actions/Projects Assessment ........................................ 422
6.3.2 New Mitigation Actions / Projects and Implementation Strategy ................. 422
SECTION 7: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES ................................................................ 505
7.1 Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................... 505
7.1.1 Past Plan Cycle ............................................................................................. 505
7.1.2 Proposed Schedule and Scope ...................................................................... 506
7.2 Plan Update ................................................................................................................... 506
7.3 Continued Public Involvement .................................................................................... 507
7.4 Monitoring of Tribal Mitigation Activities ................................................................. 528
7.4.1 Goals Achievement........................................................................................ 528
7.4.2 Actions/Projects Progress ............................................................................. 528
7.4.3 Project Closeouts .......................................................................................... 528
SECTION 8: PLAN TOOLS ..................................................................................................... 531
8.1 Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... 531
8.2 Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 532
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1: Map of general features for Maricopa County ..............................................61
Figure 4-2: Daily Temperatures and Extremes for Carefree Station,
Arizona ......................................................................................................62
Figure 4-3: Daily Temperatures and Extremes for Gila Bend Station,
Arizona ......................................................................................................62
Figure 4-4: Daily Temperatures and Extremes for Phoenix WSFO AP
Station, Arizona........................................................................................63
Figure 4-5: Monthly climate summary for the Carefree Station, Arizona ......................63
Figure 4-6: Monthly climate summary for the Gila Bend Station, Arizona ...................64
Figure 4-7: Monthly climate summary for the Phoenix WSFO AP
Station, Arizona........................................................................................64
Figure 4-8: 2010 population density for Maricopa County ..............................................66
Figure 4-9: 2010 employment concentration projections for Maricopa
County .......................................................................................................69
Figure 4-10: Avondale location map ...................................................................................76
Figure 4-11: Buckeye location map .....................................................................................79
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page iv
Figure 4-12: Buckeye SFR Activity – Past 5 Years ............................................................80
Figure 4-13: Buckeye master planned communities map .................................................81
Figure 4-14: Carefree location map ....................................................................................84
Figure 4-15: Carefree land use planning map ....................................................................85
Figure 4-16: Cave Creek location map ...............................................................................88
Figure 4-17: Cave Creek land use planning map ...............................................................89
Figure 4-18: Chandler location map ...................................................................................92
Figure 4-19: Chandler land use planning map ..................................................................93
Figure 4-20: El Mirage location map ..................................................................................95
Figure 4-21: El Mirage land use planning map..................................................................96
Figure 4-22: Fountain Hills location map ...........................................................................99
Figure 4-23: Fountain Hills land use planning map ........................................................100
Figure 4-24: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation location map ............................................103
Figure 4-25: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation land use map ...........................................104
Figure 4-26: Gila Bend location map ................................................................................106
Figure 4-27: Gila Bend land use planning map ...............................................................107
Figure 4-28: Gilbert location map .....................................................................................111
Figure 4-29: Gilbert growth area map ..............................................................................112
Figure 4-30: Glendale location map ..................................................................................115
Figure 4-31: Glendale land use planning map .................................................................116
Figure 4-32: Goodyear location map.................................................................................119
Figure 4-33: Goodyear land use planning map ................................................................120
Figure 4-34: Guadalupe location map...............................................................................122
Figure 4-35: Guadalupe land use map ..............................................................................123
Figure 4-36: Litchfield Park location map .......................................................................125
Figure 4-37: Litchfield Park land use map .......................................................................126
Figure 4-38: Mesa location map ........................................................................................130
Figure 4-39: Mesa growth area map .................................................................................131
Figure 4-40: Paradise Valley location map .......................................................................133
Figure 4-41: Peoria location map ......................................................................................135
Figure 4-42: Peoria land use map ......................................................................................136
Figure 4-43: Phoenix location map ....................................................................................141
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page v
Figure 4-44: Phoenix land use map ...................................................................................142
Figure 4-45: Queen Creek location map ...........................................................................146
Figure 4-46: Queen Creek land use map ..........................................................................146
Figure 4-47: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community location map...................149
Figure 4-48: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community land use map ..................150
Figure 4-49: Scottsdale location map ................................................................................153
Figure 4-50: Scottsdale growth area map .........................................................................154
Figure 4-51: Surprise location map ...................................................................................157
Figure 4-52: Surprise growth area maps ..........................................................................158
Figure 4-53: Tempe location map ......................................................................................163
Figure 4-54: Tempe projected land use map ....................................................................164
Figure 4-55: Tolleson location map ...................................................................................166
Figure 4-56: Tolleson growth area map ............................................................................167
Figure 4-57: Wickenburg location map ............................................................................170
Figure 4-58: Wickenburg growth area map .....................................................................171
Figure 4-59: Youngtown location map ..............................................................................173
Figure 4-60: Youngtown future land use map .................................................................174
Figure 5-1: Average annual precipitation variance from a normal based
on 1895-2018 period for Maricopa County .........................................206
Figure 5-2: Annual historic precipitation for Maricopa County from
1896 to 2017 ............................................................................................207
Figure 5-3: Drought in Maricopa County from 2000 to 2020 .........................................208
Figure 5-4: U.S. Drought Monitor Map for November 10, 2020 ....................................209
Figure 5-5: U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook, October 2020 to January
2021..........................................................................................................210
Figure 5-6: Arizona long term drought status map for July September
2020..........................................................................................................211
Figure 5-7: Progression of days with maximum temperature over 100°F
and minimum temperature over 85°F for Phoenix Sky
Harbor from 1950 to 2020 .....................................................................217
Figure 5-8a: Total heat-associated deaths recorded by the Maricopa
County Department of Public Health heat surveillance
system, 2006–2020 ..................................................................................218
Figure 5-8b: Daily emergency room visits as a percent of all visits by day
during the 2020 heat season for Maricopa County .............................218
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page vi
Figure 5-8c: Average percent of emergency room visits in Maricopa
County (April-September 2020) due to heat-related
illness by HeatRisk category .................................................................219
Figure 5-9a: Projected temperature changes for Arizona based on varied
future greenhouse gas emission assumptions ......................................221
Figure 5-9b: Past and projected number of days in a year with high
temperatures in Phoenix, AZ at-or-above 100 °F ...............................221
Figure 5-9c: Past and projected number of days in a year with high
temperatures in Phoenix, AZ at-or-above 110 °F ...............................222
Figure 5-10a: High or very high heat vulnerability index exposure by
percent population .................................................................................224
Figure 5-10b: High or very high heat vulnerability index exposure by
percent population .................................................................................224
Figure 5-11: Heat associated deaths versus daily mean temperature ............................226
Figure 5-12: Illustration of FEMA Wind Zones ..............................................................266
Figure 5-13: Map of Maximum Subsidence Depths for Arizona ...................................273
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: List of jurisdictional primary points of contact ...............................................11
Table 3-2: Summary of multi-jurisdictional planning team participants .......................13
Table 3-3: Summary of planning meetings convened as part of the plan
update process ..........................................................................................16
Table 3-4: List of agencies and organizations invited or participating in
the planning process ................................................................................19
Table 3-5: List of resource documents and references reviewed and
incorporated in the Plan update process ...............................................22
Table 3-6: Plan integration history and future strategy for Avondale ............................26
Table 3-7: Plan integration history and future strategy for Buckeye ..............................27
Table 3-8: Plan integration history and future strategy for Carefree .............................28
Table 3-9: Plan integration history and future strategy for Cave Creek ........................29
Table 3-10: Plan integration history and future strategy for Chandler ..........................29
Table 3-11: Plan integration history and future strategy for El Mirage .........................30
Table 3-12: Plan integration history and future strategy for Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation ......................................................................31
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page vii
Table 3-13: Plan integration history and future strategy for Fountain
Hills............................................................................................................32
Table 3-14: Plan integration history and future strategy for Gila Bend .........................32
Table 3-15: Plan integration history and future strategy for Gilbert ..............................33
Table 3-16: Plan integration history and future strategy for Glendale ...........................34
Table 3-17: Plan integration history and future strategy for Goodyear..........................36
Table 3-18: Plan integration history and future strategy for Guadalupe........................37
Table 3-19: Plan integration history and future strategy for Litchfield
Park ...........................................................................................................38
Table 3-20: Plan integration history and future strategy for Maricopa
County (Unincorporated) ........................................................................39
Table 3-21: Plan integration history and future strategy for Mesa .................................40
Table 3-22: Plan integration history and future strategy for Paradise
Valley .........................................................................................................40
Table 3-23: Plan integration history and future strategy for Peoria ...............................40
Table 3-24: Plan integration history and future strategy for Phoenix .............................41
Table 3-25: Plan integration history and future strategy for Queen Creek ....................42
Table 3-26: Plan integration history and future strategy for Salt River
Pima Maricopa Indian Community .......................................................42
Table 3-27: Plan integration history and future strategy for Scottsdale .........................43
Table 3-28: Plan integration history and future strategy for Surprise ............................45
Table 3-29: Plan integration history and future strategy for Tempe ...............................47
Table 3-30: Plan integration history and future strategy for Tolleson ............................48
Table 3-31: Plan integration history and future strategy for Wickenburg .....................48
Table 3-32: Plan integration history and future strategy for Youngtown .......................49
Table 3-33: Jurisdictional standard operating procedures for integration
of planning mechanisms ..........................................................................51
Table 4-1: Summary of jurisdictional population estimates for Maricopa
County .......................................................................................................65
Table 4-2: Population, housing and employment statistics for Avondale .......................70
Table 4-3: Population, housing and employment statistics for Buckeye .........................77
Table 4-4: Population, housing and employment statistics for Carefree .........................82
Table 4-5: Population, housing and employment statistics for Cave Creek ....................86
Table 4-6: Population, housing and employment statistics for Chandler .......................90
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page viii
Table 4-7: Population, housing and employment statistics for El Mirage.......................94
Table 4-8: Population, housing and employment statistics for Fountain
Hills............................................................................................................97
Table 4-9: Population, housing and employment statistics for Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation ....................................................................101
Table 4-10: Population, housing and employment statistics for Gila Bend...................105
Table 4-11: Population, housing and employment statistics for Gilbert .......................108
Table 4-12: Population, housing and employment statistics for Glendale ....................113
Table 4-13: Population, housing and employment statistics for Goodyear ...................117
Table 4-14: Population, housing and employment statistics for
Guadalupe ...............................................................................................121
Table 4-15: Population, housing and employment statistics for Litchfield
Park .........................................................................................................124
Table 4-16: Population, housing and employment statistics for Mesa ...........................128
Table 4-17: Population, housing and employment statistics for Paradise
Valley .......................................................................................................132
Table 4-18: Population, housing and employment statistics for Peoria .........................134
Table 4-19: Population, housing and employment statistics for Phoenix ......................137
Table 4-20: Population, housing and employment statistics for Queen
Creek .......................................................................................................143
Table 4-21: Population, housing and employment statistics for Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community .....................................................147
Table 4-22: Population, housing and employment statistics for Scottsdale ..................151
Table 4-23: Population, housing and employment statistics for Surprise .....................155
Table 4-24: Population, housing and employment statistics for Tempe ........................159
Table 4-25: Population, housing and employment statistics for Tolleson .....................165
Table 4-26: Population, housing and employment statistics for
Wickenburg ............................................................................................168
Table 4-27: Population, housing and employment statistics for
Youngtown ..............................................................................................172
Table 5-1: Summary of Initial Hazard Identification Lists ............................................176
Table 5-2: State and Federally Declared Natural Hazard Events That
Included Maricopa County – January 1966 to
December 2014 .......................................................................................177
Table 5-3: Maricopa County Historic Hazard Events – June 1955 to
December 2012 .......................................................................................178
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page ix
Table 5-4: Summary of Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) categories
and risk levels .........................................................................................183
Table 5-5: Summary of Critical and Non-Critical Facility counts by
category and jurisdiction .......................................................................185
Table 5-6: Summary of ADWR safety categories ............................................................190
Table 5-7: Summary of NID downstream hazard classifications ...................................190
Table 5-8: Summary count of NID and ADWR hazard classification
dams ........................................................................................................191
Table 5-9: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for dam inundation
(emergency spillway flow and dam failure) .........................................192
Table 5-10: Asset inventory exposure due to emergency spillway
inundation ...............................................................................................194
Table 5-11: Asset inventory exposure due to dam failure inundation ...........................195
Table 5-12: Residential structures exposed to emergency spillway
inundation ...............................................................................................197
Table 5-13: Residential structures exposed to dam failure inundation .........................198
Table 5-14: Population sectors exposed to emergency spillway inundation ..................200
Table 5-15: Population sectors exposed to dam failure inundation ...............................201
Table 5-16: CPRI results by jurisdiction for drought .....................................................212
Table 5-17: CPRI results by jurisdiction for extreme heat .............................................222
Table 5-18: CPRI results by jurisdiction for fissure hazard...........................................232
Table 5-19: Asset inventory exposure to high hazard fissure zones ...............................236
Table 5-20: Population sectors exposed to high hazard fissure zones ...........................237
Table 5-21: Residential structures exposed to fissure high hazard zones .....................238
Table 5-22: CPRI results by jurisdiction for flooding hazard ........................................244
Table 5-23: Asset inventory exposure to high hazard flood zones .................................245
Table 5-24: Population sectors exposed to high hazard flood zones ..............................246
Table 5-25: Residential structures exposed to high hazard flood zones ........................247
Table 5-26: Repetitive loss property statistics for Maricopa County
jurisdictions ............................................................................................248
Table 5-27: CPRI results by jurisdiction for levee failure ..............................................255
Table 5-28: Asset inventory exposure to high hazard levee failure areas .....................256
Table 5-29: Population sectors exposed to high hazard levee failure areas ..................257
Table 5-30: Residential structures exposed to high hazard levee failure
areas ........................................................................................................258
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page x
Table 5-31: Beaufort Wind Scale.......................................................................................267
Table 5-32: Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale ....................................................................267
Table 5-33: CPRI results by jurisdiction for severe wind ...............................................269
Table 5-34: CPRI results by jurisdiction for subsidence ................................................273
Table 5-35: Asset inventory exposure to high hazard subsidence areas ........................278
Table 5-36: Population sectors exposed to high hazard subsidence areas .....................279
Table 5-37: Residential structures exposed to high hazard subsidence
areas ........................................................................................................280
Table 5-38: CPRI results by jurisdiction for wildfire......................................................285
Table 5-39: Asset inventory exposure to high hazard wildfire areas .............................287
Table 5-40: Population sectors exposed to high hazard wildfire areas ..........................288
Table 5-41: Residential structures exposed to high hazard wildfire areas ....................289
Table 5-42: Summary of hazards to be mitigated by each participating
jurisdiction ..............................................................................................296
Table 6-1-1: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Avondale .........................................299
Table 6-2-1: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Avondale ...........................300
Table 6-3-1: Fiscal capabilities for Avondale ...................................................................301
Table 6-1-2: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Buckeye ...........................................302
Table 6-2-2: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Buckeye.............................303
Table 6-3-2: Fiscal capabilities for Buckeye .....................................................................304
Table 6-1-3: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Carefree ..........................................305
Table 6-2-3: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Carefree ............................307
Table 6-3-3: Fiscal capabilities for Carefree ....................................................................308
Table 6-1-4: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Cave Creek .....................................309
Table 6-2-4: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Cave Creek .......................310
Table 6-3-4: Fiscal capabilities for Cave Creek ...............................................................311
Table 6-1-5: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Chandler .........................................312
Table 6-2-5: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Chandler ...........................313
Table 6-3-5: Fiscal capabilities for Chandler ...................................................................314
Table 6-1-6: Legal and regulatory capabilities for El Mirage ........................................314
Table 6-2-6: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for El Mirage ..........................316
Table 6-3-6: Fiscal capabilities for El Mirage ..................................................................317
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page xi
Table 6-1-7: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation .......................................................................................318
Table 6-2-7: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation ....................................................................319
Table 6-3-7: Fiscal capabilities for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation ..............................320
Table 6-3-7b: Funding source assessment for Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation ......................................................................................................321
Table 6-1-8: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Fountain Hills .................................322
Table 6-2-8: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Fountain Hills ..................323
Table 6-3-8: Fiscal capabilities for Fountain Hills ...........................................................324
Table 6-1-9: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Gila Bend ........................................325
Table 6-2-9: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Gila Bend ..........................326
Table 6-3-9: Fiscal capabilities for Gila Bend ..................................................................327
Table 6-1-10: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Gilbert ...........................................328
Table 6-2-10: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Gilbert.............................331
Table 6-3-10: Fiscal capabilities for Gilbert .....................................................................332
Table 6-1-11: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Glendale ........................................333
Table 6-2-11: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Glendale ..........................335
Table 6-3-11: Fiscal capabilities for Glendale ..................................................................336
Table 6-1-12: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Goodyear ......................................337
Table 6-2-12: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Goodyear ........................338
Table 6-3-12: Fiscal capabilities for Goodyear ................................................................339
Table 6-1-13: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Guadalupe ....................................340
Table 6-2-13: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Guadalupe ......................341
Table 6-3-13: Fiscal capabilities for Guadalupe ..............................................................342
Table 6-1-14: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Litchfield Park .............................343
Table 6-2-14: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Litchfield
Park .........................................................................................................344
Table 6-3-14: Fiscal capabilities for Litchfield Park .......................................................344
Table 6-1-15: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Mesa ..............................................346
Table 6-2-15: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Mesa ................................347
Table 6-3-15: Fiscal capabilities for Mesa ........................................................................348
Table 6-1-16: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Paradise Valley.............................349
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page xii
Table 6-2-16: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Paradise
Valley .......................................................................................................349
Table 6-3-16: Fiscal capabilities for Paradise Valley.......................................................350
Table 6-1-17: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Peoria ............................................351
Table 6-2-17: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Peoria ..............................353
Table 6-3-17: Fiscal capabilities for Peoria ......................................................................354
Table 6-1-18: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Phoenix..........................................355
Table 6-2-18: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Phoenix ...........................357
Table 6-3-18: Fiscal capabilities for Phoenix....................................................................359
Table 6-1-19: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Queen Creek .................................361
Table 6-2-19: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Queen Creek ..................362
Table 6-3-19: Fiscal capabilities for Queen Creek ...........................................................363
Table 6-1-20: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community ...............................................................365
Table 6-2-20: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community .....................................................365
Table 6-3-20a: Fiscal capabilities for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community .............................................................................................366
Table 6-3-20b: Funding source assessment for Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community .................................................................................367
Table 6-1-22: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Scottsdale ......................................368
Table 6-2-22: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Scottsdale ........................370
Table 6-3-22: Fiscal capabilities for Scottsdale ................................................................371
Table 6-1-23: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Surprise .........................................372
Table 6-2-23: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Surprise ..........................374
Table 6-3-23: Fiscal capabilities for Surprise ...................................................................375
Table 6-1-24: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Tempe............................................376
Table 6-2-24: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Tempe .............................376
Table 6-3-24: Fiscal capabilities for Tempe......................................................................377
Table 6-1-25: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Tolleson .........................................379
Table 6-2-25: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Tolleson...........................380
Table 6-3-25: Fiscal capabilities for Tolleson ...................................................................381
Table 6-1-26: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Unincorporated
Maricopa County ...................................................................................382
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page xiii
Table 6-2-26: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for
Unincorporated Maricopa County .......................................................383
Table 6-3-26: Fiscal capabilities for Unincorporated Maricopa County .......................385
Table 6-1-27: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Wickenburg ..................................386
Table 6-2-27: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Wickenburg ....................387
Table 6-3-27: Fiscal capabilities for Wickenburg ............................................................388
Table 6-1-28: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Youngtown....................................389
Table 6-2-28: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Youngtown .....................390
Table 6-3-28: Fiscal capabilities for Youngtown .............................................................391
Table 6-4-1: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation departments or entities with
hazard mitigation responsibilities ........................................................392
Table 6-4-2: Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community departments
or entities with hazard mitigation responsibilities ..............................393
Table 6-5: NFIP status and statistics for Maricopa County and
participating jurisdictions .....................................................................395
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and
participating NFIP jurisdictions ...........................................................398
Table 6-8-1: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Avondale ............................................................................428
Table 6-8-2: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Buckeye ..............................................................................430
Table 6-8-3: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Carefree ..............................................................................433
Table 6-8-4: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Cave Creek.........................................................................435
Table 6-8-5: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Chandler ............................................................................437
Table 6-8-6: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for El Mirage ...........................................................................438
Table 6-8-7: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation .......................................442
Table 6-8-8: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Fountain Hills ....................................................................445
Table 6-8-9: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Gila Bend ...........................................................................447
Table 6-8-10: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Gilbert ................................................................................449
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page xiv
Table 6-8-11: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Glendale .............................................................................452
Table 6-8-12: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Goodyear ............................................................................455
Table 6-8-13: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Guadalupe ..........................................................................458
Table 6-8-14: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Litchfield Park...................................................................459
Table 6-8-15: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Mesa....................................................................................461
Table 6-8-16: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Paradise Valley ..................................................................463
Table 6-8-17: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Peoria..................................................................................463
Table 6-8-18: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Phoenix ...............................................................................469
Table 6-8-20: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and
implementation strategy for Queen Creek ..........................................472
Table 6-8-20: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community .............................................................................................474
Table 6-8-21: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Scottsdale ...........................................................................477
Table 6-8-22: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Surprise ..............................................................................481
Table 6-8-23: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Tempe .................................................................................487
Table 6-8-24: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Tolleson ..............................................................................494
Table 6-8-25: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Unincorporated Maricopa County ..................................496
Table 6-8-26: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Wickenburg .......................................................................500
Table 6-8-27: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation
strategy for Youngtown .........................................................................502
Table 7-1: Continued public involvement activities performed by
jurisdictions during the 2009 Plan cycle ..............................................507
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page xv
Table 7-2: Continued public involvement activities or opportunities
identified by each participating jurisdiction .......................................517
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)
Maps 7A-2, 7B-2, and 7C-2 – Fire Threat Index Map(s)
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Official Resolution of Adoption
Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation
Appendix C: Public Involvement Records (Digital Only)
Appendix D: Detailed Historic Hazard Records (Digital Only)
Appendix E: Plan Maintenance Review Memorandums
SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS (under separate cover)
Jurisdiction-Specific Executive Summaries
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 1
SECTION 1: JURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION AND FEMA APPROVAL
1.1 DMA 2000 Requirements
1.1.1 General Requirements
This 2021 update of 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).
Minimum requirements for tribal mitigation plans are published under CFR Title 44,
Section 201.7 (44 CFR §201.7). 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
planning1. 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 and §201.7, local and tribal governments must have a
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved local mitigation plan in
order to apply for and/or receive project grants as a sub-grantee under the following
Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs:
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
1 FEMA, 2008, Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance
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.
Requirement §201.7(a)(1): Indian tribal governments applying to FEMA as a grantee must have an approved Tribal
Mitigation Plan meeting the requirements of this section as a condition of receiving non-emergency Stafford Act
assistance and FEMA mitigation grants.
Requirement §201.7(a)(4): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g. county-wide or watershed plans) may be accepted, as
appropriate, as long as the Indian tribal government has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan.
Indian tribal governments must address all the elements identified in this section to ensure eligibility as a grantee or as a
sub-grantee.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 2
• Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) [formerly Pre-
Disaster Mitigation (PDM)]
• Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
In addition, Indian Tribal governments applying to FEMA as a grantee must
have an approved tribal mitigation plan meeting the requirements of 44 CFR §201.7 as
a condition of receiving non-emergency Stafford Act assistance through Public
Assistance Categories C through G and the above mentioned HMA program funds.
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, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community, and the Salt River Project are participating jurisdictions
in the FEMA approved 2015 Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
Plan (2015 Plan). The current Plan is the result of an update process performed by the
participating jurisdictions to update the 2015 Plan. The Plan continues to include all
tribal required planning elements.
1.2 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 and/or the federal
government. Participating jurisdictions in the Plan include:
Counties Tribes Cities Towns
Maricopa
Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation
Salt River
Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community
Avondale
Buckeye
Chandler
El Mirage
Glendale
Goodyear
Litchfield Park
Mesa
Peoria
Phoenix
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Carefree
Cave Creek
Fountain Hills
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Guadalupe
Queen Creek
Wickenburg
Youngtown
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 3
It is noted that the Town of Paradise Valley and Salt River Project will not be included
in the Plan for this update. For those participating, each jurisdiction will keep a copy of their
official resolution of adoption located in Appendix A of their copy of the Plan.
1.3 Tribal Assurances
The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (FMYN) and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community (SRPMIC) will continue to comply with applicable Federal statutes and grant
regulations in effect for those periods when one or both tribes receive grant funding per the
DMA 2000 requirement §201.7(c)(6). Both FMYN and SRPMIC will amend its Plan
whenever necessary to reflect changes in tribal or Federal laws and statutes as required in
44CFR 13.11(d).
1.4 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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 4
[Insert FEMA Approval Letter Here]
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 5
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.
In October of 2008, Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
(MCDEM) initiated a planning process with local and tribal jurisdictions to consolidate and
update the 2004 Plans into a true multi-jurisdictional plan with annexes for the tribal elements
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 6
corresponding to the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community. The resulting 2009 Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
Plan, complete with tribal annexes and herein referred to as the 2009 Plan, was submitted to
FEMA and received official approval on April 30, 2010.
In early 2014, MCDEM worked to successfully secure grant funding to update the 2009
Plan. The planning process was officially kicked off in August 2014 and culminated with
receipt of official FEMA approval on December 22, 2015. The 2015 Plan update merged the
information provided in the 2009 Tribal Annexes into one complete plan.
In early 2020, MCDEM was again able to secure FEMA grant funding to perform the
5-year update of the 2015 Plan and retained professional consulting and planning services to
guide the update planning process and 2021 Plan development. That effort was kicked off in
July 2020 and is detailed further below. It is noted that the Salt River Project and the Town of
Paradise Valley are no longer participants in the updated Plan.
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 2015 Plan.
Maricopa County and all 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 Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation is a federally recognized sovereign nation
that 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 a 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, with MCDEM providing the
matching funds. JE Fuller/ Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. (JE Fuller) was retained by
MCDEM to provide consulting services in guiding the update process and developing technical
risk assessment data.
2.3 General Plan Description
The Plan is generally arranged and formatted to be consistent with the 2018 State of
Arizona Multi-Hazard 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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 7
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 of Plan acronyms and a glossary of definitions.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 8
[This page is purposely blank]
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 9
SECTION 3: PLANNING PROCESS
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 and update the 2015 Plan. MCDEM solicited letters of support from all 2015
Plan towns, cities, and Tribes to aid in the preparation of the PDM planning grant application.
Once the grant was received, the County then selected JE Fuller to work with the participating
jurisdictions and guide the Plan update process. An initial project kick-off meeting between
JEF and MCDEM was convened May 29, 2020 to line up the meeting dates and agendas for
the coming planning efforts, discuss the plan format and potential changes to the Plan outline
and content to address recent FEMA guidelines, request initial data, and other administrative
tasks. Four planning team meetings, one tribal only planning meeting, and numerous other
individual community outreach meetings were conducted over the period of July 2020 to
February 2021, along with all the work required to collect, process, 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 2015 Plan. This was initially discussed by MCDEM and JEF in the May 29, 2020
kick-off meeting with the goal of establishing the framework for the planning effort ahead.
The 2015 Plan process employed a multi-jurisdictional approach with representation from each
participating jurisdiction in larger multi-jurisdictional planning team meetings wherein
concepts would be presented and discussed, and work assignments would be made for
completion by each jurisdiction. Supplemental follow-up sessions with one or more
jurisdictions by both MCDEM and JEF were also employed on an as-needed basis to assist
jurisdictions with completing assignments on schedule. MCDEM and JEF agreed to continue
with the same approach due to the success of the 2014-2015 planning effort in getting to an
approved plan both in time and budget.
§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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 10
The Plan update process was presented and discussed at the first multi-jurisdictional
planning team meeting for comment and concurrence of the Plan jurisdictions. Most 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. Those that were returning
team members felt the process worked well and were in favor of using it again.
3.3 Planning Team
3.3.1 General
Continuing the format used for the 2015 Plan, 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, and
predominantly the primary points of contact (PPOC). 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 2015 Plan.
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 2015 Plan were presented and discussed at each MJPT meeting, and worksheet
assignments were normally given. Each meeting built on information discussed and
assignments made at the previous meeting. The MJPT representatives also had the
responsibility of being the liaison to the LPT, and were tasked with:
• Conveying information and assignments received at the MJPT meetings to the LPT
• Ensuring that all requested worksheets were 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:
• Provide support and data
• Assist the MJPT representative in completing each assignment
• Make planning decisions regarding plan update components
• Review the Plan draft documents
3.3.2 Primary Point of Contact
Table 3-1 summarizes the PPOC identified for each participating local jurisdiction and
tribe.
3.3.3 Planning Team Assembly
At the beginning of the update planning process, MCDEM organized and
identified members for the MJPT by initiating contact with the PPOCs identified in the
2015 Plan, their equivalent, or the emergency manager, for all 24 incorporated towns,
cities, the two tribes and the county. It is noted that Salt River Project was invited to
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 11
Table 3-1: List of jurisdictional primary points of contact
Jurisdiction Name Department / Position Address
Avondale Larry Rooney Fire & Medical Department – Assistant Fire
Chief & Emergency Manager
1825 N. 107th Ave.
Avondale, AZ 85323
Buckeye Travis Rand Fire Department – Deputy Chief 21699 W. Yuma Rd., Ste. 101
Buckeye, AZ 85326
Carefree Dennis Randolph Code Enforcement Officer
8 Sundial Circle
P.O. Box 740
Carefree, AZ 85377
Cave Creek Adam Stein Marshal’s Office – Town Marshal / Emergency
Services Coordinator
37622 N. Cave Creek Rd.
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
Chandler Suzy Vargo Fire Department –
Battalion Chief
151 E. Boston St.
Chandler, AZ 85225
El Mirage Joe Fusco Fire Department –
Fire Chief
13601 N. El Mirage Rd.
El Mirage, AZ 85335
Fountain Hills Mike Winters Fire Department –
Assistant Chief/Fire Marshal
16426 E. Palisades Blvd.
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation Mark Barnhart Fire Department –
Administrative Captain
10755 N. Fort McDowell Rd., Ste. 4
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
Gila Bend Kathy Valenzuela Administration – Town Manager
644 W. Pima St.
P.O. Box A
Gila Bend, AZ 85337
Gilbert Josh Friedman Fire and Rescue/Police Departments – Fire
Investigator, Terrorism Liaison Officer
85 E. Civic Center Dr.
Gilbert, AZ 85296
Glendale Nicole Munson Fire Department – Emergency Management
Coordinator
11550 W. Glendale Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85301
Goodyear Julie Syrmopoulos Fire Department – Emergency Manager 14455 W. Van Buren St., Ste. E-102
Goodyear, AZ 85338
Guadalupe Wayne Clement Fire Department – Fire Chief / Emergency
Manager
8413 S. Avenida del Yaqui
Guadalupe, AZ 85283
Litchfield Park Matthew Williams Community Services & Recreation Department
- Assistant City Manager/Director
214 W. Wigwam Blvd.
Litchfield Park, AZ 85340
Maricopa County Rudy Perez Department of Emergency Management –
Emergency Services Planner
5636 E. McDowell Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85008
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 12
Table 3-1: List of jurisdictional primary points of contact
Jurisdiction Name Department / Position Address
Mesa Therese Derivan Fire/Medical Department – Emergency
Manager
13 W. 1st Street
Mesa, AZ 85201
Peoria Glenn Jones Emergency Management – Emergency
Management Coordinator
8401 W. Monroe Street
Peoria, AZ 85345
Phoenix Kim Gathers Office of Homeland Security & Emergency
Management – Interim Deputy Director
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Queen Creek Joe LaFortune Fire and Medical Department – Emergency
Management Coordinator
22358 S. Ellsworth Rd.
Queen Creek, AZ 85142
Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian
Community
Terry Nelson
Fire Department-Office of Emergency
Management – Emergency Management
Coordinator
10005 E. Osborn Rd.
Scottsdale, AZ 85256
Scottsdale Troy Lutrick
City Manager’s Office -Emergency
Management Division – Emergency
Management Coordinator
8401 E. Indian School Rd.
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Surprise Tracy Montgomery City Manager’s Office – Emergency Manager 16000 W Civic Center Plaza
Surprise AZ 85374
Tempe Michelle Seitz Fire Medical Rescue Departments –
Emergency Manager
P.O. Box 5002
Tempe, AZ 85280
or
1400 E. Apache Blvd.
Tempe, AZ 85281
Tolleson George Good Fire Department – Fire Chief 203 N. 92nd Ave.
Tolleson, AZ 85353
Wickenburg Amy Sloane Police Department – Support Services
Lieutenant
155 N. Tegner, Ste. C
Wickenburg, AZ 85390
Youngtown Gregory Arrington Community Development Department –
Manager
12030 Clubhouse Sq.
Youngtown, AZ 85363
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 13
participate as a jurisdiction for this update but chose not to. In June 2020, MCDEM
distributed a kick-off email with a date for the first MJPT meeting to PPOCs
announcing the official start of the planning effort.
3.3.4 Planning Team Activities
The MJPT met for the first time on July 16, 2020 to begin the plan update
process. Three more MJPT meetings and one extra tribal-only meeting were convened
on about a monthly basis to step through the plan review and update process. Due to
the COVID 19 pandemic, all meetings were conducted virtually using the Zoom
platform, which encouraged greater attendance by more participants than just the
PPOCs. At the first meeting, each MJPT member was directed to a digital copy of the
2015 Plan and was requested to have it available for review and reference at every
meeting. A full agenda for all the planning team meetings was provided and reviewed
so all participants could prepare in advance of each meeting. Following each MJPT
meeting, the PPOC for each jurisdiction would coordinate with their LPT to work
through the assigned worksheets as needed. There were also several other outreach
meetings conducted with individual communities by MCDEM staff and JE Fuller to
assist in the development of the plan elements. Table 3-2 provides a list of all MJPT
meeting participants and the dates of participation. Individuals in bold text are the
identified PPOC for each community. The light-green shaded names are returning
individuals from the 2015 Plan team. Table 3-3 summarizes the MJPT and tribal
meetings convened, along with a brief list of the agenda items discussed. Detailed
meeting notes for the MJPT meetings are provided in Appendix B. There are no details
for the LPT meetings.
Table 3-2: Summary of multi-jurisdictional planning team participants
Name Jurisdiction/Agency/Organization
Planning Team Meeting Nos. and Dates
1
07/16/20
2
08/20/20
3
10/08/20
4
11/19/20
Tom Abbott City of Surprise x x x x
Mark Ahlstrom City of Mesa x
Hector Andrade Maricopa County x x x
John Bailey Maricopa County x
Mark Barnhart Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation x x x x
Michael Boule City of Surprise x x
Kevin Burke City of Peoria x x
Mark Christian Coconino County x x
Tony Christofferson Town of Wickenburg x
Wayne Clement Town of Guadalupe x x x x
Lisa Collins City of Glendale x x
Mike Conlin City of Glendale x x x
Kelly Corsette City of Scottsdale x x
C. Ashley Couch City of Scottsdale x x
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 14
Table 3-2: Summary of multi-jurisdictional planning team participants
Name Jurisdiction/Agency/Organization
Planning Team Meeting Nos. and Dates
1
07/16/20
2
08/20/20
3
10/08/20
4
11/19/20
Marty Crossland City of Goodyear x
Travis Cutright City of Mesa x x x x
Mike Davis City of Mesa x
James Delaittre City of Glendale x
Therese Derivan City of Mesa x x x x
Darrell Duty City of Tempe x
Alan English City of Peoria x
Mary Evans JE Fuller x x x
Josh Friedman Town of Gilbert x x x x
Joe Fusco City of El Mirage x x
Melanie Gall Arizona State University x x x x
Kim Gathers City of Phoenix x x x
Brian Gerber Arizona State University x x x x
Sheri Gibbons Arizona State University x
Brett Gilliland City of Buckeye x x
George Good City of Tolleson x
Bob Goodhue City of Peoria x x x x
Mary Goodman Town of Gilbert x
Ken Goucher City of Scottsdale x
Randy Grant City of Scottsdale x
Brad Hartig City of Scottsdale x
Elliot Harwood Maricopa County x x
John Hatler Maricopa County x
David Hondula Arizona State University x
Rhonda Humbles City of Peoria x x
Laura Hyneman City of Mesa x x
Glenn Jones City of Peoria x x x x
Harry Jones City of Mesa x x x
Braden Kay City of Tempe x x
Michael Kennedy City of Mesa x
Rob Kidder City of Mesa x x x
John Kraetz Town of Carefree x x x x
Joe LaFortune Town of Queen Creek x x x x
Lee Lambert City of Surprise x x
Sara Latin Maricopa County x
Bob Lee Town of Paradise Valley x x x x
Daylynn Little City of Scottsdale x x
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 15
Table 3-2: Summary of multi-jurisdictional planning team participants
Name Jurisdiction/Agency/Organization
Planning Team Meeting Nos. and Dates
1
07/16/20
2
08/20/20
3
10/08/20
4
11/19/20
Grace Logan Arizona State University x
David Luhan City of Goodyear x
Troy Lutrick City of Scottsdale x x x
Richard Manzo City of Mesa x x
Charlie McDermott Arizona State University x
Dee McKenzie City of Mesa x
Jeff McMenemy City of Glendale x
Art Miller City of Peoria x
Tracy Montgomery City of Surprise x x x x
Nicole Munson City of Glendale x x x x
Tim Murphy Flood Control District of Maricopa County x x x x
Scott Myers Maricopa County x
Terry Nelson Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community x x x x
Dan Nissen City of Peoria x x x
Scott Ogden JE Fuller x x x x
Brent Olson City of Phoenix x
Patrick O'Toole Salt River Project x
John Padilla APS x x x
Jared Palacios City of Avondale x x x
Rich Peel Maricopa County x
Rudy Perez Maricopa County x x x x
Cape Powers City of Peoria x
Arif Rahman City of Mesa x x
Travis Rand City of Buckeye x x x
Anne Reichman Arizona State University x x
Jaret Rogers National Weather Service x
Larry Rooney City of Avondale x x x x
Fred Rustam City of Mesa x
Craig Sears City of Mesa x
Michelle Seitz City of Tempe x x x x
Nancy Selover Arizona State Climate Office x
Megan Sheldon City of Glendale x
Antonio Shin City of Phoenix x x x
Amy Sloane Town of Wickenburg x
Jana Smith Maricopa County x x x
Kevin Spirlong City of Surprise x
Warren Sprecher City of Mesa x x x
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 16
Table 3-2: Summary of multi-jurisdictional planning team participants
Name Jurisdiction/Agency/Organization
Planning Team Meeting Nos. and Dates
1
07/16/20
2
08/20/20
3
10/08/20
4
11/19/20
Adam Stein Town of Cave Creek x x x
Daren Sweet Arizona Dept of Emergency & Military Affairs x
Julie Syrmopoulos City of Goodyear x x x x
Kristin Tytler City of Surprise x x x
Kathy Valenzuela Town of Gila Bend x x x
Suzy Vargo City of Chandler x x x x
Pete Weaver Town of Gilbert x x x x
Nicole Wiley City of Surprise x x x
Matthew Williams City of Litchfield Park x x x
Mike Winters Town of Fountain Hills x x x x
Table 3-3: Summary of planning meetings convened as part of the plan update
process
Meeting Type,
Date, and
Location Meeting Agenda
Pre-Planning Kick-
Off Meeting
May 29, 2020
Web conference via
Zoom
• Discuss schedule of MJPT meetings
• Discuss Plan outline and changes required
• Strategize the MJPT list
• Discuss roles of MCDEM and JEF in the overall planning process
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 17
Table 3-3: Summary of planning meetings convened as part of the plan update
process
Meeting Type,
Date, and
Location Meeting Agenda
MJPT Meeting
No. 1
July 16, 2020
Web conference via
Zoom
• INITIAL INTRODUCTIONS
• DMA2K OVERVIEW AND UPDATE REQUIREMENTS
o General DMA2K Overview
o Update Requirements
• DISCUSSION OF SCOPE AND SCHEDULE
• PLANNING PROCESS
o Discussion of Last Planning Process
o Planning Team Roles and Responsibilities
*** 15-Minute Break ***
• PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
o Discuss Past Strategy
o Formulate New Strategy
o Additional Agency / Organization Invitations
• RISK ASSESSMENT
o Hazard List Identification
o Existing Plans, Studies, Reports and Technical Information
• EMAP DISCUSSION
o Purpose
o Supplemental Requirements to Regular DMA2000 Plan
o Current EMAP Annex for Unincorporated Maricopa County
o Go or No-Go Discussion
MJPT Meeting
No. 2
August 20, 2020
Web conference via
Zoom
• GENERAL – Community Description Review
• PLAN MAINTENANCE STRATEGY
o Review/Discuss Maintenance and Monitoring Over Last Plan
Cycle
o Develop New Monitoring Schedule
o Develop Plan Update Schedule
• RISK ASSESSMENT
o Critical Facility Review/Update (worksheet)
o Review hazard profile mapping and data for each hazard
o CPRI Update (worksheet)
o Discuss and Profile Development Trends (worksheet)
Past Plan Cycle
Future Development
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 18
Table 3-3: Summary of planning meetings convened as part of the plan update
process
Meeting Type,
Date, and
Location Meeting Agenda
MJPT Meeting
No. 3
October 8, 2020
Web conference via
Zoom
• MITIGATION STRATEGY
o Existing Mitigation Action/Project Assessment (worksheet)
o Capability Assessment (worksheet)
Legal and Regulatory (Codes / Ordinances)
Administrative and Technical Staff Resources
Fiscal Capabilities
o Plans / Manuals / Guidelines / Studies Integration and
Incorporation (worksheet)
Past Plan Cycle
Future Strategy
o NFIP Statistics and Compliance (worksheet)
MJPT Meeting
No. 4
November 19, 2020
Web conference via
Zoom
• RISK ASSESSMENT
o Repetitive Loss Properties
o Vulnerability Analysis Results Review
• MITIGATION STRATEGY
o Develop/Update Goals
o Action/Project Identification (worksheet)
o Implementation Strategy (worksheet)
• PLAN MAINTENANCE STRATEGY
o Continued Public Involvement (worksheet)
• PROMULGATION PROCESS
Tribal Planning
Meeting
December 15, 2020
Web conference via
Zoom
• Tribal Assurances
• Definition Of “Public”
• Plan Integration
• Pre- and Post-Disaster Capabilities
• Funding Sources
• Progress Review and Project Closeout
3.3.5 Agency/Organization Participation
The planning process used to develop the 2015 Plan included participation from
several agencies and organizations which operate within or have jurisdiction over small
and large areas of Maricopa County. For this update, a list of known and/or potential
stakeholders not already involved in the MJPT was brainstormed and compiled at both
the internal kickoff meeting and MJPT Meeting No. 1. Invitations were sent to the
identified list via emails with an attached document that explained the DMA 2000
planning process and the request for involvement. A copy of the letter attachment is
provided in Appendix C. Personal invitations by MCDEM staff were also extended to
the Gila, Pinal, and Yavapai County emergency managers to participate in the planning
meetings. The La Paz County emergency manager had recently passed away and the
position was not filled as of this planning effort, so no invitation was extended to La
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 19
Paz County. In addition to the personal invitations, a broader invitation to all citizens
within and near Maricopa County was indirectly extended via website postings, social
media (Facebook, Twitter, and NextDoor), and various newsletters/utility bill inserts,
which are discussed more thoroughly in Section 3.5.2. This approach was considered
the best way to reach interested non-profits and businesses within the County and
provide them an opportunity for participation in the planning process. Table 3-4
represents the list of all entities (except the participating jurisdictions) that were either
directly invited or that responded to the public invitations:
Table 3-4: List of agencies and organizations invited or participating in the
planning process
Agency / Organization Contact Position
Inter-Tribal Council of
Arizona
Nathan Nixon - Emergency Preparedness Program
Coordinator
Bureau of Indian Affairs - Salt
River Agency Alan Sinclair - Fire Management Officer
Arizona Department of Water
Resources Brian Cosson – NFIP Coordinator
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality Chris Nutter – Emergency Response Coordinator
Arizona State Land - Forestry
Division
Dan Colgan - Central District A4S District
Manager
Arizona Department of
Transportation – Phoenix
District
David Egliskis – Emergency Manager
Bureau of Land Management -
Phoenix District Ken Shaver - Fire Prevention Specialist
Bureau of Land Management -
Phoenix District Fritz Mueller - Fire Operations Specialist
National Weather Service -
Phoenix Forecast Office
Jaret Rogers - Warning Coordination
Meteorologist
USFS - Tonto National Forest Dave Ramirez - South Zone Fire Management
Officer
Arizona State University Sheri Gibbons - Emergency Manager
ASU State Climatologist
Office Nancy Selover - State Climatologist
Arizona Game and Fish
Department Fred Bloom - Engineering Supervisor
Arizona Geological Survey Ann Youberg - Research Geologist
Southwest Gas Carrie Heglund - Engineer
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
– LA District –
Arizona/Nevada Planning
Office
Kim Gavigan – Regional Engineer/Planner
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 20
Table 3-4: List of agencies and organizations invited or participating in the
planning process
Agency / Organization Contact Position
Central Arizona Project Patrick Kernan - Civil Engineering Division
Supervisor
Yavapai County Emergency
Management
Ron Sauntman - Emergency Management
Coordinator
Pinal County Emergency
Management Chuck Kmet - Emergency Management Officer
Gila County Emergency
Management Carl Melford - Emergency Manager
An integral part of the planning process included coordination with agencies
and organizations outside of the participating jurisdiction’s governance to obtain
information and data for inclusion into the Plan or to provide more public exposure to
the planning process. Much of the information and data that is used in the risk
assessment is developed by agencies or organizations other than the participating
jurisdictions. In some cases, the jurisdictions may be members of a larger organization
that has jointly conducted a study or planning effort like the development of a
community wildfire protection plan, participation in an area association of
governments, or participation in a FEMA RiskMAP Discovery study. Examples of
those data sets include the FEMA floodplain mapping, community wildfire protection
plans, severe weather statistics, hazard incident reports, and regional comprehensive
plans. The resources obtained, reviewed and compiled into the risk assessment are
summarized in Section 3.6 and at the end of each subsection of Section 5.3 of this Plan.
Jurisdictions needing these data sets obtained them by requesting them directly from
the host agency or organization, downloading information posted to website locations,
or engaging consultants.
3.4 Public Involvement
3.4.1 Previous Plan Assessment
The public involvement strategy for the 2015 Plan development included the
publishing of public notices in the major newspapers that cover the greater Phoenix
area, posting of similar public notices to jurisdiction websites with an included link to
the full-time website maintained on the Maricopa County servers. Additional notices
inviting public participation were published in local and regional newspapers,
jurisdictional newsletters, and flyer inserts to utility bills.
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 2015 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
2015 Plan was made during a working session of the council/board. The final adoption
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 21
of the resolutions was 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 2015 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.
3.4.2 Plan Update
The opportunity for public involvement and input to the plan update process
was accommodated using the same general strategy as the 2015 Plan, with several
notable additions that included comprehensive English and Spanish language media
blasts to social media platforms and the preparation of an on-line survey/questionnaire
that was accessible by a link to the base Maricopa County hazard mitigation website
hosted on Maricopa County servers. Participating jurisdictions posted public notices to
their respective websites that included a link to the base website. A copy of the 2015
Plan was made available on the County website along with contact information for the
MJPT PPOC. There were also additional notices published in local newspapers,
jurisdictional newsletters, and utility bill inserts.
The community survey/questionnaire was comprised of 10 questions that were
constructed to better facilitate an understanding of the level of hazard and mitigation
concept awareness on the part of the public. The survey responses were logged for a
period of August to December 2020. During that time, the English survey site was
accessed a total of 1,188 times. The Spanish version was accessed 8 times. Of those,
524 occurrences fully completed the survey. The following highlight some of the
response statistics:
• Severe Wind events top the list of hazards that caused negative impacts to
respondents. The second was Extreme Heat, closely followed by Drought
and Flooding
• The reported zip codes for the respondents were reasonably distributed
across the populated areas of the county.
• Approximately 45% of the respondents were aware of the 2015 Plan.
• Less than 8% of the respondents had a home or business located within a
FEMA delineated Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
• Preferences for typical structural/infrastructure type improvements and
protection of natural buffers was slightly favored over the other types of
mitigation actions/projects.
• On average, approximately 13% of the respondents carry some type of flood
insurance on their homes. Rental coverage was less than 4% and business
coverage was less than 1%.
• The four top-ranked choices for receiving hazard related information and
notifications were in order: email, websites, television and social media.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 22
A second wave of post-draft public notices was 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, included a formal public hearing and
in some cases, a prior informal presentation.
Copies of the public outreach materials (notices, web page snips, newspaper
notices, survey/questionnaire, etc.) are provided in Appendix C.
3.4.3 Tribal Definitions of “Public”
Pursuant to 44 CFR §201.7(c)(1)(i), each of FMYN and SRPMIC must include
“…a description of how the Indian tribal government defined ‘‘public;’’”. Both
participating tribes reviewed the definitions provided in the 2015 Plan and had no
changes to make. Accordingly, the following statements to define “public” for the
purposes of this Plan are defined for each of the participating tribes as:
• FMYN: “All FMYN tribal members, community members, and employees.”
• SRPMIC: “All enrolled Community members, employees and enterprises.”
3.5 Reference Documents and Technical Resources
Over the course of the update planning process, numerous other plans, studies, reports,
and technical information were obtained and reviewed for incorporation or reference purposes.
Most sources referenced and researched pertain to the risk assessment and the capabilities
assessment. To a lesser extent, the community descriptions and mitigation strategy also
included some document or technical information research. Table 3-5 provides a reference
listing of the primary documents and technical resources reviewed and used in the Plan.
Detailed bibliographic references for the risk assessment are provided at the end of each hazard
risk profile in Section 5.3. Other bibliographic references are provided as footnotes throughout
the Plan.
Table 3-5: List of resource documents and references reviewed and incorporated in
the Plan update process
Referenced
Document or
Technical Source
Resource
Type Description of Reference and Its Use
Arizona
Department of
Water Resources
Hazard
Data
Source for dam failure, drought, levee and subsidence
data
American Society
of Civil Engineers
Technical
Reference Source for design wind speed data.
Arizona State
University
Hazard
Data
Technical
Reference
Source and co-author for extreme heat data and hazard
profile. Host for the SHELDUS database.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 23
Table 3-5: List of resource documents and references reviewed and incorporated in
the Plan update process
Referenced
Document or
Technical Source
Resource
Type Description of Reference and Its Use
State of Arizona
Hazard Mitigation
Plan (2018)
Hazard
Data
Mitigation
Data
Some of the hazard data and mitigation information
published in the State Plan are used and incorporated
into the Plan update.
Arizona Geological
Survey
Hazard
Data Source for fissure, landslide and subsidence data
Arizona State Land
Department –
Forestry Division
Hazard
Data
Source for wildfire data associated with State Lands
and host for the Arizona Wildfire Risk Assessment
Portal (AZWRAP)
Bureau Net (2020) Website
Database Source for NFIP statistics.
Comprehensive
Floodplain
Management Plan
and Program Report
(FCDMC – 2020)
Technical
and
Planning
Resource
The FCDMC’s Comprehensive Floodplain
Management Plan is a source for flooding data and
mitigation strategies envisioned for the areas served
by the District.
Discovery Report
for Phoenix Metro
Valley Watersheds
(2013)
Technical
and Data
Resource
Flood related hazard data, areas of mitigation interest,
and mitigation strategies are identified in the
Discovery Report and are incorporated as appropriate
into the Plan.
InciWeb – Incident
Information System
(2020)
Wildfire
Data
Source wildfire incident information for historical
hazard and profile information, specifically for
Horseshoe 2 and Monument Fire.
Environmental
Working Group’s
Farm Subsidy
Database (2020)
Website
Database
Source of disaster related agricultural subsidies. Used
in the risk assessment.
Federal Emergency
Management
Agency
Technical
and
Planning
Resource
Resource for HMP guidance (How-To series),
floodplain and flooding related NFIP data (mapping,
repetitive loss, NFIP statistics), and historic hazard
incidents. Used in the risk assessment and mitigation
strategy.
U.S. Global Change
Research Program
Technical
and Data
Resource
Source for National Climate Assessment reports and
documentation with discussions on climate change.
HAZUS-MH Technical
Resource
Based data sets within the program were used in the
vulnerability analysis.
Maricopa
Association of
Governments
Technical
and Data
Resource
Source for current demographic and economic data for
the county.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 24
Table 3-5: List of resource documents and references reviewed and incorporated in
the Plan update process
Referenced
Document or
Technical Source
Resource
Type Description of Reference and Its Use
Maricopa County
Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation
Plan (2015)
Hazard
Mitigation
Plan
FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan that formed
the starting point for the update process.
Maricopa County
Community
Wildfire Protection
Plan (2010)
CWPP Source for wildfire history and risk data.
Maricopa County
Community
Wildfire Protection
Plan – 5 Year
Update (2020)
CWPP Source for wildfire history and risk data, as well as
updated mitigation strategies
National Climatic
Data Center
Technical
Resource
Online resource for weather related data and historic
hazard event data. Used in the risk assessment.
National Integrated
Drought
Information System
(2020)
Technical
Resource
Source for drought related projections and conditions.
Used in the risk assessment.
National Response
Center
Technical
Resource
Source of traffic related HAZMAT incidents and rail
accidents. Used in the risk assessment.
National Weather
Service
Technical
Resource
Source for hazard information, data sets, and historic
event records. Used in the risk assessment.
National Wildfire
Coordination Group
(2020)
Technical
Resource
Source for historic wildfire hazard information. Used
in the risk assessment.
Standard on
Disaster/Emergency
Management and
Business Continuity
Programs (2000)
Standards
Document
Used to establish the classification and definitions for
the asset inventory. Used in the risk assessment.
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Dam
Inventory Source for dam locations and characteristics
U.S. Bureau of
Land Management GIS Data Source for land ownership data
U.S. Census Bureau Technical
Data
TIGER/Line shape file for county census block data
was used to obtain block boundaries, population, and
housing units
U.S. Forest Service Technical
Data
Source for local wildfire data. Used in the risk
assessment.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 25
Table 3-5: List of resource documents and references reviewed and incorporated in
the Plan update process
Referenced
Document or
Technical Source
Resource
Type Description of Reference and Its Use
U.S. Geological
Survey
Technical
Data
Source for geological hazard data and incident data.
Used in the risk assessment.
Jurisdictional
General Plans
Planning
and Hazard
Data
General Plans prepared by each of the various
jurisdictions summarizes the long-term growth
strategies and can provided data regarding
development trends.
Western Regional
Climate Center
Website
Data
Online resource for climate data used in climate
discussion of Section 5
Zillow Real Estate
Values
Website
Reference
Obtained home value indexes for incorporated and
unincorporated areas of Maricopa County to use for
residential values in vulnerability assessment.
3.6 Plan Integration into Other Planning Mechanisms
Incorporation and/or integration of the Plan into other planning mechanisms, either by
content or reference, enhances a community’s ability to perform hazard mitigation by
expanding the scope of the Plan’s influence. It also helps a community to capitalize on all
available mechanisms at their disposal to accomplish hazard mitigation and reduce risk.
3.6.1 Past Plan Incorporation/Integration Assessment
A poll of the participating jurisdictions revealed that success of incorporating
the 2015 Plan elements into other planning programs has varied over the past planning
cycle. Ways in which the 2015 Plan has been successfully incorporated or referenced
into other planning mechanisms by each jurisdiction are summarized in Tables 3-6
through 3-32.
3.6.2 Five Year Plan Integration/Incorporation Strategy
With the efficacy of integrating the 2015 Plan during the last cycle in view, the
MJPT identified typical ways to use and incorporate the Plan over the next five-year
planning cycle, as follows:
• Use of, or reference to, Plan elements in updates/revisions to codes,
ordinances, general and/or comprehensive planning documents, and other
long-term strategic plans.
• Integration of defined mitigation A/Ps into capital improvement plans and
programming.
• Reference to Plan risk assessments during updates or revisions to land use
planning and zoning maps.
• Resource for developing and/or updating emergency operations plans,
community wildfire protection plans, emergency response plans, etc.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 26
• Reference during grant application processes.
• Use of the Plan as a resource during LEPC meetings.
Specific opportunities for integrating and/or referencing the Plan into other
planning mechanisms over the next five years are summarized by jurisdiction in Tables
3-6 to 3-32. In all cases, the jurisdiction’s PPOC will take responsibility to ensure that
the Plan, risk assessment, goals and mitigation strategies are integrated and/or
incorporated into the listed planning mechanism by participating in those efforts as they
occur.
Table 3-6: Plan integration history and future strategy for Avondale
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
City of Avondale’s existing General Plan 2030, which approved in August 2012, includes a
Safety Element that references the County’s hazard mitigation plan and specific items related
to Avondale. The General Plan is being updated as part of a 10-year update, requiring
approval in 2022. The Planning Division is working with various departments to update
information in the plan, which would include the Safety Element. There is no other update to
the existing information at this time.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
General Plan 2030 being
updated for approval in 2022
This will include any new information from City departments
related to the Safety Element. As of current, no information is
available regarding the update.
City Code Chapter 8, Article I Division 3; Provisions for Flood Hazard
Reduction; addresses Flood Plain Management.
“Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 48-3610, the City of
Avondale (the "City") is authorized to adopt floodplain
management regulations in conformance with ARIZ. REV.
STAT. §§ 48-3603 and 48-3609 designed to promote the
public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry.”
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 27
Table 3-7: Plan integration history and future strategy for Buckeye
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The current Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MCMJHMP) was
reviewed on an annual basis. Staff from the Fire and Medical Department, Public Works
Department, and the Development Services Department consulted to update the current list of
mitigation actions and projects. The updated document was submitted to the Maricopa
County Department of Emergency Management (MCDEM).
Fire and Medical Department staff also would review the list of mitigation actions and
projects when the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) guidance was issued annually.
This was done to determine if any of the projects would be a viable candidate for submittal to
the HMGP.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Emergency Response Plan
(EOP)
The City’s Emergency Response Plan (EOP) provides a guide
to how the community will respond to a disaster incident. The
risk data may be utilized as one of the appendices to the EOP.
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan (CWPP)
The risk data from the community wildfire protection plan
serves as the basis of the hazard mitigation plan and for
identifying candidate wildfire mitigation actions and projects.
Capital Improvement
Program (CIP)
The hazard mitigation plan will be utilized to inform and
guide the submittal and funding of projects on an annual
basis. This can occur both in the City’s CIP and outside
partners such as the Flood Control District of Maricopa
County.
Community Risk Assessment The Fire and Medical Department has developed a
Community Risk Assessment to identify all the hazards that
may impact the community. The hazards may include train
derailments, airplane crashes and natural hazards. The Hazard
Mitigation Plan data can be incorporated into this document
when it is updated.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 28
Table 3-8: Plan integration history and future strategy for Carefree
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The town continues to look for integration opportunities when evaluating updates or
amendments to the 2012, the Town of Carefree’s General Plan. Within the General Plan:
• The Environmental Element focuses on limiting encroachment within
delineated floodplains and ensuring desert sensitive design solutions for
drainage mitigation.
• The Streets Element outlines that the town should maintain a circulation plan
which services the needs of the local residents by implementing measures to
improve the safety and efficiency of the network.
• The Open Space Element focuses on preserving floodplains and washes in
their natural state.
• The Public Facilities Element focuses on supporting ongoing efforts internally
and with external agencies to maintain a reliable, efficient and quality level of
public services which includes but is not limited to public safety and
emergency services.
The town updated the Emergency Operations Plan in December 2014 to which the 2015 Plan
was referred to in its update.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Transportation Planning
Over the next five (5) years, depending upon available
funding, the town could explore improvements to numerous
washes crossing public streets. If funding becomes available
the planning, design and priority will integrate and reference
the Plan.
The Emergency Operation
Plan
The EOP was recently updated. Any future changes or
updates will integrate and/or reference the Plan.
Flood Control District
Drainage Area Master Plan
The FCDMC is currently working on a drainage area master
plan which bisects the southwestern corner of the town. Such
Master Plan should reference the Plan.
Town of Carefree General
Plan (2012)
The town’s General Plan is intended to guide growth and
development within the town and its planning areas.
Integration of the Plan with future updates of the General Plan
will provide additional input into the identification of
problematic growth areas and possible areas of mitigation
interest. The Plan will also serve as a reference source during
annual amendments to the General Plan.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 29
Table 3-9: Plan integration history and future strategy for Cave Creek
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The Town of Cave Creek staff incorporates the 2015 Hazard Mitigation plan into our daily
activities. During plan reviews staff would typically review the Hazard Mitigation plan to
ensure that items identified as hazards within the Hazard Mitigation Plan are addressed within
the submitted plans.
Staff would also utilize the 2015 Hazard Mitigation plan as other documents are worked upon
and drafted, for example during the updates to the Community Wildfire Protection Plan as
well as the 2018 Updates to The Cave Creek Flood Response Plan, the Multi Hazard
Mitigation Plan is referenced for pertinent cross reference materials.
The Updates to the Town of Cave Creek Emergency Operations Plan also frequently referred
to the Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan during the planning and update process.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Town of Cave Creek General
Plan
The Town’s General Plan provides the framework for guiding
Cave Creek into the next decade. During the development and
updates to the 2021 General Plan, staff will refer to the Multi
Hazard Mitigation Plan for reference purposes. The 2021
Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan will be incorporated into
projects and actions projected for the next ten years.
Storm Water Area Master
Plan
The Storm Water Master Plan will refer to the 2021 Multi
Hazard Mitigation Plan as it specifically refers to flooding and
flood mitigation.
Cave Creek Emergency
Operations Plan
The Cave Creek Emergency Operations Plan will refer to the
2021 Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan during the updates
process. The Emergency Operations Plan incorporates the
hazards identified within the 2021 Multi Hazard Mitigation
Plan.
Town of Cave Creek Zoning
Ordinance
Cave Creek Planners will utilize the 2021 Multi Hazard
Mitigation Plan as they look to update the Zoning Ordinance.
The 2021 Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan will be utilized as a
reference manual as it pertains to new ordinances that will
help address and effect defined hazards.
Table 3-10: Plan integration history and future strategy for Chandler
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The City of Chandler utilized the prior 2015 Plan as a reference for the development of the
Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Additionally, the 2015 Plan was referenced by the Fire
Department when completing the Emergency Operations Plan for the City of Chandler,
specifically the risk assessment components.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 30
Table 3-10: Plan integration history and future strategy for Chandler
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Emergency Operations Plan
The purpose of this plan is to provide effective emergency
operations within the City of Chandler using the existing
governmental organization and resources to the maximum
extent possible. This includes a comprehensive risk analysis
and threat assessment. The EOP is due to be revised in 2021
and should reference the Plan.
Capital Improvement
Program
The CIP serves as a multi-year planning instrument used to
identify needs and financing sources for public infrastructure
improvements. The CIP is revised annually and will continue
to reference the Plan.
General Plan
The City of Chandler General Plan serves as an expression of
development policies used to guide development decisions. Its
purpose is to establish clear direction that spells out public
expectations and preferences to sustain a desirable
community.
Table 3-11: Plan integration history and future strategy for El Mirage
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
El Mirage has a COOP plan that is currently under revision as well as the 2015 Plan. Capital
Improvement Plans (CIP) have been established for mid- to long-range planning for public
safety and were developed with reference to the 2015 Plan.
Cooperation within the organization has continued to be strong with incorporation of the 2015
Plan into communications between Public Safety and Public Works, on how services can be
improved based on the CIP, the COOP plan, and public safety.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
City of El Mirage General
Plan, CIP programs, and
Council Goals
The El Mirage general plan provides long-term guidance to
the Cities growth. Development of the general plan and
council goals setting are elements that are informed by either
reference or incorporation of the risks, goals and mitigation of
the actions within the projects of the hazard mitigation plan.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 31
Table 3-11: Plan integration history and future strategy for El Mirage
City of El Mirage General
Plan, CIP programs, and
Council Goals
The City of El Mirage is consciously aware of the future
needs that are not limited to the items below. The City of El
Mirage has either updated each of these items or are
concurrently working towards an update.
• Comprehensive or General Plans
• Stormwater Master Plans
• Capital Improvement Programs
• Regional Plans (Transportation, Land Use, etc.)
• Emergency Operations/Response Plans
• Community Wildfire Protection Plans
• Development Plans
• Development Guidelines and/or Regulations
• Ordinance Updates or Revisions
Table 3-12: Plan integration history and future strategy for Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The Wildland Fire Management Plan, 2012, was commissioned by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Salt River Agency on behalf of three tribal Nations, one of which is the Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation. The wildland fire management plan incorporated some of the
existing Hazard Mitigation Plan components in the development of the wildfire management
plan. The current mitigation plan has also aided in the annual Threat and Hazard Identification
and Risk Assessment process. Finally, it has aided the Nation in the development and renewal
of our emergency operations plan.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Capital Projects Five Year
plan
The Nation’s Capital Projects Five Year Plan elements are
potentially affected by the risks, goals, and mitigation actions
of the hazard mitigation plan.
Emergency Operations Plan
Update
The Nation’s Emergency Operations Plan is required to be
updated at least every three years. The elements of the
Emergency Operations Plan are directly correlated to the
risks, hazards, goals, and mitigation actions of the hazard
mitigation plan.
Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk
Assessment (THIRA)
The THIRA is updated annually and incorporates several
elements of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 32
Table 3-13: Plan integration history and future strategy for Fountain Hills
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The 2015 Plan was referenced in the development and implementation of several plans and
Capital Improvement Projects including:
• The 2020 Maricopa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
• Flood Control Emergency Plans.
• 2020 Town of Fountain Hills Subdivision Ordinance.
• 2020 Fountain Hills Storm Ready Certification.
• Fuels mitigation projects in the Ashbrook and Legend Washes.
• Drainage improvements to the Civic Center and Eagle Mountain Parkway areas.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Capital Improvement Plan The town’s Capital Improvement Program provides project
development for drainage improvement projects. As before,
the Plan will serve as a reference for the identification of
future CIP projects.
Town of Fountain Hills
General Plan
The Fountain Hills General Plan – 2020 provides long-term
direction for the town’s growth. Most of the town’s drainage
is through preserved natural or re-graded wash areas. The
Plan will be referenced with any amendments or updates to
the General Plan.
Town of Fountain Hills
Emergency Operations Plan
The Town’s Emergency Operations Plan specifically
addresses flooding in washes and roadways throughout the
community. The Hazard Mitigation Plan works in concert
with the risk analysis and threat assessment.
Table 3-14: Plan integration history and future strategy for Gila Bend
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
Over the past 5 years the Town of Gila Bend has incorporated the Plan into Capital
Improvement Programs and Regional Plans (Transportation, Land Use, etc.), in the update or
revision of Economic Development Plans, Guidelines, Regulations, Ordinances and the
Town’s Emergency Operations and Response Plans. Elements of these planning mechanisms
were informed by either reference or incorporation of the risks, goals, and mitigation
actions/projects of the Plan.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Capital Improvement
Programs
Regional Plans
(Transportation, Land Use,
etc.)
The town’s CIP and Regional plans serve as guidance
documents for the town’s growth and resources. Development
of these plan elements are informed by either reference or
incorporation of the risks, goals, and mitigation
actions/projects of the Plan.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 33
Table 3-14: Plan integration history and future strategy for Gila Bend
Economic Development
Plans
Development Guidelines
and/or Regulations
Ordinance Updates or
Revisions
The town’s Economic, Development plans, and Ordinances
provide long-term guidance to the town’s growth and
development. Development of these plans and guideline
elements are informed by either reference or incorporation of
the risks, goals and mitigation actions/projects of the Plan.
Flood Mitigation Master Plan
The Flood Mitigation Master Plan was a multi-jurisdictional
effort across various agencies. The town’s Flood Mitigation
Master Plan provides long-term guidance to the town’s
growth patterns. Development of the master plan elements
are informed by either reference or incorporation of the risks,
goals and mitigation actions/projects of the Plan.
Emergency
Operations/Response Plans
These plans are being developed/revised and plan elements
are informed by either reference or incorporation of the risks,
goals and mitigation actions/projects of the Plan.
Table 3-15: Plan integration history and future strategy for Gilbert
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The 2015 Mitigation plan was referenced with updating the Gilbert Emergency Operations
Plan, concentrating specific responses to areas identified within the mitigation plan. The
mitigation plan was also taken into consideration during the development of the Gilbert Flood
Response Plan adopted by council in 2019. The Mitigation plan was also referenced during
our Community Rating System (CRS) reviews, audits and updates.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Town of Gilbert Emergency
Operation Plan update
The Town of Gilbert’s Emergency Operation Plan slated for
update in 2021, provides direction and guidance to the town’s
response and recovery efforts in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster. The planning process could potentially
reference and/or incorporate risks, goals and mitigation
actions of the Plan.
Town of Gilbert Flood
Response Plan update
The Town of Gilbert’s Flood Response Plan slated for review
and potential update in 2022, provides direction and guidance
to the town’s flood response. The planning process could
potentially reference and/or incorporate risks, goals and
mitigation actions of the Plan.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 34
Table 3-15: Plan integration history and future strategy for Gilbert
Town of Gilbert Storm
Water Management Plan
The Town of Gilbert Storm Water Management Plan slated
for update soon. The planning process could potentially
reference and/or incorporate risks, goals and mitigation
actions of the Plan.
Table 3-16: Plan integration history and future strategy for Glendale
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The 2015 Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted by the
Glendale City Council, demonstrating their continued commitment to hazard mitigation. The
plan has been a guide for the City of Glendale as it pursues reducing risks to life and property,
limiting the risks to critical infrastructure, and implementing and integrating hazard mitigation
planning to other planning efforts.
The Glendale Division of Emergency Management initiated a comprehensive revision of the
City’s Emergency Operations Plan in 2019. The revision process included a review of the
natural hazards that could impact the City and ensuring the related appendices were in place.
The revision has not yet been completed due to the shifting of staff responsibilities due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
In 2019-2020, the Water Services Department was required to conduct a Risk and Resilience
Assessment and complete an Emergency Response Plan for the drinking water system in
accordance with Section 1433 of the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended by Section 2013 of
the American Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA). This assessment included natural hazards as
listed in the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan: extreme heat; flooding; severe wind.
Glendale Water Services Department also maintains various emergency response plans for the
drinking water and wastewater system as well as site-specific plans for treatment plants, well
sites, reservoirs, etc. For example, Water Services maintains an Emergency Action Plan for
the Thunderbird Park Reservoir Dam. These plans provide more specific information and
procedures than the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The City also maintains a Drought Management Plan to comply with the Arizona Department
of Water Resources’ requirements. The most recent update to this plan was completed in
2016.
Glendale Water Services is currently working on an Integrated Water Master Plan which will
consider impacts from drought to water supplies.
Information in the Hazard Mitigation Plan was leveraged during the development of the 2018
City of Glendale Transportation Plan. The hazards that could affect the transportation system
were considered during the planning process.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 35
Table 3-16: Plan integration history and future strategy for Glendale
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
City of Glendale Emergency
Operations Plan
The City of Glendale Emergency Operations Plan is currently
under revision. Planning efforts will include a review of the
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan to ensure that the
risks, goals, and objectives of the plan are adequately
addressed.
City of Glendale Capital
Improvement Program
The City of Glendale CIP plan addresses various projects over
a ten-year span. The plan is an outline for creating,
maintaining present and future infrastructure needs.
Glendale Water Services contributes projects to the City’s
CIP. Projects include the rehabilitation or replacement of
assets to improve redundancy and maintain resiliency. One
such project involves the design and installation of additional
groundwater wells to improve water supplies when drought
impacts surface water supplies.
Integrated Water Master Plan
Glendale Water Services’ Integrated Water Master Plan
(IWMP) looks at development/population growth, water
demand, and water supplies through 2055. The IWMP
complements the Hazard Mitigation Plan specific to available
water resources, including plans to improve redundancy and
resiliency of the City’s water system.
One component of the IWMP is a stormwater maintenance
plan to prevent flooding of the City’s storm sewer system.
Drought Management Plan
The City is currently updating our Drought Management Plan
(DMP) to reflect recent developments on the Colorado River
and the latest data available through SRP. The DMP
complements the Hazard Mitigation Plan related to drought
response.
Emergency Action Plan for
Thunderbird Park Reservoir
Dam
Glendale Water Services maintains an emergency action plan
in case of a breach of the reservoir/dam. This plan is reviewed
each year and updated as needed.
2018 City of Glendale
Transportation Plan
The City of Glendale’s Transportation Plan outlines the City’s
involvement in transportation planning at the regional and
sub-regional levels to assist in planning and addressing the
City’s transportation system needs. The Hazard Mitigation
Plan will be used as a reference of possible hazards for
consideration in the transportation planning process.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 36
Table 3-17: Plan integration history and future strategy for Goodyear
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
Over the past 5 years the Plan has been referenced or integrated into the following planning
mechanisms:
THREAT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS: Threat Vulnerability Assessments:
Goodyear’s Hazard Mitigation Plan has informed and promoted the process of both Water and
Wastewater Threat Vulnerability Study, which in turn informed the priority values and
potential CIP funding for both security improvements, as well as the location of additional
continuity features, such as generators.
WATER CURTAILMENT PLANNING: While not directly involved, the City is working
to update the Water Curtailment plan, which is a parallel planning document which
specifically addresses critical items within the Hazard Mitigation Plan in relation to drought.
TRAINING/EXERCISING: Several training and a full-scale exercise with the Flood
Control District of Maricopa have occurred in the last five year, ensuring that key staff were
aware of the Emergency Response Plan for Bullard Wash (flooding), understood actions to be
taken, practiced evacuation route planning in coordination with Street closures, public
information and mass communication through the CENS system. Real storm activity
reinforced the ability to activate WEA during a high wind event.
WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE: The Community Wildfire Protection Plan identified
the Estrella community in the southern portion of the city, as being within the Wildland Urban
Interface (WUI). Mitigation efforts resulted in a debris clean-up day and the community’s
qualification for Firewise for one year. Program requirement changed, as did HOA
leadership, but Goodyear plans to continue to work with the HOA in relation to reducing
wildland fire hazards in Corgett Wash.
EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Goodyear routinely, either through citywide
communications and social media platforms, informs the public of preparedness, weather
events, safety information on a variety of hazards within the city.
INTERNAL COMMMUNICATIONS: Goodyear Emergency Manager is responsible for
monitoring forecasts and promoting messages to over 70 key staff regarding incoming
weather, implications, and potential actions to mitigate damage (as possible). This
communication distribution list (DL) is also used to collect and report storm damage. This
can then be used to identify repetitive damage and proactive measures in which to mitigate
when and where possible. It is also often used to prompt external communications as noted
above.
ORDINANCES: The City of Goodyear has a weed abatement program which includes an
enforcement component.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESSES: Goodyear planning processes include
DFIRM maps and the identification of floodway and floodplain for development, as well as
the most current building codes.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 37
Table 3-17: Plan integration history and future strategy for Goodyear
City of Goodyear General
Plan
The City’s general plan provides long-term guidance to the
City’s growth. The Hazard Mitigation will be but one
document which will inform the update of the General Plan in
terms all types of growth planning, from land use designations
to additional CIP projects if appropriate.
Curtailment and
Conservation Plan
Currently in the process of update, the Hazard Mitigation plan
will also be considered (and ideally referenced) within the
plan.
Emergency Operations Plan
A comprehensive Emergency Operations Plan update is due in
2021. The Hazard Mitigation will be featured in the Specific
Annex to identify which hazard specific entries are
appropriate as well as help identify any which require the
development of Emergency Response Plans for development
and exercise.
Ordinance and Code updates
The Plan will inform the update of any new land use
development and/or building codes being updated
contemplated during the next five years. Ideally,
consideration of mitigation plans will have a direct impact
upon any updates if and as warranted.
Table 3-18: Plan integration history and future strategy for Guadalupe
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The hazard mitigation plan is referenced and is considered in any ongoing construction for
both residential and commercial.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Town of Guadalupe
Emergency Operation Plan
The Town of Guadalupe’s EOP is planning for response to
and mitigation to potential disasters.
Building Plan Review Building plans are reviewed to be compliant with location,
elevation, and drainage codes.
Building codes Building codes are to be review and updated.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 38
Table 3-19: Plan integration history and future strategy for Litchfield Park
The City of Litchfield Park has incorporated references to hazard mitigation into the General
Plan that was reviewed and amended in 2020. The Wildfire protection plan was reviewed and
updated to reflect protection to buildings and other properties both municipal and private. The
City Emergency Operations Plan was reviewed and the Hazardous Material and mitigation
plans were brought into line with the NIMS format. Ground water protection plan was
reviewed and is monitored on a monthly basis by an independent engineering firm to make
sure our City’s groundwater is not being contaminated by a potential source of hazardous
waste from a nearby property. This monitoring companies report its findings to the City
monthly.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
City of Litchfield Park
General Plan
The LP General Plan was reviewed and adopted in 2010 and
then Amended in 2020.
The plan addressed the need to protect our residents from
hazards that would affect the City’s environment and
community wellbeing.
Environmental impacts do not respect municipal boundaries.
Nevertheless, local policy should support efforts to improve
and achieve a wholesome, healthful environment.
Maintaining efforts to protect the City’s water supply is
paramount to keeping a safe living environment.
Clean water, air and land are high priorities for maintaining
the community’s healthful, outdoor lifestyle. Citizens
appreciate serenity, and expect protection from negative
impacts on well-being caused by non-compatible land uses,
nuisances, hazardous activity, overly bright unshielded
lighting, and vehicular noise and congestion.
OBJECTIVES
• Continue local efforts to maximize opportunities for
recycling, hazardous materials disposal, community
cleanup events, enhanced property maintenance and
dust control. Consider and initiate partnerships with
neighboring communities as opportunities are
presented.
• Monitor external environmental impacts on the
community, such as water table contamination and air
quality.
City Ordinance Updates
City ordinances are reviewed and amended as needed. Spend
time reviewing all ordinances that address Hazardous
materials or safety to the community.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 39
Table 3-19: Plan integration history and future strategy for Litchfield Park
Community Wildfire
Protection Plans
Review the Regional Community Wildfire Protection Plans as
it pertains to the City of Litchfield Park. Review City
ordinances that require grass and weed abatement to reduce
fuel sources for fire. This was recently reviewed and revised.
Schedule a review every year and amend as needed.
Annual review of Emergency
Operations Plan , EOP
Review plan and amend as needed for sections that address all
Hazard Mitigation Procedures.
Table 3-20: Plan integration history and future strategy for Maricopa County
(Unincorporated)
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
Integration or reference to the 2015 Plan were accomplished with the following efforts.
• Update and review of the Flood Control Comprehensive Plan. Completed in 2020.
Integration of mitigation projects between the two plans.
• Maricopa County has incorporated references to the Hazard Mitigation Plan into its
Emergency Operations Plan, which is updated and approved by the Board of
Supervisors annually.
• The Community Wildfire Protection Plan was reviewed and updated in 2020 with
integration of mitigation projects between both plans.
• Update and review of the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Plan. Completed in
2017. Plan is updated every 5 years. Integration of mitigation projects between the two
plans.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
The CWPP identifies actions that will reduce the risk of
wildfires to communities within the wild land urban interface
zones. The plan was updated in 2020 and the Plan will be
referenced with any future updates.
Emergency Operation Plan
The EOP identifies response and recovery actions in Maricopa
County. The EOP is reviewed and updated annually and will
include integration of risk assessment data from the Plan.
Transportation Improvement
Plan
The TIP identifies transportation related projects within a 5
year plan. The TIP is updated annually and reference to the
Plan will be made with each update.
Capital Improvement Plan
(Flood, MCDOT, County)
The CIPs for each of the various agencies within the county
are typically reviewed and updated annually. Integration of
mitigation actions and projects between the CIPs and the Plan
will be part of the process.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 40
Table 3-21: Plan integration history and future strategy for Mesa
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The timing of the Emergency Operations Plan and the general plan do not align optimally.
The previous EOP was adopted following the last general plan update, therefore integration
and updating of policies and strategies is constrained.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
General Plan
Per Arizona State Statue, municipalities are required to update
their general plans every 10 years. Mesa’s 2040 General Plan
was adopted in 2014 and is required to be updated by 2024.
The plan will include policy and strategies for hazard
mitigation, resiliency planning, and public safety. Items
identified in the Emergency Operation Plan will be
incorporated into these sections and possibly other appropriate
places within the general plan.
Table 3-22: Plan integration history and future strategy for Paradise Valley
Paradise Valley is no longer participating in this Plan
Table 3-23: Plan integration history and future strategy for Peoria
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
In the past five years, the City of Peoria has worked with Maricopa County Department of
Emergency Management to ensure that the hazard mitigation plan is maintained and updated
as necessary.
In addition, when possible, the City has worked whenever possible to incorporate the hazard
mitigation plan components into our normal business process. These include the review and
updating of Codes and Regulations within the City.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Flood Response Plan The City will work with Maricopa County Flood Control to
update the Flood response plan
Emergency Operation Plan
(EOP)
The Emergency Operation Plan was been updated and will be
taken to Council for their approval pending the removal of
proclamation number 1 for COVID response.
Departmental Plans City departments will continue to update any internal plans
and/or Public plans as necessary.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 41
Table 3-24: Plan integration history and future strategy for Phoenix
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The City of Phoenix Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) addresses the City’s hazard and threat
environment, including natural, technological, and human-caused emergencies or disasters.
The Continuity of Operations Plan establishes policy and guidance to ensure the execution of
the essential functions for the City of Phoenix in the event that an emergency threatens or
incapacitates operations; and the relocation of selected personnel and functions of any
essential facilities are required. Specifically, this plan is designed to ensure that the City of
Phoenix is prepared to respond to emergencies, recover from them, and mitigate against their
impacts.
The Floodplain Management Plan is an overall strategy of programs, projects and measures
aimed at reducing the adverse impacts of flood hazards on the community. This plan identifies
flood risks, their impact on the community, and a prioritized action plan for reducing flood
risks. The National Flood Insurance Program requires the city to review this plan annually.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
City of Phoenix Emergency
Operations Plan
The City of Phoenix Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)
addresses the City’s hazard and threat environment, including
natural, technological, and human-caused emergencies or
disasters.
Continuity of Operations
Plans
The Continuity of Operations Plan establishes policy and
guidance to ensure the execution of the essential functions for
the City of Phoenix in the event that an emergency threatens
or incapacitates operations; and the relocation of selected
personnel and functions of any essential facilities are required.
Specifically, this plan is designed to ensure that the City of
Phoenix is prepared to respond to emergencies, recover from
them, and mitigate against their impacts.
Floodplain Management Plan
The Floodplain Management Plan is an overall strategy of
programs, projects and measures aimed at reducing the
adverse impacts of flood hazards on the community. This plan
identifies flood risks, their impact on the community, and a
prioritized action plan for reducing flood risks. The National
Flood Insurance Program requires the city to review this plan
annually.
Capital Improvement
Program
The City’s capital improvement Program details projects and
funding for identified risks, goals, and mitigation efforts
referenced in the hazard mitigation plan.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 42
Table 3-25: Plan integration history and future strategy for Queen Creek
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The current Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MCMJHMP) was
reviewed on an annual basis. Staff from the Fire and Medical Department, Public Works
Department, and the Development Services Department consulted to update the current list of
mitigation actions and projects. The updated document was submitted to the Maricopa
County Department of Emergency Management (MCDEM).
Fire and Medical Department staff also would review the list of mitigation actions and
projects when the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) guidance was issued annually.
This was done to determine if any of the projects would be a viable candidate for submittal to
the HMGP.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Emergency Response Plan
(EOP)
The Town’s Emergency Response Plan (EOP) provides a
guide to how the community will respond to a disaster
incident. The risk data may be utilized as one of the
appendices to the EOP.
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan (CWPP)
The risk data from the community wildfire protection plan
serves as the basis of the hazard mitigation plan.
Capital Improvement
Program (CIP)
The hazard mitigation plan can be utilized to inform and guide
the submittal and funding of projects on an annual basis. This
can occur both in the Town’s CIP and outside partners such as
Salt River Project (SRP) and the Flood Control District of
Maricopa County.
Community Risk Assessment
The Fire and Medical Department has developed a
Community Risk Assessment to identify all of the hazards
that may impact the community. The hazards may include
train derailments, airplane crashes and natural hazards. The
Hazard Mitigation Plan data can be incorporated into this
document when it is updated.
Table 3-26: Plan integration history and future strategy for Salt River Pima Maricopa
Indian Community
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The Salt River Indian Community incorporated the Emergency Operations Plan and the Tribal
Emergency Response Commission planning process to further support hazard mitigation in an
All Hazards environment. In addition, other supporting documents such as the Tribal
Communities Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA) and Office of
Emergency Communications (OEC) Tribal Communications Profile were utilized to support
on-going efforts to further incorporate into the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 43
Table 3-26: Plan integration history and future strategy for Salt River Pima Maricopa
Indian Community
Storm Water Study
Elements of this plan will be integrated into the SRPMIC
Storm Water Study and the development of Master Plans for
storm water management.
Transportation Plan
The Public Works Department has plans to develop a Tribal
Transportation Plan. The Plan components will be a
consideration in that plan development.
SRPMIC Tribal Emergency
Response Commission
(TERC)
The overall governing body for the Emergency Management
Program is the SRPMIC TERC. This plan once completed
will be reviewed by that Commission so that their planning
efforts consider elements of the Plan.
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Elements of the current plan will be integrated into operations
within identified community stakeholder departments to
further mitigate wildfire hazards within the Tribal community.
Emergency Operations Plan
Elements of the plan to manage projects in an All-hazard
environment will further test capabilities through planning;
equipment purchases; and training & exercises. Components
of the plan include but are not limited to Mass Care,
Volunteer Management, Logistics and Supply Chain
Management, Operational Communications, and Public
Health.
Table 3-27: Plan integration history and future strategy for Scottsdale
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The city of Scottsdale continues to strive for all integration of all emergency plans. This
integration will allow a multidisciplinary approach to preparing for, responding to, recovery
and mitigation efforts from emergency and disaster events. The intent is to create structured
effort that minimizes impact and increase efficiency. Coinciding with the update of the 2016
plan is the update of the city’s Emergency Operation Plan, Community Wildfire Protection
Plan, Continuity of Operations Plan, Local Emergency Planning Committee, and the Storm
Water Working group. The goal has been to integrate hazard mitigations strategies into city
and functional plans and demonstrate value added into zoning laws and codes.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Scottsdale Emergency
Operations Plan (EOP)
Scottsdale’s “all hazard” approach to dealing with a range of
emergencies. Provides the structure and processes that the city
utilizes to respond to and initially recover from an event. The
Plan identifies for planning purposes key threats known to the
City of Scottsdale.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 44
Table 3-27: Plan integration history and future strategy for Scottsdale
Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC)
Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to
Know Act this committee must develop an emergency
response plan and provide information about chemicals in the
community to citizens. The Plan ties into this planning by
identifying Tier 1 and Tier 2 storage of chemicals.
Continuity of Operations
Plan (COOP)
The Plan establishes priorities and procedures to sustain vital
operations and services during a disaster event. The Plan
provides the historical and potential emergencies to be
prepared for.
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan (CWPP)
The Plan identifies at risk communities within or near the
wildland/urban interface. The Plan provides historical
evidence for mitigation of fires within the wildland/urban
interface.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 45
Table 3-28: Plan integration history and future strategy for Surprise
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
Public Works Department -
The Public Works Department has incorporated the current hazard mitigation plan into the
Municipal Code and the Engineering Development Standards (EDS). Engineering staff uses
both the code and the EDS to identify potential hazards and provided comments to
development applicants to mitigate potential issues/threats.
Water Resource Management Department-
The recommendations associated with the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan were incorporated
into the following Council approved documents and policies:
1. Water Resource Capital Improvement Plan
2. Utility Rate Study
3. Water & Wastewater Utility Guidelines and Standards
4. SCADA Guidelines & Standards
Water & Wastewater Site Security Enhancements
Fire Medical Department -
The Surprise Fire-Medical Department (SFMD) utilized information within the 2015 Hazard
Mitigation Plan to assist with the creation of the following documents: 2015 Certificate of
Necessity (CON), 2019 Standards of Cover / Community Risk Assessment (SOC/CRA), and
the 2020 SFMD Strategic Plan.
Each of these documents was presented and approved by the City of Surprise (COS) City
Council. Additionally, the 2015 CON was responsible for the newly created ambulance
division with the SFMD. Lastly, the 2019 SOC/CRA and the 2020 Strategic Plan were vital
to the SFMD becoming an Internationally Accredited Fire Department from the Center for
Public Safety Excellence (CPSE). The SFMD became Accredited in early March of 2020.
Community Development Department-
None. While the City’s General Plan 2035 incorporates general planning mechanisms and
language throughout which is intended to guide the City’s safe development, the General Plan
2035 was developed prior to the City’s comprehensive hazard mitigation plan and so the
hazard mitigation plan is not specifically incorporated into the General Plan, or mentioned by
reference. The City’s General Plan 2035 is located online at
https://www.surpriseaz.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18530/General-Plan-2035?bidId=.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
City of Surprise Capital
Improvement Plan (PW)
City staff will research and identify available funding sources
for hazard mitigation projects.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 46
Table 3-28: Plan integration history and future strategy for Surprise
City of Surprise Engineering
Development Standards
(PW)
The city continually reviews the Engineering Development
Standards (EDS) for update opportunities. The EDS provides
guidelines to the development community that help mitigate
hazard risks.
City of Surprise Municipal
Code (PW)
The Public Works Department continually coordinates with
the Community Development Department to update the Land
Development portion of the Municipal Code. This section of
the code specifies regulations that help mitigate hazard risks,
such as flooding.
Integrated Water Master Plan
Update (WRM)
The Integrated Master Plan Update will include elements
identified in the 2021 plan related to the Utility’s critical
infrastructure.
America’s Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018
Analysis (WRM)
The City is required to comply with the AWIA Risk
Assessments by December 31, 2021. The recommendations
identified in the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be implemented
into this plan if not previously identified.
Water, Stormwater, Sewer
Utility Rate Study (WRM)
If the recommendations of the 2021 identify capital
improvements, our 2024 utility rate study would incorporate
these projects.
City of Surprise General Plan
(CD)
The City’s General Plan is the guiding document for the short
and long-term development of the City and incorporates
planning mechanisms and language throughout which is
intended to guide the City’s safe development. The plan,
which was last revised in 2019, undergoes a major update
every 10 years. Future editions will incorporate or contain
specific reference to the City’s hazard mitigation plan.
General Plan 2035- City of
Surprise
The General Plan 2035 provides long term guidance as it
relates to the City’s expected growth. The general plan
references risks unique to the City of Surprise described in the
2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan including wildfire risks, and the
high potential for flash flooding in Northern portions of
Surprise.
Capital Improvement Plans
Future Capital Improvement Plans created by the SFMD
reference will utilized the 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan as it
relates to future growth, fire station placement, needs
assessments & managing risk with the COS.
Wildfire Protection Plans
The 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) will assist the
SFMD with the creation of Wildfire Protection Plans by
identifying areas in Surprise that have experienced rapid
residential growth that are located in the urban interface.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 47
Table 3-29: Plan integration history and future strategy for Tempe
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The City of Tempe Public Works-Engineering/Principal Civil Engineer has completed a
Storm Drain Management Study in the past plan cycle. This plan outlines projects based on
flood protection. The highest rank projects have been worked on and projects will continue to
be programmed into Tempe’s 5-year and will be built and constructed as funding is available.
The current Emergency Operations Plan updated September 2019 references the MCMJHMP
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Long-Term Asset
Management Plan
The City of Tempe’s Long-Term Asset Management Plan
addresses the risks, goals and mitigation projects referenced in
the hazard mitigation plan. The Well Asset Maintenance and
New Production will add new groundwater production and
recovery well capacity to the Tempe municipal system for
back-up water production, supplemental drought supply water
quality blending, and emergency preparedness.
Tempe’s Climate Action
Plan
The Climate Action Plan recommends that Tempe invest in
neighborhood facilities that can act as community hubs as a
hazard mitigation measure during emergencies. The EnVision
hub will provide Human Services programs 365 days a year
and will have the capacity and infrastructure to serve residents
with limited incomes as a neighborhood resource during a
disaster as part of a whole community-based approach to
emergency management.
Urban Forest Master Plan
The Urban Forest Master Plan includes a tree and shade
canopy coverage performance measure to mitigate the effects
of extreme heat in the City of Tempe. It is the City of
Tempe’s goal to achieve a citywide 25% tree and shade
canopy by 2040.
Tempe’s Multi-Year
Training and Exercise Plan
The City of Tempe is in the process of completing a
comprehensive Hazard Vulnerability Analysis (HVA) to
include hazardous materials, human hazards, technological
and natural hazards. We will complete the analysis on an
annual basis. The top three hazards identified will become the
priority focus of our Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 48
Table 3-30: Plan integration history and future strategy for Tolleson
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The 2015 Plan was used in the development of plans for the new City Hall building and
Aquatic Center, with construction to begin this year. Additionally, the Plan was referenced in
the update and revision of City Ordinances, including the recently adopted Fireworks
Ordinance.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Emergency Operation Plan Plan to identify response and recovery actions in Tolleson.
Annual updates.
Annual Capital Improvement
Programs
Plan to fund and implement construction projects to mitigate
identified deficiencies in local flood protection, transportation
corridors, and emergency operations.
Ordinance Updates or
Revisions
Revisions to City Codes, as needed, to mitigate or improve
shortcomings in current codes regarding public health, safety,
and welfare.
Table 3-31: Plan integration history and future strategy for Wickenburg
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
Over the past 5 years, the plan has been referenced and considered in development activities
and in response emergencies throughout the jurisdiction. The Town of Wickenburg also used
the 2015 Plan as a reference in updates and amendments to the Emergency Operation Plan,
the Town General Plan, Town Codes and Ordinances, and in prioritizing projects within the
ICIP.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Capital Improvement Project
Plans
Provide the information needed from the hazard mitigation
standpoint to identify areas where CIP funds may be utilized
in projects, i.e. infrastructure repair, transportation issues.
Emergency Operations Plan,
Town of Wickenburg
Provide template to larger scale planning, and contacts for
other municipalities that may provide assistance in the event
the Plan is activated.
Town of Wickenburg
General Plan
With updates to the General plan, having the mitigation plan
in place as a reference for overall impact of growth to the
community
Ordinance Updates or
Revisions
As the Town reviews and updates Ordinances, the mitigation
plan is used as a reference to inform decisions related to
hazard risk and risk mitigation.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 49
Table 3-32: Plan integration history and future strategy for Youngtown
Plan Integration Over the Past Plan Cycle:
The 2015 Plan was either reviewed, referenced and/or integrated with the following planning
activities for the Town of Youngtown:
• In 2014, the Youngtown General Plan 2025 was updated and approved by the voters
by an overwhelming 70%. The General Plan addressed the following:
o Circulation & Transportation – This element includes the goals, objectives, and
policies for vehicular and non-vehicular mobility throughout Youngtown and
between Youngtown and adjacent communities per the Small Area
Transportation Study that the town worked with in collaboration with the
MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments).
o Water Resources – Youngtown’s location on the east bank of the Agua Fria
River provides it with an opportunity to implement the recommendations of the
Agua Fria Watercourse Master Plan. The town continues to work with
Maricopa County on areas that have potential for flooding within the town.
o Open Space & Recreation – Town will continue to work with the City of El
Mirage, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to implement the Agua Fria River Watercourse Master
Plan.
o Environmental Planning – The town has implemented the MAG 1997 PM-10
& Carbon Monoxide Plan and in 1998, added additional measures to reduce
PM-10 particulates to continue to meet air quality standards.
• The town has also worked with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County to
determine appropriate actions to prevent flooding and development within the Agua
Fria 100-year floodplain.
Plan Integration Strategy for Next Five Years:
Planning Mechanism Description of Planning Mechanism Opportunity
Commercial Development
Checklist
Each new development is required to complete a
comprehensive review outlining the possible effect on the
town’s mitigation plan in conjunction with the growth to the
community.
Flooding Resilience Planning
The town has identified streets that are prone to flooding and
has applied for flood control assistance with Maricopa County
in order to prevent street flooding and potential residential
flooding.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 50
Table 3-32: Plan integration history and future strategy for Youngtown
Transportation Planning
The town has developed a transportation policy. The plan
includes integration of pedestrian/bicycle non-motorized
transportation into existing corridors in a safe manner;
determined improvements and developed a plan to address
residents’ needs, address local and regional mobility, and
consider access-management issues, while understanding the
values and future transportation needs of our community.
Developed a comprehensive transportation master plan,
identified a prioritized project list for short-term and long-
term investments. Public input meetings, dialogue and
involvement in the plan, was received to ensure the policy
reflects the vision of the town residents and businesses.
Bike/Pedestrian Path was another key component of the study
for Youngtown to become a more walkable community.
Ordinances – Updates or
Revisions
Ongoing collaboration between town council, town
management and staff and the town clerk’s office
Design Review Board
The Town of Youngtown provides information on potential
development from the hazard mitigation standpoint to identify
areas where development may impact infrastructure,
transportation issues, etc.
3.6.3 Plan Incorporation Process
Each jurisdiction has particular processes that are followed for officially
incorporating and adopting planning documents and tools. Many of the processes and
procedures are similar for jurisdictions with comparable government structures.
In general, planning documents prepared by the various departments or
divisions of a particular jurisdiction are developed using an appropriate planning
process that is overseen and carried out by staff, with the occasional aid of consultants.
Each planning process is unique to the plan being developed, but all usually involve
the formation of a planning or steering committee, and have some level of
interagency/stakeholder coordination within the plan’s effective area. Public
involvement may also be incorporated when appropriate and depending on the type of
plan. New or updated plans are usually developed to a draft stage wherein they are
presented to the respective governing body for initial review and comment. Upon
resolution and address of all comments, which may take several iterations, the plans
are then presented to the governing body for final approval and official adoption.
Integration or reference to the Plan into these various processes will be
accomplished by the active participation of the MJPT PPOC representative(s) from
each jurisdiction, in the other planning teams or committees to ensure that the Plan risk
assessment, goals, and mitigation A/Ps are integrated and/or incorporated into the
planning mechanism as appropriate.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 51
Table 3-33 provides a summary of standard operating procedures that each of
the participating jurisdictions follow when considering and incorporating official
planning mechanisms, and how they apply to integration of the Plan.
Table 3-33: Jurisdictional standard operating procedures for integration of planning
mechanisms
Jurisdiction Description of Plan Integration Standard Operating Procedures
Avondale
The General Plan follows Arizona Revised Statute for public processes, legal
notifications, public hearings, and public vote steps to approve a General Plan. The
Development & Engineering Services Department’s Planning Division manages the
General Plan process, update, written documentation, etc. collaborating with various
City departments and staff. The proposed updates typically are presented to the City
Council in a Work Session and Planning Commission in a Work Session followed by
a formal approval process and public ballot vote. The General Plan was adopted in
August 2012 and includes a Safety Element with the following information. This
information will be updated for the 2022 General Plan update along with the goals
and policies related to it.
In general, planning documents are prepared by a particular department in the City by
staff to a final draft stage and presented to the city council in a study work session for
review and comment. Final approval and official adoption of any planning document
or mechanism is normally done using a formal resolution process through the City
Council.
Buckeye
The Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MCMJHMP) was
developed by City staff through a consultant hired by the Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management (MCDEM). The final draft of the
MCMJHMP will be reviewed by the City staff with input from the City Attorney and
then placed on a City Council Agenda for their review and discussion. This will
occur either during their Work Study Session or Regular Session. The MCMJHMP
can be accepted by the City Council through their adoption of a resolution.
The MCMJHMP will be distributed to the Public Works and Development Services
Departments and utilized in future planning documents where appropriate.
Carefree
The town’s General Plan is vetted through a series of public open houses to outline
and gain acceptance of all facets of the Plan prior to consideration and deliberation of
the Planning and Zoning Commission and town council. The Planning and Zoning
Commission typically holds numerous public meetings to further discuss and vet the
plan prior to forwarding their recommendation to the town council. Upon
recommendation from the commission, the town council considers the General Plan
or any proposed update/change to the plan. Throughout this extensive review
process, if relevant, additional items related to the Hazard Mitigation Plan can be
added.
Cave Creek
The Town of Cave Creek Planners, as well as Department Directors, frequently
prepare planning documents that are reviewed at a Department Director level and
then are further reviewed by the Town Manager. Many of those documents are
further vetted through committees comprised of elected officials and commissioners
as well as by town residents. The Final Drafts are then frequently presented to the
Town Council for review and adoption often times via resolution. The Maricopa
County Multi-Jurisdictional, Hazard Mitigation Plan shall be reviewed and as
appropriate it shall be incorporated into future planning documents as it pertains to
the Town of Cave Creek. The Town of Cave Creek staff will actively participate in
the drafting and updating of planning documents for The Town of Cave Creek.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 52
Chandler
Planning documents are created through a variety of means, including consultant and
internal/ regional committee. The City of Chandler utilizes a process for planning
document approval. All documents will have an official council memo and resolution
assigned. These documents along with the resolution will be presented to mayor and
council during a designated session. Resolution will be adopted or denied based on
council vote. Adopted resolutions are then signed by the clerk’s office, city attorney,
and mayor.
The Plan, when completed, will follow the process described above. This will lead to
formal city adoption of the plan and ensure the plans’ usefulness over the next
planning period.
El Mirage
General planning documents prepared by all departments for the City of El Mirage
are developed by staff to a final draft stage and presented to the city council in a
study work session for review and comment. Final approval and official adoption of
any planning document or mechanism is normally done using a formal resolution
process through the City Council. The Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan will be reviewed and as appropriate, incorporated into future
planning documents and mechanism by the active participation of members of the
City of El Mirage Mitigation Planning Team members in the development or update
of those plans and mechanisms.
Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation
General planning documents in the Nation are prepared by departments and staff
members of these departments specific to their area of responsibility and combined
into a final document. The planning document is presented to the Tribal Council for
discussion and approval. Included in the presentation of the planning document as an
Action Item on the council agenda is a formal resolution.
The multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan will be reviewed, and as appropriate,
incorporated into future planning documents for the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
by the members of the Nation’s Hazard Mitigation Planning team.
Fountain Hills
The Town of Fountain Hills staff researches, develops, and presents its planning
documents to the Town Council for discussion, comment, and approval. The
Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be reviewed, and
brought before the Town Council, and upon approval, will be incorporated into the
Town Planning documents as they are revised.
Gila Bend
General Plans, Capital Improvement Programs and Regional Plans (Transportation,
Land Use, etc.), Emergency Operations/Response Plans (utilities, fire, and facilities),
and Flood Mitigation Master Plans are developed by staff and outside agencies to a
final draft stage and presented to the town council in a study work session for review
and comment. Final approval and official adoption of any planning document or
mechanism is normally done using a formal ordinance/resolution process through the
public hearing and then town council.
The Plan will be reviewed and as appropriate, incorporated into future planning
documents and mechanism by the active participation of the MJPT PPOC for the
town, in the development or update of those plans and mechanisms.
Gilbert
General planning documents prepared by several departments for the Town of Gilbert
are developed by staff to a final draft stage and presented to the city council in a
study work session for review and comment. Final approval and official adoption of
any planning document or mechanism is normally done using a formal resolution
process through the Town Council. The Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan will be reviewed and as appropriate, incorporated into future
planning documents and mechanism by the active participation of members of the
Maricopa County Mitigation Planning Team members in the development or update
of those plans and mechanisms.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 53
Glendale
General planning documents are developed by staff and/or consultants to a final draft
stage. For both new and updated CIP projects, a CIP Priority Matrix is used which
includes questions regarding whether a project is designed to protect life/health/safety
and if it is included in a master plan. Projects that meet these conditions are assessed
a higher score which helps City management prioritize projects for presentation to
City Council and public workshops for consideration. For Water Services projects, in
some cases, the information is presented to the Citizen Utility Advisory Commission,
then presented to City Council in a study work session for review and comment. Final
approval and official adoption of certain planning documents or mechanisms are done
using a formal resolution process through the City Council, as appropriate.
The transportation planning process includes identifying all potential hazards and
creating mitigation measures. The hazard mitigation plan will be used as a guide in
this planning process. This process applies to capital transportation projects and
operational activities. For capital projects, this is addressed as part of the
environmental planning process. For operations, this is part of the ongoing risk
mitigation process. Transportation projects and plans are made public for citizen
review and input. The approval process involves staff review, Citizen Transportation
Oversight Commission review and recommendation that are approved through City
Council action.
The Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be reviewed and, as appropriate,
incorporated into future planning documents.
Goodyear
General planning documents prepared by all departments for the City of Goodyear
are developed by staff to a final draft stage and presented to the city council for
review and approval through a formal resolution. Once the FEMA update is
completed, this plan will go before the City Council for signatory approval and
formal resolution. Once approved locally, copies of the plan will be made available
to all Department directors and key staff for incorporation into plans, policies,
processes and protocols as appropriate. Additionally, this document will be used to
annual for consideration of any Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) or as
portions/considerations within other CIP projects as appropriate. This plan will also
be used to inform, as appropriate, the update of other large-scale plans within the city,
including, but not limited to: General Plan, Community Wildfire Protection Plan,
Capital Improvement Plan, Conservation and Curtailment plan, etc. Finally, annual
review of the Hazard Mitigation Plan will provide an opportunity to reach out to
various departments for reporting and will act, if nothing more, as a reminder of the
Hazard Mitigation Plan projects.
Guadalupe
Planning documents are prepared by staff and presented to Town Council as a final
draft for review. The Planning documents are approved through resolution by the
Town council. Hazard Mitigation plans are then reviewed and updated as directed by
program manager from the Maricopa County Department Emergency Management.
Litchfield Park
Planning documents are prepared by the appropriate staff in the department that is
proposing the planning document. A review by the City Manager or his designee is
made of each document in question. The document is sent to the City Attorney for
review and formatting. The document is placed on a City Council Agenda for
discussion, public hearing if required, and possible introduction. If the document is
introduced by the city council, then it will appear on the next city council agenda for
public hearing and adoption.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 54
Maricopa County
(Unincorporated)
General planning documents prepared by all departments within Maricopa County are
developed by staff to a final draft stage and presented to the Maricopa County Board
of Supervisors for review and final approval. Final approval and official adoption of
any planning document is done using a formal resolution process. The Maricopa
County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be reviewed and as
appropriate, incorporated into future planning documents as determined by Maricopa
County Leadership, or members of the Maricopa County Mitigation Plan Committee.
Mesa
In general, the “big picture” concepts to be incorporated into planning documents are
prepared by staff and shared with the public and city officials during a preliminary
planning stage. Through public engagement events and Board and City Council study
sessions, staff receives feedback and direction that informs the creation of the official
planning document. Once a final draft of planning documents are complete, staff
returns to Boards and City Council, via study sessions, to receive confirmation on
policy direction. Once final documents are prepared, they are presented to the
Planning & Zoning Board for their recommendation to City Council. City Council
then takes action on the proposed documents, through the adoption of Resolutions or
Ordinance.
Paradise Valley Paradise Valley is no longer participating in the Plan
Peoria
The City of Peoria plan adoption process includes the following steps. (1) The
development and/or updating of the hazard mitigation plan. (2) The plan is reviewed
by both the City Attorney Office. (3) The plan is submitted to the City Manager’s
Office. (4) The plan is then submitted to our City Council for approval and adoption.
The Maricopa County (City of Peoria) Multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan
will be reviewed by the City of Peoria on an annual basis and more frequently as
required.
Whereas appropriate the hazard mitigation plan will be used to provide guidance for
the development of city-based codes and regulations to reduce the potential damage
caused by a disaster such as a flooding event, wild land fire or other incident that
hampers the city ability to provide essentials services.
Phoenix
1. Planning documents prepared by various departments for the City of
Phoenix are developed by internal staff to a final draft stage and presented to
the Mayor and Council in a formal session for review and comment. Final
approval and official adoption of any planning document is normally done
using a formal resolution process through the City Council.
2. The City of Phoenix Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be
reviewed annually by the local planning team and updated, maintained
and/or incorporated into future planning documents by the active
participation of this local planning team.
Queen Creek
The Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MCMJHMP) was
developed by Town staff through a consultant hired by the Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management (MCDEM). The final draft of the
MCMJHMP will be reviewed by the Town staff with input from the Town Attorney
and then placed on a Town Council Agenda for their review and discussion. This
will occur either during their Work Study Session or Regular Session. The
MCMJHMP can be accepted by the Town Council through their adoption of a
resolution.
The MCMJHMP will be distributed to the Public Works and Development Services
Departments and utilized in future planning documents where appropriate.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 55
Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian
Community
General planning documents prepared by all departments for the Salt River Indian
Community are developed by staff to a final draft stage and presented to the Tribal
Council in a study work session for review and comment. Final approval and official
adoption of any planning document or mechanism is normally done using a formal
resolution process through the Tribal Council. The Plan will be reviewed and as
appropriate, incorporated into future planning documents and mechanism by the
active participation of members of the SRPMIC Mitigation Planning Team. Team
members will be involved in the formal adoption processes described above, as well
as the implementation of the plan into their respective department’s planning efforts.
Scottsdale
Planning documents and studies are usually initiated at the staff level. New plans are
typically studied and developed within the department responsible for the plan.
Existing plans are reviewed and updated based on the particular plan’s life cycle.
Once plans have been developed and edited, they are presented to council for official
approval. Wherever appropriate, the plan will be reviewed and incorporated into
future planning documents and mechanisms.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 56
Surprise
Public Works
General planning documents are typically generated by the relevant department staff
and reviewed by multiple departments and department heads in the city. Depending
on the plan type, it may be provided to the general public for input prior to formal
adoption by Council. The City of Surprise management and City Council participate
in the general planning and development process. The Plan is placed on the council
agenda for formal review and approval. The plan is reviewed, and as appropriate,
incorporated into future planning processes and documents. (PW)
Water Resource Management
1. The preparation of planning documents that will ultimately need the
approval of City Council are presented over the duration of the development
at work sessions for input and review. The final draft is presented and
approved by council via resolution.
The 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan will receive a similar process, keeping Council in
the loop at work sessions or other informal meetings. Once the plan is complete, it
will be adopted via resolution.
Fire Medical Department
General planning documents are prepared by city staff in each of the departments
within the City of Surprise (COS). Draft documents are reviewed internally by
multiple stakeholders. Draft plans are forwarded to the department director for
approval and subsequent presentation to the COS City Council. Some
documents/plans may also need to be reviewed by the legal department before
moving on to the City Council. The general public may have the ability to review
and provide input prior to formal adoption by COS City Council, depending on the
sensitivity of said plan.
The 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan will follow a similar route and will be formally
presented before the COS City Council for formal review and approval.
Community Development Department
Planning documents are prepared by Community Development’s Planning Division
staff and/or in close coordination with expert consultants hired to assist with the
generation of such documents (ex. City of Surprise General Plan). Planning
documents are developed by staff and/or consultants to a final draft and then
presented to the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council, or a
combination thereof for comments. Final adoption of any final planning documents
occurs through a formal resolution of the City Council. The City of Surprise Multi-
Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be reviewed and incorporated into future
planning documents, as appropriate.
Tempe
General planning documents prepared by all departments for the City of Tempe are
developed by staff and outside consultants to a final draft stage and presented to the
city council in a study work session for review and comment. Depending on the
document, the action of the city council may include:
• Council review only,
• Council review and formal adoption via a resolution process, or
• Council review with a recommendation to promulgate via a general
public ballot measure/approval.
All planning processes typically require a review of available reference material and
plans, which will include but not be limited to the MCMJHMP. Staff serving on the
Local Planning Team are often involved in other planning processes and will provide
context and a nexus to the MCMJHMP.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 57
Tolleson
General planning documents developed by city staff are presented to the city council
for review and approval. Depending upon the complexity and/or breadth of the
document or the plan, work study meetings or public hearings may be incorporated
into the process. Final approval and official adoption of any document, policy, or
mechanism is normally completed through a formal resolution process of the City
council.
Wickenburg
Plans are developed by the department heads with help from other departments,
depending on what details are needed within the document. The plan will be
reviewed by the Town Manager’s office and Town Clerk’s office, prior to going to
legal department for review. The legal department will provide further guidance and
editing, then send plan back to department head for final review and move forward to
council. The town council will then adopt the plan as a resolution during a regular
council meeting. The plan will then stay on file with the town clerk and appropriate
departments.
Youngtown
Each development project is required to go through a formal pre-application process
at which time the applicant will receive comments from various departments within
the town. The comments generated by staff will include all aspects of development
including the Plan as it relates to their perspective project. Comments generated by
staff must be included in the design of the project prior to the formal approval.
The town’s General Plan was formulated with the input of key community
stakeholders, which included APS, Southwest Gas, EPCOR Water, Sun City Fire
District, El Mirage, Surprise, Phoenix, Peoria, Sun City and Sun City West, the
Arizona Commerce Authority and many others. Public meetings were held to
provide input from our residents and business community. Planning and Zoning
hearing was held and consideration by council, before going to vote in the General
Election in November 2014. Voters approved the plan by a vote of 70%.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 58
[This page is purposely blank]
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 59
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 9,224 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 at 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
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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 60
(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 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 Airport Weather Service Forecast Office (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 mid-September. 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.
3 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html
4 Office of the State Climatologist for Arizona, 2004. https://azclimate.asu.edu/
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 61
Figure 4-1: Map of general features for Maricopa County
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 62
Figure 4-2: Daily Temperatures and Extremes for Carefree Station, Arizona
Figure 4-3: Daily Temperatures and Extremes for Gila Bend Station, Arizona
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 63
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 WSFO AP Stations. It is noteworthy that average
annual precipitation more than doubles from the lower elevation of the county to the
upper regions.
Figure 4-5: Monthly climate summary for the Carefree Station, Arizona
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 64
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
4.2.3 Population
Maricopa County is home to more than half of Arizona’s overall population,
with the 2019 count estimated at 4.5 million people. 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. Since the economic crash of 2008,
growth within the county, in general, slowed significantly, with a moderate 5.0 percent
growth over the 2010 to 2014 period. More recently Maricopa County has become the
fastest-growing county in the United States, with more than 81,000 people added
between July 2017 – 2018. Table 4-1 summarizes 2010 and 2019 jurisdictional
population statistics for Maricopa County communities and the county as a whole. The
county population is projected to exceed 4.5 million by the year 2020. Figure 4-8 is a
map prepared by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) that illustrates
2010 population densities for the county.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 65
Table 4-1: Summary of jurisdictional population estimates for Maricopa County
Jurisdiction
Total Population Percent Change Share
April 1,
2010
(Census
2010)
July 1,
2019 Change Overall Annual
Share of
Growth
Share of
County
Apache Junction* 294 322 28 9.52% 0.99% 0.01% 0.01%
Avondale 76,238 84,595 8,357 10.96% 1.13% 1.52% 1.94%
Buckeye 50,876 81,624 30,748 60.44% 5.40% 5.58% 1.87%
Carefree 3,363 3,771 408 12.13% 1.25% 0.07% 0.09%
Cave Creek 5,015 5,834 819 16.33% 1.65% 0.15% 0.13%
Chandler^ 236,326 266,804 30,478 12.90% 1.32% 5.53% 6.11%
El Mirage 31,797 34,359 2,562 8.06% 0.84% 0.46% 0.79%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 971 1,043 72 7.42% 0.78% 0.01% 0.02%
Fountain Hills 22,489 24,225 1,736 7.72% 0.81% 0.32% 0.55%
Gila Bend 1,922 2,019 97 5.05% 0.53% 0.02% 0.05%
Gila River* 2,994 3,148 154 5.14% 0.54% 0.03% 0.07%
Gilbert^ 208,352 259,386 51,034 24.49% 2.40% 9.26% 5.94%
Glendale 226,721 243,262 16,541 7.30% 0.76% 3.00% 5.57%
Goodyear 65,275 88,870 23,595 36.15% 3.39% 4.28% 2.03%
Guadalupe 5,523 6,373 850 15.39% 1.56% 0.15% 0.15%
Litchfield Park 5,476 6,811 1,335 24.38% 2.39% 0.24% 0.16%
Mesa 439,041 497,439 58,398 13.30% 3.60% 10.60% 11.39%
Paradise Valley 12,820 14,134 1,314 10.25% 1.06% 0.24% 0.32%
Peoria* 154,058 180,161 26,103 16.94% 1.71% 4.74% 4.12%
Phoenix^ 1,447,128 1,617,344 170,216 11.76% 1.21% 30.89% 37.02%
Queen Creek* 25,912 46,271 20,359 78.57% 6.47% 3.69% 1.06%
Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian
6,289 6,808 519 8.25% 0.86% 0.09% 0.16%
Scottsdale 217,385 247,944 30,559 14.06% 1.43% 5.55% 5.68%
Surprise 117,517 136,194 18,677 15.89% 1.61% 3.39% 3.12%
Tempe 161,719 188,616 26,897 16.63% 1.68% 4.88% 4.32%
Tolleson 6,545 7,085 540 8.25% 0.86% 0.10% 0.16%
Wickenburg 6,363 7,797 625 9.82% 1.02% 0.11% 0.18%
Youngtown 6,156 6,599 443 7.20% 0.75% 0.08% 0.15%
Balance of County^ 272,552 299,806 27,524 10.10% 1.04% 5.00% 6.86%
Totals 3,817,117 4,368,644 550,988 14.43% 1.46% 100.00% 100.00%
NOTES:
- Totals may not add due to rounding
- * Maricopa County portion only
- ^ Census 2010 counts adjusted to reflect Census Count Question Resolutions
- Approved by the Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Council, December 4, 2019
Sources:
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 66
Source: MAG, 2013, Municipal Planning Area Socioeconomic Profiles Maricopa County, Arizona.
Figure 4-8: 2010 population density for Maricopa County
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 67
4.2.4 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 a rate of about four times the national average. U.S. Census (American Community
Survey) data indicate median household income for the period of 2015 to 2019 to be
$64,468 and per capita income for the same period of $33,279.
As of January, 2021 5, the unemployment rate stands at 6.8 percent with a total
non-farm employed labor force of over 2.05 million. Total revenue from sales exceeds
$4.67 billion. For 2020, a total of 39,693 residential building permits were issued.
Figure 4-9 is a map prepared by MAG that shows employment densities across the
county for the year 2010.
5 University of Arizona – Eller Economic & Business Research Center, 2015, URL at: http://azeconomy.org/data/economic-
indicators/maricopa-county/
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 68
4.2.5 Development Trends for Unincorporated Maricopa County
Over the past five years residential development in unincorporated Maricopa
County has been very low. The largest development in unincorporated Maricopa
County has occurred along the I-17 in the Anthem area, and in western Maricopa
County along the recently completed SR303.
Over the next five years development will continue in areas near the SR303 and
in northern Maricopa County specifically, the Anthem area.
4.3 Jurisdictional Overviews
The following are brief overviews for each of the participating jurisdictions in the Plan.
With this update, the socioeconomic details for each jurisdiction have been modified to include
projections into 2030 and clarify the population estimates for the current jurisdictional
boundary and the municipal planning area (MPA) which is the geographical limit that the
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) uses for the housing and employment statistics.
Population and employment statistics are obtained from the latest MAG socioeconomic
projections report 6. Housing projections are obtained from comprehensive socioeconomic
profiles developed by MAG in 2013 7. For further socioeconomic details for each jurisdiction,
the reader is referred to the MAG website at https://www.azmag.gov/Programs/Maps-and-
Data/Community-Profiles. Excerpts from the MAG documents are provided as appropriate.
Additionally, updated development trend information provided by each jurisdiction is included
in this section.
6 MAG, 2019, Socioeconomic Projections, Population and Employment by Municipal Planning Area, Jurisdiction and
Regional Analysis Zone. Web access at: https://www.azmag.gov/Portals/0/Documents/MagContent/municipality-
population-housing-estimates-2019.pdf
7 MAG, 2013, Municipal Planning Area Socioeconomic Profiles Maricopa County, Arizona.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 69
Source: MAG, 2013, Municipal Planning Area Socioeconomic Profiles Maricopa County, Arizona.
Figure 4-9: 2010 employment concentration projections for Maricopa County
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 70
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 Gila River Native American Community is located southeast of the City.
Estrella Mountain Park is located in the southern portion of Avondale, and the Agua
Fria River bisects the City running north to south before merging with the Salt and Gila
Rivers to form the Tres Rios Nature Area.
Avondale was founded in 1900 and was 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.
Like most communities located in the greater metropolitan area, Avondale has
experienced rapid growth in both population and land area over the past 30 years. The
City of Avondale’s population grew from 16,169 in 1990 to an estimated 88,750 in
2020. Population, housing and employment statistics and projections are summarized
in Table 4-2. Currently, the City of Avondale Planning Area is 94.4 square miles,
whereas in 1990, the Planning Area was 40 square miles. The primary manmade
features that influence Avondale’s land uses include: Interstate 10, which runs east to
west across the City; a Salt River Power transmission line which runs north to south
through Avondale and turns east to west in the south-central portion of the city; and the
Roosevelt and St. Johns-Sunland Irrigation District Canals which transverse the city’s
north and south sides, respectively. The City has a well-developed Arterial Road
system north of the Estrella Mountains creating a 1-mile intersecting grid of streets.
In 2019, the
population of
Avondale was 84,595.
Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-2.
Development Trends:
The City has experienced significant land use activity over the preceding five
(5) years. During this period, key growth corridors included:
• 99th Avenue from I-10 to Van Buren Street
• McDowell Road from Avondale Blvd to 99th Avenue
Table 4-2: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Avondale
Year
Population
(Current
Limits)
Population
(MPA)
Housing
(MPA)
Employment
(MPA)
2010 76,238 77,900 27,600 14,064
2020 85,000 86,700 31,400 23,200
2030 98,600 101,800 40,000 30,400
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 71
• Van Buren Street from the new Fairway Drive freeway exit (near 127th Ave) to
99th Avenue
• Historic Avondale area – approx. Dysart and Buckeye Road
• North Avondale area – north of I-10
• South Avondale area – south of Lower Buckeye Road to the Gila River and Estrella
Mountains
• The BLVD live/work/play destination area – The west and east sides of Avondale
Blvd from I-10 to Van Buren Street
Citywide, land use development over the past five (5) years has included twelve (12)
Single-Family Residential Projects either in review, under construction or approved to
develop totaling approximately 8,431 units (platted subdivisions and townhomes);
approximately 1,274,635 square feet of Commercial Project (Retail, Restaurant,
Entertainment, Office, & Hotel) building area that is built, in review, under
construction or approved; approximately 2,844,666 square feet of Employment
Projects (Industrial, Business Parks) building area that is built, in review, under
construction, or approved; and Seven (7) Multi-Family Residential Projects
(apartments, condos) in review, under construction or approved to develop totaling
approximately 1,953 units.
Anticipated development over the next five (5) years in Avondale includes the
following:
1. Developing “The BLVD” mixed-use area off of I-10 and Avondale Blvd. to be a
major destination for Avondale; live, work, play concept. This area is planned for
urban residential multi-family densities, office, commercial retail, restaurant, and
entertainment uses.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 72
2. Continued development of vacant parcels along the McDowell Road Corridor from
Avondale Blvd. to 99th Avenue with healthcare related businesses, office, retail,
and restaurant.
3. Developing commercial corners at arterial street intersections with commercial or
other land use pending the economic needs of the area for additional commercial.
4. Development opportunities along the planned State Route 30, Gila River, and Rio
Reimagined in southern Avondale.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 73
• Focus on economic development and land use goals for new development.
• Finding the right balance of commercial retail, restaurant, and office uses at the
proposed interchanges that will transition appropriately to low density
residential and recreation areas envisioned for the area.
• Creating linkages between SR-30, recreational areas, and our core community
to the north.
• Focus on recreational opportunities along the Gila River as part of the Rio
Reimagined project.
5. Developing the land use vision and promote development in the City’s planning
area south of the Estrella Mountains.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 74
6. Employment/industrial infill development in Old Town along Elise C. Felix Jr.
Way, along Van Buren Street from 107th Avenue to 99th Avenue.
All new development will be required to connect to City water and sewer lines,
upgrade or install new lines as well as improve rights-of-ways as needed. Development
south of the Estrella Mountains will need access to water and sewer infrastructure as
none exist in the Avondale planning boundary. The adjacent City of Goodyear and
County properties have utilities and rights-of-ways that Avondale may be able to access
through a partnership/agreement. City of Goodyear has the nearby Province at Estrella
Mountain Ranch Parcel 7 (already built with stubs to utilities and streets) and two to
three master planned residential communities in the planning process to the west off
Rainbow Valley Road.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 75
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 76
Figure 4-10: Avondale location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 77
4.3.2 Buckeye
The City 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 City of Buckeye lies immediately west of the communities of
Goodyear and Surprise, as shown in Figure 4-11. 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 city’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 significant expansion of Buckeye’s
planning area.
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 City 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 residents are governed under a council-city 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 council appoints the
city manager and other officers necessary to produce an administration of the
community’s affairs.
In 2019, the
population of Buckeye
was 81,624.
Population projections
for 2020 and 2030
current corporate
limits and population,
housing, and
employment statistics
for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-3.
Development Trends:
Table 4-3: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Buckeye
Year
Population
(Current
Limits)
Population
(MPA)
Housing
(MPA)
Employment
(MPA)
2010 50,876 62,800 22,500 12,800
2020 84,100 97,700 35,800 26,900
2030 15,200 186,600 65,300 42,900
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 78
Development trends over the last five (5) years have included 12,366 Single Family
Residential (SFR) permits issued in the City of Buckeye between January 2015 and
October 2020. Figure 4-12 portrays the SFR activity for the past five years in the City
of Buckeye. The majority of the SFRs were in the following Communities:
• Verrado, Tartesso, Festival Ranch, Blue Horizons, Sienna Hills, Watson Estates,
Sundance,
• Vista de Montana, Crystal Vista, Sonoran Vista, Sonoran Vista, Canyon Views,
Arroyo Seco,
• Parkplace at Buckeye, Terra Vista, Encantada Estates, Westpark, Blue Hills, Miller
Manor,
• Miller Park and Buckeye Park.
New commercial development in the City of Buckeye was concentrated on Miller
Road and Watson Road immediately south of Interstate 10 (I-10). This has included
new retail stores, restaurants, car washes and several new hotels. Additional new
commercial development occurred along Verrado Way immediately north of Interstate
10 (I-10). This retail development has been primarily restaurants and professional
complexes, as well as a storage facility. Commercial development in the City of
Buckeye has significantly lagged new residential development due to the lack of
rooftops, which drives new commercial development.
The forecast for residential growth in the City of Buckeye is expected to
continue in Verrado, Tartesso, Festival Ranch and Westpark as well as development
starting in Spurlock Ranch, Douglas Ranch, and in subdivisions along the Apache Road
corridor and throughout Central Buckeye.
In the next five (5) years (2021-2026), 2000 Single Family Residential (SFR)
permits per year are projected, totaling 10,000 new homes and a population growth of
approximately 20,000 to 25,000 new residents. Figure 4-13 portrays the anticipated
SFR activity in the next five years in the City of Buckeye.
New commercial, retail and significant industrial development will occur on the
Miller Road and Watson Road corridors south of Interstate 10, (I-10) as well as the
Verrado Way corridor and the area east and west of Verrado Way and just south of
Interstate 10, (I-10). The industrial development will include regional distribution
facilities along with logistic centers and manufacturing opportunities.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 79
Figure 4-11: Buckeye location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 80
Figure 4-12: Buckeye SFR Activity – Past 5 Years
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 81
Figure 4-13: Buckeye master planned communities map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 82
4.3.3 Carefree
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 two years. The town council appoints
the town administrator and other officers necessary to manage the daily affairs of the
town.
In 2019,
the population of
Carefree was
3,771. Population
projections for
2020 and 2030
current corporate
limits and
population,
housing, and employment statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized
in Table 4-4.
Development Trends:
Over the past five years there have been a couple of new/approved residential
developments in Carefree, one near the northwest corner of Cave Creek and Pima
Roads and a second townhome development within the Town Center core. The
subdivision at the northwest corner contains 39 single-family homes and is complete.
The townhome development in the Town Center is under construction and will contain
Table 4-4: Population, housing and employment statistics
for Carefree
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 3,363 3,400 2,200 1,400
2020 3,800 3,800 2,600 1,600
2030 4,100 4,100 2,900 2,100
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 83
20 units when completed. Much of the other residential development within the past
five years consists of custom home development on large lots within existing
subdivided undeveloped lots. Nonresidential projects included an indoor storage
facility which was constructed at the northwest corner of Carefree Highway and Cave
Creek Road. Much of the other nonresidential development over the last five years
consisted of tenant improvements to existing commercial buildings located within the
Town Center.
Over the next five years, Carefree will experience more infill development.
Much of the land mass in Carefree has been platted for single-family homes. There
remain numerous undeveloped lots within these platted areas that will develop
overtime. Additionally, there is a growing trend to redevelop/remodel existing homes
to address today’s lifestyles and standards. There will also be an emergence in new
and redeveloped commercial buildings within the Town Center and on the edges of the
community to take advantage of eco-tourism which is becoming a more prominent part
of the local economy. To this point, on the northern edges of Carefree, north of
Ranchitos del Rey subdivision, remain undeveloped. The Town will continue to work
with our land preservation partners, the Desert Foothills Land Trust to secure and build
the Town’s own desert preserve. It is envisioned that this preserve will be expanded
over time to include sections of unincorporated land that will expand up to and around
Continental Mountain. If successful, this land preservation will enhance the Town’s
eco-tourism opportunities and mitigate the introduction of residential areas to areas
subject to wildfires and flash floods.
Within the next five years, there are several properties located on the periphery
of the community that are well positioned for commercial development. These
properties are located at major intersections and across the street from a private airport,
SkyRanch. Within the Town Center, there are numerous undeveloped properties
fronting Cave Creek Road that are prime to develop as well as the redevelopment of
economically obsolete properties within the interior. Any new development will come
with enhancement to public infrastructure which would include but not be limited water
resources, streets and storm water management.
Figure 4-15 shows a future land use map that is currently published in the
town’s General Plan.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 84
Figure 4-14: Carefree location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 85
Figure 4-15: Carefree land use planning map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 86
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. Complementing 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.
Cave Creek’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 two years. The town council appoints
the town
administrator and
other officers
necessary to manage
the daily affairs of
Cave Creeks’
residents.
In 2019, the
population of Cave
Creek was 5,834. Population projections for 2020 and 2030 current corporate limits
and population, housing, and employment statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030
are summarized in Table 4-5.
Development Trends:
Table 4-5: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Cave Creek
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 5,015 4,900 2,600 1,800
2020 5,900 6,000 3,000 2,400
2030 6,400 6,500 3,900 2,700
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 87
During the previous five (5) years, the Town of Cave Creek has expanded with
commercial development such as retail, drive-up franchise establishments, automobile
services, and emergency service. Some examples of recent commercial development
include Sprouts Grocery Store, Auto Zone, Tractor Supply Company, Dutch Bros, Sun
Devil Auto, Jiffy Lube, Chipotle, Mod Pizza, and a Micro Hospital. Most of the recent
commercial development has occurred along Carefree Highway. Additional
development over the past five (5) years has included the Windmill Village Multi-
Family development approved in 2016. This project included the rezoning of a Desert
Rural 89 property to Multi-Family for the development of 24 multi-family residential
units and is currently in the planning stages. Development over the last cycle has also
included two (2) developments in 2018: the Galloway Ridge Commercial and Single-
Family Residential Community located at the NW corner of Cave Creek Road and
School House Road which includes a residential community consisting of 70
residential units and 3.5 acres intended for commercial use and the 31 lot Venture at
Black Mountain Single-Family Residential Subdivision located at the NE corner of
Carefree Highway and 52rd Street on 12.2 acres in a Multi-Family Residential Zone.
Cave Creek anticipates commercial development to occur within the next 5
years. The area where future development will likely occur is along Carefree Highway.
Cave Creek will also be working on the possibility of adding an interconnect for fresh
water with another jurisdiction over the next five years allowing for the increased
availability of potable water.
Figure 4-17 shows a current land use map that is published in the town’s
General Plan.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 88
Figure 4-16: Cave Creek location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 89
Figure 4-17: Cave Creek land use planning map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 90
4.3.5 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 202 (Santan) Freeway passes 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.
In 2019, the
population of
Chandler was
266,804. Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-6.
Development Trends:
In the last five years, the city has experienced a steady growth of multi-family
projects averaging over 1,000 new units developed per year. The development of
single-family homes has declined from 1,200 units built in 2016 to less than 500 units
built in 2019. During this time, single family homes were developed at an average rate
of 64 homes per month. This is largely attributed to the fact that the city is at a point
of its maturity where all of the bigger parcels of land that are attractive to home builders
have been developed and most of the remaining undeveloped parcels available for
single family development are smaller infill pieces that are more desirable for medium
to high density residential projects.
Table 4-6: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Chandler
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 236,123 244,600 98,600 112,900
2020 271,300 279,500 108,200 154,700
2030 298,800 309,100 118,900 182,300
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 91
During the next five years, the city anticipates continued growth of multi-family
development in downtown and North Chandler based on recently received zoning
entitlements. These include multi-story, urban style apartments as well as single story
for rent units. Single family development is expected to continue at a lower growth
rate and will be in South Chandler.
In the Retail, Office and Industrial real estate market, Chandler has produced
over 1 million square feet in retail, over 2 million square feet in office and over 3
million square feet in industrial real estate over the last five years. Projected deliveries
over the next five years in these sectors are viewed has healthy and a repeat of the past
five years. Intel had a sizeable delivery with the 900,000 square feet Fab 42 opening
in the last year.
Figure 4-19 shows the land use planning map from Chandler’s current General
Plan 8.
8 City of Chandler, http://www.chandleraz.gov/content/GP_FutureLandUsePlan.pdf
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 92
Figure 4-18: Chandler location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 93
Figure 4-19: Chandler land use planning map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 94
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.
In 2019, the
population of El
Mirage was 34,359.
Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-7.
Development Trends:
In the last 5 years, El Mirage has had industrial growth to the southern areas of
the city. There has been minor growth with residential homes in the north east section,
but most of the growth has been the southern industrial zone. Most growth has come in
the form of manufacturing. A data storage facility has also been constructed in the
industrial zone.
The current plans for the next 5 years are the continuation of seeking industrial
and commercial growth, in the southern parts of El Mirage. There are plans for 3 story
residential, multifamily dwellings are being constructed in the north west section of the
city. Land was annexed south of the industrial zone for more industrial developments.
Table 4-7: Population, housing and employment
statistics for El Mirage
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 31,797 31,900 11,300 4,300
2020 35,100 35,100 11,800 5,100
2030 36,500 36,500 13,600 6,500
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 95
Figure 4-20: El Mirage location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 96
Figure 4-21 shows the current land use planning map for El Mirage with an
overlay of the Luke Air Force Base airport related zoning.
Figure 4-21: El Mirage land use planning map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 97
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 town is bordered by City of Scottsdale 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 north toward the Verde
River, the Salt River, and further north to Payson and the Mogollon Rim country.
The 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.
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.
In 2019, the
population of
Fountain Hills was
24,225. Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-8.
Development Trends:
Within the Town of Fountain Hills, there is a trend towards increased housing
density, particularly multifamily developments in the Town Center. Mixed use
development with ground level retail and multifamily above has recently been added
Table 4-8: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Fountain Hills
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 22,849 22,400 13,200 5,500
2020 24,700 24,700 14,600 7,700
2030 26,200 26,200 15,900 9,100
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 98
in Town. A multi-story, mixed use development was recently completed at Avenue of
the Fountains and Verde River Dr. A 147-apartment development is underway at
Avenue of the Fountains and La Montana. The development of a hospital at Saguaro
and Trevino is currently underway. There is an expansion of a major resort property
along Eagle Ridge Drive west of Palisades that is currently underway. The majority of
development continues to be single family homes. While infills occur in all areas of
town, the development of the Adero Canyon area along Eagle Ridge Drive has been
the largest single area of development.
Over the next five years, the town expects to continue with significant single
family development, primarily in the western and northwestern parts of the Town in
Adero Canyon and Eagles Nest. This is likely to include additional multifamily/higher
density housing development, particularly in the Town Center and Shea Boulevard
corridor. There is a potential for redevelopment or partial redevelopment of
commercial properties to include a mix of uses, including high density residential,
particularly along the Shea Boulevard corridor. With development of the hospital, the
trend could include further medical offices/uses. There is also potential for additional
hospitality uses as occupancy rates had been strong Pre-COVID. There is a continued
infill and redevelopment in the industrial/heavy commercial areas around Saguaro and
Panorama and Saguaro and Technology. The Town has recently processed requests
for mini-storage and RV storage in both areas.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 99
Figure 4-22: Fountain Hills location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 100
For an overall development picture, Figure 4-23 9 shows that 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 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.
Figure 4-23: Fountain Hills land use planning map
9 Town of Fountain Hills, 2010, http://www.fh.az.gov/224/Fountain-Hills-General-Plan
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 101
4.3.8 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.
In 2019, the
population of Fort
McDowell was
1,043. Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-9.
Development Trends:
Development in the nation over the last five years has been relatively active.
Over the last three years, the major development project has been the new casino. The
new casino, scheduled to open in mid to late October 2020, was built immediately west
of the existing casino and is attached to the existing hotel. Some existing structures,
both residential and governmental have also been involved in remodeling and tenant
improvement projects.
There have been seven new housing units built in the last three years. These
projects have been constructed in compliance with the development processes. The
projects have gone through a planning and review process to ensure the sites being
developed are not in a floodplain, have been assessed for any environmental impacts,
and cleared for any archeological significance or artifacts. Each of the projects has been
inspected and monitored during construction for quality assurance and code
compliance. All of these projects have been developed within the approximately 30%
area of the southwest portion of the nation which contains existing infrastructure such
as water, sewer, and electric services.
Planned development in the next 5 years includes 6 to 7 individual housing
units per year until all tribal member residential housing needs are met. These
Table 4-9: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 971 1,000 300 1,500
2020 1,100 1,100 300 2,400
2030 1,100 1,100 400 2,400
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 102
development projects will occur in pre-designated areas with existing infrastructure,
areas that are not located in a floodplain or other hazard zones and will not affect the
vulnerability of the nation. One exception to development within the existing
infrastructure would be the extension of water, sewer, and electric services to the rodeo
grounds in the south end of the nation on the east side of the Verde River.
Open space dominates most of the reservation land mass, with agricultural and
very low-density residential uses comprising the next two largest elements.
Existing land use elements for FMYN are indicated on Figure 4-25 10.
10 MAG, 2013, Municipal Planning Area Socioeconomic Profiles Maricopa County, Arizona
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 103
Figure 4-24: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 104
Figure 4-25: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation land use map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 105
4.3.9 Gila Bend
One of the few Maricopa County communities 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.
In 2019, the
population of Gila
Bend was 2,019.
Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-10.
Development Trends:
Over the past 5 years, Gila Bend has experienced limited growth in the form of
industrial, commercial, and institutional developments. Examples include a new
industrial development in the proposed industrial complex located along Butterfield
Trail near the Gila Bend Municipal Airport and a new $20 million-dollar school
constructed by the Gila Bend Unified School District servicing grades K-12, located at
777 Logan Avenue. Commercial developments included a new Pilot Flying-J Fuel
Center constructed along Butterfield Trail and a Circle K on Pima Street. No significant
residential development occurred over the past 5 years.
Over the next five (5) years, the Town will be actively seeking industrial
partners and working to bring light manufacturing facilities to the town. Gila Bend has
had several inquiries regarding medical marijuana sites, agricultural industries
(specifically shrimp farming), and solar sites. Residential development continues at a
modest rate on a single-lot basis. The Town is working to ensure that the necessary
water and wastewater infrastructure is in place to attract industry. Gila Bend is also
focused on increasing the number of hospitality facilities, specifically hotels, within
their community to meet existing demand in addition to rehabilitating the existing
historic Scouts Hotel in downtown Gila Bend.
The current land use plan for Gila Bend is shown on Figure 4-27.
Table 4-10: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Gila Bend
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 1,922 2,500 1,100 800
2020 2,200 2,700 1,200 900
2030 3,200 3,700 2,900 1,200
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 106
Figure 4-26: Gila Bend location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 107
Figure 4-27: Gila Bend land use planning map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 108
4.3.10 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 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. The town 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.
In 2019, the
population of Gilbert
was 259,386.
Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-11.
Development Trends:
Since 2015 Q2, the Town of Gilbert has added just over 4 million square-feet
of new office, retail, and industrial/flex space to the market. Nearly 94% of that growth
occurred in one of Gilbert’s four employment areas which are shown in Exhibit 1A,
with the Central Business District seeing to most growth at just over 2.6 million square
feet followed by the Gateway corridor with nearly 500,000 square feet.
Table 4-11: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Gilbert
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 208,453 212,400 76,400 74,600
2020 262,300 265,900 90,100 98,600
2030 289,200 293,500 103,800 120,200
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 109
In 2000 there were
a total of 37,007 housing
units in Gilbert, and by
2010, the housing stock
nearly doubled to 74,907.
As of 2017, the total
number of housing units
increased to 87,145. From
2015 to 2019, there have
been a total of 9,691
residential building
permits issued. Gilbert is a
primarily residential
community and of the
existing housing stock
approximately 86.5% of
housing in Gilbert is low
density, single family, and
primarily larger homes.
Only 13.5% of Gilbert’s
existing housing stock is
allocated to multi-family
development (3 or more
units per structure). As
shown in Figure 1B, the
housing growth patterns
have shifted from north to
south Gilbert overtime.
Since 2015, most of
the residential growth
has been concentrated
in the southern portion
of Gilbert, below the
202.
Exhibit 1B. Gilbert Intensity of Household Construction by Zip Code
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Exhibit 1A. Gilbert Employment Areas
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 110
Over the next 5 years, Gilbert anticipates the
largest areas for non-residential
development will continue to be the Central
Business District and the Gateway
employment area. The Central Business
District is home to Rivulon, a Nationwide
Realty Investors mixed-use development,
that covers 250 acres and anticipates over 4
million square feet of office and retail
development at full build-out. This
corridor will also be the recipient of a new
full diamond traffic interchange on
the Loop 202 freeway in Fall/Winter
2021. South of the Loop 202,
Germann Road serves as a major
corridor for several flex and light
industrial business parks and will see
the widening of Germann Road all
the way through to Val Vista Road in
2021. The Gateway employment
area is located adjacent to the
Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport and
is the location of a 300-acre parcel
zoned for employment uses and
growth. This area is a target of
business development and attraction
efforts for the economic
development team.
Residential development is projected
to steadily increase within the next 5
years. As shown in Figure 1D, the
majority of housing stock built
between 2000 and 2018 was concentrated below the Loop 202. This trend is expected to
continue in the next 5 years. Gilbert’s 2012 General Plan includes a growth area map which
shows some of these areas and is shown in Figure 4-29 11.
11 Town of Gilbert, http://www.gilbertaz.gov/departments/development-services/planning-development/general-
plan/general-plan-2012
Exhibit 1D. Gilbert Existing Housing Stock
Exhibit 1C. Gilbert Land Use
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 111
Figure 4-28: Gilbert location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 112
Figure 4-29: Gilbert growth area map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 113
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 seventh most populous community in Arizona. Growth projections for this
region show that by 2045, over 3 million Arizonans will call the West Valley home;
that’s nearly one-third of the state’s population. Glendale’s Sports and Entertainment
District is home to major economic drivers including: the Arizona Cardinals (NFL), the
Arizona Coyotes (NHL), the Los Angeles Dodgers (MLB), and the Chicago White Sox
(MLB) and plays host to numerous mega events such as the Super Bowl and major
concerts featuring top recording artists. Glendale is also the location of choice for major
employers including Bechtel, Banner Health, Red Bull, White Claw, Honeywell and
Lockheed Martin, to name a few. 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 US
Highway 60 (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.
In 2019, the
population of
Glendale was
243,262. Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-12.
Development Trends:
Development trends over the last five years in the City of Glendale have
concentrated heavily on smart growth within our targeted industries and strategic
districts as defined below.
Targeted Industries:
- Healthcare
- Advanced Business Services (Office/HQs)
Table 4-12: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Glendale
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 226,721 252,800 98,700 78,600
2020 247,800 279,100 106,000 111,400
2030 265,300 306,400 122,600 134,000
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 114
- Aerospace, Aviation and Defense
- Advanced Manufacturing
- Technology/Innovation
Strategic Districts
- Sports and Entertainment District
- New Frontier (Loop 303) District
- Downtown District
Growth in these areas/industries has been accomplished through both
significant annexation of land into the city jurisdiction and through infill development
in the mostly built out portion of the city.
In the last five years, the annexation of thousands of acres of land
predominantly in the New Frontier District, has resulted in a high volume of
industrial/manufacturing development.
Additionally, with the continued growth in the Sports and Entertainment
District, as well as prime infill opportunities citywide and consistent with market
trends, the city has experienced significant residential development activity, both in
multifamily projects and new single-family homes.
Recent locates to Glendale include North American manufacturing
headquarters for Red Bull, West Coast Manufacturing for White Claw, as well as
signature retail in the form of luxury auto dealerships including BMW. Major hospital
systems continue to expand citywide, and the city is experiencing its lowest office
vacancy rates in the single digits after welcoming large corporations including Alaska
USA Federal Credit Union.
The City of Glendale anticipates in the next five years, further development
within the city’s “New Frontier” will continue at a rapid pace, to include a large
increase predominantly in industrial/manufacturing square footage in this area.
Important to note that this area of the city is not served by city water/sewer but does
have an obligation to ensure the annexed areas are served adequately by public safety.
The City’s Sports and Entertainment District contains significant green fields
that are anticipated to continue developing over the next five years as well.
Development type in this area is expected to be predominantly office, entertainment,
experiential retail and multifamily. Infill development is expected to continue citywide
with both commercial and residential developments. In the northern portion of the city,
Arrowhead, additional luxury auto dealerships will develop and open in the next five
years, along with expansions in the healthcare industry. The city is also strategically
focused on the development of technology both as an asset/infrastructure and as an
industry. These efforts are currently focused in the Sports and Entertainment District
with intentions to leverage the strategy citywide. The 2016 General Plan land use map
is shown in Figure 4-31 12,
12 City of Glendale, http://www.glendaleaz.com/planning/documents/GlendaleLandUseMap.pdf
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 115
Figure 4-30: Glendale location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 116
Figure 4-31: Glendale land use planning map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 117
4.3.12 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 runs 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.
In 2019, the
population of
Goodyear was
88,870. Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-13.
Development Trends:
Over the past 5 years, the City of Goodyear has seen a significant increase in
development, at an average rate of approximately 20% more permits per year. All
geographic areas of Goodyear north of the Pecos Road alignment have seen significant
development over this time. More specifically, from Pecos Road Alignment to the Gila
River, significant amount of residential development and minor commercial
Table 4-13: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Goodyear
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 65,275 68,000 26,000 24,200
2020 89,400 92,100 41,700 37,200
2030 133,700 140,300 64,700 50,600
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 118
development has occurred; from the Gila River to I-10, Goodyear has had a significant
amount of Residential, Multifamily and Industrial Development, with a moderate
amount of Commercial Development occur; and from I-10 to Camelback Road, we
have had a significant amount of Industrial Development, with a moderate amount of
Residential, Multifamily and Industrial Development realized.
Over the next 5 years, it is anticipated that the current level of new development
will occur across the same spectrums and in the same geographical areas included
above. If the current trend of development is sustained, it is possible that we will see a
small to moderate increase in residential growth south of the Pecos Road alignment, as
well. The City population is anticipated to continue increasing in the next five years.
Future planned growth areas for the City are shown in Figure 4-33.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 119
Figure 4-32: Goodyear location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 120
Figure 4-33: Goodyear Growth Areas Map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 121
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 4-34.
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.
In 2019, the
population of
Guadalupe was
6,373. Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-14.
Development Trends:
Guadalupe is a land locked community. Development trends continue slowly
with infill projects. No major development or geographical changes are forecasted for
the next 5 years.
Figure 4-35 13 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.
13 MAG, 2013, Municipal Planning Area Socioeconomic Profiles Maricopa County, Arizona
Table 4-14: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Guadalupe
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 5,523 5,500 1,400 1,000
2020 6,400 6,400 1,500 1,300
2030 6,700 6,700 1,700 1,500
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 122
Figure 4-34: Guadalupe location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 123
Figure 4-35: Guadalupe land use map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 124
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 which incorporated in 1987.
Litchfield Park began in 1917 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.
In 2019, the
population of
Litchfield Park was
6,811. Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-15.
Development Trends:
Over the past 5 years, the City has seen two residential developments start. One
development to the north boundary of LP is completed and contains 121 single family
dwellings. The second development, centrally located, contains single family,
townhouses and condos (163 total units) and is 98% completed. These two areas are
indicated in yellow on Figure 4-37.
Development of our remaining commercial sites are in progress. This includes
areas along Camelback at Litchfield (NEC), Dysart (SEC) and El Mirage (SWC)
Roads. These areas are indicated in pink on Figure 4-37.
The areas along Camelback at Dysart and El Mirage Roads will continue to
develop. These are Commercial and Light Industrial zoned. These are shown in pink
on Figure 4-37.
The City has plans for developing the City Center to create a larger more vital
‘downtown’. The plans include a large central park surrounded by commercial (office,
retail, and restaurants) along with the potential inclusion of mixed use and residential
units. This area is depicted in green on Figure 4-37.
The final developable land surrounds the existing Sun Health Assisted Living
facility. There has been discussion of developing their land which surrounds City
owned, historical property. The Sun Health development proposes additional housing,
both single and multi-family, additional Assisted and Independent living facilities. This
area is shown in cross-hatched green on Figure 4-37.
Table 4-15: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Litchfield Park
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 5,476 10,500 4,600 2,000
2020 7,300 14,000 4,900 4,400
2030 8,400 15,400 5,700 5,200
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 125
Figure 4-36: Litchfield Park location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 126
Figure 4-37: Litchfield Park land use map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 127
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, Chandler, 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 35th-largest city. 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.
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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 128
In 2019, the
population of Mesa
was 497,439.
Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-16.
Development Trends:
Over the past five years the City of Mesa has seen an increase in residential
development, particularly in the southeast area of Mesa. The Eastmark and Cadence
master planned communities have consistently platted hundreds of new lots on the old
GM Proving Grounds site. The northeast area of Mesa has also seen an increase in
single-family residential development with the Mountain Bridge Master Planned
Community at Ellsworth Road and McKellips Road and the Lehi Crossing Community
at Lindsay Road and McDowell Road. There has been significant multi-residential
development both in the Downtown area and the Superstition Freeway Corridor.
The City also has four “Economic Activity Areas” and several “Economic
Activity Districts” identified within the General Plan (see Exhibit 2A). New
commercial, retail, and employment development has focused around the Falcon Field
Area, the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Area (specifically in the Elliot Road Tech
Corridor and the Pecos Road Economic Opportunity Zone), and the Superstition
Freeway Corridor, while a significant amount of redevelopment has occurred in
Downtown and the Broadway corridor.
Table 4-16: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Mesa
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 439,041 482,500 227,000 160,800
2020 506,600 552,800 241,300 205,900
2030 556,600 607,500 266,600 249,000
Exhibit 2A
City of Mesa Economic Activity Areas
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 129
The City identified four “Growth Areas” within the Mesa 2040 General Plan.
These areas include the Falcon Field Area, the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Area, the Light
Rail Corridor along Main Street, and the East Superstition Springs Freeway Corridor
as shown in Figure 4-39. The City anticipates continued growth to occur within the
specified Growth Areas and Economic Activity Areas in the next five years.
Particularly, there is an ample supply of undeveloped land surrounding the Phoenix-
Mesa Gateway Airport that is prime for employment and residential growth (see
Exhibit 2B). It is anticipated that there will be development activity within the Inner
Loop District north of Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. It is also anticipated that
significant amounts of redevelopment will occur along Main Street and the Fiesta
District.
Exhibit 2A. Mesa Gateway Strategic Plan Districts (Figure 9)
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 130
Figure 4-38: Mesa location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 131
Figure 4-39: Mesa growth area map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 132
4.3.16 Paradise Valley
***NOTE – Paradise Valley is no longer a Plan participant, but the following
information is retained to provide context for adjacent communities.
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 low-density, 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.
In 2019, the
population of
Paradise Valley was
14,143. Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-17.
Development Trends:
There is no development trend analysis for Paradise Valley in this Plan.
Table 4-17: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Paradise Valley
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 12,820 12,800 5,600 4,300
2020 14,100 14,100 5,800 6,300
2030 14,700 14,700 6,100 6,800
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 133
Figure 4-40: Paradise Valley location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 134
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. Northern Peoria’s planning
area includes a landscape dominated by the Lake Pleasant Recreational Area. This park
is complimented by both the Agua Fria River and New River watersheds, which enter
the city from the north and depart to the south. As shown in Figure 4-41, 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 Loop 303 Freeway alignment affords access
to the central and northern 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.
In 2019, the
population of
Peoria was
180,161.
Population
projections for
2020 and 2030
current corporate
limits and
population, housing, and employment statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are
summarized in Table 4-18.
Development Trends:
Over the last five years, development has been focused in the northern and
northwestern areas of the City, such as Vistancia and the Lake Pleasant Parkway
corridor. Construction codes have been consistently updated to the most recent national
codes and standards, to protect health and life safety of the citizens of Peoria.
Over the next five years, building codes and Flood Plain Management will
continue to evolve to address natural hazards posing threats to occupied structures and
developments. Development activity will continue to migrate to the north, which will
increase population densities north of Happy Valley Road and Hwy 303. New
development and structures will conform to the most recent national building and
construction regulations, minimizing potential property damage and threats to health
and life safety. The city’s current Land Use Plan is shown on Figure 4-42 14.
14 City of Peoria, http://www.peoriaaz.gov/NewSecondary.aspx?id=25810
Table 4-18: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Peoria
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 154,065 162,500 68,000 40,900
2020 183,700 196,600 84,400 62,400
2030 214,700 232,400 110,700 73,100
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 135
Figure 4-41: Peoria location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 136
Figure 4-42: Peoria land use map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 137
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—were 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 fifth most
populous city. Phoenix is Arizona’s capitol and is located in the County Seat: Maricopa
County.
As suggested through Figure 4-43, 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 parks,
including South Mountain—one of the nation’s largest urban parks—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
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.
In 2019, the
population of
Phoenix was
1,617,344.
Population
projections for
2020 and 2030
current corporate
limits and
population, housing, and employment statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are
summarized in Table 4-19.
Table 4-19: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Phoenix
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 1,445,632 1,501,300 611,500 747,700
2020 1,641,100 1,697,700 653,300 937,600
2030 1,816,200 1,881,900 735,100 1,084,000
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 138
Development Trends:
The City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department has tracked
development trends over the past five years and reported these trends to city
management, the Development Advisory Board and the public. The most prominent
development trends include:
Strong growth within the Infill Development District: The City of Phoenix's
Infill Development District was created on January 1, 2014. The Infill Development
District and associated policies remove some of the barriers to infill development. The
goal is to promote growth and development in areas served by light rail and existing
public infrastructure. In the last decade, high-rise and luxury apartment projects have
fueled a construction boom in central Phoenix. Since 2000 there have been 7,743
housing units built in Downtown Phoenix, thirty percent of those in the past three years.
Over 4,000 more are currently under construction or in advanced planning stages.
An increasing population in the central core has led to increased investment in
the service and entertainment business environment. Downtown’s Roosevelt Row
planning district was named one of the nation’s best planning concept neighborhoods
in 2015 by the American Planning Association. An abundance of nightlife, restaurants
and trendy apartment complexes turned this relatively quiet neighborhood into an
entertainment destination. Similarly, the Central Ave core in Midtown and Uptown
Phoenix have seen significant capital investments in retail, service establishments and
housing. The Park Central mall and Uptown Plaza have undergone major renovations,
greatly increasing patronage, interest and investment.
Bio-medical and academic expansion: The Arizona State University downtown
campus has grown significantly since its creation in 2006. The downtown campus has
over 11,000 students with emphasis on Journalism & Mass Communications and
Medical, Nursing & Health Innovations. As part of that medical initiative, the
University of Arizona has partnered with Arizona State University for the Phoenix
Biomedical Campus, taking advantage of the Phoenix Downtown Code Biomedical
district zoning entitlements. A few miles away at Midtowns Park Central Mall,
Creighton University School of Medicine is nearing completion. The new nine-story,
180,000-square-foot campus will educate nearly 1000 students annually. Located just
a few hundred yards away from the Creighton campus, the Barrow Neurological
Institute is currently in the process of a major neurology and brain study facility
expansion at Dignity Health St Joseph’s hospital. The new 130,050-square-foot, five-
story building will bring cutting edge technology research and medical innovation for
the study of brain injury, stroke and dementia.
In northeast Phoenix, Mayo clinic is in the middle of a major campus expansion.
The $650 million expansion will double the size of the facilities and add 1.4 million
square feet of building space. The HonorHealth Sonoran Crossing Medical Center is
currently under construction in northwest Phoenix on Dove Valley Rd and interstate
17. This 210,00-square-foot medical center will accommodate growing health and
wellness needs of north Phoenix and Anthem residents.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 139
In west Phoenix, Grand Canyon University is experiencing unprecedented
growth in student body, land acquisition and infrastructure construction. Due to
increased student enrollments, the on-campus student population is currently 19,000.
Student population projections at campus buildout are estimated to be 30,000 students.
Over $1.2 billion in infrastructure projects and new programs are planned and being
implemented.
Traditional Growth Areas: There has been moderate residential construction
growth in the southwest growth region. Single family and, increasingly multifamily
residential units are reacting to the opening of the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway
and this region is seeing the highest level of single-family development. Southeast
Phoenix is nearing build out and has only seen modest growth activity. Northern
Phoenix contains the most developable land and will likely take many decades to build
out. Most of the property in that area is owned by the State Land Trust and development
of land for residential and commercial purposes tends to take place at slower pace due
to a complex disposition process. Those areas are also affected by several constraints
associated with topography, infrastructure requirements, and the regulatory
environment that have made development more challenging. However, the City is
working with the State Land Department to address many of these issues, and it is
possible that a significant amount of urban growth will take place in remaining vacant
lands in the north in the coming decade.
Development trends anticipated by the city over the next five years include:
The current trend of urban infill is expected to continue for the foreseeable
future. A decreasing availability of vacant properties has led to the repurposing of
existing, under-utilized properties. City staff continues to work with developers,
investment groups, the historic preservation community and concerned citizens to
strike the most appropriate balance between growth, livability and our history. The
continued growth of high-rise residential units is anticipated to slow down, at least in
the immediate future. The majority of previous multifamily projects in the infill district
in recent years have been rental units. It is anticipated that more owner-occupied units
will be planned as inventory has dwindled under recent market conditions.
Light rail expansion will continue to drive growth in the Infill incentive district
and beyond. Current light rail construction for the south-central corridor is underway.
Anticipated service, retail and multi-family projects are expected as the line moves
closer to completion. Further light rail extensions to the north and west are planned to
begin within this five-year time horizon. Major redevelopment and renovations are
planned to revitalize the Metro center mall district. A major transportation hub has been
planned and will be implemented as the rail line is constructed.
Residential growth will continue in the traditional growth areas. Southwest
Phoenix will continue to see the most residential development in the next five years.
The South Mountain 202 freeway has made thousands of acres of vacant farmland more
readily accessible. An increase in multi-family homes is anticipated. The northern
growth areas will likely see modest growth because of the limited supply of land being
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 140
brought to market. However, there are a number of projects being proposed or
contemplated by the State Land Department and interest on the part of the development
community is strong, so there may be significantly more activity towards the end of the
five-year period. For example, the Rawhide wash channelization project in northeast
Phoenix should be completed in this five-year time horizon. Over 2,000 acres of land
will be taken out of the 100-year flood plain. Growth is anticipated as the project nears
completion. The State Land Department is working with the City of Phoenix to release
3,500 acres in northwest Phoenix as part of a major technology and industrial hub.
There are significant infrastructure requirements to bring this project forward however
all parties are focused on streamlining the critical path. Initial project and infrastructure
improvements could start within the next two years. Figure 4-44 15 shows the latest
version of the city’s land use plan.
15 City of Phoenix, https://www.phoenix.gov/econdev/Reports-Maps
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 141
Figure 4-43: Phoenix location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 142
Figure 4-44: Phoenix land use map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 143
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 4-45. 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. Phoenix-Mesa 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. 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 southeast through the town. Queen Creek 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 passes
through Mesa and Gilbert several miles to the north and will provide primary access to
the metropolitan area.
In 2019, the
population of Queen
Creek was 46,271.
Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-20.
Development Trends:
The Town has seen exponential development growth in the last 5 years. The
graphic below provides the number of historic single-family permit issuances as of
Table 4-20: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Queen Creek
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 26,361 32,200 10,500 5,900
2020 54,000 65,000 15,800 16,400
2030 72,200 90,900 21,700 19,900
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 144
September 2021. Below is a list of new residential subdivisions that have begun
residential construction in the last five years.
• Gateway Quarter
• Terravella
• Queen Creek Station
• Dorada Estates
• Bellero
• Pecan Lakes
• Whitewing at Whisper Ranch
• Hastings Farms
• Nauvoo Station
• Church Farm (aka Meridian)
• Ovation at Meridian
• Crismon Heights
• Spur Cross
• Ironwood Crossing
• Harvest at Queen Creek
• Encanterra
Figure 4-46 identifies the total
number of residential lots within
the Town** (this includes
developed and zoned lots), the
total number of lots within
subdivisions that are actively
constructing (both completed
lots and lots available for
development), and properties
zoned for single-family
residential development.
**This excludes the
future residential lots within the
ASLD boundaries.
Over the next five (5) years, residential developments that are anticipated to
begin construction include:
• Jorde Farms North
• Barney Farms
• North Creek
• Madera West
• Madera
• Malone Place Parke
• Jorde Farms South
• Ellsworth Ranch
• ASLD
Additionally, the Town will likely see multi-family develop along Combs Road
in between Gantzel and Rittenhouse. The residential developments noted above are
generally located on the East side of Town.
Known commercial development within the next 5 years includes:
• Commercial center at the NEC of Ellsworth and Riggs
• Commercial center at the NWC of Ellsworth and Riggs
• Commercial Center at the SWC of Riggs and Gary
• Commercial infill in existing centers
• ASLD
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 145
Figure 4-45: Queen Creek location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 146
Figure 4-46: Queen Creek growth areas map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 147
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 4-47, 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 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.
In 2020, the population of the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community
was 6,500. Population housing and employment statistics and projections for Oct 1st,
2020 through Oct 1st, 2025 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-21.
Table 4-21: Population, housing and employment statistics for Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community
Year
Population of CM’s
within Community
Boundaries
Non-
Enrolled
Population Housing
Enrolled
Membership
Employment to include
Govt, Enterprises and
Corridor
2020 6,500 3,500 2,129 10,831 21,000
2025 7,500 3,700 2,691* 11,425 25,000
2030 8,500 2,350** 2,468** 12,150*** 28,000
CM – Community Member
* Includes all new rental housing in the queue plus 15 new homeownership homes built annually
** SM Trailer park lease closes in 2026. 573 homes will be removed from count
*** Notes no changes in Constitutional enrollment criteria
Source: SRPMIC
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 148
Development Trends:
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC or Community)
has experienced a fast paced development effort within the Community’s boundaries.
In 2010, when the Community opened Talking Stick Resort and Salt River Fields at
Talking Stick, a new level of interest in development has been experienced by SRPMIC
landowners. Development has included numerous hotels (Great Wolf Lodge,
Residence Inn, Staybridge, Home2Suites/Tru) and new entertainment venues to
include: iFly, Mavrix, Odysea in the Desert/The Boardwalk and Medieval Times have
anchored this intensive development trend. Beyond these hotel and entertainment
developments, SRPMIC has opened an auto mall, large headquarters (McKesson and
Harkins) and invested in new water, sewer and roadway infrastructure projects.
Residential development within SRPMIC is designated for Community Member
households only and is based upon scattered site homes throughout the central/non-
commercial portion of the lands.
SRPMIC anticipates continued interest and development in commercial aspects
of the Community. These could include: restaurants, additional entertainment, urban
distribution centers, medical offices/services. There will also be additional housing
development specifically built for Community Members. Development will occur in
the current Talking Stick Entertainment District and possibly along the Southern
Boundary area. It is anticipated that development will bring additional infrastructure
efforts to support Community Member and general public needs for public safety. A
future land use planning map for the SRPMIC is shown in Figure 4-48 16.
16 Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, http://www.srpmic-nsn.gov/economic/
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 149
Figure 4-47: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 150
Figure 4-48: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community land use map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 151
4.3.21 Salt River Project
The Salt River Project is no longer a participating jurisdiction in this Plan.
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 4-49. 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,
provides transportation to the rest of the valley, and offers opportunities for commercial
growth; and the Scottsdale Road corridor, which runs north-south for the length of the
community, and 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 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’s image as a destination
community.
Scottsdale has evolved and grown since its founding in the late 1800's and
incorporation in 1951, and currently includes over 185 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.
In 2019, the
population of
Scottsdale was
247,944. Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-22.
Development Trends:
Over the past five years Scottsdale has seen new development and
redevelopment of single-family, multi-family, and mixed-use projects. Although new
Table 4-22: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Scottsdale
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 217,385 217,400 124,000 165,800
2020 253,700 253,800 133,300 207,400
2030 281,800 281,900 147,100 235,500
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 152
single-family development primarily occurred throughout the North Sub-Area (all
areas of the city located north of Deer Valley Road), new clusters of such also
occurred within the east-Shea area of the Central Sub-Area (all areas of the city
located between Indian Bend and Deer Valley Roads). This includes Sienna Hills
(124th Street and Shea Boulevard), Sunrise Trail (124th Street and Shea Boulevard),
and Whisper Ridge (136th Street and Shea Boulevard) – all of which are located
within the X Flood Zone (see the FEMA Flood Zones Map). Multi-family residential
development occurred predominantly in the Central and South (all areas of the city
south of Indian Bend Road) Sub-Areas. In the Central Sub-Area, new multi-family
development such as the View at Cascade (Scottsdale Road and Mayo Boulevard),
Chauncy Marketplace (Scottsdale Road and Chauncey Lane), and SOHO Scottsdale
(92nd Street and Bahia Drive) occur within the AO Flood Zone, while developments
such as Villas Altozano (Bell Road and Thompson Peak Parkway), District at the
Quarter (73rdStreet and Greenway-Hayden Loop), and Vitri Apartments (73rd Street
and Greenway-Hayden Loop) occur within the X Flood Zone. Commercial and
mixed-use development occurred relatively evenly across the Central and South Sub-
Areas of the city – typically within the Greater Airpark area (AO and X Flood Zones),
Old Town Scottsdale (X Flood Zone), and the Scottsdale Road and McDowell Road
corridors, south of Old Town (X Flood Zone).
According to the 2020 City of Scottsdale Development Forecast Update,
drafted by Applied Economics, over the next five years (2020-2025) most new
development is anticipated to occur in the North and Central Sub-Areas of the
community. The North Sub-Area is anticipated to absorb 1,229 +/- acres of
development, with most of that acreage composed of Rural Neighborhood development
(typically 1 unit per acre, or more, of land area). The majority of the North Sub-Area
aligns with the X flood zone. The Central Sub-Area is anticipated to absorb 515 +/-
acres of development, composed primarily of a mixture of 242 +/- acres of residential,
103 +/- acres of office, and 73 +/- acres of retail. The Central Sub-Area is primarily
composed of the X and AO flood zones. The South Sub-Area, which is the oldest and
most developed area of the community, is anticipated to see approximately 143 +/-
acres of development of varying land uses. There will continue to be a focus on
redevelopment and new infill development within the McDowell Road Corridor,
consisting of mixed-use commercial, office, and multi-family. The South Sub-Area is
primarily composed of the X flood zone. The city is currently updating its General Plan
and has developed a draft map showing anticipated growth areas which is shown in
Figure 4-50 17.
17 City of Scottsdale, http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/Public+Website/generalplan/_SGP2035TFRecommended.pdf
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 153
Figure 4-49: Scottsdale location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 154
Figure 4-50: Scottsdale growth area map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 155
4.3.23 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. As shown in Figure 4-51, the City of Surprise is bordered on the east by the
cities of Peoria and El Mirage and on the west by the City of Buckeye. The
unincorporated retirement communities of Sun City West and Sun City lie to the east
of the City of Surprise, and Glendale lies immediately to the south of Surprise. The
White Tank Mountain Regional Park is 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
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.
In 2019, the
population of
Surprise was
136,194. Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-23.
Development Trends:
Over the last five years the city has experienced residential growth above the
state average. A city population of 130,336 in 2015 grew to 141,664 in 2019, or 8.7%
compared to 6.6% by the state. Housing units increased from 54,592 in 2015 to
58,036 in 2019 for a 6.3% rise.
Source: CoStar 2015 2019 % Increase
Office 1,599,062 SF 1,670,598 SF 4.5%
Retail 5,250,531 SF 5,542,021 SF 5.6%
Industrial 2,017,125 SF 2,988,861 SF 48.2%
The decade of the 2020s is projecting a 53% increase in population with a
63% expansion of jobs related to office, retail, and industrial development.
Source: MAG 2019 2030 % Increase
Population 141,664 216,700 53%
Jobs 36,400 59,500 63%
Table 4-23: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Surprise
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 117,517 127,600 56,900 19,500
2020 138,700 150,300 68,000 36,400
2030 189,200 216,700 99,300 59,500
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 156
The four development areas the ED department promotes will see the mix of
residential and commercial development associated with the growth.
• Loop 303, Bell Road to Peoria Avenue
• City Center, Bell Road and Bullard Avenue
• Surprise Railplex, Cactus Road and Litchfield Road
• North Surprise, US 60 north of Loop 303
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 157
Figure 4-51: Surprise location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 158
Figure 4-52: Surprise growth area maps
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 159
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 4-53, 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.
In 2019, the
population of Tempe
was 188,616.
Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-24.
Development Trends:
Over the past 5 years, Tempe has seen a rapid growth of high density residential,
new corporate office headquarters and many new retail developments are currently
under construction. Due to the limited land available for new development, Tempe has
experienced infill redevelopment and the majority of high density residential in small
lots. That is of greater interest to the emergency responders as it requires careful design
review to ensure that these developments are meeting the requirements of the Fire and
Police department. The highest growth is primarily in the north Tempe area, and
Table 4-24: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Tempe
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 161,719 162,100 73,200 169,100
2020 190,000 190,000 77,300 200,500
2030 217,000 217,100 90,000 231,200
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 160
specifically in the downtown area, Tempe Town Lake, the new Novus Innovation
Corridor of a master-planned for private development on Arizona State University
owned land. Redevelopment also continues to occur along the Valley Metro Light Rail
line in and around Apache Boulevard. Location such as new the Loop 101 and Loop
202 interchange, just north of Rio Salado Parkway, and a project on the south side of
Broadway Road are also experiencing high growth. Reinvestment and sporadic
redevelopment projects still occur throughout the Tempe limits, but it is the Urban Core
area, an approximate 6 square mile area that has seen most of the growth for the past
decade. The most significant development consists of residential development projects
with 45-100 dwelling units per acre. Tempe’s infrastructure is also greatly impacted by
the new constructions of the Arizona State University campus including the
construction such as the new Greek Village, the ISTB7 research and bioresearch
building, all of them in very close proximity to downtown Tempe area.
Additionally, some preliminary analysis conducted by Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) in 2017 also indicated that Tempe’s daytime population doubles
as compared to actual population of Tempe due to the expansive employment base.
This is an important issue as it relates to emergency preparedness.
The anticipated areas of development or redevelopment in the next 5 years will
continue in the same areas as previous development activity. Locations such as along
Apache Boulevard and connecting areas where the Valley Metro Light Rail is located,
as well as Downtown Tempe with existing Light Rail and the new Modern Streetcar
that is under construction, set to be in operation by late 2021. Vacant land and growth
for urban development opportunities are still available along the Tempe Town Lake
perimeters.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 161
Novus Planning Area:
Significant amount of high density residential and commercial development,
along with new roadway system and a new fire station, is projected to occur in the next
20 years within the Arizona State University’s Novus Master Plan area, which includes
approximately 330 acres of redevelopment area, including the Karsten Golf Club which
by itself, is approximately 156 acres. Novus Master Plan area is shown below (outlined
in red) in Exhibit 3A:
Other redevelopment potential for the future:
Tempe will also see opportunities for redevelopment and new business trends
in two of the cities industrial-based hubs located south on Broadway Road from
Southern, Priest Drive to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, known as Broadway Maker
District. The Smith Industrial Innovation Hub is another up-and-coming area with
potential expansion of rapid transit extending on the Rio Salado Parkway area. There
are growth opportunities in this corridor and south of Rio Salado, extending to
University Drive, and McClintock to Loop 101 freeway.
Proposed annexation:
There are two areas of Tempe where additional residential development may
occur if annexation of these properties is approved by City Council. These include:
• Banyan Tempe (yellow highlighted area in Exhibit 3B)
• Priest and Caroline (highlighted in blue in Exhibit 3C)
Finally, projected land use from the current city general plan is shown in Figure
4-54.
:
Exhibit 3A
City of Tempe Novus Master Plan area
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 162
Exhibit 3B
Banyan Tempe area
Exhibit 3C
Priest and Caroline area
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 163
Figure 4-53: Tempe location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 164
Figure 4-54: Tempe projected land use map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 165
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 Avondale on the west and Phoenix on the north, east,
and south, as shown in Figure 4-55. Founded in 1912 and incorporated in 1929, the
incorporated boundary of Tolleson measures only about six square miles in area.
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 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 several industrial sites with rail access. Today, Tolleson is administered by
a council-manager form of government that includes a mayor and six council members
elected at-large to four-year terms.
In 2019, the
population of
Tolleson was 7,085.
Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-25.
Development Trends:
Over the past 5 years there have been several developments of small areas
previously identified as infill areas, primarily as commercial or residential projects.
Growth areas within Tolleson for the next several years are specifically addressed in
the 2014 General Plan. Four specific growth areas have been identified: 1) 83rd
Avenue Corridor 2) 91st Avenue Gateway 3) CORE District and 4) Industrial Area.
The identified growth areas are shown in Figure 4-56, which is taken from the City of
Tolleson General Plan 2024.
Table 4-25: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Tolleson
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 6,545 6,600 2,200 10,600
2020 7,100 7,100 2,300 18,300
2030 8,600 8,600 2,700 21,200
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 166
Figure 4-55: Tolleson location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 167
Figure 4-56: Tolleson growth area map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 168
4.3.26 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 4-57, 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 Los 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 at-large for a term of four years. In Wickenburg, the town
council functions as the legislature, and the town manager administers community
policies.
In 2019, the
population of
Wickenburg was
6,988. Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-26.
Development Trends:
The development over the past five years in the Town of Wickenburg includes
the projects listed below:
• Town wide linked trailhead system beginning at Kerkes Trailhead (off Hwy
60)
• The continued development of the Wickenburg Ranch housing subdivisions
(currently have 700 residences, 3,100 residences at full capacity)
• Cottonwood housing development
• Jefferson St & Mohave St waterline replacement project
• Continued Public Safety radio issues involving Century Link and Motorola
Communications – projected partnership with Regional Wireless
Cooperative (RWC) / (additional radio tower sites TBD)
Table 4-26: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Wickenburg
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 6,363 8,000 4,400 3,500
2020 8,200 8,500 5,500 4,600
2030 15,100 9,400 8,400 5,200
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 169
The town anticipates the continued growth of Wickenburg Ranch home
development, projected to grow at a rate of 200 homes per year with 25% growth
expected each year. Other developments include Saddle Ridge (144 homes),
Wickenburg Vistas (61 homes), Arroya Vistas (37 homes), West Park (42 homes), and
Hermosa Ranch (325 homes). Additional development includes an ADOT multi-year
project to construct additional roundabouts within Wickenburg police/fire jurisdiction
including Hwy 93 & Rincon Rd, Cope Rd, Vulture Mine Rd, Scenic Loop, Hwy 89
junction and Hwy 89 and Wickenburg Ranch (currently the construction entrance).
Wickenburg’s General Plan 2025 includes a map of future growth nodes with
land use estimates and is shown on Figure 4-58 18.
18 Town of Wickenburg, http://www.ci.wickenburg.az.us/41/General-Plan
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 170
Figure 4-57: Wickenburg location map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 171
Figure 4-58: Wickenburg growth area map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 172
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 4-59. 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 at-large for a term of four years. The town council appoints
the town manager who oversees all town departments and manages the town’s business.
In 2019, the
population of
Youngtown was
6,599. Population
projections for 2020
and 2030 current
corporate limits and
population, housing,
and employment
statistics for MPAs for 2010, 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 4-27.
Development Trends:
Over the past 5 years, most development within Youngtown has taken the form
of redevelopment of storefronts and new start-ups. There is one new residential
development under construction with 129 units south of Peoria Avenue. The town has
also created a neighborhood-commercial live-work corridor on N. 111th Avenue.
Over the next 5 years, Youngtown has identified several areas for new
development and redevelopment within the Town limits. One redevelopment area
exists in the northern portion of the Town, bounded roughly by 111th on the east, 113th
avenue on the west, Wisconsin Avenue on the South and Hwy. 60 to the north. The
Council has approved a 100+ acre regional park in the Agua Fria river bottom and a
$50 million battery storage facility in its commerce park south of Peoria Avenue.
Additional development areas have been identified north of Alabama Avenue and
South of Peoria Avenue. The Town is also continuing with the Youngtown sidewalk
Table 4-27: Population, housing and employment
statistics for Youngtown
Year
Population Population Housing Employment
(Current
Limits) (MPA) (MPA) (MPA)
2010 6,156 6,100 2,800 1,300
2020 6,800 6,800 2,900 1,800
2030 7,300 7,300 3,100 2,200
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 173
improvement programs for the northern portion of the community. Figure 4-60 19 shows
the two future development areas on a future land use map.
Figure 4-59: Youngtown location map
19 Town of Youngtown, http://www.youngtownaz.org/vertical/Sites/%7B464715DD-87E9-4AA9-9EEF-
3CDF5B7D33D6%7D/uploads/%7BFFC342FE-B7D1-415F-B73F-18097DF4B2E6%7D.PDF
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 174
Figure 4-60: Youngtown future land use map
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 175
SECTION 5: RISK ASSESSMENT
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 20. According to DMA 2000, the
primary components of a risk assessment that answer these questions are generally categorized
into the following measures:
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 2015 Plan was reviewed by the MJPT, who chose to continue a focus on natural hazards.
The MJPT also compared and contrasted the 2015 Plan list to the comprehensive hazard list
summarized in the 2018 State Plan 21 to ensure compatibility with the State Plan. Table 5-1
summarizes the 2015 Plan and 2018 State Plan hazard lists.
20 National Fire Protection Association, 2000, Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity
Programs, NFPA 1600.
21 ADEM, 2018, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
§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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 176
Table 5-1: Summary of Initial Hazard Identification Lists
2015 Plan Hazard List 2018 State Plan Hazard List
• Dam Inundation
• Drought
• Extreme Heat
• Fissures
• Flood
• Levee Failure
• Severe Winds
• Subsidence
• Wildfire
• Dam Failure
• Drought
• Earthquake
• Extreme Heat
• Fissure
• Flooding/Flash Flooding
• Hazardous Materials Incidents
• Landslides/Mudslides
• Levee Failure
• Severe Wind
• Subsidence
• Terrorism
• Wildfires
• Winter Storm
The review included an initial screening process to evaluate each of the listed hazards
based on the following considerations:
• Experiential knowledge represented by 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 the 2015 Plan. With this update, the 2015 Plan database was reviewed and
updated to include declared disaster events and significant non-declared events that have
occurred during the last plan cycle. 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). Non-declared 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), United States Forest Service (USFS), and the Spatial Hazard Events and
Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS) database. The historic hazard database
presented in this Plan primarily represent the period of June 1955 to June 2020. Two tables
are used in this update to summarize the historic hazard events.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 177
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
Table 5-2: State and Federally Declared Natural Hazard Events That Included
Maricopa County – January 1966 to June 2020
Hazard
No. of Recorded Losses
Declarations Fatalities Injuries Damage Costs ($)
Drought 20 0 0 $303,000,000
Dam Failure 0 0 0 $0
Earthquake 0 0 0 $0
Extreme Heat/Cold 0 0 0 $0
Fissure 0 0 0 $0
Flooding / Flash Flooding 18 54 115 $623,550,000
Hail 0 0 0 $0
Lightning 0 0 0 $0
Levee Failure 0 0 0 $0
Pandemic 1 3,797 A 0 $0
Subsidence 0 0 0 $0
Thunderstorm / High Wind 4 0 0 $0
Tornado / Dust Devil 0 0 0 $0
Tropical Storm / Hurricane 1 0 0 $375,000,000
Wildfire 18 0 0 $0
Notes:
Damage Costs are reported as is and no attempt has been made to adjust costs to current
dollar values
A – Total deaths in Maricopa County as of November 14, 2020 (Source: ADHS, 2020)
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 178
Table 5-3: Maricopa County Historic Hazard Events – June 1955 to June 2020
Hazard
No. of Recorded Losses
Records Fatalities Injuries Damage Costs ($)
Drought 0 0 0 $0
Dam Failure 1 0 0 $0
Earthquake 0 0 0 $0
Extreme Heat/Cold 102 199 9 $122,200,000
Fissure 2 0 0 $2,500
Flooding / Flash Flooding 200 18 8 $129,198,500
Hail 10 1 0 $2,810,048,500
Lightning 15 1 2 $1,334,000
Levee Failure 0 0 0 $0
Subsidence 2 0 0 $4,170,000
Thunderstorm / High Wind 573 11 194 $436,217,500
Tornado / Dust Devil 51 0 58 $37,407,900
Wildfire (2004-2019; over 500
acres))
24 0 6 $5,000,000
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.
The culmination of the review and screening process by the MJPT resulted in a decision
to retain the 2015 Plan hazards for profiling and updating. Accordingly, the 2021 Plan hazard
list is:
• Dam Inundation
• Drought
• Extreme Heat
• Fissure
• Flood
• Levee Failure
• Severe Wind
• Subsidence
• Wildfire
Definitions for each hazard are provided in Section 5.3 and in Section 8.2
During the MJPT discussions and evaluation of the Plan hazard list, two recent and
significant past events related to the hazard categories of HAZMAT and Infectious Disease /
Pandemic were discussed and are briefly summarized below.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 179
HAZMAT: On July 29, 2020, a Union Pacific train with several cars loaded with hazardous
cargo derailed on the bridge spanning the Tempe Town Lake, in Tempe, Arizona, igniting a
fire that consumed the bridge and melted the southern abutment. According to the National
Transportation Safety Board 22 there were no fatalities and one injury due to smoke inhalation
by a first responder. The damages were estimated to be between $8 and $10 million. Of the
12 derailed cars (in positions 49 through 60), three tank cars were loaded with the hazardous
material cyclohexanone. Two of these tank cars fell from the trestle and one released 2,201
gallons of cyclohexanone. A third tank car partially derailed but was not breached. A small
area near the bridge was evacuated as a precautionary measure.
INFECTIOUS DISEASE / PANDEMIC:
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) was
confirmed to have reached Arizona in January
2020. The first confirmed case of COVID-19
in Arizona was reported on January 26, 2020
in Tempe, Arizona. Arizona Governor Doug
Ducey declared a public health emergency on
March 12, 2020. On March 20th, ADHS and
Maricopa County health officials announced
the first death in the state from COVID-19: a
Maricopa County man in his 50s with
underlying health conditions. On March 30th, Gov. Ducey issued a statewide stay at home
order to stop the spread of new coronavirus, barring Arizonans from leaving their residences
except for food, medicine, and other essentials. The order took effect at the close of business
March 31st. The order expired on May 15th and on June 17th, Governor Ducey announced
that local governments would be able to set mask-wearing regulations after previously having
blocked local mask wearing requirements. Soon after, many city and county officials began
implementing face covering mandates or announcing plans to discuss possible regulations. As
22 NTSB Preliminary Report: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RRD20LR005-preliminary-
report.aspx
Source: azfamily.com
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 180
of November 14, 2020, the Maricopa County death toll stood at 3,797 with 174,957 confirmed
cases 23.
The MJPT chose not to add these hazards to the formal list since they are either human-
caused or are more formally addressed by other plans. The MJPT, however, wanted to
document the occurrences and acknowledge that the hazards do exist and are of concern to the
overall health and safety of the county.
5.2 Vulnerability Analysis Methodology
5.2.1 General
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 availability of new
hazard and census data. Specific changes are noted below and/or in Section 5.3
For the purposes of this vulnerability analysis, updated 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,
MEDIUM, and/or LOW 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 October 2020.
5.2.2 Climate Change
In recent years, FEMA and others have taken a harder look at the impacts of
climate change on natural hazards and the mitigation planning process. In March 2015,
FEMA released state mitigation planning guidance that requires all state hazard
mitigation plans to address climate change beginning with all updates submitted after
March 2016 24. FEMA’s National Advisory Council noted that the effects of climate
change could manifest as a “threat multiplier”. When considering probabilities of
hazard events, it is typical to make the implicit assumption that the past is a prologue
for the future; however, trending changes to climate related variables may require
broader thinking and projections to develop mitigation actions and projects that account
for those changes.
The scope and severity of cause and impacts relating to climate change are still
difficult to predict and highly debated. There is, however, a growing body of science
and research that indicates a few noticeable trends that should be considered when
23 Arizona Department of Health Services COVID 19 Data Dashboard: https://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-
disease-control/infectious-disease-epidemiology/covid-19/dashboards/index.php
24 FEMA, 2015, State Mitigation Plan Review Guide, released March 2015, effective March 2016, FP 302-094-2
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 181
evaluating natural hazard vulnerability and risk. In 1989, the U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP) was established by Presidential Initiative and later
mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 with the stated
purpose of assisting “the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and
respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.” In May 2014, the
USGCRP released the 3rd National Climate Assessment (NCA), which is a
comprehensive compilation of the latest body of work and science on the topic of
climate change. The NCA results and discussion are divided into regions to focus the
discussions and conclusions to a regional perspective. The Southwest region includes
the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.
According to Chapter 20 of the NCA 25, the Southwest regional climate change impacts
noted in the recent research include increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks that
result in more wildfires, declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health
impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas. In its 2014
report, the NCA released the following “Key Messages” for the Southwest Region:
1. Snowpack and streamflow amounts are projected to decline in parts of the
Southwest, decreasing surface water supply reliability for cities, agriculture,
and ecosystems. The Southwest produces more than half of the nation’s
high-value specialty crops, which are irrigation-dependent and particularly
vulnerable to extremes of moisture, cold, and heat. Reduced yields from
increasing temperatures and increasing competition for scarce water
supplies will displace jobs in some rural communities.
2. Increased warming, drought, and insect outbreaks, all caused by or linked
to climate change, have increased wildfires and impacts to people and
ecosystems in the Southwest. Fire models project more wildfire and
increased risks to communities across extensive areas.
3. Flooding and erosion in coastal areas are already occurring even at existing
sea levels and damaging some California coastal areas during storms and
extreme high tides. Sea level rise is projected to increase as Earth continues
to warm, resulting in major damage as wind-driven waves ride upon higher
seas and reach farther inland.
4. Projected regional temperature increases, combined with the way cities
amplify heat, will pose increased threats and costs to public health in
southwestern cities, which are home to more than 90% of the region’s
population. Disruptions to urban electricity and water supplies will
exacerbate these health problems.
FEMA has established that future changes in probabilities and severity of
hazard events influenced by climate change should be addressed during mitigation
planning. Accordingly, a brief assessment of the potential effects that current climate
25 Garfin, G., G. Franco, H. Blanco, A. Comrie, P. Gonzalez, T. Piechota, R. Smyth, and R. Waskom, 2014, Ch. 20:
Southwest. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese
(T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 462-486. doi:10.7930/J08G8HMN
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 182
change understanding may have on the Plan hazards is provided where appropriate in
Section 5.3.
5.2.3 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 26 (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.
Application of the CPRI is illustrated by the following 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)] = 2.65
5.2.4 Asset Inventory
With this update, the 2015 Plan detailed asset inventory was reviewed and
updated to reflect the current status and replacement cost information. In some cases,
jurisdictions expanded or modified their inventory.
The 2018 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.
26 ADEM, 2003, Arizona Model Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, prepared by JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 183
Table 5-4: Summary of Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) categories and risk levels
CPRI
Category
Degree of Risk Assigned
Weighting
Factor Level ID Description Index
Value
Probability
Unlikely Extremely rare with no documented history of
occurrences or events.
Annual probability of less than 0.001.
1
45%
Possibly Rare occurrences with at least one documented or
anecdotal historic event.
Annual probability that is between 0.01 and 0.001.
2
Likely Occasional occurrences with at least two or more
documented historic events.
Annual probability that is between 0.1 and 0.01.
3
Highly Likely Frequent events with a well-documented history of
occurrence.
Annual probability that is greater than 0.1.
4
Magnitude/
Severity
Negligible 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.
1
30%
Limited 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.
2
Critical 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.
3
Catastrophic 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.
4
Warning
Time
Less than 6 hours Self-explanatory. 4
15% 6 to 12 hours Self-explanatory. 3
12 to 24 hours Self-explanatory. 2
More than 24 hours Self-explanatory. 1
Duration
Less than 6 hours Self-explanatory. 1
10% Less than 24 hours Self-explanatory. 2
Less than one week Self-explanatory. 3
More than one week Self-explanatory. 4
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 184
Following the criteria set forth by the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office
(CIAO), the State of Arizona has adopted eight general categories 27 that define critical
facilities and infrastructure:
1. Communications Infrastructure: Telephone, data services, and internet
communications, cell and radio towers, 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 as name, description,
physical address, geospatial position, and estimated replacement cost were identified
to the greatest extent possible and entered into a GIS geodatabase.
The updated 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 updated facility counts
by category for each of the participating jurisdictions in this plan.
27 Instituted via Executive Order 13010, which was signed by President Clinton in 1996.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 185
Table 5-5: Summary of Critical and Non-Critical Facility counts by category and
jurisdiction
Participating
Jurisdiction
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Non-Critical Facilities
and Infrastructure Communications Infrastructure Electrical Power Systems Gas and Oil Facilities Banking and Finance Institutions Transportation Networks Water Supply Systems Government Services Emergency Services Educational Cultural Business Residential Recreational Avondale 0 0 0 0 0 46 7 11 28 0 27 0 12
Buckeye 0 8 0 3 24 46 16 7 12 1 2 0 6
Carefree 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0
Cave Creek 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chandler 16 24 0 0 1 86 24 17 78 3 0 25 3
El Mirage 0 0 0 0 3 13 3 3 6 0 6 0 0
Fountain Hills 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 6 0 0 1 2
Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 2 3 1 9 0 3
Gila Bend 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0
Gilbert 103 0 0 88 0 137 54 230 165 0 4284 227 0
Glendale 3 19 1 37 51 69 42 90 185 108 162 360 97
Goodyear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Guadalupe 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 1
Litchfield Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1
Mesa 44 12 75 0 6 145 38 48 138 8 1 24 11
Paradise Valley 8 2 0 0 0 38 3 7 6 14 13 4 0
Peoria 0 0 0 0 5 155 17 12 37 10 1 33 29
Phoenix 0 6 5 0 22 16 270 113 422 20 0 66 7
Queen Creek 16 0 0 8 11 21 3 6 22 15 10 8 9
Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian
Community 15 3 6 0 3 12 8 10 6 1 11 0 3
Scottsdale 14 1 0 0 0 156 15 33 4 0 0 4 10
Surprise 6 5 0 0 2 67 5 9 0 0 0 0 0
Tempe 0 0 1 0 0 3 17 5 73 2 1 7 2
Tolleson 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated
Maricopa County 53 2 5 0 459 1 324 28 46 2 0 0 150
Wickenburg 0 2 1 0 0 0 4 2 5 0 0 0 0
Youngtown 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 1 5 0
Notes:
A – The City of Mesa reports that 32 of the 145 facilities are wastewater related.
.
5.2.5 Loss/Exposure Estimations
In the 2015 Plan, economic loss and human exposure estimates for each of the
final hazards identified began 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 were accomplished by
intersecting the asset inventory with the hazard profiles. Human or population
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 186
exposures were estimated by intersecting the same hazards with Census 2010 block
level data for estimating the human (population) and residential structure impacts
wherever possible.
For this Plan, a similar census block level database compiled by the Arizona
Department of Health Services using 2015 population projections and the same 2010
census residential structure statistics was used. As with the 2015 Plan, no industrial or
commercial unit estimates are made for this update due to the lack of reliable data at
the time of this analysis. It is noted that the next plan update will likely have the 2020
Census data available. The procedures for developing loss estimates for this Plan are
discussed below.
Economic and human exposure estimates for each of the final hazards identified
in Section 5.1 begins with an assessment of the potential exposure of assets, human
populations, and residential structures to those hazards. Asset exposure estimates are
accomplished by intersecting the asset inventory with the hazard profiles in Section 5.3
and compiling the exposed facility count and replacement values by jurisdiction.
Similarly, human population and residential unit exposures are estimated by
intersecting the same hazards with the census block population and residential unit
count data sets. Structure and content replacement costs for assets were assigned to
each facility by the corresponding jurisdiction. Structure and content replacement costs
for the residential housing counts were geographically assigned based on zip code and
average housing cost unit values data from the Zillow home value database 28. Content
value for these buildings was assumed to equal 50% of the replacement cost.
Combining the exposure results from the asset inventory and census database
provides a comprehensive depiction of the overall exposure of critical facilities, human
population, and residential building stock and the two datasets are considered
complimentary and not redundant.
Economic loss projections to structures and facilities are not estimated in this
Plan unless specifically noted otherwise. It is important to note the following when
reviewing the exposure estimate results:
• Potential exposures reported in this Plan represent an inherent assumption
that the hazard occurs county-wide to the magnitude shown on the hazard
profile map. The results are intended to present a county-wide value and
number of exposures. Any single hazard event will likely only impact a
portion of the county and the event specific exposure and losses would be
some fraction of those estimated herein.
• No attempt has been made at developing annualized loss estimates, unless
otherwise noted in Section 5.3.
Several of the hazards profiled in this Plan 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
28 Zillow at: https://www.zillow.com/research/data/
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 187
attempting to specify a geospatial correlation of the hazard event and loss potential
without sufficient data to justify the estimation of geographically varied damages.
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.
5.2.6 Development Trend Analysis
The 2015 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
• Climate Change Impacts
• Vulnerability
o CPRI Results
o Loss/Exposure Estimations
o Development Trend Analysis
• Sources
• Profile Maps (if applicable)
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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 188
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,
and these were both addressed in the 2015 Plan. For this update, the MJPT chose to
continue with the distinction between the downstream inundation risk (emergency
spillway discharges versus a dam failure). Accordingly, vulnerability for each scenario
will be assessed separately, except for the CPRI evaluation, which will consider the
two scenarios blended to one CPRI value.
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. Most 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 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, and there have
been no events of occurrence during the last plan cycle. The following are historic
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 Diversion Dam. The
unavoidable releases caused major flooding along the Salt and Gila River all
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 189
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 29 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.
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
29 Gillespie Dam was an irrigation diversion structure that was not regulated as a jurisdictional dam by ADWR.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 190
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
Safety Deficiency One or more conditions at the dam that impair or
adversely affects the safe operation of the dam
Unsafe Non-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.
Unsafe Non-emergency
Elevated Risk
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.
Unsafe Emergency 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 their criteria.
Table 5-7: Summary of NID downstream hazard classifications
Hazard Potential Loss of Human Life
Economic, Environmental,
Lifeline Losses
Low None expected Low and generally limited to owner
Significant None expected Yes
High Probable. One or more
expected.
Yes (but not necessary for this
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:
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 191
• 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
• 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 in Maricopa County, and 46 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
Source High Significant
Low or
Very Low
Safety
Deficiency
Unsafe
(any sub-
category)
NID 39 8 5 N/A N/A
ADWR 39 2 5 4 1
NOTES:
• The unsafe dam is currently in a rehabilitation process.
• Four of the High hazard dams are located just east of Maricopa County in Pinal County.
• One of the Safety Deficient dams is currently deemed as “out of service”
Source: FCDMC, ADWR (2020) and NID (2014)
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 46 dams considered, 42 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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 192
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. It is duly noted that these hazard areas
and maps depicting them continue to be a work in progress and may not reflect every
dam spillway inundation or failure limit.
Climate Change Impacts
Climate change impacts to emergency spillway and dam failure inundation
hazard are anticipated to occur in relation to the assumed increase in wildfire
occurrences. Wildfires typically change a watershed’s hydrology with regard to
rainfall-runoff processes, causing significant increases in peak discharge and runoff
volumes during precipitation events. Dams and FRSs located in the county are
typically not designed for post wildfire flooding volumes and flow rates and could pose
significant increased risks of emergency spillway operation or failure should a large
wildfire occur in the watershed. Other indirect impacts could be linked to increased
presence of fissure and subsidence due to increased groundwater withdrawal due to
reduced surface water supplies.
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Dam inundation CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-9.
Table 5-9: Summary of CPRI results by jurisdiction for dam inundation (emergency
spillway flow and dam failure)
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Avondale Unlikely Critical < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.15
Buckeye Unlikely Critical < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.15
Carefree Unlikely Negligible > 24 hours < 6 hours 1.00
Cave Creek Unlikely Negligible > 24 hours < 6 hours 1.00
Chandler Unlikely Limited 6 - 12 hours < 24 hours 1.70
El Mirage Unlikely Critical < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.15
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Unlikely Critical > 24 hours < 1 week 1.80
Fountain Hills Unlikely Critical < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.15
Gila Bend Unlikely Critical > 24 hours < 1 week 1.80
Gilbert Unlikely Limited < 6 hours < 24 hours 1.85
Glendale Unlikely Critical < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.15
Goodyear Unlikely Critical < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.15
Guadalupe Unlikely Limited < 6 hours < 24 hours 1.85
Litchfield Park Unlikely Critical < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.15
Unincorporated Maricopa County Unlikely Critical < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.15
Mesa Unlikely Critical < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.15
Paradise Valley Unlikely Negligible > 24 hours < 6 hours 1.00
Peoria Unlikely Catastrophic < 6 hours < 1 week 2.55
Phoenix Unlikely Critical < 6 hours < 1 week 2.25
Queen Creek Unlikely Catastrophic < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.45
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community Unlikely Catastrophic > 24 hours < 1 week 2.10
Scottsdale Unlikely Critical < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.15
Surprise Unlikely Catastrophic < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.45
Tempe Unlikely Catastrophic < 6 hours < 1 week 2.55
Tolleson Unlikely Limited < 6 hours < 24 hours 1.85
Wickenburg Unlikely Catastrophic < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.45
Youngtown Unlikely Critical < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.15
County-wide average CPRI = 2.01
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 193
Vulnerability – Loss/Exposure Estimations
The estimation of potential exposures 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 for
these types of extreme events, no estimates of economic losses were made for this
update. 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. Flood waves from these types of
events travel very fast and possess tremendous destructive energy.
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 exposure estimates presented below are intended
to serve as a collective evaluation of the potential exposure to high and medium hazard
emergency spillway and dam failure inundation events.
Tables 5-10 and 5-11 summarize estimations of exposure to MJPT identified
assets for emergency spillway and dam failure inundation hazards. Tables 5-12 and 5-
13 summarize census block residential building stock exposure estimates for the
emergency spillway and dam failure inundation hazards. Table 5-14 and 5-15
summarize the estimated census block population exposed to emergency spillway and
dam failure inundation hazards.
In summary, 1,197, 21 and 3,800 critical and non-critical MJPT identified assets
with a cumulative reported replacement cost of $2.84 billion, $23.3 million and $820.6
million are exposed to emergency spillway high hazard and dam failure high and
medium hazard inundations, respectively, for the planning area. An additional $72.7
billion, $88.4 million and $38.9 billion of census block residential structures are
exposed to emergency spillway high hazard and dam failure high and medium hazard
inundations, respectively, for the planning areas. Regarding human vulnerability, a
total population of 553,274 people, or 13.37% of the total census planning area
population, is potentially exposed to an emergency spillway inundation event.
Similarly, total populations of 854 and 331,796 people, or 0.02% and 8.0% of the total
census planning area population, are 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. Given the magnitude of such events, 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).
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 194
Table 5-10: Asset inventory exposure due to emergency spillway inundation
Community
Total Facilities
Reported by
Community
Impacted
Facilities
Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
Total Replacement
Value of All Facilities
Reported by
Community
(x $1,000)
Estimated
Replacement
Value Exposed to
Hazard
(x $1,000)
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 10917 1197 10.96% $26,024,918 $2,839,188
Avondale 131 0 0.00% $179,460 $0
Buckeye 125 6 4.80% $268,667 $10,300
Carefree 6 0 0.00% $9,000 $0
Cave Creek 4 0 0.00% $13,258 $0
Chandler 277 0 0.00% $1,361,072 $0
El Mirage 34 27 79.41% $285,542 $206,293
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 26 0 0.00% $202,624 $0
Fountain Hills 15 0 0.00% $411,000 $0
Gila Bend 7 0 0.00% $36,000 $0
Gilbert 5287 398 7.53% $0 $0
Glendale 1224 309 25.25% $4,085,807 $1,381,994
Goodyear 159 30 18.87% $148,573 $7,800
Guadalupe 7 0 0.00% $10,800 $0
Litchfield Park 5 0 0.00% $118,900 $0
Unincorporated Maricopa County 1061 76 7.16% $3,624,310 $68,220
Mesa 528 38 7.20% $2,850,466 $118,570
Paradise Valley 95 0 0.00% $469,300 $0
Peoria 299 56 18.73% $282,333 $19,247
Phoenix 947 96 10.14% $7,843,312 $455,408
Queen Creek (Maricopa County Only) 124 112 90.32% $301,446 $269,511
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 78 0 0.00% $502,493 $0
Scottsdale 237 0 0.00% $1,094,610 $0
Surprise 94 47 50.00% $498,810 $289,844
Tempe 111 2 1.80% $1,373,300 $12,000
Tolleson 10 0 0.00% $0 $0
Wickenburg 14 0 0.00% $32,589 $0
Youngtown 12 0 0.00% $21,247 $0
Gilbert (Pinal County Only) 1 1 100.00% $0 $0
Mesa (Pinal County Only) 22 7 31.82% $7,380 $1,730
Queen Creek (Pinal County Only) 5 3 60.00% $4,697 $1,600
Maricopa County (Pinal County Only) 3 1 33.33% $707 $37
Maricopa County (Yavapai County Only) 6 0 0.00% $1,760 $0
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 195
Table 5-11: Asset inventory exposure due to dam failure inundation
Community
Total Facilities
Reported by
Community
Impacted
Facilities
Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
Total Replacement
Value of All Facilities
Reported by
Community
(x $1,000)
Estimated
Replacement
Value Exposed to
Hazard
(x $1,000)
HIGH HAZARD
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 10917 21 0.19% $26,024,918 $23,335
Avondale 131 0 0.00% $179,460 $0
Buckeye 125 16 12.80% $268,667 $23,335
Carefree 6 0 0.00% $9,000 $0
Cave Creek 4 0 0.00% $13,258 $0
Chandler 277 0 0.00% $1,361,072 $0
El Mirage 34 0 0.00% $285,542 $0
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 26 0 0.00% $202,624 $0
Fountain Hills 15 0 0.00% $411,000 $0
Gila Bend 7 0 0.00% $36,000 $0
Gilbert 5287 0 0.00% $0 $0
Glendale 1224 0 0.00% $4,085,807 $0
Goodyear 159 0 0.00% $148,573 $0
Guadalupe 7 0 0.00% $10,800 $0
Litchfield Park 5 0 0.00% $118,900 $0
Unincorporated Maricopa County 1061 5 0.47% $3,624,310 $0
Mesa 528 0 0.00% $2,850,466 $0
Paradise Valley 95 0 0.00% $469,300 $0
Peoria 299 0 0.00% $282,333 $0
Phoenix 947 0 0.00% $7,843,312 $0
Queen Creek (Maricopa County Only) 124 0 0.00% $301,446 $0
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 78 0 0.00% $502,493 $0
Scottsdale 237 0 0.00% $1,094,610 $0
Surprise 94 0 0.00% $498,810 $0
Tempe 111 0 0.00% $1,373,300 $0
Tolleson 10 0 0.00% $0 $0
Wickenburg 14 0 0.00% $32,589 $0
Youngtown 12 0 0.00% $21,247 $0
Gilbert (Pinal County Only) 1 0 0.00% $0 $0
Mesa (Pinal County Only) 22 0 0.00% $7,380 $0
Queen Creek (Pinal County Only) 5 0 0.00% $4,697 $0
Maricopa County (Pinal County Only) 3 0 0.00% $707 $0
Maricopa County (Yavapai County Only) 6 0 0.00% $1,760 $0
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 196
Table 5-11: Asset inventory exposure due to dam failure inundation
Community
Total Facilities
Reported by
Community
Impacted
Facilities
Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
Total Replacement
Value of All Facilities
Reported by
Community
(x $1,000)
Estimated
Replacement
Value Exposed to
Hazard
(x $1,000)
MEDIUM HAZARD
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 10,917 3,800 34.81% $26,024,918 $820,612
Avondale 131 10 7.63% $179,460 $3,851
Buckeye 125 0 0.00% $268,667 $0
Carefree 6 0 0.00% $9,000 $0
Cave Creek 4 0 0.00% $13,258 $0
Chandler 277 5 1.81% $1,361,072 $7,658
El Mirage 34 19 55.88% $285,542 $123,370
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 26 0 0.00% $202,624 $0
Fountain Hills 15 0 0.00% $411,000 $0
Gila Bend 7 0 0.00% $36,000 $0
Gilbert 5,287 3,582 67.75% $0 $0
Glendale ,1224 14 1.14% $4,085,807 $0
Goodyear 159 40 25.16% $148,573 $32,110
Guadalupe 7 0 0.00% $10,800 $0
Litchfield Park 5 0 0.00% $118,900 $0
Unincorporated Maricopa County 1,061 46 4.34% $3,624,310 $253,980
Mesa 528 39 7.39% $2,850,466 $143,920
Paradise Valley 95 0 0.00% $469,300 $0
Peoria 299 0 0.00% $282,333 $0
Phoenix 947 0 0.00% $7,843,312 $0
Queen Creek (Maricopa County Only) 124 7 5.65% $301,446 $15,915
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 78 0 0.00% $502,493 $0
Scottsdale 237 0 0.00% $1,094,610 $0
Surprise 94 38 40.43% $498,810 $239,809
Tempe 111 0 0.00% $1,373,300 $0
Tolleson 10 0 0.00% $0 $0
Wickenburg 14 0 0.00% $32,589 $0
Youngtown 12 0 0.00% $21,247 $0
Gilbert (Pinal County Only) 1 0 0.00% $0 $0
Mesa (Pinal County Only) 22 0 0.00% $7,380 $0
Queen Creek (Pinal County Only) 5 0 0.00% $4,697 $0
Maricopa County (Pinal County Only) 3 0 0.00% $707 $0
Maricopa County (Yavapai County Only) 6 0 0.00% $1,760 $0
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 197
Table 5-12: Residential structures exposed to emergency spillway inundation
Community
Residential
Building
Count
Residential Building Exposure Residential
Building
Replacement
Value (x$1,000)
Residential Building Value Exposed
Total Percent Total (x$1,000) Percent
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 1,639,265 218,715 13.34% $542,436,633 $72,664,531 13.40%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 295 291 98.64% $76,791 $75,619 98.47%
Avondale 26,802 0 0.00% $7,272,041 $0 0.00%
Buckeye 18,206 1,353 7.43% $4,946,783 $367,732 7.43%
Carefree 2,242 0 0.00% $1,922,010 $0 0.00%
Cave Creek 2,498 0 0.00% $1,628,751 $0 0.00%
Chandler 94,257 0 0.00% $34,713,265 $0 0.00%
El Mirage 11,307 9,889 87.46% $2,655,346 $2,322,499 87.47%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 308 0 0.00% $260,045 $0 0.00%
Fountain Hills 13,105 0 0.00% $5,944,909 $0 0.00%
Gila Bend 944 0 0.00% $118,937 $0 0.00%
Gilbert 74,821 8,966 11.98% $29,339,526 $3,515,983 11.98%
Glendale 90,415 19,942 22.06% $24,665,480 $13,008,089 52.74%
Goodyear 25,023 6,875 27.47% $8,326,438 $2,287,555 27.47%
Guadalupe 1,397 0 0.00% $269,202 $0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 2,616 0 0.00% $996,356 $0 0.00%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 142,777 16,808 11.77% $45,530,720 $5,359,869 11.77%
Mesa 201,507 9,191 4.56% $59,328,380 $2,705,947 4.56%
Paradise Valley 5,621 0 0.00% $11,738,020 $0 0.00%
Peoria 64,806 17,865 27.57% $21,410,130 $5,902,113 27.57%
Phoenix 590,476 90,618 15.35% $167,455,500 $25,698,678 15.35%
Queen Creek 8,422 8,118 96.39% $2,890,493 $2,786,003 96.39%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 2,680 0 0.00% $919,777 $0 0.00%
Scottsdale 123,959 0 0.00% $67,660,310 $0 0.00%
Surprise 52,607 27,050 51.42% $15,652,750 $8,048,600 51.42%
Tempe 73,603 1,491 2.03% $24,383,780 $493,819 2.03%
Tolleson 2,165 0 0.00% $505,455 $0 0.00%
Wickenburg 3,610 258 7.15% $1,285,212 $92,025 7.16%
Youngtown 2,796 0 0.00% $540,226 $0 0.00%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 606 404 66.67% $207,814 $138,592 66.69%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 5 0 0.00% $1,321 $0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 54 0 0.00% $19,703 $0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 198
Table 5-13: Residential structures exposed to dam failure inundation
Community
Residential
Building
Count
Residential Building Exposure
Residential
Building
Replacement
Value (x$1,000)
Residential Building Value
Exposed
Total Percent Total (x$1,000) Percent
HIGH HAZARD
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 1,639,265 279 0.02% $542,436,633 $88,444 0.02%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 295 0 0.00% $76,791 $0 0.00%
Avondale 26,802 0 0.00% $7,272,041 $0 0.00%
Buckeye 18,206 9 0.05% $4,946,783 $2,377 0.05%
Carefree 2,242 0 0.00% $1,922,010 $0 0.00%
Cave Creek 2,498 0 0.00% $1,628,751 $0 0.00%
Chandler 94,257 0 0.00% $34,713,265 $0 0.00%
El Mirage 11,307 0 0.00% $2,655,346 $0 0.00%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 308 0 0.00% $260,045 $0 0.00%
Fountain Hills 13,105 0 0.00% $5,944,909 $0 0.00%
Gila Bend 944 0 0.00% $118,937 $0 0.00%
Gilbert 74,821 0 0.00% $29,339,526 $0 0.00%
Glendale 90,415 0 0.00% $24,665,480 $0 0.00%
Goodyear 25,023 0 0.00% $8,326,438 $0 0.00%
Guadalupe 1,397 0 0.00% $269,202 $0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 2,616 0 0.00% $996,356 $0 0.00%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 142,777 270 0.19% $45,530,720 $86,068 0.19%
Mesa 201,507 0 0.00% $59,328,380 $0 0.00%
Paradise Valley 5,621 0 0.00% $11,738,020 $0 0.00%
Peoria 64,806 0 0.00% $21,410,130 $0 0.00%
Phoenix 590,476 0 0.00% $167,455,500 $0 0.00%
Queen Creek 8,422 0 0.00% $2,890,493 $0 0.00%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 2,680 0 0.00% $919,777 $0 0.00%
Scottsdale 123,959 0 0.00% $67,660,310 $0 0.00%
Surprise 52,607 0 0.00% $15,652,750 $0 0.00%
Tempe 73,603 0 0.00% $24,383,780 $0 0.00%
Tolleson 2,165 0 0.00% $505,455 $0 0.00%
Wickenburg 3,610 0 0.00% $1,285,212 $0 0.00%
Youngtown 2,796 0 0.00% $540,226 $0 0.00%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 606 0 0.00% $207,814 $0 0.00%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 5 0 0.00% $1,321 $0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 54 0 0.00% $19,703 $0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 199
Table 5-13: Residential structures exposed to dam failure inundation
Community
Residential
Building
Count
Residential Building Exposure
Residential
Building
Replacement
Value (x$1,000)
Residential Building Value
Exposed
Total Percent Total (x$1,000) Percent
MEDIUM HAZARD
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 1,639,265 115,046 7.02% $542,436,633 $38,886,441 7.17%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 295 0 0.00% $76,791 $0 0.00%
Avondale 26,802 823 3.07% $7,272,041 $223,241 3.07%
Buckeye 18,206 0 0.00% $4,946,783 $0 0.00%
Carefree 2,242 0 0.00% $1,922,010 $0 0.00%
Cave Creek 2,498 0 0.00% $1,628,751 $0 0.00%
Chandler 94,257 4,483 4.76% $34,713,265 $1,650,962 4.76%
El Mirage 11,307 9,863 87.22% $2,655,346 $2,316,165 87.23%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 308 0 0.00% $260,045 $0 0.00%
Fountain Hills 13,105 0 0.00% $5,944,909 $0 0.00%
Gila Bend 944 0 0.00% $118,937 $0 0.00%
Gilbert 74,821 52,126 69.67% $29,339,526 $20,439,864 69.67%
Glendale 90,415 1,812 2.00% $24,665,480 $494,443 2.00%
Goodyear 25,023 4,750 18.98% $8,326,438 $1,580,691 18.98%
Guadalupe 1,397 0 0.00% $269,202 $0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 2,616 206 7.86% $996,356 $78,307 7.86%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 142,777 1,660 1.16% $45,530,720 $529,474 1.16%
Mesa 201,507 10,284 5.10% $59,328,380 $3,027,751 5.10%
Paradise Valley 5,621 0 0.00% $11,738,020 $0 0.00%
Peoria 64,806 0 0.00% $21,410,130 $0 0.00%
Phoenix 590,476 0 0.00% $167,455,500 $0 0.00%
Queen Creek 8,422 297 3.53% $2,890,493 $101,942 3.53%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 2,680 0 0.00% $919,777 $0 0.00%
Scottsdale 123,959 0 0.00% $67,660,310 $0 0.00%
Surprise 52,607 27,702 52.66% $15,652,750 $8,242,504 52.66%
Tempe 73,603 0 0.00% $24,383,780 $0 0.00%
Tolleson 2,165 0 0.00% $505,455 $0 0.00%
Wickenburg 3,610 0 0.00% $1,285,212 $0 0.00%
Youngtown 2,796 1,041 37.22% $540,226 $201,096 37.22%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 606 0 0.00% $207,814 $0 0.00%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 5 0 0.00% $1,321 $0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 54 0 0.00% $19,703 $0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 200
Table 5-14: Population sectors exposed to emergency spillway inundation
Community
Total
Population
Population Exposed Total
Population
Over 65
Population Over 65 Exposed
Total Percent Total Percent
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 4,136,787 553,274 13.37% 538,166 84,203 15.93%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 314 307 97.77% 149 146 100.00%
Avondale 79,485 0 0.00% 5,313 0 0.03%
Buckeye 65,452 4,521 6.91% 5,141 286 26.16%
Carefree 3,580 0 0.00% 1,591 0 0.00%
Cave Creek 5,287 0 0.00% 1169 0 0.00%
Chandler 250,334 0 0.00% 23,435 0 0.00%
El Mirage 33,728 29,633 87.86% 2,700 2,319 85.49%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 1017 0 0.00% 85 0 0.00%
Fountain Hills 23,536 0 0.00% 7,318 0 6.94%
Gila Bend 2,012 0 0.00% 193 0 0.00%
Gilbert 239,546 27,549 11.50% 17,960 3,494 19.35%
Glendale 237,327 50,181 21.14% 23,675 6,466 25.06%
Goodyear 78,118 20,317 26.01% 10,094 4,802 47.37%
Guadalupe 6,230 0 0.00% 581 0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 5,980 1 0.02% 1,065 0 0.00%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 290,179 29,122 10.04% 95,187 13,269 15.02%
Mesa 467,657 24,403 5.22% 71,995 3,380 4.05%
Paradise Valley 13,834 0 0.00% 3,365 0 0.00%
Peoria 166,339 41,810 25.14% 25,308 8,367 34.71%
Phoenix 1,561,296 224,541 14.38% 143,448 24,137 17.06%
Queen Creek 35,720 34,408 96.33% 2,094 2,014 94.94%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 6,706 0 0.00% 1,004 0 0.00%
Scottsdale 237,929 0 0.00% 49,963 0 0.00%
Surprise 128,211 62,695 48.90% 26,025 14,761 58.09%
Tempe 176,809 3,191 1.80% 15,264 611 5.20%
Tolleson 6,904 0 0.00% 809 0 0.00%
Wickenburg 6,803 595 8.75% 2,058 151 4.62%
Youngtown 6,454 0 0.00% 1,177 0 0.00%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 1421 878 61.79% 128 73 0.00%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 7 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 206 0 0.00% 32 0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 201
Table 5-15: Population sectors exposed to dam failure inundation
Community
Total
Population
Population Exposed Total
Population
Over 65
Population Over 65 Exposed
Total Percent Total Percent
HIGH HAZARD
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 4,136,787 854 0.02% 538,166 60 0.01%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 314 0 0.00% 149 0 0.00%
Avondale 79,485 0 0.00% 5,313 0 0.00%
Buckeye 65,452 30 0.05% 5,141 2 0.04%
Carefree 3,580 0 0.00% 1,591 0 0.00%
Cave Creek 5,287 0 0.00% 1169 0 0.00%
Chandler 250,334 0 0.00% 23,435 0 0.00%
El Mirage 33,728 0 0.00% 2,700 0 0.00%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 1017 0 0.00% 85 0 0.00%
Fountain Hills 23,536 0 0.00% 7,318 0 0.00%
Gila Bend 2,012 0 0.00% 193 0 0.00%
Gilbert 239,546 0 0.00% 17,960 0 0.00%
Glendale 237,327 0 0.00% 23,675 0 0.00%
Goodyear 78,118 0 0.00% 10,094 0 0.00%
Guadalupe 6,230 0 0.00% 581 0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 5,980 0 0.00% 1,065 0 0.00%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 290,179 824 0.28% 95,187 58 0.06%
Mesa 467,657 0 0.00% 71,995 0 0.00%
Paradise Valley 13,834 0 0.00% 3,365 0 0.00%
Peoria 166,339 0 0.00% 25,308 0 0.00%
Phoenix 1,561,296 0 0.00% 143,448 0 0.00%
Queen Creek 35,720 0 0.00% 2,094 0 0.00%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 6,706 0 0.00% 1,004 0 0.00%
Scottsdale 237,929 0 0.00% 49,963 0 0.00%
Surprise 128,211 0 0.00% 26,025 0 0.00%
Tempe 176,809 0 0.00% 15,264 0 0.00%
Tolleson 6,904 0 0.00% 809 0 0.00%
Wickenburg 6,803 0 0.00% 2,058 0 0.00%
Youngtown 6,454 0 0.00% 1,177 0 0.00%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 1421 0 0.00% 128 0 0.00%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 7 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 206 0 0.00% 32 0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 202
Table 5-15: Population sectors exposed to dam failure inundation
Community
Total
Population
Population Exposed Total
Population
Over 65
Population Over 65 Exposed
Total Percent Total Percent
MEDIUM HAZARD
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 4,136,787 331,796 8.02% 538,166 36,287 6.74%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 314 0 0.00% 149 0 0.00%
Avondale 79,485 2,470 3.11% 5,313 166 3.13%
Buckeye 65,452 0 0.00% 5,141 0 0.00%
Carefree 3,580 0 0.00% 1,591 0 0.00%
Cave Creek 5,287 0 0.00% 1169 0 0.00%
Chandler 250,334 12,193 4.87% 23,435 1,093 4.66%
El Mirage 33,728 29,422 87.23% 2,700 2,376 87.98%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 1017 0 0.00% 85 0 0.00%
Fountain Hills 23,536 0 0.00% 7,318 0 0.00%
Gila Bend 2,012 0 0.00% 193 0 0.00%
Gilbert 239,546 166,477 69.50% 17,960 11,531 64.20%
Glendale 237,327 1,614 0.68% 23,675 9 0.04%
Goodyear 78,118 13,272 16.99% 10,094 2,342 23.20%
Guadalupe 6,230 0 0.00% 581 0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 5,980 516 8.63% 1,065 76 7.17%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 290,179 4,804 1.66% 95,187 481 0.51%
Mesa 467,657 30,101 6.44% 71,995 3,620 5.03%
Paradise Valley 13,834 0 0.00% 3,365 0 0.00%
Peoria 166,339 0 0.00% 25,308 0 0.00%
Phoenix 1,561,296 0 0.00% 143,448 0 0.00%
Queen Creek 35,720 1,280 3.58% 2,094 53 2.51%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 6,706 0 0.00% 1,004 0 0.00%
Scottsdale 237,929 0 0.00% 49,963 0 0.00%
Surprise 128,211 66,853 52.14% 26,025 14,161 54.41%
Tempe 176,809 0 0.00% 15,264 0 0.00%
Tolleson 6,904 0 0.00% 809 0 0.00%
Wickenburg 6,803 0 0.00% 2,058 0 0.00%
Youngtown 6,454 2,795 43.31% 1,177 380 32.27%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 1421 0 0.00% 128 0 0.00%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 7 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 206 0 0.00% 32 0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 203
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 FRSs are long linear structures that
intercept runoff from multiple washes and have emergency spillways that are not
always directed to a regional watercourse. All 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.
Changes in Development in the Hazard Prone Area
The vulnerability analysis indicates that five to 14% of the county population is situated
within the potential downstream inundation limits of an emergency spillway or elevated
hazard dam failure. Recent and anticipated changes in development will expand the
exposed footprint, with over half of the county population expected to be situated
within dam failure inundation limits of some dam. Prohibition of development within
those limits is not feasible. Instead, public awareness measures such as notices on final
plats and public education on the need for vigilant dam safety measures 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, 2020,
http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/SurfaceWater/DamSafety/default.htm
Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, 2018, State of Arizona
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018 Update.
City of Phoenix, 2020, Street Transportation Department.
Flood Control District of Maricopa County, 1997, Storm Report, Tropical Storm Nora
– September 1997, prepared by S. D. Waters.
Flood Control District of Maricopa County, 2020, personal contact with Dam Safety
Group.
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
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 204
Maps 1A, 1B, and 1C – Dam Spillway Flood Hazard Map
Maps 2A, 2B, and 2C – Potential Dam Failure Flood Hazard Map
!.
!.
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
![
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!.
!(
!.
!(
!(
!(
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
rx303
rx74
rx202
rx85
rx51
rx101
rx85
rx101
rx303
rx303
rx303
rx202
£¤60
£¤71 £¤93
£¤60
£¤60
Emergency SpillwayInundation
High
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Major Streams
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 1AMaricopa CountyEmergency SpillwayFlood Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Sources: JE Fuller 2020; NID 2020; FCDMC 2020; ADWR 2020; TIGER 2020
NOTE: Emergency spillway inundation mapping has not beenproduced for the all dams impacting the county and the hazard zones depicted are not comprehensive
Federal Dams
#*High*
#*Significant*
#*Low*
Arizona Jurisdictional Dams
!(High*
!(Significant*
!(Low*
!.High*, Safety Deficiency**
![High*, Unsafe**
!.Significant*, Safety Deficiency**
!.Low*, Safety Deficiency**
*Federal Rating **ADWR Dam Safety Rating
!.
!.
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
![
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!.
!(
!(
!(
!(
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
rx88
rx303
rx74
rx202
rx87
rx51
rx101
rx24
rx153
rx143
rx303
rx101
rx303
rx202
rx303
rx202
rx51
£¤60
£¤60
£¤60
£¤60
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 1BMaricopa CountyEmergency SpillwayFlood Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Sources: JE Fuller 2020; NID 2020; FCDMC 2020; ADWR 2020; TIGER 2020
NOTE: Emergency spillway inundation mapping has not beenproduced for the all dams impacting the county and the hazard zones depicted are not comprehensive
Emergency SpillwayInundation
High
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Major Streams
Federal Dams
#*High*
#*Significant*
#*Low*
Arizona Jurisdictional Dams
!(High*
!(Significant*
!(Low*
!.High*, Safety Deficiency**
![High*, Unsafe**
!.Significant*, Safety Deficiency**
!.Low*, Safety Deficiency**
*Federal Rating **ADWR Dam Safety Rating
!.
!(![!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!.!(
!(
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
§¨¦8
§¨¦8
rx238
rx85
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 1CMaricopa CountyEmergency SpillwayFlood Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Sources: JE Fuller 2020; NID 2020; FCDMC 2020; ADWR 2020; TIGER 2020
NOTE: Emergency spillway inundation mapping has not beenproduced for the all dams impacting the county and the hazard zones depicted are not comprehensive
Emergency SpillwayInundation
High
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Major Streams
Federal Dams
#*High*
#*Significant*
#*Low*
Arizona Jurisdictional Dams
!(High*
!(Significant*
!(Low*
!.High*, Safety Deficiency**
![High*, Unsafe**;
!.Significant*, Safety Deficiency**
!.Low*, Safety Deficiency**
*Federal Rating **ADWR Dam Safety Rating
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
rx303
rx74
rx202
rx85
rx51
rx101
rx85
rx101
rx303
rx303
rx303
rx202
£¤60
£¤71 £¤93
£¤60
£¤60
Potential Dam Failure Flooding Hazard Rating
High
Medium
Low
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 2AMaricopa CountyPotential Dam FailureFlood Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Sources: JE Fuller 2020; NID 2020; FCDMC 2020; ADWR 2020; TIGER 2020
Federal Dams
#*High*
#*Significant*
#*Low*
Arizona Jurisdictional Dams
!(High
!(Significant
!(Low
![High, Unsafe**
!.High, Safety Deficiency**
!.Significant, Safety Deficiency**
!.Low, Safety Deficiency**
*Federal Rating **ADWR Dam Safety Rating
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
rx88
rx303
rx202
rx87
rx51
rx101
rx24
rx153
rx143
rx202
rx303
rx202
rx51rx101
rx303
£¤60£¤60
£¤60
£¤60
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 2BMaricopa CountyPotential Dam FailureFlood Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Sources: JE Fuller 2020; NID 2020; FCDMC 2020; ADWR 2020; TIGER 2020
Federal Dams
#*High*
#*Significant*
#*Low*
Arizona Jurisdictional Dams
!(High
!(Significant
!(Low
![High, Unsafe**
!.High, Safety Deficiency**
!.Significant, Safety Deficiency**
!.Low, Safety Deficiency**
Potential Dam Failure Flooding Hazard Rating
High
Medium
Low
*Federal Rating **ADWR Dam Safety Rating
§¨¦8
§¨¦8
rx238
rx85
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 2CMaricopa CountyPotential Dam FailureFlood Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Sources: JE Fuller 2020; NID 2020; FCDMC 2020; ADWR 2020; TIGER 2020
*Federal Rating **ADWR Dam Safety Rating
Federal Dams
#*High*
#*Significant*
#*Low*
Arizona Jurisdictional Dams
!(High
!(Significant
!(Low
![High, Unsafe**
!.High, Safety Deficiency**
!.Significant, Safety Deficiency**
!.Low, Safety Deficiency**
Potential Dam Failure Flooding Hazard Rating
High
Medium
Low
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 205
5.3.2 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 stream
flows 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 and longer timeframes. 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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 206
History
Beginning in June 199930, Arizona has been under a continuous Gubernatorial
declared drought emergency for 31 years. Over the past plan cycle (2015-2020),
Maricopa County has been included as a primary county in USDA Secretarial drought
disaster declarations for crop years 2015, 2018, 2019 and 2020. 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 2018, there have been significantly more months with below normal precipitation
than months with above normal precipitation, and definite indications of a deficit trend
in precipitation.
Source: http://cefa.dri.edu/Westmap/Westmap_home.php
Figure 5-1: Average annual precipitation variance from a normal based on 1895-2018
period for Maricopa County
30 Via the current declaration, PCA 99006, issued by the Governor in June 1999 and continued by Executive Order 2007-10.
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1896190019041908191219161920192419281932193619401944194819521956196019641968197219761980198419881992199620002004200820122016PRECIPITATION, INCHESYEAR
Maricopa County Precipitation Departure from Normal -1895 to 2018
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 207
Source: http://cefa.dri.edu/Westmap/Westmap_home.php
Figure 5-2: Annual historic precipitation for Maricopa County from 1896 to 2017
Maricopa County remains in 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. After that there have been only 3-years of
above average precipitation; 2007, 2010, and 2015. 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 water 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). However, according to the Arizona Department of Water
Resources’ Drought Dashboard illustrated in Figure 5-3, Maricopa County has
experienced varying degrees of drought, with recent conditions worsening due to a lack
of summer monsoon activity.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 208
Source: https://new.azwater.gov/drought/drought-dashboard
Figure 5-3: Drought in Maricopa County from 2000 to 2020
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
project very near future expected conditions.
The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Act of 2006
(Public Law 109-430) prescribes an interagency approach for drought monitoring,
forecasting, and early warning (NIDIS, 2007). The NIDIS maintains the U.S. Drought
Portal 31 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 5-4, 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 5-5, 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 60-month 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
31 NIDIS U.S. Drought Portal website is located at: http://www.drought.gov/portal/server.pt/community/drought.gov/202
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 209
drought on a nationwide basis (FEMA, 1997) and neither of the Palmer indices is 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 a combination of the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI)
and streamflow records for the long-term drought status. Figure 5-6 presents the most
current long term maps available as of the writing of this plan.
Each of the three maps show general agreement and indicate that the majority
of Maricopa County currently remains in a drought condition with abnormally dry
conditions and expected worsening over the next six months.
Source: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/data/pngs/current/current_az_trd.png
Figure 5-4: U.S. Drought Monitor Map for November 10, 2020
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 210
Source: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/sdo_summary.html
Figure 5-5: U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook, October 2020 to January 2021
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 led 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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 211
Source: https://new.azwater.gov/drought/drought-status
Figure 5-6: Arizona long term drought status map for July September 2020
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 212
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; 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.
Climate Change Impacts
Increased severity and duration of drought due to climate change is one of the
“Key Messages” of the NCA report (Garfin, et.al., 2014). If current predictions are
valid, the increase in drought will only magnify the current drought related challenges
faced by the county. Accordingly, drought planning and contingencies for mitigating
the impacts of drought should factor in longer than expected durations and possibly
more frequent drought cycles.
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Drought CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-16 below.
Table 5-16: CPRI results by jurisdiction for drought
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Avondale Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.50
Buckeye Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.50
Carefree Highly Likely Limited 12-24 hours >1 week 2.95
Cave Creek Highly Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.95
Chandler Highly Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.95
El Mirage Highly Likely Critical >24 hours >1 week 3.25
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Possibly Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.05
Fountain Hills Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.50
Gila Bend Unlikely Negligible <6 hours >1 week 1.75
Gilbert Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.50
Glendale Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.50
Goodyear Highly Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.95
Guadalupe Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Litchfield Park Possibly Negligible >24 hours >1 week 1.75
Unincorporated Maricopa County Highly Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.95
Mesa Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.50
Paradise Valley Likely Limited >24 hours <1 week 2.40
Peoria Highly Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.95
Phoenix Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.50
Queen Creek Possibly Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.05
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.50
Scottsdale Likely Negligible >24 hours >1 week 2.20
Surprise Possibly Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.05
Tempe Highly Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.95
Tolleson Likely Critical >24 hours >1 week 2.80
Wickenburg Highly Likely Critical >24 hours >1 week 3.25
Youngtown Likely Critical >24 hours >1 week 2.80
County-wide average CPRI = 2.54
Vulnerability – Loss/Exposure 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
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 213
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 2020, Maricopa County farmers and ranchers received over $20.8
million in disaster related assistance funding from the U.S Department of Agriculture
(USDA) for crop and livestock damages 32. 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 to $8 million of these losses are likely drought
related and $4 to $5 million occurred in the span of 4 years. It is therefore realistic to
expect at least $1 to $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 six
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
32 EWG Farm Subsidy Database, 2020, http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=04013&progcode=total_dis
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 214
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.
The combination of these requirements will work to ensure that future
development in Maricopa County will address and/or recognize drought.
Changes in Development in the Hazard Prone Area
Maricopa County and most incorporated jurisdictions within the planning area
have experienced moderate to high growth rates over the past 5 years with annual
growth rates ranging from 0.75% to 6.47%. It is anticipated that growth will continue
over the next 5 years. Some development is converting agricultural land uses to
residential/commercial/industrial uses and in some cases, the water rights are
transferred to the water provider serving that development. Growth in non-agricultural
areas will likely require additional surface and ground water supplies. The anticipated
development and conversion of agricultural lands versus non-agricultural lands is about
60% and 40% countywide. As growth occurs, drought vulnerability would likely be
impacted as potable water demand faces dwindling supply sources exacerbated by
drought.
Sources
Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2020, https://new.azwater.gov/drought
Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2019, 2019 Arizona Drought Preparedness
Annual Report
Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, 2018, State of Arizona
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018 Update.
Environmental Working Group, 2020 Farm Subsidy Database accessed at:
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=04013&progcode=total_dis
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
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 215
http://www.water.az.gov/gdtf/content/files/06262003/Improved_Drought_Plannin
g_for_AZ_6-17.pdf
National Integrated Drought Information System, 2015, National Integrated Drought
Information System Implementation Plan, NOAA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2020, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-
services/disaster-assistance-program/index
Profile Maps
No profile maps are provided.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 216
5.3.3 Extreme Heat
Description
Extreme Heat refers to environmental conditions with high air temperatures,
often in combination with high shortwave or longwave radiation (sunlight, or heat
radiated from buildings and other surfaces) and/or high humidity. Under certain
conditions, low or high wind speeds can also increase the risks associated with high
heat (Kuras, et.al., 2017; Parsons, 2014). Extreme heat poses threats to the health and
well-being of humans, other animals, and plants, as well as critical infrastructure
systems including food, water, energy, and transportation. The major human health
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.
History
Maricopa County faces the highest summer temperatures of any major
urbanized area in the United States. The average daily high temperature in the months
of June, July, and August exceeds 100°F at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, based on
official U.S. Climate Normals for the period 1981–2010. Both daytime and nighttime
temperatures have steadily increased in urbanized portions Maricopa County since the
1950s. Days with temperatures of 100°F or above have increased at a rate of 5.2 days
per decade; nights with temperatures of 85°F or above have increased at a rate of 7.3
days per decade (Figure 5-7) (Hondula, 2020).
Heat exerts a considerable public health burden in Maricopa County. For the
period of 2006–2020, there were more than 1,700 confirmed deaths attributed to
excessive natural heat in Maricopa County (MCDPH, 2020) (Figure 5-8a). The number
of heat-associated deaths reported by the Maricopa County Department of Public
Health (MCDPH) has increased each year since 2014. The more than 250 deaths
reported in 2020 marked the highest annual total since the county began its heat
surveillance program in 2006. The vast majority of heat-associated deaths (85%) occur
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 217
during the hot summer months of June, July and August, with another 13% of cases in
the months of May, September, and October. Extreme heat also leads to increases in
illnesses that require hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and other medical
treatment. Figure 5-8b illustrates the contribution of heat-related emergency room
visits to the total emergency room case load in summer 2020; during extreme heat
events, heat-related cases can account for more than 1% of total visits.
Probability/Magnitude
During Arizona's hottest months, the NOAA/National Weather Service (NWS)
issues weather alerts to notify the public when unusually hot weather is expected. These
alerts are intended to raise awareness and prevent heat illness and death from occurring
and mitigate financial impacts. When the NWS issues an alert, it should serve as a
signal that on that day it is not "business as usual."
Figure 5-7: Progression of days with maximum temperature over 100°F and minimum
temperature over 85°F for Phoenix Sky Harbor from 1950 to 2020
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 218
Figure 5-8a: Total heat-associated deaths recorded by the Maricopa County
Department of Public Health heat surveillance system, 2006–2020
Figure 5-8b: Daily emergency room visits as a percent of all visits by day during the
2020 heat season for Maricopa County
Research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and
academic institutions shows that heat-associated deaths in Arizona can occur with
temperatures in the mid-80s and hotter, with heat-related illnesses beginning to occur
at even lower temperatures (Petitti et al. 2016; Vaidyanathan et al. 2019). Research also
Note: Bars are shaded by NWS HeatRisk category (determined from the official station at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, see description
in next session). Stars indicate days when NWS issued an Excessive Heat Warning.
Note: 2020 data are preliminary as of
the time of this publication with
expected cases expected to be added
upon final medical examiner review.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 219
shows that our bodies have a greater ability to tolerate heat as the summer wears on.
For example, a temperature of 105°F in May, may seem hot and lead to elevated cases
of illness and death, whereas the same temperature in June or July will not seem as hot
and may not have the same public health consequences, because our bodies have
acclimated to the heat. Hence, local forecasters do not use one single, constant
temperature used to determine when an alert will be issued. Instead, the NWS HeatRisk
product (https://www.wrh.noaa.gov/wrh/heatrisk/) is leveraged to identify unusually
hot days for a given time of year. It is noted that other metrics are available and may
be commonly used by the public or in specific sectors (e.g. heat index, wet bulb globe
temperature) though they are not used in the alerting process for Maricopa County by
NWS.
When "High" or "Very High" HeatRisk conditions are forecast, an Excessive
Heat Watch (EHA) or Excessive Heat Warning (EHW) will be issued. Both alerts are
a way to give public and emergency officials a "heads up" that extreme temperatures
are expected. An EHA conveys a moderate (50%) confidence that excessive heat will
occur. If confidence increases to a high (80%+) level, an EHW is issued (or an existing
EHA is upgraded to an EHW). Alerts are issued by "forecast zones," geographical areas
of which 20 cover some portion of Maricopa County. A map is available at
https://www.weather.gov/psr/Phoenix_CWA_Zones. (Note that the nine zones that
cover most of the Phoenix metro area are generally treated as one for issuing heat
watches and warnings.) The typical "lead time" (number of days prior to the weather
event) for heat alerts is three to five days. Once an alert is issued, it will continue until
conditions abate. Figure 5-8b (above) and Figure 5-8c (below) show that the
“HeatRisk” product and EHWs were both strongly correlated with emergency room
visits during the historic record-breaking 2020 heat season, with Extreme HeatRisk
days having about 10 times greater visits than Low HeatRisk days. In addition, heat
impacts occurred on nearly every day from April to September in 2020, including for
Low and Medium HeatRisk conditions that fall below EHW criteria. Additional
information is available from the NWS at https://www.weather.gov/psr/HeatSafety.
Figure 5-8c: Average percent of emergency room visits in Maricopa County (April-
September 2020) due to heat-related illness by HeatRisk category
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 220
Over the period 2008–2020, Excessive Heat Warnings (EHW) were in effect
for a total of 263 days (average of 20.2 days per year). The probability of an Excessive
Heat Warning being in effect on any given day over that time period varied by month
as follows:
• April: 1.3% (5 EHW days)
• May: 3.2% (13 EHW days)
• June: 19.0% (74 EHW days)
• July: 17.1% (69 EHW days)
• August: 22.3% (90 EHW days)
• September: 3.1% (12 EHW days)
No Excessive Heat Warnings have been issued outside of the months April–
September in the previous 13 years in Maricopa County.
It is noted that Carefree, Cave Creek, Fountain Hills, and Wickenburg, and the
northern extents of Phoenix, Peoria, and Scottsdale, are all located at higher elevations
than the rest of the Plan jurisdictions. Accordingly, average maximum temperatures
for these jurisdictions tend to be 2-5 °F less than their neighboring communities, with
average maximum summertime temperatures that range from 100 to 105 °F. Extreme
maximums for these communities occasionally push higher into the 110 to 115 °F
range, but with less frequency than the other Plan jurisdictions. Overnight low
temperatures outside of the urban area can be significantly cooler (5-15 °F), even
during heat events.
Climate Change Impacts
Increased temperatures and durations associated with extreme heat events due
to climate change is one of the “Key Messages” of the NCA report (Garfin, et al., 2014).
More severe heat is projected for hot summer days in Arizona in climate model
simulations that account for lower and higher amounts of future greenhouse gas
emissions (Figure 5-9a). Additional warming is expected because of continued
urbanization (Georgescu et al., 2014). Figures 5-9b and 5-9c show respective plots of
the number days the Phoenix temperatures have exceeded 100°F and 110°F, in contrast
to the projected temperatures from climate change models (NWS, 2020). Red dots
represent the number of days by year as observed at the NWS official climate station
for Phoenix (Sky Harbor Airport), whereas pink bars represent the given decadal
average. The gray (black) bars represent the decadal average number of days with high
temperatures at-or-above 100 °F in Phoenix, AZ from nineteen CMIP5 climate model
projections for the intermediate emission scenario RCP4.5 (high emission scenario
RCP8.5). Vertical orange lines represent the 10th to 90th percentile range of values.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 221
Figure 5-9a: Projected temperature changes for Arizona based on varied future
greenhouse gas emission assumptions
Figure 5-9b: Past and projected number of days in a year with high temperatures in
Phoenix, AZ at-or-above 100 °F
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 222
Figure 5-9c: Past and projected number of days in a year with high temperatures in
Phoenix, AZ at-or-above 110 °F
If current projections are realized, the increase in both temperature and
durations of extreme heat days within the urbanized areas of the county will magnify
the current extreme heat related challenges faced by the county and participating
jurisdictions. Extreme heat mitigation measures should probably consider that
durations of events will be longer, and the overall duration of hot summer temperatures
is anticipated to lengthen as well.
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Extreme Heat CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-17
below.
Table 5-17: CPRI results by jurisdiction for extreme heat
Participating
Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Avondale Likely Critical > 24 hours > 1 week 2.80
Buckeye Highly Likely Limited > 24 hours > 1 week 2.95
Carefree Highly Likely Critical > 24 hours < 1 week 3.15
Cave Creek Highly Likely Limited > 24 hours < 1 week 2.85
Chandler Highly Likely Critical > 24 hours < 1 week 3.15
El Mirage Highly Likely Critical > 24 hours > 1 week 3.25
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Likely Limited > 24 hours > 1 week 2.50
Fountain Hills Likely Limited > 24 hours < 1 week 2.40
Gila Bend Likely Limited > 24 hours > 1 week 2.50
Gilbert Highly Likely Limited > 24 hours < 1 week 2.85
Glendale Highly Likely Critical > 24 hours > 1 week 3.25
Goodyear Highly Likely Limited > 24 hours < 1 week 2.85
Guadalupe Highly Likely Limited > 24 hours > 1 week 2.95
Litchfield Park Highly Likely Limited > 24 hours > 1 week 2.95
Unincorporated Maricopa County Highly Likely Critical > 24 hours < 1 week 3.15
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 223
Table 5-17: CPRI results by jurisdiction for extreme heat
Participating
Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Mesa Likely Critical > 24 hours < 1 week 2.70
Paradise Valley Highly Likely Critical > 24 hours < 1 week 3.15
Peoria Highly Likely Critical > 24 hours > 1 week 3.25
Phoenix Highly Likely Critical > 24 hours < 1 week 3.15
Queen Creek Likely Limited > 24 hours < 1 week 2.40
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community Highly Likely Limited > 24 hours > 1 week 2.95
Scottsdale Likely Limited > 24 hours < 1 week 2.40
Surprise Likely Critical > 24 hours < 1 week 2.70
Tempe Highly Likely Limited > 24 hours > 1 week 2.95
Tolleson Highly Likely Critical > 24 hours > 1 week 3.25
Wickenburg Highly Likely Critical > 24 hours < 1 week 3.15
Youngtown Highly Likely Critical > 24 hours > 1 week 3.25
County-wide average CPRI = 2.92
Vulnerability – Heat Vulnerability Index Assessment
Risk assessment for extreme heat for each jurisdiction requires attention to the
social and environmental variables that interactively lead to higher vulnerability for
certain populations. Researchers often quantitatively represent vulnerability using
indices derived from large-scale data sets. A heat vulnerability index (HVI) used by
academic researchers (Reid, et.al., 2009; Harlan, et.al., 2013) has been calculated for
all census tracts in Maricopa County (Figures 5-10a and 5-10b). Based on the HVI,
approximately 25% of Maricopa County residents (nearly 1,200,000 people) live in
census tracts classified as highly or very highly heat vulnerable. The percentage of
residents living in vulnerable areas varies highly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Based
on the most recently available social and environmental data, 100% of the residents of
Guadalupe, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and Wickenburg, all live
in census tracts classified as highly or very highly heat vulnerable. Cave Creek,
Phoenix, Youngtown, and Unincorporated portions of Maricopa County also have
disproportionately higher percentages of residents living in heat vulnerable areas.
Twenty-one (21) jurisdictions included in this plan have at least some residents living
in census tracts classified as highly heat vulnerable. Importantly, measures of heat
vulnerability are only estimates of where impacts are most likely to occur; residents to
live outside of the most vulnerable areas are still subject to risk and adverse outcomes
if exposed to heat without effective protective measures. Vulnerability indices also do
not adequately represent risks facing transient, unsheltered, and undocumented
individuals.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 224
Figure 5-10a: High or very high heat vulnerability index exposure by community and
percent population
Figure 5-10b: High or very high heat vulnerability index exposure by community and
total population
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 225
Vulnerability – Loss/Exposure Estimations
Losses due to extreme heat primarily occur in the form of death and illness. The
risk of heat-associated deaths and illnesses increases non-linearly as a function of
temperature (Figure 5-11). Mean temperatures explain approximately 33% of the
variability in the time series of daily heat-associated deaths; mean temperatures are
more closely associated with heat-associated deaths than either daily maximum or daily
minimum temperatures. On average, one heat-associated death is expected in Maricopa
County on days with a mean temperature of 95°F, two deaths are expected on days with
a mean temperature of 100°F, and more than four deaths are expected on days with a
mean temperature of 105°F.
Although the expected number of heat-associated deaths each day increases as
a function of temperature, the total number of heat-associated deaths that occur in the
county is higher for more modest temperatures than the highest temperatures, because
days with more modest temperatures occur more frequently. A total of 374 heat-
associated deaths (20.5% of the total for 2006-2019) occurred on days with mean
temperatures of 101°F or above. Higher totals were observed in the five-degree
temperature intervals of 91-95°F (387, 26.0%) and 96-100°F (557, 37.4%). Thus, while
days with the highest temperatures pose the highest risk, there is a considerable public
health burden that accumulates across less severely hot summer days that occur more
regularly.
There were 1,491 heat-associated deaths recorded in Maricopa County over the
period 2006–2019. The MCDPH operates a rigorous heat-health surveillance program
and publishes publicly accessible annual reports identifying a wide range of risk factors
and circumstances associated with heat-associated deaths. Over the 14-year period for
which data are available:
• Men have accounted for nearly 75% of all cases, dying from heat at a rate
nearly three times higher than women
• Almost two-thirds of heat-related deaths have an outdoor place of injury,
and slightly more than one-third have an indoor place of injury. The vast
majority of cases associated with an indoor place of injury are linked to air
conditioning units that were not present, functioning, and/or operational at
the time of death.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 226
Figure 5-11: Heat associated deaths versus daily mean temperature
• At least 270 unsheltered individuals were among the heat-associated
decedents, representing at least 18% of all cases and a significantly
disproportionately higher risk than the sheltered population of the county
• 86% of heat-associated decedents were residents of Maricopa County; out-
of-state visitors represent less than 10% of all cases
• Substance abuse (drugs or alcohol) was noted in the records for at least 552
decedents, representing at least 37% of all cases
• The heat-associated death rate is highest for those aged 75 and above
compared to other age groups, although the total number of heat-associated
deaths is highest for the 50-64-year-old age group. In 2019, cases were
approximately evenly distributed between the population aged 49 and
younger, age 50-64, and age 65 and above.
• African Americans and Native Americans have had the highest heat-
associated death rates. Whites, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics have
had the lowest heat-associated death rates; the rate for those identifying as
Hispanic is typically the lowest of any group.
• Compared to other jurisdictions in Maricopa County, relatively high rates
of place-of-injury for heat-associated deaths are evident in Gila Bend,
Tolleson, Guadalupe, Phoenix, Buckeye, and Wickenburg. Relatively high
rates of heat-associated deaths based on decedent residence are evident in
Tolleson, Guadalupe, Cave Creek, Glendale, and Phoenix. It is important to
note that jurisdictional information about place of injury and/or residence
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 227
of heat-associated decedents is not consistently available from heat
surveillance records and calculation of heat-associated death rates is
impractical for many jurisdictions with smaller populations and/or case
counts. Every jurisdiction in Maricopa County except for Carefree, Salt
River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and the Unincorporated portions
of Maricopa County, is represented with at least one heat-associated death
in the MCDPH heat surveillance records for the period 2006–2019.
The total economic valuation of the heat-associated deaths that have occurred
in Maricopa County since 2006 is approximately $14,000,000,000 (an average of $1
billion per year), based on the EPA Value of Statistical Life estimate of $7.4 million in
2006, adjusted for inflation to 2020.
The MCDPH and Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) also track
cases of heat-related illnesses that require emergency department visits and
hospitalization. The most recent statistics from the MCDPH cover the period 2006–
2017, in which a total of 21,447 hospitalizations (emergency department and in-patient
visits) related to heat were recorded. These hospitalizations were associated with an
estimated $115,000,000 (nearly $10 million per year) in healthcare costs, applying
nationally adjusted mean costs per heat-related illness hospitalization from Schmeltz et
al. (2016). Additional healthcare costs are likely borne by residents of Maricopa County
for medical treatment related to heat that does not result in in patient or emergency
department visits.
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.
Recent history would indicate that the County may experience more than 200 heat-
related deaths annually in the coming years without enhanced risk mitigation strategies.
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 several decades, transforming a significant portion of the once natural desert
and/or agricultural farmlands, 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 (see
Figure 5-7b above). The impacts of this expansion include increased cooling costs for
residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, increased evaporation from surface
water resources, and greater demand on power resources and strains on electrical
infrastructure. According to a 1998 article in the Arizona Republic, the Salt River
Project estimated that for every degree increase in temperature, the utility's then
610,000 residential customers paid $3.2 million to $3.8 million extra per month in
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 228
cooling costs, or about $5 to $7 per customer per month (Az Republic, 1998). Given
inflation since that time, the average cost increase is likely to exceed $15 today.
Changes in Development in the Hazard Prone Area
All of the urbanized areas within Maricopa County and participating
jurisdictions have vulnerability to extreme heat. As development and population
continue to grow in nearly all jurisdictions, the vulnerability of each community
increases to this hazard. Future development in urban areas could affect the frequency
of extreme heat events due to the potential for increasing the urban heat island effects.
Buildings are not usually directly impacted by extreme heat; therefore, new
development will not necessarily increase extreme heat risk. However, population
growth associated with new development would raise the overall population exposure
and potentially increase the strain on existing utility infrastructure unless sufficient
concurrent utility expansions are made.
The use of green design and construction methods and materials can
significantly reduce the heat island effects. Examples may include green buildings that
require less energy to cool, use of good insulation on pipes and electric wirings, use of
reflective roofing materials to avoid the creation of heat sinks, and smart design of
walkways, parking structures, pedestrian zones, and landscaping to minimize exposure
to extreme heat may help reduce vulnerability of the built environment and the
individuals who use it.
Sources
Arizona Department of Health Services, 2004, Prevention Bulletin, Volume 18, No.
4, http://www.azdhs.gov/diro/pio/preventionbulletin/july04.pdf
Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, 2018, State of Arizona
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018 Update.
Federal Emergency Management Agency,1997, Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment – A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy.
Georgescu, M., Morefield, P. E., Bierwagen, B. G., & Weaver, C. P. (2014). Urban
adaptation can roll back warming of emerging megapolitan regions. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(8), 2909-2914.
Harlan, S. L., Declet-Barreto, J. H., Stefanov, W. L., & Petitti, D. B. (2013).
Neighborhood effects on heat deaths: social and environmental predictors of
vulnerability in Maricopa County, Arizona. Environmental health perspectives,
121(2), 197-204.
Hondula, D.M., (2020). Extreme Heat section statistics and edits. ASU Urban
Climate Research Center with underlying data are from NOAA/NWS.
Kuras, E. R., Richardson, M. B., Calkins, M. M., Ebi, K. L., Hess, J. J., Kintziger, K.
W., ... & Uejio, C. K. (2017). Opportunities and challenges for personal heat
exposure research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(8), 085001.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 229
Maricopa County Department of Public Health, Division of Disease Control, Office
of Epidemiology and Data Services, 2019, Heat-Associated Deaths In Maricopa
County, AZ Final Report for 2019
National Weather Service, Warning and Forecast Office – Phoenix, AZ, 2020. NWS
Phoenix (weather.gov)
Parsons, K. (2014). Human thermal environments: the effects of hot, moderate, and
cold environments on human health, comfort, and performance. CRC press.
Petitti, D. B., Hondula, D. M., Yang, S., Harlan, S. L., & Chowell, G. (2016).
Multiple trigger points for quantifying heat-health impacts: new evidence from a
hot climate. Environmental health perspectives, 124(2), 176-183.
Reid, C. E., O’neill, M. S., Gronlund, C. J., Brines, S. J., Brown, D. G., Diez-Roux,
A. V., & Schwartz, J. (2009). Mapping community determinants of heat
vulnerability. Environmental health perspectives, 117(11), 1730-1736.
Schmeltz, M. T., Petkova, E. P., & Gamble, J. L. (2016). Economic Burden of
Hospitalizations for Heat-Related Illnesses in the United States, 2001-2010.
International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(9), 894.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13090894
Vaidyanathan, A., Saha, S., Vicedo-Cabrera, A. M., Gasparrini, A., Abdurehman, N.,
Jordan, R., ... & Elixhauser, A. (2019). Assessment of extreme heat and
hospitalizations to inform early warning systems. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 116(12), 5420-5427.
Profile Maps
No profile maps are provided.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 230
5.3.4 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 Sossaman Road and University Drive—fissure runs diagonally through
a subdivision along the entrance; fissure known in 1973 and
subsequently backfilled
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 231
• 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
o 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 and compiled the data into a GIS database.
The latest update of GIS data published 33 has a version date of June 2019. In order to
estimate the areas of immediate risk, the MJPT chose to 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.
Climate Change Impacts
As previously stated, fissure development for most of the county is correlated
to overdrafting of local and regional groundwater tables. The NCA report (Garfin,
et.al., 2014) notes that one of the anticipated impacts of climate change for the
Southwest is a reduction in precipitation and streamflow volumes. This impact could
translate into a greater demand for groundwater which could further reduce
groundwater levels and increase the formation of subsidence areas and fissure risk. The
current management of groundwater withdrawals by the ADWR regulated active
management areas (AMA) will likely serve to keep these impacts in check, but
consideration for future expansion of fissures and subsidence zones could be warranted.
33 AZGS Document Repository at: http://repository.azgs.az.gov/uri_gin/azgs/dlio/997
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 232
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Fissure CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-18 below.
Table 5-18: CPRI results by jurisdiction for fissure hazard
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Avondale Possibly Negligible <6 hours >1 week 2.20
Buckeye Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <24 hours 1.10
Carefree Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.00
Cave Creek Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.00
Chandler Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.00
El Mirage Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <24 hours 1.10
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Unlikely Negligible 6-12 hours <24 hours 1.40
Fountain Hills Possibly Limited <6 hours >1 week 2.50
Gila Bend Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.00
Gilbert Highly Likely Negligible <6 hours >1 week 3.10
Glendale Likely Negligible 12-24 hours >1 week 2.35
Goodyear Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Guadalupe Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Litchfield Park Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Unincorporated Maricopa County Possibly Limited 12-24 hours >1 week 2.20
Mesa Possibly Limited <6 hours >1 week 2.50
Paradise Valley Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <1 week 1.65
Peoria Possibly Limited <6 hours >1 week 2.50
Phoenix Unlikely Negligible <6 hours >1 week 1.75
Queen Creek Possibly Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.90
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.50
Scottsdale Possibly Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.90
Surprise Possibly Limited <6 hours <6 hours 2.20
Tempe Possibly Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.05
Tolleson Unlikely Negligible >24 hours >1 week 1.30
Wickenburg Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.50
Youngtown Unlikely Limited >24 hours >1 week 1.60
County-wide average CPRI = 1.80
Vulnerability – Loss/Exposure 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 and
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
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 233
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 was
estimated instead, and no estimation of economic losses was made. Table 5-19
summarizes the MJPT defined critical and non-critical facilities potentially exposed to
a high hazard fissure zone. Table 5-20 summarizes population sectors exposed to the
high hazard fissure zones. Residential structures exposed to high hazard fissure zones
are summarized in Table 5-21.
In summary, 9 critical and non-critical MJPT identified assets with a cumulative
reported replacement cost of $5 million (note: only one facility had a reported
replacement cost) are exposed to high hazard fissure zones for the planning area, with
a combined exposed value of. An additional $776.3 million of census block residential
structures are exposed to a high hazard fissure zone for the planning area. Regarding
human vulnerability, a total population of 4,341 people, or 0.10% of the total 2015
census block population is potentially exposed to a high hazard fissure zone for the
planning area. The potential for human 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
proximity to the geologic hazards related to fissures. In particular, growth areas for
Chandler, El Mirage, Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Mesa, and Queen Creek have the most
vulnerability. The AZGS and state continue working to provide better reporting and
disclosure of fissure hazards, and county and local officials are becoming more aware
of the dangers of not addressing them with development.
Changes in Development in the Hazard Prone Area
Within the unincorporated areas of Maricopa County, residential development
has been minimal but has mostly been concentrated along I-17 in the Anthem area and
in the western portion of the County along SR303. It is anticipated that new
development will largely occur in these areas over the next five years. These areas do
not lie within identified high hazard fissure areas.
The table below summarizes the changes in development for jurisdictions that
are impacted by known fissure hazard areas.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 234
Jurisdiction Development Changes
El Mirage
El Mirage is impacted by areas identified to have high hazard of earth fissure on
the south end of the community from approximately Olive Rd to Northern
Avenue. Limited residential development is being constructed and planned
within the northeast and northwest areas of the City. Industrial and commercial
development efforts have been focused within the southern portion of El Mirage
in the industrial zone. Changes in development within the southern Industrial
Zone will impact the City’s vulnerability to earth fissure.
Gilbert
Areas identified to have existing hazards associated with fissure exist within the
most southern portion of the Town of Gilbert between Riggs Rd. and Hund Rd.
Most existing and proposed commercial and industrial developments are
focused in the central and northern portions of the Town. The most recent and
expected residential developments in Gilbert are located within the central and
southern portions of the community. Changes in residential developments
within the southernmost area of the Town may increase the vulnerability to
fissure within Gilbert.
Glendale
Identified fissure hazard areas within or near Glendale represent the highest
concentration of mapped fissures in the west valley. In particular, hazard areas
west of SR303 are near or within proximity to the City’s “New Frontier”
Development District. Development within this district is growing at a rapid
pace predominantly in industrial and manufacturing sectors. The area of
development is bounded to the north by Peoria Ave, to the south by Camelback
Rd, to the east by Dysart Rd, and to the west by 171st Ave.
Goodyear
Small areas with identified fissure hazards are in northernmost and southern
portions of the City of Goodyear. There have been no changes in development
within the southern portion of Goodyear, but there have been several
developments within the northern area of the City, from I-10 to Camelback Rd,
including industrial, moderate residential and multi-family projects.
Mesa
Several identified fissure hazard areas exist within the City of Mesa within the
eastern area of the City. Changes in development identified by the City are
outside of these areas and will not be impacted by the fissure hazard areas.
Phoenix
There is only a small area identified to have a high hazard due to earth fissure
with the City of Phoenix. This area is located along East Shaw Butte Dr.
between Cactus Rd and Cholla St. Changes in development identified by the
City are outside of this area and will not be impacted by the fissure hazard area.
Queen Creek
There are no areas of high hazard due to Fissure located within the Town of
Queen Creek. It should be noted that there are several identified fissure areas
immediately south of the jurisdictional boundary. Although not currently
impacted, the changes in development within the Town boundary should be
conducted with an acknowledgment of the nearby hazard.
Scottsdale
There is only a small area identified to have a high hazard due to earth fissure
with the City of Scottsdale. This area is located east of the intersection of Cactus
Rd. and Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd. Changes in development identified by the
City are proposed to occur mostly within the northern and central areas of
Scottsdale and are outside of this area and will not be impacted by the fissure
hazard area.
Surprise
The City of Surprise contains a small area of identified hazard areas associated
with fissure along the southern border near the Hwy 303 alignment. While
changes in development have occurred outside of this area, they have no impact
on this hazard.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 235
Sources
Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, 2018, State of Arizona
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018 Update.
AZ Geological Survey in partnership with the AZ Dept of Emergency and Military
Affairs, Hazards Viewer, http://data.azgs.az.gov/hazard-viewer/
AZ Geologic Survey, Arizona’s Earth Fissure Center,
http://www.azgs.az.gov/EFC.shtml
Arizona Land Subsidence Group, http://azlandsubsidence.org/
AZ Land Subsidence Group, 2017, Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures in Arizona,
Research and Information Needs for Effective Risk Management., AZGS Contributed
Report CR-07-C.
Profile Maps
Map 3A, 3B, and 3C – Earth Fissure Hazard Map(s)
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 236
Table 5-19: Asset inventory exposure to high hazard fissure zones
Community
Total Facilities
Reported by
Community
Impacted
Facilities
Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
Total Replacement
Value of All Facilities
Reported by
Community
(x $1,000)
Estimated
Replacement
Value Exposed to
Hazard
(x $1,000)
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 10917 9 0.08% $26,024,918 $5,000
Avondale 131 0 0.00% $179,460 $0
Buckeye 125 0 0.00% $268,667 $0
Carefree 6 0 0.00% $9,000 $0
Cave Creek 4 0 0.00% $13,258 $0
Chandler 277 0 0.00% $1,361,072 $0
El Mirage 34 0 0.00% $285,542 $0
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 26 0 0.00% $202,624 $0
Fountain Hills 15 0 0.00% $411,000 $0
Gila Bend 7 0 0.00% $36,000 $0
Gilbert 5287 2 0.04% $0 $0
Glendale 1224 2 0.16% $4,085,807 $0
Goodyear 159 1 0.63% $148,573 $0
Guadalupe 7 0 0.00% $10,800 $0
Litchfield Park 5 0 0.00% $118,900 $0
Unincorporated Maricopa County 1061 2 0.19% $3,624,310 $0
Mesa 528 1 0.19% $2,850,466 $5,000
Paradise Valley 95 0 0.00% $469,300 $0
Peoria 299 0 0.00% $282,333 $0
Phoenix 947 0 0.00% $7,843,312 $0
Queen Creek (Maricopa County Only) 124 1 0.81% $301,446 $0
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 78 0 0.00% $502,493 $0
Scottsdale 237 0 0.00% $1,094,610 $0
Surprise 94 0 0.00% $498,810 $0
Tempe 111 0 0.00% $1,373,300 $0
Tolleson 10 0 0.00% $0 $0
Wickenburg 14 0 0.00% $32,589 $0
Youngtown 12 0 0.00% $21,247 $0
Gilbert (Pinal County Only) 1 0 0.00% $0 $0
Mesa (Pinal County Only) 22 0 0.00% $7,380 $0
Queen Creek (Pinal County Only) 5 0 0.00% $4,697 $0
Maricopa County (Pinal County Only) 3 0 0.00% $707 $0
Maricopa County (Yavapai County Only) 6 0 0.00% $1,760 $0
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 237
Table 5-20: Population sectors exposed to high hazard fissure zones
Community
Total
Population
Population Exposed Total
Population
Over 65
Population Over 65 Exposed
Total Percent Total Percent
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 4,136,787 4,341 0.10% 538,166 1,002 0.19%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 314 0 0.00% 149 0 0.00%
Avondale 79,485 0 0.00% 5,313 0 0.00%
Buckeye 65,452 0 0.00% 5,141 0 0.00%
Carefree 3,580 0 0.00% 1,591 0 0.00%
Cave Creek 5,287 0 0.00% 1169 0 0.00%
Chandler 250,334 0 0.00% 23,435 0 0.00%
El Mirage 33,728 0 0.00% 2,700 0 0.00%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 1017 0 0.00% 85 0 0.00%
Fountain Hills 23,536 0 0.00% 7,318 0 0.00%
Gila Bend 2,012 0 0.00% 193 0 0.00%
Gilbert 239,546 470 0.20% 17,960 33 0.18%
Glendale 237,327 2 0.00% 23,675 0 0.00%
Goodyear 78,118 0 0.00% 10,094 0 0.00%
Guadalupe 6,230 0 0.00% 581 0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 5,980 0 0.00% 1,065 0 0.00%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 290,179 917 0.32% 95,187 138 0.14%
Mesa 467,657 2,020 0.43% 71,995 891 1.24%
Paradise Valley 13,834 0 0.00% 3,365 0 0.00%
Peoria 166,339 0 0.00% 25,308 0 0.00%
Phoenix 1,561,296 214 0.01% 143,448 83 0.06%
Queen Creek 35,720 6 0.02% 2,094 1 0.05%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 6,706 0 0.00% 1,004 0 0.00%
Scottsdale 237,929 65 0.03% 49,963 21 0.04%
Surprise 128,211 464 0.36% 26,025 25 0.10%
Tempe 176,809 0 0.00% 15,264 0 0.00%
Tolleson 6,904 0 0.00% 809 0 0.00%
Wickenburg 6,803 0 0.00% 2,058 0 0.00%
Youngtown 6,454 0 0.00% 1,177 0 0.00%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 1421 73 5.14% 128 8 6.25%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 7 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 206 0 0.00% 32 0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 238
Table 5-21: Residential structures exposed to fissure high hazard zones
Community
Residential
Building
Count
Residential Building Exposure
Residential
Building
Replacement
Value (x$1,000)
Residential Building Value
Exposed
Total Percent Total (x$1,000) Percent
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 1,639,265 2,521 0.15% $542,436,633 $776,318 0.14%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 295 0 0.00% $76,791 $0 0.00%
Avondale 26,802 0 0.00% $7,272,041 $0 0.00%
Buckeye 18,206 0 0.00% $4,946,783 $0 0.00%
Carefree 2,242 0 0.00% $1,922,010 $0 0.00%
Cave Creek 2,498 0 0.00% $1,628,751 $0 0.00%
Chandler 94,257 0 0.00% $34,713,265 $0 0.00%
El Mirage 11,307 0 0.00% $2,655,346 $6 0.00%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 308 0 0.00% $260,045 $0 0.00%
Fountain Hills 13,105 0 0.00% $5,944,909 $0 0.00%
Gila Bend 944 0 0.00% $118,937 $0 0.00%
Gilbert 74,821 143 0.19% $29,339,526 $56,012 0.19%
Glendale 90,415 1 0.00% $24,665,480 $185 0.00%
Goodyear 25,023 0 0.00% $8,326,438 $95 0.00%
Guadalupe 1,397 0 0.00% $269,202 $0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 2,616 0 0.00% $996,356 $0 0.00%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 142,777 418 0.29% $45,530,720 $133,279 0.29%
Mesa 201,507 1,646 0.82% $59,328,380 $484,646 0.82%
Paradise Valley 5,621 0 0.00% $11,738,020 $0 0.00%
Peoria 64,806 0 0.00% $21,410,130 $0 0.00%
Phoenix 590,476 116 0.02% $167,455,500 $32,842 0.02%
Queen Creek 8,422 2 0.02% $2,890,493 $724 0.03%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 2,680 0 0.00% $919,777 $0 0.00%
Scottsdale 123,959 43 0.03% $67,660,310 $23,267 0.03%
Surprise 52,607 152 0.29% $15,652,750 $45,262 0.29%
Tempe 73,603 0 0.00% $24,383,780 $0 0.00%
Tolleson 2,165 0 0.00% $505,455 $0 0.00%
Wickenburg 3,610 0 0.00% $1,285,212 $0 0.00%
Youngtown 2,796 0 0.00% $540,226 $0 0.00%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 606 27 4.46% $207,814 $9,394 4.52%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 5 0 0.00% $1,321 $0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 54 0 0.00% $19,703 $0 0.00%
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦10 §¨¦17
rx303
rx74
rx202
rx85
rx51
rx101
rx143rx202
rx51
rx101
rx303
rx202
rx85
£¤60
£¤71 £¤93
£¤60
£¤60
£¤60
£¤60
Earth FissureHazard Rating
High
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Major Streams
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 3AMaricopa CountyEarth FissureHazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; ALRIS 2006; AZGS 2020; TIGER 2020; MAG 2020
rx303
rx303
OLIVE
PEORIA
COTTONCITRUSSARIVALDYSARTEL MIRAGEREEMSCAMELBACK
INDIAN SCHOOL LITCHFIELDCACTUS
GLENDALE BULLARDPERRYVILLEJACKRABBITNORTHERN
CACTUS
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
rx88
rx303
rx202
rx87
rx51
rx101
rx24
rx143
rx202rx202
rx51rx101
£¤60£¤60
£¤60£¤60
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 3BMaricopa CountyEarth FissureHazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; ALRIS 2006; AZGS 2020; TIGER 2020; MAG 2020
rx101
rx101
SHEATATUMCACTUS40TH56THHAYDENBELL
LINCOLN SCOTTSDALEGREENWAY
64THPIMATHUNDERBIRD
FRANK
L
L
O
Y
D
W
R
I
G
H
T
92ND94THDOBSON64THBELLBELL
rx202
rx24
rx87
rx202£¤60
Earth FissureHazard Rating
High
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Major Streams
§¨¦8
§¨¦8
rx238
rx85
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 3CMaricopa CountyEarth FissureHazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; ALRIS 2006; AZGS 2020; TIGER 2020; MAG 2020
rx238
Earth FissureHazard Rating
High
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Major Streams
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 239
5.3.5 Flood / Flash Flood
Description
For the purpose of this Plan, the hazard of flooding addressed in this 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 can 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 bank full 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 flow paths 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 18 presidential disaster declarations for
flooding and there have been at least 200 other reported flooding incidents that met the
thresholds outlined in Section 5.1.
Over the past plan cycle, flooding was mostly limited to smaller, localized
events and no major flooding events occurred. Two of the localized flood events are
discussed below.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 240
• In July 2017, Scattered monsoon thunderstorms developed across much of the
greater Phoenix area spanning a week’s time and causing significant flooding
across several areas in Maricopa County. There were no injuries of fatalities and
damages were less than $100,000. Flooding did require one swift water rescue
(NCDC, 2020).
• In March 2020, a powerful Pacific low pressure system spread deep moisture into
the central deserts causing scattered to numerous showers and thunderstorms to
develop during the afternoon and evening hours. Moderate to heavy rain fell with
many of the storms, affecting areas to the southwest of central Phoenix. There were
no injuries of fatalities and damages were less than $100,000. Flooding did require
one swift water rescue (NCDC, 2020).
The following incidents represent older 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 year storm. The main source of flooding was due to Verde River runoff
volume exceeding reservoir storage capacity above Bartlett Dam. Flooding also
occurred along irrigation canals on the 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.
• 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 614-DR.
• In January and February 1993, flooding damage occurred from winter storms
associated with the El Nino phenomenon. These storms flooded watersheds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 241
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 water was either 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 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 Aguila. 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
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 242
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 three 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 Fry’s 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 September 2014, heavy rainfall caused by the remnants of Hurricane Norbert
resulted in extensive flooding throughout the state and especially in LaPaz,
Maricopa and Pinal Counties. The Phoenix area experienced its wettest day in
history, surpassing a record set in 1939. Preliminary damages assessments
exceeded $18 million. Among other impacts, major sections of freeways were
closed, canals and flood control systems were overwhelmed, and two individuals
perished in separate flash flood incidents. Several valley locations received rainfall
that exceeded 500-year storm estimates. State search and rescue teams spent
considerable resources performing numerous rescues of stranded drivers and
residents, in addition to services provided during flooding from two other hurricane
remnants (Hurricane Lowell and Hurricane Odile), all of which impacted Arizona
within a two-month period. The state received a presidential disaster declaration
(DR-4203) for Maricopa and La Paz Counties in November 2014.
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 one 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 modernization program to update the FIRMs for the
county into a digital FIRM (DFIRM) format and re-delineate a few select areas. The
latest maps became effective in October 2013 and are the basis for flood hazard
depictions in this Plan. Floodplain limits and GIS base files were provided by the
FCDMC and National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) data from FEMA.
Two designations of flood hazard are used, with HIGH hazard areas being any
“A” zone and MEDIUM flood hazard being 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
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 243
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 noted:
• Neither the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation or Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community participate in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). Consequently, neither of the tribes 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 2013 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.
Climate Change Impacts
The NCA report (Garfin, et.al., 2014) notes that one of the anticipated impacts
of climate change for the Southwest is a reduction in average annual precipitation and
streamflow volumes. The report and supporting documents also indicate that winter
storm intensities are anticipated to increase, which may lead to increased event-based
flooding. This could be exacerbated by watersheds with reduced vegetation due to
climate change induced drought or wildfire. Collectively these impacts could result in
more severe winter season flooding and warrant mitigation efforts that design to less
frequent storm events such as the 250- or 500-year (0.4 or 0.2% probability) recurrence
intervals in anticipation of the impacts. Executive Order 13690 34, titled “Federal Flood
Risk Management Standard”, is a first step by the federal government in implementing
requirements to look at less frequent storm events when establishing finished floor and
flood elevation design standards for certain federally identified or funded facilities that
are located with special flood hazard areas. Expansion of these policies to all floodplain
development and flood mitigation may be warranted under the current climate change
thinking.
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Flooding CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-22
below.
34 FEMA website access at: https://www.fema.gov/federal-flood-risk-management-standard-ffrms
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 244
Table 5-22: CPRI results by jurisdiction for flooding hazard
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Avondale Likely Limited 12-24 hours <24 hours 2.45
Buckeye Possibly Critical <6 hours <24 hours 2.60
Carefree Highly Likely Limited 12-24 hours <24 hours 2.90
Cave Creek Highly Likely Limited 6-12 hours <6 hours 2.95
Chandler Likely Negligible >24 hours <24 hours 2.00
El Mirage Highly Likely Critical 12-24 hours <24 hours 3.20
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Possibly Limited 6-12 hours <24 hours 2.15
Fountain Hills Possibly Critical 6-12 hours <1 week 2.55
Gila Bend Possibly Limited <6 hours <24 hours 2.30
Gilbert Highly Likely Limited >24 hours <1 week 2.85
Glendale Likely Limited 12-24 hours >1 week 2.65
Goodyear Highly Likely Limited 6-12 hours <24 hours 3.05
Guadalupe Possibly Limited <6 hours <6 hours 2.20
Litchfield Park Likely Limited 12-24 hours <24 hours 2.45
Unincorporated Maricopa County Highly Likely Critical <6 hours <24 hours 3.50
Mesa Highly Likely Limited 6-12 hours <1 week 3.15
Paradise Valley Possibly Critical 12-24 hours <24 hours 2.30
Peoria Highly Likely Critical <6 hours <24 hours 3.50
Phoenix Likely Critical 12-24 hours <24 hours 2.75
Queen Creek Highly Likely Limited 12-24 hours <24 hours 2.90
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community Highly Likely Critical <6 hours <1 week 3.60
Scottsdale Likely Limited <6 hours <6 hours 2.65
Surprise Highly Likely Limited <6 hours <6 hours 3.10
Tempe Highly Likely Critical 6-12 hours <1 week 3.45
Tolleson Likely Limited 12-24 hours <24 hours 2.45
Wickenburg Highly Likely Catastrophic <6 hours <24 hours 3.80
Youngtown Highly Likely Catastrophic <6 hours <24 hours 3.80
County-wide average CPRI = 2.86
Vulnerability – Loss/Exposure Estimations
The estimation of potential exposure to high and medium flood hazards was
accomplished by intersecting the human, residential and asset facilities with the flood
hazard limits depicted on Maps 4A, 4B, and 4C. No loss estimations were made for
this update. Only exposure of the human, residential and asset facilities are reported.
Table 5-23 summarizes the MJPT identified critical and non-critical facilities
potentially exposed to high hazard floods. Table 5-24 summarizes population sectors
exposed to the high hazard flood areas. Residential structure exposures to high hazard
flood areas are summarized in Table 5-25.
In summary, 500 critical and non-critical MJPT identified assets with a
cumulative reported replacement cost of $1.6 billion are exposed to high hazard flood
areas for the planning area. An additional $19.0 billion of census block residential
structures are located in high hazard flood areas for the planning area. Regarding
human vulnerability, a total population of 104,120 people, or 2.73% of the total census
block population, is potentially exposed to a high hazard flood area for the planning
area. 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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 245
Table 5-23: Asset inventory exposure to high hazard flood zones
Community
Total Facilities
Reported by
Community
Impacted
Facilities
Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
Total Replacement
Value of All Facilities
Reported by
Community
(x $1,000)
Estimated
Replacement
Value Exposed to
Hazard
(x $1,000)
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 10917 500 4.58% $26,024,918 $1,596,365
Avondale 131 6 4.58% $179,460 $7,000
Buckeye 125 11 8.80% $268,667 $24,838
Carefree 6 0 0.00% $9,000 $0
Cave Creek 4 0 0.00% $13,258 $0
Chandler 277 5 1.81% $1,361,072 $20,434
El Mirage 34 2 5.88% $285,542 $47,500
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 26 0 0.00% $202,624 $0
Fountain Hills 15 0 0.00% $411,000 $0
Gila Bend 7 2 28.57% $36,000 $9,000
Gilbert 5287 119 2.25% $0 $0
Glendale 1224 35 2.86% $4,085,807 $4,011
Goodyear 159 22 13.84% $148,573 $0
Guadalupe 7 0 0.00% $10,800 $0
Litchfield Park 5 0 0.00% $118,900 $0
Unincorporated Maricopa County 1061 238 22.43% $3,624,310 $1,071,063
Mesa 528 3 0.57% $2,850,466 $5,800
Paradise Valley 95 1 1.05% $469,300 $1,000
Peoria 299 5 1.67% $282,333 $1,395
Phoenix 947 15 1.58% $7,843,312 $111,523
Queen Creek (Maricopa County Only) 124 7 5.65% $301,446 $24,500
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 78 1 1.28% $502,493 $13,366
Scottsdale 237 24 10.13% $1,094,610 $224,035
Surprise 94 3 3.19% $498,810 $30,000
Tempe 111 0 0.00% $1,373,300 $0
Tolleson 10 0 0.00% $0 $0
Wickenburg 14 1 7.14% $32,589 $900
Youngtown 12 0 0.00% $21,247 $0
Gilbert (Pinal County Only) 1 0 0.00% $0 $0
Mesa (Pinal County Only) 22 0 0.00% $7,380 $0
Queen Creek (Pinal County Only) 5 0 0.00% $4,697 $0
Maricopa County (Pinal County Only) 3 0 0.00% $707 $0
Maricopa County (Yavapai County Only) 6 0 0.00% $1,760 $0
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 246
Table 5-24: Population sectors exposed to high hazard flood zones
Community Total Population
Population Exposed Total
Population Over
65
Population Over 65 Exposed
Total Percent Total Percent
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 4,136,787 104,120 2.52% 538,166 11,003 2.04%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 314 0 0.00% 149 0 0.00%
Avondale 79,485 1,327 1.67% 5,313 98 1.84%
Buckeye 65,452 1104 1.69% 5,141 96 1.87%
Carefree 3,580 237 6.62% 1,591 100 6.29%
Cave Creek 5,287 436 8.25% 1169 109 9.32%
Chandler 250,334 3,793 1.52% 23,435 197 0.84%
El Mirage 33,728 2044 6.06% 2,700 617 22.85%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 1017 54 5.31% 85 5 5.88%
Fountain Hills 23,536 740 3.14% 7,318 204 2.79%
Gila Bend 2,012 447 22.22% 193 44 22.80%
Gilbert 239,546 4,780 2.00% 17,960 391 2.18%
Glendale 237,327 3,567 1.50% 23,675 308 1.30%
Goodyear 78,118 1,618 2.07% 10,094 232 2.30%
Guadalupe 6,230 145 2.33% 581 11 1.89%
Litchfield Park 5,980 70 1.17% 1,065 13 1.22%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 290,179 26,322 9.07% 95,187 3,553 3.73%
Mesa 467,657 3,307 0.71% 71,995 617 0.86%
Paradise Valley 13,834 774 5.59% 3,365 162 4.81%
Peoria 166,339 2,906 1.75% 25,308 455 1.80%
Phoenix 1,561,296 34,577 2.21% 143,448 2,701 1.88%
Queen Creek 35,720 414 1.16% 2,094 28 1.34%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 6,706 313 4.67% 1,004 45 4.48%
Scottsdale 237,929 21,875 9.19% 49,963 4,361 8.73%
Surprise 128,211 1,822 1.42% 26,025 509 1.96%
Tempe 176,809 1110 0.63% 15,264 57 0.37%
Tolleson 6,904 426 6.17% 809 40 4.94%
Wickenburg 6,803 1,164 17.11% 2,058 300 14.58%
Youngtown 6,454 643 9.96% 1,177 94 7.99%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 1421 45 3.17% 128 4 3.13%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 7 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 206 0 0.00% 32 0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 247
Table 5-25: Residential structures exposed to high hazard flood zones
Community
Residential
Building
Count
Residential Building Exposure
Residential
Building
Replacement
Value (x$1,000)
Residential Building Value
Exposed
Total Percent Total (x$1,000) Percent
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 1,639,265 49,562 3.02% $542,436,633 $18,990,906 3.50%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 295 0 0.00% $76,791 $0 0.00%
Avondale 26,802 448 1.67% $7,272,041 $121,641 1.67%
Buckeye 18,206 360 1.98% $4,946,783 $97,749 1.98%
Carefree 2,242 165 7.36% $1,922,010 $141,641 7.37%
Cave Creek 2,498 215 8.61% $1,628,751 $140,434 8.62%
Chandler 94,257 1,269 1.35% $34,713,265 $467,257 1.35%
El Mirage 11,307 1275 11.28% $2,655,346 $299,436 11.28%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 308 19 6.17% $260,045 $16,007 6.16%
Fountain Hills 13,105 439 3.35% $5,944,909 $199,003 3.35%
Gila Bend 944 268 28.39% $118,937 $33,709 28.34%
Gilbert 74,821 1,560 2.08% $29,339,526 $611,868 2.09%
Glendale 90,415 2,711 3.00% $24,665,480 $739,539 3.00%
Goodyear 25,023 562 2.25% $8,326,438 $186,928 2.24%
Guadalupe 1,397 32 2.29% $269,202 $6,149 2.28%
Litchfield Park 2,616 30 1.15% $996,356 $11,320 1.14%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 142,777 10,181 7.13% $45,530,720 $3,246,766 7.13%
Mesa 201,507 1,526 0.76% $59,328,380 $449,284 0.76%
Paradise Valley 5,621 488 8.68% $11,738,020 $1,019,575 8.69%
Peoria 64,806 1,341 2.07% $21,410,130 $443,113 2.07%
Phoenix 590,476 11,833 2.00% $167,455,500 $3,355,733 2.00%
Queen Creek 8,422 98 1.16% $2,890,493 $33,465 1.16%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 2,680 90 3.36% $919,777 $31,051 3.38%
Scottsdale 123,959 11,914 9.61% $67,660,310 $6,503,151 9.61%
Surprise 52,607 969 1.84% $15,652,750 $288,441 1.84%
Tempe 73,603 635 0.86% $24,383,780 $210,364 0.86%
Tolleson 2,165 127 5.87% $505,455 $29,567 5.85%
Wickenburg 3,610 695 19.25% $1,285,212 $247,462 19.25%
Youngtown 2,796 312 11.16% $540,226 $60,253 11.15%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 606 18 2.97% $207,814 $6,345 3.05%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 5 1 20.00% $1,321 $306 23.16%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 54 0 0.00% $19,703 $0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 248
It is duly noted that the 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 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 NFIP-insured properties that, since 1978,
have experienced multiple flood losses. FEMA tracks RL properties with a particular
interest in identifying Severe RL (SRL) properties. RL properties demonstrate a track
record of 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 March 3, 2021 indicate that there are 223 identified RL properties in Maricopa
County, 119 of which have been mitigated. The total payments made for building and
contents for the record period is over $8.6 million. Table 5-26 summarizes the RL
property characteristics by jurisdiction. If a jurisdiction is not listed, then there are no
RL properties for that jurisdiction.
Table 5-26: Repetitive loss property statistics for Maricopa County jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
No. of
Properties
No. of Properties
Mitigated
Total
Payments
Avondale 1 0 $9,865
Buckeye 6 0 $156,463
Glendale 5 4 $118,108
Goodyear 1 0 $210,035
Unincorporated Maricopa County 68 50 $2,368,122
Mesa 5 1 $153,614
Paradise Valley 5 0 $651,563
Phoenix 102 43 $3,990,687
Scottsdale 6 4 $264,427
Tempe 4 2 $194,648
Tolleson 12 11 $291,388
Wickenburg 5 1 $165,375
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. As such, it is anticipated that any new
development or growth in the unincorporated county will be required to adhere to the
county’s drainage and flood control requirements.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 249
Changes in Development in the Hazard Prone Area
Within the unincorporated areas of Maricopa County, residential development
has been minimal but has been concentrated along I-17 in the Anthem area and in the
western portion of the County along SR303. It is anticipated that new development
will largely occur in these areas over the next five years. Portions of these areas do lie
within identified high hazard flooding areas and can potentially impact the flooding
hazard if development is located within the designated floodplains. Development in
1% flood hazard areas is regulated through compliance with the NFIP by the County
and municipalities.
The table below summarizes the changes in development within all other
participating jurisdictions in relation to known flood hazard areas within the County.
Jurisdiction Development Changes
All Jurisdictions
Changes in development are regulated through each community’s Floodplain
Management Ordinance or similar, and individual drainage review processes
will minimize the exposure to high flood hazards.
Avondale
A portion of the areas identified for development along the planned State
Route 30, Gila River, and Rio Reimagined in southern Avondale will have the
greatest exposure to flood risk.
Buckeye
Development of areas generally north of I-10 and bordering the Gila River
have greatest exposure to high hazard flood zones. Over half of the 12,366
permits issued in Buckeye are in subdivisions north of I-10. All these areas
have master drainage plans with well-defined flood conveyance facilities.
Continued development within these areas will follow the same standards.
Carefree
Changes in development are anticipated to occur on a parcel-by-parcel basis
with a focus on the Town center, SkyRanch area, and Cave Creek Road. Most
of these areas are outside of a designated high hazard area. Any new
development will come with enhancement to public infrastructure which
would include storm water management.
Cave Creek
All the identified high hazard flood areas are located within well-defined
watercourses and anticipated development changes will be required to avoid
and preserve those conveyances through adherence to local drainage
regulations and flood control measures.
Chandler
Small areas mostly in the eastern portion of Chandler, along the upstream side
of irrigation canals, are designated as high hazard flood zones. Changes in
development of these areas is not anticipated and many are preserved as
permanent open space.
El Mirage
Small areas mostly in the eastern portion of the El Mirage Community, east of
El Mirage Rd, are designated as high hazard flood zones and are typically
well-defined drainage corridors. Changes in development expected in the
northeast and southern regions of the City are not within the high hazard flood
zones.
Fountain Hills
All the identified high hazard flood areas are located within well-defined
watercourses and anticipated development changes will be required to avoid
and preserve those conveyances through adherence to local drainage
regulations and flood control measures.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 250
Jurisdiction Development Changes
Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation is bisected by a high hazard flood area running
north to south along the Verde River with a tributary flood zone contributing
from the east. Development changes on the nation are closely regulated and
controlled to be outside of flood hazard areas and existing watercourses are
preserved for conveyance.
Gila Bend
Flood hazard areas in Gila Bend are primarily located along watercourses
entering the Town from the south and draining to the Gila River. Development
changes within or near these zones are anticipated to be minimal. Any new
development will be required to enhance public infrastructure to provide
effective storm water management.
Gilbert
Small areas of flood zones along the upstream side of irrigation canals or along
developed flood control channels are designated as high hazard flood zones in
the Town. Anticipated development changes are located outside of these
areas.
Glendale
High hazard flood zones in Glendale are primarily contained within defined
flood control corridors such as the New River, Agua Fria River, ACDC, and
Skunk Creek. Projected development changes are not expected to occur within
the areas being targeted by the City.
Goodyear
High hazard flood zones in Goodyear, north of the Gila River are primarily
limited to the Bullard Wash alignment. Anticipated areas of development
change are all located outside of currently identified high flood hazard areas.
Guadalupe
High flood hazard areas within the Town are solely contained within improved
drainage facilities and the Town does not anticipate any meaningful
development changes near these areas.
Litchfield Park
High hazard flood areas within Litchfield Park are primarily located in
ponding zones upstream of an irrigation canal and are contained within golf
course, park, and lake areas. None of the development changes are located in
the high hazard flood zones.
Mesa
High hazard flood zones within the City are primarily located along the
upstream side of irrigation canals or along developed flood control facilities.
Anticipated areas of development change are located outside of these areas.
Peoria
High hazard flood zones throughout Peoria are primarily located along
established watercourses, conveyance corridors and flood control facilities.
Development changes in the northern portion of the City will likely increase
population densities north of Happy Valley Road and Hwy 303. Portions of
these areas contain high flood hazard areas that will be regulated per the City’s
floodplain management ordinance and drainage design policies.
Phoenix
High hazard flood zones throughout Phoenix are primarily located along
established watercourses, conveyance corridors, canals, and flood control
facilities. Development changes anticipated for the northwest part of the City
include a new industrial development at the northwest corner of Loop 303 and
I-17. Continued active commercial and residential development in the
northeast areas of the City are currently located within an alluvial fan flood
zone that is planned for mitigation in the next planning cycle. Other new
development throughout the City will be regulated per the City’s floodplain
management ordinance and drainage design policies.
Queen Creek
High flood hazard areas within Queen Creek are primarily located along the
Sonoqui Wash, Queen Creek, and the Rittenhouse corridors. The recently
annexed lands in Pinal County have just received a LOMR removing the relic
flood hazard zones from those areas. Development changes are generally
located outside of the designated high hazard areas.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 251
Jurisdiction Development Changes
Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian
Community
The area along the southern border of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community that follows the Salt River is designated as a high hazard flood
zone. The corridor along the Verde River is similarly delineated. Development
changes are anticipated for areas outside of these zones.
Scottsdale
High hazard flood zones within Scottsdale primarily follow established
watercourses and flood control facilities. Two alluvial fan zones exist in north
of the CAP Canal and account for most of the City’s hazard exposure. Both
areas are in past and anticipated development change areas and will continue
to be regulated per the City’s floodplain management ordinance and drainage
design guidelines. The City is also working to provide mitigation infrastructure
that will greatly reduce the flood hazard footprint.
Surprise
High hazard flood zones within Surprise are primarily located north (upstream)
of the McMicken Dam and Outlet Channel. Anticipated development
(primarily residential) changes are anticipated in some of these areas and
particularly the areas north of Loop 303 and east of U.S. 60. Hazard areas
generally follow established watercourses will be regulated per the City’s
floodplain management ordinance and drainage design guidelines.
Tempe
High hazard flood zones in Tempe are generally limited the Salt River, Indian
Bend Wash, and minor ponding along an irrigation canal. Most of the
development change for Tempe is through re-development and those areas are
outside of the delineated high hazard areas.
Tolleson
The majority of high hazard flood areas in Tolleson are located along the
upstream side of a regional railroad and within flood control facilities along
the north side of I-10. Development changes are anticipated to continue in the
same areas for several industrial areas are anticipated along the rail line and
will be impacted by the flood hazard area. The City will regulate these
developments per the City’s floodplain management ordinance and drainage
design guidelines.
Wickenburg
High flood hazard zones within Wickenburg follow major watercourses
draining through the Town. Development changes along these corridors will
likely be a continuation of recent development. In all cases, watercourse
corridors are preserved to contain the flood hazard, and the Town will continue
to regulate the areas per the Town’s floodplain management ordinance and
drainage design guidelines.
Youngtown
High flood hazard areas in Youngtown follow the Agua Fria River.
Anticipated development changes within the hazard zone include improvement
of a 100+ acre park in the river bottom. All other development changes are
located outside of the flood hazard areas.
Sources
Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, 2018, State of Arizona
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018 Update.
FEMA, 2001, Understanding Your Risks; Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses,
FEMA Document No. 386-2.
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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 252
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 Maps
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
rx303
rx74
rx202
rx85
rx51
rx101
rx85
rx101
rx303
rx303
rx303
rx202
£¤60
£¤71 £¤93
£¤60
£¤60
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 4AMaricopa CountyFlood Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; FEMA 2020; FCDMC 2020, MAG 2020; TIGER 2020
Flood Hazard Rating
High
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Major Streams
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
rx88
rx303
rx202
rx74
rx87
rx51
rx101
rx24
rx153
rx143
rx101 rx202rx202
rx51
rx303
£¤60£¤60
£¤60
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 4BMaricopa CountyFlood Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; FEMA 2020; FCDMC 2020, MAG 2020; TIGER 2020
Flood Hazard Rating
High
Legend
NAME
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Major Streams
§¨¦8
§¨¦8
rx238
rx85
Flood Hazard Rating
High
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Major Streams
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 4CMaricopa CountyFlood Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; FEMA 2020; FCDMC 2020, MAG 2020; TIGER 2020
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 253
5.3.6 Levee Failure
Description
Levees are man-made structures that impound water above the natural
prevailing grade or natural conveyance of a watercourse, creating an artificially
constrained floodway. Areas protected by a levee, referred to as leveed areas, become
the areas at-risk during a levee failure event. Levees are usually artificial structures
comprised of earthen, cement stabilized aggregate (CSA) or roller compacted concrete
(RCC) embankments, or structural concrete or steel walls. A levee is typically
constructed parallel and adjacent to an existing watercourse and serves to augment or
contain flood flows to a specified corridor. In some cases, the levee will function as a
diversion structure that will re-direct flood-waters along an alignment that allows for
positive flow along the levee to the intended outlet. All the levees within Maricopa
County are designed for flood control.
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 elevated roadway and railway
embankments, canals, irrigation ditches and drains, and agricultural dikes.
In November 2017, Governor Ducey received a letter from the notifying the
Governor of the Congressional authorization of USACE to work with interested states
and levee owners/operators to conduct and inventory and review of levees across the
nation. The purpose of the action is to work with Arizona agencies to inventory, review
and assess critical information for levees within Arizona, with a particular focus on
levees not currently identified to be within USACE authority. The collected
information will be included in the USACE’s National Levee Database (NLD), which
is publicly available and used to promote awareness of the benefits and flood risks
associated with levees.
In recent years, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been
working with Arizona to assess and update the USACE’s National Levee Database
(NLD), which is publicly available and used to promote awareness of the benefits and
flood risks associated with levees. The Arizona Department of Water Resources
(ADWR) will serve as the state’s lead agency for levee safety. By participating in the
USACE project and coordinating with FEMA through the Cooperating Technical
Partnership (CTP) program, ADWR will work with FEMA, USACE and local officials
to better inspect, maintain, and track levees within their communities.
Levee failures result in an uncontrolled release of water to the leveed areas, with
potentially catastrophic impacts. Failures may be attributed to a variety of modes and
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 254
causes. The three most common are: 1) foundation leakage and piping, 2) overtopping,
and 3) embankment erosion. Deep rooted vegetation growth and animal boroughs along
levees can also initiate piping failure pathways and compromise the structural integrity
of walls and footings.
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 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 three (3)
or more feet.
The Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) has been active over
the last planning cycle in delineating levee failure zones for levees managed by
FCDMC. In addition, FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) data for
Maricopa County has been updated to include several more Shaded Zone X - Areas
Protected by Levee areas. Both data sets have been compiled and a HIGH hazard
rating. All other areas are defined as LOW.
Climate Change Impacts
The climate change impacts to levee failure are nearly identical to those
discussed in the Flooding section (see Section 5.3.5). Increases in winter flood
intensities, combined with the effects of reduced watershed vegetation due to drought
and/or wildfire, could elevate the probability of levee failures in the county, and
especially for levees that were not designed to convey/contain flows greater than the
100-year (1% probability) standard. Most federally sponsored levee design and
construction will use, or have used, discharges that exceed the 100-year standard, but
not all. Mitigation activities should consider using the 500-year event as the minimum
design standard to anticipate the impacts of climate change.
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 255
Levee Failure CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-27
below.
Table 5-27: CPRI results by jurisdiction for levee failure
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Avondale Possibly Negligible <6 hours <24 hours 2.00
Buckeye Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Carefree Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.00
Cave Creek Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Chandler Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.00
El Mirage Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.00
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <24 hours 1.55
Fountain Hills Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <24 hours 1.55
Gila Bend Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <24 hours 1.55
Gilbert Possibly Limited <6 hours <24 hours 2.30
Glendale Unlikely Limited <6 hours <24 hours 1.85
Goodyear Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Guadalupe Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Litchfield Park Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Unincorporated Maricopa County Unlikely Critical <6 hours <1 week 2.25
Mesa Unlikely Limited <6 hours <1 week 1.95
Paradise Valley Possibly Limited <6 hours <24 hours 2.30
Peoria Possibly Limited <6 hours <24 hours 2.15
Phoenix Unlikely Critical 6-12 hours <6 hours 1.90
Queen Creek Possibly Negligible <6 hours <24 hours 1.85
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community Possibly Critical <6 hours <24 hours 2.60
Scottsdale Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Surprise Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <24 hours 1.55
Tempe Possibly Limited <6 hours <1 week 2.40
Tolleson Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <1 week 1.20
Wickenburg Possibly Limited <6 hours <6 hours 2.20
Youngtown Unlikely Critical <6 hours <6 hours 2.45
County-wide average CPRI = 1.75
Vulnerability – Loss/Exposure 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. Table 5-28 summarizes the MJPT identified
critical and non-critical facilities potentially exposed to high hazard levee failure areas.
Table 5-29 summarizes population sectors exposed to the high hazard levee failure
areas. Residential structure exposures to high hazard levee failure areas are
summarized in Table 5-30.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 256
Table 5-28: Asset inventory exposure to high hazard levee failure areas
Community
Total Facilities
Reported by
Community
Impacted
Facilities
Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
Total Replacement
Value of All Facilities
Reported by
Community
(x $1,000)
Estimated
Replacement
Value Exposed to
Hazard
(x $1,000)
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 10917 104 0.95% $26,024,918 $367,826
Avondale 131 18 13.74% $179,460 $75,000
Buckeye 125 0 0.00% $268,667 $0
Carefree 6 0 0.00% $9,000 $0
Cave Creek 4 0 0.00% $13,258 $0
Chandler 277 0 0.00% $1,361,072 $0
El Mirage 34 0 0.00% $285,542 $0
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 26 0 0.00% $202,624 $0
Fountain Hills 15 0 0.00% $411,000 $0
Gila Bend 7 0 0.00% $36,000 $0
Gilbert 5287 36 0.68% $0 $0
Glendale 1224 2 0.16% $4,085,807 $24,950
Goodyear 159 0 0.00% $148,573 $0
Guadalupe 7 0 0.00% $10,800 $0
Litchfield Park 5 0 0.00% $118,900 $0
Unincorporated Maricopa County 1061 14 1.32% $3,624,310 $7,843
Mesa 528 1 0.19% $2,850,466 $2,000
Paradise Valley 95 0 0.00% $469,300 $0
Peoria 299 10 3.34% $282,333 $11,001
Phoenix 947 6 0.63% $7,843,312 $37,463
Queen Creek (Maricopa County Only) 124 0 0.00% $301,446 $0
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 78 4 5.13% $502,493 $54
Scottsdale 237 8 3.38% $1,094,610 $155,515
Surprise 94 0 0.00% $498,810 $0
Tempe 111 5 4.50% $1,373,300 $54,000
Tolleson 10 0 0.00% $0 $0
Wickenburg 14 0 0.00% $32,589 $0
Youngtown 12 0 0.00% $21,247 $0
Gilbert (Pinal County Only) 1 0 0.00% $0 $0
Mesa (Pinal County Only) 22 0 0.00% $7,380 $0
Queen Creek (Pinal County Only) 5 0 0.00% $4,697 $0
Maricopa County (Pinal County Only) 3 0 0.00% $707 $0
Maricopa County (Yavapai County Only) 6 0 0.00% $1,760 $0
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 257
Table 5-29: Population sectors exposed to high hazard levee failure areas
Community
Total
Population
Population Exposed Total
Population
Over 65
Population Over 65 Exposed
Total Percent Total Percent
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 4,136,787 25,425 0.61% 538,166 4,417 0.82%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 314 0 0.00% 149 0 0.00%
Avondale 79,485 18,563 23.35% 5,313 1003 18.88%
Buckeye 65,452 0 0.00% 5,141 0 0.00%
Carefree 3,580 0 0.00% 1,591 0 0.00%
Cave Creek 5,287 0 0.00% 1169 0 0.00%
Chandler 250,334 0 0.00% 23,435 0 0.00%
El Mirage 33,728 0 0.00% 2,700 0 0.00%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 1017 0 0.00% 85 0 0.00%
Fountain Hills 23,536 0 0.00% 7,318 0 0.00%
Gila Bend 2,012 0 0.00% 193 0 0.00%
Gilbert 239,546 1520 0.63% 17,960 86 0.48%
Glendale 237,327 2 0.00% 23,675 0 0.00%
Goodyear 78,118 0 0.00% 10,094 0 0.00%
Guadalupe 6,230 0 0.00% 581 0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 5,980 0 0.00% 1,065 0 0.00%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 290,179 6,603 2.28% 95,187 2,654 2.79%
Mesa 467,657 69 0.01% 71,995 42 0.06%
Paradise Valley 13,834 0 0.00% 3,365 0 0.00%
Peoria 166,339 19,258 11.58% 25,308 2,852 11.27%
Phoenix 1,561,296 12,915 0.83% 143,448 299 0.21%
Queen Creek 35,720 0 0.00% 2,094 0 0.00%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 6,706 0 0.00% 1,004 0 0.00%
Scottsdale 237,929 28268 11.88% 49,963 5248 10.50%
Surprise 128,211 0 0.00% 26,025 0 0.00%
Tempe 176,809 3897 2.20% 15,264 180 1.18%
Tolleson 6,904 0 0.00% 809 0 0.00%
Wickenburg 6,803 32 0.47% 2,058 1 0.05%
Youngtown 6,454 0 0.00% 1,177 0 0.00%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 1421 0 0.00% 128 0 0.00%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 7 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 206 0 0.00% 32 0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 258
Table 5-30: Residential structures exposed to high hazard levee failure areas
Community
Residential
Building
Count
Residential Building Exposure
Residential
Building
Replacement
Value (x$1,000)
Residential Building Value
Exposed
Total Percent Total (x$1,000) Percent
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 1,639,265 42,588 2.60% $542,436,633 $16,533,182 3.05%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 295 0 0.00% $76,791 $0 0.00%
Avondale 26,802 6,634 24.75% $7,272,041 $1,800,089 24.75%
Buckeye 18,206 0 0.00% $4,946,783 $0 0.00%
Carefree 2,242 0 0.00% $1,922,010 $0 0.00%
Cave Creek 2,498 0 0.00% $1,628,751 $0 0.00%
Chandler 94,257 0 0.00% $34,713,265 $0 0.00%
El Mirage 11,307 0 0.00% $2,655,346 $0 0.00%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 308 0 0.00% $260,045 $0 0.00%
Fountain Hills 13,105 0 0.00% $5,944,909 $0 0.00%
Gila Bend 944 0 0.00% $118,937 $0 0.00%
Gilbert 74,821 384 0.51% $29,339,526 $150,602 0.51%
Glendale 90,415 1 0.00% $24,665,480 $182 0.00%
Goodyear 25,023 0 0.00% $8,326,438 $0 0.00%
Guadalupe 1,397 0 0.00% $269,202 $0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 2,616 0 0.00% $996,356 $0 0.00%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 142,777 3,663 2.57% $45,530,720 $1,168,204 2.57%
Mesa 201,507 30 0.01% $59,328,380 $8,850 0.01%
Paradise Valley 5,621 0 0.00% $11,738,020 $0 0.00%
Peoria 64,806 9,422 14.54% $21,410,130 $3,112,648 14.54%
Phoenix 590,476 6,050 1.02% $167,455,500 $1,715,769 1.02%
Queen Creek 8,422 0 0.00% $2,890,493 $0 0.00%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 2,680 0 0.00% $919,777 $48,581 5.28%
Scottsdale 123,959 14419 11.63% $67,660,310 $7,870,090 11.63%
Surprise 52,607 0 0.00% $15,652,750 $0 0.00%
Tempe 73,603 1966 2.67% $24,383,780 $651,398 2.67%
Tolleson 2,165 0 0.00% $505,455 $0 0.00%
Wickenburg 3,610 19 0.53% $1,285,212 $6,769 0.53%
Youngtown 2,796 0 0.00% $540,226 $0 0.00%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 606 0 0.00% $207,814 $0 0.00%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 5 0 0.00% $1,321 $0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 54 0 0.00% $19,703 $0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 259
In summary, 104 critical and non-critical MJPT identified assets with a
cumulative reported replacement cost of $367.8 million are exposed to high hazard
levee failure areas, for the planning area. An additional $16.5 billion of census block
residential structures are exposed to high hazard levee failure areas for the planning
area. Regarding human vulnerability, a total population of 24,525 people, or 0.67% of
the total census block population for the planning area, is potentially exposed to a high
hazard levee failure. 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.
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. The expansion of defined levee
failure risk zones by FEMA and FCDMC will continue to raise the exposure for
previously unstudied areas. New developments located in or around these areas should
be evaluated to determine if mitigation actions are necessary. The most effective
mitigation is regular maintenance and inspections of levee structures.
Changes in Development in the Hazard Prone Area
Within the unincorporated areas of Maricopa County, residential development
has been minimal but has been concentrated along I-17 in the Anthem area and in the
western portion of the County along SR303. It is anticipated that new development
will largely occur in these areas over the next five years. These areas do not lie within
identified high hazard areas associated with levee failure.
The table below summarizes the changes in development for jurisdictions with
known levee failure hazard areas.
Jurisdiction Development Changes
Avondale
The City contains levee failure hazard areas associated with the Agua Fria
River with bisects the community from north to south. Development changes
within Avondale Key Growth Corridors, identified as Van Buren Street from
the new Fairway Drive freeway exit (near 127th Ave) to 99th Avenue, Historic
Avondale Area (approx. Dysart and Buckeye Road), North Avondale Area
(North of I-10) and the south Avondale Area (South of Lower Buckeye Road
to the Gila River) will potentially impact areas of levee failure hazard.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 260
Jurisdiction Development Changes
Gilbert
The southern portion of the Town of Gilbert is impacted with a Levee Failure
Hazard area associated with the Roosevelt Canal, roughly bounded by Val
Vista on the west, Higley on the east and Ocotillo on the north. The bulk of
new and expected commercial and industrial development within Gilbert is
anticipated to occur in the northern portion of the Town. The majority of new
residential projects are anticipated to occur within the southern portion,
however none of the projected areas are located within the levee failure hazard
area.
Glendale
Levee failure hazard areas within Glendale are concentrated around the
confluence of the Agua Fria River and New River. The only area of new and
proposed development potentially impacted by the identified Levee Failure
Hazard is located west of Hwy 101 between Northern Avenue and Camelback
Road. However, given the limited extent of the levee failure hazard in this
area, no impacts due to changes in development are anticipated.
Goodyear
There are no areas of high hazard due to levee failure located within the City
of Goodyear. While changes in development have occurred, they have no
impact on this hazard.
Guadalupe The Community of Guadalupe does not anticipate significant changes in
development and is not impacted by areas of increased levee failure hazard.
Litchfield Park
There are no areas of high hazard due to levee failure located within the City
of Litchfield. While changes in development have occurred, they have no
impact on this hazard.
Mesa
There are only minimal areas of high hazard due to levee failure located within
the City of Mesa. While changes in development have occurred, they have no
impact on this hazard.
Peoria
Peoria is impacted by areas of levee failure hazard associated with New River
from the intersection of Hwy 101 and 60 to the southern City limits. Recent
development has occurred in the northern and northwestern areas of the City
and is anticipated to continue to migrate northward. Changes in development
are not anticipated to impact areas of levee failure hazard.
Phoenix
The City contains levee failure hazard areas associated with Skunk Creek to
the north, New River to the west and the Salt River to the east. The majority of
new development within the City of Phoenix is associated with infill
development and residential development within the southwest area of the
City. As the development efforts do not lie within areas of levee failure
hazard, development changes will not impact this hazard.
Queen Creek
There are no areas of high hazard due to levee failure located within the Town
of Queen Creek. While changes in development have occurred, they have no
impact on this hazard.
Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian
Community
The SRPMIC is impacted with a levee failure hazard area associated with the
Salt River on the westernmost portion of the Community, west of Hwy 101.
No development changes are currently proposed within this area.
Scottsdale
The City of Scottsdale is impacted by the levee failure hazard area associated
with Indian Bend Wash on the southernmost portion of the community from
Indian Bend Rd to the southern boundary. The majority of new residential and
commercial development is anticipated to occur within the northern and
central sub-areas of the City and will not be impacted by the levee failure
hazard area. Limited development has occurred within the southern sub-area,
however the area impacted by the levee is fully developed and will not
experience substantial changes in development.
Surprise
There are no areas of high hazard due to levee failure located within the City
of Surprise. While changes in development have occurred, they have no
impact on this hazard.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 261
Jurisdiction Development Changes
Tempe
Levee failure hazard areas are present within the City of Tempe along the Hwy
202 alignment in association with the Salt River. The highest rates of growth
within the City are located in the northern portions of the City, specifically in
the downtown area, Tempe Town Lake, and the new Novus Innovation
Corridor. These areas of development will be impacted by the identified levee
failure hazard areas.
Tolleson
There are no areas of high hazard due to levee failure located within the City
of Tolleson. While changes in development have occurred, they have no
impact on this hazard.
Wickenburg
A small portion of levee failure hazard area associated with Hassayampa River
is located within the Town of Wickenburg along Hwy 93. However, no
changes in development exist or have been proposed within this area.
Youngtown
There are no areas of high hazard due to levee failure located within the Town
of Youngtown. While changes in development have occurred, they have no
impact on this hazard.
Sources
Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, 2018, State of Arizona
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018 Update.
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
FCDMC, 2020, Dam and Levee Safety group
USACE National Levee Database, 2020, website access at:
https://levees.sec.usace.army.mil/#/
Profile Maps
Maps 5A, 5B, and 5C – Potential Levee Failure Flood Hazard Map(s)
§¨¦8
§¨¦8
rx238
rx85
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 5CMaricopa CountyPotential Levee FailureFlood Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; FEMA 2020; FCDMC 2020; MAG 2020; TIGER 2020
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
FCDMC Levees
FEMA NFHL Levees
Potential LeveeFailure Flood Hazard Rating
Levee Failure
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
rx88
rx303
rx202
rx87
rx51
rx101
rx24
rx153
rx143
rx202
rx303
rx202
rx51
rx101 £¤60£¤60
£¤60
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 5BMaricopa CountyPotential Levee FailureFlood Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; FEMA 2020; FCDMC 2020; MAG 2020; TIGER 2020
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
FCDMC Levees
FEMA NFHL Levees
Potential LeveeFailure Flood Hazard Rating
Levee Failure
§¨¦8
§¨¦8
rx238
rx85
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 5CMaricopa CountyPotential Levee FailureFlood Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; FEMA 2020; FCDMC 2020; MAG 2020; TIGER 2020
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
FCDMC Levees
FEMA NFHL Levees
Potential LeveeFailure Flood Hazard Rating
Levee Failure
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 262
5.3.7 Severe Wind
Description
For this Plan, 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. Occasionally, tropical storm activity (remnant
hurricanes) can be accompanied by severe winds, but the wind speeds usually dissipate
by the time the tropical storm front approaches the county. Thunderstorms can occur
year-round 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 similarly to downbursts, but are usually
sustained for greater periods as a thunderstorm 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 four
state and/or federal disaster declarations involving thunderstorms. There are also an
additional 573 thunderstorm/high wind events, and 51 tornadoes, with a combined loss
of approximately $470 million to structures and agriculture, 11 deaths, and over 252
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 263
injuries. The following are examples of documented events that have occurred during
the last Plan cycle.
• In January 1993, a category F2 tornado moved through Scottsdale damaging 18
homes, four 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 the 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, and damage occurred 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).
• In September 1994, a microburst 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 inch 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 storm wide
estimates exceeded $5 million (NCDC, 2009).
• In September 1996, a massive thunderstorm moved through the 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 thirty-nine 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
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 264
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. Storm
wide 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 and 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).
• In January 2010, severe wind gusts in Scottsdale destroyed a large tent at the Russo
Steele Auction near Mayo Blvd and Scottsdale Rd and blew it onto nearby State
Highway Loop 101 when winds collapsed the tent onto many classic cars. There
was also damage to facilities at the nearby Barrett Jackson Auction. Three minor
injuries were reported and damages were in excess of $1.5 million.
• In September 2014, a severe squall line moved across the greater Phoenix valley
causing major damage to trees, power poles, roofs, cars, and small aircraft at several
valley airports. Gusts exceeding 70 mph were measured and reported damages
exceeded $200,000 (NCDC, 2015).
• In August 2015, numerous thunderstorms developed during the evening hours of
August 31st across the greater Phoenix metropolitan producing gusty and damaging
winds more than 60 mph. There were widespread reports of wind damage in the
form of downed trees and power poles, and damaged structures and roofs.; No
injuries were reported, and damages were estimated to exceed $836,000 (NCDC,
2020).
• In July 2018, a series of monsoon thunderstorms spanning a 5-day period produced
gusty and damaging down burst winds across much of the greater Phoenix
metropolitan area. A Safeway grocery store in Glendale suffered wind and water
damage which contributed to a building fire that almost destroyed the store. No
injuries were reported, and damages were estimated at $2.4 million over the five-
day period (NCDC, 2020).
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 265
• In early September 2019, isolated monsoon thunderstorms developed across the
central deserts to the west of Phoenix during the early evening hours on September
4th. One of the more powerful storms produced a strong micro burst with wind
speeds estimated to be as high as 70 mph. Local law enforcement reported that
downburst winds blew over 6 semi-trailer trucks on Interstate 10 west of Tonopah
and 11 miles east of Centennial. Damages were estimated at $75,000 and there was
one person injured and one fatality (NCDC, 2020).
• In November 2019, a strong cold front moved across the greater Phoenix
metropolitan area during the early morning hours on November 29th. Due to high
levels of wind shear and instability, the front generated several small EF0 and EF1
tornadoes. According to the NWS, the tornados resulted in moderate damage,
downing several trees and power poles and damaging roofs, small auxiliary
structures, and vehicles. No fatalities or injuries were reported. Total damages were
estimated at $320,000 valley wide (NCDC, 2020).
Probability and Magnitude
For thunderstorm winds, 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, 321 separate thunderstorm wind events
reporting wind speeds exceeding 60 knots have been reported for Maricopa County
over the past 30 year period ending in August 2020 (NCDC, 2020). Of those events,
228 were reported as damaging with a total of approximately $310 million in estimated
losses, two deaths and 46 injuries. It is very likely that on average, over 10 severe wind
events have occurred per year and approximately two-thirds of those events will cause
damage.
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 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 290
storms that were documented over the last 30 years would qualify as a severe
thunderstorm.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has identified a 3-second
wind gust speed as the most accurate measure for identifying the potential for damage
to structures. The 3-second wind gust criteria is recommended as a normal wind
loading design standard. All of Maricopa County is designated with a standard design
3-second gust wind speed of 90 mph, indicating relatively low levels of risk from severe
winds when compared to other regions of the country (ASCE, 1999). FEMA has taken
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 266
the work from ASCE and further identified wind speed zones for use in designing
community shelters and safe-rooms that can withstand tornado and hurricane winds.
Maricopa County is entirely located in Zone I, as illustrated in Figure 5-12. In these
zones, a design wind speed of 130 mph is recommended for the design and construction
of community shelters.
Source: FEMA Website at the following URL: http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/saferoom/tsfs02_wind_zones.shtm
Figure 5-12: Illustration of FEMA Wind Zones
The Beaufort Wind Scale, indicated by Table 5-31 shown below, provides a
measure of wind magnitude versus expected damages. The Beaufort scale is useful
because it specifically addresses wind effects over land based on wind speed. Wind
speeds in the Beaufort Number 10-11 range annually impact the county. On rare
occasions, wind gusts in the county can creep into the low end of the Beaufort Number
12 category.
Tornado damage severity is measured by the Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale,
which assigns a numerical value of 0 to 5 based on wind speeds and damage potential,
as shown in Table 5-32, with the letter EF preceding the number (e.g., EFO, EF1, EF2).
Table 5-32 also provides reference to the older Fujita Scale. 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 in length. The width of a tornado may range from tens of
yards to more than a quarter of a mile.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 267
Table 5-31: Beaufort Wind Scale
Source: New Mexico Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
Table 5-32: Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale
Fujita Scale
Enhanced
Fujita Scale
Damage Description ID
Wind
Speed* ID
Wind
Speed*
F0 45-78 EF0 65-85
Minor or no damage.
Peels surface off some roofs; some damage to gutters or
siding; branches broken off trees; shallow-rooted trees
pushed over. Confirmed tornadoes with no reported damage
(i.e., those that remain in open fields) are always rated F0 or
EF0.
F1 79-117 EF1 86-110
Moderate damage.
Roofs severely stripped; mobile homes overturned or badly
damaged; loss of exterior doors; windows and other glass
broken.
F2 118-161 EF2 111-135
Considerable damage.
Roofs torn off well-constructed houses; foundations of frame
homes shifted; mobile homes completely destroyed; large
trees snapped or uprooted; light-object missiles generated;
cars lifted off the ground.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 268
Table 5-32: Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale
Fujita Scale
Enhanced
Fujita Scale
Damage Description ID
Wind
Speed* ID
Wind
Speed*
F3 162-209 EF3 136-165
Severe damage.
Entire stories of well-constructed houses destroyed; severe
damage to large buildings such as shopping malls; trains
overturned; trees debarked; heavy cars lifted off the ground
and thrown; structures with weak foundations are badly
damaged.
F4 210-261 EF4 166-200
Extreme damage.
Well-constructed and whole framed houses completely
leveled; cars and other large objects thrown and small
missiles generated.
F5 262-317 EF5 >200
Total Destruction of Buildings
Strong-framed, well-built houses leveled off foundations are
swept away; steel-reinforced concrete structures are critically
damaged; tall buildings collapse or have severe structural
deformations; some cars, trucks, and train cars can be thrown
approximately 1 mile.
* - Wind speeds in mph, 3-second gust
Source: DEMA, 2018 and National Weather Service
The probability of tornadoes occurring is much less frequent than thunderstorm
winds. For the 30-year period ending August 2020, there have been 29 tornado events
with one injury and $5.7 million in reported damages. Four of the tornados were EF1
(F1) and one is EF2 (F2). According the NCDC, there has been only one EF3 (F3)
tornado recorded in the history of Maricopa County on August 4, 1957.
Climate Change Impacts
The NCA report (Garfin, et.al., 2014) is silent regarding the impact of climate
change on severe wind events in the Southwest. A study by Luong (Luong, et al., 2015)
notes that monsoon thunderstorms in the Central and Southern Regions of Arizona have
become more intense over a recent 20-year period (1991-2010) when compared to
events recorded in the past (1950-1970). The study concludes that the trend will likely
continue as the temperatures rise and provide more moisture storage capacity in the
lower atmosphere. The increased thunderstorm intensities may correlate to increased
wind intensities, and especially if the thunderstorm cells are stronger and larger. There
are no further references specific to Arizona tornados and climate change impacts.
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Severe Wind CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-33
below.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 269
Table 5-33: CPRI results by jurisdiction for severe wind
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Avondale Likely Limited <6 hours <6 hours 2.65
Buckeye Highly Likely Critical <6 hours <6 hours 3.40
Carefree Highly Likely Limited 12-24 hours <1 week 3.00
Cave Creek Highly Likely Limited 12-24 hours <6 hours 2.80
Chandler Highly Likely Negligible 6-12 hours <6 hours 2.65
El Mirage Highly Likely Critical >24 hours <1 week 3.15
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Highly Likely Limited 12-24 hours <6 hours 2.80
Fountain Hills Likely Critical 6-12 hours <1 week 3.00
Gila Bend Possibly Limited <6 hours <24 hours 2.30
Gilbert Highly Likely Limited <6 hours <24 hours 3.20
Glendale Highly Likely Limited <6 hours <6 hours 3.10
Goodyear Highly Likely Negligible 12-24 hours <24 hours 2.60
Guadalupe Possibly Limited <6 hours <24 hours 2.30
Litchfield Park Highly Likely Limited <6 hours <24 hours 3.20
Unincorporated Maricopa County Highly Likely Critical <6 hours <6 hours 3.40
Mesa Highly Likely Limited <6 hours <1 week 3.30
Paradise Valley Highly Likely Limited 6-12 hours <24 hours 3.05
Peoria Highly Likely Critical <6 hours <24 hours 3.50
Phoenix Highly Likely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 2.80
Queen Creek Likely Limited <6 hours <6 hours 2.65
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community Highly Likely Critical 6-12 hours <1 week 3.45
Scottsdale Likely Limited 12-24 hours <6 hours 2.35
Surprise Highly Likely Limited <6 hours <6 hours 3.10
Tempe Highly Likely Critical <6 hours <24 hours 3.50
Tolleson Likely Limited 12-24 hours <24 hours 2.45
Wickenburg Highly Likely Critical <6 hours <6 hours 3.40
Youngtown Highly Likely Critical <6 hours <24 hours 3.50
County-wide average CPRI = 2.99
Vulnerability – Loss/Exposure 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 $11 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.
Changes in Development in the Hazard Prone Area
There have been no major changes since the last plan update regarding
development impacted by severe wind within the planning area. All of the urbanized
areas within Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions have vulnerability to
severe wind. As development and population continue to grow in nearly all
jurisdictions, changes to development will impact the vulnerability of each community
to this hazard.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 270
Sources
American Society of Civil Engineers, 1999, ASCE 7-98: Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures.
Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, 2018, State of Arizona
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018 Update.
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.
Luong, T. M., Castro, C. L., Chang, H., Lahmers, T., Adams, D. K., & Ochoa-Moya,
C. A. (2017). The More Extreme Nature of North American Monsoon
Precipitation in the Southwestern United States as Revealed by a Historical
Climatology of Simulated Severe Weather Events, Journal of Applied
Meteorology and Climatology, 56(9), 2509-2529. Retrieved Dec 2, 2020, from
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/56/9/jamc-d-16-0358.1.xml
New Mexico, 2010, New Mexico Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.
U.S. Dept of Commerce, National Climatic Data Center, 2015, Storm Events
Database, accessed via the following URL:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/
U.S. Dept of Commerce, NOAA National Weather Service, Storm Prediction Center,
SVRGIS database, accessed at the following URL:
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/gis/svrgis/
U.S. Dept of Commerce, NOAA National Weather Service, Storm Prediction Center,
Fujita Scale information at the following URL:
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ef-scale.html
Profile Maps
No profile maps provided.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 271
5.3.8 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 hydro compaction. Of these
causes, hydro compaction 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 can cause 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 can be accompanied by the development of fissures, which are discussed in Section
5.3.4.
History
Over the past plan cycle, minor changes in subsidence activity have been noted
in the way of expansions of active subsidence areas and five more years of data. Active
subsidence has been occurring in certain areas of Maricopa County for over 60 years
and is primarily due to groundwater overdraft and reduced recharge due to drought. 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).
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 272
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).
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 8 geographical areas using InSAR, the limits of
which are shown on the hazard profile maps at the end of this section.
Probability and Magnitude
There are no statistical probability estimates for subsidence. The magnitudes
of severity depend on many factors including geography, geology, rates of groundwater
withdrawals, and others. ADWR (Conway, 2013) generally mapped the cumulative
worst-case subsidence depths for several known areas of the state (Figure 5-13). The
four most prominent areas within Maricopa County have exhibited between 6 and 20
feet of lowering. 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.
Climate Change Impacts
As previously stated, active subsidence for most of the county is correlated to
over drafting of local and regional groundwater tables. The NCA report (Garfin, et.al.,
2014) notes that one of the anticipated impacts of climate change for the Southwest is
a reduction in precipitation and streamflow volumes. This impact could translate into
a greater demand for groundwater which could further reduce groundwater levels and
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 273
increase the formation of subsidence areas and fissure risk. The current management
of groundwater withdrawals by the ADWR regulated active management areas (AMA)
will likely serve to keep these impacts in check, but consideration for future expansion
of subsidence zones and fissures could be warranted.
Figure 5-13: Map of Maximum Subsidence Depths for Arizona
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Subsidence CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-34
below.
Table 5-34: CPRI results by jurisdiction for subsidence
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Avondale Possibly Limited <6 hours <6 hours 2.50
Buckeye Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.00
Carefree Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.00
Cave Creek Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.0
Chandler Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.00
El Mirage Possibly Limited >24 hours <6 hours 1.75
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Unlikely Negligible >24 hours >1 week 1.30
Fountain Hills Possibly Limited <6 hours >1 week 2.50
Gila Bend Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.00
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 274
Table 5-34: CPRI results by jurisdiction for subsidence
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Gilbert Highly Likely Limited >24 hours <1 week 2.85
Glendale Possibly Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.05
Goodyear Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Guadalupe Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Litchfield Park Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Unincorporated Maricopa County Possibly Limited 12-24 hours >1 week 2.20
Mesa Likely Limited < 6 hours >1 week 2.95
Paradise Valley Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <1 week 1.65
Peoria Unlikely Limited <6 hours <6 hours 1.75
Phoenix Unlikely Limited <6 hours <6 hours 1.75
Queen Creek Possibly Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.90
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community Possibly Critical <6 hours >1 week 2.80
Scottsdale Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Surprise Possibly Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.05
Tempe Possibly Limited <6 hours >1 week 2.50
Tolleson Possibly Negligible >24 hours <1 week 1.65
Wickenburg Highly Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.95
Youngtown Highly Likely Negligible <6 hours >1 week 2.65
County-wide average CPRI = 1.87
Vulnerability – Loss/Exposure 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 5-35 summarizes the MJPT identified critical and non-critical
facilities potentially exposed to high hazard subsidence areas. Table 5-36 summarizes
population sectors exposed to the high hazard subsidence areas. Residential structures
exposed to high hazard subsidence areas are summarized in Table 5-37.
In summary, 7,434 critical and non-critical MJPT identified assets with a
reported $9.9 billion in replacement costs, are located within high hazard subsidence
areas. An additional $232.5 billion of census block residential structures are located
within high hazard subsidence areas across the planning area. Regarding human
vulnerability, a total population of 1.72 million people, or 41.6% of the total census
block population areas across the planning area, are located within a high hazard
subsidence area. It is unlikely that death and injury might be the direct result of
subsidence. Other likely negative impacts such as fissures, flooding due to slope
reversal, and flow reversal in gravity sewer mains may occur.
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 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 gravity
sewer mains should always refer to the maps in this plan to determine the need for
special design considerations that address subsidence.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 275
Changes in Development in the Hazard Prone Area
Within the unincorporated areas of Maricopa County, residential development
has been minimal but has been concentrated along I-17 in the Anthem area and in the
western portion of the County along SR303. It is anticipated that new development
will largely occur in these areas over the next five years. These areas do not lie within
identified subsidence high hazard areas.
The table below summarizes the jurisdictions with changes in development
located in known subsidence hazard areas.
Jurisdiction Development Changes
Avondale
The northern portion of Avondale lies within an area identified to have high
risk of subsidence. A significant portion of the areas identified for future
development within the community lie within the area of subsidence hazard.
Key growth corridors identified within this area include the North Avondale
area (north of I-10), the Historic Avondale area and the BLVD live/work/play
destination area.
Buckeye
The City of Buckeye has several designated high subsidence hazard areas
along and south of the I-10 alignment. Over the next 5 years most anticipated
growth will occur north of I-10 in the City of Buckeye outside of the
subsidence hazard areas. The proposed Vista De Montana, Mountain View
South, Westpark, Copper Falls, Farallon, Terravista, and Encantada Estates
Subdivisions are located within areas identified to have high subsidence
hazard.
Chandler
The northeast portion of the City of Chandler lies within an area impacted by
subsidence. The City has experienced steady growth of multi-family projects
over the past five years and anticipates growth in this area will continue though
at a slower rate. Residential development is expected to occur in downtown
and north Chandler and could impact subsidence hazards in the northern
portion of the City. Commercial and industrial development is also projected
continue at a steady rate. Locating these types of development within the
northeast portion of the City will likely increase hazards due to subsidence.
El Mirage
The City of El Mirage lies entirely within an area identified to have high
subsidence hazard. Most of the recent and anticipated development within the
City has consisted of industrial developments within the southern industrial
zone. There has been minor growth with residential homes in the northeast
section and there are plans for 3 additional residential projects to be
constructed within the northwest portion of the City. All development within
the community will impact the hazard associated with land subsidence.
Gila Bend
The majority of the northern portion of the Town of Gila Bend is located
within an area at increased risk of subsidence. The Town has experienced
limited growth in the form of industrial, commercial, and institutional
developments and is actively seeking industrial partners in an effort to bring
light manufacturing facilities to town. Residential development continues at a
modest rate on a single lot basis. Most development has occurred along
Butterfield Trail and does not lie within the designated hazard area for
subsidence, with the exception of a new school located on Logan Avenue and
a Circle K located on Pima Street. These developments are located adjacent to
the I-8 corridor and fall within an identified hazard for subsidence.
Gilbert
Most of the Town of Gilbert falls within an area identified to have high hazard
for subsidence. The northern and central portions of the community are
impacted by this designation, while the southern portion (South of Queen
Creek Rd.) lies outside of the subsidence zone. Based upon development
trends over the past 5 years, it is anticipated that commercial and industrial
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 276
development will continue to expand within the northern and central portions
of the Town and will fall within areas designated to have high hazard
associated with subsidence. Most residential development is anticipated to
occur within the southern portion of the community and falls outside of the
defined hazard area for subsidence.
Glendale
Apart from small sections on the far east and north side of the City, Glendale
lies within an identified subsidence hazard area. The City anticipates large
increases in industrial and manufacturing development in the “New Frontier”
District (located along SR303 near its intersection with Northern Ave),
additional residential development within infill areas of the community and
commercial and retail developments within the Sports and Entertainment
(located along Hwy 101 at intersection with W. Glendale Ave) and Downtown
(located along Glendale Ave. between Myrtle Ave and Lamar Rd.) Districts.
All targeted areas for growth lie within the areas designated as subsidence
hazard areas.
Goodyear
Approximately the northern third of the City of Goodyear lies within a
designated subsidence hazard area. The city has experienced significant
increases in development over the past 5 years, at an average rate of 20% more
permits per year, and anticipates new development to occur at the current rate
over the next 5 years. The majority of this development, including residential,
commercial and industrial, has occurred north of the Pecos Rd alignment and
south of the Camelback Road alignment. This area is roughly defined as
northern half of the City and portions of the development experienced within
this region will lie within the subsidence hazard area.
Litchfield Park
The City of Litchfield lies entirely within an identified subsidence hazard area.
As such, all development within the City will be impacted by subsidence
hazard. Currently, The City has experienced residential development of 2
projects in the northern and central areas of the community of 121 and 163
units, respectively. This is in addition to commercial and light industrial
developments along the Camelback Rd. alignment at Litchfield, Dysart, and El
Mirage Roads, which is anticipated to continue over the next five years.
Mesa
Substantial portions of the City of Mesa on the west side are located within an
identified subsidence hazard area, in addition to a smaller area along the easter
boundary of the community. These hazard areas will impact proposed
development within the community within the Gateway, West Mesa, and
Superstition Springs/Power Road Corridor Development Areas. Proposed and
existing development within these areas consists of residential and
employment growth.
Peoria
The City of the Peoria is impacted by an identified subsidence hazard area in
the southern portion of the community, mostly to the south of the Hwy 101
alignment. Most development within the City has occurred in the northern and
northwestern areas of the incorporated limits, including the Vistancia and the
Lake Pleasant Parkway Corridors. It is anticipated that development will
continue to migrate north over the next five years. As a result, it is not
anticipated the future development within Peoria will impact the hazard
associated with subsidence. T
Phoenix
A small portion of eastern Phoenix is located within an identified subsidence
hazard area, roughly bounded by Interstate 17 on the east, Broadway Rd to the
south, and Camelback Rd to the North. The majority of the properties within
this area are fully developed with small pockets of agricultural lands. The
changes in development will occur outside of the subsidence hazard area.
Queen Creek
A small portion of the Town of Queen Creek is impacted by areas of increased
subsidence hazard. The area is located within the northwestern corner of the
community boundary and is roughly bounded to the South by Queen Creek Rd
and to the north by Rittenhouse Rd. This area of the community is not
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 277
anticipated to experience changes in development and will not impact the
hazard due to subsidence.
Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian
Community
The western half of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community is
located within an identified subsidence hazard area. As the majority of
existing and proposed development lies within the western portion of the
community, along the Hwy 101 alignment, changes in development will
continue to be impacted by the subsidence hazard area.
Scottsdale
Subsidence hazard areas exist within the City along the western portion of
central Scottsdale and along the eastern portion of southern Scottsdale. The
majority of development within Scottsdale is anticipated to occur within the
Northern and Central Sub-Areas. The Northern Sub-Area is located north of
Deer Valley Road and is not impacted by identified subsidence hazard areas,
while the Central Sub-Area is impacted by subsidence along the Hwy 101
alignment.
Surprise
The southern portion of the City of Surprise lies within a subsidence hazard
area and the four development areas identified and targeted by the City all lie
within this hazard area. Future development within these areas is anticipated
to consist of residential and commercial applications and lie to the south of the
Bell Road alignment.
Tempe
The City of Tempe is largely unimpacted by subsidence hazard areas, with
only eastern portion along Hwy 101 lying within an identified hazard area.
Over the past 5 years, Tempe has seen a rapid growth of high density
residential, new corporate office headquarters and many new retail
developments are currently under construction. The City anticipates that future
development and redevelopment will continue to be focused in the areas
currently being developed. These areas are primarily located in the north
Tempe area, and specifically in the downtown area, Tempe Town Lake, and
the new Novus Innovation Corridor. Of the areas targeted for future
development, the Novus Innovation Corridor, developments around the Loop
101 and Loop 202 interchange, and Tempe Town Lake are likely to impact the
Community’s subsidence hazard in the future.
Tolleson
The entirety of the City of Tolleson lies within a subsidence hazard area and
all changes in development will impact the subsidence hazard of the
community. Currently, the City has noted several small residential and
commercial developments within identified infill areas and anticipates that
development will continue along the same trajectory in the near future, though
potentially slowing as available properties are limited.
Youngtown
The Town of Youngtown is entirely located within an area of increased
subsidence hazard. The community added a 129-unit residential development
south of Peoria Avenue and a new neighborhood-commercial live-work
corridor on N. 111th Avenue over the past 5 years and has identified several
areas for development/redevelopment within the town limits of the next 5
years. Anticipated development includes a redevelopment area in the northern
portion of the Town, bounded roughly by 111th Avenue on the east, 113th
Avenue on the west, Wisconsin Avenue to the South, and Hwy 60 to the north;
a new 100+acre regional park in the Agua Fria river bottom; a new battery
storage facility in the Town’s commerce park south of Peoria Avenue; and
new development areas identified north of Alabama Avenue and South of
Peoria Avenue. All changes in development within the Town will impact the
hazard associated with subsidence.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 278
Table 5-35: Asset inventory exposure to high hazard subsidence areas
Community
Total Facilities
Reported by
Community
Impacted
Facilities
Percentage of Total
Community
Facilities Impacted
Total Replacement
Value of All Facilities
Reported by
Community
(x $1,000)
Estimated
Replacement
Value Exposed to
Hazard
(x $1,000)
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 10917 7434 68.10% $26,024,918 $9,864,465
Avondale 131 124 94.66% $179,460 $123,010
Buckeye 125 8 6.40% $268,667 $13,214
Carefree 6 0 0.00% $9,000 $0
Cave Creek 4 0 0.00% $13,258 $0
Chandler 277 124 44.77% $1,361,072 $515,030
El Mirage 34 34 100.00% $285,542 $285,542
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 26 0 0.00% $202,624 $0
Fountain Hills 15 0 0.00% $411,000 $0
Gila Bend 7 7 100.00% $36,000 $36,000
Gilbert 5287 4820 91.17% $0 $0
Glendale 1224 969 79.17% $4,085,807 $3,360,191
Goodyear 159 125 78.62% $148,573 $121,773
Guadalupe 7 0 0.00% $10,800 $0
Litchfield Park 5 5 100.00% $118,900 $118,900
Unincorporated Maricopa County 1061 284 26.77% $3,624,310 $488,280
Mesa 528 350 66.29% $2,850,466 $2,229,168
Paradise Valley 95 1 1.05% $469,300 $6,000
Peoria 299 208 69.57% $282,333 $257,329
Phoenix 947 113 11.93% $7,843,312 $552,191
Queen Creek (Maricopa County Only) 124 5 4.03% $301,446 $11,650
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 78 71 91.03% $502,493 $482,480
Scottsdale 237 63 26.58% $1,094,610 $634,679
Surprise 94 81 86.17% $498,810 $424,130
Tempe 111 18 16.22% $1,373,300 $182,300
Tolleson 10 10 100.00% $0 $0
Wickenburg 14 2 14.29% $32,589 $1,350
Youngtown 12 12 100.00% $21,247 $21,247
Gilbert (Pinal County Only) 1 0 0.00% $0 $0
Mesa (Pinal County Only) 22 1 4.55% $7,380 $470
Queen Creek (Pinal County Only) 5 0 0.00% $4,697 $0
Maricopa County (Pinal County Only) 3 0 0.00% $707 $0
Maricopa County (Yavapai County Only) 6 0 0.00% $1,760 $0
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 279
Table 5-36: Population sectors exposed to high hazard subsidence areas
Community
Total
Population
Population Exposed Total
Population
Over 65
Population Over 65 Exposed
Total Percent Total Percent
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 4,136,787 1,722,580 41.64% 538,166 202,165 37.57%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 314 73 23.25% 149 32 21.48%
Avondale 79,485 76,152 95.81% 5,313 5,098 95.95%
Buckeye 65,452 2,692 4.11% 5,141 159 3.09%
Carefree 3,580 0 0.00% 1,591 0 0.00%
Cave Creek 5,287 0 0.00% 1169 0 0.00%
Chandler 250,334 108,585 43.38% 23,435 9,121 38.92%
El Mirage 33,728 33,728 100.00% 2,700 2,700 100.00%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 1017 0 0.00% 85 0 0.00%
Fountain Hills 23,536 0 0.00% 7,318 0 0.00%
Gila Bend 2,012 1,832 91.05% 193 180 93.26%
Gilbert 239,546 212,513 88.71% 17,960 14,492 80.69%
Glendale 237,327 188,227 79.31% 23,675 18,563 78.41%
Goodyear 78,118 67,071 85.86% 10,094 8,951 88.68%
Guadalupe 6,230 0 0.00% 581 0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 5,980 5,980 100.00% 1,065 1,065 100.00%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 290,179 116,769 40.24% 95,187 46,340 48.68%
Mesa 467,657 350,244 74.89% 71,995 44,785 62.21%
Paradise Valley 13,834 90 0.65% 3,365 15 0.45%
Peoria 166,339 125,812 75.64% 25,308 19,954 78.84%
Phoenix 1,561,296 314,904 20.17% 143,448 19,862 13.85%
Queen Creek 35,720 2,112 5.91% 2,094 75 3.58%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 6,706 6,567 97.93% 1,004 969 96.51%
Scottsdale 237,929 91,598 38.50% 49,963 18,377 36.78%
Surprise 128,211 114,640 89.42% 26,025 18,794 72.22%
Tempe 176,809 30,936 17.50% 15,264 3,199 20.96%
Tolleson 6,904 6,904 100.00% 809 809 100.00%
Wickenburg 6,803 0 0.00% 2,058 0 0.00%
Youngtown 6,454 6,454 100.00% 1,177 1,177 100.00%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 1421 0 0.00% 128 0 0.00%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 7 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 206 0 0.00% 32 0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 280
Table 5-37: Residential structures exposed to high hazard subsidence areas
Community
Residential
Building
Count
Residential Building Exposure
Residential
Building
Replacement
Value (x$1,000)
Residential Building Value
Exposed
Total Percent Total (x$1,000) Percent
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 1,639,187 712,279 43.45% $542,436,633 $232,493,210 42.86%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 295 56 18.98% $76,791 $14,566 18.97%
Avondale 26,802 25,854 96.46% $7,272,041 $7,014,883 96.46%
Buckeye 18,206 818 4.49% $4,946,783 $222,243 4.49%
Carefree 2,242 0 0.00% $1,922,010 $0 0.00%
Cave Creek 2,498 0 0.00% $1,628,751 $0 0.00%
Chandler 94,257 40,602 43.08% $34,713,265 $14,952,484 43.07%
El Mirage 11,307 11,307 100.00% $2,655,346 $2,655,345 100.00%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 308 0 0.00% $260,045 $0 0.00%
Fountain Hills 13,105 0 0.00% $5,944,909 $0 0.00%
Gila Bend 944 871 92.27% $118,937 $109,679 92.22%
Gilbert 74,821 66,193 88.47% $29,339,526 $25,955,892 88.47%
Glendale 90,415 71,773 79.38% $24,665,480 $19,579,778 79.38%
Goodyear 25,023 21,298 85.11% $8,326,438 $7,086,794 85.11%
Guadalupe 1,397 0 0.00% $269,202 $0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 2,616 2,616 100.00% $996,356 $996,355 100.00%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 142,777 62,923 44.07% $45,530,720 $20,065,864 44.07%
Mesa 201,507 145,468 72.19% $59,328,380 $42,829,263 72.19%
Paradise Valley 5,621 37 0.66% $11,738,020 $78,156 0.67%
Peoria 64,806 50,138 77.37% $21,410,130 $16,564,087 77.37%
Phoenix 590,476 95,185 16.12% $167,455,500 $26,993,987 16.12%
Queen Creek 8,422 426 5.06% $2,890,493 $146,219 5.06%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 2,602 2,604 100.08% $919,777 $893,106 97.10%
Scottsdale 123,959 49,657 40.06% $67,660,310 $27,104,031 40.06%
Surprise 52,607 45,168 85.86% $15,652,750 $13,439,282 85.86%
Tempe 73,603 14,324 19.46% $24,383,780 $4,745,515 19.46%
Tolleson 2,165 2,165 100.00% $505,455 $505,455 100.00%
Wickenburg 3,610 0 0.00% $1,285,212 $0 0.00%
Youngtown 2,796 2,796 100.00% $540,226 $540,226 100.00%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 606 0 0.00% $207,814 $0 0.00%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 5 0 0.00% $1,321 $0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 54 0 0.00% $19,703 $0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 281
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, 2020, land subsidence website at:
https://new.azwater.gov/hydrology/field-services/land-subsidence-arizona
Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, 2018, State of Arizona
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018 Update.
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
Arizona Land Subsidence Group, 2017, Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures in
Arizona, Research and Information Needs for Effective Risk Management., AZGS
Contributed Report CR-07-C.
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.
Conway, Brian D., 2013, Land Subsidence Monitoring Report No. 1. Arizona
Department of Water Resources.
FEMA, 2001, Understanding Your Risks; Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses,
FEMA Document No. 386-2.
Profile Maps
Maps 6A, 6B, and 6C – Subsidence Hazard Map(s)
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
rx303
rx74
rx202
rx85
rx51
rx101
rx202rx85
rx101
rx303
rx202rx303
rx85
£¤60
£¤71 £¤93
£¤60
£¤60
G ila R iver AguaFriaRiverSalt RiverHa
s
s
a
y
a
mp
a
R
iv
e
r
SubsidenceHazard Rating
Subsidence
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! ! ! ! ! !Major Streams
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 6AMaricopa CountySubsidenceHazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; ADWR 2020; MAG 2020; TIGER 2020; AZGS 2020
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
rx88
rx303
rx202
rx74
rx87
rx51
rx101
rx24
rx153
rx143
rx202 rx202
rx51
rx303
rx101 £¤60£¤60 Salt R iv e r
V
e
r
deRi
ver
GilaRiver
To
n
t
o
C
r
eek
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 6BMaricopa CountySubsidenceHazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; ADWR 2020; MAG 2020; TIGER 2020; AZGS 2020
SubsidenceHazard Rating
Subsidence
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! ! ! ! ! !Major Streams
§¨¦8
§¨¦8
rx238
rx85
G ilaRiverG ilaRiver17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 6CMaricopa CountySubsidenceHazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; ADWR 2020; MAG 2020; TIGER 2020; AZGS 2020
SubsidenceHazard Rating
Subsidence
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
! ! ! ! ! !Major Streams
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 282
5.3.9 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 human-caused 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 the majority of 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. However, the risk of wildfire
still exists within Maricopa County and can pose a real threat to those who live and/or
work within the wildland urban interface. Historic events that have occurred during
the last Plan cycle included:
• In March 2004, The Citris Fire located west of Gila Bend burned over 5,700 acres
along the Gila River, which 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 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 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).
• In June 2010, the Sycamore Fire, located in northern Maricopa County near MP209
on Highway 87, burned 187 acres and forced a temporary closure of the main
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 283
thoroughfare between Phoenix and Payson while fire crews battled the blaze. There
were no reported damages, injuries or deaths and fire suppression costs were
estimated to exceed $146K (NWCG, 2014).
• In May 2012, the Sunflower Fire, located in northern Maricopa County
approximately 30 miles north of Mesa, burned 17,446 acres. There were 6 reported
firefight related injuries and no reported deaths. The fire threatened 2 residences,
2 out-buildings, the Cross F Ranch, and an APS 345 KV power line, but firefighters
were able to protect assets in the area. Fire suppression costs were estimated to
exceed $600K (NWCG, 2014).
• In May 2020, two separate fires burned in the hillside areas of Cave Creek. The
East Desert Fire started Sunday, May 17, off Desert Hills Drive in the Cave Creek-
area. Due to dry vegetation and wind gusts, the human caused fire spread rapidly
over the course of a few hours consuming 1,492 acres. Crews provided structure
protection to roughly 120 homes and were able to protect all primary structures.
Two weeks later on May 30th, the Ocotillo Fire started at near Ocotillo Road about
1.3 miles NW of Cave Creek. The human caused fire consumed 980 acres and
destroyed 20 buildings, eight of them homes. The fire also tore through an iconic
business, Johnny Ringo’s Carefree Adventures. Damages from the Ocotillo Fire
exceeded $5 million.
• In June 2020, the Bush Fire located in the northwest quadrant of Maricopa County
and extending into Gila County, consumed 794,000 acres and caused a closure of
the SR 87. The human caused fire threatened several homes, a major electric
transmission line, and caused significant damage to roadside guardrails along SR
87. Many of the steep burn areas will require close monitoring over the next several
years during storm events that have very high debris flow potential.
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. Two sources of wildfire hazard data were used by the MJPT to develop a
composite hazard profile for the county. The first and primary data source is the
recently updated Maricopa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (LSDI, 2010
and MCDEM, 2020) and the second is a regional fire risk coverage provided by the
Arizona State Forestry Office. Each of these is discussed below.
In 2009, Maricopa County communities, tribes, and state and federal officials
tasked with managing wildfires within the county came together to develop the
Maricopa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The CWPP (LSDI,
2010) was developed in response to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
(HFRA) for the at-risk communities and unincorporated areas in Maricopa County,
Arizona, located in and around public lands administered by the US Department of the
Interior Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM) Phoenix District Office, the Tonto
National Forest (TNF), and State Trust Lands (STL). Two core teams were formed to
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 284
implement the agency and public collaboration necessary to develop a CWPP
compliant with HFRA: the Eastern Core Team includes all identified at-risk
communities in Maricopa County located east of Interstate 17 (I-17) and east of
Interstate 10 (I-10), and the Western Core Team includes all identified at-risk
communities west of I-17 and I-10. The Core Teams identified 44 communities and
analyzed 3,103,370 acres for potential risk from catastrophic wildland fire within
Maricopa County. The CWPP has been updated in both 2014 and in early 2020,
however the base hazard data developed in the 2010 CWPP remained unchanged with
both updates.
The Maricopa County CWPP established the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)
areas for the county and mapped various wildfire risk elements such as vegetative fuels
and densities, topographical slope and aspect, previous burn areas and ignition points,
and prior treatment areas, etc. One product of the CWPP work was the development
of a county-wide wildland fuel hazard coverage for both a typical fire season and
extraordinary rainfall years. Components considered in the development of the
wildland fuel hazard coverage included vegetation type and density, previously burned
areas, and terrain slope and aspect. The composite coverage resulted in a raster grid
categorized as High, Medium, or Low hazard. The procedures used by the CWPP
planning team to develop the hazard designation are documented in the CWPP. The
MJPT chose to use the typical fire season data set to best represent the wildland fuel
hazard for the county.
Following the State of Arizona’s lead, the 2003/04 Arizona Wildland Urban
Interface Assessment (AWUIA) project (Fisher, 2004) used in the 2015 Plan has been
replaced with an updated regional dataset used to depict the threat of wildfire in
Arizona as a part of the West Wide Wildfire Risk Assessment (WWWRA) (Sanborn
Map Company, 2013) for the western U.S. The data and assessment results are hosted
by the Arizona State Forestry and Fire Management Department on its website 35. The
wildfire hazards are derived from the Fire Threat Index (FTI) data distributed with the
WWWRA. The FTI reflects the likelihood of one acre burning if a fire started at a
specific grid location. The calculation process integrates the probability of an acre
igniting and the expected final fire size into a single measure of wildland fire
susceptibility. The assessed fire size is based on the rate of spread in four weather
percentile categories. The key inputs used in the wildfire model to produce the FTI
wildfire hazard layer are:
35 Arizona Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (AZWRAP), accessed at: https://arizonawildfirerisk.com/
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 285
Probability of fire occurrence, derived
from:
o Historic fire locations and fire
occurrence areas
o Weather influence zones (historic
weather observations)
Fire behavior (rate of spread) derived from:
o Surface fuels
o Canopy closure
o Canopy characteristics
o Topography
Fire suppression effectiveness, derived from:
o Historic fire sizes
o Historic protection organization
For the purposes of this Plan, the nine FTI categories were reclassified into three
generalized categories, Low, Medium and High wildfire hazard and applied as
appropriate to compliment or augment the CWWP coverages.
One final adjustment to the wildfire hazard layers for this Plan update was to
modify the hazards for areas that have recently burned in the past 6-years. Wildfire
perimeters were obtained from the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC, 2020) and
are illustrated on the wildfire hazard maps. Hazard ratings within the burn perimeters
were set to Low to account for the previous fire effects and reduced fuels. These areas
will need to be re-evaluated at the next 5-year update.
The combination of these three data sets provides a complete geospatial hazard
coverage for the planning area.
Climate Change Impacts
One of the “Key Messages” from the NCA report (Garfin, et.al., 2014) is the
projection that wildfire risk and incidents within the Southwest region will likely
increase due to climate change. Reduced precipitation, increased temperatures and
longer, more severe periods of drought all factor into the assessment. Response to this
amplification of current wildfire risk will likely include a greater need for vegetation
management planning and greater enforcement of wildland urban interface best
building practices. Incorporation of climate change impacts into the CWPP is also
something the county and participating jurisdictions should consider.
Vulnerability – CPRI Results
Wildfire CPRI results for each community are summarized in Table 5-38
below.
Table 5-38: CPRI results by jurisdiction for wildfire
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Avondale Likely Limited <6 hours <1 week 2.85
Buckeye Likely Limited <6 hours <24 hours 2.75
Carefree Highly Likely Critical 6-12 hours >1 week 3.55
Cave Creek Likely Critical <6 hours <1 week 3.15
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 286
Table 5-38: CPRI results by jurisdiction for wildfire
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Chandler Possibly Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.90
El Mirage Possibly Limited 6-12 hours <6 hours 2.05
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Possibly Limited <6 hours <1 week 2.40
Fountain Hills Likely Critical <6 hours <1 week 3.15
Gila Bend Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Gilbert Possibly Limited <6 hours <6 hours 2.20
Glendale Possibly Negligible <6 hours <24 hours 1.80
Goodyear Likely Negligible <6 hours <24 hours 2.45
Guadalupe Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Litchfield Park Possibly Limited <6 hours <24 hours 3.20
Unincorporated Maricopa County Highly Likely Critical <6 hours >1 week 3.70
Mesa Highly Likely Limited <6 hours <1 week 3.30
Paradise Valley Possibly Critical >24 hours <1 week 2.25
Peoria Likely Critical <6 hours <6 hours 2.95
Phoenix Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Queen Creek Possibly Limited <6 hours >1 week 2.50
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community Likely Critical <6 hours <1 week 3.25
Scottsdale Likely Limited <6 hours <24 hours 2.75
Surprise Possibly Limited <6 hours <24 hours 2.30
Tempe Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Tolleson Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.00
Wickenburg Highly Likely Critical <6 hours <1 week 3.60
Youngtown Unlikely Critical <6 hours <1 week 2.25
County-wide average CPRI = 2.49
Vulnerability – Loss/Exposure 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. No loss estimations were made for this
update. Only exposure of the human, residential and asset facilities are reported. Table
5-39 summarizes the MJPT identified critical and non-critical facilities potentially
exposed to high wildfire hazard areas. Tables 5-40 and 5-41 summarize the population
sectors and residential structures exposed to the high wildfire hazard areas.
In summary, 368 critical and non-critical MJPT identified assets with a
cumulative reported replacement cost of $1.6 billion are located within high hazard
wildfire areas. An additional $20.9 billion of census block residential structures are
located within high hazard wildfire areas across the planning area. Regarding human
vulnerability, a total population of 47,856 people, or 1.16% of the total census block
population areas across the planning area, are located within a high hazard wildfire
area. 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,
especially in the urban wildland interface areas.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 287
Table 5-39: Asset inventory exposure to high hazard wildfire areas
Community
Total Facilities
Reported by
Community
Impacted
Facilities
Percentage of
Total Community
Facilities
Impacted
Total Replacement
Value of All
Facilities Reported
by Community
(x $1,000)
Estimated
Replacement
Value Exposed
to Hazard
(x $1,000)
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 10917 368 3.37% $26,024,918 $1,615,024
Avondale 131 7 5.34% $179,460 $56,000
Buckeye 125 1 0.80% $268,667 $0
Carefree 6 0 0.00% $9,000 $0
Cave Creek 4 0 0.00% $13,258 $0
Chandler 277 1 0.36% $1,361,072 $1,037
El Mirage 34 2 5.88% $285,542 $52,700
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 26 0 0.00% $202,624 $0
Fountain Hills 15 0 0.00% $411,000 $0
Gila Bend 7 1 14.29% $36,000 $2,000
Gilbert 5287 45 0.85% $0 $0
Glendale 1224 22 1.80% $4,085,807 $195,508
Goodyear 159 2 1.26% $148,573 $0
Guadalupe 7 0 0.00% $10,800 $0
Litchfield Park 5 0 0.00% $118,900 $0
Unincorporated Maricopa County 1061 108 10.18% $3,624,310 $36,743
Mesa 528 29 5.49% $2,850,466 $48,220
Paradise Valley 95 42 44.21% $469,300 $94,300
Peoria 299 31 10.37% $282,333 $2,697
Phoenix 947 37 3.91% $7,843,312 $954,617
Queen Creek (Maricopa County Only) 124 0 0.00% $301,446 $0
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 78 3 3.85% $502,493 $0
Scottsdale 237 25 10.55% $1,094,610 $95,255
Surprise 94 11 11.70% $498,810 $75,947
Tempe 111 0 0.00% $1,373,300 $0
Tolleson 10 1 10.00% $0 $0
Wickenburg 14 0 0.00% $32,589 $0
Youngtown 12 0 0.00% $21,247 $0
Gilbert (Pinal County Only) 1 0 0.00% $0 $0
Mesa (Pinal County Only) 22 1 4.55% $7,380 $0
Queen Creek (Pinal County Only) 5 0 0.00% $4,697 $0
Maricopa County (Pinal County Only) 3 0 0.00% $707 $0
Maricopa County (Yavapai County Only) 6 1 16.67% $1,760 $155
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 288
Table 5-40: Population sectors exposed to high hazard wildfire areas
Community
Total
Population
Population Exposed Total
Population
Over 65
Population Over 65 Exposed
Total Percent Total Percent
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 4,136,790 47,856 1.16% 538,166 4,412 0.82%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 314 0 0.00% 149 0 0.00%
Avondale 79,485 2014 2.53% 5,313 139 2.62%
Buckeye 65,452 3 0.00% 5,141 0 0.00%
Carefree 3,580 319 8.91% 1,591 122 7.67%
Cave Creek 5,287 724 13.69% 1169 126 10.78%
Chandler 250,334 288 0.12% 23,435 25 0.11%
El Mirage 33,728 593 1.76% 2,700 144 5.33%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 1017 2 0.20% 85 0 0.00%
Fountain Hills 23,536 0 0.00% 7,318 0 0.00%
Gila Bend 2,012 0 0.00% 193 0 0.00%
Gilbert 239,546 1842 0.77% 17,960 76 0.42%
Glendale 237,327 715 0.30% 23,675 101 0.43%
Goodyear 78,118 319 0.41% 10,094 45 0.45%
Guadalupe 6,230 0 0.00% 581 0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 5,980 13 0.22% 1,065 1 0.09%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 290,179 23,881 8.23% 95,187 3116 3.27%
Mesa 467,657 6,203 1.33% 71,995 1904 2.64%
Paradise Valley 13,834 5778 41.77% 3,365 1465 43.54%
Peoria 166,339 7,984 4.80% 25,308 533 2.11%
Phoenix 1,561,296 61,284 3.93% 143,448 6,079 4.24%
Queen Creek 35,720 5 0.01% 2,094 0 0.00%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 6,709 15 0.22% 1,004 5 0.50%
Scottsdale 237,929 4,939 2.08% 49,963 789 1.58%
Surprise 128,211 10077 7.86% 26,025 3308 12.71%
Tempe 176,809 1377 0.78% 15,264 49 0.32%
Tolleson 6,904 53 0.77% 809 7 0.87%
Wickenburg 6,803 0 0.00% 2,058 0 0.00%
Youngtown 6,454 38 0.59% 1,177 5 0.42%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 1421 0 0.00% 128 0 0.00%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 7 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 206 0 0.00% 32 0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 289
Table 5-41: Residential structures exposed to high hazard wildfire areas
Community
Residential
Building
Count
Residential Building Exposure
Residential
Building
Replacement
Value (x$1,000)
Residential Building Value
Exposed
Total Percent Total (x$1,000) Percent
County-Wide Totals (Maricopa Only) 1,639,265 52,732 3.22% $542,436,633 $20,904,932 3.85%
Apache Junction (Maricopa County Portion) 295 0 0.00% $76,791 $0 0.00%
Avondale 26,802 779 2.91% $7,272,041 $202,527 2.79%
Buckeye 18,206 1 0.01% $4,946,783 $318 0.01%
Carefree 2,242 157 7.00% $1,922,010 $134,254 6.99%
Cave Creek 2,498 292 11.69% $1,628,751 $190,410 11.69%
Chandler 94,257 118 0.13% $34,713,265 $43,297 0.12%
El Mirage 11,307 277 2.45% $2,655,346 $64,992 2.45%
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 308 1 0.32% $260,045 $435 0.17%
Fountain Hills 13,105 0 0.00% $5,944,909 $38 0.00%
Gila Bend 944 2 0.21% $118,937 $215 0.18%
Gilbert 74,821 528 0.71% $29,339,526 $207,205 0.71%
Glendale 90,415 245 0.27% $24,665,480 $66,776 0.27%
Goodyear 25,023 115 0.46% $8,326,438 $38,351 0.46%
Guadalupe 1,397 0 0.00% $269,202 $0 0.00%
Litchfield Park 2,616 3 0.11% $996,356 $1,202 0.12%
Unincorporated Maricopa County 142,777 9,064 6.35% $45,530,720 $2,890,566 6.35%
Mesa 201,507 2,996 1.49% $59,328,380 $882,029 1.49%
Paradise Valley 5,621 2485 44.21% $11,738,020 $5,190,276 44.22%
Peoria 64,806 2,730 4.21% $21,410,130 $901,847 4.21%
Phoenix 590,476 24,895 4.22% $167,455,500 $7,060,152 4.22%
Queen Creek 8,422 1 0.01% $2,890,493 $379 0.01%
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 2,680 6 0.22% $919,777 $2,227 0.24%
Scottsdale 123,959 2,458 1.98% $67,660,310 $1,341,589 1.98%
Surprise 52,607 4704 8.94% $15,652,750 $1,399,528 8.94%
Tempe 73,603 846 1.15% $24,383,780 $280,194 1.15%
Tolleson 2,165 16 0.74% $505,455 $3,648 0.72%
Wickenburg 3,610 0 0.00% $1,285,212 $0 0.00%
Youngtown 2,796 13 0.46% $540,226 $2,477 0.46%
Queen Creek (Pinal County Portion) 606 0 0.00% $207,814 $0 0.00%
Peoria (Yavapai County Portion) 5 0 0.00% $1,321 $0 0.00%
Wickenburg (Yavapai County Portion) 54 0 0.00% $19,703 $0 0.00%
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 290
It is duly noted that the exposure numbers presented above represent a
comprehensive evaluation of the county as a whole. It is unlikely that wildfires would
burn county-wide 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 as
it intersects with the natural environment. As communities push further out, more WUI
is created. The current CWPP provides a comprehensive approach to reducing wildfire
risk through targeted activities and projects that are designed to establish a baseline for
effective mitigation against wildfire damages in the WUI of Maricopa County.
Changes in Development in the Hazard Prone Area
Within the unincorporated areas of Maricopa County, residential development
has been minimal but has been concentrated along I-17 in the Anthem area and in the
western portion of the County along SR303. It is anticipated that new development
will largely occur in these areas over the next five years. Some of these areas are near
the County’s WUI boundary and are identified as having medium and high wildfire
hazard ratings. Future development in these areas should consult the CWPP and this
Plan for guidance on sound development practices and wildfire risk reduction
measures.
The table below summarizes the changes in development within all other
participating jurisdictions in relation to known wildfire hazard areas within the County.
Jurisdiction Development Changes
Avondale
Avondale does not lie within proximity to the designated WUI but contains
areas of medium and high wildfire hazard within the southern half of the City
and to a lesser extent within the northern half, as well. Most of the key growth
identified by the City lie adjacent to I-10 and no further south than Lower
Buckeye Road and will not significantly impact the Community’s vulnerability
to wildfire. The South Avondale Growth Area, located between Lower
Buckeye Road to the Estrella Mountains could impact the wildfire
vulnerability of the City, due to the widespread medium and high wildfire
hazard designation in that area.
Buckeye
The City of Buckeye is bounded to the south, north and west by the designated
WUI and contains several areas of medium and high wildfire hazard. New and
existing commercial development within the City is concentrated on Miller
and Watson Road immediately south of I-10 outside of the significant areas of
increased wildfire hazard. The City’s forecasted residential developments are
located along the south and north sides of I-10 and along the west and north
boundaries of the community north of I-10. Of the anticipated development
changes, only the residential development identified as Douglas Ranch lies
within an area of substantial wildfire hazard.
Carefree
The Town of Carefree is mostly located within areas of medium and high
wildfire hazard but is not located along the designated WUI. Most residential
and commercial development over the past five years and anticipated over the
next 5 years occurs in designated infill areas of the Town in the northwest and
central area. These areas are located with areas of elevated wildfire hazard.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 291
Jurisdiction Development Changes
Cave Creek
The Town of Cave Creek is entirely composed of areas of medium and high
wildfire hazard and is bounded to the north by the designated WUI. Changes in
development include several single family and multi-family residential
developments and commercial developments along the Carefree Highway.
Commercial development along the Carefree Highway is anticipated to
continue over the next five years. The development described will change the
community’s vulnerability to wildfire.
Chandler
The City of Chandler is bordered to the south by the designated WUI but does
not contain substantial areas of medium and high wildfire hazard. Most
development is anticipated to occur in central and northern Chandler in the
form of large lot residential, commercial, and industrial. Given the location of
these developments, they will not impact the community’s vulnerability to
wildfire.
El Mirage
The City of El Mirage is not bordered by the defined WUI but is impacted by
areas of medium and high wildfire hazard along the eastern community border.
Most current and proposed development has taken the form of manufacturing
projects located in the southern portions of the City. Minor growth of
residential projects has occurred in the northeast section and a 3-story
residential, multifamily project is being constructed in the northwest section of
the City. Most of the proposed and existing developments described could
impact the community’s vulnerability to wildfire as the southern and
northeastern sections of the City contain identified wildfire hazard areas.
Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation
The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation contains areas of medium and high
wildfire hazard, mostly following the alignments of the Verde River and
Sycamore Creek and is bounded on the east by the defined WUI. Existing and
planned developments are located approximately within the 30% of the
southwest portion of the Nation and are not located within elevated wildfire
hazard areas, nor will they affect the vulnerability of the Nation.
Fountain Hills
Most of the Town of Fountain Hills lies within areas identified to have
medium wildfire hazard but is not proximal to the WUI boundary. The Town
expects to continue with significant single-family development, primarily on
the western and northwestern parts of down in Adero Canyon and Eagles Nest.
While the western portion of the community does not lie within an area of
elevated wildfire hazard, development in the northwestern portion of the Town
will impact the community’s vulnerability to wildfire.
Gila Bend
The Town of Gila Bend is bounded on all sides by the identified WUI for
Maricopa County and contains several pockets of medium and high wildfire
hazard areas. The Town has seen limited growth over the past 5 years and
anticipates that this trend will continue over the next 5 years. This
development has occurred largely along the Pima St. and Butterfield Trail in
the form of commercial and industrial projects. Developments within these
may impact the community’s vulnerability to wildfire as identified pockets of
medium wildfire hazard areas exist along those alignments.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 292
Jurisdiction Development Changes
Gilbert
Gilbert does not lie within proximity to the WUI boundary and is minimally
impacted by areas of medium and high wildfire hazard from State Highway
202 to the southern boundary. Development within Gilbert has been focused
within the Northwest Employment area located in the northwest corner of the
Town, in the Banner/MD Anderson Employment Area north of Baseline
Roade, the Central Employment Area located along State Highway 202 on the
west boundary of the Town, and the Gateway Employment Area along State
Highway 202 on the east boundary of the Town. The Town anticipates that the
largest areas for development will continue to be the Central Business District
and Gateway Employment Area in the future. The areas identified for
development are not significantly impacted by area of medium and high
wildfire hazard.
Glendale
The City of Glendale is impacted by areas of medium and high wildfire hazard
areas mostly between the alignments of El Mirage Rd. and Hwy 101 and in the
northeast corner of the City. Most areas targeted for development within the
community lie outside of these areas of elevated wildfire risk, however
development within the Sports & Entertainment District located around the
intersection of Glendale Avenue and Hwy 101 will partially fall within areas
of high wildfire hazard. Development in this area is expected to be
predominantly office, entertainment, experiential retail and multifamily.
Goodyear
The City of Goodyear is impacted by medium and high wildfire hazard areas,
particularly in the central portion of the community, and is bounded by the
WUI to the south and west. In relation to the areas of medium and high
wildfire hazard increased residential and commercial development have
occurred in the area bounded by Pecos Rd. to the South and the Gila River to
the north. Lesser amounts of development have occurred in the area bounded
by the Gila River to the south and Camelback Rd. to the north. It is anticipated
that development will continue at a 20% year on year increase in these areas
over the next 5 years. Development located between Pecos Rd. and the Gila
River may impact the community’s vulnerability to wildfire.
Guadalupe
The Community of Guadalupe does not anticipate significant changes in
development, is not impacted by areas of increased wildfire hazard, and does
not lie within proximity to the WUI boundary.
Litchfield Park
While Litchfield Park continues to develop, the City is not impacted by areas
of increased wildfire hazard and does not lie within proximity to the WUI
boundary.
Mesa
The City of Mesa is bounded by the WUI boundary on the northwest and has
significant areas of medium and high wildfire hazard in the northern and
southern portions of the City. Over the past 5 years growth has occurred in the
Falcon Field area to the north, along the Downtown and Main Street Transit
District, along the Superstition Springs Freeway Corridor, and within the
Phoenix Mesa Gateway Area. Development has included increased residential
and commercial development. This development is anticipated to continue
within the growth areas identified with particular emphasis in the area
surrounding the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. Of these areas, the Falcon
Field area to the north and Phoenix Mesa Gateway area to the south are located
within areas at increased risk of wildfire.
Peoria
The City of Peoria is largely impacted by medium and high wildfire hazard
areas and is bordered to the north by the WUI boundary. Development has
occurred and will continue to occur in the northern and central areas of the
jurisdiction and will continue to migrate north over time. Future development
in these areas will potentially impact wildfire risk within Peoria as these areas
lie within medium and high hazard area and within proximity to the WUI.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 293
Jurisdiction Development Changes
Phoenix
The northern and southern portions of the City of Phoenix are significantly
impacted by medium and high wildfire hazard areas and is bounded by the
WUI boundary to the north. Changes in development within the City are
largely contained within the Infill Development District and the Southwest
Growth Region. Anticipated commercial and residential growth within the
Infill will be concentrated in the downtown area, which lies outside of the
identified wildfire hazard areas. Residential development within the Southwest
Growth Region, which contains significant areas of high wildfire hazard, will
impact the City’s vulnerability to wildfire.
Queen Creek
Queen Creek has experienced residential and commercial development
predominantly within the eastern portion of the Town and anticipates that
development will continue over the next 5 years. The Town is not located
within proximity to the WUI boundary and has few areas of medium risk
wildfire hazard within the incorporated area. For this reason, there are no
impacts to wildfire hazard anticipated.
Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian
Community
The SRPMIC is bordered by the Maricopa County WUI boundary to the east
and is designated to have medium and high wildfire hazard areas along the
northern and southern boundary of the community. Development has occurred
in the community at a fast pace over the past five years and anticipates
continued growth in the commercial sector over the next five years, while
residential is limited as housing is only available to Community Members.
Most recent existing and proposed development is located outside of areas
with elevated wildfire risk; however, the Community is considering
development along the Southern Boundary of the Community, which would
potentially be at a higher risk to wildfire.
Scottsdale
A significant portion of the community of Scottsdale is in areas of medium to
high wildfire hazard risk and is bounded by the WUI boundary to the
northeast. Development is continuing within the North Sub-Area of the City,
north of Deer Valley Road, but is also occurring within the East-Shea area of
the Central Sub-Area located between Deer Valley and Indian Bend Road.
Residential, Commercial, and mixed-use development is expected to continue
in these areas over the next 5 years. Development occurring between
Scottsdale Road and Pima Freeway will be outside areas of increased wildfire
risk, while development east or west of their alignments would be at an
increased risk of wildfire.
Surprise
Surprise is closely bordered by the WUI boundary to the northwest and
contains several areas designated with medium to high wildfire hazard. Over
the past 5 years the City has experienced a residential growth rate above the
state average and is anticipating continued growth of 53% in population and
63% in jobs related to office, retail, and industrial development by 2030. The
city is targeting several areas for the growth, of which the Loop 303
Development and Railplex Foreign Trade Zone are impacted by areas
designated to have medium and high wildfire hazard.
Tempe
Tempe is not within proximity of the WUI boundary and contains limited areas
of high and medium wildfire hazard risk, mostly along the Salt River running
east to west within the northern portion of the City. Tempe has seen rapid
growth of high density residential, new corporate office headquarters and
many new retail developments. A significant amount of this development has
occurred in the downtown area, Tempe Town Lake, which lies with the
designated high and medium fire hazard area. New developments within this
area will increase the population and assets potentially impacted by wildfire.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 294
Jurisdiction Development Changes
Tolleson
Tolleson has experienced a few small residential and commercial
developments over the past 5 years and has designated specific areas to be
targeted for development in the future. These areas are infill areas within the
jurisdictional boundary. The community has limited medium and high rated
hazard areas for wildfire but is not located in an area impacted by the WUI.
Future growth within the community is limited and will not impact the wildfire
hazard.
Wickenburg
Wickenburg is in northern Maricopa County and is bordered to the north, west,
and south by the defined WUI. Pockets identified to have a medium wildfire
hazard rating exist along Highway 93 which intersects the east side of the
community from north to south. Development over the past 5 years and
anticipated over the next 5 years has been largely residential and outside of
areas with known wildfire hazards, with the exception of the proposed Arroyo
Vistas development (37 homes) which lies, at least in part within an area
designated to have a medium hazard rating.
Youngtown
Youngtown is not located within proximity to the defined WUI boundary.
Small pockets of high and medium wildfire hazard risk do exist within the
incorporated limits of the community. However, these areas are located along
the Agua Fria River and further west. Most development within the
community over the past 5 years and anticipated in the next 5-year cycle is
characterized by infill and redevelopment of areas east of the Agua Fria River
alignment. The Town’s Council has approved a 100+ acre regional park in the
Agua Fria river bottom which will further limit development within areas at
risk to wildfire.
Sources
Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, 2018, State of Arizona
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018 Update.
Arizona Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (AZWRAP), accessed at:
https://arizonawildfirerisk.com/
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%20Interf
ace%20Assessment%2005MAR04.pdf
Logan Simpson Design, Inc., 2010, Maricopa County Community Wildfire Protection
Plan
MCDEM, 2020, Maricopa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update
National Interagency Fire Center, 2020, Wildland Fire Open Data Portal accessed at:
https://data-nifc.opendata.arcgis.com/
Sanborn Map Company, 2013, West Wide Wildfire Risk Assessment, Final Report,
prepared for the Oregon Department of Forestry in cooperation with the Western
Forestry Leadership Coalition and Council of Western State Foresters.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 295
Profile Maps
Maps 7A, 7B, and 7C – Wildfire Hazard Map(s)
Maps 7A-2, 7B-2, and 7C-2 – Fire Threat Index Map(s)
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
rx303
rx74
rx202
rx85
rx51
rx101
rx202rx85
rx101
rx303
rx202rx303
rx85
£¤60
£¤71 £¤93
£¤60
£¤60
NIFS Perimeters
WUI
Wildfire Hazard Rating
High
Medium
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Major Streams
Interagency Perimeters
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 7AMaricopa CountyWildfire Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; MAG 2020:MCCWPP 2020; TIGER 2020; LSD 2020;AWUIA 2004; USGS 2020
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
rx303
rx74
rx202
rx85
rx51
rx101
rx202rx85
rx101
rx303
rx202rx303
rx85
£¤60
£¤71 £¤93
£¤60
£¤60
NIFS Perimeters
WUI
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Major Streams
Interagency Perimeters
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 7A-2Maricopa CountyWildfire Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; MAG 2020:MCCWPP 2020; TIGER 2020; LSD 2020;AWUIA 2004; USGS 2020
Fire Threat Index
Very, Very Low
Very Low
Low
Low Moderate
Moderate
Moderate High
High
Very High
Extreme
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
rx88
rx303
rx202
rx74
rx87
rx51
rx101
rx24
rx153
rx143
rx51
rx303
rx202rx202rx101
£¤60
£¤60
£¤60
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 7BMaricopa CountyWildfire Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; MAG 2020:MCCWPP 2020; TIGER 2020; LSD 2020;AWUIA 2004; USGS 2020
NIFS Perimeters
WUI
Wildfire Hazard Rating
High
Medium
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Major Streams
Interagency Perimeters
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
rx88
rx303
rx202
rx74
rx87
rx51
rx101
rx24
rx153
rx143
rx51
rx303
rx202rx202rx101
£¤60
£¤60
£¤60
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 7B-2Maricopa CountyWildfire Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; MAG 2020:MCCWPP 2020; TIGER 2020; LSD 2020;AWUIA 2004; USGS 2020
NIFS Perimeters
WUI
Legend
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Major Streams
Interagency Perimeters
Fire Threat Index
Very, Very Low
Very Low
Low
Low Moderate
Moderate
Moderate High
High
Very High
Extreme
§¨¦8
§¨¦8
rx238
rx85
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 7CMaricopa CountyWildfire Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; MAG 2020:MCCWPP 2020; TIGER 2020; LSD 2020;AWUIA 2004; USGS 2020
NIFS Perimeters
WUI
Wildfire Hazard Rating
High
Medium
Legend
Interagency Perimeters
Major Streams
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
§¨¦8
§¨¦8
rx238
rx85
17
Maricopa County Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Map 7C-2Maricopa CountyWildfire Hazard Mapas of Sept 2020
0 75 15037.5
Miles
I MARICOPACOUNTY
Source: JE Fuller 2020; MAG 2020:MCCWPP 2020; TIGER 2020; LSD 2020;AWUIA 2004; USGS 2020
NIFS Perimeters
WUI
Legend
Interagency Perimeters
Major Streams
Maricopa County
Mitigation Plan Extent
Fire Threat Index
Very, Very Low
Very Low
Low
Low Moderate
Moderate
Moderate High
High
Very High
Extreme
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 296
5.4 Risk Assessment Summary
The jurisdictional variability of risk associated with each hazard assessed in Section
5.3 is demonstrated by the various CPRI and hazard exposure results. Accordingly, each
jurisdiction has varying levels of need regarding the hazards to be mitigated and may not
consider all the hazards as posing a great risk to their individual communities. Table 5-42
summarizes the hazards selected for mitigation by each jurisdiction and will be the basis for
each jurisdiction’s mitigation strategy.
Table 5-42: Summary of hazards to be mitigated by each participating jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Dam Inundation Drought Extreme Heat Fissure Flood Levee Failure Severe Wind Subsidence Wildfire Avondale NV M M NV M M M M M
Buckeye M M M NV M NV M M M
Carefree NV M NH NV M NV M NV M
Cave Creek NV M M NV M NV M NV M
Chandler NV M M NV M NV M M NH
El Mirage M M M NV M NV M M NH
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation NV M NH NV M NV M NV M
Fountain Hills M (1) M NH NV M NV M NV M
Gila Bend NV M M NV M NV M M M
Gilbert M M M M M M M M NH
Glendale M (1) M M M M M M M M
Goodyear M M M NV M NV M M M
Guadalupe NV M M NV M NV M NV NV
Litchfield Park NV M M NV M NV M M NH
Unincorporated Maricopa County M M M M M M M M M
Mesa M M M M M M M M M
Paradise Valley NV M M NV M NV M M M
Peoria M M M NV M M M M M
Phoenix M (1) M M M M M M M M
Queen Creek M M M M M NV M NH M
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community NV M M NV M NV M M M
Scottsdale NV M M M M M M M M
Surprise M M M M M NV M M M
Tempe M M M NV M M M M NH
Tolleson NV M M NV M NV M M NH
Wickenburg M M M NV M M M NV M
Youngtown M M M NV M NV M M M
M – Mitigation A/Ps will be identified
NH – Nuisance hazard - no mitigation is warranted
NV – Jurisdiction is not vulnerable to hazard – no mitigation is warranted
(1) – The Town of Fountain Hills and City of Phoenix own and maintain several dams and will continue
to mitigate risk by maintaining the dams to ADWR dam safety standards.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 297
SECTION 6: MITIGATION STRATEGY
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:
Goals and Objectives
Capability Assessment
Mitigation Actions/Projects and Implementation Strategy
The entire 2015 Plan mitigation strategy was reviewed and updated by the MJPT, including
the section describing National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance. Specifics of the
changes and updates are discussed in the subsections below.
6.1 Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The 2015 Plan goals and objectives were reviewed by the MJPT alongside the 2018
State Plan goals, and were determined to be adequate and current with the overall mitigation
planning goals of all the participating jurisdictions. No changes were made. Accordingly, one
goal and four clear objectives will be carried forward for the Plan as follows:
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.
§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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 298
6.2 Capability Assessment
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:
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.
Technical Staff and Personnel – this assessment evaluates and describes the
administrative and technical capacity of the jurisdiction’s staff and personnel
resources.
Fiscal Capability – this element summarizes each jurisdiction’s fiscal capability to
provide the financial resources to implement the mitigation strategy.
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.
For this update, the MJPT reviewed the information provided in Section 6.2 of the 2015
Plan and updated data in the tables of Section 6.2.1 as appropriate.
6.2.1 Jurisdictional Capabilities
Tables 6-1-1 through 6-1-28 summarize the legal and regulatory mitigation
capability for each 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.
Each jurisdiction performs regular evaluations and assessments of the policies
and programs listed in the following tables and will adjust and revise as the need arises.
Each jurisdiction will review their respective policies and programs as a part of the
Plan maintenance listed in Section 7.1.2 and also as they related to integrating the Plan
into other planning documents and activities as discussed in Section 3.6.2.
The last row of each of the Tables 6-1-xx, 6-2-xx and 6-3-xx includes an
evaluation and discussion of areas and gaps in existing capabilities considered by each
of the jurisdictions for expansion and improvement, that will result in more effective
mitigation.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 299
Table 6-1-1: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Avondale
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2018 International Building Code
• 2018 International Residential
Code
• 2018 International Mechanical
Code
• 2018 International Plumbing Code
• 2018 International Energy
Conservation Code
• 2017 National Electrical Code
• January 2012 International Fire
Code
• Building Official
• Code Enforcement
• Fire Marshal
ORDINANCES
• 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
• Code Enforcement
• Planning & Zoning
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• General Plan/City Ordinance
• 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
STUDIES • Maricopa County Mass Evacuation
Planning Group • Fire
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Building, planning and zoning codes could be improved to better accommodate flooding,
extreme heat, and poor air quality. In a city like Avondale where the current cost of
construction is high, any additional regulations will need to be carefully studied to understand
potential impacts to both the housing costs and impacts to residents and local business.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 300
Table 6-2-1: 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
Development & Engineering Services
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Development & Engineering Services
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Development & Engineering Services
Floodplain Manager Development & Engineering Services
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Development & Engineering Services
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS Information Technology / GIS
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community
Emergency manager Fire & Medical Department
Grant writer(s) Finance Department
Others
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Wherever possible and appropriate city staff could implement programs that educate the
community on creating defensible spaces to reduce the impact of uncontrolled wildland fire.
City staff, where appropriate, could provide information to homeowners and local business
on potential natural and human caused hazards.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 301
Table 6-3-1: Fiscal capabilities for Avondale
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(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 Fees for water and sewer
services
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City of Avondale, working in conjunction with Maricopa County, can consider
expanding pursuit of FEMA mitigation grants through development of a programmed
approach to identifying CIP and cost-beneficial projects three to four years in advance of the
desired implementation, preparing appropriate grant application information and submitting
for funding.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 302
Table 6-1-2: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Buckeye
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2018 International Building Code
• 2018 International Residential Code
• 2018 International Mechanical Code
• 2018 International Plumbing Code
• 2017 National Electrical Code
• 2012 International Fuel Gas Code
• 2018 International Energy
Conservation Code
• 2018 International Property
Maintenance Code
• 2018 International Existing Building
Code
• 2012 International Fire Code
• Development Services
• Fire Department
ORDINANCES
• Floodplain Management (Ord. No. 27-
11, § 2, 7-19-2011)
• Airport (Ord. No. 5-11, § 2, 3-1-2011)
• Procurement (Ord. No. 2-11, § 2, 2-
15-2011)
• Health and Sanitation (Ord. No. 15-
13, § 3, 9-17-2013)
• Public Works
• Engineering
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• 2007 Airport Master Plan
• Development Code Update
• Site Plan Review Requirements
• Capital Improvements Plan
• Engineering Design Standards
• Public Works
• Engineering
• Development Services
• Construction and
Contracting
STUDIES
• City of Buckeye Economic
Development Action Agenda
• Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study
(Airport)
• 2012 Downtown Storm Drain
Improvement Plan
• Transportation Master Plan
• ITS Strategic Plan
• Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan
• Buckeye Area Drainage Master Plan
• Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Plan
• 2020 General Plan
• Engineering
• Development Services
• Economic Development
• Public Works
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 303
Table 6-1-2: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Buckeye
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City of Buckeye has a list of planning documents, master plans and codes that support
our mitigation efforts. Often times these documents are developed with a specific goal in-
mind while perhaps not appreciating the impacts to other published/ adopted plans. In the
future, all of our mitigation planning efforts and policies could be enhanced by ensuring a
collaborative peer review process within Development Services and Engineering
Departments. Continuous use of the UBC and IFC in the Fire Department will also allow us
to review plans prior to being permitted by the city.
Table 6-2-2: 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
Development Services – Planners
Engineering - Engineers
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Engineering – Engineers
Public Works - Engineers
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Engineering, Water Resources, Development
Services, and Public Works Depts
Floodplain Manager Engineering - City Engineer
Public Works - Engineers
Surveyors Water Resources and Engineering Depts.
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Human Services, Emergency Management,
Development Services, Fire, Police, Public Works,
Engineering, Water Resources Depts
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS ITD, Fire Dept, Police Dept
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Police Dept, Water Resources Dept, Fire Dept
Emergency manager Fire Dept, Fire Chief
Grant writer(s) Police Dept for Police, Fire, and Public Works
Depts.
Others
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 304
Table 6-2-2: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Buckeye
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City of Buckeye could benefit from a dedicated Emergency Manager. Currently, the
role is filled by the Fire Department which works with the city on hazard awareness. Our
city has quarterly and annual hazard exercises in our EOC, which is facilitated by the Fire
Department. We normally focus on storm, flood, and power outage scenarios in which we
have members from, LE, Public Works, Water Department, Community Services, IT, and
city officials who participate to find gaps in our EOP/ERP plans and identify areas of
mitigation interest. Continued expansion of the use of social media to provide regular
updates for seasonal hazards and tips to make it safer.
Table 6-3-2: Fiscal capabilities for Buckeye
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(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, Sewer, Solid Waste,
Airport Services
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City of Buckeye has funding efforts through multiple grants that are specific to certain
hazards. City does put a certain amount of monies into the annual budget for smaller
projects and departments apply for larger CIP monies for larger projects.
We must educate the City Council and Finance Department, so they fully understand the
specifics of our hazard mitigation needs. This could be done with presentations, tours,
report, etc. Maintaining a current HMP with the County assures us of being eligible for
Federal and State grants as needed.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 305
Table 6-1-3: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Carefree
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2003 International Building Code
• 2002 National Electrical Code
• 2003 International Mechanical
Code
• 1994 International Plumbing Code
• 2003 International Residential
Code
• Building Department
(all)
ORDINANCES
• Abatement Ordinance Town Code
6-1 2006
• Adult Oriented Business Town
Zoning Ordinance 2006
• Dark Sky Ordinance Town
Building Code 2003
• Noise Ordinance Town Code 6-
2(P-23) 2006
• Town Zoning Ordinance 2003
• Zoning Administrator
• Town Marshal
• Town Engineer
REGULATIONS
• Zoning and Planning Addressing
Regulations
• Flood Control District
• Dust Abatement Regulations
• Town Subdivision Regulations
• MS4 Regulations
• Zoning Administrator
• Town Engineer
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 306
Table 6-1-3: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Carefree
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• 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 2002 General Plan and
2006 Carefree Zoning Ordinances
• Development Master Plan
Guidelines included in Carefree
2002
General Plan
• Area Drainage Master Plan
completed via 2004 Flood Control
District of Maricopa County
• Watercourse Master Plan
completed via 2004 Flood Control
District of Maricopa County
• Zoning Administrator
• Town Engineer
STUDIES
• Dam Safety Studies / Emergency
Action Plans 2006
• Area Drainage Master Studies
• Corridor Studies 2007 Traffic
Study
• Emergency Routes Evaluation
2008
• Zoning Administrator
• Town Engineer
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Building codes could be updated / improved to:
•2018 International Building Code • 2018 International Residential Code • 2018 International
Plumbing Code • 2018 International Mechanical Code • 2018 International Fire Code • 2017
National Electric Code • 2018 Energy Conservation Code
Updating the codes and ordinances will provide the town with modern and needed regulatory
tools to enhance future mitigation efforts for drought, flood, severe wind, wildfire and other
hazards.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 307
Table 6-2-3: 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 an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Planning and Development - Planners
Emergency Management - Planners
Floodplain Manager None on Staff
Surveyors
Planning and Development - Planners
Transportation – Engineer
Emergency Management – Planners
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
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
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS Contract On Staff – Hydrologist
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Emergency Management -
Director/Marshal/Planners
Emergency manager
Emergency Management – Fire Chief
Fire Department – Grant writer
Water Department - Manager
Grant writer(s) Planning and Development - Planners
Environmental Services – Inspectors
Others
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The town could expand its mitigation capacity through the addition of two (2) staff in the
Public Works and Engineering Department to reduce the current workload, due to rapid
development.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 308
Table 6-3-3: Fiscal capabilities for Carefree
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(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
developments/homes Yes
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The town can expand its mitigation capacity through additional sales tax revenue resulting
from increased economic development. The additional revenues could enhance future
mitigation efforts by providing extra resources for the town to implement some of the
actions and projects identified as priorities for the town. Additional staff in the areas of
building inspections and code enforcement will enhance the town’s abilities to ensure
future development meets the town’s mitigation goals and regulatory requirements.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 309
Table 6-1-4: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Cave Creek
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2018 International Building Code
• 2018 International Residential Code
• 2018 International Plumbing Code
• 2018 International Mechanical Code
• 2018 International Fire Code
• 2017 National Electric Code
• 2018 Energy Conservation Code
• Chief Building
Official & Cave Creek
Fire Official
ORDINANCES
• 2012 Cave Creek Zoning Ordinance
• 2011 Cave Creek Sub-Division
Ordinance
• 2005 Town of Cave Creek General
Plan (updates to be voted on in 2021)
• 2012 Town of Cave Creek Town
Core and Implementation Plan
• Planning and Zoning
Administrator
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• 2008 Town of Cave Creek DMP
Flood Response Plan
• 2020 Storm Water Area Master Plan
• 2008 Town of Cave Creek Master
Drainage Plan
• 2009 Town of Cave Creek Multi-
Hazard Mitigation Plan (currently
being updated)
• 2009 Town of Cave Creek
Emergency Operations Plan
• 2013 Town of Cave Creek Master
Water Plan
• 2008 Town of Cave Creek Water
Emergency Operations Plan
• Grading and Drainage Technical
Design Guidelines
• 2009 Trails Technical Design
Guidelines
• 2009 Transportation Technical
Guidelines
• Maricopa County
Flood Control
• Town of Cave Creek
Engineer
• Town Marshal
• Town Utilities
Manager
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 310
Table 6-1-4: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Cave Creek
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
STUDIES
• 2020 Pedestrian Transportation Study
• 2016 Development Fee Study
• 2020 Water Rate Study
• 2020 Sewage Rate Study
• 2014 Carefree / Cave Creek
Transportation Framework Study
• Cave Creek Carefree Bike Lane
Study
• Development Fee and Capacity
Study
• Town Engineer
• Town Manager
• Town Council
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Town of Cave Creek is researching / planning updating our Current International
Building Codes from 2018 version to the updated 2021 International Building Codes.
Enhancing these codes will help ensure more stringent safety updates and will help mitigate
damage from adverse weather as well as enhance fire codes.
Table 6-2-4: 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 an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Planning and Zoning Staff, Town Engineer, Town
Manager, Town of Cave Creek Building Official
Floodplain Manager Town of Cave Creek Engineer
Surveyors Out Sourced
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Town Marshal
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS Town Engineer
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Utilities Manager
Emergency Manager Town Building Official
Grant writer(s) Town Planning Staff
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 311
Table 6-2-4: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Cave Creek
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Town of Cave Creek is looking to enhance our Fire / Medical Services and to also bring
on additional Fire Management resources to help mitigate Wild Land Fire dangers as well as
all hazard mitigation within the town.. Cave Creek intends to join the Automatic Aid
System within Maricopa County Fire Services to add a more robust response network and
strengthen our commitment to our community.
Our Town Engineering staff will be working on flood mitigation throughout the year to help
manage monsoon flooding and to help mitigate flooded roadways and loss of property due
to severe soil erosion from monsoon floods.
Table 6-3-4: Fiscal capabilities for Cave Creek
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(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
developments/homes Yes
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Town of Cave Creek staff is always looking to increase our efforts to secure FEMA
mitigation grants as well as to seek all levels of grants to help mitigate hazards. The Town
of Cave Creek Fire and Medical services ability to provide effective wildfire mitigation
through fuels reduction and wildfire education can be enhanced with FEMA FMGP funds.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 312
Table 6-1-5: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Chandler
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2018 International Building Code
• 2017 National Electrical Code
• 2018 International Plumbing Code
• 2018 International Mechanical Code
• 2018 International Residential Code
• 2018 International Fuel Gas Code
• 2018 International Energy
Conservation Code
• 2018 International Fire Code
• 2018 International Existing Building
Code
• Chandler Code of Ordinances
(Municode.com)
• Development Services
• Fire Department
• City Clerk
ORDINANCES
• Chandler Code of Ordinances
(Municode.com):
Floodplain Administration Ord. No.
3311
Weed Abatement Ord No. 3879
Land Use Zoning Ord. No. 3063
• Development Services
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• Engineering Standard Details and
Specifications
• Technical Design Manuals
• Stormwater Prevention Plan
• Flood Control District Floodplain
Maps
• Stormwater Master Plan
• Development Services
STUDIES
• 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
• Development Services
• Flood Control District
of Maricopa County
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 313
Table 6-1-5: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Chandler
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
An opportunity for the City to increase its future mitigation efforts is regular updates to the City
codes. The City’s codes have recently been updated and will continue to update to model codes
with minor amendments. Additional measures for flooding, and other natural disasters can be
implemented within the model codes to allow easier and standardized adoption to increase
future mitigation efforts. When the plans are amended or updated in their various cycles it
would be beneficial to have the appropriate people available to consult on changes to make the
codes more adapted to the mitigation needs.
Table 6-2-5: 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
Development Services– Planners
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Development Services – Engineers
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Public Works - Municipal Utilities – planners and
engineers
Floodplain Manager Development Services
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Fire Department
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS Information technology, Development Services,
Police, Fire
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Public Works - Municipal Utilities
Emergency manager Fire Department
Grant writer(s) All Departments
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Fire Department can conduct more outreach to educate the public in hazard mitigation.
They could talk about the main issues we regularly experience from severe wind to extreme
heat. They can address the issues that people normally ignore as we do not see large
amounts of rainfall in a sustained period.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 314
Table 6-3-5: Fiscal capabilities for Chandler
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(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
developments/homes Yes
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The city can and will continue to regularly pursue grants and other programs to fund future
mitigation actions and projects that address the city’s hazard liabilities. The grant funds can be
used to match with mitigation priorities planned into the city’s capital improvements program
and other city departmental public outreach budgets. The city will also continue the use of
creative public and private sponsorships and partnerships (e.g. – IGA’s, MOUs, etc.) that can
also assist in funding future mitigation needs, actions and projects, and especially those that
require a regional, multi-jurisdictional approach (area drainage master plans for example).
Table 6-1-6: Legal and regulatory capabilities for El Mirage
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 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
• City Clerk
• Building Department
• Fire Department
• City Clerk
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 315
Table 6-1-6: Legal and regulatory capabilities for El Mirage
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
ORDINANCES
• 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
• Engineering
• Finance
• City Manager
• Municipal Judge
• Police Department
• Public Works
• Code Compliance
• Fire Department
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 316
Table 6-1-6: Legal and regulatory capabilities for El Mirage
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• 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
• Planning Department
• Human Resources
• Fire Department
• Engineering
• Maricopa Association
of Governments
• Maricopa County
Flood Control
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
• Maricopa County
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City of El Mirage has a comprehensive master plan as well as local codes the assist in
our mitigation efforts. Our mitigation efforts could be enhanced by working with surrounding
jurisdictions to assist on regional mitigation hazards. We could also utilize internal peer
review to assess the mitigation plan and needs.
Table 6-2-6: 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 an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
City Engineer, Building Official, Fire Chief
Floodplain Manager City Engineer
Surveyors City Engineering & Public Works staff
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
City Engineer, Building Official, Fire Chief,
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 317
Table 6-2-6: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for El Mirage
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS City GIS Technician, Information Technology
Director
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community
Emergency manager Fire Chief, Police Chief
Grant writer(s) City Grants Coordinator
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City of El Mirage could enhance the Emergency Management Division by creating a
budget to provide a full time Emergency Manager. This would allow a full time effort to
address and constantly review the mitigation needs.
Table 6-3-6: Fiscal capabilities for El Mirage
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(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
developments/homes Yes
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Other
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City of El Mirage can pursue FEMA mitigation grants and other grant programs to fund
future mitigation actions and projects that address hazards impacting the city. The grant
funds can be used to match with mitigation priorities planned into the city’s capital
improvements program and other city departmental public outreach budgets. The city will
also continue the use of creative public and private sponsorships and partnerships (e.g. –
IGA’s, MOUs, etc.) that can also assist in funding future mitigation needs, actions and
projects, and especially those that require a regional, multi-jurisdictional approach (area
drainage master plans for example).
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 318
Table 6-1-7: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
TRIBAL CODES
• 2012 International Building Code
• 2012 National Electrical Code
• 2012 International Mechanical Code
• 2012 International Plumbing Code
• 2012 International Fire Code
• Planning/Development
Dept.
• Fire Department
TRIBAL
ORDINANCES
• Floodplain Management
• Hazard Abatement
• Subdivision
• Noise
• Planning/Development
Dept.
• Emergency Manager
• License & Property
Use Dept.
• Environmental
Department
TRIBAL
REGULATIONS
• Wildfire Prevention
• Addressing
• Drainage/Stormwater
• Site Plan Reviews
• Land Use Restrictions
• Fire Department
• Planning/Development
Dept.
• License & Property
Use Dept
PLANS,
MANUALS,
GUIDELINES,
and/or STUDIES
• Wildland Fire Management (2012)
• Fuels Management Plan (2012)
• Maricopa County Wildfire Protection
Plan (2020)
• All, as required by Tribal Council.
(SEE TRIBAL ANNEX)
• Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Salt River
Agency
• Community and
Economic
Development Division.
(SEE TRIBAL
ANNEX)
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
An official building/fire code could be adopted by the Nation to better ensure standards are
being met and upheld in public and residential structures. Wildland fuel mitigation plans
can be enhanced to focus on thinning fuels in known problematic areas. Utility infrastructure
planning in the area can be enhanced to develop solutions that decrease the impact of
Monsoons on current utility systems.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 319
Table 6-2-7: 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
Planning and Development - Planners/
Planning and Building - Committee
Environmental Services - Inspectors/Analysts
General Managers office – General Manager
Land Use - Manager
Housing - Manager
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Planning and Development - Building Inspectors
Flood Control - Engineers
Transportation - Engineers/Consultants
Environmental Services - Air/Water Quality
Testers /Analysts
Fire Department- Fire Inspectors
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Planning and Development - Planners
Emergency Management - Fire Chief, Police
Chief, Environmental Director, Public Works
Director
Floodplain Manager Planning and Development – Director and
Engineers
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Planning and Development – Planners, Engineers
Transportation – Engineers, Police Chief, Fire
Chief, Emergency Manager
Emergency Management – Police Chief, Fire
Chief, Emergency Manager, Planners
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS
Planning and Development –Staff
Emergency Management –Staff
Police Department–Staff
Fire Department - Staff
Environmental Services –Staff
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community
Emergency manager Emergency Management - General Manager, Fire
Chief, FD Administrative Captain
Grant writer(s) All Departments – Grants and Contracts
Administrator
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Fire/Medical services could implement programs to educate the community on creating
defensible spaces to protect against wildfires in the urban interface. Community and
economic development could implement home inspection services to examine wiring and
structural integrity. Public works could implement a sandbag filling station and education
in order to protect against flash flooding in the area.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 320
Table 6-3-7a: Fiscal capabilities for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants Yes Accessible but historically not
obtained
Capital Improvements Project
funding Yes
Tribal Capital Improvement
Programs funded by tribal
enterprise revenue
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes Yes
Eligible to impose direct
assessments for use of tribal
lands
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric
service Yes
Eligible to assess Water,
Sewer, Solid Waste, and
Transfer station fees.
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes Limited Use
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Other: Grants, Inter-governmental
Agreements and Specific Planning
and Project Grants
Yes
Eligible for federal, state,
tribal directed grants and
IGA’s
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Nation could consider expanding pursuit of FEMA mitigation grants by developing a
scheduled 5-to-10-year project list based on cost-benefit, hazard and scope of work. The
nation could identify a committee to work together to create and prioritize this list and
submit for funding.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 321
Table 6-3-7b: Funding source assessment for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Building on Table 6-3-7a, the following summarize existing and potential funding sources
that have either been utilized by FMYN for implementing hazard mitigation actions and
projects in the past 5-years, or are considered potential sources for future hazard mitigation
actions and projects.
Existing/Past Funding Sources Used:
• Tribal Revenue
• FEMA THSGP
• BIA funding
• Insurance funding
Potential Funding Sources:
• CDBG
• FEMA HMGP grants
• FEMA BRIC grants
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 322
Table 6-1-8: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Fountain Hills
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES • 2018 IBC, IRC, IPC, IMC, IECC,
IFC. 2005 NEC. 97 UCADB
• Building Safety
• Fire Department
ORDINANCES
• Amendments to the IBC,IRC,IFC
• Including fire sprinklers in all
structures
• Building Safety
• Fire Department
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• 2020 General Plan
• 2020 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 submittal documents
and specifications, updated 2020
with Erosion Control Guidance for
construction.
• Planning and Zoning
• Development Services
STUDIES
• 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
• Development Services
• Building Safety
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Building, planning, and zoning codes could be enhanced to better facilitate the management
and/or development of open space that could be considered hazardous due to the accumulation
of brush and trees that are in poor health.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 323
Table 6-2-8: 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
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Public Works/Town Engineer
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Public Works/Director
Floodplain Manager Public Works/Town Engineer
Surveyors Public Works/Town Engineer
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
None
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS Public Works/Director
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community CAD Services/GIS Tech
Emergency manager None
Grant writer(s) Fire Chief/Public Works/ Director
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Additional staffing in the Building Inspection Department to reduce the current work load,
due to rapid development. An additional Community Risk Reduction position in Public
Safety would help with wildland fire reduction projects, or community safety enhancement
programs.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 324
Table 6-3-8: Fiscal capabilities for Fountain Hills
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(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
developments/homes Yes
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes Requires citizen vote
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes Requires citizen vote
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Town can consider aggressively pursuing fuels reduction monies that may be available
to assist with the clearing and maintenance of its many washes/arroyos. The availability of
additional funding could reduce the wash maintenance frequency from its current five year
interval schedule, to two or three year intervals.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 325
Table 6-1-9: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Gila Bend
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES • International Building Code
• Community
Development Services
• Public Works &
Engineering
ORDINANCES • Floodplain Management Ordinance
• Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance
• Community
Development Services
• Public Works &
Engineering
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• General Plan
• CIP Plan
• Airport Master plan
• Community
Development Services
• Public Works &
Engineering
STUDIES
• Water, streets, sewer studies
• Maps (FEMA, Effective date of
September 2005)
• Gila Bend Aquifer Study
• Community
Development Services
• Public Works &
Engineering
• Flood Control District of
Maricopa County
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Regular updates to the Town’s codes are one way the Town increases its future mitigation
capacity. Building and planning codes could be improved to better accommodate flooding,
drought, and extreme heat. Additional policies to the long-term plan could allow for improved
standards and guidance to protect natural drainage areas and options for low impact
development strategies. Additional measures for flooding, and other natural disasters can be
implemented within the model codes to allow easier and standardized adoption to increase
future mitigation efforts.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 326
Table 6-2-9: 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 an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Contract personnel
Floodplain Manager Managed by FCDMC
Surveyors Contract personnel
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Public Works Director
Fire Chief
EMS
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS Contract personnel
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Contract personnel
Emergency manager
Public Works Director
Fire Chief
EMS Chief
Town Engineer
Grant writer(s) Contract personnel
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Wherever possible and appropriate, town staff could implement programs that educate the
community on creating defensible spaces to reduce the impact of uncontrolled wildland fire,
as well as a general augmentation of efforts to provide information to homeowners and local
business on potential natural and human caused hazards.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 327
Table 6-3-9: Fiscal capabilities for Gila Bend
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants Yes Potable water related project
Capital Improvements Project
funding Yes WIFA, HURF, Rural
Development
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
developments/homes Yes
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Other Yes WIFA, Rural Development
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Town can and will continue to regularly participate in grant programs and other
programs to fund mitigation of its hazard liabilities and programs. The use of creative
sponsorship and partnerships can also assist in mitigation funding for future increased
mitigation needs. The Town can pursue partnerships with county-level agencies such as the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County, neighboring municipalities, and the private
sector when developing CIP projects that mitigate area wide drainage issues to reduce flood
risks.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 328
Table 6-1-10: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Gilbert
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 1996 Code Town of Gilbert,
Arizona
*There have been revisions and
amendments since original adoption
date
• 2012 International Fire Code
• 2012 International Building Code
• 2012 International Residential
Code
• 2012 International Mechanical
Code
• 2012 International Plumbing Code
• 2012 International Fuel Gas Code
• 2012 International Energy
Conservation Code
• 2011 National Electrical Code
*The Bldg & Fire codes adopted and
amended through the Building and
Construction Regulations Code of the
Town of Gilbert, Arizona- 2013
Edition.
• The Arizonans with Disabilities
Act & Implementing Rules
• Developmental Services
• Fire Department
ORDINANCES
• 2005 Town of Gilbert Land
Development Code*
* There have been revisions and
amendments since original adoption
date
• 1987 The Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance of the Town
of Gilbert, Arizona
• 2013 Town of Gilbert Amendments
to Chapter 34 Floodplain
Management Ordinance 245 is
Chapter 34 of Town Code
• Development Services
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 329
Table 6-1-10: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Gilbert
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• 2003 Town of Gilbert Storm Water
Management Program
• 2003 Gilbert Water Supply
Reduction Management Plan
• 2015-2019 Capital Improvement
Plan
• 2016 Town of Gilbert Emergency
Operation Plan (revision in
progress)
• 2019 Town of Gilbert Flood
Response Plan
• 2012 General Plan Town of Gilbert
• 2015 Town of Gilbert Multi-
Hazard Mitigation Plan (currently
being updated)
• 200 Town of Gilbert Land
Development Code Ordinance No.
1625
Latest Revision: June 1, 2014
• 2009 Town of Gilbert Public
Works and Engineering Standards
and Details
• Public Works
• Fire Department
• Development Services
• Management Office
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 330
Table 6-1-10: 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”.
• 2013 Flood Insurance Study for
“Maricopa County, Arizona and
Unincorporated Areas” Volumes 1
thru 23.
• FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FEMA, Effective date of October
2013)
• 2013 San Tan West Area Drainage
Master Study (ADMS)
• 2018 San Tan West Area Drainage
Master Plan Update
• 2020 San Tan West Area Drainage
Master Study/Plan Update
• East Mesa Area Drainage Master
Plan
• 2008 Earth Fissure Map of the
Chandler Heights Study Area: Pinal
and Maricopa Counties County
(Includes Gilbert Area) Per Ariz. Rev.
Stat. § 27-152.01(3) September 21, 2006
• Public Works/Floodplain
Administrator
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Regular updates to the Town’s codes are one way the Town increases its future mitigation
capacity. The Town has recently updated its codes and will continue to update to model codes
with minor amendments. Additional measures for flooding, and other natural disasters can be
implemented within the model codes to allow easier and standardized adoption to increase
future mitigation efforts. When the plans are amended or updated in their various cycles it
would be beneficial to have the appropriate people available to consult on changes to make the
codes more adapted to the mitigation needs.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 331
Table 6-2-10: 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
Development Services Department - Planner,
Business Development Manager, Business
Development Specialists
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Development Services Department – Buildings –
Plan Review & Inspection Manager, Building/Fire
Inspection Administrator, Senior Building
Inspectors, Building Inspector II’s, Building
Inspector I’s, Fire Inspectors, Senior Building Plans
Examiners, Building Plans Examiner.
Development Services Department -Infrastructure –
Engineering/Planning Inspection Administrator,
Engineering Inspector II’s, Engineering/Planning
Plan Review Administrator, Senior Engineering
Plans Examiner, Engineering Plans Examiner.
Public Works – Engineering Services Manager,
Assistant Town Engineer, Town Engineer, Utility
Field Supervisors, Water Manager, Senior Utility
Workers, Utility Workers, Utility Electrician,
Instrumentation Technician, Water Treatment Plant
Mechanic, Well Technician, Lift Station
Technicians, and Instrumentation Technicians
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Development Services - Associate Engineer
Public Works Department - Public Works Director
Fire Department - Emergency Management
Coordinator
Floodplain Manager Public Works Department - Engineer
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Gilbert Fire Department - Emergency Management
Coordinator
Gilbert Public Works Department - Public Works
Director
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS
Support Services Department - GIS Technician I and
II
GIS Database Analysis, GIS Administrator
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Public Works Department - Water Quality
Supervisor/Chemist
Emergency manager Town Managers Office - Emergency Management
Coordinator
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 332
Table 6-2-10: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Gilbert
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Grant writer(s)
Police Department - Police Plan and Research
Coordinator
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Fire Department Community Division can conduct more classes and educate the public
in hazard mitigation. They could talk about the main issues we regularly experience from
flooding to severe wind to extreme heat. They can address the issues that people normally
ignore as we do not see large amounts of rainfall in a sustained period.
Table 6-3-10: Fiscal capabilities for Gilbert
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(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 Gas and electric are
private/public utilities
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Town can and will continue to regularly pursue grants and other programs to fund future
mitigation actions and projects that address the city’s hazard liabilities. The grant funds can
be used to match with mitigation priorities planned into the town’s capital improvements
program and other city departmental public outreach budgets. The town will also continue
the use of creative public and private sponsorships and partnerships (e.g. – IGA’s, MOUs,
etc.) that can also assist in funding future mitigation needs, actions and projects, and
especially those that require a regional, multi-jurisdictional approach (area drainage master
plans for example).
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 333
Table 6-1-11: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Glendale
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2018 International Building Code
• 2018 International Residential Code
• 2018 International Mechanical Code
• 2018 International Existing Building
Code
• 2017 National Electrical Code
• 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines and the City
Code.
• Fair Housing Accessibility
Guidelines
• 2018 International Fuel Gas Code
• 2018 International Plumbing Code
• 2018 International Energy
Conservation Code
• 2018 International Fire Code
• 2018 International Property
Maintenance Code
• City of Glendale Sound Attenuation
Standards
• Maricopa Association of
Governments Fireplace Standards
• Building Safety
• Engineering
• Fire Marshalls Office
ORDINANCES
• City of Glendale Zoning Ordinance
and associated PAD and PRD
documents
• Landscape Ordinance
• Floodplain Ordinance
• Grading and Drainage Ordinance
• Sub-Division Ordinance
• Building Safety
• Engineering
• Planning
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 334
Table 6-1-11: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Glendale
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• City Department SOP’s
• City of Glendale Emergency
Operations Plan
• Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan
• General Plan 2040
• 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
• Glendale/Peoria Drainage Master
Plan Update (2011)
• Emergency Management
• Engineering
• Planning
• Water Services
STUDIES
• 2020 MAF 2040 Regional
Transportation Plan Update
• 2016 Envision Glendale 2040
General Plan
• 2018 Glendale Transportation Plan
• Transportation
• Planning
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Water Services Department is updating its Drought Management Plan, including an
evaluation of available tools and technologies to support water reduction measures for
residential and non-residential customers. The plan update also involves a review of the
Drought Management Ordinance (Sections 33-81 through 33-85 of City Code) for improved
clarity in requirements and enforcement.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 335
Table 6-2-11: 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
Engineering, Engineers
Community Services
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
Community Services
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Planning, Engineering, Water Services, Building
Safety
Floodplain Manager Engineering Dept.
Surveyors Engineering
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Community Services, Emergency Management,
Building Safety, Fire Dept, Police Dept, Public
Works, Transportation, Engineering, Architecture,
Water Services
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS IT Department, Fire Dept, Police Dept
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Police Dept, Fire Dept, Water Services, Engineering
Emergency manager Fire Dept
Grant writer(s) All Depts
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Water Services Department recently updated its asset management program. As part of
this process, information on stormwater assets was verified. Procedures for inspection and
maintenance of those assets will be enhanced to continue to mitigate flooding. Emergency
Management, in coordination with the Fire Department, could enhance public information
and outreach on preparedness and mitigation activities related to flooding, extreme heat, and
wildfires to educate the community.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 336
Table 6-3-11: Fiscal capabilities for Glendale
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants Yes Community Services
Capital Improvements Project
funding Yes Budget and Finance
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes Yes
Function of Legislation (see
COG website-Appendix 18
FAQ under levy taxes)
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric
service Yes
Water Services Department.
Budget and Finance
Department
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes Budget and Finance,
Development Services
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes Budget and Finance
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes Budget and Finance
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Glendale will continue to evaluate the rate structures for water, sewer, storm water, and
urban irrigation service as part of the annual budget process. The rate structure considers
investments to support reliable access to existing water supplies as well as future conditions
(population growth; drought). The City’s Capital Improvement Program includes projects to
ensure a reliable water supply during drought. Also, in the next few years, projects may be
added for enhancements to the storm water system to mitigate flooding. In addition, the City
of Glendale can consider pursuing FEMA mitigation grants for CIP and cost-beneficial
projects that have been identified as having a high potential of being funded. A review of
proposed projects would occur a few years in advance of the project implementation to
determine the likelihood of being funded.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 337
Table 6-1-12: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Goodyear
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 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, 2015
• NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities,
2015
• ICC/ANSI A117.1 Accessible and
Usable Buildings and Facilities, 2003
• 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible
Design
• International Residential Code, 2006
• International Fire Code Appendix
B,D,E,F and G 2006
• Fire Building and Life
Safety
ORDINANCES
• Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance,
2005
• Zoning Ordinance, 2013
• Subdivision Regulations, 2012
• Engineering Design Standards and
Policies Manual, 2012
• Engineering
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• General Plan, 2014
• General Plan Amendments, 2004
through 2009
• Design Guidelines, 2008
• City Center Specific Plan, 2009
• Storm Water Management Plan –
Amended, 2014
• Community
Development
STUDIES
• 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, 2010
• Community
Development
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 338
Table 6-1-12: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Goodyear
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Building Code could be strengthened to include
additional consideration for flooding potential and/or wildfire potential within the platting
process. As construction costs are extremely high and the city has already implemented the
requirement for fire sprinklers in residential development greater than 5,000 sq. ft, care will
need to be taken to ensure that housing costs or other impacts do not create other issues for
residents which cannot be mitigated.
Table 6-2-12: 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
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Fire Department - Chief
Community Development - Director
Fire Department – Chief Building Official
Engineering – City Engineer
Contract out as needed
Floodplain Manager Engineering – City Engineer
Surveyors Contract out as needed
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Fire Department - Chief
Community Development - Director
Fire Department – Chief Building Official
Engineering – City Engineer
Contract out as needed
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS
Engineering – City Engineer
Engineering – GIS Coordinator
Contract out as needed
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Contract out as needed
Emergency manager Fire Department - Chief
Grant writer(s) City Administration – Grants Administrator
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 339
Table 6-2-12: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Goodyear
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Since beginning the writing of this update, the City has hired an Environmental Manager to
develop Emergency Response Plans in relation to surface waters and the potential of
contamination. Additional, Public Works has hired an Emergency Coordinator to assist
with securing water supply and treatment with more thorough continuity plans, as well as
response plans. The Fire Department is working to expand its efforts at communicating
defensible space opportunities, specifically with the EMR community near Corgett Wash.
Table 6-3-12: Fiscal capabilities for Goodyear
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants Yes Water, sewer, and building
rehabilitation projects
Capital Improvements Project
funding Yes
Annual CIP Budget
Five-year CIP
IGAs with FCDMC, MCDOT
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes Yes Improvement Districts
Community Facilities Districts
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric
service Yes
Adopted water and sewer
connection fees and utility
usage fees
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes
Adopted impact fees for water,
sewer, reclaimed water, water
resources, library, parks and
recreation, fire, police, public
works, general government,
arterial streets, and regional
transportation
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes Sell G.O. Bonds
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Sell Revenue Bonds,
Improvement District Bonds,
and Community Faculties
Bonds
Cooperative Agreement Grants and
Specific Planning and Project Grants Yes FEMA, NRCS, State Land,
etc.
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City could consider expanding pursuit of FEMA mitigation grants by first forming a
group of key individuals, Emergency Manager, Fire Chief, City Engineer, etc., to
determine if there are opportunities within the city which qualify for mitigation and then
programming those efforts into the respective operational plans.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 340
Table 6-1-13: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Guadalupe
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2012 Uniform Building Code
• 2012 Plumbing Code
• 2012 Mechanical Code
• 2012 Fire Code
• 2010 Town Code of Guadalupe
• Town Council
• Town Inspector
• Town Fire Department
• Legal Council
ORDINANCES
• 2010 Town of Guadalupe Planning &
Zoning Ordinance
• 2010 Town of Guadalupe
Subdivision Regulations
• Town Council
• Town Manager
• Legal Council
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• 2015 Town of Guadalupe Multi-
Hazard Mitigation Plan (in process)
• 2010 Town of Guadalupe 5-year
Consolidated Plan (in process)
• 2018 Town of Guadalupe Emergency
Operation Plan
• 2018 Capital Improvement Program
• 2010 Guadalupe Master Plan
• Community
Development Director
• Town Manager
• Fire Chief / EM
• Legal Council
STUDIES
• 2015Town of Guadalupe
Environmental Study
• 2018 Town of Guadalupe Floodplain
Housing Study
• 2008 ADOT Guadalupe Rd.
Pedestrian Bridge & Pathway from
South Mountain Park to Tempe City
Line
• Town Flood Control Management
and Plan
• Town Manager
• Community
Development Director
• Town Engineer
• Flood Control District of
Maricopa County
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Building and planning codes could be updated to better accommodate mitigation of flooding,
extreme heat, drought and severe wind events. The Town is currently reviewing and preparing
to adopt 2015 building and fire code which will be an update to the currently used 2012 series.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 341
Table 6-2-13: 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
Town Manager
Consultant (Dibble Engineering)
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Consultant (Dibble Engineering)
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Guadalupe Fire Department
Consultant (Dibble Engineering)
Floodplain Manager Consultant (Dibble Engineering)
Surveyors Consultant (Dibble Engineering)
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Town Manager
Fire Chief
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS Guadalupe Fire Department
Consultant (Dibble Engineering)
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community NA
Emergency manager Fire Chief
Grant writer(s)
Community Development
Guadalupe Fire Department
Consultant/ Contractor
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Town could employ additional inspectors to enhance code enforcement and permitting
activities related to hazard mitigation and structural integrity. The Town also can continue to
improve leveraging other county and state partners to enhance flood and severe wind
mitigation design and implementation.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 342
Table 6-3-13: Fiscal capabilities for Guadalupe
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(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
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes No
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds No
Incur debt through special tax bonds No
Other No
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The town can consider expanding pursuit of FEMA mitigation grants or regional
grant/partnerships through development of a programmed approach to identifying CIP and
cost-beneficial projects three to four years in advance of the desired implementation,
preparing appropriate grant application information and submitting for funding. This could
be done on an annual rolling basis and would only flag projects with a high potential of being
funded.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 343
Table 6-1-14: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Litchfield Park
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 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
• Building Department
• City Clerk/ City Council
ORDINANCES
• City of Litchfield Park Zoning Code
Ordinances
• Weed Abatement Ordinance
• Public Nuisance Ordinance
• Property Maintenance Ordinance
• Hazardous Material Storage and
Disposal Ordinance
• Planning & Zoning
• City Clerk/ City Council
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• Handbook for Arizona Communities,
Floodplain Management
• Storm Water Management Plan
• 2012 Emergency Management
Response Guidebook
• 2009 Litchfield Park General Plan
• Planning & Zoning
• City Manager’s Office,
Emergency Management
STUDIES • 2009 Flood Emergency Action Plan Exe • City Manager’s Office,
Emergency Management
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City of Litchfield Park would benefit from the development of a storm water management
plan (SWMP) to better map flood hazards and identify areas of mitigation interest. The SWMP
would serve as a guide to enhance future flood mitigation opportunities in the city. The city
will also benefit from continued participation in the future updates to the Maricopa County
Community Wildfire Protection Plan through identification of wildfire hazards and mitigation
strategies along the city’s wildland urban interface.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 344
Table 6-2-14: 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 an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Planning, Engineers
Floodplain Manager Engineering, Engineers
Surveyors Contract Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Contract Staff through MCSO and Rural Metro Fire
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS Contract Emergency Services
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Contract Emergency Services
Emergency manager City Manager, Assistant City Manager
Grant writer(s) All Departments, Individuals within each Dept.
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Previously Maricopa County Sherriff Department and Rural Metro Fire Department were our
contracted Fire/Police. However, we have a newly contracted police and fire. Avondale PD
and Goodyear Fire Department are Litchfield Parks newly appointed services. That being
said with both departments taking on a newly appointed areas with more of an added
population, we feel like both departments could use an increase in training for future
mitigation due to the fact of increased coverage.
Table 6-3-14: Fiscal capabilities for Litchfield Park
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants No
No area of the city meets the
basic requirements due to
income
Capital Improvements Project
funding Yes CIP City Budget
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 345
Table 6-3-14: Fiscal capabilities for Litchfield Park
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes Yes Requires a vote of the people
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric
service No All of these services are
privately owned
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes
Impact fees not currently
required of
developers/builders. Sales tax
on developments are collected
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
This would be hard for us at
this time because we do not
have a bond rating
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The city would benefit from partnering with neighboring municipalities on regional
mitigation efforts to leverage financial resources and cost-sharing in identifying hazards and
implementing regional mitigation actions and projects. In particular, regional flood control
efforts necessitate multi-jurisdictional participation, and working with agencies like the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) can enhance the city’s ability to
accomplish in-city flood mitigation through cost sharing and leveraging the FCDMC
resources via an inter-governmental agreement (IGA).
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 346
Table 6-1-15: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Mesa
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2018 International Building Code
• 2018 International Fire Code
• 2017 National Electric Safety Code
• 2017 National Electric Code
• Development Services
• Fire/Medical Department
ORDINANCES
• City of Mesa Charter and
Ordinances 2020
• Maricopa County Flood Control
Standards and Requirements
• City Council
• Engineering (Floodplain
Mgr.)
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• American Public Power
Association
• American Gas Association
• COM Operations, Maintenance,
Construction Practice &
Emergency Plan Manual
• Code of Federal Regulations Title
49 Part 192
• City of Mesa Detailed Electrical
Standards
• 2019 City of Mesa Engineering &
Design Standards
• Uniform Standard Specifications &
Details for Public Works
Construction 2020
• 2019 Mesa Standards, Details and
Specifications
• Energy Resources
(Electric)
• Engineering
• Energy Resources (Gas)
• Water Resources ( Water
and Wastewater)
STUDIES
• City of Mesa Electrical Master Plan
• City of Mesa Storm Drain Master
Plan 2010
• City of Mesa Water System Master
Plan Update 2018
• City of Mesa Wastewater Master
Plan Update 2018
• City of Mesa Gas Master Plan
• Energy Resources
(Electric)
• Engineering
• Water Resources (Water
and Wastewater)
• Energy Resources (Gas)
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 347
Table 6-1-15: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Mesa
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City of Mesa codes are regularly updated and will continue to be reviewed with minor
amendments as needed on scheduled cycles. Additional measures for flooding, extreme heat
and other natural disasters, should be implemented within the model codes to make room for
easier and more standardized adoption. This would increase future mitigation efforts. It would
be helpful to have the appropriate people available to consult on changes to make the codes
more adjusted to the mitigation needs, in the event plans are updated or amended in their
various cycles.
Table 6-2-15: 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
Development Services
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Engineering
Water Resources
Transportation
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Assistant City Engineer
Floodplain Manager Engineering
Surveyors Engineering
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Police (Homeland Defense), Fire/Medical (Terrorism
Liaison Officers), Energy Resources
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS
GIS Supervisor
GIS Manager
GIS Specialist
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community N/A
Emergency manager Emergency Management Coordinator
Assistant Chief Emergency Management
Grant writer(s) Grant Coordinators Office
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 348
Table 6-2-15: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Mesa
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Emergency Management Department could work with the Community Outreach Program
on targeted efforts to increase community preparedness. These efforts could focus on some of
the largest hazards facing the community as identified in the hazard mitigation plan: extreme
heat, wildfires, and flooding. The program could educate the public on what preemptive steps
they can take to protect themselves, their property, and their community. These steps would
include creating defensible space around structures, landscaping with potential flooding in
mind, how to prevent heat related illness, and more. Fire Prevention is not able to complete all
inspections for low to medium hazard occupancies. According to NFPA standards, two
additional inspectors could increase productivity. Increasing inspections of this type of
occupancies would enable the department to identify specific hazards and work to mitigate
them.
Table 6-3-15: Fiscal capabilities for Mesa
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants Yes May be done in conjunction with
Floodplain Master Plans
Capital Improvements Project
funding Yes May include funding for new or
existing city infrastructure
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes Yes Through city council approval
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric
service Yes As necessary , through city
council approval
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes Impact Fees provide revenue to
cover added public services
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes CIP Bonds, storm drains, parks,
streets, fire, police
Utility revenue bonds Yes CIP Bonds - utilities
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes Urban Area Security Initiative ,
Proposition 202 (Gaming)
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
City of Mesa regularly seeks new and additional grant opportunities and other programs to
support its mitigation needs. These efforts focus on mitigation of occurring hazards as well as
preparing against potential hazards. Where possible, the city will continue to work in
partnership with community stakeholders to identify additional sources of funding to enhance
the city’s abilities to implement more mitigation actions and projects, and particularly those
involving innovative local partnerships/sponsorships.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 349
Table 6-1-16: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Paradise Valley
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
Paradise Valley is no longer participating in the Plan
ORDINANCES
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
STUDIES
Table 6-2-16: 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
Paradise Valley is no longer participating in the Plan
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused 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)
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 350
Table 6-3-16: Fiscal capabilities for Paradise Valley
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants
Paradise Valley is no longer participating in the Plan
Capital Improvements Project
funding
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric
service
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds
Incur debt through special tax bonds
Other
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 351
Table 6-1-17: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Peoria
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2012 International Building Code
• 2012 International Residential Code
• 2012 International Fire Code
• 2012 International Mechanical Code
• 2012 International Property
Maintenance Code
• 2011 National Electrical Code
• 2012 International Plumbing Code
• 2012 International Fuel Gas Code
• Planning & Zoning
• Public Works
• Utilities Division
• Fire
• Emergency
Management
ORDINANCES
• Zoning Ordinance
• Floodplain Ordinance
• Grading & Drainage Ordinance
• Planning & Zoning
• Emergency
Management
• Development and
Engineering
Department
• Economic Development
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 352
Table 6-1-17: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Peoria
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
Standard
Operating
Procedures (SOP)
• Process Safety Management – Risk
Management/Emergency Response
Plan
• Drought Protection Plan
• Public Water System Emergency
Operations Plan (ADEQ-04-07-520-
Revised 9/4/13)
• New River Interconnection Operation
(PW-UT PLT Ops-OP005) Revised
Date 5/7/13
• Pyramid Peak Emergency Shutdown
(PW-UT Admin-PL022) Revised Date
7/15/13
• B204 Jomax-In-Line Booster Station
Zone 4E (PW-UT FLD Ops 054)
Revised Date 2/5/13
• Utilities Emergency Generators and
Power Supply Transformers
Maintenance Plan (11-2012)
• Capacity, Management, Operations
and Maintenance Program (CMOM-
6-2003)
• Peoria Engineering Standards Manual
• Maricopa County Drainage Design
Manual
• Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) Standards
and Specifications for Public Works
Construction
• FEMA DFIRMS
• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD)
• AASHTO Green Book
• City’s Circulation Plan & Street
Classification Map
• Utilities Division
• Development and
Engineering
Department
• Economic Development
STUDIES
• Vulnerability Assessment
• Storm Drain Master Plans
• Water Course Master Plans
• Utilities Division
• Development and
Engineering Department
• Economic Development
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 353
Table 6-1-17: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Peoria
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Building, planning and zoning codes could be improved to better accommodate flooding,
extreme heat, and poor air quality. These codes are created through a national consensus and
nationally recognized performance standards. The city has the ability to amend the codes to
make them more restrictive. Our current amendments are common with local jurisdictions to
provide uniformity and predictability for the building industry, while preserving health and
life safety standards for the public. In a city like Peoria where the current cost of construction
is high, any additional regulations will need to be carefully studied to understand potential
impacts to both the housing costs and impacts to residents and local business.
Table 6-2-17: 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; Development and Engineering –
City Engineer, Staff Engineers, Engineering Inspector
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Development and Engineering – Engineers,
Engineering Inspector; Architecture – Architects
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Planning – Planners; Development and Engineering –
City Engineer, Staff Engineers, Engineering Inspector,
Utilities Dept,
Floodplain Manager Development and Engineering – City Engineer, Staff
Engineers
Surveyors Development and Engineering – City Engineer, Staff
Engineers; Finance Dept using Contract Services
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Neighborhood Services Dept, Human Services,
Emergency Management, Fire Dept, Police Dept,
Public Works, Streets, Development and Engineering,
Architecture, Utilities Dept;
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS ITD, Fire Dept, Police Dept
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Police Dept, Utilities Dept, Fire Dept
Emergency manager City Manager’s Office, Emergency Manager
Grant writer(s) Every dept is responsible
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 354
Table 6-2-17: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Peoria
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Wherever possible and appropriate, city staff could implement programs that educate the
community on creating a defensible space to reduce the impact of uncontrolled wildland fire,
and especially for areas along the wildland urban interface. Where appropriate, city staff, with
approval from our elected body, can amend city codes to provide better clarification and
enhanced life safety requirements. Many of our current amendments are common with the
City of Phoenix, to provide uniformity and predictability for the building industry, while
preserving health and life safety standards for the public. In addition, city code amendments
that address unique conditions within Peoria are also considered.
Table 6-3-17: Fiscal capabilities for Peoria
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(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
developments/homes Yes
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City of Peoria working in conjunction with Maricopa County, can consider expanding
pursuit of FEMA mitigation grants through development of a programmed approach to
identifying CIP and cost-beneficial projects three to four years in advance of the desired
implementation, preparing appropriate grant application information and submitting for
funding.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 355
Table 6-1-18: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Phoenix
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2016 ASME
• 2017 National Electrical Code
• 2018 International Building Code
Administrative Provisions
• 2018 International Building Code
• 2018 International Energy
Conservation Code
• 2018 International Existing Building
Code
• 2018 International Fire Code
• 2018 International Fuel Gas Code
• 2012 International Green
Construction Code
• 2018 International Mechanical Code
• 2018 International Residential Code
• 2018 International and Uniform
Plumbing Codes
• Arizona Administrative Code, Title
12, Chapter 15 (AAR-R12-15-
1206/1219)
• Phoenix City Code, Chapter 32A
(Grading & Drainage), 32B
(Floodplains), and 32C (Stormwater
Quality Protection)
• Fire
• Planning & Development
• Public Works
• Street Transportation
• Water Services
ORDINANCES • Phoenix City Codes & Ordinances • Law
• Planning & Development
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 356
Table 6-1-18: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Phoenix
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• 2015 Phoenix General Plan
(Scheduled for completion in Spring
2015)
• 2009 City of Phoenix Major
Emergency Response and Recovery
Plan
• 2015 Maricopa County Regional
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
• 2013 Water Services Department
Design Standards Manual for Water
and Wastewater Systems
• 2013 Street Transportation
Department Storm Water Policies and
Standards (3rd Edition)
• 2019 Aviation Department Multi-
Sector General Permit Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan
• Aviation Department Wildlife
Management Plan
• Aviation Department Rules and
Regulations
• Greater Phoenix Metro Area GSI/LID
Handbook
• Metro Phoenix Area Drainage Master
Plan
• Hohokam Area Drainage Master Plan
• Water Services Facility Stormwater
Management Plans
• Water Services Facility Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plans
• Aviation
• Office of Homeland
Security and Emergency
Management
• Office of Environmental
Programs
• Planning Development
• Public Works
• Water Services
• Street Transportation
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 357
Table 6-1-18: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Phoenix
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
STUDIES
• 2015 City of Phoenix Threat and
Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment
• 7R/25L Runway Safety Area
Environmental Assessment –
Conditional Letter of Map Revision
• Dam Safety Studies and Emergency
Action Plans
• FEMA DFIRM Maps
• Flood Insurance Studies (FIS)
• Levee Studies and Recertification
• Recommendations for Integrating
Green Infrastructure into the
Maricopa County Multi-jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Aviation
• Office of Environmental
Programs
• Office of Homeland
Security and Emergency
Management
• Public Works
• Street Transportation
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Building and planning codes could be improved to better accommodate flooding, drought, and
extreme heat. Incentives for green stormwater infrastructure/low impact development
approaches to construction could make these options more attractive and provide increased
protection for the most vulnerable population. Additional policies to the long-term plan could
allow for improved standards and guidance to protect natural drainage areas and options for
low impact development strategies.
Table 6-2-18: 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
Street Transportation Dept. – Deputy Director,
Special Projects Administrator, Principal Planner,
Civil Engineers, Project Manager, Principal
Engineering Technicians, Chief Engineering
Technicians; Public Works Dept. – Assistant
Director, Civil Engineer III
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Street Transportation Dept. – Deputy Director,
Special Projects Administrator; Public Works Dept.
– Assistant Director, Civil Engineer III; Planning &
Development Department – Deputy Directors,
Building Official, Plans Engineers
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 358
Table 6-2-18: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Phoenix
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Street Transportation – Deputy Director, Special
Projects Administrator, Principal Planner, Civil
Engineer II; Office of Emergency Management –
Director, Deputy Director, Planner; Public Works
Dept. – Assistant Director, Civil Engineer III
Floodplain Manager
Street Transportation Dept. – Principal Planner,
Civil Engineer II, Senior Engineering Technician,
Principal Engineering Technician; Public Works
Dept. – Assistant Director, Civil Engineer III
Surveyors Street Transportation Dept. – Survey Teams
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Office of Emergency Management – Director,
Deputy Director, Planner; Planning and
Development Dept. – Deputy, Planner III, Planner
II, Planner I; Fire Dept. - Batalion Chief, Captain,
Fire Fighter
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS
Information Technology Services – Info Tech
Analyst/Programmers and Info Tech Specialists
Fire Dept. – Fire Protection Engineer
Planning Development 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
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community
City Manager’s Office, Office of Environmental
Programs – Environmental Programs Coordinators
and Environmental Quality Specialists
Emergency manager City Manager’s Office - Emergency Management
Director
Grant writer(s)
Aviation Department – Planner II
Fire Dept. – Volunteer Coordinator and Fire
Captains
Planning Development Dept. – Principal Planner,
Planner III, Village Planner & Planner II
Police Dept. – Police Research Analysts
Public Transit Dept
Office of Emergency Management – Management
Assistant,
Fire Dept. – Management Assistant II,
Street Transportation Dept. – Management
Services,
Public Works Dept.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 359
Table 6-2-18: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Phoenix
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Emergency Management, Street Transportation and Public Works could implement joint
programs that educate the community on floodplain preparedness-living in a floodplain
area; how to prepare, what to do to minimize the effects, when to take necessary steps; and
flood insurance to protect your assets. Emergency Management, Human Services,
Neighborhood Services, Fire/Medical, Office of Sustainability, and Housing could
implement programs that educate the community on A/C maintenance and temperature
control and provide A/C inspections for the most vulnerable populations to ensure
operability prior to extreme heat season.
Table 6-3-18: Fiscal capabilities for Phoenix
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants Yes
Housing, Neighborhood
Services, 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/Rates
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes
For new developments inside
impact fee areas-zones only.
The Impact Fees are charged to
new developments.
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
This excludes the Water
Services and Aviation
Departments
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes Excise (sales) taxes
Other Yes
FAA and Arizona Dept of
Transportation grants to the
Aviation Department
Water resources fees,
Environmental fees,
Improvement Districts
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 360
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The city can increase its focus on grant applications through FEMA mitigation grants by
implementing a hazard mitigation program that identifies priority projects three years in
advance and incorporates the grant application process into the annual review of the
hazard mitigation plan. This would allow proper time to collaborate amongst the various
departments and gather information needed for a successful grant application on an annual
basis and determine if specific projects qualify for other grant funding to ensure adequate
funding to meet the highest need.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 361
Table 6-1-19: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Queen Creek
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• Town Code of the Town of Queen
Creek
• 2012 International Building Code
• 2012 International Residential
Code
• 2012 Uniform Plumbing Code
• 2012 International Mechanical
Code
• 2012 International Fire Code
• 2012 International Property
Maintenance Code
• 2012 International Existing
Building Code
• 2012 International Energy
Conservation Code
• 2012 International Urban-Wildland
Interface Code
• 2011 National Electrical Code
• Development Services
• Fire & Medical
Department
• Town Clerk
ORDINANCES
• Abatement Ordinance
• Adult Oriented Business
• Dark Sky Ordinance
• Military Airport Zoning Ordinance
• Noise Ordinance
• Zoning Ordinance
• Subdivision Ordinance
• Floodplain Ordinance
• Development Services
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• Addressing Regulations
• Drainage Regulations
• Dust Abatement Regulations
• Subdivision Regulations
• HUD Consolidated Planning
Regulations
• Floodplain Regulations
• Development Services
• Public Works
• Flood Control District
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 362
Table 6-1-19: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Queen Creek
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
STUDIES
• Town of Queen Creek General Plan
2018
• 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
• Development Services
• Public Works
• Flood Control District
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Town is currently operating under the 2012 edition of the International Building Code.
The Town could evaluate, provide a recommendation, and obtain Town Council approval to
update the codes to the 2021 edition of the International Building Code to enhance future
mitigation capacity.
Table 6-2-19: 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
Development Services – Planners/Engineers
Public Works – Engineers
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Development Services –
Planners/Engineers/Inspectors
Fire & Medical Department – Fire Marshal/Plans
Examiner
Public Works – Engineers
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Development Services –
Planners/Engineers/Inspectors
Fire & Medical Department – Emergency Mgmt
Coordinator
Public Works – Engineers
Floodplain Manager Development Services – Floodplain
Administrator/Engineers/Inspectors
Surveyors N/A
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 363
Table 6-2-19: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Queen Creek
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Development Services –
Planners/Engineers/Inspectors
Fire & Medical Department – Emergency Mgmt
Coordinator
Public Works – Engineers
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS Workforce & Technology – GIS Staff
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community N/A
Emergency manager
Town Manager – Director
Fire & Medical Department – Emergency Mgmt
Coordinator
Grant writer(s)
Communications & Marketing – Management
Assistant
Fire & Medical Department – Emergency Mgmt
Coordinator
Parks Division – Management Assistant
Public Works – Engineers/Project Managers
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Town is developing a dedicated CIP department. The new department will include
personnel drawn from the Public Works, Utility Services, Finance, and Economic
Development Departments. CIP projects will be developed across disciplines and can include
additional mitigation elements.
Table 6-3-19: Fiscal capabilities for Queen Creek
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants No
Capital Improvements Project
funding Yes Town CIP
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes Yes
• Fire/EMS/Law Enforcement
Property Tax
• Improvement Districts
• Direct Assessment Special
District
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric
service Yes Water and sewer service
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes • Wastewater
• Parks, Trails, & Open Space
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 364
• Town Buildings and Vehicles
• Transportation
• Library
• Public Safety
• Fire
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Other - Cooperative Agreement
Grants and Specific Planning and
Project Grants
Yes
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Town can pursue partnerships with county-level agencies such as the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County, neighboring municipalities, and the private sector when
developing CIP projects that mitigate area wide drainage issues to reduce flood risks.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 365
Table 6-1-20: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
TRIBAL CODES • 2015 International Building Codes
• 2015 International Fire Codes
• Engineering
Construction Services
• Fire Department
TRIBAL
ORDINANCES
• Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Comm
Ordinance
• 1981 Zoning Ordinance
• SRPMIC
Administration
• Tribal Council
• Community
Development
TRIBAL
REGULATIONS,
PLANS,
MANUALS,
GUIDELINES,
and/or STUDIES
• Emergency Operations Plan
• Tribal Emergency Response
Commission Guidelines
• 2006 General Use Plan
• Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Fire Department
• Tribal Emergency
Response Commission
• Community
Development
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
An update to 2021 ICC codes with local amendments could improve safeguards from hazards
associated with the built environment. Additionally, property maintenance code enforcement
can increase neighborhood resilience to flood hazards by minimizing intrusion of trash and
debris in neighborhood and regional drainage and agricultural conveyances. It may be
beneficial to investigate participation in NFIP to improve flood resilience and build
contiguous flood hazard mapping across jurisdictional boundaries. Flood hazard mapping
will enable conditional regulatory requirements that improve conditions for assets at the
highest risk.
Table 6-2-20: 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, Public Works
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
ECS, Environment Protection of Natural
Resources(EPNR), CDD, Public Works, Fire
Department/Emergency Manager
Floodplain Manager ECS, Public Works, CDD
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 366
Table 6-2-20: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Surveyors Public Works, ECS,
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Police, Fire, Emergency Management, ECS, CDD,
Public Works
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS ECS, CDD, EPNR
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Public Works, CDD, EPNR, ECS
Emergency manager Fire Department
Grant writer(s) Grants and Contracts
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
GIS staff to map flood hazard delineations to improve awareness to flood prone areas
throughout the community and develop a plan to work within those areas to mitigate water
intrusion to residential structures. Residential code compliance staff to issue reports and
provide recommendations on improvements to residential structures could improve the
documentation process and streamline efforts to mitigate any hazards associated with code
findings. Surveyors and mappers to analyze river environment mining activities and provide for
enforcement of Community regulations related to excavation limits in active river channels. To
enhance the mitigation efforts around floods within the community the use of additional Public
Works staff to maintain drainage structures could be improved. In addition, positions to include
drainage engineers to design and implement studies on structures could assist in future planning
with stakeholders to mitigate associated hazards.
Table 6-3-20a: Fiscal capabilities for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(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
developments/homes Yes
Unlikely, since water/sewer not
owned by town. Also, town does
not have primary property tax.
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Unlikely, since water/sewer not
owned by town. Also, town does
not have primary property tax.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 367
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Governance – Self Determination Yes Title 5 Construction Agreement
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Tribal community stakeholders with major projects could consider familiarizing
themselves with grant programs offered by federal partners such as the hazard mitigation
grant through FEMA; the wildland fuels reduction grants through the County; and/or the
Assistance to Firefighters Grant through FEMA. Depending on the award period or
performance projects associated with current hazards could potentially be mitigated
through these efforts.
Table 6-3-20b: Funding source assessment for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community
Building on Table 6-3-20, the following summarize existing and potential funding sources
available to SRPMIC for implementing past and future hazard mitigation actions and projects.
Existing/Past Funding Sources Used:
• FEMA Emergency Management Program Grant
• Governance Self Determination Funds
• Tribal Capital Improvement Funds
• Tribal Development Impact Fee Fund
• Title V Construction Project Agreement between SRPMIC and Indian Health Services
Potential Funding Sources:
• CDBG Funds
• FEMA HMGP grants
• FEMA BRIC grants
• BIA Fire Assistance grants
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 368
Table 6-1-22: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Scottsdale
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2015 International Fire Code
• 2015 International Building Code
• 2015 International Mechanical
Code
• 2015 International Plumbing Code
• 2015 National Electric Code
• 2015 International Energy
Conservation Code
• International Residential Code
• Public Nuisance and Property
Maintenance Code
• Uniform Code for the Abatement
of Dangerous Buildings
• Uniform Housing Code
• City Code
• International Green Construction
Code
• Fire Department
• Public Works
• Water Resources
• Planning and
Development Services
• Economic Vitality
ORDINANCES
• Stormwater and Floodplain
Management
• Zoning
• Dust Control
• Environmentally Sensitive Lands
• Foothills Overlay Zoning District
• Hillside Zoning District
• Historic Preservation
• Land Divisions
• Native Plant
• Protection of Archaeological
Resources
• McDowell Sonoran Preserve –
2000
• Noise Ordinance
• Economic Vitality
• Planning and
Development Services
• Public Works and Water
Resources
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 369
Table 6-1-22: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Scottsdale
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• Design Standards and Policies
Manual
• Scottsdale General Plan 2001
• Green Building Program
• Transportation/Mobility Plans
• Streetscapes Guidelines
• Scenic Corridor Policy/Design
Guidelines
• Old Town Scottsdale Urban Design
and Architectural Guidelines
• Adopted Character Area Plans
• Neighborhood Plans
• Neighborhood Assemblage Policy
• Infill Incentive District
• Citywide Design Guidelines
• Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure Handbook
• Desert Parks Design Guidelines
• Parks Recreation Master Plan
• Public Art Master Plan
• Historic Preservation
• Sensitive Design
• 2015 SFD – Standard of Coverage
Evaluation
• Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP) 2019
• Airport Master Plan
• Economic Development Strategic
Plan
• Housing and Human 5-Year
Consolidated Plan
• Integrated Water Master Plan
• Stormwater Master Plan
• Tourism Strategic Plan
• WestWorld Master Plan
• Planning and
Development Services
• Transportation and
Streets
• Community Services
• Economic Vitality
• Water Resources
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Flood mitigation within the city could be enhanced through the development of a city-wide
Stormwater Master Plan and a Floodplain Management Plan to better define flood risks,
mitigation strategies and floodplain management. Funding for the master plan will require city
council action and approvals.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 370
Table 6-2-22: 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 Services – Planners,
Engineers
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Capitol Project Management-City Engineer;
Planning and Development Services – Building
Official, Development Engineering Manager,
Stormwater Manager, Drainage and Flood Control
Program Manager; Water Resources; Fire
Department; Transportation/Traffic Engineer
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Capital Project Management-City Engineer;
Planning and Development Services – Building
Official, Development Engineering Manager,
Stormwater Manager, Drainage and Flood Control
Program Manager; Water Resources; Fire
Department; Transportation/Traffic Engineer
Floodplain Manager Stormwater Management
Surveyors Water Resources, Planning and Development
Services
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Neighborhood Services, Human Services,
Emergency Management, Development Services,
Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works,
Streets, Engineering, Architecture, Water
Resources, Stormwater Management
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS
IT Department, Fire Department, Police
Department, Stormwater Management; Planning
GIS Staff
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Police Department, Water Resources, Fire
Department, Stormwater Management
Emergency Manager City Manager's Office, Fire Department,
Grant writer(s) Office of Emergency Manager
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Flood and other related hazard mitigation within the city could be enhanced through the hire
of another Stormwater Engineer to assist with our extremely heavy workload in the
Stormwater Management Department. The extra staff will enable the city to be more
responsive to flood management requests for review and enforcement of the city’s
floodplain ordinance.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 371
Table 6-3-22: Fiscal capabilities for Scottsdale
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants Yes Community Assistance
Programs
Capital Improvements Project
funding Yes May include funding for new or
existing infrastructure
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes Yes Requires City Council approval
and citizen vote
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric
service Yes
Water, sewer and solid waste
fees approved by City Council.
Gas and electric are
private/public utilities
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes
Water and sewer; one-time
payments to fund construction
of public facilities needed to
accommodate new
development
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes Requires City Council approval
and citizen vote
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Can sell bonds issued by
Municipal Property
Corporation often supported by
excise (sales) tax
Other Yes
Expenditures are subject to
state-imposed expenditure
limitation law
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The stormwater fee on Scottsdale potable water bills could be increased and this additional
revenue could be budgeted as a dedicated funding source for the city’s Drainage and Flood
Control CIP. This additional funding could also leverage matching funds from the Flood
Control District of Maricopa County, which typically funds 50% of project costs.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 372
Table 6-1-23: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Surprise
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• International Series of Codes:
• 2018 Building, Plumbing, Electrical
• 2018 Fire
• Community Development
Department
• Fire Medical Department
ORDINANCES
• COS Municipal Codes: Surprise
Unified Development Code,
Chapter 122
• COS Municipal Codes: Buildings
and Regulations, Chapter 105
• COS Municipal Codes: Storm
Water Management, Chapter 117
• Emergency Management and
Emergency Services, Chapter 18
• NFIP Reference Flood Insurance
Study, Flood Insurance Rate Maps
and Floodplain Management
Regulations Ordinance 2016-15
• Community Development
Department
• City Administration
• Public Works Department
• Police Department
• Fire Medical Department
• Water Resources
Management Department
REGULATIONS
• Addressing Regulations
• Drainage Regulations
• Dust Control Regulations
• Subdivision Regulations
• Community Development
Department
• Public Works Department
• City Administration
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 373
Table 6-1-23: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Surprise
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• General Plan 2035
• Area Land Use Plan
• Surprise Unified Development
Code
• Area Drainage Master Plan
• Engineering Development
Standards
• Maricopa Association of
Governments Standards
• 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan
Update
• 2017 City of Surprise Emergency
Operations Plan (currently under
revision for 2021)
• 2020 Continuity of Operations
Plans (COOP’s) for all City of
Surprise Departments Including
Water Resource Management and
Public Works
• 2020 City of Surprise Continuity of
Government (COG) Plan
• 2020 Maricopa County Department
of Emergency Management
Emergency Operations Plan
(MCEOP) Annex C – “Severe
Storms and Flood”
• Community Development
Department
• Public Works Department
• City Manager’s Office –
Emergency Manager
STUDIES
• Flood Insurance Studies
• Floodplain Delineation Studies
• Area Drainage Master Studies
• Transportation Studies
• Integrated Water Master Plan
• Community Development
Department
• Public Works Department
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City of Surprise has a comprehensive list of planning documents, master plans and codes
that support our mitigation efforts. Often these documents are developed with a specific goal
in-mind while perhaps not appreciating the impacts to other published/ adopted plans. In the
future, all our mitigation planning efforts and policies could be enhanced by ensuring a
collaborative peer review process. This will ensure consistency and improve our levels of
service.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 374
Table 6-2-23: 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, Long Range
Planners, Planning Manager
Public Works – Development Engineering Manager;
Plan Reviewers
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development
and land management practices
Planning and Development – Planners, Long Range
Planners, Planning Manager
Public Works Department – Development Engineering
Manager; Plan Reviewers
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Public Works Department– Development Engineering
Manager, Traffic Engineer, Capital Program Manager,
Construction Inspection Supervisor
Community Development Dept. - Building Official
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Planning and Development Dept. - Planners
Public Works Department - Engineers
Floodplain Manager
Flood Control District of Maricopa County is
Floodplain Administrator
Public Works Department - City Engineer – Certified
Floodplain Managers on staff
Surveyors Public Works – Registered Land Surveyor
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Planning and Development - Planners Public Works
Department - Staff
Police Department – Staff
Fire Department – Staff
City Manager’s Office – Emergency Manager
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS
Community Development Department - GIS Staff
Public Works Department - Survey Staff
Information Technology Department - GIS Division
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community None
Emergency manager City Manager’s Office – Emergency Manager
Grant writer(s)
Parks Department – Staff
Police – Staff
Public Works Department – Staff
Fire Medical Department – Staff
Finance Department – Senior Accountant
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Each of the City departments do a great job of advocating for community hazard awareness.
This could be enhanced by finding opportunities for the Fire/Medical, Public Works and the
Water Department to engage the community with via joint education opportunities. These may
also be enhanced by programming community events solely focuses on hazard awareness.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 375
Table 6-3-23: Fiscal capabilities for Surprise
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants Yes
A Five-year Consolidated Plan is
prepared with the public adoption
of an Annual Action Plan.
Capital Improvements Project
funding Yes
City General Fund CIP,
Regional Transportation Plan;
HURF funding; Grant Funding
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes Yes City council
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric
service Yes Solid Waste, Water, Sewer, and
stormwater
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes
Impact fees for the costs
associated with the development
of applicable infrastructure.
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes Through bond elections regulated
by the state
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Through elections initiated by the
city or developers. Subject to
review and approval by council.
Other Yes FEMA, NRCS, State Land, etc.
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The funding efforts associated with future mitigation efforts could be enhanced by the
following:
1. Local, State and Federal grant pursuits.
2. Partnering with neighboring agencies on regional mitigation efforts.
3. Conducting pre-design studies to verify or identify cost-benefit ratios.
4. Ensuring the City Council and Finance Department fully understand the specifics of our
hazard mitigation needs. This could be done with presentations, tours, report, etc.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 376
Table 6-1-24: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Tempe
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES • 2018 International Building code
and International Fire Code • Fire Department
ORDINANCES • Weed Abatement Ordinance • Public Works
• Development Services
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• Tempe Emergency Operations Plan
Revised October 2019
• Capital Improvement Plan, 2020-21
• Economic Development Plan
• Infrastructure Improvement Plan
• Urban Forest Plan
• Tempe Fire Medical Rescue
Operational Guide 2020-21
• Long-Term Asset Management
Plan
• Fire Department
• Financial Services
• Community
Development
• Public Works
• Emergency Management
STUDIES
• Fire Medical Rescue Fire Station
Location Study
• Tempe Drainage Master Study
• Floodplain Delineation Study
• Fire Department
• Public Works
• Development Services
• Community
Development
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City of Tempe’s Capital Improvement Plan and Infrastructure Plan could be improved to
address our heat mitigation needs. Whether that is developing structures to be used for cooling
centers for our community members or structuring our bus stops using cooler materials and
improving the number of shaded areas. As we educate our City departments on the importance
of heat mitigation, we plan to collaborate with them in the development of future Capital
Improvement Plans and Infrastructure Plans to ensure they include measures to reduce heat
exposure and assist our low-income and vulnerable populations with heat relief.
Table 6-2-24: 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
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 377
Table 6-2-24: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Tempe
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Public Works/Engineering
Public Works/Water Utilities Division
Floodplain Manager Public Works/Engineering
Surveyors Public Works/Engineering
Public Works/Water Utilities Division
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Fire Department, Police Department,
Emergency Manager, Community Development,
Public Works/Engineering, Streets
Public Works/Water Utilities Division
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS
Public Works/Engineering, Field Operations,
Information Technology Department, Fire
Department, Police Department, Emergency Manager,
public Works/Water Utilities Division
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Fire Department
Public Works/Water Utilities Division
Emergency manager City of Tempe
Grant writer(s) All City Departments
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Emergency Management and Human Services can work together to increase our heat
messaging to our residents. We are currently working on the building of a Resiliency Hub
that will be used by our vulnerable populations not only for heat relief, but education on
heat mitigation, community resilience and an array of social service programs. As this
Hub will become a trusted and safe environment for our residents, it will also become a
place to educate our community members on emergency preparedness and mitigation
efforts. As we have plans to develop more Hubs throughout our City, we will continue to
increase our community resilience to heat and other hazards.
Table 6-3-24: Fiscal capabilities for Tempe
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project
funding Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes Yes Authorized through City Vote
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric
service Yes
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 378
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes Authorized through City Vote
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The City of Tempe can further collaborate with Arizona State University (ASU) and apply
for the HeatReady Cities Program. The HeatReady program is intended to serve as a resource
for cities seeking to evaluate, showcase, and improve how they are managing and responding
to extreme heat. It is a progressive certification program that is supported by the University’s
Healthy Urban Environments Initiative. We can also look for available grants from areas
such as Climate Program Grants and Funding Opportunities through Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
and the Department of Commerce.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 379
Table 6-1-25: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Tolleson
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2018 International Fire Code
• 2018 National Fire Code &
Standards
• 2018 International Building Code
• 2018 International Mechanical
Code
• 2018 International Electrical Code
• 2018 National Electrical Code
• Tolleson City Code
• 2018 International Residential
Code
• 2018 International Plumbing Code
• 2018 International Property
Maintenance Code
• 2018 International Fuel Gas Code
• Fire Department
• Building Department
• City Clerk’s Office
• Engineering
Department
ORDINANCES
• 2211 N.S. Amending the Tolleson
City Code Chapter 7 relating to fire
codes
• 2014 Tolleson City Ordinances
• 2014 Dust and Airborne Particulate
Control
• 2014 Zoning Code
• 2014 Storm Water Runoff
Pollution/Prevention
• Fire Department
• Building Department
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• 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.
• 2014 Tolleson General Plan
• 2018 City of Tolleson Codes
• Fire Department
• Building Department
• City Clerk’s Office
• City Council / Staff
STUDIES • • All City Departments
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 380
Table 6-1-25: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Tolleson
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The future update and adoption of City of Tolleson’s General Plan can enhance the city’s
ability to provide effective mitigation through the formulation of zoning in undeveloped
property and urban interface areas that incorporates hazard avoidance and reduction and
mitigates the community’s exposure to the impacts of future hazard events with development
of those areas.
Table 6-2-25: 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 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 an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Engineering, Fire Department, Police Department,
Field Operations
Floodplain Manager City Engineering
Surveyors City Engineering
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Street Department, Field Operations, City
Engineering, Building Department, Fire Department
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS I.T. Department
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community Police Department, Water Services, Fire Department
Emergency manager Fire Department
Grant writer(s) Each Individual City Department
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The city’s future ability to mitigate hazards can be enhanced through more communication
and input to hazard mitigation planning by the Building and Field Operations Departments
to leverage their expertise as subject matter experts in identifying hazard areas, shortfalls in
the city’s capabilities, and development of meaningful mitigation actions and projects. Future
involvement of these departments would be implemented as a part of the Local Planning
Team and participation would be welcomed during the annual plan review and 5-year
updates.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 381
Table 6-3-25: Fiscal capabilities for Tolleson
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(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
developments/homes Don’t Know
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds No
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Funding for the city’s future mitigation efforts can be enhanced through supplementing the
City of Tolleson’s General Funds with mitigation grant funds from federal, state, and local
resources such as FEMA, FCDMC, AzDEMA, MCDEM, etc. The grant funds can be used to
match with mitigation priorities planned into the city’s capital improvements program and
other city departmental public outreach budgets. The city will also continue the use of
creative public and private sponsorships and partnerships (e.g. – IGA’s, MOUs, etc.) that can
also assist in funding future mitigation needs, actions and projects, and especially those that
require a regional, multi-jurisdictional approach (area drainage master plans for example).
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 382
Table 6-1-26: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Unincorporated Maricopa County
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2012 International Building Code
• 2012 National Electrical Code
• 2012 International Mechanical
Code
• 2012 International Plumbing Code
• 2012 International Residential
Code
• 2012 International Green
Construction Code (optional)
• 2012 International Energy
Conservation Code (optional)
• Planning and
Development
ORDINANCES
• Abatement Ordinance (P-11)
• Adult Oriented Business (P-10)
• Dark Sky Ordinance
• Military Airport Zoning Ordinance
(P-16)
• Noise Ordinance (P-23)
• Zoning Ordinance (P-18)
• Planning and
Development
REGULATIONS
• Addressing Regulations
• Drainage Regulations
• Dust Abatement Regulations
• Subdivision Regulations
• HUD Consolidated Planning
Regulations
• Floodplain Regulations
• Planning and
Development
• Air Quality
• Transportation
• Community
Development
• Flood Control
District
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• 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 Plan
• Comprehensive Report & Program
2015
• Planning and
Development
• Transportation
• Environmental
Services
• Flood Control
District
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 383
Table 6-1-26: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Unincorporated Maricopa County
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
STUDIES
• 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
• Environmental
Services
• Flood Control
District
• Transportation
• Emergency
Management
• AZ Geological
Survey
• Air Quality
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Building, planning and zoning codes could be improved to better accommodate flooding,
extreme heat, and poor air quality. Additional measures for flooding, and other natural
disasters can be implemented within the model codes to allow easier and standardized
adoption to increase future mitigation efforts.
Table 6-2-26: 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
Planning and Development – Planners
Flood Control District – Engineers/Planners
Transportation – Engineers/Planners
Environmental Services – Inspectors
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Planning and Development – Planners
Flood Control District – Engineers/Inspectors
Transportation – Engineers/Surveyors
Environmental Services – Inspectors
Air Quality – Inspectors
Facilities Management -Engineers/Inspectors
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Planning and Development – Planners
Flood Control District - Engineers
Transportation – Engineers/Planners
Emergency Management - Planners
Floodplain Manager Flood Control District – Engineers
Surveyors Flood Control District – Surveyors
Transportation – Surveyors
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 384
Table 6-2-26: Technical staff and personnel capabilities for Unincorporated Maricopa
County
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Planning and Development – Planners
Flood Control District - Engineers
Transportation - Engineers
Emergency Management – Planners
Public Health - Planners
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS
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
Office of Enterprise Technology – GIS Staff
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community
Flood Control District – Hydrologist
Flood Control District- Meteorologist
Risk Management-Risk Control & Loss Prevention
Specialist
Emergency manager Emergency Management - Director/Planners
Grant writer(s)
Emergency Management – Administrative Manager
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
Air Quality – Grants Program Coordinator
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management can conduct more classes and
educate the public in hazard mitigation. They could talk about the main issues we regularly
experience from flooding to severe wind to extreme heat. They can address the issues that
people normally ignore as we do not see large amounts of rainfall in a sustained period.
Wherever possible and appropriate county staff could implement programs that educate the
community on creating defensible spaces to reduce the impact of uncontrolled wildland fire.
County staff whereas appropriate could provide information to homeowners and local
business on potential natural and human caused hazards.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 385
Table 6-3-26: Fiscal capabilities for Unincorporated Maricopa County
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants Yes
A Five-year Consolidated Plan
is prepared with the public
adoption of an Annual Action
Plan
Capital Improvements Project
funding Yes
• FCD’s CIP
• County General Fund CIP
• Transportation
Improvement Program
• Regional Transportation
Plan
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes Yes Improvement District, Direct
Assessment Special District
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric
service No
Solid Waste only: Transfer
station and waste tire
collection fees
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes Limited Use
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes Lease Revenue Bonds
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Other: Cooperative Agreement
Grants and Specific Planning and
Project Grants
Yes FEMA, NRCS, USACE, State
Land, etc.
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Maricopa County can and will continue to regularly participate in grant programs and other
programs to fund mitigation of its hazard liabilities and programs. The use of creative
sponsorship and partnerships can also assist in mitigation funding for future increased
mitigation needs. Maricopa County can consider expanding pursuit of FEMA mitigation
grants through development of a programmed approach to identifying CIP and cost-
beneficial projects three to four years in advance of the desired implementation, preparing
appropriate grant application information and submitting for funding.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 386
Table 6-1-27: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Wickenburg
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2006 International Building Code
• 2005 National Electrical Code
• 2006 International Mechanical
Code
• 2006 International Plumbing Code
• 2006 International Residential
Code
• Community
Development
• Public Works
ORDINANCES
• Dark Sky Ordinance
• Noise Ordinance (P-23)
• Zoning Ordinance (P-18)
• Community
Development
• Public Works
• Manager’s Office
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• Addressing Regulations
• Drainage Regulations
• Dust Abatement Regulations
• Subdivision Regulations
• Community
Development
• Public Works
• Manager’s Office
STUDIES
• Area Land Use Plan
• Flood Response Plan
• Development Master Plan
Guidelines
• Area Drainage Master Plan
• Watercourse Master Plan
• Community
Development
• Public Works
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Wildland urban interface/firewise training and mitigation could be improved to better
accommodate the extreme fire seasons and fire activity throughout the region. Additional
planning and mitigation can also be done to accommodate future flooding events.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 387
Table 6-2-27: 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
Planning and Development – Planners
Public Works – Engineer
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Contract
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Planning and Development - Planners
Emergency Management - Planners
Floodplain Manager Contract with Flood Control District – Engineers
Surveyors Contract
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Planning and Development - Planners
Public Works – Staff
Police Dept – Staff
Fire Dept - Staff
Emergency Management – Coordinator
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS Planning and Development – GIS Staff
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community None
Emergency manager Emergency Management - Coordinator
Grant writer(s)
Emergency Management - Coordinator
Parks –Grant writer
Police – Grant writer
Public Works – Grant writer
Fire Dept – Grant writer
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Fire Services could establish programs to educate the community on creating defensible space.
Planning and building inspectors can ensure that flooding concerns are part of their inspections
as well as educating the public on defensible space during their interactions. Parks/Public
Works/ Fire Departments could team up to identify high risk areas throughout the Town of
Wickenburg and mitigate those risks as needed.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 388
Table 6-3-27: Fiscal capabilities for Wickenburg
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants No
A Five-year Consolidated Plan is
prepared with the public adoption
of an Annual Action Plan
Capital Improvements Project
funding Yes Town General Fund CIP
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
developments/homes No
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes Town council
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes Town council
Other: Cooperative Agreement
Grants and Specific Planning and
Project Grants
Yes FEMA, NRCS, State Land, BLM,
ACF
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The town can enhance mitigation capacity by pursuing additional grants that are available for
flood mitigation and fuel mitigation. Also consider the use of CIP funds to fund mitigation
efforts for all high risk hazards identified as needed.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 389
Table 6-1-28: Legal and regulatory capabilities for Youngtown
Regulatory Tools
for Hazard
Mitigation
Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
• 2012 International Building Code
• 2012 International Residential Code
• 2012International Plumbing Code
• 2012 International Mechanical Code
• 2012 International Fire Code
• 2012 International Existing Building
Code
• 2011 National Electric Code
• Town Code of the Town of
Youngtown
• Adopted 2012 version of codes in
January of 2014
• Town adopted various local zoning
and building codes
• Building Safety Division
• Code Compliance
Division
• Public Works
Department
ORDINANCES
• 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
• Debris Ordinances adopted
• Building Safety Division
• Public Works
Department
• Town Clerk’s Office
PLANS,
MANUALS,
and/or
GUIDELINES
• 2025 General Plan and
Comprehensive Plan adopted
• 2014 Town of Youngtown
Emergency Operations Plan
(currently being updated)
• Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(Adopted by SCFD)
• Public Works
Department
• Public Safety
Department
• Fire Department (Town
is a member of Sun City
Fire District)
STUDIES • 2013 Flood Insurance Studies
• 2012 Floodplain Delineation Studies
• Public Works
Department
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Town of Youngstown’s building, planning, and zoning codes can potentially be improved
to better accommodate flooding, extreme heat, and poor air quality. In the Town of
Youngtown, as is the case currently throughout the Valley, the current cost of construction is
high. Any additional regulations will need to be carefully studied to understand potential
impacts to both the housing costs and impacts to low-income owners, renters and local
business.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 390
Table 6-2-28: 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
Community Development - Manager
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Town Engineer and Building Inspector/Plans
Reviewer,
Community Development – Manager
Public Works - Manage
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or
human-caused hazards
Community Development – Manager and Public
Works – Manager
Floodplain Manager Town Engineer by Ordinance
Surveyors Town Engineer’s Staff
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
Town Engineer; Public Works/Emergency Services
Manager; Public Safety Manager; various Staff
Members
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or
HAZUS
Scientists familiar with the
hazards of the community
Emergency Manager Public Works Manager/Emergency Services
Manager; Public Safety/Manager
Grant writer(s)
Town Engineer; Public Works Manager; Public
Safety Manager, Town Manager; various Staff
Members
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
Wherever possible and appropriate, Town staff and Town contracted services can implement
programs that educate the community on appropriate flood mitigation. Town staff and Town
contracted services whereas appropriate could provide information to homeowners and local
business on potential natural and human caused hazards.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 391
Table 6-3-28: Fiscal capabilities for Youngtown
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block
Grants Yes Member of MCCD/CDAC
Small Cities
Capital Improvements Project
funding Yes Local Funds & MAG
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric
service No
Utilities, including
water/sewer owned by private
providers
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes No .
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes
Unlikely, since water/sewer
not owned by town. Also,
town does not have primary
property tax.
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Unlikely, since water/sewer
not owned by town. Also,
town does not have primary
property tax.
Opportunities for Expansion/Improvement:
The Town of Youngtown working in conjunction with Maricopa County can consider
expanding pursuit of FEMA mitigation grants through the development of a programmed
approach to identify CIP and cost-beneficial projects two to three years in advance of the
desired implementation, preparing appropriate grant application information and submit for
funding.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 392
6.2.2 Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Pre- and Post-Disaster Hazard Management
In addition to Tables 6-1-7, 6-2-7 and 6-3-7, FMYN is required to summarize and
evaluate pre- and post-disaster hazard management practices to satisfy the requirements at 44
CFR §201.7(c)(3)(iv). Accordingly, Table 6-4-1 summarizes hazard mitigation and pre- and
post-disaster hazard management practices and roles that are currently accomplished through
various FMYN departments and programs.
Table 6-4-1: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation departments or entities with hazard
mitigation responsibilities
Department or Agency Hazard Mitigation Activities
Fire Department
Training first responders to Operational level. Review and update of emergency
plans for facilities handling hazmat. Provided emergency response guidebooks to
fire and law enforcement personnel. Follow MCDOT/ADOT guidelines.
Responsible for wildfire mitigation other than weed abatement (e.g. –
thinning/fuels reduction, creation of fire breaks, buffers, etc.)
Economic Development Ensuring building codes are enforced. Performing assessments of infrastructure.
Limiting development along river and in floodplains.
Environmental Dept. Supervising abatement, prevention and investigations of public health nuisance
conditions, illegal dumping activities and the storage and handling of potentially
infections material.
Emergency Management
Coordinating involvement of industry, fire, law enforcement and other key
players with the Tribal Emergency Response Committee (TERC). Providing
WMD training for all employees. Supporting Urban Area Security Initiative.
Promoting programs aimed at family preparedness. Responsible for review and
maintenance of hazard mitigation plan.
Health Department
Coordinating training, planning, and communications to provide the community
with information to combat the effects of infestations and diseases. Developing
capabilities to respond to and support a chemical, biological or radiological
events.
Public Works Dept. Creating access, and mapping access to high-risk areas. Providing weed
abatement services in high risk areas. Planning, design, construction and
maintenance of drainage facilities.
FMYN Tribal Council Ultimate authority for all FMYN hazard management and mitigation activities
and funding.
As is summarized in Tables 6-1-7, 6-2-7 and 6-3-7 and 6-4-1, FMYN has many good
programs, policies and regulations in-place to provide for effective hazard mitigation. An
evaluation of the capabilities listed in these tables was performed by the FMYN LPT and the
following mitigation related gaps and opportunities were identified:
• A need for increased understanding of available mitigation grant programs.
• Building and fire codes are slightly outdated and should be evaluated for the need
to update to current consensus.
• Identified a need for better floodplain and wildfire hazard mapping across the
Nation, and especially in the upland areas that are not part of the Verde River
floodplain.
Upon receipt of a presidential disaster declaration, the Nation will work with FEMA to develop
two post-disaster hazard management tools as follows:
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 393
• Public Assistance Administration Plan
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Administration Plan.
Both plans will be used by the Nation to identify the roles and responsibilities
of the Nation in administering the FEMA Public Assistance (PA) and Hazard
Mitigation Grant Programs (HMGP), and to outline staffing requirements and the
policies and procedures to be used. A result of developing these plans will be to further
focus Nation resources on the importance of hazard management and mitigation
planning.
6.2.3 Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community Pre- and Post-Disaster Hazard
Management
SRPMIC is also required to summarize and evaluate pre- and post-disaster hazard
management practices to satisfy the requirements at 44 CFR §201.7(c)(3)(iv). Tables 6-1-20,
6-2-20, and 6-3-20 above, and Table 6-4-2 below summarize the SRPMIC hazard mitigation
and pre- and post-disaster hazard management practices and roles that are currently
accomplished through various SRPMIC departments and programs.
Table 6-4-2: Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community departments or entities with
hazard mitigation responsibilities
Department or Agency Hazard Mitigation Activities
Community
Development
• Develop and maintain General Plan
• Regulate land use
• Responsibility for development or revisions to codes and ordinances
Fire
• Emergency management responsibility
• Maintenance of the hazard mitigation plan
• Ensuring the completion of mitigation projects
• Mitigation grant liaison
Engineering
Construction Services
• Responsible for construction of mitigation projects
• Identification of future mitigation projects
Administration, Legal,
and Finance
• Approve grant applications
• Maintains CIP for mitigation projects
• Identifies funding sources for mitigation projects
• Process the approval of mitigation Plan through council
• Manage mitigation grants once awarded.
Tribal Council • Promulgation authority for mitigation plan
• Approval of funding/budget for mitigation projects
Environmental
Protection and Natural
Resources
• Ensures protection of cultural, sacred and natural resources
Transportation • Maintenance of transportation related critical facilities
Public Works • Maintain and protect the critical infrastructure
Since the 2015 Plan, SRPMIC has continued to support and fund a full time
Emergency Manager position. The support of this position has allowed SRPMIC to
significantly enhance its Emergency Management Program as a whole, including the
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 394
area of mitigation. Training of staff, plans updated and developed, improved internal
and regional coordination in emergency management are just some of the examples of
significant enhancements to the program. Policies towards building within known
hazard prone areas has adhered to strict guidelines that have been in place since before
the 2015 Plan and have not changed for the Community. The General Development
Plan, codes and ordinances remain in place to prevent development in hazard prone
areas.
As is summarized in Tables 6-1-20, 6-2-20, 6-3-20, 6-4-2, SRPMIC has many
good programs, policies, and regulations in-place to provide for effective hazard
mitigation. An evaluation of the capabilities listed in those tables was performed by
the SRPMIC LPT and the following mitigation related gaps and opportunities were
identified:
• A need for increased understanding of available mitigation grant
programs.
• Building codes are slightly outdated and should be updated soon.
• A distinct absence of flooding related considerations in the current
general plan.
• An identified need for better floodplain and wildfire hazard mapping
across the Community, and especially in the upland areas that are not part
of the Verde and Salt River floodplains.
Upon receipt of a presidential disaster declaration, SRPMIC will work with
FEMA to develop two post-disaster hazard management tools as follows:
• Public Assistance Administration Plan
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Administration Plan.
Both plans will be used by SRPMIC to identify the roles and responsibilities
of the SRPMIC in administering the FEMA Public Assistance (PA) and Hazard
Mitigation Grant Programs (HMGP), and to outline staffing requirements and the
policies and procedures to be used. A result of developing these plans will be to
further focus SRPMIC resources on the importance of hazard management and
mitigation planning.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 395
6.2.4 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.
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 6-4 summarizes the NFIP status and
statistics for each of the jurisdictions participating in this Plan.
Table 6-5: NFIP status and statistics for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
Community
ID
NFIP
Entry
Date
Current
Effective
Map Date
Number
of
Policies
Amount of
Coverage
(x $1,000) Floodplain Management Role
Maricopa
County
(via FCDMC)
040037 7/2/1979 9/18/2020 2,658 $698,945
Provides floodplain management for the
Unincorporated County and the City/Towns
noted below
Avondale 040038 6/15/1979 9/18/2020 40 $11,988 Provides in-house floodplain management
Buckeye 040039 2/15/1980 9/18/2020 73 $20,790 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Carefree 040126 7/2/1979 10/16/2013 34 $11,050 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Cave Creek 040129 6/9/1988 10/16/2013 36 $10,838 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 396
Table 6-5: NFIP status and statistics for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
Community
ID
NFIP
Entry
Date
Current
Effective
Map Date
Number
of
Policies
Amount of
Coverage
(x $1,000) Floodplain Management Role
Chandler 040040 7/16/1980 11/4/2015 290 $90,236 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
El Mirage 040041 12/1/1978 9/18/2020 10 $2,915 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Fountain Hills 040135 2/10/1994 10/16/2013 34 $8,620 Provides in-house floodplain management
Gila Bend 040043 12/4/1979 11/4/2015 11 $2,391 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Gilbert 040044 1/16/1980 11/4/2015 399 $131,176 Provides in-house floodplain management
Glendale 040045 4/16/1979 9/18/2020 185 $58,036 Provides in-house floodplain management
Goodyear 040046 7/16/1979 9/18/2020 179 $51,443 Provides in-house floodplain management
Guadalupe 040111 4/1/1994 9/18/2020 5 $758 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Litchfield Park 040128 8/19/1988 9/18/2020 10 $2,222 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Mesa 040048 5/15/1980 9/18/2020 381 $111,625 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Paradise Valley 040049 5/1/1980 9/18/2020 174 $58,901 Provides in-house floodplain management
Peoria 040050 11/17/1978 9/18/2020 259 $84,185 Provides in-house floodplain management
Phoenix 040051 12/4/1979 9/18/2020 4,521 $1,212,020 Provides in-house floodplain management
Queen Creek 040132 7/22/1992 10/16/2013 44 $14,050 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Scottsdale 045012 9/21/1973 9/18/2020 6,027 $1,710,712 Provides in-house floodplain management
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 397
Table 6-5: NFIP status and statistics for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
Community
ID
NFIP
Entry
Date
Current
Effective
Map Date
Number
of
Policies
Amount of
Coverage
(x $1,000) Floodplain Management Role
Surprise 040053 12/15/1978 11/04/2015 211 $62,728 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Tempe 040054 8/15/1980 9/18/2020 171 $55,436 Provides in-house floodplain management
Tolleson 040055 1/16/1980 9/18/2020 33 $9,573 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Wickenburg 040056 1/5/1978 9/18/2020 41 $9,047 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Youngtown 040057 11/15/1978 9/18/2020 3 $658 Floodplain management provided by the
Flood Control District of Maricopa County
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Not a participant in the NFIP
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Not a participant in the NFIP
Source: Policy & NFIP Statistics - https://nfipservices.floodsmart.gov//reports-flood-insurance-data (Accessed: 10/11/2020)
Each of the participating jurisdictions performed an overall assessment of their participation in the NFIP program by responding
to the following questions:
Question 1: Describe your jurisdiction’s current floodplain management / regulation process for construction of new or
substantially improved development within your jurisdiction.
Question 2: Describe the status and/or validity of the current floodplain hazard mapping for your jurisdiction.
Question 3: Describe any community assistance activities (e.g. – help with obtaining Elevation Certificates, flood hazard
identification assistance, flood insurance acquisition guidance, public involvement activities, etc.)
Question 4: Describe identified needs in your floodplain management program. This could include things like updating the
floodplain management code/regulation, establishing written review procedures, modifying or adding flood hazard
area mapping, etc.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 398
Responses were provided by all jurisdictions regardless of their participation status in the NFIP program. Table 6-6 summarizes
the responses provided by each of the currently participating jurisdictions.
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Avondale
Q1
Our City Engineer is a certified floodplain manager. As the floodplain manager he works with floodplain
zones, answers resident and business owner’s questions, assists realtors, and maintains documentation for
future reference. Any construction that takes place involving a permit is evaluated and tracked in regard to
location of floodplains to proposed construction area. This data is maintained electronically in the
Engineering Department. City Engineer/Floodplain Manager also participate in audits of the program as
requested.
Q2 Floodplain maps and DFIRMS for the city were recently updated as a part of the overall county update.
Q3
The Engineering department assists residents and businesses with questions they may have in regard to
property contained within the floodplain. In some instances when FIRM maps are not accurate,
Engineering Department assists property owner with an appeal to have a re-determination done to re-
evaluate the property. In some instances physical map revisions are made in coordination with Flood
Control District of Maricopa County and FEMA.
Q4 Having more floodplain information including mapping available on the website.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 399
Buckeye Q1
The following procedures are used in coordination with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County for
structures that require Floodplain Use Permits as well as City of Buckeye (COB) Building Permits.
1) The applicant applies for a building permit. City’s Floodplain Administrator or his/her designee checks
FIRM Map to determine if property is within a 100-year Floodplain.
2) Property is in a 100-year Floodplain.
a) Buckeye staff informs applicant property is in a floodplain and requires a Floodplain Use Permit
from the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC).
b) (Buckeye staff will proceed with normal requirements to obtain a building permit.)
c) Buckeye staff instructs Applicant to set up an appointment with the FCDMC. Applicant is instructed
to take Buckeye Building Permit to FCDMC and obtain a Floodplain Use Permit.
d) Applicant returns to the COB with approved Floodplain Use Permit with stipulations for Building
Permit. Floodplain Use Permit shall be attached to the Building Permit and paper work for
inspectors.
Place in COB Project File:
• Application Form
• Stipulations – states floodplain requirements, e.g., lowest floor elevation, elevation certificate form
completed by the Applicant’s Arizona Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) or Surveyor (R.L.S.),
etc.
• Disclaimer Form
• Copy of Elevation Certificate with owner’s name, property address, base flood elevation and FIRM
map information for Engineer or Surveyor to complete.
3) COB staff issues Building Permit and appoints an inspector to insure NFIP compliance.
4) Applicant hires surveyor to place “temporary bench mark” for builder to know where to set lowest floor
above grade.
5) The applicant applies for a building permit. City’s Floodplain Administrator or his/her designee checks
FIRM Map to determine if property is within a 100-year Floodplain.
6) Applicant’s Surveyor completes “Under Construction” FEMA Elevation Certification and faxes to the
FCDMC. The FCDMC will fax a copy of the Elevation Certificate to COB stating it is okay to pass
stem. Applicant calls COB for stem inspection. Before the stem inspection can be given a pass, the
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 400
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
FCDMC must have a copy of the Elevation Certificate completed by the Applicant’s P.E. or R.L.S to
determine that the elevation requirements are being met. (COB inspector must fail the stem inspection
if the certificate has not been completed.)
7) Applicant calls COB for final inspection. Before the final inspection can be given a pass, the Applicant’s
P.E. or R.L.S. must complete FEMA Elevation Certificate for “Finished Construction”.
8) COB Inspector assigned to assure NFIP compliance will:
i) Prior to construction activity beginning, notify the FCDMC that construction will begin within
the regulatory floodplain.
ii) Complete the Floodplain Management Field Inspection Checklist to assure all work has been
done in compliance with NFIP and county regulations.
iii) Assure that the FEMA Elevation Certificate is completed and has been approved by the COB
Inspector.
iv) Assure that the permit file has copies of all appropriate forms required.
(1) FEMA Elevation Certificate – fully completed.
(2) Final Inspection/Compliance Checklist.
(3) Variance information, if any.
(4) Flood proofing, if any.
(5) Substantial Improvement Calculations, if any.
(6) Floodway Encroachment “No Rise” analysis, if any
(7) NFIP Compliance Field Inspector’s Checklist.
9) COB issues a Certificate of Occupancy to applicant and mails a copy of the Building Permit, finished
construction Elevation Certificate and the Certificate of Occupancy to the FCDMC.
NOTE: FCDMC Inspectors will visit construction sites at their discretion per Arizona Senate Bill 1598.
Q2
The countywide update of FEMA mapped floodplains in 2013 encompasses the jurisdictional limits of the
City of Buckeye. An additional study has also been completed for the Gila River floodplain that has not
yet been submitted to FEMA for consideration.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 401
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Q3 The City of Buckeye is not currently providing additional formal community assistance activities, but
rather relies on the FCDMC for these items.
Q4
With current staffing levels there are not additional items planned for the program. Procedures were
developed in 2014 for the following potential floodplain use permit related development scenarios:
• Substantial Damage and substantial improvements
• Commercial, Industrial and School development
• Residential Structures
• Residential Subdivisions
• Other man-made development
• Variance requests
Carefree Q1
The Town of Carefree is in full compliance and is in good standing with the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). In accordance with this program, all new development and substantial improvement to
existing structures are reviewed for compliance with federal, state, county, and town drainage and flood
control regulations and guidelines. This includes checking for a development’s encroachment into any
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). In
order to streamline this assessment, the town requires a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Information
Block on all plans. This information block identifies critical flood zone information for the property,
including the FIRM Panel number, FIRM Panel date, flood zone designation(s) that apply to the property,
and base flood elevation (BFE), if applicable. Any new development or substantial improvement to an
existing structure that is identified as being fully or partially within a SFHA is routed to the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) for Floodplain Use Permit review. The FCDMC provides
floodplain management for the town and the town has adopted the county’s Floodplain Regulations by
Ordinance. The FCDMC’s Floodplain Use Permit review assures compliance with all applicable
floodplain regulations within the Town of Carefree.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 402
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Q2
The FIRM’s for Maricopa County (county-wide maps) were recently updated and reissued on October 16,
2013. These revised maps have been adopted by the Town of Carefree via the town’s Floodplain
Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2007-03). The revised maps include the best available technical
information for all SFHA’s and include newly identified SFHA’s within the eastern portion of the town.
Q3
The town responds to all drainage and flood control inquiries at the appropriate level. The Town
Administrator, Town Engineer, and Town Planner all provide assistance to citizens in obtaining this input
and guidance. Where needed, the Town Engineer and Town Planner perform site visits to assist citizens in
flood hazard identification and drainage issue mitigation. Citizens are also directed, as appropriate, to
other resources, such as the FCDMC, for flood zone determinations, flood insurance assistance, and
Elevation Certificate guidance.
Q4
All of the Town of Carefree’s floodplain management tools and regulations are working well. Because of
limited funding sources (the town has no property tax), resources are limited as far as identifying and
implementing drainage and flood control projects. The following are some investigations that would be
helpful to the Town in identifying needs and unmet funding requirements:
• Emergency access planning and improvement study.
• Detailed local area master drainage plans.
Cave Creek
Q1 Currently, the Town of Cave Creek defers to the Flood Control District of Maricopa County as part of the
review and approval of any permit which may impact an existing / recognized floodplain and or floodway.
Q2 The Town of Cave Creek receives its mapping data from Maricopa County.
Q3
The Town of Cave Creek directs questions and concerns related to floodway / floodplain to the appropriate
agency. The Town of Cave Creek actively communicates with the Flood Control District of Maricopa
County Inspector.
Q4 None
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 403
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Chandler
Q1
Our floodplain management is provided by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County. They are
responsible to identity areas susceptible to 100-year flooding, review permit applications for proposed uses
within the floodplain, identify floodplain violations, and protect the natural and beneficial function of the
floodplain. The District is required by law to take all reasonable action to inform county residents and
property owners of the location of flood hazard areas.
The city participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and has adopted floodplain
management regulations consistent with federal criteria. City Code Section 43-5 states the statutory
authority (vested in the Flood Control District) and duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain
Administrator (City Engineer). These duties include ensuring all construction permit requests within
floodplains are promptly forwarded to the Flood Control District and that no permits are issued by any
agent of the city until a valid floodplain use permit is obtained by the applicant
Q2
Updated Countywide Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels became effective on October 16, 2013.
Currently, these maps, in addition to Letters of Map Change (LOMC) may be used to determine if a
particular piece of property is located in a 100-year floodplain.
A new FIRM update is underway and tentatively planned to be effective August 2016. The purpose of this
map revision is to incorporate several large floodplain delineation studies onto the FIRMs that were too
large to be incorporated under FEMA's traditional Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process. In addition to
incorporating these larger studies, the FIRM panels included in the revision will be updated for local
LOMRs, updated community limits, and in certain locations, the FIRM panels will have new identification
numbers and be printed at a closer scale.
Q3
Guidance is always provided to customer inquiries. The Flood Control District of Maricopa County
website is the primary resource for customer assistance including links and instructions pertaining to
Elevations Certificates, when and how to obtain flood insurance, map applications to view current and
pending 100-Year effective floodplains, general questions and answers and contact information.
Q4 Currently our floodplain management code is up-to-date. The city promptly adopts updates to FIRM's
ensuring compliance with the NFIP.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 404
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
El Mirage
Q1
The City Engineer/Floodplain Administrator reviews development permits to ensure they are complete,
accurate and all other necessary permits are in place. A floodplain use permit is required before
construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazard.
Q2
The Floodplain Administrator ensures that any development that changes the water course within the
floodplain is communicated to Flood Control District of Maricopa County, to ensure available information
is accurate and current. The Administrator participates in the CLOMR/LOMR process is followed.
Q3 The Floodplain administrator maintains records of flood proofing and elevation certificates for public
review. Flood hazard identification is included in the development review process.
Q4 The floodplain management program needs to establish public involvement activities.
Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation
Q1
New development and construction as well as substantial improvement of existing structures and facilities
within the exterior boundaries of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation are required to obtain a permit from
the Community Economic Development Division. The permitting process includes a review of the
location and proximity to the existing floodplain.
Q2
The Community Economic Development Division functions of the Land Use and License Manager and
Planning Project Manager utilize GIS software applications to map floodplain areas with data acquired
through Maricopa County.
Q3 There is not currently any community assistance activities for flood insurance.
Q4 The Nation needs to establish written procedures to review and update the floodplain management
functions.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 405
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Fountain Hills
Q1
The town’s floodplain regulations are contained in Town Code Chapter 14 “Flood Damage Prevention”,
which is from ADWR’s Model Ordinance. Nearly all of the town’s regulatory floodplain areas are
contained within town-owned properties, and/or are within a platted (or granted) Drainage Easement on
other properties. Town-owned washes are further restricted against development, transfer, or alienation by
the “Watercourse Preservation and Habitat Ordinance” (Town Code Article 9-3). The town has an
extensive vegetation maintenance/control program, and annually allocates funds to remove non-native,
invasive, and channel-obstructing vegetation in its “Wash Management Program” from selected
watercourses and other town-owned property. Regulatory floodplains are mapped on the town’s GIS
system. Private development reviews verify that no infringement occurs within the floodplain (or that
infringement is appropriately mitigated within that project).
Q2 Floodplain/floodway areas have been mapped, with those areas shown on Maricopa County’s FIRM maps.
The FIRM was approved by FEMA in 2011.
Q3 The town provides community assistance on an as-needed basis.
Q4
Remapping of the Ashbrook Wash floodplain (East Town boundary to Golden Eagle Park Dam) was
needed, due to past safety modifications to the Golden Eagle Park Dam, upstream development, and the
upcoming enlarged culvert construction at Saguaro Blvd. and at Bayfield Drive. A joint project of the
Flood Control District and the Town to remap this segment of the Ashbrook Wash floodplain was
completed in 2018.
Gila Bend Q1
In the Town of Gila Bend a development permit shall be obtained before construction or development
begins within any area of special flood hazard established in § 153.07 of the Town Code. Certification by
a registered professional engineer or architect that the flood proofing methods, elevation of the lowest
floor (relations to Mean Sea Level), and description as to what extent any watercourse will be altered or
relocated as a result of the development and its impact to the adjacent areas. The town engineer reviews
all drainage, earth movement (larger than 1 acre), and construction of utilities and roadways for
compliance with all town, state, county, and federal regulations. The Town Manager has authority to
approve or deny any permit.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 406
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Q2
The Town and Maricopa County have partnered to review the flood water impacts to the town residents.
Flood Control District of Maricopa County has presented the town with alternatives for the current
flooding issues. It is believed that the study has been reviewed by staff and the costs associated with the
plan have prevented implementation.
Q3 The town received Assistance from Flood Control District of Maricopa County identifying floodplain
limits and areas of significant impact.
Q4
The Town of Gila Bend needs assistance with the following:
• Ground control so as to locate the limits of the floodplain in prone areas. Assistance with aerial
mapping to correspond with GIS information for each affected parcel within the town.
• Revision of the Town’s Code for floodplain management along with revised maps.
• Finding sources to assist with financing any proposed projects within the scope provided by Flood
Control District of Maricopa County.
• Installation of recommended control devices to reduce flooding.
Gilbert
Q1
The Town of Gilbert participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through the Department
of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As a participant of the NFIP,
the town adopted Floodplain Management Ordinance 2454 and has established development requirements
within the Land Development & Municipal Codes for projects within the Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHA). These requirements protect and regulate new or substantially improved development within
flood prone areas in the town.
Q2
The current floodplain hazard maps (Flood Insurance Rate Maps) went into effect on October 16, 2013 –
and will remain in effect until the latest “preliminary FIRM maps” are approved as the new effective maps
by FEMA. These preliminary maps, which were released for public comment in September 2014, are
based on the results of the Chandler / Gilbert Floodplain Delineation Study.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 407
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Q3
We are presently working with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County to determine how we can
partner to provide Elevation Certificates for properties that will be in the 100-year flood zone as a result of
the latest preliminary FIRM mapping. We are also developing a strategy and timeline to notify property
owners affected by the latest preliminary FIRM mapping (i.e., properties that are being added to the 100-
year floodplain, and properties that will no longer be in the 100-year floodplain).
Q4
About 18 months ago, the town substantially improved our floodplain management program by
developing web tools that can be used to quickly find Elevation Certificates and LOMR’s affecting
properties within Gilbert. Going forward, we would like to strengthen and improve our scores in the
Community Rating System (presently we are rated “8” – and would like to bring this number down to “6”
or perhaps “5”). This is an on-going process, and we will continue to annually look at opportunities to
improve this score.
Glendale Q1
We are currently a Class 7 NFIP CRS community. New and substantially improved developments within
the City of Glendale are reviewed by Engineering and Building Safety for conformance with the 2015
Engineering Design and Construction Standards, Chapter 17 Floodplain Management of the Glendale
Code of Ordinances and the 2018 International Building, Residential, Mechanical, Plumbing and Fuel
Codes.
When a development is submitted through the Electronic Plan Review to Development Services staff, and
all or some portion of the property is located in the SFHA, it is tagged in our tracking system (Hansen).
Once a development is tagged, the application is sent to both Engineering and Building for review. This
lets staff know that the development must comply with Glendale’s ordinances as they relate to NFIP.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 408
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Q2
We currently use the September 18, 2020 FIS and FIRM's and DFIRM’s in the review process of
applicable developments with all or some portion of the property that is in the SFHA and to make Flood
Zone Determinations, when requested. All CLOMR's / LOMR’s etc. are kept on file in Engineering for
community use in addition to the availability of the current FIS, FIRM’s and access to DFIRM’s on
FEMA’s website.
We have ensured that when improvements are made that impact the floodplain that LOMR’s are processed
with FEMA and the FIRM is updated to reflect the improvements. Accordingly, we feel the floodplains as
they are mapped on the current FIRM are accurate and valid.
Q3
We require Elevation Certificate's on developments with all or some portion of the property in the SFHA.
Staff provides Flood Hazard Determinations upon request. Information is provided to residents regarding
flood determination articles in The Connection, information on flood insurance and residential drainage
solutions as part of Glendale’s CRS program and public involvement activities as part of Glendale’s
Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Q4
During the 2020 Community Assistance Contact (CAC) conference call, staff at Arizona Department of
Water Resources (ADWR) discussed the City’s floodplain management program, including the City’s
floodplain ordinance. In conjunction with ADWR, the City’s ordinance will be revised and adopted.
Goodyear
Q1
New or substantially improved development within the City of Goodyear is reviewed for conformance to
the Engineering Design Standards and the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. While the City of
Goodyear is responsible for floodplain administration within its jurisdiction, Engineering will obtain
general floodplain information and guidance from the Flood Control District of Maricopa County
whenever necessary in order to properly regulate construction within the city.
Q2
Floodplain hazard mapping is current through the most recent FIRMs that have been made available from
FEMA. The maps are available on the city’s internal website for use by city staff for reviewing new
proposed construction and providing floodplain determinations to the public upon request.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 409
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Q3
The city’s Engineering Department is responsible for maintaining documentation of elevation certificates,
providing floodplain determinations, and providing assistance and answering questions from property
owners who are impacted by proposed modifications to the special flood hazard zones. They also provide
general information regarding flood insurance acquisition.
Q4 The city will review and establish updated written review procedures for new construction and update the
floodplain management code/regulations based on information that is received from ADEQ.
Guadalupe
Q1
Floodplain management provided by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County. New construction
and redevelopment is managed through a building permit and plan review process by contracted
engineering firm. All building permits follow currently adopted codes.
Q2 Floodplain mapping is current and valid.
Q3 No current community floodplain assistance activities.
Q4 Continue annual review of floodplain management and mapping in conjunction with Flood Control
District of Maricopa County.
Litchfield Park
Q1
We follow the floodplain maps provided by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County. Our
floodplain maps were updated in 2013. All construction plans and property improvements, within our
jurisdiction, are subjected to the city review and approval process which includes Engineering reviews and
Building Plan Department review to ensure compliance with said floodplain and other ordinances as
required by City of Litchfield Park municipal code.
Q2
The Flood Control District of Maricopa County provides updates: as those are provided, City Engineers
and other required personnel review updates and make revisions or addendums as necessary to city
processes and procedures. New dry wells and drainage plans have continued to alleviate ponding and
street flooding issues and new plan reviews take such drainage into consideration.
Q3
The City Engineer provides input for plans review and existing property owners are referred to the Flood
Control District of Maricopa County if assistance with flood insurance is required. If a proposed
development falls within a floodplain the city will require the developer to apply for and receive a
floodplain use permit from the Flood Control District of Maricopa County.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 410
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Q4
Only a small portion of the city falls into an identified flood hazard zone. Our floodplain administrator is
the Maricopa County Floodplain Administrators. We do not believe we need any more assistance than we
are already receiving.
Mesa
Q1
The City of Mesa is a participating community under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
administered through FEMA. In accordance with the Arizona revised statutes 48-3610, the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County is responsible for administration of the NFIP in the City of Mesa. A process
is put in place for regulation/floodplain management of new construction of substantially improved
development as follows:
1. The building process does not allow accepting a building permit within a Special Flood Hazard Area
without an approved floodplain use permit from the FCDMC. Mesa has automated this process to flag
any and all properties partially or fully located within an SFHA.
2. All new/proposed subdivisions, construction, and improved development are immediately directed to
the Flood Control District of Maricopa County for review of the plans and improvements within the
SFHA. City Planning Division sends all subdivision review cases to the FCDMC for Flood Zone
determinations. Not until a floodplain use permit is allocated by the FCDMC will the building permit
process move forward.
3. Plan Reviews include the City Floodplain Manager to review all subdivisions, commercial
developments, land splits, rezoning and Design Review Board cases.
4. Mesa regularly trains staff that handle permits on flood zone requirements.
5. The City of Mesa utilizes the FCDMC “Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County”, amended
January 17, 2018, which defines the rules for usage, development restrictions and permitting
requirements necessary to protect the environmental and flood control qualities of floodplains.
Q2
The City of Mesa holds all development to the Arizona revised statutes for mapping floodplains within
new development. We also work regularly with the FCDMC to identify studies of areas within the City of
Mesa that may require analysis and delineation of areas that aren’t otherwise mapped in the floodplain.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 411
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Q3
The City of Mesa is a “county dependent” municipality and defers to the FCDMC regarding floodplains,
designation, and regulatory floodplain elevations and performance of any inspections relating to the
Elevation Certificate or the Floodplain Use Permit.
Q4
Mesa regularly revisits our floodplain ordinance document with ADWR and works closely with the
FCDMC on floodplain regulatory matters/management. If anything, more regular trainings would be
beneficial for city staff.
Paradise Valley
Q1
Paradise Valley is no longer participating in the Plan Q2
Q3
Q4
Peoria
Q1
As property proceeds thru the development process an early step to the review is to apply the floodplain
ordinance. This activity is performed by a representative to the Floodplain Administrator reporting
directly to the Floodplain Administrator. Special Flood Hazard Properties are “tagged” in our GIS system
to identify an added review and approval required by the Floodplain Administrator.
Q2
Acknowledge DFIRM’s effective date October 16, 2013 which covers the whole city limits, and maintains
all subsequent LOMC’s in-house. Flood Control District of Maricopa County hosts updated and currently
effective flood mapping including our community’s subsequent LOMC’s on their public GIS site.
Q3
Peoria is presently performing in accordance with a Corrective Action Plan as a result of the latest
Community Assistance Visit. The Corrective Action Plan includes adoption of a NFIP compliant
Floodplain Ordinance, new Elevation Certificates and documentation and publication of procedures.
Q4 Added floodplain mapping of undeveloped area within the city.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 412
Phoenix Q1
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended in 1973, provides for a federally subsidized
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) conditioned on active management and regulation of floodplain
development by state and local governments. FEMA administers the NFIP as a part of its overall
responsibilities in preventing and responding to natural events that damage private and public property and
any life-threatening natural event including floods. The NFIP provides flood insurance at affordable rates
through federal subsidy of the insurance offered by licensed insurance agents. This insurance is designed
to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to meet the escalating costs of repairing damage
to buildings and their contents caused by floods.
Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities and the federal
government. This agreement states if a community will adopt and enforce a floodplain management
ordinance to reduce future flood risks to new construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas, the federal
government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against
flood losses.
Availability of the subsidized flood insurance is contingent upon the development of a floodplain
management system by the local municipality. Prevention of floods and resultant property damage is
achieved through the delineation of property subject to flood events and the establishment of specific rules
concerning development within these designated areas. FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM's) for certain flood prone areas that delineate different special flood hazard areas.
The City of Phoenix participates in the NFIP and has adopted floodplain regulations and ordinances so that
its citizens have access to the subsidized insurance. The role of the community is to enact and implement
floodplain regulations required for participation in the NFIP. FEMA has regulations pertaining to
floodplain management that must be followed in order for the city to continue as a member of the NFIP.
The City of Phoenix has local policies to manage floodplains in a uniform and consistent manner. These
policies are categorized as being FEMA related and non-FEMA related in nature. The policies strictly
adhere to federal regulations governing floodplains and drainage design.
The City of Phoenix Storm Water Policies and Standards Manual, 3rd Edition, December 2013, lists all
applicable floodplain management regulations and policies for construction of new and substantially
improved development projects within the city jurisdiction,
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 413
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Q2 The City of Phoenix Flood Insurance rate Maps and Flood Insurance Studies are dated October 16, 2013
Q3
Elevation Certificates – If available with the city, a copy of the Elevation Certificate is provided free of
charge to the owner of the property. Staff also helps guide residents to hire an appropriate professional
assistance to create and develop an Elevation Certificate when one is not available.
Flood Hazard Identification Assistance – Floodplain Management staff help identify hazard zones for an
existing and/or proposed structure within the vicinity of a flood hazard area. The city also works very
closely with the regional entity, Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), for future
identification of flood hazard areas within the jurisdiction.
Flood Insurance Acquisition – Floodplain Management staff help distribute several brochures and other
available information for residents to purchase flood insurance policies.
Public Involvement Activities – Throughout the year, several Public Open House Meetings are held within
the city, to educate the public on flood hazard areas, and rules and regulations for development activities
within the flood hazard areas. These meetings are coordinated with the Flood Control District of Maricopa
County (FCDMC) and the Master Planning efforts under their lead role.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 414
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Q4
The City of Phoenix is planning to update the Floodplain Management Plan for the City of Phoenix.
Current Floodplain Management plan is dated, December 1992, and is in a great need to be updated. The
City of Phoenix has applied for a grant through the Arizona Department of Emergency Management
(ADEM) to fund the study.
On June 30, 2012, the City of Phoenix code, Chapter 32B, Floodplains, was updated following the
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) guidelines as published in their model ordinances for
the communities within the state.
As a result of Area Drainage master Studies (ADMS), which are primarily done by the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), areas subject to development activities are identified with current
or future flood hazard zones. These proactive steps help reduce the risk of loss of life and livestock within
the flood-prone areas in the city.
Queen Creek
Q1
The Flood Control District of Maricopa County provides the floodplain management for the town. The
town, as floodplain administrator, requires all applications for proposed new or substantially improved
development that falls within FEMA special flood hazard areas to comply with the Maricopa County
Floodplain Regulations and National Flood Insurance Program.
Q2 The floodplain hazard maps for the town’s jurisdiction were updated in October 2013. The current maps
reflect the best available information at the time of the update.
Q3
The town, as floodplain administrator, has assisted customers who need help in obtaining elevation
certificates as well as assist customers who have questions about flood hazard areas or how to interpret the
FEMA flood insurance rate maps (FIRM). The town has also worked with customers in removing flood
hazard areas through the formal FEMA CLOMR/LOMR processes.
Q4 Establish more local GIS functionality to better assist the town in local floodplain administration and
management.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 415
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian
Community
Q1
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) is not a participant in the NFIP. SRPMIC
has exercised its right as a sovereign nation to not be a participant in NFIP. In addition, SRPMIC is a self-
governance tribe which manages its own federal programs and services. SRPMIC has however tried to
meet the intent of the NFIP through its management of its Floodplain Program. Some of those efforts are
addressed in the answers to the following questions.
1) New construction or substantially improved development within the community is reviewed based
upon the SRO §Chapter 17.5 – Floodplain and Drainage Ordinance. A few highlights are mentioned
below:
a) Building finished floor elevations must be elevated a minimum of 14-inches above the lot outfall.
b) Storm water runoff from post-developed conditions cannot exceed the pre-developed conditions.
c) Underground storage must be requested as a Waiver to the Floodplain and Drainage Ordinance.
Q2
The SRPMIC does not participate in the NFIP because of community sovereignty so mapping through the
NFIP specific for SRPMIC is not available. There are FEMA FIRM maps available for areas near the
community’s borders that are utilized. Most of these maps indicate that the community is in Zone D.
More detailed FIRM maps are available along the Salt River as these are utilized as needed.
Q3
The community provides civil engineering services for SHRRP and other home building project. The
community assists in answering floodplain related questions for ECS-Compliance, for Public Works, and
also for the Salt River Financial Services Institution. Approximately 20 residential driveways were
improved to provide access during recent flood events.
Q4
Needs in this area are as follows:
• Update the SRPMIC Floodplain and Drainage Ordinance.
• A floodplain plan review checklist would be helpful. One is currently being developed but not yet
completed.
• The community regularly participates in floodplain seminars and webinars to stay aware of current
NFIP regulations. Notification and support for tribes to attend these trainings would be helpful.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 416
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Salt River
Project
Q1
Salt River Project is a political subdivision of the state, power and water provider to customers, primarily
in Maricopa County, AZ and is not required to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. The
municipalities cover the NFIP for citizens in their communities. If SRP owns facilities that are in known
floodplains where coverage is necessary SRP procures catastrophic flood coverage through the
commercial insurance marketplace that does not specifically exclude locations that may be in a federal
flood zone.
Q2 Not applicable.
Q3 Not applicable.
Q4 Not applicable.
Scottsdale
Q1
The City of Scottsdale requires applicants to submit drainage reports, improvement plans, and grading &
drainage plans to the city’s one-stop shop. These items are reviewed by the city’s Stormwater
Management Department for compliance with Chapter 37 of Scottsdale Revised Code, Stormwater and
Floodplain Management. Our Stormwater and Floodplain Management Ordinance has been reviewed and
approved by FEMA and the Arizona Department of Water Resources as compliant with the provisions of
the National Flood Insurance Program. All review staff are Certified Floodplain Managers. A permit is not
issued for construction until the city has approved the development proposal.
Q2
The City of Scottsdale and the Flood Control District of Maricopa County engage in new flood insurance
studies as funds allow to keep the Flood Insurance Rate Maps updated. Quite a few developers have
prepared applications for Letters of Map Revision, which were approved by the city and FEMA.
Q3
The city’s Records Department assists customers in obtaining Elevation Certificates on record and
completes flood hazard determination forms upon request. The city’s Stormwater Management
Department recommends the purchase of flood insurance to all residents.
Q4 The city needs to continue to conduct flood insurance studies to keep the DFIRMS up-to-date. The city
needs funding to continue to embark on capital improvement projects to mitigate existing flood hazards.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 417
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Surprise
Q1
The City of Surprise participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through the Department
of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As a participant of the NFIP,
the city has adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances within chapter 122 of the City of Surprise
Unified Development Code. These requirements protect and regulate new or substantially improved
development within flood prone areas in the city. The city is dependent on FCDMC for floodplain
management and permitting for properties located in a SFHA.
Q2
The current floodplain hazard maps (Flood Insurance Rate Maps) went into effect on October 16, 2013 –
and will remain in effect until the latest “preliminary FIRM maps” are approved as the new effective maps
by FEMA. These preliminary maps, which were released for public comment in September 2014, are
based on the results of the Wittman Surprise Floodplain Delineation Study. The city is also engaged in
confirming and finalizing Conditional Letter of Map Revisions that were started in the mid-2000s and not
completed.
Q3
The city is actively engaged in flood mitigation efforts on a variety of levels. The city currently has a 10
year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that identifies numerous flood control improvement projects that
seek to relieve property and roadway flooding. On an annual basis the city seeks grant funding from a
number of agencies to assist in funding these projects. The city’s survey crew assists in providing
elevation certificates. In coordination with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the city hosts
public outreach events for homeowners and businesses to learn more about existing floodplains/ways,
flood insurance, and upcoming flood control improvements.
Q4 The City of Surprise would like to strengthen and improve our scores in the Community Rating System.
Tempe
Q1
We have few developable areas in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA/100-yr floodplain) with the City of
Tempe. When a new or substantial improvement project is submitted to Community Development (CD),
they determine if it within a SFHA. If it is, our floodplain management section has SOPs and works with
CD to assure the project follows our City’s Floodplain Codes.
Q2
The Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) has completed Area Drainage Master Studies
covering the city. They confirm the locations of current SFHAs and confirm locations of flood hazards
which have experienced flooding in the past.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 418
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Q3
The City of Tempe participates in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Community Rating
System with a rating of Class 6. We provide a number of floodplain assistance services to the public. They
Include:
• We maintain the current and historic FIRMs (Flood Insurance Rate Maps)
• We maintain records of Elevation Certificates we receive and provide directions on obtaining one
• We provide completed Floodplain Determination Forms for property owners and direct them to the
FEMA Map Service Center
• We advise owners to purchase flood insurance if they are in the SFHA or not
• We will visit home owner’s properties to advise on flood protecting their properties.
• We advertise our services to property owners on our services on our website and in the “Tempe
Today” news letter which goes to every home.
Q4
We recently had our FY2020 Community Assistance Contact visit from ADWR. They have reviewed our
City Code and are in the process of revising it to match their recommendation. They also review our
procedures and processes, which we adjust to improve.
We have completed a Storm Drain Management Plans which outlines future storm drain improvements to
address deficiencies into the future.
Our first project will be designed this year and funded next. The major need is to obtain continual funding
to complete these projects.
Tolleson
Q1
All plans are run through the Building Department for Engineering to review and ensure all is in
compliance with the Maricopa County Flood Plan. City of Tolleson relies on the County Flood Plan for
reviews.
Q2 The countywide update of FEMA mapped floodplains in 2020 encompasses the jurisdictional limits of the
City of Tolleson.
Q3 The City of Tolleson is not currently providing additional formal community assistance activities, but
rather relies on the FCDMC for these items.
Q4 Tolleson relies on Flood Control District of Maricopa County for floodplain management.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 419
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Unincorporated
Maricopa County
Q1
• The applicant submits a complete and accurate application to the One Stop Shop at Planning and
Development (P&D) for a Building Permit and pays the appropriate building permit fee. If the property
has floodplain on it they are required to obtain a Floodplain Use Permit. Review comments for the
Floodplain Use Permit will be sent as part of the combined packet from P&D.
• The applicant will be contacted when the Floodplain Use Permit is ready for issuance.
If an owner wishes to grant an agent, contractor or consultant authority to make decisions on their
behalf, and has not already submitted a notarized Property Owner Authorization form, the form must
be submitted at this time.
Applicant reviews the Floodplain Use Permit, Applicant’s Responsibilities, Warning and Disclaimer
of Liability and Elevation Certificate, if required, with staff.
Submit the required fee.
Applicant signs the Floodplain Use Permit, Applicant’s Responsibilities and Warning and
Disclaimer of Liability.
Permit issued.
• If an Elevation Certificate was required, a complete and accurate Elevation Certificate must be
submitted at final construction for staff to determine if the building complies with the Floodplain Use
Permit requirements prior to a final inspection.
• Per state statutes, the District must enforce the requirement of a Floodplain Use Permit for development
in a floodplain. Violations are also pursued to assure compliance with the permit requirements and for
the lack of obtaining a permit prior to building in a floodplain.
Q2
• Maricopa County refers to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) by FEMA to determine if a
particular parcel is in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
• When implementing floodplain development regulations, the District, on behalf of the County, uses
FEMA’s SFHA as well as newly identified floodplains based on delineation studies.
• The District continues to perform floodplain delineation studies to identify new areas in the 1% chance
annual floodplain.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 420
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Q3
• FEMA conducted a Community Assistance Visit with the District in February 2010, but it is not yet
closed.
• An audit for the Community Rating System was conducted in February 2011. The District was awarded
a Class 4 rating which is an improvement from the previous Class 5 rating.
• The most recent audit was started in April 2015 and is currently under review.
• The District provides assistance to the public in areas such as the identification of flooding hazards and
flood zones, elevation certificate and flood insurance guidance, conducts outreach meetings to educate
the public on various studies, flood hazard areas and updates and maintains an extensive GIS for the
public’s use.
• Provide jurisdictions with guidance and support during their Community Assistance Visits.
• Elevation certificates are required for all new and substantially improved buildings in the regulatory
floodplain.
Q4
• Development of a Floodplain Management Plan for unincorporated Maricopa County commenced in
2015 and is currently in-progress.
• The Comprehensive Report and Program, per ARS, was adopted on June 10, 2015.
• The Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County were most recently amended on June 24, 2014.
• The Floodprone Properties Assistance Program (FPAP) has been approved for limited funding and the
District is also pursuing grants for additional funding.
• Continuation of floodplain delineation studies and updates.
Wickenburg
Q1
The Town of Wickenburg turned over floodplain management authority to the Flood Control District of
Maricopa County and Yavapai County Flood Control District in August 2014. All floodplain related
reviews and actions are deferred to those entities as appropriate.
Q2 The current mapping was last updated and released in October 2013 and is currently adequate. The town
will work with FCDMC and YCFCD to identify and update mapping as needed.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 421
Table 6-6: NFIP program assessment for Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions
Participating
Jurisdiction Responses to Questions 1-4
Q3 None at this time. All floodplain related inquiries or requests are deferred to the FCDMC and YCFCD.
Q4
The lack of current staffing capacity forced the town to relinquish floodplain management duties to the
FCDMC and YCFCD. Additional staffing would be required to bring the floodplain management duties
back under the town.
Youngtown
Q1
Management responsibility for flood control has been delegated to the Flood Control District of Maricopa
County as provided for in A.R.S. 48-2610. The Town Engineer is appointed as the National Flood
Insurance Program Floodplain Coordinator for the town and is responsible for coordinating with the Flood
Control District of Maricopa County.
Q2
The town has on file the revised Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Maricopa County, Arizona and
incorporated areas prepared by the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). Documents include:
• Revised Flood Insurance Rate map (FIRM) Panel
• Revised Firm Index
• Revised FIS report
Q3 Town staff is available to review Flood Insurance Maps, Index and provide guidance and requirements for
raising designated parcels above the floodplain.
Q4 Staff was provided with revised material (2013 updates) in 2014 to share with citizens and the community.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 422
6.3 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 6 of the 2015 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 their
jurisdiction’s actions and projects listed in Tables 6-8-1 through 6-8-28 of the 2015
Plan. The assessment included evaluating and classifying each of the previously
identified A/Ps based on the following criteria:
STATUS DISPOSITION
Classification Explanation Requirement: Classification Explanation Requirement:
“No Action” Reason for no progress “Keep” None required
“In
Progress”
What progress has been
made
“Revise” Revised components
“Complete” Date of completion and final
cost of project (if applicable)
“Delete” 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 2015 Plan A/Ps are summarized by jurisdiction in Tables 6-7-1 through
6-7-28 in Appendix B.
6.3.2 New Mitigation Actions / Projects and Implementation Strategy
The first step in developing new mitigation actions/projects for the participating
jurisdictions was to conduct a brainstorming session during Planning Team Meeting
No. 4. Using the goals, results of the vulnerability analysis and capability assessment,
the Planning Team’s institutional knowledge of hazard mitigation needs in the county
and jurisdictions, and the previous list developed for the 2015 Plan, the MJPT
brainstormed to develop a comprehensive list of potential mitigation A/Ps that address
the various hazards identified. The results of that brainstorming effort are summarized
below. It is noted and acknowledged that several of the A/Ps listed are not purely
mitigation and may not qualify as creditable mitigation A/Ps, but the MJPT chose to
keep them anyway.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 423
GENERAL MULTI-HAZARD:
Install early warning sirens in select strategic locations as a part of a comprehensive emergency
notification system to inform citizens of impending hazards such as dam failure, severe weather
conditions, and severe wind events (particularly tornados). ***Addresses: Dam Failure, Flood,
Severe Wind, Wildfire ***
Use newsletters, flyers, utility bill inserts, website notices, radio and television announcements,
social media and newspaper articles to educate the public about hazards impacting the county and
how to be prepared in the case of a disaster event. ***Addresses: Dam Failure, Drought, Flood,
Severe Wind, Wildfire ***
Provide links on the community’s website to sources of hazard mitigation educational materials
(e.g. – www.fema.gov) encouraging private citizens to be prepared for hazard emergencies.
***Addresses: Dam Failure, Drought, Flood, Severe Wind, Wildfire ***
Review and assess building and residential codes currently in use to determine if newer, more up-
to-date codes are available or required ***Addresses: Dam Failure, Drought, Flood, Severe Wind,
Wildfire ***
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 events. ***Addresses:
Extreme Heat, Flood, Severe Wind, Wildfire***
Include conservation areas, bioretention and other site appropriate green stormwater
infrastructure/low impact development in mitigation actions and education. ***Addresses:
Drought, Extreme Heat, Flooding***
DAM FAILURE:
Analyze and identify dam failure inundation limits to identify evacuation routes.
Participate/Conduct occasional table top exercises to identify potential mitigation measures for
increasing response effectiveness, such as evacuation route marking and permanent protection
measures for intended shelters.
Conduct annual dam safety inspections and reporting per Arizona Department of Water Resources
guidelines and required schedule.
Annually coordinate with federal, state, and local dam owners to get updates on any changes in
dam safety conditions and emergency action plan information.
Work with state and federal agencies to provide a disclosure to all potential buyers of real estate
that are located within dam failure or emergency spillway inundation limits of an upstream dam or
dams.
Develop or update the inundation mapping for the emergency action plan for [name dam] in order
to identify population and critical facilities and infrastructure at risk, and to determine the need for
potential mitigation.
DROUGHT:
Public education of water conservation best practices through newsletter, flyers, social media and
website notices.
Develop and/or update an ordinance requiring strategic watering times and volumes during times
of drought.
Mandate/Encourage/Incentivize the use of drought resistant landscaping through ordinance
development and/or enforcement.
Coordinate with State Drought Task Force to perform drought management at the local/tribal level.
Develop/Update a local Drought Management Plan to define various levels of conservation
requirements that are based on drought severity triggers and enforced through utility billing
structures and ordinance.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 424
Implement a water harvesting program through the location, design and construction of dual
functioning stormwater retention facilities with enhanced recharge elements designed into the
basin. ***Addresses both Drought and Flood***
EXTREME HEAT:
Identify, stock and communicate locations within the community that can serve as cooling stations
during times of extreme heat.
Perform a public information campaign at the onset of the extreme heat season to help educate the
general public on ways to remain safe during periods of extreme heat.
Partner with NGO’s (e.g. – The Salvation Army, church organizations, homeless shelters, etc.) to
provide respite care and hydration stations to mitigate loss of life during extreme temperature
events.
Investigate and develop an implementation strategy for using “cool roofs” on any new or major
roof rehabilitation projects of tribal/county/city/town owned buildings to lower the urban heat
island effects.
Investigate and develop an implementation strategy for using “cool pavements” on road resurfacing
projects to lower urban heat island effects
Conduct feasibility, vulnerability, and prioritization studies to identify at-risk places and
populations and effective solutions to reduce heat exposure
Add and maintain trees and other green infrastructure to provide shade and/or cooling
Develop an urban forestry master plan to as a part of an overall strategy for maintaining heat
reducing green infrastructure
Increase the availability of shade structures at outdoor gathering places including transit stops,
parks and playgrounds, schools, and recreation centers
Revise municipal building and zoning codes to reduce the use of materials that contribute to the
urban heat island effect
Coordinate with other municipalities, county, regional, and state authorities, academic institutions,
NGOs, and other partners to share information resources, best practices, community needs, and
technical expertise related to management of heat and heat impacts
Promote and expand programs that provide energy assistance to low income residents during the
summer
Adopt and enforce adjusted activity schedules and protocols for sports, recreation, and other
outdoor programs when days exceed locally-relevant thresholds for heat-health risks
Install and maintain new water fountains and water bottle filling stations at public places
Extend hours for cooling centers and water distribution sites during extreme heat events
Hire personnel with dedicated responsibilities for management of heat risks, and/or assign specific
responsibilities to existing personnel
Conduct cross-department and cross-agency training and coordination meetings for aligning
programming and resources related to heat
Generate quantitative and qualitative assessment of community heat risks and impacts through
surveys, interviews, focus groups, and other social science and public health research methods
FLOOD:
Implement a water harvesting program through the location, design and construction of dual
functioning stormwater retention facilities with enhanced recharge elements designed into the
basin. ***Addresses both Drought and Flood***
Develop a community-wide, stormwater management plan that will analyze and identify problem
flooding areas and propose long-term mitigation alternatives designed to reduce or eliminate the
flood problems.
Review, update and/or augment flood control ordinances to provide a greater level of protection
than the minimum required by the NFIP.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 425
Identify and map flood hazards in areas expected to grow or develop in the foreseeable future.
Develop/augment a county/city/town wide GIS program that is integrated into Public Works,
Development Services, Police, Fire/Rescue and Emergency Management to help prevent
development in flood prone regions.
Install automated flood barriers at low water crossings to discourage motorists from entering
flooded road crossings.
Install stream depth indicators at low water crossings to communicate the risk of entering flooded
roadway crossings and provide a visual warning to motorists of flood conditions at the crossing
location.
FISSURE:
Include addressing fissure risk as a regular part of the land development and public works projects
review and permitting.
Provide links to the Arizona Geologic Service website as a part of a public campaign to raise
awareness to the hazards and locations of fissures.
Coordinate with state and federal agencies (USGS, AZGS, ADWR, etc.) to study and map fissure
activity in critical or key areas of the community so that effective mitigation or avoidance
strategies can be implemented.
Include geologic hazards in the next General or Comprehensive Plan update to inform land use
decision making and zoning efforts. ***Addresses: Earthquake, Fissure, Landslide/Mudslide,
Subsidence***
Develop/Increase/Enhance groundwater recharge to mitigate expansion of fissures and subsidence
areas. ***Addresses: Drought, Fissure, Subsidence***
LEVEE FAILURE: (look for nexus with Dam Failure)
Perform regular inspection and maintenance of existing levees to mitigate potential failure.
Perform public outreach to citizens located within levee failure flood risk areas to provide
awareness of potential increase in flood elevations with a levee failure.
SEVERE WIND:
Encourage homeowners to use tie-down straps and/or anchors to secure ancillary buildings and
metal awnings or porches to mitigate the potential for flying debris during severe wind events.
Retrofit sub-standard roofs of key critical facilities and infrastructure to meet modern building code
standards and mitigate damages and impacts of severe wind events.
Maintain/Install backup generators at key critical facilities such as fire and police stations, water
pumping stations, sewer lift stations, etc., to provide emergency power for critical operations
during power failures caused by severe wind events.
SUBSIDENCE:
Include addressing subsidence risk as a regular part of the land development and public works
projects review and permitting.
Provide links to the Arizona Department of Water Resources website as a part of a public
campaign to raise awareness to the hazards and locations of active subsidence.
Establish survey monuments and monitor elevations in critical or key areas of the community to
measure impacts and trends of subsidence, with the goal of determining long term mitigation
strategies to reduce the damage and losses that may yet be experienced.
WILDFIRE:
Develop and/or enforce a weed abatement ordinance.
Educate public on proper fuels thinning, setbacks, and water storage for wildfire mitigation using
Firewise type of programs and guidance documents.
Conduct Fire safety education programs in local public schools.
Enact and enforce burn and fireworks bans as needed during extraordinarily dry and extreme
wildfire conditions / seasons to mitigate possible, unintended wildfire starts.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 426
Perform, or encourage the performance of, routine roadside vegetation control to mitigate wildfire
starts within the right-of-way areas along roadways and highways.
Clear vegetation and wildfire fuels to create a defensible space around critical or key structures
within the community and along perimeter areas of the wildland urban interface.
Upon completion of the assessment summarized in Section 6.3.1, each
jurisdiction’s LPT met and developed a new list of A/Ps using the goals and objectives,
results of the vulnerability analysis and capability assessment, the above list of seed
ideas, and the planning team’s institutional knowledge of hazard mitigation needs in
their 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 affect 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 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 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 A favorable benefit versus cost evaluation, wherein the perceived direct
and indirect benefits outweighed the project cost.
o A direct beneficial impact on the ability to protect life and/or property
from natural hazards.
o 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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 427
• 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.
[This space is intentionally blank]
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 428
Table 6-8-1: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Avondale
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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 Building and
Zoning Permitting Ongoing
Building Safety,
Development and
Eng. services /
Emergency
Management
General Fund
2
Conduct and/or participate in occasional
table top exercises to identify potential
mitigation measures for increasing response
effectiveness, such as evacuation route
marking and permanent protection measures
for intended shelters.
Dam
Inundation New Staff Time Medium N/A Annually Emergency
Management General Fund
3
Annually coordinate with federal, state and
local dam owners to get updates on any
changes in dam safety conditions and
emergency action plan information.
Dam
Inundation Both Staff Time Medium N/A Annually
Emergency
Management/
Public Works
Dept.
General Fund
4
Mandate, encourage and incentivize the use
of drought resistant landscaping through
Ordinance development and/or enforcement.
Drought New Staff Time High N/A Annually
Emergency
Management /
Water Resources
City Clerk
General Fund
5
Provide the public with educational
information that lists water conservation
best practices through newsletters, flyers,
and website notices.
Drought Existing $3,000 +
Staff Time Medium
Annual Community
Outreach
Publication
Bi-Annually
Emergency
Management /
Community
Relations Dept.
General Fund
6
Partner with local NGO's (local shelters,
church organizations, salvation army, etc.)
to provide respite care and hydration
stations to mitigate loss of like during
extreme temperature events.
Extreme Heat New Staff Time High N/A Annually
Emergency
Management / Fire
Department
General Fund
7
Develop a community-wide, storm water
management plan that will analyze and
identify problem flooding areas and propose
long-term mitigation alternatives designed
to reduce or eliminate the flood problems.
Utilize city interns to complete routine
inspections of storm water drains to ensure
no blockage in the case of a flood.
Flood Both $250,000 High N/A July 2024
Public Works
Dept. /
Emergency
Management
Grants / General
Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 429
Table 6-8-1: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Avondale
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
8
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
events.
Severe Wind New Staff Time High
Annual Community
Outreach
Publication
July 2024
Community
Relations /
Emergency
Management
General Fund
9
Include addressing subsidence risk as a
regular part of the land development and
public works projects review and permitting
processes.
Subsidence New Staff Time High Building and
Zoning Permitting July 2024
Development and
Eng. services /
Emergency
Management
General Fund
10
Maintain backup generators at key critical
facilities such as fire and police stations,
water pumping stations, sewer lift stations,
etc., to provide emergency power for critical
operations during power failures caused by
severe wind events.
Severe Wind New Staff Time High N/A Annually
Facilities
Emergency
Management
General Fund
11
Perform a public information campaign at
the onset of the extreme heat season to help
educate the public on ways to remain safe
during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat New Staff Time Medium
Annual Community
Outreach
Publication
Annually
Community
Relations /
Emergency
Management
General Fund
12
Perform public outreach to citizens located
within levee failure flood risk areas to
provide awareness of potential increase in
flood elevations with a levee failure.
Levee Failure New Staff Time Medium
Annual Community
Outreach
Publication
Annually
Community
Relations /
Emergency
Management
General Fund
13
Conduct and/or participate in occasional
table top exercises to identify potential
mitigation measures for increasing response
effectiveness, such as evacuation route
marking and permanent protection measures
for intended shelters.
Levee Failure New Staff Time Medium N/A Annually Emergency
Management General Fund
14
Provide links to the Arizona Department of
Water Resources website as a part of a
public campaign to raise awareness to the
hazards and locations of active subsidence.
Subsidence New Staff Time Medium
Annual Community
Outreach
Publication
Annually
Community
Relations /
Emergency
Management
General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 430
Table 6-8-1: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Avondale
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
15
Perform, or encourage the performance of,
routine roadside vegetation control to
mitigate wildfire starts within the right-of-
way areas along roadways and highways.
Wildfire New Staff Time Medium N/A Annually
Fire Marshall /
Emergency
Management
General Fund
16
Clear vegetation and wildfire fuels to create
a defensible space around critical or key
structures within the community and along
perimeter areas of the wildland urban
interface.
Wildfire New Staff Time Medium N/A Annually
Facilities / Fire
Marshall /
Emergency
Management
General Fund
Table 6-8-2: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Buckeye
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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 Medium NFIP and Floodplain
Ordinance Ongoing
Emergency
Management /
Emergency
Manager /
Engineering; City
Engineer
General Fund
2
Conduct annual life safety inspections
regarding the management wildland fire
fuels and wildfire risk along the WUI
boundary
Wildfire New Staff Time High CWPP Ongoing
Fire; Emergency
Management / Fire
Chief; Emergency
Manager
General Fund /
Grants
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 431
Table 6-8-2: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Buckeye
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
3
Enhance communication of City mitigation
needs at the County and State level by
establishing liaison positions from city to
State legislature, State Fusion Centers,
MCDEM, Water fusion group, MAG and
other multi-jurisdictional task force work
groups
Flood,
Wildfire,
Severe Wind
New Staff Time High EOP Ongoing
Fire; Emergency
Management,
Mayor’s Office /
Fire Chief;
Emergency
Manager, Mayor
General Fund /
Grants
4
Continue to support the Hazard Mitigation
Plan by making sure the City is represented
on related committees.
All Hazards Both Staff Time Medium City Engineering
Sub-committee Ongoing
Emergency
Management /
Emergency
Manager
General Fund
5 Provide/improve water drainage systems Flood Both Staff Time Medium
Current and updated
City of Buckeye
Engineering Design
Standards
Ongoing
Engineering, City
Engineer/Public
Works; Public
Works Director
General Fund /
Grants
6 Enforce Fire codes, require compliance Wildfire Both Staff Time High CWPP Ongoing
Fire Code
Enforcement /
Code Enforcement
Officer
General Fund
7
Participate with Maricopa County and other
jurisdictions in the update of the Community
Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)
Wildfire Both Staff Time High CWPP Ongoing
Fire; Emergency
Management / Fire
Chief; Emergency
Manager
General Fund
8
Continue to perform public education of
water conservation best practices and
thunderstorm wind safety through the City’s
social media and website resources.
Drought,
Severe Wind Both Staff Time High Ongoing
Fire; Emergency
Management / Fire
Chief; Emergency
Manager; Public
Works Dept; PW
Director /
Development
Services Dept; DS
Director
General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 432
Table 6-8-2: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Buckeye
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
9
Review and assess building and plumbing
codes currently in use to determine if newer,
more up-to-date codes are available for
elevating standards for low water use
fixtures and appliances, and wind loading
requirements for roofs and awnings
Drought,
Severe Wind Both Staff Time High Building Codes Ongoing
Public Works
Dept; PW Director
/ Development
Services Dept; DS
Director
General Fund
10
Annually coordinate with federal, state, and
local dam owners to get updates on any
changes in dam safety conditions and
emergency action plan information.
Dam Failure Both Staff Time Medium
Maricopa County
Flood Control
District annual
assessment
Annually
Fire; Emergency
Management /
Public Works
Dept; PW Director
General Fund
11
Work with state and federal agencies to
provide a disclosure to all potential buyers
of real estate that are located within dam
failure or emergency spillway inundation
limits of an upstream dam or dams.
Dam Failure Both Staff Time Medium
Ensure data is in
public report,
including FEMA
flood zone
determination
Annually
Fire; Emergency
Management /
Public Works
Dept; PW Director
/ Development
Services Dept; DS
Director
General Fund
12
Continue to identify, stock and communicate
locations within the community that can
serve as cooling stations during times of
extreme heat.
Extreme Heat Both Staff Time Medium In cooperation with
county CERT
Seasonal and
Annually
Fire; Emergency
Management / City
PIO
CERT Funds
13
Perform a public information campaign at
the onset of the extreme heat season to help
educate the general public on ways to
remain safe during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat Both Staff Time Medium Via social media
posts
Seasonal and
Annually City PIO General Funds
14
Continue to provide links to the Arizona
Department of Water Resources website as a
part of a public campaign to raise awareness
to the hazards and locations of active
subsidence.
Subsidence Both Staff Time Low
Work with PIO to
link City Website to
ADWR webpage
Ongoing
Public Works
Dept; PW
Directors / City
PIO
General Funds
15
Include addressing subsidence risk as a
regular part of the land development and
public works projects review and permitting.
Subsidence New Staff Time Low Development
Review Process Ongoing
Development
Services; DS
Director /
Engineering; City
Engineer
General Funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 433
Table 6-8-3: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Carefree
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Annual-
Ongoing
FCDMC /
Floodplain Mgmt
and Services
Division /
Floodplain
Administrator /
Building Official
General Fund
2
Continue development of water storage,
treatment and delivery systems to provide
adequate water during times of drought
Drought Both
Specific
project
dependent
High
Carefree Water
Company and
Governing Board
Annual –
Ongoing
Manager of
Carefree Water
Company
Water
Company
budget and
available grants
3
Maintain backup generators located at
critical facilities (ex. Fire station, well sites,
etc.) to provide emergency power for critical
operations during power failures caused by
severe wind events.
Severe Wind Existing $5,000.00 High Public Works Annual -
Ongoing Public Works General Fund
4
Clear vegetation and wildfire fuels to create
a defensible space around critical or key
structures within the Town of Carefree.
Wildfire Both Staff time High
Building and site
surveys, Staff
conferences
Annual –
Ongoing
Public Works /
Fire Chief General Fund
5 Hold an annual citizens wildfire mitigation
conference in the springtime each year. Wildfire Both Staff time High CWPP Annual –
ongoing Town Fire Chief General fund
6
Encourage bridge or culvert construction
where roads are in locations susceptible to
flooding.
Flood Both
Staff time
and studies
unless
actual
project
developed
and then
costs are to
be
determined
per project
Medium
Staff conferences.
Study drainage
issues. Make
recommendation for
projects. Implement
projects as funded.
Annual –
Ongoing Town Engineer
General Fund,
Permit Fess,
Grants if
available.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 434
Table 6-8-3: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Carefree
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
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 Public Works
Less than
five years
with funding
Public Works General Fund
8
Perform regular 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
9
Require all new construction to follow
recognized and adopted building codes to
mitigate damages and impacts of severe
wind events.
Severe Wind New Staff time Medium Staff conferences Annual -
Ongoing
Town Engineer /
Building Official General Fund
10
Create a public education program
describing water conservation best practices
to be delivered to residents in their monthly
water bill. In addition, provide water
conservation related material through the
town’s COINS system.
Drought Existing Staff time Medium Staff conferences Annual –
Ongoing
Manager of
Carefree Water
Company / Staff
General Fund
11
Identify, stock and communicate locations
within the Town of Carefree that can serve
as cooling stations during times of extreme
heat.
Extreme Heat Both Staff time /
$500.00 Medium Staff conferences
Annual
during
extreme heat
season
Fire Chief, Town
staff General Fund
12
Perform a public information campaign at
the onset of the extreme heat season to help
educate the general public on ways to
remain safe during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat Both Staff time Medium Staff conferences Annual Town staff General Fund
13
Review and update the town’s Drainage
Master Plan on an on-going basis to identify
potential drainage and flooding hazards.
Flood Both Staff time Medium
Staff conferences.
Make
recommendations
for potential projects
and implement those
projects as funding
becomes available.
Annual –
ongoing
Town engineer /
Building official
General fund,
Permit fees,
Grants
14
Continue to review and update the town’s
Mass Evacuation plan for the Town of
Carefree.
All hazards Both Staff time Medium Staff / Agency
conferences
Annual –
ongoing
Carefree
Emergency
Manager /
American Red
Cross / Town Fire
Chief
General fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 435
Table 6-8-4: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Cave Creek
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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 Continuing
Education Ongoing Town Engineer General Fund
2
Ensure building codes for construction are
enforced to prevent roof damage from high
winds.
Severe Wind Both Staff Time High Staff review and
field inspections. Ongoing Chief Building
Official General Fund
3
Town Fire Marshal shall perform routine
commercial structures inspections to
identify and communicate code violations.
Routinely inspect commercial structures.
Flood, Severe
Wind, Wildfire Both Staff Time High Fire Safety
Inspections. Ongoing
Chief Building
Official. Fire
Marshal
General Fund
4
Public Information Campaign to get more
residents to subscribe to the CodeRed
Extreme Weather Alert System.
Flood, Severe
Wind, Extreme
Heat
Both Staff time High
Notices on Town’s
Website. Pamphlets
at town hall.
Reminders at
council meetings
and in utility bills.
Ongoing Town Marshal General Fund
5
Continuous Public Information Campaign to
advise residents and visitors alike of risks
from Wildfire.
Wildfire Both $12,000 High
Fixed Signage
advising of risks on
main roadways in
town. Handouts
available at public
facilities,
identifying risks
and ways to avoid
Wildfires. Bulk
clean up to help
residents remove
fuel loads from
around residences.
Ongoing Town Marshal /
Building Safety General Fund
6
Continue to perform public education of
water conservation best practices through
newsletter, flyers, social media and website
notices.
Drought Both Staff Time High
Drought
Management
Program
Ongoing –
annual
Utilities
Department General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 436
Table 6-8-4: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Cave Creek
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Research the feasibility to either start a
Town of Cave Creek Fire Department or
form a Fire District and have a Fire
Department provide Emergency services
(Fire / EMS) with the geographical
boundaries of the incorporated Town of
Cave Creek. The forming of a Town of Cave
Creek Fire entity verses the current
subscription-based services, would increase
Fire Safety and Wild Fire fighting
capabilities drastically.
Wildfire Both $2 Million High 2023 Cave Creek Fire
Chief General Fund
8
Perform a Public Information Campaign to
help educate the general public on ways to
remain safe during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat Both Staff Time Medium Post Notices on
Town Website. Ongoing Town Marshal General Fund
9
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.
Flooding Both Staff Time Medium Staff review. Ongoing Planning and
Zoning General Fund
10
Review and update the local Drought
Management Plan to ensure it is current with
the Town’s drought management goals and
current water conservation needs.
Drought Both Staff Time Medium
Drought
Management
Program
Completed
Engineering
Department /
Town Engineer
General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 437
Table 6-8-5: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Chandler
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Annual-
Ongoing
Development
Services / City
Engineer
General Fund
2 Maintain the currency of the safety element
of the Chandler General Plan.
Drought,
Extreme Heat,
Flood,
Severe Wind
Both
Staff time
plus
consultant
cost for
update of
GP
High Review and Update
General Plan
Annual-
Ongoing
Planning
Manager General Fund
3
Continue to ensure through proper planning,
zoning and building codes that all safety
measures are in place for new building
construction and placement. The city will
coordinate with the county flood control
district.
Flood,
Severe Wind New Staff time High
Continue to update
codes to newest
versions and add
amendments were
appropriate
Annual-
Ongoing
Development
Services /
Building Official
General Fund
4
Continue to maintain a diverse water
portfolio which includes surface water from
Salt, Verde and Colorado River watersheds
and groundwater. Minimize any reductions
to existing supplies by protecting and
securing existing water rights, and meeting
environmental requirements of water
supplies. Maximize the use of existing assets
to ensure adequate water supply is available
from over 30 groundwater wells, two
surface water treatment plants, use of
recharged water, and encourage the use of
reclaimed water for appropriate purposes.
Continue to implement the city’s Drought
Plan.
Drought Both Staff time High
Continue to maintain
a diverse city water
portfolio by
reviewing and
updating current and
future needs on a
regular basis
Annual-
Ongoing
Public Works
and Utilities
Director
Enterprise Fund
5
Each city department will be encouraged to
rank the vulnerability of existing assets, with
assistance from the Emergency Management
Workgroup, and implement protection plans
as needed, with the highest vulnerability
being implemented first.
Drought,
Extreme Heat,
Flood,
Severe Wind
Both Staff time Medium Emergency
Management Group
Meetings
Annual-
Ongoing Fire Department General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 438
Table 6-8-5: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Chandler
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
6
Continue to ensure that the City of Chandler
Drought Management Plan is updated to
meet the needs of the city to mitigate
drought severity.
Drought Both Staff time Medium
Continue to review
and update the plan
as appropriate
Ongoing
Public Works
and Utilities
Director
Enterprise Fund
7
Annually coordinate with federal, state, and
local dam owners to get updates on any
changes in dam safety conditions and
emergency action plan information.
Dam Failure Both Staff time Medium Attend informational
meetings Annual Fire Department General Fund
8
Provide links to the Arizona Department of
Water Resources website as a part of a
public campaign to raise awareness to the
hazards and locations of active subsidence.
Subsidence Both Staff time Medium Maintain current
webpage links Ongoing
Communications
and Public
Affairs
Department
General Fund
9
Include addressing subsidence risk as a
regular part of the land development and
public works projects review and permitting.
Subsidence Both Staff time Medium
Maintain a robust
zoning and planning
evaluation process
Ongoing
Development
Services
Department
General Fund
Table 6-8-6: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for El Mirage
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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 Permit Review Ongoing
City of EL Mirage
FBLS, Building
Official
General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 439
Table 6-8-6: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for El Mirage
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
2
Review zoning ordinances prohibiting new
development in 100-year floodplain on an
annual basis.
Flood Both Staff Time High None Ongoing Planning &
Zoning / Director General Fund
3 Take active role in multi-agency plan and
actions for flood mitigation (pro-active). Flood Both Staff Time High MCMJHMP Ongoing
Engineering/Fire/
Public Works /
Depth heads
General Fund
4 Develop plan to design and install man-made
flood protection devices where needed. Flood Both Staff
Time/UNK High None Ongoing
City of El Mirage
City
Engineering/Fire/
Public Works /
Dept heads
General
Fund/UNK
5
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 through website notices
and other social media alerts
Extreme Heat Existing Staff Time High
Anticipate the event
and advise
community through
social media and
other, means
Seasonally and
as needed.
City of El
Mirage/Fire/PD General Fund
6
Review annually and update as needed,
existing building codes to manage new and
existing construction practices and provide
mitigation for Drought, Flood, and Severe
Wind.
Drought,
Flood,
Severe Wind
New Staff Time High Permitting and Plan
Review Annually FBLS / City
Building Official General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 440
Table 6-8-6: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for El Mirage
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Maintain collaboration efforts and
interconnected water system with other water
purveyors to ensure the community water
supply in the event of a drought.
Drought Both Staff Time High
The City of El Mirage
has interconnects
with the City of
Surprise as well as
working with EPCOR
to add an additional
one.
Ongoing Public Works /
Director General fund
8 Participate in multi-agency coordination
efforts to ensure cooperative plans. Multi-Hazard Both Staff Time Medium
Through continuing
auto and mutual aids
agreements.
Ongoing
Fire Department /
Fire Chief /
Emergency
Manager
General fund
9 Train First Responders and other select city
staff in hazard materials mitigation. HAZMAT Existing
Staff Time
plus
Training
Cost
Medium NIMS certification Ongoing
Human
Resources/depart
ment heads
General fund
10
Recharge groundwater with CAP water to
ensure the community water supply in the
event of a drought.
Drought Both $100,000 Medium
City of El Mirage has
a CAP subcontract
and recharges CAP
water.
On-going Public Works /
Director General fund
11
Continue to implement a conservation
education program to ensure the community
water supply in the event of a drought.
Drought Both Staff Time Medium Automated Water
Meter Program Ongoing Public Works /
Director
General fund,
utility payments
12
Provide cool potable water to citizens during
extreme heat waves. Dissemination of public
information regarding hydration station and
resource locations will be provided via
website notices and social media
Extreme heat Existing $2,000 Medium None Seasonally and
as needed.
City of El Mirage
Fire / Fire Chief
Fire Dept
Budget
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 441
Table 6-8-6: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for El Mirage
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
13
Coordinate mitigation efforts with other local
agencies that include but are not limited to:
Luke AFB, Dysart School District, FCDMC
and others, to I.D. problem areas and plans
for mitigation
Multi hazard Both Staff Time Low None Ongoing
Fire Department /
Emergency
Manager
General fund
14
Educate the public on suspected and
imminent wind shear dangers from
microburst and other natural wind threats
through website notices and social media
alerts.
Severe Wind Both Staff Time Low None
Annually
During
Monsoon
Season
Homeland
Security / Safety
and Emergency
Management
Officer
General Fund
15
Provide citizens with warnings and escape
routes from severe flooding or expected
flooding.
Dam Failure Existing Staff time Low
McMicken Dam
EAP,
Waddell Dam EAP
When
necessary
City of El Mirage
Fire/ PD and
Public Works.
General fund
16
Participate/Conduct occasional tabletop
exercises to identify potential mitigation
measures for increasing response
effectiveness, such as evacuation route
marking, and permanent protection measures
for intended shelters.
Dam Failure Both Staff time Low
McMicken Dam
EAP,
Waddell Dam EAP
At least once
over the next
five years
City of El Mirage
Fire/ PD and
Public Works /
Dept heads
General Fund
17
Provide links to the Arizona Department of
Water Resources subsidence website and the
Arizona Geologic Survey website as a part of
a public campaign to raise awareness to the
hazards and locations of active fissure and
subsidence locations within the city.
Fissure,
Subsidence Both Staff Time Low None FY2021 City of El Mirage
/ City Engineer General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 442
Table 6-8-6: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for El Mirage
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
18
Annually coordinate with Federal, State and
local dam owners to update any changes in
dam safety conditions on emergency action
plan information.
Dam Failure Both Staff Time Low
McMicken Dam
EAP, Waddell Dam
EAP
On-going
City of El Mirage
Fire / Fire Chief
and Public Works
/ Director
General Fund
19
Work with state and Federal agencies to
provide disclosure information to all
potential buyers of real estate that are located
within the dam failure or emergency
spillway inundation limits of an upstream
dam or dams
Dam Failure Both Staff Time Low
City of El Mirage and
community
development
On-Going
City of El Mirage
Fire / Fire Chief /
City Engineer and
Community
Development /
Director
General Fund
20
land development and public works projects
will be reviewed for subsidence risk as a
regular part of the review and permitting
process.
Subsidence Both Staff Time Low
El Mirage
Community
Development
On-Going Public Works,
City Engineer General Fund
Table 6-8-7: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Prohibit building in floodplain and river
area to maintain channel and protect
riparian area.
Flood Both
Staff time
for plan
review-
$15,000
annually
High
Staff training and
cooperation with
Army Corp of
Engineers and
County Flood
Control District.
Annual/
Recurring
Community and
Economic
Development
Division/Planning
Manager
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 443
Table 6-8-7: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
2 Conduct fuels reduction and establish fuel
breaks in dense vegetation areas. Wildfire Both Staff costs -
$,5000, High
Cooperative efforts
between BIA Fire
Management
Officer, Fire
Department,
Emergency
Manager, Public
Works Director
Annual/
Recurring
Fire Department/
Emergency
Manager
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds,
PDMG and
AFG grants
3
Pro-actively pursue pre-disaster and hazard
mitigation grants to supplement tribal
expenses associated with mitigation
activities.
All Hazards Both
Determined
by required
matching
funds.
$10,000
annually
Medium
Contract and Grants
Administrator
oversight.
Annual/
Recurring
All Department
Directors
Matching
funds from
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds
4
Publish suggested mitigation actions
through print media and community website
to reduce potential for wildfire and heat
related medical emergencies.
Drought,
Extreme Heat,
Wildfire
Both
Staff time,
$2,500
annually
Medium
Timely information
distribution through
social media,
newsletter, website
Annual/
Recurring
Fire
Department/Emerg
ency Manager
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds
5
Limit development along river to protect
wetlands, threatened species habitat and
protect businesses from flooding.
Flood Both
Staff time
for plan
review and
Enterprise
equipment
and labor,
$50,000
annually
Medium
Cooperative effort
with Tribal
Environmental
Department,
Enterprise
employees, and
others.
Annual/
Recurring
Environmental
Department/
Environmental
Manager
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds
6
Create and map access to high-risk wildfire
areas. Provide weed abatement services in
high risk areas to reduce risk of wildland
fire.
Wildfire Existing
Staff time
and
$30,000
annually
Medium
Cooperative effort
by MCDOT, Tribal
Public Works
Department, Fire
Department and
BIA FMO
Annual/
Recurring
MCDOT and
FMYN Public
Works
Department/
Public Works
Manager, Fire
Chief, BIA Fire
Management
Officer (FMO)
MCDOT and
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds,
PDMG and
AFG grants
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 444
Table 6-8-7: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Review existing building codes, modify or
adopt codes to prevent development in
hazard areas.
Drought,
Flood,
Severe Wind,
Wildfire
New
Staff time,
$5,000
annually
Medium
Collaborative effort
with Community
Economic
Development
Division, Fire
Department, Legal
Office
Annual/
Recurring
Community and
Economic
Development
Division/Planning
Project Manager /
Fire Chief
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds
8
Identify and mitigate hazards associated
with new and existing developments
through plan reviews to ensure plan/code
compliance, including incorporation of
drought tolerant or xeriscape landscapes on
new developments.
Drought,
Flood,
Severe Wind,
Wildfire
Both Staff time,
$5,000 Medium
Cooperative efforts
with Fire
Department, , IT
Department,
Emergency
Manager, MAG
PSAP group
Annual/
Recurring
Community and
Economic
Development
Division/License
and Property Use
Manager / Fire
Chief
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds
9
Ensure building codes addressing wind
loading are enforced to prevent damage
from high winds.
Severe Wind Both Staff costs -
$3,500 Medium
Collaborative effort
with Community
Economic
Development
Division, Fire
Department, Legal
Office
Annual/
Recurring
Community and
Economic
Development
Division/Chief
Building Inspector
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds
10
Develop a drought emergency plan with
criteria and triggers for drought-related
actions.
Drought Both Staff time,
$15,000 Medium
Cooperative efforts
with Public Works,
Water System
Manager,
Emergency
Manager, Planning
Projects Manager
October 2021
Community
Economic
Development
Division/
Emergency
Manager
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds
11
Analyze and map extensions of the dam
failure inundation limits for Town of
Fountain Hills owned dams, through
FMYN lands to their confluence with the
Verde River.
Dam Failure Both $10,000 Medium
Coordination with
Town of Fountain
Hills and FCDMC
FY2021
Fire Department/
Emergency
Manager
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 445
Table 6-8-7: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
12
Annually coordinate with Federal, State,
and local dam owners to get updates on any
changes in dam safety conditions and
emergency action plan information
Dam Failure Both Staff time Low
Coordination with
Salt River Project
and USBR
Annual
Fire Department/
Emergency
Manager
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds
13
Coordinate training, planning, and
communications to provide the community
with information to combat the effects of
infestations and diseases.
Disease,
Infestation,
Pandemic.
Both
Staff time
for Medical
Clinic
personnel
Low
Public Health
surveillance and
timely information
distribution through
newsletter, social
media, and website.
Annual/
Recurring
Medical Director,
Clinic staff
Tribal
General
Revenue
Funds, IHS
funds
Table 6-8-8: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Fountain Hills
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Maintain washes in Town by removing
excessive brush and trim trees to reduce the
threat of wildfire and flooding due to
blockages
Flood,
Wildfire Both $150K/yr High Ongoing Annually Environmental
Supervisor General Fund
2 Channel and Storm Drain Development Flood Both $1.5M High Ongoing Ongoing Town Engineer CIP
3
Perform a public information campaign at
the onset of the extreme heat season to help
educate the general public on ways to
remain safe during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat Both Staff Time High Ongoing Ongoing Fire Department General Fund
4 Continuing use of recycled water for turf
irrigation in Town parks and golf courses Drought Both $100K/yr High Ongoing Ongoing Parks General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 446
Table 6-8-8: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Fountain Hills
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
5
Provide free wildland fire risk inspections to
Town residents to identify areas on
properties that need to have brush thinned or
removed.
Wildfire Both Staff Time High Ongoing Ongoing Fire Marshal General Fund
6 Analyze and identify dam failure inundation
limits to identify/modify evacuation routes. Dam Failure Ex Staff Time Medium Ongoing Ongoing Town Engineer General Fund
7
Conduct bi-annual dam safety inspections
and reporting per Arizona Department of
Water Resources guidelines and required
schedule.
Dam Failure Both Staff Time Medium Bi-annual Ongoing Town Engineer General Fund
8 Enforce Building Codes to prevent roof
damage from high winds. Severe Winds Both Staff Time Medium Ongoing Ongoing Building Official General Fund
9
Review General Plan and Ordinances for
mitigating hazards and opportunities to
incorporate Plan risk assessment and
mitigation strategy.
Flood, Severe
Wind, Drought,
Extreme Heat
Both Staff Time Medium Ongoing Ongoing Development
Director General Fund
10
Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.
Flood Both Staff Time Medium Ongoing Annually Town Engineer General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 447
Table 6-8-9: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Gila Bend
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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 Town Code ongoing Town
Planner/Engineer Town Funds
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 High Town, State,
County, FEMA Ongoing
Town Manager,
Finance Director,
Public Works
Director
Town, State,
County
3
Develop a public awareness campaign to
educate town residents about natural hazards
impacting the community.
Flood,
Severe Winds,
Wildfire
Both Staff Time High
Town/Maricopa
County Flood
Control
Ongoing
Town, Maricopa
County Flood
Control
Town, FEMA,
County
4
Develop and construct measures to mitigate
flooding along Sand Tank and Scott Avenue
Washes.
Flood Both $12 million Low
FEMA, Army
Corps of Engineers,
Maricopa County
Flood Control,
Town
2027
FEMA, Army
Corps of
Engineers,
Maricopa County
Flood Control,
Town
FEMA, Army
Corps of
Engineers,
Maricopa County
Flood Control,
Town, USDA,
WIFA
5
Develop a plan to implement aquifer
recharge per the recommendations of the
recently completed aquifer study performed
by The Global Institute of Sustainability
(GIOS) at Arizona State University (ASU).
Drought Both $90,000 Medium
The Global Institute
of Sustainability
(GIOS) at Arizona
State University
(ASU)
2026 Town Manager
FEMA, County,
State, Town,
USDA, WIFA
6 Restrict water usage for irrigation during
times of drought. Drought Both N/A High Town Code Ongoing
Town Manager,
Public Works
Director
Town Funds
7 Establish and staff a “cooling” station at the
local community center Extreme Heat Both N/A High Social Services Ongoing
Social Services
Director, Town
Manager
Town Funds
8
Maintain and provide access to the public
swimming pool during times of extreme
heat to provide a means for cooling off.
Extreme Heat Both Staff Time High Town Parks and
Recreation Ongoing
Town Manager,
Parks &
Recreation
Director
Town Funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 448
Table 6-8-9: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Gila Bend
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
9
Design and evaluate the concept of
constructing a flood control reservoir, or
series of reservoirs to intercept and store
storm runoff. The concept would provide
both flood control benefits but also could be
a source for groundwater recharge.
Drought,
Flood Both $2 million Low
FEMA, Army
Corps of Engineers,
Maricopa County
Flood Control,
Town, USDA,
WIFA
2027
FEMA, Army
Corps of
Engineers,
Maricopa County
Flood Control,
Town, USDA,
WIFA
FEMA, Army
Corps of
Engineers,
Maricopa County
Flood Control,
Town, USDA,
WIFA
10
Perform investigational analyses to
determine if removal of a substandard levee
will provide more benefit through restoring
local flood control currently blocked by
levee and remove the threat of a levee
failure.
Levee Failure Both $700,000 Medium
FEMA, Army
Corps of Engineers,
Maricopa County
Flood Control,
Town
2027
FEMA, Army
Corps of
Engineers,
Maricopa County
Flood Control,
Town
FEMA, Army
Corps of
Engineers,
Maricopa County
Flood Control,
Town
11
Work with FCDMC and town forces (Fire,
EMS, Streets, Parks, and Sheriff) to identify
and plan for evacuation routes should the
local levee fail
Levee Failure Both N/A Medium Town and County 2022 Town / Town
Engineer Town Funds
12
The Town will include potential subsidence
in freeboard calculations for buildings in
flood prone areas that are known to be
active subsidence areas as well
Flood,
Subsidence New Staff Time Medium N/A As-Needed Town / Town
Engineer Town Funds
13
The Town will use permeable driveways
and paved pedestrian surfaces to reduce
runoff and promote groundwater recharge to
mitigate the effects of groundwater
withdrawal on subsidence in the area.
Flood,
Subsidence New $50,000 Low N/A As-Identified Town / Town
Engineer Town Funds
14
Encourage the use of green infrastructure
and low impact development measures to
decrease paved surfaces that store and
release heat
Drought,
Extreme Heat New Staff Time Low As Needed Town / Town
Engineer Town Funds
15
Perform public information campaign using
social media and webpages during the hot
summer months to educate citizens on the
potential health hazards associated with
extreme heat events,
Extreme Heat Both Staff Time Low Seasonally
Social Services
Director, Town
Manager
Town Funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 449
Table 6-8-10: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Gilbert
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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 to reduce risks.
Flood Both Staff time High
Staff Training
Floodplain
Regulations
Annual-
Ongoing
Floodplain
Administrator/
Plans Review
and Inspection
Manager
General Fund
Permit Fees
2
Proactive adoption of applicable master
plans, land uses and developmental
agreements to reduce risks.
Flood New Staff Time High
Coordination with
County Flood
Control & Chapter
34 of Town Code
Ongoing
Engineering//
Planning Service
Manager General Fund
3
Implement the appropriate stage of the
Water Supply Reduction Management Plan
as adopted (May 2003) to reduce water use.
Extreme
Heat/Drought Both Staff Time High
Coordination with
Salt River Project,
the Arizona Project,
& AZ Department of
Water Resources.
Ongoing
Water Resource
Manager & Town
Manager General Fund
4
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
Ongoing Floodplain
Administrator General Fund
5
Work closely with FCDMC – Dam Safety to
stay abreast of current mitigation efforts and
timelines at Powerline FRS including the
proposed Powerline Channel.
Flood/Fissure Both Staff Time High
Coordination with
Flood Control
District -Dam Safety
Ongoing
Floodplain
Administrator/
Emergency
Management
Coordinator
General Fund
6
Provide pertinent weather and hazard
mitigation information to the public to raise
awareness of local hazards by providing
local weather service and Maricopa County
Hazard Mitigation links from Town of
Gilbert Home page.
Extreme
Heat/Flood/
Severe Wind
Both Staff Time Medium
Work with
webmaster identify
links
Ongoing
Emergency
Management
Coordinator/
Webmaster General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 450
Table 6-8-10: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Gilbert
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Participate in occasional tabletop exercises
to identify potential mitigation measures for
increasing response effectives such as
evacuation and shelter functions.
Dam
Inundation/
Levee
Failure/Flood
Both Staff Time High
Coordination with
Maricopa County
Emergency
Management and
Flood Control
Ongoing
Emergency
Management
Coordinator General Fund
8
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.
Extreme
Heat/Flood/
Severe Wind
Both Staff Time Medium
Coordinate with
stakeholders and use
of website and social
media.
Ongoing
Emergency
Management
Coordinator/
Communication
Office
General Fund
9
Use website and social media to encourage
citizens to be prepared in case of a disaster
event to raise awareness and participation.
Dam
Inundation/
Levee
Failure/Flood/
Drought
Both Staff Time High
Coordinate
messaging with
Communication
Office for delivery
Ongoing
Emergency
Manager/
Communications
Office
General Fund
10
Review building permits in high risk and/or
mapped fissure areas and require
engineering evaluation prior to development
to reduce impacts.
Fissure New Staff Time High
Development
Services
coordination with
Town Engineers
utilizing AZ
Geographical Survey
Maps
Ongoing
Town Engineer
Permit & Plans
Review and
Inspection
Manager
General Fund
11
Monitor ADWR Subsidence Monitoring
Program’s satellite imagery for local trends
and impacts with the goal of determining
strategies to reduce damage and losses.
Subsidence Both Staff Time High Coordinate with
ADWR Ongoing Water Resource
Manager General Fund
12
Provide link to the Arizona Department of
Water Resource website as part of a public
campaign to raise awareness to the hazards
and locations of active subsidence.
Subsidence Both Staff Time High
Coordinate with
ADWR and
webmaster
Ongoing
Water Resource
Manager and
Webmaster
General Fund
13
Study and potential improvements to
Vaughn Avenue Basin area to reduce
potential of overtopping.
Flooding Both $300,000 High Coordinate with
stakeholders
Within 2 years
of receiving
grant funding
Engineering/
Streets
Manager/Public
Works Director
General Funds/
Grants
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 451
Table 6-8-10: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Gilbert
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
14
Improvement to Gilbert Road and Williams
Field Road Intersection Drainage to reduce
local flooding.
Flooding Both $750,000 High Coordinate with
stakeholders
Within 2 years
of receiving
grant funding
Engineering/
Streets
Manager/Public
Works Director
General Funds/
Grants
15
Study and potential improvement to 170th
Street and San Tan Drainage to reduce local
flooding.
Flooding Both $300,000 High Coordinate with
stakeholders
Within 2 years
of receiving
grant funding
Engineering/
Streets
Manager/Public
Works Director
General Funds/
Grants
16 Improvement to Commerce Area Drainage
to reduce local flooding. Flooding Both $1,156,000 High Coordinate with
stakeholders
Within 2 years
of receiving
grant funding
Engineering/
Streets
Manager/Public
Works Director
General
Funds/CIP/
Grants
17
Study and potential improvement to 172nd
Street south of Flintlock, implement design
to protect roadway and underground utilities
from future collapse and ensure rain water is
diverted away from fissure area.
Flooding/
Fissure Both $300,000 High Coordinate with
stakeholders Ongoing
Engineering/
Streets
Manager/Public
Works Director
General Funds/
Grants
18
Perform an Area Drainage Master Study
(ADMS) for San Tan area to identify flood
risks and potential areas of mitigation
interest.
Flooding Both Staff Time
Coordination with
Flood Control
District of Maricopa
County
Within 2 years
of receiving
funding
Floodplain
Administrator FCDMC
19
Perform an Area Drainage Master Study
(ADMS) for the Queen Creek / East Mesa /
and Southeast Gilbert areas to identify flood
risks and potential areas of mitigation
interest.
Flooding Both Staff Time
Coordination with
Flood Control
District of Maricopa
County
Within 2 years
of receiving
funding
Floodplain
Administrator FCDMC
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 452
Table 6-8-11: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Glendale
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
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 High N/A On-going Emergency
Management Donations
2
Perform a public information campaign in
coordination with the City of Glendale
Marketing Department and Fire Department
to educate and inform citizens of safety
during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat Existing Staff time High N/A On-going
Fire Department
and Public
Affairs / Public
Information
Officer
GDEM/FD
Budget
3 Ordinance compliance and maintenance of
property (weed/brush abatement) Wildfire Existing Staff time High City Code On-going Code Compliance General Fund
Budget
4
Reduce the risk of fires to communities
located against a wildland interface through
participation with Maricopa County and
other local jurisdictions in the development
of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(CWPP)
Wildfire Both Staff time High
Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of
2003 (HFRA)
2025
Emergency
Management /
Emergency
Management
Coordinator
General Fund
Budget
5
Maintenance of Emergency Action Plan
(EAP) of covered municipal water storage
reservoir with a capacity of 12 million
gallons. (Thunderbird Reservoir)
Dam Failure Existing Staff time High Regulatory
Requirement On-going
Water Services /
Water Facilities
Supervisor
Water Services
Budget
6
Participation in the Annual ADWR
inspection and survey of the Thunderbird
Reservoir.
Dam Failure Existing Staff time High Regulatory
Requirement Annually
Water Services /
Water Facilities
Supervisor
Water Services
Budget
7 Participation in annual EAP drills and
tabletop exercises. Dam Failure Existing Staff time High Regulatory
Requirement Annually
Water Services /
Water Facilities
Supervisor
Water Services
Budget
8
Water Conservation Office conducting
educational outreach to the public on best
practices, via classes, flyers, website, social
media
Drought Existing Staff time High
Municipal
Conservation
Program
Requirement
On-going
Water Services /
Environmental
Programs
Administrator
Water Services
Budget
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 453
Table 6-8-11: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Glendale
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
9
Encourage permanent reduction in amount
of water used for landscaping purposes
through Landscape Rebate up to $750 for
residential and $3,000 for non-residential.
Drought New Staff time High
Municipal
Conservation
Program
Requirement
On-going
Water Services /
Environmental
Programs
Administrator
Water Services
Budget/Grant
10
Update Drought Management Plan (2016) to
assist in management of operations when a
drought is declared.
Drought Existing Staff time High Regulatory
Requirement On-going
Water Services /
Environmental
Programs
Administrator
Water Services
Budget
11
Conduct landscape classes (promote
xeriscape) to encourage use of drought-
resistant landscaping
Drought Existing Staff time High
Municipal
Conservation
Program
Requirement
On-going
Water Services /
Environmental
Programs
Administrator
Water Services
Budget
12
Citywide plan to control stormwater,
including identification of problem areas
(drainage issues, illicit discharges, etc.). The
City’s Stormwater Management Plan is
reviewed annually and updated as needed.
Flood Existing Staff time High Regulatory
Requirement
On-going
Submitted to
ADEQ in
2014
Engineering /
Engineering
Project Manager
Water Services /
Environmental
Program
Manager
City and Water
Services
Budget
13
Maintain emergency generators at water and
wastewater plants, water booster stations,
and wastewater lift stations.
Severe Wind Existing Staff time High N/A On-going
Water Services /
Water Services
Supervisor
Water Services
Budget
14
Maintain emergency generators at public
safety facilities, including police stations,
fire stations and Glendale Regional Public
Safety Training Center.
Severe Wind Existing Staff time High N/A On-going Various
Departments Fire Budget
15
Work with federal and state agencies, and
local coalition to evaluate awareness of
fissure risk zones and the problems caused
by fissures.
Fissures Existing Staff time High Development
Services/Planning On-going Planning City Budget
16
Geological hazards addressed in General
Plan and will be incorporated in the
planning process for the next General Plan.
Fissures Existing Staff time High Development
Services/Planning On-going Planning City Budget
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 454
Table 6-8-11: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Glendale
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
17
Utilization of Development Services plans
and procedures to survey and monitor
elevations in the City of Glendale to
determine and establish long term mitigation
strategies.
Subsidence Existing Staff time High
Development
Services/
Engineering
On-going Planning City Budget
18
Development Services has utilized the risk
as a regular risk of development and public
work projects. The lands used for such
projects are inspected for subsidence issues
prior to projects starting.
Subsidence Existing Staff time High Development
Services/Field Ops On-going Planning City Budget
19
Inform citizens of risks associated with
flood risk areas, specifically parks multi-use
pathways.
Levee Failure Existing Staff time High
Public Facilities,
Recreation &
Special Events
On-going
Public Facilities,
Recreation &
Special Events
City Budget
20
Work with Flood Control District of
Maricopa County to determine potential
effects of levee failure
Levee Failure Existing Staff time High Emergency Action
Plans On-gong
Emergency
Manager and
Emergency
Services
Coordinator /
Emergency
Management
City Budget
21 Participate in annual Flood Control District
of Maricopa County Drill/Exercises Levee Failure Existing Staff time High N/A Annually
Emergency
Manager and
Emergency
Services
Coordinator /
Emergency
Management
City Budget
22
Enforce currently adopted building codes
(2018 IBC and IRC) to mitigate damages
due to severe wind events.
Severe Wind New Staff time High
Building Codes /
Development
Review and
Building Inspection
Processes
On-going as
needed Building Safety City Budget
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 455
Table 6-8-11: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Glendale
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
23
Encourage homeowners to use tie-down
straps and/or anchors to secure ancillary
buildings and metal awnings or porches to
mitigate the potential for flying debris
during severe wind events.
Severe Wind Both Staff time High
Building Codes /
Development
Review and
Building Inspection
Processes
On-going as
needed Building Safety City Budget
24
Use website and social media sources to
raise public awareness to the impacts of
flood and severe winds associated with
monsoon season.
Flood,
Severe Wind Both Staff time High N/A On-going and
seasonal
Emergency
Management City Budget
Table 6-8-12: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Goodyear
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Annual –
Ongoing
City Engineer,
Development
Services Director
General Fund
Fees
2
Use newsletters, flyers, utility bill inserts,
website notices, radio and television
announcements, social media and newspaper
articles to educate the public about hazards
impacting Goodyear and how to be prepared
in case of an emergency or disaster event.
All Hazards Both Staff Time High
Staff training
Department/
Division
coordination
Annual-
Ongoing
Digital
Communications
PIOs
Emergency
Manager
Dispatch
Community Risk
Reduction
General Fund
3 Enforce the City of Goodyear’s weed
abatement ordinance. Wildfire Both Staff time/
Volunteers High Code Compliance Annual-
Ongoing Building Official General Fund
4
Educate the public on proper fuels thinning,
setbacks, and water storage for wildfire
mitigation using Firewise type of programs
and guidance documents.
Wildfire Both Staff time High
Fire
Department/EM
coordination
Annual-
Ongoing
Fire
Chief/Emergency
Manager
Grant Funding
and General
Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 456
Table 6-8-12: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Goodyear
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
5
Conduct wildfire safety education programs
in the local schools through the Community
Risk reduction program.
Wildfire Both Staff time/
Volunteers High
Community Risk
Reduction
Division/EM
coordination
Seasonal and
as schools
permit time
Emergency
Manager
Community Risk
Reduction
General Fund
and Grant
Funding where
available
6
Perform an information campaign at the
onset of the extreme heat season to help
educate the general public on ways to
remain safe during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat Both Staff time/
Volunteers High
EM Division/
Community Risk
Reduction Division
coordination
Seasonal
Emergency
Manager General Fund
7
Identify and communicate locations within
the community that can serve as cooling
stations during times of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat Both
Staff time/
Volunteers
Interfaith
community
High
EM Division/
Community Risk
Reduction Division
coordination
As needed
given
population
densities and
heat events
Emergency
Manager General Fund
8
Participate in the Flood Control District of
Maricopa County annual county-wide flood
exercises to identify areas of mitigation
interest regarding vulnerable critical
infrastructure, emergency access and routes
issues.
Flood Both Staff time High
Flood Control
District/
MCDEM/EM
coordination
Bi-Annual Emergency
Manager General Fund
9
Provide severe weather information to the
City of Goodyear first responders and other
employees that work outdoors for them to be
aware to wear the proper personal protection
equipment.
Extreme Heat,
Flood,
Severe Wind
and Weather
Both Staff time High
NWS/
EM Division
coordination
Annual-
Ongoing Emergency
Manager General Fund
10
Work with the Flood Control District of
Maricopa County to develop and update
flood response plans as they pertain to the
City of Goodyear and surrounding areas.
Flood Both Staff time High Flood Control/
EM Division
Annual-
Ongoing
Emergency
Manager General Fund
11
Install backup generators at key critical
facilities such as fire and police stations,
water pumping stations, sewer lift stations,
etc., to provide emergency power for critical
operations during power failures caused by
severe wind events.
Severe Wind
and Weather Both
Varies
Department
CIPs High Public Works Ongoing Public Works
Enterprise Funds
and General
Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 457
Table 6-8-12: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Goodyear
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
12
Provide links on the community’s website to
sources of hazard mitigation educational
materials encouraging residents of Goodyear
to be prepared for hazard emergencies.
All Hazards Both Staff Time Medium
EM division
Digital
Communications
Community Risk
Reduction
Annual-
Ongoing
Emergency
Manager General Fund
13
Participate in occasional dam failure
exercises to identify mitigation measures for
increasing response effectiveness, such as
evacuation planning and coordinated
intended shelters.
Dam
Inundation Both Staff time Medium Maricopa County
EM/Police/Fire
Bi-Annual Emergency
Manager General Fund
14
Mandate, encourage or incentivize the use of
drought resistant landscaping through
ordinance development and/or enforcement.
Drought Both Staff time Medium
Staff training
Department/
Division
coordination
Annual-
Ongoing
Right of Way
Development
Services Director
General Fund
15
Develop, update and maintain a local
Drought Management Plan to define various
levels of conservation or curtailment
requirements that are based on drought
severity triggers, system impacts, and
enforced through utility billing structures
and ordinance.
Drought Both Staff time Medium
Inter-
Departmentally
updated & vetted
Annual-
Ongoing
Public Works /
Water Resources
Division
General Fund
16
Include addressing subsidence risk as a
regular part of the land development and
public works projects review and permitting
processes.
Subsidence Both Staff time Medium
Staff training
department/
Division
coordination
Annual-
Ongoing
City Engineer,
Development
Services Director
General Fund
17
Encourage/incentivize homeowners to use
tie-down straps and/or anchors to secure
metal awnings or porches to mitigate the
potential for flying debris during severe
wind events.
Severe Wind Both Staff time/
Volunteers Medium Community Risk
Reduction
Annual-
Ongoing
Emergency
Manager General Fund
18
Provide links to Arizona Department of
Water Resources website as part of a public
campaign to raise awareness to the hazards
and locations of active subsidence.
Subsidence Both Staff time Medium
EM Division/
Communications
Division
coordination
Q4, FY 21 Emergency
Manager General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 458
Table 6-8-13: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Guadalupe
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Perform a public campaign at the onset of
the extreme heat season to help educate the
general public on ways to remain safe
during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat Both Staff time Medium Extreme Heat Plan Ongoing
Fire Dept –
Public
Information
Officer (PIO)
General fund
2
Identify, stock, and communicate locations
within the community that can serve as
cooling stations during times of extreme
heat.
Extreme Heat Both Staff time Medium Extreme Heat Plan Ongoing
Fire Dept
Emergency
manager
General fund
3
Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.
Flood Both Staff time Low Town General
Plan/Code Review Ongoing
Building
Inspector/
Contractor
General fund
4
Implement the education and mitigation
actions as outlined in the town’s Stormwater
Management Plan.
Flood Both Staff time Low Stormwater
Management Plan Ongoing
Building
Inspector/
Contractor
General fund
5
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.
Multi-Hazard Both Staff time Low Town General Plan Ongoing Town Manager
or designee General fund
6
Participate in occasional table top exercises
to identify potential mitigation measures for
increasing response effectiveness, such as
evacuation route marking and permanent
protection measures for intended shelters.
Dam
Inundation Existing Staff time Low
Flood Control Plan/
Emergency
Operations Plan
2022
Emergency
Manager/Flood
Control District
General fund
7
Develop or update the inundation mapping
for the emergency action plan for Guadalupe
Retention Dam in order to identify
population and critical facilities and
infrastructure at risk, and to determine the
need for potential mitigation.
Dam
Inundation Existing Staff time Low Flood control Plan Ongoing Flood Control
District General fund
8
Public education of water conservation best
practices through newsletter, flyers, social
media and website notices.
Drought Both Staff time Low Drought
Management Plan Ongoing Community
Development General fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 459
Table 6-8-13: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Guadalupe
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
9
Develop a local Drought Management Plan
to define various levels of conservation
requirement that are based on drought
severity triggers.
Drought Both Staff time Low Drought
Management Plan Ongoing Community
Development General fund
10
Review and update stormwater management
plan that will analyze and identify problem
flooding areas and propose long-term
mitigation alternatives designed to reduce or
eliminate the flood problems.
Flood Both Staff time Low Storm water
management plan Ongoing
Building
Inspector/
Contractor
General fund
11
Work with Flood Control District of
Maricopa County to review, update, and/or
augment flood control ordinances to provide
a greater level of protection than the
minimum required by the NFIP.
Flood Both Staff time Low Storm water
management plan Ongoing
Building
Inspector/
Contractor
General fund
12
Review existing buildings, evaluate any
substandard construction issues and
implement repair and upgrade plan for
future wind damage.
Severe Wind Existing Staff time Low Hazard mitigation
Plan Ongoing
Building
Inspector/
Contractor
General fund
13
Encourage homeowners to use tie-down
straps and/or anchors to secure ancillary
buildings and metal awnings or porches to
mitigate the potential for flying debris
during severe wind events.
Severe Wind Both Staff time Low Hazard Mitigation
Plan Ongoing Emergency
manager General fund
Table 6-8-14: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Litchfield Park
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
NFIP/Staff
Training/Floodplain
Regulations
Annual-
Ongoing City Engineer
General
Fund/Permit
Fees
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 460
Table 6-8-14: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Litchfield Park
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
2
Annually coordinate with federal, state, and
local dam owners to get updates on any
changes in dam safety conditions and
emergency action plan information.
Dam
Inundation Both Staff Time High
Coordination with
Flood Control
District -Dam
Safety
Annually
Flood Control
District of
Maricopa County
General Fund
3
Review Emergency Operations 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.
All Hazards Both Staff Time High
Emergency
Management
Coordinator tasks
Annual-
Ongoing
Goodyear Fire /
Maricopa County
Sheriff, EM
Coordinator,
Public Works
General Fund
4
Encourage city staff to become members of
regional organizations that have hazard
mitigation as a mission, to share in regional
efforts and solutions to local and regional
problems.
All Hazards Both Staff Time High Staff Training Annual-
Ongoing
Emergency
Management
Coordinator
General Fund
5
Provide links on the community’s website to
sources of hazard mitigation educational
materials (e.g. – http://www.ready.gov/ and
http://do1thing.com/) encouraging private
citizens to be prepared for hazard
emergencies.
All Hazards N/A Staff Time Medium
Emergency
Management
Coordinator tasks
and coordination
with Fire and LE
partners
Ongoing -
Monthly
Emergency
Management
Coordinator
General Fund
6
Perform a public information campaign at
the onset of the extreme heat season to help
educate the general public on ways to
remain safe during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat N/A Staff Time Medium Staff Ongoing-
Seasonal
Emergency
Management
Coordinator/PIO
General Fund
7
Review building permits for compliance
with International Building Code for
structure compliance to endure severe winds
and electrical strikes, use drought resistant
plumbing fixtures, and flood proofing.
Drought, Flood,
Severe Wind,
Lightning
Strike
Both Staff Time Medium IBC/Staff Training Annual-
Ongoing
Public Works /
City Engineer General Fund
8
Include addressing subsidence risk as a
regular part of the land development and
public works projects review and permitting.
Subsidence Both Staff Time Low Engineering Review Ongoing City Engineer General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 461
Table 6-8-15: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Maintain continuous water supply by
continuing to install/replace water
distribution system throughout the City of
Mesa
Drought Both $5-10M
/yr. High 5yr-CIP Ongoing
Water Resources
& Engineering
Dept.
Bond Funding
2
CAP (Signal Butte WTP) Phase II,
expansion of water treatment plant at Elliot
and Signal Butte
Drought Both $92M High 5yr-CIP 2024-2025
(estimated)
Water Resources
& Engineering
Dept.
Bond Funding
(future)
3
Future Reclaimed Water Line and pump
stations to convey Northwest Water
Reclamation Plant effluent to Gila River
Indian Community in exchange of CAP
water
Drought Both $70-80M High 5-yr CIP 2024
Water Resources
& Engineering
Dept.
Bond Funding
(future)
4 Add potable water wells and/or redrill and
equip existing wells Drought Both ~ $ 2 M
/yr. High 5-yr-CIP Ongoing
Water Resources
& Engineering
Dept.
Bond Funding
(future)
5
Review building permits for compliance
with Floodplain Ordinance and NFIP
regulations.
Flood Both Staff time High Building Permit
Process Ongoing
Development
Services,
Engineering
Dept.
General Fund,
Permit Fees
6 Update Storm Drain Master Plan Flood Both $500,000 High City of Mesa Storm
Drain Master Plan. Ongoing Engineering
Dept.
General Fund,
Grants & future
CIP budget.
7
Perform public information campaign at the
start of the extreme heat season to educate
the public.
Extreme Heat Both
Staff time
& cost of
supplies
High On-going operations At the extreme
event
Fire/Medical
Dept. & Public
Information
office.
General Fund
8
Partner with NGO’s (e.g. – The Salvation
Army, church organizations, shelters, etc.) to
provide respite care and hydration stations to
mitigate loss of life during extreme
temperature events.
Extreme Heat Both
Staff time
& cost of
supplies
High
City of Mesa
Emergency
Operations Plan
At the extreme
event
Fire/Medical
Dept. & Public
Information
Office.
General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 462
Table 6-8-15: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
9
Provide links on the City of Mesa Website
to sources of hazard mitigation educational
materials encouraging private citizens to be
prepared for hazard emergencies.
Dam Failure,
Levee Failure Both Staff time Low
City of Mesa
Emergency
Operations Plan
On-going
Fire/Medical
Dept. & Public
Information
Office.
General Fund
10
Participate/Conduct tabletop exercises to
identify potential mitigation measures for
increasing response effectiveness in the
event of a dam failure.
Dam Failure,
Levee Failure Both Staff time Low
City of Mesa
Emergency
Operations Plan
Ongoing
Development
Services &
Engineering
Dept.
General Fund
11 Clear vegetation & wildfire fuels to create a
clear space around critical structures. Wildfire Both Staff time Medium Code enforcement
& Fire Dept.
Ongoing prior
& during the
dry season
Fire/Medical
Dept. &
Development
Services
General Fund
12
Enforce burn & fireworks bans as needed
during dry season. Enforce weed abatement
ordinance.
Wildfire Both Staff time Medium Code enforcement
& Fire Dept.
Ongoing prior
& during the
dry season
Fire/Medical
Dept. &
Development
Services
General Fund
13
Maintain/install back-up generators at
critical facilities such as Fire & Police
Stations, water pumping stations, sewer lift
stations, etc., to provide emergency power
for critical operations during power failures
caused by severe wind events.
Severe Wind Both $2M +
staff time. High
Fire Department
Emergency
Management
Division
Ongoing
Water Resources,
Engineering,
Development
Services, Parks
Recreation and
Community
Facilities
General Fund
and CIP budget
14
Distribution Pole Maintenance &
Replacement/Vegetation Management
Programs
Severe Wind Both $500,000 High Annual CIP Ongoing
Energy
Resources
Electric
Bond Funding
(future)
15
Include the subsidence and fissure risk as a
regular part of development & public works
projects review.
Fissure,
Subsidence Both Staff time Medium Engineering and
Design Standards Ongoing
Development
Services &
Engineering
Dept.
General Fund
16
Provide links to ADWR and AZGS websites
on City website to raise awareness to
locations of active fissure and subsidence.
Fissure,
Subsidence Both Staff time Medium Engineering and
Design Standards Ongoing
Development
Services &
Engineering
Dept.
General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 463
Table 6-8-15: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
17
The City of Mesa provides information to
the public using the Community Emergency
Notification System (CENS), also called
Reverse 9-1-1. If an event occurs the 9-1-1
dispatch center in Mesa will call and provide
information and/or instruction to
subscribers.
Levee Failure,
Dam Failure Both Staff time Low
City of Mesa
Communications
(9-1-1 Emergency
System
Ongoing City of Mesa
Communications General Fund
Table 6-8-16: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Paradise Valley
Paradise Valley is no longer participating in the Plan.
Table 6-8-17: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Peoria
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Annual -On
going
Development and
Engineering
General Funds
Permit Fees
2
Assist with the revision of a water
conservation plan for mitigating the impact
of a drought on the public water supply.
Drought Both Staff Time
High Plan development Annual Public Works General funds
3
Work with the Flood Control District of
Maricopa County 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 Plan development Annual
Public Works,
City Engineering
and Emergency
Management
Enterprise funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 464
Table 6-8-17: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Peoria
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
4
Work with the Flood Control District of
Maricopa County to determine potential
effects of a levee failure.
Levee Failure Both Staff Time High Plan development
Annual
Public Works,
City Engineering
and Emergency
Management
General funds
5 Encourage a fire buffer along wild land-
urban interface areas. Wildfire New Staff Time Medium
Building
regulations and
public awareness
Annual
Public Works,
City Engineering
and Fire
Department
General funds
6
Incorporate hazard profile data into city’s
GIS for mapping of floodways, high wind
areas, subsidence areas, hazardous materials,
etc.
All Hazards Both Staff Time High Plan development On going
IT Department
and Emergency
Management
General funds
7 Train key city staff on appropriate actions
based on the Emergency Operations Plan. All New Staff Time High Staff training On going Emergency
Management General funds
8
Participate in regional training
opportunities as well as Emergency
Operations Command exercises within city
to prepare for emergencies.
All Both Staff Time Medium Staff training On going
Emergency
Management and
most city
departments
General funds
9
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.
All Existing Staff Time Medium Staff training On going Fire Department General funds
10
Police Department personnel should be
trained at Operations level, currently
command staff are trained at Operations –
rest of personnel are trained at awareness
level.
All Hazards Existing Staff Time Medium Staff training On going Police
Department General funds
11 Control development in flood areas Flood Existing Staff Time High Floodplain
regulations Annual
Planning and
Zoning,
Development and
Engineering
General funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 465
Table 6-8-17: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Peoria
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
12 Encourage flood-proof measures through
building design Flood Existing Staff Time
High
Floodplain
regulations and
public awareness
Annual
Development and
Engineering and
Economic
Development
General funds
13
Utilize Public Service Announcements
(PSAs) broadcast on Channel 11 to
communicate hazard risk and emergency
information. Produce corresponding flyers
to be distributed to residents via utility bill
mailings
All Hazards Existing Staff Time Medium Staff training On going
Office of
Communications,
Public Works
and Emergency
Management
General funds
14
Research identified data limitations
affecting the relative vulnerability of assets
to drought
Drought Existing Staff Time High Plan development Annual Public Works
and GIS General funds
15
The City of Peoria will use newsletters,
website notices, social media and newspaper
articles to educate the public about hazards
impacting the city and how to be prepared in
the case of a disaster.
All Hazards New Staff time Medium Public awareness On going
Office of
Emergency
Management and
the Office of
Communications
General Funds
16
The City of Peoria will provide links on the
emergency management webpage for
sources of hazard mitigation educational
materials such as www.fema.gov
encouraging private citizens to be prepared
for hazard emergencies.
All Hazards New Staff time Medium Public awareness On going
Office of
Emergency
Management and
the Office of
Communications
General Funds
17
The City of Peoria will review and assess
building and residential codes currently in
use to determine if newer, more up-to-date
codes are available or required related to
hazard mitigation.
All Hazards New Staff time Medium Plan development On going
Development and
Engineering and
Economic
Development
General Funds
18
The city will continue to promote the Storm
Ready program and the use of weather
radios, especially in schools, hospitals and
other locations where people congregate to
inform them of the approach of severe
weather events.
Flood, Extreme New Staff time Medium Public awareness On going
Office of
Emergency
Management and
the Office of
Communications
General Funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 466
Table 6-8-17: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Peoria
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
19
The City of Peoria working with Flood
Control District of Maricopa County will
continue to analyze and identify dam failure
inundation limits to identify evacuation
routes.
Dam Failure Both Staff Time High Plan development Annual
Public Works,
City Engineering
and Emergency
Management
General funds
20
The City of Peoria will participate/conduct
occasional table top exercises to identify
potential mitigation measures for increasing
response effectiveness, such as evacuation
route marking and permanent protection
measures for intended shelters.
Dam Failure New Staff time Medium Public awareness On going
Office of
Emergency
Management
General Funds
21
The City of Peoria working with the Flood
Control District of Maricopa County will
update the inundation mapping for the
emergency action plan for Lake Pleasant in
order to identify population and critical
facilities and infrastructure at risk, and to
determine the need for potential mitigation.
Dam Failure existing Staff time High
Floodplain
regulations and
public awareness
Annual
The Office of
Emergency
management and
various City
Departments
General funds
22
The City of Peoria will conduct public
education of water conservation best
practices through a variety of media such as
newsletter, flyers, social media and website
notices.
Drought Existing Staff Time High Plan development Annual Public Works
and Office of
Communications
Enterprise funds
23
The City of Peoria encourages the use of
drought resistant landscaping through
ordinance development and/or enforcement. Drought Existing Staff Time High Plan development Annual Public Works
and GIS Enterprise funds
24
The City of Peoria will continue to
develop/update our local Drought
Management Plan to define various levels of
conservation requirements that are based on
drought severity triggers.
Drought Existing Staff Time High Plan development Annual Public Works
and GIS Enterprise funds
25
The City of Peoria as practical will continue
to use reclaimed water to irrigate city owned
landscape or other operations such as our
truck washing station.
Drought Existing Staff Time High Plan development Annual
Public Works,
Community
Services &
Economic
Development
General funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 467
Table 6-8-17: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Peoria
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
26
City of Peoria will continue to identify and
communicate locations within the
community that can serve as cooling stations
during times of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat New Staff time High Public awareness Ongoing
Office of
Emergency
Management and
the Office of
Communications
General Funds
27
Perform a public information campaign at
the onset of the extreme heat season to help
educate the general public on ways to
remain safe during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat New Staff time Medium
Floodplain
regulations and
public awareness
Ongoing
Office of
Emergency
Management and
the Office of
Communications
General Funds
28
The City of Peoria will review, update
and/or augment flood control ordinances to
provide a greater level of protection than the
minimum required by the NFIP.
Flood Existing Staff time Medium
Floodplain
regulations and
public awareness June 2021
Development and
Engineering,
City Admin
Office
General funds
29
Identify and map flood hazards in areas
expected to grow or develop in the
foreseeable future. Flood New Staff time Medium
Floodplain
regulations and
public awareness Ongoing GIS General funds
30
The City of Peoria will continue to
develop/augment a citywide GIS program
that is integrated into Public Works,
Development Services, Police, Fire/Rescue
and Emergency Management to help prevent
development in flood prone regions.
Flood New Staff time Medium Public awareness Ongoing
Office of
Emergency
Management and
various City
Departments
General Funds
31
Perform public outreach to citizens located
within levee failure flood risk areas to
provide awareness of potential increase in
flood elevations with a levee failure.
Levee Failure New Staff time Medium Public awareness Ongoing
The Office of
Emergency
management and
various City
Departments
General funds
32
Encourage homeowners to use tie-down
straps and/or anchors to secure ancillary
buildings and metal awnings or porches to
mitigate the potential for flying debris
during severe wind events.
Severe Wind New Staff time Medium Public awareness Ongoing
The Office of
Emergency
management and
various City
Departments
General funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 468
Table 6-8-17: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Peoria
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
33
Retrofit sub-standard roofs of key critical
facilities and infrastructure to meet modern
building code standards and mitigate
damages and impacts of severe wind events.
Severe Wind New Staff time Medium Plan development Ongoing
Development and
Engineering,
Economic
Development
General funds
34
Include addressing subsidence risk as a
regular part of the land development and
public works projects review and permitting. Subsidence New Staff time Medium Public awareness Ongoing
Public Works,
City
Engineering,
Building Safety
General funds
35
Provide links to the Arizona Department of
Water Resources website as a part of a
public campaign to raise awareness to the
hazards and locations of active subsidence.
Subsidence New Staff time Medium Public awareness Ongoing
Public Works,
City Engineering
& Building
Safety
General funds
36
Establish survey monuments and monitor
elevations in critical or key areas of the
community to measure impacts and trends
of subsidence, with the goal of determining
long term mitigation strategies to reduce the
damage and losses that may yet be
experienced.
Subsidence New Staff time Medium Public awareness Ongoing
Public Works,
City Engineering
& Building
Safety
Grant funding
37
Develop and/or enforce a weed abatement
ordinance. Wildfire New Staff time Medium Plan development
and Public
awareness
Ongoing Code
Enforcement General funds
38
Educate public on proper fuels thinning,
setbacks, and water storage for wildfire
mitigation using Firewise type of programs
and guidance documents.
Wildfire New Staff time Medium Public awareness Ongoing Fire Department General
Funds/grants
39
The Peoria Fire Department will conduct
Fire safety education programs where
appropriate such as Peoria and Deer Valley
Schools as well as other educational facility
and public events such as G.A.I.N. night.
Wildfire New Staff time Medium Public awareness Ongoing Fire Department General
Funds/grants
40
Enact and enforce burn and fireworks bans
as needed during extraordinarily dry and
extreme wildfire conditions / seasons to
mitigate possible, unintended wildfire starts.
Wildfire New Staff time Medium Public awareness Ongoing Fire Department General
Funds/grants
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 469
Table 6-8-18: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Phoenix
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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, Dam
Inundation, Both Staff Time High Staff Training, Plan
Review
Annual-
Ongoing
Public Works /
Floodplain
Manager
General Funds
2
Continue to include in the General Plan
policies that protect the natural flow regime
of washes, designate areas for Open Space
and Preserves, and when fiscally possible
support the use of green stormwater
infrastructure/low impact development to
address multiple risks.
Flood,
Dam
Inundation,
Extreme Heat,
Drought
Both Staff time High
Land acquisition
and natural resource
protection
Annual -
ongoing
Parks and
Recreation /
PPPI
Administrator
Phoenix Parks
Preserves
Initiative;
General Fund;
Bonds
3
Storm Drain CIP Program. Construct
drainage facilities to mitigate flooding
hazard to residents of the city.
Flood, Levee
Failure Both Variable High
Staff Training, Plan
Review, Design and
Construction
Ongoing
Street
Transportation
Department/
Deputy Street
Transportation
Director
Bonds/Impact
Fees
4
Coordinate review and approval of
development projects located within flood
hazard areas with PDD and Floodplain
Management.
Flood,
Extreme Heat Both Staff time High GIS Annual -
ongoing
Planning and
Development
Department /
Planning
Researcher
Enterprise
5
Summer Respite regional program to
network with faith-based organizations to
provide heat relief, hydration and respite
with wellness checks. Program services are
provided for the affected populations.
Extreme Heat N/A - people
Donations
totaling
$70,000
annually
High Heat Relief
Network
Annual -
ongoing
Human
Services/Family
Advocacy
Director
Corporate,
Community, and
faith-based
contributions
6
Maintain and execute the Drought Response
Plan (Revision in Draft - No Ordinance
Change)
Drought Both Staff Time Medium
Master Plan Update
and Water Resource
Plan Update
Ongoing Water WSD Operating
Budget
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 470
Table 6-8-18: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Phoenix
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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 Maintain and execute a water use awareness
outreach program. Drought Both Staff Time Medium
Master Plan Update,
Water Resource
Plan Update,
Drought Response
Plan
Ongoing Water WSD Operating
Budget
8 Revise and ratify the General Plan every ten
years. Flood Both Staff time Medium
State statute;
Smart Growth
Requirement
Ongoing
Planning and
Development
Department/
Planning
Manager
General Fund
9 Update and adopt a revised building code.
Flood,
Severe Wind,
Excessive
Heat
Both Staff time;
Materials Medium
Staff training;
Community
Outreach;
Plan review
Annual -
ongoing
Planning and
Development
Department /
Assistant
Director
Permit fees
10
Continue to ensure zoning stipulations are
met before construction permits are issued,
and zoning is compatible with the zoning
ordinance.
Flood,
Excessive
Heat
Both Staff time Medium
Zoning
Ordinance;
Staff training;
Plan review
Annual -
ongoing
Planning and
Development
Department /
Deputy Director
Permit fees
11
Dam/Levee Safety Program – Operate and
Maintain Dams/Levees to mitigate flooding
hazard to the residents of the city.
Flood, Dam
Inundation,
Levee Failure
Both
Staff
Time,
Materials
Medium Staff Training, Plan
Review
Annual -
Ongoing
Street
Transportation
Department /
Deputy Street
Transportation
Director
General Funds
12
Continue to provide links on the
Phoenix.gov/Office of Emergency
Management website to sources of hazard
mitigation educational materials such as
FEMA.gov and Ready.gov
Dam
Inundation,
Drought, Flood,
Severe Wind,
Wildfire
Both Staff Time Medium N/A Annual -
ongoing
Office of
Homeland
Security and
Emergency
Management,
City of Phoenix
IT
General Funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 471
Table 6-8-18: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Phoenix
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
13
Continue to adhere to the City of Phoenix
Building Standards and Review Process,
which are regularly updated. The Building
and Review Process requires site
assessment for presence of, among other
conditions, subsidence and fissures.
Subsidence,
Fissure Both Staff Time Medium
Staff Training, Plan
Review, Design and
Construction
Annual -
ongoing
Street
Transportation
Department:
Design and
Construction
Management
General Funds
14
Enforce City Ordinance 39-7D, which
addresses overgrown vegetation, dead trees,
brush and weeds or other conditions that
present a health, fire or safety hazard.
Wildfire Both Staff Time Medium
Staff Training,
Zoning Ordinance
with Neighborhood
Preservation
Ordinance
Annual –
Ongoing
Neighborhood
Services
Department:
Deputy Director,
Preservation
Division
General Funds,
Community
Development
Block Grant
15
Coordinate with private companies and
public agencies to study and map
subsidence and fissure activity in critical or
key areas of the community so that effective
mitigation or avoidance strategies can be
implemented.
Subsidence,
Fissure Both Staff Time Low
Staff Training, Plan
Review, Design and
Construction
Annual -
ongoing
Street
Transportation
Department:
Design and
Construction
Management
General Funds
16
Design and construct Rio Salado Oeste in
Salt River (19th Ave-83rd Ave), including
low flow channel improvements and
riparian/xeri-riparian vegetation to improve
flow conveyance and increase native
vegetation/habitat.
Flooding and
extreme heat Both
Staff time,
design and
constructio
n expenses
High
Rio Reimagined,
land acquisition,
design and
construction
2030
Parks and
Recreation
Department/Natu
ral Resource
Division Deputy
Director
TBD;
anticipated
USACE Civil
Works project
funds and local
city match
17
The “Take a Hike do it Right” Outreach
Program aims to educate the general public,
including visitors and resort/hotel staff, on
hike/trail selection and hiking safety to
avoid heat related illnesses.
Extreme heat Both Staff time High
Reincorporate
original marketing
strategies and
enhance effort to
wider audience
On going
Parks and
Recreation
Department/Natu
ral Resource
Division Deputy
Director
TDB: Grants
and possible
funding from
tourism related
sources
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 472
Table 6-8-18: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Phoenix
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
18
Provide shade coverage at all City of
Phoenix Bus Stops to shelter riders from
excessive sunlight and extreme heat. Of the
4050 bus stops in Phoenix, 1500 of them
still require shading structure. The T2050
plan will also implement a new bus shelter
design to improve shading options for
mitigating heat/sun issues for west-facing
bus stops.
Extreme Heat Both
$20M
(additional
$1M per
year for
maintenan
ce and
repair)
High
Public Transit
Department's T2050
Plan
2025
Public Transit
Department/Facil
ities Deputy
Director
T2050
19
Increase frequency of bus routes around
vulnerable communities (highest ridership,
low income, minority) to minimize
exposure to extreme heat while waiting for
public transit.
Extreme Heat Both
$270M for
Operating
Service;
$55M for
the
additional
buses and
replaceme
nt buses
High
Public Transit
Department's T2050
Plan
2025
Public Transit
Department/Facil
ities Deputy
Director
T2050
20
Implement a notification system for
Downtown Phoenix businesses to raise
hazard awareness and provide advanced
warning of potential threats in the area.
All Hazards Both
TBD, plan
to put out
RFP Q2
2021
High
Downtown Phoenix
Business Master
Plan
2022
Downtown
Phoenix
Partnership/
Strategy and
Community
Affairs
TBD
Table 6-8-19: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Queen Creek
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Ongoing
Development
Services/
Floodplain
Administrator
General Fund
Permit Fees
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 473
Table 6-8-19: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Queen Creek
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
2
Annually coordinate with county to obtain
updates on any changes in dam safety
conditions and emergency action plans.
Dam
Inundation Both Staff time Low
Emergency Action
Plan for Powerline,
Vineyard Road &
Rittenhouse FRS
Ongoing
Fire & Medical
Dept./Emergency
Mgnt. Coord.
Emergency
Services Fund
3
Educate and inform residents about dam
safety through the Town’s website and links
to the Flood Control District of Maricopa
County.
Dam
Inundation Both Staff time Medium N/A Ongoing
Fire & Medical
Dept./Emergency
Mgnt. Coord.
Emergency
Services Fund
4
Educate and inform residents about water
conservation through newsletters, social
media, inserts, new customer packets, water
wise workshops, high use notifications,
regularly scheduled meter change outs and
the Town’s website.
Drought Both Staff time Medium
ADEQ Required
Best Management
Practices (BMPs)
Ongoing
Utilities Services
Dept./Water
Conservation
Spec.
Utilities
Services Fund
5 Maintain the Town’s Integrated Emergency
and Drought Response Plan (ERDP). Drought Both Staff time High
Integrated
Emergency and
Drought Response
Plan (ERDP)
Ongoing
Utilities Services
Dept./Water
Division
Utilities
Services Fund
6
Educate and inform residents about extreme
heat through newsletters, social media,
inserts and/or the Town’s website.
Extreme Heat Both Staff time Medium N/A Ongoing
Fire & Medical
Dept./Emergency
Mgnt. Coord.
Emergency
Services Fund
7
Incorporate respite care and hydration
stations into the CERT Shelter Management
Continuing Education (CE) Program
Extreme Heat Both Staff time Low
CERT Continuing
Education (CE)
Program
Ongoing
Fire & Medical
Dept./Emergency
Mgnt. Coord.
Emergency
Services Fund
8
Educate and inform residents about fissures
through the Town’s website and links to the
Arizona Geologic Service website.
Fissure Both Staff time Low N/A Ongoing Development
Services Dept. General Fund
9
Reviews permit submittals for proximity to
Earth Fissure Map that may require
additional geological report.
Fissure
Subsidence New Staff time Medium
Staff Training
Earth Fissure Map
of the Chandler
Heights Study Area
Ongoing
Development
Services
Dept./Engineering
General Fund
Permit Fees
10
Install backup generators with the
construction of Fire Station 412 and Fire
Station 415.
Severe Wind New TBD High CIP/Design-Build
project FY23
Fire & Medical
Dept./Deputy Fire
Chief (Resources)
TBD for FY22
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 474
Table 6-8-19: Summary of mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Queen Creek
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
11
Identify opportunities to underground 12Kv
power lines to mitigate power failures
caused by severe wind events.
Severe Wind Existing TBD Medium CIP Ongoing
Public Works CIP
Division/CIP
Project Manager
SRP Aesthetic
Funds
General Fund
12
Encourage fire buffer zones around the
north face of the San Tan Mountains to
prevent entry into the Box Canyon Area.
Wildfire Both Staff time Medium
Maricopa County
Community
Wildfire Protection
Plan
Ongoing Fire & Medical
Department
Emergency
Services Fund
13 Preform annual fuel thinning in the Queen
Creek and Sonoqui Washes. Wildfire Both Staff time Medium N/A Ongoing
Public Works
Grounds
Division/Grounds
Superintendent
General Fund
Table 6-8-20: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Community Relations in coordination with
Emergency Management to conduct public
outreach/education on all hazards mitigation
and emergency preparedness for community
members. Community members that are
educated on what to do before and during a
disaster will reduce the loss of life and
property in a disaster.
All Hazards Both Staff Time High TERC Ongoing
Emergency
Management/
Community
Relations Office
General Fund
2
Replace existing Health and Human
Services building with a newly designed
building to be named River People Health
Center to mitigate flooding of old building
Flood Both $98.4
million High CIP 2025 ECS/ Construction
Division Title 5 / CIP
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 475
Table 6-8-20: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
3
Conduct Master Drainage Study north of
Arizona Canal to reduce flooding and
develop water retention restore methods.
Flood
Drought
Subsidence
Both $875,000 High CIP 2025 ECS/Design
Division CIP
4
Conduct Fuel reduction project of light fuels
in river bottom and community recreation
areas to minimize the rapid spread of fire in
this area.
Wildfire Existing $80,000 High Fire Management
Plan Ongoing ECS/ Construction
Division General Fund
5
Participate/conduct occasional table top
exercises to identify potential mitigation
measures for increasing response
effectiveness, such as evacuation route
marking and permanent protection measures
for intended shelters.
Dam Failure Both Staff Time High EMPG Work Plan 2025
Emergency
Management/
Emergency
Manager
EMPG Grant
6
Annually coordinate with federal, state, and
local dam owners to get updates on any
changes in dam safety conditions and
emergency action plan information so that
they can be integrated into SRPMIC
response plans.
Dam Failure Both Staff Time High Federal Dam Safety
Inspection Program 2025 Public Works/
Assistant Director General Fund
7
Implement a water harvesting program
through the location, design and
construction of dual functioning stormwater
retention facilities with enhanced recharge
elements designed into the basin.
Drought
Flood
Subsidence
Both $50,000 Medium General Plan 2025 ECS/
Design Division CIP
8
Encourage homeowners to use tie-down
straps and/or anchors to secure ancillary
buildings and metal awnings or porches to
mitigate the potential for flying debris
during severe wind events.
Severe Wind Both Staff Time Medium Code of Ordinance 2025 Public Works/
ECS General Fund
9
Maintain inventory, train response staff and
continue communications on the locations
within the community that serve as cooling
stations and shelters during times of extreme
heat.
Extreme Heat Existing Staff Time Medium EMPG Work Plan Ongoing
Emergency
Management/
Emergency
Manager
EMPG Grant /
General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 476
Table 6-8-20: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
10
Perform a public information campaign at
the onset of the extreme heat season to help
educate the general public on ways to
remain safe during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat Existing Staff Time Medium TERC Ongoing
Emergency
Management/
Community
Relations Office
General Fund
11
Improve redundant communication systems
through expansion of the current system for
the Public Safety community.
All Hazards Both $15,000 Medium IT Plan 2025 Information
Technology General Fund
12
Improve communications infrastructure
through tower installs for partners within the
Tribal community.
All Hazards Both $140,000 Medium IT Plan 2021 Information
Technology CIP
13
Perform a public information campaign at
the onset of severe winds created during
monsoon seasons to help educate the general
public on ways to remain safe from impacts
related to the identified hazard.
Severe Wind Both Staff Time Low EM Programmatic
Initiative 2025
Emergency
Management /
Community
Relations Office
General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 477
Table 6-8-21: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Scottsdale
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
GRANITE REEF WATERSHED PHASE 2
FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION
PROJECT: Construct channel
improvements, storm drain improvements,
and stormwater storage basins to provide
100-year flood protection for hundreds of
structures in the vicinity of Granite Reef
Road between the Arizona Canal and the
Salt River, then remap the floodplain to
reflect these improvements, saving an
estimated $1 million in flood insurance
premiums annually.
Flood Existing $51,055,600 High
Drainage and Flood
Control Capital
Improvement Plan
and Granite Reef
Watershed Phase 2
Plan
June 30, 2026
Stormwater
Management and
Capital Project
Management
Bond 2000 +
Stormwater Fees
+ FCDMC +
SRPMIC
2
RAWHIDE WASH FLOOD HAZARD
MITIGATION PROJECT: Raise and/or
strengthen existing floodwalls, improve
scour protection for existing floodwalls,
construct new floodwalls, including scour
protection, and construct flood gates, from
1/3 mile north of Happy Valley Road to
Pinnacle Peak Road, to provide 100-year
flood protection for 850 properties in
Scottsdale, then remap floodplain to reflect
these improvements, saving an estimated
$500,000 in flood insurance premiums in
Scottsdale annually. Project also provides
benefits to Phoenix by reducing drainage
infrastructure costs downstream.
Flood Existing $16,000,000 High
Drainage and Flood
Control Capital
Improvement Plan,
Pinnacle Peak West
Area Drainage
Master Study/Plan,
and Rawhide Wash
Alternatives
Analysis
December 31,
2024
Stormwater
Management and
FCDMC
Stormwater Fees
+ FCDMC +
City of Phoenix
3
REATA WASH FLOOD CONTROL
PROJECT: Construct channel and levee
improvements from Pinnacle Peak Road to
WestWorld, to provide 100-year flood
protection for 4600 properties, then remap
floodplain to reflect these improvements,
saving nearly $3 million in flood insurance
premiums annually.
Flood Existing and
New $35,000,000 High
Drainage and Flood
Control Capital
Improvement Plan,
Pinnacle Peak
South Area
Drainage Master
Study, and Reata
Wash Flood Control
Plan
June 30, 2026
Stormwater
Management and
Capital Project
Management
Stormwater Fees
+ FCDMC
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 478
Table 6-8-21: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Scottsdale
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
4
PIMA ROAD DRAINAGE CHANNEL:
Construct a drainage channel on the east
side of Pima Road from Happy Valley Road
to Pinnacle Peak Road to provide 100-year
flood protection to 56 structures and reduce
the frequency and severity of flooding for an
additional 73 structures.
Flood Existing $8,500,000 High
Drainage and Flood
Control Capital
Improvement Plan
December 31,
2022
Stormwater
Management and
Capital Project
Management
Stormwater Fees
+ FCDMC
5
Continue expanding our WebEOC software
system to track incidents and resources in
the event of an emergency.
All Hazards Existing Staff Time High None Ongoing Fire Department General Fund
6
Promote the use of various cellphone
warning systems and, weather radios,
especially in schools, hospitals, and other
locations where people congregate to inform
them of the approach of severe weather
events.
Dam
Inundation,
Extreme
Heat, Flood,
Levee
Failure,
Severe Wind
Existing Staff Time High None Ongoing Fire Department General Fund
7
Perform a public information campaign at
the onset of the extreme heat season to help
educate the public on ways to remain safe
during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat Existing Staff Time High
Community
Emergency
Response Team
(CERT) program.
Ongoing Fire Department General Fund
8
Identify, stock, and communicate locations
within the community that can serve as
cooling stations during times of extreme
heat.
Extreme Heat Existing Staff Time High
Community
Emergency
Response Team
(CERT) program.
Ongoing Fire Department General Fund
9
Review and evaluate current weed control
ordinance to ensure adequate provisions are
in place to protect properties along the wild
land urban interface.
Wildfire Existing Staff Time High Weed Control
Ordinance Ongoing Fire Department General Fund
10
Encourage fire buffer zones along wild land
urban interface areas to mitigate damages
due to wildfire.
Wildfire Existing Staff Time High None Ongoing Fire Department General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 479
Table 6-8-21: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Scottsdale
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
11
Perform Hazardous Material Response
Team & Fire Code Inspection on
occupancies with Hazardous Materials to
ensure safe storage and use of those
HAZMATS.
Hazardous
Materials Existing Staff Time High None Ongoing Fire Department General Fund
12
Develop partnerships to locate and operate
hydration stations during extreme heat
events to reduce the risk to Scottsdale
citizens.
Drought Existing Staff Time High Drought
Management Plan Ongoing Fire Department General Fund
13
Review/Update the city’s Drought
Management Plan’s conservation
requirements to evaluate drought severity
triggers and their enforcement.
Drought Existing Staff Time High Drought
Management Plan Ongoing Fire Department General Fund
14
Use newsletters, flyers, utility bill inserts,
website notices, radio and television
announcements, social media and newspaper
articles to educate the public about hazards
impacting the county and city, and how to
be prepared in the case of a disaster event.
All Hazards Existing Staff Time High None Ongoing Fire Department General Fund
15 Update Flood Insurance Rate Maps as
necessary. Flood Existing and
New
Staff Time +
Variable Costs
for
Consultants
Medium
Stormwater
and
Floodplain
Management
Ordinance,
NFIP
regulations,
and Area
Drainage
Master Studies
Ongoing Stormwater
Management
Stormwater
Storage In-Lieu
Fees + FCDMC
16
ROOSEVELT DRIVE STORM DRAIN:
Construct a storm drain system to reduce
structural flood hazards for nearly 100
properties in Scottsdale and Tempe.
Flood Existing $7,520,000 Medium
Drainage and Flood
Control Capital
Improvement Plan
June 30, 2026
Stormwater
Management and
FCDMC
Stormwater Fees
+ FCDMC +
City of Tempe
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 480
Table 6-8-21: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Scottsdale
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
17
CROSSROADS EAST PHASE 2
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: Construct
a drainage channel along the east side of
Pima Road from just north of Hualapai
Drive to Legacy Blvd., then west to the
Loop 101 Detention Basin.
Flood Existing and
New $8,800,000 Medium
Drainage and Flood
Control Capital
Improvement Plan
and Crossroads East
Drainage Master
Plan
June 30, 2027
Stormwater
Management and
Capital Project
Management
Stormwater Fees
18 Prepare a Stormwater Master Plan. Flood Existing and
New $1,200,000 Medium N/A June 30, 2029 Stormwater
Management
General Fund
and possibly
FCDMC
19
Prepare a Floodplain Management Plan
consistent with the requirements of the
Community Rating System, which may
result in lower flood insurance premiums
city-wide.
Flood Existing and
New $100,000 Medium N/A June 30, 2027 Stormwater
Management
Stormwater
Storage In-Lieu
Fees and FEMA
20
Include addressing subsidence and fissure
risk as a regular part of the land
development and public works projects
review and permitting.
Fissure,
Subsidence Both Staff Time Low Development
Review Ongoing
Planning and
Development
Services and
Public Works
General Fund
21
Coordinate with state and federal agencies
(USGS, AZGS, ADWR, etc.) to study and
map fissure activity in critical or key areas
of the community so that effective
mitigation or avoidance strategies can be
implemented.
Fissure,
Subsidence Both Staff Time Low None Ongoing
Planning and
Development
Services and
Public Works
General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 481
Table 6-8-22: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Surprise
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Continue to collaborate with Maricopa
County Flood Control District, neighboring
cities, state, and local agencies to educate
and encourage participation in the Wittmann
Area Drainage Master Study to identify
flood and drainage hazards within the
designated study area, which includes a
portion of northwest Surprise. Surprise will
help promote study related meetings and
share outreach materials with residents and
businesses to encourage participation
through press releases, website posts, social
media posts, and presentations at public
meetings (city council, board of supervisors,
study, etc.)
Flood Both Staff Time High
Wittmann Area
Drainage Master
Study
Ongoing
Marketing and
Communications
Department –
PIO, Public
Works, and
Water Resource
Management
Department
General Capital
2
Develop program and coordinate actions
with FCDMC to access, mitigate, upgrade
and redesign flood facilities.
Flood Both Staff Time High N/A Annually Public Works/
City Engineer General Capital
3
Public education of water conservation best
practices through newsletter, flyers, social
media and website notices.
Drought Both $25,000 High
Integrated Water
Master Plan;
Drought Plan
Annually
Ongoing
Water Resource
Management/Dir
ector
Water Enterprise
4
Develop a local Drought Management Plan
to define various levels of conservation
requirement that are based on drought
severity triggers and integrate with the City
of Surprise Integrated Water Master Plan
identifies numerous action plans in the event
that we have drought conditions.
Drought Both $50,000 High
COS Integrated
Water Master Plan;
Drought Plan
Ongoing
Water Resource
Management/Dir
ector
Water Enterprise
5 Enforce City ordinances governing the
improvements within a floodplain. Flood New Staff Time High
Engineering
Development
Standards & Muni.
Code
Ongoing
Public
Works/City
Engineer &
Building Official
General Capital
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 482
Table 6-8-22: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Surprise
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
6
Reduce the risk of fires to communities
within wildland-interface zones by
participating in the development of a
community wildfire protection plan.
Wildfire Both $150,000 Medium Fire Master Plan &
5-yr CIP July 2021
Fire Department/
Administrative
Chief
General Capital
7
Develop program that identifies bridge and
culvert construction in flood susceptible
areas
Flood Both $250,000 Medium 5-yr CIP July 2025 Public Works/
City Engineer General Capital
8
Research and identify available funding
sources for pre-disaster hazard mitigation
actions and projects.
All Hazards Both Staff Time Medium Council Strategic
Plan Ongoing
Public Works/
City Engineer
Fire Department
General Capital
9
Facilitate appropriate wildfire fuel reduction
through prioritization of hazardous fuel
management areas (FMA) to assist land
managers and fire departments in focusing
future efforts towards the areas of highest
concern from both an ecological and fuel
management perspective.
Wildfire Both $25,000 Medium Fire Master Plan Annually
Fire Department/
Administrative
Chief
General Capital
10
Promote wildfire awareness and education
in the community through the use of
website, social media, and printed materials.
Awareness combined with education helps
to reduce the risk of accidental human
ignitions.
Wildfire Both Staff Time Medium Fire Master Plan Annually
Fire Department/
Administrative
Chief
City Marketing
and
Communications
Department -
PIO
General Capital
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 483
Table 6-8-22: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Surprise
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
11
Enhance the capabilities of the fire
departments by providing a foundation for
pre-attack planning. Rapidly and easily
accessing individual home pre-plans and
district infrastructure adds efficiency and
safety to fire department response and
prescribed fire planning.
Wildfire New Staff Time Medium Fire Master Plan Annually
Fire Department/
Administrative
Chief & Fire
Marshal
City Marketing
and
Communications
Department -
PIO
General Capital
12
Ensure that City Staff, residences,
businesses and visitors have access to the
McMicken Dam Emergency Action Plan.
This plan was prepared in December 2013
by the Flood Control District of Maricopa
County. This plan is available on the City’s
website.
Dam
Inundation Both Staff Time Medium Fire Master Plan Annually/
Ongoing
Emergency
Manage
City Engineer
City Marketing
and
Communications
Department -
PIO
General Capital
13 Participate in the McMicken Dam
Rehabilitation study and construction.
Dam
Inundation Both Staff Time Medium General Plan Annually
Ongoing
Public
Works/City
Engineer
Flood Control
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 484
Table 6-8-22: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Surprise
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
14
Identify, stock, and communicate locations
within the community that can serve as
cooling stations during times of extreme
heat.
Extreme Heat Both $15,000 Medium 5-year CIP Ongoing/
Annually
Fire Department/
Administrative
Chief
City Human
Service and
Community
Vitality
Department
City Manager’s
Office -
Emergency
Manager
City Marketing
and
Communications
Department -
PIO
General Capital
15
Review and update stormwater management
plan that will analyze and identify problem
flooding areas and propose long-term
mitigation alternatives designed to reduce or
eliminate the flood problems.
Flood Both $50,000 Medium Stormwater
Management Plan
Ongoing/
Annually
Water Resource
Management/Dir
ector
Water Enterprise
16
Participate in occasional tabletop exercises
to identify potential mitigation measures for
increasing response effectiveness, such as
evacuation route marking and permanent
protection measures for intended shelters.
Dam
Inundation Both Staff Time Low Fire Master Plan Annually/
Ongoing
Fire Department/
Administrative
Chief
General Capital
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 485
Table 6-8-22: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Surprise
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
17
Perform a public campaign at the onset of
the extreme heat season to help educate the
general public on ways to remain safe
during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme Heat Both Staff Time Low Fire Master Plan Ongoing/
Annually
Fire Department/
Administrative
Chief
City Human
Service and
Community
Vitality
Department
City Manager’s
Office -
Emergency
Manager
City Marketing
and
Communications
Department - PIO
General Capital
18
Work with Flood Control District of
Maricopa County to review, update, and/or
augment flood control ordinances to provide
a greater level of protection than the
minimum required by the NFIP.
Flood Both Staff Time Low
Engineering
Development
Standards
Ongoing/
Annually
Public
Works/City
Engineer
General Capital
19
Review existing City owned buildings,
evaluate any substandard construction issues
and implement repair and upgrade plan to
mitigate future wind damage.
Severe Wind Existing Staff Time Low
City Facility
Standards and
Guidelines
Ongoing
Public
Works/City
Engineer
General Capital
20
Encourage homeowners to use tie-down
straps and/or anchors to secure ancillary
buildings and metal awnings or porches to
mitigate the potential for flying debris
during severe wind events.
Severe Wind Both Staff Time Low International
Building Codes Ongoing Community
Development/ General Capital
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 486
Table 6-8-22: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Surprise
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
21
The City of Surprise will continue to
inventory and monitor all of the known
fissures within the current and future city
boundary. These fissures will be surveyed
on a regular basis to monitor for change.
Areas with active fissures have been
identified in the General Plan as regional,
natural, open space areas for passive
recreation.
Fissure Both Staff Time Low COS General Plan;
Benchmark Study Ongoing
Public
Works/City
Engineer & Land
Surveyor
General Capital
22
Cooperate with the Flood Control District of
Maricopa County in the monitoring of
fissures and subsidence impacting
McMicken Dam and coordinate in any
required updates to the McMicken Dam
Emergency Action plan, wherein the earth
fissures and subsidence concerns are
discussed in great detail.
Dam
Inundation;
Fissure;
Subsidence
Both Staff Time Low
McMicken Dam
Emergency Action
Plan
Ongoing
Public
Works/City
Engineer & Land
Surveyor
General Capital
23
The City of Surprise will continue to
monitor subsistence with the placement of
benchmarks at all of the City owned well
sites. Subsidence due to groundwater
pumping will continue to be monitored on
an annual basis.
Subsidence Both Staff Time Low
Geodetic Survey
Control Map/
Database
Ongoing
Public
Works/City
Engineer & Land
Surveyor
General Capital
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 487
Table 6-8-23: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tempe
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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 Building Code Ongoing
Community
Development and Public
Works Engineering/
Deputy Director and
Principal Civil Engineer
General
Fund
2 Maintain Emergency Management Plan All
Hazards Both Staff Time High
City Wide
Emergency
Operations Plan
Annual Tempe Fire / Assistant
Chief
General
Fund
3
Maintain Hazardous Materials Response
Team and First Responder Training and
conduct Fire Code Inspections on
Occupancies with hazardous materials.
All
Hazards Both Staff Time City
Resources High N/A Ongoing
Tempe Fire / Assistant
Chief & Public Works /
Hazardous Waste
Compliance Supervisor
General
Fund
4
Utilization of Tempe Social Media
platforms to educate the general public
about the hazards of extreme heat, including
Facebook and Twitter releases, and updates
to the city website.
Extreme
Heat Both Staff time High N/A Ongoing /
Seasonal
City manager’s office /
public Information
Officer
General
fund
5
Provide continued maintenance and exercise
of early warning sirens in select strategic
locations as a part of a comprehensive
emergency notification system to inform
citizens of impending hazards such as dam
failure, severe weather conditions, and
severe wind events.
Dam
Failure,
Flood,
Severe
Wind
Both $5K/yr High N/A Yearly PW/WU General
Fund
6
Water Utilities Division will continue to
operate municipal water wells to maintain
compliance with ADWR Active
Management Area requirements to mitigate
drawdown related issues caused by over
pumping of groundwater, including
subsidence.
Subsidence Both Staff time High Water Resources
Master Plan Ongoing
Public Works – Water
Utilities / Water
Resources Manager
Water
Enterprise
7
Stormwater Outfall Inspection –activities for
both condition and capacity of outfall
locations to regional waterways.
Flooding Both $150,000 / Staff
Time High N/A Ongoing
Public Works –
Engineering and Water /
Principal. Civil
Engineer/ Env.
Compliance Supv.
Water
Enterprise
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 488
Table 6-8-23: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tempe
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
8
Develop a water infrastructure master plan
which discusses water resources and
identifies vulnerabilities to long-term water
supply. This plan will determine what
additional water resources may be available
(CAP / Reclaimed / Adjudication) to offset
long-term shortage.
Drought Both $1,5000,000 High Water Infrastructure
Master Plan Q1 2022
Public Works – Water
Utilities / Principal
Engineer
Water
Enterprise
9
Transit shelters constructed in areas with
high ridership, heat islands and/or higher
poverty levels in order to address heat
vulnerability.
Extreme
Heat Both $22,000 per
shelter High
Capital
Improvement Plan
and Transportation
Plan
Ongoing
Engineering and
Transportation
Equity and Inclusion
Manager
Sustainability
General
Fund and
HURF
10
Create regional cooling utility that pays for
urban forestry, cool material and green
infrastructure across Maricopa County
Extreme
Heat Both $100,000,000
per year High Climate Action Plan
Update Ongoing
Sustainability
Intergovernmental
Officer
Regional
tax
(proposed
)
11
Maintain a regional resilience collaborative
to develop resilience to extreme heat
solution
Extreme
Heat Both $100,000 a year High Climate Action Plan
Update Ongoing
Sustainability
Intergovernmental
Officer
Grants
12
Create a regional extreme heat and racial
equity task force to address the impacts of
extreme heat on communities of color.
Extreme
Heat Both $50,000 a year High Climate Action Plan
Update Ongoing
Sustainability
Equity and Inclusion
Manager
Emergency Manager
Grants
13
IGCC adoption w/ shade and cool material
additions that ensure new buildings are more
resilient to extreme heat
Extreme
Heat New $100,000
annually High Climate Action Plan 2025 Community Services General
Fund
14
Implementation of Urban Forestry Master
Plan to support trees and shade in public and
private landscapes
Extreme
Heat Both $4,000,000 High Urban Forestry
Master Plan Ongoing Community Services-
Parks and Recreation
General
Fund
15
Adoption of Green infrastructure standards
that promote widespread use of bioswales,
curb cuts and other stormwater capture
technologies in line with the City of Tucson,
which also developed a Green Infrastructure
Fund to support projects that follow their
standards.
Extreme
Heat Both $100,000 High Climate Action Plan Ongoing
Engineering and
Transportation Civil
Engineer
Community
Development
Sustainability
General
Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 489
Table 6-8-23: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tempe
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
16 Provide door-to-door energy assistance,
weatherization, and energy savings training.
Extreme
Heat Both $200,000 High Climate Action Plan Ongoing
Human Services
Sustainability
Engineering and
Transportation
General
Fund
17
Investment in microgrids/solar/local storage
in order to provide energy resilience during
outages and extreme heat events.
Extreme
Heat Both
$2,000,000 per
solar and
battery
investment
High Climate Action Plan Ongoing
Transportation and
Engineering
Energy Coordinator
Sustainability
General
fund
18
Retrofit public buildings and private
residences to improve energy efficiency and
air conditioning in order to provide heat
relief .
Extreme
Heat Both
$200,000 per
public building
and $20,000 per
residential
building
High Water Resources
Master Plan Ongoing
Public Works – Water
Utilities / Water
Resources Manager
Water
Enterprise
19
Develop and operate Resilience hubs and/or
ENVISION hubs to provide community
resilience opportunities for all Tempe
residents. Some of these buildings will be in
city buildings and some will be community
operated in privately owned buildings.
Extreme
Heat Both $500,000 High Climate Action Plan
First one in
2022 and then
ongoing
Human Services
Emergency Manger
Sustainability
Grants
and
General
Fund
20
Develop Extreme Heat Action Plan that
includes mapping/lists of vulnerable
residents, language capabilities, policy
assessment + review to ensure prioritization.
Extreme
Heat Both $800,000 High
Climate Action Plan
and Right to
Breathe
Ongoing Sustainability
Emergency Manager Grants
21
Develop Climate Youth Councils in the
Cool Kids program and build a culture of
youth-driven, indigenous informed and arts-
enhanced urban cooling.
Extreme
Heat Both $50,000 High Climate Action Plan Ongoing
Sustainability
Emergency Manager
Community Services
Human Services
Grants
22
Research into cool materials efficacy –
feasibility study/pilot testing + technical
assistance/scenario analysis.
Extreme
Heat Both $600,000 High Climate Action Plan Ongoing
Engineering and
Transportation
Sustainability
Grants
and
General
Fund
23
Conduct policy work to ensure city and its
residents receive federal and state resources,
including LIHEAP and energy block grants.
Include technical assistance to document
impacts of policy, burden, level of need so
non-profits and advocates have data to
advocate for resources.
Extreme
Heat Both $100,000 High Climate Action Plan Ongoing
Sustainability
Intergovernmental
Officer
Strategic Management
and Diversity
General
Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 490
Table 6-8-23: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tempe
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
24 Staff training for heat safety. Extreme
Heat Both $50,000 High N/A Ongoing
Risk Management
Sustainability
Emergency Manager
Grants
25
The City of Tempe Water Utilities Division
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
diversify 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.
Drought Both Staff Time Medium
Water Utilities
Business Plan /
Water Resources
Master Plan
Ongoing
Water Utilities Division
/ Water Resources
Manager
Water
Enterprise
26
Work with the Flood Control District of
Maricopa to maintain and monitor the levee
protection along the Salt River.
Flood,
Levee
Failure
Both Staff Time Medium N/A Ongoing
FCDMC with Tempe
Public Works -
Engineering / Principal
Civil Engineer
Outside
agencies /
General
fund
27
Miscellaneous Flood Control and Storm
Drainage Projects to improve drainage and
reduce flooding potential in various
locations.
Flood Both Staff Time Medium N/A Ongoing
Public Works -
Engineering / Principal.
Civil Engineer
General
Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 491
Table 6-8-23: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tempe
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
28 Maintain CERT Program All
Hazards Both 4000 Medium N/A Ongoing Fire Department Grants
29
Indian Bend Wash Levee Repairs – perform
repairs identified during the last annual
inspection on the levees bounding Indian
Bend Wash to mitigate failure with the
owner the FCDMC.
Flooding,
Levee
Failure
Existing Staff Time Medium N/A Ongoing
Public Works -
Engineering and Field
Operations/ Principal.
Civil Engineer and
Parks Manager
General
Fund
30
Ongoing project work in cooperation with
ADOT to identify and mitigate flooding
related to freeway systems.
Flooding Existing Unknown Medium N/A Ongoing
Public Works -
Engineering / Principal.
Civil Engineer
General
Fund
31
Continued maintenance of Tempe Town
Lake dam and flow control structures per
ADWR and other agency guidelines / best
practices.
Dam
Inundation Both Unknown Medium O&M Plan Ongoing
Public Works -
Engineering sr. Civil
Engineer
General
Fund
32
Use the TFMR Newsletter to inform
homeowners to use tie-down straps and/or
anchors to secure ancillary buildings and
metal awnings or porches to mitigate
damages and impacts of severe wind events.
Severe
Wind Both Staff Time Medium TFMR Quarterly
Newsletter Yearly Emergency Manager General
Fund
33
Provide Links to the Arizona Department of
Water Resources website as part of a public
campaign to raise awareness to hazards and
locations of active subsidence
Subsidence Both Staff Time Medium
City of Tempe
Website-Emergency
Preparedness
Section
Yearly Emergency Manager General
Fund
34
Create heat data monitoring for indoor heat
monitoring and special events (WiFi, sensor
system, deploy).
Extreme
Heat Both $50,000 Medium Climate Action Plan Ongoing
Sustainability
Information Technology
Human Services
Community Services
Grants
35
Maintain databases and inventories and
regularly conduct impact assessments on
how extreme heat is affecting operations.
Extreme
Heat Both $200,000 Medium Climate Action Plan Ongoing Sustainability
Information Technology
General
Fund
36
Perform coordination with faith-based
organizations to develop cooperative
strategies to minimizing the impacts of
extreme heat.
Extreme
Heat Both $50,000 Medium N/A Ongoing
Sustainability
Emergency Manager
Human Services
N/A
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 492
Table 6-8-23: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tempe
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
37
Mountain rescue equipment – PPE for
personnel (cool clothing) for first responders
that conduct rescues in the extreme heat.
Extreme
Heat Both $10,000,000 Medium TFMR Quarterly
Newsletter Yearly Emergency Manager General
Fund
38
Develop and maintain cooling center(s)
across the city to provide refuge areas for
heat relief.
Extreme
Heat Both $100,000 Medium
City of Tempe
Website-Emergency
Preparedness
Section
Yearly Emergency Manager General
Fund
39
Investments in hub or islands that allow for
a systems of refuge areas that include Cool
parks/park islands/right of way that are
densely shaded.
Extreme
Heat Both $20,000,000 Medium
Parks and
Recreation Master
Plan and Urban
Forestry Master
Plan
Ongoing Community Services:
Parks and Recreation
General
Fund
40
Multi-use + canal path improvements and
streetscapes that include shelters, tree shade
and cool materials.
Extreme
Heat Both $4,000,000 Medium
Capital
Improvement Plan
and Transportation
Plan
Ongoing
City Engineer and
Transportation and
Engineering
General
Fund and
HURF
41
Adoption of new zoning code such as a
walkable urban code that supports shade,
elimination of surface parking lots and green
infrastructure
Extreme
Heat Both $100,000 Medium
Urban Core Master
Plan, Character
Area Plans and
General Plan
Ongoing
FCDMC with Tempe
Public Works -
Engineering / Principal
Civil Engineer
General
Fund
42
Green infrastructure pilot projects (fire
station, Rio Salado, ASU Tempe Campus)
that demonstrate use of stormwater to
supplement potable water. These landscapes
tend to be more resilient to drought while
addressing extreme heat.
Extreme
Heat and
Drought
Both $25,000 to
$100,000 a year Medium
Climate Action
Plan, Engineering
standards and
private development
standards
Ongoing
Community
Development
Engineering and
Transportation Civil
Engineer
Sustainability
Grant
funding
43
Maintain CERT Program and add heat
vulnerability and heat relief training
including how to staff cooling centers and
resilience hubs
Extreme
Heat Both $20,000 Medium
Climate Action Plan
and Emergency
Management Plan
Ongoing Fire Department Grants
44 Design and construct streetscape projects
that prioritizes shade and cooling.
Extreme
Heat Both $2,000,000 Medium
Transportation
Master Plan and
Climate Action Plan
Ongoing
Engineering and
Transportation Civil
Engineer
Sustainability
General
Fund and
HURF
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 493
Table 6-8-23: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tempe
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
45
Installation of artificial shade structures in
heat islands to support pedestrians and
customers of local businesses.
Extreme
Heat Both $400,000 Medium Transportation
Master Plan Ongoing
Community
Development
Engineering and
Transportation Civil
Engineer
Sustainability
General
Fund
46
Use of mobile generators and air
conditioning units in case of extreme heat
emergencies.
Extreme
Heat Existing $250,000 Medium N/A Ongoing Fire Department
Emergency Manager
General
Fund
47 Public education (incl about clothing), heat
safety (everyday life) + signage.
Extreme
Heat Both $50,000 Medium N/A Ongoing
Public Works -
Engineering sr. Civil
Engineer
General
Fund
48
Heat relief for special events including
training, communications materials, mobile
water stations, protocols and heat relief
plans.
Extreme
Heat Both $500,000 Medium N/A Ongoing
Special Events Task
Force
Emergency Manager
Risk Management
Sustainability
Grants
49 Support Medical Examiner office with
resources and equipment.
Extreme
Heat Both $50,000 Medium N/A Ongoing Emergency Manager Grants
50 Construct additional splash pads to provide
heat relief for youth.
Extreme
Heat Both $500,000 Medium
Parks and
Recreation Master
Plan
Ongoing Community Services General
Fund
51
Participate with outside agencies to
distribute bottled water and provide
education about hazards associated with
extreme heat.
Extreme
Heat Both $1,000 Low N/A Ongoing Fire Department Grants
52
Tempe Town Lake warning system to
ensure residents at the lake are aware of heat
warnings through a nighttime lighting
system.
Extreme
Heat Both $250,000 Low N/A Ongoing Municipal Utility
Emergency Manager
General
Fund
53
Develop cool clothing partnerships,
distribution with non-profits such as
FABRIC so that residents especially youth
and those experiencing homeless have
access to clothing that supports heat relief.
Extreme
Heat Both $100,000 Low N/A Yearly Economic Development
General
Fund
54 Support amenities for pools (showers,
shelters) for heat relief.
Extreme
Heat Both $500,000 Low
Parks and
Recreation Master
Plan
Ongoing Community Services General
Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 494
Table 6-8-23: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tempe
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
55
Seek funds for workshops and conferences,
including National Incident Management
System and Arizona Emergency
Management Association Conferences.
All
Hazards Both $3,000 Low N/A Ongoing Fire Department Grants
Table 6-8-24: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tolleson
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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 Regular Plan
Reviews On-going
City Engineer
and Building
Department
General Fund
2
Install more storm drains and retention areas
to reduce impact of flooding on the
community. Goes along with new and
better codes.
Flood Both
Unknown
without
estimates at the
time
High
As needed and as
new plans and
permits are
requested
On-going
City Engineer
and Building
Department
General Fund
and Permit Fees
3
Provide sand and bags at different locations
around the city for citizens to pick up and
use to mitigate flooding damages.
Flood Both
App. $100 per
ton for sand
and unknown
for price of
bags
High As needed On-going Field Operations General Fund
4 Educate public officials on the need of the
mitigation plan.
Flood,
Severe
Wind,
Drought,
Extreme
Heat,
Subsidence
Both Staff Time Medium Annually
Upon
adoption &
on-going as
needed.
Emergency
Manager N/A
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 495
Table 6-8-24: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tolleson
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
5 Continue to review plans and update codes
and ordinances.
Flood,
Severe
Wind
Both Staff Time High As Needed On-going
City Engineer
and Building
Department, Fire
Department,
Police
Department
N/A
6
By using the local websites, mailers, social
media and other forms of local
communication, try to educate the public
about water conservation.
Drought Both Staff Time and
minimal costs High Periodic through the
year
Spring and
Summer
Periods
City Public
Information
Officer
General Fund
7
Continue to work with the waste water
department to use reclaimed water for
multiple uses.
Drought Both Staff Time High
Education all
individuals and
other City
departments
involved
Continuous Water/Wastewat
er Departments N/A
8 Provide water stations when needed for
individuals during the extreme heat periods.
Extreme
Heat Both
Cost of bottled
water and Staff
Time
High Active areas of
refuge as needed As Needed
Fire Department
& Police
Department
General Funds
and Donations
9
Continue working with local school systems
for relief areas if individuals were displaced
due to the extreme heat.
Extreme
Heat Both Staff Time High
General Plan,
Emergency
Operations Plan
On-going
Senior City Staff,
Emergency
Manager
If needed
General Funds,
possible Grants
10
Educate homeowners and businesses to tie
down or not leave loose items around during
severe wind periods.
Severe
Wind New
Staff Time and
possible
publication
costs
Medium
By using current
social media that is
available.
Periodic
City Public
Information
Officer
General Funds
11
Maintain the installed backup generators at
the police and fire departments and City
Hall. Make sure new backup generators are
in the plans for any new critical facilities.
Severe
Wind,
Extreme
Heat
Both
$10,000 per
year plus Staff
Time
High
Continual review of
maintenance
programs and
quarterly checks
Quarterly Field Operations
Department General Funds
12
Include addressing subsidence risk as a
regular part of the land development and
public works projects review and permitting.
Subsidence New Staff Time Medium Continual review of
Plans and Permits On-going
City Engineer
and Building
Department
General Funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 496
Table 6-8-24: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Tolleson
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
13
Provide links to the AZ Department of
Water Resources website as a part of a
public campaign to raise the awareness to
the hazards and locations of active
subsidence. This will be done through all
social media.
Subsidence New Staff Time Medium As needed and
available time On-going
City Public
Information
Officer
General Funds
Table 6-8-25: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Unincorporated Maricopa County
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Educate/advise Maricopa County resident on
wildfire preparedness activities to include
defensible spaces
Wildfire New Staff Time Medium
Website update,
Continuous,
throughout the year
Annual
Ongoing
MC Emergency
Management General Funds
2
Perform, or encourage the performance of,
routine roadside vegetation control to
mitigate wildfire starts within the right-of-
way areas along roadways and highways.
Wildfire New $1 million High Transportation Plan Annual
Ongoing MCDOT HURF
3
Continue to provide drought/water
conservation information/links on the
Maricopa.gov/emergency management
website
Drought New Staff Time Medium
Website update,
Continuous,
throughout the year
Annual
Ongoing
MC Emergency
Management General Funds
4
Encourage drought-tolerant landscaping
where landscaping is required for
commercial and industrial developments
Drought New Staff Time High Standard P&D
procedure
Annual
Ongoing
MC Planning &
Development General Funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 497
Table 6-8-25: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Unincorporated Maricopa County
5
Continue to provide information/links on the
Maricopa.gov/emergency management
website to sources of hazard mitigation
educational materials.
Extreme
Heat, Flood,
Severe
Winds,
Wildfires
New Staff Time Medium
Website update,
Continuous,
throughout the year
Annual
Ongoing
MC Emergency
Management General Funds
6
Inspect and monitor all structures (bridges
and box culverts) under their control on a
semi-annual basis.
Flood Both $150,000 High Transportation Plan Annual
Ongoing MCDOT HURF
7
Encourage bridge or culvert construction
where roads are in locations susceptible to
flooding.
Flood New $7,000,000 High Transportation Plan Annual
Ongoing MCDOT HURF
8
Review building permits to ensure that
unincorporated Maricopa County residents
are safe from flooding by meeting the NFIP
requirements for development within a
Special Flood Hazard Area through
enforcement of Floodplain Regulations.
Flood Both On-going High
Floodplain
Regulations for
Maricopa County
Ongoing
FCDMC /
Floodplain
Administrator
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
9
Update Community Protection plan to
include; identify actions that will reduce the
risk of wildfires to communities within
wildland-urban interface zones
Wildfire Both $150,000 High CWPP 5-Year
Update
Ongoing/
5 year updates
MC Emergency
Management
BLM/CWPP
Grant
10
Complete and start Area Drainage Master
Studies/Plans to identify flooding hazards,
mitigation solutions and provide notice to
interested parties.
Flood Both Project-
Dependent High Comprehensive
Report Ongoing FCDMC /
Director
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
11
Complete and start delineations/re-
delineations to identify flooding hazards and
the means to share information.
Flood Both Project-
Dependent High Comprehensive
Report Ongoing FCDMC /
Director
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
12
Operate and maintain flood control
structures operated and maintained by
FCDMC in order to prevent structural
failure and to maintain their primary
function.
Dam
Inundation,
Levee
Failure,
Flood
Both Project-
Dependent High Comprehensive
Report Ongoing FCDMC /
Director
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
13
Update the Flood Control District’s
Comprehensive Report 2015, and separately
the 2015 Floodplain Management Plan for
Unincorporated Maricopa County to set the
framework for mitigating flood hazards.
Flood Both Staff Time High Comprehensive
Report February 2021 FCDMC /
Director
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 498
Table 6-8-25: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Unincorporated Maricopa County
14
Construct the Oak Street Basin and Storm
Drain project to mitigate flooding hazards to
existing and future homes.
Flood Both $4.5-Million High 5-year CIP
Ongoing/
Funding-
Dependent
FCDMC /
Director
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
15
Continue the Flood Control District’s
Capital Improvement Program in order to
construct facilities that mitigate flooding
hazards throughout Maricopa County.
Flood Both $40M-year High 5-year CIP Ongoing FCDMC /
Director
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
16
Design and construct new bridge and scour
protection at Gilbert Road over the Salt
River.
Flood Existing $45.65 million High 5 Year CIP June 2025 MCDOT Federal Funds,
STP, HURF
17
Continue the Floodprone Properties
Assistance Program so that were appropriate
property can be acquired and residents
relocated from flood hazard areas, or
floodproofing methods can be implement to
reduce the flooding hazard.
Flood Both Project-
Dependent Medium
Floodprone
Properties
Assistance Program
Ongoing FCDMC /
Director
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
18
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.
Flood,
Severe
Wind
New Staff Time High Standard P&D
procedure Ongoing
Planning and
Development
Department
General fund
19
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.
Flood Both Staff Time Medium
Comprehensive
Report, and
Floodplain
Management Plan
Ongoing FCDMC /
Director
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
20
Work with federal and state agencies, and
local coalitions to elevate awareness of
fissure risk zones and the problems fissures
may cause.
Fissure Both Staff Time High Standard P&D
procedure Ongoing
Planning and
Development
Department
General fund
21
Continue to operate and maintain a flood
warning system to alert communities and the
public to flooding events.
Dam
Inundation,
Levee
Failure,
Flood
Both $1.5M-year High Comprehensive
Report Ongoing FCDMC /
Director
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
22
Develop and maintain Flood Response Plans
and Emergency Action Plans to identify
actions to be taken at specific locations for
certain conditions during flooding events.
Dam
Inundation,
Levee
Failure,
Flood
Both $400K-year High Comprehensive
Report Ongoing FCDMC /
Director
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 499
Table 6-8-25: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Unincorporated Maricopa County
23
Maintain participation in NFIP’s
Community Rating System to further inform
and enhance public safety, protect the
environment and reduce losses and damages
to public and private property through
continued outreach and various programs.
Flood, Dam
Inundation,
Levee
Failure
Both Staff Time High
Comprehensive
Report, and
Floodplain
Management Plan
Ongoing FCDMC /
Director
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
24
Investigate incorporating GI/LID and similar
methods as part of flood and stormwater
management facilities in order to reduce the
amount of potable water needed to irrigate
landscape areas, the impact on groundwater
recharge and effects on reducing flood
problems. Where appropriate these methods
can be used to retrofit existing facilities
(including the Durango Campus and
maintenance yards) and be incorporated into
the design of new facilities.
Drought,
Flood Both Project-
Dependent Medium Comprehensive
Report Ongoing FCDMC /
Director
Flood Control
Secondary
Property Tax
25
Conduct public outreach to educate the
residents about water conservation within
the community via website, social media,
mailers, and any other communication
methods.
Drought Both Staff Time and
minimal cost High Periodic through the
year
Spring and
Summer
Periods
MC Public
Information
Officer
General Funds
26
Educate/advise subdivision developers about
County subdivision regulations that outline
and highlight the provisions for renewable
water uses.
Drought New Staff Time High
Educate all
individuals and
other County
Departments
involved
Continuous MC Planning/
Development General Funds
27
Continue to provide extreme heat
information/links on the
Maricopa.gov/emergency management
website.
Extreme
Heat New Staff Time High Periodic throughout
the year
Spring and
Summer
Periods
MC Emergency
Management General Funds
28
Provide public education/outreach to County
citizens by updating the County website to
address subsidence & fissures.
Fissure,
Subsidence Both
Staff Time,
Printing Cost,
(minimal)
Medium
Website update,
Continuous,
throughout the year
Continuous
MC Planning/
Development,
Emergency
Management
General Funds
29
Provide public education/outreach to
developers by raising awareness to
subsidence and fissure hazards during pre-
construction and re-zoning permitting
processes.
Fissure,
Subsidence New
Staff Time,
Printing Cost,
(minimal)
Medium MC Permit Review
Process Continuous MC Planning/
Development General Funds
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 500
Table 6-8-26: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Wickenburg
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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
Coordinate review of building permits for
compliance with the Floodplain Ordinance
and NFIP regulations with FCDMC.
Flood Both Staff Time High
Council
approval/ordinance
of FCMDC
administrating
regulations
Ongoing Planning
department General Fund
2
Remove vegetation in washes that bisect
streets within town limits to reduce wildfire
hazard and improve stormwater conveyance
capacities.
Flood,
Wildfire Existing Staff Time Medium CWPP Ongoing Fire/ Public
Works
General
Fund/Grants
when applicable
3 Scheduling local drainage clean out and
inventory Flood Existing Staff Time Medium
As needed/
Annually at
minimum
Ongoing Public Works General Fund
4
Review Flood Hazard mitigation plan,
identify areas prone to flood in the heavy
rain events
Flood Existing Staff Time Medium Annually ongoing Public
Works/Fire/PD General Fund
5
Fuel Reduction program COOP with BLM.
Identify Hazard areas, set up work group
days with BLM crews and WFD crews for
fuels work in and around the Hassayampa
River areas Highest prone to fire.
Wildfire Existing Staff Time High Work Agreement
with BLM ongoing Fire/BLM Fuel Reduction
Grant/
6
Wickenburg Ranch/Martinez Creek Flood
Hazards. Work on new amendment to
Flood Plan from Yavapai County regarding
the new developed area around Martinez
creek
Flood New UNK Medium Plan amendments
Ongoing as
development
occurs
Planning/Buildin
g department.
Emergency Mgt.
General Fund/
Developer
Funding
7
Public education on the dangers of living in
the southwest Arizona desert where
extreme temperatures are common in the
summer months
Extreme Heat New Staff Time Medium Media outlets annual Fire/EMS General Fund
8
Provide water via the station or duty engine
to individuals that present symptoms of heat
related illness
Extreme Heat Existing Staff Time High Regular duties as
engine company daily Fire/EMS General
Fund/Donations
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 501
Table 6-8-26: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Wickenburg
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
9 Review temporary structure permits for
proper tie down and anchor methods. Severe Wind New Staff Time Medium Review IBC/IFC ongoing Planning
department General Fund
10
Perform training and education for PW and
PD crews regarding public safety actions
that can be taken to mitigate the risk of
damage and injury to the public on a pre-
event, during, and post-event basis for
severe wind storms.
Severe Wind Both Staff Time Medium
Training for first
responders for
severe weather
incidents.
ongoing Fire and PW General Fund
11
Review FHRP, in reference to Sunnycove
and Cassandra Dam areas, on an annual
basis to determine if adjustments are
necessary due to changes in areas
downstream of dams
Dam
Inundation Both Staff Time High Review plan with
PW and Planning ongoing Fire/Emergency
operations General Fund
12
Sols Wash evaluation and development of
projects for brush clearing and correction of
deficiencies in existing bank protection
measures.
Levee Failure Existing Staff time High Annual and as
needed ongoing Public
Works/Fire General Fund
13
Public outreach to areas impacted in heavy
flood events thru social media and the
Public Relations Office to communicate the
residual risk of areas protected by these
structures
Dam
Inundation,
Levee Failure
Existing Staff time Medium Emergency
Operations
Annual or as
needed
Public Works/
Emergency Mgt.
General Fund/
community grant
14
Work with ADOT on Hwy 93 bank
protection evaluation to ensure clearing of
primary vegetation and correction of
deficiencies are being done on a regular
basis
Levee Failure Existing Staff time High Current IGA with
ADOT As needed Public Works General Fund
15
Perform public education of water
conservation best practices through
newsletter, flyers, social media and website
notices.
Drought Both Staff time Medium N/A Annual Water and
Wastewater Dept General Fund
16 Continue to review plans and update codes
and ordinances.
Drought,
Severe Wind New Staff time Medium N/A ongoing Planning
Department General Fund
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 502
Table 6-8-27: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Youngtown
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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 through ongoing coordination
with FCDMC and compliance with current
floodplain ordinance.
Flood Both Staff Time High None Ongoing
Public Works
Dept./Building
Inspector
General
Government
Budget
2
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.
Extreme
Heat, Flood,
Severe
Wind,
Wildfire
Both Staff Time Medium
Program is
reviewed yearly
and is ongoing
Ongoing
Emergency
Services
Manager/Town
Webmaster
General
Government
Budget
3
Provide town leadership role in support of
efforts to limit development in the departure
and approach corridors for Luke Air Force
base.
Transport-
ation
Accident
Both Staff Time Medium
Flight/noise
patterns are
reviewed with each
new development
Ongoing
Mayor/Town
Manager/Public
Works
Manager/Town
Management
General
Government
Budget
4
Promote the availability of hazard mitigation
information from county webpage by
providing a notice of the Maricopa County
Hazard Mitigation Plan posted on town’s
website with link back to Maricopa County
Emergency Management for additional
information.
All Hazards Both Staff Time Low None Ongoing
Emergency
Services
Manager/Town
Webmaster
General
Government
Budget
5
Participate/ conduct occasional table top
exercises to identify potential mitigation
measures for increasing response
effectiveness, such as evacuation route
marking and permanent protection measures
for indented shelters.
Dam
Inundation,
Flood
Both Staff Time Low None Ongoing
Public Works
Department/
Maricopa County
General
Government
Budget
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 503
Table 6-8-27: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Youngtown
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
6
Provide public education of water
conservation best practices through
newsletter, flyers, social media and website
notices.
Drought Both Staff Time High None Ongoing
Public Works
Department in
collaboration
with EPCOR
Water
General
Government
Budget
7
Perform a public information campaign at
the onset of the extreme heat season to help
educate the general public on ways to
remain safe during periods of extreme heat.
Extreme
Heat Both Staff Time High None Ongoing
Public Safety
Department in
collaboration
with the
Salvation Army
General
Government
Budget
8
Develop a community-wide, storm water
management plan that will analyze and
identify problem flooding areas and propose
long-term mitigation alternatives designed
to reduce or eliminate the flood problems.
Flood Both Staff Time Medium EOP Ongoing
Public Works
Department,
ADEQ &
FCDMC
General
Government
Budget
9
Maintain/install backup generators at key
critical facilities such as fire and police
stations, water pumping stations, sewer lift
stations, etc., to provide emergency power
for critical operations during power failures
caused by severe wind events.
Severe
Wind Both Staff Time High EOP Ongoing Public Works
Department/APS
General
Government
Budget
10
Provide links to the Arizona Department of
Water Resources website as part of a public
campaign to raise awareness to the hazards
and locations of active subsidence.
Subsidence Both Staff Time Medium None Ongoing
Public Works
Department and
Arizona
Department of
Water Resources
General
Government
Budget
11
Develop and/or enforce a weed abatement
ordinance. Conduct fire safety education
programs in local public schools. Enact and
enforce burn and fireworks bans as needed
during extraordinarily dry and extreme
wildfire conditions & seasons to mitigate
possible, unintended wildfire starts.
Perform, or encourage the performance of
routine, roadside vegetation control to
mitigate wildfire starts within the right of
way areas along roadways and highways.
Wildfire Both Staff Time Medium None Ongoing
Public Works
Department,
Code
Enforcement,
Sun City Fire
District
General
Government
Budget
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 504
Table 6-8-27: Mitigation actions and projects and implementation strategy for Youngtown
Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy
ID
No. Description
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)
12
Annually coordinate with Federal, State, and
local dam owners to get updates on any
changes in dam safety conditions and
emergency action plan information
Dam Failure Both Staff Time Low None Annually
Public Safety /
Emergency
Services
Manager
General
Government
Budget
13
Work with state and Federal agencies to
provide disclosure information to all
potential buyers of real estate that are
located within the dam failure or emergency
spillway inundation limits of an upstream
dam or dams.
Dam Failure Both Staff Time Low None Ongoing
Public Safety /
Emergency
Services
Manager
General
Government
Budget
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 505
SECTION 7: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
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:
Monitoring and Evaluating the Plan
Updating the Plan
Continued Public Participation
The following sections provide a description of the past plan maintenance procedures
and activities, and documents the proposed procedures and schedule for the next planning
cycle.
7.1 Monitoring and Evaluation
7.1.1 Past Plan Cycle
Maricopa County and the participating jurisdictions recognize that this hazard
mitigation plan is intended to be a “living” document with regularly scheduled
monitoring, evaluation, and updating. Section 7.1 of the 2015 Plan outlined a schedule
of specific activities for annual evaluations of the 2015 Plan. A poll of the MJPT
regarding the past execution of the plan maintenance strategy was taken and the
following tasks were accomplished:
• The Town of Gilbert performed the annual reviews for years 2016 through
2019.
• MCDEM sent an email to all the 2015 Plan participating jurisdictions on two
occasions in November and December 2017, requesting an annual review per
the requirements of Section 7.1.2 of the 2015 Plan. Most jurisdictions replied
with some kind response.
Challenges to meeting the stated review schedule primarily included:
• Staff turnover and lack of continuity to original planning team.
• Lack of communicating plan maintenance responsibilities to successors during
staff changes.
§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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 506
MJPT discussed ways to improve on the Plan review and maintenance process
over the next five years. The results of those discussions are outlined in the following
sections.
7.1.2 Proposed Schedule and Scope
Having a multi-jurisdictional plan can aid in the plan monitoring and evaluation
through the consolidation of information for all participating jurisdictions into one
document. The MJPT reviewed the current DMA 2000 rules and October 2011 FEMA
guidance document and discussed a strategy for performing the required monitoring
and evaluation of the Plan over the next 5-year cycle. The MJPT has established the
following monitoring and evaluation procedures:
• Schedule – The Plan shall be reviewed on at least an annual basis. MCDEM
will take the lead to send out an email request to each jurisdiction via the MJPT
on or around the month of May.
• Review Content – Within the email request distributed by MCDEM, each of
the jurisdictions will be requested to provide responses to the following
questions:
o Hazard Identification: Have the risks and hazards changed?
o Goals and Objectives: Are the goals and objectives still able to address
current and expected conditions?
o Policy and Program Review: Are updates or revisions necessary for
the policies and programs listed in Tables 6-1-xx?
o Mitigation Projects and Actions: For each mitigation action/project
summarized in Section 6.3.2:
Has there been activity on the project – Yes or No?
If Yes, briefly describe what has been done and the current status
of the action/project.
• Documentation – Each jurisdiction will review and evaluate the Plan as it
relates to their community and document responses to the above questions in
the form of an email. MCDEM will archive email responses in a digital format
and store with the Plan for incorporation during the next Plan update. Any hard
copies will be included in Appendix E.
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.
7.2 Plan Update
According to DMA 2000, the Plan requires updating and re-approval from FEMA
every five years. The plan update will adhere to that set schedule using the following
procedure:
One year prior to the plan expiration date, the MJPT will re-convene to review and
assess the materials accumulated in Appendix E.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 507
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 DEMA and FEMA for review, comment and
approval.
7.3 Continued Public Involvement
Maricopa County and participating jurisdictions are committed to keeping the public
informed about hazard mitigation planning efforts, actions and projects. Continued public
involvement activities pursued by the Plan jurisdictions over the 2015 Plan cycle are
summarized in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: Continued public involvement activities performed by jurisdictions
during the 2015 Plan cycle
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
ALL Participating
Jurisdictions
• Centralized posting of Plan was maintained on the MCDEM
website with most of the participating jurisdictions maintaining
web-link to the MCDEM website on their local website.
Avondale
• Closed Roads due to flooding or trees down due to monsoons or
other major storms.
• Christmas trees and cooking oil recycle events to prevent sewer
blockages.
• Firework safety
• COVID-19 updates
• Weather watcher courses
• Police Citizen Academy
• Volunteers in Police Services (VIPS)
• Landscaping/Watering Tips
• Multiple seasonal posts regarding hazards for certain
seasons/time of year i.e. Monsoon season, heat related posts
during summer months, winter advisory posts in colder months.
• Phoenix Raceway
• Holiday posts to include event posts and holiday specific hazard
posts (Thanksgiving cooking etc)
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 508
Table 7-1: Continued public involvement activities performed by jurisdictions
during the 2015 Plan cycle
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
Buckeye
• Identified, published and update as needed cooling station
locations on city website and in news releases.
• Post on various social media channels, electronic newsletters
and new releases on seasonal weather related information
(extreme heat, freeze warnings, flooding, etc.)
• Provide link to ADWR’s website on several city webpages
(Fire, Public Works, Water Resources)
• Surveyed residents on the city’s Hazard Mitigation Plan through
social media, electronic newsletters, news releases and city
website.
Carefree
• The town of Carefree maintained an information program on
it’s COINS email platform to keep residents aware of noted
hazards and how they impact the town residents. This platform
goes out to the majority of the residents. In addition, public
workshops were conducted at the council chambers covering
specific topics (i.e. wildfire safety) at appropriate times
throughout each year.
Cave Creek
• The Town of Cave Creek has posted a notice on our website
seeking public input in our Multi Hazard Mitigation plan. We
shall continue to post this notice throughout the planning phase.
We have also posted a notice in our utility bill seeking public
input.
Chandler
• Maintained the Emergency Preparedness section of the
Department's website; including pages for various emergency
situations, CENS, and Chandler CERT Basic Training. The
page includes helpful links to a variety of county, state and
federal agencies, including MCDEM.
• Used social media to post emergency preparedness tips, holiday
safety tips, and responses to events or incidents reported in the
news.
• Conducted open house events for the public that are held at a
different fire station each time. This includes an annual Public
Safety Open House conducted in partnership with the Chandler
Police Department.
• Conducted an annual Drowning Prevention Campaign that
includes volunteers walking door-to-door delivering water
safety information to residents in selected neighborhoods. The
campaign is promoted through media releases, social media
sites, the City's cable TV channel, citywide newsletters, and
public appearances.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 509
Table 7-1: Continued public involvement activities performed by jurisdictions
during the 2015 Plan cycle
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
El Mirage
• In the last 5 years, The city has posted the MJHMP and
seasonal information that pertains to emergency preparation
information on the Cities web site as well as the departments
Facebook page and Twitter account. The El Mirage PIO has
been actively involved with information sharing to the
community with the Covid-19 situation. In addition, the
information is sent to local newspapers. The City Council is
notified annually about the progress, changes, and intentions of
Emergency Management..
Fountain Hills
• Provided information to the community regarding seasonal risks
(wildland fire, severe storms, flooding, etc.) on a regular basis
via social media and newspaper articles.
• Hazard brochures have been placed in all public buildings
containing information regarding preparedness and mitigation
of local hazards.
• The Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Plan is posted on the
Town website.
• The Town attained Storm Ready certification from the National
Weather Service.
• Provided wildland fire risk inspections to residents.
Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation
• Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (FMYN) has utilized social
media platforms and newsletters to communicate potential risks
during wildfire, monsoon, excessive heat and other hazards that
present during different times of the year. Additionally, FMYN
provides printed materials to increase public awareness of
potential hazards specific to the Nation.
Gila Bend
• Made presentations as needed to the council regarding the status
of the Plan and in particular, successful implementation of
actions/projects. As projects, particularly those funded by
grants, are undertaken and completed, the departments
responsible for implementation provide updates and
presentations to the Town Council.
• Provided materials that elevate the public awareness of the
hazards that may pose a risk to the community via website and
social media. For example, the Town’s social media and
website platforms were utilized to inform the public regarding a
water safety issue and mitigation measures they could take.
Gilbert
• Provided local hazard information on Gilbert Fire/Emergency
Management website and maintained links to the 2015 Plan
hosted on the County’s website.
• Used social media to inform public of seasonal weather hazards
and forecasts.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 510
Table 7-1: Continued public involvement activities performed by jurisdictions
during the 2015 Plan cycle
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
Glendale
• The Glendale Division of Emergency Management, in
coordination with the Glendale Fire Department Public
Information Officer, has leveraged social media channels to
provide public awareness and education for a variety of hazards
(i.e. extreme heat; wildfire; flooding). Additionally, information
was posted to the Glendale Division of Emergency
Management’s website regarding flood and monsoon safety.
Outreach related to Drought was communicated through Water
Services using the City’s website and social media.
Goodyear
• Particularly, the Fire Department Community Education social
media account includes routine messaging regarding wild fire
potential, heat, winter weather, flooding, emergency
preparedness, and other mitigation topics on a regular basis
through the year. These messages are often picked up and
retweeted by @goodyearaz and @goodyearpolice.
• Goodyear host a variety of presentations in city venues
throughout the year. Printed information on mitigation
(specifically wildfire) and other emergency topics is routinely
offered.
• CERT classes are held annually (with the exception of 2020 due
to the pandemic) wherein mitigation efforts are discussed in the
context of preparedness and response.
• Presentation to employees regarding emergency preparedness
and the types of hazards faced in Goodyear are included in the
“brown bag” series and offered to all employees.
• The LEAD program has offered a class on hazards and
preparedness (offered as an elective). The LEAD program
consists of citizenry in a program regarding how the city
operates and how they can become involved.
Guadalupe
• Use social media to post season hazards safety messages.
• Provide Hazard awareness safety information at community
events.
Litchfield Park
• Block Watch – Education and Outreach, advise of plan and
location.
• Website: Hazard mitigation plan on the City website for public
access.
Mesa
• The City of Mesa through the Mesa Fire/Medical
Department Emergency Management Division has provided
links to FEMA, and ADEM, as well as a downloadable
Emergency Preparation Guide and information on how to
prepare for an emergency.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 511
Table 7-1: Continued public involvement activities performed by jurisdictions
during the 2015 Plan cycle
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
Paradise Valley Paradise Valley is no longer participating in the Plan
Peoria
• The City of Peoria Office of Communications has used their
social media accounts, website newsroom and with media and
residents.
Phoenix
• The City of Phoenix utilized the communication office
resources to inform and educate the community on different
important hazard mitigation efforts. It increased social media
presence by expanding its social media platforms. (Instagram,
Twitter and Facebook) and continued preparing the City of
Phoenix employee newsletter (City Connection)
• The City of Phoenix implemented Resilient PHX, conducting
workshops and educating the community on specific hazards
and mitigation strategies identified in the hazard mitigation plan
Queen Creek
• Seek public input on Hazard Mitigation Plan utilizing website.
• Used social media to inform public of seasonal weather hazards
and forecasts.
• Used the town’s water bill insert to discuss monsoon hazards
and preparedness tips.
• Presentations to small groups and clubs concerning local
hazards.
• Partnered with the National Weather Service (NWS) to host the
SkyWarn Storm Spotter course.
• Provide Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
training.
Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community
• Quarterly Tribal Emergency Response Commission Meetings
that are open to the public meetings and have “call to public” on
the agenda. This meeting enables tribal members to hear
updates on community hazards and mitigation efforts, as well as
give them the opportunity to provide input into these efforts.
• Community Relations in coordination with Emergency
Management conducts public outreach/education on all hazards
mitigation and emergency preparedness for community
members. Community members were educated on what to do
before and during disasters to reduce the loss of life and
property in a disaster.
• Salt River Fire Department in Coordination with Emergency
Management organized a Volunteer Organizations Active in
Disasters (SR-VOAD) and re implemented the Salt River
Community Emergency Response Team (SR-CERT) into the
community to further disaster mitigation, preparedness,
response, and recovery education and training.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 512
Table 7-1: Continued public involvement activities performed by jurisdictions
during the 2015 Plan cycle
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
Scottsdale
• The City of Scottsdale is dedicated to the continued
coordination and collaboration with internal (city) and external
partners relating to the implementation or actions towards
hazard mitigation.
• Public education events such as community forums, mass
mailing and local cable television about flooding hazards and
wildfire hazards have been done in the previous five years.
• Internal coordination which has included stormwater
management, public works and emergency management
agencies highlighting and coordinating mitigation efforts with
emphasis on National Flood Insurance program impact has also
been done in the last five years.
• Scottsdale has participated in public involvement meetings
regarding the Rawhide Wash Flood Hazard Mitigation Project,
the Reata Wash Flood Control Project, the Granite Reef
Watershed Flood Hazard Mitigation Project, the Desert
Mountain Area Drainage Master Study, the Lower Indian Bend
Wash Area Drainage Master Study/Plan, and the Arizona Canal
and Fans 5 and 6 Floodplain Redelineation Projects.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 513
Surprise
Marketing and Communications Dept.
The Marketing and Communications Department has supported the
following departments in community communication strategies for
Monsoon, Flooding, Wind, Extreme Heat and Cold, and Wildfire
dangers. They have also supported directed campaigns to engage the
community in preparedness planning and mitigation efforts (“Ready,
Set, Go” evacuation planning, and “Ready.Gov Planning tool for
families.”) Their efforts include:
• June Monsoon - In coordination with the National Weather
Service Monsoon awareness month, M&C developed the June
Monsoon cartoon character and amplified NWS 4-phase
messaging to the community through website, press release, and
social media to prepare residents for Monsoon season storms
and flooding.
• Ready.maricopa.gov - In September 2020, the Emergency
Manager worked with M&C to create messaging on the City of
Surprise website for the four phases of Readiness Month and to
encourage community members to download the
Ready.maricopa.gov app, or go to the ready.maricopa.gov
website and download family emergency preparedness plans.
• Amplification of the County’s messaging on the annual Palo
Verde Drill and Siren tests - The city shared Maricopa County’s
social media posts and messaging (Facebook and Twitter)
regarding the annual Palo Verde Drill and Siren tests.
• Amplification of the NWS messaging of predicted weather
events - In an effort to amplify and notify Surprise residents
about predicted weather events, Marketing and
Communications shared messaging via Facebook and Twitter
from the US National Weather Service Phoenix Arizona
channels, as well as sent press releases when necessary.
• Amplification of flooding threats including messaging
regarding sand bag stations and flood protection – Utilizing
weather forecasts provided by the National Weather Service –
Phoenix, the city shared sand and bag information with
residents when estimated rainfall was anticipated to be
significant or above average. Communication mediums used to
share sand and bag information included press release, web
post, and social media (Facebook, Twitter, NextDoor)
• Amplification of any heat related weather warnings - In an
effort to amplify and notify Surprise residents about heat-related
warnings, Marketing and Communications shared messaging
via Facebook, Twitter, and NextDoor from the US National
Weather Service Phoenix Arizona channels.
Here are some additional events and ways Marketing and
Communications shared/shares information:
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 514
• Ready.gov National Preparedness Month (annual) – press
release, website posts, social media posts
• Southwest Monsoon (annual) – press release, website posts,
social media posts
• National Weather Service – Phoenix (annual) weather hazard
messaging (excessive heat, flood, flash floods, etc.) – press
release, website posts, social media posts
• Stormwater Awareness Month (annual) – press release, website
posts, social media posts
• Wildfire Prevention - social media posts
• 5-year hazard mitigation plan including website and social
media notifications as well as placing information regarding the
collection of community comments in the monthly water billing
for Surprise residents.
Emergency Manager
• Applied for and obtained National Weather Service (NWS)
Storm Ready Certification, affirming specific criteria were met
in preparation for hazardous storm mitigation and response
efforts.
• Each year the Emergency Manager requests a Mayoral
Proclamation from the Mayor of Surprise claiming July as
Monsoon Awareness Month. This proclamation is made at a
City Council Meeting and is also broadcast to the City of
Surprise residents and highlights Monsoon season threats and
reminds residents to get prepared for Monsoon Season storms.
• Coordinated messaging with the Marketing and Communication
Department regarding heat, rain, and flooding events within the
city.
• Coordinated annual awareness messaging regarding the Palo
Verde Nuclear Plant annual siren test and WEA notification.
• Partnered with the Phoenix office of the National Weather
Service to coordinate location specific weather reports for major
incidents and events.
• Appeared on local KTAR Radio Station Podcast “Silent
Witness 5.0 Info” to discuss Ready.gov website and the family
emergency planning app.
Water Resource Management Dept.
• Implemented ‘My Surprise’ interactive web application to
report issues and events throughout the city. This application
allows users to report potholes, flooding, water & sewer issues,
safety hazards, etc.
• Constructed and activated 5 digital message boards throughout
the city. These boards allow the city and other agencies to
communicate regional updates.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 515
Table 7-1: Continued public involvement activities performed by jurisdictions
during the 2015 Plan cycle
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
Public Works Department (In coordination with Marketing
and Communications Department)
• Amplified Maricopa County Flood Control District Public
announcements and requests for public input regarding planning
documents through Surprise social media.
• Provided real time updates of flooding incidents and road
closures via social media.
• Provided updates regarding seasonal weather and sandbag
(flood mitigation) locations so they could be announced via
social media any time rainy weather is predicted.
• Public Works Department actively participated in GAIN
(Getting AZ Involved in Neighborhoods) Safety Night Program
to educate the public about safety tips associated with flooding,
household hazard mitigation, and preparation.
• Utilized social media, website, and water billing flyers to seek
public input in the development of the Capital Improvement
Budget and Development Impact Fees that incorporate major
projects that contribute to strategies associated with the Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Community Development Department
• Regularly sought public input on development projects and
approval of those projects by the Planning and Zoning
Commission or City Council; all of which are televised public
meetings.
Fire Medical Department
• The Fire Medical Department engaged in public messaging
through website, and social media at the onset of wildfire
season with tips on prevention, evacuation, and creation of a
family plan to minimize the risk of suffering injury in a
wildfire.
• The Fire Medical Department along with the Human Services
and Community Vitality Department utilized various websites
and social media to message heat related survival strategies, as
well as heat warnings and locations for heat relief stations and
water distribution stations.
• The Fire Medical Department held an Emergency Preparedness
Fair to make residents aware of common threats including
wildfires, extreme heat, flooding and flash flooding.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 516
Table 7-1: Continued public involvement activities performed by jurisdictions
during the 2015 Plan cycle
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
Tempe
• Tempe Fire Medical Rescue has a newsletter that it sent out
every quarter. We add information on flooding, Monsoons, high
winds and extreme heat as well to keep our community engaged
and prepared.
• We work through our community centers to reach our
neighborhoods. We teach preparedness and hand out brochures
at different times of the year that relate to weather.
Tolleson
• Periodic emergency response updates to city council via the
City Manager’s update to council
• Maintenance of a city webpage whereby any prepared plans
may be posted along with local contact(s) for more information.
• Provided periodic hazard mitigation outreach via City’s social
media platforms, to include Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter,
along with citywide newsletter and local media.
Unincorporated Maricopa
County
• Maricopa County through Maricopa County Department of
Emergency Management and the Flood Control District of
Maricopa County has provided season specific postings on
social media reminding the public of the potential risks for
hazards that may be prevalent at the time. This has allowed the
public to provide feedback and ask questions.
• Sought public input on Hazard Mitigation Plan utilizing the
Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
website, social media and a public survey.
• Maintained an interactive webpage providing a brief description
and access to the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
• Presentations to small groups and clubs concerning local
hazards, handouts at community fairs and events.
Wickenburg
• Every fire season the fire department handed out and gave
public presentation on fuel reduction projects and will assisted
in surveying property to provide information and consultation
on hazard reduction for homeowners.
• Using social media, local newspaper, and radio, the Town
provided annual public outreach to inform community of
monsoon season hazards, mitigation measures and available
assistance.
Youngtown
• Provided materials that elevate the public awareness of the
hazards that may pose a risk to the community via safety fairs,
county fairs, special celebrations, etc.
• Maintained an interactive county/city/town webpage providing
a brief description of the Plan with a link to the county’s
website where the Plan is posted and a local contact for anyone
with questions.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 517
Table 7-2 summarizes activities for public involvement and dissemination of
information that shall be pursued whenever possible and appropriate by the Plan jurisdictions.
Table 7-2: Continued public involvement activities or opportunities identified by
each participating jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
ALL Participating
Jurisdictions
• Centralize posting of Plan to the MCDEM website with each
participating jurisdiction providing a brief note and link to the
county’s website on their local website, as appropriate.
• LEPC meetings – regular announcement of hazard mitigation
information and availability of the Plan for review and
reference.
• Presentation of mitigation actions/projects as they are
implemented, to boards, councils, and/or trustees, as
appropriate.
Avondale
• Use season-specific postings on social media reminding the
public of the potential risks for hazards that may be prevalent at
the time.
• Provide content in City Magazine (RAVE) to elevate the public
awareness of the hazards that may pose a risk prevalent at the
time.
Buckeye
• Continue to increase awareness on seasonal potential hazards by
posting regularly on the city’s various social media channels
• Update city webpages regularly with current and specific
information on potential hazards
• Include timely, seasonal safety tips in bi-weekly electronic
newsletters
• Provide educational materials describing the various potential
risks to the community at the city’s special events and water
conservation presentations
Carefree
• The Town of Carefree will continue to use it’s COINS email
information platform to provide information to the residents of
Carefree concerning relevant aspects of the plan. This will
include information on cooling center locations, wildland fire
safety, flood warnings and safety, etc. In addition the town will
provide water conservation materials and drought related
information in monthly water bills to each residence. During the
next five years of the plan, the town will hold a wildfire safety
workshop at town hall in the late part of April. This will give
the town an additional opportunity to explain to residents
relevant portions of the plan. The last piece will be a request for
public input prior to the next five year plan update.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 518
Table 7-2: Continued public involvement activities or opportunities identified by
each participating jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
Cave Creek
• The Town of Cave Creek always appreciates citizen input
whenever we are working on plans that will benefit the town
and our residents. The Town of Cave Creek will continue to
post a link upon our website seeking public input as it pertains
to the Multi-Hazard Mitigation plan. The Town also provides
lists of some common hazards within the town limits from
drought to wildfire to name a few. This literature is made
available throughout the town’s buildings and is available for
the public. Cave Creek also frequently discusses hazards at
public meetings throughout the calendar year and at these
meetings we remind the public that handouts are available at
town hall. Cave Creek pro-actively alerts our residents to
extreme risks such as wildfires and droughts.
Chandler
• Continue to use season specific postings on social media
reminding the public of the potential risks for hazards that may
be prevalent at the time.
• Continue to host open house events for the Public.
• Continue to conduct the annual Drowning Prevention
Campaign.
El Mirage
• To continue public involvement, the social media such as web
postings will be utilized. Additional methods will and can
include mailings, local newspaper, and other means of social
media. The public may give feedback by emailing the
department, the City, social media such as Facebook and a link
to the county website has been provided on the City web page.
The MJHMP has been posted with a link for citizen feedback.
Fountain Hills
• Provide presentations to community groups regarding hazards
that may impact the Town.
• Continued use of social media and print media to inform
citizens of hazards that may impact the Town.
• Continue to provide wildland fire risk inspections to residents.
Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation
• Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation plans to continue to present
information to the community via social media, newsletter and
in person as needed for specific annual hazards such as wildfire,
flooding, heat and monsoon season. Information is shared
through the Fire Department, Events, Health Clinic and other
departments to members of the Nation.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 519
Table 7-2: Continued public involvement activities or opportunities identified by
each participating jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
Gila Bend
• Making presentations as needed to the council regarding the
status of the Plan and in particular, successful implementation
of actions/projects. As projects, particularly those funded by
grants, are undertaken and completed, the departments
responsible for implementation provide updates and
presentations to the Town Council. Additionally, the Plan
update will go before the Town Council for adoption upon
completion of the update process.
• Provide materials that elevate the public awareness of the
hazards that may pose a risk to the community via website and
social media. These platforms are used to notify the public of
the hazards associated with extreme heat events, monsoon
season, severe wind events, wildfire potential, air quality,
drought conditions and the steps they can take to mitigate their
risk.
Gilbert
• Maintain an inter-active Town of Gilbert webpage providing a
brief description of the Plan with a link to the County’s website
where the Plan is posted and a local contact for anyone with
questions.
• Continue to leverage social media outlets to communicate
seasonal weather hazards, forecasts, and possible mitigation
measures.
Glendale
• The Glendale Division of Emergency Management will conduct
information sessions with departments throughout the City of
Glendale to provide them with awareness of the Hazard
Mitigation Plan, as well as to increase inter-departmental
communication regarding hazard mitigation. Public awareness
and education regarding natural hazards will continue to occur
through social media channels and via information posted to the
Glendale Division of Emergency Management’s website.
Outreach related to Drought will continue to be communicated
through Water Services using the City’s website and social
media platforms.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 520
Table 7-2: Continued public involvement activities or opportunities identified by
each participating jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
Goodyear
• The Fire Department Community Education will continue
creating unique and interesting social media messaging to
engage the residents of goodyear on a variety of hazards they
may face and how they can best mitigate, prepare and/or
respond. The City has a strong social media following. To
augment this, the City will provide Preparedness Tips in their
once monthly publication (In Focus) regarding mitigation
efforts of the city and what they can do to reduce hazards.
Finally, the Emergency Management Division will continue to
respond to requests for information, speakers and materials on
risk reduction. During plan maintenance, residents will be
queried on social media and directed to the existing plan which
is posted on Goodyear’s website.
Guadalupe
• Continue to use social media to post season hazards safety
messages.
• Provide Hazard awareness safety information at community
events.
• Post the hazard mitigation plan on town web site for public
information.
Litchfield Park
• City admin meets regularly with neighborhood block programs.
City staff and Council meets publicly with the community thru
State of the City address and hazard mitigation is part of that
presentation.
• Website: Encourage citizens to sign up for emergency
notifications thru Maricopa County. Hazard Mitigation plans
available on website.
• Social media posts about seasonal dangers in community such
as extreme heat or monsoons.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 521
Table 7-2: Continued public involvement activities or opportunities identified by
each participating jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
Mesa
• The City of Mesa provides information to the public using the
Community Emergency Notification System (CENS), also
called Reverse 9-1-1. If an event, incident, disaster or
emergency meeting the CENS activation criteria occurs, the 9-
1-1 dispatch center in Mesa will call and provide information
and/or instruction to subscribers. A website is provided for
potential subscribers that provide information, frequently asked
questions, and registration information.
• The City of Mesa through the Mesa Fire/Medical Department
Emergency Management Division will continue to maintain an
inter-active city webpage providing a brief description of the
Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Plan with a link to the
county’s website where the Plan is posted and a local contact
for anyone with questions and feedback. Links to FEMA, and
ADEM are provided, as well as a downloadable Emergency
Preparation Guide and information on how to prepare for an
emergency.
• The City of Mesa through the Mesa Fire/Medical Department
Public Information Office will continue to provide season
specific postings on social media reminding the public of the
potential risks for hazards that may be prevalent at the time.
This has allowed the public to provide feedback and ask
questions.
• The City of Mesa through the Mesa Fire/Medical Department
will work with local communities to support their wildland fire
mitigation efforts.
Peoria
• During the last five years, the Office of Emergency
Management has promoted the Hazard Mitigation plan both
internally with departmental accreditation programs and
external during public events such as GAIN Night and
Homeowner Association meetings.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 522
Table 7-2: Continued public involvement activities or opportunities identified by
each participating jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
Phoenix
• Develop and maintain an E-mail distribution list for continuous
feedback from the community, it will include community
members, businesses, non-profits, City departments, etc. that
will help the City of Phoenix distribute surveys and questioners
on an annual basis.
• Continue utilizing social media platforms to inform the
community of upcoming community events, hazards in the area
and how to prepare for them.
• Distribute brochures and flyers to the community, to maintain
public awareness on hazards in the area and encourage feedback
from the community.
• Present to governing boards summarizing the plan, give status
on mitigation projects and request feedback.
• Utilize workshops to educate and help develop mitigation
efforts for individual risks. Educate on hazard mitigation
process and mitigation projects.
Queen Creek
• Continue to make presentations to local groups concerning local
hazards.
• Continue to raise public awareness of monsoon hazards,
preparedness tips and other weather related events utilizing
Town social media, website and other tools as available and
appropriate.
• Continue to offer training through Town resources and
partnerships including the CERT and Skywarn programs.
• Investigate the requirements of the NWS StormReady Program
and evaluate how appropriate it is to implement for the Town.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 523
Table 7-2: Continued public involvement activities or opportunities identified by
each participating jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community
• Quarterly Tribal Emergency Response Commission Meetings
that are open to the public meetings and have “call to public” on
the agenda. This meeting enables tribal members to hear
updates on community hazards and mitigation efforts, as well as
give them the opportunity to provide input into these efforts.
• Community Relations in coordination with Emergency
Management conducts public outreach/education on all hazards
mitigation and emergency preparedness for community
members. Community members were educated on what to do
before and during disasters to reduce the loss of life and
property in a disaster.
• Salt River Fire Department in Coordination with Emergency
Management organized a Volunteer Organizations Active in
Disasters (SR-VOAD) and re implemented the Salt River
Community Emergency Response Team (SR-CERT) into the
community to further disaster mitigation, preparedness,
response, and recovery education and training.
Scottsdale
• The plan and proposed changes will be posted on the city’s
Emergency Management website and will contain an email
address and phone number to which people can direct
comments and concerns.
• A public meeting will be held after each annual evaluation or
when deemed necessary by the Office of Emergency
Management. The meetings will offer a forum for concerns,
opinions, or ideas about the plan. The Office of Emergency
Management will be responsible for using city resources to
publicize the annual public meeting and for maintaining public
involvement through Scottsdale City Cable (Channel 11), the
City’s Emergency Management webpage, appropriate City of
Scottsdale social media accounts and local newspapers.
• At least one public involvement meeting will be held regarding
the Granite Reef Wash Phase 2 Flood Hazard Mitigation Project
and associated Floodplain Redelineations after Phase 1 and
Phase 2. At least one public involvement meeting will be held
regarding the Reata Wash Flood Control Project.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 524
Surprise
Marketing and Communications Dept.
• Surprise will continue to collaborate with the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County, neighboring cities, state and
local agencies to educate and encourage participation in the
Wittman Area Drainage Master Study. The purpose of the
study is to identify flood and drainage hazards within the
designated study area, which includes a portion of northwest
Surprise. During the course of the study, Surprise will help
promote study related meetings and share outreach materials
with residents and businesses to encourage participation.
Outreach channels will include press releases, website posts,
social media posts, and presentations at public meetings (city
council, board of supervisors, study, etc.)
• In September of each year, the Emergency Manager and
M&C will deliver messaging on the City of Surprise website
for the four phases of Readiness Month and to encourage
community members to download the Ready.maricopa.gov
app, or go to the ready.maricopa.gov website and download
family emergency preparedness plans.
• Every June, in coordination with the National Weather
Service Monsoon awareness month, M&C will amplify
NWS 4-phase messaging to the community through website
and social media to prepare residents for Monsoon season
storms and flooding.
• The Marketing and Communications Department will
continue to support departments in their efforts to involve the
public in various messaging while proactively initiating
messaging regarding local hazards and threats to the
community including extreme weather, Monsoon Season
storms and flooding, wildfires, and other threats.
Emergency Manager
• Will perform planning maintenance to maintain the City’s
National Weather Service (NWS) Storm Ready Certification,
re-affirming specific criteria were met in preparation for
hazardous storm mitigation and response efforts.
• Continue to author and request a Mayoral Proclamation from
the Mayor of Surprise claiming July as Monsoon Awareness
Month. This proclamation will be made at a City Council
Meeting and will be broadcast to the City of Surprise
residents and will highlight Monsoon season threats and
remind residents to get prepared for Monsoon Season storms.
• Coordinate messaging with the Marketing and
Communication Department regarding heat, rain, and
flooding events within the city.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 525
• Coordinate annual awareness messaging regarding the Palo
Verde Nuclear Plant annual siren test and WEA notification.
• Partner with the Phoenix office of the National Weather
Service to coordinate location specific weather reports for
major incidents and events.
Water Resource Management Dept.
• The Water Resource Management Department will be
engaging in an update to our Integrated Water Infrastructure
Improvement Plan. As part of this update there will be public
participation in a variety of forums such as City Council
Work Sessions, Department Hosted Open House events (in-
person or virtual), and Key Stakeholder Engagement at their
Public Meetings (Epcor Water, MWD, HOAs, El Mirage).
Public Works Department
• Continue various efforts to seek public input in the
development of the Capital Improvement Budget and
Development Impact Fees that incorporate projects that seek
to fulfil the intent of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
• Conduct annual council presentations from various
departments requesting the authority to apply for grants that
seek to gain funding for projects that will mitigate the
identified hazards.
• Advertise Flood Control District public announcements and
requests for public input regarding planning documents
through social media.
• Continue to provide updates regarding seasonal weather and
sandbag (flood mitigation) locations via social media any
time rainy weather is predicted.
• Public Works Department will continue to actively
participate in GAIN (Getting AZ Involved in
Neighborhoods) Safety Night Program to educate the public
about safety tips associated with flooding, household hazard
mitigation, and preparation.
• Utilizing social media, website, and water billing flyers,
Public Works will continue to seek public input in the
development of the Capital Improvement Budget and
Development Impact Fees that incorporate major projects
that contribute to strategies associated with the Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Community Development Department
• Community Development Department will be updating the
City’s General Plan, which is the guiding document for the
City’s long and short-term development. It is an intensive
process that involves lengthy public outreach and
opportunities for input, and presents opportunities to educate
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 526
Table 7-2: Continued public involvement activities or opportunities identified by
each participating jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
the community regarding hazard mitigation efforts in
development projects.
Fire Medical Department
• During the next 5 years, the SFMD will continue to partner
with the Marketing and Communications Department and
Surprise Channel 11 (TV station) to create and distribute
effective messaging to the residents and visitors of Surprise
Arizona to include:
o Wildfire Danger: Information for Surprise residents
in the growing urban interface.
o Hydration Stations: Utilizing neighborhood Fire
Stations to distribute water to the homeless.
o Monsoon Awareness: Don’t be caught by surprise in
Surprise.
o Flash Flooding: Avoid Low Water Crossings during
rainstorms.
Tempe
• Tempe will continue to reach out to our community centers in
the next 5 years. We plan to bring in our CERT team, also
partnering with ASU to pass out water and teach about extreme
heat. Including updated links on relevant city websites.
• Tempe will continue to post on social media about the severe
heat and other weather implications for our community
members.
• Tempe’s CERT team plans to set up booths at safety fairs and
various public events for community members to take in order
to prepare themselves for flooding, high-winds and extreme
heat.
Tolleson
• Periodic emergency response updates to city council via the
City Manager’s update to council
• Maintenance of a city webpage whereby any prepared plans
may be posted along with local contact(s) for more information.
• Provide hazard mitigation information at Citywide health and
safety fair
• Provide periodic hazard mitigation outreach via City’s social
media platforms, to include Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter,
along with citywide newsletter and local media.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 527
Table 7-2: Continued public involvement activities or opportunities identified by
each participating jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity
Unincorporated Maricopa
County
• Maricopa County through Maricopa County Department of
Emergency Management will continue to maintain a dedicated
webpage hosting a copy of the Plan and providing a mechanism
for submitting comments or questions regarding the Plan and
hazard mitigation in general.
• Maricopa County will continue to remain active on Twitter,
Facebook and Nextdoor to continually engage the public in
ways to mitigate and prepare for emergencies.
• Maricopa County will continue to keep the residents informed
and educated on project and improvement within their county.
We will strive to increase our public involvement and outreach
via current and future communication tools.
• Maricopa County will post all county approved plans on the
respective department’s websites, as appropriate. Informed
residents are prepared residents.
• Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management will
continue to make presentations to local groups concerning local
hazards.
Wickenburg
• Every fire season the fire department will out and give public
presentation on fuel reduction projects and will assist in
surveying property to provide information and consultation on
hazard reduction for homeowners.
• Using social media, local newspaper, and radio, the Town
provides annual public outreach to inform community of
monsoon season hazards, mitigation measures and available
assistance.
• The Town will leverage the newly created Public Relations
office to disseminate hazard mitigation information through the
Town’s website and social media platforms.
• Use the Civic Ready messaging system, which utilizes both
email and text messaging to inform the public of predicted or
occurring hazards within the jurisdiction.
Youngtown
• Provide materials that elevate the public awareness of the
hazards that may pose a risk to the community via safety fairs,
county fairs, special celebrations, etc.
• Maintain an interactive county/city/town webpage providing a
brief description of the Plan with a link to the county’s website
where the Plan is posted and a local contact for anyone with
questions.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 528
7.4 Monitoring of Tribal Mitigation Activities
The following sections describe the FMYN’s and SRPMIC’s strategy for reviewing
and assessing the progress of the mitigation goals and actions/projects identified in the Plan.
The strategy below is similar to the 2015 Plan, but updated to include additional detail in the
form of a table format for use in the annual progress assessment of the defined mitigation
actions/projects (A/P). Details are summarized in the following subsections.
7.4.1 Goals Achievement
Unless otherwise directed or warranted, the goals and objectives review will
coincide with the annual overall Plan review and update schedule presented in Section
7.1.2. Goals will be assessed using a subjective approach and a summary of the
assessment will be included in the annual review memorandum.
7.4.2 Actions/Projects Progress
Tables 6-8-7 and 6-8-20 summarize the implementation strategy for each of the
A/Ps identified in the FMYN and SRPMIC mitigation strategies. For each annual
review and plan update, the respective LPT will coordinate with the agency or agencies
identified as the lead for each A/P, to assess the implementation status of the identified
action/project and generate a brief memorandum summarizing the status of each project
using the format below. Tables 6-7-7 and 6-7-20 summarize the assessments of the
2015 Plan mitigation A/Ps performed by the LPT for this update.
Project ID
and
Description
Lead Agency
and Contact
Info
Current Status of
Action/Project
Project
Disposition Explanation
Include the ID
and description
of project as
included in Table
6-8-7
Provide the name,
agency affiliation, and
contact information
(phone and email) of
person or persons
contacted
Assign one of the following
status descriptors as
appropriate:
• NO ACTION
• IN-PROGRESS
• COMPLETED
Provide a
descriptor of
either KEEP or
DROP to identify
future disposition
of action/project.
Provide a description
of the current project
status including date
of implementation,
challenges faced,
percent completed,
funding sources used,
etc..
7.4.3 Project Closeouts
Once an A/P is implemented, its progress will be monitored by the LPT on at
least an annual basis as described in Section 7.4.2. For FEMA supported projects,
progress reports will be required on a quarterly basis throughout the project duration.
The degree of quarterly reporting will be dependent upon the type of A/P, its funding
source, and the associated requirements. At a minimum, the quarterly report shall
address:
Project Completion Status
Project Challenges/Issues (If any)
Budgetary Considerations (Cost Overruns or Underruns)
Detailed Documentation of Expenditures
Upon completion of projects, a member of the LPT will visit the project location
to view the final results. A closed project will also change status to “Completed” and
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 529
will then be monitored for effectiveness in the intended mitigation. FEMA supported
project closeouts will include an audit of the A/P financials as well as other
guidelines/requirements set forth under the funding or grant rules, and any attendant
administrative plans developed by FMYN and/or SRPMIC.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 530
[This page is purposely blank]
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 531
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
FMYN ............Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
GIS ................Geographic Information System
HAZMAT .....Hazardous Material
HAZUS-MH .Hazards United States Multi-Hazard
HMA ..............Hazard Mitigation Assistance
IFCI ...............International Fire Code Institute
LEPC .............Local Emergency Planning Committee
MCDEM .......Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
MCDOT .........Maricopa County Department of Transportation
MJHMP .........Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
MMI ..............Modified Mercalli Intensity
NCA ...............National Climate Assessment
NCDC ...........National Climate Data Center
NDMC ...........National Drought Mitigation Center
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 532
NESDIS .........National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service
NFHL .............National Flood Hazard Layer
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
PDSI ..............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
SRPMIC .........Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community
UBC ..............Uniform Building Code
USACE .........United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA ............United States Department of Agriculture
USFS .............United States Forest Service
USGCRP ........U.S. Global Change Research Program
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 a slight
modification of the list originally presented by the State of Arizona in the 2013 State of Arizona
Hazard Mitigation Plan.
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
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 533
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.
Extreme Heat
Extreme Heat refers to environmental conditions with high air temperatures, often in
combination with high shortwave or longwave radiation (sunlight, or heat radiated from
buildings and other surfaces) and/or high humidity. Under certain conditions, low or high wind
speeds can also increase the risks associated with high heat. Extreme heat poses threats to the
health and well-being of humans, animals, and plants, as well as critical infrastructure systems
including food, water, energy, and transportation. The major human health 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.
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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 534
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 by 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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 535
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 long-
baseline infrastructure such as canals, sewer systems, gas lines and roads. Earth fissures are
the most spectacular and destructive manifestation of subsidence-related phenomena.
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 super cooled, 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, snow loads can cause significant structural damage to under-designed
buildings.
GENERAL PLAN TERMS
Actions/Projects
Specific actions or projects that help achieve goals and objectives.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 536
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.
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 human-caused disasters through a comprehensive, risk-based
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 537
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.
Goals
General guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. Goals are usually broad statements
with long-term perspective.
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
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 538
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.
HAZUS
A GIS-based nationally standardized earthquake, flood and high wind event loss estimation
tool developed by FEMA.
Implementation Strategy
A comprehensive strategy that describes how the mitigation actions will be implemented.
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.
Objectives
Defined strategies or implementation steps intended to attain the identified goals. Objectives
are specific, measurable, and have a defined time horizon.
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
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 539
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.
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.
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.
MARICOPA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2021
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 540
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.
Urban Heat Island Effect
The EPA defines Urban Heat Islands (UHI) as urbanized areas that experience higher
temperatures than outlying areas. Structures such as buildings, roads, and other infrastructure
absorb and re-emit the sun’s heat more than natural landscapes such as forests and water
bodies. Urban areas, where these structures are highly concentrated and greenery is limited,
become “islands” of higher temperatures relative to outlying areas. Daytime temperatures in
urban areas are about 1–7°F higher than temperatures in outlying areas and nighttime
temperatures are about 2-5°F higher.