2017
La Paz County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
Developed by: La Paz County Town of Parker Town of Quartzsite LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose ...... 1 1.2 Background and Scope ...... 1 1.3 Plan Organization ...... 2 SECTION 2: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION ...... 3 2.1 General ...... 3 2.2 County Overview ...... 3 2.3 Jurisdictional Overviews ...... 10 2.3.1 Parker ...... 10 2.3.2 Quartzsite ...... 12 SECTION 3: PLANNING PROCESS ...... 14 3.1 Primary Point of Contact ...... 14 3.2 Planning Team and Activities ...... 14 3.3 Public and Stakeholder Involvement ...... 17 3.4 Reference Documents and Technical Resources ...... 18 SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 21 4.1 Hazard Identification and Screening ...... 21 4.2 Vulnerability Analysis Methodology ...... 22 4.2.1 General ...... 22 4.2.2 Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) Evaluation ...... 22 4.2.3 Asset Inventory ...... 24 4.2.4 Loss Estimations ...... 25 4.2.5 Development Trend Analysis ...... 27 4.3 Hazard Risk Profiles ...... 27 4.3.1 Dam Failure ...... 28 4.3.2 Drought...... 34 4.3.3 Flood / Flash Flood ...... 42 4.3.4 Hazardous Materials Incidents ...... 49 4.3.5 Severe Wind ...... 53 4.4 Risk Assessment Summary ...... 62 SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY ...... 63 5.1 Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives ...... 63 5.2 Capability Assessment ...... 64 5.3 Mitigation Actions/Projects...... 70 SECTION 6: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES...... 78 6.1 Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 78 6.2 Plan Update ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 6.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms ...... 79 6.4 Continued Public and Stakeholder Involvement ...... 80 APPENDIX A: PLAN TOOLS ...... 82 Acronyms ...... 82
LIST OF MAPS
i
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1: POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR LA PAZ COUNTY ...... 9 TABLE 3-1: PRIMARY POINTS OF CONTACT ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. TABLE 3-2: PLANNING TEAM ...... 14 TABLE 3-3: RESOURCE DOCUMENTS AND REFERENCES REVIEWED AND INCORPORATED IN THE PLAN ...... 18 TABLE 4-1: INITIAL HAZARD IDENTIFICATION LISTS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. TABLE 4-2: EXPENDITURES FOR DECLARED HAZARD EVENTS THAT INCLUDED LA PAZ CO – FEBRUARY 1966 TO AUGUST 2010 ...... 21 TABLE 4-3: HUMAN AND PROPERTY LOSS ESTIMATES FOR DECLARED EVENTS THAT INCLUDED LA PAZ CO JANUARY 1966 TO AUGUST 2010 ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. TABLE 4-4: CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX (CPRI) CATEGORIES AND RISK LEVELS ...... 22 TABLE 4-5: ASSET INVENTORY COUNTS AS OF JULY 2011...... 25 TABLE 4-6: ADWR SAFETY CATEGORIES ...... 29 TABLE 4-7: DOWNSTREAM HAZARD POTENTIAL CLASSES FOR STATE REGULATED DAMS ...... 30 TABLE 4-8: NID AND ADWR DAMS BY HAZARD CLASSIFICATION ...... 31 TABLE 4-9: CPRI RESULTS FOR DAM FAILURE ...... 31 TABLE 4-10: LA PAZ COUNTY EXPOSURE AND LOSS ESTIMATES DUE TO DAM FAILURE ...... 32 TABLE 4-11: CPRI RESULTS FOR DROUGHT ...... 39 TABLE 4-12: CPRI RESULTS FOR FLOODING ...... 44 TABLE 4-13: LA PAZ COUNTY EXPOSURE AND LOSS ESTIMATES DUE TO FLOODING ...... 45 TABLE 4-14: 2007 PLAN COUNTY-WIDE FLOODING VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS COMPARISON TO THE PLAN ESTIMATES ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. TABLE 4-15: NFIP STATUS AND STATISTICS FOR LA PAZ COUNTY, AUGUST 31, 2011 ...... 46 TABLE 4-16: REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTY STATISTICS FOR LA PAZ COUNTY JURISDICTIONS .. 47 TABLE 4-17: CPRI RESULTS FOR HAZMAT ...... 50 TABLE 4-18: LA PAZ COUNTY EXPOSURE ESTIMATES DUE TO HAZMAT ...... 51 TABLE 4-19: 2007 PLAN COUNTY-WIDE HAZMAT VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS COMPARISON TO THE 2012 PLAN ESTIMATES ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. TABLE 4-20: FUJITA TORNADO SCALE ...... 55 TABLE 4-21: CPRI RESULTS FOR SEVERE WIND ...... 55 TABLE 4-22: CPRI RESULTS BY JURISDICTION FOR WILDFIRE ...... 59 TABLE 4-23: LA PAZ COUNTY EXPOSURE AND LOSS ESTIMATES DUE TO WILDFIRE ...... 60 TABLE 4-24: HAZARDS TO BE MITIGATED BY JURISDICTIONS ...... 62 TABLE 5-2-1: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR LA PAZ COUNTY ...... 64 TABLE 5-2-2: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR PARKER ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. ii
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
TABLE 5-2-3: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR QUARTZSITE ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. TABLE 5-3-1: LA PAZ COUNTY ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS PLAN CYCLE MITIGATION ACTIONS/PROJECTS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. TABLE 5-3-2: PARKER ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS PLAN CYCLE MITIGATION ACTIONS/PROJECTS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. TABLE 5-4-1: MITIGATION ACTIONS AND PROJECTS FOR LA PAZ COUNTY ...... 71 TABLE 5-4-2: MITIGATION ACTIONS AND PROJECTS FOR PARKER ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. TABLE 5-4-3: MITIGATION ACTIONS AND PROJECTS FOR QUARTZSITE ...... 75 TABLE 6-1: CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 80
LIST OF APPENDICES
iii
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose This Plan was prepared to guide hazard mitigation to better protect the people, property, community assets and land from the effects of hazards. This Plan demonstrates the communities’ and tribe’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources. This Plan was also developed to make the participating communities and tribe eligible for certain types of Federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation grant funding.
1.2 Background and Scope Each year in the United States, disasters injure of take the lives of thousands of people. 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 results of a three-year congressionally mandated independent study to assess future savings from mitigation activities provides evidence that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar spend on mitigation saves society an average of $4 in avoided future losses in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries (National Institute of Building Science Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council 2005). Examples of hazard mitigation measures include, but are not limited to the following: • Development of mitigation standards, regulations, policies, and programs • Land use/zoning policies • Strong building code and floodplain management regulations • Dam safety program, seawalls, and levee systems • Acquisition of flood prone and environmentally sensitive lands • 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 Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which 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. The Plan identifies relevant hazards and risks, and identifies the strategy that will be used to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability. 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). While the act emphasized the need for mitigation plans and more coordinated mitigation planning and implementation efforts, the regulations established the requirements
1
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 that hazard mitigation plans must meet in order to be eligible for certain Federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding un the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act. 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. The following communities participated in the planning process: • La Paz County • Town of Parker • Town of Quartzsite
1.3 Plan Organization This Plan is organized as follows: • Section 1: Introduction • Section 2: Community Profile • Section 3: Planning Process • Section 4: Risk Assessment • Section 5: Mitigation Strategy • Section 6: Plan Maintenance
2
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION 2: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
2.1 General The purpose of this section is to provide updated basic background information on La Paz County as a whole and includes information on geography, climate, population and economy. Abbreviated details and descriptions are also provided for each participating jurisdiction.
2.2 County Overview Geography La Paz County is Arizona’s 15th and newest county. It is located in central-western Arizona and shares a boundary with the State of California on the west and the Arizona counties of Yuma on the south, Maricopa, and Yavapai on the east, and Mohave on the north. According to the La Paz County Comprehensive Plan1, the County was created from the northern portion of Yuma County in January 1983, based on a voter initiative that was passed in May 1982. The County is currently comprised of 4,513 square miles, with the City of Parker serving as the County seat since inception. Major roadway transportation routes through the County include Interstate 10, U.S. Highway 60 and 95, and State Routes 72 and 95. The Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (ATSFRR) passes east-west through the county parallel to U.S. Highway 60 and State Route 72. There are also three private and one public airports/airfield servicing the County. The Colorado River, which generally forms the County’s western boundary, is the largest watercourse flowing through the County. Other significant watercourses include Bill Williams River, Bouse Wash, Centennial Wash, Cunningham Wash, and Tyson Wash. The remaining watercourses are primarily small to medium sized ephemeral washes. La Paz County is located within the Sonoran Desert terrestrial ecoregion, which is described as 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 dry during the summer and mild during the winter.2
1 La Paz County, 2005, La Paz County Comprehensive Plan, adopted May 2, 2005. 2 URS, 2004, State of Arizona All Hazard Mitigation Plan – Community Profiles and Hazard Identification/Profiles. 3
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Map 2-1: Vicinity
4
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Map 2-2: Transportation Routes
5
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Map 2-3: Terrestrial Ecoregions
6
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
There are a total of two incorporated and eleven unincorporated communities scattered across the County. Many of the unincorporated communities or places may be comprised of only one structure or a prominent landmark. Prominent land-holders within La Paz County include the Bureau of Land Management (58%), other public lands, (19%); Colorado River Indian Tribes, (8%); and 5.3% of the land is owned privately or by corporations. Climate Average temperatures within La Paz County range from near freezing during the winter months to over 110°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. Precipitation throughout La Paz County is governed to a great extent by elevation and season of the year. From November through March, storm systems from the Pacific Ocean cross the state as broad winter storms producing 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 hail storms3.
3 Office of the State Climatologist for Arizona, 2004. Partially taken from the following weblink: http://geography.asu.edu/azclimate/narrative.htm. 7
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Map 2-4: Community Location and Land Ownership 8
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Population According to the 2010 Census, La Paz County is home to 20,489 residents, with the majority of the population living in the unincorporated areas of the County. The population of La Paz County has grown by 2.7% growth from 2000 to 2010, with the majority of growth occurring in Quartzsite. It is noted that these numbers reflect the full-time residents of the county and are not indicative of the tremendous influx of winter visitors, and especially in Quartzsite.
Table 2-1: Population Estimates Jurisdiction 1990 2000 2010 2020 La Paz County (total) 13,900 19,935 20,489 25,487 Towns Parker 2,897 3,140 3,083 3,688 Quartzsite 1,876 3,354 3,677 4,317 Figures for 1990 & 2000 (1980 – 2008 Historical Estimates: http://www.azcommerce.com/econinfo/demographics/Population+Estimates Figures for 2010 are from 2010 Census Bureau Figures for 2020: AZ Dept of Administration – Office of Employment & Population Statistics. http://www.workforce.az.gov/population-projections.aspx
Economy According the County’s General Plan, settlement of La Paz County began with the Town of La Paz, which was founded in 1862 after the discovery of rich gold deposits nearby. Within one year (1863), the gold mines attracted over 5,000 people. The depletion of gold and a shift of the Colorado River caused a major decline in the town’s prosperity and population. Similar stories of boom to bust are told for other communities throughout the County. By the early 1900’s, most of the mining communities were abandoned or dying. The next major incentive for development of the area was the construction of a series of dams and reservoirs along the Colorado River that provided recreational and irrigation opportunities. Parker Dam, which created Lake Havasu, was completed in 1928 and regulates the flow of Colorado River water through La Paz County. The Town of Parker, incorporated in 1948 as part of Yuma County, became the La Paz County seat when La Paz County was created in 1983. The Town of Quartzsite incorporated in 1989, and is the only other incorporated community in the County. The La Paz County average labor force in August 2011 was 7,143 with an unemployment rate of 10.9 percent. With the draw of the Colorado River, several wildlife refuges, mild winter climates, and unique and varied rugged geologic formations attracting visitors, tourism ranks as the top economic industry for La Paz County. Agriculture is the next largest economy base for the County, with both crop and livestock sectors contributing. The Arizona portion of the Colorado River Indian Tribe Reservation is also wholly located within La Paz County.
9
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
2.3 Jurisdictional Overviews The following are brief overviews for each of the participating jurisdictions in the Plan.
2.3.1 Parker The Town of Parker is located in La Paz County, which is Arizona’s 15th and newest county. The Town is situated in the northwest portion of the county along the east side of the Colorado River, with State Route 95 running through the middle of Town. The Town is unique in that it has land within the Town’s corporate boundaries that is not contiguous. Parker Central, the original town site, encompasses approximately 980 acres and is completely located within Colorado River Indian Tribes’ (CRIT) reservation boundary. Parker South is located approximately 10 miles southeast of the Parker Central and is comprised of more than 13,250 acres. The average elevation of Parker Central and Parker South is 420 and 850 feet above sea level, respectively. The Gibraltar, Whipple, and Riverside Mountains lie east, north and southwest of the Town. State Route 95, which begins at the Mexican border in San Luis, Arizona and ends in Bullhead City, Arizona, is the only major roadway through the Town, with connection to California State Route 62 at the state line. Parker serves as the general headquarters and maintenance facility location for the Arizona and California Railroad (A&CRR), which passes directly through the middle of Town in a general east-west direction that parallels State Route 95. The Avi-Suquilla Airport serves as the only public airport/airfield for the Town and surrounding area. The only significant watercourse impacting Parker Central is the Colorado River. Parker South includes Bouse Wash and several other, smaller ephemeral watercourses that flow through the area. The original town site of Parker was surveyed and laid out in 1909 by a railroad location engineer by the name of Earl. H. Parker. However, the Town’s name and origin began when a post office was established January 6, 1871, on the CRIT reservation to serve the Indian agency. The post office was named Parker in honor of General Eli Parker who was Commissioner of Indian Affairs when the CRIT reservation was established by Congress in 1865. The present day railroad was laid in 1905 and the Parker post office was moved upstream four miles to the railroad. Since the town site of Parker was laid out for the purpose of providing a railroad stopover, watering and shipping station, it was only logical that the railroad would run through the center of the Town. The Town was laid out on a grid of 100-foot streets forming 300-foot by 4000- foot foot blocks with twelve, 50-foot wide lots to a block. The Federal Government auctioned off lots in 1910 and between 1914 and 1937 Parker existed as a small community providing supplies and services to the agricultural and mining operations of the area. In 1937, a highway bridge was completed across the Colorado River connecting Arizona and California. In the 1920’s and 1930’s, Parker provided community facilities to construction and administrative workers employed on federal projects along the Colorado River. In 1928, Parker Dam was completed, thus ensuring better water control of the river and creating a lake approximately 700 feet wide and 16 miles long called Lake Moovalya, which is an Indian word meaning “blue water”. The creation of Lake Moovalya changed the character of the Town of Parker to some extent from a service center for agricultural and mining workers to one of providing supplies and services to tourists, fishermen, hunters, and boat enthusiasts. The completion of Headgate Rock Dam in 1941 increased the attraction of tourists, sportsmen, and winter residents to the smooth waters created upstream of the dam. The Town of Parker officially incorporated in 1948. In 1980, Parker annexed 13,000 acres of non- contiguous land ten miles to the southeast (known as Parker South). In May 1982, by initiative petition, voters formed La Paz County from the northern portion of Yuma County. On January 1, 1983, Parker became the county seat for La Paz County. 10
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
According to the Arizona Department of Commerce4 (ADOC), Parker’s economy is primarily tied to tourism, retail trade and services. Parker also serves as a trade and business center for the CRIT population and agriculture is still a significant part of Parker’s economy. The Town’s average labor force in August 2014 was 1,695 with an unemployment rate of 6.1%. In 2014, there were approximately $1.2 million in sales tax collected and 61 new building permits in the Town with a total valuation of $2,559,559.5
Map 2-5: Town of Parker (Central) Zoning
4 Arizona Department of Commerce, 2014 Community Profile for Parker, Arizona. 5 Town of Parker, Finance Department. 11
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
2.3.2 Quartzsite The Town of Quartzsite is located in La Paz County, which is Arizona’s 15th and newest county. The Town is situated at the intersection of Interstate 10 and U.S. Highway/State Route 95, approximately 17 miles east of the California/Arizona state line and 125 miles west of Phoenix. At an elevation of 897 feet, the Town encompasses nearly 36 square miles of lower Sonoran Desert. The nearby Kofa, New Water and Plomosa Mountains provide topographic relief, and the Colorado River is located 17 miles to the west. The location of Quartzsite within La Paz County, relative to other counties within the State of Arizona is depicted in Figure 4-2. Major roadway transportation routes through the Town include Interstate 10, U.S. Highway 95, and State Route 95. The Arizona & California Railroad (A&CRR) passes to the north of Town along State Route 72/95 through Parker. There are also one private and one public airports/airfields that service the general area around the Town. Figure 4-2 shows all the major roadway and railway transportation routes and the airports within the vicinity of Quartzsite. Significant watercourses flowing through the Town include: Italian, La Cholla, Plomosa, Plomosita, Scadden, and Tyson Wash. The remaining watercourses are primarily small to medium sized, unnamed ephemeral washes. Prominent land-holders within Quartzsite include the Bureau of Land Management (93.6%), State Land (0.9%), and Private Holdings (5.5%).
Map 2-6: Town of Quartzsite Land Use The tourist population for Quartzsite at any time during the November to March time frame is estimated to exceed the permanent resident population by a factor of 10 to 20 times as many people. Most of the additional population is located within the numerous trailer parks scattered in primitive 12
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 recreational vehicle camps across the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands surrounding the Town. The Arizona Department of Commerce6 (ADOC) estimates that over 1.5 million people visit the Town during the popular gem, mineral, and general swap meet season. The Town’s average labor force in August 2010 was 648 with an unemployment rate of 8.8%. In 2008, there were approximately $65.1 million of taxable sales in the Town. With the draw of the swap meets and gem and mineral shows, the Colorado River, several wildlife refuges, mild winter climates, and unique and varied rugged geologic formations attracting visitors, tourism ranks as the top economic industry for Quartzsite. According to the Town’s General Plan7, Quartzsite was used as a watering hole by travelers passing through in the mid 1850’s. A few wells in Quartzsite provided for the Tyson’s Well Stage Station, which was named for Charles Tyson. The station was a simple adobe building which served desert travelers well into the late 1880s. The original compound was composed of several buildings and was commonly called “Ft. Tyson,” although it never served as an actual military fort. It did, however, serve as a US Army stop and may have provided settlers with protection from Indian conflicts. A post office was established at the Fort in 1893, although it only survived for two years. The Fort ultimately became the Oasis Motel and has since been restored by the Central Yuma Preservation Society and now functions as a museum. In 1896, a second post office was established on Moon Mountain Road, managed by postmaster George Ingersoll. Shortly after the establishment of the second post office, Quartzsite became something of a supply center, with a hotel, butcher shop, general store and quite a few saloons. The name Quartzsite was suggested due to the abundance of that particular rock found in the area. According to one report, the Post Office Department was responsible for misspelling the name “Quartzite,” by adding an “s” to the official name. Quartzsite enjoyed a mild boom excitement of gold mining prospects in the area and in neighboring California. Although there was some mining activity around Quartzsite in mines such as the Cinnabar, Copper Bottom, Marquita, Moon Mountain and Gold Nugget, most of this activity has since ended. There are, however, a number of residents which continue the mining tradition in local mines around Quartzsite. When the “boom” ended in the early 1900s, Quartzsite’s population dropped to well under 100 persons. Fifty-seven people are reported to have voted in the 1904 election, in which Wyatt Earp was listed as a candidate for constable. Upon the arrival of the Great Depression, Quartzsite saw an increase in its number of residents. Many men returned to the desert with their picks and shovels in hand and some were able to make a few dollars. By the early 1960s, the Town population was back down to fifty residents during summer months. However, it was during this same time that the winter population in Quartzsite began to quadruple. Planning for future winter growth became an important issue in Quartzsite and on March 23, 1965, the Quartzsite Improvement Association met for the first time and was incorporated one month later. Members of the Association are accredited with planning for the first official rock and gem show held in February of 1967. By the eighth year, lot spaces were leased out to over 450 exhibitors sixty days before the show opened and some 200,000 people came to visit the gem show. Quartzsite incorporated in 1989, and is proactively working to preserve its history while adapting to current and future development and regulatory trends that will guide the growth of the Town.
6 Arizona Department of Commerce, 2009, Community Profile for Quartzsite. 7 The Holt Group, 2003, Town of Quartzsite General Plan. 13
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION 3: PLANNING PROCESS
3.1 Jurisdictional Contacts
Jurisdiction Name Department / Position Email Community Development La Paz County Nora Yackley Building Official and Acting [email protected] Director pubwksdir@townof Town of Parker Aric Stewart Community Development Director parkeraz.us Emmitt [email protected] Public Works Director Town of Brinkerhoff .us Quartzsite [email protected]. Tracy Hess Planning & Zoning Clerk az.us
3.2 Planning Team and Activities The role of the Planning Team was to work with the planning consultant to perform the coordination, research, and planning element activities required to update the 2007 Plans. Attendance by each participating jurisdiction was required for every Planning Team meeting as the meetings were structured to progress through the planning process. Steps and procedures for updating the 2007 Plans were presented and discussed at each Planning Team meeting, and assignments were normally given. Each meeting built on information discussed and assignments given at the previous meeting. The Planning Team also had the responsibility of liaison to the Local Planning Team, and was tasked with: • Conveying information and assignments received at the Planning Team meetings to the Local Planning Team • Ensuring that all requested assignments were completed fully and returned on a timely basis. • Arranging for review and official adoption of the Plan. The function and role of the Local Planning Team was to: • Provide support and data • Assist the Planning Team representative in completing each assignment • Make planning decisions regarding Plan components • Review the Plan draft documents At the beginning of this planning process, La Paz County organized and identified members for the Planning Team by initiating contact with, and extending invitations to, all incorporated communities and Indian tribes within the county limits, as well as the Arizona Division of Emergency Management. Other entities that were subsequently invited to participate are discussed in Section 3.4.3. The participating members of the Planning Team are summarized in Table 3-2. Returning planning team members are highlighted.
Table 3-2: Planning Team Jurisdiction / Department / Name Organization Position Planning Team Role
14
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Table 3-2: Planning Team Jurisdiction / Department / Name Organization Position Planning Team Role Bio Terrorism / Greg Bachmann La Paz County Planning Team participant Director Planning Team Primary Point Community of Contact Development / Mike Baker La Paz County Jurisdictional Point of Contact Building Official and Lead coordinator for LPT Acting Director Planning Team participant (Former) Former PPOC and Lead for Community Scott Bernhart La Paz County LPT Development / Planning Team participant Director Emergency Steve Biro La Paz County Management / Planning Team participant Director Jurisdictional Point of Contact Emmitt Public Works / Town of Quartzsite Lead coordinator for LPT Brinkerhoff Director Planning Team participant Chris Chambers Buckskin Fire District Fire Chief Planning Team participant John Croteau Arizona Public Service Director Planning Team participant Safety - Quality Nick Ferrara Indian Health Services Planning Team participant Manager Community Jurisdictional Point of Contact Guy Gorman Town of Parker Development / Lead coordinator for LPT Director Planning Team participant Jeffry Harran Buckskin Fire District Planning Team participant Parker Chamber of Randy Hartless Planning Team participant Commerce Sheriff's Office / 911 Karl Harmetz La Paz County Planning Team participant Manager Renee Hembree La Paz County Public Works Planning Team participant Emergency Initial Planning Team Organizer Mimi Hernandez La Paz County Management / Secondary PPOC Coordinator Planning Team participant Fire Department / Kevin Hess Town of Quarzsite Fire Chief / LEPC Planning Team participant Coordinator Emergency Roger Colorado River Indian Management / Planning Team participant Interlicchia Tribes Director Scott Jones TDS Telecom Supervisor Planning Team participant Maintenance & Colorado River Joint James Kouthoofd Compliance Planning Team participant Venture Manager Gary Lambertson River Medical Planning Team participant
15
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Table 3-2: Planning Team Jurisdiction / Department / Name Organization Position Planning Team Role Parker Unified School Assistant Jim Lotts Planning Team participant District Superintendant Arizona / California Lucas Marler Planning Team participant Railroad La Paz Regional Emergency Services Maria Martinez Planning Team participant Hospital Nursing Director Rafael Martinez Ehrenberg Fire District Planning Team participant Community Colleen McVey La Paz County Planning Team participant Development / GIS Bureau of Indian Colorado River Steve McVey Planning Team participant Affairs Agency / Public Works / Tom Simmons La Paz County Planning Team participant Interim Director Office of Environmental Health & Sarah Snyder Indian Health Services Planning Team participant Engineering / Environmental Health Officer Grand Canyon Vicky Sutak Arizona Red Cross Chapter / Wester AZ Planning Team participant Program Manager Heidi Turner Town of Quartzsite Finance / Director Planning Team participant Mike Wallace River Medical Planning Team participant Arizona Division of Planning Team participant Mitigation Division / Susan Wood Emergency Project/Grant Manager Planning Manager Management State reviewer Planning & Zoning / Nora Yackley Town of Quartzsite Planning Team participant Director
The Planning Team met for the first time on April 5, 2011 to begin the planning process. Three more meetings were convened on about a monthly basis to step through the plan review and update process. Planning Team members used copies of the 2007 Plan for their jurisdiction for review and reference. Following each Planning Team meeting, the Point of Contact for each jurisdiction would convene meetings with the Local Planning Team as needed to work through the assignments. Table 3-3 summarizes the Planning Team meetings along with a brief list of the agenda items discussed. Detailed meeting notes for all of the Planning Team meetings are provided in Appendix B. There are no details of the Local Planning Team meetings. The planning process used to develop the 2007 Plan included participation from several agencies and organizations, including the adopting jurisdictions that operate within or have jurisdiction over small and large areas of La Paz County. At the start of the Plan update, a list of the agencies and organizations that participated in the development of the 2007 Plan was compiled to provide continuity and institutional knowledge to the planning team and the overall update process. Invitations were sent via an email that was addressed to the original participant or their known
16
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 successor. A copy of the email invitation text is provided in Appendix B. The invitation list included the following entities: • Arizona American Red • Colorado River Indian • Parker Indian Hospital Cross (Grand Canyon Tribes • Quartzsite Chamber of Chapter) • Colorado River Joint Commerce • Arizona / California Venture • River Medical Railroad • La Paz County • State Climatology Office at • Arizona Division of • La Paz County Local ASU Emergency Management Emergency Planning • Town of Parker • Arizona Public Service Committee • Town of Quartzsite • Arizona Dept of Water • Parker Chamber of • TDS Telecom Resources Commerce • Blue Water Casino • Bureau of Indian Affairs
The sign-in sheets in Appendix B document the attendance at the first and subsequent meetings. Additional opportunities for participation in the planning process by organizations such as schools, non-profits, and businesses was extended using general public notices in the local newspapers and notices of the planning team activities posted on the county and local community websites. An integral part of the planning process included coordination with agencies and organizations outside of the participating jurisdiction’s governance to obtain information and data for inclusion into the Plan or to provide more public exposure to the planning process. Much of the information and data that is used in the risk assessment is developed by agencies or organizations other than the participating jurisdictions. In some cases, the jurisdictions may be members of a larger organization that has jointly conducted a study or planning effort like the development of a community wildfire protection plan or participation in an area association of governments. Examples of those data sets include the FEMA floodplain mapping, the USBR dam failure mapping for Colorado River Dams, severe weather statistics and incidents, and the Arizona Emergency Response Commission. The resources obtained, reviewed and compiled into the risk assessment are summarized at the end of each subsection of Section 5.3 and in Section 3.6. Jurisdictions needing these data sets obtained them by requesting them directly from the host agency or organization, downloading information posted to website locations, or engaging consultants.
3.3 Public and Stakeholder Outreach/Involvement The pre-draft public involvement strategy for the 2007 Plan development included issuing press release notices of the planning effort, informational updates to the board and councils on the planning progress, and the distribution of a FAQ brochure in utility newsletters. The post-draft strategy included involved requesting public comment and participation in the formal council and board of supervisors meetings wherein the 2007 Plans were presented and promulgated. The details of the meeting process varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but typically included some form of advertisement of the meeting agenda two to four weeks in advance of the council/board meeting. In most cases, an informal, pre-adoption presentation of the 2007 Plan was made during a working session of the council/board. The final adoption of the resolutions was unanimously done as part of a consent agenda at a formal council/board meeting. There were no records of any public comment on the 2007 Plan development and adoption process. The Planning Team discussed the prior public involvement actions and concluded that it provided adequate public exposure to the mitigation planning process. The Planning Team also concluded that
17
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
more web-based technology should be used for the update. Also, since any formal council/board action has a built-in public notification and comment opportunity, the Planning Team chose to continue using this process as one of the post-draft mechanisms for getting the Plan before the public. 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 pre-draft planning. A web page notice was developed for the La Paz County website and Parker and Quartzsite duplicated the public notice or provided a text announcement with a link to the county website. On the county website, email and phone contact information for the La Paz County Emergency Services were provided. Any comments would be routed to the La Paz County Emergency Services contacts for address and further action.
Table 3-3: Past Public and Stakeholder Involvement
Jurisdiction Activity or Opportunity La Paz County • • Maintained a page on the city website including the current Plan, allowing the submittal of Parker citizen comments, and staff response to citizen inquiries. Quartzsite •
Copies of the pre- and post-draft public notices, web pages, and newspaper notices are provided in the Appendix.
3.4 Reference Documents and Technical Resources Over the course of the update planning process, numerous other plans, studies, reports, and technical information were obtained and reviewed for incorporation or reference purposes. The majority of sources referenced and researched pertain to the risk assessment and the capabilities assessment. To a lesser extent, the community descriptions and mitigation strategy also included some document or technical information research. Table 3-5 provides a reference listing of the primary documents and technical resources reviewed and used in the Plan.
Table 3-3: Resources Reviewed and Incorporated in the Plan Title/Name Resource Type Description of Reference and Its Use Website Data Arizona Department of and Reference for demographic and economic data for the county. Used for Commerce Community community descriptions Profiles Arizona Department of Data and Resource for state and federal disaster declaration information for Emergency Planning Arizona. Also a resource for hazard mitigation planning guidance and Management Resource documents. Arizona Department of Technical Resource for data on drought conditions and statewide drought Water Resources Resource management (AzGDTF), and dam safety data. Used in risk assessment. Arizona Geological Technical Resource for earthquake, fissure, landslide/mudslide, subsidence, and Survey Resource other geological hazards. Used in the risk assessment. Arizona Model Local Hazard Guidance document for preparing and formatting hazard mitigation Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Plan plans for Arizona. Source for statewide GIS coverage (ALRIS) and statewide wildfire Arizona State Land Data Source hazard profile information (Division of Forestry). Used in the risk Department assessment. Arizona Wildland Source of wildfire hazard profile data and urban interface at risk Urban Interface Report communities. Used in the risk assessment. Assessment (2004) 18
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Table 3-3: Resources Reviewed and Incorporated in the Plan Title/Name Resource Type Description of Reference and Its Use Arizona Workforce Website Source for employment statistics in Arizona. Informer Website Bureau Net (2010) Source for NFIP statistics for Arizona. Database La Paz County Comprehensive Source for history, demographic and development trend data for the Comprehensive Plan Plan unincorporated county. (2009) Source for county-wide GIS data and supplemental flood hazard data La Paz County GIS GIS Data sets. Used for maps and risk assessment. FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan that together with the other La La Paz County MHMP Hazard Paz County jurisdiction’s MHMPs, formed the starting point for the (2007) Mitigation Plan update process. See Section 2.4 for further discussion Environmental Working Website Source of disaster related agricultural subsidies. Used in the risk Group’s Farm Subsidy Database assessment. Database (2009) Resource for HMP guidance (How-To series), floodplain and flooding Technical and Federal Emergency related NFIP data (mapping, repetitive loss, NFIP statistics), and Planning Management Agency historic hazard incidents. Used in the risk assessment and mitigation Resource strategy. Technical Based data sets within the program were used in the vulnerability HAZUS-MH Resource analysis. National Climatic Data Technical Online resource for weather related data and historic hazard event data. Center Resource Used in the risk assessment. National Integrated Technical Source for drought related projections and conditions. Used in the risk Drought Information Resource assessment. System (2007) National Inventory of Technical Database used in the dam failure hazard profiling. Used in the risk Dams (2009) Resource assessment. National Response Technical Source of traffic related HAZMAT incidents and rail accidents. Used in Center Resource the risk assessment. National Weather Technical Source for hazard information, data sets, and historic event records. Service Resource Used in the risk assessment. National Wildfire Technical Source for historic wildfire hazard information. Used in the risk Coordination Group Resource assessment. (2010) Office of the State Website Reference for weather characteristics for the county. Used for Climatologist for Reference community description. Arizona Standard on Disaster/Emergency Standards Used to establish the classification and definitions for the asset Management and Document inventory. Used in the risk assessment. Business Continuity Programs (2000) Town of Parker General Source for history, demographic and development trend data for the General Plan Plan (2007) city. Website, Planning Docs, Source for history, demographic and development trend data for the Town of Parker Website Capability town. Assessment Town of Quartzsite Source for history, demographic and development trend data for the General Plan General Plan (2003) city. 19
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Table 3-3: Resources Reviewed and Incorporated in the Plan Title/Name Resource Type Description of Reference and Its Use Website, Town of Quartzsite Planning Docs, Source for history, demographic and development trend data for the Website Capability town. Assessment USACE Flood Damage Source of historic flood damages for 1993 flood. Used in the risk Technical Data Report (1994) assessment. U.S. Bureau of Technical Data Dam failure inundation limits for Colorado River. Reclamation TIGER/Line shape file for 2010 Cochise County census block data was U.S. Census Bureau Technical Data used to obtain block boundaries, population, and housing units U.S. Forest Service Technical Data Source for local wildfire data. Used in the risk assessment. Source for geological hazard data and incident data. Used in the risk U.S. Geological Survey Technical Data assessment. Western Regional Website Data Online resource for climate data used in climate discussion of Section 4 Climate Center World Wildlife Fund GIS Data Terrestrial ecoregions database used in the general county description. (2010)
20
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
One of the key elements to the hazard mitigation planning process is the risk assessment. In performing a risk assessment, a community determines “what” can occur, “when” (how often) it is likely to occur, and “how bad” the effects could be8. The primary components of a risk assessment that answer these questions are generally categorized into the following measures: Hazard Identification and Profiling Assessing Vulnerability to Hazards The risk assessment for La Paz County and participating jurisdictions was performed using a county- wide, multi-jurisdictional perspective, with much of the information gathering and development being accomplished by the 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.
4.1 Hazard Identification and Screening Hazard identification is the process of answering the question; “What hazards can and do occur in my community or jurisdiction?” For this Plan, the list of hazards identified in the previous 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. • Dam Failure • Flooding/Flash • Severe Wind • Drought Flooding • Wildfire • Hazardous Materials Incident
The review included an initial screening process to evaluate each of the listed hazards based on the following considerations: • Experiential knowledge on behalf of the 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
Table 4-2: Declared Hazard Events That Included La Paz Co –1966 to 2010 Declared Events That Included La Paz Co Jan 1966 to Aug 2010 2010 State Plan No. of Total Expenditures Hazard Categories Events State Federal Drought 2 $ 211,499 $ -
8 National Fire Protection Association, 2000, Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs, NFPA 1600. 21
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Flooding / Flash Flooding 10 $ 9,893,604 $ 188,657,049 Wildfire 16 $ 5,685,834 $ - Winter Storm 1 $ 4,497,895 $ 14,210,904 - Damage Costs are reported as is and no attempt has been made to adjust costs to current dollar values. - Only a portion of the reported expenditures were spent in the subject county. Source: ADEM - Recovery Section, October 2010
The Planning Team has selected the following list of hazards for profiling and updating based on the above explanations and screening process. Revised and updated definitions for each hazard are provided in Section 5.3 and in Section 8.2:
4.2 Vulnerability Analysis Methodology
General The following sections summarize the methodologies used to perform the vulnerability analysis portion of the risk assessment. For this Plan, the entire vulnerability analysis was either revised or updated to reflect the new hazard categories, the availability of new data, or differing loss estimation methodology. Specific changes are noted below and/or in Section 5.3. Comparisons between the 2007 Plan and this Plan are made whenever appropriate. For the purposes of this vulnerability analysis, hazard profile maps were developed for Dam Failure, Flooding/Flash Flooding, Hazardous Materials Incident, and Wildfire to map the geographic variability of the probability and magnitude risk of the hazards as estimated by the Planning Team. Hazard profile categories of HIGH, MEDIUM, and/or LOW were used and were subjectively assigned based on the factors discussed in the Probability and Magnitude sections below. Within the context of the county limits, the other hazards do not exhibit significant geographic variability and will not be categorized as such. Unless otherwise specified in this Plan, the general cutoff date for new hazard profile data and jurisdictional corporate limits is the end of May 2011.
Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) Evaluation The first step in the vulnerability analysis (VA) is to assess the perceived overall risk for each of the plan hazards using a tool developed by the State of Arizona called the Calculated Priority Risk Index9 (CPRI). The CPRI value is obtained by assigning varying degrees of risk to four (4) categories for each hazard, and then calculating an index value based on a weighting scheme. Table 4-4: Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) Categories and Risk Levels Degree of Risk Assigned CPRI Index Weighting Category Level ID Description Value Factor
Unlikely Extremely rare with no documented history of occurrences or events. 1 Annual probability of less than 0.001. Probability 45% Possible Rare occurrences with at least one documented or anecdotal historic event. 2 Annual probability that is between 0.01 and 0.001.
9 ADEM, 2003, Arizona Model Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, prepared by JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc. 22
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Likely Occasional occurrences with at least two or more documented historic events. 3 Annual probability that is between 0.1 and 0.01.
Highly Likely Frequent events with a well documented history of occurrence. 4 Annual probability that is greater than 0.1.
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. 1 Negligible quality of life lost. Shut down of critical facilities for less than 24 hours.
Limited Slight property damages (greater than 5% and less 2 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. Magnitude/ Shut down of critical facilities for more than 1 day 30% Severity and less than 1 week.
Critical Moderate property damages (greater than 25% and less than 50% of critical and non-critical facilities and infrastructure). Injuries or illnesses result in permanent disability 3 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 4 and multiple deaths. Shut down of critical facilities for more than 1 month. Less than 6 hours Self explanatory. 4 Warning 6 to 12 hours Self explanatory. 3 15% Time 12 to 24 hours Self explanatory. 2 More than 24 hours Self explanatory. 1 Less than 6 hours Self explanatory. 1 Less than 24 hours Self explanatory. 2 Duration 10% Less than 1 week Self explanatory. 3 More than 1 week Self explanatory. 4
As an example, assume that the project team is assessing the hazard of flooding, and has decided that the following assignments best describe the flooding hazard for their community: • Probability = Likely • Magnitude/Severity = Critical • Warning Time = 12 to 24 hours
23
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
• Duration = Less than 6 hours The CPRI for the flooding hazard would then be: CPRI = [ (3*0.45) + (3*0.30) + (2*0.15) + (1*0.10)] CPRI = 2.65
Asset Inventory A detailed asset inventory was performed for the 2007 Plan to establish a fairly accurate baseline data-set for assessing the vulnerability of each jurisdiction’s assets to the hazards previously identified. The asset inventory from the 2007 Plan was reviewed and updated by the Planning Team to reflect the facilities and infrastructure most important to the participating jurisdictions. The 2010 State Plan defines assets as any natural or human-caused feature that has value, including, but not limited to people; buildings; infrastructure like bridges, roads, and sewer and water systems; lifelines like electricity and communication resources; or environmental, cultural, or recreational features like parks, dunes, wetlands, or landmarks. The working definition for Critical facilities and infrastructure used for this Plan is as follows; 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/or significantly hinder a community’s ability to recover following a disaster. Following criteria define critical facilities and infrastructure: 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. Other assets such as public libraries, schools, businesses, museums, parks, recreational facilities, historic buildings or sites, churches, residential and/or 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). As a part of the update process, each community was tasked with determining which of the previously identified “non-critical” assets, if any, were deemed critical by the
24
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 community. The remaining “non-critical” assets were deleted from the database. New facilities were also added as appropriate and available. Each community was also tasked with making any needed changes to the geographic position, revision of asset names, updating replacement costs, etc. to bring the dataset into a current condition. The updated asset inventory is attributed with a descriptive name, physical address, geospatial position, and an estimated building/structure and contents replacement cost for each entry to the greatest extent possible and entered into a GIS geodatabase. The 2007 Plan used a combination of the Asset Inventory and HAZUS®-MH10 data to represent the critical facilities and general building stock and population for La Paz County jurisdictions. For this update, the Planning Team used the 2007 Asset Inventory as a starting place and then updated the database as required to reflect current facilities and costs. Tools used by the Planning Team for the update included GIS data sets, on-line mapping utilities, insurance pool information, county assessors data, and manual data acquisition. It should be noted that the facility counts summarized in Table 5-6 do not represent a comprehensive inventory of all the category facilities that exist within the county. They do represent the facilities inventoried to-date by each jurisdiction and are considered to be a work-in-progress that is anticipated to be expanded and augmented with each Plan cycle.
Table 4-5: Asset Inventory Counts as of July 2011
a
a
a
a
a a
tems
Communications Communications Infrastructure Power Electrical Sys Oil Facilities Gasand Finance and Banking Institutions Transportation Networks Supply Water Systems Services Government Services Emergency Educational Cultural Business Control Flood Residential Recreational County-Wide 20 10 14 6 36 21 18 15 1 5 5 0 0 0 Totals
Parker 4 3 6 5 4 7 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0
Quartzsite 4 1 1 1 9 4 6 2 1 4 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated 12 6 7 0 23 10 10 10 0 0 5 0 0 0 La Paz County Assets listed under these categories have been determined by the corresponding jurisdictions, to be critical per this Plan’s definition.
Loss Estimations In the original 2007 Plan, losses were estimated by either quantitative or qualitative methods. Quantitative methods consisted of intersecting hazard map layers with the asset inventory map layer and the HAZUS®-MH map layer. Other quantitative methods included statistical methods based on historic data. The loss estimates for this Plan represent the current hazard map layers and asset databases using the procedures discussed below.
10 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, HAZUS®-MH. 25
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Loss estimates for this Plan will be similar in scope and detail to the 2007 Plan, but will reflect current hazard map layers, an updated asset database, and the use of Census 2010 block level data for estimating the human and residential structure impacts wherever possible. HAZUS MH® currently includes data sets that are based on 2000 Census information. Upon review by the Planning Team, a decision was made to use more current 2010 Census Block data instead. The procedures for developing loss estimates are discussed below. Economic loss and human exposure estimates for each of the final hazards identified in Section 5.1 begins with an assessment of the potential exposure of critical infrastructure, human populations, and residential structures to those hazards. Estimates of critical assets identified by each jurisdiction (see Table 5-5) are accomplished by intersecting the asset inventory with the hazard profiles in Section 5.3. Human or population exposures are estimated by intersecting the same hazards with the 2010 Census Block data population statistics. Additional exposure estimates for general residential buildings within the county is also made using the residential housing counts reported in the 2010 Census data. Replacement costs for the residential housing counts were estimated by geographical area within the county, using May 2011 mean home sales data published by Zillow® Real Estate.11 The neighborhood data published by Zillow® was correlated to the 2010 Census block data using the Census Places boundaries. All areas outside of the Census Places boundaries were assigned a county-wide mean. Combining the exposure results from the critical asset inventory and the 2010 Census database provides a fairly comprehensive depiction of the overall exposure of critical facilities, human population, and residential building stock and the two datasets are considered complimentary and not redundant. Economic losses to structures and facilities are estimated by multiplying the exposed facility replacement cost estimates by an assumed loss to exposure ratio for the hazard. The loss to exposure ratios used in this Plan update is summarized by hazard in Section 5.3. It is important to note the following when reviewing the loss estimate results: • The loss to exposure ratios is subjective and the estimates are solely intended to provide an understanding of relative risk from the hazards and potential losses. • Potential losses reported in this Plan represent an inherent assumption that the hazard occurs county-wide to magnitude shown on the hazard profile map. The results are intended to present a county-wide loss potential. Any single hazard event will likely only impact a portion of the county and the actual losses would be some fraction of those estimated herein. • No attempt has been made at developing annualized loss estimates, unless otherwise noted in Section 5.3 It is also noted that uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology due to: • Incomplete scientific knowledge concerning hazards and our ability to predict their effects on the built environment; • Approximations and simplifications that are necessary for a comprehensive analysis; and, • Lack of detailed data necessary to implement a viable statistical approach to loss estimations.
11 Zillow website at the following URL: http://www.zillow.com/local-info/AZ-Pima-County-home-value/r_281/ 26
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Several of the hazards profiled in this Plan will not include quantitative exposure and loss estimates. The vulnerability of people and assets associated with some hazards are nearly impossible to evaluate given the uncertainty associated with 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.
Development Trend Analysis The 2007 Plan development trend analysis will require updating to reflect growth and changes in La Paz County and jurisdiction boundaries over the last planning cycle. The updated analysis will focus on the potential risk associated with projected growth patterns and their intersection with the Plan identified hazards.
4.3 Hazard Risk Profiles The following sections summarize the risk profiles for each of the Plan hazards identified in Section 5.1. For each hazard, the following elements are addressed to present the overall risk profile: • Description • History • Probability and Magnitude • Vulnerability o CPRI Results o Loss Estimations o Development Trends • Sources • Profile Maps (if applicable) Much of the 2007 Plan data has been updated, incorporated and/or revised to reflect current conditions and Planning Team changes, as well as an overall plan format change. County-wide and jurisdiction specific profile maps are provided at the end of the section (if applicable) and the maps are not included in the page count.
27
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
4.3.1 Dam Failure Description The primary risk associated with dam failure is the inundation of downstream facilities and population by the resulting flood wave. Dams within or impacting La Paz County can generally be divided into two groups: (1) storage reservoirs designed to permanently impound water, provide flood protection, and possibly generate power, and (2) single purpose flood retarding structures (FRS) designed to attenuate or reduce flooding by impounding stormwater for relatively short durations of time during flood events. Most dams are equipped with emergency spillways. The purpose of an emergency spillway is to provide a designed and protected outlet to convey runoff volumes exceeding the dam’s storage capacity during extreme or back-to-back storm events. Dam failures may be caused by a variety of reasons including: seismic events, extreme wave action, leakage and piping, overtopping, material fatigue and spillway erosion. According to the National Inventory of Dams (NID) and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), there are a total of seven regulatory or recognized dams within or on the border of La Paz County. Three (Parker Dam, Headgate Rock, and the Palo Verde Diversion Dam) are located on the Colorado River and one (Alamo Dam) is located on Bill Williams River. Other upstream dams on the Colorado River with significant potential to impact La Paz County should they fail, include; Davis, Hoover, and Glen Canyon Dams. The Butler Valley Dam, Upper Centennial Control Structure, and Bob Crowder Detention Basin are other structures identified in the NID database. The Butler Valley Dam, located near Bouse, has been mechanically breached and is no longer functioning as a regulatory dam. The other two structures do not meet the regulatory requirements of ADWR. There are also numerous livestock tanks and small impoundments scattered across the County. None, however, are of a noteworthy size or location to pose a significant risk to any population centers or critical facilities. History La Paz County had two dam failure incidents in the past: • In 1982, the Butler Valley Dam breached near Bouse, Arizona. The dam was an earthen dam with homogeneous earth fill. There are no details of any downstream damages, but it was estimated that approximately 1,930 acre-feet of stored water was released downstream. The breach has subsequently been mechanically enlarged. • On September 26, 1997, the Narrows Dam on Centennial Wash near Salome breached when the remains of hurricane Nora dropped approximately 12 inches of rain in 24 hours at the top of Harquahala Mountain. There were no direct impacts to humans or critical facilities and no property damages were reported, due to the dam’s remote location (ADEM, 2010). Probability and Magnitude The probability and magnitude of dam failure discharges vary greatly with each dam and are directly influenced by the type and age of the dam, its operational purpose, storage capacity and height, downstream conditions, and many other factors. Both ADWR and NID publish hazard ratings for dams impacting La Paz County. Hazard ratings from each source are based on either an assessment of the consequence of failure and/or dam safety considerations, and they are not necessarily tied to probability of occurrence. ADWR has regulatory jurisdiction over the non-federal dams in the State of Arizona and is responsible for regulating the safety of these dams, conducting field investigations, and participating
28
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 in flood mitigation programs with the goal of minimizing the risk for loss of life and property to the citizens of Arizona. ADWR jurisdictional dams are inspected regularly according to downstream hazard potential classification, which follows the NID classification system. High hazard dams are inspected annually, significant hazard dams every three years, and low hazard dams every five years. Via these inspections, ADWR identifies safety deficiencies requiring correction and assigns each dam one of six safety ratings. Examples of safety deficiencies include: lack of an adequate emergency action plan, inability to safely pass the required Inflow Design Flood (IDF), embankment erosion, dam stability, etc. Further descriptions of each safety classification are summarized in Table 5-7.
Table 4-6: ADWR Safety Categories ADWR Safety Rating Definition No Deficiency Not Applicable One or more conditions at the dam that impair or adversely affects the safe Safety Deficiency operation of the dam. Unsafe Categories Category 1: Unsafe Dams These dams have confirmed safety deficiencies for which there is concern they with Elevated Risk of could fail during a 100-year or smaller flood event. There is an urgent need to Failure repair or remove these dams. Category 2: Unsafe Dams These dams have confirmed safety deficiencies and require either repair or Requiring Rehabilitation removal. These dams are prioritized for repair or removal behind the Category 1 or Removal dams. Concrete or masonry dams that have been reclassified to high hazard potential because of downstream development (i.e. hazard creep”). The necessary Category 3: Unsafe Dams documentation demonstrating that the dams meet or exceed standard stability with Uncertain Stability criteria for high hazard dams during extreme overtopping and seismic events is during Extreme Events lacking. The dams are classified as unsafe pending the results of required studies. (Requiring Study) Upon completion of these studies, the dams are either removed from the list of unsafe dams or moved to Category 2 and prioritized for repair or removal. In 1979, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers established Federal Guidelines for assessing the safe-flood passing capacity of high hazard potential dams (CFR Vol. 44 No. 188). These guidelines established one-half of the “probable maximum flood” (PMF) as the minimum storm which must be safely passed without overtopping and subsequent failure of the dam. Dams unable to safely pass a storm of this size were classified as being in an “unsafe, non-emergency” condition. Category 4: Unsafe Dams Pending Evaluation of Prior studies for these earthen dams (mostly performed in the 1980’s) predicted Flood-Passing Capacity they could not safely pass one-half of the PMF. They were predicted to overtop (Requiring Study) and fail for flood events ranging from 30-46 % of the PMF. Recent studies both statewide and nationwide have indicated that the science of PMF hydrology as practiced in the 1990’s commonly overestimates the PMF for a given watershed. The ADWR is leading efforts on a statewide update of probably maximum precipitation (PMP) study scheduled for completion in 2011. These dams should be re-evaluated using updated methods to confirm their safety status. Upon completion of these evaluations, they are either removed from the list of unsafe dams or moved to Category 2 and prioritized for repair or removal. Source: ADWR, 2009.
At this time, there are no ADWR jurisdictional dams located within the county. The NID database contains information on approximately 77,000 dams in the 50 states and Puerto Rico, with approximately 30 characteristics reported for each dam, such as: name, owner, river,
29
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 nearest community, length, height, average storage, max storage, hazard rating, Emergency Action Plan (EAP), latitude, and longitude. The NID and ADWR databases provide useful information on the potential hazard posed by dams. Each dam is assigned one of the following three hazard potential classes based on the potential for loss of life and damage to property should the dam fail (listed in increasing severity): low, significant, or high. The hazard potential classification is based on an evaluation of the probable present and future incremental adverse consequences that would result from the release of water or stored contents due to failure or improper operation of the dam or appurtenances, regardless of the condition of the dam. The ADWR evaluation includes land-use zoning and development projected for the affected area over the 10-year period following the classification of the dam. It is important to note that the hazard potential classification is an assessment of the consequences of failure, but not an evaluation of the probability of failure or improper operation.
Table 4-7: Downstream Hazard Potential Classes for State Regulated Dams Hazard Potential Economic, Environmental, Lifeline Classification Loss of Human Life Losses Low None expected Low and generally limited to owner Significant None expected Yes Probable. One or more Yes (but not necessary for this High expected classification) The hazard potential classification is an assessment of the consequences of failure, but not an evaluation of the probability of failure. Source: ADWR and NID 2009
The NID database includes dams that are either: • High or Significant hazard potential class dams, or, • Low hazard potential class dams that exceed 25 feet in height and 15 acre-feet storage, or, • Low hazard potential class dams that exceed 50 acre-feet storage and 6 feet height. There are a total of seven regulatory or recognized dams in the NID and ADWR databases that are located within or on the immediate border of La Paz County. Parker, Headgate Rock, and the Palo Verde Diversion Dams are located on the Colorado River and the Alamo Dam is located on the Bill Williams River. Other upstream dams on the Colorado River with significant potential to impact La Paz County should they fail, include; Davis, Hoover, and Glen Canyon Dams. The Butler Valley Dam, Upper Centennial Control Structure, and Bob Crowder Detention Basin are other structures identified in the NID database, but are not regulated by ADWR. The Butler Valley Dam, located near Bouse, has been mechanically breached and is no longer functioning as a regulatory dam. The other two structures do not meet the regulatory requirements of ADWR. There are also numerous livestock tanks and small impoundments scattered across the County. None, however, are of a noteworthy size or location to pose a significant risk to any population centers or critical facilities. Table 5-9 provides a summary of the high and significant hazard dams in both the ADWR and NID databases.
30
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Table 4-8: NID and ADWR Dams by Hazard Classification Nearest Inundat ADWR Downstrea Distan Hazard Dam EA ion SID NID Safety m ce in Class Name P Mappin Types Developme Miles g nt High N/A AZ82203 Alamo N/A Ye Yes Parker 40 High N/A AZ10437 Headgate N/A Yes Yes Parker 1 High N/A AZ10312 ParkerRock N/A Yes Yes Parker 12 Sources: NID, ADWR Dam Safety Database (October 2009) s
The magnitude of impacts due to dam failure are usually depicted by mapping the estimated downstream inundation limits based on an assessment of a combination of flow depth and velocity. These limits are typically a critical part of the emergency action plan. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) performed a dam inundation analysis for the system of Colorado River dams in 2001 (USBR, 2001). The analysis considered several dam inundation scenarios including multiple/cascading dam failures and probable maximum flood spillway releases. For the purposes of this plan, the scenario that assumes a cascading failure of Davis and Parker Dams was used to depict the High hazard inundation zone for dam failure. All areas outside of those limits will be considered to have a Low hazard. Vulnerability
Table 4-9: CPRI Results for Dam Failure Magnitude/ Warning CPRI Jurisdiction Probability Severity Time Duration Rating Parker Unlikely Limited < 6 hours < 24 hours 1.85 Quartzsite Unlikely Limited < 6 hours < 1 week 1.95 Unincorporated La Paz Co Possibly Catastrophic < 6 hours > 1 week 3.10
Vulnerability – Loss Estimations The estimation of potential losses due to inundation from a dam failure was accomplished by intersecting the human and facility assets with the inundation limits depicted on Maps 1A and 1B. Since no common methodology is available for obtaining losses from the exposure values, estimates of the loss-to-exposure ratios were assumed based on the perceived potential for damage. Any storm event, or series of storm events of sufficient magnitude to cause a dam failure scenario, would have potentially catastrophic consequences in the inundation area. Flood waves from dam failure events travel very fast and possess tremendous destructive energy. Accordingly, an average event based loss- to-exposure ratio for the inundation areas with a high hazard rating are estimated to be 0.25. Low rated areas are zero. The Planning Team recognizes that the probability of a dam failure occurring at multiple (or all) locations at the same time is essentially zero. Accordingly, the loss estimates presented below are intended to serve as a collective evaluation of the potential exposure to dam failure inundation events. Table 5-11 summarizes the critical facility, population, and residential housing unit exposure and loss estimates for the high hazard dam failure limits. Estimates are reported by jurisdiction and county-
31
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
wide. It is noted that the county-wide totals for the 2010 Census population and residential housing units, include estimates for the Colorado River Indian Tribe. In summary, $132.2 million in critical facility losses are estimated for dam failure inundation for all the participating jurisdictions in La Paz County. An additional $216.8 million in losses to 2010 Census defined residential housing units is estimated for all La Paz County jurisdictions. Regarding human vulnerability, a total population of 5,727 people, or 27.95% of the total La Paz County population, is potentially exposed to a dam failure inundation event. The potential for deaths and injuries are directly related to the warning time and type of event. Given the magnitude of such an event(s), it is realistic to anticipate at least one death and several injuries. There is also a high probability of population displacement for most of the inhabitants within the inundation limits downstream of the dam(s).
Table 4-10: La Paz County Exposure and Loss Estimates Due to Dam Failure Dam Failure Hazard Exposure / Loss CRIT Parker Quartzsite Unincorporated Total Total Critical Facilities N/A 35 33 83 151 Facilities Exposed to High Hazard N/A 3 0 15 18 Percentage of Total Facilities N/A 8.57% 0.00% 18.07% 11.92% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) N/A $0 $0 $528,807 $528,807 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) N/A $0 $0 $132,202 $132,202 Total Population 4,019 3,062 3,692 9,717 20,490 Population Exposed to High Hazard 2,924 13 0 2,790 5,727 Percent Exposed 72.77% 0.44% 0.00% 28.70% 27.95% Total Residential Building Count 1,853 1,091 3,386 9,718 16,049 Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) $333,523 $196,455 $609,531 $1,749,299 $2,888,808 Structures Exposed to High Hazard 1,394 8 0 3,416 4,818 Percentage of Total Facilities 75.23% 0.73% 0.00% 35.15% 30.02% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) $250,993 $1,396 $0 $614,864 $867,253 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) $62,748 $349 $0 $153,716 $216,813
Vulnerability – Development Trend Analysis The flood protection afforded by dams in La Paz County has encouraged development of downstream lands and areas adjacent to the Colorado River. It is reasonable to expect additional development within these areas. Public awareness measures such as notices on final plats and public education on dam safety are ways that the county and local city and town officials can mitigate the potential impact of a dam failure. 32
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Sources AZ Dept of Water Resources, http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/SurfaceWater/DamSafety/default.htm AZ Dept of Emergency Management, 2010, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan US Army Corps of Engineers, National Inventory of Dams, 2009, https://nid.usace.army.mil/ U.S. Dept of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 2001, Colorado River Dams Inundation Study.
Profile Maps Map 1A – Potential Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Maps-Countywide Map 1B – Community Specific Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map
33
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
4.3.2 Drought Description Drought is a normal part of virtually every climate on the planet, including areas of high and low rainfall. It is different from normal aridity, which is a permanent characteristic of the climate in areas of low rainfall. Drought is the result of a natural decline in the expected precipitation over an extended period of time, typically one or more seasons in length. The severity of drought can be aggravated by other climatic factors, such as prolonged high winds and low relative humidity (FEMA, 1997). Drought is a complex natural hazard which is reflected in the following four definitions commonly used to describe it: • Meteorological – drought is defined solely on the degree of dryness, expressed as a departure of actual precipitation from an expected average or normal amount based on monthly, seasonal, or annual time scales. • Hydrological – drought is related to the effects of precipitation shortfalls on streamflows and reservoir, lake, and groundwater levels. • Agricultural – drought is defined principally in terms of naturally occurring soil moisture deficiencies relative to water demands of plant life, usually arid crops. • Socioeconomic – drought associates the supply and demand of economic goods or services with elements of meteorological, hydrologic, and agricultural drought. Socioeconomic drought occurs when the demand for water exceeds the supply as a result of weather-related supply shortfall. It may also be called a water management drought. A drought’s severity depends on numerous factors, including duration, intensity, and geographic extent as well as regional water supply demands by humans and vegetation. Due to its multi- dimensional nature, drought is difficult to define in exact terms and also poses difficulties in terms of comprehensive risk assessments. Drought differs from other natural hazards in three ways. First, the onset and end of a drought are difficult to determine due to the slow accumulation and lingering effects of an event after its apparent end. Second, the lack of an exact and universally accepted definition adds to the confusion of its existence and severity. Third, in contrast with other natural hazards, the impact of drought is less obvious and may be spread over a larger geographic area. These characteristics have hindered the preparation of drought contingency or mitigation plans by many governments. Droughts may cause a shortage of water for human and industrial consumption, hydroelectric power, recreation, and navigation. Water quality may also decline and the number and severity of wildfires may increase. Severe droughts may result in the loss of agricultural crops and forest products, undernourished wildlife and livestock, lower land values, and higher unemployment. History Arizona has experienced 17 droughts declared as drought disasters/emergencies and 93 drought events (droughts affecting multiple years are recorded as a distinct event for each year affected) since records have been kept. Another prolonged drought occurred during the period of 1941-1965. The period from 1979-1983 appears to have been anomalously wet, while the rest of the historical records shows that dry conditions are most likely the normal condition for Arizona. Between 1998 and 2007, there have been more months with below normal precipitation than months with above normal precipitation.
34
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
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 warning (NIDIS, 2007). The NIDIS maintains the U.S. Drought Portal12 which is a centralized, web-based access point to several drought related resources including the U.S. Drought Monitor (USDM) and the U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook (USSDO). The USDM, shown in Figure 5-3, is a weekly map depicting the current status of drought and is developed and maintained by the National Drought Mitigation Center. The USSDO, shown in Figure 5-4, is a six month projection of potential drought conditions developed by the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center. The primary indicators for these maps for the Western U.S. are the Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index and the 60-month Palmer Z-index. The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PSDI) is a commonly used index that measures the severity of drought for agriculture and water resource management. It is calculated from observed temperature and precipitation values and estimates soil moisture. However, the Palmer Index is not considered to be consistent enough to characterize the risk of drought on a nationwide basis (FEMA, 1997) and neither of the Palmer indices are well suited to the dry, mountainous western United States.
Map 4-1: U.S. Drought Monitor
12 NIDIS U.S. Drought Portal website is located at: http://www.drought.gov/portal/server.pt/community/drought.gov/202 35
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Map 4-2: U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook
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 stream flow for the long-term drought status. Figures 5-5 and 5-6, 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 La Paz County is currently experiencing an abnormally dry to no drought condition for the short term and abnormally dry and no drought condition for the long term. Figure 5-4 indicates that no drought posted or predicted for La Paz County over the next few months.
36
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Map 4-3: Arizona Short Term Drought Status
37
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Map 4-4: Arizona Long Term Drought Status
38
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Vulnerability
Table 4-11: CPRI Results for Drought Magnitude/ Warning CPRI Jurisdiction Probability Severity Time Duration Rating Parker Likely Limited > 24 hours > 1 week 2.50 Quartzsite Likely Limited > 24 hours < 1 week 2.40 Unincorporated La Paz Co. Likely Limited > 24 hours > 1 week 2.50
Vulnerability – Loss Estimations No standardized methodology exists for estimating losses due to drought and drought does not generally have a direct impact on critical facilities and building stock. A direct correlation to loss of human life due to drought is also improbable for La Paz 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 The La Paz County farming and ranching industries are directly affected by extended drought conditions. The primary sources of water for irrigated farming are the Colorado River and groundwater. The majority of irrigated agriculture within the county is located along the Colorado River geomorphic floodplain and in areas downstream of the Central Arizona Project. The effects of short term drought on the Colorado River are partially mitigated by the storage created by the multiple reservoirs along the river. However, extended drought conditions can have a detrimental impact to water levels and the system’s ability to generate electricity. Rangeland ranching is more dependent upon groundwater and captured rainfall runoff via stock tanks and rain catchments. Extended drought conditions reduce rangeland grasses and other fodder and stock tank water levels and replenishment are also significantly reduced. This forces ranchers to feed more hay and to truck in water to sustain their rangeland herds. The expense of these activities forces ranchers to drastically reduce herd sizes, flooding the markets with excess animals and tumbling livestock prices. Then supplies in following years are drastically reduced due to lack of rangeland and water and prices soar. These expenses are translated into the La Paz County economy as a two-fold hardship. First, as an economic hardship for merchants and retailers that provide goods and services to the ranching community. Second, as increased costs due to a reduced supply in ranching commodities. From 1996 to 2002, La Paz County farmers and ranchers received $769,875 in disaster related assistance funding from the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) (EWG, 2011). The majority of those funds were received during the time period of 1999 to 2002 and are associated with livestock assistance and aid. The 1999-2002 time period also corresponds to the most severe period of the recent drought cycle for La Paz County. Other direct impacts associated with 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 significant 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.
39
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Sustained drought conditions will also have secondary impacts by increasing risks associated with hazards such as flooding 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. Vulnerability – Development Trends Growth in La Paz County over the past five years has been very small and is not anticipated to increase significantly over the next five years. Requirements for additional surface and ground water supplies are therefore expected to be minimal. It is also unlikely that significant growth will occur in the ranching and farming sectors given the current constraints on water rights, grazing rights, and available range land. However, drought planning should be a critical component of any domestic water system expansions or land development planning. The ADTF is also working cooperatively with water providers within the State to develop System Water Plans that are comprised of three components: • Water Supply Plan – describes the service area, transmission facilities, monthly system production data, historic demand for the past five years, and projected demands for the next five, 10 and 20 years. • Drought Preparedness Plan – includes drought and emergency response strategies, a plan of action to respond to water shortage conditions, and provisions to educate and inform the public. • Water Conservation Plan – addresses measures to control lost and unaccounted for water, considers water rate structures that encourage efficient use of water, and plans for public information and education programs on water conservation. The combination of these requirements will work to ensure that future development in La Paz County will recognize drought as a potential constraint. Sources AZ Dept of Water Resources, 2011, Drought Program website http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/Drought/default.htm AZ Division of Emergency Management, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Environmental Working Group’s Farm Subsidy Database, 2010, http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=04011&progcode=total_dis Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997, Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy. Jacobs, Katharine and Morehouse, Barbara. June 11-13, 2003. “Improved Drought Planning for Arizona,” from Conference on Water, Climate, and Uncertainty: Implications for Western Water Law, Policy and Management http://www.water.az.gov/gdtf/content/files/06262003/Improved_Drought_Planning_for_AZ_6-17.pdf National Integrated Drought Information System, 2007, National Integrated Drought Information System Implementation Plan, NOAA. NIDIS U.S. Drought Portal website is located at: http://www.drought.gov/portal/server.pt/community/drought.gov/202 40
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
NOAA, NWS, Climate Prediction Center, 2010, website: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/seasonal_drought.html Profile Maps - No profile maps are provided.
41
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
4.3.3 Flood / Flash Flood Description For the purpose of this Plan, the hazard of flooding addressed in this section will pertain to floods that result from precipitation/runoff related events. Other flooding due to dam or levee failures is addressed separately. The three seasonal atmospheric events that tend to trigger floods in La Paz County are: • Tropical Storm Remnants: Some of the worst flooding tends to occur when the remnants of a hurricane that has been downgraded to a tropical storm or tropical depression enter the State. These events occur infrequently and mostly in the early autumn and usually bring heavy and intense precipitation over large regions causing severe flooding. • Winter Rains: Winter brings the threat of low intensity; but long duration rains covering large areas that cause extensive flooding and erosion, particularly when combined with snowmelt. • Summer Monsoons: A third atmospheric condition that brings flooding to Arizona is the annual summer monsoon. In mid to late summer the monsoon winds bring humid subtropical air into the State. Solar heating triggers afternoon and evening thunderstorms that can produce extremely intense, short duration bursts of rainfall. The thunderstorm rains are mostly translated into runoff and in some instances, the accumulation of runoff occurs very quickly resulting in a rapidly moving flood wave referred to as a flash flood. Flash floods tend to be very localized and cause significant flooding of local watercourses. Damaging floods in the County include riverine, sheet, alluvial fan, and local area flooding. Riverine flooding occurs along established watercourses when the bankfull 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 and are characterized by multiple, highly unstable flowpaths that can rapidly change during flooding events. Local area flooding is often the result of poorly designed or planned development wherein natural flowpaths are altered, blocked or obliterated, and localized ponding and conveyance problems result. Erosion is also often associated with damages due to flooding. 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 which generally attenuates the ultimate peak discharges. Soils in a wildfire burn area can be rendered hydrophobic, which according the NRCS is the development of a thin layer of nearly impervious soil at or below the mineral soil surface that is the result of a waxy substance derived from plant material burned during a hot fire. The waxy substance penetrates into the soil as a gas and solidifies after it cools, forming a waxy coating around soil particles. 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 La Paz County and has been part of at least 9 disaster declarations for flooding, with none of those declarations occurring in the past five years. There have been at least 23 other non-declared events of reported flooding incidents that met the thresholds 42
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 outlined in Section 5.1, four of which occurred in the last five years. The following incidents represent examples of major flooding that has impacted the County: • June, 1983, heavy rain and rapid snow melt in the Upper Colorado basin north of Arizona produced severe flooding along the Colorado River from Bullhead City to Yuma. The flooding resulted in the first required use of the emergency spillways at Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams. State and federal funds of over $3 million were expended in the response and recovery efforts. Over $80 million in damages were reported (ADEM, 2006 and Paulson et. al., 2006). • February 15, 1995, the Governor proclaimed an emergency due to flooding in Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, Yavapai, and Yuma Counties. The proclamation included an allocation of $100,000 for emergency measures and recovery costs. The proclamation was amended to include Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Navajo, and Pinal Counties. (ADEM, 2008) • August, 1997, Centennial Wash filled with water due to heavy thunderstorm rains. La Paz County Sheriff's Office reported that the water flowed across Highway 60 near Wenden and caused damage to the highway. (NCDC, 2004) • October 23, 2000, in the early morning hours, a large low pressure area dumped four to six inches of rain over parts of eastern LaPaz and western Maricopa County. This caused flash flooding in the upper part of the Centennial Wash between the Harcuvar and Harquahala mountain ranges. The heavy runoff flowed into the town of Wenden where water ran over the highway 60 bridge. At its peak the wash was about 3/8ths of a mile wide and 12 feet deep. The resulting high water surged through the town of Wenden with at least 400 residents evacuated. There was extensive damage to the town and for many miles downstream. The reported flow was in excess of 20,000 cfs. When the flood hit Wenden, it inundated several mobile homes, causing them to lift off their foundations and float down the wash. An estimated 125 mobile homes were affected. One migrant worker was killed when flood waters swept through the town during the early morning hours. Additional heavy rainfall hit this area several days later and complicated relief efforts for many of the homeless. A spotter in Wickenburg reported that Route 93 was closed north of Wickenburg due to high water. Sols wash was out of its banks and flooded Coffinger Park as well as nearby homes. The Vulture Mine road was closed and motorists had to be rescued. Flood water produced considerable damage to melon and cotton crops in this rural area of northwest Maricopa County. The roads around Aguila were closed for several hours. The damages were estimated at $10.2 million (ADEM, 2008; NCDC, 2008). • Beginning August 1, 2005 and continuing through August 23, 2005, heavy rains during the monsoon storms caused significant damage to public infrastructure in areas around La Paz County, resulting in damages to numerous roads - some of which were closed and impassable. (ADEM, 2008) • August 2008, a vehicle with 5 women was swept away as it was caught in raging flood waters along State Route 72, about a mile and a half southeast of Bouse. One woman died and her body was found about 7 miles away. An RV was also stranded by flood waters in the same wash at the same time. The damages were estimated at $50,000. (NCDC, 2010) • September 2009, washes were running around Quartzsite with street flooding in town. State Route 95 south of town was closed due to the flooding. A car rolled over in the flooded area. Thunderstorms and locally heavy rain resulted in damage to roads and buildings in Tacna and Wellton. Very heavy rain also affected parts of the city of Yuma and Quartzsite in the afternoon. The damages were estimated at $30,000. (NCDC, 2010)
43
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
• January 2010, flood waters mainly from the Centennial Wash moved through Wenden in the early morning hours. Law enforcement began evacuating people before waters closed the local streets and roads. About 200 people took shelter at a local high school. Flood waters up to 6 feet deep damaged or destroyed power poles, telephone poles, trees, roads and homes. The entire town of Wenden was underwater for several days. Power was restored in most areas within 2 weeks. Generally, about 3-5 inches of rain fell in the watershed area during the week of January 18-22. Damages were estimated to exceed $5 million. On January 21, 2010, the Governor declared an emergency for significant cumulative precipitation coupled with high winds and heavy snow in areas across Arizona from January 18 – 22, 2010. The Governor submitted a request for Major Disaster Declaration on February 16, 2010, and the President responded on March 18, 2010 by approving Public Assistance (FEMA-1888-DR) for those counties and tribal nations that met FEMA’s per capita impact criteria, which were: Apache, Coconino, Gila, Greenlee, La Paz, Mohave, Navajo and Yavapai Counties and the Gila River Indian Community, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Carlos Apache, Tohono O’odham Nation and White Mountain Apache Tribe. Probability and Magnitude For the purposes of this Plan, the probability and magnitude of flood hazards in La Paz County jurisdictions are primarily based on the 1% (100-year) and 0.2% (500-year) probability floodplains delineated on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), plus any provisional floodplain delineations used for in-house purposes by participating jurisdictions or Planning Team delineated areas. FEMA has recently completed a map modification program to update the FIRMs for the County into a digital FIRM (DFIRM) format. The effective date for the new DFIRM maps is August 28, 2008. DFIRM floodplain GIS base files were obtained from FEMA and are the basis for the flood hazard depictions in this Plan. Therefore, the vulnerability analysis results in this plan are likely conservative. Two designations of flood hazard are used. Any “A” zone is designated as a high hazard area. Medium flood hazard areas are all “Shaded X” zones. All “A” zones (e.g. – A, A1-99, AE, AH, AO, etc.) represent areas with a 1% probability of being flooded at a depth of one-foot or greater in any given year. All “Shaded X” zones represent areas with a 0.2% probability of being flooded at a depth of one-foot or greater in any given year. These two storms are often referred to as the 100-year and 500-year storm, respectively. High and medium hazard designations were also assigned to the non- FEMA areas by the Planning Team based on the anticipated level of flood hazard posed. Map 2A shows the flood hazard areas for the entire county. Maps 2B, 2C and 2D show the flood hazard areas for Parker Central, Parker Annex and Quartzsite, respectively. Vulnerability
Table 4-12: CPRI Results for Flooding Magnitude/ Warning CPRI Jurisdiction Probability Severity Time Duration Rating Parker Possibly Limited < 6 hrs < 6 hrs 2.20 Quartzsite Highly Likely Critical < 6 hrs < 24 hrs 3.50 Unincorporated La Paz Co Highly Likely Critical 12-24 hrs < 24 hrs 3.20
Vulnerability – Loss Estimations The estimation of potential exposure to high and medium flood hazards was accomplished by intersecting the human and critical facility assets with the flood hazard limits depicted on Maps 2A
44
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 through 2D. Loss estimates to all facilities located within the high and medium flood hazard areas were made based on loss estimation tables published by FEMA (FEMA, 2001). Most of the assets located within high hazard flood areas will be subject to three feet or less of flooding. Using the FEMA tables, it is assumed that all structural assets located within the high hazard areas will have a loss-to-exposure ratio of 0.20 (or 20%). A loss to exposure ratio of 0.05 (5%) is assumed for assets located in the medium hazard areas. Table 5-13 summarizes the critical facility, population, and residential housing unit exposure and loss estimates for the high and medium flood hazard limits. Estimates are reported by jurisdiction and county-wide. It is noted that the county-wide totals for the 2010 Census population and residential housing units, include estimates for the Colorado River Indian Tribe. In summary, $110 million in critical facility related losses are estimated for high hazard flood for all jurisdictions in La Paz County. An additional $133.8 million in high hazard losses to 2010 Census defined residential housing units is estimated for all La Paz County jurisdictions. Regarding human vulnerability, a total population of 4,037 people, or 19.70% of the total La Paz County population, is potentially exposed to a high hazard flooding event. Based on the historic record, multiple deaths and injuries are plausible and a substantial portion of the exposed population is subject to displacement depending on the event magnitude. It is duly noted that the loss and exposure numbers presented above represent a comprehensive evaluation of the County as a whole. It is unlikely that a storm event would occur that would flood all of the delineated high and medium flood hazard areas at the same time. Accordingly, actual event based losses and exposure are likely to be only a fraction of those summarized above. Furthermore, it should be noted that 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.
Table 4-13: La Paz County Exposure and Loss Estimates Due to Flooding Flooding Hazard Exposure / Quartzsi Unincorporat Loss CRIT Parker te ed Total Total Critical Facilities N/A 35 33 83 151 Facilities Exposed to High Hazard N/A 3 15 23 41 Percentage of Total Facilities N/A 8.57% 45.45% 27.71% 27.15% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) N/A $0 $17,934 $532,189 $550,123 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) N/A $0 $3,587 $106,438 $110,025 Facilities Exposed to Medium Hazard N/A 0 18 13 31 Percentage of Total Facilities N/A 0.00% 54.55% 15.66% 20.53% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) N/A $0 $56,131 $165,563 $221,694 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) N/A $0 $2,807 $8,278 $11,085 Total Population 4,019 3,062 3,692 9,717 16,471 Population Exposed to High Hazard 118 0 1,863 2,056 4,037 Percent Exposed 2.94% 0.00% 50.46% 21.16% 19.70%
45
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Population Exposed to Medium Hazard 0 0 1,677 3,474 5,151 Percent Exposed 0.00% 0.00% 45.42% 35.75% 25.14% Total Residential Building Count 1,853 1,091 3,386 9,718 16,049 Estimated Replacement Cost (x $196,45 $2,888,80 $1,000) $333,523 5 $609,531 $1,749,299 8 Structures Exposed to High Hazard 118 0 1,748 1,851 3,717 Percentage of Total Facilities 6.37% 0.00% 51.62% 19.05% 23.16% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) $21,210 $4 $314,650 $333,252 $669,117 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) $4,242 $1 $62,930 $66,650 $133,823 Structures Exposed to Medium Hazard 0 0 1,504 4,054 5,558 Percentage of Total Facilities 0.00% 0.00% 44.42% 41.72% 34.63% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000,29 $1,000) $0 $0 $270,638 $729,659 7 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) $0 $0 $13,532 $36,483 $50,015
National Flood Insurance Program Participation Participation in the NFIP is a key element of any community’s local floodplain management and flood mitigation strategy. La Paz County and the 2 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 4-15: NFIP Status/Statistics for La Paz County, Aug 31, 2011 NFIP Current # of Amount of Jurisdictio Entry Effective Policie Coverage n Date Map Date s (x $1,000) Floodplain Management Role Provides floodplain management for the Unincorporated areas of the La Paz Co 9/19/1984 8/28/2008 261 $52,364 County and assistance to the incorporated communities when requested. Provides in-house floodplain Parker 12/17/1976 8/28/2008 7 $1,692 management.
46
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Table 4-15: NFIP Status/Statistics for La Paz County, Aug 31, 2011 NFIP Current # of Amount of Jurisdictio Entry Effective Policie Coverage n Date Map Date s (x $1,000) Floodplain Management Role Provides in-house floodplain Quartzsite 9/19/1984 8/28/2008 42 $6,776 management.
Vulnerability – Repetitive Loss Properties Repetitive Loss (RL) properties are those NFIP-insured properties that since 1978, have experienced multiple flood losses. FEMA tracks RL property statistics, and in particular to identify Severe RL (SRL) properties. RL properties demonstrate a track record of repeated flooding for a certain location and are one element of the vulnerability analysis. RL properties are also important to the NFIP, since structures that flood frequently put a strain on the National Flood Insurance Fund. FEMA records dated January 2010 (provided by ADEM) indicate that there are 3 identified RL properties in La Paz County, with a total of over $184,904 in associated building and contents value payments. None of the payments have occurred within the last five years.
Table 4-16: Repetitive Loss Property Statistics No. of No. of Properties Total Jurisdiction Properties Mitigated Payments Colorado River Indian Tribes 1 0 $4,267 Unincorporated County 2 0 $180,636 Source: FEMA Region IX, 2010 (data as of January 31, 2010)
Vulnerability – Development Trends Most flood prone properties in La Paz County pre-date the planning jurisdictions’ entry into the NFIP and were constructed prior to current floodplain management practices. The development of new properties or substantial re-development of existing structures is now subject to regulatory review procedures implemented by each jurisdiction. New development, adequate planning and regulatory tools are in place to regulate future development. For many areas within the county, challenges for the management of new growth 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. Sources Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2010, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. FEMA, 2001, Understanding Your Risks; Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, Doc 386-2. Paulson, R.W., Chase, E.B., Roberts, R.S., and Moody, D.W., Compilers, National Water Summary 1988-89—Hydrologic Events and Floods and Droughts: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2375, 591 p. NOAA, National Weather Service Forecast Office – Tucson, 2011: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/twc/hydro/floodhis.php U.S. Dept of Commerce, National Climatic Data Center, 2010, Storm Events Database: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms
47
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 1994, Flood Damage Report, State of Arizona, Floods of 1993. Profile Maps Map 2A – County-Wide Flood Hazard Map Maps 2B, 2C and 2D – Parker Central, Parker Annex, and Quartzsite Flood Hazard Maps
48
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
4.3.4 Hazardous Materials Incidents Description The threat of exposure to Hazardous Materials (HazMat) in our modern society is prevalent nationwide and throughout La Paz County. HazMat incidents can occur from either point source spills or from transportation related accidents. In La Paz County, the primary areas of risk associated with HazMat incidents are located near or along storage / manufacturing facilities, major roads and rail lines, and pipelines that transport hazardous substances. These substances may be highly toxic, reactive, corrosive, flammable, explosive, radioactive or infectious, with potential to contaminate air, soil, and water resources and pose a serious risk to life, health, environment and property. HazMat incidents can result in the evacuation of a few people, a specific facility, or an entire neighborhood(s) depending on the size and magnitude of the release and environmental conditions. The Arizona State Emergency Response Commission (AZSERC), established by Arizona Law (Arizona Revised Statutes-Title 26, Chapter 2, Article 3) is tasked with the implementation of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) in Arizona. Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) are appointed by AZSERC, as required by EPCRA, first to design, then to regularly review and update a comprehensive emergency plan for an emergency planning district. There are 15 LEPC's in Arizona - one in each county. State statutes and Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA set forth hazardous chemical storage reporting requirements and thresholds for facilities possessing hazardous materials. The legislation requires that facilities storing or producing hazardous materials in quantities that exceed a defined Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ), submit an annual chemical inventory report (Tier II Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form) to AZSERC, the appropriate LEPC, and local fire department, by March 1 of each year. Facilities holding an Extremely Hazardous Substance (EHS) at quantities exceeding the Threshold Planning Quantities (TPQ) must provide the notifications as well as a representative to participate in the county emergency planning process. For the purposes of this Plan, the Planning Team chose to focus only on those HAZMAT facilities and chemicals that are classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as extremely hazardous substances (EHS). Typical EHS materials transported and stored routinely in the county include chlorine gas, sulphuric acid, and anhydrous ammonia. History According to the National Response Commission database, there are at least 64 reported incidents of HazMat releases that have occurred since 1989 within La Paz County that involved at least one injury/fatality or some amount of property damage. The majority of the reported incidents occurred in and around Quartzsite, Parker and Ehrenberg. The Arizona & California Railroad runs east and west through the central region of La Paz County and primarily transports petroleum gasses, steel and lumber in over 12,000 cars a year. The following incidents represent examples of hazardous materials incidents that have occurred in La Paz County: • June 14, 2001, a tractor trailer involved in an accident released 8500 gallon of gasoline and was burned up. The accident was due to the driver being distracted by a tailgating vehicle going on and off the soft shoulder. (NRC, 2004) • July 19, 2005, a caller reported four tractor trailers and possibly a fifth involved in an accident near mile post 13 on Interstate 10. An unknown amount of white liquid substance was released. NRC, 2008)
49
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
• February 22, 2007, a caller stated 12 to 24 sticks of dynamite were discovered in Quartzsite while some roadwork was being done with a backhoe in a retirement area. The discovery of the dynamite is near a 30 inch high pressure natural gas pipeline. There was no release of materials at the time. An unknown amount of natural gas released with pipeline incident. (NRC, 2008) • March 1, 2007, a caller reported a single vehicle incident involving a tanker truck in Parker that rolled over resulting in the release of materials. The driver of the truck was injured and taken to the hospital. (NRC, 2008) • December 1, 2007, a caller reported a company/truck stopped and is pumping oil and waste into a gulley leading to the Colorado River. An unknown amount of unknown oil was released with this fixed incident. (NRC, 2008) • March 11, 2008, a caller reported their tractor trailer truck in Brenda was making a U-turn when another tractor trailer truck from a different company hit their truck and injured both drivers. This result in a spill of materials and the closure of the roadway for three and half hours. (NRC, 2010) • June 27, 2008, a caller reported an abandoned cargo tank car on its side and potentially anhydrous ammonia has been released. The material released caused a strong odor smell in the atmosphere. The car was not on the railroad tracks but next to it by a race track and in the vicinity of Parker Cemetery. The caller later stated a small leak has been discovered and the area has been blocked off at a 300 feet radius. (NRC, 2010) Probability and Magnitude There are no known probability statistics regarding Hazmat incidents for La Paz County. Typically, the magnitude of impact from a hypothetical HazMat incident can be projected by using models such as ALOHA and CAMEO with assumed incident characteristics such as chemical type and source amount, spill location and amount, release time and rate, surface type, temperature, humidity, wind direction and speed, chemical stability factors. Those modeling efforts, however, are beyond the scope of this Plan. For the purpose of this Plan, the Planning Team chose to establish two hazard classifications, high and medium, for profiling EHS hazards. High hazard exposure areas are assumed to be located within a one-mile radius or offset of any Tier II EHS facility, roadway and railway transportation corridor where EHS materials are known to be stored or transported on a somewhat regular basis. Similarly, the medium hazard exposure areas are assumed to be located within a second one-mile wide band that is offset from the High hazard area. All other areas are considered to be Low hazard. Vulnerability
Table 4-17: CPRI Results for HazMat Magnitude/ Warning CPRI Jurisdiction Probability Severity Time Duration Rating Parker Likely Limited < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.75 Quartzsite Likely Limited < 6 hours < 24 hours 2.75 Unincorporated La Paz Co Likely Critical < 6 hours < 1 week 3.15
50
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Vulnerability – Loss Estimations The estimation of potential exposure to high and medium hazmat hazards was accomplished by intersecting the human and critical facility assets with the hazmat hazard limits on Map 3A. Table 5- 17 summarizes the critical facility, population, and residential housing unit exposure estimates for the high and medium HazMat hazard limits. Estimates are reported by jurisdiction and county-wide. It is noted that the county-wide totals for the 2010 Census population and residential housing units, include estimates for the Colorado River Indian Tribe.
Table 4-18: La Paz County Exposure Estimates Due to HazMat Quartzsit Unincorporat HAZMAT EXPOSURE ONLY CRIT Parker e ed Total Total Critical Facilities N/A 35 33 83 151 Facilities Exposed to High Hazard N/A 35 33 64 132 100.00 Percentage of Total Facilities N/A % 100.00% 77.00% 87.42% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) N/A $2,750 $74,065 $770,304 $847,119 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 Facilities Exposed to Medium Hazard N/A 0 0 5 5 Percentage of Total Facilities N/A 0.00% 0.00% 6.02% 3.31% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Population 4,019 3,062 3,692 9,717 16,471 Population Exposed to High Hazard 3,182 3,060 3,692 7,388 17,322 Percent Exposed 79.19% 99.93% 98.80% 76.03% 84.32% Population Exposed to Medium Hazard 591 1 37 1,323 1,952 Percent Exposed 14.70% 0.03% 1.01% 13.61% 9.53% Total Residential Building Count 1,853 1,091 3,386 9,718 16,049 Estimated Replacement Cost (x $196,45 $2,888,80 $1,000) $333,523 5 $609,531 $1,749,299 8 Structures Exposed to High Hazard 1,548 1,090 3,355 7,685 13,678 Percentage of Total Facilities 83.54% 99.91% 99.08% 79.08% 85.23% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $196,21 $2,462,07 $1,000) $278,656 5 $603,925 $1,383,279 5 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Structures Exposed to Medium Hazard 217 1 27 1,038 1,282 51
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Percentage of Total Facilities 11.71% 0.09% 0.80% 10.68% 7.99% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) $39,069 $122 $4,781 $186,823 $230,795 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
In summary, $847 million and $0 in county-wide critical facilities are exposed to high and medium HazMat hazards, for all jurisdictions in La Paz County. An additional $2.4 billion in losses to 2010 Census defined residential housing units is estimated for all La Paz County jurisdictions. Regarding human vulnerability, a total population of 17,322 people, or 87.42% of the total population, is potentially exposed to a high hazard HazMat event. A total population of 1,952 people, or 9.53% of the total population, is potentially exposed to a medium hazard HazMat event. It is recognized that EHS incidents typically occur in a single localized area and do not impact an entire county or community at one time. These numbers are intended to represent the collective community or county- wide exposure. Actual exposure for an individual incident is likely to be only a fraction of the numbers presented here. Because of the nature of this hazard, structural damage is highly unlikely and decontamination costs related to replacements cost would only be a small fraction. Vulnerability – Development Trends As the vulnerability analysis indicates, much of La Paz County is exposed to some level of EHS threat. That exposure will only worsen as development increases. It may be advantageous to pursue designating certain roadways as EHS corridors to limit the exposure, and establishing buffer zones along corridors known to be frequent EHS transport routes. Development of high-density population land uses such as schools, nursing homes, apartment complexes, etc., should be discouraged within these zones. EHS facilities that have potential for critical or catastrophic hazmat releases should be located on flat topography and take advantage of positive and protect against negative climate and microclimate conditions; utilize shading from excessive sun in warm climate and/or other best management practices. Sources AZ Division of Emergency Management, 2010, State of AZ Hazard Mitigation Plan. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996, North American Emergency Response Guidebook Profile Maps Map 3A – County-Wide HazMat Hazard Map Maps 3B, 3C, and 3D – Parker Central, Parker Annex, and Quartzsite HazMat Hazard Maps
52
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
4.3.5 Severe Wind Description The hazard of severe wind encompasses all climatic events that produce damaging winds. For La Paz County, severe winds usually result from either extreme pressure gradients that usually occur in the spring and early summer months, or from thunderstorms. Thunderstorms can occur year-round and are usually associated with cold fronts in the winter, monsoon activity in the summer, and tropical storms in the late summer or early fall. Three types of damaging wind related features typically accompany a thunderstorm; 1) downbursts, 2) straight line winds, and infrequently, 3) tornadoes. Downbursts are columns of air moving rapidly downward through a thunderstorm. When the air reaches the ground, it spreads out in all directions, creating horizontal wind gusts of 80 mph or higher. Downburst winds have been measured as high as 140 mph. Some of the air curls back upward with the potential to generate a new thunderstorm cell. Downbursts are called macrobursts when the diameter is greater than 2.5 miles, and microbursts when the diameter is 2.5 miles or less. They can be either dry or wet downbursts, where the wet downburst contains precipitation that continues all the way down to the ground, while the precipitation in a dry downburst evaporates on the way to the ground, decreasing the air temperature and increasing the air speed. In a microburst the wind speeds are highest near the location where the downdraft reached the surface, and are reduced as they move outward due to the friction of objects at the surface. Typical damage from downbursts includes uprooted trees, downed power lines, mobile homes knocked off their foundations, block walls and fences blown down, and porches and awnings blown off homes. Straight line winds are developed 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 and sand storms, reducing visibility and creating hazardous driving conditions. A tornado is a rapidly rotating funnel (or vortex) of air that extends toward the ground from a cumulonimbus cloud. Most funnel clouds do not touch the ground, but when the lower tip of the funnel cloud touches the earth; it becomes a tornado and can cause extensive damage. For La Paz County, tornadoes are the least common severe wind to accompany a thunderstorm. History According to Table 5-4, La Paz County has been subject to over 26 severe wind events meeting the criteria listed in Section 5.1, with a combined economic loss of over $1.3 million to structures and agriculture in the last 30 years. In that same period, there were at least 12 injuries due to roofs being torn off homes. 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 total of 17 severe wind events were noted in the NCDC database for period of January 2006 through April 2011, but not all of those events had reports of damages associate with them. The following are examples of documented past events that have occurred in the last five years: • August 21, 2006, a mobile home in Salome was blown over with damages estimated at $100,000 (NCDC, December 2010). • July 9, 2008, an accident on I-10 at milepost 45 near Brenda was blamed on high winds and low visibility. The damages were estimated at $20,000 (NCDC, December 2010).
53
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
• September 9, 2008, Quartzsite Fire Department reported an estimated gust of 75 mph that blew two tractor trailer trucks off the road. The damages were estimated at $100,000 (NCDC, December 2010). • September 9, 2008, a late evening thunderstorm swept through Quartzsite and Vicksburg and left 15 downed 69-kv poles in its wake, as well as isolated damage to the distribution system across the Quartzsite, Vicksburg and Bouse areas. The report damages were estimated at $40,000. (NCDC, December 2010) • December 7, 2009, two tractor trailers were blown off Interstate 10 near Quartzsite. Strong winds, brief heavy rain and thunderstorms were associated with a deep low pressure system as it moved across Arizona late Monday. Strong winds resulted in widespread power outages across the metropolitan Phoenix area. The damages were estimated at $50,000 (NCDC, December 2010). • January 21, 2010, numerous power poles blown down 10 miles south of Poston due to thunderstorm winds and heavy rain. Widespread rain, heavy at times, resulted in numerous flooded streets, and low spots. Strong winds associated with a line of thunderstorms caused considerable damage to property and some minor injuries. The damages were estimated at $100,000 (NCDC, December 2010). • August 24, 2010, a park ranger at the Alamo Lake State Park reported downburst winds of at least 60 mph. The strong winds resulted in many tree limbs downed. Strong thunderstorms produced heavy rain and damaging winds across portions of La Paz County, including the Alamo Lake Recreational Area. The reported damages were estimated at $15,000 (NCDC, December 2010). • On July 10, 2011, isolated high based thunderstorms developed over La Paz County during the late afternoon and evening hours on July 10th. The storms generated gusty microburst winds, estimated to be in excess of 60 knots. According to Cate's Column in the Parker Live Online paper, significant damage occurred in the community of Bouse. Strong winds lifted the roof off of a house and tossed it down a hill. The winds smashed windows, blew out metal garage doors, plucked coolers from rooftops, flattened several carports, and uprooted a number of Mesquite and Palo Verde trees. Video footage taken by an amateur photographer showed several power poles being snapped by high winds along Hwy 95 north of Quartzsite, between mileposts 112 and 113. Additional public reports indicated a total of 17 power poles were blown over or snapped by high winds. Total damages estimated for this storm exceeded $225,000 (NCDC, 2011). Probability and Magnitude Most severe wind events are associated with thunderstorms as previously mentioned. The probability of a severe thunderstorm occurring with high velocity winds increases as the average duration and number of thunderstorm events increases. The average annual duration of thunderstorms in La Paz County ranges from 90-100 minutes and is among the longest in the nation (ADEM, 2004). According to NCDC database records for the past five years, La Paz County averages about 5 severe wind events a year. For that same five year time period, approximately $700,000 in damages was estimated. The NWS issues a severe thunderstorm watch when conditions are favorable for the development of severe thunderstorms. The local NWS office considers a thunderstorm severe if it produces hail at least 3/4-inch in diameter, wind of 58 mph or higher, or tornadoes. When a watch is issued for a region, residents are encouraged to continue normal activities but should remain alert for signs of approaching storms, and continue to listen for weather forecasts and statements from the local NWS 54
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 office. When a severe thunderstorm has been detected by weather radar or one has been reported by trained storm spotters, the local NWS office will issue a severe thunderstorm warning. A severe thunderstorm warning is an urgent message to the affected counties that a severe thunderstorm is imminent. The warning time provided by a severe thunderstorm watch may be on the order of hours, while a severe thunderstorm warning typically provides an hour or less warning time. Based on the historic record, the probability of tornados occurring in La Paz County is limited. Tornado damage severity is measured by the Fujita Tornado Scale, which assigns a numerical value of 0 to 5 based on wind speeds, as shown in Table 5-19, with the letter F preceding the number (e.g., FO, F1, F2). Most tornadoes last less than 30 minutes, but some last for over an hour. The path of a tornado can range from a few hundred feet to miles. The width of a tornado may range from tens of yards to more than a quarter of a mile.
Table 4-20: Fujita Tornado Scale Wind Category Description of Damage Speed Light damage. Some damage to chimneys; break branches off F0 40-72 mph trees; push over shallow-rooted trees; damage to sign boards. Moderate damage. The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane F1 73-112 mph speed. Roof surfaces peeled off; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off roads. Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile 113-157 F2 homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or mph uprooted; light-object missiles generated. Severe damage. Roofs and some walls torn off well constructed 158-206 F3 houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted; cars mph lifted off ground and thrown. Devastating damage. Well-constructed houses leveled; structures 207-260 F4 with weak foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and mph large missiles generated. Incredible damage. Strong frame houses lifted off foundations 261-318 and carried considerable distance to disintegrate; automobile- F5 mph sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100-yards; trees debarked. Source: FEMA, 1997.
Vulnerability
Table 4-21: CPRI Results for Severe Wind Magnitude/ Warning CPRI Jurisdiction Probability Severity Time Duration Rating Parker Likely Limited < 6 hours < 6 hours 2.65 Quartzsite Highly Likely Limited < 6 hours < 24 hours 3.20 Unincorporated La Paz Co Possibly Limited < 6 hours < 6 hours 2.20
55
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Vulnerability – Loss Estimations The entire County is assumed to be equally exposed to the damage risks associated with severe winds. Typically, incidents are fairly localized and damages associated with individual events are relatively small. Based on the historic record over the last five years, it is feasible to expect average annual losses of $100,000 to $250,000 (county-wide). It is difficult to estimate losses for individual jurisdictions within the County due to the lack of discrete data. Vulnerability – Development Trend Analysis Future development will expand the exposure of life and property to the damaging effects of severe wind events. Enforcement and/or implementation of modern building codes to regulate new developments in conjunction with public education on how to respond to severe wind conditions are arguably the best way to mitigate against losses. Sources Arizona Division of Emergency Management, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Changnon, Jr. S.,1988, Climatology of Thunder Events in the Conterminous U.S., Part I: Temporal Aspects and Part II: Spatial Aspects, Journal of Climate, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 389-405. U.S. Dept of Commerce, National Climatic Data Center, 2010, Storm Events Database, http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms Profile Maps Map 4 – Severe Wind Hazard Map-Countywide
56
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
4.3.6 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, unattended 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 urban-wildland interface fires. • 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, ridge tops 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 also 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 and Salt Cedar). 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
57
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 to affecting people, wildfires may severely affect livestock and pets. Such events may require the emergency watering/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 streams thereby enhancing flood potential, harming aquatic life and degrading water quality. Lands stripped of vegetation are also subject to increased landslide hazards. History For the period of 1980 to 2008, data compiled by the Arizona State Forestry Division for the 2010 State Plan update indicates that at least 57 wildfires greater than 100 acres in size have occurred in all of La Paz County. According to the National Wildfire Coordination Group (NWCG, 2010), there has been one wildfire larger than 10,000 acres that has burned within La Paz County during the period of 2002 to 2010. Examples of recent wildfires include: • June of 2003, the Hay Fire was started by human causes and burned an area 5 miles south of Parker, Arizona. The fire started June 11, 2003 and expected containment was June 14, 2003, and burned a total of 457 acres with over $37,000 in fire suppression costs. • June of 2004, the Welch Fire burned an area 13 miles north of Ehrenberg, Arizona. The fire started June 26, 2004 and was controlled July 5, 2004, and burned a total of 750 acres and caused 1 injury, with over $25,000 in fire suppression costs. • April of 2005, the Bosque Fire started by human causes burned an area 5 miles north of Ehrenberg, Arizona. The fire started April 7, 2005 and was controlled April 21, 2005, and burned a total of 4,421 acres with over $$1,463,186 in fire suppression costs. • July of 2006, the Cibola Fire started by lightning and burned an area in Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. The fire started July 17, 2006 and expected containment was July 23, 2006, and burned a total of 4,600 acres and caused 1 injury, with over $450,000 in fire suppression costs. • July of 2009, the Deer Fire started by human causes burned an area 5 miles west of Parker, Arizona. The fire started July 4, 2009 and was controlled July 22, 2009, and burned a total of 412 acres and caused 3 injuries, with over $165,000 in fire suppression costs. • August of 2009, the ATV Fire was started by human causes burned an area near Mohave and Navajo Road in Poston, Arizona. The fire started August 31, 2009 and expected containment was September 4, 2009, and burned a total of 399 acres with over $127,000 in fire suppression costs. There have been 15 wildfires in excess of 100 acres for the period of 2002 to 2010. Map 5A provides a graphical depiction of the 100 acre plus wildfires. The Planning Team recognized the declared disaster data collected and summarized in Section 5 does not adequately reflect the true cost of a wildfire, particularly, the cost of suppression. For example, all the events listed above did not result in any structure losses; however, the suppression costs exceeded $2.1 million. Furthermore, the County, State, Forest Service, BLM, and other agencies spend millions of dollars every year in wildfire mitigation in fuel treatment projects.
58
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Probability and Magnitude The probability and magnitude of wildfire incidents for La Paz 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. Three sources were used to map the wildfire risk for La Paz County. The first is the data developed for the 2007 Plan which maps the riparian areas along the Colorado River and is classified as High hazard area. The second is all the streams and washes buffered to 100 feet and identified as a Medium hazard area. Thirdly, a statewide coverage developed by the State of Arizona as a part of the 2003/04 Arizona Wildland Urban Interface Assessment (AWUIA) project (Fisher, 2004). In 2004, the State of Arizona prepared the AWUIA to analyze wildfire risk at a statewide basis, using a common spatial model. The model results were used for validation of those communities listed in the federal register as WUI, and for further identification other communities possibly at risk. The AWUIA approach used four main data layers: • TOPO – aspect and slope derived from 30 meter Digital Elevation Model data from USGS. • RISK – historical fire density using point data from fire record years 1986–1996 from all wildland agencies. • HAZARD – fuels, natural fire regimes and condition class. • HOUSE – houses and/or structures A value rating in the range of 1-15 was assigned for all layers to represent the level of risk. Two separate results were developed. The first coverage used an applied weighting scheme that combined each of the four data layers to develop a ranking model for identifying WUI communities at greatest risk. The second coverage, referred to as the “Land Hazard”, also applied a weighting scheme that combined only the TOPO, RISK, and HAZARD layers, as follows: LAND HAZARD = (HAZARD*70%)+(RISK*20%)+(TOPO*10%) Weighing percentages were determined through discussion with the Arizona Interagency Coordinating Group. The “Land Hazard” layer produced from this model is based on a 250-meter raster grid (some data originated at 1,000-meter). The resultant raster values range from 1-15 and were classified into three groups to depict wildfire hazard without the influence of structures: HIGH (values of 10-15), MEDIUM (values of 7-9), and LOW (values of 1-6). The final wildfire hazard profile map for this Plan depicts a mosaic of the High, Medium and Low risk areas identified in the 2007 Plan and the AWUIA. The 2007 Plan data was characterized as previously stated. Hazards for all other areas were assigned based on the statewide AWUIA “Land Hazard” layer. Maps 5A-5D indicates the various wildfire hazard areas for La Paz County and the incorporated boundaries of Parker and Quartzsite. Vulnerability
Table 4-22: CPRI Results for Wildfire Magnitude/ Warning CPRI Jurisdiction Probability Severity Time Duration Rating Parker Possibly Limited < 6 hours < 1 week 2.40 Quartzsite Likely Limited < 6 hours < 1 week 2.85 Unincorporated La Paz Co Likely Critical < 6 hours < 1 week 3.15 59
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Vulnerability – Loss Estimations The estimation of potential exposure to high and medium wildfire hazards was accomplished by intersecting the human and facility assets with the wildfire hazard limits depicted on Map 5A. Loss to exposure ratios of 0.20 and 0.05 were assumed to estimate losses for all facilities located within the high and medium wildfire hazard areas, respectively. Table 5-22 summarizes the critical facility, population, and residential housing unit exposure estimates for the high and medium wildfire hazard limits. Estimates are reported by jurisdiction and county-wide. It is noted that the county-wide totals for the 2010 Census population and residential housing units, include estimates for the Colorado River Indian Tribe.
Table 4-23: La Paz County Exposure and Loss Estimates Due to Wildfire Quartzsi Unincorporat WILDFIRE EXPOSURE / LOSS CRIT Parker te ed Total Total Critical Facilities N/A 35 33 83 151 Facilities Exposed to High Hazard N/A 2 0 4 6 Percentage of Total Facilities N/A 5.71% 0.00% 4.82% 3.97% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) N/A $0 $0 $519,800 $519,800 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) N/A $0 $0 $103,960 $103,960 Facilities Exposed to Medium Hazard N/A 0 8 8 16 Percentage of Total Facilities N/A 0.00% 24.24% 9.64% 10.60% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) N/A $0 $12,985 $5,549 $18,534 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) N/A $0 $649 $277 $926 Total Population 4,019 3,062 3,692 9,717 16,471 Population Exposed to High Hazard 58 0 0 107 165 Percent Exposed 1.44% 0.00% 0.00% 1.10% 0.80% Population Exposed to Medium Hazard 1 0 263 593 857 Percent Exposed 0.04% 0.00% 7.12% 6.10% 4.19% Total Residential Building Count 1,853 1,091 3,386 9,718 16,049 Estimated Replacement Cost (x $333,52 $196,4 $2,888,80 $1,000) 3 55 $609,531 $1,749,299 8 Structures Exposed to High Hazard 33 0 0 107 140 Percentage of Total Facilities 1.78% 0.00% 0.00% 1.10% 0.87% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) $5,914 $2 $0 $19,316 $25,233 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) $1,183 $0 $0 $3,863 $5,047 Structures Exposed to Medium Hazard 1 0 249 698 949 Percentage of Total Facilities 0.05% 0.00% 7.35% 7.18% 5.91% Estimated Replacement Cost (x $1,000) $214 $8 $44,861 $125,670 $170,754 Estimated Structure Loss (x $1,000) $11 $0 $2,243 $6,284 $8,538
60
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
In summary, $103 million and $926,000 in critical facility related losses are estimated for high and medium wildfire hazards, for all the jurisdictions in La Paz County. An additional $8.5 million in losses to 2010 Census defined residential housing units are estimated for all La Paz County jurisdictions. It should be noted that these exposure dollar amounts do not include the cost of wildfire suppression, which can be substantial. For example, deployment of a Type 1 wildland firefight crew costs about $1 million per day. Regarding human vulnerability, a county-wide population of 165 and 857 people, or 0.80% and 4.19% of the total, is potentially exposed to a high and medium hazard wildfire event, respectively. Typically, deaths and injuries not related to firefighting activities are rare. However, it is feasible to assume that at least one death and/or injury may be plausible. There is also a high probability of population displacement during a wildfire event, and especially in the urban wildland interface areas. It is duly noted that the loss and exposure numbers presented above represent a comprehensive evaluation of the County as a whole. It is unlikely that a wildfire event would impact all of the high and medium wildfire hazard areas at the same time. Accordingly, actual event based losses and exposure are likely to be only a fraction of those summarized above. Vulnerability – Development Trend Analysis The 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. Sources Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2010, State of Arizona Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Fisher, M., 2004, AZ Wildland Urban Interface Assessment, 2003, prepared for the AZ Interagency Coordination Group. http://www.azsf.az.gov/UserFiles/PDF/Arizona%20Wildland%20Urban%20Interface%20Assessment %2005MAR04.pdf National Wildfire Coordination Group, 2010, Historical ICS 209 reports at: http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/hist_209/report_list_209 White, Seth, 2004, Bridging the Worlds of Fire Managers and Researchers: Lessons and Opportunities From the Wildland Fire Workshops, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-599, March 2004 Profile Maps Map 5A – County-Wide Wildfire Hazard Maps Maps 5B, 5C and 5D – Parker Central, Parker Annex and Quartzsite Wildfire Hazard Maps
61
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
4.4 Risk Assessment Summary The jurisdictional variability of risk associated with each hazard assessed in Section 5.3 is demonstrated by the various CPRI and loss estimation results. Accordingly, each jurisdiction has varying levels of need regarding the hazards to be mitigated, and may not consider all of the hazards as posing a great risk to their individual communities. Table 5-23 summarizes the hazards selected for mitigation by each jurisdiction and will be the basis for each jurisdictions mitigation strategy.
Table 4-24: Hazards to be Mitigated by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Dam Dam Failure Drought Flooding Hazardous Materials Severe Wind Wildfire Unincorporated La Paz County x x x x x x Parker x x x x Quartzsite x
62
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY
The mitigation strategy provides the “what, when, and how” of actions that will reduce or possibly remove the community’s exposure to hazard risks. The primary components of the mitigation strategy are generally categorized into the following: Goals and Objectives Capability Assessment Mitigation Actions/Projects and Implementation Strategy The entire 2007 Plan mitigation strategy was reviewed and updated by the Planning Team, including a major re-organization of the mitigation strategy elements into this multi-jurisdictional plan format. Specifics of the changes and updates are discussed in the subsections below.
5.1 Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives The 2007 Plan goals and objectives were developed using the 2004 State Plan13 goals and objectives as a starting point. Each jurisdiction then edited and modified those goals and objectives to fit the mitigation planning vision for their community. An assessment of those goals and objectives by the Planning Team and the Local Planning Team for each jurisdiction was made with consideration of the following: • Do the goals and objectives identified in the 2007 Plan reflect the updated risk assessment? • Did the goals and objectives identified in the 2007 Plan lead to mitigation projects and/or changes to policy that helped the jurisdiction(s) to reduce vulnerability? • Do the goals and objectives identified in the 2007 Plan support any changes in mitigation priorities? • Are the goals and objectives identified in the 2007 Plan reflective of current State goals? As a conclusion to the discussions, the Planning Team chose to completely drop the current list of goals and objectives in favor of preparing a multi-jurisdictional template of goals and objectives that are closely based on the 2010 State Plan. Accordingly, one goal and four clear objectives were established and will be used by all participating jurisdictions, as follows:
GOAL: Reduce or eliminate the risk to people and property from all hazards. ▪ Objective 1: Reduce or eliminate risks that threaten life and property in the incorporated, unincorporated, and Tribal jurisdictions within La Paz County. ▪ Objective 2: Reduce risk to critical facilities and infrastructure from all hazards. ▪ Objective 3: Promote hazard mitigation throughout the incorporated, unincorporated, and Tribal jurisdictions within La Paz County. ▪ Objective 4: Increase public awareness of all hazards and risks that threaten the incorporated, unincorporated, and Tribal jurisdictions within La Paz County.
13 State of Arizona, 2004, State of Arizona All Hazard Mitigation Plan, prepared by URS. 63
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
5.2 Capability Assessment An important component of the Mitigation Strategy is a review of each participating jurisdiction’s resources in order to identify, evaluate, and enhance the capacity of local resources to mitigate the effects of hazards. Tables 6-1-1 through 6-1-3 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. Tables 6-2-1 through 6-2-3 summarize the staff and personnel resources employed by each jurisdiction that serve as a resource for hazard mitigation. Tables 6-3-1 through 6-3-3 summarize the fiscal capability and budgetary tools available to each participating jurisdiction.
Table 5-2-1: Legal & Regulatory Capabilities for La Paz County Responsible Tools Description Dept/Agency • International Building Codes adopted 10/05/2009 • Community Codes (Ordinance No. 2009-02) Development • Zoning Ordinance 96-01 adopted 7/31/96 • Subdivision Ordinance adopted and subsequently • Community Ordinances amended by Res. No. 2004-17 Development • Weed and Trash Ordinance No. 92-01 • Floodplain Ordinance FCD2010-01 adopted 5/17/2010. • Site Plan Review Requirements are reviewed by Staff prior to issuance of building or placement permits. • Comprehensive Plan adopted 5/2/05, last amended 12/2010 is a study of the current and future land uses, transportation, and development densities, and serves as a guide to the Planning/Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors for making development decisions. • Economic Development Plan adopted 10/20/97. Also, the Co works with the Chambers of Commerce, Towns, and the AZ Dept of Commerce to develop economic • Community growth. A plan created in concert with the adjoining Plans, Manuals, Development jurisdictions for the organized growth patterns within Guidelines • Emergency the Co. Management • 2003 Emergency Response Plan created by the Emergency Services Dept, for the most expedient and efficient manner to respond to critical emergency situations within the Co. The Plan is NIMS compliant. • La Paz Co Public Works Standards, Volumes I, II, III: Standards, specifications, and guidelines for the design and construction of public works related projects. Volume III also presents drainage design guidelines for private development as well. (2/27/02) • La Paz Co Hazard Mitigation Plan (2007) Technical Staff and Personnel Capabilities for La Paz Co. Resources Department/Agency
64
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with Community Development Planner and contract County knowledge of land development and Engineer. land management practices Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in Community Development Staff, Inspectors and contract construction practices related to County Engineer. buildings and/or infrastructure Planner(s) or engineer(s) with Community Development Planner, staff, Inspectors and understanding of natural and/or human- contract County Engineer. caused hazards Floodplain Manager Community Development, contract County Engineer Surveyors Public Works Surveyor (1). Staff with education or expertise to Community Development Director and staff. Public Works assess the community’s vulnerability to Director and staff. Emergency Management Director. hazards Sheriff’s Department Deputies. Community Development Department, GIS Coordinator. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Public Works Surveyor and field staff. Scientists familiar with the hazards of Not on staff, but the County uses other resources, such as the community Universities, Colleges, and Ag Extension staff. Emergency Manager Major Steven Biro, Emergency Services, Sheriff’s Dept. Community Resource Director full time grant writer. Other Grant writer(s) grants may be written by the Parks Director, Health Dept. Director, County Attorney, or others. Fiscal Capabilities for La Paz Co.
Accessible or Financial Resources Eligible to Use Comments Community Development Block Grants Yes Must apply for each grant. Capital Improvements Project funding Yes Authority to levy taxes for specific Yes With voter approval. purposes Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric La Paz County does not own No service utilities. Impact fees for homebuyers or new Possible But not in place at this time. developments/homes Incur debt through general obligation Yes Subject to voter approval. bonds Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes For Special Districts.
65
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Legal and Regulatory Capabilities for Parker Tools Description Responsible Dept/Agency • Community • Town Code for Parker (last updated 9/6/2005) Development Codes • 2006 Series of International Codes • Volunteer Fire • 2005 National Electric Code Department • Zoning Ordinance as part of the Town Code for Parker (last updated 9/6/2005) • Community Ordinances • Floodplain Ordinance as part of Town Code for Development Parker (last updated 9/6/2005) • Parker General Plan (2007) • La Paz Co Public Works Standards, Volumes I, II, III: Standards, specifications, and guidelines for the design and construction of public works related projects. Volume III also presents • Community Plans, Manuals, drainage design guidelines for private Development Guidelines development as well. (2/27/02) • Police Department • Emergency Response Plan (2003). A plan created by the Emergency Services Dept, for the most expedient and efficient manner to respond to critical emergency situations within the Co. The Plan is NIMS compliant. • Water Study for Parker South (1999) • Community Studies • Parker Wastewater Project (2001) Development • Parker Annex Wastewater Project (2008) Technical Staff and Personnel Resources Department/Agency Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land Community Development - Director management practices Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings Community Development - Director and/or infrastructure Planner(s) or engineer(s) with understanding of natural and/or human- caused hazards Floodplain Manager Community Development - Director Surveyors Administration – Town Manager Staff with education or expertise to assess Public Works – Director the community’s vulnerability to hazards Community Development - Director Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Community Development - Director Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community
66
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Administration – Town Manager Emergency Manager Police Department – Chief Grant writer(s) Community Development - Director Fiscal Capabilities for Parker
Accessible or Financial Resources Eligible to Use Comments Community Development Block Grants Yes Eligible for grant on a three-year cycle. Capital Improvements Project funding Yes 5-year rolling CIP Authority to levy taxes for specific Yes purposes Fees are charged for water and the Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric Yes Town is a 50% owner in a joint service venture for sewer. Impact fees for homebuyers or new Yes developments/homes Incur debt through general obligation Yes bonds Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
67
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Legal and Regulatory Capabilities for Quartzsite Responsible Tools Description Dept/Agency • Town Code for Quartzsite • 2006 International Building Code • 2006 International Residential Code • Building Safety • 2006 International Plumbing Code Codes • Planning and Zoning • 2006 International Mechanical Code • Fire • 2003 International Fire Code • 2005 National Electric Code • 1998Town Code • Quartzsite Planning &Zoning Ordinance • Floodplain, Zoning , Debris and Weed Abatement • Planning and Zoning Ordinances • 1992 Quartzsite Flood Damage Prevention • Flood Management Ordinance (Amended November 2001) • Code Enforcement • 1995 Quartzsite Subdivision Regulations(Amended June 2006) • Quartzsite General Plan (2003) • Quartzsite Hazard Mitigation Plan • Capital Improvements Plan (updated annually with fiscal report) • Economic Development Plan (2011) • La Paz Co Public Works Standards, Vol I, II, • Public Works III: Standards, specifications, and guidelines for • Engineering Plans, Manuals, the design and construction of public works • Emergency Guidelines related projects. Vol III also presents drainage Management design guidelines for private development as • Planning & Zoning well. (2/27/02) • Emergency Response Plan (2003) created by the Emergency Services Dept, for the most expedient and efficient manner to respond to critical emergency situations within the County. The Plan is NIMS compliant. Studies • • Technical Staff and Personnel Capabilities for Quartzsite Resources Department/Agency Planner(s) or engineer(s) with Planning and Zoning Department- Director knowledge of land development and Engineering Manager (Design) land management practices Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained Planning and Zoning Department – Building Official in construction practices related to Engineering Manager (Construction) buildings and/or infrastructure
68
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with Planning and Zoning Department-Director understanding of natural and/or Public Works- Director human-caused hazards Town Engineer Planning and Zoning Department – Director Floodplain Manager Public Works- Director Surveyors Public Works- Town Surveyor, Terra Survey Staff with education or expertise to assess the community’s vulnerability Planning and Zoning Department – Director to hazards Personnel skilled in GIS and/or Town Engineer HAZUS Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community Emergency Manager Public Works- Director, Emergency Services Coordinator. Grant writer(s) Town Grant Coordinator Specialist Fiscal Capabilities for Quartzsite
Accessible or Financial Resources Eligible to Use Comments Community Development Block Grants Yes Apply for CDBG on an annual basis Capital Improvements Project funding Yes Authority to levy taxes for specific Yes purposes For fees in Water and Sewer Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric Yes Improvement only: no other utilities service are under the Town. Impact fees for homebuyers or new No developments/homes Incur debt through general obligation No bonds Incur debt through special tax bonds No
69
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are activities identified that when implemented will have the effect of reducing or eliminating the community’s exposure and risk to the particular hazard or hazards being mitigated. The process for defining the list of mitigation measures for the Plan was accomplished by performing an assessment of the actions and projects in the previous Plan, wherein each jurisdiction reviewed and evaluated their specific list. Then a new list of measures was developed by combining the carry forward results from the assessment with new measures. Finally the combined lists were formulated. The Planning Team and Local Planning Team for each jurisdiction reviewed and assessed the actions and projects listed in Tables 5-5 and 5-6 of their corresponding 2007 Plans. The assessment included evaluating and classifying each of the previously identified A/Ps based on the following criteria: Measures with a disposition classification of “Keep” or “Revise” were carried forward to become part of the strategy for this Plan. Measures identified for deletion were removed and are not included in this Plan. The results of the assessment are in this Plan’s Appendix. The jurisdictions then developed new measures using the goals and objectives, results of the vulnerability analysis and capability assessment, and the planning team’s institutional knowledge of hazard mitigation needs in the community. For each measure, the following elements were identified: • Description – a brief description of the A/P including a supporting statement that tells the “what” and “why” reason for the A/P. • Hazard(s) Mitigated – a list of the hazard or hazards mitigated by the A/P. • Estimated Costs – concept level cost estimates that may be a dollar amount or estimated as staff time. • Priority Ranking – each A/P was assigned a priority ranking of either “High”, “Medium”, or “Low”. The assignments were subjectively made using a simple process that assessed how well the A/P satisfied the following considerations: o A favorable benefit versus cost evaluation, wherein the perceived direct and indirect benefits outweighed the project cost. o A direct beneficial impact on the ability to protect life and/or property from natural hazards. o A mitigation solution with a long-term effectiveness • Anticipated Completion Date – a realistic and general timeframe for completing the A/P. Examples may include a specific target date, a timeframe contingent upon other processes, or recurring timeframes. • Lead Agency – the agency, department, office, or other entity and corresponding job title that will have responsibility for the A/P and its implementation. • Potential Funding Source(s) – the source or sources of anticipated funding for the A/P. Tables 6-7-1 through 6-7-3 summarize the current mitigation A/P and implementation strategy for each participating Plan jurisdiction.
70
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Table 5-4-1: Mitigation Measures for La Paz County Commu nity Primary Assets Planning Agency / Job Mitigate Priori Mechanism Anticipat Title d ty (s) for ed Responsible for Hazard(s) (Ex/New Estimate Ranki Implement Completi Implementatio Funding Description Mitigated ) d Cost ng ation on Date n Source(s) Annually prepare and Citizens distribute a pamphlet to Emergency Corps provide citizens with Mgmt / Grant All Both $3,000 High Council, Annually mitigation and awareness of Emergency Funding LEPC, multiple hazards within the Mgmt Director CERT county. 75% Grant Emergency Analyze and up-date/rewrite Funding, Mgmt / the HAZMAT element of the Drought Both $1,500 High LEPC Annually 25% Emergency county-wide emergency plan. General Mgmt Director Fund Require Elevation Certificates for all habitable structures Community located within a FEMA Building Annual – Development / General delineated Special Flood Flood Both $2,000 High Permits Ongoing Chief Building Fund Hazard Area per NFIP Inspector requirements and the County Floodplain Ordinance. Annually perform brush and General tree removal in intervening Public Works / WUI Grant, Wildfire Existing $12,000 High Maintenanc Annually areas between subdivisions for Director HURF e wildfire mitigation.
71
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Table 5-4-1: Mitigation Measures for La Paz County Commu nity Primary Assets Planning Agency / Job Mitigate Priori Mechanism Anticipat Title d ty (s) for ed Responsible for Hazard(s) (Ex/New Estimate Ranki Implement Completi Implementatio Funding Description Mitigated ) d Cost ng ation on Date n Source(s) Study and analysis for Community channelization and drainage Flood 50% Grant, Development / master plan for Centennial Mediu Control Within 3 50% Flood Both $15,000 Director- Wash from the Maricopa m District years General Floodplain County line north to the Program Fund Coordinator Narrows Dam. Design and construct drainage HURF, mitigation measures at Within Mediu Public Works / State Riverside Drive including a Flood Existing $500,000 CIP Next 5 m Director Transp. new box culvert, storm drains, years Projects and roadside drainage ditches. Design and construct final phase (Phase IV) that includes a detention/sedimentation HURF, Within basin, a collection storm drain Mediu Public Works / State Flood Existing $450,000 CIP Next 5 system, and an improved m Director Transp. years inverted crown street to Projects mitigate flooding in the Buckskin Valley area. Coordinate with federal, state, fire districts, and county Community governments to develop a Mediu Within 1 General Wildfire Both $1,000 (none) Development / county ordinance that is m year Fund Director congruent with other agency burn fire regulations.
72
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Table 5-4-1: Mitigation Measures for La Paz County Commu nity Primary Assets Planning Agency / Job Mitigate Priori Mechanism Anticipat Title d ty (s) for ed Responsible for Hazard(s) (Ex/New Estimate Ranki Implement Completi Implementatio Funding Description Mitigated ) d Cost ng ation on Date n Source(s) Require structures to be designed to withstand 90 mph Community – 3 second wind gusts per the Severe Mediu Building Annual – Development / General Both $5,000 current IBC using tie downs, Wind m Permits Ongoing Chief Building Fund strapping or other mechanisms Inspector to mitigate against uplift. Conduct a collection program Annually Community to provide opportunities for beginning Development / county citizens to dispose of Annual General HAZMAT Both $5,000 Low with Code household paints and oils in a Program Fund 2012-13 Enforcement safe manner. Performed FY Supervisor annually. Continue to enforce the county ordinance used to keep weed Community and trash from accumulating Development / Annual General on vacant lots and elevating Wildfire Existing $1,000 Low Ongoing Code Program Fund the wildfire danger. Penalties Enforcement and fines are levied for non- Supervisor compliance. Community FEMA FEMA Drainage study of Bouse Wash Development / Funded as Region IX – Within 5 area from I-8 to the Colorado Flood Both $25,000 Low Director- part of the Risk Map years River. Floodplain Risk Map Program Coordinator Program
73
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Table 5-4-1: Mitigation Measures for La Paz County Commu nity Primary Assets Planning Agency / Job Mitigate Priori Mechanism Anticipat Title d ty (s) for ed Responsible for Hazard(s) (Ex/New Estimate Ranki Implement Completi Implementatio Funding Description Mitigated ) d Cost ng ation on Date n Source(s) Continue to provide public awareness information regarding dam failure Community inundation limits along the Dam Annual – General Both $2,000 Low (none) Development / Colorado River using Failure Ongoing Fund Director information provided by the US Bureau of Reclamation and FEMA.
74
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Table 5-4-3: Mitigation actions and projects for Quartzsite Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy Commu nity Primary Assets Planning Agency / Job Mitigate Priori Mechanism Anticipat Title d ty (s) for ed Responsible for Hazard(s) (Ex/New Estimate Ranki Implement Completi Implementatio Funding Description Mitigated ) d Cost ng ation on Date n Source(s) Manholes-Tyson Wash. Convert all sewer manholes in $1,500,0 Utilities / Tyson Wash to be water tight Flood New High 2012 USDA 00 Director to mitigate stormwater infiltration into the system. Tyson Wash –Flood Warning Devices. Design and install flood warning devices on Tyson Wash at strategic Public Works / Grant locations to provide flood Flood New $385,000 High 2013 Director Funded warning capabilities to residents and businesses impacted by Tyson Wash flooding
75
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Table 5-4-3: Mitigation actions and projects for Quartzsite Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy Commu nity Primary Assets Planning Agency / Job Mitigate Priori Mechanism Anticipat Title d ty (s) for ed Responsible for Hazard(s) (Ex/New Estimate Ranki Implement Completi Implementatio Funding Description Mitigated ) d Cost ng ation on Date n Source(s) Enforce floodplain management requirements in accordance with the Town’s NFIP Floodplain Ordinance and Compliance, Planning & NFIP requirements, including Staff Floodplain General Flood Both High On Going Zoning / regulating all new Time Managemen Fund Engineer development and substantially t improved construction within Ordinance the Special Flood Hazard Area. Tyson Bridge. Construct a Public Works / new bridge over Tyson Wash Director at the Tyson Road crossing to Mediu Grant provide all weather access to Flood New $500,000 2016 m Planning & Funded portions of town that are Zoning / currently isolated during a Director flood event. Prepare a Storm Water Master Public Works / Plan for the Town of Director Quartzsite to identify and Mediu evaluate drainage related Flood New $300,000 2014 HURF m Planning & problem areas and develop Zoning / solution alternatives for Engineer possible implementation.
76
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Table 5-4-3: Mitigation actions and projects for Quartzsite Mitigation Action/Project Implementation Strategy Commu nity Primary Assets Planning Agency / Job Mitigate Priori Mechanism Anticipat Title d ty (s) for ed Responsible for Hazard(s) (Ex/New Estimate Ranki Implement Completi Implementatio Funding Description Mitigated ) d Cost ng ation on Date n Source(s) Conduct a public education campaign to increase awareness of natural hazards Emergency All Staff Mediu General by distributing ADEM Both Annually Management/E Hazards Time m Fund mitigation flyers at the county M Director fair and other public gathering opportunities, as appropriate.
77
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
SECTION 6: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
Elements of this plan maintenance section include: Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms Continued Public and Stakeholder Involvement La Paz County and the participating jurisdictions recognize that this hazard mitigation plan is intended to be a “living” document with regularly scheduled monitoring, evaluation, and updating. Section 6 of the 2006 Plan outlined specific steps for plan maintenance. A poll of the Planning Team indicated that few formal reviews or maintenance occurred over the past five years. The mitigation actions/projects in the 2006 Plan was referred to by several jurisdictions on a periodic basis. Reasons for the lack of review included: • Staffing issues - changes in personnel, turnover, insufficient numbers. • Lack of funding and personnel. • Lack of awareness about the requirement Recognizing the need for improvement, the Planning Team discussed ways to make sure that the Plan review and maintenance process will occur over the next five years. The results of those discussions are outlined in the following sections and the plan maintenance strategy.
6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan Switching to a true multi-jurisdictional plan will aide in the Plan monitoring and evaluation by the consolidation of information for all county jurisdictions into one document. The Planning Team has established the following monitoring and evaluation procedures: • Schedule – The Plan shall be reviewed on at least an annual basis or following a major disaster. The La Paz Co Office of Emergency Management will take the lead to reconvene the Planning Team in or around the Plan anniversary and coincident with LEPC meetings. • Review Content – The following questions will be used as a guideline for each Plan review. Each jurisdiction shall participate and provide a response, as appropriate: o Hazard Identification: Have the risks and hazards changed? o Goals and objectives: Are the goals and objectives still able to address current and expected conditions? o Mitigation Projects and Actions: Has the project been completed? If not complete but started, what percent of the project has been completed? How much money has been expended on incomplete projects? Did the project require additional funds over the expected amount or were the costs less than expected? 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, the Planning Team will re-convene to review and assess the materials accumulated in Appendix E. • The Planning Team will update and/or revise the appropriate or affected portions of the plan and produce a revised plan document.
78
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
• The revised plan document will be presented before the respective councils and boards for an official concurrence/adoption of the changes. • The revised plan will be submitted to ADEM and FEMA for review, comment and approval.
6.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms Incorporation of the Plan into other planning mechanisms, either by content or reference, enhances a community’s ability to perform natural hazard mitigation by expanding the scope of the Plan’s influence. A poll of the participating jurisdictions revealed that incorporation of the 2006 Plan elements over the past planning cycle into other planning programs was limited. Ways in which the 2006 Plans have been successfully incorporated or referenced into other planning mechanisms for each jurisdiction are summarized below: La Paz County: • Correlation of 2006 Plan mitigation actions/projects with the county’s rolling 5-year CIP • Elements of the 2006 Plan risk assessment were referenced during the update of the county’s emergency operations plan. Town of Parker • None Town of Quartzsite • Quartzsite did not have a 2006 Plan. In all of the above instances, the 2006 Plan was found to be beneficial, and especially with regard to the critical facility inventories, vulnerability analysis results, and the mitigation strategy. Obstacles to further incorporation of the 2006 Plan for some of the communities were generally the same as those given in Section 7.1 and were primarily tied to a lack of awareness of the Plan by departments outside of the emergency management community, and the relative “newness” of the Plan with regard to other, more commonplace planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or general plans. Typical ways to use and incorporate the Plan over the next five-year planning cycle, discussed by the Planning Team, included: • Use of, or reference to, Plan elements in updates to general and comprehensive planning documents. • Correlation of defined mitigation A/Ps to capital improvement programming. • Inclusion of Plan elements into development planning and practices. • Resource for developing and/or updating emergency operations plans.
The Plan will continue to function as a standalone document subject to its own review and revision schedule presented in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. The Plan will also serve as a reference for other mitigation and land planning needs of the participating jurisdictions. Whenever possible, each jurisdiction will endeavor to incorporate the risk assessment results and mitigation actions and projects identified in the Plan, into existing and future planning mechanisms. At a minimum, each of the responsible agencies/departments noted in Tables 6-1-1 through 6-1-3 will review and reference the Plan and revise and/or update the legal and regulatory planning documents, manuals, codes, and ordinances summarized in Tables 6-1-1 through 6-1-3, as appropriate. Specific incorporation of the Plan risk assessment elements into the natural resources and safety elements of each jurisdictions’ general
79
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 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/or comprehensive plans, will help to ensure hazard mitigated future development. In addition, an implementation strategy outlining assignments of responsibility and completion schedules for specific actions/projects proposed in this plan are summarized in Tables 6- 7-1 through 6-7-3.
6.4 Continued Public and Stakeholder Involvement La Paz County and participating jurisdictions are committed to keeping the public informed about the hazard mitigation planning efforts, actions and projects. Past continued public involvement activities pursued by the Planning Team include: • Radio station interviews and discussions by county staff regarding development and floodplain management issues. • County LEPC meeting discussions that focused on mitigation elements. • Fliers and brochures made available to the public with information for mitigation and preparedness Table 7-1 summarizes activities for public involvement and dissemination of information that shall be pursued whenever possible and appropriate.
Table 6-1: Continued Public Involvement Jurisdiction Public Involvement Activity or Opportunity • Maintain a webpage with the Plan posted and contact information for staff to receive comments from the public. La Paz • Brief presentation of Plan review findings and conclusions at LEPC meetings, as appropriate. County • Continue with announcement and discussion spots on local radio station to encourage mitigation and public awareness of hazards. • Maintain a webpage with the Plan posted and contact information for staff to receive Parker comments from the public. • Have a copy of the Plan available at the Town Hall. • Maintain a webpage with the Plan posted and contact information for staff to receive comments from the public. Quartzsite • Make ADEM mitigation brochures available to the public at prominent locations within Town Hall.
80
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
81
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX A: PLAN TOOLS
Acronyms A/P ...... Mitigation Action/Project ADEM ...... Arizona Division of Emergency Management ADEQ ...... Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADWR ...... Arizona Department of Water Resources AGFD ...... Arizona Game and Fish Department ARS ...... Arizona Revised Statutes ASCE ...... American Society of Civil Engineers ASERC ...... Arizona State Emergency Response Commission ASLD ...... Arizona State Land Department ASU ...... Arizona State University AZGS ...... Arizona Geological Survey BLM ...... Bureau of Land Management CAP ...... Central Arizona Project CAP ...... Community Assistance Program CFR ...... Code of Federal Regulations CRS ...... Community Rating System CWPP ...... Community Wildfire Protection Plan DEMA ...... Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs DFIRM ...... Digital Flood Insurance Rate DMA 2000 ...... Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 DOT ...... Department of Transportation EHS ...... Extremely Hazardous Substance EPA ...... Environmental Protection Agency EPCRA ...... Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act FEMA ...... Federal Emergency Management Agency FMA ...... Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program GIS ...... Geographic Information System HAZMAT ...... Hazardous Material HAZUS-99 ..... Hazards United States1999 HAZUS-MH ... Hazards United States Multi-Hazard IFCI ...... International Fire Code Institute LEPC ...... Local Emergency Planning Committee MMI ...... Modified Mercalli Intensity NCDC ...... National Climate Data Center NDMC ...... National Drought Mitigation Center NESDIS ...... National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service NFIP ...... National Flood Insurance Program NFPA ...... National Fire Protection Association NHC ...... National Hurricane Center NIBS ...... National Institute of Building Services NID ...... National Inventory of Dams NIST ...... National Institute of Standards and Technology NSF ...... National Science Foundation NOAA ...... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRC ...... National Response Center NWCG ...... National Wildfire Coordination Group
82
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
NWS ...... National Weather Service LCOEM ...... La Paz County Office of Emergency Management LCPW ...... La Paz County Public Works Department PSDI ...... Palmer Drought Severity Index RL ...... Repetitive Loss SARA ...... Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SRLP ...... Severe Repetitive Loss Properties SRL ...... Severe Repetitive Loss SRP ...... Salt River Project UBC ...... Uniform Building Code USACE ...... United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA ...... United States Department of Agriculture USFS ...... United States Forest Service USGS ...... United States Geological Survey VA ...... Vulnerability Analysis WUI ...... Wildland Urban Interface
83
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX B: PLANNING DOCUMENTATION
84
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
APPENDIX C: PAST MITIGATION MEASURES ASSESSMENT
85
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Parker Mitigation Measures Status Update
Anticipated Potential Hazard(s) Estimated Completion Funding Description Mitigated Cost Date Project Lead Source(s) Status Disposition Explanation Regulate new development in areas with In Progress / Keep The Town is a NFIP participant Parker Community FEMA floodplain delineations using current Ongoing and actively administers Flood $5,000 On-Going Development Town Funds floodplain management ordinance per the floodplain management within the Director NFIP Program. Town limits. Review and update the drought related Complete / Delete On-going. elements of the current zoning ordinance to Parker Comm. Dev Ordinance Review to be reflect and guide low water use, drought Drought $6,000 Dir. and Pub. Works Town Funds 03-2005 completed by tolerant vegetation usage per the state drought Dir. 6/30/12 planning requirements. Continue to coordinate and participate with La In progress / Keep We have posted the MJHM plan Parker Police Chief Paz County Emergency Management on all Ongoing link on our Town website. All $6,000 On-going and Comm. Dev Town Funds hazard mitigation related activities and public Dir. outreach. Enforce the newly adopted IBC 2006 building Complete Keep and Flood, On-going Parker Community codes to protect existing and future assets Revise to IBC Severe $5,000 until new Development Town Funds from the effects of flooding and severe winds 2012 Winds codes adopted Director associated with monsoon thunderstorms. New Plan Complete Delete Adoption Perform a review and update of the Town’s Arizona required by Parker Town general plan. Update will include review, Commerce All $10,000 2025. Council, Town Mgr. reference, and incorporation of the Town of Authority Amendments and Dept. Directors Parker Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Grant may happen at any time. Recently Parker Town Complete Delete Study and implement an updated water rate completed Council, Town Mgr. structure for the purposes of encouraging Drought $5,000 Town Funds new rates. and Public Works conservation by consumers. On-going. Dept. Directors
86
LA PAZ COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017
Parker Mitigation Measures Status Update
Anticipated Potential Hazard(s) Estimated Completion Funding Description Mitigated Cost Date Project Lead Source(s) Status Disposition Explanation In progress / Keep No progress yet. Historically, our Ongoing code enforcement measures have suffered due to staffing challenges. At this time we are Enforce current weed abatement ordinance to Parker Police Chief gearing up to start code protect existing and future assets from wildfire Wildfire $6,500 On-going and Comm. Dev Town Funds enforcement w/i our dept. We within the town limits. Dir. hope to be actively practicing code enforcement (which would include weed abatement) by July 2017.
87