HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2017-087 Approving implementation of the 2017 Pima County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan MARANA RESOLUTION NO. 2017-087
RELATING TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2017 PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS the 2017 Pima County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (the
"Plan") was prepared by the Pima County Office of Emergency Management, along with the
Town of Marana, the Town of Oro Valley, the Town of Sahuarita, the City of Tucson, and the
Pascua Yaqui Tribe; and
WI-11-1.
A
REAS the Plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 and the implementing regulations set forth in the Federal Register which
require that a community have an approved hazard mitigation plan in order to qualify for federal
grant funding for emergency management and disaster relief; and
WHEREAS information in this Plan will be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation
activities and decisions for future land use and to help reduce the cost of disaster response and
recovery to the community and its property owners by protecting structures, reducing exposure,
and minimizing overall community impacts and disruption; and
WHEREAS the Mayor and Council of the Town of Marana find that this resolution is in
the best interests of the Town of Marana and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF MARANA, that the 2017 Pima County Multi-Juri sdi ctional Hazard Mitigation Plan
attached to this resolution as Exhibit A is hereby approved.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager and staff are hereby directed and
authorized to undertake all other and further tasks required or beneficial to implement the Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Marana, Arizona,
this 5"' day of September, 2017.
Mayor#d Hon'ea
ATTEST: APPRO D AS TO FORM:
elyn ronson, Town Clerk ra Cass' Town o ey
Al
00053877DOCA it
Marana Resolution No.2017-087 MARANA AZ
r 5T A I L I SHED 1477
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
1
2017
Pima County
Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Background and Scope .................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Tribal Assurance ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Plan Organization .......................................................................................................................... 2
SECTION 2: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS................................................................................................... 5
2.1 County Overview ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Jurisdictional Overviews ............................................................................................................. 13
2.2.1 Town of Marana ...................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.2 Town of Oro Valley ................................................................................................................ 16
2.2.3 Pascua Yaqui Tribe ................................................................................................................. 18
2.2.4 Town of Sahuarita ................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.5 City of South Tucson .............................................................................................................. 25
2.2.6 City of Tucson ......................................................................................................................... 27
SECTION 3: PLANNING PROCESS .............................................................................................................. 30
3.1 Planning Process........................................................................................................................... 30
3.2 Planning Activities and Teams .................................................................................................... 30
3.3 Public and Stakeholder Involvement .......................................................................................... 35
3.4 Reference Documents and Resources ......................................................................................... 37
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. 40
4.1 Section Changes ............................................................................................................................ 40
4.2 Hazard Identification ................................................................................................................... 40
4.3 Vulnerability Analysis Methodology .......................................................................................... 43
4.4 Hazard Risk Profiles .................................................................................................................... 45
4.4.1 Drought ................................................................................................................................... 46
4.4.2 Earthquake .............................................................................................................................. 56
4.4.3 Extreme Cold .......................................................................................................................... 64
4.4.4 Extreme Heat .......................................................................................................................... 68
4.4.5 Flood ....................................................................................................................................... 74
4.4.6 Landslide ................................................................................................................................. 92
4.4.7 Severe Wind ............................................................................................................................ 96
4.4.8 Wildfire ..................................................................................................................................100
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY ...................................................................................................... 106
5.2 Hazard Mitigation Goal and Objectives....................................................................................106
5.3 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................106
5.4 Mitigation Actions/Projects ........................................................................................................122
SECTION 6: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES ................................................................................... 142
6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating ......................................................................................142
6.3 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms ......................................................................143
APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... 148
APPENDIX B: RESOLUTIONS OF ADOPTION ........................................................................................... 150
PIMA COUNTY .......................................................................................................................................... 151
TOWN OF MARANA .................................................................................................................................. 152
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page iii
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ........................................................................................................................... 153
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE ............................................................................................................................. 154
TOWN OF SAHUARITA ............................................................................................................................. 155
CITY OF TUCSON ...................................................................................................................................... 156
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION .......................................................................... 158
APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS .................................................................... 198
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ..................................................................................................... 221
PIMA COUNTY .......................................................................................................................................... 221
TOWN OF MARANA .................................................................................................................................. 224
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ........................................................................................................................... 226
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE ............................................................................................................................. 227
TOWN OF SAHUARITA ............................................................................................................................. 229
CITY OF TUCSON ...................................................................................................................................... 230
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page iv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1: VICINITY ................................................................................................................................. 6
FIGURE 2-2: ECOREGIONS .......................................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 2-3: COMMUNITY LOCATION AND LAND OWNERSHIP ................................................................ 9
FIGURE 2-4: GENERAL LOCATION AND TRANSPORTATION ................................................................... 11
FIGURE 2-5: TOWN OF MARANA LAND USE ............................................................................................ 15
FIGURE 2-6: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY LAND USE ..................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 2-7: PASCUA LOCATION .............................................................................................................. 20
FIGURE 2-8: TOWN OF SAHUARITA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ............................................................ 24
FIGURE 2-9: CITY OF SOUTH TUCSON LAND OWNERSHIP AND LOCATION .......................................... 26
FIGURE 2-10: CITY OF TUCSON GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION OF LAND USE & FUTURE GROWTH .. 29
FIGURE 4-1: TUCSON AVERAGE PRECIPITATION VARIANCES BASED ON 1990-2015 TREND ................. 47
FIGURE 4-2: U.S. DROUGHT MONITOR FOR MAY 2017 .......................................................................... 48
FIGURE 4-3: U.S. SEASONAL DROUGHT OUTLOOK, APRIL TO JULY 2017 ............................................ 48
FIGURE 4-4: ARIZONA SHORT TERM DROUGHT STATUS FOR MAY 2017.............................................. 51
FIGURE 4-5: ARIZONA LONG TERM DROUGHT STATUS FOR APRIL 2017 ............................................. 52
FIGURE 4-6 SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA EARTHQUAKE FAULT SYSTEMS ............................................... 58
FIGURE 4-7: USGS SIMPLIFIED 2014 EARTHQUAKE HAZARD MAP ...................................................... 59
FIGURE 4-8: PGA FOR A 2% CHANCE IN 50 YEARS’ RECURRENCE ...................................................... 60
FIGURE 4-9: NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HEAT INDEX CHART ....................................................... 70
FIGURE 4-10: PIMA COUNTY FLOOD HAZARDS ...................................................................................... 79
FIGURE 4-11: EASTERN PIMA COUNTY FLOOD HAZARDS DETAIL ........................................................ 80
FIGURE 4-12: LOCAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS PIMA COUNTY ............................................................... 81
FIGURE 4-13: LOCAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS EASTERN PIMA COUNTY DETAIL ................................ 82
FIGURE 4-14: WILDFIRE HAZARD POTENTIAL PIMA COUNTY ............................................................ 104
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page v
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page vi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2-1: CLIMATE STATISTICS FOR STATIONS IN PIMA COUNTY ..................................................... 10
TABLE 2-2: POPULATION ESTIMATES ...................................................................................................... 12
TABLE 2-3: PASCUA YAQUI TRIBAL ENROLLMENT DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................... 18
TABLE 2-4 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................... 21
TABLE 2-5: TOWN OF SAHUARITA POPULATION GROWTH .................................................................... 22
TABLE 2-6: TOWN OF SAHUARITA MEDIUM INCOME ............................................................................. 23
TABLE 2-7: TOWN OF SAHUARITA EDUCATION ...................................................................................... 23
TABLE 3-1: PLANNING TEAM PARTICIPANTS .......................................................................................... 31
TABLE 3-2: LOCAL PLANNING TEAM AND CONTENT RESOURCES ........................................................ 32
TABLE 3-3: PAST PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT .............................................................. 35
TABLE 3-4: RESOURCE DOCUMENTS REVIEWED AND INCORPORATED IN THIS PLAN ........................... 38
TABLE 4-1: COMPARISON OF PLAN HAZARDS ......................................................................................... 40
TABLE 4-2: PIMA COUNTY DECLARED DISASTER COSTS (1991 – 2016) ................................................ 42
TABLE 4-3: CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX CATEGORIES AND RISK LEVELS ............................ 43
TABLE 4-4: HAZARDS TO BE MITIGATED BY EACH JURISDICTION 2017 ............................................. 44
TABLE 4-5: CPRI RESULTS FOR DROUGHT FOR 2017 ............................................................................ 49
TABLE 4-6: CPRI RESULTS FOR EARTHQUAKE FOR 2017 ...................................................................... 61
TABLE 4-7: CPRI RESULTS FOR EXTREME COLD 2017 .......................................................................... 65
TABLE 4-8: CPRI RESULTS FOR EXTREME HEAT FOR 2017 .................................................................. 70
TABLE 4-9: CPRI RESULTS FOR FLOOD 2017 ......................................................................................... 77
TABLE 4-10: PIMA COUNTY EXPOSURE AND LOSS ESTIMATES DUE TO FLOODING ............................ 87
TABLE 4-11: PIMA COUNTY EXPOSURE AND LOSS ESTIMATES DUE TO FLOODING IN LOCAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS ......................................................................................................................................... 89
TABLE 4-12: NFIP STATISTICS AS OF JULY 31, 2016 .............................................................................. 91
TABLE 4-13: REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTY STATISTICS BY JURISDICTION .......................................... 91
TABLE 4-14: CPRI RESULTS FOR LANDSLIDE ......................................................................................... 93
TABLE 4-15: CPRI RESULTS FOR SEVERE WIND FOR 2017 ................................................................... 98
TABLE 4-16: CPRI RESULTS FOR WILDFIRE FOR 2017 ........................................................................ 102
TABLE 5-1: PIMA COUNTY LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITIES ................................................ 107
TABLE 5-2: PIMA COUNTY TECHNICAL STAFF AND PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES ................................ 108
TABLE 5-3: PIMA COUNTY FISCAL CAPABILITIES ................................................................................ 108
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page vii
TABLE 5-4: MARANA LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITIES ......................................................... 109
TABLE 5-5: MARANA TECHNICAL STAFF AND PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES ......................................... 110
TABLE 5-6: MARANA FISCAL CAPABILITIES ......................................................................................... 110
TABLE 5-7: ORO VALLEY LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITIES .................................................. 111
TABLE 5-8: ORO VALLEY TECHNICAL STAFF AND PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES ................................. 112
TABLE 5-9: ORO VALLEY FISCAL CAPABILITIES .................................................................................. 112
TABLE 5-10: PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITIES ................................. 113
TABLE 5-11: PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE TECHNICAL STAFF AND PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES ................. 113
TABLE 5-12: PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE FISCAL CAPABILITIES ................................................................. 114
TABLE 5-13: MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE ................................. 115
TABLE 5-14: SAHUARITA LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITIES ................................................... 117
TABLE 5-15: SAHUARITA TECHNICAL STAFF AND PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES .................................. 117
TABLE 5-16: SAHUARITA FISCAL CAPABILITIES ................................................................................... 118
TABLE 5-17: TUCSON LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITIES ......................................................... 118
TABLE 5-18: TUCSON TECHNICAL STAFF AND PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES ........................................ 119
TABLE 5-19: TUCSON FISCAL CAPABILITIES ......................................................................................... 120
TABLE 5-20: 2017 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR UNINCORPORATED PIMA COUNTY ......................... 124
TABLE 5-21: 2017 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MARANA .................................................................. 126
TABLE 5-22: 2017 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ORO VALLEY ........................................................... 129
TABLE 5-23: 2017 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE ............................................. 132
TABLE 5-24: 2017 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SAHUARITA .............................................................. 133
TABLE 5-25: 2017 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR TUCSON .................................................................... 135
TABLE 6-1: CONTINUED PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ................................................ 147
TABLE D-1: 2012 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PIMA COUNTY........................................................... 198
TABLE D-2: 2012 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MARANA .................................................................... 200
TABLE D-3: 2012 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ORO VALLEY ............................................................ 203
TABLE D-3: 2012 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE .............................................. 208
TABLE D-4: 2012 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SAHUARITA ............................................................... 213
TABLE D-5: 2012 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR TUCSON ..................................................................... 218
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION Page 1
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of the Plan is to identify natural hazards that impact the various jurisdictions located within Pima 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.
Pima County and all of the Cities and Towns are political subdivisions of the State of Arizona and are organized under
Title 9 (cities/towns) and Title 11 (counties) of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS). This Pima County Multi-
Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared by the Pima County Office of Emergency Management (PCOEM)
and the listed participating jurisdictions, along with interested public, appointed representatives and elected officials
of these jurisdictions. Accordingly, each of the participating jurisdictions is empowered to formally plan and adopt
the Plan on behalf of their respective jurisdictions.
1.2 Background and Scope
Each year in the United States, disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more. Nationwide,
taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover
from disasters. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters, because additional expenses to insurance
companies and nongovernmental organizations are not reimbursed by tax dollars. Many disasters are predictable, and
much of the damage caused by these events can be alleviated or even eliminated.
Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human
life and property from a hazard event. The goal of risk reduction is to reduce the risk to life and property, which
includes existing structures and future construction, in the pre and post-disaster environments. This is
achieved through regulations, local ordinances, land use, and building practices and mitigation projects that reduce or
eliminate long-term risk from hazards and their effects.”
Another way to understand hazard mitigation is in relation to the emergency management cycle in the whole
community. FEMA encourages the Whole Community approach to mitigation, prevention, protection, response and
recovery activities. This means that, in addition to federal, state and local emergency management entities, academia,
nongovernmental organizations, community members and the private sector need to be engaged in all phases of
emergency management including mitigation.
The results of a three-year congressionally mandated independent study to assess future savings from mitigation
activities provides states that on average, each dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of $4 in avoided
future losses to society including saving lives and preventing injuries (National Institute of Building Science Multi-
Hazard Mitigation Council, 2005).1 This study is currently being updated.
Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which natural hazards that threaten communities are identified,
likely impacts of those hazards are determined, mitigation goals are set, and appropriate strategies to lessen impacts
are determined, prioritized, and implemented. This Plan documents the planning process employed by the Planning
Team for Pima County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). The Plan identifies relevant hazards
and risks, and identifies the strategy that will be used to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and
sustainability.
Examples of hazard mitigation strategies include, but are not limited to the following:
Development of mitigation standards, regulations, policies, and programs;
Land use/zoning policies;
1 National Institute of Building Science Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council, 2016: http://www.nibs.org/?page=mmc_projects#nhms
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION Page 2
Strong building code and floodplain management regulations;
Dam safety program, seawalls, and levee systems;
Acquisition of flood prone and environmentally sensitive lands; or
Retrofitting/hardening/elevating structures and critical facilities.
Relocation of structures, infrastructure, and facilities out of vulnerable areas
Public awareness/education campaigns
Improvement of warning and evacuation systems
This Plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Action of 2000 and the
implementing regulations set forth in the Federal Register (hereafter, these requirements will be referred to
collectively as the DMA2K). The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that a community have an
approved hazard mitigation plan in order to qualify for federal funding from the following grant programs. Some of
the grant programs available include:
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive (PDM-C)
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
Information in this Plan will be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities and decisions for future land
use. Proactive mitigation planning will help reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery to the community and
its property owners by protecting structures, reducing exposure and minimizing overall community impacts and
disruption. The community has been affected by hazards in the past and is thus committed to reducing future disaster
impacts and maintaining eligibility for Federal funding. In the future, climate variability could affect the outcome of
hazards by either reducing or increasing disaster impacts. This plan will attempt to address potential variables in each
of the hazards addressed.
This is a multi-jurisdictional plan that geographically covers the participating communities within the Pima County
boundaries (hereinafter referred to as the planning area). The following jurisdictions participated in the planning
process:
Pima County (Unincorporated)
Town of Marana
Town of Oro Valley
Town of Sahuarita
City of Tucson
Pascua Yaqui Tribe
1.3 Tribal Assurance
The Pascua Yaqui Tribe is a federally recognized tribe, organized and established as a sovereign nation pursuant to
the provisions of the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934. The Pascua Yaqui Tribe achieved federal recognition
as an established tribe on September 18, 1978, and became recognized as a historic tribe in 1994.
The Pascua Yaqui Tribe will comply with all applicable Federal Statutes and regulations during the periods for which
it receives grant funding, in compliance with DMA 2000 requirement §201.7(c)(6), and will amend its plan whenever
necessary to reflect changes in tribal or Federal laws and statutes as required.
1.4 Plan Organization
This Plan is organized as follows:
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION Page 3
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Community Profile
Section 3: Planning Process
Section 4: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment
Section 5: Mitigation Strategies and Action Items
Section 6: Plan Maintenance
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION Page 4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 5
SECTION 2: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS
2.1 County Overview
History
Pima County is unique for being one of the oldest continuously inhabited areas of the United States. Native Americans
have lived in this region from prehistoric times to the present, with the Tohono O’odham reservation being the second
largest in the nation. Originally named for the Native American tribe inhabiting the area, evidence of the human
settlement of Pima County dates back over 9,000 years. The Hohokam inhabited the area until the 1500s when they
mysteriously disappeared. The Tohono O’odham were the next to settle the region and concentrated along the Santa
Cruz and Gila Rivers. The arrival of the Spanish in the 1690s marked the first European peoples to establish
settlements in the area. Missionary and explorer Father Eusebio Francisco Kino established the San Xavier del Bac
mission. Throughout the 1700s, the Spanish continued to settle throughout southern Arizona. In 1775, the Tucson
presidio was built to protect settlers from raiding tribes of Apaches. Residents of the fort began to refer to it as the
“Old Pueblo”, which remains today as a nickname for Tucson.
Pima County was created in 1864, and included all of southern Arizona acquired from Mexico by the Gadsden
Purchase. It is the second largest of the four original counties. Over time, portions of Pima County were carved off to
create Maricopa, Pinal, Cochise, and Graham Counties.
Development began to flourish around the middle of the 18th century when silver and gold were discovered in the
geographical area and the arrival of prospectors from Mexico. With the expansion of mining and ranching in the late
1800s, Pima County continued to witness increasing populations as new residents migrated to the Tucson region
settling in proximity to major transportation corridors. Slowly, development moved eastward from Tucson until
abutting with federally owned land resulting in a trend reversal with new growth occurring to the northwest. In the
1960’s the county flourished due to the copper industry, and by the 1970s, the industry was responsible for the
employment of almost 9,000 people.
According to recent 2016 data, Pima County now has a population of around 1,010,025, with a projected population
increase to 1.4 million by 2041. Pima County is multi-culturally diverse and unique in the sense that it is a very
urbanized county, with more than one-third of the population living outside of any incorporated cities or towns. The
county seat of Pima County is Tucson, where most of the population is located. Tucson is a major commercial and
academic hub, and is home to the University of Arizona, Pima Air & Space Museum and the Arizona-Sonora Desert
Museum2.
Geography
Pima County is located in southern Arizona and encompasses 9,184 square miles, which is roughly equal in area to
the states of Rhode Island and Connecticut combined. Pima County shares a 120-mile border in common with Mexico.
Pima County lies within the Basin and Range Physiographic Province, characterized by northwest-trending mountain
ranges separated by alluvial basins. Separated by the Tucson and Sierrita Mountains, a large portion of Pima County
lies in two alluvial basins: Avra Valley to the west and the Tucson basin in the east. The regional drainage network,
primarily formed by the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries, is dry for a majority of the year except during the spring
runoff or from heavy storms.
Varying in elevation from desert valleys at roughly 1,200 feet to the 9,185-foot peak of Mount Lemmon, the county
is home to diverse plant and animal communities. Numerous mountain ranges ring the Tucson basin, including the
Santa Catalina, Rincon, Empire, Santa Rita, Sierrita, and Tucson mountains. Two cactus forests traverse the county –
Saguaro National Park to the northeast and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in the southwestern portion. In
addition, the County is home to the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge nestled along the western boundary of the
2 Source: http://webcms.pima.gov/government/about_pima_county/, 2016
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 6
county and the Coronado National Forest in the eastern portion of the county within the Santa Catalina Mountains.
Source: Pima County Geographical Information Systems, 2016
Figure 2-1: Vicinity
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 7
The geographical characteristics of Pima County have been mapped into the following three terrestrial ecoregions:
Chihuahuan Desert – this ecoregion is typical of the high altitude deserts and foothills and is found in
much of the southeastern portion of Arizona. Elevations in this zone varies between 3,000-4,500 feet.
The average temperatures for the Chihuahuan Desert tends to be cooler than the Sonoran Desert due to
the elevation differences. However, like its lower elevation cousin, the summers are hot and dry with
mild to cool, relatively dry winters.
Sierra Madre Occidental Pine-Oak Forest – this ecoregion is predominant to mountainous regions in
southeast Arizona with elevations generally above 5,000 feet. The average temperatures tend to be cool
during the summer and cold in winter.
Sonoran Desert – this ecoregion is an arid environment that covers much of southwestern Arizona. The
elevation varies in this zone from approximately sea level to 3,000 feet. Vegetation in this zone is
comprised mainly of Sonoran Desert Scrub and is one of the few locations in the world where saguaro
cactus can be found. The climate is typically hot and wet during the summer and mild during the winter
with a very dry spring and fall.
Land ownership within Pima County is divided between Indian Reservation (42%), Private (12%), U.S. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management (12%), State Trust Land (15%), and other public lands (19%)3.
Government
The governmental and administrative affairs of the unincorporated areas of Pima County are directed by a five-
member Board of Supervisors with each member elected from a designated district. Because of Arizona’s
constitutional provisions and the requirements promulgated by Arizona Revised Statutes, the government of Pima
County is organized to have a direct and indirect relationship with the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors
has direct control over the County’s general government functions including community services; indigent defense;
medical, health, and welfare services; and public works functions. These broad functions include the County’s internal
governmental administrative/ management activities; maintenance and construction of the County’s sewerage and
sanitation infrastructures; County streets, roads, and bridges which comprise the County’s transportation
infrastructure; natural resources, parks, community centers, recreational facilities and libraries (in cooperation with
the city of Tucson); and numerous clinics. Indirect relationships are maintained with the elected officials. The Board
of Supervisors appoints a County Administrator to be responsible for the general direction, supervision,
administration, and coordination of all affairs of the county.
Each of the five municipalities in the county (Town of Marana, Town of Oro Valley, Town of Sahuarita, City of South
Tucson, and City of Tucson) are governed by council-manager form of government. An elected tribal council governs
the Pascua Yaqui Tribe. Each of the municipalities and the tribal community are described in more detail in Section
2.3 below.
3 Source: Pima County Geographic Information Systems, 2016
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 8 Figure 2-2: Ecoregions
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 9 Figure 2-3: Community Location and Land Ownership
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 10
Geology
Pima County is comprised of a complex geology reflective of a history of faulting and folding of the earth’s crust. The
mountains include sedimentary, metamorphic volcanic, or intrusive igneous rock, or a combination of the three. The
alluvial basins consist of well-consolidated sediments eroded from the surrounding mountain ranges with caliche, or
hardpan, underneath. Caliche is formed as calcium carbonate and deposited within the soil through water seepage.
Transportation
As shown in Figure 2-4, several major roadways support both local and transportation needs. Interstate 10 provides
connectivity with the Phoenix metropolitan area to the north and Interstate 19 with Mexico to the south. Several other
State and US highways, most notably Arizona State Highways 85 and 86, coupled with key Indian Routes provide
local and regional access throughout southern Arizona. Pima County is host to four municipal airports providing
commercial and general aviation service to the region. In addition, the county is home to the Davis-Monthan Air Force
Base in Tucson. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base has approximately 6,500 Active Duty military personnel, 1,000
Reserve and Air National Guard personnel, 3,000 civilian employees, and nearly 19,000 military retirees that reside
in the Tucson area.4
Climate
For the majority of Pima County, the climate is typical to the Sonoran Desert areas of the state and is characterized by
abundant sunshine, a long summer, mild winter, low average annual precipitation, relatively low humidity, and
generally light winds. In the relatively small areas of the county above 4,000 feet mean sea level, the climate tends to
be more moderate. Climatic statistics for weather stations within Pima County are produced by the Western Region
Climate Center5 and span records dating back to the early 1900’s.
Table 2-1 lists some partial climate statistics for several of the weather stations located within the county. Average
temperatures within Pima County range from near freezing during the winter months to over 100°F 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 foothill communities will
generally be about 10° less than those in valley communities.
Table 2-1: Climate Statistics for Stations in Pima County
Location
Average Temperature (F) Precipitation (inches)
January July
Wettest Month Driest Month
Total
Annual
Average Min Max Min Max
Ajo 41.6 64.2 77.8 103 1.90 (August) 0.07 (May) 8.37
Cascabel 30.0 64.8 65.3 99.2 2.59 (August) 0.31 (May) 13.33
Kitt Peak 33.0 49.6 60.8 80.4 4.53 (August) 0.44 (May) 23.16
Sabino Canyon 37.1 66.4 72.4 101.9 2.41 (August) 0.19 (May) 12.73
Green Valley/Sahuarita 37.0 67.7 73.6 98.8 3.23 (July) 0.21 (May) 13.42
Sells 36.9 66.0 72.1 101.1 2.58 (July) 0.15 (May) 11.77
Tucson Magnetic Observatory 34.2 64.8 71.3 100.5 2.25 (August) 0.24 (May) 12.62
Tucson, University of Arizona 38.7 64.9 74.0 99.4 2.36 (August) 0.22 (May) 11.4
Note: Period of record varies by station but generally spans from the early 1900’s to 2010. Sabino Canyon 1941-2002. Green Valley
1988-2016 is near Sahuarita.
Source: Western Regional Climate Center, 2016.
4 Davis-Monthan & 355th Fighter Wing Fact Sheet, 2015
5 Most of the data provided and summarized here taken from the WRCC website beginning at the following URL:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html, 2016
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 11 Figure 2-4: General Location and Transportation
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 12
Precipitation throughout Pima County is governed largely 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 mild
precipitation events 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 hailstorms.6
Average wind speeds are similar across Arizona, averaging approximately 6 to 9 miles per hour annually. Pima County
generally experiences average wind speeds at approximately 8 miles per hour. However, significant variations can
exist throughout the year, as evidenced by Tucson’s statewide record of 76 miles per hour maximum-recorded wind
gust. The surrounding mountains and topography of the region influence wind velocities and directions in the Tucson
basin.
Population
As of July 2016, 1,009,371 residents call Pima County home7. The majority of the citizens still live in the incorporated
communities or reservation portion of Pima County. The largest community is the City of Tucson. The two
incorporated cities and three towns are geographically located in the eastern portion of Pima County.
Table 2-2: Population Estimates
Jurisdiction 2010 2015
Pima County 981,168 1,009,371
Town of Marana* 35,051 41,655
Town of Oro Valley 40,984 43,499
Pascua Yaqui Tribe (Pascua Pueblo Reservation) 3,745 8,831**
Town of Sahuarita 25,259 27,637
City of South Tucson 5,672 5,712
Tohono O'odham Nation 9,051 Not
reported
City of Tucson 520,795 529,845
Unincorporated County 353,319 361.023
2010 Pascua Yaqui Tribe and Tohono O’odham Nation estimates from 2010 Census Block data
2010 and 2015 data from AZDOA: https://population.az.gov/population-estimates
*A portion of Marana is in Pinal County
** Provided by Pascua Yaqui Tribe and current as of September 2016
Economy
The metropolitan Tucson area is the center of economic activity for the County. As of July 2016, the countywide labor
force was estimated at 470,100 with an unemployment rate of 5.8%.8 A majority of workers in Pima County are
employed in the educational services, healthcare, and social assistance sector of the economy, followed by arts and
entertainment, and then professional, scientific and management. The labor force is reflective of the influence of
tourism, academia, and the retirement population in the Tucson metropolitan area.
6 Office of the State Climatologist for AZ, 2004. http://geography.asu.edu/azclimate/narrative.htm
7 U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts, 2016. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/00
8 AZ Department of Administration Employment and Population Statistics, August 2016.
https://laborstats.az.gov/sites/default/files/Emp-Report.pdf
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 13
2.2 Jurisdictional Overviews
2.2.1 Town of Marana
Nestled along Interstate 10 approximately one mile northwest of Tucson, the Town of Marana has experienced
dramatic growth in the past decade because of aggressive annexation policies and the development of master-planned
communities. Founded in 1881, in conjunction with the development of rail transportation, Marana solidified itself as
a destination with its appearance on Southern Pacific Railroad maps in 1890. Although ranching and the railroad
dominated the community prior to World War I, the post-war years brought significant change to the region with the
implementation of extensive agricultural irrigation systems and the development of cotton farming. Other substantial
factors in Marana’s development were the location of Marana Army Air Field (now Pinal Airpark and Evergreen Air
Center) and the removal of the downtown business district due to the widening of Interstate 10 in the early 1960’s.
In March of 1977, the Town of Marana incorporated with an area roughly 10 square miles. Governed by a seven-
member Town Council consisting of a Mayor and six council members elected for four-year terms, the Town utilizes
a Council-Manager form of government. The Town Council appoints a Town Manager responsible for the daily
operation of town services and the orderly administration of affairs.
Although a majority of Marana’s topography is flat, much of the area is designated as floodplain. In addition, the
existing Town boundaries include portions of the Tortolita and Tucson Mountain foothills that are dominated by slopes
exceeding 15%. The development constraints posed by these environmentally sensitive lands provide the potential for
natural open space and habitat conservation areas to balance with the urban development occurring. Several riparian
features, including major wash crossing in the Tortolita Fan and the Santa Cruz River provide natural wildlife habitat
for diverse species native to the Sonoran Desert.
Although witnessing substantial urban growth during the past decade, Marana continues to hold onto its agricultural
and ranching roots and serves as the main trade and transportation center for the surrounding rural periphery for the
eastern portion of Pima County. As illustrated in Table 2-2, the 2015 Census population of Marana is 41,655. On
average between the years of 2010-2014, the civilian labor force was
64.5% of the town’s population. In 2012, when data was last recorded
by the U.S. Census Bureau, there was approximately $23,436 worth
of retail sales per capita in the town. New building permits issued in
2015 were 622.9
Marana’s General Plan, adopted on December 7, 2010, reflects a
community preparing for unprecedented future growth. Marana’s
Land Use Map (Figure 2-5) defines a pattern of growth sensitive to
the natural environment and reflective of the Town’s goal to preserve
and protect natural habitats. The Marana General Plan designates a
majority of northeast Marana as environmentally sensitive, best
suited for less intense uses such as low-density residential development or open space. Low and medium density
residential in proximity to environmentally sensitive areas provide a transition to more intensive commercial and
industrial uses located in proximity to major transportation corridors including Interstate 10 and the Marana Northwest
Regional Airport.
The Town’s reputation for a business-friendly environment with no city property taxes has led to substantial recent
investment in economic development activities. Although agriculture remains a major force in Marana’s economy, a
recent influx of residential and commercial development has occurred due to its location between Phoenix and Tucson
along I-10 and the Union Pacific Railroad, a business-friendly government and no town property taxes. To the south,
adjacent to Tucson, is a new commercial business district. Continental Ranch/Peppertree Ranch Industrial Park has
several new tenants and new industrial properties will soon be available at Marana Northwest Regional Airport.
Marana’s major private employers include Arizona Portland Cement, Costco, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Lowes, Sargent
9 U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts, 2016. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 14
Controls & Aerospace, and Tucson Ready Mix. Major public employers include the Marana Unified School District
and the Town of Marana. Marana’s planning area encompasses approximately 228 square miles in Pima and Pinal
Counties. Existing land uses include natural undisturbed desert, improved drainage areas, agriculture, recreational
lands, and residential, commercial, and industrial development. A majority of the Planning Area beyond the Town
boundaries is undeveloped.
Marana's Town limits reflect the many changes and transitions that have occurred since its incorporation. Marana's
rural heritage is reflected in traditional family farms and agricultural activities that continue on many acres of land
historically used for agriculture. Older, low-density residential and commercial development was located west of
Interstate 10 (I-10), in and near the traditional Town area where many Marana pioneer families settled. This northwest
part of Marana began a transition to a more densely populated area in early 2000. At that time, the Cactus Ferruginous
Pygmy-owl was listed as an endangered species, which limited development in much of the area east of I-10. This
shifted the development focus to the farm fields in northwest Marana. The extension of bank protection along the
Santa Cruz River to Sanders Road took many of the farm fields out of the floodplain and opened them up to
development opportunities. The extension of close to six miles of sewer lines in 2003 brought urban services to the
northwest area. By 2010, there were more than 4,000 new lots platted in this developing part of the Town and close
to half of those lots had constructed homes. The new growth brought approximately 5,000 new residents to this once
rural area. The northwest area is the number one growth area for Marana, with more than 17,000 additional lots entitled
in this area.
Marana’s planning area includes natural areas, such as the Tortolita Mountain Alluvial Fan in the northeast, which
provide physical constraints that limit development. Characterized by steep slopes, natural drainage ways, native
vegetation and floodplains, this area provides natural undisturbed open space and habitat for a multitude of plant and
animal species. The Town has proactively moved to direct new growth and development away from the fan to other
more appropriate areas.
The Town of Marana 2010 General Plan indicates that residential development is the predominant land use, occupying
more than 50% of the total land area. The residential categories provide a range of densities within each designation.
However, the maximum density cannot always be achieved because of land use policies or physical constraints.
Commercial and industrial uses may potentially accommodate a wide range of uses.
The new Twin Peaks Road extension and Twin Peaks/I-10 freeway interchange has created access and provided
infrastructure to new areas previously unavailable for development. Related to this, Tangerine Road, from La Canada
Drive to I-10, is currently in design for the expansion of up to six lanes that will facilitate the expected growth in three
activity centers in the region including the Tangerine Road/I-10 Activity Center; Tangerine Corridor Activity Center;
and Dove Mountain Activity Center. The new Tangerine Road will eventually connect to a fully planned, new
Tangerine/I-10 freeway interchange. These roadway projects will allow for the capacity necessary for future growth
in the area as well as provide better circulation and connectivity in the community including access to the Town of
Oro Valley.
At the Marana Regional Airport, a future focal point of the town’s local economy, continual upgrading and expansion
of the facility has benefit to the airport and to the Town’s ability to attract commerce. The recent addition of road and
utility infrastructure in the 1-10 area directly east of the airport will attract new businesses to the Town while others
will be attracted to the airport because of its business-class jet capabilities, convenient location and access for business
or pleasure.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 15 Figure 2-5: Town of Marana Land Use
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 16
2.2.2 Town of Oro Valley
Located between the Santa Catalina Mountains to the east and the Tortolita Mountains to the northwest, Oro Valley
is located six miles northwest of the Tucson city limits. Other nearby communities include the Town of Marana to the
west and the unincorporated community of Catalina to the north. Oro Valley serves as a gateway to regional parks,
sharing its eastern border with Catalina State Park and the Coronado National Forest. These areas provide vast
recreational and natural open space opportunities for the community and are integral to the Town’s identity as a
community known for its integration of residential uses within the natural Sonoran Desert and as a resort area. Major
access to Oro Valley is via Interstate 10, located approximately 12 miles to the west, and State Route 77, or Oracle
Road, which runs north-south through the Town, and is the original transportation corridor linking Tucson with the
Phoenix metropolitan area to the north. The Town incorporated in April of 1974 and operates under a Council-
Manager form of government, which includes a mayor and six council members elected at large. The Mayor is directly
elected while the Vice Mayor is selected by the Council from among the six Council members.
Oro Valley is a growing community. The 2015 population of Oro Valley is estimated at 43,500. This population is
forecasted to grow to around 50,000 by 2030. Residential growth has been a large part of economic activity in the past
and will remain important into the future. In recent years, more diverse employment opportunities have become part
of the community. Oro Valley’s large employers include Ventana Medical Systems, a member of the Roche Group,
Honeywell Aerospace, Oro Valley Hospital, Town of Oro Valley, Amphitheater School District, Hilton El
Conquistador Golf & Tennis Resort, Fry's Food & Drug Store, Walmart Supercenter, Splendido at Rancho Vistoso
and Meggitt Securaplane. Oro Valley is emerging as a regional center for the biotech industry, with Innovation Park,
featuring medical and biotech campuses.
The Town of Oro Valley’s General Plan guides the character and future directions for the community over a 10-year
period. The Your Voice, Our Future General Plan was adopted by Town Council on September 21, 2016 and ratified
by the Oro Valley voters on November 8, 2016. The Plan supports the potential of an evolving community, with a
focus on family-friendly features, economic development and amenities contributing to a “complete community”.
This is balanced with long-held values for the natural environment and lower density development. Future commercial
growth will likely be concentrated in designated growth areas, primarily the Oracle Road corridor and secondarily
smaller neighborhood commercial clusters dispersed throughout the Town. Residential growth will likely occur in
both smaller infill projects as well as a few larger tracts of land on the western portion of Town.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 17
Figure 2-6: Town of Oro Valley Land Use
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 18
2.2.3 Pascua Yaqui Tribe
The lands of the Pascua Yaqui became part of the United States in the 1870s. Calling themselves the Yaquis, the first
modern settlements of these descendants from the ancient Uto-Azteca people, were near Nogales and South Tucson.
Over time, the Yaquis spread out, settling north of Tucson in an area they named Pascua Village and in Guadalupe
near Tempe. Retaining their religious and cultural ways of life, the Yaquis began calling themselves the Pascua Yaqui
Tribe and accepted political integration into American society during the 1950s. In 1952, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe was
annexed by the City of Tucson. In 1964, Congress transferred 202 acres of desert land southwest of Tucson to the
Pascua Yaquis who were looking for an area to preserve their tribal identity. Members of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe
relocating to the reservation struggled to secure federal recognition for the tribe until finally being recognized in 1978.
The Tribe acquired an additional 690 acres in 1988. In 1994, the tribe’s status was changed from a created tribe to a
historic tribe.
Today, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe is scattered throughout eastern Pima County and includes several small communities.
These communities include Yoem Pueblo in Marana, Old Pascua in Tucson, Barrio Libre in South Tucson, and the
Pascua Pueblo, a 1.87-square mile reservation located southwest of the City of Tucson.
According to Tribal sources, the population as of September 2016 for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe within Pima County
communities was 8,831. Table 2-3 summarizes enrolled Tribal membership by the various Pascua Yaqui
communities located both within Pima County and outside. Enrollment demographics for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe
have increased due to housing development. Between 2013 and 2015, Housing Urban Development Grants were
obtained to build housing for tribal members. The Pascua Yaqui Tribe also had proposed amendments to its
constitutions effecting the tribe’s base enrollment to its tribal members. The amendments were passed by the federal
government that gave the authority to the Pascua Yaqui Tribal Council to have the power to enact ordinances,
subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, governing future membership and loss of membership. This
rise in enrolment is reflected in Table 2-3 demographics with the Yaqui Communities of New Pascua and Marana
falling under the tribes and included in the Plan.
Table 2-3: Pascua Yaqui Tribal Enrollment Demographics
Pascua Yaqui Communities No. of Enrolled Members
New Pascua
Old Pascua
Barrio Libre (South Tucson)
Yoem Pueblo (Marana)
Guadalupe (Maricopa County)
High Town (Chandler)
Penjamo Pueblo (Scottsdale)
Eloy/Coolidge (Pinal County)
5,086
775
741
123
3,537
113
250
247
Community Total 10,872
Other Arizona Cities
Outside the State of AZ
6,446
2,011
Total Active Membership 19,329
Source: Pascua Yaqui Tribe, September 2016
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 19
The Pascua Yaqui Tribe operates two casinos within Pima County, the 40,000 square foot Casino of the Sun
and the 75,000 square foot Casino del Sol. Other tribal enterprises include the brand new Sol Casino Hotel
and Convention Center, which includes 215 rooms and a 20,000 square foot ballroom, the Anselmo Valencia
Amphitheater 4,470 seat open-air concert venue, and the Del Sol Marketplace. The Sewailo Golf Course
opened in 2013 measures 7,400 yards from the championship tees, with 5 different tee boxes on each hole to
allow for players of all abilities. It is known as one of the finest golf courses in Tucson and the state of
Arizona.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 20 Source: Pima County Geographical Information Systems, 2016 Figure 2-7: Pascua Location
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 21
2.2.4 Town of Sahuarita
The Town of Sahuarita, incorporated in 1994, now encompasses a little over 31 square miles. Land uses within the
incorporated boundaries of the Town include primarily residential and agricultural uses and vacant land. The next
largest land use in the town is institutional, which includes schools, public uses, and utilities. In addition to these, there
is commercial and light industrial land and recreational/open space uses.
The 2010 census found 10,615 dwelling units and 9,020 occupied households with a population of 25,259 (see Table
1). The Town has seen significant growth, with a 679% increase in population from 2000 to 2010. The Town’s
population in the year 2015 was at 27,637. As of 2013 a lower 13.2% vacancy rate was reported in the 2011-2013
American Community Survey 3 Year Estimate.
Table 2-4 Population and Housing
2015 Total
Census
Population
Total
Units
2010
Total
Occupied
2010
Total
Vacant
2010
Group
Quarters
Population
2010
Owner
Occupied
2010
Renter
Occupied
Sahuarita 27,637 10,615 9,020 1,595 63 7,615 1,405
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 2015 and 2010 Census
Using the 2010 Census average household size and average family size of 2.79 and 3.14, respectively, the Town
calculates future population projections using 2.89 persons per unit. The 2010 Census found an almost equal
male/female ratio within the study area. The Town does not currently have a large group quarters facility.
Within Sahuarita are five age-restricted communities: Quail Creek, a fully age-restricted master planned community;
Rancho Resort and Sonora within Rancho Sahuarita; La Jolla Verde, which lies southeast of I-19, and Duval Mine
Road; and the Green Valley RV Resort that lies west of I-19 and north of Duval Mine Road. The Town shows a more
traditional mix of population by age category not indicative of being skewed to the senior age groups. The Town of
Sahuarita prides itself in being open to families with children as well as other household types.
Nearly 85% of the 9,020 occupied housing stock within the Town was owner-occupied in 2010. Based on this
demographic holding in the future, the Town should plan either on ensuring that there is an adequate supply of single-
family housing or assume that a significant part of its housing stock will likely be owner-occupied units. National
trends, however, show a shift towards smaller household sizes and an increase in renting vs homeownership. It is
unclear if this trend will affect Sahuarita, but it may be prudent to plan for a variety of housing types to best position
the Town for the future.
Sahuarita represents five predominant land use themes today. First are the existing, older residential areas, primarily
on larger lots, located in the western portion of the town, and interspersed by undeveloped properties.
Secondly, there is the rise of the master planned community from Rancho Sahuarita to the northwest and Madera
Highlands and age–restricted Quail Creek to the southeast. Most of the growth anticipated in the Town during the life
of the 2015 general plan will occur within master planned communities. Each is unique and caters to its individual
market, but differs from more rural Sahuarita.
Third are the developing commercial and potentially mixed-use centers in the southern portion of the Town around
the intersection of I-19 and Duval Mine Road. These centers provide regional services to Green Valley and much of
the Upper Santa Cruz Valley in addition to Town residents.
Fourth are the production agriculture orchards and ranches in the eastern portion of the Town. Some of this land lies
within the 100-year floodplain, but some of it lies outside and is imminently developable. Agricultural employment,
in particular the pecan orchards owned and operated by FICO, provides a source of employment in the community
that brings in revenues from outside the Town and helps the local economy. It is expected that over time, FICO
holdings will likely convert to more urban scale development, completely or in part. The Sahuarita Farms Specific
Plan and River Master Plan reflect the type of transition anticipated in this area.
Lastly, the Santa Cruz River and its large floodplain, which bisect the Town, provide both a constraint and an
opportunity. Most of the river’s floodplain within the Town is not in a natural condition today; indeed, there are a
number of structural uses, particularly around the historic Sahuarita townsite as well as irrigated agriculture and
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 22
institutional uses. Currently, there are no flood control measures planned for the Santa Cruz River within the Town of
Sahuarita; however, consideration of such measures in the future may occur, pursuant to pre-existing agreements and
the recently approved Sahuarita and Continental Farms River Master Plans.
Major employers in the area include Freeport-McMoRan and Asarco; Caterpillar Proving Grounds; FICO; Wal-Mart;
Fry’s; Safeway; Desert Diamond Casino, an Enterprise of the Tohono O’odham Nation; the Sahuarita School District;
and the Town of Sahuarita itself.
Size and Location
Currently 31 square miles in area, Sahuarita is located just 15 minutes south of Tucson and approximately 40 minutes
north of the Mexican border. Tucson International Airport is within a 20-minute drive.
Located along I-19, 40 minutes north of the U.S./Mexico border and 18 miles south of downtown Tucson, Sahuarita
is uniquely positioned to capture 24 million annual visitors from Mexico. Sahuarita is overflowing with retail
opportunities, executive living and a viable center for companies and employers to conduct business with Mexico.
Each day, on average, more than 65,000 Mexican residents come to Arizona to work, visit friends and relatives,
recreate, shop, and spend over $7,350,000. This contributes substantially to Arizona’s export trade with Mexico.
Familial ties, long-term friendships, work opportunities, leisure activities and shopping experiences not yet available
in Mexico continue to support strong cross-border interactions between Arizona and its neighbor, Sonora.
Town Government
The Town of Sahuarita operates under the council-manager form of government. The Sahuarita Town Council is
responsible for the policy matters of the town, and the town manager oversees staff and carries out the day-to-day
functions of the town. Sahuarita is administered by the seven-member town council, which includes a Mayor and Vice
Mayor. The Mayor and Vice Mayor are not elected into those positions, but are instead chosen among elected council
members. The Town Council oversees all issues pertaining to Sahuarita, including residential and commercial
development and natural preservation.
Population
As one of Arizona’s fastest-growing communities, the Town of Sahuarita is the newest jurisdiction in Pima County,
incorporated in 1994. The Town of Sahuarita’s population increased nearly 700 percent during the period from the
2000 Census to the Census of 2010.
Table 2-5: Town of Sahuarita Population Growth
Year Population % Increase
2010 25,259 11.5%
2011 25,722 1.8%
2012 26,244 2.0%
2013 26,772 2.0%
2014 27,232 1.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 2015 Census; Sahuarita Economic Development Quick Facts
Income
The Town of Sahuarita saw a 13.1 percent growth in the working-age population between 2008 and 2012, and
households earned a median income of $69,425. Additionally, Sahuarita has an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 23
Table 2-6: Town of Sahuarita Medium Income
Town/Municipality Median Household Income
Sahuarita $69,425
Pima County $46,433
State of Arizona $50,256
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 2010 Census; Sahuarita Economic Development Quick Facts
Housing
From a quality of life perspective, Sahuarita has it all: safe, quiet streets; affordable housing; modern schools;
landscaped trails and parks; scenic beauty; neighborhood shopping; easy access to interstates and the airport. The
Town of Sahuarita has three master planned communities and eleven small neighborhoods for its residents to call
home.
Education
The Town of Sahuarita Workforce Assessment by the University of Arizona Eller College of Management Economic
and Business Research Center concluded that Sahuarita’s employed workforce displays higher levels of educational
attainment overall than Pima County and Arizona as a whole. Sahuarita’s employed labor force has concentrations
significantly greater than those in Southern Arizona do in higher paying occupational categories and in important
‘high-tech’ occupations.
Table 2-7: Town of Sahuarita Education
Town/Municipality
Population 25 years and
over with a Bachelor’s
Degree
Sahuarita 21.7%
Pima County 17.4%
State of Arizona 16.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 2010 Census; Sahuarita Economic Development Quick Facts
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 24 Figure 2-8: Town of Sahuarita General Plan Land Use
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 25
2.2.5 City of South Tucson
Surrounded by the City of Tucson, the City of South Tucson is a one square mile community just south of historical
downtown Tucson nestled between the junction of Interstates 10 and 19. Rich in ethnic heritage, this small community
services a population of which 83% are Mexican-American and 10% are Native American. Developed as a suburban
community to Tucson, South Tucson enjoyed a colorful history after being incorporated in 1936, unincorporated in
1938, and reincorporated in 1940.
The City of South Tucson is located within a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) –designated
Empowerment Zone and Tucson Pima Enterprise Zone, both of which are dedicated to revitalizing dilapidated areas
in the greater Tucson metropolitan area. The City of South Tucson has also been designated a rural ‘Colonia’ by the
United States Department of Agriculture.
A Mayor, Six Council Members, and a City Manager govern the City of South Tucson. The local police and fire
department have both full-time and volunteer personnel.
In 2000, the population of South Tucson was 5,490. Relatively small growth (0.42% through 2020) is projected for
the future. South Tucson will continue to provide a declining percent of Pima County’s overall resident population.
This pattern is reflective of the strong growth throughout eastern Pima County and the City’s inability to gain in
available land mass. Similarly, South Tucson’s small labor force is forecasted to parallel the Town’s population growth
by comprising a smaller share of the region’s employment opportunities. The City of South Tucson updated their
General Plan in 2002. Although not mandated to contain Growing Smarter elements due to their small size, this
information was incorporated into the 2002 revision to provide consistency with other municipalities in the region.
South Tucson was invited to participate in the 2017 plan revision, but did not participate due to limited resources.
They were invited to all meetings and minutes of each planning meeting were shared with the jurisdictional contact
available at the time.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 26
Sour
Source: Pima County Geographical Information Systems, 2016
Figure 2-9: City of South Tucson Land Ownership and Location
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 27
2.2.6 City of Tucson
The human history of the area on which the City of Tucson sits goes back as far as 10,000 B.C. with intermittent
habitation by migratory Paleoindian and archaic hunters and gatherers. There is evidence of agricultural settlement as
early as 1,000 B.C. The Hohokam people thrived in the area from 200 B.C. until the 1450’s. The Pima and Tohono
O’odham peoples are the descendants of that advanced civilization and have lived in the area ever since. Spanish
explorers traveled through the area in 1540, starting a long history of Spanish colonization including the founding, in
1699, and construction of the Mission San Xavier del Bac completed in 1791. The modern day City of Tucson was
founded in 1775 with the establishment of the Tucson Presidio. Over the next century, the City would become part of
Sonora, Mexico during that country’s fight for independence, then a part of the United States following the Gadsden
Purchase. This period led to a decade in which the City of Tucson was capital of the Arizona Territory. The City was
incorporated in 1877. In 1880, the Southern Pacific railroad reached Tucson and the population grew to 8,000. In 1912
Arizona joined the Union as the 48th state and Tucson continued to grow reaching a population of 120,000 by 1950,
doubling to 220,000 by 1960, and reaching 400,000 by 1990.
Today the City of Tucson is Arizona’s second largest city and serves as the seat for Pima County. It is the focal point
for political, economic, and cultural activity in Southern Arizona. The 2010 census put the population of the City at
520,116 making it the 33rd largest city in the United States, and as of 2015, the estimated population was 531,641. The
City of Tucson shares a border with the Town of Marana and the San Xavier district of the Tohono O’odham Nation,
as well as several Census Designated Places such as Vail. Otherwise, the majority of its borders are surrounded by
unincorporated Pima County. South Tucson, a one square mile enclave, lies within the City of Tucson. The
neighboring towns of Oro Valley and Sahuarita have close economic, social and governmental ties to the City.
Altogether, the City and the surrounding towns and communities make up the Tucson Metropolitan Statistical Area
with a total 2010 census population of 1,010,025.
Tucson follows the council-manager form of local government. The six-member city council holds legislative
authority and shares executive authority with the mayor, who is elected by the voters independently of the council.
An appointed city manager is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the city.
The City encompasses an area of 236 square miles. It sits at an elevation of 2,634 feet above sea level, measured at
the Tucson International Airport. It is situated on top of an alluvial plain, a flat area of land created over millennia by
sediment washing down from the surrounding mountain ranges that include the Santa Catalina and Tortolita
Mountains to the North, the Santa Rita mountains to the South, the Rincon Mountains to the East, and the Tucson
Mountains to the West. The City is located along the Santa Cruz River, which was formerly a perennial river but now
is a dry river that floods during seasonal rains. Tucson’s natural environment is characteristic of the Sonoran Desert
within which it resides with diverse habitats and conditions ranging from low land deserts to the highlands of the Santa
Catalina and Rincon Mountains.
Tucson is located 118 miles from Phoenix, AZ, the state’s capital city, and 60 miles from the U.S./Mexico international
border. Two major transportation corridors serve Tucson. The first is Interstate 10, which passes through the City from
the Northwest to the Southeast, connecting it to Phoenix, AZ via Westbound I-10 and to Las Cruses, NM and El Paso,
TX via Eastbound I-10. The second is Interstate 19, which begins at its intersection with I-10 at the southern edge of
Tucson connecting the City with Mexico through the town of Nogales, AZ. Tucson International Airport, the second
busiest airport in the State of Arizona, sits just outside of the City’s limits and approximately six miles from the City
center. Tucson is also a hub for the Union Pacific Railroad, connecting the Los Angeles ports with the South/Southeast
regions of the U.S. In addition to freight traffic, passenger rail service is provided by Amtrak with a station in
downtown Tucson connecting the City to Los Angeles, New Orleans, and Chicago via various rail lines.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 28
The University of Arizona calls the City of Tucson home, as does the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Both have
large economic influence, as the second and third largest employers respectfully, as well as cultural influence on the
City. The presence of the University and Air Force base draw high-tech industries to Tucson including Raytheon
Missile Systems, the largest employer in the City, as well as Texas Instruments, IBM, Intuit, and Honeywell
Aerospace leading to Tucson being recognized as a national leader in optics, astronomy, medical industries and
aerospace and defense. Other large employers outside of the technology and defense industries include Walmart,
Pima County’s government, the Tucson Unified School District, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the City
of Tucson government. As of April 2016, Tucson had a civilian labor force of 477,600 with an unemployment rate
of 5.0%.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION II: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Page 29
Figure 2-10: City of Tucson Generalized Distribution of Land Use & Future Growth
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION III: PLANNING PROCESS Page 30
SECTION 3: PLANNING PROCESS
3.1 Planning Process
The 2017 update to the Plan was a countywide effort that included a revision and update of the previous plan, the
integration of new components to the plan, and incorporation of new participants into the planning process. A multi-
jurisdictional Planning Team was assembled to conduct the review of the 2012 plan, evaluate its efficacy over the last
five years, and propose revisions for the 2017 plan. PCOEM served as the lead planning agency for the process, with
support from the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs (ADEMA). The planning team elected not
to use a consultant given that the 2012 plan would serve as the basis for revisions. PCOEM took the lead in recruiting
participants, conducting Planning Team meetings, tracking progress, editing documents, and keeping the project on
schedule. Jurisdictional Local Planning Teams were responsible for evaluating and updating the sections of the plan
for their respective jurisdictions and supporting Pima County in the completion of the plan as a whole. Details
regarding key contact information and promulgation authorities, the planning team selection, participation, activities,
and public involvement are discussed in the following sections.
3.2 Planning Activities and Teams
The role of the Planning Team was to facilitate the coordination, research, and planning element activities to update
the 2012 Plan. Four (4) multi-jurisdictional planning team meetings were conducted over the period of May through
October of 2016, beginning with the first meeting on May 12, 2016. A separate meeting was held with multi-
jurisdictional planners and their Geographical Information System (GIS) representatives to work exclusively on maps
and data. Representatives from each jurisdiction were required to participate in all Planning Team meetings, as the
meetings were structured to take the jurisdictions through a systematic planning process. At each meeting, next-steps
and procedures were presented and discussed, progress was reported, and action items assigned. Subsequent meetings
built on the information discussed previously and on the individual assignments completed between meetings.
The Planning Team took on the following primary responsibilities:
Conveying information and assignments to the jurisdictional Local Planning Teams (LPTs) of which
several jurisdictions organized for specific plan parts or for mitigation ideas and members are noted
below,
Ensuring all requested assignments were completed fully and returned on a timely basis, and
Arranging for review and official adoption of the final Plan.
To support the Planning Team, the Jurisdictional Local Planning Teams were tasked with:
Convening meetings as needed to work through assignments from the Planning Team,
Providing support and data,
Developing and refining mitigation strategies,
Assisting with the prioritization of hazards and plan objectives,
Assisting the Planning Team representatives with assignments,
Making planning decisions regarding Plan components, and
Reviewing the Plan draft documents.
The planning process for Pima County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan followed FEMA’s 4-phase
Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) planning process:
1. Organize Resources
2. Assess Risks
3. Develop the Mitigation Plan
4. Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress
Cultivating a well-rounded, representative Planning Team was the responsibility of the PCOEM. Using the list of
Planning Team Participants from the 2012 Plan as a guide, the PCOEM identified a list of potential participants and
contributors to the 2017 Update Planning Team. PCOEM initiated contact with and extended invitations to participate
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION III: PLANNING PROCESS Page 31
to jurisdictional representatives and agencies from all incorporated communities within Pima County, the Pascua
Yaqui Tribe and the Tohono O’odham Nation.
The participating members of the Planning Team are summarized in Table 3-1. Copies of invited individuals and
attendance sheets are in Appendix C Planning Process Documents.
Table 3-1: Planning Team Participants
(participants in bold returning members)
Name Jurisdiction / Organization Planning Team Role
Ackerman, Char
Town of Oro Valley Police
Department Emergency
Management
Planning Team Member, Jurisdictional Point
of Contact, Local Planning Team Lead
Austin, Susan (Wood)
AZ Department of Emergency and
Military Affairs
State Planning Manager, Management level
support for planning effort, Mitigation
strategy development
Bear, Courtney
Pima County Office of Emergency
Management Lead Planner
Bowen, Sheila
Town of Sahuarita Public Works
Director
Planning Team member, Jurisdictional Point
of Contact and Local Planning Team Lead
Carbajal, Manny Town of Marana
Planning Team member, Jurisdictional Point
of Contact, Local Planning Team Lead
Espinoza, Sandra
Arizona Department of Emergency
and Military Affairs
DEMA representative for Southern Arizona,
Planning Team member
Glenn, Erik
Pima County Information
Technology
Planning Team Member, GIS Lead for the
County
Groseclose, Sgt. Brian Sahuarita Police Department
Planning Team member, Jurisdictional Point
of Contact
Horton, Jeff Tucson Airport Authority
Planning Team member, Tucson Airport
Authority representative
Johnson, Sgt. Steven Marana Police Department
Planning Team Member, Jurisdictional Point
of Contact
Matus, Andre
Pascua Yaqui Tribe / Pascua
Pueblo Fire Department
Planning Team Member, Lead Jurisdictional
Point of Contact, Local Planning Team Lead
McGlone, Sgt. Matt Sahuarita Police Department
Jurisdictional Point of Contact and Lead
Planner for Sahuarita
Moya-Flores, Griselda
Pima County Office of Emergency
Management Planning Team member, Administrative
Nicolas Siemsen
City of Tucson / Office of
Emergency Management
Jurisdictional Point of Contact and Lead
Planner for City of Tucson
Rodriguez, Bernice Pascua Pueblo Fire Dept.
Planning Team Member, Local Planning
Team Administration for Pascua Yaqui Tribe
An integral part of the planning process was working with other agencies and organizations, both within and outside
of the participating jurisdiction’s governance, to obtain specialized information and data for inclusion into the Plan or
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION III: PLANNING PROCESS Page 32
to provide more public exposure to the planning process. In addition to the adopting jurisdictions, several agencies
and organizations that operate within, or have jurisdiction over small and large areas of Pima County were invited to
participate in the planning process. Some were invited to the first Planning Team meeting, while others were brought
in as the Planning Team discovered a need for their assistance. Copies of the various meeting invitations are provided
in Appendix B.
Those others agencies and organizations who assisted by providing data or otherwise contributing to this Plan are
listed in Table 3-2. The specific jurisdiction with whom they collaborated is noted.
Table 3-2: Local Planning Team and Content Resources
(participants in bold returning members)
Name Agency/Dept./Division Role/Contribution
Abdelrasoul, Abdo Town of Oro Valley Local Planning Team Member GIS Support
Bender, Cheryl American Red Cross
Sheltering and Community Organizations
Active in Disaster
Bonser, Colby
Pima County Office of
Sustainability and Conservation Climate resource
Boyce, Karn Town of Oro Valley Water Utility
Local Planning Team Member Buffelgrass
Program
Boyer, Chuck Town of Oro Valley IT Director Local Planning Team Member
Brandhuber Golder Ranch Fire Department
Local Planning Team Member for Oro
Valley for wildfire expertise
Bradshaw, Gary City of Tucson Fire Department City of Tucson Representative
Canale, Brett Marana GIS Local Planning Team member
Casertano, Paul Pima Association of Governments
Community description, Transportation and
traffic
Chalmers, Seth Pima County DOT
Local Planning Team member, Traffic and
transportation for Pima County
Chavez, Kathy
Pima County Office of
Sustainability Local Planning Team Member
D'Entremont, Andy
Pima County Office of Emergency
Management Local Planning Team member
Drozd, Ken NOAA Climate and weather expert
Faas, Jim
Pima County Finance and Risk
Management Pima County finance information
Fontes, Antonio Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Local Planning Team member, GIS
representative for Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Geitner, Ian Pascua Land Use Land use planning for Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Groseclose, Sgt. Brian Sahuarita Police Department
Planning Team member, Jurisdictional Point
of Contact
Hamblin, Elisa
Town of Oro Valley Community
Development and Public Works
Local Planning Team Member Long-range
Principal Planner
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION III: PLANNING PROCESS Page 33
Table 3-2: Local Planning Team and Content Resources
(participants in bold returning members)
Name Agency/Dept./Division Role/Contribution
Hammarstrom, Cptn. Mike City of Tucson Police Dept.
Local Planning Team member, City of
Tucson representative
Helfrich, Thomas
Pima County Flood Control
District Local Planning Team, Flood control
Hoppe, Jamie
Town of Oro Valley Community
Development and Public Works
Local Planning Team Member Adopt-a-
Wash Program
Horton, Jeff Tucson Airport Authority
Planning Team member, Tucson Airport
Authority representative
Huelle, Cheryl
Town of Oro Valley Community
Development and Public Works
Local Planning Team Member Hazard
Mitigation Project identification
Jacobs, Amanda
Town of Oro Valley Town
Manager’s Office
Local Planning Team Member Community
Description
Jamarta, Julie Pima Association of Governments
Population data and community description
assistance
Karazs, Sarah Arizona DOT Environmental planning resource
Karlik, Jay
Rural/Metro Fire District / Fire
Dept. Local Planning Resource
Khawam, Yves
Pima County Development
Services
Local Planning Team member, Code and
enforcement resource
King, Chuck
Town of Oro Valley Community
Development and Public Works
Building Manager
Local Planning Team Member Ordinances,
laws and codes
Kosiorowski, Joey Green Valley Fire District Local Planning Team member
Ladd, Keith University of Arizona Climate resource
Langdale, Paul Arizona DOT Environmental Planning
Lauber, Brian Arizona Division of Forestry Wildland fire information
Lee Muscarella, Lee
Golder Ranch Fire District
Battalion Chief
Local Planning Team resource for Oro
Valley
Lynn, Judy
Pima County Office of Emergency
Management
Local Planning Team Member, Community
Outreach, Public Information assistance
Mercer, Rita
Pima County Regional Wastewater
Reclamation
Local Planning Team member, Wastewater,
AZWARN
Miranda, Richard
Pima County Regional Wastewater
Reclamation
Local Planning Team member, Wastewater,
AZWARN
Moore, Mark Town of Oro Valley Water Utility
Local Planning Team Member Water
authority input on hazards and mitigation
actions
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION III: PLANNING PROCESS Page 34
Table 3-2: Local Planning Team and Content Resources
(participants in bold returning members)
Name Agency/Dept./Division Role/Contribution
Nassi, Richard
Pima Association of Governments-
Transportation
Community description, Transportation and
traffic
Orchard, Lynn
Pima County Regional Flood
Control
Advisory information for flood hazard and
notifications
Padilla, Robert
Pima County Natural
Resources/Parks & Rec
Local Planning Team member, Parks and
Rec information
Porter, Scott
Pima County Environmental
Quality
Local Planning Team member,
environmental resource
Ramsey, Aimee
Town of Oro Valley Community
Development and Public Works
Assistant Director
Local Planning Team Member General
support
Riley, Kara Oro Valley Police Department
Local Planning Team Member Public
information and notice
Robinson, Julie
Pima County Office of
Sustainability
Local Planning Team member, Climate
resource
Rodriguez, Jose
Town of Oro Valley Community
Development and Public Works
Managing Engineer
Local Planning Team Member Hazard
mitigation actions and projects development
Rutherford, Tony Mountain Vista Fire District
Local Planning Team Member, wildfire
hazard and mitigation projects
Saxe, Greg
Pima County Regional Flood
Control
Local Planning Team member, Flood Hazard
lead
Selover, Nancy
Arizona State University- Arizona
State Climate Office Climate expert
Shepp, Eric
Pima County Regional Flood
Control
Local Planning Team member for Pima
County, Flood information source
Smith, Allen City of Tucson Police Dept. City of Tucson representative
Thum, Gabe
Pima Association of Governments-
Transportation Safety Planning and demographics
Todnem, Mike Oro Valley Local Planning Team member
Valenzuela, Louis Pima County Health Dept.
Local Planning Team, Health Department
representative
West, Gary Northwest Fire Department Local Planning Team member
Wittenberg, Dan Kinder Morgan Industry representative
Youberg, Ann
State of Arizona- AZ Geological
Survey Geological expertise, Landslide specialist
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION III: PLANNING PROCESS Page 35
3.3 Public and Stakeholder Involvement
Public involvement and input to the planning process was encouraged cooperatively among all of the participating
jurisdictions using several venues throughout the course of the revision planning cycle. This Plan will remain on the
County and individual jurisdictional websites on a continual basis once approved and adopted by each jurisdiction.
Stakeholders are assumed jurisdictional representatives, technical and subject matter experts and others not considered
members of the public who have an interest in the development or use of the plan.
The pre-draft public involvement strategy for the Plan development included press releases, and public web notices.
The 2012 Plan was posted to the County website and made available for public review and comment. The local
jurisdictions placed announcements on their websites linking the reader to the Plan on the County website. The post-
draft strategy included posting the draft plan to the County website, with website links from local jurisdictions, and
requesting public comment. Documentation of the outreach can be found in this Plan’s appendices.
The Pima County Office of Emergency Management also reached out to surrounding counties during plan revision at
regional meetings held by the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs. AZDEMA also encouraged
information sharing amongst Pima County’s surrounding counties of Santa Cruz, Pinal, Yuma and Cochise.
Tribal Definition of “Public”
The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has formulated the following statement to define “public” for the purposes of this planning
effort to satisfy the Tribal Planning requirements:
“All residents of the Pascua Yaqui Reservation, as its boundaries may be revised from time to time.”
Table 3-3: Past Public and Stakeholder Involvement
Jurisdiction Activity or Opportunity
Pima County
Maintained the county website that included the current Plan and provided contact
information for continued comment and input.
Sought and managed a mitigation grant for Buffelgrass reduction.
Developed brochures regarding local threats in conjunction with the PCOEM website.
Attended community events and engage with the public on mitigation and preparation
activities.
Conducted Emergency Management meetings with local emergency management
professionals on a quarterly basis, and discussed hazard mitigation events.
Worked with Pima Regional Flood Control on Community Rating System requirements
such as planning and exercising.
Maintained social media presence and focus on mitigation measures that citizens can take
before monsoon and fire seasons.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION III: PLANNING PROCESS Page 36
Table 3-3: Past Public and Stakeholder Involvement
Jurisdiction Activity or Opportunity
City of
Tucson
City of Tucson Office of Emergency Management webpage was dedicated to
preparedness and mitigation topics.
Performed annual “Operation Splash” outreach efforts to raise awareness of the dangers
of driving through flooded washes and roadways.
Performed annual “Operation Freeze” outreach efforts to raise awareness of the dangers
of cold and freezing weather.
Used the “Don’t Get Swept Away, Find a Safer Place to Play” campaign to encourage
people to avoid flooded washes and other storm water infrastructure during the monsoon
season.
The Tucson Office of Emergency Management regularly used social media sites to share
preparedness and mitigation information to the public.
Declaration signed by the Mayor and Council of September Preparedness Month, with
public preparedness outreach at public events, via social media, on television, etc.
Regular water conservation outreach efforts from Tucson Water Department via bill
inserts, social media, television, etc.
Weekly preparedness and safety tips via the Tucson Fire Department posted online and
aired on television.
Provided preparedness and mitigation brochures and pamphlets to each of the six City
Council ward offices for their constituents, along with an orientation for Council staff on
the mission of emergency management including mitigation efforts.
Town of Oro
Valley
Provided Water Conservation Messaging in Quarterly Town Newsletter.
Developed Media Release regarding pipe safety during cold weather.
Banned fireworks during dry months.
Signed a Town Proclamation in recognition of Beat Back Buffelgrass Day.
News release recognizing the Town of Oro Valley as having a NOAA Stormready
designation.
Offered SKYWARN Weather Spotter Training in the Town of Oro Valley.
Signed a Town Proclamation declaring September National Preparedness Month.
Town of Oro Valley webpage was dedicated to water information and tips.
Provided hazard awareness information to residents through newsletters, social media,
PSAs, website, brochures, neighborhood meetings, community events, and other.
Conducted presentations to the public about hazards and disaster preparedness.
Provided floodplain related information to targeted properties in high-risk areas.
Provided staff support and technical guidance to homeowners, businesses, and HOAs
about flood mitigation projects on private property.
Expanded public participation in the Adopt a Street/Wash program.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION III: PLANNING PROCESS Page 37
Table 3-3: Past Public and Stakeholder Involvement
Jurisdiction Activity or Opportunity
Town of
Marana
Provided information to the public, business and first responders by participating in the
Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) for hazardous materials preparedness.
Provided floodplain related hazard and mitigation information to targeted properties in
high-risk areas.
Provided flood hazard outreach to residents of the Town of Marana, located within the
flood plain.
Created brochures for building within the flood plain.
Created a Town-wide Spill Control Plan, with flow chart to help Town employees and
residents follow a simple plan for hazardous material spills.
Acquired a Small Quantity Generator (SQG) designation from the City of Tucson -
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Facility for proper disposal of small quantities of
hazardous waste.
Implemented Mandatory Storm Water Management Awareness Training for all Town
employees, as mandated by (Small MS4 Permit) - (Marana SWMP) 6.3.6 Employee
Training
Provided a library of pamphlets in the Marana Municipal Complex (MMC) Lobby area
for all interested parties to peruse and take for reference.
During the 2016 General Plan meeting, the Town Emergency Management Coordinator
distributed brochures on hazard mitigation and individual preparedness as part of public
outreach.
Pascua
Yaqui
Continued mitigation activities in correlation to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe Improvement
Projects program.
Referenced the plan on the Pascua Yaqui Intranet/Intranet and on Yaqui Radio Station
PSAs.
The Pascua Yaqui Tribe continued to use the plan for reference for profiling of cultural
sites for economic development.
The Pascua Yaqui Department of Public Safety, who oversees mitigation planning, has
supported the plan by referencing the plan with other tribal departments for grants and
infrastructure improvement opportunities. In 2016, the plan was referenced in the
development of accreditation for the Tribal Health Department.
During Tribal Recognition Days, an information booth was set up to promote mitigation
opportunities and hazard reduction.
Town of
Sahuarita
The Sahuarita Strategic Plan for Emergency Preparedness and the Sahuarita Emergency
Operations Plan were posted on the website.
“Be Prepared” brochures were available at Town Hall to interested constituents.
Copies of Strategic Plan for Emergency Preparedness and Sahuarita Emergency
Operations Plan maintained on town website.
Table 6-1 summarizes opportunities for continued public engagement and dissemination of information each
jurisdiction plans to pursue when relevant and appropriate.
3.4 Reference Documents and Resources
Additional reference material, such as other plans, studies, reports, and technical information, was obtained during the
planning process and reviewed for incorporation or reference in the updated plan. The majority of the additional
reference material pertained specifically to the risk assessment and the capabilities assessment. To a lesser extent, the
community descriptions and mitigation strategy also benefitted from additional document and technical information
research. Table 3-4 provides a reference listing of the primary resource documents and technical resources reviewed
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION III: PLANNING PROCESS Page 38
and used in the Plan. Detailed bibliographic references for the risk assessment are provided in each hazard risk profile
in Section 4 as footnotes.
Table 3-4: Resource documents reviewed and incorporated in this plan
Resource Description of Reference and Its Use
AZ Department of
Commerce
Reference for demographic and economic data for the county. Used for community
descriptions
AZ Department of
Administration
Reference for demographic and employment data for the county used in the
community descriptions.
AZ Department of
Emergency and Military
Affairs
Resource for state and federal disaster declaration information for Arizona. Also a
resource for hazard mitigation planning guidance and documents.
AZ Department of Water
Resources
Resource for data on drought conditions, statewide drought management, and land
subsidence all used in risk assessment.
AZ Geological Survey Resource for earthquake, fissure, landslide/mudslide, subsidence, and other
geological hazards. Used in the risk assessment.
AZ Model Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan Guidance document for preparing and formatting hazard mitigation plans for Arizona.
AZ State Department of
Forestry and Fire
Management
Source for statewide GIS coverage (ALRIS) and statewide wildfire hazard profile
information. Used in the risk assessment for wildland fire.
AZ Drought Monitoring
Technical Committee Source for statewide drought information including monthly drought monitor reports.
AZ Wildland Urban
Interface Assessment (2004)
Source of wildfire hazard profile data and urban interface at-risk communities. Used
in the risk assessment.
Bureau Net (2017) Source for NFIP statistics for Arizona.
Census Bureau Source for 2010 and 2015 Census demographics
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Guidance (How-To series) for floodplain and flooding related NFIP data (mapping,
repetitive loss, NFIP statistics), and historic hazard incidents. Used in the risk
assessment and mitigation strategy.
HAZUS-MH Based data sets within the program were used in the vulnerability analysis.
National Climatic Data
Center
Online resource for weather related data and historic hazard event data. Used in the
risk assessment.
National Weather Service Source for hazard information, data sets, and historic event records. Used in the risk
assessment.
National Wildfire
Coordination Group Source for historic wildfire hazard information. Used in the risk assessment.
Pima County Hazard
Mitigation Plan (2012) FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan that is the subject of the plan update process.
Arizona State Climatologist Reference for weather characteristics for the county. Used for community
descriptions and risk assessment.
National Fire Protection
Association NFPA 1600:
Standard on Disaster/
Emergency Management
and Business Continuity
Programs (2016)
Used to establish the classification and definitions for the asset inventory. Used in the
risk assessment.
State of Arizona Hazard
Mitigation Plan (2013)
The state plan was used a source of hazard information and the state identified
hazards were used as a starting point in the development of the risk assessment.
USACE Flood Damage
Report (1978) Source of historic flood damages for 1978 flood. Used in the risk assessment.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION III: PLANNING PROCESS Page 39
Table 3-4: Resource documents reviewed and incorporated in this plan
Resource Description of Reference and Its Use
USACE Flood Damage
Report (1994) Source of historic flood damages for 1993 flood. Used in the risk assessment.
US Forest Service Source for local wildfire data. Used in the risk assessment.
US Geological Survey Source for geological hazard data and incident data. Used in the risk assessment.
Western Regional Climate
Center Online resource for climate data used in climate discussion
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 40
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
4.1 Section Changes
For the 2017 revision, the Planning Team spent considerable time discussing hazards and the distinction between
human-caused and natural hazards. Because of these discussions and upon consideration of the hazards in the sphere
of mitigation of natural hazards, several significant changes have been made to the Hazard Risk Profiles. Table 4-1
compares the hazards of previous plans to those chosen by the current Planning Team for 2017. In general, human-
caused hazards have been removed from the 2017 plan.
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 are, are generally categorized into the following measures:
Hazard Identification and Screening
Hazard Profiling
Assessing Vulnerability to Hazards
The risk assessment for Pima County and participating jurisdictions was performed using a countywide, multi-
jurisdictional perspective, with much of the information gathering and development being accomplished by the
Planning Team. This integrated approach was employed because many hazard events are likely to affect numerous
jurisdictions within the County and are not often 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. For the majority of the hazards, quantitative vulnerability was removed and a qualitative
vulnerability created by each of the jurisdictions for the hazards that they identified as priorities in their area.
4.2 Hazard Identification
Hazard identification is the process of answering the question; “What hazards can and do occur in my community or
jurisdiction?” For this Plan, the list of hazards identified in the 2012 Plan were reviewed by the Planning Team with
the goal of refining the list to reflect the hazards that pose the greatest risk to the jurisdictions represented by this Plan.
Table 4-1: Comparison of Plan Hazards
2007 Hazards for Plan 2012 Hazards for Plan 2017 Hazards for
Plan
Dam Failure
Disease
Drought
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hail
HAZMAT
Lightning
Subsidence
Thunderstorm
Tornado
Tropical Cyclone
Wildfire
Winter Storm
Disease
Drought
Earthquake
Extreme Heat
Flood
HAZMAT
Levee Failure
Severe Wind
Subsidence
Wildfire
Winter Storms
Drought
Earthquake
Extreme Cold
Extreme Heat
Flood
Landslide
Severe Wind
Wildfire
The review included an initial screening process to evaluate each of the listed hazards based on the following
considerations:
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 41
Experiential knowledge on behalf of the Planning Team 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 Planning Team to develop effective mitigation for the hazard under current DMA
2000 criteria;
Compatibility with the state hazard mitigation plan hazards; and
Duplication of effects attributed to each hazard.
Each jurisdiction evaluated and rated the hazards using the Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) and met to discuss
results amongst the jurisdictions after they had chosen hazards for their jurisdiction to address. Because of planning
discussions, four hazards were deleted and one hazard was added as seen in Table 4-1. Additionally, Winter Storm
was updated and revised to Extreme Cold. Below is a summary of those decisions for adding or removing a particular
hazard by the main Planning Team:
Disease was removed as a hazard in 2017 because the mitigation actions chosen during the last planning
cycle were all planning or response actions. A lengthy discussion on whether or not disease is natural or
human-caused also factored in the decision. Ultimately, since the Pima County Health Department has plans
for disease outbreaks that include prevention and mitigation actions, it would be duplicative effort to keep
Disease in this Plan.
Hazards Materials were removed because it is normally a human-caused disaster and there are other plans,
procedures and guidelines for hazardous materials in Pima County. The Pima County Local Emergency
Planning Committee handles mitigation, prevention, preparedness, response and recovery with participants
from local government agencies, business and academia.
Levee failure was removed because none of the jurisdictions chose it as a priority hazard and most of the
actions were taken due to following established rules and regulations. To describe flood issues in Pima
County accurately, the Levee hazard was removed and pertinent information moved to the Flood hazard.
Subsidence was removed because none of the Planning Team representatives felt that this was something
that could be mitigated separately from the Drought hazard. In addition, the Arizona Department of Water
Resources has found that land subsidence rates within the Phoenix and Tucson areas have decreased between
25% and 90% compared to the 1990s1. This reduction is credited to increased management including reduced
groundwater pumping, increased recharge.
Landslide was added as a hazard after discussions with the Arizona Geological Survey and the Pima County
Department of Transportation in one of the first planning meetings. Unincorporated Pima County felt that
landslides are a hazard that can be addressed locally through mitigation actions.
Winter Storm was revised to become Extreme Cold. There were several discussions at planning meetings
about the confusion between Winter Storm, Extreme Cold, Severe Wind and Flooding. Initially it was
decided that Winter Storm would stay in, but only the City of Tucson rated it as a hazard worth addressing.
Upon looking at their mitigation action, it was clear it was an action for Extreme Cold. The decision was
made that jurisdictions could run the CPRI for Extreme Cold and decide if they would like to address it as a
priority hazard.
Individual jurisdictions also prioritized hazards and removed some from their chosen focus. They did this at the Local
Planning Team level or individually by consulting with knowledgeable individuals in their jurisdictions. Below is a
summary of changes for the 2017 Plan:
1 AZ Department of Water Resources, Land Subsidence Report #3, 2017:
http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/Hydrology/Geophysics/documents/ADWRLandSubsidenceMonitoringReport_Number3_Fin
al.pdf
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 42
When reviewing their hazards, the Town of Oro Valley has identified that current resource allocation for
winter storm hazards are focused primarily on preparedness or response type activities that are part of routine
and annual operations.
The Pascua Yaqui Tribe removed Drought as a hazard for being no longer necessary as their Tribal Land
Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs resources determined that they do not have sustainable water
resources and at this time, resources can be focused on a more addressable hazard. They also removed
Earthquake as they felt it was covered by the Arizona Geological Survey and Pima County as a whole. They
removed Severe Wind as building codes are enforced by their Tribal Buildings Inspections group and as a
result improved construction techniques that have reduced their vulnerability to the hazard.
Sahuarita removed Wildfire as it did not rank high on the hazard and risk analysis and they are a part of the
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (PCCWPP). They felt that latter was sufficient for
addressing the hazard in their community.
The table below summarizes federal and state disaster declarations that included Pima County. If a hazard is not
listed, that means there were no events reported for that hazard.
Table 4-2: Pima County Declared Disaster Costs (1991 – 2016)
INCIDENT DECLARATION DATE
STATE
DECLARATION STATE FEDERAL
TYPE DISASTER AREA STATE FEDERAL TERMINATED
EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURES
Flooding
Statewide Flood
All Counties except La Paz, Mohave
08-Jan-93
15-Nov-02
$ 30,072,157.03
$ 104,069,362.11
Flooding
Pima County Flash Flood Emergency
Pima County
16-Aug-99
23-Feb-00
$ -
Severe
Wind,
Flooding
Gila Bend/Ajo Storm Emergency
Maricopa & Pima County
17-Aug-01
19-Feb-02
$ 14,237.94
Wildfire
Aspen Fire
Pima & Pinal County
19-Jun-03
14-Jul-03
09-Jun-11
$ 675,568.52
$ 5,363,459.27
Mediterranean Fruit Fly Emergency
La Paz, Pima, Santa Cruz & Yuma
23-Sep-04
16-Sep-05
$ 197,421.08
Border Security Emergency
Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz & Yuma
15-Aug-05
19-May-09
$ 1,492,758.44
Flooding
Flash Flood Emergency
Pima County
16-Sep-05
07-Feb-08
$ 256,948.47
Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter Inf.
Cochise, Yuma, Pima, Pinal,
Maricopa & Santa Cruz
23-Jun-06
19-May-09
$ 567,257.48
Severe
Wind,
Flooding
Monsoons & Flooding
Pinal, Pima, Gila, Graham, Greenlee,
Navajo
08-Aug-06 07-Sep-06
Est.
$ 2,409,278.00
$ 12,141,752.40
Flooding
January 2008 Severe Precipitation
Emergency - Pima County
19-Feb-08
28-Jan-11
$ 231,798.65
Winter
Storm
January 2010 Severe Winter Storm
Est. Est.
Apache, Coconino, Gila, Greenlee La
Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo,
Pima, Pinal, Yavapai, City of Yuma 21-Jan-10 18-Mar-10 $ 4,497,895.00 $ 14,210,904.00
Totals $ 40,415,320.61
$ 135,785,477.78
Source: AZDEMA Emergency Declarations 1966 to Present, 2017 https://dema.az.gov/emergency-management/operationscoordination/recovery-
branch/infrastructure
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 43
4.3 Vulnerability Analysis Methodology
General
The following sections summarize the methodologies used to perform the vulnerability analysis portion of the risk
assessment. For the 2017 plan revision, the entire vulnerability analysis was either revised or updated to reflect new
hazard categories, the availability of new data, or differing loss estimation methodology. Individual jurisdictions
discuss their vulnerably to chosen hazards in the appropriate section.
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 the Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI). The CPRI value is obtained by assigning varying degrees of risk to
four categories for each hazard, and then calculating an index value based on a weighting scheme. Table 4-3
summarizes the CPRI risk categories and provides guidance regarding the assignment of values and weighting factors
for each category. Table 4-4 summarizes the CPRI results for each jurisdiction and unincorporated Pima County.
Jurisdictions each worked under their Lead Planner to complete their own CPRI scores and then the Planning Team
met to review all scored hazards for consistency. In addition to Table 4-4, each hazard section has a CPRI table where
the jurisdictions in bold have chosen that hazard for the 2017 Plan.
Table 4-3: Calculated Priority Risk Index Categories and Risk Levels
CPRI
Category
Degree of Risk Assigned
Weightin
g 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).
3
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 44
Table 4-3: Calculated Priority Risk Index Categories and Risk Levels
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.
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
Table 4-4: Hazards To Be Mitigated By Each Jurisdiction 2017
Jurisdiction Drought Earthquake Extreme Cold Extreme Heat Flood Landslide Severe Wind Wildfire Unincorporated Pima County x x x x x x
Marana x x
Oro Valley x x x x
Pascua Yaqui Tribe x x x
Sahuarita x x x
South Tucson No data provided
Tucson x x x x x x
Asset Inventory
A detailed asset inventory was performed for the 2012 Plan to establish an accurate baseline data set for assessing the
vulnerability of each jurisdiction’s assets to the hazards previously identified. The Planning Team did not feel it was
value added to update the inventory from the 2012 version, as the resource of a full time intern or a consultant to work
on the data was no longer available. Pima County OEM obtained the critical infrastructure dataset from the Department
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 45
of Homeland Security, but was unable to use the data in HAZUS. The Pima County Geographical Information System
team member was unable to integrate the data in a meaningful way. The only hazard that contains this information is
the Flood Hazard Section 4.4.5 and a detailed explanation of the data is there.
Loss Estimations
The hazards profiled in this Plan revision may not include quantitative exposure and loss estimates. The vulnerability
of people and assets associated with some hazards are nearly impossible to evaluate given the uncertainty associated
with where these hazards will occur as well as the relatively limited focus and extent of damage. Instead, a qualitative
review of vulnerability will be discussed to provide insight to the nature of losses that are associated with the hazard.
For subsequent updates of this Plan, the data needed to evaluate these unpredictable hazards may become refined such
that comprehensive vulnerability statements and thorough loss estimates can be made. Loss estimations for Flood to
meet National Flood Insurance Program requirements are updated in the 2017 revision.
Development Trend Analysis
The updated analysis will focus on the potential risk associated with projected growth patterns and their intersection
with the Plan identified hazards.
Specifically for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, a new subdivision of 30 homes is in development. As this is a HUD project,
the new homes will have safe zones around them for the wildfire urban interface. They are also working with their
Land and Development, Facilities Management, and Housing Department to make sure the development has
adequate drainage and infrastructure to reduce flood hazards. The Housing Department has increased the standard
for windows and insulation and other construction materials to reduce the exposure to extreme temperatures with
energy efficient design and construction.
Cultural and sacred sites are of high priority to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and special attention is needed when
considering hazard mitigation of these areas. Because of their cultural importance, these sites require special
attention and protection. Normally, the Tribe does not share the location of these sites and areas. For this reason,
these sites and areas will not be included in this Plan. The Pascua Yaqui Tribe will ensure within its internal
planning efforts that these sites and areas are included in their mitigation activities. Cultural and Sacred sites are
protected but are available for tribal use. Information on sites can be requested through the Land Department
which is located at 7474 S. Camino Del Oeste. The Land Office Director can be reached at 520‐879‐5288. A
separate appendix will be provided as an appendix to this plan for tribal use upon adoption with approximate
areas but not exact locations of cultural and sacred sites.
4.4 Hazard Risk Profiles
The following sections summarize the risk profiles for each of the Plan hazards identified in Section 4.1. For each
hazard, the following elements are addressed to present the overall risk profile:
Description
History
Probability and Magnitude
Vulnerability
o CPRI Results
o Loss Estimations
o Development Trends
Much of the 2017 Plan data has been updated, incorporated and revised to reflect current conditions and Planning
Team changes. Discussions for each hazard are limited to state and county impacts; however, jurisdictions may discuss
historical events in their vulnerability statements.
The Environmental Risk and Vulnerability tables were an Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP)
requirement, so it has been removed from each section since they are not perceived as particularly beneficial to the
Plan as well as the County not seeking EMAP accreditation at this time.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 46
4.4.1 Drought
Description
Drought is a deficiency in precipitation over an extended period, usually a season or more, resulting in a water shortage
causing adverse impacts on vegetation, animals, and people. It is a normal, recurrent feature of climate that occurs in
virtually all climate zones, from very wet to very dry. Drought is a temporary aberration from normal climatic
conditions, thus it can vary significantly from one region to another. Drought is different from aridity, which is a
permanent feature of climate in regions where low precipitation is the norm, as in a desert.1
Drought is a complex natural hazard on which human factors, such as water demand and water management, can
exacerbate the impact. The following are three commonly used definitions1:
Meteorological drought is usually defined based on the degree of dryness, as compared to some “normal”
or average, and the duration of the dry period.
Hydrological drought usually occurs following periods of extended precipitation shortfalls that affect
water supplies such as stream flows, reservoir and lake levels or groundwater.
Agricultural drought links various characteristics of meteorological drought to agricultural impacts,
focusing on precipitation shortages, sol water deficits, reduced ground water or reservoir levels needed
for irrigation, and so forth.
The effects of drought increase with duration as more moisture-related activities are impacted. Non-irrigated croplands
are most susceptible to precipitation shortages. Rangeland and irrigated agricultural crops many not respond to
moisture shortage as rapidly, but yields during periods of drought can be substantially affected. During periods of
severe drought, lower moisture in plant and forest fuels create an increased potential for devastating wildfires. In
addition, lakes, reservoirs, and rivers can be subject to water shortages that affect recreational opportunities, irrigated
crops, and availability of water supplies for activities such as fire suppression and human consumption, and natural
habitats of animals. Socioeconomic effects include higher unemployment and lower land values. Insect infestation
can also be particularly damaging impact from severe drought conditions.
History
Arizona has been in a state of long-term drought for approximately 21 years according to the Arizona Department of
Water Resources 2015 Arizona Drought Preparedness Annual Report2. Figure 4-1 depicts the most recent precipitation
data from NCDC regarding average statewide precipitation variances from normal.
1 National Weather Service. (2008, May). Drought Public Fact Sheet. Retrieved 2016, from
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/brochures/climate/DroughtPublic2.pdf
2 ADWR's 2015 Arizona Drought Preparedness Annual Report,
http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/Drought/documents/2015ADPReport.pdf
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 47
Figure 4-1: Tucson average precipitation variances based on 1990-2015 trend
Probability and Magnitude
There is no commonly accepted return period or non-exceedance probability for defining the risk from drought (such
as the 100-year or 1% annual chance of flood). The magnitude of drought is usually measured in time and the severity
of the hydrologic deficit. There are several resources available to evaluate drought status and even project expected
conditions for the very near future.
The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-430) prescribes an
interagency approach for drought monitoring, forecasting, and early warning1. The NIDIS maintains the U.S. Drought
Portal2, 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 4-2, is a weekly
map depicting the status of drought and is developed and maintained by the National Drought Mitigation Center. The
USSDO, shown in Figure 4-3, 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 consistent enough to characterize the risk of drought on a nationwide basis3 and neither of the Palmer
indices are well suited to the dry, mountainous western United States.
Due to climate variability, there is a likelihood of continuously higher temperatures and below normal precipitation,
all aiding in drought conditions. The local vulnerability depends on duration, intensity, geographic extent, and regional
water supply demands by humans and vegetation.
1 National Integrated Drought Information System, 2007, National Integrated Drought Information System Implementation Plan, NOAA.
2 NIDIS U.S. Drought Portal website is located at: https://www.drought.gov/drought/home
3 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997, Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation
Strategy.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 48
Source: United States Drought Monitor, 2017: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
Figure 4-2: U.S. Drought Monitor for May 2017
Source: Source NOAA, 2017: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/seasonal_drought.pdf
Figure 4-3: U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook, April to July 2017
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 49
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 defers to the USDM for the short-term drought status and
uses a combination of the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI), evaporation and streamflow for the long-term
drought status. Figures 4-4 and 4-5, present the most current short and long-term maps available for Arizona as of the
writing of this plan.
The current drought maps are in general agreement that Pima County is currently experiencing an abnormally dry to
extreme drought condition for the short term and in a moderate drought condition for the long term. The consensus of
the Monitoring Technical Committee is that several years of above normal precipitation would be needed before the
drought status is removed1. Figure 4-2 indicates that the drought conditions are projected to persist or intensify for
Pima County over the next few months.
Vulnerability
Table 4-5: CPRI Results for Drought for 2017
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Marana Likely Catastrophic 12-24 hours <24 hours 2.50
Oro Valley Highly likely Critical >24 hours >1 week 3.25
Pascua Yaqui Tribe Likely Limited >24 hours >1 week 2.50
Sahuarita Highly likely Critical >24 hours >1 week 3.25
Tucson Highly likely Negligible >24 hours >1 week 2.65
Unincorporated Pima County Highly likely Limited >24 hours > 1week 2.95
County-wide average CPRI = 2.85
Jurisdictions in bold chose the hazard for mitigation in 2017 plan.
The Town of Oro Valley is vulnerable to drought. As a result, the Oro Valley Water Utility continuously plans for
current or projected drought conditions through water supply, drought, water conservation plans, and public outreach
activities. The Water Utility collaborates with other local municipalities on regional drought preparedness and
planning. The Oro Valley Water Utility Drought Preparedness Plan monitors climate and environmental indicators or
triggers to gauge conditions that would affect natural recharge2. Fluctuations of these triggers above and below
specified limits will identify the state or severity of current drought conditions and the corresponding actions that will
be required of water users to help mitigate the effects upon potable water resources. Any two of these triggers will
indicate the stage of the drought and the actions to be taken by the Utility and its customers. Additionally, the Water
Utility has a water conservation ordinance in place relating to reduced water production capabilities and water
outages.3
1 AZ Department of Water Resources, 2007
http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/Drought/documents/THafferICG102507.pdf
2 Oro Valley Drought Preparedness Plan
3 Oro Valley Town Code Article 15-18
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 50
At this time, the Town of Sahuarita does not own or operate a water company. Within the Town of Sahuarita limits,
there currently are six independent privately owned water companies and smaller areas served by on-site wells. The
list of providers includes:
Community Water of Green Valley
Farmers Water
Las Quintas Serenas Water
Quail Creek Water
Sahuarita Village Water
Sahuarita Water
Recognizing that all water companies are vulnerable to drought, the water companies have worked with each other
and the Town to develop an area wide drought plan. The drought plan takes into account Arizona Department of Water
Resources goal of safe-yield. Including obtaining an assured water supply certificate for many of the master plan
communities.
The Tucson Water Department utilized the area’s ground water resources to supply water to its customers (citizens
and businesses) within the City via a large system of wells for decades. Over a decade of drought, leading to lack of
replenishment of the ground water table, has stressed the water supply and lead to measurable subsidence (drop in
elevation) in areas of the City as ground water tables are drained.
While the Tucson Water Department has begun to use its allotment of Colorado River Water to replenish water tables,
and while they continue to undertake many water conservation programs for residents and business owners, continued
periods of drought place stress on the water system leading to increased vulnerability for water shortages in the future.
Unincorporated Pima County is vulnerable to drought for the same reasons as the other jurisdictions. Pima County
has a Drought Response Plan that is based on “the varying conditions related to water resource supply and distribution
system capabilities.”1 Actions within the plan will provide for maximum beneficial use of water resources for the
interest of the public health, safety and welfare. The plan is broken up into different stages based on the severity of
the drought stage.
1 Pima County Drought Management, 2016: https://webcms.pima.gov/government/drought_management/
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 51
Source: Unites States Drought Monitor, 2017: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/data/pngs/current/current_az_trd.png
Figure 4-4: Arizona Short Term Drought Status for May 2017
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 52
Source: Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2017: http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/Drought/DroughtStatus2.htm
Figure 4-5: Arizona Long Term Drought Status for April 2017
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 53
Loss Estimations
No standardized methodology exists for estimating losses due to drought and drought does not generally have a direct
impact on critical and non-critical facilities and building stock, except perhaps water supply systems. A direct
correlation to loss of human life due to drought is improbable for Pima County. Instead, drought vulnerability is
primarily measured by its potential impact to certain sectors of the County economy and natural resources including:
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.
According to the 2015 annual report of the Pima County Local Drought Impact Group, the following drought impacts
were noted:
Decrease in ephemeral stream flows
At Cienega Creek, groundwater levels in three wells have dropped since the drought began. Stream reaches
are also shorter and the surface water volume is lower.
Despite the warm, wetter summer weather patterns in eastern Pima County, water utilities continue to see a
change in the peak high demand day. Usually occurring in mid- to late-June, the peak high water use day
occurred in August and the peak was lower than in previous years.
From 1995 to 2014, Pima County farmers and ranchers received $5.7 million in disaster related assistance funding
from the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) for crop and livestock damages. Over $2.25 million of those funds
were received in 2014, following three consecutive dry winters and a severe period of the current drought cycle for
Pima County.
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 to 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 increased utility costs.
Development Trends
With anticipated population growth, Pima County’s water providers will require additional water resources to meet
the demands of a projected population of 1.45 million by 2041. Significant growth in the ranching and farming
sectors is unlikely given the current constraints on water rights, grazing rights, and available rangeland.
The Pima County Local Drought Impact Group (LDIG), which is comprised of water providers and local, state, and
federal agencies and serves as the local component of the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, is tasked with
identifying local drought conditions and impacts, assessing severity and scope of impacts, ascertaining response and
mitigation options and recommending drought staging to County Administration. LDIG submits annual drought
reports to the state’s Drought Monitoring Technical Committee. Pima County has also developed a Drought
Response Plan and Water Wasting Ordinance that is administered and enforced through the Pima County Health
Department for unincorporated areas of the county.
Drought planning should be a critical component of any domestic water system expansions or land development
planning. Arizona Department of Water Resources ensures local water providers reduce their vulnerability to
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 54
drought and prepare response plans in the event of a water shortage through the development of 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 following are the major water providers that operate within Pima County and have developed System Water
Plans with specific recommendations and requirements during times of drought:
Tucson Water
Marana
Metro Water
Flowing Wells Irrigation District
Oro Valley
Community Water Company of Green Valley
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 55
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 56
4.4.2 Earthquake
Description
An earthquake is a sudden motion or trembling caused by an abrupt release of accumulated strain along faults that can
be found near or far from the Earth’s tectonic plates. These rigid tectonic plates move slowly and continuously over
the Earth’s interior, where they move away, past or under each other at rates varying from less than a fraction of an
inch up to five inches per year. While this sounds small, at a rate of two inches per year, a distance of 30 miles would
be covered in approximately one million years1. The tectonic plates continually bump, slide, catch, and hold as they
move past each other which causes stress that accumulates along faults. When this stress exceeds the strength of the
rocks, an earthquake occurs, immediately causing sudden ground motion and shaking. Secondary hazards may also
occur, such as surface fault ruptures, ground failure, landslides, liquefaction, and tsunamis. While the majority of
earthquakes occur near the edges of the tectonic plates, many damaging earthquakes also occur in the interior of plates.
Ground motion is the vibration or shaking of the ground during an earthquake caused by the radiation of seismic
waves. The severity of vibration generally increases with the amount of energy released and decreases with distance
from the causative fault or epicenter of the earthquake. Additional factors, such as soft soils or the presence of
topographic ridges can further amplify ground motions. Ground motion causes waves in the earth’s interior, also
known as seismic waves, and along the earth’s surface, known as surface waves. Seismic waves include P (primary)
waves and S (secondary) waves. P waves are longitudinal or compressional waves similar in character to sound waves
that cause back-and-forth oscillation along the direction of travel (vertical motion), with particle motion in the same
direction as wave travel. They move through the earth at approximately 15,000 mph. S (secondary) waves, also known
as shear waves, are slower than P waves and cause structures to vibrate from side-to-side (horizontal motion) due to
particle motion at right-angles to the direction of wave travel. Unreinforced buildings are more easily damaged by S
waves. Surface waves include Raleigh waves and Love waves. These waves travel more slowly and typically are
significantly less damaging than seismic waves.
Seismic activity is commonly described in terms of magnitude and intensity. Magnitude (M) describes the total energy
released and intensity (I) subjectively describes the effects at a particular location. Although an earthquake has only
one magnitude, its intensity varies by location. Magnitude is the measure of the amplitude of the seismic wave and is
expressed by a logarithmic scale that represents the amount of energy released from the movement of the fault. An
increase in the Magnitude scale by one whole number represents a tenfold increase in measured amplitude of the
earthquake. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale is a measure of how strong the shock is felt and the type of
damage that it caused by the tremor at a particular location.
Another way of expressing an earthquake’s severity is to compare its acceleration to the normal acceleration due to
gravity. If an object is dropped while standing on the surface of the earth (ignoring wind resistance), it will fall towards
earth and accelerate faster and faster until reaching terminal velocity. The acceleration due to gravity is often called
“g” and is equal to 9.8 meters per second squared (980 cm/sec/sec). This means that every second something falls
towards earth, its velocity increases by 9.8 meters per second, per second. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) measures
the rate of change of motion relative to the rate of acceleration due to gravity. For example, acceleration of the ground
surface of 244 cm/sec/sec equals a PGA of 25.0%. PGA is commonly estimated for an area and applied to building
and infrastructure design. PGA, and similar calculations, are important input factors in determining the amount of
shear stresses a structure can withstand.
One of the secondary hazards from earthquakes is surface faulting, the differential movement of two sides of a fault
at the earth’s surface. Linear structures built across active surface faults, such as railways, highways, pipelines, and
tunnels, are at high risk to damage from earthquakes. Displacement along faults, both in terms of length and width,
varies but can be significant (e.g., up to 20 feet), as can the length of the surface rupture (e.g., up to 200 miles).
Earthquake-related ground failure, due to liquefaction, is also a secondary hazard. Liquefaction occurs when seismic
waves pass through saturated granular soil, distorting its granular structure, and causing some of the empty spaces
between granules to collapse. Pore-water pressure may also increase sufficiently to cause the soil to behave like a fluid
(rather than a soil) for a brief period, causing deformations. Liquefaction causes lateral spreads (horizontal movement
1Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997, Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation
Strategy.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 57
commonly 10-15 feet, but up to 100 feet), flow failures (massive flows of soil, typically hundreds of feet, but up to 12
miles), and loss of bearing strength (soil deformations causing structures to settle or tip).
History
Seismic activity occurs on a regular basis throughout the State of Arizona, although most go undetected. Although
rare, damaging earthquakes affecting Pima County have been recorded in the past as follows:
The earliest recorded earthquake affecting Arizona, and possibly the largest, occurred in 1830. With an
estimated Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) of IX recorded at San Pedro, AZ, approximately 25 miles west
of Tucson, the earthquake would have caused massive damage to built structures1.
In 1887, the Sonoran earthquake caused significant destruction in southern Arizona towns, including Tucson,
and was one of the largest earthquakes in North American history. The earthquake was caused by the
reactivation of a basin and range normal fault that is similar to other faults in Arizona2. The epicenter was
located approximately 100 miles south of Douglas, Arizona, along the Pitaycachi fault in Mexico, and caused
great destruction at its epicenter. The earthquake was so large that it was felt from Guaymas, Mexico to
Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is estimated variously to have been an intensity VIII and M7.6 earthquake. In
Arizona, water in tanks spilled over, buildings cracked, chimneys toppled, and railroad cars were set in
motion. An observer at Tombstone, near the Mexican border, reported sounds ``like prolonged artillery fire''3.
With the increase in development, if such an earthquake occurred today it would cause extensive damage in
southeastern Arizona4.
The main faults of concern in Pima County are as follows and shown in Figure 4-6. The three main Quaternary faults
are the Pitaycachi, Santa Rita and the Huachuca faults. There have been not earthquake events of significance since
the 2012 revision.
Probability/Magnitude
Probabilistic ground motion maps are typically used to assess the magnitude and frequency of seismic events. These
maps estimate the probability of exceeding a certain ground motion, expressed as peak ground acceleration (PGA),
over a specified period of years. For example, Figure 4-7 displays the probability of exceeding a certain ground motion,
expressed as PGA, in 50 years in the Western United States. This is a common earthquake measurement that shows
three things including the geographic area affected (colored areas on map below), the probability of an earthquake of
each level of severity (e.g., 2% chance in 50 years), and the severity (PGA) as indicated by color.
Note that Figure 4-7 expresses a 2% probability of exceedance and, therefore, there is a 98% chance that the peak
ground acceleration displayed will not be exceeded during 50 years. The 50-year return period use is based on
statistical significance and does not imply that the structures are thought to have a useful life of only 50 years. Similar
maps exist for other measures of acceleration, probabilities, and time periods.
It is useful to note that according to the USGS, a PGA of approximately 10% gravity (0.10 g) is the approximate
threshold of damage to older (pre-1965) dwellings or dwellings not made resistant to earthquakes. The 0.10 g measure
was chosen because, on average, it corresponds to the MMI VI to VII levels of threshold damage in California within
25 km of an earthquake epicenter.
Figure 4-8 provides a more detailed view of the 2%, 50-year PGA map for Pima County. As demonstrated by this
map, the central portion of Pima County has a PGA that ranges between 0.06g and 0.10g. The eastern third of the
county is within the 0.10g to 0.12g range. The western portion of the county ranges from 0.08g to 0.16g with the
1 Arizona Division of Emergency Management, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
2 DuBois, S.M., and Smith, A.W., 1980, The 1887 earthquake in San Bernardino Valley, Sonora; historic accounts and intensity patterns in Arizona:
Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology Special Paper no. 3, 112 p.
3 Arizona Division of Emergency Management, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; Bausch, Douglas B. and David S. Brumbaugh,
May 23, 1994. Seismic Hazards in Arizona –Arizona Ground Shaking Intensity & 100 yr Acceleration Contour Maps,
http://www4.nau.edu/geology/aeic/staterep.txt; D.B. Bausch and D.S. Brumbaugh, 1994, Seismic hazards in Arizona: Flagstaff, AZ Earthquake
Information Center, 49 p., 2 sheets, scale 1:1,000,000.; US Geological Survey (USGS): September 12, 2003, “Earthquake History of Arizona.”
http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/states/arizona/arizona_history.html
4 Jenny, J.P. and S.J. Reynolds, 1989. “Geologic Evolution of Arizona” in Arizona Geological Society Digest, No. 17.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 58
highest PGA values occurring along the Yuma County and Mexico border. Overall, PGA values for Pima County are
low in comparison with other counties within the State, and especially in areas of high population.
The possible effects of climate variability on earthquake probability should be low since earthquakes are non-climatic
in nature.
Source: Arizona Geological Society, 2017
Figure 4-6 Southeastern Arizona Earthquake Fault Systems
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 59 Source: United States Geological Survey Simplified 2014 hazard Map (PGA, 2% in 50 years), 2016: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/hazmaps/conterminous/2014/images/HazardMap2014_lg.jpg Figure 4-7: USGS Simplified 2014 Earthquake Hazard Map
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 60 Source: United States Geological Survey 2014 Seismic Hazard Map: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/byregion/arizona-haz.php Figure 4-8: PGA for a 2% Chance in 50 Years’ Recurrence
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 61
In general, the risk of seismic hazard in the urbanized portions of Pima County are relatively low; however, denser
populations, existence of high rise buildings, existence of unreinforced masonry buildings, and the lack of earthquake
awareness among its population elevate the risks associated with seismic activity.
The rate of seismicity in Pima County has historically been low, with the area’s most recent quakes originating in San
Luis in 1976 (M 6) and Baja, Mexico in 2010 (M 7.2). The largest impact of an earthquake on the metropolitan area
would be the economic impact from a catastrophic southern California earthquake, which would disrupt approximately
60% of Arizona’s fuel and 90% of Arizona’s food goods. The Tucson metropolitan area could also be significantly
affected by a major quake in the Yuma or Northern Arizona Seismic Belt (NASB). A repeat of the 1887 earthquake
would result in significant damage to Arizona’s population centers, particularly where development is located on
alluvial plains and steep slopes. It should also be noted that although the small earthquakes occurring in Pima County
are of low seismic risk to buildings, the repeated shaking could eventually cause structural damage. In unstable areas,
small earthquakes may also trigger landslides and boulders rolling off mountain slopes1.
Vulnerability
Table 4-6: CPRI Results for Earthquake for 2017
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Marana Possible Critical 12-24 hours > 1 week 2.50
Oro Valley Possible Critical < 6 hours < 6 hours 2.50
Pascua Yaqui Tribe Possible Limited < 6 hours < 6 hours 2.20
Sahuarita Possible Limited < 6 hours > 1 week 2.50
Tucson Possible Critical < 6 hours <6 hours 2.50
Unincorporated Pima County Possible Limited < 6 hours > 1 week 2.50
County-wide average CPRI = 2.45
Jurisdictions in bold chose the hazard for mitigation in 2017 plan.
Only the City of Tucson chose Earthquake as a hazard to mitigate. Other jurisdictions gave it the same rating as 2.50,
but it was not a priority for mitigation for those Local Planning Teams. The rating of 2.50 by several others was purely
coincidental.
While earthquakes are not a regular occurrence in and around the City of Tucson - none have occurred within the last
planning cycle and the last documented earthquake occurring more than a century ago - there is nonetheless a
recognized and documented history of large earthquakes in the vicinity that have caused damage within the City. The
lack of earthquake awareness and preparedness over the last century as Tucson has built up and out, and without
specific building codes to protect buildings from seismic damage; the City is in a vulnerable position. Due to the
dramatic development over the past century, it is understood that an earthquake many years ago may have only tipped
over water towers and startled horses would today be likely to cause widespread damage and injury within the City.
The earthquake risk assessment performed for Pima County did not explore the potential for collateral hazards such
as liquefaction or landslide. However, losses associated with these ground failures would have been negligible given
the level of shaking expected for Pima County (i.e., not enough strong shaking to trigger significant ground failure).
However, Landslide has been added to this Plan as a hazard for unincorporated Pima County.
The annualized loss estimates developed represent the average of all eight of the HAZUS modeled return periods
(100-year through 2,500-year events). The largest potential annualized losses to jurisdictions in Pima County include
the City of Tucson and the unincorporated portions of Pima County. Tucson accounts for an estimated $1.6 million in
residential losses and $212,000 in commercial losses equating to over 80% of the total losses countywide. These
estimations have been adjusted to reflect current damage loss.
1 Jenny, J.P. and S.J. Reynolds, 1989. “Geologic Evolution of Arizona” in Arizona Geological Society Digest, No. 17.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 62
Development Trends
The major faults within Pima County are generally located within the mountain ranges where development is limited
due to state and local land ownership. The earthquake risk in the identified growth areas of the Pima County
jurisdictions is at the borderline of the 10% g PGA, which as previously stated, is the approximate threshold of damage
for older (pre-1965) dwellings or dwellings not made resistant to earthquakes. Throughout the County, new
development is typically regulated to comply with current building codes that will provide for more stable seismic
designs of new construction.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 63
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 64
4.4.3 Extreme Cold
Description
Tucson’s desert climate is generally prone to mild winters. The average overnight low temperature in the coldest
months, December and January, hovers just above the 39°F mark. During the rest of the cooler parts of the year, in
late fall and early spring, low temperatures tend to hover in the 40-50°F range.
This tendency for mild winters has led to infrastructure design that is not resistant to, nor built with the capacity for,
extended cold periods. Additionally, the tendency for mild winters means that the people, residences, pets, as well as
plants and wildlife in the Tucson area are not prepared for cold weather. It is for this reason that temperatures that
would be considered typical in other parts of the country where cold winters are the norm are instead considered
extreme cold in Tucson.
While on average winters in Tucson are mild, it is not unusual to see brief periods where overnight lows drop below
freezing or even reach Hard Freeze warning levels as described by the National Weather Service. While rare in Tucson,
very cold temperatures (colder than 20°F) can also occur during the winter months. The coldest temperatures often
occur after winter storms move past the region, precipitation ends, and skies clear allowing for rapid cooling at night.
Since many water lines and inlets to residences and businesses are above ground and exposed to the elements, and
since the populace of Tucson is not well aware of the need to protect these pipes with proper insulation, these extreme
cold temperatures can result in frozen and burst pipes. This can cause extensive water damage to homes, business, and
government buildings.
Additionally, during extreme cold in Tucson the populace seeks to keep warm by heating their home. However, due
to the typically mild winters, natural gas distribution systems to and within the City of Tucson have not been built to
handle peaks loads during extreme cold events. This has led to instances of large scale heating fuel outages during
spells of extreme cold, putting at risk residents of Tucson, especially those vulnerable populations with access and
functional needs.
Finally, the culture in Tucson is to expect mild winters and therefore the populace is under-informed regarding the
potential for and possible impacts of extreme cold. This has and can lead to damage to homes, crops, and injuries or
deaths to people or their pets.
History
While extreme cold is not the norm in Tucson, events have occurred with some regularity over the last decade. A few
examples follow1:
In January of 2007, extreme cold hit Tucson for several days in a row, with the low temperature at the
Tucson International Airport hitting 17°F on January 15. The prolonged extreme cold weather led to
substantial damage in the community due to damaged water pipes.
In February 2011, record cold temperatures dropped into the mid to upper teens across the Tucson area for
several nights in a row, with minimal daytime heating, and high winds which combined resulting in two
fatalities. A woman in her late 30's was found dead in an alley near East Speedway and North Campbell
Ave. A second woman was also found dead near the intersection of East Grant and North Craycroft.
Another person was also found lying out in the cold nearly frozen and was taken to the hospital with non-
life threatening injuries. The cold also lead to numerous burst water pipes. A water pipe at a main Metro
Water location froze, leaving almost 30 residences and businesses without water on the northwest side.
More than 200 customers in Tucson reported frozen or burst water pipes. At least 2000 residents and
businesses were without water at some point for a day. AAA saw a 20% increase in local calls, mostly
about dead car batteries. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base had several buildings damaged by flooding due to
frozen fire sprinkler pipes, which resulted in the buildings being closed for safety reasons. The intersection
of Grant Road and Stone Ave. was also closed due to a burst water main that was causing slick road
conditions. Reid Park Zoo was also closed due to numerous broken water pipes. Due to cold temperatures
along the natural gas route from El Paso to Tucson, Southwest Gas could not meet natural gas demand,
1 1 National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 2016, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 65
which resulted in about 14,000 Tucson customers being without heat. Pima County and the City of Tucson
collaborated to open a warming shelter for residents without heat. Untold numbers of plants, trees, and
shrubs were also killed by the record cold, including many saguaro cacti.
In January 2013, cold low temperatures persisted across much of southeast Arizona for several nights. Most
of the damage consisted of broken water pipes. Low temperatures in the teens or lower 20s for several
nights caused numerous pipes to burst in the Tucson metropolitan area. The Tucson International Airport
dropped to 15 degrees on the morning of January 15. Most of the frozen pipes exposed to the cold were on
the roofs or sides of homes. In addition, citrus fruits were damaged by the hard freeze, which meant that
local food banks could not glean unpicked fruit to supplement their food donations. Total damage was
estimated at $100,000. Additionally, two house fires were indirectly related to the cold weather. A mobile
home caught fire when the owner attempted to thaw frozen pipes with a propane torch. Another home
caught fire after residents placed a heat lamp and blankets on a patio overnight to keep pets warm. No one
was injured in either fire.
Probability and Magnitude
Despite the generally mild winters in Tucson, over the last decade the National Weather Service averages two
published hard freeze warnings in Tucson each year. One the extreme end of the spectrum during the 2010/2011 winter
season seven hard freeze warnings were published. Thus, the probability of extreme cold weather is actually highly
likely on an annual basis. While any of these hard freeze events have the potential to cause infrastructure damage,
damage to the environment, and, most importantly loss of life, the most extreme cold events noted above impact
Tucson with a high magnitude due to the nature of the typical building techniques, the design of utility infrastructure
in the region, as well as the culture in Tucson where the residents expect mild winters and are mostly unprepared for
extreme cold2.
Vulnerability
Table 4-7: CPRI Results for Extreme Cold 2017
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Marana Possibly Limited 6-12 hours <24 hours 2.15
Oro Valley Possibly Limited < 6 hours <1 week 2.25
Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Sahuarita Possibly Limited 12-24 hours <1 week 2.10
Tucson Highly
Likely Critical >24 hours >1 week 3.25
Unincorporated Pima County Likely Limited 12-24 hours < 1 week 2.55
County-wide average CPRI = 3.27
Jurisdictions in bold chose the hazard for mitigation in 2017 plan.
Although extreme cold could affect the entire County, the City of Tucson chose it as a primary hazard to address due
to its costly response costs particular to their jurisdiction.
Loss Estimations
There is no standardized method for estimating losses associated with extreme cold events and none is made for this
Plan. From a historical perspective, both human and infrastructure losses could be expected with any significant
extreme cold event especially regarding loss of human life for those exposed to the cold weather for long periods, and
damage to water supply infrastructure. This is especially true in Pima County non-mountainous areas, such as the City
of Tucson, since extreme cold events are rare and the general population is not likely to be prepared for such an event.
2 2 National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 2016, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 66
Development Trend Analysis
While extreme cold is a yearly threat, it is unlikely to affect future development. Enforcement and implementation of
modern building codes to regulate new developments, in particular the proper installation and protection of water
supply lines, in conjunction with public education on how to respond to hazardous cold conditions is probably the best
way to mitigate against such losses.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 67
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 68
4.4.4 Extreme Heat
Description
Extreme temperatures can occur within any area and can often have adverse impacts on the health and welfare of a
community or region. These extreme temperatures can affect people, pets, plants and infrastructure throughout the
area. Extreme heat is considered a risk to Pima County residents.
Extreme heat is either high temperature above the 95th percentile for the date or the combination of very high
temperatures and exceptionally humid conditions that exceed regionally based indices for perceived risk. According
to the National Weather Service, heat is one of the leading weather-related killers in the United States. Heat is
responsible for hundreds of fatalities and even more heat-related illnesses1. The major human risks associated with
extreme heat are as follows:
Heat Cramps: May occur in people unaccustomed to exercising in the heat and generally ceases to
be a problem after acclimatization.
Heat Syncope: This refers to sudden loss of consciousness and is typically associated with people
exercising who are not acclimated to warm temperatures. Causes little or no harm to the individual.
Heat Exhaustion: While much less serious than heatstroke, heat exhaustion victims may complain
of dizziness, weakness, or fatigue. Body temperatures may be normal 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% even with treatment.
Extreme heat affects individuals who work outdoors, as well as the homeless who have no access to shade or cooling,
particularly at night. In Arizona, the average cost for the hospital treatment of a heat related illness in 2008 was $7,500
per person, thus totaling $11,000,000 in treatment costs only2. Hikers and others involved in outdoor recreation
frequently succumb to extreme heat when they run out of water. Extreme heat can stress the elderly and people with
compromised immune systems or other health issues, leading to heart attacks and respiratory distress. Many of the
elderly and those in poverty either have no air conditioning or have insufficient resources to use air conditioning
during a heat wave. In the southwest deserts, air conditioning in the summer is exactly as critical as home heating in
the winter is for those in the northern tier of states. Other vulnerable populations during a heat wave include infants,
young children, and those with functional or access needs.
In addition to the loss of life, extreme heat can affect infrastructure. Power lines are de-rated based on the ambient air
temperature, which provides cooling. High temperatures and calm conditions can lead to overheating of power lines
as well as power transformers, resulting in widespread power outages. Transportation systems also suffer from extreme
heat or cold. Rail lines can buckle in extreme heat as the metal expands. Thermal expansion and contraction causes
pavements to crack, leading to moisture penetration and pavement breakdown. Extreme heat also threatens pavement
markings and signage, shortening their life and requiring more frequent replacement.
History
Extreme temperature events occur in Pima County on a regular basis, but the damaging events typically occur during
the summer months. The following are heat-related statistics:
1 National Weather Service, 2016: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/heat/index.shtml
2 Arizona Department of Health Services, 2010: http://azdhs.gov/documents/director/public-information-office/news-
releases/2010/100519%20Heat%20death%20report%20(2).pdf
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 69
According to the Arizona Department of Health Services, a total of 737 heat-related deaths have occurred
in Pima County over the period of 2001-2013. The highest total was 116 in 2005 when an extended heat
wave occurred in central Arizona3.
Deaths of illegal immigrants in the desert areas along the Arizona-Mexico border are also attributed to
extreme heat. In 2001 and 2002, 79% of the 125 heat fatalities among illegal AZ immigrants took place
in Pima County4.
August 14-16, 2015 extreme heat caused 36 heat related illnesses, including 12 in metropolitan Tucson,
12 in western Pima County and 12 on the Tohono O’odham Nation. Temperatures reached 115 between
August 14 and 16 in south central and southwestern Arizona. Record high temperatures were set at
Tucson, Ajo, Organ Pipe National Monument, and Picacho Peak State Park. High electricity demand
caused power outages in the Tucson area5.
In June 2016, National Weather Service issued widespread excessive heat warnings due to “rare,
dangerous, and deadly” temperatures expected6. Temperatures were at record-breaking highs and tied
the mark as the third highest temperature recorded in Tucson at 115 degrees. The heat wave was
responsible for several death across the region4.
Probability and Magnitude
There are no recurrence or non-exceedance probabilities developed for extreme temperature events in Arizona or Pima
County. Table 2.1 Climate Statistics for Stations in Pima County provides example normal and extreme temperature
ranges for various weather stations within the county. In general, extreme temperatures vary from normal by 10 to
over 30°, with highs that exceed 110° and the trend (though not linear) is toward increased number of days with high
temperatures at or above 105oF and 110oF.
One indicator of the degree of danger associated with extreme heat is the Heat Index (HI) or the “Apparent
Temperature.” According the NWS, the HI is an accurate measure of how hot it really feels when the Relative
Humidity (RH) is added to the actual air temperature. Figure 4-9 is a quick reference chart published by the NWS that
shows the HI based on current temperature and relative humidity, and levels of danger for HI values. It should be
noted that the HI values were devised for shady, light wind conditions and that exposure to full sunshine can increase
HI values by up to 15°F. In addition, strong winds, particularly with very hot, dry air, can be extremely hazardous.
Climate variability may have a strong impact on extreme temperatures and extreme heat in particular. The Centers for
Disease Control says that rare extreme heat events that may occur once every 20 years could start occurring every two
to four years in certain parts of the country including Arizona7. Events could become more severe and last longer as
well as being more common.
3 Arizona Department of Health Services, 2015: http://www.azdhs.gov/documents/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/extreme-
weather/pubs/heat-related-deaths-updated-may-2015.pdf
4 Heat Fatalities in Pima County, Arizona, http://climateknowledge.org/heat_waves/Doc7003_Keim_Heat_Pima_Health%26Place_2007.pdf
5 National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 2016
6 National Weather Service, 2016.
7 Centers for Disease Control, Climate Change and Extreme Heat Events, retrieved 2017:
https://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/pubs/ClimateChangeandExtremeHeatEvents.pdf
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 70
Source: NWS, 2016 http://www.weather.gov/media/unr/heatindex.pdf
Figure 4-9: National Weather Service Heat Index Chart
Vulnerability
Table 4-8: CPRI Results for Extreme Heat for 2017
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Marana Likely Limited > 24 hours > 1 week 2.50
Oro Valley Likely Critical > 24 hours > 1 week 2.80
Pascua Yaqui Tribe Highly
Likely Limited > 24 hours < 1 week 2.85
Sahuarita Highly
Likely Critical > 24 hours < 1 week 3.15
Tucson Highly
Likely Critical > 24 hours < 1 week 3.15
Unincorporated Pima
County
Highly
Likely Critical 12-24 hours < 1 week 3.30
County-wide average CPRI = 2.96
Jurisdictions in bold chose the hazard for mitigation in 2017 plan.
The Town of Oro Valley is vulnerable to extreme heat. Extreme heat events occur on a regular basis, typically in the
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 71
summer months resulting in threats to public health and safety. In recent years, temperatures in the summer months
have been the warmest on record. Fluctuation in temperatures may also lead to higher uses of electricity, gas, or water
that can lead to outages or interruptions in service. Oro Valley has susceptible populations in children and the elderly.
Tourism brings people from areas not familiar to the desert climate that can leave them vulnerable to extreme heat.
The Pascua Yaqui Tribe’s vulnerability to extreme temperature is mainly heat related. The Tribe operates two casinos
and one golf course that receive numerous heat-related emergency calls annually. As with other jurisdictions, the
elderly and young are also vulnerable to the temperature extremes.
Sahuarita, like other neighboring communities, is vulnerable to heat and heat related emergencies. Sahuarita is home
to golf courses and pre-planned communities where outdoor activities are emphasized. Sahuarita has many senior
communities and elder care facilities as well as areas for young families. As the elderly and young are more vulnerable
to heat, the Town chose extreme temperature as one of its hazards.
As a high-desert climate, Tucson is a place of extremes. The City sees very high summer temperatures annually, and
just months later will experience sub-freezing winter temperatures. While this is the norm, over the last decade the
range of extremes has grown with recent summer temperatures breaking multiple records in one month and winter
temperatures dropping to a point that the community, and infrastructure owners, are not prepared for.
During the summertime, extreme heat is generally handled well by the community – however, is widely understood
that this is dependent on the reliable delivery of electric power so that residents and businesses can cool their homes
and buildings. The potential for electrical system failure during the summer due to storms, wildfires, or overuse/stress
on the system are realities that Tucson as a City is beginning to address more thoroughly in our planning processes as
it is recognized that a long-term power outage during an extreme heat wave would leave a large portion of the City
vulnerable.
During the wintertime, on the other hand, extreme cold temperatures are something the City is less accustomed to and
prepared for. Local building practices and codes do not take in to account the protection of water pipes from extremely
cold weather, and local natural gas supply infrastructure was not built to take into account the demand for heating
fuels when temperatures drop well below freezing during periods of record breaking cold. This type of cold weather
has, and can again, lead to wide spread failure to deliver heating fuel and failure of water delivery systems, again
leaving large populations within the City vulnerable.
Unincorporated Pima County residents and visitors are vulnerable to extreme heat like the jurisdictions. Full-time
citizens of Pima County are generally prepared for the hot climate; however, the homeless and visitors can be
overcome due to exposure and lack of awareness. The Pima County Health Department maintains a “Beat the Heat”
campaign and various other departments get involved during heat emergencies. Like others, unincorporated Pima
County is vulnerable to electrical outages that moves the emergency from individuals outdoors to those indoors as
well including the vulnerable elderly and young.
Loss Estimations
Losses due to extreme heat primarily occur in the form of death and illness for people and animals as mentioned at
the beginning of this section. Arizona Department of Health Services tracks data and monitors trends and other factors
to determine if a statistical significance exists. History would indicate that multiple deaths due to extreme heat are
highly likely, especially for illegal immigrants that attempt to cross the Arizona deserts during the summer months.
Homeless, low income, elderly, young and access and functional needs populations are particularly vulnerable to
extreme heat due to the increased exposure to the natural elements and decreased ability to compensate in the form of
cooling apparatus.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 72
Development Trends
Growth in Pima County has significantly increased the population and infrastructure exposed to extreme heat. There
is also an increased demand on resources for electric power during the summer months. The primary intersect of
extreme high temperature hazards and future development of the county is in the general increase in population and
commensurate infrastructure development required.
Over the decades as the metropolitan area has dramatically grown in size, the "urban heat island" effect has developed.
This has caused temperatures in the center of metropolitan areas to become much warmer than those in rural areas
have. The concrete and asphalt of urban areas retains the heat of the day, and releases it slowly as compared to the
surrounding desert terrain, which cools much quicker at night. As development continues to occur within Tucson and
its surrounding area, heat conditions will continue to increase.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 73
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 74
4.4.5 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 or levee failures is addressed separately. The three
seasonal atmospheric events that tend to trigger floods in Pima County are:
Tropical Storm Remnants: Some of the worst flooding tends to occur when the remnants of a hurricane that
has been downgraded to a tropical storm or tropical depression enter the State. These events occur
infrequently and mostly in the early autumn and usually bring heavy and intense precipitation over large
regions causing severe flooding.
Winter Rains: Winter brings the threat of low intensity; but long duration rains covering large areas that cause
extensive flooding and erosion, particularly when combined with snowmelt.
Summer Monsoons: A third atmospheric condition that brings flooding to Arizona is the annual summer
monsoon. In mid to late summer, the monsoon winds bring humid subtropical air into the State. Solar heating
triggers afternoon and evening thunderstorms that can produce extremely intense, short duration bursts of
rainfall. The thunderstorm rains are mostly translated into runoff and in some instances, the accumulation of
runoff occurs very quickly resulting in a rapidly moving flood wave referred to as a flash flood. Flash floods
tend to be localized and cause significant flooding in local watercourses.
Damaging floods in the County include riverine, sheet, alluvial fan, and local area flooding. Riverine flooding occurs
along established watercourses when the banks full capacity of a watercourse is exceeded by storm runoff or snowmelt
and the overbank areas become inundated. Sheet flooding occurs in regionally low areas with little topographic relief
that generate floodplains over a mile wide, Alluvial fan flooding is generally located on piedmont areas near the base
of the local mountains, such as the Tortolita Fan, that are characterized by multiple, highly unstable flow paths that
can rapidly change during flooding events. 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.
Another major flood hazard comes as a secondary impact of wildfires in the form of dramatically increased runoff
from ordinary rainfall events that occur on newly burned watersheds. Denuding of the vegetative canopy and forest
floor vegetation, and development of hydrophobic soils are the primary factors that contribute to the increased runoff.
Canopy and floor level brushes and grasses intercept and store a significant volume of rainfall during a storm event.
They also add to the overall watershed roughness that generally attenuates the ultimate peak discharges. Soils in a
wildfire burn area can be rendered hydrophobic. Hydrophobic soils, in combination with a denuded watershed, will
significantly increase the runoff potential, turning a routine annual rainfall event into a raging flood with drastically
increased potential for soil erosion and mud and debris flows.
History
Flooding is clearly a major hazard in Pima County. Pima County has been part of 13 disaster declarations for flooding,
with none of those declarations occurring in the past five years. There have been numerous other non-declared events
of flooding incidents occurring in the last five years. The following incidents represent examples of major flooding
that has affected the County:
During August and September of 1983, nearly seven inches of rain fell, saturating the soil around the Tucson
metropolitan area. These conditions were exacerbated when a surge of moisture from Tropical Storm Octave,
which was located off the central Baja California coast, moved northeast across the area. The result over a
four-day period were torrential rains ranging from five to nine inches, causing flooding in Tucson and
southeast Arizona. Bridges in the area, including all spanning the Santa Cruz River except one, were damaged
or partially washed away. Additional damage occurred along the other watercourses throughout the area.
Several buildings fell into Rillito Creek due to bank erosion and extensive damage occurred to agriculture in
Marana. Cost estimates (using 1984 dollars) to repair and mitigate flood damage were estimated at $105.7
million. Four deaths in Eastern Pima County were attributed to the flood.
In late December 1992 - early January 1993, a series of winter storms produced record-breaking precipitation
amounts and severe weather across much of Arizona. Heavy rains combined with melting snowpack caused
heavy flooding of both local washes and regional rivers within Pima County. Nearly every community and
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 75
city within the county was impacted by the storms at some level. Most of the heavy damage was associated
with the Gila, San Pedro, and Santa Cruz Rivers. According to the USACE Flood Damages Report, the total
public and private damages from the 1993 floods were estimated to exceed $12 million in Pima County alone.
The flooding prompted a federal disaster declaration (FEMA-977-DR-AZ) for almost the entire state1.
On August 14, 2005 and August 23, 2005, intense heavy rains caused significant damage to public
infrastructure throughout Pima County. The severe runoff resulted in damages to numerous roads, traffic
lights, water well fields, berms, crossings, and police vehicles. After over an inch of rain fell across a large
portion of the Tucson Metro Area, some locations with more than two inches, several roads became flooded,
closed, and impassable. In addition to all the flooded roadways, several trailer homes located in the southern
portion of the Tucson Metro Area, were flooded and surrounded by rising water. Rescue teams evacuated
several people from these homes. Brawley wash was out of its banks and flooding roadways causing them to
be impassable. Over $260,000 in damages were estimated2.
In late July and early August 2006, several areas of the state were struck by severe storms and flooding during
the period of July 25 to August 4, 2006. Tropical moisture poured into Southeast Arizona, saturating the
ground at most locations. As rainfall continued, additional runoff quickly filled rivers and washes, exceeding
bank full capacities and flooding homes and businesses as well as nearby roads. Some roadways were washed
away due to the strong floodwaters. Lots of flash flooding occurred throughout the Tucson Metro Area due
to saturated grounds and extremely heavy rainfall. Numerous roads were closed due to flooding throughout
the entire Metro Area for many hours. A USGS stream gage was destroyed by floodwaters in Rincon Creek.
Additionally, there were numerous swift water rescues and car stranded in flooded roadways. It was estimated
that nearly 100 vehicles were flooded. Several rivers running through the Tucson Metro Area flooded on July
31, 2006. The Rillito River flooded with water over the cement banks near Dodge Boulevard. Additionally,
the Rillito River was over bank full just east of the Swan Road Bridge. River Road near La Cholla Road was
flooding from the Rillito River. Sabino Creek was out of its banks and houses were flooded near Sabino
Canyon and Bear Canyon. Below is a listing of some of the damage, but not all, caused by the flooding and
an estimate for the cost of repairs:
Sabino Canyon Recreation area road and facility damaged, $100,000
Forty homes and businesses flooded, $1,200,000
One home destroyed due to flooding, $150,000
Water main broke near the Mt. Lemmon highway, $20,000
Catalina Highway road washed away, $50,000
Agricultural irrigation system damaged, $500,000
Cement plant flooded, $400,000
Gravel pit flooded, $30,000
General infrastructure damage, $500,000.
The flooding prompted a federal disaster declaration (FEMA-1660-DR-AZ) for Gila, Graham, Greenlee,
Pima, and Pinal Counties. Total disaster expenditures exceeded $13.6 million (ADEMA, 2010; PCRFCD,
2011).3
On February 19, 2008, a state of emergency was declared for Pima County for flooding and damages due to
8.5 inches of precipitation that fell in and around Mt. Lemmon within Pima County in less than a 24-hour
period. Damages to roads left residents stranded in their homes, limited access to food and medical assistance
and damaged potable water supply lines, which affected transmission and distribution of potable water to
homes. The rainfall and snowmelt created conditions that threatened the health and safety of residents and
exceeded the capabilities of Pima County. Several people in Tucson needed to be rescued from flowing
washes. Damages were estimated to exceed $770,0004.
1 US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 1994, Flood Damage Report – State of Arizona – Floods of 1993
2 National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 2010
3 Arizona Division of Emergency Management, Pima County Regional Flood Control District
4 National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 2010
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 76
On January 21, 2010, sixteen hikers were trapped on Sabino Canyon Trail at approximately 11 AM after the
stream rose above its banks, covering low water crossings. The San Simon and Vamori Washes in the Tohono
O’odham Nation rose 1-2 feet out of their banks during the evening of January 21. Several other washes
flowed out of their banks, resulting in barricaded roadways near Saguaro National Park East and West,
including East Tucson and Avra Valley. A motorist was trapped in the Canada del Oro Wash near Rancho
del Lago at approximately 7 AM on January 22 requiring a swift water rescue. Storm-wide damages were
estimated at $300,000 (NCDC, 2011). A presidential disaster was declared (FEMA-1888-DR-AZ) for several
counties and Indian tribes in the state including Pima County.
In July 2010, torrential rainfall across portions of eastern Pima County resulted in numerous reports of flash
flooding in the Tucson metro area. Flash flooding was observed on Tanque Verde Creek with a peak depth
of 11.69 feet at Tanque Verde Guest Ranch. Approximately 30 homes on Barbary Coast Road, Gold Dust
Road, and Kitt Carson were flooded. Numerous swift water rescues were performed in the Tucson metro
area, near the county fairgrounds, in the Recon Valley area, and on the Old Spanish Trail in the Hilton Head
Ranch area. Damages were estimated to exceed $500,0005.
Between 2011 and April 2016 there were 39 flash flooding events with two deaths and damage amounting
to $2.366 million dollars. September 15, 2011 the 5h highest rainfall total on record occurred at Tucson
International Airport with 2.84”, and up to 3.00” at nearby locations. Over 3 feet of water covered the roads
near the airport causing over 30 roads to be closed and two flights had to be diverted to Phoenix. Six swift
water rescues were performed and six people were rescued from their homes as rivers exceeded their banks.
In Sahuarita, a wash overflowed into a community flooding 15 homes. A homeless man was swept away by
the Santa Cruz River. Damage was estimated at $1 million in Tucson and $500K at Sahuarita6.
On September 8, 2014, moisture associated with Tropical Depression Norbert caused extensive street
flooding on the east side of Tucson requiring numerous swift water rescues. One woman drove into Alamo
Wash and drowned when her vehicle was swept downstream under a bridge3.
Heavy rain in the Corona de Tucson area of Vail on July 7, 2014 caused widespread flash flooding, closed
roads, and caused property damage. According to the Pima County Regional Flood Control District’s
(PCRFD) ALERT system precipitation gauges, the area experienced storms with total rainfall ranging from
1.5 to over 2 inches, with rainfall intensities of up to two inches in less than an hour reported in portions of
the watershed. The high intensity of the storm over a relatively short duration caused the floodwaters to rise
and fall quickly, catching many by surprise7.
On July 9, 2014 an intense, localized storm with rainfall intensities of 2 inches per hour or greater affected
Why, Arizona. Several Structures were damaged during the event6. Historic and real-time rainfall and
streamflow data, along with descriptions of floods are available on the Pima County Regional Flood Control
website at: http://webcms.pima.gov/government/flood_control/
Probability and Magnitude
For the purposes of this Plan, the probability and magnitude of flood hazards in Pima County jurisdictions are based
on the 1% probability floodplains (also known as the 100-year flood, as the flood has a 1% chance of being equaled
or exceeded in any single year) delineated on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)8. FEMA completed a map
modification program to update the FIRMs for the County into a digital FIRM (DFIRM) format. The Pima County
Regional Flood Control District (PCRFCD) is responsible for keeping these up-to-date as revisions are made.
Floodplain GIS base files were obtained from the PCRFCD and are the basis for the flood hazard depictions in this
Plan.
5 National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 2011
6 National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 2016
7 Pima County Regional Flood Control District, 2016
8 FEMA 100 Year Flood Zones, http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=e9aa2179f31b4b9cbe5c7f8b1b91cea3, 2016
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 77
Vulnerability
Table 4-9: CPRI Results for Flood 2017
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Marana Likely Catastrophic 12-24 hours < 24 hours 3.05
Oro Valley Likely Catastrophic < 6 hours < 24 hours 3.35
Pascua Yaqui Tribe Likely Limited < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.75
Sahuarita Highly
Likely Catastrophic 12-24 hours > 1 week 3.70
Tucson Highly
Likely Critical 6-12 hours < 6 hours 3.25
Unincorporated Pima County Highly
Likely Critical < 6 hours < 24 hours 3.50
County-wide average CPRI = 3.27
Jurisdictions in bold chose the hazard for mitigation in 2017 plan.
The different types of weather in Pima County described above produces distinctively different types of floods. Flood
producing storms in Pima County typically fall into one of two types: summer monsoon thunderstorms and winter
mesoscale storms.
Summer monsoon storms are highly convective systems that produce intense rainfall over relatively small areas.
Monsoon storms are more likely to trigger flood events on smaller watercourses, particularly later in the monsoon
season when antecedent soil moisture is higher. Monsoon storm flooding is short-lived and may affect an area
suddenly as a flash flood. These floods tend to be of shorter duration. Furthermore, monsoon rainfall may affect just
one watershed. In most years, the annual peak flow will occur on different days at different gauging stations. However,
the July 31, 2006 event, which produced debris flows in the Santa Catalina Mountains significant flooding on the
Santa Cruz downstream of the Rillito occurred after several days of rainfall in the Santa Catalina Mountains.
Flash floods are generally associated with summer monsoon thunderstorms. Several factors make flash floods a
challenging hazard to mitigate.
1) Real-time precipitation gages may miss storm cells that are small enough in aerial extent although large enough
in volume to cause flash flooding.
2) Extreme rainfall intensities can generate runoff that reaches peak flow in periods measured in minutes, providing
little or no ability to provide the public with a warning about any specific event.
3) The leading edge of the flood may extend miles below the storm event that created it, flooding an area that may
have received no rainfall and may not have even been cloudy, thus catching individuals completely unaware of
the threat.
Winter mesoscale storms generally originate in the Pacific Ocean and produce bands of precipitation over a period of
days. Though characterized by low rainfall intensity, these long duration storms yield the high volumes of water
necessary to produce significant flow events on the major watercourses. Precipitation characteristics create floods that
build slowly and may last for days. These include Tropical Storms. In general, the largest floods on the Santa Cruz
River have occurred because of tropical storms that come up from the Sea of Cortez in the fall, but do not produce
significant flooding in most years. In October 1983, tropical storm Octave produced the flood of record on the Santa
Cruz River. Between 6 ½ to 7 ½ inches of rain fell across the area in five days. The flooding stretched to
Clifton/Morenci, Wilcox, Safford and Nogales. More than a dozen people died. While high rainfall depths and
extended duration certainly produce conditions conducive for flooding, saturated soils that have limited capacity to
absorb rainfall also play a role. They may also include frontal systems that can provide more sustained flow durations,
even as flood peaks tend to remain low. In rare occasions winter frontal systems have produced rain on snow in January
to March.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 78
In addition to flash flood largely associated with mountain front drainage, sheet flow flooding is a phenomenon unique
to watersheds with low topographic relief and a severe lack of adequate flow conveyance through channels. The lack
of defined drainage channels often deceives the public into thinking that there are no flood hazards in the area. Sheet
flow flooding may develop quickly but where slopes are particularly shallow, the duration of sheet flow flooding may
extend more than 24 hours. Private roadways not designed for all weather access are common in these areas of the
County. As a result and in combination with the widespread nature of sheet flow flooding, during times of flooding
residents and emergency services ability to gain safe or reliable access to and from the affected area may be limited.
Alluvial fans create a special type of floodplain that has characteristics that are similar to sheet flow floodplains.
Alluvial fans occur below mountain fronts and consist of an accumulation of sediment carried out of the mountains
via riverine flow. At the margin of the mountain front, flow containment is lost and floodwaters spread out across the
alluvial fan. Alluvial fans may have better defined channels or flow corridors but they are not large enough to convey
large storm events and, due to their location below the break in slope, channels often aggrade and lose capacity. Since
alluvial fans often consist of poorly consolidated alluvium, the loss of channel capacity in existing channels leads to
the creation of new channels or the reestablishment of old channels. This characteristic of alluvial fans leads to
significant uncertainty with respect to the location and severity of flood flows. The combination of severe, directed
flow at uncertain locations, unconsolidated soils and the likelihood of flash floods in this environment results in
potentially extreme flood and erosion hazards.
Historically, flood events of limited aerial extent occur at least every few years in Pima County. These floods may not
affect many people but the effects of these floods may be severe for those affected. Floods on the major watercourses
occur approximately once every ten years. Historically, these floods had a significant impact on the community;
however, flood and erosion hazard improvements within the urban core have largely limited the hazards to the public
from large flood events on the major watercourses. In addition, improved regulation of development through elevating
structures above the base flood, protecting structures from erosion hazards and protection of natural floodplains has
ensured that new development is more flood resilient than was previously the case in unincorporated Pima County.
This section contains a map and data table for unincorporated areas known to flood frequently and where warning is
required per the NFIP (see Figure 4-10 and 4-11). Figure 4-12 and 4-13 are Special Studies Floodplains map showing
locally mapped floodplains. These are mapped either by a developer or by unincorporated Pima County. Table 4-11
contains data for these Special Studies Floodplains areas including exposure estimates. The PCRFCD works closely
with the PCOEM to add locally identified special studies flood-prone areas.
While bank protection installed by the PCRFCD along major watercourse has reduced erosion and overbank
flooding in much of the urbanized incorporated areas of the County some development pre-exists floodplain
regulation and infrastructure is at risk. This area includes:
The Forty Niner’s Country Club Subdivision on Tanque Verde Creek geologic floodplain,
The alluvial fan areas of Lee Moore, Franco and Flato washes particularly in the Summit neighborhood
south of Sahaurita Road,
The broad floodplains of Avra Valley and the Black Wash, as well as
Numerous canyon washes impacted by fires within National Forests in the upper watershed and
encroachment in the foothills residential areas.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 79 Figure 4-10: Pima County Flood Hazards
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 80 Figure 4-11: Eastern Pima County Flood Hazards Detail
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 81 Figure 4-12: Local Flood Hazard Areas Pima County
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 82 Figure 4-13: Local Flood Hazard Areas Eastern Pima County Detail
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 83
The Town of Marana has significant concerns regarding flooding. There are several flooding sources within Marana
that can cause hazards to property or roadways. They include runoff from the Tortolita Mountains, runoff from the
Tucson Mountains, and overbank flow from the Santa Cruz River. Two additional flooding sources include the Rillito
River and the Canada del Oro Wash, are contained within their banks during the base flood (commonly known as the
“100 year flood”) but are susceptible to hazardous erosive failures. Areas include:
Santa Cruz River: Major regional storm events, such as significant rainfall in the Catalina Mountain
watershed, can send enough Stormwater runoff into the Canada del Oro or Rillito River systems that will
direct floodwaters to the Santa Cruz River potentially causing the closure of the Ina Road bridge for structural
precautions, the closure of the Sanders Road bridge due to overtopping, the capturing of the El Rio Open
Space preserve, and evacuation due to overbank flows of the Berry Acres subdivision in far north Marana.
Major storm systems south of Tucson, potentially all the way from Mexico, within the Santa Cruz watershed
can also cause these issues. Some areas of Continental Ranch adjacent to the Santa Cruz River and the Town’s
airport could be impacted by Santa Cruz flood events above the base flood.
Tortolita Mountain Alluvial Fan: The Tortolita Mountain watershed consists of several major washes that
leave the mountain system whose floodplains overlap in a broad alluvial floodplain. Higher on the alluvial
fan and closer to the mountains, the washes are well defined and the floodplains are more certain. The lower
you travel on the floodplain the more the floodplain broadens out into overlapping sheet flow areas. Tangerine
Road in its current condition is susceptible to flooding and road closures due to at-grade dip crossings. At the
end of the alluvial fan lies the Central Arizona Project Canal system that has a protective berm on its upstream
side and over chute pipe outlets to carry floodwaters across the canal at various locations. This berm/over
chute system interrupts the sheet flow characteristics of the lower alluvial fan and reconcentrates the
floodwaters at the pipe outlet locations. Localized flooding and road closures occur downstream of the over
chutes. A similar situation occurs where the Tortolita Fan runoff is intercepted by the Union Pacific Railroad
and Interstate 10. These facilities are raised higher than the adjacent ground, impounding water on their
upstream sides and create focused flooding issues where culverts or interchange openings allow focused
floodwaters through. There are also some areas of the interstate and railroad that can be outright overtopped.
Should there be a rainfall event significant enough to cause runoff by the sandy soils of the Tortolita Fan; the
water will go through the series of impoundments and discharges noted above through the Central Arizona
Project Canal, Union Pacific Railroad, and Interstate 10 to arrive at northwest Marana. These floodwaters
then either sheet flow or are carried in the bar ditch and irrigation canal system in a northwesterly pattern
throughout northwest Marana. Property damage and road closures occur until the flood waters recede.
Tucson Mountain floodplain: The Tucson Mountain watershed consists of several washes that leave the
mountain system but unlike the Tortolita Fan, the washes remain well confined due to the rockier nature of
the terrain and the closer proximity of the mountain range to the Santa Cruz River. The Town has not
experienced major property damage from Tucson Mountain runoff but several roads both east and north of
the mountain range are subject to closure during major rain events in the watershed. FEMA mapping
categorizes the Town’s airport as being in a sheet floodplain from the Tucson Mountains but the mapping
does not appear to consider the raised Central Arizona Project canal immediately east of the airport.
Canada del Oro wash and Rillito River: Both of these systems contain the base flood for their watersheds.
However, property and roadways adjacent and crossing these systems could be susceptible to flooding from
events above the base flood. A segment of the Canada del Oro wash west of Thornydale road that is not
armored with bank protection. That segment could experience erosive failure. Prior to development of this
area, the Town will require the bank protection to be put in place. The most hazardous aspect of these systems
however is where they come together at the Santa Cruz River just west of Interstate 10. No part of this
confluence is bank protected. A sand and gravel pit within the confluence area that has been mined well
below the bed of the river. If the berm protecting the sand and gravel pit were to fail, the resulting pit capture
could cause a headcut eastwards and erode away the adjacent portion of Interstate 10, the Union Pacific
Railroad, a major Tucson Electric Power transmission line, transcontinental high-pressure gas pipeline, and
a transcontinental fiber optic line.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 84
The Town of Oro Valley is susceptible to flood hazards on a relatively frequent basis due to tropical storm remnants,
winter rains, and summer monsoons. Localized events are the most common and frequent types of flooding in Oro
Valley, however, there are infrequent occasions of more widespread or regional flooding events. Examples of larger
flood events affecting the Town of Oro Valley include:
July 4, 2012. Estimated hundred-year event occurred that caused flooding to the Lomos de Oro wash. There
were limited damages because of a FEMA funded mitigation project (2006) to add gabions and other flood
protections.
September 8, 2014. Hurricane Norbert. Several localized areas across the Town received between 3.5-4.5
inches of rain in an hour’s time. This flooded streets, overflowed normal wash channels, led to swift water
rescues, and flooded homes and yards. There was significant storm recovery need to include debris and
sediment clean up, repairs to impacted public infrastructure, and clean-up by individual homeowners and
businesses. Additionally, short and long-term mitigation measures were identified, prioritized, and
completed. The storm led to a SBA declaration for the State of Arizona.
August 7-10, 2015. The four (4) Pima County Flood Control ALERT rain gauges located in Oro Valley
measured over one (1) inch of rain, with one measuring over three (3) inches of rain in a short amount of
time. These back-to-back storms produced a lot of rain, sediment, debris, and flooded dip crossings.
August 31, 2015. This storm had limited rainfall, but caused wind damage due to microburst, power outages,
and damages to public infrastructure.
August 1-2, 2016. Significant rainfall amounts over consecutive days across the metro region, including Oro
Valley. Due to saturated ground conditions, there was concern for regional impacts with any additional
precipitation.
August 17, 2016. This storm brought heavy rain, flooded roadways, high winds, microburst, lightning caused
fires, and power outages due to downed power poles. This storm resulted in damages to both public and
private infrastructure.
There may also be other cascading events associated with a flood such as damages to infrastructure, severe wind
(microbursts), downed power poles, power outages, uprooted trees, flooded homes, and other related damages.
The Pascua Yaqui flood vulnerability is mainly related to the main body of land for the tribe that is located in the
Black Wash flood plain. The Black Wash gathers waters from washes from the Tohono O’odham and Pima County,
runs through the jurisdiction and then back into Pima County. The flooding affects the residences as well as the
business and gaming communities by cutting off critical services from citizens. In 2015, a monsoon flood event
washed out critical communications infrastructure including phone and data lines.
The Town of Sahuarita is vulnerable to flooding mainly due to its proximity to the Santa Cruz River. Several large
washes run through the Town and upstream rain events can overwhelm wash channels. Sahuarita Road runs from
SR83 to the east to just west of I-19 through the town. Sahuarita Road has numerous low-level wash crossings that
are vulnerable to flood events and can cut off citizens from emergency services. Numerous modular housing areas
have structures with increased vulnerability to flooding when washes back up as well.
Flooding in Tucson is a yearly expectation during the summer monsoon and often during the winter weather patterns
as well. The community is generally fairly well prepared for these storms and their short-term flash flooding effects.
Although every year damage is done to roadways and other infrastructure and people become stuck, and sometimes
injured or killed, while trying to cross flooded washes that cross roadways. The flood vulnerability may come from
two other sources. First, the potential for the track of tropical storm/hurricane remnants from the Pacific Ocean, usually
via the Gulf of California, has led to widespread and large-scale rainfall causing severe flooding of large drainages
such as the Santa Cruz River. These storms usually coincide with the tail end of the monsoon events. Second, there is
a history of large scale flooding events from El Niño weather patterns occurring during Tucson’s winter rainy season.
These weather patterns can again greatly increase overall rainfall over a short period of the season leading to flooding.
They can also create cascading events such as a heavy snowpack on the mountains that border Tucson, followed by a
warm tropical rainstorm that leads to heavy snowmelt and flooding of waterways and washes within the City.
While mitigation projects throughout the city have been underway since the record flooding in 1983, caused by
remnants of Tropical Storm Octave, there are still large lengths of waterways and washes that are vulnerable to erosion,
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 85
bank degradation, and other flooding threats. Numerous bridges and roadways are vulnerable to substantial
infrastructure damage during large-scale floods.
Loss Estimations
The estimation of potential exposure to high and medium flood hazards was accomplished by intersecting the human
and facility assets with the flood hazard limits depicted on the Flood Hazard Maps (See Maps 6-1 and 6-2). Population
and residential building figures are from the 2010 Census; counts at the block level were intersected with those flood
hazard areas using a more complex dasymetric technique from FEMA’s HAZUS-MH software. This technique uses
land cover information derived from satellite imagery to remove the areas in Census blocks that are largely without
population or housing (e.g. vacant land, agricultural areas, etc.).
Replacement costs for the critical facilities and infrastructure identified in this Plan were taken from work done for
the 2012 Plan, with an across-the-board 7% increase applied (due to the change in the Consumer Price Index for the
West Region from 2012 to 2016). Replacement costs for the residential buildings were developed using a hybrid
approach: the mean residential building replacement cost per block was taken from HAZUS-MH and was then
multiplied by the total building count for each block as given in the 2010 Census.
Loss estimates to all facilities located within the high and medium flood hazard areas were then calculated from the
replacement costs using a simple ratio. (Most of the assets located within high hazard flood areas will be subject to
three feet or less of flooding.) Using the FEMA tables, it is assumed that all structural assets located within the high
hazard areas will have a loss-to-exposure ratio of 0.20 (or 20%). A loss-to-exposure ratio of 0.05 (5%) is assumed for
assets located in the medium hazard areas. Locally defined floodplains are assumed to have a loss-to-exposure ratio
of 0.20 (20%). Table 4-12 summarizes the critical facility, population, and residential housing unit exposure and loss
estimates for the high and medium flood hazards.
Each jurisdiction is responsible for identifying their critical facilities and infrastructure. 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 and significantly hinder a
community’s ability to recover following a disaster.
The following criteria were used to define critical facilities and infrastructure for this analysis:
1. Communications Infrastructure: Telephone, cell phone, data services, radio towers, and internet
communications, which have become essential to continuity of business, industry, government, and
military operations.
2. Electrical Power Systems: Generation stations and transmission and distribution networks that
create and supply electricity to end-users.
3. Gas and Oil Facilities: Production and holding facilities for natural gas, crude and refined
petroleum, and petroleum-derived fuels, as well as the refining and processing facilities for these
fuels.
4. Banking and Finance Institutions: Banks, financial service companies, payment systems,
investment companies, and securities/commodities exchanges.
5. Transportation Networks: Highways, railroads, ports and inland waterways, pipelines, and
airports and airways that facilitate the efficient movement of goods and people.
6. Water Supply Systems: Sources of water; reservoirs and holding facilities; aqueducts and other
transport systems; filtration, cleaning, and treatment systems; pipelines; cooling systems; and other
delivery mechanisms that provide for domestic and industrial applications, including systems for
dealing with water runoff, wastewater, and firefighting.
7. Government Services: Capabilities at the federal, state, and local levels of government required to
meet the needs for essential services to the public.
8. Emergency Services: Medical, police, fire, and rescue systems.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 86
Other assets such as public libraries, schools, businesses, museums, parks, recreational facilities, historic buildings or
sites, churches, residential and commercial subdivisions, apartment complexes, and so forth, are typically not
classified as critical facilities and infrastructure unless they serve a secondary function to the community during a
disaster emergency (e.g. - emergency housing or evacuation centers).
In summary, nearly $230 million in critical facility related losses are estimated for high and medium flood hazards,
for all the participating jurisdictions in Pima County. An additional $1.03 billion in high and medium flood losses to
2010 Census residential housing units is estimated for all participating Pima County jurisdictions. Regarding human
vulnerability, a total population of 37,951 people, or 3.9% of the total population, is potentially exposed to a high
hazard flood event. A total population of 44,024 people, or 4.6% of the total population, is potentially exposed to a
medium hazard flood event. This exposure is based upon FEMA floodplains. Exposure loss estimates for locally
defined floodplains and levees is provided below in Table 4-11.
It is noted that the loss and exposure numbers presented above represent a comprehensive evaluation of the County as
a whole. It is unlikely that a storm event would occur that would flood all of the delineated high and medium flood
hazard areas at the same time. Accordingly, actual event based losses and exposure are likely to be only a fraction of
those summarized above. Furthermore, any flood event that exposes assets or population to a medium hazard will also
expose assets and populations to the high hazard flood zone. That is, the 100-year floodplain would be entirely
inundated during a 500-year flood in the localized area of impact.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 87 Table 4-10: Pima County Exposure and Loss Estimates Due to Flooding Flood Hazard Exposure/Loss Marana Oro Valley Pascua Yaqui Tribe Sahuarita South Tucson Tucson Unincorp Pima County Total Total Critical Facilities 27013217 74201,5521,3743,439Facilities in High Hazard Areas 99 7 0 23 0 71 91 291Percentage of Total Facilities 36.7% 5.3% 0.0% 31.1% 0.0% 4.6% 6.6% 8.5%Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000)$418,998 $9,896 $0 $140,530 $0 $199,014 $234,820 $1,003,258 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) $83,800 $1,979 $0 $28,106 $0 $39,803 $46,964 $200,652 Facilities in Medium Hazard Areas Not Protected by Levees *36 0 13 0 0 71 14 134Percentage of Total Facilities * 13.3% 0.0% 76.5% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 1.0%3.9%Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) *$102,348 $0 $95,391 $0 $0 $242,089 $35,197 $475,025 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) * $5,117 $0 $4,770 $0 $0 $12,104 $1,760 $23,751 Facilities in Medium Hazard Areas Protected by Levees *4 3 0 0 0 18 9 34 Percentage of Total Facilities * 1.5% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.7% 1.0%Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) * $1,818 $20,876 $0 $0 $0 $8,640 $76,770 $108,104 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) * $91 $1,044 $0 $0 $0 $432 $3,838 $5,405 Total Population 34,71840,8063,691 25,2675,612523,012337,676970,782
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 88 Population in High Hazard Areas 2,914 563 279 803 3 16,013 17,376 37,951Percent Exposed 8.4% 1.4% 7.6% 3.2% 0.1% 3.1% 5.1% 3.9%Population in Medium Hazard Areas Not Protected by Levees *8,413 97 3,370 754 0 22,668 6,379 41,681Percent Exposed * 24.2% 0.2% 91.3% 3.0% 0.0% 4.3% 1.9% 4.3%Population in Medium Hazard Areas Protected by Levees *784 649 0 0 0 62 1,529 3,024Percent Exposed * 2.3% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3%Total Residential Building Count 14,61520,205896 10,6262,116231,414157,525437,397Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) $3,636,438 $5,710,908 $146,861 $2,673,610 $364,907 $66,121,087 $36,203,274 $114,857,085 Structures in High Hazard Areas 1,155 283 66 281 1 7,622 7,083 16,491Percentage of Total Structures 7.9% 1.4% 7.4% 2.6% 0.0% 3.3% 4.5% 3.8%Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000)$273,173 $79,888 $10,669 $69,088 $117 $2,204,333 $1,363,762 $4,001,030 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) $54,635 $15,978 $2,134 $13,818 $23 $440,867 $272,752 $800,206 Structures in Medium Hazard Areas Not Protected by Levees *3,221 46 815 316 0 10,633 2,755 17,786Percentage of Total Structures *22.0% 0.2% 91.0% 3.0% 0.0% 4.6% 1.7%4.1%Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) *$704,812 $13,161 $134,904 $71,172 $0 $2,801,127 $580,502 $4,305,678 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) * $35,241 $658 $6,745 $3,559 $0 $140,056 $29,025 $215,284 Structures in Medium Hazard Areas Protected by Levees *290 329 0 0 0 20 573 1,212 Percentage of Total Structures *2.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3%Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) * $67,848 $94,766 $0 $0 $0 $5,827 $125,144 $293,585 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) * $3,392 $4,738 $0 $0 $0 $291 $6,257 $14,679* Medium hazard area figures ONLY include critical facilities, population, or structures outside of high hazard areas (but within medium hazard areas)Sources: U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2016; Pima County GIS, 2016; Pima County Office of Emergency Management, 2012; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010; FEMA, HAZUS-MH v3.1, 2016.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 89 Table 4-11: Pima County Exposure and Loss Estimates Due to Flooding in Local Flood Hazard Areas Flood Hazard Exposure/Loss* Marana Oro Valley Pascua Yaqui Tribe Sahuarita South Tucson Tucson Unincorporated Pima County Total Total Critical Facilities 2701321774 201,5521,3743,439Facilities in Local Flood Hazard Areas 0 0 0 1 0 23 27 51Percentage of Total Facilities 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.5% 2.0% 1.5%Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000)$0 $0 $0 $145 $0 $103,425 $247,040 $350,610 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) $0 $0 $0 $29 $0 $20,685 $49,408 $70,122 Total Population 34,71840,8063,69125,267 5,612523,012337,676970,782Population in Local Flood Hazard Areas 168 11 1 105 0 9,248 10,519 20,052Percent Exposed 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 1.8% 3.1% 2.1%Total Residential Building Count 14,61520,20589610,626 2,116231,414157,525437,397Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) $3,636,438 $5,710,908 $146,861 $2,673,610 $364,907 $66,121,087 $36,203,274 $114,857,085 Structures in Local Flood Hazard Areas 83 4 0 47 0 4,119 4,717 8,970Percentage of Total Structures 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 1.8% 3.0% 2.1%Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000)$22,166 $968 $0 $9,627 $0 $956,007 $949,042 $1,937,810 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) $4,433 $194 $0 $1,925 $0 $191,201 $189,808 $387,561 * Local Flood Hazard Areas are selected Special Studies Floodplains defined by Pima County, not by FEMASource: Pima County GIS, 2017; Pima County Office of Emergency Management, 2012; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010; FEMA, HAZUS‐MH v3.1, 2016.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 90
Development Trends
For most Pima County jurisdictions, adequate planning and regulatory tools are in place to regulate future
development. Challenges with new growth will include the need for master drainage planning and additional
floodplain delineations to identify and map the flood hazards within the growth areas where no mapping currently
exists. In anticipation of development, Pima County assures that subdivisions are protected. Studies of watersheds and
high flood hazard areas are identified before development, so that they are avoided as much as possible and prospective
developers are aware of any remaining issues such as all-weather accessibility.
Future flood hazards are more likely to be significant outside of the urban core where much of the existing
development pre-dates regulation that is more stringent or where the regulation of hazards including road access is
currently limited. However, events of greater magnitude than the base flood due to climate variability may increase
flood related hazards throughout Pima County.
The PCRFCD has been actively creating new floodplain delineations outside of FEMA designated floodplains and
continually strives to improve floodplain development to create a more flood resilient community. Because of mapping
efforts, the aerial extent of local floodplains within Pima County exceeds the extent of federally mapped floodplains.
In addition to elevating structures above the base flood, the PCRFCD has recently made great strides forward in
protecting structures from erosion hazards using setbacks from regulatory washes and protecting building foundations
for structures placed in regulatory floodplains. Robust protection of natural floodplain functions and the acquisition
of flood prone land further removed development pressure on some of the most hazardous areas further increasing
flood resilience of Pima County.
The vegetation characteristics of Pima County’s arid environment, combined with anthropomorphic alterations to the
landscape, create conditions that promote the lateral migration of watercourses. Erosion along major watercourses has
been some of the most dramatic flood damage in recent history. For this reason, Pima County does not allow new
construction within erosion hazard areas unless structural protections are in place. Furthermore, the PCRFCD’s CIP
has focused on providing bank protection and open space along major watercourses.
Natural floodplains benefit the community by reducing flood and erosion hazards, improving water quality, increasing
groundwater recharge and providing biological corridors for plants and wildlife to thrive, all providing a public health,
safety, and economic benefit to the citizens of Pima County. To the greatest extent possible, the PCRFCD promotes
maintaining the natural functions of floodplains over structural measures to control flooding.
National Flood Insurance Program Participation
Participation in the NFIP is a key element of any community’s local floodplain management and flood mitigation
strategy. Pima County and the six other incorporated jurisdictions 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. 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 4-13
summarizes the NFIP status and statistics for each of the jurisdictions participating in this Plan.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 91
Table 4-12: NFIP Statistics as of July 31, 2016
Jurisdiction
Community
ID
NFIP Entry
Date
Current
Effective
Map Date
Number
of
Policies
Amount of
Coverage
(x $1,000) Floodplain Management Role
Pima County 040073 2/15/1983 6/16/2011 2,392 $552,626 Managed through PCRFCD
Marana 040118 8/1/1984 6/16/2011 323 $85,207 Provides floodplain management
for the town
Oro Valley 040109 12/4/1979 6/16/2011 182 $51,057 Provides floodplain management
for the town
Pascua Yaqui Tribe --- --- --- --- --- Not a Participant in the NFIP
Sahuarita 040137 6/30/1997 6/16/2011 41 $11,239 Provides floodplain management
for the town
South Tucson 040075 1/31/1979 6/16/2011 1 $105 City defers floodplain
management to PCRFCD
Tucson 040076 8/2/1982 6/16/2011 1,771 $386,249 Provides floodplain management
for the city
Source: http://bsa.nfipstat.com/reports/1011.htm (7/31/2016); “Current Effective Map Date” is from FEMA Community Status Report in NFIP (2/16/2011 – and
current) )
Repetitive Loss Properties
Repetitive Loss (RL) properties are those NFIP-insured properties that since 1978, have experience multiple flood
losses. FEMA tracks RL properties and in particular to identify Severe RL (SRL) properties. RL properties
demonstrate a record of accomplishment 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.
Per data provided to the County by FEMA on May 31, 2016 there are seven unmitigated Repetitive Loss Properties
in unincorporated Pima County. One of these has been mitigated however; documents have yet to be submitted to
FEMA to have it removed from the list. There are no SRL properties.
Table 4-13: Repetitive Loss Property Statistics by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
No. of
Properties
No. of
Properties
Mitigated
Total
Payments
Oro Valley 1 0 $41,805
Tucson 4 0 $173,829
Unincorporated Pima County 7 3 $664,067
Source: FEMA, 2016 for Unincorporated Pima County
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 92
4.4.6 Landslide
Description
Landslide is the generic term used to describe the downslope movement of earth materials due to gravity. There are
several different types of landslides that are categorized by the depth of failure, the type of material moved, the water
content, and rate of movement. Landslides may be triggered by earthquakes, extreme precipitation, flooding, or
otherwise removing support from the slope. Debris flows, a common type of landslide in Arizona, often occur in areas
disturbed by wildfires. Landslides may also cause flooding, either by displacing great volumes of water with surficial
materials, or by damming a stream until it breaches and floods. Each physiographic region in Arizona is susceptible
to various types of landslides. Pima County is located in the Basin and Range Province.
The Basin and Range Province occupies the southern portions of Arizona and is characterized by alternating valleys
(basins) and mountains (ranges). Debris flows, rock falls and translational landslides are the most common type of
landslides in Pima County. These landslides typically occur on steep upper slopes of mountain ranges; the material
may be deposited at the base of slopes where failures occur, or transported to valley floors and alluvial fans at canyon
mouths. Some of the fastest urban growth areas in Pima County are along the mountain fronts; these are vulnerable to
debris flows as evidenced by geologic deposits and by recent events1.
Cascading events are a hazard with landslides. The nature of cascading events associated with landslides stems from
the mass, volume, water content, soil and rock conditions, rate of movement, and environs in which the landslide
occurs. (It is important to note, that landslides are commonly triggered by other events, e.g., an earthquake or flood,
and thus may constitute a cascading event in their own right).
Common cascading events associated with landslides include:
Damaged or destroyed transportation lines – roads, railways, rivers
Flooding – resulting from damming of river or water displacement resulting from the landslide mass
encroaching on a body of water -- natural lake, river, canal or reservoir
Broken infrastructure – gas pipelines, water mains, sewer lines, utility lines, canals buildings
Secondary landslides following a primary slide
History
In 2006, extreme precipitation caused ~1,000 debris flows in four mountain ranges in southern Arizona2,3. Debris
flows in the Santa Catalina Mountains north of Tucson occurred in nine canyons; debris flows exited or nearly
exited the mouths of five of those canyons flowing into developed areas4. Costs to repair infrastructure destroyed in
Sabino Canyon was ~ $1.5 million while damage in other areas were not documented. While the 2006 debris flows
illustrate how damaging large landslide events can be, the Pima County Department of Transportation consistently
has to repair damage to roadways from individual landslides, particularly rockfalls along the Santa Catalina
Highway according to the Pima County Department of Transportation. Landslides are an ongoing issue within Pima
County. No landslides of major significance, such as multiple day road closures, have occurred within the last
planning cycle. Minor rockfall slides occasionally shut down mountainous roads, but are quickly cleared
Probability and Magnitude
High-intensity and long-duration precipitation may cause landslides by oversaturating hillslope soils. Disturbances to
slopes, particularly from wildfires, changes hydrologic conditions making slopes more susceptible to failure from
rainfall runoff generated by commonly occurring storms (high-frequency, low-magnitude storms). Removal of
substrate support (soil or rock) from the slopes where highways and roads are built can also result in landslides.
Earthquakes may also cause landslides.
1 Youberg, A.M., Webb, R.H., Fenton, C.R., and Pearthree, P.A., 2014, Latest Pleistocene–Holocene debris flow activity, Santa Catalina
Mountains, Arizona; Implications for modern debris-flow hazards under a changing climate: Geomorphology, v. 219, p. 87-102.
2 Pearthree, P.A., Youberg, A., 2006, Recent Debris Flows and Floods in Southern Arizona, Arizona Geology, Vol. 36, No. 3
3 Magirl, C.S., Webb, R.H., Griffiths, P.G., Schaffner, M., Shoemaker, C., Pytlak, E., Yatheendradas, S., Lyon, S.W., Troch, P.A., Desilets,
S.L.E., Goodrich, D.C., Unkrich, C.L., Youberg, A., and Pearthree, P.A., 2007, Impact of recent extreme Arizona storms: Eos,
Transactions American Geophysical Union, v. 88, no. 17, p. 191-193.
4 Webb, R.H., Magirl, C.S., Griffiths, P.G., and Boyer, D.E., 2008, Debris Flows and Floods in Southeastern Arizona from Extreme Precipitation
in Late July 2006: Magnitude, Frequency, and Sediment Delivery. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1274, 95 p.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 93
The landslides range in size and frequency, from small, nuisance events (minor shallow landslides, rockfalls) along
roads or uninhabited areas, to large, fast-moving, destructive debris flows, with varying effects depending on location.
Future climate variability could increase the frequency and number of landslide events if that variability leads to an
increase in erosional weather factors.
Vulnerability
The impacts from landslides can cause deaths and damages without warning, throughout many parts of Arizona. In
the United States, some of the economic factors that result from landslides include:
Cost $3.5 billion a year in damages.
Causes between 25 and 50 deaths annually.
Reduction in real estate values and tourist revenue
Lead to lost human, industrial, agricultural, and forest productivity
Cause damage to the natural environment5.
County-owned facilities most vulnerable to landslides are roadways and bridges/culverts along known debris flow
areas on the Catalina Highway up Mount Lemmon within the Coronado National Forest.
Table 4-14: CPRI Results for Landslide
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Marana Unlikely Limited 12-24 hours <24 hours 1.55
Oro Valley Possible Limited <6 hours <6 hours 2.20
Pascua Yaqui Tribe Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Sahuarita Unlikely Negligible >24 hours <6 hours 1.00
Tucson Unlikely Negligible <6 hours <6 hours 1.45
Unincorporated Pima County Likely Limited <6 hours <6 hours 2.65
County-wide average CPRI = 1.72
Jurisdictions in bold chose the hazard for mitigation in 2017 plan.
Unincorporated Pima County has ongoing vulnerabilities, particularly along the Santa Catalina Highway, due mainly
to rockfalls and debris flows. Pima County Department of Transportation and the Arizona Geological Survey are
planning surveys to document areas along the highway that experience repeated landslides to identify areas to potential
mitigation efforts. Post-wildfire debris flows are also common in Arizona and Pima County. Some of the more recent
post-fire debris flows have been documented6 and debris flows that occur in the future will be added to the landslide
database.
Loss Estimation
Losses are difficult to estimate given the a lack of accepted measurement standards, however, the County spends
significant time and money removing and repairing landslide occurrences along this and several other roadways,
especially following precipitation events. During rainfall events, residential properties in the Santa Catalina’s and
other regional ranges have suffered damage from land and mudslide events. The losses in the Santa Catalina Sabino
Canyon flood and rockslide topped over 1 million dollars in 20067.
5 US Geological Survey, 2009, Landslides Hazards Program, online at http://landslides.usgs.gov/
6 Youberg, A., 2015, Geodatabase of Post-Wildfire Study Basins: Assessing the predictive strengths of post-wildfire debris-flow models in
Arizona, and defining rainfall intensity-duration thresholds for initiation of post-fire debris flow. Arizona Geological Survey, geodatabase,
excel workbook, report 10 p. http://repository.azgs.az.gov/uri_gin/azgs/dlio/1635
7 Arizona State Geological Survey, http://www.azgs.az.gov/Hazards_ocr/slopefailure/Landslide-fact-sheet3.pdf, retrieved 2017
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 94
Development Trend Analysis
As development in unincorporated Pima County along the margins of the mountain ranges, building code enforcement
is critical for any new development. Roadway improvements or development should follow current Federal Highway
Administration design guidelines to avoid landslide hazards.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 95
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 96
4.4.7 Severe Wind
Description
The hazard of severe wind encompasses all climatic events that produce damaging winds. For Pima County, severe
winds usually result either from extreme pressure gradients that usually occur in the spring and early summer months,
or from thunderstorms. 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, downbursts, straight-line winds, and infrequently, 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 60 mph or higher. Downburst winds have been
measured as high as 140 mph. 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.1
Straight-line winds are developed similar 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, sometimes called haboobs, reducing visibility and creating
hazardous driving conditions.
A tornado is a rapidly rotating funnel (or vortex) of air that extends from the cloud to the ground. 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. Tornadoes can also form when a dust devil is stretched upward to make contact with a
thunderstorm cloud. For Pima County, tornadoes are the least common severe wind.
History
Pima County has had one (1) state / federal declaration involving severe winds. The combined economic loss of this
event and those not declared is over $29.2 million to property and agriculture in the last 50 years, and there were at
least three (3) deaths and 103 injuries, with most being related to dust storm related accidents on Interstate 10. In
reality, severe wind events occur on a significantly more frequent basis throughout the county, but do not always have
reported damages associated with every event. For example, a search of the NCEI storm event database revealed 120
events for the period of September 2011 through September 2016 when searching for “thunderstorm wind,” “tornado,”
and “high wind”2. However, not all of those events had reports of damages, fatalities, or injuries associated with them.
The following are examples of documented past events that have occurred in recent years:
In June 2009, severe thunderstorm downburst winds caused significant damage at Three Points. Several
mobile homes and nearby sheds were either heavily damaged or destroyed. A more substantial brick veneer
building was also damaged, with varying degrees of roof damage reported to several homes in Three Points.
Several large trees were uprooted completely. Winds from this severe thunderstorm were estimated to be near
85 mph. Three Points Fire reported one injury was received by flying glass, after winds blew out a house
window. Damages were estimated to exceed $150,0002.
In August 2010, local broadcast media reported up to three (3) dozen trees damaged or uprooted in Rancho
Vistoso neighborhood. A few ceramic roof tiles were also blown off homes. In addition, a NWS Employee
reported several trees down in Dove Mountain with one tree leaning up against a home. There was only slight
tile damage to the home. In addition, local broadcast media reported trees and power lines down in Marana at
Interstate 10 and Marana/Trico Road as well as a roof ripped off a mobile home. The Marana Airport also
sustained damage. Two (2) small airplanes were ripped from their tie down chains and were flipped over while
1 Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2004, State of Arizona All Hazard Mitigation Plan.
2 National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 2016, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 97
another plane was blown into a field. A large hangar door was blown off its tracks and a few other hangars
sustained light damage. In the same area, several power poles and lines were downed on Twin Peaks Road
east of N. Sandario Road. Damages were estimated to exceed $100,0002.
Between 2011 and April 2016, there were 73 thunderstorm wind events in Pima County resulting in $4.766
million dollars in damage. On September 10, 2011, 66 mph winds hit a southern portion of Tucson downing
power poles, electric lines, street signs and trees. One (1) trailer park had to be evacuated when a power pole
hit a mobile home, and parts of roofs were blown off. Damage was estimated at $500K3.
On August 16, 2011, 69 mph winds downed trees and 18 power poles in Marana, closing Ina Road and
isolating much of the community. Damage was estimated at $250K3.
On July 4, 2011, 58 mph winds brought trees and power poles across the Tucson area destroying buildings
and tearing off roofs of a number of buildings. Over 20,000 residents were without power and damage was
estimated at $750K3.
On July 15, 2012, 70 mph thunderstorm winds uprooted dozens of trees and snapped numerous power poles.
About 15,000 customers were left without power. In addition, thunderstorm winds blew in a door at the Tucson
Mall, knocking down an interior construction. Damages was estimated at $100K3.
On July 5, 2013, 74 mph thunderstorm winds downed two (2) dozen power poles leaving 8,000 customers
without electrical power. Thirty mobile homes were damaged by winds or downed trees. Two (2) hangar doors
were blown off at the Tucson International Airport. Damage was estimated at $150K3.
On July 13, 2014, 75 mph winds brought down telephone and power poles, trees, blew roofs off two (2) east
side homes, and flipped over a jet at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base boneyard. Damage was estimated at
$150,000, as the jets were not operational3.
On July 6, 2016, 75 mph thunderstorm winds uprooted dozens of large trees from Winterhaven to Himmel
Park. Many of the trees fell on apartment buildings, houses and vehicles, and the roof of a church suffered
severe wind damage. For some residents, power was not restored until noon on June 27. One (1) person was
electrocuted after coming in contact with a live downed wire but survived. Damage was estimated at $1
million3.
Probability and Magnitude
Most severe wind events are associated with thunderstorms as previously mentioned. According to the NCEI database,
from September 2011 to September 2016, Pima County averaged about 27 severe wind events a year totaling $3.5
million dollars in estimated damages. For that same five-year period, approximately $5.8 million in damages were
estimated3.
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 1 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 only be hours, while a severe thunderstorm warning
typically provides an hour or less warning time. As such, any future climate variability that increases these storms will
increase the probability for damaging winds.
Based on the historic record, the probability of tornadoes occurring in Pima County is limited. Since 1950, 21
tornadoes have been observed. Tornado damage severity is measured by the Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale, which
assigns a numerical value of 0 to 5 based on wind speeds\ with the letters EF preceding the number (e.g., EFO, EF1,
and EF2). All tornadoes in Pima County have been rated at EF2 or lower on the scale but three (3) fatalities and 53
3 National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 2016, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 98
injuries have been attributed to tornadoes. Most tornadoes in southern Arizona last less than 15 minutes, have a path
length of less than one (1) mile and are less than 100 yards in width4.
Vulnerability
Table 4-15: CPRI Results for Severe Wind for 2017
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Marana Possible Critical 6 to 12 hours < 24 hours 2.45
Oro Valley Likely Limited < 6 hours < 6 hours 2.65
Pascua Yaqui Tribe Likely Limited 6 to 12 hours < 6 hours 2.50
Sahuarita Likely Limited < 6 hours <1 week 2.85
Tucson Likely Limited <6 hours <6 hours 2.65
Unincorporated Pima
County Highly Likely Critical 12-24 hours < 6 hours 3.10
County-wide average CPRI = 2.68
Jurisdictions in bold chose the hazard for mitigation in 2017 plan.
Severe wind in Tucson usually follows closely on the tails of the summer monsoon season. While heavy rainfall is
predictable that time of year, and leads to short-term flash flooding, and the community is resilient to these weather
events, severe wind is less predictable with these storms. While the average monsoon storm produces wind gusts
between 45 and 65mph, some stronger storms produce straight line winds over 75mph.
Other storms, especially during the beginning of the monsoon in late July when there is still substantial daily ground
heating, produce what are called microbursts (rapid pressure changes in the upper atmosphere that lead to large air
masses dropping rapidly to the ground creating wind damage in a radius around the storm). Other storms have been
reported near Tucson, with funnel clouds, and while most do not touch the ground, if a funnel cloud were to touch
down and become a tornado, residents and businesses would find themselves vulnerable for wind damage to their
homes and buildings and there would potentially be extreme damage to above ground infrastructure like power
distribution systems.
Unincorporated Pima County’s vulnerability is also because of mainly monsoon-type storms. The Pima County
Department of Transportation is working to reduce the vulnerability of signs and signal poles to severe wind events
such as microbursts. High winds and monsoonal outflows can also damage power lines leading to outages causing
loss of cooling for thousands of residents.
Loss Estimations
Severe wind events are unpredictable and the exposure area includes the entire county. The physical damage, once
incurred, is usually fairly localized and the discrete incident damages are small relative to other types of hazard events.
A thunderstorm microburst wind may knock down miles of power poles and lines and cause economic losses due to
the power outages. The economic impact from a large-scale dust storm that shuts down the Interstate 10 can affect the
local and regional economy and is difficult to quantify. A recent whitepaper by the Making Action Possible at the
University of Arizona, attempts to compare the economic impacts of severe weather events.5 For severe winds, this is
complicated due to the reporting as thunderstorms in the NCEI datasets. Based on the historic record over the last five
(5) years, it is feasible to expect average annual losses of $0.5 to $1.0 million countywide. It is difficult to estimate
losses for individual jurisdictions within the County due to the lack of discrete data.4
4 National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 2016, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/
5 Making Action Possible (MAP). (February 2, 2017). The Economic Impacts of Extreme Weather: Tucson and Southern
Arizona’s Current Risks and Future Opportunities. Tucson, AZ. https://ktar.com/story/1550887/study-extreme-weather-has-
cost-arizona-3-billion-in-damage-since-2010/
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 99
Development Trend Analysis
As severe wind events are relatively unpredictable and imprecise by nature, any further development in the county
may lead to more exposures. However, most vulnerable infrastructure such as power lines are now buried rather than
going overhead. New traffic signaling meets the latest standards from the United States Department of
Transportation’s (USDOT’s) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) should be less vulnerable to
severe wind by its design. Continued enforcement and implementation of modern building codes to regulate new
developments in conjunction with public education on how to respond to severe wind conditions are arguably the best
way to mitigate against losses.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 100
4.4.8 Wildfire
Description
A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, exposing and possibly consuming structures.
They often begin unnoticed, spread quickly, and are usually signaled by dense smoke. Wildfires can be human-caused
through acts such as arson, campfires, or the improper burning of debris, or can be caused by natural events such as
lightning. Wildfires can be categorized into four types:
Wildland fires occur mainly in areas under federal control, such as national forests and parks, and are fueled
primarily by natural vegetation. Generally, development in these areas is nonexistent, except for roads,
railroads, power lines, and similar features.
Interface or intermix fires occur in areas where both vegetation and structures provide fuel. These are also
referred to as wildland urban interface (WUI) fires. The WUI is commonly described as the zone where
structures and other features of human development meet and intermingle with undeveloped wildland or
vegetative fuels1.
Firestorms occur during extreme weather (e.g., high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds) with such
intensity that fire suppression is virtually impossible. These events typically burn until the conditions change
or the fuel is exhausted.
Prescribed fires and prescribed natural fires are intentionally set or natural fires that are allowed to burn
for beneficial purposes.
The following three factors contribute significantly to wildfire behavior and, as detailed more fully later, they can be
used to identify wildfire hazard areas:
Topography: As slope increases, the rate of wildfire spread increases. South facing slopes are also subject
to greater solar radiation, making them drier and thereby intensifying wildfire behavior. However, ridgetops
may mark the end of wildfire spread, since fire spreads more slowly or may even be unable to spread
downhill.
Fuel: Wildfires spread based on the type and quantity of available flammable material, referred to as the
fuel load. The basic characteristics of fuel include size and shape, arrangement and moisture content. Each
fuel is assigned a burn index (the estimated amount of potential energy released during a fire), an estimate
of the effort required to contain a wildfire, and an expected flame length.
Weather: The most variable factor affecting wildfire behavior is weather. Important weather variables are
temperature, humidity, wind, and lightning. Weather events ranging in scale from localized thunderstorms
to large fronts can have major effects on wildfire occurrence and behavior. Extreme weather, such as high
temperatures and low humidity, can lead to extreme wildfire activity. By contrast, cooling and higher
humidity often signals reduced wildfire occurrence and easier containment. Wind has probably the largest
impact on a wildfire’s behavior, and is the most unpredictable. Winds supply the fire with additional oxygen,
further dry potential fuel, and push fire across the land at a quicker pace.
The frequency and severity of wildfires is also impacted by other hazards, such as lightning, drought, and infestations
(e.g., Pine Bark Beetle). In Arizona, these hazards combine with the three other wildfire contributors noted above
(topography, fuel, weather) to present an on-going and significant hazard across much of Arizona.
If not promptly controlled, wildfires may grow into an emergency or disaster. Even small fires can threaten lives,
resources, and destroy improved properties. It is also important to note that in addition to affecting people, wildfires
may severely affect livestock and pets. Such events may require the emergency feeding, shelter, evacuation, and
increased event-caused deaths and burying of animals.
The indirect effects of wildfires can also be catastrophic. In addition to stripping the land of vegetation and destroying
forest resources, large, intense fires can harm the soil, waterways and the land itself. Soil exposed to intense heat may
lose its capability to absorb moisture and support life. Exposed soils erode quickly and enhance siltation of rivers and
1 Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2013: http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?pageId=45265
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 101
streams thereby enhancing flood potential, harming aquatic life and degrading water quality. Lands stripped of
vegetation are also subject to increased landslide hazards.
History
Wildfires have a prominent history in Pima County. Pima County has been included in 17 state and federal wildfire
disaster declarations, none of which has occurred since the writing of the 2012 plan. There have been three (3) wildfires
that burned more than 10,000 acres in the last fifteen years in Pima County:
In May of 2002, the Bullock Fire started in Bullock Canyon in the Catalina Mountains on the Coronado
National Forest. The fire started on May 21 and continued through June 10. It was suspected to be human
induced. The fire burned 30,563 acres along with two (2) cabins and several outbuildings. The residents of
Summerhaven were evacuated on May 25 and Catalina Highway closed on May 22. The fire also threatened
Mt. Bigelow which had several telecommunication towers and two (2) telescopes, however, fire fighters were
able to contain the fire a half of a mile away. The entire firefight costs were estimated to be $14.3 million2.
In June of 2003, the Aspen Fire was started by human causes on June 17, 2003 and burned for about a month
on Mount Lemmon, which is part of the Santa Catalina Mountains located in the Coronado National Forest
north of Tucson. The fire burned 84,750 acres of land, and destroyed 333 homes and businesses in the
community of Summerhaven. Electric lines, phone lines, water facilities, streets and sewers were also
damaged. Total property damages were estimated to exceed $66 million. Firefight costs were estimated to
exceed $17 million, and the Forest Service spent an estimated $2.7 million dollars to prevent soil loss. The
losses in terms of timber for future lumber are estimated at $3 3 million. In 2002, the year before the fire started,
Congress had been requested to allocate about $2,000,000 to cover the implementation of fire prevention
measures in the Coronado National Forest. However, that allocation was reduced to about $150,000 in the
Congressional budget process. A presidential disaster declaration (FEMA-1477-DR) was made on July 14,
2003.3
In June of 2009, the Elk Horn Fire was started by human causes and an area 26 miles southwest of Three
Points, Arizona. The fire started June 11, 2009 and was contained on June 22, 2009. The fire burned a total
23,440 acres with $1M plus in fire suppression costs and five (5) reported injuries related to firefight efforts.
Probability and Magnitude
The probability and magnitude of wildfire incidents for Pima County are influenced by numerous factors including
vegetation densities, previous burn history, hydrologic conditions, climatic conditions such as temperature, humidity,
and wind, ignition source (human or natural), topographic aspect and slope, and remoteness of area. Wildfire risk for
Pima County was mapped based on the data revised for the 2013 Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(PCCWPP)4. Pima County and participating jurisdictions and organizations developed the PCCWPP to help local
governments, fire departments and districts, and residents identify at-risk public and private lands to protect those
lands from a severe wildfire threat.
The PCCWPP identified two (2) models of wildland fuel hazards to represent a typical year of rainfall and an
extraordinarily heavy rainfall year to present a range of wildland fuel hazards across the County. Each model divided
the fuel hazard into three (3) categories, high, medium and low, and accounted for previous burn areas and the major
buffelgrass concerns.
Climate variability may have a positive or negative effect on wildfire risk in the future. Wildfire risk is intertwined
with risk of drought in Pima County as well. Figure 4-14 shows the Wildfire hazard potential for Pima County.
2 National Wildfire Coordination Group, 2016, Historical ICS 209 reports at: http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/hist_209/report_list_209
3 Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2013, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; National Wildfire Coordination Group,
2010, Historical ICS 209 reports at: http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/hist_209/report_list_209 ;
4 Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2013, http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?pageId=45265
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 102
Vulnerability
Table 4-16: CPRI Results for Wildfire for 2017
Participating Jurisdiction Probability
Magnitude/
Severity
Warning
Time Duration
CPRI
Score
Marana Possible Critical < 6 hours < 1 week 2.70
Oro Valley Likely Critical < 6 hours > 1 week 3.25
Pascua Yaqui Tribe Likely Limited < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.75
Sahuarita Possible Limited < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.30
Tucson Likely Negligible < 6 hours <6 hours 2.35
Unincorporated Pima County Highly
Likely Critical < 6 hours > 1 week 3.70
County-wide average CPRI = 2.84
Jurisdictions in bold chose the hazard for mitigation in 2017 plan.
There has not been a significant WUI event in Marana, but the possibility does exist. The areas of wildland-urban
interface (WUI) fire risk in the Town of Marana have been identified. The threat areas primarily consist of the foothills
areas of the Tucson and Tortolita Mountains, and the Santa Cruz wash. The threat of a WUI event is directly linked
to light fuel vegetation growth, which in turn is tied to rainfall. Without a significant presence of these light fuels
(annuals), it is difficult for a fire to carry over a significant distance. The immediate threat would be a WUI event that
starts in the Santa Cruz wash due to vegetation overgrowth, causing flying brands or embers to be broadcast over a
wide area. Additionally, in times of higher than average rainfall, the Tortolitas (Dove Mountain area) may see an
increased WUI potential, but there are natural and fabricated breaks that would provide for a buffer between any
residential or business property.
The Town of Oro Valley is susceptible to wildfires due to the border with the Santa Catalina Mountains to the east.
On the east side of SR77 in Oro Valley, the homes and businesses are at higher risk to fires due to the proximity to
the Catalina’s and without major fire breaks like a highway. A fire could potentially burn down the mountain causing
concern for homes or businesses located close to those areas. Additionally, wildfires can be more localized due to
vegetation overgrowth in washes, buffelgrass, and other available fuels for potential burns. Fire events cause concern
to Oro Valley residents on a macro level due to air quality concerns, close proximity to the mountains, and the potential
of high visibility fire resources and staging areas for fire crews. Because of the vulnerability to wildfires, regular
mitigation projects are identified, prioritized, and completed. This includes the adoption of the PCCWPP, strategic
location of wildland crews (GRFD Station #370) to be centralized to potential wildfire threats, and creation of
firebreaks in critical areas including along the boundaries of state land surrounding Catalina State Park.
The Pascua Yaqui Tribe’s vulnerability to wildland fire is mainly through the wildland fire urban interface. Tribal
residences and businesses are situated within areas of natural desert vegetation. In general, brushfires are smaller than
three acres. The Tribe is a signee on the PCCWPP and has mutual aid agreements with fire departments in the
immediate area and have a cooperative agreement with the BIA in addition to having access to the Tribal Nations
Response Team (TNRT).
Unincorporated Pima County is vulnerable for WUI fires in addition to fires on Federal or state land holdings due to
high populations living in unincorporated areas in or near the Coronado National Forest, Saguaro National Parks East
and West and other open spaces where fuels are moderate to high. The PCCWPP highlights the high population at-
risk communities adjacent to public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service,
and the Coronado National Forest as well as state and county properties. The PCCWPP also contains information on
WUI areas in accordance with the Arizona State Forestry Department’s guidance. Within 5,877,578 acres, there are
1,579,699 acres designated as WUI with 42% of the WUI being privately held.
Loss Estimations
The Pima County CWPP will be used as a resource to help coordinate long-term interagency mitigation of catastrophic
wildfire events in at-risk communities within Pima County. The PCCWPP Core Teams established specific goals for
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 103
wildland fire prevention and loss mitigation, but did not address loss estimation, as it is specific to the area
characteristics.
The analysis in the PCCWPP includes all risk factors required by the Arizona State Forestry Department. The areas
of concern for wildland fuel hazards, risk of ignition and wildfire occurrence, local preparedness, and protection
capabilities and loss of community values are evaluated to determine areas of highest wildland fire risk within Pima
County. The analysis area included all of Pima County, including tribal lands. The initial analysis depicted all areas
within the county at risk for unwanted wildland fire. Subsequent to the initial analysis, the Core Teams identified each
Pima County community WUI in accordance with the Arizona State Forestry Division’s guidance.5
Risk-influencing factors of developed land and other infrastructures within the area of highest flammability were given
the highest priority for protection. In areas where community values occur within or adjacent to areas of high risk due
to the fuel hazards of vegetation associations, a cumulative risk from catastrophic wildland fire was created.
Loss estimations from the 2012 plan were not redone for the 2017 plan for wildfire. In 2012 $0.41 and $1.27 billion
in countywide critical facilities are exposed to a high hazard subsidence, with estimated losses of $82.8 and $63.3
million, respectively. An additional $2.89 and $10.87 billion in county-wide Census 2010 residential housing units
are estimated to be exposed to a high and medium wildfire hazard. Regarding human vulnerability, 2.62% of the total
countywide population was potentially exposed to a high hazard wildfire event. Similarly, 11.62 percent of the total
countywide population was exposed to a medium wildfire hazard. Typically, deaths and injuries not related to
firefighting activities are rare.
There is a potential for large economic impacts from wildland fires due to business loss, population displacement, and
loss of habitat and recreational opportunities among other things. Wildfire suppression costs can be substantial. The
recent Sawmill Fire in Pima County burned over 46,991 acres and costs were estimated at over $7,300,000.6
Development Trend Analysis
By its very definition, the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) represents the fringe of urban development as it intersects
with the natural environment. As previously discussed, wildfire risks are significant for a sizeable portion of the
county. Any future development will only increase the WUI areas and expand the potential exposure of structures to
wildfire hazards. In Pima County, developments tend to create a clear line of demarcation between the wildland fuels
and the built environment. The 2013 PCCWPP analyzed community development throughout the county and found a
mix of high-density, single-family, and multi-acre parcels. Development of isolated subdivisions or with more
dispersed structure development, such as 1 to 3 acre parcels, are at the highest risk.7
5 Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. (2013). Pima County Office of Emergency Management.
http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?pageId=45265
6 Sawmill Fire Executive Summary. (May 2, 2017). Southwest Area Incident Management Team#1. https://sites.google.com/site/swaimt1/
7 Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. (2013). Pima County Office of Emergency Management.
http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?pageId=45265
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 104 Source: USDA Forest Service, Fire Modeling Institute, 2014 Figure 4-14: Wildfire Hazard Potential Pima County
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION IV: RISK ASSESSMENT 105
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 106
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY
5.2 Hazard Mitigation Goal and Objectives
The mitigation strategy provides the “what, when, and how” of actions that will reduce or possibly remove the
community’s exposure to hazard risks. The three primary components of the mitigation strategy are:
I. Goals and Objectives (See Section 5.2)
II. Capability Assessment (See Section 5.3)
III. Mitigation Actions/Projects and Implementation Strategy (See Section 5.4)
A reassessment of the goals and objectives was made with the planning team at the suggestion of the Arizona State
Mitigation Planner. The Team considered the following before revising the goals for 2017:
1. Do the goals and objectives identified in the 2012 Plan reflect the updated risk assessment?
2. Did the goals and objectives identified in the 2012 Plan lead to mitigation projects and changes to
policy that helped the jurisdiction(s) to reduce vulnerability?
3. Do the goals and objectives identified in the 2012 Plan support any changes in mitigation priorities?
4. Are the goals and objectives identified in the 2012 Plan reflective of current State goals?
Upon consideration, the goal was simplified and objectives were refined to help focus jurisdictions on true mitigation
actions.
Goal
Reduce or eliminate the risk to people and property from natural hazards.
Objectives
Objective 1: Reduce or eliminate risks that threaten life, critical facilities, and infrastructure.
Objective 2: Promote hazard mitigation activities by increasing public awareness and education of
hazards and risks.
Objective 3: Integrate mitigation into planning efforts, capital improvement, grants and funding,
multijurisdictional collaboration efforts, and training and exercising.
5.3 Capability Assessment
An important component of the Mitigation Strategy is a review of each participating jurisdictions’ 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 evaluated 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.
The Planning Team reviewed the information provided in the 2012 Plan. The Planning Team chose to keep the format
of the tables summarizing the administrative, technical, and fiscal capabilities. Each jurisdiction also has a table to
summarize the legal and regulatory capabilities by summarizing and identifying the codes, ordinances, plans, and
studies/reports used by the jurisdiction, as well as identify the appropriate agency/department with responsibility for
maintaining and updating those documents. Each jurisdiction was asked to update their tables and pare down any
unnecessary information. Additionally, each jurisdiction will continually seek out opportunities to be involved with
other planning, policy development, or ordinance development that could be beneficial to improving and
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 107
implementing mitigation actions. Section 6.3 contains specific jurisdictional actions in the section discussing
incorporation into future planning activities.
Jurisdictional Capabilities
Tables 5-1 through 5-19 summarize the legal and regulatory mitigation capability for each participating jurisdiction.
Information provided includes a brief listing of current codes, mitigation relevant ordinances, plans, and
studies/reports. There are three tables for each jurisdiction summarizing the legal and regulatory capabilities, staff and
personnel resources, and the fiscal capability and budgetary tools available to each.
Table 5-1: Pima County Legal and Regulatory Capabilities
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation Description Responsible Department/Agency
CODES
2006 International Building, Property
Maintenance, Fuel Gas, Plumbing,
Mechanical, Energy Conservation,
Residential and Wildland-Urban
Interface Code
2005 National Electrical Code
Development Services
Facilities Management
Department of Environmental
Quality
Natural Resources, Parks &
Recreation
ORDINANCES
Pima County Code of Ordinances
• Title 7, Environmental Quality
• Title 8, Health & Safety
• Title 9, Public Peace, Morals &
Welfare
• Title 15, Buildings & Construction
• Title 16, Floodplain and Erosion
Hazard Management Ordinance
(2010)
• Title 17, Air Quality Control
• Title 18, Zoning
Facilities Management
Wastewater Management
Department of Environmental
Quality
Regional Flood Control
District
Health Department
PLANS, MANUALS,
and GUIDELINES
Pima County Hazard Mitigation Plan
(2012)
Stormwater Detention/Retention
Manual (1984)
Pima County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan (2013)
Drainage and Channel Design
Standards for Local Drainage Manual
(1984)
Technical Policies (Interpretation of the
Title 16 and Other Regulatory
Documents)
Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan
(2011)
Pima County Sustainability Program
Pima County Comprehensive Plan
(2015)
Pima County Drought Response Plan
and Water Wasting Ordinance (2014
Amended)
Development Services
Regional Flood Control
District
STUDIES
1999 Flood Insurance Study, Pima
County Unincorporated Areas
FEMA DFIRM Maps (FEMA, Effective
date of June 2011)
Pima County Regional Flood
Control District
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 108
Table 5-1: Pima County Legal and Regulatory Capabilities
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation Description Responsible Department/Agency
Special Floodplain Studies available at
Pima County Floodplain Studies
Table 5-2: Pima County Technical Staff and Personnel Capabilities
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and land
management practices
Development Services, Department of Transportation
(PCDOT), Regional Flood Control District (PCRFCD),
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Natural Resources and Parks
Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and infrastructure
Development Services, PCDOT, Wastewater
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and human-
caused hazards
Development Services, PCDOT, PCRFCD, Wastewater,
Natural Resources and Parks, Health Department
Floodplain Manager PCRFCD, Development Services
Surveyors PCDOT, PCRFCD, Natural Resources and Parks
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability to
hazards
Development Services, PCDOT, Facilities Management,
Health Department, Community Services, Sheriff’s
Department, Natural Resources and Parks, Risk Management,
PCRFCD
Personnel skilled in GIS and HAZUS
Development Services, PCDOT, PCRFCD, Wastewater,
Facilities Management, Sheriff’s Department, Natural
Resources and Parks, Information Technology
Scientists familiar with the hazards of
the community Health Department, Wastewater, Medical Examiner, Sheriff’s
Department
Emergency manager Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
Grant writer(s) OEM, Development Services, Health Department, Cultural
Resources
Table 5-3: Pima County Fiscal Capabilities
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
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 109
Table 5-4: Marana Legal and Regulatory Capabilities
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
Marana Town Code (date varies by code)
2016 Land Development Code
2012 International Building Code with
amendments additional IBC Amendments
2012 International Residential Code with
amendments additional IRC Amendments
2012 International Mechanical Code with
amendments
2012 International Plumbing Code with
amendments
2012 International Energy Conservation Code
with amendments
2012 International Property Maintenance Code
with amendments
2011 National Electrical Code with amendments
2012 International Fire Code with amendments
2012 International Fuel Gas Code
2009 ICC A117-1 – Accessible & Useable
Buildings and Facilities
Building Safety
Planning
Engineering
Fire
ORDINANCES,
RESOLUTIONS
Res 2006- 174 – Approving & Authorizing Pima
County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
Plan
Res 2016-004, Sub grantee for funding for 2016
Arizona Department of Homeland Security
Program Ordinance
Resolution 2012-077 Approval of MOU with
Red Cross for preparing for and responding to
disasters
Resolution No. 2012-074 Approval of
Emergency Operations Plan
Resolution 2014-056 Approval of Pima County
Community Wildlife Protection Plan
Resolution 2014-109 Approval of Arizona
Mutual Aid Compact
Legal
Council
Town Manager
Emergency Management
Coordinator
PLANS, MANUALS, and
GUIDELINES
Town of Marana Emergency Operations Plan
2012
Emergency Management
Coordinator
STUDIES Applicable Special Floodplain Studies available
at Pima County Floodplain Studies
Pima County Regional
Flood Control District
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 110
Table 5-5: Marana Technical Staff and Personnel Capabilities
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge
of land development and land
management practices
Department of Public Works, Subdivision Engineering
Department
Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to buildings
and infrastructure
Department of Public Works, Manager Construction Mgmt.
Div.
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and human-
caused hazards
Department of Public Works, Manager Environmental
Engineering Div.
Floodplain Manager Department of Public Works, Subdivision Engineering
Department
Surveyors GIS Department
Staff with education or expertise to assess
the community’s vulnerability to hazards Police Department
Personnel skilled in GIS and HAZUS GIS Department/GIS Manager and Staff
Scientists familiar with the hazards of the
community Town Engineer, Water Director, Public Works Director,
Planning & Building Director, Fire Marshall
Emergency Management Coordinator Police Department
Grant writer(s) Community Development
Table 5-6: Marana Fiscal Capabilities
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t Know) Comments
Community Development Block Grants Yes Community Development
Capital Improvements Project funding Yes Capital Improvement Program
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes Mayor & Council, Finance
Department
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes Marana Water Department – Water
& Sewer
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes Mayor & Council, Finance
Department
Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes Mayor & Council, Finance
Department
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes Mayor & Council, Finance
Department
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 111
Table 5-7: Oro Valley Legal and Regulatory Capabilities
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
2012 International Building, Residential,
Plumbing, Mechanical, Energy Conservation,
Property Maintenance, Fire and Gas Code
National Electrical Code (2011)
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessible
Guidelines (2010)
Oro Valley Zoning Code, Revised (2016)
Oro Valley Town Code, Chapters 6, 7, 15 & 17
and Public Works
(CDPW)
ORDINANCES
Oro Valley Floodplain and Erosion Hazard
Management Ordinance (2005)
Oro Valley Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance, Article 15-24
(2008)
Environmental Sensitive Lands Regulations,
27.10
Zoning Code adopted by Ordinance includes:
Hillside Development Zone, 24.2; and Airport
Environs Zone, 24.8 (2011)
Golder Ranch Fire
District
CDPW
PLANS, MANUALS, and
GUIDELINES
US Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Highway
Administration, “State Standard 7-98
Watercourse Bank Stabilization”
Pima County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan (2012)
Pima County DOT Stormwater
Detention/Retention Manual
Oro Valley General Plan (2016)
Capital Investment Plan (2010)
Oro Valley Subdivision Street Standards
Tucson Design Manual
Drainage Criteria Manual (2010)
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (2013)
Pima County Navigable Waters and Flood Plains
Oro Valley emergency management plans
Pima County
Regional Flood
Control District
Tucson
Golder Ranch
CDPW
Finance
Water Utility
STUDIES
FEMA Flood Plain Maps as updated
FEMA Flood Delineation Studies as updated
Oro Valley Stormwater Utility Drainage and
LOMR Studies (Various)
FEMA DFIRM Maps (June 2011)
Applicable Special Floodplain Studies available
at Pima County Floodplain Studies
FEMA
Pima County
Regional Flood
Control District
CDPW
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 112
Table 5-8: Oro Valley Technical Staff and Personnel Capabilities
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge
of land development and land
management practices
Community Development and Public Works
Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to buildings
and infrastructure
Community Development and Public Works
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and human-
caused hazards
Community Development and Public Works, Oro Valley
Police Department, Water Utility
Floodplain Manager Community Development and Public Works
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to assess
the community’s vulnerability to hazards Community Development and Public Works, Oro Valley
Police Department, Water Utility
Personnel skilled in GIS and HAZUS Community Development and Public Works
Scientists familiar with the hazards of the
community
Emergency manager Oro Valley Police Department
Grant writer(s) Various departments
Others Town staff trained in NIMS and ICS
Table 5-9: Oro Valley Fiscal Capabilities
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, electric service,
and stormwater Yes
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 113
Table 5-10: Pascua Yaqui Tribe Legal and Regulatory Capabilities
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
International Building Code – 2012 and revisions
and amendments per Tribal Resolution. The 2015
will be adopted as released.
International Fire Code – 2012 and subsequent
amendments and revisions
NFPA Standards – current codes and standard and
revisions and amendments per Tribal Resolution
Fire Department
Facilities and Housing
Department
ORDINANCES Zoning Ordinance (similar to Pima County)
Reference county and state ordinances
Land Department/
Development Services
PLANS, MANUALS, and
GUIDELINES
Salt River Wildland Fire Management Plan – 2012
Pima County Hazard Mitigation Plan – 2012
Pascua Yaqui Tribe Flood Control Project Plan –
2016
Fire Department
Land Department/
Development Services
STUDIES
Environmental and Floodplain Studies for new
facilities
Endangered Species List study
Applicable Special Floodplain Studies available at
Pima County Floodplain Studies
Land Department/
Development Services
Pima County Regional
Flood Control District
Table 5-11: Pascua Yaqui Tribe Technical Staff and Personnel Capabilities
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge
of land development and land
management practices
Land Department/Development Services – Director
Procurement Department – Construction Manager
Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to buildings
and infrastructure
Facilities and Housing Department – Director, Inspectors
Procurement Department – Construction Manager
Outside consultants as needed
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and human-
caused hazards
Fire Department – Fire Chief
Surveyors
Staff with education or expertise to assess
the community’s vulnerability to hazards Health Department – Risk Manager
Personnel skilled in GIS and HAZUS Land Department/Development Services – GIS Analyst
Scientists familiar with the hazards of the
community Outside consultants as needed
Emergency manager Police Department – Police Chief
Grant writer(s) Tribal Grants/Contracts
Other(s) Tribal Public Safety personnel trained in NIMS and ICS,
outside consultants
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 114
Table 5-12: Pascua Yaqui Tribe Fiscal Capabilities
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t
Know) Comments
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding Yes Developed based on availability of funds.
Rolling 5-year basis.
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service No
PYT does not have the legal capability to
impose fees. These fees are all imposed
by non-Tribal utility providers. The Tribe
would have the authority to tax these
utility service fees, but currently does not.
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes No PYT has the legal capability to impose
fees but currently does not.
Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
The Tribe has this capability, but the
taxes collected by the Tribe are probably
not sufficient, and never will be
sufficient, to support bonds based upon
those possible tax streams.
Current and past financial sources available to the Tribe for hazard mitigation planning and projects include potential
disaster and mitigation funds through FEMA (Public Assistance, HMGP, and PDM funds), programs established
through the Indian Self Determination Act (Public Law 93-638), casino and tribal enterprise revenues, and various
departmental operation budgets. Other potential sources of funds may include the U.S. Department of Interior (Bureau
of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management), U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, U.S. Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Indian Health
Service), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service), State
of Arizona (Governor’s Office of Economic Development, Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona
Department of Housing, Arizona Department of Health Services), Pima Association of Governments, and other
federal, state and local sources. All grants are tracked through the Grants Department at the Tribe and over 21
departments utilize grant funds of one type or another.
Tribal Pre- and Post-Disaster Hazard Management
In addition to Tables, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe is required to summarize and evaluate pre- and post-disaster hazard
management to satisfy the §201.7 Tribal Planning capability assessment requirements. Accordingly, Table 5-3-14
summarizes hazard mitigation and pre- and post-disaster hazard management practices and roles that are currently
accomplished through several Pascua Yaqui Tribe departments and programs.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 115
Table 5-13: Mitigation Responsibilities for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Department or Agency Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Management Activities
Office of the Chairman General emergency oversight
General development oversight
Tribal Council Final approval for all pre-disaster planning, projects and funding allocation
for pre- and post-disaster hazard management activities.
Land Department
Regulates land use and development including zoning and flood
management.
Lead planning department for all tribal development including flood
control, transportation, and other physical improvements on the reservation.
Fire Department
Shared emergency management role with Police Department
Emergency response and mitigation responsibilities regarding fire and
HazMat.
Hazmat awareness and operations, but not technical response for removal
or clean up.
Wildland fire awareness and operations
CERT Team collaboration
Part of the AZ Mutual Aid Compact (AZMAC)
Pima County Fire Chiefs Mutual Aid Agreement
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Tribal Salt River Region Fuel Management Plan
Health Department
Control of disease and outbreak incidents
Dispensing of medication and anti-viral vaccines through points of
distribution and points of dispensing.
Public awareness and public service announcements in collaboration with
the local radio station.
Conduct training for hazard related issues and incidents
CERT Team leadership
Police Department
Shared emergency management role with Fire Department
Response and mitigation for many of the human-caused hazards related to
the civil population and terrorism
Enforcement of tribal law
Participates in a regional SWAT team
Facilities Management
Maintain and operate heavy equipment for response to disaster related needs
Maintain electricians on staff
Responsibility for emergency shut-off of water mains
Maintain a 24/7 on-call capability
Procurement Department Emergency and other purchases
Maintenance of emergency generators
Indian Health Services –
Office of Engineering and
Environmental Health
Emergency response and post-disaster needs assessments for mitigation and
recovery.
BIA Mutual aid cooperative agreement with PYT for fire response and financial
assistance.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 116
The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has several programs and policies in-place to provide for effective hazard mitigation, as is
summarized in the applicable tables. For the 2017 Plan, the Tribe pulled together a Local Planning Team consisting
of their Facilities, Housing, Enrollment, Health, Law Enforcement, Procurement, and Land Departments and included
the Casino CEO. The Tribal Planning Team performed an evaluation/assessment of the information summarized, and
noted the following regarding successes, gaps, opportunities and changes over the last plan cycle:
Regarding pre- and post-disaster hazard management policies, programs, and capabilities, the tribal planning
team:
o Identified the ongoing need for the development and implementation of an emergency response
plan.
o Identified a need for continued resources to respond to a human-caused incident at the AVA
entertainment facility and casino.
o Found that the current mutual aid agreements were proving effective in providing additional
response capacity
o The management of flood related hazards is by far the most prominent hazard mitigation need for
the Tribe due to the reservation being wholly situated within a 100-year floodplain and subject to
regular flooding. There is a serious need for flood control related funding and projects.
There has been no significant change in the Tribe’s policies related to development in hazard prone areas
over the 2012 Plan cycle other than to regulate to the 100-year floodplain using the data and
recommendations of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe Flood Control Project.
Specific hazard management capabilities of the tribe that have changed since approval of the previous plan
include:
o New BIA, Pima Fire Chiefs, Pima County Wildfire Protection Plan, Arizona Mutual Aid Compact
and SWAT cooperative/mutual aid agreements have been developed.
o The Pascua Yaqui Tribe Flood Control Project Plan became available for flood management use.
The plan is delivered in phases with completion of phase 2 concluding in October 2016 and
activities will continue.
o CERT team collaboration.
Upon receipt of a presidential disaster declaration, the Tribe will work with FEMA to develop two (2) post-disaster
hazard management tools:
1) Public Assistance Administration Plan; and
2) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Administration Plan. Both plans will be used by the Tribe to identify the
roles and responsibilities of the Tribe 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. As result of developing these plans and revising this Plan, Tribal resources will improve hazard
management and mitigation planning.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 117
Table 5-14: Sahuarita Legal and Regulatory Capabilities
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
Sahuarita Town Code, as amended
2012 Series of International Codes (Chapter 15.05
of the Town Code), as amended
2011 National Electric Code, as amended
Planning &
Building Safety
Police
Public Works
Green Valley
Fire District
Rural/Metro
Fire District
ORDINANCES Floodplain Management Ordinance, as amended
Aquifer Protection permit #103602
Public Works
Water
Reclamation
PLANS, MANUALS,
and GUIDELINES
Pima County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012)
Lee Moore Wash Basin Management, as amended
Town of Sahuarita General Plan (2015)
Specific Development Plans
• Madera Highlands
• La Joya Verde
• Quail Creek
• Sahuarita Farms
• Rancho Sahuarita
Strategic Plan for Economic Development (2009)
Strategic Plan, as amended
Capital Improvement Plan (5-Year Rolling Plan
Updated Annually)
Strategic Plan for Emergency Preparedness 2011
Planning &
Building Safety
Public Works
Police
Department
STUDIES Applicable Special Floodplain Studies available at
Pima County Floodplain Studies
Pima County
Regional Flood
Control District
Table 5-15: Sahuarita Technical Staff and Personnel Capabilities
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge
of land development and land
management practices
Public Works Director, Planning Director, Building Official
Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to buildings
and infrastructure
Public Works Director, Building Official
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and human-
caused hazards
Public Works Director, Planning Director, Building Official
Floodplain Manager Public Works Director
Surveyors Contract firm
Staff with education or expertise to assess
the community’s vulnerability to hazards Public Works Director, Planning & Building Director, Police
Chief
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 118
Table 5-15: Sahuarita Technical Staff and Personnel Capabilities
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Personnel skilled in GIS and HAZUS Contract Firm for Planning and Public Works Department
Scientists familiar with the hazards of the
community Public Works Director, Planning & Building Director, Fire
Marshall
Emergency manager Police Department
Grant writer(s) Police Department, Public Works, Parks and Recreation
Department, Office of the Town Manager
Table 5-16: Sahuarita Fiscal Capabilities
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t Know) Comments
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project funding Yes Multi-year CIP Program
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes None
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes Sewer connection/hook-up fees, no
other for Town
Impact fees for homebuyers or new
developments/homes Yes None, see “other” below
Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes Only when necessary
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes None
Other/Construction Sales Tax Yes Levied for each new home built in
community
Table 5-17: Tucson Legal and Regulatory Capabilities
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation Description Responsible
Department/Agency
CODES
2012 International Building Code amendments
(w/la)
2011 National Electrical Code (w/la)
Amendments to the 2012 International Energy
Conservation Code (w/la)
Amendments to the 2012 International Existing
Building Code (w/la)
Amendments to the 2012 International Fuel Gas
Code (w/la)
Amendments to the 2012 International Mechanical
Code (w/la)
Amendments to the 2012 International Plumbing
Code (w/la)
Amendments to the 2012 International Residential
Code (w/la)
Amendments to the 2012 International Fire Code
(w/la)
City of Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting
Code
Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC)
Planning and
Development
Services
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 119
Table 5-17: Tucson Legal and Regulatory Capabilities
Regulatory Tools for
Hazard Mitigation Description Responsible
Department/Agency
ORDINANCES Tucson Code of Ordinance (date varies by
ordinance) City Manager
PLANS, MANUALS,
and GUIDELINES
Pima County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan (2012)
“Plan Tucson”, the City of Tucson General &
Sustainability Plan (2013)
Tucson Emergency Operations Plan (2014)
Design Standards Manual for Water (2005)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
Regulations
Pima Association of Governments (PAG) Standard
Specifications and Details for Public Improvements
(2014)
Third-party Plan Review Policies and Standards
available online, date varies
Tucson Climate Mitigation Report (2011)
City Manager
COT Office of
Emergency Mgt.
& Homeland
Security
Pima County
OEM
Tucson Water
Tucson Fire
Pima Association
of Gov’ts
Office of
Integrated
Planning
Various
Departments
STUDIES
FEMA DFIRM Maps (September, 2012)
Flood Insurance Studies (FIS)
Tucson Climate Impact Study (2012)
Applicable Special Floodplain Studies available at
Pima County Floodplain Studies
Planning and
Development
Services
Parks &
Recreation
Office of
Integrated
Planning
Table 5-18: Tucson Technical Staff and Personnel Capabilities
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge
of land development and land
management practices
Planning Department – Principal Planner, Planner II, Planner
III
Water Services – Superintendents, Project Engineers, Civil
Engineers, Project Coordinators, Principal Engineering
Technicians, Principal Planners
Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to buildings
and infrastructure
Street Transportation Department - Civil Engineers
Water Services – Superintendents, Civil Engineers, Project
Coordinators, Principal Engineering Technicians
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with and
understanding of natural and human-
caused hazards
Planning Department – Principal Planner, Planner II, Planner
III
Water Services – Superintendents, Civil Engineers, Principal
Engineering Technician, Hydrologist
Floodplain Manager Street Transportation Department - Civil Engineer III
Surveyors Street Transportation Department – Survey Teams
Staff with education or expertise to assess
the community’s vulnerability to hazards Water Services – Environmental Programs Coordinator, Civil
Engineers, Water Quality Inspectors
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 120
Table 5-18: Tucson Technical Staff and Personnel Capabilities
Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency - Position
Personnel skilled in GIS and HAZUS
Information Technology Services – Info Tech
Analyst/Programmers and Info Tech Specialists
Fire Department – Fire Protection Engineer
Police Department – Senior User Technology Specialist
Street Transportation Department - Info Tech Analyst/
Programmer
II and Senior GIS Technician
Water Services Department – GIS and Senior GIS
Technicians
Scientists familiar with the hazards of the
community
Office of Environmental Programs –
Environmental Quality Specialists
Water Services – Chemists, Environmental Quality Specialist,
Laboratory Technician, Environmental Programs Coordinator
Emergency manager Tucson Office of Emergency Management
Grant writer(s)
Fire Department – Fire Captains and Grant Manager
Planning Department – Principal Planner, Planner II, Planner
III
Police Department – Police Research Analysts
Public Transit, Division of Transportation
Table 5-19: Tucson Fiscal Capabilities
Financial Resources
Accessible or
Eligible to Use
(Yes, No, Don’t Know) Comments
Community Development Block Grants Yes Housing, Community 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 and Solid Waste Fees
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 Department
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes Excise (sales) taxes
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 121
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 122
5.4 Mitigation Actions/Projects
Mitigation actions/projects (APs) 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
AP. APs should be measurable and mitigation-based. Response or recovery activities were removed from the 2017
plan as they are better addressed in county and local jurisdictional operational plans.
The process for defining the list of mitigation APs for the Plan was accomplished in three steps. First, an assessment
of the actions and projects specified in the 2012 plan was performed. Second, a new list of APs for the Plan was
developed by combining the carry forward results from the assessment with new APs. Third, an implementation
strategy for the combined list of APs was formulated.
Previous Mitigation Actions/Projects Assessment
The Planning Team and Local Planning Team for each jurisdiction reviewed and assessed the actions and projects
listed in the Mitigation Strategy section of the 2012 Plan. The assessment included evaluating and classifying each of
the previously identified APs 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 AP with a disposition classification of “Keep” or “Revise” was carried forward to become part of the AP list for
the 2017 Plan. All APs identified as “Delete” were removed and are not carried forward in this Plan. The results of
the assessment for each of the 2012 Plan APs is summarized by jurisdiction in Appendix C.
New Mitigation Actions
Upon completion of the assessment, each jurisdiction’s Local Planning Team developed new APs using the 2017
goals and objectives, results of the vulnerability analysis and capability assessment, and the planning team’s
institutional knowledge of hazard mitigation needs in the community.
The APs can be generally classified as either structural or non-structural. Structural APs typify a traditional “brick and
mortar” approach where physical improvements are provided to effect the mitigation goals. Examples may include
forest thinning, channels, culverts, bridges, detention basins, dams, emergency structures, and structural
augmentations of existing facilities. Non-structural APs deal more with policy, ordinance, regulation and
administrative actions or changes, buy-out programs, and legislative actions.
For each AP, the following elements were identified:
Description – a brief description of the AP including a supporting statement that tells the “what” and
“why” reason for the AP.
Hazard(s) Mitigated – a list of the hazard or hazards mitigated by the AP.
Community Assets Mitigated – Existing, new or both.
Estimated Cost – concept level cost estimates that may be a dollar amount or estimated as staff time.
Anticipated Completion Date – a realistic and general timeframe for completing the AP. Examples
may include a specific target date, a timeframe contingent upon other processes, or recurring
timeframes.
Lead Agency – the agency, department, office, or other entity and corresponding job title that will
have responsibility for the AP and its implementation.
Potential Funding Source – the source or sources of anticipated funding for the AP.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 123
Priority Ranking – each AP 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 AP 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 property from natural hazards.
o A mitigation solution with long-term effectiveness
Tables 5-20 through 5-25 summarize the current mitigation AP and implementation strategy for each
participating Plan jurisdiction
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 124 Table 5-20: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Unincorporated Pima County Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Enforce Flood & Erosion Hazard Ordinance in accordance with the NFIP. Flood Both $1.2 million High Regulatory Ongoing PCRFCD / Floodplain Management Division Flood Control Tax Levy Implement NFIP tasks such as LOMR submittals, maintaining a countywide map repository, performing master drainage studies, and coordinating to ensure the digital map is correct. Flood Both $600,000 High Regulatory Ongoing PCRFCD / Planning & Development Division Flood Control Tax Levy Provide flood risk mitigation through Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). Flood Both $4.0 million High Capital Improvement Ongoing PCRDFD / Planning & Development Division Flood Control Tax Levy & USACOE Participate in Community Rating System to reduce insurance premiums. Flood Both $50,000 Medium N/A Ongoing PCRFCD / Planning & Development Division Flood Control Tax Levy Buffelgrass Mitigation – identify public outreach opportunities including pamphlets, community event participation, media outreach. Wildfire Both $5,000 High Community Wildfire Protection Plan Ongoing PCOEM, Natural Resources, Parks & Recreation Mitigation Grants, General Funds, Donation Buffelgrass Mitigation – locate county areas for mitigation of buffelgrass and administer grant funding for ongoing activities related to wildfire reduction through removal and reduction in Buffelgrass. Wildfire Both $3,000,000 Medium Community Wildfire Protection Plan Ongoing PCOEM, Natural Resources, Parks & Recreation Mitigation Grants
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 125 Table 5-20: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Unincorporated Pima County Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Treat soil surfaces with appropriate stabilization materials and vegetation control to reduce blowing dust. Severe Wind Both $2,000,000 Medium Road Design Manual Ongoing PCDOT Highway User Revenue Funds, Local Regional Transportation Authority Funds Continue to identify vulnerable populations for heat related illness, provide education targeted toward recreational activities, visitors/travelers, hospitality industry, homeless populations, and build cooling center capacity. Extreme Heat Both $100,000 High Heat Adaptation and Mitigation Plan Ongoing PCHD, PCOEM, Parks & Recreation Mitigation Grants, Public Health Emergency Preparedness Implement the Drought Management Plan. If drought conditions worsen, the Board of Supervisors may consider increasing the drought stage that will trigger drought conservation measures. Drought Both None Medium Drought Management Plan and Water Wasting Ordinance Ongoing OSC/Water Resources Unit General fund and RWRD enterprise fund Pima County DOT in conjunction with the Arizona Geological Survey and the US Forest Service will work to identify vulnerable slide areas and begin developing mitigation approaches and monitoring protocols. Landslide Existing Staff Time Medium Road Clearing and Slope Stabilization and Dressing Procedures Ongoing PCDOT Highway User Revenue Funds, Mitigation Funds, Bond Fund, Aid to Federal Highways
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 126 Table 5-21: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Marana Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Provide training to the applicable Marana departments on the adopted hazard mitigation plan and its requirements. All Both $500 High Town wide Emergency Management Program 2021 Emergency Management Coordinator General Fund Conduct public education campaigns to increase awareness of natural hazards (such as wildfire, flooding, extreme heat and cold, and severe winds and landslides) by distributing DEMA and Pima County hazard awareness flyers at community events and public gathering opportunities. Event opportunities include events such as the Town of Marana Founders Day (Mar), the 4th of July Celebration (Jul), the Cotton Festival (Oct) and the Holiday Tree Lighting (Dec) and at community meetings sponsored by the Community Services Department. All Both $500 High Town wide Emergency Management Program 2021 Community Development Director General Fund Encourage bridge or culvert construction where roads are susceptible to flooding. This will be accomplished as part of the Planning Process when Developers apply to build in Marana. Flood Both Staff Time High Regulatory 2017 and 2018 Development Services/ General Manager General Fund
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 127 Table 5-21: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Marana Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Marana will continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program by reviewing applications for buildings, ensuring they are properly designed. Flood Both Staff Time High Town wide Emergency Management Program 8 Development Services/ General Manager General Fund On Rattlesnake Pass, from Saguaro Bloom to Twin Peaks Road, the Public Works Department and Planning Departments are installing infrastructure, making roadway drainage improvements and grading the storm water conveyance systems to mitigate flooding hazards in the area. Flood Both $29.8 Million High Town wide Emergency Management Program 2018 Public Works / Planning Department Transportation Fund, General Fund Barnett Linear Park and Flood Control – Construct a 3-mile channel along Barnett Road to mitigate the drainage and flood hazard from the Santa Cruz River Flood Both $16.5 Million High Regulatory 2017 work begins Public Works / Director General Fund, Future MMPC Bonds Ina Road Bridge – Remove and replace the Ina Road bridge that crosses the Santa Cruz River Flood New $17.5 Million High Departmental Plan Dependent on funding and planning cycle Development Services / Director Transportation Fund, HURF Bonds, General Fund Ina Road Improvements from Silverbell Road to I-10 – widening of Ina Road to 4-lane section with raised median, sidewalks, and drainage improvements Flood Both $16.5 Million High CIP 2016 work began Public Works/Director Transportation Fund, Federal Grants
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 128 Table 5-21: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Marana Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Tangerine Road Corridor - provide a minimum of 4 lanes with raised medians, drainage improvements, sidewalks, ADA facilities, multi-use path and lanes, Traffic Signals, Right-of-Way acquisitions, Utility relocations, Marana Water line extensions, and sewer modifications and additions. Flood Both $95.5 Million High CIP 2019 Public Works / Director RTA, Future Bond Money Ina Road TI – lower I-10 and construct a new overpass that will span both I-10 and the UPRR tracks. Project will mitigate flood issues and also improve access that will reduce accidents and HazMat incidents Flood New $65.0 Million High CIP 2018 Public Works / Director in coordination with ADOT ADOT, RTA Marana will continue to participate in the Flood Prone Land Acquisition Program and acquire properties located in flood hazard areas. Flood Both Staff High CIP Ongoing Development Services/ General Manager Grants, Partnership w/ Pima County
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 129 Table 5-22: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Oro Valley Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Conduct Floodplain Mapping to mitigate flood risk by delineating floodplains boundaries within existing subdivisions that were not required at the time of subdivision or commercial property platting. This includes subdivisions and commercial properties constructed prior to 1984 and falls within some recently annexed areas of the Town. This includes three projects: Carmack Wash/Shadow Mountain Estates subdivision, Peglar Wash/Suffolk Hills Subdivision/Rancho Catalina Subdivision, Highlands Wash/Highlands subdivision. Flood Existing Homes / Subdivisions/Commercial Properties $200K High Stormwater Utility CIP July 2018 Town of Oro Valley Stormwater Utility PCRFCD CIP Mitigate and stabilize areas damaged by storm related activity by: Designing and constructing of wash stabilization components to protect damaged areas from scour and deposition of sediment that is causing damage to existing properties. This includes three projects: 3 known projects: Carmack Wash/Shadow Mountain Estates subdivision, Peglar Wash/Suffolk Hills Subdivision/Rancho Catalina Subdivision, Highlands Wash/Highlands subdivision. Flood Existing Homes / Subdivisions/Commercial properties $1M-2M/ High Stormwater Utility CIP July 2019 Town of Oro Valley Stormwater Utility PCRFCD CIP
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 130 Table 5-22: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Oro Valley Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Lambert Lane (Rancho Sonora to La Canada). All weather crossing, lowering hill profile and adding soil nail walls. Upgrading signal at Lambert Lane. Adding secondary access point to fire station from Lambert, currently only accessible from La Canada Dr. Flood Existing road improvement $5.5 Million (Road) $730,000 (Utility) High 20 Year RTA Plan September 2017 Town of Oro Valley Stormwater Utility RTA, Water Utility, Town of Oro Valley Tangerine Rd. (Oro Valley portion of project is Shannon to La Canada). All weather crossings, multi-use path, raised medians, curb and gutters, traffic signal improvement at La Cholla and Tangerine. Flood Existing road improvement $95.5 Million (Total Tangerine Project)High 20 Year RTA Plan May 2018 Town of Marana RTA, Town of Marana, Pima County, and Town of Oro Valley La Cholla (Oro Valley portion of project is Lucero Rd. to Tangerine). 4 lane divided with a raised median, separated multi-use path, all weather crossings. Traffic signal improvement at Lambert, Naranja, and Glover. Flood Existing road improvement $20 Million High 20 Year RTA Plan 2020 Town of Oro Valley RTA, Pima County, and Town of Oro Valley Purchase 2,000 acre-ft. of groundwater extinguishment credits in the Tucson Active Management Area (TAMA) to bolster the Town’s groundwater allowance account for future use. Drought New $400,000 Medium Water Utility CIP June 31, 2017 Water Utility Water Utility Fees
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 131 Table 5-22: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Oro Valley Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Remove regulatory barriers and develop programs that support sustainable designs, landscapes, green infrastructure, and development practices. Update and develop new building codes and design standards that help reduce urban heat island effect. Extreme Heat Both Staff Time $3,750 per year Low General Plan2016 2021 CDPW Town of Oro Valley Installation of hydrants in urban interface area targeting areas where there is a higher risk for brush fire. Wildfire New $21,000 per year Medium Mountain Vista Fire District CIP 2021 Mountain Vista Fire District MVFD general fund Annual maintenance on established and identified as critical fire break locations in the urban/wildland interface (Catalina State Park, Sun City Oro Valley, etc.). Wildfire Both $10,000 per year Medium Golder Ranch Fire District October 2021 Golder Ranch Fire District Golder Ranch Fire District Provide annual, public awareness and public outreach on local hazards, mitigation, prevention, plans, and other activities through presentations to homeowners and HOAs, newsletters, and website. All Both $500 per year Medium Town-wide emergency management program 2021 Emergency Management & Golder Ranch Fire District Town of Oro Valley & Golder Ranch Fire District Mitigate and stabilize areas damaged by storm related activity in the Catalina Ridge Drainage Channel by reconstructing 3,400 linear feet of channel bottom, improve wash degradation, and mitigate side slope to protect public and private property, public infrastructure and utilities from additional damage. Flood Existing $1.9 Million. High Stormwater Utility CIP 2021 Town of Oro Valley Stormwater Utility PCRFCD CIP, TOV, FEMA
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 132 Table 5-23: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Pascua Yaqui Tribe Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) The Pascua Yaqui Tribes Master Drainage Report overseen by Facilities Management Division will be implemented within phases Oversee floodplain modeling Review floodplain map revision Assessments of flooding runoff in public gathering areas Flood Existing Staff time Medium Continued Implementation of Regional Flood Control Project Ongoing and Continuous Tribal Council, Facilities Department, Land Department General Fund Complete and implement Phase 2 finalization of Master Drainage Report. Flood Existing Staff time Medium Continued Implementation of Regional Flood Control Project November, 2017 Tribal Council, Land Department General Fund Update and resume the existing intergovernmental agreement between the Tribe and the State Forestry Department. Conduct Annual maintenance on established and identified critical fire break locations in the urban/wildland interface around all housing, neighborhoods projects and commercial buildings on the Pascua Yaqui Reservation. Wildfire Existing Staff time High Continue Wildland Urban Inference Continuing Fire Department, Attorney General’s, Office, Tribal Council General Fund Modify and continue to evaluate existing building codes to help mitigate hazards. Evaluate material and installation of equipment to buildings and residence Educate community on hazard via website, department brochures Extreme Heat Existing Staff Time High Continued code enforcement by Housing Division for new and remolded construction projects Ongoing and Continuous Tribal Council, Fire Department, Land Department, Housing/Facilities Department General Fund
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 133 Table 5-24: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Sahuarita Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Complete Multi-Sector General Permit (Wastewater facility) inspections and perform maintenance and repairs of control measures as identified during inspections. Flood Existing Staff Time High Maintenance and Inspection Quarterly Public Works - Wastewater Enterprise Organize and host annual Southern Arizona Beat Back Buffelgrass community removal event. Wildfire Both Staff Time Medium Community Wildfire Protection Program Annual (typically January) Public Works, Planning and Zoning None Review, update and modify NFIP requirement and make appropriate modifications to Floodplain Ordinance. Flood Both Staff Time High Regulatory 2017 Public Works General Fund Educate the public to increase awareness of hazards, and potential opportunities for mitigation actions. Make Pima County’s public information material sheets, websites, mitigation brochures, and media outlets available. Extreme Heat, Flood Both Staff Time Low Public Information Program Dec 2018 Town Clerk None Conduct pre-storm season inspections and debris removal for Town-owned roads and drainage crossings. Flood Existing Staff Time High Maintenance Ongoing, pre-Monsoon Public Works HURF Complete construction of Sahuarita Road: Interstate-19 to Eastern Town Limits including drainage improvements and a new 2-lane bridge over the Santa Cruz River. Flood Both $47.7M High General Plan Planning began in 2016 Public Works RTA, HURF, private
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 134 Table 5-24: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Sahuarita Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Complete construction of the Pima Mine Road Bridge Replacement at the Santa Cruz River, which corrects structural deficiencies of the existing bridge, provides additional roadway capacity at the bridge, and provides additional capacity for delivery of CAP water to Sahuarita. Flood, Drought Both $7.2M High General Plan Planning began in December 2016 Public Works RTA, HURF, private Finalize License Agreements allowing installation of CAP pipelines in Town rights-of-way to facilitate the delivery of CAP water to Sahuarita. Drought, Extreme Heat, Flood Both Staff Time High General Plan 2017Public WorksNone
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 135 Table 5-25: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Tucson Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Identify funding source and construct two bridges and 50 box culverts with 380 back-up power units for signalized intersections at high flood hazard crossings in Tucson limits in accord with the Department of Transportation 5-yr plan. If a box culvert cannot be constructed an automated warning device, consisting of a barricade, signs and flashing lights would be installed. Flood, Severe Wind New $100 million, Staff Time High Tucson Floodplain Management Plan and Floodplain Ordinances Ongoing effort with long-term horizon. Schedule dependent upon funding Transportation Department Streets Administrator and Streets Chief Engineer Grant Funds Promote disaster-resistant water delivery system by constructing redundant water transmission lines (e.g., The Utility and the community will be less susceptible to loss of water delivery due to natural or human-caused disasters). All Both $7.9 million High Tucson Water 2020 strategic plan. On-going with full completion by 2020 Water Department / Water Administrator Maintenance & Operations Operations Budget
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 136 Table 5-25: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Tucson Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) In compliance with the NFIP, Tucson will continue to require the preparation and submittal of a CLOMR or CLOMR-F for all proposed development within FEMA delineated Special Flood Hazard Areas Flood Existing Staff Time High Regulatory Annual - Ongoing Planning and Development Services Department Budget and Fees for Developers Maintain compliance with NFIP regulations by enforcement of the current floodplain management ordinance through review of new development located in the floodplain and issuance of floodplain use permits. Flood Existing Staff Time High Regulatory Annual - Ongoing Planning and Development Services Department Budget Improve floodplain administration under the NFIP program by sending inspectors into the field when we receive a flood warning from the NWS , to assess bridges, washes and other critical infrastructures within Tucson. Flood Existing Staff Time Medium Tucson Department of Transportation “Operation Splash” and regulatory Annual-Ongoing Transportation Department Department Budget
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 137 Table 5-25: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Tucson Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Continue to fund and promote the following rebate and incentive programs: residential and small commercial rainwater harvesting rebate program; residential high-efficiency clothes washer replacement rebate program; Single-family residential gray-water rebate program; Single-family residential high-efficiency toilet replacement; rainwater harvesting grant/loan program for low-to-moderate income customers; free toilet replacement program for low-to-moderate income homeowners; commercial or multi-family high-efficiency toilet replacement program; commercial and industrial high-efficiency urinal replacement program. Drought Existing $1.4M Medium Tucson Water Department Drought Preparedness and Response Plan Annual-ongoing Tucson Water Conservation Utility Fee
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 138 Table 5-25: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Tucson Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Continue to fund and promote the Tucson Water Zanjero (water manager) residential water audit program. Drought Existing $271K Medium Tucson Water Department Drought Preparedness and Response Plan Annual-ongoing Tucson Water Department Budget Continue to participate in, promote and sponsor the Pima County SmartScape program in partnership with the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension. Drought Existing $239K Medium Tucson Water Department Drought Preparedness and Response Plan Annual-ongoing Tucson Water Conservation Utility Fee Review and update the City of Tucson Water Department Drought Preparedness and Response Plan. Drought Both Staff Time Medium N/A Every 5 years - ongoing Tucson Water Department Budget
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 139 Table 5-25: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Tucson Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Assess, inventory, and map vulnerability within Tucson to seismic hazards. Conduct outreach efforts to property owners in high-seismic risk zones, or who own building at especially high risk for seismic damage such as historic adobe homes, about retrofits that can be made to their structures to reduce seismic impact. Use vulnerability data gathered to perform analysis of current building codes and propose changes, as appropriate, to reduce seismic risk community wide. Earthquake Both Staff time High N/A January, 2019 Planning and Development Services Department Budget
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 140 Table 5-25: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Tucson Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Perform feasibility study of a downtown District Energy model that would create greater energy and water resiliency in downtown Tucson. Drought, Extreme Heat, Extreme Cold Both $75K High Tucson Emerging 2030 District plan July 2017 Environmental and General Services City operating funds with matching County contribution Assess the vulnerability of critical facilities to flooding from runoff and encourage reducing runoff and means for mitigating critical facilities when runoff cannot be reduced. Flooding Both Staff time Medium N/A Annual-ongoing Planning and Development Services Department Budget Implement a severe wind risk awareness program with information about shelter locations, education for homeowners about retrofits, and education for professionals about wind mitigation. Severe Wind New Staff time Medium N/A June, 2018 Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Department Budget Implement a winter weather risk awareness program to educate the public on the risks of severe cold during winter storms. Extreme Cold New Staff time Medium N/A November, 2017 Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Department Budget
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 SECTION V: MITIGATION STRATEGY 141 Table 5-25: 2017 Mitigation Measures for Tucson Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy 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) Assess and identify specific at-risk populations vulnerable to long-term power outages and organize outreach efforts include establishing and promoting heating and cooling centers in the community. Extreme Heat, Extreme Cold Both Staff time High N/A January, 2018 Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Department Budget
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION VI: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES 142
SECTION 6: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
Elements of this plan maintenance section include:
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating
Monitoring of Mitigation Activities
Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms
The participating jurisdictions in this Plan that reviewed this section recognized that it is intended to be a “living”
document with regularly scheduled monitoring, evaluation, and updating. The 2012 Plan outlined specific steps in the
Plan Maintenance; however, the 2017 Planning Team found that few, if any, formal reviews occurred over the past
five years. Reasons for the lack of formal review were discussed by the Planning Team, and included:
Staff turnover;
Lack of funding for consultant plan reviews annually;
Misunderstanding of the relationship between mitigation plans to anything other than grants eligibility;
Lack of promotion of the Plan to the county departments, jurisdictions and the general public; and
Inability of first responder agencies to understand the significance of mitigation planning to response
priorities.
In an effort to avoid these issues again, the Planning Team discussed ways to make sure that the Plan is active and
treated as a living document which are listed in Section 6.1.
6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating
The Planning Team has established the following monitoring and evaluation procedures revised for this Plan:
Adoption – All jurisdictions will have the Plan adopted by their respective councils or boards by
the end of September 2017. The Pascua Yaqui Tribe intend to adopt the updated plan on
September 27, 2017 Tribal Council meeting.
Schedule – The Plan shall be reviewed on at least an annual basis or following a major disaster. The
Pima County Office of Emergency Management (PCOEM) will take the lead to reconvene the
Planning Team annually near the anniversary of the official FEMA approval date. Participating
jurisdictions have committed to providing resources to this effort annually. The PCOEM Planner
and Operations Manager will be responsible for reconvening annually and initiation the next review
cycle.
Review Content – One month prior to the Planning Team review meeting, a reminder questionnaire
will be distributed to each jurisdictions’ point of contact by the PCOEM Planner and will be returned
by each jurisdiction within a minimum of three weeks. The approximate date of this review will be
calendar year 2nd quarter in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. The questionnaire will be comprised of the
following questions:
o Hazard Identification: Have the risks and hazards changed? Is there new information to
include regarding the risks/hazards?
o Goals and objectives: Are the goals and objectives still able to address current and
expected conditions?
o Mitigation Projects and Actions: What is the status of the mitigation measures in the
current Plan?
During the annual meeting, each jurisdiction will have the opportunity to provide a report to the group summarizing
its review of the Plan. The report will include their responses to the above questions and any other items specific to
their community. Documentation of the annual meeting may include notes on the results of the meeting as well as
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION VI: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES 143
more specific information on the reasoning for proposed changes to the Plan for the next update cycle. Copies of the
annual review report will be kept with the Plan for review and consideration in future reviews and the five-year update.
The Plan requires updating and approval from FEMA every five years. The Plan updates will adhere to that set
schedule using the following procedure:
One year prior to the plan expiration date (approximately Q2, 2021), the OEM Planner will reconvene the
Planning Team to review and assess the materials accumulated from annual reviews and other documents
related to hazards, disasters and mitigation actions taken;
The Planning Team will update and revise the appropriate or affected portions of the plan and produce a
revised Plan;
The revised plan will be submitted to ADEMA and FEMA for review, comment and approval; and
The revised Plan will be presented before the respective councils and boards for an official
concurrence/adoption of the changes.
The APs and their implementation details are identified in the Plan’s mitigation strategy. For each annual review and
5-year plan update, PCOEM will coordinate with the jurisdictional point of contact to assess the implementation status
of the identified AP and generate a summary of each project using the following criteria:
Current Status of Action/Project - Assign a ‘No Action’, ‘In-Progress’ or ‘Completed’ status as appropriate;
Project Disposition – Assign a ‘Keep’ or ‘Drop’ to identify future disposition of action/project; and
Explanation - Provide a description of the current project status, may include date of implementation,
challenges faced, percentage completed, funding sources used, etc.
For FEMA supported projects, progress reports will be submitted to FEMA on a quarterly basis, or as required
throughout the project duration. The degree of quarterly reporting will be dependent upon the type of AP, its funding
source, and the associated requirements. The quarterly report may include:
Project Completion Status,
Project Challenges or Issues (if any),
Budgetary Considerations (Cost Overruns or Underruns), and
Detailed Documentation of Expenditures.
Upon completion of projects, the project location will be visited and results viewed and documented. Closed projects
will then be monitored for effectiveness of the intended mitigation action. FEMA supported project closeouts will
include an audit of the AP financials as well as other guidelines and requirements set forth under the funding or grant
rules, and any attendant administrative plans developed by the Pascua Yaqui Tribe.
6.3 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms
Incorporation of the Plan into other planning mechanisms, either by content or by reference, enhances a community’s
ability to perform hazard mitigation by expanding the scope of the Plan’s influence. The participating jurisdictions
acknowledge that incorporation of the Plan into other planning mechanisms has improved over the prior plan.
Additional ways in which the 2012 Plan has been incorporated or referenced into other planning mechanisms for each
jurisdiction are summarized below.
Past Activities
Pima County
The 2012 Plan is cited in the Annual Recertification and 5-yr Cycle Verification of the Community Rating
System for the NFIP.
The Plan is referenced in amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, Rezoning, and Basin or River Management
Planning efforts.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION VI: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES 144
The plan is used as reference material for the update of the Pima County Emergency Operations Plan on an
annual basis. In 2015, the Plan was used to develop an El Niño Flood Annex to the EOP which was then
converted to a Flood Annex for the EOP which also contains NFIP Community Rating System requirements.
The drought hazard identification and risk information was used in the development of the County’s Drought
Response Plan and Water Wasting Ordinance.
The wildfire hazard identification and risk information was used in the development of the Community
Wildfire Protection Plan, 2013.
Marana
Used by the Town of Marana during the update of the Emergency Operation Plan beginning in March 2010
and again in 2016.
Used as a reference for the identification of natural and human-caused hazards in the Town’s General Plan
for 2010.
Used as a reference for the identification of initiatives related to natural and human-caused hazards in the
Town’s Strategic Plan for 2015.
Used by the Town of Marana as reference for development of Administrative Directives (ADs), Safety
Directives (SDs), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Town policies beginning in 2010.
Used as a reference for updating and eventual adoption of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2013.
Oro Valley
The plan is used as reference material for reviews and updates of the Town of Oro Valley Emergency
Operations Plan and development of hazard specific plans.
Mitigation actions and projects identified in the Plan correlate to Capital Improvement Projects or other
planned projects.
Supports the Town General Plan, adopted in November 2016.
Used by the Stormwater Water Utility when looking at flood hazards, planning mitigation projects, and
looking at mitigation funding.
The wildfire hazard identification and risk information was used in the development of the Community
Wildfire Protection Plan, 2013.
Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Pascua Yaqui Tribe’s Master Land Use Plan serves as a guide for decision makers to minimize incompatible
land use. It provides a balance of land uses that preserves and enhances the neighborhood, support in-fill
strategies, promote economic development, and protect environmentally and culturally significant resources.
Mitigation strategies were addressed in the development of this plan.
The master drainage study is a critical component to the Tribe’s economic well-being, as well health, safety
and general welfare of the community. It was adopted in 2004 to minimize the flooding and drainage
problems. It requires no development zones set aside for conveyances of floodwaters and the construction of
regional storm water retention facilities
Sahuarita
The plan was used when developing the General Plan mainly in reference to the hazards and risks.
Tucson
Used as reference material for the update of the 2014 Emergency Operations Plan.
Used as reference material for the 2013 through 2015 Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
processes.
Used as reference in the development of Continuity of Operations Plans for City departments.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION VI: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES 145
Used as a reference in the development of the new 2016 Tucson Floodplain Management Plan.
Future Activities
The Plan will continue to function as a standalone document subject to its own review and revision schedule. The Plan
will serve as a reference for other mitigation and land planning needs of the participating jurisdictions. Whenever
possible, the participating jurisdiction will endeavor to incorporate portions of the Plan into existing and future
planning mechanisms as appropriate.
As is demonstrated above, the typical ways to use and incorporate the Plan include:
Use of, or reference to, Plan elements in general and comprehensive planning update documents,
Addition of defined mitigation APs to capital improvement programming,
Inclusion of Plan elements into development planning and practices, and
Resource for developing and updating emergency operations plans.
Specific incorporation of the Plan risk assessment elements into the natural resources and safety elements of each
jurisdictions’ general plans (county comprehensive plan) and development review processes, adding or revising
building codes, adding or changing zoning and subdivision ordinances, and incorporating mitigation goals and
strategies into general and comprehensive plans, may help to ensure hazard mitigated future development. In addition
to continuing the past incorporation activities, below are the methods of incorporation the jurisdictions intend to
implement over the next five-year period.
Pima County
An annual review of the plan will be scheduled by the Office of Emergency Management including all 2017
plan participants. This will be held in April or May of each year and include a review of the hazards and risks
and evaluation of mitigation Aps.
The plan revision planning process will begin in the second calendar quarter of 2021 for the 2022 plan
revision. The Office of Emergency Management Planner will coordinate planning activities.
The plan will be referenced annually when updating the Pima County Emergency Operations Plan.
PCOEM will continue outreach to County departments and committees to make them aware of the Plan and
advise on how it can be incorporated into other planning activities.
PCOEM will continue working with the County Grants Coordinator on funding opportunities for mitigation
activities.
Marana
The plan will be used as a resource during the update of the 2017 Town of Marana Emergency Operations
Plan revision.
The plan will be used for reference to identify hazards and mitigation strategies for the Town’s General Plan
in 2020.
The plan will define mitigation APs for Town of Marana capital improvement projects and programming,
for the next five-year cycle.
Oro Valley
Participate in annual review of plan, as coordinated by the Pima County Office of Emergency Management.
Use as a resource during next update of the Town Emergency Operations Plan.
Inclusion of mitigation APs in capital improvement planning.
Inclusion of Plan in implementation of the Town’s newly adopted General Plan.
Pascua Yaqui Tribe
A review of the plan will be conducted with the other jurisdictions annually.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION VI: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES 146
The plan will be referenced when working with other tribal departments on grants and plans development.
The hazards and risks will be used in development of exercises for the tribe.
As a part of National Flood Insurance Program requirements, the plan will be used as a reference.
Sahuarita
The Town will participate in the annual plan reviews with other jurisdictions.
The plan will be used as a resource when the Emergency Operations Plan is revised.
Tucson
The 2017 plan will be used as reference in the ongoing revision of the City of Tucson Emergency Operations
Plan and its ESF, Incident Specific and Support annexes with planned adoption in calendar year 2017.
The plan will be used as reference in the development and revision of City of Tucson departmental continuity
of operations plans.
The plan will be referenced in review and revision to the “Plan Tucson” general and sustainability plan
adopted and ratified in 2013.
Continued Public/Stakeholder Involvement
The jurisdictions were successful during the past five years in outreach to the public and jurisdictional stakeholders
by keeping them informed and involved with activities related to the 2012 Plan. The jurisdictions are committed to
continue that effort and intend to implement the following activities during the next five-year period, whenever
possible:
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION VI: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES 147
Table 6-1: Continued Public and Stakeholder Involvement
Jurisdiction Activity or Opportunity
Pima
County
Continue working with the Regional Flood Control District on the Community Rating System
(CRS) Program for Public Information, Notification and Exercise requirements.
Schedule annual mitigation review meetings with jurisdictional partners.
Enhance public outreach on mitigation issues through Everbridge mass notification tool.
Maintain the Mitigation Plan on the website.
Assist jurisdictions and county departments with mitigation grant funding opportunities.
City of
Tucson
Continue to pursue past activities listed above, in table 3-3, as appropriate.
Maintain a mitigation-focused page, with the updated mitigation plan, on the City of Tucson
website.
Expand the use of social media to provide timely and accurate information on hazards and
mitigation actions that can be taken against them.
Launch a localized Ready campaign for the City.
Build relationships with neighborhood organizations, HOA’s, and other local leadership
groups to help distribute hazard mitigation information to their communities.
Town of
Oro Valley
Continue to pursue past activities identified in Table 3-3.
Expand use of social media, PSAs, and websites to provide applicable and timely information
on hazards.
Implement public involvement components identified in the 2016 General Plan.
Town of
Marana
Continue to pursue the past activities listed above, as appropriate.
Have a municipal representative attend state and locally funded symposiums such as The
Continuing Challenge: HazMat Symposium, and the Southwest Gas Pipeline Safety
Symposium for increased awareness of hazardous materials incident preparedness measures.
Provide floodplain related hazard and mitigation information to targeted properties in high-risk
areas.
Provide flood hazard outreach annually to residents of the Town of Marana located within the
flood plain.
Create updated brochures for building within the flood plain.
Conduct public outreach through open-house meetings for new “L” Series FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs).
Pascua
Yaqui
Continue emphasizing mitigation activities in correlation to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Improvement Projects program.
Continue PSAs on the Plan on the Intranet/Intranet and on Yaqui Radio Station.
Continue to use the plan for reference for profiling of cultural sites for economic
development.
The Pascua Yaqui Department of Public Safety will continue to support the plan by
referencing the plan with other tribal departments for grants and infrastructure improvement
opportunities.
Participate in Tribal Recognition Days and other public outreach opportunities to promote
mitigation opportunities and hazard reduction throughout the community.
Town of
Sahuarita
Solicit comments for Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan/announce Plan availability
through social media outlets, town website and town newsletter.
The Emergency Operations Plan will be revised within the next year and reposted on town
website.
Maintain link to Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan on town website.
Maintain “Be Prepared” information developed by FEMA on town website.
Launch social media campaign to promote emergency preparedness.
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS 148
APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS
ADEMA ............ Arizona Division of Emergency Management and Military Affairs
ADFFM ............. Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management
ADEQ ................ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADTF ................. Arizona Drought Task Force
ADWR ............... Arizona Department of Water Resources
AGFD ................ Arizona Game and Fish Department
AP ...................... Actions/Projects
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
AZGS ................. Arizona Geological Survey
BLM .................. Bureau of Land Management
CAP ................... Central Arizona Project
CAP ................... Community Assistance Program
CFR ................... Code of Federal Regulations
CNF ................... Coronado National Forest
CPRI .................. Calculated Priority Risk Index
CRS ................... Community Rating System
CWPP ................ Community Wildfire Protection Plan
DEMA ............... Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs
DFIRM .............. Digital Flood Insurance Rate
DMA 2000/2K ... Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
DOT ................... Department of Transportation
EHS ................... Extremely Hazardous Substance
EMAP ................. Emergency Management Accreditation Program
EOP ................... Emergency Operations Plan
EPA ................... Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA .............. Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act
ESF .................... Emergency Support Function
FEMA ................ Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM ................. Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FMA ................... Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program
GIS ..................... Geographic Information System
GRFD ................. Golder Ranch Fire District
HAZMAT .......... Hazardous Material
HAZUS-MH ...... Hazards United States Multi-Hazard
HI ........................ Heat Index
HMGP ............... Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
HUD ................... Housing and Urban Development
IFCI ................... International Fire Code Institute
LEPC ................. Local Emergency Planning Committee
LDIG .................. Local Drought Impact Group
LPT .................... Local Planning Team
MMI ................... Modified Mercalli Intensity
MJHMP .............. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
MUTCD .............. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
NASB ................ Northern Arizona Seismic Belt
NCDC ................ National Climate Data Center
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS 149
NDMC ............... National Drought Mitigation Center
NESDIS ............. National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service
NFIP .................. National Flood Insurance Program
NFPA ................. National Fire Protection Association
NHC ................... National Hurricane Center
NIBS .................. National Institute of Building Services
NID .................... National Inventory of Dams
NIDIS ................ National Integrated Drought Information Systems
NIST .................. National Institute of Standards and Technology
NPS .................... National Park Service
NSF .................... National Science Foundation
NOAA ............... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRC ................... National Response Center
NWCG ................ National Wildfire Coordination Group
NWS .................. National Weather Service
PAG ................... Pima Association of Governments
PCOEM ............. Pima County Office of Emergency Management
PCRFCD ............. Pima County Regional Flood Control District
PCCWPP ............ Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
PGA .................... Peak Ground Acceleration
PYT .................... Pascua Yaqui Tribe
PDM-C .............. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive
PSDI .................. Palmer Drought Severity Index
RL ...................... Repetitive Loss
SARA ................ Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SOP ..................... Standard Operating Procedures
SPI ..................... Standardized Precipitation Index
SRLP ................. Severe Repetitive Loss Properties
SRL .................... Severe Repetitive Loss
SRP .................... Salt River Project
TNRT .................. Tribal Nations Response Team
UBC ................... Uniform Building Code
USACE .............. United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA ................ United States Department of Agriculture
USDM ............... United States Drought Monitor
USDOT ............... United State Department of Transportation
USFS ................. United States Forest Service
USGS ................. United States Geological Survey
USSDO .............. United States Seasonal Drought Outlook
VA ...................... Vulnerability Analysis
WUI ................... Wildland Urban Interface
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX B: RECORDS OF ADOPTION 150
APPENDIX B: RESOLUTIONS OF ADOPTION
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX B: RECORDS OF ADOPTION 151
PIMA COUNTY
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX B: RECORDS OF ADOPTION 152
TOWN OF MARANA
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX B: RECORDS OF ADOPTION 153
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX B: RECORDS OF ADOPTION 154
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX B: RECORDS OF ADOPTION 155
TOWN OF SAHUARITA
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX B: RECORDS OF ADOPTION 156
CITY OF TUCSON
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX B: RECORDS OF ADOPTION 157
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 158
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 159
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 160
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 161
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 162
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 163
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 164
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 165
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 166
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 167
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 168
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 169
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 170
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 171
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 172
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 173
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 174
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 175
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 176
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 177
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 178
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 179
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 180
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 181
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 182
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 183
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 184
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 185
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 186
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 187
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 188
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 189
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 190
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 191
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 192
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 193
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 194
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 195
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 196
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION 197
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 198 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS Table D-1: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Pima County Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Primary Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Enforce Flood & Erosion Hazard Ordinance in accordance with the NFIP. Flood $1.2 million Ongoing RFCD / Floodplain Management Division Flood Control tax Levy In Progress Keep District staff including hydrologists, engineers and inspectors provides enforcement. Implement NFIP tasks such as LOMR submittals, maintaining a countywide map repository, performing master drainage studies, and coordinating to insure the digital map is correct. Flood $600,000 Ongoing RFCD / Planning & Development Division Flood Control Tax Levy In Progress Keep District staff including GIS programmers, hydrologists, engineers and project managers provides map information services. Arroyo Chico Multi-Use Project – Phase 2B (Basins 1, 2 & 3) Flood $13.3 million September, 2013 RFCD / Engineering Division Flood Control Tax Levy & USACOE Complete Delete Construction completed in 2015. Inspection and preventative maintenance on levees as needed. Levee Failure $50,000 Ongoing RFCD / Infrastructure Management Division Flood Control Tax Levy In Progress Keep District inspectors monitor conditions at least annually and after floods. Develop and implement multi-agency exercises and drills related to outbreaks of communicable illnesses and vector control. Disease (Response) Staff Time 12 months Health Department Director Grant FundsIn Progress Remove This is covered by Health Department Plans and Planning, not Mitigation.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 199 Table D-1: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Pima County Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Primary Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Develop a Shelter in Place Plan (appendix to Pima County Emergency Operations Plan). All (Response) Staff Time 24 months Pima County Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security, Director Grant Funds (as available) Completed Remove This has been updated in the County EOP and integrated into the Response plan for hazardous materials. Participate in Community Rating System to reduce insurance premiums. Flood $50,000 Ongoing RFCD / Planning & Development Division Flood Control Tax Levy In Progress Keep Pima County maintains a high rating and inclusion of flood hazards in this plan is a critical component of the score. Buffelgrass Mitigation – identify public outreach opportunities, locate county areas for mitigation of buffelgrass and administer grant funding for ongoing activities related to wildfire reduction through removal and reduction in Buffelgrass. Wildfire Ongoing Tucson Clean and Beautiful, Pima County Parks and Recreation Mitigation Grants In Progress Keep Working on completing a HMG and acquiring another grant.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 200 Table D-2: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Marana Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Provide training to the applicable Marana departments on the adopted hazard mitigation plan and its requirements. All $500 2021 Emergency Management Coordinator General Fund In Progress Keep This will be a continuing process as staff changes Conduct a public education campaign to increase awareness of natural hazards by distributing ADEMA and Pima County mitigation flyers at community events and public gathering opportunities, as appropriate. This will be accomplished semi-annually by Community Services. All $500 2021 Community Development Director General Fund In Progress Keep This will be a continuing process and the Town grows Encourage bridge or culvert construction where roads are susceptible to flooding. This will be accomplished as part of the Planning Process when Developers apply to build in Marana. Flood Staff Time 2016 Development Services/ General Manager General Fund In progress keep We look at this with each development and road project. Marana will continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program by reviewing applications for buildings, ensuring they are properly designed. Flood Staff Time 2016 Development Services/ General Manager General Fund In progress keep This is an ongoing effort.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 201 Table D-2: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Marana Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Rattlesnake Pass from Saguaro Bloom to Twin Peaks Road. Flood $29.8 Million 2018 Public Works / Director Transportation Fund, General Fund No progress keep This will be constructed by developer but the trigger has not been met Barnett Linear Park and Flood Control – Construct a 3-mile channel along Barnett Road to mitigate the drainage and flood hazard from the Santa Cruz River Flood $16.5 Million 2016 Public Works / Director General Fund, Future MMPC Bonds In progress keep Incrementally completed with each development along Barnett Ina Road Bridge – Remove and replace the Ina Road bridge that crosses the Santa Cruz River Flood $17.5 Million 2016 Development Services / Director Transportation Fund, HURF Bonds, General Fund In progress revise Completion date will be 2019 Ina Road Improvements from Silverbell Road to I-10 – widening of Ina Road to 4-lane section with raised median, sidewalks, and drainage improvements Flood $16.5 Million 2016 Public Works/Director Transportation Fund, Federal Grants In progress revise Completion date will be 2019 Tangerine Road Corridor - provide a minimum of 4 lanes with raised medians, drainage improvements, sidewalks, ADA facilities, multi-use path and lanes, Traffic Signals, Right-of-Way acquisitions, Utility relocations, Marana Water Flood $95.5 Million 2019 Public Works / Director RTA, Future Bond Money In progress keep Clarify that Phase I completion in 2018 and Phase II (DM Blvd. to I- 10) to start construction in 2020
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 202 Table D-2: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Marana Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ line extensions, and sewer modifications and additions. Ina Road TI – lower I-10 and construct a new overpass that will span both I-10 and the UPRR tracks. Project will mitigate flood issues and also improve access that will reduce accidents and HazMat incidents Flood, HazMat, Traffic Accidents $65.0 Million 2018 Public Works / Director in coordination with ADOT ADOT, RTA In progress keep Starting construction, TI to close in January 17’ for two years Marana will continue to participate in the Flood Prone Land Acquisition Program so we acquire properties located in flood hazard areas. Flood Staff 2016 Development Services/ General Manager Grants, Partnership w/ Pima County In progress keep There is no completion date so perhaps this could be changed to an “ongoing status.”
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 203 Table D-3: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Oro Valley Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Develop, implement, and update a mass evacuation strategy for Oro Valley (including training and exercising). All (Response) Staff Time Annually, ongoing Emergency Management and DIS General Fund and grant Complete Delete Preparedness. Oro Valley included in other regional evacuation plans such as the Pima County and statewide evacuation plans. Develop, implement, and regularly update a Shelter in Place educational program (including training and exercising). All (Response) Staff Time Annually, ongoing Emergency Management General Fund and grant Complete Delete Preparedness. Shelter in place is included as part of regular town emergency management activities. West Nile Virus Program Continued testing of mosquitoes for West Nile Virus. If a positive result, the area is sprayed. Disease $5,000 Annually, ongoing Stormwater Utility Pima County Health Dept.; Stormwater Utility, and AZ Dept. of Health Zoonotic Diseases Complete Delete This is an annual and ongoing program managed by the Pima County Health Department and no longer by the Town.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 204 Table D-3: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Oro Valley Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Buffelgrass Program actively educates and removes buffelgrass in public areas across the Town. Wildfire Staff and Volunteer Time Annual, ongoing DIS General Fund, grant, and volunteer time In progress Keep This is an annual and ongoing program. Regularly update wildland-urban interface plans and educate communities about fire hazards. Wildfire Staff Time Annual, ongoing Golder Ranch Fire District Golder Ranch In progress Delete GRFD is developing and implementing a community risk reduction program that includes all hazards, planning, and education. That is included in a new mitigation action project in the plan update. Widening of Lambert Lane between Pusch View Lane Bridge and La Canada Dr. will include drainage improvements to eliminate roadway flooding and debris. Flood $8M Sept. 2013 DIS Pima Association Governments Complete Delete Road project was completed in June 2013. Public education and outreach about protecting pipes and irrigation systems from freezes. Extreme Cold Staff Time Annual, ongoing Oro Valley Water Utility Water Utility Fees Complete Delete Preparedness. This is an annual and ongoing program. Applicable Hazmat training and exercising for first responders; as well as participation in multi-agency regional hazmat and decontamination teams. HazMat Staff Time and Training Costs Annual, ongoing Oro Valley Police Department and Golder Ranch General Fund and Grant Funds Complete Delete Preparedness. GRFD participates in agency specific and regional hazmat training and exercises.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 205 Table D-3: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Oro Valley Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Town Cistern Project includes the addition of cisterns across the Town campus, water collected will be used for Town landscaping. Landscaping will be planned around the xeriscaping concept. Drought $12,000 Annual, ongoing DIS, Water, and Parks General Fund and Private Funds Complete Delete Project completed in August 2011. Continue to develop, expand, and implement a Drought Response Plan to address potential or long-term drought conditions. Drought Staff Time Annual, ongoing Water Utility General Fund Complete Delete This is an annual and ongoing program. Town of Oro Valley Stormwater Utility will continue to Manage Public Information Activities. Monitor and maintain elevation certificates Provide FEMA map information service Conduct outreach projects to increase public awareness of flooding hazard promote flood insurance in general Provide Flood protection information Flood Staff Time and SW Utility Fees Annually ongoing Storm Water Utility, EM, Permitting Div., TOV Library Storm Water Utility Fees In progress Keep This is part of the annual and ongoing stormwater program.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 206 Table D-3: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Oro Valley Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Conduct Floodplain Mapping and Regulatory Activities. Manage/prepare LOMCs* for FEMA designated floodplains Generate and collect additional (local) floodplain maps and information Promote and enforce open space preservation Enforce and augment regulatory floodplain standards Manage town wide floodplain data Oversee stormwater management program Flood Staff Time and SW Utility Fees Annually ongoing Storm Water Utility Storm Water Utility Fees In progress Keep This is part of the annual and ongoing stormwater program. Conduct Flood Damage Reduction Activities Organize floodplain management planning doc. Investigate acquisition and relocation of flood prone properties Conduct and manage drainage system maintenance Flood Staff Time and SW Utility Fees Annually ongoing Storm Water Utility Storm Water Utility Fees In progress Keep This is part of the annual and ongoing stormwater program.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 207 Table D-3: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Oro Valley Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Conduct Flood Preparedness Activities Coordinate flood warning program w/PCRFCD Monitor levee safety for OV’s certified levee Flood Staff Time Annually ongoing Storm Water Utility Storm Water Utility Fees In progress Keep This is part of the annual and ongoing stormwater program. Oro Valley Emergency Management will provide training to applicable Town staff on the adopted hazard mitigation plan and its requirements. All Staff Time Annually, ongoing All Town Departments and Emergency Management General Fund and grant Complete Delete Town staff education is part of the regular emergency management activities and will be provided again upon adoption of the plan. Review existing Oro Valley General Plan and zoning code to determine how these documents help limit development in hazardous areas. Modify with additional guidelines, regulations, and land use techniques as necessary within the limits of state statues, while also respecting private property rights. All Staff Time Annually, ongoing DIS General Fund Complete Delete This is an annual and ongoing component of the departmental roles and responsibilities. The General Plan 2016 is slated for vote in November 2016.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 208 Table D-3: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Pascua Yaqui Tribe Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress CompleteDisposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Regional Flood Control Facilities Design was implemented with the 2004 Master Drainage Report. New tasks were completed such as topography, food plain modeling and letter map revision. Flood Staff time Ongoing and Continuous Tribal Council Land Department General Fund In Progress Keep Drainage and culvert annual maintenance and repairs (small and large) to road projects. Regional Flood Control Design, Phase 2 finalization. Flood Staff time Ongoing and Continuous Tribal Council Land Department General Fund In Progress Keep Cultural Survey, Design Plans, Cost Plans and Utility Relocation Plans were implemented in Phase 2. City of Tucson has approved Phase 1 but Phase 2 is still under review. Continue the existing intergovernmental agreement between the Tribe and the State Forestry Department for assistance in the provision of emergency services within each other’s jurisdictions. Wildfire Staff time Continuing *Fire Department *Attorney General’s Office *Tribal Council General Fund In Progress Keep Completion of the Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) of 2013; completion of BIA Wild Fire Management Plan (WFMP) and, BIA Fuels Management Plan (FMP) of 2012
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 209 Table D-3: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Pascua Yaqui Tribe Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress CompleteDisposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Review existing building codes to determine adequate protection for new development in hazard areas. Where feasible and necessary, modify codes to help mitigate hazards imposed on such development within the limits of the Reservation, while also respecting private property rights adjacent to the Reservation. Extreme Temperature Staff Time Ongoing and Continuous Tribal Council, Fire Department, Land Department, Housing Department General Fund In Progress Keep Install roofing materials with high reflectivity and high emittance ratings Install high performance windows that meet or exceed Energy Star criteria for “U” value and SHGC Improve ”U” value of roof and wall systems by installing insulation which exceed current IECC requirements Install high efficiency HVAC with minimum SEER ratings including Adhering to the building codes of 2012, International Building Codes
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 210 Table D-3: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Pascua Yaqui Tribe Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress CompleteDisposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Review existing building codes to determine adequate protection for new development in hazard areas. Where feasible and necessary, modify codes to help mitigate hazards imposed on such development within the limits of the Reservation, while also respecting private property rights adjacent to the Reservation. Drought Earthquake Severe Wind Staff Ongoing and Continuous *Land Development *Tribal Council General Fund In Progress Delete Drought no longer necessary. Tribal Land Department with BIA resources determined we did not have sustainable water. Earthquake no longer necessary. Overseen by AZGS. Serve wind, no longer necessary. Overseen by Tribal Building Inspections, addressed through adhering to the building codes. Continued coordination between the Tribe, Pima County Departments, municipalities, Pima Association of Governments, and other agencies in the development and maintenance of accurate geographic information system information for those hazard areas identified in the adopted hazard mitigation plan. All Staff Ongoing and Continuous *Land Development *Tribal Council General Fund In Progress Delete
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 211 Table D-3: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Pascua Yaqui Tribe Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress CompleteDisposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Develop a Mass Evacuation strategy and formalize in a published document All Staff time Continuing *Fire & Police Departments *Land and Procurement Departments General Fund In Progress Delete
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 212 Table D-3: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Pascua Yaqui Tribe Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress CompleteDisposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Conduct and enhance environmental and epidemiological surveillance activities in those areas identified as being of high public health importance and related to environmental factors such as; food safety, protection, and vector control activities. Surveillance activities must include the identification of vulnerabilities and environmental factors that may contribute to the transmission of the communicable diseases associated with the operation and presence of these facilities in the Tribe, as well as the implementation of preventative action that may be applied to reduce or eliminate the potential for transmission of communicable illnesses. Develop and improve the system of coordination and communication of these findings, trends and observations with other federal, state and local agencies that have similar or related interest. Disease N/A Ongoing *Epidemiology Center Director General Fund In Progress Delete No longer necessary; overseen by our Tribal PHEP/Injury Prevention Coordinator
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 213 Table D-4: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Sahuarita Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Promote Child Drowning Prevention programs throughout the Town. Drowning $3,000 and staff time May 2012 Police Communications Open Delete Not mitigation Continued adherence to AAC R18-9 for reductions in pollutant discharge at Town Aquifer. HazMat $15,000 March 2012 Public Works Waste Water Fund Delete Covered under separate plan Update Waste Water Department contingency and emergency plans HazMat Staff time March 2012 Public Works None Delete Covered under separate plan Continue annual updating of Town Storm water/Flooding Pollution Prevention Plan Flood Staff Time January 2013 Public Works None In Progress Keep, revise Ongoing program; AZPDES requirement Continue use of permit process from Corp of Engineers to streamline maintenance and bank stabilization efforts when needed Flood Staff Time Ongoing Public Works HURF Funds In Progress Delete Ongoing task, not task specific
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 214 Table D-4: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Sahuarita Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Organize and host annual Southern Arizona Beat Back Buffelgrass community removal event Wildfire Staff Time Public Works T.O. Nation Grant In Progress Keep, revise Ongoing work through volunteer and staff efforts to remove/spray Buffelgrass; removal of noxious/invasive species through Sahuarita Town Code for Riparian Habitat Protection and Mitigation Requirements Implement Vector Borne Illness prevention program through mosquito abatement Disease (Pandemic) $10,000 September 2012 Public Works Parks and Rec General Fund Delete Ongoing program, not task specific Updating of riparian ordinance to protect various species that reduces erosion to mitigate flooding potentials and also reduces development in flood prone areas Flood $300 and staff time December 2011 Planning and Zoning General Fund Complete Delete Resolution 2013-0344 and Ordinance 2013-077 amending the Riparian Habitat Protection and Mitigation Requirements of Town Code were adopted on January 16, 2013
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 215 Table D-4: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Sahuarita Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Continued Controlled Burns on Town Property Wildfire $2,000 and staff time January 2012 Fire Department Public Works General Fund Delete Ongoing program based on Fire Department programming Review, Update and Modify NFIP requirement and make appropriate modifications to Flood Plain Ordinance Flood Staff Time January 2013 Public Works None In Progress Keep, revise Coordination with Arizona Department of Water Resources for ordinance update Educate the public to increase awareness of hazards, and potential opportunities for mitigation actions. Make Pima County’s public information material sheets, websites, mitigation brochures, and media outlets available. All Staff Time July 2012 Emergency Management None Complete and Ongoing Keep, revise Resolution 2012-0303 adopting the Pima County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was approved on June 11, 2012. Posting of educational materials and links to Pima County’s information on the Town Website is being explored. Landscape code amendment requiring vegetation adjustment in developed areas to Extreme Temperatures $300 and staff time December 2011 Planning and Zoning General Fund Complete Delete Resolution 2011-0280 and Ordinance 2011-060 amending the Landscaping, Buffering and
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 216 Table D-4: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Sahuarita Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ reduce the heat island effect Screening Standards of Town Code were adopted on October 24, 2011. Develop and Implement internal emergency response procedure All (Response) Staff Time May 2012 Public Works None Complete Delete Resolution 2012-0297 adopting the Town of Sahuarita Emergency Operations Plan was approved on May 29, 2012. Improve upon existing capabilities to warn the public of emergencies by initiating a system to test the ability of local emergency managers to activate the AENS systems. All (Response) $5,000 January 2013 Emergency Management General Fund Delete Not mitigation Develop and Implement an interoperable communications between all emergency-related departments All (Response) Staff Time January 2013 Emergency Management, Local Fire District None Delete Not mitigation Implement Development Criteria for the Lee Moore Flood Staff Time Ongoing Public Works, None Delete Resolution 2010-237 adopting the Lee Moore Wash Basin
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 217 Table D-4: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Sahuarita Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Wash Basin Management Plan Planning and Zoning Management Study was adopted on December 13, 2010. Ongoing work includes implementation of the development criteria.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 218 Table D-5: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Tucson Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Identify funding source and construct two bridges and 50 box culverts with 380 back-up power units for signalized intersections at high flood hazard crossings in Tucson limits in accord with the COT Department of Transportation 5-yr plan. If a box culvert cannot be constructed an automated warning device, consisting of a barricade, signs and flashing lights would be installed. Flood, Severe Wind $100 million, Staff Time Ongoing effort with long-term horizon. Schedule dependent upon funding Department of Transportation Streets Administrator and Streets Chief Engineer Grant Funds No Progress Keep No funding Tucson Water, a division of the Utility Services Department will secure its assets and facilities by implementing actions, in phases, as identified in the Federally mandated Water System Vulnerability Assessment completed in Oct 2002. Terrorism, Vandalism $20 million On-going with full completion by 2020 Water Department / Water Engineer & Operations Operations Budget N/A Delete Not a natural hazard
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 219 Table D-5: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Tucson Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Promote disaster-resistant water delivery system by constructing redundant water transmission lines (e.g., The Utility and the community will be less susceptible to loss of water delivery due to natural or human-caused disasters). All $7.9 million On-going with full completion by 2020 Water Department / Water Administrator Maintenance & Operations Operations Budget In progress Keep, revise Work has been ongoing in constructing redundancy in to the system. Project will be revised to include new project goals and increase estimated cost. Work with the AZGS and USGS on projects that mitigate geo-hazards (e.g. continue the feasibility study with the AZGS and USGS Water Plan 2000-2050. Drought, Earthquake, Subsidence, other geo-hazards. $51.2 million Ongoing effort with long-term horizon. Schedule dependent upon funding Water Department / Staff Operations Budget Complete Delete Work on mitigating subsidence was done with the USGS. Subsidence issues were monitored in concert with USGS. Construct second recharge facility to be known as the Southern Avra Valley Recharge and Recovery Project (SAVSARP). The utility could then use its entire allotment of Central AZ Project water and provide capacity for recharging additional water supplies. Construction will take 5 years). Drought, Earthquake, Subsidence, other geo-hazards. $51.2 million 2016 Water Department/Staff Operations Budget Complete Delete Completed ahead of schedule, total investment of $45 million.
PIMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS 220 Table D-5: 2012 Mitigation Measures for Tucson Description Hazard(s) Mitigated Estimated Cost Anticipated Completion Date Lead Agency Potential Funding Source(s) Status No Progress In Progress Complete Disposition Keep Delete Keep, revise Explanation or brief description of work so far or reason for ‘no progress’ Re-direct drainage canal at Barrio Viego to prevent continued repetitive losses. Flood $425,000 2013 Transportation Department / Project Administrator Grant Funds, General Fund, PCRFCD No progress Keep No funding In compliance with the NFIP, Tucson will continue to require the preparation and submittal of a CLOMR or CLOMR-F for all proposed development within FEMA delineated Special Flood Hazard Areas Flood Staff Time Annual - Ongoing Development and Planning Services Department / Director Department Budget and Fees for Developers In Progress Keep Ongoing annually Tucson will maintain compliance with NFIP regulations by enforcement of the current floodplain management ordinance through review of new development located in the floodplain and issuance of floodplain use permits. Flood Staff Time Annual - Ongoing Development and Planning Services Department / Director Department Budget In Progress Keep Ongoing annually Improve floodplain administration under the NFIP program by sending inspectors into the field when we receive a flood warning from the NWS, to assess bridges, washes and other critical infrastructures within Tucson. Flood Staff Time Annual- Ongoing Development and Planning Services Department / Director Department Budget and Information In Progress Keep Ongoing annually
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 221
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
PIMA COUNTY
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 222
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 223
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 224
TOWN OF MARANA
http://www.maranaaz.gov/safety-and-emergency-management
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 225
http://www.maranaaz.gov/hazard-mitigation-planning
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 226
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 227
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 228
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 229
TOWN OF SAHUARITA
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 230
CITY OF TUCSON
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 231
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 232
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 233
PIMA COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 234