HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Packet 03.04.2025
AGENDA
CITY OF LAUREL
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
TUESDAY, MARCH 04, 2025
6:30 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Public Input: Citizens may address the Council regarding any item of City business that is not on tonight’s agenda. The
duration for an individual speaking under Public Input is limited to three minutes. While all comments are welcome, the
Council will not take action on any item not on the agenda. Because of the Rules that govern public meetings, Council is not
permitted to speak in response to any issue raised that is a non-Agenda item. The Mayor may provide factual information in
response, with the intention that the matter may be addressed at a later meeting. In addition, City Council may request that a
particular non-Agenda item be placed on an upcoming Agenda, for consideration. Citizens should not construe Council’s
“silence” on an issue as an opinion, one way or the other, regarding that non-Agenda matter. Council simply cannot debate
an item that is not on the Agenda, and therefore, they must simply listen to the feedback given during public input. If a
citizen would like to speak or comment regarding an item that is on tonight’s agenda, we ask that you wait until the agenda
item is presented to the Council by the Mayor and the public is asked to comment by the Mayor.
Be advised, if a discussion item has an upcoming public hearing, we would request members of the public to reserve your
comments until the public hearing. At the public hearing, the City Council will establish an official record that will include
all of your comments, testimony, and written evidence.
General Items
1. Appointment of Dean Rankin to the Laurel Urban Renewal Agency for the remainder of a four-
year term ending December 31, 2027.
Executive Review
2. Mayor: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council To Adopt An Official Schedule Of
Fees And Charges For The City Of Laurel And Repealing All Previous Resolutions That Set
Fees Or Charges That Conflict With The Schedule Attached Hereto Upon Its Effective Date.
3. Public Works: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Authorizing The Adoption Of
The 2024 Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan And Annex K For Yellowstone
County.
4. Clerk/Treasurer: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Authorizing The Mayor To
Execute An Independent Contractor Service Contract With Fisher’s Technology.
Council Issues
5. Discussion - Tabled Minutes
Other Items
Attendance at Upcoming Council Meeting
Announcements
The City makes reasonable accommodations for any known disability that may interfere with a person’s ability to partic ipate
in this meeting. Persons needing accommodation must notify the City Clerk’s Office to make needed arrangements. To make
your request known, please call 406-628-7431, Ext. 5100, or write to City Clerk, PO Box 10, Laurel, MT 59044, or present
your request at City Hall, 115 West First Street, Laurel, Montana.
1
File Attachments for Item:
1. Appointment of Dean Rankin to the Laurel Urban Renewal Agency for the remainder of a
four-year term ending December 31, 2027.
2
3
File Attachments for Item:
2. Mayor: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council To Adopt An Official Schedule Of
Fees And Charges For The City Of Laurel And Repealing All Previous Resolutions That Set
Fees Or Charges That Conflict With The Schedule Attached Hereto Upon Its Effective Date.
4
R25-____ Adopt Schedule of Fees and Charges
RESOLUTION NO. R25-_____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT AN OFFICIAL SCHEDULE
OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE CITY OF LAUREL AND REPEALING ALL
PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS THAT SET FEES OR CHARGES THAT CONFLICT
WITH THE SCHEDULE ATTACHED HERETO UPON ITS EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Laurel Municipal Code requires the City Council to review, modify,
and/or update its fees and charges on an annual basis through further Resolution of the City
Council;
WHEREAS, City Staff prepared the attached Schedule of Fees and Charges,
incorporated herein, for the City Council’s consideration and adoption after public hearing
until further Resolution of the City Council;
WHEREAS, on the ______ day of _____________, 2025, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. R_______, a Resolution of Intent to adopt the updated Schedule of Fees and
Charges and set a public hearing for the ______ day of _____________, 2025; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the ______ day of _____________, 2025,
in order to provide opportunity for public input prior to adoption of the updated Schedule of
Fees and Charges.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the attached
Schedule of Fees and Charges is reasonable and in the best interests of the City of Laurel; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
approves the Schedule of Fees and Charges attached hereto and incorporated by reference
herein.
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ______ day of
_____________, 2025 by Council Member _____________________.
PASSED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana on the
______ day of _____________, 2025.
APPROVED by the Mayor on the ______ day of _____________, 2025.
CITY OF LAUREL
___________________________
Dave Waggoner, Mayor
5
R25-____ Adopt Schedule of Fees and Charges
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kelly Strecker, Clerk-Treasurer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Michele L. Braukmann, Civil City Attorney
6
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 1 of 15
CITY OF LAUREL
SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES
AS OF TUESDAY MARCH 11, 2025, / RESOLUTION NO. R25-__
Administrative, City Attorney, and Court Fees and Charges (except Library)
Item Fee
Returned Check $50.00
Document Photocopying
First three pages No Charge
Copies in excess of three pages per page $0.25
Discovery Fee
Fee for production of discovery documents – Flat fee for USB Drive $10.00
Additional Discovery Fee for Mailed Documents $10.00
Public Records Request/FOIA Request
Research City Records (Per Hour) $50.00
Research by Contracted Staff (Per Hour) $150.00-
$250.00
Research by City Attorney (Per Hour) $250.00
Dog License Fees and Renewals before April 1 (Must be renewed each year)
Spayed Female/Neutered Male $20.00
Un-spayed Female/Un-neutered Male $30.00
Dog License Renewals after April 1
Spayed Female/Neutered Male $30.00
Un-spayed Female/Un-neutered Male $40.00
Dog Kennel before April 1 (Must be renewed each year)
Non-Commercial $50.00
Commercial $75.00
Chicken License Fee – Flat Fee $25.00
Business License
General $100.00
Beer and/or Wine $400.00
Three Apartments $50.00
Four Apartments $60.00
Five or more Apartments $95.00
Pawn Shop $200.00
Utilities $400.00
Amusement Machines $100.00
Live Music $100.00
Junk $100.00
Liquor $500.00
Franchises $400.00
Sexually Oriented Business $750.00
7
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 2 of 15
Police Department Fees and Charges
Item Fee
Victims Report $10.00
Case Report $40.00
Case Report with Pictures $55.00
Vehicle Accident Report – Form Only $20.00
Vehicle Accident Report with Pictures $35.00
Audio Recording $75.00
Vehicle Impound – Per Day 1st Week $45.00
Vehicle Impound – Per Day after 1st Week $70.00
Dog Impound Fee – 1st in Calendar Year $35.00
Dog Impound Fee – Subsequent in Calendar Year $50.00
Dog Boarding Fee – 24 Hours After Notification – Per Day $100.00
Fingerprint Card $35.00
Subsequent Fingerprint Cards – Per Card $5.00
False Alarm – 3rd and Consecutive in Calendar Year $100.00
Library Fees and Charges
Item Fee
Photocopy Fees – per page
Black & White $0.10
Color $0.20
Printer Fees – per page
Black and White $0.10
Color $0.20
Lost or Damaged Book Cost
Library Cards for Non-Residents No Charge
Interlibrary Loan Postage (per item not available via Courier – after 3) $5.00
Community Room
Use during library hours – for profit fee charged - per hour $3.00
Use after hours (per hour or any portion of an hour – for profit) $30.00
Refundable Cleaning Deposit $30.00
Library Card Replacement Fee (per card) $2.00
Fax Fees (per page)
Send No Charge
Receive $0.10
8
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 3 of 15
Fire Department Fees and Charges
Item Fee
Incident Report (NFIRS Copy) $50.00
Photograph Copies – Digital (USB) $35.00
Fire Suppression Fees Charged to Non-Resident or for Code or Ordinance
Violations
Base Rate for First Hour of Response for Working Fires, Rescue
Operations, Hazmat or Large-Scale Incidents
$2,000.00
Base Rate for First Hour of Service Assist Calls or Minor Calls $1,500.00
For Each Fireman – Per Hour $50.00
Base Rate for Assist and Investigate – Per Hour $250.00
Rates for Additional Hours after the First Hour of Any Response
(Time Calculated from Time of Response to Return to Service)
Engine #1 $500.00
Engine #2 $500.00
Engine #4 $500.00
Squad 5 $500.00
Tender #1 $225.00
Tender #2 $225.00
Support #1 $225.00
Command 1 $250.00
Command 2 $250.00
Brush #3 $250.00
Brush #4 $250.00
Brush #5 $250.00
Business Inspections within jurisdiction – Marketing Fireworks, Firecrackers,
and other Pyrotechnics
$250.00
False Fire Alarms – Per Calendar Year
First No Charge
Second $400.00
Third $800.00
Fourth+ $1,000.00
Fire Extinguisher Training
10 Students $250.00
Additional Per Student $25.00
9
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 4 of 15
Emergency Medical Service Fees and Charges
Code Definition Charge
A0425 Ambulance Mileage (per loaded mile) $20.00
A0428 Transport, BLS non-emergent $850.00
Out of District Fee $150.00
A0429 Transport, BLS emergent $1,200.00
Out of District Fee $150.00
A0426 Transport, ALS non-emergent $1,000.00
Out of District Fee $150.00
A0427 Transport, ALS emergent $1,400.00
Out of District Fee $150.00
A0433 Transport, ALS 2 emergent $1,600.00
Out of District Fee $150.00
A0434 Specialty Care Transport $2,000.00
A0424 Extra Ambulance Attendant $100.00
A0382 BLS routine supplies $100.00
A0398 ALS routine supplies $200.00
A0384 Defibrillation supplies $160.00
A0394 IV Supplies $75.00
A0396 Intubation $175.00
A0422 Oxygen $75.00
A0420 Waiting time (with patient) $75.00
Stand by Rate QRU (1 person) (per hour) $75.00
Stand by Rate Ambulance (2 person) (per hour) $100.00
TNT1 Simple response (lift assist, etc.) $25.00
TNT2 Response, treatment using BLS Supplies / no transport $50.00
TNT3 Response, treatment using ALS or ALS2 Supplies / no transport $100.00
Glucagon $300.00
Patient Care Report Copy (HIPAA Compliant) $25.00
10
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 5 of 15
Public Works: Water Rates and Charges
Item Fee
See Current Resolution (Resolution No. R24-100)
System Development Fees (Based on Line Size) - Water
¾ Inch $2,500.00
1 Inch $4,475.00
1 ¼ Inch $6,950.00
1 ½ Inch $10,000.00
2 Inch $17,850.00
3 Inch $40,000.00
4 Inch $71,425.00
Connections to the water system with meters larger than 4 inches or when the
unique usage characteristics of a large water user may require, the City will
determine the system development fee at that time if the City can provide the
services as requested.
Curb Box Repair Insurance Fee – Per Month Per Water Account $1.00
Utility Hook-Up Fees
Water Tapping – Two Inches or Less $250.00
Water Tapping – Greater Than Two Inches Fee x 1.25
Labor/Operator Rate Per Hour $60.00
Heavy Equipment Rate Per Hour $100.00
Other Fees for Repairs, etc.
Frozen or Damaged Meter
Replacement Meter or Meter Parts Cost + 25%
Plus the Labor/Operator Rate Per Hour $60.00
OR Overtime Hourly Rate if Called Out After Hours $90.00
Hydrant Meter Rental – Per Month (Prorated Plus the Total Usage) $476.00
Utility Billing Fees and Deposits
New Accounts or Re-Establishing an Account $35.00
Restoring Service to a Delinquent Account $75.00
Deposit for New Meter Accounts, No Service in Previous Year $170.00
Charge for Check Returned by Bank as Unpaid $50.00
11
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 6 of 15
Public Works: Wastewater Rates and Charges
Item Fee
See Current Resolution (Resolution No. R24-100)
Septic Dump Fee - $60.00
Minimum
up to 1,000
Gallons plus
$0.06 per
gallon
thereafter
Septic Clean-up Fee for Spillage (Resolution No. R15-96) $40.00
System Development Fees (Based on Line Size) – Sewer
Residential – Each Housing Unit (Duplex=2 units; Triplex=3 units;
Four-plex=4 units; etc.
$2,700.00
Commercial – Based on Water Meter Size; Includes Subdivision for
Rent or Lease
¾ Inch $2,700.00
1 Inch $4,833.00
1 ¼ Inch $7,506.00
1 ½ Inch $10,800.00
2 Inch $19,278.00
3 Inch $43,200.00
4 Inch $77,139.00
Connections to the wastewater system with water meters larger than 4 inches or
when the unique usage characteristics of a large water user may require, the City
will determine the system development fee at that time if the City can provide
the service as requested.
12
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 7 of 15
Public Works: Solid Waste Fees and Charges
Item Fee
See Current Resolution (Resolution No. R22-77)
Multiple Containers – Non-Residential users who use multiple containers shall
be assigned a volume of use variable for each container used.
Roll Off Container Set/Reset $30.00
Roll Off Container Haul $150.00
Roll Off Container Cost per Ton Current Billings
Landfill Rates
Replacement Waste Container – Due to Negligence Cost x 1.50
All Tires – Per Tire $5.00
Container Site Waste – Business and Non-City Residents and/or City Residents
that do not use City Solid Waste Services
Minimum $10.00
Per Additional Cubic Yard $10.00
Non-Residential Garbage Disposal Rate Schedule – See Current Resolution
(R22-77)
Park and Recreation Fees and Charges
Item Fee
Shelter Reservation $50.00
Special Event Application Fee $35.00
Special Event in Parks
One Day Closure $100.00
Two Day Closure $150.00
Youth Activities Fee can be
waived by
the Mayor
Garbage Cans for Special Events – Per 100 Gallons – Prepaid Residential
Garbage
Rate
Special Event Clean-Up Fee – Per Hour/Per Employee $45.00
Riverside Park Camping Fees
Tent Space (per night) $20.00
Back-in Space (per night) $25.00
Pull Through Space (per night) $30.00
13
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 8 of 15
Cemetery Fees and Charges
Item Fee
Please Note: Cemetery Caretaker must be present at all interments.
Please Note: Burials are not permitted on Sundays, holidays, or Saturday
afternoons.
City Residents
Full Grave $650.00
Baby Grave $500.00
Non-Residents
Full Grave $800.00
Baby Grave $550.00
Opening and Closing
Full Grave $480.00
Full Grave on Saturday mornings $580.00
Baby Grave $400.00
Baby Grave on Saturday mornings $450.00
Cremation $300.00
Cremation on Saturday mornings $350.00
Two Cremations on single plot $375.00
Two Cremations on single plot on Saturday mornings $450.00
Set Cremation Urn at existing Headstones $75.00
Private Sale of any plot – Transfer Processing Fee $75.00
Disinterment Fee for full burial $600.00
Disinterment Fee for cremains $500.00
14
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 9 of 15
Planning Fees and Charges
Item Fee Notes
Annexation into the City of Laurel (80 acres or less) $ 750.00 + $35.00/acre
Annexation into the City of Laurel (81 acres or more) $ 750.00 + $55.00/acre
Cash in Lieu of Parking spaces outside of the Central
Business District $ 850.00 + $25.00/space
Conditional Use Application (Commercial) $ 1,350.00
Conditional Use Application (Residential) $ 850.00
Floodplain Permit $ 300.00
Home Occupations $ 200.00
Outdoor Seating $ 300.00 +$25.00/day
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan $ 850.00
Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan $ 1,350.00 +$50.00/acre
Planned Unit Development Final Plan $ 1,600.00 +$25.00/acre
Review of Buildings for Lease or Rent $ 350.00
Site Plan Review Fee (Commercial) $ 600.00
Site Plan Review Fee (Residential) $ 350.00
Special Review (Commercial) $ 1,350.00
Special Review (Residential) $ 850.00
Special Review Applications resubmitted within one
year of a withdrawal request made after the legal
advertising
$ 600.00
Staff Research $ 50.00 Per Hour
Temporary Use Permit $ 450.00
Vacation of Street or Alley $ 350.00
Variance (Commercial) $ 1,350.00
Variance (Residential) $ 850.00
Variance Applications resubmitted within one year of
a withdrawal request made after the legal advertising $ 850.00
Zone Change $ 1,350.00 + $45.00/acre
Zone Change Applications resubmitted within 1 year
of a withdrawal request made after the legal
advertising
$ 850.00
Zoning Compliance/Verification Letter $ 200.00
Zoning Map Amendment $ 1,750.00 + $45.00/acre
15
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 10 of 15
Subdivision Fees and Charges
Item Fee Notes
Corrections or Adjustments to Plats, Conditions, and
Supporting Documents after Preliminary Plat
Approval: $ 350.00
Corrections or Vacations of Recorded Final
Subdivision Plats or Supporting Documents $ 350.00
Exempt Subdivision $ 400.00
Preliminary Plat (Minor) $ 1,950.00 + $50.00/lot
Final Plat (Minor) $ 1,350.00
Preliminary Plat, Major Subdivision, 6 to 40 lots $ 2,250.00 + $25.00/lot
Final Plat, Major Subdivision, 6 to 40 lots $ 1,750.00
Preliminary Plat, Major Subdivision, 41 to 200 lots $ 2,950.00 + $25.00/lot
Final Plat, Major Subdivision, 41 to 200 lots $ 2,500.00
Preliminary Plat, Major Subdivision, Over 200 lots $ 3,750.00 + $25.00/lot
Final Plat, Major Subdivision, Over 200 lots $ 3,500.00
Major Adjustments for Minor Subdivisions $ 750.00
Major Adjustments for Major Subdivision, 6 to 40
lots $ 1,350.00
Major Adjustments for Major Subdivision, 41 to 200
lots $ 1,850.00
Major Adjustments for Major Subdivision, Over 200
lots $ 2,350.00
Minor Adjustments, Major and Minor Subdivisions $ 350.00
Pre-Application Meeting $ 750.00 + $25.00/lot
Subdivision for Rent or Lease, Final Plan $ 1,500.00
Subdivision for Rent or Lease, Preliminary Plan $ 1,250.00
All Appeals the same as the Application Fee
16
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 11 of 15
Building Permit Fees and Charges
Item Fee Notes
Additional Plan Review required by changes,
additions or revisions to plans (minimum charge - one
half hour) $ 100.00
Per Hour
Additional Re-Inspection Fee $ 100.00
Building Permit - See Appx. A
Deck Permit $25.00 Per sq.ft.
Demolition Permit – Residential $500.00
Demolition Permit – Commercial - See Appx. A
Encroachment Permit $ 150.00
Fence Permit $ 100.00
Fire Inspection (includes one follow-up inspection) $ 100.00
Mobile Home Blocking Permit (includes two-meter
inspections) $ 100.00
Moving Permit $ 250.00
On-site Pre-building Inspection (New & Additions) $30.00
Photocopies (over 3 pages) $ 0.25 Per Page
Plan Review (Commercial) -
65% of
Building
Permit Fee
Plan Review (Residential) -
50% of
Building
Permit Fee
Plotter Photocopies $ 10.00 Per page
Right-of-way Excavation Permit (Gravel) $ 150.00
Right-of-way Excavation Permit (Paved) $ 200.00
Roofing Permit (Commercial) $ 250.00
Roofing Permit (Residential) $ 150.00
Siding Installation Permit $ 100.00
Sidewalk, Driveway Approach, Curb & Gutter Permit $ 150.00
Sign Permit $1.00 Per sq.ft.
Sign Plan Review Fees $2.00 Per sq.ft.
Sign – Face Change $30.00 Per face
Temporary Sign Permit $ 75.00
Temporary Structure Permit $ 150.00
Window and/or Door Replacement Installation
Permit – No Structural Modifications $ 75.00
Per structure
or building
17
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 12 of 15
APPENDIX A: BUILDING PERMIT FEES and Charges
Building permit fees are determined by the total valuation of the project. For new construction
and additions, the total valuation is determined by the most recent valuation data published by
the International Code Council. For remodel projects, the total valuation is based on the
documented project cost. (RPR is Residential Plan Review, CPR is Commercial Plan Review)
Valuation Building
Permit
Residential Plan
Review
Commercial Plan
Review
From To
$ 1.00 $ 500.00 $ 36.00 $ 18.00 $ 23.40
$ 501.00 $ 600.00 $ 40.50 $ 20.25 $ 26.33
$ 601.00 $ 700.00 $ 45.00 $ 22.50 $ 29.25
$ 701.00 $ 800.00 $ 49.50 $ 24.75 $ 32.18
$ 801.00 $ 900.00 $ 54.00 $ 27.00 $ 35.10
$ 901.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 58.50 $ 29.25 $ 38.03
$ 1,001.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 63.00 $ 31.50 $ 40.95
$ 1,101.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 67.50 $ 33.75 $ 43.88
$ 1,201.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 72.00 $ 36.00 $ 46.80
$ 1,301.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 76.50 $ 38.25 $ 49.73
$ 1,401.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 81.00 $ 40.50 $ 52.65
$ 1,501.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 85.50 $ 42.75 $ 55.58
$ 1,601.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 90.00 $ 45.00 $ 58.50
$ 1,701.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 94.50 $ 47.25 $ 61.43
$ 1,801.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 99.00 $ 49.50 $ 64.35
$ 1,901.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 103.50 $ 51.75 $ 67.28
$ 2,001.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 125.50 $ 62.25 $ 80.93
$ 3,001.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 145.50 $ 72.75 $ 94.58
$ 4,001.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 166.50 $ 83.25 $ 108.23
$ 5,001.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 187.50 $ 93.75 $ 121.88
$ 6,001.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 208.50 $ 104.25 $ 135.53
$ 7,001.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 229.50 $ 114.75 $ 149.18
$ 8,001.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 250.50 $ 125.25 $ 162.83
$ 9,001.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 271.50 $ 135.75 $ 176.48
$ 10,001.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 292.50 $ 146.25 $ 190.13
$ 11,001.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 313.50 $ 156.75 $ 203.78
$ 12,001.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 335.50 $ 167.25 $ 217.43
$ 13,001.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 355.50 $ 177.75 $ 231.08
$ 14,001.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 376.50 $ 188.25 $ 244.73
$ 15,001.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 397.50 $ 198.75 $ 258.38
$ 16,001.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 418.50 $ 209.25 $ 272.03
$ 17,001.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 439.50 $ 219.75 $ 285.68
18
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 13 of 15
$ 18,001.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 460.50 $ 230.25 $ 299.33
$ 19,001.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 481.50 $ 240.75 $ 312.98
$ 20,001.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 502.50 $ 251.25 $ 326.63
$ 21,001.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 523.50 $ 261.75 $ 340.28
$ 22,001.00 $ 23,000.00 $ 544.50 $ 272.25 $ 353.93
$ 23,001.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 565.50 $ 282.75 $ 367.58
$ 24,001.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 586.50 $ 293.25 $ 381.23
$ 25,001.00 $ 26,000.00 $ 601.50 $ 300.75 $ 390.98
$ 26,001.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 616.50 $ 308.25 $ 400.73
$ 27,001.00 $ 28,000.00 $ 633.00 $ 316.50 $ 411.45
$ 28,001.00 $ 29,000.00 $ 648.00 $ 324.00 $ 421.20
$ 29,001.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 663.00 $ 331.50 $ 430.95
$ 30,001.00 $ 31,000.00 $ 678.00 $ 339.00 $ 440.70
$ 31,001.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 693.00 $ 346.50 $ 450.45
$ 32,001.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 708.00 $ 354.00 $ 460.20
$ 33,001.00 $ 34,000.00 $ 723.00 $ 361.50 $ 469.95
$ 34,001.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 738.00 $ 369.00 $ 479.70
$ 35,001.00 $ 36,000.00 $ 753.00 $ 376.50 $ 489.45
$ 36,001.00 $ 37,000.00 $ 768.00 $ 384.00 $ 499.20
$ 37,001.00 $ 38,000.00 $ 784.50 $ 392.25 $ 509.93
$ 38,001.00 $ 39,000.00 $ 799.50 $ 399.75 $ 519.68
$ 39,001.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 814.50 $ 407.25 $ 529.43
$ 40,001.00 $ 41,000.00 $ 829.50 $ 414.75 $ 539.18
$ 41,001.00 $ 42,000.00 $ 844.50 $ 422.25 $ 548.93
$ 42,001.00 $ 43,000.00 $ 859.50 $ 429.75 $ 558.68
$ 43,001.00 $ 44,000.00 $ 874.50 $ 437.25 $ 568.43
$ 44,001.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 889.50 $ 444.75 $ 578.18
$ 45,001.00 $ 46,000.00 $ 904.50 $ 452.25 $ 587.93
$ 46,001.00 $ 47,000.00 $ 919.50 $ 459.75 $ 597.68
$ 47,001.00 $ 48,000.00 $ 934.50 $ 467.25 $ 607.43
$ 48,001.00 $ 49,000.00 $ 949.50 $ 474.75 $ 617.18
$ 49,001.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 964.50 $ 482.25 $ 626.93
$ 50,001.00 $ 51,000.00 $ 976.50 $ 488.25 $ 634.73
$ 51,001.00 $ 52,000.00 $ 987.00 $ 493.50 $ 641.55
$ 52,001.00 $ 53,000.00 $ 997.50 $ 498.75 $ 648.38
$ 53,001.00 $ 54,000.00 $ 1,008.00 $ 504.00 $ 655.20
$ 54,001.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 1,018.50 $ 509.25 $ 662.03
$ 55,001.00 $ 56,000.00 $ 1,029.00 $ 514.50 $ 668.85
$ 56,001.00 $ 57,000.00 $ 1,039.50 $ 519.75 $ 675.68
$ 57,001.00 $ 58,000.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 525.00 $ 682.50
$ 58,001.00 $ 59,000.00 $ 1,060.50 $ 530.25 $ 689.33
19
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 14 of 15
$ 59,001.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 1,071.00 $ 535.50 $ 696.15
$ 60,001.00 $ 61,000.00 $ 1,081.50 $ 540.75 $ 702.98
$ 61,001.00 $ 62,000.00 $ 1,092.00 $ 546.00 $ 709.80
$ 62,001.00 $ 63,000.00 $ 1,102.50 $ 551.25 $ 716.63
$ 63,001.00 $ 64,000.00 $ 1,113.00 $ 556.50 $ 723.45
$ 64,001.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 1,123.50 $ 561.75 $ 730.28
$ 65,001.00 $ 66,000.00 $ 1,134.00 $ 567.00 $ 737.10
$ 66,001.00 $ 67,000.00 $ 1,144.50 $ 572.25 $ 743.93
$ 67,001.00 $ 68,000.00 $ 1,155.00 $ 577.50 $ 750.75
$ 68,001.00 $ 69,000.00 $ 1,165.50 $ 582.75 $ 757.58
$ 69,001.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 1,176.00 $ 588.00 $ 764.40
$ 70,001.00 $ 71,000.00 $ 1,186.50 $ 593.25 $ 771.23
$ 71,001.00 $ 72,000.00 $ 1,197.00 $ 598.50 $ 778.05
$ 72,001.00 $ 73,000.00 $ 1,207.50 $ 603.75 $ 784.88
$ 73,001.00 $ 74,000.00 $ 1,218.00 $ 609.00 $ 791.70
$ 74,001.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 1,228.50 $ 614.25 $ 798.53
$ 75,001.00 $ 76,000.00 $ 1,239.00 $ 619.50 $ 805.35
$ 76,001.00 $ 77,000.00 $ 1,249.50 $ 624.75 $ 812.18
$ 77,001.00 $ 78,000.00 $ 1,260.00 $ 630.00 $ 819.00
$ 78,001.00 $ 79,000.00 $ 1,270.50 $ 635.25 $ 825.83
$ 79,001.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 1,281.00 $ 640.50 $ 832.65
$ 80,001.00 $ 81,000.00 $ 1,291.50 $ 645.75 $ 839.48
$ 81,001.00 $ 82,000.00 $ 1,302.00 $ 651.00 $ 846.30
$ 82,001.00 $ 83,000.00 $ 1,312.50 $ 656.25 $ 853.13
$ 83,001.00 $ 84,000.00 $ 1,323.00 $ 661.50 $ 859.95
$ 84,001.00 $ 85,000.00 $ 1,333.50 $ 666.75 $ 866.78
$ 85,001.00 $ 86,000.00 $ 1,344.00 $ 672.00 $ 873.60
$ 86,001.00 $ 87,000.00 $ 1,354.50 $ 677.25 $ 880.43
$ 87,001.00 $ 88,000.00 $ 1,365.00 $ 682.50 $ 887.25
$ 88,001.00 $ 89,000.00 $ 1,375.50 $ 687.75 $ 894.08
$ 89,001.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 1,386.00 $ 693.00 $ 900.90
$ 90,001.00 $ 91,000.00 $ 1,396.50 $ 698.25 $ 907.73
$ 91,001.00 $ 92,000.00 $ 1,407.00 $ 703.50 $ 914.55
$ 92,001.00 $ 93,000.00 $ 1,417.50 $ 708.75 $ 921.38
$ 93,001.00 $ 94,000.00 $ 1,428.00 $ 714.00 $ 928.20
$ 94,001.00 $ 95,000.00 $ 1,438.50 $ 719.25 $ 935.03
$ 95,001.00 $ 96,000.00 $ 1,449.00 $ 724.50 $ 941.85
$ 96,001.00 $ 97,000.00 $ 1,459.50 $ 729.75 $ 948.68
$ 97,001.00 $ 98,000.00 $ 1,470.00 $ 735.00 $ 955.50
$ 98,001.00 $ 99,000.00 $ 1,480.50 $ 740.25 $ 962.33
$ 99,001.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 1,491.00 $ 745.50 $ 969.15
20
FY 25 Schedule of Fees and Charges
March 11, 2025
Resolution No. R25-__
Page 15 of 15
$100,001 - $500,000: $1491.00 for the first $100,000, plus $6.40 for each additional
$1,000 or portion thereof.
$500,001 - $1,000,000: $4,051.00 for the first $500,000 plus $5.47 for each additional
$1,000 or portion thereof.
$1,000,000 and up: $6,239.00 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.58 for each additional
$1,000 or portion thereof.
Residential Plan Review = 50% of Permit Fee
Commercial Plan Review = 65% of Permit Fee
If work has started prior to issuance of a permit, the Building Permit Fee will double.
Basements
o Finished - $50 per sq.ft.
o Unfinished – refer to the most recent ICC Building Valuation Table
21
File Attachments for Item:
3. Public Works: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Authorizing The Adoption Of
The 2024 Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan And Annex K For Yellowstone
County.
22
R25-____ Approve the Adoption of the 2024 Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan and Annex K for
Yellowstone County
RESOLUTION NO. R25-_____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF
THE 2024 EASTERN MONTANA REGION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AND
ANNEX K FOR YELLOWSTONE COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the City of Laurel recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people
and property within our community;
WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions will reduce the potential for harm
to people and property from future hazard occurrences;
WHEREAS, an adopted Hazard Mitigation Plan is required as a condition of future
funding for mitigation projects under multiple Federal Emergency Management Agency pre-
and post- disaster mitigation grant programs;
WHEREAS, Yellowstone County, City of Laurel resides within the Planning Area, and
fully participated in the mitigation planning process to prepare this Hazard Mitigation Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Montana Disaster & Emergency Services and Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Region VIII officials have reviewed the 2024 Eastern Montana Region
Hazard Mitigation Plan and related Annex K for Yellowstone County and approved it
contingent upon this official adoption of the participating governing body.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel,
Montana, as follows:
1. That the City Council of the City of Laurel hereby adopts the Eastern Montana
Region Hazard Mitigation Plan and related Annex K for Yellowstone County, as an
official plan; and
2. That the City of Laurel, in conjunction with Yellowstone County, will submit this
Adoption Resolution to the Montana Disaster & Emergency Services and Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Region VIII officials to enable the Plan’s final
approval.
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _____ day of
____________________, 2025, by Council Member ________________.
PASSED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel the _____ day of
____________________, 2025.
23
R25-____ Approve the Adoption of the 2024 Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan and Annex K for
Yellowstone County
APPROVED by the Mayor the _____ day of ____________________, 2025.
CITY OF LAUREL
___________________________
Dave Waggoner, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kelly Strecker, Clerk-Treasurer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Michele L. Braukmann, Civil City Attorney
24
EASTERN MONTANA
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2024-2029
Big Horn County
Carbon County
Carter County
Crow Agency
Custer County
Daniels County
Dawson County
Fallon County
Garfield County
Golden Valley County
McCone County
Musselshell County
Powder River County
Prairie County
Richland County
Roosevelt County
Rosebud County
Sheridan County
Stillwater County
Treasure County
Valley County
Wibaux County
Yellowstone County
25
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Table of Contents
Page | 0
Contents
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.3 Background and Scope ................................................................................................................................ 1-3
1.4 Plan Organization........................................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Multi-Jurisdictional Planning ..................................................................................................................... 1-4
2 Region Profile ................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Geography and Climate ............................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Population ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-5
2.3 Development Trends .................................................................................................................................... 2-6
2.4 Economy ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-7
2.5 Capability Assessment.................................................................................................................................. 2-9
3 Planning Process ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Background on Mitigation Planning in Eastern Montana .............................................................. 3-1
3.2 Government Participation ........................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.3 The 10-Step Planning Process .................................................................................................................. 3-4
3.3.1 Phase 1: Organize Resources .................................................................................................... 3-5
3.3.2 Phase 2: Assess Risks.................................................................................................................. 3-13
3.3.3 Phase 3: Develop the Mitigation Plan ................................................................................. 3-14
3.3.4 Phase 4: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress ..................................................... 3-16
3.4 Tribal Mitigation Planning Process ....................................................................................................... 3-16
3.5 EPA Regional Resilience Toolkit ............................................................................................................. 3-17
4 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Hazard Identification .................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Results and Methodology .......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Other Hazards Considered but not Profiled ....................................................................... 4-3
4.1.3 Disaster Declaration History ...................................................................................................... 4-3
4.1.4 National Risk Index Overview ................................................................................................... 4-6
4.1.5 Assets Summary ............................................................................................................................. 4-8
4.1.6 Social Vulnerability...................................................................................................................... 4-11
4.2 Hazard Profiles .............................................................................................................................................. 4-17
4.2.1 Profile Methodology .................................................................................................................. 4-17
4.2.2 Communicable Disease ............................................................................................................. 4-20
4.2.3 Cyber-Attack.................................................................................................................................. 4-29
4.2.4 Dam Failure .................................................................................................................................... 4-37
4.2.5 Drought ........................................................................................................................................... 4-50
4.2.6 Earthquake ..................................................................................................................................... 4-69
4.2.7 Flooding .......................................................................................................................................... 4-86
4.2.8 Hazardous Materials Incidents .............................................................................................4-103
4.2.9 Landslide .......................................................................................................................................4-113
4.2.10 Severe Summer Weather ........................................................................................................4-124
4.2.11 Severe Winter Weather ...........................................................................................................4-149
4.2.12 Human Conflict ..........................................................................................................................4-172
26
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Table of Contents
Page | 1
4.2.13 Tornadoes & Windstorms ......................................................................................................4-182
4.2.14 Transportation Accidents .......................................................................................................4-205
4.2.15 Volcanic Ash ................................................................................................................................4-216
4.2.16 Wildfire ..........................................................................................................................................4-224
5 Mitigation Strategy ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Mitigation Strategy: Overview .................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Mitigation Goals ............................................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions ............................................................................. 5-2
5.3.1 Prioritization Process .................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.4 Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................................................................................. 5-4
5.4.1 Progress on Previous Mitigation Actions ............................................................................. 5-4
5.4.2 Continued Compliance with NFIP ........................................................................................... 5-5
5.4.3 Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................................................................. 5-6
6 Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance .......................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Formal Adoption ............................................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Implementation .............................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2.1 Role of Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee in Implementation and
Maintenance .................................................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.3 Plan Maintenance........................................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.3.1 Maintenance Schedule ................................................................................................................ 6-3
6.3.2 Maintenance Evaluation Process ............................................................................................. 6-3
6.3.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms ........................................................... 6-4
6.3.4 Continued Public Involvement ................................................................................................. 6-5
Jurisdictional Annexes
A. Carbon County
B. Crow Tribe
C. Custer County
D. Daniels County
E. Garfield County
F. Powder River County
G. Prairie County
H. Roosevelt County
I. Sheridan County
J. Valley County
K. Yellowstone County
Jurisdictional Addendums
L. Big Horn County
M. Carter County
N. Dawson County
O. Fallon County
P. Golden Valley County
Q. McCone County
27
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Table of Contents
Page | 2
R. Musselshell County
S. Richland County
T. Rosebud County
U. Stillwater County
V. Treasure County
W. Wibaux County
Appendices:
• Appendix A Hazard Mitigation Planning Committees
• Appendix B Planning Process Documentation
• Appendix C Public Input
• Appendix D Adoption Resolutions and Plan Approval
• Appendix E References
28
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Introduction
Page | 1-1
1 Introduction
1.1 Executive Summary
The Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) is the product of a regional planning process
coordinated by Montana Disaster & Emergency Services (MT DES) in 2022-2023 to develop regional hazard
mitigation plans covering the entire State of Montana. The following jurisdictions have prepared this Plan
and will adopt it once it has been approved:
• Big Horn County
o City of Hardin
o Town of Lodge Grass
• Carbon County
o Town of Bearcreek
o Town of Bridger
o Town of Fromberg
o Town of Joliet
o City of Red Lodge
• Carter County
o Town of Ekalaka
• Crow Tribe
• Custer County
o City of Miles City
o Town of Ismay
• Daniels County
o City of Scobey
o Town of Flaxville
• Dawson County
o City of Glendive
o Town of Richey
• Fallon County
o City of Baker
o Town of Plevna
• Garfield County
o Town of Jordan
• Golden Valley County
o Town of Ryegate
o Town of Lavina
• McCone County
o Town of Circle
• Musselshell County
o Town of Melstone
o Town of Roundup
• Powder River County
o Town of Broadus
• Prairie County
o Town of Terry
• Richland County
o Town of Fairview
o Town of Sidney
• Roosevelt County
o City of Wolf Point
o City of Poplar
o Town of Bainville
o Town of Culbertson
o Town of Froid
• Rosebud County
o City of Colstrip
o City of Forsyth
• Sheridan County
o City of Plentywood
o Town of Medicine Lake
o Town of Outlook
o Town of Westby
• Stillwater County
o Town of Columbus
• Treasure County
o Town of Hysham
• Valley County
o City of Glasgow
o Town of Fort Peck
o Town of Nashua
o Town of Opheim
• Wibaux County
o Town of Wibaux
• Yellowstone County
o City of Billings
o Town of Broadview
o City of Laurel
The purpose of hazard mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long -term risk to people and property from
disasters or hazard events. The impacts of hazards can often be lessened or even avoided if appropriate
29
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Introduction
Page | 1-2
actions are taken before events occur. Studies have found that hazard mitigation is extremely cost -effective,
with every dollar spent on mitigation saving an average of $6 in avoided future losses. By reducing exposure
to known hazard risks, communities will save lives and property and minimize the social, economic, and
environmental disruptions that commonly follow hazard events.
The 2023 Eastern Montana Region HMP (also referred to as “Plan”) will serve as a blueprint for coordinating
and implementing hazard mitigation policies, programs, and projects across the Region. It identifies
mitigation goals and related actions to assist the participatin g jurisdictions in reducing risk and preventing
loss from future hazard events. The goals of the 2023 Eastern Montana Region HMP are:
Goal 1: Reduce impacts to people, property, the environment, and the economy from hazards by
implementing whole-community risk reduction and resilience strategies.
Goal 2: Protect community lifelines and critical infrastructure to ensure the continuity of essential
services during and after a disaster.
Goal 3: Support education and outreach to the public through improved communications and capacity
building that enhances resilience among underserved communities.
Goal 4: Promote regional cooperation and leverage partnerships with the private sector, non-profit
organizations, and other key stakeholder groups in mitigation solutions.
Goal 5: Sustain and enhance jurisdictional capabilities and resources to enact and implement mitigation
activities.
Goal 6: Integrate hazard mitigation into other plans, processes, and regulations.
Goal 7: Ensure local mitigation programs address underrepresented groups and protect socially
vulnerable populations.
Goal 8: Incorporate the potential impacts of climate change into all mitigation activities when possible.
These goals were tailored for the Eastern Region during group exercises at a series of mitigation strategy
workshops. This Plan was also developed to maintain the participating jurisdictions’ eligibility for federal
disaster assistance, specifically the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation
Assistance (HMA) grants including the Hazard Mitigation G rant Program (HMGP), Flood Mitigation
Assistance (FMA) program, and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program , as
well as the Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dam (HHPD) grant program.
It is important that local decision-makers stay involved in mitigation planning to provide new ideas and
insight for future updates to the Regional HMP. As a long -term goal, the Regional HMP and the mitigation
strategies identified within will be fully integrated into the daily decisions and routines of local government.
This will continue to require dedication and hard work, and to this end, this Plan update continues efforts
to further strengthen the resiliency of the Eastern Region.
1.2 Purpose
The participating jurisdictions of the Eastern Montana Region prepared this Regional HMP to guide hazard
mitigation planning and to better protect the people and property of the planning area from the effects of
hazard events. This Plan demonstrates the Region’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves
as a tool to help decision-makers direct mitigation activities and resources. This Plan also maintains the
jurisdictions’ eligibility for federal mitigation grants under FEMA’s HMA grant programs. This Plan
demonstrates the Region and participating jurisdictions’ commitment to reducing risks from hazards and
serves as a tool to help decision-makers direct mitigation activities and resources.
30
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Introduction
Page | 1-3
1.3 Background and Scope
Each year in the United States, disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more.
Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and
individuals recover from disasters. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters because
additional expenses to insurance companies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are not
reimbursed by tax dollars. Many disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these ev ents
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 spent on mitigation saves society an average of
$6 in avoided future losses in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries (Natural Ha zard Mitigation
Saves, 2019 Report).
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 developed, prioritized, and implemented. This Plan documents the planning region’s hazard
mitigation planning process, identifies relevant hazards and risks, and identifies the strategies that each
participating jurisdiction will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability.
This Plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law
106-390) and the implementing regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal
Register on February 26, 2002 (44 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §201.6) and finalized on October 31,
2007 (hereafter, these requirements and regulations will be referred to collectively as the Disaster Mitigation
Act (DMA)). While the DMA emphasized the need for mitigation plans and more coordinated mitigation
planning and implementation efforts, the regulations established the requirements that local hazard
mitigation plans must meet for a local jurisdiction to be eligible for certain fed eral disaster assistance and
hazard mitigation funding under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (Public Law 93 -
288). Because the Eastern Region planning area is subject to many kinds of hazards, access to these
programs is vital.
Information in this Plan will be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities and decisions for
local land use policy in the future. Proactive mitigation planning will help reduce the cost of disaster
response and recovery to communities and property owners by prote cting critical community facilities,
reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall community impacts and disruption. The jurisdictions in
the Eastern Region planning area have been affected by hazards in the past and are thus committed to
reducing future disaster impacts and maintaining eligibility for federal funding.
1.4 Plan Organization
The Eastern Montana Region HMP is organized in alignment with the DMA planning requirements and the
FEMA plan review tool as follows:
● Chapter 1: Introduction
● Chapter 2: Region Profile
● Chapter 3: Planning Process
● Chapter 3.4: Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment
● Chapter 5: Mitigation Strategy
● Chapter 6: Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance
31
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Introduction
Page | 1-4
● County and Tribal Annexes and Addendums
● Appendices
Each annex provides a more detailed assessment of each jurisdiction’s unique risks as well as their mitigation
strategy to reduce long-term losses. Each annex contains the following:
● Mitigation Planning and County Planning Team
● Community Profile
● Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
● Vulnerability to Specific Hazards
● Mitigation Capabilities Assessment
● Mitigation Strategy
● Plan Implementation and Maintenance
When this Plan was organized and initiated in 2022 several counties in the Region had recently approved
HMPs. It was determined by MT DES and FEMA Region VIII to only require implementation updates
associated with the mitigation strategy in an Addendum th at complied with current FEMA policy guidance
and aligned with and supplemented the counties existing HMP, rather than conducting new analysis in an
Annex. Each addendum discusses the following topics, as each relates to plan implementation and
maintenance:
● Mitigation Planning
● Summary Overview of the jurisdiction’s recently approved HMP’s progress
● Social Vulnerability
● Hazard Events within the Planning Area (natural hazard events that have occurred since the jurisdiction’s
HMP was recently approved)
● Changes in Risk Exposure in the Planning Area
● Mitigation Capabilities Assessment
● Review of the Mitigation Action Plan
1.5 Multi-Jurisdictional Planning
This Plan was prepared as a regional, multi-jurisdictional plan. The Eastern Montana Region is comprised of
23 counties and three tribal reservations, as established by MT DES. All tribes, counties, and incorporated
municipalities in the Region were invited to participate in the planning process. The Fort Peck Tribes, as
known as Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes ; Northern Cheyenne Tribe; and Wheatland County elected
not to participate in the Regional plan. Wheatland County and Northern Cheyenne Tribe elected not to
participate due to limited staff and resources; the Fort Peck Tribes did not participate because they were
already developing a full HMP update. All other tribes, counties, and incorporated municipalities fully
participated in the planning process, and have committed to adopt and implement the Regional HMP. The
participating jurisdictions seeking FEMA approval of this plan are listed in Section 1.1.
32
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Region Profile
Page | 2-1
2 Region Profile
This section provides a brief overview of the geography of the planning area. A base map of the planning
region is illustrated in Figure 2-1 below.
2.1 Geography and Climate
The Eastern Montana Region is comprised of the following 22 counties and one tribal reservation that
participated in the Regional HMP planning process :
• Big Horn County
• Carbon County
• Carter County
• Crow Tribe
• Custer County
• Daniels County
• Dawson County
• Fallon County
• Garfield County
• Golden Valley County
• McCone County
• Musselshell County
• Powder River County
• Prairie County
• Richland County
• Roosevelt County
• Rosebud County
• Sheridan County
• Stillwater County
• Treasure County
• Valley County
• Wibaux County
• Yellowstone County
The Eastern Region is dominated by prairie landscape as part of the Great Plains. Some parts of eastern
Montana, in areas most prone to drying chinooks, have near -desert conditions and scrub rather than
grassland. Eastern Montana also has breaks and highlands that are widely forested, such as the Custer
National Forest and areas around Fort Peck Lake. Eastern Montana has a semi-arid steppe climate with low
precipitation that is to some extent countered by low evaporation rates. According to Western Regional
Climate Center (WRCC), probably the driest part of Montana is along the Clark Fork of the Yellowstone River
in Carbon County. In this area, eight miles south-southwest of Belfry, the average precipitation for a 16-year
period is 6.59 inches. In the Eastern Region, summers are short but hot and winters are long, cold , and
extremely variable. The major rivers that flow through the Eastern Region include the Missouri River,
Yellowstone River, Milk River, Clark’s Fork, Big Horn, Powder River, and Tongue River. The Missouri River,
the longest river in the United States and Yellowstone County, the most populous county in Montana, are
both included in the Eastern Region. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Centers for Environmental Information also noted that tornadoes occur almost entirely in the
Eastern Region. Blizzards are also most common in the northeastern part of the State, occurring about five
times per year. The eastern part of the State can also experience bitterly cold temperatures, occasionally
lower than −30°F.
Major roadways include Interstate 94, Interstate 90, Highway 2, Highway 12, Highway 212, Highway 59, and
Highway 87. Figure 2-2 below shows the land ownership within Eastern Montana.
As mentioned previously, the Eastern Region receives lower annual precipitation compared to the western
part of the State. Precipitation is typically higher in the southeastern portion of the region compared to the
northwestern portion. The Eastern Region also experiences distinct seasons. Spring and fall tend to be
relatively short transitional periods, with mild temperatures. The Eastern Region can also experience rapid
weather changes, with significant temperature swings during these seasons. Winters in the Eastern Region
are cold, with average temperatures ranging from the 20s°F to the low 30s°F. Temperatures can drop well
33
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Region Profile
Page | 2-2
below freezing, and snowfall is common. Blizzards and strong winds can occur during the winter months,
creating hazardous travel conditions. Summers are generally hot and dry, with average high temperatures
ranging from the upper 80s°F to 90s°F. Heatwaves are not uncommon, and temperatures can occasionally
exceed 100°F during the hottest months of July and August. Additional geography and climate data for
each jurisdiction within the Eastern Region can be found in the Community Profile section of each
jurisdictional annex and addendum.
34
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Region Profile
Page | 2-3
Figure 2-1 Eastern Montana Region Base Map
35
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Region Profile
Page | 2-4
Figure 2-2 Federal Lands and Indian Reservations Montana
36
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Region Profile
Page | 2-5
2.2 Population
Table 2-1 summarizes the estimated population and population change for the Eastern Region planning
area as a whole and for the individual counties. Data is based on the Decennial Census and American
Community Survey (ACS) Five-Year Estimates data from the US Census Bureau. Carter, Fallon, Musselshell,
Richland, and Yellowstone Counties have experienced significant growth over the past decade. Daniels,
Garfield, Golden Valley, Rosebud, Stillwater, Treasure, and Wibaux Counties have experienced a net
population loss. The Eastern Region was home to 25.4% of Montana’s total population of 1,104,271 in 2021.
Overall, the Eastern Region is experiencing moderate growth, but the percent change varies by county
within the Eastern Region.
Table 2-1 Eastern Region Population Change
County 2010
Census
2016
Estimate
2017
Estimate
2018
Estimate
2019
Estimate
2020
Census
2021
Estimate
% Change
2010 to
2021
Big Horn
County 12,865 13,214 13,290 13,376 13,387 13,124 13,198 2.6%
Carbon
County 10,078 10,340 10,466 10,546 10,597 10,473 10,488 3.9%
Carter
County 1,160 1,295 1,320 1,318 1,331 1,415 1,349 14.0%
Custer
County 11,699 11,980 11,895 11,845 11,729 11,867 11,968 2.3%
Daniels
County 1,751 1,787 1,788 1,753 1,730 1,661 1,739 -0.7%
Dawson
County 8,966 9,431 9,324 9,191 9,017 8,940 9,003 0.4%
Fallon
County 2,890 2,913 2,925 2,838 2,921 3,049 3,074 5.9%
Garfield
County 1,206 1,061 1,086 1,141 1,036 1,173 972 -24.1%
Golden
Valley
County
884 730 747 724 728 823 820 -7.8%
McCone
County 1,734 1,678 1,728 1,630 1,790 1,729 1,805 3.9%
Musselshell
County 4,538 4,778 4,766 4,807 4,766 4,730 4,813 5.7%
Powder
River
County
1,743 1,648 1,610 1,619 1,607 1,694 1,7591 0.9%
Prairie
County 1,179 1,414 1,325 1,342 1,252 1,088 1,227 3.9%
Richland
County 9,746 11,392 11,405 11,360 11,199 11,491 11,375 14.3%
Roosevelt
County 10,425 11,230 11,218 11,228 11,175 10,794 10,884 4.2%
Rosebud
County 9,233 9,348 9,292 9,250 9,152 8,329 8,464 -9.1%
37
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Region Profile
Page | 2-6
County 2010
Census
2016
Estimate
2017
Estimate
2018
Estimate
2019
Estimate
2020
Census
2021
Estimate
% Change
2010 to
2021
Sheridan
County 3,384 3,645 3,568 3,574 3,483 3,539 3,522 3.9%
Stillwater
County 9,117 9,342 9,342 9,410 9,466 8,963 8,916 -2.2%
Treasure
County 718 846 790 777 668 762 693 -3.6%
Valley
County 7,369 7,576 7,561 7,532 7,471 7,578 7,553 2.4%
Wheatland
County 2,168 2,109 2,108 2,149 2,142 2,069 2,082 -4.1%
Wibaux
County 1,017 1,143 1,121 1,175 1,122 937 1,018 0.1%
Yellowstone
County 147,972 155,344 156,332 157,816 159,008 164,731 163,5932 9.5%
Total 261,842 274,244 275,007 276,401 276,777 280,959 280,315 6.9%
NOTES:
1 – During review of this plan, Powder River County noted their 2022 population was 1,725 people according to the ACS.
2 - During review of this plan, Yellowstone County noted their 2021 population estimate was not accurate due to an algorithm error by the US
Census Bureau, and there has not been a growth decline. The 2022 population estimate for Yellowstone County is 169,852 according to the ACS.
Source: US Census Bureau ACS 5-year Estimates, https://data.census.gov/
2.3 Development Trends
The population of the Eastern Region has been consistently growing since 2010, and the Montana
Department of Commerce projects that this growth will continue through the year 2040. Please note that
the population change projections for Tribal Nations are not available. Table 2-2 below lists the projected
2040 populations of each county within the Eastern Region. Counties such as Yellowstone, Big Horn, Custer,
and Richland have seen some of the greatest concentrations of population growth and urban development
in the Eastern Region and the State, although not all these counties' populations are projected to increase
by 2040. Based on the estimates from the Montana Department of Commerce, through the year 2040 ,
Treasure, Powder River, Garfield, and Stillwater counties are projected to see the highest rates of population
increase. Additional details on specific growth and development trends are provided in each county’s
respective annex and addendum.
Table 2-2 Eastern Montana 2020 Census and 2040 Projections
County 2020
Census 2040 Projections % Change
Big Horn County 13,124 11,178 -14.8%
Carbon County 10,473 13,425 28.2%
Carter County 1,415 1,464 3.5%
Custer County 11,867 10,923 -8.0%
Daniels County 1,661 1,534 -7.6%
Dawson County 8,940 8,067 -9.8%
Fallon County 3,049 2,910 -4.6%
Garfield County 1,173 1,481 26.3%
Golden Valley County 823 1,005 22.1%
38
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Region Profile
Page | 2-7
County 2020
Census 2040 Projections % Change
McCone County 1,729 1,562 -9.7%
Musselshell County 4,730 3,970 -16.1%
Powder River County 1,694 2,381 40.6%
Prairie County 1,088 1,145 5.2%
Richland County 11,491 10,712 -6.8%
Roosevelt County 10,794 8,790 -18.6%
Rosebud County 8,329 6,323 -24.1%
Sheridan County 3,539 3,097 -12.5%
Stillwater County 8,963 12,873 43.6%
Treasure County 762 1,007 32.2%
Valley County 7,578 8,346 10.1%
Wheatland County 937 2,334 12.8%
Wibaux County 2,069 1,090 16.3%
Yellowstone County 164,731 178,358 8.3%
Total 280,959 293,975 4.6%
Sources: US Census Bureau ACS 5-year Estimates, https://data.census.gov/; Montana Regional Economic Models Incorporated (REMI)
https://dataportal.mt.gov/t/DOC/views/CEIC_REMI_POPULATION_PROJECTION_COUNTY_AGE_RACE_SFE/Trend?%3Aorigin=card_share_link&%3A embe
d=y
2.4 Economy
Figure 2-3 displays a breakdown of the total employment by industry statewide. According to the 2020 US
Census, Montana’s economy is largely based on the educational services, health care, and social assistance
industry with 120,662 people. This is followed by retail trade with 63,971 total people. Third is arts,
entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services with 59,115 people, followed by
professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services with 45,656
people. These four sectors comprise 56% of employment in the Eastern Region.
39
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Region Profile
Page | 2-8
Figure 2-3 Montana Industry Type by Percentage of Total Workers Employed
Source: US Census, 2020, Figure by WSP
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
40
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Region Profile
Page | 2-9
2.5 Capability Assessment
Included in this Regional HMP is a capability assessment to review and document the Eastern Region
planning area’s current capabilities to mitigate risk and vulnerability from natural hazards. By collecting
information about existing local and tribal government programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and
emergency plans, the planning team and MT DES can assess those activities and measures already in place
that contribute to mitigating some of the risks and vulnerabilities identified. The capabilities assessment is
divided into five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation
capabilities, financial mitigation capabilities, education and outreach, and mitigation partnerships. The
results of this assessment are captured in each jurisdictional annex and addendum.
41
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-1
3 Planning Process
Requirements §201.6(b) and §201.6(c)(1): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an
effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the
planning process shall include:
1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities,
and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other private
and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and
3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
[The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was
involved in the process, and how the public was involved.
i. Tribal Requirement §201.7(c)(1): Documentation of the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it
was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. This shall include:
ii. An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval,
including a description of how the Indian tribal government defined “public;”
As appropriate, an opportunity for neighboring communities, tribal and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation
activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other
private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process.
3.1 Background on Mitigation Planning in Eastern Montana
The 2023 Eastern Montana Regional HMP is the first regional HMP for Eastern Montana. The plan’s
development over 2022-2023 will comply with the five-year update cycle required by the DMA 2000 going
forward and reflects mitigation priorities for the five-year span between 2023-2028.
Prior to 2023, the counties and tribes of Eastern Montana had adopted jurisdictional-specific hazard
mitigation plans over the years. Table 3-1 provides a summary of when each jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation
plan was originally developed, including the most recent adoption. Information on how the jurisdictions
integrated the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms can be found in Section 11.1 of each
jurisdictional annex or addendum.
Table 3-1 Eastern Montana Local and Tribal HMP History, Adoption, and Integration
County/Tribe Original Plan
Approval Last Adoption
Big Horn County 2006 2022
Carbon County 2005 2021
Carter County 2005 2022
Crow Tribe 2007 2015
Custer County 2005 2017
Daniels County 2008 2016
Dawson County 2014 2022
Fallon County 2013 2022
42
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-2
County/Tribe Original Plan
Approval Last Adoption
Garfield County 2007 2015
Golden Valley County 2007 2022
McCone County 2014 2022
Musselshell County 2007 2022
Powder River County 2006 2015
Prairie County 2005 2013
Richland County 2014 2022
Roosevelt County 2008 2017
Rosebud County 2007 2022
Sheridan County 2008 2017
Stillwater County 2010 2022
Treasure County 2007 2022
Valley County 2008 2017
Wibaux County 2014 2022
Yellowstone County 2004 2019
Regional Planning. While each county and tribe in Montana has an Emergency Management Coordinator,
MT DES has recognized that the process of developing and updating DMA 2000 compliant HMPs can often
be beyond local and tribal capabilities and expertise. Instead of each county and tribe hiring their own
consultant, MT DES took the lead in procuring and funding a professional hazard mitigation planning
consultant through a competitive bid process. In 2022, WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. (WSP)
was selected by MT DES to provide assistance to the Eastern Region under a multi-year, multiple region
contract. As the planning consultant, WSP’s role was to:
● Provide guidance on a planning organization for the entire planning area representative of the
participants;
● Ensure the plan meets all the DMA requirements as established by federal regulations, following FEMA’s
most recent planning guidance;
● Facilitate the entire planning process;
● Identify the data requirements that the participating counties, tribes, and municipalities could provide,
and conduct the research and documentation necessary to augment that data;
● Develop and help facilitate the public input process;
● Produce the draft and final plan documents; and
● Ensure acceptance of the final Plan by MT DES and FEMA Region VIII.
Prior to initiating the development of this Regional HMP in 2022, a substantial coordination effort took
place to ensure the participation of the counties and tribes within Eastern Montana. Each jurisdiction
designated the Emergency Management Coordinator as the primary point of contact. Each Coordinator was
required to undertake a coordination role within their respective counties to help fulfill DMA planning
requirements. The county Emergency Management Coordinators then contacted each of the incorporated
communities, offering them the opportunity to participate in the development of the Regional HMP. Most
43
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-3
incorporated communities within the counties, as well as the tribes, chose to participate in the development
of this Regional Plan. Figure 3-1 illustrates the regional planning framework.
Figure 3-1 Eastern Montana Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Framework
The Emergency Management Coordinator from each participating county and tribe served on the Regional
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC), as well as convening and facilitating a County Planning
Team (CPT) or Tribal Planning Team (TPT) in concert with MT DES and the consultant team.
3.2 Government Participation
The DMA planning regulations and guidance stress that each local and tribal government seeking FEMA
approval of their mitigation plan must participate in the planning effort in the following ways:
● Participate in the process as part of the Regional HMPC through participation in a CPT or TPT,
● Detail areas within the planning area where the risk differs from that facing the entire area,
● Identify specific projects to be eligible for funding, and
● Have the governing board formally adopt the plan.
For the Eastern Montana Regional HMP’s HMPC, “participation” meant:
● Providing input by attending and participating in HMPC meetings, separate side -bar meetings, or email
and phone correspondence;
● Establishing/reconvening a local steering committee;
● Providing available data requested by the HMPC coordinator and planning consultant;
● Providing/updating the hazard profile and vulnerability details specific to jurisdictions;
● Developing/updating the local mitigation strategy (action items and progress);
County &
Tribal Planning
Teams
Regional Steering
Committee &
Subregional
Groups
Subregion
1:
Counties
Subregion
2:
Counties
Subregion
3:
Counties
& Tribes
Subregion
4:
Counties
Subregion
5:
Counties
& Tribes
Subregion
6:
Counties
County Staff,
Municipal
Staff,
Stakeholders
County Staff,
Municipal
Staff,
Stakeholders
County Staff,
Municipal
Staff, Tribal
Staff,
Stakeholders
County Staff,
Municipal
Staff,
Stakeholders
County Staff,
Municipal
Staff, Tribal
Staff,
Stakeholders
County Staff,
Municipal
Staff,
Stakeholders
Regional Project
Oversight and
Management
MT DES (Staff
Support) Wood
(Consultant/Project
Management)
44
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-4
● Advertising and assisting with the public input process;
● Reviewing and commenting on plan drafts; and
● Coordinating the formal adoption of the plan by the governing boards.
This Regional Plan includes the participation of most of the counties and the municipalities in Eastern
Montana as noted in Chapter 1 and detailed further in Section 3.3.1. Documentation of participation is
included in Appendix B in the form of meeting sign-in sheets, meeting summaries, monthly meeting
participation, and additional documentation .
3.3 The 10-Step Planning Process
The HMPC established the planning process for the Eastern Montana Region HMP using the DMA planning
requirements and FEMA’s associated guidance. This guidance is structured around a four -phase process:
1) Organize Resources
2) Assess Risks
3) Develop the Mitigation Plan
4) Implement the Plan and Monitor the Progress
Into this four-phase process, WSP integrated a more detailed 10 -step planning process used by FEMA’s
Community Rating System (CRS) and FMA programs. Thus, the modified 10-step process used for this plan
meets the requirements of all of FEMA’s HMA grant programs, the CRS program, and flood control projects
authorized by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally, FEMA’s May 2023 Local Mitigation Planning
Handbook recommends a nine-task process within the four-phase process. Table 3-2 summarizes the four-
phase DMA process, the detailed CRS planning steps and work plan used to develop the plan, the nine
handbook planning tasks from FEMA’s 2023 Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, and where the results are
captured in the Plan. Tribal elements of the Regional HMP were designed to be fully compliant with the
requirements of 44 CFR 201.7 as detailed in FEMA’s 2019 Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance.
The sections that follow describe each planning step in more detail.
Table 3-2 Mitigation Planning Process Used to Develop the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
FEMA 4 Phase
Guidance
CRS Planning Steps
(Activity 510)
FEMA Local Mitigation Planning
Handbook Tasks (44 CFR Part 201) Location in Plan
Phase I: Organize
Resources
Step 1. Organize Resources 1: Determine the Planning Area and
Resources
Chapters 1, 2 and 3
2: Build the Planning Team 44 CFR
201.6(c)(1)
Chapter 3, Section
3.3.1
Step 2. Involve the public 3: Create an Outreach Strategy 44 CFR
201.6(b)(1)
Chapter 3, Section
3.3.1
Step 3. Coordinate with
Other Agencies
4: Review Community Capabilities 44
CFR 201.6(b)(2) & (3)
Chapter 3, Section
3.3.1 and annexes
Phase II: Assess
Risks
Step 4. Assess the hazard 5: Conduct a Risk Assessment 44 CFR
201.6(c)(2)(i) 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(ii) & (iii)
Chapter 4 and annexes
Step 5. Assess the problem Chapter 4 and annexes
Phase III: Develop
the Mitigation
Strategy
Step 6. Set goals 6: Develop a Mitigation Strategy 44 CFR
201.6(c)(3)(i); 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(ii); and
44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(iii)
Chapter 5, Section 5.2
Step 7. Review possible
activities
Chapter 5, Section 5.3
45
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-5
FEMA 4 Phase
Guidance
CRS Planning Steps
(Activity 510)
FEMA Local Mitigation Planning
Handbook Tasks (44 CFR Part 201) Location in Plan
Step 8. Draft an action plan Chapter 5, Section
5.3.3 and annexes
Phase IV: Adopt
and Implement
the Plan
Step 9. Adopt the plan 8: Review and Adopt the Plan Chapter 6
Step 10. Implement,
evaluate, revise
7: Keep the Plan Current Chapter 6
9: Create a Safe and Resilient
Community 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4)
Chapter 6
3.3.1 Phase 1: Organize Resources
Planning Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort
With each jurisdiction’s commitment to develop ing a Regional Plan, WSP worked with MT DES and each
County and Tribal Emergency Management Coordinator to establish the framework and organization for
the process. Organizational efforts were initiated with each county to inform and educate the plan
participants of the purpose and need for the Regional HMP. The planning consultant held an initial
conference call using Microsoft Teams (Teams) to convene the HMPC, discuss the organizational aspects of
the planning process with the Emergency Management Coordinat ors, and review plan participation
expectations. Following FEMA planning guidance, MT DES and the consultant directed each participating
county and tribe to develop their respective planning teams, comprised of representative county, tribal, and
municipal staff members, prior to this meeting to ensure complete representation and active part icipation
in the plan update process. In some instances, small jurisdictions with limited staff capacity agreed to have
County staff represent their community, and in eastern Montana it is common that one staff at one
jurisdiction may represent multiple jurisdictions in an official capacity in their day-to-day role. Numerous
small jurisdictions were invited to participate in all planning meetings, but had County representatives, often
the County DES Coordinator represent them during the planning process. These small jurisdictions and the
counties that represented them during the planning meetings and workshops are listed below :
• City of Baker (Fallon County)
• Town of Bear Creek, Town of Joliet
(Carbon County)
• Town of Bridger (Carbon County)
• Town of Fromberg (Carbon County)
• Town of Flaxville (Daniels County)
• City of Glendive (Dawson County)
• Town of Ekalaka (Carter County)
• City of Hardin (Big Horn County)
• Town of Ismay (Custer County)
• City of Lodge Grass (Big Horn County)
• Town of Bainville (Roosevelt County
• City of Colstrip (Rosebud County)
• Town of Circle (McCone County)
• City of Forsyth (Rosebud County)
• Town of Fairview (Richland County)
• Town of Medicine Lake (Sheridan
County)
• Town of Nashua (Valley County)
• Town of Hysham (Treasure County)
• Town of Lavina (Golden Valley County)
• City of Plevna (Fallon County)
• City of Plentywood (Sheridan County)
• Town of Ryegate (Golden Valley County)
• Town of Roundup (Musselshell County)
• Town of Melstone (Musselshell County)
• Town of Opheim (Valley County)
• Town of Outlook (Sheridan County)
• Town of Scobey (Daniels County)
• Town of Sidney (Richland County)
• Town of Westby (Sheridan County)
• Town of Wibaux (Wibaux County)
46
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-6
In these instances, WSP worked closely with the CPT’s representing those jurisdictions to ensure there were
additional one-on-one meetings and plan review sessions scheduled to gather input and ensure their
annexes and addendums accurately reflected those jurisdictions hazard risks (see Appendix A).
Neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies
that have the authority to regulate development as well as businesses, academia, and other private and
non-profit interests were also invited to par ticipate and provide input. In eastern Montana, neighboring
communities included Philips, Petroleum, Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, Sweetgrass, and Park counties.
Both MT DES and Golden Valley, Musselshell, Garfield, and Valley counties (that border these counties)
invited the jurisdictions to participate in the online public survey and to review the public review draft plan.
MT DES also extended the public review period to ensure these neighboring communities had additional
time to review and provide input on the plan. Additional invitations were extended as appropriate to other
federal, state, tribal, and local stakeholders, as well as to members of the public, throughout the planning
process but specifically through invites to the planning meeting series, announcements distributed during
the circulation of the public survey, and social media posts and announcements advertised to all stakeholder
groups during public review (e.g., email invitations, save the date flyers, etc.). A full list of local government
departments and stakeholders that participated can be found in Appendix A. More details with
documentation of participation included are in Appendix B.
During the advertisement of the planning meetings and the circulation of the online public survey, MT DES,
the HMPC, and the CPTs and TPTs targeted outreach to inform and involve underserved and socially
vulnerable populations throughout the counties in eastern Montana through email invitations, follow-up
phone calls, and public survey reminders. Stakeholder groups that represent underserved and socially
vulnerable populations were actively engaged in the urban areas of Eastern Montana, such as Billings and
Miles City. This allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of the diverse needs and perspectives of
vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, veterans, homeless population, and low -income families,
facilitating the development of more equitable and effective interventions and policies. For example,
planning efforts were made to schedule additional in-person mitigation strategy planning meetings in
Eastern Montana to enhance participation and engagement among the more rural counties in the region
compared to the central and western regions. These small, rural, and isolated communities typically lack the
opportunity to attend in-person workshops; therefore three additional meetings were scheduled in Sidney,
Wolf Point, and Miles City to maximize input from stakeholders that represent vulnerable populations and
from local community leaders (e.g., Council members, County Commissioners). Two of the five mitigation
strategy planning meetings were also held at a senior center (i.e., Roosevelt Aging Services /Senior Center)
and community health center (i.e., Billings Riverview Health) to attract participation from underrepresented
and socially vulnerable communities that best represent the health care and elderly community, group care
homes, and health care leaders in eastern Montana. However, given there are over 45 jurisdictions across
Eastern Montana that consist of mostly small, rural, and isolated communiti es, additional effort during the
plan implementation process will focus on continued targeted outreach and engagement with the
stakeholder groups that represent the underserved and socially vulnerable populations in these rural
counties.
The community-based organizations and medical clinics that represent vulnerable populations in eastern
Montana who were invited to participate in the planning meetings are listed below (those noted with an
asterisk also participated in the meetings):
• Faith Lutheran Home*
• Milk River Group Homes*
47
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-7
• Milk River Inc.*
• Prairie Ridge Village*
• Salvation Army
• American Red Cross*
• Prairie Community Hospital
• Powder River Clinic
• Glasgow Clinic
• Nemont Manor
• Riverstone Health*
• St. Vincent’s Hospital
• Billings Clinic*
• Big Sky Economic Development
Additional stakeholder groups that represent vulnerable populations for each of the respective counties are
referenced in the annexes and addendums.
Media platforms that use an innovative approach and commit to inclusivity are able to leverage their
platforms to reach vulnerable populations. Being able to ensure that their communication resonates with a
wide range of audiences is important in the planning process. The community-based media platforms who
were invited to participate in the planning meetings are listed below:
• KATL Radio
• KVCK Radio
Through targeted outreach efforts, stakeholders can be informed throughout the plan development
process. Outreach can facilitate partnerships and collaboration among various stakeholders, fostering a
sense of shared responsibility and collective action towards mitigation goals. This can result in greater
resource mobilization, improved coordination of efforts, and a better approach to risk reduction. Additional
media platforms that were contacted in each of the respective counties are referenced in the anne xes and
addendums.
Throughout the plan development process, communication amongst the CPTs and TPTs occurred through
a combination of face-to -face meetings, virtual meetings, conference calls, phone interviews, planning
workshops, and email correspondence. During the kickoff meeting, WSP presented information on the
scope and purpose of the plan update, the participation requirements of HMPC members, and the proposed
project work plan and schedule. Each CPT and TPT were also required to complete a Plan Update Guide and
submit relevant plans and program documentation related to their current HMP , particularly for plans that
integrated the previous HMP. A plan for public involvement (Step 2) and coordination with other agencies
and departments (Step 3) were discussed. During the kickoff meeting, the HMPC reviewed the hazard
identification information for each jurisdiction and the Eastern Region and refined the list of identified
hazards to mirror that of the Montana Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. In follow-up to the meeting,
participants were provided a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) needs worksheet to facilitate the
collection of information needed to support the plan update, and a summary of the conference call.
48
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-8
Following the initial coordination efforts, a series of planning workshops were held during the plan’s
development between March 2022 and August 2023. The meeting schedule and topics are listed below. In
addition, monthly conference calls were held with the Emergency Management Coordinators, MT DES and
WSP to discuss the process including upcoming milestones and information needs. The sign -in sheets,
meeting summaries, and agendas for each of the meetings are documented in Appendix B. HMPC planning
workshops were scheduled as follows.
● Workshop #1: Kickoff Meeting
August 9, 2022
● Workshop #2: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment and Goals Update
December 14, 2022
The purpose of this workshop was to review the results of the risk assessment and review and
update/develop goals.
● Workshop #3: Mitigation Strategy Update
Five in -person workshops were held in the Eastern Region:
o April 3, 2023 – Billings, Montana
o April 4, 2023 – Sidney, Montana
o April 5, 2023 – Wolf Point, Montana
o April 6, 2023 – Miles City, Montana
o April 7, 2023 – Billings, Montana
This workshop focused on the update of the mitigation strategy and brainstorming new mitigation
actions to include in the Regional HMP.
To further supplement the meetings, the WSP developed a project website to help explain the background
details of the project, provide education and information on the processes of hazard mitigation planning,
advertise public outreach efforts, and post-meeting materials and plan documents to be available for
review. Each CPT and TPT were also asked to advertise the project website to inform and involve their
stakeholders and their communities. Figure 3-2 shows a snapshot of the homepage of the project website,
which is also available at mitigationplanmt.com.
49
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-9
Figure 3-2 Montana Hazard Mitigation Project Website
Data Source: WSP (mitigationplanmt.com)
In some cases, HMPC meetings were supplemented with additional meetings, emails, and telephone
discussions to further engage the municipalities in the process. During the supplemental meetings, MT DES
and the CPTs and TPTs worked on the Plan Update Guides and later in the process Plan Revision Needs
Lists designed to capture additional and more detailed information on county capabilities, hazard risks,
mitigation actions, and outreach efforts. As previously noted, the Fort Peck Tribes, Northern Cheyenne Tribe,
and Wheatland County elected not to participate in the Regional Plan. Wheatland County recently updated
their county HMP in 2021 and had limited staff resources. The Northern Cheyenne Tribe elected not to
participate due to limited staff and resources, and the Fort Peck Tribes are currently updating their plan as
part of a separate process.
Planning Step 2: Involve the Public
The 2022-2023 planning process was an open one, with the public informed and involved throughout the
process. In some cases, the HMPC meetings included members of the public and/or local media. Public
outreach included social media notices, a public survey, and a public comment form to allow the public the
opportunity to share comments on the draft plan.
2022 Public Survey
Early in the planning process, a public survey was developed as a tool to gather public input. The survey
was for the public to provide feedback to the CPTs and TPTs on topics related to hazard concerns and
reducing hazard impacts. The survey provided an opportunity for public input during the planning process,
prior to the finalization of the plan update. The survey gathered public feedback on what hazards concern
them and solicited input on strategies to reduce their impacts. The survey was released as an online tool in
September 2022 and closed in December 2022. The counties and tribes provided links to the public survey
by distributing it using social media, email, and posting the link on websites. In total, 407 survey responses
were received and shared with the CPTs and TPTs to inform the process.
50
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-10
The public survey included a question on ranking hazard significance. The results generally track with the
significance levels noted in Chapter 4 of this Plan, with severe winter weather, severe summer weather,
wildfire, and drought rated the most significant, and tornado and windstorms and flooding rated medium
significance. The following graph is a display of the results from Question 17, which asked what types of
mitigation actions should have the highest priority in the Eastern Region HMP. The results indicate that
electrical power resiliency, improve reliability of communication systems, and public education awareness
were popular mitigation topics with the public Figure 3-3). The full results of the survey are included in
Appendix C.
51
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-11
Figure 3-3 Eastern Montana Public Survey Results
0
50
100
150
200
250
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
V
o
t
e
s
Mitigation Action
52
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-12
Prior to finalizing, a draft of the regional plan was made available to the public for review and comment
from February 21, 2024, to March 29, 2024 (over 1-month comment period). The plan was placed on the
MT DES web page, on the MTDES website (mitigationplanmt.com), as well as via an online engagement
space, as shown in Figure 3-4. The counties used social media and email blasts to announce the public
comment period. An online feedback form was provided to collect specific comments. One comment from
the City of Sidney was received through the form, and no additional email or public comments were
provided. The one comment received on the plan noted a minor error in reference to the City of Sidney that
was corrected; no other meaningful changes were made to the HMP or its Annexes.
Figure 3-4 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Virtual Public Engagement Space
Planning Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies
Early in the planning process, the HMPC determined that data collection, mitigation strategy development,
and Plan approval would be greatly enhanced by inviting state and federal agencies and other organizations
to participate in the process. Neighboring communities, tribal and regional agencies involved in hazard
mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as other businesses,
academia, and private and NGO organizations, were also invited to provide feedback. Based on their
involvement in hazard mitigation activities or their role in land stewardship in the Eastern Region,
representatives from several state and federal agencies and local businesses were included in the HMPC in
2022 and are noted in Appendix A. Many of these stakeholders participated in planning meetings or were
provided an opportunity to review the draft plan before it was finalized. If they did not have an opportunity
to review the plan during early stakeholder engagement efforts, they were provided the plan during the
public review period. Some of the State and Federal agencies, which were invited to participate in the
process, provided data and information for the Plan update, or provided feedback on the Plan include:
• Montana Department of Natural
Resources & Conservation (DNRC)
• Montana Department of Transportation
• Montana Bureau of Mines & Geology
• Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks
• FEMA Region VIII
• EPA
• US Forest Service
• US Air Force
• Bureau of Indian Affairs
53
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-13
• Bureau of Land Management
• Bureau of Reclamation
• NOAA/NWS
• US Army Corps of Engineers
Coordination with certain agencies occurred on a regular basis during the planning process, including a bi-
weekly (and weekly in the initial months of the project) coordination call with WSP, MT DES and other
stakeholders. Other federal stakeholders that participated in these meetings included FEMA Region VIII, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Other stakeholders
included private NGOs (i.e., Headwaters Economics), and a consulting firm involved in the upd ate of the
Montana State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. USACE representatives also participated in regional mitigation
strategy workshops, including providing information on funding programs and suggestions for partnerships
on mitigation actions.
Other Community Planning Efforts and Hazard Mitigation Activities
Coordination with other community planning efforts is an important aspect of mitigation planning. Hazard
mitigation planning involves identifying existing policies, tools, and actions that will reduce a community’s
risk and vulnerability to natural hazards. Each county, the tribes, and most municipalities in the Region use
a variety of comprehensive planning mechanisms, such as master plans and ordinances, to guide growth
and development. Integrating existing planning efforts and mitigation policies and action strategies into
this plan establishes a credible and comprehensive plan that ties into and supports other community
programs. The development of this plan incorporated information from the following existing plans, studies,
reports, and initiatives as well as other relevant data from neighboring communities and other jurisdictions.
Examples of this include.
● County comprehensive plans
● Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs)
● Montana State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018)
● Existing Local and Tribal HMPs
● Montana Forest Action Plan (2020)
● Montana Climate Solutions Plan (2020)
Other documents were reviewed and cited, as appropriate, during the collection of data to support Planning
Steps 4 and 5, which include the hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment,
are noted in Appendix E References.
3.3.2 Phase 2: Assess Risks
Planning Steps 4 and 5: Identify the Hazards and Assess the Risks
WSP led the HMPC and CPT/TPTs to identify and document all the hazards that have, or could, impact the
planning area. The existing county and tribal HMPs, and the Montana State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
provided a knowledge basis for many of the hazard profiles. Where data permitted, GIS w as used to display,
analyze, and quantify hazards and vulnerabilities. Quantitative spatial analyses for dam inundation, flood,
earthquake, and wildfire hazards were performed by WSP that included an analysis of flood r isk based on
the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs), where available. A more detailed description of the risk
assessment process and the results are included in Chapter 4 Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment.
Also included in the Eastern Regional HMP is a capability assessment to review and document the planning
area’s current capabilities to mitigate risk and vulnerability from hazards. By collecting information about
existing government programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and emergency plan s, the HMPC can
assess those activities and measures already in place that contribute to mitigating some of the risks and
54
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-14
vulnerabilities identified. The results of the updated capability assessment are captured in each annex and
addendum.
During this phase, the tribes and participating jurisdictions reviewed hazard significance levels, as described
in Chapter 4, to determine if any changes in priorities were needed. Additional feedback on priority levels
was solicited during Workshop #2, using an online polling tool and in-person during Workshop #3.
3.3.3 Phase 3: Develop the Mitigation Plan
Planning Steps 6 and 7: Set Goals and Review Possible Activities
WSP facilitated a week of discussion sessions (Workshop #3) with the HMPC that described the purpose
and the process of developing planning goals, a comprehensive range of mitigation alternatives, and a
method of selecting and defending recommended mitigation actions using a series of selection criteria.
This process was used to update and enhance the mitigation action plan for each jurisdiction and tribe,
which is the essence of the planning process and one of the most important outcomes of this effort. This
process consisted of five mitigation strategy workshops scheduled across the Eastern Montana region,
including several meetings scheduled and advertised in rural communities (e.g., Sidney, Wolf Point) and at
senior centers and community health facilities. The action plans are detailed in each county and tribe annex
and addendum; the process used to identify and prioritize mitigation actions is described in greater detail
in Chapter 5 Mitigation Strategy.
During this phase the tribes and participating jurisdictions reviewed mitigation action priority levels, as
described in Chapter 5, to determine if any changes in priorities were needed using a mitigation action
status tool. The tribes and participating jurisdictions also developed and prioritized new mitigation actions.
Figure 3-5 shows the CPTs and TPTs developing new mitigation actions during the Workshop #3 series in
Eastern Montana.
55
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-15
Figure 3-5 Eastern Montana HMP Workshops – Mitigation Strategy Update
Data Source: WSP 2023
Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan
Based on input from the HMPC regarding the draft risk assessment and the goals and activities identified
in Planning Steps 6 and 7, WSP produced a complete first draft of the Eastern Regional Plan. This complete
draft was shared for HMPC and CPT/LPT review and comment by email from the consultant and posted on
the project website and cloud-based share drive. During this time, MT DES and WSP identified areas where
additional one-on-one meetings and additional data was needed in the plan, and then collected that data
and input and incorporated the final revisions. Comments were integrated into the second draft, which was
advertised and distributed to collect public input and comments. Other agencies and neighboring county
Emergency Management Coordinators were also invited to comment on this draft. WSP integrated
comments and issues from the public, as appropriate, along with additional internal review comments and
produced a final draft for MT DES and FEMA Region VIII to review and approve, contingent upon final
adoption by the governing boards of each participatin g jurisdiction.
56
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-16
3.3.4 Phase 4: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress
Planning Step 9: Adopt the Plan
To secure buy-in and officially implement the plan, the plan was adopted by the governing boards of each
participating jurisdiction. As the adoption process follows the FEMA plan review and approval, copies of the
adoption resolution will be included electronically in Appendix D.
Planning Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan
The true worth of any mitigation plan is in the effectiveness of its implementation. Each recommended
action includes key descriptors, such as a lead manager and possible funding sources, to help initiate
implementation. Progress on the implementation of specific actions identified in the plan is captured in a
discussion and the mitigation action plan summary table in Chapter 5 Mitigation Strategy. An overall
implementation strategy is described in Chapter 6 Plan Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance.
Finally, there are numerous organizations within the Eastern Region whose goals and interests interface
with hazard mitigation. Coordination with these other planning efforts, as addressed in Planning Step 3, is
important to the ongoing success of this plan, and mitigation in Eastern Montana and is addressed further
in Chapter 6. A plan update and maintenance schedule and a strategy for continued public involvement are
also included in Chapter 6, and specifics are also in the annexes for the participating counties and tribes.
3.4 Tribal Mitigation Planning Process
The Eastern Montana Regional HMP meets the requirements for Tribal Mitigation Plans described in Title
44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 201.7 (44 CFR § 201.7). Under the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act of 2013, federally recognized tribal governments could obtain their major disaster
declaration for the first time, enabling them to apply to FEMA for disaster assistance independent of the
state obtaining a declaration. The Tribal Mitigation Planning Handbook outlines a 7-step planning process
for the development of mitigation plans, which meet the needs of tribal governments. These 7 steps are
summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 Tribal Mitigation Planning 7-Step Process
Planning
Step Title Description
1 Describe your community Describe the planning area, Tribal assets, and any unique
characteristics of your Tribe.
2 Identify your hazards Figure out what natural hazards could occur in your planning area.
3 Explain impacts that hazards
can have on the community
Describe what the natural hazards could do to your people, property,
and land and determine the Tribe’s biggest hazard concerns.
4 Review your current capability
to mitigate the impacts
Inventory your Tribe’s plans, policies, and programs that could be
used to protect your community.
5 Develop the strategy Keeping in mind your risks and your capabilities, identify your Tribe’s
mitigation goals and actions.
6 Develop an action plan Prioritize your actions and develop the details to assist with
implementation.
7 Keep track of progress Observe and record progress in implementing your mitigation
program using a defined method and schedule.
57
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Process
Page | 3-17
3.5 EPA Regional Resilience Toolkit
The EPA, in partnership with FEMA, has developed the Regional Resilience Toolkit to focus on the
development of resilient communities on the regional scale at which disasters happen. As stated in the
toolkit, with more and more communities facing the effects of disasters, decision-makers and community
members need tools and guidance to help them take action that can protect them from natural disasters
while also creating great places to live, work, and play. This Regional Resilience Toolkit provides:
• A coordinated process for meeting many different state and federal planning requirements.
• Communication and outreach guidance and resources for engaging a broad coalition of
stakeholders across a region.
• Guidance for project teams who are conducting vulnerability assessments, writing required plans,
and implementing projects.
• Clear information and tools that can be used with an advisory group and bring in decision -makers
and community leaders to guide the overall action plan and ensure its successful implementation.
• Detailed appendices with worksheets to help inform and guide work, as well as additional
information and resources for each step.
The toolkit includes five steps designed so that users can follow at any point of the process depending on
their progress with community resilience planning. These five steps are shown in Figure 3-6 below:
Figure 3-6 EPA Regional Resilience Toolkit Planning Steps
Source: EPA Regional Resilience Toolkit, https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/regional-resilience-toolkit
The toolkit also relies in part on engaging state and federal partners who have funding, policies, and
programs intended to support local efforts to create sustainable and resilient communities, helping to
supplement the mitigation strategy of this regional HMP. Like the FEMA mitigation planning process, the
steps of the resilience toolkit are intended to ideally work in a continuous loop improving planning and
community resilience over time. This is a valuable tool for the development of the Eastern Montana Regional
HMP, due to the large scale of the planning area and the history of hazards that have had regional impacts.
58
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-1
4 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
44 CFR Requirement 201.6(c)(2):
[The plan shall include] a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce
the losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction
to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.
As defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), risk is a combination of hazard,
vulnerability, and exposure. “It is the impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and
structures in a community and refers to the likeliho od of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition
that causes injury or damage.”
The risk assessment process identifies and profiles relevant hazards and assesses the exposure of lives,
property, and infrastructure to these hazards. The process allows for a better understanding of a
jurisdiction’s potential risk to hazards and provides a framework for developing and prioritizing mitigation
actions to reduce risk from future hazard events.
This risk assessment builds upon the methodology described in the 2013 FEMA Local Mitigation Planning
Handbook, which recommends a four -step process for conducting a risk assessment:
1. Describe Hazards
2. Identify Community Assets
3. Analyze Risks
4. Summarize Vulnerability
Data collected through this process has been incorporated into the following sections of this chapter:
Section 4.1 Hazard Identification identifies the hazards that threaten the planning area and describes why
some hazards have been omitted from further consideration.
Section 4.2 Hazard Profiles discusses the threat to the planning area and describes previous occurrences of
hazard events, the likelihood of future occurrences, and the Region’s vulnerability to particular hazard
events.
Additional County Annexes include a summary of community assets including population, building stock,
critical facilities, and historic, cultural, and natural resources. Additional details on vulnerability to specific
hazards where they vary from those of the Region are noted in the annexes.
4.1 Hazard Identification
Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i):
The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.
4.1.1 Results and Methodology
Using existing hazards data, plans from participating jurisdictions, and input gained through planning and
public meetings, the County and Tribal Planning Teams (CPT/TPTs) agreed upon a list of hazards that could
affect the Region.
59
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-2
Hazards data from FEMA, Montana Disaster and Emergency Services (DES), the 2018 State of Montana
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, approved county and tribal plans from the participating Eastern Region
counties, and many other sources were examined to assess the significance of these hazards to the planning
area. The hazards evaluated in this plan include those that have occurred historically or have the potential
to cause significant human and/or monetary losses in the future.
The final list of hazards identified and investigated for the 2022/2023 Eastern Region Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan includes:
● Communicable Disease
● Cyber Attack
● Dam Failure
● Drought
● Earthquake
● Flooding
● Hazardous Materials Incidents
● Landslide
● Severe Summer Weather
● Severe Winter Weather
● Human Conflict
● Tornadoes & Windstorms
● Transportation Accidents
● Volcanic Ash
● Wildfire
Members of each CPT and TPT used a hazards worksheet to rate the significance of hazards that could
potentially affect the region. Significance was measured in general terms, focusing on key criteria such as
the likelihood for future occurrences of the event, frequency of past occurrences, geographical area
affected, and damage and casualty potential. Table 4-1 represents the worksheet used to identify and rate
the hazards and is a composite that includes input from all the participating jurisdictions. Note that the
significance of the hazard may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The County Annexes include further
details on hazard significance by county and municipality.
Table 4-1 Eastern Region Hazard Significance Summary Table
Hazard Geographic Area Magnitude/ Severity Probability Significance
Communicable Disease Extensive Critical Occasional Medium
Cyber-Attack Significant Critical Occasional Medium
Dam Failure Significant Limited Unlikely Low
Drought Extensive Critical Highly Likely High
Earthquake Significant Limited Likely Low
Flooding Limited Critical Likely High
Hazardous Material
Incidents
Limited Negligible Highly Likely Low
Landslide Limited Negligible Occasional Low
Severe Summer Weather:
hail, excessive heat, heat,
heavy rain, lightning
Extensive Critical Highly Likely High
Severe Winter Weather:
blizzard, cold/wind chill,
extreme cold/wind chill,
heavy snow, ice storm,
winter storm, winter
weather
Extensive Critical Highly Likely Medium
Human Conflict (Terrorism,
Civil Unrest, etc.)
Significant Critical Occasional Medium
Tornadoes & Windstorms Extensive Critical Highly Likely High
Transportation Accidents Significant Limited Highly Likely Medium
Volcanic Ash Extensive Limited Unlikely Low
Wildfire Extensive Critical Highly Likely High
60
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-3
Geographic Area Probability of Future Occurrences
Negligible: Less than 10 percent of planning area or
isolated single-point occurrences
Unlikely: Less than 1 percent probability of occurrence in the next
year or has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years.
Limited: 10 to 25 percent of the planning area or limited
single-point occurrences
Occasional: Between a 1 and 10 percent probability of occurrence
in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years.
Significant: 25 to 75 percent of planning area or frequent
single-point occurrences
Likely: Between 10 and 90 percent probability of occurrence in the
next year, or has a recurrence interval of 1 to 10 years
Extensive: 75 to 100 percent of planning area or consistent
single-point occurrences
Highly Likely: Between 90 and 100 percent probability of
occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of less than
1 year.
Potential Magnitude/Severity Overall Significance
Negligible: Less than 10 percent of property is severely
damaged, facilities and services are unavailable for less
than 24 hours, injuries and illnesses are treatable with first
aid or within the response capability of the jurisdiction.
Low: Two or more of the criteria fall in the lower classifications or
the event has a minimal impact on the planning area. This rating is
also sometimes used for hazards with a minimal or unknown
record of occurrences/impacts or for hazards with minimal
mitigation potential.
Limited: 10 to 25 percent of property is severely damaged,
facilities and services are unavailable between 1 and 7
days, injuries and illnesses require sophisticated medical
support that does not strain the response capability of the
jurisdiction, or results in very few permanent disabilities.
Medium: The criteria fall mostly in the middle ranges of
classifications and the event’s impacts on the planning area are
noticeable but not devastating. This rating is also sometimes
utilized for hazards with a high impact rating but an extremely low
occurrence rating.
Critical: 25 to 50 percent of property is severely damaged,
facilities and services are unavailable or severely hindered
for 1 to 2 weeks, injuries and illnesses overwhelm medical
support for a brief period of time or result in many
permanent disabilities and a few deaths. overwhelmed for
an extended period of time or many deaths occur.
High: The criteria consistently fall along the high ranges of the
classification and the event exerts significant and frequent impacts
on the planning area. This rating is also sometimes utilized for
hazards with a high psychological impact or for hazards that the
jurisdiction identifies as particularly relevant.
Catastrophic: More than 50 percent of property is severely
damaged, facilities and services are unavailable or
hindered for more than 2 weeks, the medical response
system is overwhelmed for an extended period of time or
many deaths occur.
4.1.2 Other Hazards Considered but not Profiled
As part of the hazard identification process, the Regional Steering Committee and CPT/TPTs also noted
other hazards that could impact the region but are not further profiled as impacts tend to be more isolated
or do not result in local, state, or federal disaster declarations. These include wildlife hazards associated
with human/wildlife interaction and collisions, and avalanches. Avalanche terrain exists on the far
southwestern portion of the Eastern region but typically impacts isolated and undeveloped areas.
4.1.3 Disaster Declaration History
As part of the hazard identification process, the Regional Steering Committee and CPT/TPTs researched
past events that triggered federal and/or state emergency or disaster declarations in the planning area.
Federal and/or state disaster declarations may be granted when the severity and magnitude of an event
surpasses the ability of the local government to respond and recover. Disaster assistance is supplemental
and sequential. When the local government’s capacity has been surpassed, a state disaster declaration may
be issued, allowing for the provision of state assistance. Should the disaster be so severe that both the local
and state governments’ capacities are exceeded, a federal emergency or disaster declaration may be issued
allowing for the provision of federal assistance.
The federal government may issue a disaster declaration through FEMA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), and/or the Small Business Administration (SBA). FEMA also issues emergency declarations, which
are more limited in scope and without the long-term federal recovery programs of major disaster
declarations. The quantity and types of damage are the determining factors.
61
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-4
A USDA declaration will result in the implementation of the Emergency Loan Program through the Farm
Services Agency. This program enables eligible farmers and ranchers in the affected county as well as
contiguous counties to apply for low interest loans. A USDA declaration will automatically follow a major
disaster declaration for counties designated major disaster areas and those that are contiguous to declared
counties, including those that are across state lines. As part of an agreement with the USDA, the SBA offers
low interest loans for eligible businesses that suffer economi c losses in declared and contiguous counties
that have been declared by the USDA. These loans are referred to as Economic Injury Disaster Loans.
Table 4-2 provides information on federal emergencies and disasters declared in the Eastern Region
counties between 1953 and 2022. Table 4-3 provides information on state emergencies and disasters
declared in the Central Region and documented in the 2023 SHMP update.
Table 4-2 Federal Disaster Declarations in the Eastern Region, 1953-2022
Year Declaration Title Disaster
Number Area Impacted
1975 Rains, Snowmelt, Storms & Flooding DR-472-MT Wheatland
1977 Drought EM-3050-MT Golden Valley, Musselshell
1978 Flooding, Severe Storms DR-558-MT Big Horn, Carbon, Powder River, Rosebud,
Stillwater, Treasure, Yellowstone
1986 Heavy Rains, Landslides & Flooding DR-761-MT Daniels, Dawson, Valley
1986 Severe Storms & Flooding DR-777-MT McCone, Rosebud, Valley
1997 Severe Storms, Ice Jams, Snow Melt,
Flooding
DR-1183-MT All counties in Eastern Region
1999 Fishel Creek Fire Complex FSA-2266-MT Musselshell
2000 Willie Fire FSA-2326-MT Carbon
2000 Wildfires DR-1340-MT Most counties in Eastern Region except
Daniels, Dawson, McCone, Prairie, Richland,
Sheridan, Valley, and Wibaux
2000 Winter Storm DR-1350-MT Carter, Fallon, McCone, Richland, Roosevelt,
Sheridan, Wibaux
2001 Severe Storms DR-1377-MT Big Horn
2003 Missouri Breaks Fire Complex FM-2483-MT Garfield
2005 Hurricane Katrina Evacuation EM-3253-MT Statewide
2006 Saunders Fire FM-2652-MT Stillwater
2006 Derby Fire FM-2671-MT Stillwater
2006 Emerald Hills Fire FM-2669-MT Yellowstone
2007 Ford Road Fire FM-2723-MT Yellowstone
2008 Severe Winter Storm DR-1767-MT Carter, Custer, Fallon, Powder River
2009 Eagle Mount Fire FM-2837-MT Stillwater
2011 Severe Storms and Flooding DR-1996-MT All counties in Eastern Region
2011 Canyon Creek Fire FM-2950-MT Yellowstone
2012 Dahl Fire FM-2988-MT Musselshell
2012 Ask Creek Fire FM-2989-MT Powder River, Rosebud
2012 Montana Wildfires DR-4074-MT Rosebud, Powder River
2013 Flooding DR-4127-MT Musselshell, Rosebud, Custer, Dawson,
McCone, Valley, Garfield
2014 Ice Jams and Flooding DR-4172-MT Stillwater, Wheatland, Golden Valley,
Musselshell, Rosebud, Prairie, Dawson,
Richland
2014 Severe Storms, Straight-Line Winds,
and Flooding
DR-4198-MT Carter, Musselshell, Valley
62
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-5
Year Declaration Title Disaster
Number Area Impacted
2016 Tornado DR-4275-MT Fallen
2017 Lodgepole Fire Complex FM-5194-MT Garfield
2018 Flooding DR-4388-MT Valley
2018 Flooding DR-4405-MT Carbon, Custer, Golden Valley, Musselshell,
Treasure
2019 Flooding DR-4437-MT Daniels, Valley, McCone, Power River,
Treasure, Stillwater
2020 Covid-19 EM-3476-MT Statewide
2020 Covid-19 Pandemic DR-4508-MT Statewide
2020 Snider/Rice Fire Complex FM-5345-MT Custer, Powder River, Rosebud
2020 Huff Fire FM-5343-MT Garfield
2020 Bobcat Fire FM-5344-MT Musselshell, Yellowstone
2020 Falling Star Fire FM-5324-MT Stillwater, Yellowstone
2021 Poverty Flats Fire FM-5403-MT Big Horn
2021 Straight-Line Winds 4608-DR-MT Garfield, McCone, Roosevelt, Richland,
Dawson
2021 Robertson Draw Fire FM-5392-MT Carbon
2021 Richard Spring Fire FM-5406-MT Rosebud
2021 Richard Spring Fire 4623-DR-MT Rosebud, Big Horn
2021 Buffalo Wildfire FM-5399-MT Yellowstone
2022 Severe Storms and Flooding DR-4655-MT Carbon, Stillwater, Yellowstone
Source: FEMA
Table 4-3 State-declared emergencies and disasters presented in the 2023 SHMP
Year Hazard State Declaration County (Town)
1978 Flood E0-13-78 PA-ST-78-12 Petroleum County
1978 Flood E0-13-78 PA-ST-78-11 Petroleum County (Winnett)
1979 Flood PA-ST-79-10 Fergus County (Denton)
1979 Flood PA-ST-79-11 Petroleum County
1991 Flood EO-15-91 MT-2-91 Blaine County
1991 Flood EO-33-91 MT-4-91 Blaine County
1991 Flood EO-12-91 MT-1-91 Teton County
1992 Drought EO 13-92 Statewide
1993 Drought EO 14-92 Statewide
1994 Flood EO-04-94 MT-1-94 Petroleum County
1998 Flood EO-10-98 MT-2-98 Hill County
2005 Flood EO-11-2005 MT-2-05 Chouteau County
2010 Flood EO-21-2010 MT-4-10 Petroleum County
2018 Cold & Blizzard
Conditions
EO 5-2018 Blackfeet Nation, Fort Belknap Reservation, Northern
Cheyenne Reservation, Glacier County, Golden Valley
County
2018 Flood EO-20-2018 Cascade County, Lewis and Clark County, Lewis and
Clark County (Great Falls)
2018 Flood EO-11-2018 Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, Town of Chester,
Counties: Pondera, Hill, Blaine, Valley, Toole, Liberty,
Petroleum
63
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-6
Year Hazard State Declaration County (Town)
2018 Flood EO-11-2018 Liberty County (Chester)
2019 Severe Winter
Weather
EO 15-2019 Statewide
2019 Flood EO-13-2019 Teton County
2020 Wildfire EO-8-2020 Statewide
2021 Wildfire EO-12-2021 Statewide
2021 Drought EO 11-2021 Statewide
2022 Harsh Winter
Conditions
EO 1-2022 Statewide
Source: State of Montana
4.1.4 National Risk Index Overview
During the 2022/2023 planning process a relatively new online risk assessment tool became available from
FEMA. The National Risk Index (NRI) is a dataset and online tool that helps illustrate the United States
communities most at risk for 18 natural hazards. It was designed and built by FEMA in close collaboration
with various stakeholders and partners in academia; local, state, and federal government; and private
industry. The NRI leverages available source data for natural hazard and community risk factor s to develop
a baseline relative risk measurement for each United States county and census tract. The NRI’s interactive
mapping and data-based interface enables users to visually explore individual datasets to better understand
what is driving a community’s natural hazard risk. Users may also create reports to capture risk details on a
community or conduct community-based risk comparisons, as well as export data for analysis using other
software. Intended users of the NRI include planners and emergency managers at the local, regional, state,
and federal levels, as well as other decision makers and interested members of the general public.
The NRI provides relative Risk Index scores and ratings based on data for Expected Annual Loss (EAL) due
to natural hazards, social vulnerability, and community resilience. Separate scores and ratings are also
provided for each component: Expected Annual Loss, Social Vulnerability, and Community Resilience. Figure
4-1 illustrates the NRI risk equation and components that define risk based on the expected annual loss
times the social vulnerability divided by a community’s resilience to that potential hazard.
64
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-7
Figure 4-1 Generalized National Risk Index Risk Equation and Components
Source: FEMA NRI Technical Documentation 2021
For the Risk Index and EAL, scores and ratings can be viewed as a composite score for all hazards or
individually for each of the 18 hazard types. These 18 hazard types are listed in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-2 National Risk Index Hazard Types
The NRI was evaluated by the Regional Steering Committee and Montana DES’s planning consultant to
determine its applicability to the Eastern Region HIRA. An added benefit of leveraging NRI data for the
regional plan included standardized methods for assessing risk on a county-by-county scale for most of the
natural hazards in the HIRA. This included composite risk indicators for hazards previously lacking necessary
data, consisting of subsets of summer and winter storms including cold wave, lightning, wind, and ice
storms. The other benefit is that moving forward, FEMA will be periodically updating and improving the
NRI, which should provide a valuable and standardized resource for future HIRA updates.
The HIRA sections for Drought, Landslide, Flood, Severe Summer Weather, Severe Winter Weather, and
Tornadoes & Windstorms contain the following aggregate risk products, mapped by WSP using NRI data:
● Annualized Frequency
● Composite Risk Index Rating
● Expected Annual Loss
Sources of hazards and exposure data includes SHELDUS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Weather Service (NWS), and the USDA. Consequences of
hazard occurrences are categorized into three different types: buildings, population, and agriculture.
65
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-8
Additional details can be referenced in the FEMA NRI Technical documentation 2021, available at
https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/.
4.1.5 Assets Summary
Building and Critical Facility Assets
Assets inventoried for the purpose of determining vulnerability include people, buildings, critical facilities,
and natural, historic, or cultural resources. For the regional planning process two standard databases were
utilized for the basis of building and critical facility data. The Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI)
Cadastral Parcel layer (April 2022) was used for improved parcel and building inventory throughout the
region. This information provided the basis for building exposure and property types. Data current as of
2022 was downloaded for all the counties within the Eastern Region, which was then analyzed using
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel
polygon, for vulnerability analysis. A critical facility is defined as one that is essential in providing utility or
direction either during the response to an emergency or during the recovery operation. Much of this data
is based on GIS databases associated with the 2022 Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD).
Other critical facility databases were also used, such as the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) and data from
Montana DES. Where applicable, this information was used in an overlay analysis for hazards such as flood
and wildfire. More detail on assets potentially exposed to hazards can be found in the county annexes.
FEMA organizes critical facilities into seven lifeline categories as shown in Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-3 FEMA Lifeline Categories
66
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-9
These lifeline categories standardize the classification of critical facilities and infrastructure that provide
indispensable service, operation, or function to a community. A lifeline is defined as providing indispensable
service that enables the continuous operation of critical business and government functions, and is critical
to
and safety, or economic security. These categorizations are particularly useful as they:
● Enable effort consolidations between government and other organizations (e.g., infrastructure owners
and operators).
● Enable integration of preparedness efforts among plans; easier identification of unmet critical facility
needs.
● Refine sources and products to enhance awareness, capability gaps, and progress towards stabilization.
● Enhance communication amongst critical entities, while enabling complex interdependencies between
government assets.
● Highlight lifeline related priority areas regarding general operations as well as response efforts.
A summary of the critical facilities inventory for the Eastern Region can be found in Table 4-4 below.
Table 4-4 Summary of Critical Facilities Exposure Summarized by FEMA Lifelines
County
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
En
e
r
g
y
Fo
o
d
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
He
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Sa
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
Big Horn 41 53 28 6 0 33 137 298
Carbon 38 37 18 3 3 35 86 220
Carter 11 5 1 0 1 11 44 73
Custer 29 25 9 2 4 30 76 175
Daniels 12 14 0 0 0 13 40 79
Dawson 34 14 6 5 2 26 110 197
Fallon 21 41 4 2 0 16 39 123
Garfield 16 1 3 0 1 12 32 65
Golden Valley 2 16 4 0 2 10 20 54
McCone 20 13 4 2 1 10 49 99
Musselshell 1 2 11 0 3 17 1 35
Petroleum 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Phillips 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Powder River 14 3 4 0 1 14 25 61
Prairie 10 12 3 1 2 9 49 86
Richland 32 40 8 14 5 29 104 232
Roosevelt 53 38 9 11 0 40 62 213
Rosebud 52 41 15 2 4 30 119 263
Sheridan 27 24 6 1 2 19 68 147
Stillwater 32 26 7 4 2 35 98 204
67
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-10
County
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
En
e
r
g
y
Fo
o
d
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
He
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Sa
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
Treasure 7 13 2 0 1 7 34 64
Valley 58 40 15 1 2 33 105 254
Wheatland 16 25 3 0 2 15 32 93
Wibaux 5 7 2 0 1 9 29 53
Yellowstone 232 78 63 37 26 157 295 888
Total 763 568 225 91 65 610 1,657 3,979
Source: HIFLD 2022, Montana DES, NBI
Natural Resource Assets
In addition to building and critical facility assets, natural resource assets such as wetlands, forests, animals,
and protected areas, are important to include in benefit-cost analyses for future hazard mitigation projects.
Natural resources are valuable to communities due to their benefits to water quality, wildlife protection,
recreation, and education. Additionally, awareness of these resources may be used to leverage additional
funding for projects and contribute to a community’s goal in protecting sens itive resources.
To further understand natural resources that may be particularly vulnerable to a hazard event, as well as
those that need consideration when implementing mitigation activities, it is important to identify at -risk
species (i.e., endangered species) in the planning area. An endangered species is any species of fish, plant
life, or wildlife that is in danger of extinction throughout all or most of its range. A threatened species is a
species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Both endangered and threatened species are protected by law and any
future hazard mitigation projects are subject to these laws. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana
Ecological Services Field Office maintains a database which documents a list of threatened and endangered
species in the State of Montana. Table 4-5 below summarizes these species and their status. A list of other
natural resource assets by county and tribe can be found in the corresponding annexes.
Table 4-5 State of Montana Threatened and Endangered Species
Common Name Scientific Name Status Range-Montana
Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes E/XN Prairie dog complexes; eastern Montana
Whooping Crane Grus americana E Wetlands; migrant eastern Montana
Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus
albus
E Bottom dwelling; Missouri, Yellowstone, Marias, Milk, Poplar,
Powder, Tongue Rivers
White Sturgeon
(Kootenai River
population)
Acipenser
transmontanus
E Bottom dwelling; Kootenai River
Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos
horribilis
T Alpine/subalpine coniferous forest; Western Montana
Piping Plover Charadrius
melodus
T/CH Missouri and Yellowstone River sandbars, alkali beaches;
northeastern Montana. Alkali lakes in Sheridan County;
riverine and reservoir shoreline in Garfield, McCone, Phillips,
Richland, Roosevelt and Valley counties
68
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-11
Common Name Scientific Name Status Range-Montana
Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes
diluvialis
T River meander wetlands; Jefferson, Madison, Beaverhead,
Gallatin, Broadwater counties
Bull trout (Columbia
River basin and St.
Mary - Belly River
populations)
Salvelinus
confluentus
T/CH Clark Fork, Flathead, Kootenai, St. Mary and Belly River
basins; cold water rivers & lakes. Portions of rivers, streams,
lakes and reservoirs within Deer Lodge, Flathead, Glacier,
Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Mineral, Missoula,
Powell, Ravalli, Sanders counties
Canada Lynx
(contiguous U.S.
population)
Lynx canadensis T/CH Western Montana Resident – core lynx habitat, montane
spruce/fir forests; Transient – secondary/peripheral lynx
habitat. Western Montana - montane spruce/fir forest
Spalding's Catchfly Silene spaldingii T Upper Flathead River and Fisher River drainages; Tobacco
Valley - open grasslands with rough fescue
Yellow-billed cuckoo
(western population)
Coccyzus
americanus
T Population west of the Continental Divide; riparian areas
with cottonwoods and willows
Red Knot Calidris canutus
rufa
T Migrant; eastern Montana plains along shorelines
Northern Long-eared
Bat
Myotis
septentrionalis
T Eastern Montana; caves, abandoned mines; roosts in live
trees and snags
Meltwater Lednian
Stonefly
Lednia tumana T High elevation meltwater streams; Glacier, Flathead, and
Lake Counties
Western Glacier
Stonefly
Zapada glacier T Typically found in clean, cold running waters that have high
oxygen content. Glacier and Carbon Counties
Whitebark Pine Pinus albicaulis T Western, central, and southwestern Montana, in forests at
upper subalpine elevations and near treeline
ENDANGERED (E) - Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
THREATENED (T) - Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
NON-ESSENTIAL EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION (XN) - A population of a listed species reintroduced into a
specific area that receives more flexible management under the Act.
CRITICAL HABITAT, PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT (CH, PCH) - The specific areas (i) within the geographic area
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential
to conserve the species and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific
areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon determination that such
areas are essential to conserve the species.
Source: Montana Ecological Services Field Office, https://www.fws.gov/office/montana -ecological-services/species
4.1.6 Social Vulnerability
Social vulnerability is broadly defined as the susceptibility of social groups to the adverse impacts of natural
hazards, including disproportionate death, injury, loss, or disruption of livelihood. Social vulnerability
considers the social, economic, demographic, and housing characteristics of a community that influence its
ability to prepare for, respond to, cope with, recover from, and adapt to environmental hazards.
The NRI has incorporated a social vulnerability index (SoVI) rating1 as a “consequence enhancing risk
component” using the SoVI compiled by the Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute in the Department
of Geography at the University of South Carolina. This SoVI is a location-specific assessment and measures
the social vulnerability of U.S. counties to environmental hazards utilizing 29 socioeconomic variables which
have been deemed to influence a community’s vulnerability. The comparison of SoVI values between
counties within the State allows for a more detailed depiction of variances in risk and vulnerability. Figure
1 As of 2024 the NRI has switched to use the social vulnerability index (SVI) produced by the CDC. The analysis here was done using
the SoVI model described here. Both indices produce comparable results, with some important differences. Also see Tarling, H.A.
(2017) Comparative analysis of social vulnerability indices: CDC’s SVI and SoVI®, Lund University, Sweden, Masters Thesis, 75p.
69
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-12
4-4 shows this social vulnerability rating by county in Montana, with those counties shaded in darker red
having the highest levels of social vulnerability.
Figure 4-4 Social Vulnerability Rating by County in Montana (2021)
The index can be used by the State to help determine where social vulnerability and exposure to hazards
overlaps and how and where mitigation resources might best be used. The SoVI provides a score between
0.01 and 100, with higher scores indicative of hig her levels of social vulnerability. According to the index,
the following, listed in order, are Montana’s ten most socially vulnerable counties:
1. Glacier County (Score 75.72)
2. Roosevelt County (Score 70.60)
3. Big Horn County (Score 70.32)
4. Liberty County (Score 63.07)
5. Meagher County (Score 62.99)
6. Blaine County (Score 61.14)
7. Daniels County (Score 59.71)
8. Mineral County (Score 59.05)
9. Lake County (Score 55.77)
10. Chouteau County (Score 54.59)
Of these ten most socially vulnerable counties, only two, Roosevelt and Big Horn counties, are in the eastern
region. Daniels County is also one of the counties in eastern Montana ranked “very high” for social
70
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-13
vulnerability. In addition to the ten counties listed above, Wheatland, Valley, Sanders, Granite, Sheridan,
Deer Lodge, Silver Bow, Petroleum, and Lincoln also rank in the top 20% most socially vulnerable counties
nationwide. Figure 4-5 below shows the percentile of each county’s social vulnerability ranking on a national
scale.
Figure 4-5 Social Vulnerability State Percentile
Community Resilience
Related to social vulnerability, the NRI utilizes community resilience as a “consequence reduction
component". Community Resilience can essentially be thought of as an inverse to social vulnerability. The
NRI defines community resilience as the ability of a community to prepare for anticipated natural hazards,
adapt to changing conditions, and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. There are multiple, well-
established ways to define community resilience at the local level, and key drivers of resilience vary between
locations. Because there are not nationally available, bottom-up community resilience indices available, the
Social Vulnerability and Community Resilience Working Group chose to utilize a top -down approach. The
NRI relies on using broad factors to define resilience at a national level and create a comparative metric to
use as a risk factor.
The Community Resilience score is a consequence reduction risk factor and represents the relative level of
community resilience in comparison to all other communities at the same level. A higher Community
Resilience score results in a lower Risk Index score. Because Community Resilience is unique to a geographic
location—specifically, a county—it is a geographic risk factor. Community resilience data are supported by
the University of South Carolina’s Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute (HVRI) Base line Resilience
Indicators for Communities (BRIC). HVRI BRIC provides a sound methodology for quantifying community
resilience by identifying the ability of a community to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more
71
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-14
successfully adapt to the impacts of natural hazards. The HVRI BRIC dataset includes a set of 49 indicators
that represent six types of resilience: social, economic, community capital, institutional capacity,
housing/infrastructure, and environmental. It uses a local scale within a nationwide scope, and the national
dataset serves as a baseline for measuring relative resilience. The data can be used to compare one place
to another and determine specific drivers of resilience, and a higher HVRI BRIC score in dicates a stronger
and more resilient community. Figure 4-6 below shows the community resilience rating for each county in
Montana.
Figure 4-6 Community Resilience Rating by County in Montana
The community resilience rating can be useful in determining counties which have higher levels of ability to
cope with hazards and identify success stories for building resilience. According to the index (2021), the
following, listed in order, are Montana’s ten most resilient counties:
1. Daniels County (58.16)
2. Lewis and Clark County (57.80)
3. Cascade County (57.72)
4. Sheridan County (57.49)
5. Yellowstone County (56.92)
6. Hill County (56.90)
7. Chouteau County (56.79)
8. Teton County (56.71)
72
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-15
9. Sweet Grass County (56.63)
10. Blaine County (56.17)
Only a select few of the above counties are in the top 20 percent in the nation in terms of community
resilience with those being limited to Daniels, Lewis and Clark, and McCone counties. The average
community resilience score for the State of Montana is 5 4.43, which is slightly lower than the national
average score of 54.59. Only 11.1% of counties in the country have a higher level of community resilience
than Montana’s highest rated county, Daniel County. In addition to the ten counties listed above, Petroleum,
Silver Bow, Custer, Pondera, Carbon, Meagher, Gallatin, and Fergus counties each are identified as having
relatively high levels of community resilience. Figure 4-7 below shows the percentile of each county’s
community resilience ranking on a national scale.
Figure 4-7 Community Resilience State Percentile
Adaptive capacity is the potential for a system to adjust to change and to potential damage and take
advantage of opportunities, and cope with consequences. As such, other indicators of community resilience
include whether local municipalities have planning departments and administrative and technical staff
capabilities to address community needs during hazard events through effective planning processes,
community engagement, and planning projects related to resiliency. Data from Headwater Economics was
reviewed to map those counties that lack a Planning Department and/or a Zoning Ordinance. Figure 4-8
shows the counties in Montana that do not have a Planning Department. In other words, these are the
counties in the State that lack formal planning resources and have less capability for land use and hazard
mitigation planning. These include the counties of Glacier, Blaine, Wheatland, Golden Valley, Musselshell,
Treasure, Carter, McCone, and Daniels.
73
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-16
Figure 4-8 Counties in Montana that Lack a Planning Department
Mobile Homes
Mobile and manufactured homes are the most common unsubsidized, affordable housing in the United
States. Research shows that these structures face a disproportionately higher risk of flooding and also
damage from wind events (Headwater Economics 2022). App roximately 9.2% of the housing types in
Montana are mobile homes compared to approximately 5.6% mobile homes in the United States (U.S.
Census 2020). Compared to those who live in other types of housing, mobile home residents have higher
exposure to natural hazards such as wind, tornadoes, hurricanes, extreme heat, wildfire, and particularly
flooding. For example, according to analysis by Headwater Economics, one in seven mobile homes is located
in an area with high flood risk, compared to one in 10 for all other housing types (Headwater Economics
2022). Figure 4-9 shows the number of mobile homes as a proportion to the number of households within
the County.
74
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-17
Figure 4-9 Mobile Homes in Montana
As shown above, Mineral, Petroleum, Powder River, and Carter counties have the highest number of mobile
homes as a proportion to the number of households in that County. Other counties with 15% to 20% mobile
home proportions include Lincoln, Sanders, Beaverhead, Glacier, Meagher, Stillwater, Golden Valley, Big
Horn, Rosebud, Richland, and Fallon counties.
4.2 Hazard Profiles
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i):
[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the…location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the
jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of
future hazard events.
The hazards identified in Section 4.1 are profiled individually in this section. Much of the profile information
came from the same sources used to initially identify the hazards.
4.2.1 Profile Methodology
Each hazard is profiled in a similar format that is described below:
Hazard/Problem Description
This subsection gives a description of the hazard and associated problems, followed by details on the hazard
specific to the Region.
75
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-18
Geographical Area Affected
This subsection discusses which areas of the Region are most likely to be affected by a hazard event.
Negligible: Less than 10 percent of planning area or isolated single-point occurrences
Limited: 10 to 25 percent of the planning area or limited single-point occurrences
Significant: 25 to 75 percent of planning area or frequent single-point occurrences
Extensive: 75 to 100 percent of planning area or consistent single-point occurrences
Past Occurrences
This subsection contains information on historic incidents, including impacts where known. Information
provided by the Regional Steering Committee is included here along with information from other data
sources, including NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Storm Events Database
and other data sources. When available, tables showing county-specific data from the NCEI database may
be found in each hazard profile.
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
The frequency of past events is used in this section to gauge the likelihood of future occurrences. Based on
historical data, the likelihood of future occurrences is categorized into one of the following classifications:
• Highly Likely—90 to 100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or happens every year.
• Likely—Between 10 and 90 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval
of 10 years or less.
• Occasional—Between 1 and 10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence
interval of 11 to 100 years.
• Unlikely—Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval
of greater than every 100 years.
The frequency, or chance of occurrence, was calculated where possible based on existing data. Frequency
was determined by dividing the number of events observed by the number of years and multiplying by 100.
Stated mathematically, the methodology for calculating the probability of future occurrences is:
# of known events x100
years of historic record
This gives the percent chance of the event happening in any given year. An example would be three
droughts occurring over a 30-year period which equates to 10 percent chance of that hazard occurring any
given year.
Climate Change Considerations
This describes the potential for climate change to affect the frequency and intensity of the hazard in the
future.
Potential Magnitude and Severity
This subsection discusses the potential magnitude of impacts, or extent, from a hazard event. Magnitude
classifications are as follows:
● Negligible: Less than 10 percent of property is severely damaged, facilities and services are unavailable
for less than 24 hours, injuries and illnesses are treatable with first aid or within the response capability
of the jurisdiction.
76
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-19
● Limited: 10 to 25 percent of property is severely damaged, facilities and services are unavailable
between 1 and 7 days, injuries and illnesses require sophisticated medical support that does not strain
the response capability of the jurisdiction, or results in ver y few permanent disabilities.
● Critical: 25 to 50 percent of property is severely damaged, facilities and services are unavailable or
severely hindered for 1 to 2 weeks, injuries and illnesses overwhelm medical support for a brief period
of time or result in many permanent disabilities and a few deaths. overwhelmed for an extended period
of time or many deaths occur.
● Catastrophic: More than 50 percent of property is severely damaged, facilities and services are
unavailable or hindered for more than two weeks, the medical response system is overwhelmed for an
extended period of time or many deaths occur.
Vulnerability Assessment
The primary function of the Vulnerability Assessment section for each hazard is to identify which assets are
both likely to be exposed to a hazard and susceptible to damage from that exposure. In this context, assets
are (1) people, (2) property, (3) critical facilities and lifelines, (4) the economy, (5) historic a nd cultural
resources, and (6) natural resources. Exposure is defined here as interacting with a hazard, and likely to be
exposed indicates a presence in areas deemed to be especially likely to experience a hazard. Susceptible is
meant to indicate assets that are easily damaged from exposure to a hazard. Finally, vulnerability under
future conditions is considered as it relates to both climate change and existing and future development.
Susceptible is a peculiar term in the context of hazard mitigation plans. FEMA does not specifically define
the term and yields to the common definition of “easily harmed by something .” In practice, estimating
susceptibility of assets or lifelines to each hazard is a complex task. Even defining which assets are, or are
not, susceptible is subject to an implicit judgment of how easily harmed is enough to be deemed
susceptible? FEMA’s 2023 Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide provides a statement that plan participants
may identify which specific assets are most susceptible to damage or loss from hazards (FEMA 2023). In the
Eastern Montana plan, MT DES in coordination with each county and tribe, describes which assets are
susceptible to a given hazard to best assess their communities’ unique vulnerabilities and particular assets
most susceptible to hazard risk.
Another limitation of the vulnerability assessment is the inconsistent ability to define which specific assets
are vulnerable. The reasons for this are many, but the most common problem is that GIS datasets may not
contain consistent information about the characteristics of specific assets. Information about the
characteristics of each asset could also allow a judgment of which assets are susceptible to damage. For
example, if a dataset only contains the location of houses, it is easy to identify which hous es exist within a
high-hazard area. However, not all houses are equally susceptible to damage. Some were built to comply
with older housing codes, some may not be well maintained and improved, and some may be oriented in
ways or located on sites that cause subtle differences in exposure to a hazard such as wind. In the absence
of reliable data on key characteristics, judging which assets are susceptible to harm becomes a ‘best
estimate’ rather than a determination. Another example is if one dataset has the location of assets in a
different format than is used to define a hazard area. In this case it is not possible to determine which assets
are within a hazard area without additional analysis. Given these limitations, this is why FEMA recommends
counties and tribes update their plans and vulnerability assessments every five years, in part to refine and
address changing conditions and integrate new points of view from stakeholders and the public.
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
This section describes how future development and growth could impact vulnerability to each hazard.
Specific trends can be found in each county or tribal annex.
77
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-20
Risk Summary
The primary function of the Risk Summary section for each hazard is to describe the potential severity of
loss to vulnerable assets and the impact that loss has on jurisdictions. In the context of hazard mitigation
planning, vulnerability can be viewed as what is likely to be damaged, while risk can be viewed as how
severe the damage will be to those assets and to the community. Risk is sometimes described as the
consequence or effect a hazard has on assets.
This section summarizes risk by county and tribe according to the area affected, likelihood, and magnitude
of impacts. Overall hazard significance is summarized for the region and by county and tribe. If the hazard
has impacts on specific towns or cities in the region that differ from the county, they are noted here, where
applicable.
4.2.2 Communicable Disease
Hazard/Problem Description
A communicable disease spreads from one person to another through a variety of ways that include contact
with blood and bodily fluids, breathing in an airborne virus, or being bitten by an insect.
The scale of a communicable disease outbreak or biological incident is described by the extent of the spread
of disease in the community. An outbreak can be classified as an endemic, an epidemic, or a pandemic
depending on the prevalence of the disease locally and around the world.
● An endemic is defined as something natural to or characteristic of a particular place, population, or
climate. For example, threadworm infections are endemic in the tropics.
● An epidemic is defined as a disease that spreads rapidly through a demographic segment of the
human population, such as everyone in a given geographic area, a similar population unit, or
everyone of a certain age or sex, such as the children or women of a region.
● A pandemic is defined as an extensive epidemic with effects felt worldwide.
While many potentially devastating diseases are spread through ingestion or insects, airborne diseases and
those spread through physical contact pose higher risks to the community as they are difficult to control.
Diseases such as influenza, pertussis, tuberculosis, and meningitis are all spread through these methods and
pose a threat to communities. Health agencies closely monitor for diseases with the potential to cause an
epidemic and seek to develop and promote immunizations.
A pandemic can be defined as a public health emergency that spans several countries or continents, usually
affecting many people. Pandemics are most often caused by new subtypes of viruses or bacteria to which
humans have little or no natural immunity. Even when there is a strong healthcare system in place, disease
outbreaks can strain and overwhelm community resources.
A pandemic disease could easily spread person-to -person, causing serious illness, and can sweep across
the country and around the world in a very short time. Impacts could range from school and business
closings to the interruption of basic services such as public transportation, health care, and the delivery of
food and essential medicines. An especially severe pandemic could lead to high levels of illness, death,
social disruption, and economic loss.
Because of the process utilized to prepare vaccines, it is impossible to have vaccines pre-prepared to combat
pandemics. Additionally, for novel viruses, identification of symptoms, mode of transmission, and testing
and identification may require development, causing significant delays in response actions. A portion of the
human and financial cost of a pandemic is related to the lag time to prepare a vaccine to prevent the future
spread of the novel virus. In some cases, current vaccines may have limited activity against novel strains.
78
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-21
Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic
Since March 2020, the State of Montana, the nation, and the world were dealing with the COVID -19
pandemic. The COVID-19 virus has a much higher rate of transmission than the seasonal flu, primarily by
airborne transmission of droplets and bodily fluids. Co mmon symptoms include fever, cough, fatigue,
shortness of breath or breathing difficulties, and loss of smell and taste. While most people have mild
symptoms, some people develop acute respiratory distress syndrome, with roughly one in five requiring
hospitalizations. Recent studies have shown the average area-specific COVID-19 case fatality rate to be 2%
- 3% worldwide, higher than previously reported estimates (Cao, Hiyoshi and Montgomery 2020). Case
fatality rate, also called case fatality risk or case fatality ratio, in epidemiology, is the proportion of people
who die from a specified disease among all individuals diagnosed with the disease over a certain period of
time (Harrington 2022). The key challenge in containing the spread has been the fact that it can be
transmitted by asymptomatic people.
2022 US Monkeypox Outbreak
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), monkeypox is a rare disease caused by
infection with the monkeypox virus. Monkeypox virus is part of the same family of viruses as smallpox.
Monkeypox symptoms are similar to smallpox sympto ms but milder, and monkeypox is rarely fatal.
Symptoms of monkeypox can include fever, headache, muscle aches, swollen lymph nodes, chills,
exhaustion, and a rash that can look like pimples or blisters. The rash goes through different stages before
healing completely. Some people get a rash first, followed by other symptoms, while others only experience
a rash. The illness typically lasts 2 to 4 weeks and can spread from the time symptoms start until the rash
has fully healed and a fresh layer of skin has formed. People who do not have monkeypox symptoms cannot
spread the virus to others.
The virus can spread from person to person through:
● Direct contact with the infectious rash, scabs, or bodily fluids ;
● Touching items (such as clothing or linens) that previously touched the infectious rash or bodily fluids ;
● Respiratory secretions during prolonged, face-to-face contact, or intimate physical contact;
● Touching items (such as clothing or linens) that previously touched the infectious rash or body fluids ;
and
● Placenta from pregnant person to fetus.
It is also possible for people to get monkeypox from infected animals, either by being scratched or bitten
by the animal or by preparing, eating, or using products from an infected animal.
Monkeypox was discovered in 1958 when two outbreaks of a pox-like disease occurred in colonies of
monkeys kept for research. Despite being named “monkeypox,” the source of the disease remains unknown.
However, African rodents and non-human primates (like monkeys) might harbor the virus and infect people.
The first human case of monkeypox was recorded in 1970. Before the 2022 outbreak, monkeypox had been
reported in people in several central and western African countries. Previously, almost all monkeypox cas es
in people outside of Africa were linked to international travel to countries where the disease commonly
occurs or through imported animals. These cases occurred on multiple continents.
Based on CDC’s data, as of December 2, 2022, there are 82,021 cases all over the world in 110 countries.
There are 29,630 cases in the US and 7 in the State of Montana. The World Health Organization (WHO)
declared Monkeypox Spread a Global Health Emergency on July 23, 2022.
Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome (HPS)
According to the State of Montana’s Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS), Hantavirus
Pulmonary Syndrome (HPS) is another communicable disease of concern to the State of Montana. HPS is
79
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-22
an illness caused by a family of viruses called hantaviruses. HPS is a rare but often serious illness of the
lungs. In Montana, the deer mouse is the reservoir for the hantavirus. The virus is found in the droppings,
urine, and saliva of infected mice. The most common way that a person can get HPS is by breathing in the
virus when it is aerosolized (stirred up into the air). People can also become infected after touching mouse
droppings or nesting materials that contain the virus and then touching their eye s, nose, or mouth.
Geographical Area Affected
The entirety of the Montana Eastern Region is susceptible to the spread of infectious diseases therefore the
geographic area affected is extensive. Disease usually spreads throughout vulnerable populations and in
areas where people live and work in close quarters. Depending on the specifics of the illness, these areas
can include shelters, senior homes, schools, and places of business. In general, it is likely that the more
populated areas may be affected sooner and may experience higher infection rates.
The Montana DPHHS has reported 319,023 cases of COVID-19 statewide and 3,600 deaths as of December
2, 2022. The current COVID-19 pandemic has affected all the counties in the Eastern Region. Table 4-6
shows the total cases and deaths specific to the Eastern Region. Data specific to tribes are included in the
nearest counties. The Eastern Region comprises approximately 24% of the statewide total cases and 32% of
the statewide total deaths. In general, it is likely that the more-populated areas municipal areas may be
affected sooner and may experience higher infection rates.
Table 4-6 COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by County (as of December 09, 2022)
County Cases Cases Per Total
Pop*.
Deaths Deaths Per Total
Pop.
Big Horn 5,619 42.6% 102 0.8%
Carbon 2,406 22.9% 29 0.3%
Carter 287 21.3% 5 0.4%
Custer 3,463 28.9% 52 0.4%
Daniels 454 26.1% 9 0.5%
Dawson 2,724 30.3% 59 0.7%
Fallon 775 25.2% 11 0.4%
Garfield 250 25.7% 3 0.3%
Golden Valley 166 20.2% 5 0.6%
McCone 436 24.2% 9 0.5%
Musselshell 1,075 22.3% 31 0.6%
Powder River 412 23.4% 10 0.6%
Prairie 289 23.6% 4 0.3%
Roosevelt 3,786 34.8% 75 0.7%
Rosebud 3,070 36.3% 62 0.7%
Sheridan 882 25.0% 13 0.4%
Stillwater 1,701 19.1% 32 0.4%
Treasure 145 20.9% 1 0.1%
Valley 2,072 27.4% 39 0.5%
Wibaux 243 23.9% 8 0.8%
Wheatland 450 21.6% 14 0.7%
Yellowstone 49,760 29.8% 588 0.4%
Eastern Region 80,465 29.5% 1,161 0.40%
Source: MT DPHHS COVID Dashboard *Population total is based on U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-Year Estimates
Past Occurrences
Since the early 1900s, five lethal pandemics have swept the globe:
80
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-23
● 1918-1919 Spanish Flu: The Spanish Flu was the most severe pandemic in recent history. The number
of deaths was estimated to be 50-100 million worldwide and 675,000 in the United States. Its primary
victims were mostly young, healthy adults. At one point, more than 10% of the American workforce was
bedridden.
● 1957-1958 Asian Flu: The 1957 Asian Flu pandemic killed 1.1 million people worldwide, including
about 70,000 people in the United States, mostly the elderly and chronically ill. Fortunately, the virus
was quickly identified, and vaccine production began in May 1957.
● 1968-1969 H3N2 Hong Kong Flu: The 1968 Hong Kong Flu pandemic killed one million people
worldwide and approximately 100,000 people in the United States. Again, the elderly were more
severely affected. This pandemic peaked during school holidays in December, limiting student -related
infections, which may have kept the number of infections down. Also, people infected by the Asian Flu
ten years earlier may have gained some resistance to the new virus.
● 2009-2010 H1N1 Swine Flu: This influenza pandemic emerged from Mexico in early 2009 and was
declared a public health emergency in the US on April 26. By June, approximately 18,000 cases had
been reported in the US and the virus had spread to 74 countries. Most cases were fairly mi ld, with
symptoms similar to the seasonal flu, but there were cases of severe disease requiring hospitalization
and some deaths. On May 11, 2009, the Montana DPHHS reported the state's first confirmed case of
swine flu. As of January 21, 2010, there were 801 confirmed cases and 18 confirmed deaths in Montana.
● 2020-Ongoing COVID-19: The COVID-19 or novel coronavirus was detected in December 2019 and
was declared a pandemic in March 2020. As of December 2, 2022, 643 million cases and 6.6 million
deaths have been reported globally, including approximately 98.3 million cases and 1.1 mil lion deaths
in the US. Worldwide there have been 13.0 billion vaccine doses administered. The response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic included numerous public health orders, including stay-home orders, massive
testing infrastructure, the establishment of alternate care sites to support the hospital system, and an
unprecedented community-wide vaccination push. Montana’s news leader KTVQ noted on December
2021 that COVID-19 was the leading cause of death among Montana’s Native Americans in 2020.
According to a report released by the State’s Department of Public Health and Human Services, COVID -
19 was responsible for 251 of the 1,022 total deaths among Montana’s Native Americans in 2020. While
Native Americans only make up around 7 % of the state’s population, they accounted for 32% of the
deaths and 19% of cases in the state from March to October of 2020 (Schubert 2021).
According to the 2019 DPHHS Communicable Disease in Montana Annual Report, the most recent annual
report available, sexually transmitted diseases rank the highest among all the reported communicable
diseases, followed by hepatitis, food & water borne diseases, and vaccine-preventable diseases, as shown
in Figure 4-10.
81
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-24
Figure 4-10 2019 Montana DPHHS Communicable Disease Rates
The report also noted a sudden increase in the incidence of hepatitis A. While hepatitis A is spread through
ingestion of the virus, primarily through close person contact or the sharing of contaminated food or drinks,
the 2019 outbreak was predominantly linked to injection drug use and transmission among people
experiencing homelessness. Of the cases of hepatitis, A reported in Montana in 2019, almost half were
reported in Yellowstone County.
Also noted was the continued increase in the incidence of gonorrhea. However, it is believed that the
increase in reported cases is partially due to an increase in screening tests being performed across the state,
suggesting that gonorrhea has been underreported for many years.
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
Although it is impossible to predict the next disease outbreak, recent history shows these outbreaks are not
uncommon and are likely to reoccur. Based on the five pandemics that have affected the United States in
roughly the last 100 years, a pandemic occurs on average roughly every 20 years. In other words, there is a
5% probability that a pandemic that affects the entire United States will occur in any given year . As a result,
the likelihood of occurrence for communicable disease is occasional.
For the current COVID-19 pandemic, due to the virus's ability to mutate and rapidly infect those who are
not vaccinated, the pandemic may extend for several years, and booster vaccines may be necessary to
prevent future outbreaks. In just the last couple o f decades, the world has drastically increased points of
Sexually Transmitted
Infections
66.6%
Hepatitis
14.4%
General
Communicable
Diseases
1.2%
Food & Water borne
Diseases
7.8%
Zoonotic & Vector-
borne Diseases
2.6%
Vaccine Precentable
Diseases
7.5%
82
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-25
transmissions through global travel and trade to levels unseen in human history – this may have a drastic
impact on the frequency of pandemics and the speed with which they spread in coming years.
Climate Change Considerations
As the Earth’s climate continues to warm, researchers predict wild animals will be forced to relocate their
habitats — likely to regions with large human populations — dramatically increasing the risk of a viral jump
to humans that could lead to the next pandemic. This link between climate change and viral transmission is
described by an international research team led by scientists at Georgetown University , published in Nature
(Georgetown University 2022). The scholars noted that the geographic range shifts due to climate change
could cause species that carry viruses to encounter other mammals, sharing associated viruses thousands
of times, which may then further be spread to humans. In addition, rising temperatures caused by climate
change will impact bats, which account for the majority of novel viral sharing. Bats’ ability to fly will allow
them to travel long distances and share viruses in geographically dispersed places. Altogether, the study
suggests that climate change will become the biggest upstream risk factor for disease emergence —
exceeding higher-profile issues like deforestation, wildlife trade, and industrial agriculture. The authors
highlight a need to pair wildlife disease surveillance with real-time studies of environmental change
(Carlson, C.J., Albery, G.F., Merow, C. et al., 2022).
Potential Magnitude and Severity
The magnitude of a disease outbreak or public health emergency will range significantly depending on the
aggressiveness of the virus in question, the ease of transmission, and the efficacy of public health and
medical responses. Pandemic influenza is easily transmitted from person to person but advances in medical
technologies have greatly reduced the number of deaths caused by influenza over time.
Today, a large percentage of the world’s population is clustered in cities, making them ideal breeding
grounds for epidemics. Additionally, the explosive growth in air travel means a virus could spread around
the globe within hours, quickly creating a pand emic. Under such conditions, there may be very little warning
time. It is estimated that one to six months will have lapsed between the time that a dangerous new
influenza strain is identified and the time that outbreaks begin to occur in the United States . Outbreaks are
expected to occur simultaneously throughout much of the nation, preventing shifts in human and material
resources that normally occur with other natural disasters. These aspects make influenza pandemic unlike
most other public health emergencies or community disasters. Pandemics typically last for several months
to years. Considering the variations in viruses, the potential magnitude of communicable disease is critical.
As seen with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid spread of a virus combined with the need for
increased hospital and coroner resources, testing centers, first responders, and vaccination administration
sites causes significant strain on the medical system and public health departments. Additionally, other
public health-related triggers or commingled public health hazards (such as an outbreak of another
pathogen) or even more contagious strains of COVID such as the recent Omicron, BA.5 and Delta B.1.617 .2
variant, can quickly lead to even more outbreaks.
The Pandemic Intervals Framework (PIF) is a six-phased approach to defining the progression of an influenza
pandemic. This framework is used to guide influenza pandemic planning and provides recommendations
for risk assessment, decision-making, and action. These intervals provide a common method to describe
pandemic activities that can inform public health actions. The duration of each pandemic interval might
vary depending on the characteristics of the virus and the public health response.
The six-phase approach was designed for the easy incorporation of recommendations into existing national
and local preparedness and response plans. Phases 1 through 3 correlates with preparedness in the pre -
pandemic interval, including capacity development and response planning activities, while Phases 4 through
6 signal the need for response and mitigation efforts during the pandemic interval.
83
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-26
Pre-Pandemic Interval
Phase 1 is the natural state in which influenza viruses circulate continuously among animals (primarily birds)
but do not affect humans.
Phase 2 occurs when an animal influenza virus circulating among domesticated or wild animals is known
to have caused infection in humans and is thus considered a potential pandemic threat. Phase 2 involves
cases of animal influenza that have circulated among domesticated or wild animals and have caused specific
cases of infection among humans.
Phase 3 represents the mutation of the animal influenza virus in humans so that it can be transmitted to
other humans under certain circumstances (usually very close contact between individuals). At this point,
small clusters of infection have occurred.
Phase 4 is characterized by verified human-to -human transmission of the virus able to cause “community-
level outbreaks.” The ability to cause sustained disease outbreaks in a community marks a significant upward
shift in the risk for a pandemic. Phase 4 involves community-wide outbreaks as the virus continues to mutate
and becomes more easily transmitted between people (for example, transmission through the air)
Phase 5 is characterized by verified human-to-human spread of the virus in at least two countries in one
WHO region. While most countries will not be affected at this stage, the declaration of Phase 5 is a strong
signal that a pandemic is imminent and that the time to finalize the organization, communication, and
implementation of the planned mitigation measures is short.
Phase 6, the pandemic phase, is characterized by community-level outbreaks in at least one other country
in a different WHO region in addition to the criteria defined in Phase 5. The designation of this phase will
indicate that a global pandemic is underway.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
Pandemics can affect large segments of the population for long periods. The number of hospitalizations
and deaths will depend on the virulence of the virus. Risk groups cannot be predicted with certainty; the
elderly, people with underlying medical conditions, and young children are usually at higher risk, but as
discussed above, this is not always the case. People without health coverage or access to good medical care
are also likely to be more adversely affected.
According to the 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates of the Eastern Region, 18.5% of the Region’s population is 65
years of age or older, 5.7% of the population is 5 years of age or younger, and 11.7% experienced poverty
in the prior 12 months. For comparison, within the State of Montana, those over 65 years of age make up
18.7% of the population, those under five years of age make up 5.8% of the population, and 12.8% of the
State’s population had income in the past 12 months below poverty level. This shows that the population
at risk to communicable disease in Eastern Montana is similar to the State’s population exposure.
However, impacts, mortality rates, speed and type of spread are disease specific. As seen with the current
COVID-19 pandemic statewide, according to the State’s DPHHS, the most positive cases occurred in the 30-
49 age group. Hospitalizations and deaths, however, happened more within the over 50 age group.
Property
Communicable diseases would not have direct impacts on infrastructure or the built environment. Should
infrastructure require human intervention to fulfill vital functions, these functions could be impaired by
absenteeism, sick days and isolation, quarantine, and disease prophylaxis measures. As concerns about
contamination increase, property may be quarantined or destroyed as a precaution against spreading
illness. Additionally, traditional sheltering facilities, including shelters for persons experiencing
homelessness or facilities to support displaced persons during an evacuation, cannot be done in a
84
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-27
congregate setting. This requires additional planning considerations or the use of facilities that allow for
non-congregate shelter settings which may require an approval from FEMA and may have an increased
cost.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
The impacts of a communicable disease on critical infrastructure and lifelines would center on service
disruption due to staff missing work and on shortages in essential resources and supplies to perform
services, as seen with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic within the health and
medical sector.
While automated systems and services that allow for the physical distancing of staff from other persons
may fare better through a communicable disease incident, all critical infrastructure sectors and lifelines
would likely be affected due to the globalization of supply chains, services, and interdependency of most
communities.
Economy
A widespread communicable disease outbreak could have devastating impacts on the Eastern Region’s
economy. The economic impacts fall under two categories – economic losses as a result of the disease, and
economic losses to fight the disease. Economic impacts as a result of a disease include those costs
associated with lost work and business interruption. Depending on the disease and the type and rate of
spread, businesses could see a loss of consumer base as people self-isolate or avoid travel. This could last
for a protracted amount of time, compounding economic loss. Economic costs are also associated with
incident response. Two of the biggest areas of cost are public information efforts and mass prophylaxis.
In a normal year, lost productivity due to illness costs US employers an estimated $530 billion. During a
pandemic, that figure would likely be considerably high and could trigger a recession or even a depression.
According to an October 2020 report by The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) Network, the
estimated cumulative financial costs of the COVID-19 pandemic related to the COVID-19 economic
recession and compromised health (premature death, mental health, long-term health impairment) in the
US population was almost $16 trillion. As of July 29, 2021, the Montana Coronavirus Relief Fund has awarded
over $819 million to businesses and nonprofits across the State to support economic recovery efforts.
Historic and Cultural Resources
As mentioned previously, communicable diseases would not have specific impacts on the built or natural
environment, including historic and cultural resources. However, historic and cultural resources are often
intertwined with the tourism industry, therefore reduced tourism could lead to impacts such as a loss of
revenue needed for resource maintenance.
Natural Resources
Impacts on natural resources can vary. Some ecosystems showed signs of improvement during peak covid -
19 lockdown. However, some zoonotic diseases can spread from animals to humans, wreaking havoc on
both populations. Examples of zoonotic diseases include avian flu, swine flu, tuberculosis, plague, and
rabies.
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
Population growth and development contribute to pandemic exposure. Future development in the Eastern
Region has the potential to change how infectious diseases spread through the community and impact
human health in both the short and long term. New development may increase the number of people and
facilities exposed to public health hazards and greater population concentrations (often found in special
needs facilities and businesses) put more people at risk. During a disease outbreak, those in the immediat e
isolation area would have little to no warning, whereas the population further away in the dispersion path
85
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-28
may have some time to prepare and mitigate against disease depending on the hazard, its transmission,
and public notification.
Risk Summary
In summary, the Communicable Disease hazard is considered to be overall Medium significance for the
Region. Variations in risk by jurisdiction are summarized in the table below, along with key issues from the
vulnerability assessment.
● Pandemics affecting the U.S. occur roughly once every 20 years, meaning there is a roughly 5% chance
a pandemic will happen each year, but they cannot be reliably predicted.
● Effects on people will vary, while the elderly, people with underlying medical conditions, and young
children are usually at higher risk.
● Effects on property are typically minimal, although quarantines could result in short -term closures.
● Effects on economy: lost productivity due to illness and potential business closures could potentially
have severe economic impacts. Social distancing requirements and fear of public gatherings could
significantly reduce in-person commerce.
● Effects on critical facilities and infrastructure: community lifelines, such as healthcare facilities, like
hospitals will be impacted and may be overwhelmed and have difficulty maintaining operations due to
bed availability, medical staffing shortages, and lack of PPE and other supplies.
● Unique jurisdictional vulnerability: As mentioned above, COVID-19 was the leading cause of death in
Montana’s Native American tribes, likely due to economic and societal structures.
● Ongoing mitigation activities should focus on disease prevention, especially during flu season. This
includes, but is not limited to, pre-season community outreach campaigns to educate the public about
risks and available support; establishing convenient vaccination centers; reaching out to vulnerable
populations and caregivers; and issuing advisories and warnings.
● Related Hazards: Human Conflict.
Table 4-7 Risk Summary Table: Communicable Disease
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Eastern Region Medium
Big Horn High Hardin, Lodge Grass Big Horn has the lowest rate of insurance, and the
highest rate of COVID-19 infections in the Eastern
region, which suggest vulnerability to
communicable disease.
Carbon Medium Bearcreek, Bridger, Joliet,
Fromberg, Red Lodge
None
Carter Medium Ekalaka None
Custer Medium Ismay, Miles City None
Crow Tribe Medium NA
Daniels Medium Scobey, Flaxville None
Dawson Low Richey, Glendive None
Fallon Medium Plevna, Baker Societal and economic structures have increased
poor outcomes from communicable diseases in
Native communities.
Garfield Medium Jordan Garfield has the lowest population density of all
counties in Montana which lowers the risk of
communicable disease spread.
Golden Valley Medium Ryegate, Lavina None
McCone Low Circle
Dawson has a low population density and a high
rate of health insurance, lowering the risk of spread
86
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-29
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
and increasing the probability of medical
intervention.
Musselshell Medium Melstone, Roundup None
Powder River Low Broadus None
Prairie Medium Terry A significant portion of Prairie County’s population
is over the age of 65 and is therefore more
susceptible to communicable diseases.
Richland Medium Fairview, Sidney None
Roosevelt High Wolf Point, Poplar,
Bainville, Culberson, Froid
Roosevelt has the highest rate of poverty in the
Eastern Region which would impact its ability to
adapt to a communicable disease event.
Rosebud Medium Colstrip, Forsyth None
Sheridan Medium Plentywood, Medicine
Lake, Outlook, Westby
None
Stillwater Medium Columbus None
Treasure Medium Hysham None
Valley Low Glasgow, Fort Peck,
Nashua, Opheim
None
Wibaux Medium Wibaux None
Yellowstone High Billings, Broadview, Laurel Yellowstone has the largest population per square
mile of all counties in Montana, which increases the
likelihood of disease spread.
4.2.3 Cyber-Attack
Hazard/Problem Description
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines cyber-attacks as “an attempt to gain illegal access to a computer
or computer system to cause damage or harm.” Cyber-attacks use malicious code to alter computer
operations or data. The vulnerability of computer systems to attacks is a growing concern as people and
institutions become more dependent upon networked technologies. The Federal Bureau of Investigatio n
(FBI) reports that “cyber intrusions are becoming more commonplace, more dangerous, and more
sophisticated,” with implications for private- and public-sector networks. Cyber threats can take many forms,
including:
● Phishing attacks: Phishing attacks are fraudulent communications that appear to come from legitimate
sources. Phishing attacks typically come through email but may come through text messages as well.
Phishing may also be considered a type of social engineering meant to exp loit employees into paying
fake invoices, providing passwords, or sending sensitive information.
● Malware attacks: Malware is malicious code that may infect a computer system. Malware typically
gains a foothold when a user visits an unsafe site, downloads untrusted software, or may be
downloaded in conjunction with a phishing attack. Malware can remain undetected for years and spread
across an entire network.
● Ransomware: Ransomware typically blocks access to a jurisdiction’s/agency’s/ business’ data by
encrypting it. Perpetrators will ask for a ransom to provide the security key and decrypt the data,
although many ransomware victims never get their data back even after paying the ransom.
● Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack: Perhaps the most common type of cyber-attack, a DDoS
attack seeks to overwhelm a network and causes it to either be inaccessible or shut down. A DDoS
typically uses other infected systems and internet-connected devices to “request” information from a
specific network or server that is not configured or powerful enough to handle the traffic.
87
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-30
● Data breach: Hackers gaining access to large amounts of personal, sensitive, or confidential information
has become increasingly common in recent years. In addition to networked systems, data breaches can
occur due to the mishandling of external drives.
● Critical Infrastructure/SCADA System attack: There have been recent critical infrastructure
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system attacks aimed at taking down lifelines such
as power plants and wastewater facilities. These attacks typically combine a form of phishing, malware,
or other social engineering mechanisms to gain access to the system.
Cyber-attacks are rapidly increasing in the United States. The FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) was
developed to provide the public with a direct way to report cybercrimes to the FBI. In 2021, the FBI Internet
Crime Report reported a record number of cyber-attacks, with a 7% increase from 2020. The events reported
to the FBI are used to track the trends and threats from cyber criminals to combat cyber threats and protect
U.S. citizens, businesses, and government from future attacks.
Geographical Area Affected
Cyber-attacks can and have occurred in every location regardless of geography, demographics, and security
posture. Anyone with information online is vulnerable to a cyber-attack. Incidents may involve a single
location or multiple geographic areas. A disruption can have far -reaching effects beyond the location of the
targeted system; disruptions that occur far outside the State can still impact people, businesses, and
institutions within Eastern Region. All servers in the Eastern Region are potentially vulnerable to cyber-
attacks. Businesses, industry, and even individuals are also susceptible to cyber -attacks. Therefore, the
geographic extent of cyber-attack is significant.
Past Occurrences
According to the FBI’s 2021 Internet Crime Report, the FBI received 2.76 million complaints with $18.7 billion
in losses over the last five years due to cyber-attacks. The Crime Report also noted a trend of increasing
cybercrime complaints and losses each year. Nationwide losses in 2021 alone exceeded $6.9 billion, a 392%
increase since 2017. According to the 2021 Report, Montana ranked 48/57 among U.S. territories in the total
number of victims, with 1,188 victims of cyber-crime, and 49th in total victim losses, with $10,107,283 in total
losses.
Data on past cyber-attacks impacting Montana was gathered from The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. The
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a non-profit organization based in San Diego, maintains a timeline of 9,741
data breaches resulting from computer hacking incidents in the United States from 2005 -2021. The
database lists 35 data breaches against systems located in Montana totaling almost 1.5 million impacted
records; it is difficult to know how many of those affected residents in the Montana Eastern Region. Attacks
happening outside of the State can also impact local businesses, personal identifiable information, and
credit card information. Table 4-8 shows several of the most significant cyber-attacks in Montana in recent
years. The data aims to provide a general understanding of the impacts of cyber-attacks by compiling an
up-to -date list of incidents but is limited by the availability of data: “This is an incomplete look at the true
scope of the problem due in part to varying state laws.”
Table 4-8 Major Cyber Attacks Impacting Montana (10,000+ Records), 2005-2021
Date
Reported Target City Organization
Type
Total
Records Type of Attack
7/7/2014 Montana Department
of Public Health &
Human Services
- Healthcare 1,062,509 Hacked by an Outside Party or
Infected by Malware
1/30/2008 Davidson Companies Great
Falls
Business 226,000 Hacked by an Outside Party or
Infected by Malware
88
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-31
Date
Reported Target City Organization
Type
Total
Records Type of Attack
3/11/2011 OrthoMontana Billings Healthcare 37,000 Portable Device (lost, discarded
or stolen laptop, PDA,
smartphone, memory stick,
CDs, hard drive, data tape, etc.)
1/15/2016 New West Health
Services dba New
West Medicare
Kalispell Healthcare 28,209 Portable Device (lost, discarded
or stolen laptop, PDA,
smartphone, memory stick,
CDs, hard drive, data tape, etc.)
4/14/2017 Eastern Health
Screening
- Healthcare 15,326 PHYS
Source: The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
In total, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse has reported 35 attacks in Montana since 2005 with a total of
1,471,889 records. Of these records lost in Montana, a majority were from healthcare organizations. It is
difficult to know how many of these incidents affected residents in the Montana Eastern Region.
The Montana Department of Agriculture temporarily took the USAHERDS web -based software offline in the
year 2021 to allow the application’s developer to beef up security following a suspected Chinese state-
sponsored cyberattack. USAHERDS is used to track livestock by at least 18 US states. The suspected attacker
– APT41, had carried out a hacking campaign that comprised the networks of at least six US state
governments (Power 2022).
In February 2020, it is reported that Ryuk ransomware hacked the computer system of the Havre Public
Schools. Despite the major scare, it was eventually concluded that the hackers did not gain access to student
and employee information (Dragu 2020).
On April 3, 2015, Eastern Montana Clinic notified almost 7,000 patients of a payment data hack. The hacker
bypassed the Clinic website’s security measures and obtained access to the demographic and credit card
information of 6,994 patients who paid their bill(s) via the link on the Clinic’s website. The information
available to the hacker included patient names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, dates and
amounts of credit card transactions, and the last four digits of patients’ credit card numbers. In additi on,
approximately 44 patients’ full credit card information was compromised. The Clinic took steps to mitigate
any further harm to patients from this security incident ("Eastern Montana Clinic Notifies Almost 7,000
Patients Of Payment Data Hack" 2015).
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
Small-scale cyber-attacks such as DDoS attacks occur daily, but most have negligible impacts at the local
or regional level. Data breaches are also extremely common, but again most have only minor impacts on
government services. Additionally, the FBI Internet Crime Report 2021 found that there is a trend of
increasing cyber-attacks over the past 5 years. These trends are shown in Figure 4-11.
89
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-32
Figure 4-11 Trends of the Frequency of Cyber-attacks, 2017-2021
Source: The FBI Internet Crime Report 2021
Perhaps of greatest concern to the Eastern Region are ransomware attacks, which are becoming increasingly
common. It is difficult to calculate the odds of the Eastern Region or one of its jurisdictions being hit with a
successful ransomware attack in any given year, but it is likely to be attacked in the coming years.
The possibility of a larger disruption affecting systems within the Region is a constant threat, but it is
difficult to quantify the exact probability due to such highly variable factors as the type of attack and
intent of the attacker. Major attacks specifically targeting systems or infrastructure in the Eastern Region
cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the probability of future cyber-attack is occasional.
Climate Change Considerations
Changes in development have no impact on the threat, vulnerability, and consequences of a cyber-attack.
Potential Magnitude and Severity
There is no universally accepted scale to explain the severity of cyber-attacks. The strength of a DDoS attack
is often explained in terms of a data transmission rate. One of the largest DDoS disruptions ever, known as
the Dyn Attack which occurred on October 21, 2016, peaked at 1.2 terabytes per second and impacted some
of the internet’s most popular sites , including Amazon, Netflix, PayPal, Twitter, and several news
organizations.
Data breaches are often described in terms of the number of records or identities exposed. The largest data
breach ever reported occurred in August 2013, when hackers gained access to all three billion Yahoo
accounts. The hacking incidents associated with Montana in the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse database are
90
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-33
of a smaller scale, ranging from 201 records to approximately 1.06 million, along with several cases in which
an indeterminate number of records may have been stolen.
Ransomware attacks are typically described in terms of the amount of ransom requested, or the amount of
time and money spent to recover from the attack. One report from cybersecurity firm Emsisoft estimates
the average successful ransomware attack costs $81 million and can take 287 days to recover from.
Therefore, the potential magnitude and severity of cyber-attack is Critical.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
Injuries or fatalities from cyber-attacks would generally only be possible from a major cyber-terrorist attack
against critical infrastructure. More likely impacts on the public are financial losses and an inability to access
systems such as public websites and permitting sites. Indirect impacts could include interruptions to traffic
control systems or other infrastructure.
The FBI Internet Crime Reports on the victims of cyber-attack by age group. While the number of cyber-
attack complaints is comparable across age groups, the losses increase significantly as age group increases,
with individuals 60 years and older experiencing the greatest losses. This is likely due to seniors being less
aware of cyberthreats, lack of the tools to identify cyberthreats, and ”Grandparent Scams,” which is a
cyberattack where criminals impersonate a loved one in need, such as a grandchild, and ask for money.
Figure 4-12 displays the breakdown of victims by age group in 2021.
91
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-34
Figure 4-12 Victims by Age Group in 2021
Source: The FBI Internet Crime Report 2021
Property
Most cyber-attacks affect only data and computer systems and have minimal impact on the general
property. However, sophisticated attacks have occurred against the SCADA systems of critical infrastructure,
which could potentially result in system failures on a scale equal to natural disasters. Facilities and
infrastructure such as the electrical grid could become unusable. A cyber -attack took down the power grid
in Ukraine in 2015, leaving over 230,000 people without power. A ransomware attack on the Colonia Pipeline
in 2021 caused temporary gas shortages on the East Coast. The 2003 Northeast Blackout, while not the
result of a cyber-attack, caused 11 deaths and an estimated $6 billion in economic loss.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
An article posted on July 31, 2022, by government technology mentions that d espite the lack of major
headline-grabbing cyber-attacks against U.S. critical infrastructure so far in 2022, our global cyber battles
continue to increase. Worldwide cyber actions are becoming less covert. Besides, according to IBM’s 2022
annual Cost of a Data Breach Report, almost 80 percent of critical infrastructure organizations studied don't
adopt zero-trust strategies, seeing average breach costs rise to $5.4 million – a $1.17 million increase
compared to those that do. All while 28 percent of breaches amongst these organizations were ransomware
or destructive attacks (Lohrmann 2022).
92
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-35
Cyber-attacks can interfere with emergency response communications, access to mobile data terminals, and
access to critical pre-plans and response documents. According to the Cyber & Infrastructure Security
Agency (CISA), cyber risks to 9-1-1 systems can have “severe impacts, including loss of life or property; job
disruption for affected network users; and financial costs for the misuse of data and subsequent resolution.”
CISA also compiled a recent list of attacks on 9 -1-1 systems including a DDoS in Arizona, unauthorized
access with stolen credentials in Canada, a network outage in New York, and a ransomware attack in
Baltimore.
Moreover, the delivery of services can be impacted since governments rely to a great extent on the
electronic delivery of services. Most agencies rely on server backups, electronic backups, and remote options
for Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government. Access to documents on the network, OneDrive
access, and other operations that require collaboration across the Eastern Region will be significantly
impacted.
In addition, public confidence in the government will likely suffer if systems such as permitting, DMV, voting,
or public websites are down for a prolonged amount of time. An attack could raise questions regarding the
security of using electronic systems for government services.
Economy
Data breaches and subsequent identity thefts can have huge impacts on the public. The FBI Internet Crime
Report 2021 reported losses in Montana due to cyber-attacks totaled $10,107,283 in 2021 alone.
Economic impacts from a cyber-attack can be debilitating. The cyber-attack in 2018 that took down the City
of Atlanta cost at least $2.5 million in contractor costs and an estimated $9.5 million additional funds to
bring everything back online. The attack in Atlanta took more than a third of the 424 software programs
offline and recovery lasted more than 6 months. The 2018 cyber -attack on the Colorado Department of
Transportation cost an estimated $1.5 million. None of these statistics consider the economic losses to
businesses and ongoing IT configuration to mitigate a future cyber -attack.
Additionally, a 2016 study by Kaspersky Lab found that roughly one in five ransomware victims who pay
their attackers never recover their data. A 2017 study found ransomware payments over a two -year period
totaled more than $16 million. Even if a victim is perfectly prepared with full offline data backups, recovery
from a sophisticated ransomware attack typically costs far more than the demanded ransom.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Most cyber incidents have little to no impact on historic, cultural, or natural resources. A major cyber
terrorism attack could potentially impact the environment by triggering a release of hazardous materials,
or by causing an accident involving hazardous materials by disrupting traffic control devices.
Natural Resources
Most cyber-attacks would have a limited impact on natural resources. There are cases, such as a cyber -
attack on a hydroelectric dam, that could result in catastrophic consequences to natural and human -built
environments in the case of a flood. If a cyber -attack occurred on several upstream dams and released
significant amounts of water downstream, the additional pressure put on downstream dams could fail,
resulting in massive flood events. This would not only jeopardize the energy system that relies on thes e
dams but also cause significant damage to the natural environment.
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
Changes in development have no impact on the threat, vulnerability, and consequences of a cyber-attack.
Cyber-attacks can and have targeted small and large jurisdictions, multi-billion-dollar companies, small
mom-and-pop shops, and individual citizens. The decentralized nature of the internet and data centers
means that the cyber threat is shared by all, regardless of new construction and changes in development.
93
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-36
Risk Summary
● Overall, cyber-attacks are rated as a Medium significance in the planning area.
● Cyber-attacks can occur anywhere and on any computer network, therefore, this hazard is rated as
significant location.
● There is an increasing trend in the number of cyber-attacks in the U.S. each year, therefore, the
frequency of cyber-attack is rated as likely.
● Cyber-attacks can result in significant economic losses, interruptions of critical facilities and services,
and confidential data leaks; therefore, magnitude is ranked as Critical.
● People ages 60+ are the most likely age group to experience the greatest monetary losses, although
anyone of any age can be a victim to a cyber-attack.
● Small businesses worth less than $10 million and local governments are increasingly becoming targets
for cyber-attack, with criminals assuming these smaller organizations will lack the resources to prevent
an attack.
● Critical infrastructure, such as the energy grid and first responder communication, is vulnerable to
cyber-attack and disruption.
● Significant economic losses can result from cyber-attacks if the attackers ask for ransom.
● Jurisdictions with a significantly large population and advanced infrastructure are most likely to
experience cyber-attacks.
Table 4-9 Risk Summary Table: Cyber-Attack
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Eastern Region Medium None
Big Horn Medium Hardin, Lodge Grass None
Carbon Medium Bearcreek, Bridger, Joliet, Fromberg,
Red Lodge
None
Carter Medium Ekalaka None
Custer Medium Ismay, Miles City None
Crow Tribe Medium
Daniels Medium Scobey, Flaxville None
Dawson Medium Richey, Glendive None
Fallon Medium Plevna, Baker None
Garfield Medium Jordan None
Golden Valley Medium Ryegate, Lavina None
McCone Medium Circle
None
Musselshell Medium Melstone, Roundup None
Powder River Medium Broadus None
Prairie Medium Terry None
Richland Medium Fairview, Sidney None
Roosevelt Medium Wolf Point, Poplar, Bainville,
Culberson, Froid
None
Rosebud Medium Colstrip, Forsyth None
Sheridan Medium Plentywood, Medicine Lake, Outlook,
Westby
None
Stillwater Medium Columbus None
Treasure Medium Hysham None
Valley Medium Glasgow, Fort Peck, Nashua, Opheim None
Wibaux Medium Wibaux None
Yellowstone High Billings, Broadview, Laurel None
94
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-37
4.2.4 Dam Failure
Hazard/Problem Description
A dam is a barrier constructed across a watercourse that stores, controls, or diverts water. Dams are
constructed for a variety of uses, including flood protection, power, agriculture/irrigation, water supply, and
recreation. The water impounded behind a dam is referred to as the reservoir and is usually measured in
acre-feet, with one acre-foot being the volume of water that covers one acre of land to a depth of one foot.
Depending on local topography, even a small dam may have a reservoir containing many acre -feet of water.
Dams serve many purposes, including irrigation control, providing recreation areas , electrical power
generation, maintaining water levels, and flood control.
Dam failures and releases from dams during heavy rain events can result in downstream flooding. Water
released by a failed dam generates tremendous energy and can cause a flood that is catastrophic to life
and property. Two factors that influence the potential severity of a full or partial dam failure are the amount
of water impounded and the density, type, and value of downstream development and infrastructure. The
speed of onset depends on the type of failure. If the dam is inspected regularly then small leaks allow for
adequate warning time. Once a dam is breached, however, failure and resulting flooding occurs rapidly.
Dams can fail at any time of year, but the results are most catastrophic when the dams fill or overtop during
winter or spring rain/snowmelt events.
A catastrophic dam failure could challenge local response capabilities and require evacuations to save lives.
Impacts to life safety would depend on the warning time and the resources available to notify and evacuate
the public and could include major loss of life and potentially catastrophic damage to roads, bridges, and
homes. Associated water quality and health concerns could also be an issue.
Dam failures are often the result of prolonged rainfall and overtopping, but can happen in any conditions
due to erosion, piping, structural deficiencies, lack of maintenance and repair, or the gradual weakening of
the dam over time. Other factors that can lead to dam failure include earthquakes, landslides, improper
operation, rodent activity, vandalism, or terrorism.
According to FEMA, dams are classified in three categories that identify the potential hazard to life and
property:
● High hazard - Dams where failure/mis-operation will probably cause loss of human life.
● Significant hazard - Dams where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life
but can cause economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or impact other
concerns. Significant hazard potential classification dams are often located in predominantly rural
or agricultural areas but could be located in areas with population and significant infrastructure.
● Low hazard - Dams where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life and
low economic and/or environmental losses. Losses are principally limited to the owner’s property.
Dam inundation can also occur from non-failure events or incidents such as when outlet releases increase
during periods of heavy rains or high inflows. Controlled releases to allow water to escape when a reservoir
is overfilling can help prevent future overtopping or failure. When outlet releases are not enough, spillways
are designed to allow excess water to exit the reservoir and prevent overtopping. This can protect the dam
but result in flooding downstream. Dam safety incidents are defined as situations at dams that require an
immediate response by dam safety engineers. Detailed below in Table 4-10 are the high, significant, and
low hazard dams organized by county in the Eastern region. The Eastern region has the lowest number of
high hazard dams of the three regions in the State, and 100% of the high hazard dams have Emergency
Action Plans (EAPs) on file.
95
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-38
Table 4-10 Eastern Region Dam Summary Table
County # High Hazard # Significant # Low Total Percentage of High hazard
Dam with EAP
Big Horn 5 3 64 72 100%
Carbon 2 - 11 13 100%
Carter - 7 104 111 -
Custer - 3 173 176 -
Daniels - 1 19 20 -
Dawson 1 1 62 64 100%
Fallon 2 4 30 36 100%
Garfield - 8 236 244 -
Golden Valley - - 8 8 -
McCone 1 8 111 120 100%
Musselshell 1 1 28 30 100%
Powder River - 4 43 47 -
Prairie - 1 48 49 -
Richland 1 10 67 78 100%
Roosevelt - 4 35 39 -
Rosebud 4 5 261 270 100%
Sheridan 1 1 22 24 100%
Stillwater 4 - 7 11 100%
Treasure - - 16 16 -
Valley - 5 140 145 -
Wheatland 8 5 23 36 100%
Wibaux - - 13 13 -
Yellowstone 1 2 22 25 100%
Total 31 73 1,543 1,647
Source: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Dam Safety Program, Montana State Library, NID,
HIFLD 2022, Montana DES, NBI
Geographical Area Affected
The geographical area affected by dam failure is potentially significant. According to the National Inventory
of Dams (NID), there are a total of 1,647 dams throughout the counties of the Eastern Region. Thirty -one
(31) of these dams are high hazard, and 73 are significant hazard dams, with the remainder are low hazard
dams. These dams are mapped in Figure 4-13 and described in detail in the jurisdictional annexes. All the
high hazard dams in the Eastern Region have EAPs on file. In some cases, inundation mapping is available
for analysis, but typically limited to privately owned high hazard dams, based on data from the MT DNRC.
Additionally, there are limited inundation zones for dams owned by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), used
with permission. Other federally owned dams are highlighted in yellow and do not have publicly available
inundation mapping. It is important to note that a lack of mapped inundation areas prevents identifying
assets likely to be affected by dam failure but does not indicate the absence of risk.
96
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-39
Figure 4-13 Eastern Region Dams
97
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-40
Dam inundation maps are frequently treated as sensitive documents due to concerns about causing public
alarm, particularly in regions prone to flooding. There is also potential that these maps may be misused by
individuals representing realty or insurance interests. Potential exists for maps to be exploited for malicious
purposes, such as terror attacks. Therefore, the availability of these maps to the public remains limited due
to a combination of security concerns, legal considerations, and the potential for misuse or
misinterpretation.
Past Occurrences
Dam failure floods in Montana have primarily been associated with riverine and flash flooding. According
to the 2023 Montana State Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) and the Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation (Montana DNRC), aging infrastr ucture is largely to blame for a number of failed
dams in Montana. There have been numerous small failures primarily related to deterioration of corrugated
metal pipe outlet works, which causes slow release of reservoir contents along the outside of the ou tlet
pipe, with minimal downstream property damage but serious damage to the structure. Dams with potential
for loss of life downstream are subject to stringent permitting, inspection, operation, and maintenance
requirements. Deficiencies and problems are identified in advance and actions taken to mitigate the chance
that the deficiency leads to failure. If a deficiency cannot be immediately addressed due to lack of data or
lack of dam owner resources, risk reduction measures are put in place.
According to the 2023 State of Montana Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, there have been three past dam
failures or incidents in the Eastern Region. The following information concerning these events is excerpted
from the 2018 SHMP:
● March 1937 – The Midway Dam, located 40 miles northwest of Nashua in Valley County, suffered a
breach during a flood on the Porcupine Creek. The spillway was undermined by floating ice, leading to
a failure and subsequent four-foot wall of water which swept through the valley and caused extensive
damage.
● July 1946 – The Carrol Dam, in Sheridan County eight miles northwest of Plentywood, failed after several
inches of rainfall in the area over a short period of time. There were no fatalities in this incident, but
there was extensive damage and destruction o f homes and farm buildings throughout the valley
beneath the dam.
● June 23, 2002 – Ross Dam in Garfield County failed, prompting downstream evacuations, but with
limited damage downstream. Once house was flooded and several downstream stock dams broke, and
gravel roads were washed out.
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
Dam failures in the United States typically occur in one of four ways:
● Dam overtopping occurs when the water level behind the dam exceeds the top of the dam. Overtopping
accounts for 34% of all dam failures, can occur due to inadequate spillway design, settlement of the
dam crest, blockage of spillways, and other factors.
● Foundation defects due to differential settlement, slides, slope instability, uplift pressures, and
foundation seepage can also cause dam failure. These account for 30% of all dam failures.
● Internal erosion or piping of an earth dam takes place when water that seeps through the dam carries
soil particles away from the embankment, filters, drains, foundation, or abutments of the dam. Failure
due to piping and seepage accounts for 20% of all failures. These are caused by internal erosion due to
piping and seepage, erosion along hydraulic structures such as spillways, erosion due to animal
burrows, and cracks in the dam structure.
● Failure due to problems with conduits and valves, typically caused by the piping of embankment
material into conduits through joints or cracks, constitutes 10% of all failures.
98
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-41
The remaining 6% of U.S. dam failures are due to miscellaneous causes. Many dam failures in the United
States have been secondary results of other disasters. The prominent causes are earthquakes, landslides,
extreme storms, massive snowmelt, equipment malfunction, structural damage, foundation failures, and
sabotage.
Poor construction, lack of maintenance and repair, and deficient operational procedures are preventable or
correctable by a program of regular inspections. According to the 2023 State of Montana Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan and the 2023 National Inventory of Dams, there are two high hazard potential dams in the
Eastern Region currently rated as being in poor condition: the Melstone Detention Dam on the Musselshell
River near the Town of Melstone in Musselshell County and the Depression Detention Dam near the Town
of Bridger. According to correspondence between MT DES and the Montana Dam Safety Program
Supervisor in the Water Resources Division there were no dams identified in Eastern Montana that meet the
HHPD eligibility criteria as specified in the notice of funding opportunity. See Annex A Carbon County and
Addendum R Musselshell County for more details on these dams. MTDES and the participating jurisdictions
will continue to monitor dam conditions and may amend this plan if additional high hazard potential dams
are assessed as being in poor condition.
Terrorism and vandalism are serious concerns that all operators of public facilities must plan for; these
threats are under continuous review by public safety agencies.
All of these factors considered, and taking into consideration the record of past events, the likelihood of a
catastrophic dam failure is unlikely, but still possible . This gives a probability rating for dam failure of
unlikely. Compared to the other regions in the state, the relative lack of high and significant hazard dams
in the Eastern Region means a generally lower risk of future severe consequences or casualties from this
hazard. However, low hazard dams could still potentially fail and cause issues downstream, though not
enough data is available to determine the magnitude or detail how impactful a low hazard dam could be
on their surrounding communities.
Climate Change Considerations
Changes in rainfall, runoff, and snowpack conditions may each have significant impacts on water resources,
including dams. As of this HMP update it is not clear if climate change will affect dam hazards negatively,
but some level of caution is warranted. Dam safety is a high priority in Montana, the state has made a
considerable investment developing laws and rules for the design, construction, and maintenance of dams
to ensure dam safety. The state has a staffed dam safety program that conducts a sophisticated inspection
program. However, dam failures have happened when events occurred that were unforeseen when the
structures were designed and built.
For example, the Carrol Dam in Sheridan County and the Ross Dam in Garfield County, both located in the
Eastern Region failed in 1946 and 2002, respectively due to several inches of rainfall over a short period of
time.
With regard to climate change, a fundamental concern is that future conditions will be different from past
conditions used to develop design parameters for existing dams. Extreme weather events have occurred
throughout history, a pattern that seems to be accelerating as climate change progresses. Further
complicating matters, many climate change impacts are indirect and difficult or impossible to predict. The
2021 Montana Climate Change and Human Health report considers climate “surprises” to be the third
greatest concern with climate change impacts to human health.
Cascading effects of wildfire are one potential source of climate change “surprise” that is especially relevant
to dam safety. Wildfire scars can alter watershed hydrology, causing extreme, unprecedented runoff that
causes flash flooding and often causes debris flows that can impact nearby dam facilities. The concern in
this case is that a future wildfire regime could leave unprecedented fire scars. If an extreme precipitation
99
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-42
event occurred on such a fire scar, unprecedented runoff could result that exceeds the design parameters
of a nearby dam and is sufficient to cause a dam failure. In a worst case, a failure would cause a reservoir to
release floodwaters, but debris flows are also capable of filling reservoirs with sediment and necessitate
costly dredging to restore reservoir function. Predicting these scenarios is difficult.
None of the climate reports reviewed for this HMP update specified climate change as a particular concern
for dam safety. The issue is not mentioned in 2021 Climate Change and Human Health report, the Fifth
National Climate Assessment (Chapter 25 on the Northern Great Plains region), or the NOAA Climate
Summaries for Montana. Nor is the issue explicitly addressed on the Montana Dam Safety Program landing
page (https://dnrc.mt.gov/Water-Resources/Dam-Safety/).
Despite the lack of study to document specific impacts of climate change on dam safety, it is prudent to
continue to monitor changing science-based studies in future HMP updates.
Potential Magnitude and Severity
As noted above, dams are classified as High Hazard Potential if failure is likely to result in loss of life, or
Significant Hazard Potential if failure is likely to cause property damage, economic loss, environmental
damage, or disruption of lifeline facilities. The US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) uses three categories to
classify a dam’s potential hazard to life and property:
• High hazard indicates that a failure would most probably result in the loss of life.
• Significant hazard indicates that a failure could result in appreciable property damage.
• Low hazard indicates that failure would result in only minimal property damage and loss of life is
unlikely.
• Undetermined hazard dams have not been rated or their hazard rating is not known.
These dam hazard designations can be used as an indicator of the potential magnitude and severity that is
possible on a site-by-site basis. Based on the record of past events in the region and the hazard rankings
of the region’s dams, the impacts of dam failure or incident is limited.
The potential magnitude of a dam failure in the planning area could change in the future; the hazard
significance of certain dams could increase if development occurs in inundation areas .
Vulnerability Assessment
The dam failure Vulnerability Assessment identifies assets are both likely to be exposed in the event of a
dam failure and susceptible to damage from that exposure. In this context, assets are (1) people, (2)
property, (3) critical facilities and lifelines, (4) the economy, (5) historic and cultural resources, and (6) natural
resources.
Exposure is defined here as interacting with dam failure hazards, and likely to be exposed indicates a
presence in areas deemed to be especially likely to experience dam failure hazards. Susceptible indicates a
strong likelihood of damage from exposure to dam failure hazards. Finally, vulnerability under future
conditions is considered below as it relates to development in the section titled Development Trends Related
to Hazards and Risk. The effects of climate change on future conditions are considered abo ve in the
subsection titled Climate Change Considerations.
The analysis of dam failure vulnerability is simplified somewhat by the assumption that any person or
physical object that comes into contact with flooding from a dam failure is susceptible to damage. This
assumption is based on some key characteristics of dam failure hazards. Dam failure flooding can be among
the most violent hazards in existence. The flooding hazard also has definite boundaries. Finally, dam failure
flooding can occur with little or no warning and possibly at night when warning and evacua tion are difficult.
100
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-43
For hazard mitigation planning purposes, it is assumed that anything in the designated flood inundation
zone is vulnerable. Susceptibility is discussed further in the asset-specific subsections, below.
A key limitation of hazard mitigation planning is that flood inundation areas for federally owned dams are
typically not available. This prevents identification of many assets that are vulnerable to dam-failure hazards.
A solution to this limitation is to reference the hard -copy maps that are available within Emergency Action
Plans associated with these dams and on file with the local emergency management offices.
People
Flooding caused by dam failure is among the most violent and destructive of hazard events. People are
certainly susceptible to injury or death when exposed to dam inundation hazards. From a planning
perspective, all populations exposed to dam failure hazards are considered vulnerable , but the elderly,
people with disabilities, young children, and individuals that face challenges evacuating the inundation zone
(individuals that do not own a vehicle) are the most vulnerable.
Fortunately, the population exposed to dam failure hazards is variable. The presence of people within dam
inundation areas can be reduced in many ways, such as limiting development in high hazard areas. Also,
providing advance warning of approaching dam failure hazards can be effective when the warning is
received and successfully acted upon to evacuate the area. However, even if advance warning exists, any
population that does not receive and act on that warning also remains vulnerable. Even when warnings are
received and acted upon, the time to successfully evacuate may be brief and insufficient for vulnerable
populations. People prevented from evacuating by blocked or otherwise inaccessible evacuation paths also
remain vulnerable. Improving any of the above-mentioned factors will reduce the vulnerability of people to
dam failure hazards. Aiding the evacuation of certain populations deserves special consideration, most
notably the elderly, people with disabilities, young children , and individuals that do not own a vehicle. These
issues are considered more thoroughly in Section 5, Mitigation Strategy.
According to GIS analysis conducted for this vulnerability assessment, there are an estimated 22,746 people
residing in identified dam inundation zones throughout the Eastern Region. This number does not include
people downstream of federally owned dams that do not release information on dam inundation zones.
This estimate was derived by taking the number of residential parcels within the inundation zone and
multiplying them by the average household size for each county per the U.S. Census Bureau American
Community Survey estimates. The breakdown of these exposed populations per county and jurisdiction are
shown in Table 4-11 below.
Property
The potentially destructive nature of dam failure hazards makes property that exists within the dam
inundation area susceptible to damage and therefore potentially vulnerable. Low-lying areas are subject to
additional flood hazards since they exist where d am waters would collect.
Table 4-11 summarizes the estimated number of improved parcels, building values, and people within
inundation zones (private dams only) for each county in the Eastern Region. Counties with the highest
exposure of people and property include Yellowstone, Custer, and Carbon counties. Table 4-12 summarizes
the estimated number of parcels, building values, and people within inundation zones for each Tribe in the
Eastern Region.
Table 4-11 Eastern Region Parcels at Risk to Overall Dam Inundation by County and
Jurisdiction
County Jurisdiction Improved
Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value Population
Big Horn Crow Tribe 314 $27,051,775 $19,085,857 $46,137,632 1,007
101
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-44
County Jurisdiction Improved
Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value Population
Big Horn
County
22 $2,507,695 $1,965,058 $4,472,753 29
Total 336 $29,559,470 $21,050,915 $50,610,385 1,036
Carbon Joliet 268 $34,910,122 $19,545,855 $54,455,977 585
Red Lodge 418 $81,783,960 $42,929,156 $124,713,116 952
Carbon
County
540 $139,084,832 $82,742,566 $221,827,398 1,023
Total 1,226 $255,778,914 $145,217,577 $400,996,491 2,560
Custer Miles City 3,275 $457,747,587 $255,949,474 $713,697,061 7,353
Custer
County
584 $74,246,037 $47,024,649 $121,270,686 1,233
Total 3,859 $531,993,624 $302,974,122 $834,967,746 8,586
Fallon Baker 180 $22,765,807 $12,321,269 $35,087,076 377
Fallon
County
5 $405,041 $251,441 $656,482 7
Total 185 $23,170,848 $12,572,709 $35,743,557 384
Garfield Garfield
County
7 $279,990 $139,995 $419,985 17
Total 7 $279,990 $139,995 $419,985 17
Golden
Valley
Lavina 106 $9,412,853 $6,177,639 $15,590,492 207
Ryegate 124 $9,347,421 $5,986,023 $15,333,444 250
Golden
Valley
County
33 $3,223,648 $2,755,364 $5,979,012 29
Total 263 $21,983,922 $14,919,026 $36,902,948 486
Musselshell Roundup 134 $7,925,167 $4,025,413 $11,950,580 273
Musselshell
County
106 $5,923,568 $4,165,939 $10,089,507 185
Total 240 $13,848,735 $8,191,352 $22,040,087 458
Richland Total 5 $734,424 $509,317 $1,243,741 8
Rosebud Northern
Cheyenne
Indian
Reservation
57 $3,089,925 $1,756,822 $4,846,747 214
Rosebud
County
131 $10,719,734 $7,884,477 $18,604,211 249
Total 193 $14,544,083 $10,150,616 $24,694,699 463
Sheridan Plentywood 940 $121,121,067 $72,008,009 $193,129,076 1,939
Sheridan
County
38 $12,707,566 $16,106,768 $28,814,334 60
Total 978 $133,828,633 $88,114,776 $221,943,409 1,999
Treasure Treasure
County
1 $366,520 $366,520 $733,040 -
Total 1 $366,520 $366,520 $733,040 0
Wheatland Harlowton 214 $14,033,469 $7,521,986 $21,555,455 491
Wheatland
County
170 $21,505,215 $19,038,660 $40,543,875 287
Total 384 $35,538,684 $26,560,646 $62,099,330 778
Yellowstone Billings 1,373 $331,662,987 $225,615,257 $557,278,244 3,017
102
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-45
County Jurisdiction Improved
Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value Population
Yellowstone
County
1,366 $415,127,399 $403,266,080 $818,393,479 2,954
Total 2,739 $746,790,386 $628,881,337 $1,375,671,723 5,971 Grand Total 10,411 $1,807,683,809 $1,259,139,589 $3,066,823,398 22,746
Source: County Assessor data, NID, MT DNRC, WSP GIS Analysis
Table 4-12 Eastern Region Parcels at Risk to Dan Inundation by Tribe
Tribe Improved
Parcels
Improved
Value Content Value Total Value Population
Crow Tribe 314 $27,051,775 $19,085,857 $46,137,632 1,007
Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux
Tribe
- - - - -
Northern Cheyenne Indian
Reservation
57 $3,089,925 $1,756,822 $4,846,747 214
Total 371 $30,141,700 $20,842,679 $50,984,379 1,221
Source: County Assessor data, NID, MT DNRC, WSP GIS Analysis
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
A total dam failure can cause catastrophic impacts to areas downstream of the water body, including critical
infrastructure. Any critical asset located under the dam in an inundation area would be susceptible to the
impacts of a dam failure. Transportation routes are vulnerable to dam inundation and have the potential to
be washed out in flooding following dam failure incidents, creating isolation and emergency response
issues. Those that are most vulnerable are those that are already in poor condition and would not be able
to withstand a large water surge. Utilities such as overhead power lines, cable and phone lines could also
be vulnerable. Loss of these utilities could create additional isolation issues for the inundation areas.
Based on the critical facility inventory considered in the updating of this plan there are 352 critical facilities
throughout the Eastern Region which lie within mapped dam inundation areas. These at-risk facilities are
listed in Table 4-13 below by critical facility classification as based on the FEMA Lifeline categories .
Table 4-13 Eastern Region Critical Facilities at Risk to Dam Inundation by Jurisdiction and
FEMA Lifeline
County Jurisdiction
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
En
e
r
g
y
Fo
o
d
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
He
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Sa
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
Big Horn Lodge Grass - - 2 - - 1 - 3
Big Horn County 3 4 6 - - 3 36 52
Total 3 4 8 0 0 4 36 55
Carbon Joliet - - 3 - 1 2 1 7
Red Lodge - 2 - - - 1 2 5
Carbon County 1 1 2 - - - 24 28
Total 1 3 5 0 1 3 27 40
Miles City 3 4 6 - 3 22 2 40
103
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-46
County Jurisdiction
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
En
e
r
g
y
Fo
o
d
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
He
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Sa
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
Custer
County
Custer County 1 4 1 1 - 4 13 24
Total 4 8 7 1 3 26 15 64
Fallon Baker - - - - - 1 2 3
Fallon County - - 1 - - - 3 4
Total 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 7
Golden
Valley
Lavina - 3 1 - 1 4 1 10
Ryegate - - 2 - 1 6 1 10
Golden Valley County - - 1 - - - 6 7
Total 0 3 4 0 2 10 8 27
Musselshell Roundup - - - - - - 1 1
Musselshell - - 1 - - - 9 10
Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 11
Petroleum Petroleum County - - - - - - 1 1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Richland Richland County - - - - - - 1 1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Rosebud Rosebud County 1 3 2 - 1 7 11 25
Total 1 3 2 0 1 7 11 25
Sheridan Plentywood 4 2 1 - 1 - 8 16
Sheridan County - 2 1 - - - 5 8
Total 4 4 2 0 1 0 13 24
Treasure Treasure County - - - - - - 3 3
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
Wheatland Harlowton - - - - - 1 - 1
Wheatland County 1 2 2 - - 2 11 18
Total 1 2 2 0 0 3 11 19
Yellowstone Billings 7 2 1 4 - 7 10 31
Yellowstone County 5 9 3 7 2 1 17 44
Total 12 11 4 11 2 8 27 75
Grand Total 26 38 36 12 10 62 168 352
Sources: Montana DNRC Dam Safety Program, Montana State Library, NID, HIFLD 2022, Montana DES, NBI
Economy
The economy in the Eastern Region is both exposed and susceptible to dam failure. For example, a dam
failure would likely cause the long -term loss of a reservoir. Reservoirs are often critical water sources for
potable or irrigation water needs, support tourism, and provide wildlife habitat. The loss of potable water
could directly cause businesses to close, at least temporarily, and the loss of a reservoir could indirectly
disrupt tourism. Downstream flooding would cause additional indirect impacts of economic disruption.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Reservoirs themselves are often significant cultural and economic resources for tourism and recreation. A
dam failure and subsequent loss of a reservoir would be potentially catastrophic to these resources. In
addition, downstream flooding is also capable of damaging or destroying historic and cultural resources
such as historic buildings, aquatic habitat, or additional dams downstream. Specific historic resources have
104
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-47
not been identified, but historic buildings in the cities and towns of Miles City, Ryegate, and Billings may
have more exposure than other jurisdictions in the Region based on the overall numbers of developed
parcels within inundation areas and concentration of assets and historic buildings in downtown areas.
Natural Resources
Reservoirs held behind dams affect many ecological aspects of a river. Rivers often experience wide
fluctuations in key aspects of aquatic habitat such as flow rate, temperature, and suspended sediment. But
below dams, rivers often experience relatively stable conditions with very little suspended sediment. These
conditions can provide ideal habitat for desirable species such as trout. A dam failure can completely alter
this arrangement.
Dam failure also can cause severe downstream flash flooding, depending on the magnitude of the failure.
Loss of the water resource from dam failure could impair the supply of water for potable or irrigation water
needs.
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
Specific areas experiencing growth and development below dams in Montana has not been assessed, but
it’s possible there has been development within inundation zones, which are not as regulated as flood
hazard areas. Development below dams can cause vulnerability to increase and have significant financial
impact on dam owners. When new development occurs in the inundation area below an existing dam that
previously lacked downstream hazards, the dam could be reclassified as "high hazard". High hazard dams
are required to meet stringent requirements for design, construction, inspection, and maintenance. Bringing
a dam up to high hazard design standards can be costly for a dam owner. Even for dams already classified
as high hazard, additional downstream development can still have a financial impact. Spillway design
standards are based on potential for loss of life downstream. As the population at risk increases, the spillway
design standard increases. A dam that is currently in compliance with state design standards can suddenly
be out of compliance after a subdivision is built downstream.
Risk Summary
Dam failure is a hazard that presents an unlikely chance of occurrence, but a potentially significant negative
impact should a dam failure occur. Major impacts to downstream populations, property, infrastructure, and
natural and cultural resources could occur.
● The overall significance rating of dam failure for the eastern region is low in part due to low probability
of occurrence.
● Dam failures, especially those of high hazard dams, could potentially result in people downstream
caught in inundation area flooding with little to no warning .
● Property and buildings located within the inundation area are vulnerable to damage or destruction in
the event of a dam failure; counties with the highest exposure of people and property include
Yellowstone, Custer, Carbon Counties.
● Direct economic losses in terms of property damage, as well as indirect losses in terms of impeded
tourism and loss of cultural or recreational resources like reservoirs, could result from dam failures.
There is an estimated $3,066,823,398 in total property value located within inundation areas in the
Eastern Region exclusive to privately owned high hazard dams .
● Critical facilities and infrastructure, most notably roads and bridges, located in the inundation zones are
also vulnerable to damage or complete loss in the event of a dam failure .
● Related hazards: flooding, earthquake, landslide
105
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-48
Table 4-14 Risk Summary Table: Dam Failure
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Eastern Region Low 32 HHPDs exist in the Eastern Region,
affecting most, but not all jurisdictions.
Many cities and variable land uses exist
downstream of high hazard dams. Many
dam inundation area delineations are
unavailable and extent of risk is
unquantified.
Big Horn Low Hardin, Lodge Grass There are five HHPDs in Big Horn County,
including Yellowtail, Willow Creek, Tongue
River Dam, Carbone Flood Control Dam,
and Yellowtail Afterbay. Most areas at risk
are on the Crow Tribe reservation.
Carbon Medium Bearcreek, Bridger, Joliet,
Fromberg, Red Lodge
There are four HHPDs in Carbon County,
including Cooney, Glacier Lake North,
Depression Detention Dam, and Glacier
Lake South Dam. Carbon County has the
third highest total value of exposed
property within mapped inundation areas.
Carter Low Ekalaka There are no high hazard dams in Carter
County.
Custer Medium Ismay, Miles City There are no high hazard dams in Custer
County. There are high hazard dams
upstream which do pose a threat to Custer
County. The county has the second highest
total value of exposed property within
mapped inundation areas, with most of this
in Miles City.
Crow Tribe Medium The 525-ft tall Yellowtail Dam sits near the
town of Fort Smith, upstream of the
reservation on the Bighorn River. Possibly
affected areas along the Bighorn River
include the town of St. Xavier.
Daniels Low Scobey, Flaxville There are no high hazard dams in Daniels
County.
Dawson Low Richey, Glendive There is one HHPD in Dawson County
called the Crisafulli Lake Dam.
Fallon Low Plevna, Baker There are two HHPDs in Fallon County,
including the Upper Baker Dam and the
Lower Baker Dam. Baker has more parcels
at risk than the unincorporated areas
Garfield Low Jordan There are no high hazard dams in Garfield
County
Golden Valley Low Ryegate, Lavina There are no high hazard dams in Golden
Valley County
McCone Medium Circle
The Missouri River forms the northern
border of McCone County. The
surrounding area would be severely
affected by failure of Fort Peck Dam, which
106
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-49
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
sits on the upstream, western end of the
county.
Musselshell Low Melstone, Roundup There is one HHPD in Musselshell County
called Melstone Detention Dam
Powder River Medium Broadus There are no high hazard dams in Powder
River County
Prairie Low Terry There are no high hazard dams in Prairie
County
Richland Medium Fairview, Sidney There is one HHPD in Richland County
called Gartside Dam.
Roosevelt Medium Wolf Point, Poplar, Bainville,
Culberson, Froid
Towns along the Missouri River on the
southern border of the county could be
affected by failure of Fort Peck Dam. These
towns include Wolf Point, Poplar, and
Culberson.
Rosebud Low Colstrip, Forsyth There are four HHPDs in Rosebud County,
including Colstrip Evaporation Pond Dam,
Castle Rock Reservoir Dam, Colstrip
Diversion Dam, and Castle Rock Saddle
Dam.
Sheridan Medium Plentywood, Medicine Lake,
Outlook, Westby
There is one HHPD in Sheridan County
called Box Elder Dam. Plentywood has
higher exposure than the rest of the
County.
Stillwater Medium Columbus There are four HHPDs in Stillwater County
called Mystic Lake Dam, Stillwater Hertzler
Tailings Dam, Stillwater Nye Tailings Dam,
and Mystic Dike.
Treasure Low Hysham There are no high hazard dams in Treasure
County but the Town of Hysham would be
impacted by dam incidents (overtopping)
at the Yellowtail Dam and Afterbay Dam.
There are also several critical facilities
(including bridges) exposed to dam failure
hazards in Treasure County in the towns of
Hysham, Meyers, and Sanders. See the
Treasure County Annex for further
information on jurisdictional variability in
dam failure vulnerability.
Valley Medium Glasgow, Fort Peck, Nashua,
Opheim
On the Missouri River, Fort Peck Dam holds
up to 18 million acre-feet of water and
creates Fort Peck Lake, which serves as
more than half the southern border of
Valley County.
Wheatland Low Harlowton, Judith Gap There are 8 HHPDs in Wheatland County.
Harlowton has more exposure.
Wibaux Low Wibaux There are no HHPDs in Wibaux County.
Yellowstone Medium Billings, Broadview, Laurel There is one HHPD in Yellowstone County
called Lakeside Dam. Yellowstone County
has the highest total value of exposed
property within mapped dam inundation
107
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-50
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
zones but roughly equal amounts in
Billings and the unincorporated areas
4.2.5 Drought
Hazard/Problem Description
Drought is a condition of climatic dryness that is severe enough to reduce soil moisture and water below
the minimum necessary for sustaining plant, animal, and human life systems. Influencing factors include
temperature patterns, precipitation patterns, agricultural and domestic water supply needs, and growth.
Lack of annual precipitation and poor water conservation practices can result in drought conditions.
Drought is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they
differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as floods or wildland fires, occur relatively
rapidly and afford little time for preparin g for disaster response. Droughts occur slowly, over a multi-year
period, and can take years before the consequences are realized. It is often not obvious or easy to quantify
when a drought begins and ends. Droughts can be a short-term event over several months or a long-term
event that lasts for years or even decades.
Drought is a complex issue involving many factors —it occurs when a normal amount of moisture is not
available to satisfy an area’s usual water-consuming activities. Drought can often be defined regionally
based on its effects:
● Meteorological drought is usually defined by a period of below average water supply.
● Agricultural drought occurs when there is an inadequate water supply to meet the needs of the state’s
crops and other agricultural operations such as livestock.
● Hydrological drought is defined as deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. It is generally
measured as streamflow, snowpack, and as lake, reservoir, and groundwater levels.
● Socioeconomic drought occurs when a drought impacts health, well-being, and quality of life, or when
a drought starts to have an adverse economic impact on a region.
Drought impacts are wide-reaching and may be economic, environmental, and/or societal. The most
significant impacts associated with drought in Montana are those related to water intensive activities such
as agriculture, wildland fire protection, municipal usage, commerce, tourism, recreation, and wildlife
preservation. An ongoing drought may leave an area more prone to beetle kill and associated wildland fires.
Previous drought events in Montana have led to grasshopper infestations. Drought conditions can a lso
cause soil to compact, increasing an area’s susceptibility to flooding, and reduce vegetation cover, which
exposes soil to wind and erosion. A reduction of electric power generation and water quality deterioration
are also potential problems. Drought impacts increase with the length of a drought, as carry-over supplies
in reservoirs are depleted and water levels in groundwater basins decline.
Much of the State was in a drought during the late 1980’s. In response to this, and to assist with increasing
awareness of and planning for drought in the future, the Governor’s Drought Advisory Committee was
formed in 1991. This committee, comprised of state and federal water supply and moisture condition
experts, meets monthly to evaluate conditions for each county in the State and supports watershed groups
and county drought committees by providing planning support and information. Water supply and
moisture status maps are produced monthly from February to October by the Commi ttee unless above
average moisture conditions are prevalent.
108
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-51
Geographical Area Affected
Droughts are often regional events, impacting multiple counties and states simultaneously. Therefore, as
the climate of the planning area is contiguous, it is reasonable to assume that a drought will impact the
entire planning region. Based on this information, the geographic extent rating for drought is extensive.
Drought in the United States is monitored by the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS).
A major component of this portal is the U.S. Drought Monitor. The Drought Monitor concept was developed
jointly by the NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center , the National Drought Mitigation Center, and the USDA’s
Joint Agricultural Weather Facility in the late 1990s as a process that synthesizes multiple indices, outlooks,
and local impacts into an assessment that best represents current drought conditions. T he outcome of each
Drought Monitor is a consensus of federal, state, and academic scientists who are intimately familiar with
the conditions in their respective regions. The rating criteria for drought and a snapshot of the most current
drought conditions in Montana can be found in Figure 4-14.
109
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-52
Figure 4-14 Drought Rating Criteria and Status September 2022 in the State of Montana
Source: U.S. Drought Monitor Montana | U.S. Drought Monitor (unl.edu)
110
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-53
Past Occurrences
Between 2012 and 2021, there were 79 USDA disaster declarations due to drought in the Eastern Region.
Table 4-15 provides a list of these events with impacted counties.
Table 4-15 USDA Drought Disaster Declarations (2012-2021)
Year Declaration Counties Included
2012 S3317 Carter
S3319 Carter, Powder River
S3350 Big Horn, Carbon, Powder River
S3365 Big Horn, Carbon, Carter, Custer, Fallon, Garfield, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Powder River,
Prairie, Rosebud, Stillwater, Treasure, Yellowstone
S3374 Carter, Fallon
S3391 Big Horn, Carbon, Carter, Custer, Fallon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Powder River, Rosebud,
Stillwater, Treasure, Wheatland Yellowstone
S3416 Big Horn, Carter, Custer, Fallon, Garfield, Musselshell, Powder River, Prairie, Rosebud,
Treasure, Wibaux, Wheatland, Yellowstone
S3432 Custer, Garfield, Golden Valley, McCone, Musselshell, Prairie, Rosebud, Valley, Wheatland
S3436 Sheridan
S3437 Custer, Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, McCone, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Valley,
Wibaux
S3467 Richland, Roosevelt, Wibaux
2013 S3508 Big Horn, Carbon, Carter, Powder River
S3521 Big Horn, Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Powder River, Rosebud, Stillwater, Treasure,
Yellowstone
S3522 Carter, Fallon
S3620 Sheridan
2014 S3804 Fallon, Richland, Sheridan, Wibaux
2015 S3959 Sheridan
S3960 Fallon, Richland, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Wibaux
S3961 Fallon, Wibaux
S3972 Carter, Custer, Fallon, Garfield, Powder River, Prairie, Rosebud
2016 S3982 Big Horn, Carbon, Powder River
S3988 Carter, Powder River
S3999 Carter, Custer, Fallon, Powder River
S4000 Carter, Fallon
S4002 Powder River
S4035 Big Horn, Carter, Custer, Fallon, Powder River, Prairie, Rosebud, Wibaux
S4036 Fallon
S4061 Golden Valley, Wheatland
S4066 Big Horn, Carbon, Golden Valley, Powder River, Rosebud, Stillwater, Treasure, Wheatland,
Yellowstone
S4070 Carbon
S4138 Fallon Wibaux
2017 S4185 Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Garfield, McCone, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sheridan,
Valley
S4186 Fallon, Richland, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Wibaux
S4190 Carter, Custer, Dawson, Fallon, McCone, Prairie, Richland, Wibaux
S4191 Richland, Roosevelt, Wibaux
111
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-54
Year Declaration Counties Included
S4193 Big Horn, Custer, Dawson, Garfield, Golden Valley, McCone, Musselshell, Powder River,
Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone
S4195 Carter, Custer, Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, McCone, Powder River, Prairie, Rosebud, Wibaux
S4198 Carter, Fallon
S4210 Big Horn, Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Rosebud, Stillwater, Treasure, Yellowstone
S4211 Carter
S4214 Big Horn, Carter, Custer, Fallon, Powder River, Rosebud
S4217 Big Horn, Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Powder River, Rosebud, Stillwater, Treasure,
Wheatland, Yellowstone
S4219 Carter, Powder River
S4221 Wheatland
S4330 Fallon, Richland, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Wibaux
2018 S4432 Daniels, McCone, Richland, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Valley
2019 S4640 Sheridan
2020 S4746 Big Horn, Carbon, Powder River
S4777 Big Horn, Carter, Custer, Powder River, Rosebud
S4785 Powder River
S4864 Daniels, McCone, Richland, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Valley
S4871 Big Horn, Carbon, Carter, Custer, Fallon, Powder River, Rosebud, Treasure, Yellowstone
S4889 Custer, Rosebud, Big Horn, Carter, Fallon, Garfield, Musselshell, Powder River, Prairie,
Treasure, Yellowstone
S4891 Carter, Powder River
S4948 Fallon, Richland, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Wibaux
S4949 Sheridan
S4950 Fallon
2021 S4926 Big Horn, Carbon, Powder River
S4931 Carbon, Carter, Powder River
S4939 Fallon, Richland, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Wheatland, Wibaux
S4960 Carter, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, McCone, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Valley,
Wibaux, Garfield, Powder River, Rosebud
S4964 Carter, Fallon
S4970 Garfield, Custer, McCone, Prairie, Rosebud, Valley
S4993 Golden Valley, Musselshell, Powder River, Rosebud, Big Horn, Carter, Custer, Garfield,
Stillwater, Treasure, Yellowstone
S5001 Golden Valley, Wheatland,
S5007 Carbon, Stillwater, Treasure, Yellowstone, Big Horn, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Rosebud,
Wheatland
S5016 Wheatland
S5022 Big Horn, Carbon, Powder River, Rosebud, Treasure, Yellowstone
S5203 Fallon, Richland, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Wibaux
Source: USDA
Figure 4-15 displays the temporal trend in USDA disaster declarations from drought by year in the Eastern
Region. While there is evident variability in the number of declarations from year to year, there has been a
gradual increase in the number of declarations due to drought in the Eastern Region, with the greatest
number of declarations occurring in 2017. Figure 4-16 displays the breakdown of declarations by county. In
the Eastern Region, Powder River County has experienced the greatest number of USDA disaster
declarations, followed by Fallon and Carter Counites.
112
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-55
Figure 4-15 USDA Drought Disaster Declarations by Year (2012-2021)
Source: USDA
Figure 4-16 USDA Drought Disaster Declarations by County (2012-2021)
Source: USDA
The 2021 Teton County Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2018 State of Montana Hazard Mitigation Plan provide
details of drought history in the State of Montana:
● 1917-1923: Rising wheat prices encouraged farmers to transform grasslands into farmland for wheat,
corn, and row crops. This resulted in significant losses of soil and overconsumption of water for crops.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
D
r
o
u
g
h
t
D
e
c
l
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
D
r
o
u
g
h
t
D
e
c
l
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
113
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-56
● 1928-1939: The driest period in the historic record, the Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index (PHDI)
showed the entire state was in a hydrologic deficit for over 10 years. Better conservation practices, such
as strip cropping, helped to lessen the impacts of the worst water shortages.
● Mid-1950’s: Montana faced a period of reduced rainfall in eastern and central portions of the state. By
November of 1956, a total of 20 Montana counties had applied for federal drought assistance.
● 1961: By August of 1961, 24 counties had applied for federal drought disaster aid. Montana’s State
Crop and Livestock Reporting Service called it the worst drought since the 1930's.
● 1966: The entire state was experiencing yet another episode of drought. Although water shortages
were not as great as in 1961, a study of ten weather recording stations across Montana showed all had
recorded below normal precipitation amounts for a ten-month period.
● 1977: In June, officials from Montana were working with others from Idaho, Washington, and Oregon
on the Northwest Utility Coordination Committee to moderate potential hydroelectricity shortages. On
June 23, Governor Judge issued an energy supply alert and ordered a mandatory ten percent reduction
in electricity use by state and local governments.
● 1979-1981: By October of 1980, estimates of 1980 federal disaster payments were five times those paid
in 1979. Total drought related economic losses from Montana in 1980 were estimated to be $380 million
(equivalent to $1.26 billion in 2021). Large May storms in 1981 brought flooding to formerly parched
areas.
● 1984: By July, Montana was again experiencing water shortages and rationing schedules were put into
effect. Crop losses were estimated at $12-15 million. Numerous forest and range fires burned out of
control across the state in August.
● 1985: All 56 counties received disaster declarations for drought. Cattle herds were reduced by
approximately one-third. The state’s agriculture industry lost nearly $3 billion in equity.
● 1999-2008: This period of dryness and hydrologic deficits mimicked the Dust Bowl years in every
measurable factor besides duration. Area aquifers as well as municipal water supplies suffered severe
water losses.
● 2017: Northeastern Montana had record dry conditions for much of 2017, especially through August.
● 2021-2022: By December of 2021, every county in Montana was identified as experiencing some level
of drought. A third of the state was classified as ”D4” or “exceptional” drought, a designation the U.S.
Department of Agriculture expects to occur in any one location just once every 50 to 100 years.
Figure 4-17 displays data from the U.S. Drought Monitor for the State of Montana from 2000 -2022. “D0”
represents least severe drought conditions and “D4” is most severe. The chart shows peak drought
conditions in the years 2002-2005, 2017, and 2021-2022 across the State.
114
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-57
Figure 4-17 US Drought Monitor: State of Montana Drought Conditions (2000-2022)
Source: U.S. Drought Monitor
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
The likelihood of drought somewhere in the Eastern Region is highly likely based on the US Drought
Monitor. The 2018 State of Montana Hazard Mitigation Plan also reported that, despite variation in drought
severity, drought losses are incurred every year in Montana.
Figure 4-18 depicts annualized frequency of drought at a county level based on the NRI. The mapping
shows a trend towards increased likelihood in the southwestern portion of the Eastern Region, particularly
in Big Horn, Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Wheatland, and Yellowstone Counties.
115
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-58
Figure 4-18 Annualized Frequency of Drought Events by County
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
Climate Change Considerations
Montana's future drought hazard is largely a story of how climate change will impact precipitation,
compared to how it will impact evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration is sensitive to temperature and
climate-change associated increases in temperature are fairly certain to increase transpiration for the
foreseeable future. The more dynamic part of the drought story is how climate change will affect
precipitation.
Changes in the seasonal distribution of precipitation in Montana are becoming evident. The 2021 Montana
Climate Change and Human Health Study documents summer precipitation has decreased slightly and is
roughly offset by slightly increased spring and fall precipitation. This observation is consistent with
observations of increasing drought in recent years and the early stages of anticipated changes due to
climate change.
Looking farther into the future, Figure 4-19 shows the projected change in monthly average precipitation
for 2040-2069 relative to 1971-2000. During the spring, precipitation is expected to increase in coming
decades. The springtime increase in precipitation is likely to offset increases in evapotranspiration driven by
increasing temperature. However, during summer months, precipitation is expected to remain relatively
stable or continue to decline slightly. This stable or slightly decreasing precipitation, combined with higher
evapotranspiration rates due to increasing temperatures, can reasonably be anticipated to increase the
drought hazard during summer months. Fall and winter months are less certain but are more likely to
resemble the springtime pattern described above.
116
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-59
The magnitude of climate change impact on drought, especially during the summer, is significant and
worthy of attention, but not necessarily catastrophic. The Fifth National Climate Assessment confirms that
drought is increasing in Montana, and is projected under moderate climate change scenarios to be 10%
more frequent by 2050, and 20% by 2100.
Figure 4-19 Projected Change in Montana Monthly Precipitation
Figure source: Montana Climate Change and Human Health report, 2021. RCP 4.5 (figure A) is described as the “stabilization
scenario” and RCP 8.5 (figure B) is described as the upper-bound emission scenario.
Climate science has advanced far in recent years but limitations in our understanding of climate change
remain, especially at projecting changes at small spatial scales. Scientifically defensible projections do not
yet exist to differentiate the effects of climate change on the drought hazard in each jurisdiction within the
Eastern Region. For example, current scientific information indicates exposure to summertime drought is
likely to get worse throughout the region. However, there is virtually no scientific information regarding if
117
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-60
or how drought will get worse in one part of the Eastern Region relative to another part. In summary, the
intensities of droughts will increase because of increased summer temperatures and decreased overall
summer precipitation. Droughts are also projected to increase in frequency and have a longer duration due
to shifts in seasonal precipitation patterns, including drier summers and less precipitation falling as snow in
early spring.
Susceptibility to drought may also shift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in ways that are difficult to predict
and may or may not be related to climate change. For example, consider a scenario where deteriorating
infrastructure degrades the reliability of irrigation water supply in a specific jurisdiction. Susceptibility to
drought would increase in the affected jurisdiction more than in others. Whatever the cause of increase
susceptibility to drought, climate change will amplify the consequence of the change. Future updates to
this plan should revisit the topic of future drought conditions and susceptibility as scientific knowledge
progresses and note any trends that emerge over time.
Potential Magnitude and Severity
The magnitude of a drought’s impact is directly related to the severity and length of the drought. The
severity of a drought depends on water availability and moisture deficiency, the time period, and the size
and location of the affected area. The longer the drought persists and the larger the area effected, the more
severe the potential impacts. Droughts can be a short-term event over several months or a long-term event
that lasts for years or even decades. Table 4-16 summarizes the historically observed impacts by category
for drought in California.
Table 4-16 Historically Observed Impacts by Drought Monitor Category
CATEGORY HISTORICALLY OBSERVED IMPACTS
D0 – Abnormally Dry
● Soil is dry; irrigation delivery begins early
● Dryland crop germination is stunted
● Active fire season begins
D1 – Moderate Drought
● Dryland pasture growth is stunted; producers give supplemental
feed to cattle
● Landscaping and gardens need irrigation earlier; wildlife patterns
begin to change
● Stock ponds and creeks are lower than usual
D2 –
Severe Drought
● Grazing land is inadequate
● Fire season is longer, with high burn intensity, dry fuels, and large
fire spatial extent
● Trees are stressed; plants increase reproductive mechanisms; wildlife
diseases increase
D3 – Extreme Drought
● Livestock need expensive supplemental feed; cattle and horses are
sold; little pasture remains; fruit trees bud early; producers begin
irrigating in the winter
● Fire season lasts year-round; fires occur in typically wet parts of the
State; burn bans are implemented
● Water is inadequate for agriculture, wildlife, and urban needs;
reservoirs are extremely low; hydropower is restricted
118
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-61
CATEGORY HISTORICALLY OBSERVED IMPACTS
D4 – Exceptional Drought
● Fields are left fallow; orchards are removed; vegetable yields are low;
honey harvest is small
● Fire season is very costly; number of fires and area burned are
extensive
● Fish rescue and relocation begins; pine beetle infestation occurs;
forest mortality is high; wetlands dry up; survival of native plants
and animals is low; fewer wildflowers bloom; wildlife death is
widespread; algae blooms appear
Source: U.S. Drought Monitor
Drought impacts are far-reaching and may be economic, environmental and/or societal; therefore, the
potential magnitude and severity is ranked as critical. The most significant impacts associated with drought
in the Eastern Region are those related to water-intensive activities such as agriculture, wildfire protection,
municipal usage, and wildlife preservation . A reduction of electric power generation and deterioration of
water quality are also potential problems, as seen in the history of droughts in Montana. Drought conditions
can also cause soil to compact and not absorb water well, p otentially making an area more susceptible to
flooding. Indirect effects include those impacts that ripple out from the direct effect and include reduced
business and income for local retailers, increased credit risk for financial institutions, capital shortfalls, loss
of tax revenues and reduction in government services, unemployment, and outmigration. Figure 4-20
displays the number of impacts from drought in the Eastern Region by impact type and county based on
the Drought Impact Reporter.
119
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-62
Figure 4-20 Drought Impacts by County and Impact Type (2000-2021)
Source: The Drought Impact Reporter, Chart by WSP
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Agriculture Business & Industry Energy
Fire Plants & Wildlife Relief, Response, & Restrictions
Society & Public Health Tourism & Recreation Water Supply & Quality
120
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-63
Vulnerability Assessment
The drought Vulnerability Assessment identifies, or at least discusses, assets that are both likely to be
exposed to drought and are susceptible to damage from that exposure. In this context, assets are (1) people,
(2) property, (3) critical facilities and lifelines, (4) the economy, (5) historic and cultural resour ces, and (6)
natural resources. Exposure indicates interacting with drought hazards, and likely to be exposed indicates a
presence in areas deemed to be especially likely to experience drought ha zards. Susceptible indicates a
strong likelihood of damage from exposure to drought hazards and is described in greater detail in Section
4.2.1, subsection titled Vulnerability Assessment. Finally, vulnerability under future conditions is considered
as it relates to both climate change and development.
The high-hazard zone for drought extends throughout the Eastern Region of Montana. Variability in the
hazard severity exists from drought to drought, but over time all parts of the Eastern Region are exposed
to severe drought conditions. Susceptibility to drought is variable throughout the Eastern Region and is
discussed further in the asset-specific subsections, below.
The role of climate change in future vulnerability to drought is discussed above in the section titled, Climate
Change Considerations, while the effect of future development is considered below in the section titled
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk.
A key limitation of hazard mitigation planning is that most drought impacts other than to the agricultural
sector are indirect. This complicates the evaluation of assets that are vulnerable to drought hazards.
Figure 4-21 shows the NRI risk index rating for drought in Montana counties. The risk index calculation
considers the expected annual losses from drought, social vulnerability, and community resilience in each
county. Counties in the Eastern Region have a wide range of risk, varying from very low to relatively high.
As shown in the figure, Big Horn County has a relatively high-risk rating to drought whereas the counties
of McCone, Dawson, and Richland have very flow risk rating .
121
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-64
Figure 4-21 NRI Risk Index Rating for Drought
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
People
The historical and potential impacts of drought on populations include agricultural sector job loss,
secondary economic losses to local businesses and public recreational resources, increased cost to local
and state government for large-scale water acquisition and delivery, and water rationing and water wells
running dry for individuals and families. As drought is often accompanied by prolonged periods of extreme
heat, negative health impacts such as dehydration can also occur, where children and elderly are most
susceptible. Other public health issues can include impaired drinking water quality, increased incidence of
mosquito-borne illness, increased wildlife-human confrontations, and respiratory complications due to
declined air quality in times of drought.
Farmers are likely to experience economic losses due to drought. The Montana Governor’s Drought Report
of May 2004 referenced the economic and societal effects of drought: “The state’s biggest drought story
remains the deepening socio-economic drought. The drought threatens to change the very fabric of
Montana’s rural communities and landscape. It is the final straw that can bankrupt 4 th and 5th generation
farmers and ranchers, placing the birthright of descendants of pioneer families on the auction block. And
like the changing vistas, many of the well-established County agri-businesses are disappearing forever,
along with other main street institutions.”
Exposure to drought occurs similarly across the Eastern Region. The vulnerability of people to that exposure
is variable and is what drives the variability in drought impacts described in the opening paragraph of this
subsection. Relationships between drought exposure, susceptibility, and impact are generally consistent
throughout the planning area. For example, rain -fed agriculture is susceptible to the effects of drought
122
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-65
wherever it occurs in the Eastern Region and when crops fail jobs are lost in a similar fashion across the
Eastern Region. Individual annexes discuss drought vulnerabilities that are particularly important at the
jurisdiction-level.
Property
Direct structural damage from drought is rare, though it can happen. Drought can affect soil shrinking and
swelling cycles and can result in cracked foundations and infrastructure damage. Droughts can also have
significant impacts on landscapes, which could cause a financial burden to property owners. There is a
greater threat of structure damage in a drought-affected area due to the secondary impacts of drought.
For example, drought increases the risk of wildfire and may create water shortages that inhibit adequate
fire response. Additionally, heavy rains after prolonged drought conditions can result in significant flooding,
which can damage property.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Water systems are the most susceptible to drought. As shown in Figure 4-20 above, nearly half the counties
in the Eastern Region have experienced impacts to water supply and quality due to drought. Additionally,
hydroelectric power is susceptible to being reduced during periods of drought. Drought-caused reduction
of biofuel seedstock, can cause energy conservation mandates. Most critical facility infrastructure is more
likely to experience losses due to the secondary hazards caused by drought, such as wildfire and flooding.
Exposure to drought occurs similarly across the Eastern Region, especially in the long-term. Vulnerability of
critical facilities and lifelines follows the pattern of susceptibility described above. In other words, everything
is exposed to drought, critical facilities and lifelines that are susceptible to damage are vulnerable. The
general pattern of exposure, susceptibility, and vulnerability of critical facilities and lifelines to that exposure
typically holds true for each participating jurisdiction. Some variability is discussed further in the jurisdiction-
specific annexes.
Economy
Economic impact will be largely associated with industries that use water or depend on water for their
business. For example, landscaping businesses were affected in the droughts of the past as the demand for
service significantly declined because landscap ing was not watered. Additionally, drought can exacerbate
the risk of wildfires and flooding, increase the cost of municipal water usage, and deplete water resources
used for recreation, all of which may impact the local economy. Agricultural industries wi ll be impacted if
water usage is restricted for irrigation. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) reported that from 2007 -2021
$575,895,266.30 was lost as indemnity payments to farmers due to lost crops from drought in the Eastern
Region, primarily in Daniels, McCone, Roosevelt, Sheridan, and Valley counties. Figure 4-22 displays
indemnity payments by county from 2007-2021.
123
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-66
Figure 4-22 Crop Indemnity Losses due to Drought by County 2007-2021
Source: Risk Management Agency (RMA), Chart by WSP
Exposure to drought occurs similarly across the Eastern Region. The pattern of susceptibility of the economy
to that exposure that is described above is consistent within each participating jurisdiction, unless specified
otherwise in the jurisdiction-specific annexes. For example, some counties are more or less dependent on
rain-fed agriculture, but the pattern is consistent that as dependence on rain-fed agriculture increases,
vulnerability to drought increases. Patterns of vulnerability to secondary impacts also follow similar patterns
throughout the region.
Figure 4-23 illustrates the NRI ratings for Expected Annual Loss (EAL) due to drought for Montana counties.
Most counties in the Region have a relatively moderate to relatively low rating; none have a high or very
high-risk EAL rating. The EAL calculation provides an account of direct impacts to agriculture using
agricultural value exposed to drought, annualized frequency for drought, and historical direct loss to
agricultural for drought. The EAL rating is thus heavily based on direct agricultural impacts.
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
124
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-67
Figure 4-23 NRI Drought Expected Annual Loss Rating
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic and cultural resources are susceptible to drought because of the long-standing, multi-generational
farms that exist in the Eastern Region. Past droughts have threatened to bankrupt farmers and ranchers and
alter the farming tradition in the State. This pattern holds true within each participating jurisdiction, unless
specified otherwise in the jurisdiction-specific annexes.
Natural Resources
Susceptibility of natural resources to drought is most commonly associated with plants, animals, and wildlife
habitat; and air and water quality; forest and range fires; degradation of landscape quality; loss of
biodiversity; and soil erosion. Some of the effects are short-term and conditions quickly return to normal
following the end of the drought. Other environmental effects linger for some time or may even become
permanent. Wildlife habitat, for example, may be degraded through the loss of wetlands, lakes, and
vegetation. However, many species will eventually recover from this temporary aberration and may even
depend on it. The degradation of landscape quality, including increased soil erosion, may lead to a more
permanent loss of biological productivity, soil loss during the dust bowl years is a notable example.
Although environmental losses are difficult to quantify, growing public awareness and concern for
environmental quality has forced public officials to focus greater attention and resources on these effects.
Exposure to drought occurs similarly across the Eastern Region. Vulnerability exists where natural resources
are susceptible to drought hazards. The pattern of susceptibility of natural resources to that exposure that
is described above is consistent within each participating jurisdiction, unless specified otherwise in the
jurisdiction-specific annexes.
125
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-68
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
The effect of development on vulnerability to drought is a result of either changing the assets that are
exposed to drought or by changing the susceptibility of assets to drought. Neither of these factors were
cause for concern among plan participants. In addition, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) is responsible for monitoring and regulating public water systems and they consider the impact of
future development with respect to drought to be low.
Additionally, the Governor's Drought Advisory Committee was established by an act of the Montana State
Legislature in 1991 following the drought years of the late 1980s, including the highly publicized
Yellowstone National Park wildfire year of 1988. The rationale behind the initiative to create a state drought
advisory committee was that if state, local, and federal officials who monitor water supply and moisture
conditions can be brought together on a regular basis, and ahead of the seasons when impacts are most
likely to occur to Montana's economy and natural resources, advance measures could be taken to lessen
the degree of those impacts.
While development is generally not a significant concern, variability inevitably exists throughout the
planning area. The jurisdiction-specific annexes address these relatively isolated concerns regarding
development and vulnerability to drought hazards.
Risk Summary
Overall, drought is considered to be overall high significance for the Region. Variations in risk by jurisdiction
are summarized in the table below, as well as key issues from the vulnerability assessment.
● Frequency of drought is rated as highly likely because the Eastern Region experiences agricultural
losses from drought every year and the US Drought Monitor indicates a high frequency of drought
conditions.
● Due to historic economic losses from drought in the Eastern Region, magnitude of drought is ranked
as critical.
● Drought, like other climate hazards, occurs on a regional scale and can impact every county in the
Eastern Region; therefore, geographic extent is rated as extensive.
● Drought impacts to people include public health issues such as impaired drinking water quality,
increased incidence of mosquito -borne illness, increased wildlife-human confrontations, and
respiratory complications because of declined air quality in times of drought.
● Most common impacts to property from drought are damage from secondary hazards such as flooding
and wildfire. However, direct impacts from drought such as structural damage resulting from lack of
moisture in the soil, do occur.
● Significant economic impacts are likely to result from drought from direct damages to crops and
livestock, as well as indirect economic losses from business disruptions.
● Water systems are at significant risk to drought, as are energy systems that depend on biofuels or
hydropower.
● Related Hazards: Wildfire, Flooding, Severe Summer Weather
Table 4-17 Risk Summary Table: Drought
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Eastern Region High
Big Horn High Hardin, Lodge Grass High annualized frequency of
drought
Carbon High Bearcreek, Bridger, Joliet, Fromberg,
Red Lodge
High annualized frequency of
drought
126
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-69
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Carter High Ekalaka Large amount of USDA drought
declarations
Custer Medium Ismay, Miles City Many drought impact reports on
agriculture
Crow Tribe High None; Crow Tribe TPT noted this
was a high hazard concern.
Daniels Medium Scobey, Flaxville Higher crop indemnity losses due
to drop
Dawson Medium Richey, Glendive None
Fallon High Plevna, Baker Large number of USDA drought
declarations. High annualized
frequency of drought. High crop
indemnity losses due to drought
Garfield Medium Jordan None. High crop indemnity losses
due to drought
Golden Valley Medium Ryegate, Lavina Medium to high annualized
frequency of drought
McCone High Circle
Higher crop indemnity losses due
to drought
Musselshell Medium Melstone, Roundup Medium to high annualized
frequency of drought. High crop
indemnity losses due to drought
Powder River High Broadus Has had the most USDA drought
declarations in the Eastern Region
Prairie High Terry None
Richland High Fairview, Sidney None
Roosevelt Medium Wolf Point, Poplar, Bainville,
Culberson, Froid
Higher crop indemnity losses due
to drought
Rosebud Medium Colstrip, Forsyth None. High crop indemnity losses
due to drought
Sheridan High Plentywood, Medicine Lake, Outlook,
Westby
Higher crop indemnity losses due
to drought
Stillwater Medium Columbus High annualized frequency of
drought
Treasure Medium Hysham High crop indemnity losses due
to drought
Valley Medium Glasgow, Fort Peck, Nashua, Opheim Higher crop indemnity losses due
to drop
Wibaux Medium Wibaux Very low expected annual loss
due to drought
Yellowstone High Billings, Broadview, Laurel High annualized frequency of
drought
4.2.6 Earthquake
Hazard/Problem Description
An earthquake is the vibration of the earth’s surface following a release of energy in the earth’s crust. This
energy can be generated by a volcanic eruption or by the sudden dislocation of the crust, which is the cause
of most destructive earthquakes. The crust may first bend and then, when the stress exceeds the strength
127
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-70
of the rocks, break and snap to a new position. In the process of breaking, vibrations called “seismic waves”
are generated. These waves travel outward from the source of the earthquake at varying speeds.
Earthquakes can last from a few seconds to over five minutes; they may also occur as a series of tremors
over several days. The actual movement of the ground in an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of injury
or death; casualties generally result from falling objects and debris. Disruption of communications, electrical
power supplies and gas, sewer, and water lines should be expected. Earthquakes may trigger fires, dam
failures, landslides, or releases of hazardous material, compounding their disastrous effects.
Earthquakes east of the Rocky Mountains are generally less frequent than in the western United States and
are typically felt over a much broader region. Most of North America east of the Rocky Mountains has
infrequent earthquakes, and the region from the Rockies to the Atlantic Ocean can go years without an
earthquake large enough to be felt. The earthquakes that do occur in this region are typically small and
occur at irregular intervals.
Earthquakes tend to reoccur along faults, which are zones of weakness in the crust. Even if a fault zone has
recently experienced an earthquake, there is no guarantee that all the stress has been relieved. Another
earthquake could still occur. Thousands of faults have been mapped in Montana, but scientists think only
about 95 of these faults have been active in the past 1.6 million years (the Quaternary Period). Although it
has been over six decades since the last destructive earthquake in Montana, small earthquakes are common
in the region, occurring at an average rate of 4-5 earthquakes per day according to the Great Montana
Shake Out, Montana Department of Transportation, and National Earthquake Information Center . Scientists
continue to study faults in Montana to determine future earthquake potential.
A “great” earthquake is defined as any earthquake classified as a magnitude 8 or larger on the Richter Scale.
Montana has not experienced a great earthquake in recorded history. A great earthquake is not likely in
Montana, but a major earthquake (magnitude 7.0-7.9) occurred near Hebgen Lake in 1959 and dozens of
active faults have generated magnitude 6.5-7.5 earthquakes during recent geologic time.
Liquefaction is the process by which water -saturated sediment temporarily loses strength due to strong
ground shaking and acts as a fluid. Buildings and road foundations may lose load -bearing strength and
cause major damage if liquefaction occurs beneath them. The increased water pressure that accompanies
liquefaction can also cause landslides and dam failure.
Seismic events may lead to landslides, uneven ground settling, flooding, and damage to homes, dams,
levees, buildings, power and telephone lines, roads, tunnels, and railways. Broken natural gas lines may also
ignite fires as a cascading hazard.
Geographical Area Affected
The geographic extent of earthquakes in the planning area is significant. All of the Eastern Region could
be impacted by earthquakes, but the greatest potential for damaging quakes is in the very southwestern
portion of the Region.
Montana is one of the most seismically active states in the United States according to the USGS. There is a
belt of seismicity known as the Intermountain Seismic Belt which extends through western Montana. This
Intermountain Seismic Belt ranges from the Flathead Lake region in the northwest corner of the state to the
Yellowstone National Park region. Since 1925, the state has experienced five shocks that reached intensity
VIII or greater (Modified Mercalli Scale). During the same interval, hundreds of less severe tremors were felt
within the state.
Montana’s earthquake activity is concentrated mostly in the mountainous western third of the state, which
lies within the Intermountain Seismic Belt and is relatively far from the Eastern Region when compared to
the Central and especially the Western Region, see Figure 4-24 below. However, large seismic events
128
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-71
centered in the Central and Western Regions may still cause impacts in the Eastern Region. As shown in
Figure 4-25 below, the Eastern Region has a low to moderate liquefaction susceptibility in general. No area
in the Eastern Region has a high liquefaction susceptibility.
129
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-72
Figure 4-24 Fault Map of Montana
130
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-73
Figure 4-25 Liquefaction Map of the Eastern Region
131
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-74
Past Occurrences
As mentioned previously, Montana’s earthquake activity occurs primarily in the western third of the state .
In the Eastern Region, although earthquake events happen less frequently, there have been a few recorded
earthquakes that are relatively bigger, in the 4 -5.6 magnitude range. As mentioned in the 2018 Montana
SHMP, one significant earthquake occurred in Northeast Montana on May 16, 1909, with a magnitude of
5.5. Most of the rest of the recorded earthquakes are relatively smaller, in the magnitude 1 to 3 range. These
types of earthquakes very rarely cause any structural damage or injuries. As mentioned above, earthquake
events tend to occur in the western part of the state more frequently, and numerous earthquakes in the
western part of the state have been felt in the Eastern Region. A map of recorded earthquakes is presented
in Figure 4-26 below based an online mapping tool developed by the Montana Bureau of Mines and
Geology (https://mbmg.mtech.edu/mapper/mapper.asp?view=Quakes&).
Figure 4-26 Statewide Map of Earthquake Epicenters, 1982-2022
Source: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology(https://mbmg.mtech.edu/mapper/mapper.asp?view=Quakes&).
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
The frequency of earthquakes in the Eastern Region is ranked as likely, but damaging events are more
occasional (between 1 and 10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of
11 to 100 years). Earthquakes will continue to occur in Montana; however, the precise time, location, and
magnitude of future events cannot be predicted. As discussed above, earthquake hazard areas in Montana
are concentrated in the western portion of the state, which is part of the Intermountain Seismic Belt.
The USGS issues National Seismic Hazard Maps with updates approximately every five years. These maps
provide various acceleration and probabilities for time periods. Figure 4-27 below is from the most recent
USGS models for the contiguous U.S., showing peak ground accelerations having a 2 percent probability of
being exceeded in 50 years, for a firm rock site. The models are based on seismicity and fault-slip rates and
take into account the frequency of earthquakes of various magnitudes. Until recently, the 500-year map was
often used for planning purposes for average structures and was the basis of the most current Uniform
132
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-75
Building Code. The new International Building Code, however, uses a 2,500-year map as the basis for
building design.
Figure 4-27 USGS Long-Term National Seismic Hazard Map
Source: USGS
Climate Change Considerations
Impacts of global climate change on earthquake hazards are not anticipated to occur and unknown. As
mentioned in the 2023 State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, some scientists say glaciers could induce
tectonic activity. For example, as ice melts and water runs off, tremendous amounts of weight are shifted
on the earth’s crust. As newly freed crust returns to its original, pre - glacier shape, it could cause seismic
plates to slip and stimulate volcanic activity, according to research into prehistoric earthquakes and volcanic
activity. NASA and USGS scientists found that retreating glaciers in southern Alaska may be opening the
way for future earthquakes (NASA 2004).
Potential Magnitude and Severity
The expected magnitude of earthquakes in the Eastern Region is limited. Earthquakes can cause structural
damage, injury, and loss of life, as well as damage to infrastructure networks, such as water, power,
communication, and transportation lines. Damage and loss of life can be particularly devastating in
communities where buildings were not designed to withstand seismic forces (e.g., historic structures). Other
damage-causing effects of earthquakes include surface rupture, fissuring, settlement, and permanent
horizontal and vertical shifting of the ground. Secondary impacts can include landslides, rock falls,
liquefaction, fires, dam failure, and hazardous materials (HAZMAT) incidents.
In simplistic terms, the severity of an earthquake event can be measured in the following terms:
133
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-76
● How hard did the ground shake?
● How did the ground move (horizontally or vertically)?
● How stable was the soil?
● What is the fragility of the built environment in the area of impact?
Earthquakes are typically classified in one of two ways: By the amount of energy released, measured as
magnitude; or by the impact on people and structures, measured as intensity. A comparison of magnitude
and intensity is shown in the Table 4-18 below.
Table 4-18 Magnitude and Modified Mercalli Scales for Measuring Earthquakes
Magnitude Modified Mercalli Intensity
1.0 – 3.0 I
3.0 – 3.9 II, III
4.0 – 4.9 IV – V
5.0 – 5.9 VI – VII
6.0 – 6.0 VII – IX
7.0 and higher VIII or higher
Source: USGS Earthquake Hazards Program
Magnitude
Magnitude measures the energy released at the source of the earthquake and is measured by a
seismograph. Currently the most used magnitude scale is the moment magnitude (Mw) scale, with the
follow classifications of magnitude:
● Great—Mw > 8.
● Major—Mw = 7.0 – 7.9.
● Strong—Mw = 6.0 – 6.9.
● Moderate—Mw = 5.0 – 5.9.
● Light—Mw = 4.0 – 4.9.
● Minor—Mw = 3.0 – 3.9.
● Micro—Mw < 3.
Estimates of Mw scale roughly match the local magnitude scale (ML), commonly called the Richter scale.
One advantage of the Mw scale is that, unlike other magnitude scales, it does not saturate at the upper end.
That is, there is no value beyond which all large earthquakes have about the same magnitude. For this
reason, Mw scale is now the most often used estimate of large magnitude earthquakes.
Intensity
Intensity is a measure of the shaking produced by an earthquake at a certain location and is based on felt
affects. Currently the most used intensity scale is the modified Mercalli intensity scale, with ratings defined
as follows in Table 4-19.
Table 4-19 Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale
Magnitude
Mercalli
Intensity Effects Frequency
Less than 2.0 I Micro-earthquakes, not felt or rarely felt; recorded by
seismographs.
Continual
2.0-2.9 I to II Felt slightly by some people; damages to buildings. Over 1M per year
3.0-3.9 II to IV Often felt by people; rarely causes damage; shaking of
indoor objects noticeable.
Over 100,000 per
year
134
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-77
Magnitude
Mercalli
Intensity Effects Frequency
4.0-4.9 IV to VI Noticeable shaking of indoor objects and rattling noises;
felt by most people in the affected area; slightly felt
outside; generally, no to minimal damage.
10K to 15K per year
5.0-5.9 VI to VIII Can cause damage of varying severity to poorly
constructed buildings; at most, none to slight damage to
all other buildings. Felt by everyone.
1K to 1,500 per year
6.0-6.9 VII to X Damage to a moderate number of well-built structures in
populated areas; earthquake-resistant structures survive
with slight to moderate damage; poorly designed
structures receive moderate to severe damage; felt in wider
areas; up to hundreds of miles/kilometers from the
epicenter; strong to violent shaking in epicenter area.
100 to 150 per year
7.0-7.9 VIII< Causes damage to most buildings, some to partially or
completely collapse or receive severe damage; well-
designed structures are likely to receive damage; felt across
great distances with major damage mostly limited to 250
km from epicenter.
10 to 20 per year
8.0-8.9 VIII< Major damage to buildings, structures likely to be
destroyed; will cause moderate to heavy damage to sturdy
or earthquake-resistant buildings; damaging in large areas;
felt in extremely large regions.
One per year
9.0 and
Greater
VIII< At or near total destruction - severe damage or collapse to
all buildings; heavy damage and shaking extends to distant
locations; permanent changes in ground topography.
One per 10-50 years
Source: USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, 1989
Vulnerability Assessment
The earthquake Vulnerability Assessment identifies, or at least discusses, assets that are both likely to be
exposed to earthquake and are susceptible to damage from that exposure. In this context, assets are (1)
people, (2) property, (3) critical facilities and lifelines, (4) the economy, (5) historic and cultural res ources,
and (6) natural resources. Exposure indicates interacting with earthquake hazards, and likely to be exposed
indicates a presence in areas deemed to be especially likely to experience e arthquake hazards. Susceptible
indicates a strong likelihood of damage from exposure to earthquake hazards and is described in greater
detail in Section 4.2.1, subsection titled Vulnerability Assessment. Finally, vulnerability under future
conditions is considered as it relates to both climate change and development.
Numerous factors contribute to determining areas of vulnerability such as historical earthquake occurrence,
proximity to faults, soil characteristics, building construction, and population density . Earthquake
vulnerability data was generated during the 2022 planning process using a Level 1 Hazus-MH analysis for
the Eastern Region. Hazus-MH estimates the intensity of the ground shaking, the number of buildings
damaged, the number of casualties, the damage to transportation systems and utilities, the number o f
people displaced from their homes, and the estimated cost of repair and clean up. Details specific to the
HAZUS analysis for each county are provided in each county’s respective annex.
The HAZUS analysis also incorporates information on what assets are susceptible to earthquake damage
and provides information on earthquake vulnerability. The results of the HAZUS analysis are discussed
further in the asset-specific subsections, below.
135
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-78
The role of climate change in future vulnerability to earthquake is discussed above in the section titled,
Climate Change Considerations and notes climate change effects on earthquakes is largely unknown , while
the effect of future development is considered below in the section titled Development Trends Related to
Hazards and Risk.
People
The entire population of the Eastern Region is within an earthquake hazard area and are potentially exposed
to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes, but more so in the southwestern counties. The degree of
exposure is dependent on many factors, the soil type their homes are constructed on, and their proximity
to fault location and earthquake epicenter. The degree of susceptibility to earthquake hazards is also
dependent on various factors, such as including the age and construction type of the struc tures people live
in.
Whether impacted directly or indirectly, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of
an earthquake to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could
isolate populations, and loss of functions of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct
damage from an event itself.
Impacts on persons and households in the planning area were estimated for the entire region for a 2,500-
Year probabilistic earthquake scenario (2% chance of occurrence in 50 years) resulted in low potential
impacts. Table 4-20 summarizes the results of displaced households. It is estimated in a 2 p.m. time of
occurrence scenario that there would be a total of 37 injuries across the region, four of which would require
hospitalization. There would not be any fatalities. Additionally, there could be increased risk of damage or
injury from rock fall or landslides to travelers, hikers, and others recreating outdoors at the time of the
earthquake. More detailed descriptions of the numbers of estimated casualties in the Eastern Region under
the various time of occurrence scenarios are available in the county annexes.
Table 4-20 Estimated Earthquake Impacts on Persons and Households
Scenario Number of Displaced Households Number of Persons Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
2,500-Year Earthquake 27 15
Source: HAZUS-MH Global Summary Report, WSP Analysis
Property
The HAZUS analysis estimates that there are 119,000 buildings in the planning area for the Eastern Region,
with a total replacement value of $27.91 billion. Because all structures in the planning area are exposed to
earthquake impacts to varying degrees and susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees. This total
represents the regionwide property exposure to seismic events. Most of the buildings and most of the
associated building value are residential. According to the model and shown in Table 4-21, about 1,652
buildings will be at least moderately damaged, with 3 buildings completely destroyed.
136
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-79
Table 4-21 Estimated Building Damage by Occupancy
Source: HAZUS-MH Global Summary Report, WSP Analysis
The HAZUS model provides estimates of building related losses in the earthquake scenario, broken out into
two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The direct building losses are the
estimated costs to repair or replace the d amage caused to the building and its contents. The business
interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage
sustained during the earthquake. Business interruption losses also include the temporary li ving expenses
for those people displaced from their homes because of the earthquake.
For the 2,500-year probabilistic earthquake scenario, the total building related losses for the entire planning
area is an estimated $133.27 million, as shown in Table 4-22. Of this total, direct building losses are
estimated at $104.6 million and $28.68 million in income related losses. A map of these losses per county
is shown in Figure 4-28 below.
Table 4-22 HAZUS Building Related Economic Loss Estimates for 2,500-Year Scenario (Millions
of Dollars)
Source: HAZUS-MH Global Summary Report, WSP Analysis
137
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-80
Figure 4-28 Eastern Region HAZUS 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario Direct Economic Loss
138
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-81
The HAZUS analysis also estimated the amount of earthquake -caused debris in the planning area for the
2,500-Year probabilistic earthquake scenario event, which is estimated to be 29,000 tons.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Many critical facilities and infrastructure in the planning area are exposed to earthquakes. HAZMAT releases
can occur during an earthquake from fixed facilities or transportation -related incidents. Transportation
corridors can be disrupted during an earthquake, leading to the release of materials to the surrounding
environment. Facilities holding HAZMAT are of particular concern because of possible isolation of
neighborhoods surrounding them. During an earthquake, structures storing these materials could r upture
and leak into the surrounding area or an adjacent waterway, having a disastrous effect on the environment.
HAZUS-MH classifies the vulnerability of essential facilities to earthquake damage in two categories: at least
moderate damage or complete damage. The analysis did not indicate any damages in these categories to
specific facilities. The model also anticipates pipeline breaks and leaks in the Eastern Region’s potable water,
wastewater, and natural gas lines. Across these linear networks, the earthquake is expected to cause 625
pipeline leaks and 156 complete fractures in the potable water, wastewater, and natural gas systems. The
model also estimates lifeline damages to linear networks such as transportation and utilities. Damage to
the transportation system is estimated at $7.8 million and utility lifelines at $239 million. The steep terrain
in the southwestern counties of the Eastern Region would likely experience multiple rockslides that could
damage roadways and disrupt traffic along the rail, highway, and road corridors.
Economy
Economic impacts of an earthquake could be staggering in the impacted areas. Not only the costs of direct
damages to property, infrastructure, and inventory, but the losses incurred from businesses forced to close
temporarily or permanently. As mentioned above, the total income-related economic losses are estimated
by the model to be $28.68 million in the 2,500 -year scenario. HAZUS-MH models many other estimated
impacts, which are summarized in Table 4-23 and Table 4-24 below. Yellowstone and Carbon counties have
the highest potential losses; Stillwater, Wheatland and Big Horn counties also have higher loss ratios.
Table 4-23 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Loss Estimation 2,500-Year Scenario Results
Type of Impact Impacts to Region
Total Buildings Damaged Slight: 5,500
Moderate: 1,652
Extensive: 128
Complete: 3
Building and Income Related Losses $133.27 million
55% of damage related to residential structures
22% of loss due to business interruption
Total Economic Losses (includes building,
income, and lifeline losses)
$380.16 Million - Total
Building: $133.27 Million
Income: $28.68 Million
Transportation/Utility: $246.89 Million
Casualties (based on 2 a.m. time of occurrence) Without requiring hospitalization: 14
Requiring hospitalization: 1
Life threatening: 0
Fatalities: 0
Casualties (based on 2 p.m. time of
occurrence)
Without requiring hospitalization: 33
Requiring hospitalization: 4
Life threatening: 0
Fatalities: 0
Casualties (based on 5 p.m. time of
occurrence)
Without requiring hospitalization: 23
Requiring hospitalization: 3
139
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-82
Type of Impact Impacts to Region
Life threatening: 0
Fatalities: 0
Fire Following Earthquake 0 Ignitions
Debris Generation 29,000 tons of debris generated
1,160 estimated truckloads to remove
Displaced Households 27
Shelter Requirements 15
Source: HAZUS-MH Global Summary Report, WSP Analysis
140
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-83
Table 4-24 Direct Economic Losses by County (In thousands of Dollars)
141
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-84
Source: HAZUS-MH Global Summary Report, WSP Analysis
142
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-85
Historic and Cultural Resources
Older and historic buildings, which are often significant cultural resources for a region, will typically be more
vulnerable to damage in an earthquake. Historic building stock was constructed before the adoption of
modern building and seismic codes and is commonly made of unreinforced masonry, which is more
susceptible to damage from earthquakes. Many of the historic downtown buildings in the towns in Carbon
and Stillwater counties may be particularly vulnerable. A complete inventory of historic and unreinforced
masonry buildings was not available to be able to refine the vulnerability further.
Natural Resources
Very few, if any, natural resources are susceptible to direct damage from earthquakes. Secondary hazards
associated with earthquakes can have damaging effects on natural resources. For example, earthquake-
induced landslides can potentially impact surrounding habitat. Dam failure is also associated with
earthquake and can result in the loss of entire reservoirs, permeant alteration of unique downstream habitat,
and damage caused by catastrophic flash flooding. Where relevant, secondary impacts on natural res ources
from earthquake are discussed in sections for other hazards.
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
Future population growth and building development in general will increase the exposure of the Eastern
Region to earthquake by increasing the number of people and value of building inventory in the planning
area. Replacing old buildings with new buildings constructed to modern building codes can help limit the
overall vulnerability created by development. For example, development may lead to the abandonment or
replacement of old structures built to old building codes, especially those in poor condition. In this case the
development would lead to a decrease in susceptibility of the building asset. In the case of Eastern Montana,
development concerns with regard to earthquake were generally not raised by plan participants and
development in general is stable with exceptions in certain counties like Yellowstone County that has
experienced higher growth and development trends . Jurisdiction-specific concerns are discussed further in
jurisdiction annexes, where relevant.
Risk Summary
Overall, earthquake is considered a low significance hazard due the unlikely nature of a severe earthquake
in the Eastern Region, and the lack of history of damaging events in the planning area.
● Effects on people: People can be injured or killed in earthquakes due to falling items or structures, as
well as from cascading events triggered by the earthquake. Regionwide, a maximum of 37 injuries are
estimated by the HAZUS scenario, as well as 27 disp laced households.
● Effects on property: Impacts on property include direct damage to structures from the shaking.
Regionwide, 1,783 buildings are estimated to be at least moderately damaged, with 3 of them
completely destroyed, resulting in $133.27 million in building damage.
● Yellowstone and Carbon counties have the highest potential losses; Stillwater, Wheatland and Big Horn
counties also have higher loss ratios.
● Effects on the economy: economic impacts can be from direct damages to structures as well as lost
wages and income. The total economic loss is projected to be $380.16 million.
● Effects on critical facilities and infrastructure: Linear facilities, such as pipelines, railroads, and roadways,
are largely at much greater risk than other facility types. $246.89 million in damages to linear facility
networks are projected.
● Unique jurisdictional vulnerability: the vulnerability is generally low throughout the Eastern Region, but
the potential for damage is greater in the southwestern portion of the Eastern Region.
● Related hazards: landslide, dam incidents
143
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-86
Table 4-25 Risk Summary Table: Earthquake
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance
Additional
Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Eastern Region Low In general, counties in the eastern region have
lower vulnerability with the exception of the
southwestern counties
Big Horn Medium Hardin, Lodge Grass None
Carbon Medium Bearcreek, Bridger,
Joliet, Fromberg, Red
Lodge
Greater losses expected near Red Lodge and
Fromberg.
Carter Low Ekalaka None
Crow Tribe Low None
Custer Low Ismay, Miles City None
Daniels Low Scobey, Flaxville None
Dawson Low Richey, Glendive None
Fallon Low Plevna, Baker None
Garfield Low Jordan None
Golden Valley Low Ryegate, Lavina None
McCone Low Circle None
Musselshell Low Melstone, Roundup None
Powder River High Broadus None
Prairie Low Terry None
Richland Low Fairview, Sidney None
Roosevelt Low Wolf Point, Poplar,
Bainville, Culberson,
Froid
None
Rosebud Low Colstrip, Forsyth None
Sheridan Low Plentywood, Medicine
Lake, Outlook, Westby
None
Stillwater Medium Columbus Greater losses expected near Columbus.
Treasure Low Hysham None
Valley Low Glasgow, Fort Peck,
Nashua, Opheim
None
Wibaux Low Wibaux None
Yellowstone Medium Billings, Broadview,
Laurel
Greater losses expected near Laurel and Billings.
4.2.7 Flooding
Hazard/Problem Description
Riverine flooding is defined as when a watercourse exceeds its “bank-full” capacity and is usually the most
common type of flood event. Riverine flooding generally occurs because of prolonged rainfall, or rainfall
that is combined with soils already saturated from previous rain events. The area adjacent to a river channel
is its floodplain. In its common usage, “floodplain” most often refers to that area that is inundated by the
100-year flood, the flood that has a 1 percent chance in any given year of bein g equaled or exceeded. Other
types of floods include general rain floods, thunderstorm generated flash floods, alluvial fan floods,
snowmelt, rain on snow floods, dam failure and dam release floods, and local drainage floods. The 100 -year
flood is the national standard to which communities regulate their floodplains through the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
144
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-87
The potential for flooding can change and increase through various land use changes and changes to land
surface. A change in environment can create localized flooding problems inside and outside of natural
floodplains by altering or confining watersheds or natural drainage channels. These changes are commonly
created by human activities. These changes can also be created by other events such as wildland fires.
Wildland fires create hydrophobic soils, a hardening or “glazing” of the earth’s surface that prev ents rainfall
from being absorbed into the ground, thereby increasing runoff; erosion, and downstream sedimentation
of channels.
Montana is susceptible to the following types of flooding:
● Rain in a general storm system
● Rain in a localized intense thunderstorm
● Melting snow
● Rain on melting snow
● Ice Jams
● Levee failure
● Dam failure
● Urban stormwater drainage
● Rain on fire damaged watersheds
Slow rise floods associated with snowmelt and sustained precipitation usually are preceded with adequate
warning, though the event can last several days. Flash floods, by their nature, occur very suddenly but usually
dissipate within hours. Even flash floods are usually preceded with warning from the NWS in terms of flash
flood advisories, watches, and warnings.
The average total annual precipitation in Montana is roughly 15.37 inches. The average total annual snowfall
is 49 inches. Generally, the flood season extends from late spring and early summer, when snowmelt runoff
swells rivers and creeks, to fall. Much of the rainfall occurs with thunderstorms during April to August. Within
the Eastern Region, Carbon County, where the Custer Gallatin National Forest is located, has the highest
annual average of precipitation with 16.98 inches.
Geographical Area Affected
The Missouri River, along with the tributaries within the watershed are Eastern Montana’s primary waterways
that result in flood hazards. Among the tributaries located within the different watersheds are the Big
Muddy, Poplar, Powder, Rosebud, Tongue, and Yellowstone waterways. The Missouri River is the longest
river in the United States, rising in the Rocky Mountains of the Eastern Centennial Mountains of
Southwestern Montana and flowing east and south, and then flowing from east to west through Richland
and Roosevelt counties, and then proceeding westward. Flooding along the Missouri typically occurs during
the spring and is caused by long rainstorms and due to snowmelt runoff. Localized thunderstorms during
the summer monsoons can also result in flash flo oding throughout the Eastern Region planning area. In
addition to flooding from the Yellowstone River, a large portion of the Eastern Region near Billings in
Yellowstone County is also prone to flooding along ditches and drains and other open waterways own ed
and maintained by private ditch companies that carry water away from the City towards the Yellowstone
River during flooding, irrigation from field runoff, and other stormwater runoff. The geographical extent of
flooding across the Eastern Region is limited. Figure 4-29 illustrates the geographical area affected by
flooding based on the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) and Hazus geospatial flood datasets.
145
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-88
Figure 4-29 Eastern Region Flood Hazards (NFHL and Hazus)
146
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-89
Past Occurrences
Flooding is a natural event and rivers and tributaries in the study area have experienced periodic flooding
with associated floods and flash floods. There has been 10 federally declared disasters within the 23 counties
and three Indian Reservations located in the Eastern Region from 1975 to 2022. The federal declarations
since 2010 to present are summarized in Table 4-26 below. According to the NCEI database, Montana’s
Eastern Region has also incurred $23,587,000 in property damages, $665,000 in crop damages and three
deaths due to flooding since 1996.
Table 4-26 Federally Declared Flooding Events Montana Eastern Region 1974-2022
Year Declaration Title Disaster Number County/Reservation Impacted
2022 Severe Storm and Flooding DR-4655-MT Carbon, Stillwater, Treasure, Yellowstone
2019 Flooding DR-4437-MT Daniels, McCone, Powder River, Stillwater,
Treasure, Valley
2019 Flooding DR-4405-MT Carbon, Custer, Golden Valley, Musselshell,
Treasure
2018 Flooding DR-4388-MT Valley
2014 Ice Jams and Flooding DR-4172-MT Dawson, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Prairie,
Rosebud, Richland, Stillwater, Wheatland
2013 Flooding DR-4127-MT Custer, Dawson, Garfield, McCone,
Musselshell, Rosebud, Valley
1987 Severe Storms & Flooding DR-777-MT Garfield, McCone, Rosebud, Valley
1986 Heavy Rains, Landslides &
Flooding DR-761-MT Daniels, Dawson, Valley
1978 Severe Storms & Flooding DR-558-MT Big Horn, Carbon, Powder River, Rosebud,
Stillwater, Treasure, Yellowstone
1975 Rains, Snowmelt, Storms &
Flooding DR-472-MT Wheatland
Source: FEMA 2022
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
The Eastern Region has experienced multiple catastrophic flood events resulting in large-scale property
damages. Snowmelt runoffs present a threat of serious flooding along rivers and creeks in the study area
each year. Flash floods that produce debris flows and mudflows occur regularly and have caused significant
damages in the past to homes, roads, bridges, and culverts. Based on the historical record of the ten
federally declared events in the past 47 years from 1975 to present within the Eastern Region, the Region
has a major flood resulting in a FEMA declaration every 5 years on average. Using past occurrences as an
indicator of future probability, flooding has the probability of future occurrence rating of likely throughout
the Eastern Region.
Figure 4-30 depicts the annualized frequency of riverine flooding at a county level based on the NRI. The
mapping shows a trend toward increased likelihood of flooding in the northern portion of the Eastern
Region with Valley County having a 2.44 – 3.04 annualized frequency of riverine flooding; this trend is
supported by the County having the highest number of flood insurance claims (see discussion in
Vulnerability subsection). Richland and Roosevelt counties have a 1.83 – 2.43 annualized frequency of
riverine flooding while all other counties in the study area have a 0.00 – 1.22 frequency.
147
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-90
Figure 4-30 Annualized Frequency of Riverine Flooding by County
Climate Change Considerations
As documented in Section 4.2.7 Flooding, precipitation is one factor of several that determine flooding.
Other factors include existing soil moisture conditions, frozen soils, rainfall rate, and special conditions such
as rain-on-snow events. In urban areas, stormwater infrastructure is perhaps the single greatest determinant
of flooding. Other infrastructure, in the form of large dams that are abundant across the planning area,
provides a large degree of protection from flooding in rural and urban areas. Perhaps the biggest concern
of climate change impacts on flooding involves complex cascading effects that start with increased drought,
which drives increased wildfire, which leaves more and larger fire scars, which can dramatically increase
runoff and create flooding or debris flows on a scale that did not previously exist. These factors complicate
the impact of climate change on flooding. Nevertheless, much can be said about the current and future
effects of climate change on flooding in the planning area.
The Climate Change and Human Health report documents that a shift in the seasonality of precipitation
amount is occurring. Spring precipitation has slightly increased, which has been offset by decreases during
other times of the year (see Section 4.2.5 Drought, subsection titled Climate Change Considerations, and
Figure 4-19).
The Montana Climate Change and Human Health report (2021) projects the seasonal shift from snow to
rain will occur earlier, as will peak runoff on streams. Peak runoff already occurs 10 -20 days earlier than in
1948. The Climate Change and Human Health report also documents research indicating peak runoff at the
end of the century is projected to occur 5-35 days earlier than it did from 1951-1980.
This early-and-rapid snowmelt scenario can cause spring flooding or even ice-jam flooding and appears to
already be playing out. In recent years these have been problems on many rivers in Montana, leading to
great damage and loss of life, as documented in the 2021 Montana Climate Change and Human Health
148
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-91
report. It is unclear if increasing late winter snow and early spring rain will increase the probability of rain -
on-snow events, but this issue is potentially serious and worthy of monitoring in future HMPs.
Ice jams are responsible for much of the worst flooding in Montana’s history. Ice -jam flooding typically
occurs along mountain streams, when heavy rainfall or upstream melting raises stream flows to the point
of breaking up the ice cover, which can pile up on bridge piers or other channel obstructions and cause
flooding behind the jam. Once the ice jam breaks up, downstream areas are vulnerable to flash floods. The
increasing possibility of midwinter thaws and heavy early spring rainfall events could increa se the risk of
sudden ice break up. The situation is further exacerbated if the ground is still frozen and unable to soak up
rainwater.
Further, according to the Fifth National Climate Assessment, the Northern Great Plains region, which
includes Montana is experiencing unprecedented climate-driven extremes related to flooding. For example,
record floods along the Missouri River and its tributaries in 2011 and 2019 caused evacuations and billions
of dollars in damages and research suggested that these records floods were caused by natural variability
within the system. Also, while trends show that annual peak streamflow runoff will decrease across the
region, with a few exceptions, according to the Fifth National Climate Assessment, portions of Montana
should expect to experience some of the highest increases in annual flood damage across the U.S. due to
climate change. While it is not possible to define with further specificity the impacts related to climate
change on each jurisdiction within the Region related to flooding risk exacerbated by climate change, future
updates to this plan should revisit this topic as scientific reports are updated and trends become more
apparent.
Potential Magnitude and Severity
Magnitude and severity can be described by several factors that contribute to the relative vulnerabilities of
certain areas in the floodplain. Development, or the presence of people and property in the hazardous
areas, is a critical factor in determining vulnerability to flooding. Additional factors that contribute to flood
vulnerability range from specific characteristics of the floodplain to characteristics of the structures located
within the floodplain. The following is a brief discussion of some of these flood factors which pose risk.
● Elevation: The lowest possible point where floodwaters may enter a structure is the most significant
factor contributing to its vulnerability to damage, due to the higher likelihood that it will come into
contact with water for a prolonged amount of time.
● Flood depth: The greater the depth of flooding, the higher the potential for significant damages due
to larger availability of flooding waters.
● Flood duration: The longer duration of time that floodwaters are in contact with building components,
such as structural members, interior finishes, and mechanical equipment, the greater the potential for
damage.
● Velocity: Flowing water exerts forces on the structural members of a building, increasing the likelihood
of significant damage (such as scouring).
● Construction type: Certain types of construction and materials are more resistant to the effects of
floodwaters than others. Typically, masonry buildings, constructed of brick or concrete blocks, are the
most resistant to damages simply because masonry materials can be in contact with limited depths of
flooding without sustaining significant damage. Wood frame structures are more susceptible to
damage because the construction materials used are easily damaged when inundated with water.
Major flood events present a risk to life and property, including buildings, contents, and their use. Floods
can also affect lifeline utilities (e.g., water, sewage, and power), transportation, the environment, jobs, and
the local economy.
149
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-92
Past flood events in Montana’s Eastern Region have damaged roads, bridges, private property, businesses,
and critical lifeline facilities. Future events may result in greater damages depending on patterns of growth,
land use development and climate change. In summary, the magnitude of flood hazards in the Eastern
Region is critical.
National Flood Insurance Program Policy Analysis
The NFIP aims to reduce the impact of flooding on private and public structures by providing affordable
insurance to property owners and by encouraging communities to adopt and enforce floodplain
management regulations. These efforts help mitigate the effe cts of flooding on new and improved
structures. The State has analyzed NFIP flood-loss data to determine areas of Montana’s Eastern Region
with the greatest flood risk. Montana’s Eastern Region flood-loss information was obtained from FEMA’s
“Montana’s Coverage Claims” for Montana’s Eastern Region, which documents losses from 1978. This
section was updated based on information obtained from FEMA ’s PIVOT database through Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (MT DNRC) dated August 10, 2022.
There are several limitations to analyzing flood risk entirely on this data, including:
● Only losses to participating NFIP communities are represented ;
● Communities joined the NFIP at various times since 1978 ;
● The number of flood insurance policies in effect may not include all structures at risk to flooding ; and
● Some of the historical loss areas have been mitigated with property buyouts.
Montana’s Eastern Region has a total of $951,790,600 in NFIP coverage, with 1,005 total flood claims, 1,272
current polices and $7,868,905 dollars paid out total due to flood damage and losses. NFIP data and
statistics for the Eastern Region is summarized in Table 4-27 below. Yellowstone County has the highest
amount of dollars paid out due to flood claims with $1,814,878, followed by Valley County with $1,590,563
in claims.
Table 4-27 Montana Eastern Region NFIP Statistics
County Date
Joined
Effective
Firm Date
Dollars Paid
(Historical)
Flood
Claims
Current
Policies Coverage ($)
Big Horn 9/2/1981 9/2/1981 $245,116.75 16 8 $1,901,900.00
Carbon 11/4/1981 7/5/2017 $1,089,354.17 61 77 $20,190,100.00
Carter $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Custer 9/1/1987 7/22/2010 $400,061.25 155 730 $119,513,500.00
Daniels $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Dawson 5/1/1999 05/01/99(L) $144,610.47 7 8 $2,465,500.00
Fallon 8/4/1988 8/4/1988 $0 1 2 $700,000,000
Garfield 3/20/1979 3/20/1979 $0 1 11 $562,600
Golden Valley 9/16/1981 11/5/2021 $0 $0 1 $255,000
McCone 6/4/2007 6/4/2007 $0 $0 $0 $0
Musselshell 3/1/2001 11/15/2019 $1,201,833.38 60 18 $1,624,700
Powder River 6/1/2010 06/01/10(L) $25,382 7 4 $616,000
Prairie 5/8/1979 5/8/1979 $0 $0 $0 $0
Richland 12/4/1985 8/15/2019 $96,344.22 12 14 $3,589,400
Roosevelt 11/1/1996 11/01/96(L) $59,144.95 8 5 $942,500
Rosebud 9/1/1997 11/15/2019 $15,452.01 12 5 $1,443,000
Sheridan 2/4/2019 6/4/2007 $72.89 1 $0 $0
Stillwater 11/15/1985 10/16/2015 $915,175.10 56 64 $16,937,600
Treasure 12/18/1986 12/18/86(M) $0 $0 2 $47,000
Valley 1/1/1987 01/01/87(L) $1,590,365.62 274 23 $3,043,600
Wheatland 9/16/1981 9/16/1981 $20,726.62 18 6 $439,000
150
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-93
County Date
Joined
Effective
Firm Date
Dollars Paid
(Historical)
Flood
Claims
Current
Policies Coverage ($)
Wibaux 3/4/1988 2/18/1998 $77,084.26 3 6 $430,300
Yellowstone 11/18/1981 11/6/2013 $1,814,878.16 263 275 $76,606,000
Total $7,868,905.37 1005 1272 $951,790,600.00
Source: FEMA Pivot NFIP Data as of August 10th, 2022; FEMA Community Status Book Report
Repetitive Loss
Repetitive losses are NFIP-insured structures that have had at least two paid flood losses of more than
$1,000 each in any ten-year period since 1978. The Eastern Region has a total of 61 repetitive loss properties
as of 2022, with the majority being located in Valley and Yellowstone Counties.
Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) properties have either four or more separate claims for flood damage (with
each claim exceeding $5,000 and with the sum of all payments exceeding $20,000,) or two or more separate
claims where the total of all claims exceeds the value of the property. The Eastern Region has one SRL
property, a single-family structure, in Dawson County.
Table 4-28 below lists the repetitive loss structures that have been identified throughout the Eastern Region
study area. Valley County has the highest amount of repetitive loss structures, claims and totals paid out
overall with 25 structures, 27 repetitive loss claims, and nearly $1 million dollars paid out due to repeated
flooding and flood insurance loss claims. This is followed by Yellowstone County which has 21 repetitive
loss structures, 53 repetitive loss claims and $747,592.02 in funding paid. It should be noted that a flood
insurance claim can be filed when a property and its adjacent property is inundated.
Table 4-28 Eastern Region Repetitive Loss Properties by County
County
Repetitive
Loss
Structures
per County
Repetitive
Loss
Claims
Structure
Type
Single -
Family
Structure
Type –
Multi-
Family
Structure Type
– Business/
Non-Residential
Total Paid Out
Carbon County 3 7 3 - - $76,356.50
Dawson County 1 (1SRL) 2 1 - - $137,967.31
Musselshell County 8 19 7 - 1 $638,988.46
Philips County 3 5 3 - - $27,673.46
Valley County 25 57 21 1 3 $946,466.37
Yellowstone County 21 53 19 - 2 $747,592.02
Total 61 143 54 1 6 $2,575,044.12
Source: FEMA Region VIII as of 9/10/2022.
Vulnerability Assessment
Figure 4-31 depicts the risk index rating for riverine flooding based on FEMA’s NRI. The NRI defines risk as
the potential for negative impacts as a result of a natural hazard and determines a community’s risk relative
to other communities by examining the expected annual loss and social vulnerability in a given community
in relation to that community’s resilience. The Eastern Region has four counties with a relatively high riverine
flooding risk based on the NRI. They are Big Horn, Custer, Roosevelt, and Valley counties, all of which have
a higher risk of riverine flooding. This can be attributed to both the Missou ri and Yellowstone watersheds
passing through each of these areas. There are seven counties that are classified as having a relatively low
riverine flooding risk level. These counties within the Eastern Region are Carbon, Dawson, Musselshell,
Powder River, Rosebud, Wheatland, and Yellowstone. The other remaining 11 counties are considered to
have a low riverine flooding risk and Daniels County has no rating in correlation to riverine inundation risks
currently.
151
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-94
Figure 4-31 Risk Index Rating for Riverine Flooding by County
There is an increased risk of flash flooding and debris flows in Montana in general as a result of recent active
fire seasons. Most burn areas will be prone to flash flooding and debris flows for at least two years after the
fire. Locations downhill and downstream from burned areas are most susceptible, especially near steep
terrain. Rainfall that would normally be absorbed will run off extremely quickly after a wildfire, as burned
soil can be as water repellant as pavement. As a result, much less rainfall is required to produce a flash flood.
As water runs downhill through burned areas it can create major erosion and pick up large amounts of ash,
sand, silt, rocks and burned vegetation.
People
Vulnerable populations in Montana’s Eastern Region include those that live within known floodplains or
near areas vulnerable to flash floods, as well as people traveling through or in areas used for recreational
purposes prone to flash flooding. Within the Eastern Region Custer County has the highest amount of
people located in the floodplain with 6,711. This is followed by Yellowstone County with 1,830. The third
highest amount of people reside in Big Horn County with 856. Of these populations residing in floodplains,
certain populations are particularly vulnerable, such as the elderly and very young, those living in long-term
care facilities, mobile homes, hospitals, low-income housing areas, or temporary shelters, people who do
not speak English well, tourists and visitors, and those with developmental, physical, or sensory disabilities.
Table 4-29 below highlights the people who are located on reservation land that are located in the
floodplain, including a significant number of persons of the Crow Tribe.
The impacts of flooding on vulnerable populations can potentially be the most severe. Families may have
fewer financial resources to prepare for or recover from a flood, and they may be more likely to be uninsured
or underinsured. Individuals with disabilities may need more time to evacuate, so evacuation notices will
152
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-95
need to be issued as soon as feasible, and communicated by multiple, inclusive methods. Population totals
for the counties located in Montana’s Eastern region are shown in Table 4-29 below.
Table 4-29 Eastern Region Population Located in the 1% Annual Chance Floodplain
County Population
Big Horn 856
Carbon 709
Carter 147
Crow Tribe 681
Custer 6,711
Daniels 2
Dawson 340
Fallon 84
Fort Peck 337
Garfield 60
Golden Valley 32
McCone 46
Musselshell 393
Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation 5
Powder River 219
Prairie 5
Richland 218
Roosevelt 353
Rosebud 64
Sheridan 391
Stillwater 605
Treasure 15
Valley 418
Wheatland 204
Wibaux 64
Yellowstone 1,830
Total 14,789
Sources: DNRC, Hazus, FEMA NFHL
Flood hazards do not stop at the 1% chance flood line and an additional analysis was completed of the
0.2% chance flood zone (500-year flood). Data describing the 0.2% flood zone are more limited. In fact,
0.2% flood zone data were available for only 11 counties and no tribal reservations. Nevertheless, analysis
of a more expansive flood zone has value and was completed for these 11 counties (Table 4-30). The
absence of 13 counties and 2 tribal reservations in Table 4-30 does not indicate a lack of 0.2% flood risk in
these jurisdictions.
One additional nuance exists in the 0.2% floodplain analysis . The values reported in Table 4-30 indicate the
people located between the maximum extent of the 1% chance floodplain and the 0.2% chance floodplain.
To get the total number of people within the 0.2% chance floodplain , the values in Table 4-29 and Table
4-30 must be combined.
Yellowstone County has 1,183 people located in the area between the maximum extent of the 1% chance
floodplain and the 0.2% chance floodplain, the most of the 11 counties included in this analysis (Table 4-30).
This is followed by Carbon and Stillwater Counties with 225 and 155 people, respectively.
153
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-96
Table 4-30 Eastern Region Population Located in the 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain
County Population
Big Horn 0
Carbon 225
Dawson 155
Fallon 41
Golden Valley 18
Musselshell 50
Richland 45
Rosebud 0
Stillwater 170
Wheatland 106
Yellowstone 1,183
Total 1,992
- These data indicate the population between the maximum extent of the 1% floodplain and the 0.2% chance floodplain. To get
the total number of people within the 0.2% chance floodplain, add these values to the values reported in Table 4-29.
- Availability of 0.2% chance floodplain mapping limits this analysis to 11 counties in the Eastern Region.
- Sources: DNRC, Hazus, FEMA NFHL
Property
The NRI defines risk as the potential for negative impacts as a result of a natural hazard and determines a
community’s risk relative to other communities by examining the expected annual loss and social
vulnerability in a given community in relation to that community’s resilience. This information is categorized
in Figure 4-32 below. Montana’s Eastern Region has one county with a relatively moderate expected loss
rating based on the NRI: Custer County. This also coincides with Custer County having substantial floodplain
development in and around Miles City, though levees in the area provide some level of protection. Other
counties with relatively low expected loss rating due to floods include Carbon, Big Horn, Dawson,
Musselshell, Roosevelt, Stillwater, Valley, and Yellowstone counties.
154
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-97
Figure 4-32 Expected Annual Loss Rating Riverine Flooding by County
GIS analysis was used to further estimate Montana’s Eastern Region potential property and economic losses.
The April 2022 MSDI Cadastral Parcel layer was used as the basis for the inventory of developed parcels.
GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel polygon, which was
overlaid on the best available floodplain layer. Multiple flood layers from different sources were used in the
analysis to create a full coverage of flood hazard for the Eastern Region through the utilization of FEMA’s
NFHL (as of 6/1/2022), and other sources. The DNRC provided digitized flood mapping from paper maps
that FEMA has not yet converted over to the NFHL. FEMA Region VIII also provided 1% annual chance flood
risk areas based on Hazus flood models to help fill in areas where FEMA has not mapped. For the purposes
of this analysis, the flood zone that intersected the centroid was assigned as the flood zone for the entire
parcel. Another assumption with this model is that every parcel with an improvement value greater than
zero was assumed to be developed in some way. Only improved parcels, and the value of those
improvements, were analyzed and aggregated by region, county, jurisdiction, property type and flood zone.
The summarized results for the Eastern Region are shown below. More detailed summarized results for each
county and community by property type are shown in the tables and maps provided within each
jurisdictional Annex.
Table 4-31 below summarizes the counts and improved value of parcels in the region, broken out by each
county, that fall within the 1% chance floodplains. Additionally, Table 4-31 also shows loss estimate values
which are calculated based upon a proportion of the improved value and estimated contents value and
FEMA depth-damage relationships. A two-foot flood is assumed for the purposes of this planning-level
flood loss estimate, which generally equates to a 25% loss based on structure and contents value .
Custer County has the highest amount of properties exposed to flooding and an estimated loss value of
over $131 Million. Yellowstone County has loss values with over $70 Million in estimated losses, followed
155
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-98
by Carbon County with estimated loss parcel values with over $38 Million in losses. Overall Montana’s
Eastern Region has $1.5Billion in total value exposed and a combined estimated loss of over $384 Million
for 1% annual chance flooding. There are also 7,050 parcels located in the floodplain and 14,789 people at
risk in the Eastern Region. The jurisdictional break down for each county is located within each annex. The
summarized results for the Eastern Region are shown in Table 4-31 below.
Table 4-31 Eastern Region Parcels at Risk to 1% Flood Hazard by County and Jurisdiction
County Improved Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value Estimated Loss
Big Horn 320 $42,048,541 $28,419,080 $70,467,621 $17,616,905
Carbon 390 $94,893,650 $59,013,360 $153,907,010 $38,476,753
Carter 117 $9,409,733 $7,233,297 $16,643,030 $4,160,757
Custer 3,011 $339,329,544 $186,052,204 $525,381,748 $131,345,437
Daniels 19 $1,306,490 $1,274,230 $2,580,720 $645,180
Dawson 184 $23,263,219 $12,985,725 $36,248,944 $9,062,236
Fallon 60 $7,098,177 $4,648,789 $11,746,966 $2,936,741
Garfield 54 $3,949,454 $3,149,022 $7,098,476 $1,774,619
Golden Valley 26 $2,615,550 $2,147,890 $4,763,440 $1,190,860
McCone 73 $5,663,177 $4,813,339 $10,476,516 $2,619,129
Musselshell 221 $12,948,261 $8,252,576 $21,200,837 $5,300,209
Powder River 164 $11,476,921 $8,399,881 $19,876,802 $4,969,200
Prairie 12 $1,438,540 $1,351,150 $2,789,690 $697,423
Richland 156 $18,497,151 $13,398,821 $31,895,972 $7,973,993
Roosevelt 170 $42,111,267 $49,333,508 $91,444,775 $22,861,194
Rosebud 76 $9,189,124 $7,556,857 $16,745,981 $4,186,495
Sheridan 235 $23,978,537 $14,143,794 $38,122,331 $9,530,583
Stillwater 291 $55,596,478 $32,888,481 $88,484,959 $22,121,240
Treasure 44 $4,493,676 $4,232,678 $8,726,354 $2,181,589
Valley 361 $41,285,741 $28,490,501 $69,776,242 $17,444,060
Wheatland 113 $11,816,349 $10,001,820 $21,818,169 $5,454,542
Wibaux 38 $2,031,999 $1,344,740 $3,376,739 $844,185
Yellowstone 915 $168,328,469 $114,391,695 $282,720,164 $70,680,041
Total 7,050 $932,770,048 $603,523,431 $1,536,293,479 $384,073,370
Sources: DNRC, Hazus, FEMA NFHL,
The three tribal reservations located in the Eastern Region were identified to have 412 improved parcels
with an estimated loss of over $22 Million. The Crow Tribe in particular has $11,984,383 in estimated
potential losses and the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux tribes have $10,106,363 in potential estimated
losses due to flooding. While the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation is vastly smaller with $499 in
estimated potential losses. There is a total of 1,023 people on reservation land located within the 1% annual
chance of flooding Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The 0.2% risk for the Tribal Nations has not been
mapped, preventing quantification of potential loss from 0.2% annual chance floods on tribal lands. Totals
are listed in Table 4-32 below.
Table 4-32 Eastern Region Parcels at Risk to 1% Annual Chance by Tribe
Tribal Improved
Parcels
Improved
Value
Content
Value Total Value Estimated
Loss Population
Crow Tribe 230 $28,443,085 $19,494,447 $47,937,532 $11,984,383 681
Fort Peck Assiniboine and
Sioux Tribe 181 $21,611,356 $18,814,097 $40,425,453 $10,106,363 337
156
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-99
Tribal Improved
Parcels
Improved
Value
Content
Value Total Value Estimated
Loss Population
Northern Cheyenne Indian
Reservation 1 $1,330 $665 $1,995 $499 5
Total 412 $50,055,771 $38,309,209 $88,364,980 $22,091,245 1,023
Sources: DNRC, Hazus, FEMA NFHL,
Data describing the 0.2% flood zone are more limited. In fact, 0.2% flood zone data were available for only
11 counties and no tribal reservations. Nevertheless, analysis of a more expansive flood zone has value and
was completed for these 11 counties (Table 4-33). The absence of 13 counties and 2 reservations in Table
4-33 does not indicate a lack of flood risk in these jurisdictions.
One additional nuance exists in the 0.2% floodplain analysis. The values reported in Table 4-33 indicate the
property located between the maximum extent of the 1% chance floodplain and the 0.2% chance floodplain.
To get the total number of people or value of property within the 0.2% chance floodplain the values, the
values in Table 4-30 and Table 4-33 must be combined. (Table 4-33).
Yellowstone County has over $109 million of property located between the maximum extent of the 1%
annual chance floodplain and 0.2% annual chance floodplain, with losses projected to be $27 million. This
is the most of the 11 counties in the 0.2% chance analysis. Carbon County is second in loss values with over
$7 Million in estimated losses. Stillwater County ranks third in estimated loss parcel values with over $6
Million in presumed losses. Overall Montana’s Eastern Region has $202,028,564 in total value exposed and
a combined estimated loss of $50,507,141 for the area between the maximum extent of the 1% chance
floodplain and 0.2% annual chance floodplain. There are also 942 parcels and 1,992 people in this area,
classified by FEMA as Zone X-shaded.
Note that many areas are not mapped by FEMA, or have the Zone -X shaded mapped, thus the true risk is
likely much larger to these more severe but less frequent floods; these areas are not required to be regulated
by the NFIP. The jurisdictional break down for each county is located within each annex. The summarized
results for the Region are shown in Table 4-33 below.
Table 4-33 Eastern Region Parcels at Risk to 0.2% Flood Hazard by County and Jurisdiction
County Improved Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value Estimated Loss Population
Big Horn 3 $129,490 $129,490 $258,980 $64,745 -
Carbon 103 $18,241,620 $9,788,475 $28,030,095 $7,007,524 225
Dawson 76 $8,190,582 $4,670,336 $12,860,918 $3,215,230 155
Fallon 22 $3,873,675 $2,850,223 $6,723,898 $1,680,974 41
Golden Valley 14 $907,333 $716,397 $1,623,730 $405,932 18
Musselshell 32 $1,934,689 $1,320,100 $3,254,789 $813,697 50
Richland 25 $4,373,014 $2,751,437 $7,124,451 $1,781,113 45
Rosebud 1 $220,840 $220,840 $441,680 $110,420 -
Stillwater 81 $17,796,252 $9,852,691 $27,648,943 $6,912,236 170
Wheatland 47 $2,769,818 $1,507,214 $4,277,032 $1,069,258 106
Yellowstone 538 $70,086,518 $39,697,532 $109,784,050 $27,446,012 1,183
Total 942 $128,523,831 $73,504,733 $202,028,564 $50,507,141 1,992
Sources: DNRC, Hazus, FEMA NFHL, *Tribal Reservations parcel data is reflected in their respective counties
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
To estimate the potential impact of floods on critical facilities, a GIS overlay was performed of the flood
hazard layer with critical facility point locations data. Critical facilities at-risk to the 1% annual chance flood
157
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-100
by county and FEMA Lifeline are listed in Table 4-34 below. Impacts to any of these facilities could have
wide ranging ramifications, in addition to property damage and other cascading impacts.
Table 4-34 Eastern Region Critical Facilities at Risk to 1% Annual Chance of Flood by Facility
Type
County Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
En
e
r
g
y
Fo
o
d
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
Sh
e
l
t
e
r
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
He
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Sa
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
Big Horn 4 1 5 0 0 4 58 72
Carbon 0 0 4 1 0 0 50 55
Carter 0 0 1 0 0 0 29 30
Custer 2 7 6 1 1 10 32 59
Daniels 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 23
Dawson 0 0 3 0 0 0 38 41
Fallon 2 2 1 0 0 1 24 30
Garfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15
Golden Valley 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 6
McCone 0 0 2 0 0 0 19 21
Musselshell 0 0 1 0 0 0 17 18
Powder River 0 0 1 0 0 1 18 20
Prairie 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16
Richland 0 0 1 1 0 0 24 26
Roosevelt 1 3 3 0 0 2 27 36
Rosebud 0 0 1 0 0 0 36 37
Sheridan 0 2 2 0 0 0 51 55
Stillwater 0 0 2 1 0 0 38 41
Treasure 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 8
Valley 3 6 5 0 0 0 46 60
Wheatland 0 1 2 0 0 0 12 15
Wibaux 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 10
Yellowstone 6 5 2 2 0 1 55 71
Total 18 27 45 6 1 19 649 765
Sources: Montana DNRC, FEMA, HAZUS, HIFLD 2022, Montana DES, NBI
The 1% annual chance of flooding for the Eastern Region shows that the majority of facilities that have the
most critical facilities at risk to flood damage are within the Transportation lifelines with 651 total. It should
be noted that the majority of these are bridges and may have a lower risk of flooding. B ridges like these
can be a cause of concern. Food, Water and Shelter facilities have the second highest FEMA Lifeline facilities
at risk with 45 total. Energy critical facilities are third with 45 total facilities. Energy facilities could be at risk
of losing power, potentially affecting the surround ing communities.
Economy
Flooding can have major negative impacts on the local and regional economy, including indirect losses such
as business interruption, lost wages, reduced tourism and visitation, and other downtime costs. Flood events
can cut off customer access to a business as well as close a business for repairs or permanently. A quick
response to the needs of businesses affected by flood events can help a community maintain economic
158
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-101
vitality in the face of flood damage. Responses to business damages can include funding to assist owners
in elevating or relocating flood-prone business structures. Tourism and outdoor recreation are an important
part of the Region’s economy. If part of the Eastern Region planning area were damaged by flooding,
tourism and outdoor recreation could potentially suffer , as witnessed during the Yellowstone flooding in
2022. Additionally, flooding can impact the economy through the direct damages and losses to property
and costs to recover, as summarized in the property section above.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Floodplains and their adjacent areas are regularly used for environmental conservation, leisure, recreation,
and tourism. Historic and cultural resources are also known to occur within floodplains. In the event of a
major flooding event, damages to historic and cultural resources are possible.
Natural Resources
Natural resources are generally resistant to flooding and floodplains provide many natural and beneficial
functions. Wetlands, for example, exist because of natural flooding incidents. Nonetheless, after periods of
previous disasters such as drought and fire, flooding can impact the environment in negative ways. Areas
recently suffering from wildfire damage may erode because of flooding, which can temporarily alter an
ecological system. Fish can wash into roads or over dikes into flooded fields, with no possibility of escape.
Pollution from roads, such as oil, and hazardous materials can wash into rivers and streams during floods,
as these can settle onto normally dry soils, polluting them for agricultural uses. Human development such
as bridge abutments can increase stream bank erosion, causing rivers and streams to migrate into non -
natural courses.
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
Potential expansion in the future and construction overall in Eastern Montana’s floodplains can heighten
the susceptibility of the region to flooding by expanding the amount of people and value of the property
inventory within the planning area. Development in Eastern Montana’s floodplains should be enforced
using hazard mitigation measures available through the NFIP and local floodplain activities. Such as
floodproofing, relocation, elevation or demolition and relocation to low -risk areas. Other influences that
should be considered in projections of future flood risks are land cover, flow and water-supply management,
soil moisture and channel conditions. In addition to discouraging development in flood-prone areas and
protecting natural systems such as wetlands, local government planners and engineers in urbanized parts
of the Region should consider infrastructure designs that accommodate growth and future trends in
precipitation.
Risk Summary
The Eastern Region averages a major flood event every 5 years which equates to a probability of future
occurrence rating of likely throughout the Eastern Region. Flooding has a high significance hazard overall
in the region but there is significant variability by jurisdiction.
● There is an estimated 14,789 people located within the 1% Annual Chance of Flooding within the Eastern
Region. Custer County makes up nearly half with 6,711 people, followed by Yellowstone County with
1,830 people and Big Horn County with 856 people. These three counties make up 80% of the people
located within the designated 1% floodplain.
● The Eastern Region has a total of $384 Million in estimated property losses due to flood damages.
Custer, Yellowstone, and Carbon counties have the highest estimated loss totals with the study area.
These three counties make up more than half of the potential property losses within the region.
● Flooding can have major negative impacts on the local and regional economy, including indirect losses
such as business interruption, lost wages, reduced tourism and visitation, and other downtime costs.
159
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-102
● There is a total of 765 critical facilities in the Eastern Region exposed to flood hazards. The highest
exposure of FEMA Lifeline facilities is transportation (bridges) followed by the Food, Water, Shelter
category.
● Related hazards: Dam Failure, Landslide, Wildfire
Table 4-35 Risk Summary Table: Flooding
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance
Additional
Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Eastern Region High
Big Horn County Medium Hardin, Lodge Grass Crow Tribe has more exposure to flooding.
Carbon County Medium Bearcreek, Bridger,
Joliet, Fromberg, Red
Lodge
None
Carter County Medium Ekalaka None
Custer County High Ismay, Miles City High risk with Miles City and portions of the
unincorporated area due to population and
property in the floodplain; some risk is mitigated
through levees (currently not showing as
certified to provide 1% annual chance flood
protection) and other preventive measures in
Custer County.
Crow Tribe High NA
Daniels County Medium Scobey, Flaxville None
Dawson County Medium Richey, Glendive None
Fallon County Medium Plevna, Baker None
Garfield County Medium Jordan None
Golden Valley County Medium Ryegate, Lavina None
McCone County Medium Circle
None
Musselshell County Medium Melstone, Roundup None
Powder River County Medium Broadus None
Prairie County Medium Terry None
Richland County Medium Fairview, Sidney None
Roosevelt County Medium Wolf Point, Poplar,
Bainville, Culberson,
Froid
None
Rosebud County Medium Colstrip, Forsyth None
Sheridan County Medium Plentywood,
Medicine Lake,
Outlook, Westby
None
Stillwater County Medium Columbus None
Treasure County Medium Hysham None
Valley County High Glasgow, Fort Peck,
Nashua, Opheim
None
Wibaux Medium Wibaux None
Yellowstone County High Billings, Broadview,
Laurel
None
160
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-103
4.2.8 Hazardous Materials Incidents
Hazard/Problem Description
A hazardous material incident is defined as any actual or threatened uncontrolled release of a hazardous
material, its hazardous reaction products or the energy released by its reactions that pose a significant risk
to human life and health, property and/or the environment. Hazardous materials incidents may also include
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear , and explosive (CBRNE) incidents. CBRNE incidents can cause a
variety of impacts in Montana, depending on the nature of the incident, material use d, and environmental
factors.
Hazardous materials incidents can occur anywhere hazard materials are stored or transported. There are no
designated transportation routes throughout the region , Although there are several fixed facilities within
some of the city limits. Routes that are used for transporting nuclear and hazardous materials through the
Eastern Region by vehicle are Interstate 15 and State Highways 2, 87, 191, and 200. In the 2018 SHMP, it’s
noted that a 0.25-mile buffer is placed around all highways, major roadways, railroads, and Risk
Management Program (RMP) facilities as a proxy for potential impact areas. The major highways and
railways within Montana and its Eastern Region are shown in Figure 4-33 and Figure 4-34 below.
In 2020 there were 42 Tier II facilities located throughout Eastern Montana, although most are located along
Interstate 94 and State Highways 2, 12, 87, 212, and 310. Tier II facilities store regulated hazardous materials
that exceed certain threshold amounts.
As a general rule, any hazmat release is anticipated to have an impact of no more than one mile around the
spill area. The impact to life and property from any given release depends primarily on:
● The type and quantity of material released.
● The human act(s) or unintended event(s) necessary to cause the hazard to occur.
● The length of time the hazard is present in the area.
● The tendency of a hazard, or that of its effects, to either expand, contract, or remain confined in time,
magnitude, and space.
● Characteristics of the location and its physical environment that can either magnify or reduce the effects
of a hazard.
161
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-104
Figure 4-33 Montana's Rail Systems
Geographical Area Affected
Hazmat incidents can occur at a fixed facility or during transportation. Hazardous materials facilities are
identified and mapped by the counties they reside in, along with the types of materials stored there; facilities
generally reside in and around communities. The EPA requires facilities containing certain extremely
hazardous substances to generate Risk Management Plans (RMPs) and resubmit these plans every five years.
As of 2022 there are 42 RMP facilities located in Montana’s Eastern Region. In transportation, hazardous
materials generally follow major shipping routes where possible (including road, rail, and pipelines), creating
a hazard area immediately neighboring these routes.
Information provided by the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) indicate several pipelines conveying
gas or hazardous liquids across the planning area. Pipeline ruptures can result in major spills, or even
explosions. These pipelines also pass through areas where denser populations of people and property are
located. Powder River County had the most pipeline hazmat incidents (41 incidents or 25% of all pipeline
incidents in the Eastern Region), followed by Yellowstone County with 20% of all pipeline incidents, and
Fallon County which had 13% of all pipeline incidents in the Region.
The designated transportation routes, and gas and hazardous liquid pipelines for these counties are shown
in Figure 4-34, Figure 4-35, Figure 4-36 and Figure 4-37 below. These figures illustrate the geographical
area affected by hazardous material incidents along transportation routes. Overall hazardous material
incidents have a limited geographical extent in the Eastern Region.
162
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-105
Figure 4-34 Eastern Region Hazardous Materials Transportation Routes
Figure 4-35 Pipelines Located Within Powder River County
Source: National Pipeline Mapping System
163
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-106
Figure 4-36 Pipelines Located Within Yellowstone County
Source: National Pipeline Mapping System
164
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-107
Figure 4-37 Pipelines Located Within Fallon County
Source: National Pipeline Mapping System
Past Occurrences
There are a variety of mechanisms to get an idea of the number and types of past hazardous materials
incidents in the Eastern Region. One such repository is the catalog of hazardous materials spill and accident
reports at the National Response Center (NRC) as part of the Right to Know Network (RTK NET). According
to this database, between 1990 and 2022 there were three incidents reported across the two Tribal
Reservations and 1,156 incidents in the counties within the region. Table 4-36 below shows the 32-year
record for reported incidents in Montana’s Eastern Region.
Table 4-36 NRC Reported Incidents Central Montana Region 1990-2022
County # of Incidents
Big Horn 101
Carbon 37
Carter 5
Custer 13
Dawson 37
Fallon 43
Golden Valley 3
McCone 9
Musselshell 18
165
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-108
County # of Incidents
Powder River 69
Prairie 7
Richland 59
Roosevelt 65
Rosebud 33
Sheridan 10
Stillwater 12
Treasure 3
Wheatland 7
Wibaux 4
Yellowstone 621
Source: National Response Center Incident Report Database
According to the data, during the time period between 1990 and 2022 the Eastern Region saw an average
of 35 NRC-reported incidents per year, which means that each county can reasonably expect multiple
hazardous materials responses annually. Yellowstone and Big Horn counties have had the highest amount
of hazmat incidents and spills. Figure 4-38 shows the number of hazardous material incidents by county
between 1990 and 2022.
Figure 4-38 Hazardous Materials Incidents Reported to the NRC by County – Eastern Region:
1990-2022
Source: National Response Center Incident Report Database
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Yellowstone
Wibaux
Wheatland
Treasure
Stillwater
Sheridan
Rosebud
Roosevelt
Richland
Prairie
Powder River
Musselshell
McCone
Golden Valley
Fallon
Dawson
Custer
Carter
Carbon
Big Horn
Number of Incidents by County
166
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-109
Figure 4-39 shows the percentage of each type of incident over the 32 -year period between 1990 and 2022.
Spills from fixed non-mobile facilities such as Tier II or RMP facilities have the highest percentage of hazmat
incidents reported, accounting for 57% total. The second most common percentage of incident types
accrued are pipeline incidents with 16%. Regular maintenance and detailed planning locations are necessary
to ensure that these incident types are properly accounted and prepared for. Mobile incidents are third with
13% of the total. These can occur when hazmat materials are being transported along state highways and
interstates and where injuries or fatalities are more likely to potentially occur.
Figure 4-39 Hazardous Materials Incidents Reported to the NRC by Type - Eastern Region: 1990-
2022
Source: National Response Center Incident Report Database
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
The study area experiences multiple hazardous materials incidents each year, with different degrees of
effect. Based on the history of past occurrences, there is a 100% chance that the Eastern Region will be
impacted by a hazardous materials incident in any given year making this hazard have a highly likely
potential for occurrence. Hazardous material spills and releases, both from fixed facilities and during
transport, will continue to occur in Montana’s Eastern Region annually.
FIXED
57%
MOBILE
13%
PIPELINE
15%
RAILROAD
4%
RAILROAD
NON-RELEASE
2%
STORAGE TANK
6%
UNKNOWN
SHEEN
3%
VESSEL
1%
167
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-110
Climate Change Considerations
Modifications in future conditions are unlikely to impact the rates of occurrence for human-caused hazards,
such as hazardous material incidents. Nevertheless, it is possible that an increase or change in the
occurrence of other hazards, such as severe storms and fire events, may increase the likelihood of an
accidental hazardous materials release from transportation events.
Potential Magnitude and Severity
Potential effects that could occur from hazardous waste spills or releases include:
● Injury
● Loss of life (human, livestock, fish, and wildlife)
● Evacuations
● Property damage
● Air pollution
● Surface or ground water pollution/contamination
● Interruption of commerce and transportation
Various considerations go into the impacts of a hazardous materials release, including method of release,
the type of material, location of release, weather conditions, and time of day. This makes it complicated to
pinpoint definite impacts. It can still be ascertained that items found in the study area will have at least one
of the impacts listed above. The overall magnitude for hazardous material incidents is negligible.
The vast majority of hazardous material incidents in the Eastern Region are minor spills with no significant
impacts beyond localized cleanup. Of the 1,194 Eastern Region incidents in the NRC database between1990
and 2022, only 122 (3.5%) caused significant impacts. Those 122 significant incidents resulted in a total of14
evacuations, 52 injuries, 33 fatalities, and $21.7 million in property damages. Annualized over 32 years, that
equates to an average of 3.8 significant incidents, 1.0 fatalities, 1.6 injur ies, 0.4 evacuations, and $677,027
in property damages annually.
However, it is important to note that the NRC counts all injuries or damages resulting from an accident
where hazardous materials were involved, whether or not the injuries or damages were caused by exposure
to the hazardous substance. Closer analysis show that a majority of the injuries, fatalities, and property
damages were from the physical impacts of the accident that caused the release, rather than the exposure
to the hazardous materials themselves.
Vulnerability Assessment
The Eastern Region has energy pipelines, railroad tracks which carry many types of hazardous materials,
and state highways running through its boundaries. A variety of hazardous materials originating in the
Region or elsewhere are transported along these routes and could be vulnerable to accidental spills.
Consequences can vary depending on whether the spill affects a populated area vs an unpopulated but
environmentally sensitive area.
No specific hazardous materials routes are designated in Eastern Region; any routes used to carry hazardous
materials introduce an element of risk of materials release to the area immediately adjacent to them. The
Region noted that many petroleum and other flammable products are transported by truck, and many have
mixed payloads that don’t list material amounts.
People
Hazardous materials incidents can cause injuries, hospitalizations, and even fatalities to people nearby.
People living near hazardous facilities and along transportation routes may be at a higher risk of exposure,
particularly those living or working down stream and downwind from such facilities. For example, a toxic
168
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-111
spill or a release of an airborne chemical near a populated area can lead to significant evacuations and have
a high potential for loss of life.
In addition to the immediate health impacts of releases, a handful of studies have found long term health
impacts such as increased incidence of certain cancers and birth defects among people living near certain
chemical facilities. However there has not b een sufficient research done on the subject to allow detailed
analysis.
Property
The impact of a fixed hazardous facility, such as a chemical processing facility is typically localized to the
property where the incident occurs. The impact of a small spill (i.e., liquid spill) may also be limited to the
extent of the spill and remediated if needed. A blanket answer for potential impacts is hard to quantify, as
different chemicals may present different impacts and issues.
Property within a half mile in either direction of designated hazardous materials routes is at increased risk
of impacts. While cleanup costs from major spills can be substantial, they do not typically cause significant
long-term impacts to property. However, some larger incidents involving pipelines, railroads, or explosive
materials may cause significant and overwhelming damage to the surrounding communities.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
There are 42 RMP facilities located throughout the Eastern Region. Some of these are discussed in more
detail in the County Annexes. Yellowstone County has nine of these facilities, and Richland County has eight.
These two counties possess over 40% of the RMP facilities within the study area. The RMP facilities for each
county in the Eastern Region are summarized in Table 4-37 below.
Table 4-37 RMP Facilities in the Eastern Region
County Jurisdiction Number of Facilities
Big Horn Big Horn County 2
Carbon Carbon County 3
Dawson Dawson County 2
Richey 2
Fallon Fallon County 1
McCone McCone County 2
Prairie Prairie County 1
Richland Richland County 8
Roosevelt Froid 4
Roosevelt County 6
Yellowstone Billings 2
Yellowstone County 9
Total Total 42
Source: http://www.rtknet.org/db/erns, HIFLD 2022
Economy
Potential losses can vary greatly for hazardous material incidents. For even a small incident, there are
cleanup and disposal costs. In a larger scale incident, cleanup can be extensive and protracted. There can
be deaths or injuries requiring doctor’s visits, hospitalization, and disabling chronic injuries. Soil and water
contamination can occur, necessitating costly remediation. Evacuations can disrupt home and business
activities. Large-scale incidents can easily reach $1 million or more in direct damages.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic and cultural facilities can be impacted by hazardous materials spills the same as other facilities or
areas.
169
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-112
Natural Resources
Hazardous material incidents may affect a small area at a regulated facility or cover a large area outside
such a facility. Widespread effects occur when hazards contaminate the groundwater and eventually a
potential county or jurisdiction’s water supply, or they migrate to a major waterway or aquifer. Impacts on
wildlife and natural resources can also be significant. These types of widespread events may be more likely
to occur during a transportation incident, such as a pipeline spill, and can have far reaching and devastating
impacts on the natural environment and habitats if they occurred near one of the several wi ldlife refuges in
the Eastern Region planning area.
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
Future development is expected to increase the number of people potentially exposed to the impacts of
hazardous materials incidents. The number of hazardous materials that are stored, used, and transported
across the Region may continue to increase over the coming years if regional growth continues.
Risk Summary
The Eastern Region experiences multiple hazardous materials incidents each year, with different degrees of
effect. Based on the history of past occurrences, there is a 100% chance that the Eastern Region will see a
hazardous materials incident in any given year, however programs in place for fixed hazardous facilities
minimize risk. The significance for hazardous material incidents overall is Low.
● Hazardous materials incidents can cause injuries, hospitalizations, and even fatalities to people nearby.
In addition to the immediate health impacts of releases, a handful of studies have found long term
health impacts such as increased incidence of certain cancers and birth defects among people living
near certain chemical facilities.
● The impact of a fixed hazardous facility, such as a chemical processing facility is typically localized to
the property where the incident occurs. The impact of a small spill maybe limited to the extent of the
spill and remediated if needed.
● Potential losses can vary greatly for hazardous material incidents. For even a small incident, there are
cleanup and disposal costs. In a larger scale incident, cleanup can be extensive and protracted.
● Yellowstone County has nine of these facilities, and Richland County has eight. These two counties
possess over 40% of the RMP facilities within the study area.
● Related Hazards: Cyber- Attack, Human Conflict, Transportation Accidents
Table 4-38 Risk Summary Table: Hazardous Materials Incidents
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Eastern Region Low
Big Horn Medium Hardin, Lodge Grass Big Horn County experienced 101 hazardous
materials incidents between 1990 and 2022. This
accounts for 9% of the total incidents in the Eastern
Region.
Carbon Low Bearcreek, Bridger, Joliet,
Fromberg, Red Lodge
None
Carter Low Ekalaka None
Custer Low Ismay, Miles City None
Crow Tribe Low None
Daniels Low Scobey, Flaxville Daniels County does not have gas or hazardous liquid
pipelines within County limits and has not reported
an NRC hazardous materials incident during the past
32 years.
Dawson Low Richey, Glendive None
170
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-113
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Fallon Low Plevna, Baker Fallon County has an extensive network of gas and
hazardous liquid pipelines.
Garfield Low Jordan Garfield County has not reported an NRC hazardous
materials incident during the past 32 years.
Golden Valley Low Ryegate, Lavina None
McCone Low Circle
None
Musselshell Low Melstone, Roundup Musselshell County has sparce transmission line and,
no RMP facilities.
Powder River Medium Broadus Powder River Canyon has experienced 66 NRC
hazardous materials incidents in the last 32 years.
Prairie Low Terry None
Richland Medium Fairview, Sidney Richland County has an extensive network of gas and
hazardous liquid pipelines, a large number of RMP
facilities, and a history of hazmat incidents.
Roosevelt Medium Wolf Point, Poplar,
Bainville, Culberson, Froid
Roosevelt County has a moderate history of
hazardous materials incidents and the third highest
number of RMP facilities in the State.
Rosebud Low Colstrip, Forsyth None
Sheridan Low Plentywood, Medicine
Lake, Outlook, Westby
None
Stillwater Low Columbus None
Treasure Low Hysham Treasure County has few gas hazardous liquid
transmission lines and few prior hazmat incidents.
Valley Medium Glasgow, Fort Peck,
Nashua, Opheim
Valley County has not reported an NRC hazardous
materials incident during the past 32 years.
Wibaux High Wibaux None
Yellowstone High Billings, Broadview, Laurel Yellowstone County has reported experienced more
hazardous materials incidents in the last 32 years than
all other Eastern Region counties combined.
4.2.9 Landslide
Hazard/Problem Description
A landslide is a general term for a variety of mass movement processes that generate a downslope
movement of soil, rock, and vegetation under gravitational influence. Landslides are a serious geologic
hazard common to almost every state in the United States. It is estimated that nationally they cause up to
$2 billion in damage and 25 to 50 deaths annually.
Some landslides move slowly and cause damage gradually, whereas others move so rapidly that they can
destroy property and take lives suddenly and unexpectedly. Gravity is the force driving landslide movement.
Factors that allow the force of gravity to over come the resistance of earth material to landslide movement
include saturation by water, steepening of slopes by erosion or construction, alternate freezing or thawing,
earthquake shaking, and volcanic eruptions.
Landslides are typically associated with periods of heavy rainfall or rapid snow melt and tend to worsen the
effects of flooding that often accompanies these events. In areas burned by forest and brush fires, a lower
threshold of precipitation may initiate landslides, rockfall or other geological events.
Landslides are defined as a rapid slipping of a mass of earth or rock from a higher elevation to a lower level
under the influence of gravity and water lubrication. More specifically, rockslides are the rapid downhill
171
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-114
movement of large masses of rock with little or no hydraulic flow, similar to an avalanche. Water -saturated
soil or clay on a slope may slide downhill over a period of several hours. Earthflows of this type are usually
not serious threats to life because o f their slow movement, yet they can cause blockage of roads and do
extensive damage to property.
Geographical Area Affected
Areas that are generally prone to landslide hazards include existing old landslides, the bases of steep slopes,
the bases of drainage channels, and developed hillsides where leach-field septic systems are used. Areas
that are typically considered safe from landslides include areas that have not moved in the past, relatively
flat-lying areas away from sudden changes in slope, and areas at the top or along ridges, set back from the
tops of slopes.
While landslides are infrequent events in Montana, they have occurred. The Montana Department of
Transportation (MDT) has spent substantial time stabilizing landslides throughout the State, focusing
primarily on federal and State highways. The confidence o f landslides ranges from probable to likely in the
Eastern Region, as shown in Figure 4-40.
The Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology’s (MBMG) Landslide Hazards Program aims to identify, map,
and categorize areas across the State of Montana to better understand spatial distribution and causes of
ground failure to help mitigate against landslide hazards. Figure 4-41 shows areas mapped by MBMG as
susceptible to landslides, as well as areas where debris indicates landslide events have occurred in the last
100,000 and 250,000 years.
Eastern Montana, in contrast to Western Montana, which is more mountainous and elevated, is exposed to
a lower landslide risk. Counties in the southern portion of the region like Carbon, Yellowstone, and Big Horn,
where some tribal reservations are located, have more landslide areas mapped. There are also landslide
areas mapped along the Missouri River valley within Garfield County. The Eastern Region’s overall area
affected is limited.
172
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-115
Figure 4-40 Landslide Inventory Confidence Montana
173
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-116
Figure 4-41 Montana Hazard Mitigation Planning Region Landslides
174
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-117
Past Occurrences
Table 4-39 provides information regarding past landslides in the Eastern Region of Montana. There has
been one federally declared event within the project area from 1974 to present.
Table 4-39 Eastern Montana Landslides (1950 – 2022)
Date Counties
Affected Comments
1986 Daniels, Dawson,
Valley
A disaster declaration was declared after heavy rains, landslides, and
flooding in the affected areas.
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
Although historical landslide occurrence data is limited it can be assumed that these geological processes
will continue to occur and result in an occasional likelihood of occurrence in the future. Landslides and
expansive soils may typically occur most often during wet climate cycles or following heavy rains, but in
certain areas of the study area. It is plausible to presume that destructive events have among a 10 and 100
percent chance of occurrence with the next year, or a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Hence,
landslides, rockfalls or debris flows are predicted to occasionally occur. Heavy periods of precipitation or
substantial development could have an influence on slope strength. Char acteristically, there is a
landslide/rockfall “season” that correlates with enhanced freeze-thaw phases and wetter weather in the
spring and summer.
Within the Eastern Region all 23 counties and three Indian Reservations have a Landslide Annualized
Frequency of 0.01, except Yellowstone and Stillwater counties. Although this is the lowest risk rating that
the NRI categorizes, landslides can still be a d etrimental and unexpected natural hazard if not taken into
proper account. The expected frequency results for the Eastern Region are shown in Figure 4-42 below.
175
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-118
Figure 4-42 NRI Annualized Landslide Frequency Montana Eastern Region
176
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-119
Climate Change Considerations
Landslides or mudflows can be triggered by climatic events, especially periods of intense rainfall and runoff.
Climate change appears to be increasing early spring rainfall (see Section 4.2.5 Drought, subsection Climate
Change Considerations, especially Figure 4-19). This trend is likely to continue for the foreseeable future and
could amplify landslide hazards.
In addition, the increased wildfire occurrence expands the area affected by burn scars. Burn scar areas are
especially prone to landslide and debris flows. Soils in these areas can become hydrophobic and
dramatically increase rainfall runoff at the same time that slopes lack vegetation to stabilize soils. While this
process is well known and has led to disastrous flooding and debris flows in other areas, it is not clear that
the issue has been explicitly studied in eastern Montana. This issue should be monitored in future HMPs.
Potential Magnitude and Severity
The extent of landslides and debris flow events within the Eastern Montana Region range from negligible
to significant, depending on the event. While landslides and rockslides can result in the destruction of
infrastructure such as roadways, water, and sewer lines, electrical and telecommunications utilities and
drainage where they are present, the potential magnitude of landslides, rockfall and debris flows would
typically be isolated in most counties in the region . However even a small, isolated event has potential to
close state or US highways in the region that can result in long detours for days or weeks. With the added
cost of detours, and the potential for life safety impacts, some landslides could have greater costs. There is
relatively limited potential for complete destruction of buildings and death and injury from landslides and
debris flow.
Landslides can be classified using the Alexander Scale, shown in Table 4-40. The scale is predicated on
landslide debris impacting the built environment. Based on the history the highest extent level expected
within the planning area is level 5 (Very Serious), but this is likely to be isolated to limited areas in where
maintenance is limited and wooden buildings, roofs, or porches are collapsed or disconnected from
foundations.
Table 4-40 Alexander Scale for Landslide Scale Damage
Level Damage Description
0 None Building is intact
1 Negligible Hairline cracks in walls or structural members; no distortion of structure or detachment
of external architectural details
2 Light Buildings continue to be habitable; repair not urgent. Settlement of foundations,
distortion of structure, and inclination of walls are not sufficient to compromise overall
stability.
3 Moderate Walls out of perpendicular by one or two degrees, or there has been substantial
cracking in structural members, or the foundations have settled during differential
subsidence of at least 6 inches; building requires evacuation and rapid attention to
ensure its continued life.
4 Serious Walls out of perpendicular by several degrees; open cracks in walls; fracture of structural
members; fragmentation of masonry; differential settlement of at least 10 inches
compromising foundations; floors may be inclined by one or two degrees or ruined by
heave. Internal partition walls will need to be replaced; door and window frames are too
distorted to use; occupants must be evacuated, and major repairs carried out.
5 Very Serious Walls out of plumb by five or six degrees; structure grossly distorted; differential
settlement has seriously cracked floors and walls or caused major rotation or slewing of
the building [wooden buildings are detached completely from their foundations].
177
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-120
Level Damage Description
Partition walls and brick infill will have at least partly collapsed; roofs may have partially
collapsed; outhouses, porches, and patios may have been damaged more seriously than
the principal structure itself. Occupants will need to be re-housed on a long-term basis,
and rehabilitation of the building will probably not be feasible.
6 Partial Collapse Requires immediate evacuation of the occupants and the cordoning off of the site to
prevent accidents with falling masonry.
7 Total Collapse Requires clearance of the site.
Source: FEMA
The severity of landslides or rockslides depends on the amount of material (soil, debris, or rocks) moves and
where it stops moving (e.g. on roadway). Although the extent of the hazard is geographically small, the
severity of landslides and rockfalls can be critical with potential to cause severe injuries, shutdown
transportation corridors to critical infrastructure, and damage property.
Vulnerability Assessment
The landslide Vulnerability Assessment identifies, or at least discusses, assets that are more likely to be
exposed to landslide hazards and are susceptible to damage from that exposure. In this context, assets are
(1) people, (2) property, (3) critical facilities and lifelines, (4) the economy, (5) historic and cultu ral resources,
and (6) natural resources. Exposure indicates interacting with landslide hazards, and likely to be exposed
indicates a presence in areas deemed to be especially likely to experience landslide hazards. Susceptible
indicates a strong likelihood of damage from exposure to landslide hazards and is described in greater
detail in Section 4.2.1, subsection titled Vulnerability Assessment. Finally, vulnerability under future
conditions is considered as it relates to both climate change and development.
The role of climate change in future vulnerability to landslide is discussed above in the section titled, Climate
Change Considerations, while the effect of future development is considered below in the section titled
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk.
Detailed data are not available to identify or analyze specific structures, facilities, or people at risk of
landslide. However, Figure 4-43 depicts the NRI risk index rating for landslide at a county level. Most of the
Eastern Region is rated as a mixture of relatively moderate and low. The counties with a Landslide Risk Rating
of relatively moderate are Big Horn, Carbon, Carter, Garfield, Powder River, Prairie, Roosevelt, Stillwater , and
Wibaux counties. The Eastern Montana counties with a relatively low landslide risk rating are Carter, Daniels,
Dawson, Fallon, Golden Valley, McCone, Musselshell, Sheridan, Treasure, Valley, and Yellowstone counties.
The one county in the Eastern Region with a low rating is Richland County which borders North Dakota and
contains more of a plains landscape.
178
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-121
Figure 4-43 Risk Index Rating for Landslide by County
People
People living in, traveling through, or recreating in landslide areas are all potentially exposed to this hazard.
There have been no recorded deaths or injuries due to landslides in Montana. However, people are
conceivably susceptible to death or injury from these hazards, such as when traveling in a vehicle where
rockfall has a higher confidence of occurring. The Eastern Region’s elderly and people with disabilities and
access and functional needs are both at greater risk to landslide hazards given it may be more difficult for
these population groups to travel around a landslide hazard area during an event, such as finding an
alternative route. This risk is also mostly likely to occur during spring or summer months following heavy
rainfall and affect some of the more popular recreation areas in the Eastern Region, such as Yellowstone
County and Carbon County. Overall, there is some vulnerability of people to landslide.
Property
Landslides are more known for damaging structures. This happens in two general ways: 1) disruption of
structural foundations caused by differential movement and deformation of the ground upon which the
structure sits, and 2) physical impact of debris moving downslope against structures located in the travel
path. Landslides have been known to create temporary dams in some locations, partially or fully blocking
rivers at the toe of the slide. These dams can subsequently burst as the pressure of the impounded water
builds, leading to flood damage for structures and communities downstream as well.
Within the Eastern Region, NRI data indicates that Carbon and Stillwater counties have expected annual
loss ratings due to landslides that are relatively high. This is followed by Carter, Garfield, McCone, Powder
River, Rosebud, and Yellowstone counties have a relatively moderate estimation of annualized losses due
to landslide damages. The other 12 counties in the Eastern Region have a relatively low expected annual
loss to landslide hazards. The risk for each county in the Eastern Region is detailed in Figure 4-44 below.
179
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-122
Figure 4-44 NRI Expected Annual Loss Rating Montana Eastern Region
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Transportation systems are usually the most unprotected critical facility type in the region to rockfall,
landslide and debris flow incidents. Residents and visitors alike are impacted when roads are damaged by
rockfall and landslides. The loss of transpor tation networks could potentially cause secondary damage to
the overall region’s infrastructure, including revenue, transportation availability, emergency response
mechanisms and other essential capabilities by preventing the means of these resources from activating or
moving between locations.
Pipelines and other buried infrastructure are notably susceptible to extension, bending, and compression
caused by ground deformation. Failure of any component along the pipeline can result in failure to deliver
service over a large region. Once broken, transmission of the commodity through the pipeline ceases, which
can have catastrophic repercussions down the line: loss of power to critical fac ilities such as hospitals,
impaired disposal of sewage, contamination of water supplies, disruption of all forms of transportation,
release of flammable fuels, and so on. Therefore, the overall impact of pipeline failures, including secondary
failure of systems that depend on pipelines, can be much greater than the impact of individual building
failures.
Economy
Losses as a result of geologic hazards can result in economic damages sustained to buildings and property.
These losses can also result in indirect losses, such as lowered property values in hazard exposure areas, the
extended closing of businesses that are damaged, and as a result lost wages and revenue if workers are not
able to go to work. Tourism can also be interrupted.
180
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-123
Historic and Cultural Resources
Landslides can damage or destroy historic or cultural sites, just like any other property . The biggest impact
would likely be on older properties such as wooden or masonry buildings , though reinforced masonry
structures would be much more resilient during these types of incidents.
Natural Resources
Landslides and other geologic hazards are considered a natural process; however, they can have varying
impacts to the natural environment, with the potential to permanently alter the natural landscape. For
example, landslide effects on the environment and natural resources could be very destructive depending
on the size of the landslide event and secondary/cascading effects from an event (e.g., rockfall). Additionally,
rockfalls to rivers can cause blockages causing flooding, damage rivers or streams, poten tially harming
water quality, fisheries, and spawning habitat. Also, hillsides that provide wildlife habitat can be lost for
prolonged periods of time.
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
In general, the Eastern Region has a lower risk for landslide and other geological hazards in comparison to
the entire state of Montana. For most of the geologic hazards profiled, the greatest risk is along the Missouri
River where geography makes processes such as landslides and mudflows more likely. As counties such as
Glacier and Cascade see growth in population and housing units the exposure could increase as well unless
careful consideration of landslide hazards is included in land use decisions . Steps to mitigate these risks
should be taken as the Eastern Region accommodates future growth, such as mapping of hazard areas,
adoption and enforcement of engineering and building codes for soil ha zards, and ordinances to limit
development on steep slopes.
Risk Summary
● Although historical landslide occurrence data is limited it can be assumed that these geological
processes will continue to occur occasionally in the future but the overall risk to landslides is low.
● People exposed to landslide hazards are most at risk to death or injury from these hazards. This includes
not only people residing in areas prone to landslides but also outdoor recreationists and travelers in
the region.
● Within the Eastern Region, Carbon, and Stillwater both have an expected annual loss rating due to
landslides of relatively high. Carbon and Stillwater counties has an expected annual loss rating due to
landslides of relatively high. Meanwhile Carter, Garfield, McCone, Powder River, Rosebud , and
Yellowstone counties have a relatively moderate estimation of annualized losses due to landslide
damages.
● Losses as a result of geologic hazards can result in economic damages sustained to buildings and
property.
● Transportation systems are usually the most unprotected critical facility type in the region to rockfall,
landslide and debris flow incidents. Residents and visitors alike are impacted when roads are damaged
by rockfall and landslides.
● Related Hazards: Earthquake, Floods, Severe Summer Weather, Wildfire
Table 4-41 Risk Summary Table: Landslide
Jurisdiction Overall Significance Additional
Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Eastern Region Low None
Big Horn County Low Hardin, Lodge Grass None
Carbon County Medium Bearcreek, Bridger,
Joliet, Fromberg, Red
Lodge
Unincorporated areas with greater
topographical relief may be more
susceptible.
181
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-124
Jurisdiction Overall Significance Additional
Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Carter County Low Ekalaka None
Custer County Low Ismay, Miles City None
Crow Tribe Medium None
Daniels County Low Scobey, Flaxville Daniels County has reported
landslide events following heavy
rain and flooding.
Dawson County Low Richey, Glendive County has reported landslide
events following heavy rain and
flooding.
Fallon County Low Plevna, Baker None
Garfield County Low Jordan None
Golden Valley County Low Ryegate, Lavina None
McCone County Low Circle
None
Musselshell County Low Melstone, Roundup None
Powder River County Medium Broadus None
Prairie County Low Terry None
Richland County Low Fairview, Sidney None
Roosevelt County Low Wolf Point, Poplar,
Bainville, Culberson,
Froid
None
Rosebud County Low Colstrip, Forsyth None
Sheridan County Low Plentywood, Medicine
Lake, Outlook, Westby
None
Stillwater County Medium Columbus None
Treasure County Low Hysham None
Valley County Low Glasgow, Fort Peck,
Nashua, Opheim
None
Wibaux County Medium Wibaux None
Yellowstone County Low Billings, Broadview,
Laurel
Unincorporated areas of with more
topography to the southwest may
be more susceptible to landslides.
4.2.10 Severe Summer Weather
Hazard/Problem Description
For this plan, severe summer weather in Montana includes extreme heat events, hail, heavy rain, and
lightning. A brief description of these weather phenomena is presented below. More information on
thunderstorm winds, high winds, and microbursts can be found in 4.2.13 Tornadoes & Windstorms.
Extreme Heat
Extreme heat occurs from a combination of high temperatures (significantly above normal) and high
humidity. At certain levels, the human body cannot maintain proper internal temperatures and may
experience heat stroke. The NWS heat index (Figure 4-45) is a measure of what the temperature feels like
to the human body when relative humidity is combined with the air temperature, in shade conditions. In
most of the United States, extreme heat is defined as a long period (2 to 3 days) of high heat and humidity
with temperatures above 90 degrees. It is generally a prolonged period of excessively hot weather when
temperatures are above average. Montana has less extreme heat risks than most of other states, and MT
DES defines extreme heat when there are approximately five days per year of dangerous heat events that
can lead to heat-related illnesses and death to vulnerable populations. In extreme heat, evaporation is
182
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-125
slowed and the body must work extra hard to maintain a normal temperature. This can lead to health
impacts by overworking the human body. Extreme heat often results in the highest number of annual deaths
among all weather-related hazards.
Figure 4-45 NWS Heat Index and Potential for Health Effects
Hail
Hail forms when updrafts carry raindrops into extremely cold areas of the atmosphere where the drops
freeze into ice. Hail falls when it becomes heavy enough to overcome the strength of the updraft and is
pulled by gravity towards the earth. The process of falling, thawing, moving up into the updraft and
refreezing before falling again may repeat many times, increasing the size of the hailstone. The severity of
hail is often measured in inches and referred to by objects of similar size (Table 4-42). Hailstones are usually
less than two inches in diameter but have been reported much larger and may fall at speeds of up to 120
mph. Severe hail is classified as hail 1-inch in diameter or large. Hail is typically associated with
thunderstorms and occurs in the summer months in the Eastern Region.
Table 4-42 Hail Diameter and Common Description
Hail Diameter (inches) Object Analog Reported
0.50 Marble, moth ball
0.75 Penny
0.88 Nickel
1.00 Quarter
1.25 Half dollar
Image adapted from https://www.weather.gov/ama/heatindex
Note: Heat index values shown here are for shady locations. Exposure to direct sunlight can increase these values by up to 15 °F.
183
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Hail Diameter (inches) Object Analog Reported
1.50 Walnut, ping pong ball
1.75 Golf ball
2.00 Hen egg
2.50 Tennis ball
2.75 Baseball
3.00 Tea cup
4.00 Softball
4.50 Grapefruit
Data attained from https://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/tables/hailsize.htm
Heavy Rain
Heavy rain is typically associated with thunderstorm conditions and can result in flash flooding. Rainfall
severity is typically measured in inches of rainfall or inches or rainfall per hour. In Central Montana, more
than 0.1” of rain per hour is considered moderate, and more than 0.3” per hour is considered heavy rain.
The reviewed history of heavy rain events in the Eastern Region of Montana mentions roads and ditches
being flooded due to heavy rains, but there was no repeated location given in the datase t. On occasion,
heavy rains and melting snow have been reported to cause ice jams and flash flooding. It is rarely reported
that flash floods cause an accumulation of water in structures in the planning area.
Lightning
Lightning is an electrical discharge that results from the buildup of positive and negative charges
within a thunderstorm and the earth’s surface. When the buildup becomes strong enough, lightning
appears as a "bolt." This visible electrical discharge produced by a thunderstorm can occur within or
between clouds, between the cloud and air, between a cloud and the ground or between the ground and a
cloud. Cloud-to -ground lightning is the most damaging and dangerous type of lightning, though it is also
less common. It frequently strikes away from the rain core, either ahead or behind the thunderstorm, and
can strike 5-10 miles from the storm in areas that most people do not consider to be a threat. Lightning's
electrical charge and intense heat can electrocute on contact, split trees, ignite fires, and cause electrical
failures. The severity of lightning can be measured on a scale of lightning activity level (Table 4-43).
Table 4-43 Lightning Threat Levels
Lightning
Threat Level Threat Level Descriptions
Extreme "An Extreme Threat to Life and Property from Lightning."
• Within 12 miles of a location, a moderate likelihood of CG lightning (or 50% thunderstorm
probability), with storms capable of excessive CG lightning.
• AND/OR...a high likelihood of CG lightning (or 60% to 70% thunderstorm probability), with
storms capable of frequent CG lightning.
• AND/OR...a very high likelihood of CG lightning (or 80% to 90% thunderstorm probability),
with storms capable of occasional CG lightning.
High "A High Threat to Life and Property from Lightning."
• Within 12 miles of a location, a low likelihood of CG lightning (or 30% to 40% thunderstorm
probability), with storms capable of excessive CG lightning.
• AND/OR...a moderate likelihood of CG lightning (or 50% thunderstorm probability), with
storms capable of frequent CG lightning.
184
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-127
Lightning
Threat Level Threat Level Descriptions
• AND/OR...a high likelihood of CG lightning (or 60% to 70% thunderstorm probability), with
storms capable of occasional CG lightning.
Moderate "A Moderate Threat to Life and Property from Lightning."
• Within 12 miles of a location, a very low likelihood of CG lightning (or 10% to 20%
thunderstorm probability), with storms capable of excessive CG lightning.
• AND/OR...a low likelihood of CG lightning (or 30% to 40% thunderstorm probability), with
storms capable of frequent CG lightning.
• AND/OR...a moderate likelihood of CG lightning (or 50% thunderstorm probability), with
storms capable of occasional CG lightning.
Low "A Low Threat to Life and Property from Lightning."
• Within 12 miles of a location, a very low likelihood of CG lightning (or 10% to 20%
thunderstorm probability), with storms capable of frequent CG lightning.
• AND/OR...a low likelihood of CG lightning (or 30% to 40% thunderstorm probability), with
storms capable of occasional CG lightning.
Very Low "A Very Low Threat to Life and Property from Lightning."
• Within 12 miles of a location, a very low likelihood of CG lightning (or 10% to 20%
thunderstorm probability), with storms capable of occasional CG lightning.
Non-
Threatening
"No Discernable Threat to Life and Property from Lightning."
• Within 12 miles of a location, environmental conditions do not support CG lightning.
Note:
• With cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning, every strike is potentially lethal
• Occasional - CG lightning at the rate of 1 to 3 flashes per minute
• Frequent - CG lightning at the rate of 4 to 11 flashes per minute
• Excessive - CG lightning rate of 12 flashes or more per minute
185
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-128
Geographical Area Affected
The geographic extent of summer weather is extensive. The entire Eastern Region is vulnerable to
experiencing severe summer weather, but there are regional variations apparent when looking at the
frequency of events. Some types of hazards, such as extreme heat events, occur on a regional scale and
typically impact several or all counties in the Eastern Region planning area at once. Other hazards, such as
lightning, hail, and heavy rain, impact more local areas. Lightning tends to strike a single point and it is rare
for lightning to strike people or property multiple times in one storm event. Hail and heavy rain generally
occur in small pockets of an accompanying storm. Figure 4-46 below shows the history of hail events in the
Eastern Region.
186
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-129
Figure 4-46 Hail Events in Montana by Region (1955-2021)
Source: NOAA
187
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-130
Past Occurrences
The National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) database was used to gather information on
historic severe summer weather events in the Eastern Region of Montana. The NCEI data is a comprehensive
list of oceanic, atmospheric, and geophysical data across the United States and aggregated by county and
zone. It is important to note that weather events that occurred on Crow Tribe and North Cheyenne Tribe
are also included in the dataset tables down below. However, instead of individual records, tribal data
records were grouped into the closest/nearest County.
The NCEI dataset contains information on hail events from 1955 to March of 2022, in addition to lightning,
heavy rain, and excessive heat events from 1996 to March of 2022. Table 4-44 summarizes the data from
NCEI. It is important to note that not all severe summer weather events get reported by the NCEI and losses
are estimates, therefore, actual losses may be higher than those reported below. Based on this data, hail is
the most frequently occurring and damaging severe summer weather event in the Eastern Region. Excessive
heat and lightning events have resulted in casualties. Excessive heat events had no reported property or
crop damages in the NCEI dataset.
Table 4-44 Summary of Losses by Hazard in the Eastern Region, 1996-2022
Deaths Injuries Property Loss Crop Loss Days with
Events Total Events
Excessive Heat 1 0 - - 4 7
Hail 0 5 $31,580,100 $ 31,954,000 1,008 5,062
Heavy Rain 0 0 $2,000 - 67 150
Lightning 5 12 $ 68,100 - 21 21
Total 6 17 $ 31,650,200 $ 31,954,000 1,100 5,240
Source: NCEI
There are variations in losses and frequency of hazards across the Eastern Region. According to the NCEI
database, Yellowstone and Valley counties experienced significantly more hail events than the rest of the
planning area. Valley County also experienced the greatest number of reported heavy rain events in the
planning area, followed by Carbon County. Twelve counties have reported previous lighteni ng events. Six
counties have documented excessive heat events. Table 4-45 and Figure 4-47 display the summary of total
severe weather events by county.
Table 4-45 Summary of Severe Summer Weather Events by County in the Eastern Region, 1996-
2022
Excessive Heat Hail Heavy Rain Lightning
Big Horn - 228 5 1
Carbon - 109 12 1
Carter - 280 6 0
Custer - 224 7 1
Daniels 1 149 9 1
Dawson 2 228 10 3
Fallon - 168 5 0
Garfield 1 278 7 0
Golden Valley - 119 1 0
McCone - 222 6 0
Musselshell - 216 1 0
Powder River - 352 7 0
Prairie - 172 8 0
Richland 1 211 9 2
188
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-131
Excessive Heat Hail Heavy Rain Lightning
Roosevelt 1 231 9 1
Rosebud - 322 3 2
Sheridan - 190 6 1
Stillwater - 173 5 0
Treasure - 85 2 0
Valley 1 445 21 3
Wheatland - 95 2 0
Wibaux - 118 4 1
Yellowstone - 447 5 4
Total 7 5,062 150 21
Source: NCEI
Figure 4-47 Summary of Severe Summer Weather Events by County in the Eastern Region
Source: NCEI, Graph by WSP USA
There are also variations between counties in the Eastern Region in terms of losses from severe summer
weather events. A summary of losses reported by the NCEI dataset by county is displayed in Table 4-46 and
Figure 4-48. Based on this data, Valley County has experienced both the greatest property loss and crop
loss from severe summer weather events. All crop losses and nearly all property losses are due to hail events
in the Eastern Region. There have also been 17 reported injuries due to hail and lightning, and five deaths
due to lightning in the Eastern Region.
109
280
224
149
228
168
278
119
222
216
352
172
211
231
322
190
173
85
445
95
118
447
0
12
6
7
9
10
5
7
1
6
1
7
8
9
9
3
6
5
2
21
2
4
5
0
1
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
0
0
3
0
1
4
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Carbon County
Carter County
Custer County
Daniels County
Dawson County
Fallon County
Garfield County
Golden Valley County
McCone County
Musselshell County
Powder River County
Prairie County
Richland County
Roosevelt County
Rosebud County
Sheridan County
Stillwater County
Treasure County
Valley County
Wheatland County
Wibaux County
Yellowstone County
Number of Events
Hail Heavy Rain Lightning
189
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-132
Table 4-46 Summary of Losses by County in the Eastern Region
Deaths Injuries Prop. Loss Crop Loss
Big Horn 1 0 $115,000 0
Carbon 1 0 0 0
Carter 0 0 $5,000 0
Custer 1 0 $500 0
Daniels 0 0 $156,000 $230,000
Dawson 1 1 $154,000 $168,000
Fallon 0 0 $1,055,000 $55,000
Garfield 0 1 $183,000 $555,000
Golden Valley 0 0 0 0
McCone 0 3 $419,100 $5,455,000
Musselshell 0 0 0 0
Powder River 0 0 $15,000 $505,000
Prairie 0 0 $16,000 $85,000
Richland 0 4 $152,000 $1,100,000
Roosevelt 0 1 $138,500 $60,000
Rosebud 0 3 $31,000 $5,000
Sheridan 0 0 $42,000 $25,000
Stillwater 0 0 $5,000 0
Treasure 0 0 0 0
Valley 0 2 $14,902,600 $21,206,000
Wheatland 0 0 $5,000 0
Wibaux 0 0 $170,000 $5,000
Yellowstone 1 2 $14,085,500 $2,500,000
Total 5 17 $31,650,200 $31,954,000
Source: NCEI
190
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-133
Figure 4-48 Summary of Severe Summer Weather Events by County in the Eastern Region
Source: NCEI, Graph by WSP USA
The NCEI dataset reports details on several of the severe summer weather events in the Eastern Region:
● July 4, 1998 (Yellowstone County): Several reports of hail up to 1.75 inches in diameter were reported
in and around Billings from spotters, amateur radio operators and law enforcement. The hail severely
Big Horn County
Carbon County
Carter County
Custer County
Daniels County
Dawson County
Fallon County
Garfield County
Golden Valley County
McCone County
Musselshell County
Powder River County
Prairie County
Richland County
Roosevelt County
Rosebud County
Sheridan County
Stillwater County
Treasure County
Valley County
Wheatland County
Wibaux County
Yellowstone County
Property Losses Crop Losses
191
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-134
damaged several cars and roofs. The hail also caused heavy damage to crops in the Billings area. The
property and crop losses of this event were $4,000,000 and $1,000,000 respectively.
● July 31, 1998 (Yellowstone County): Numerous observations of large hail were reported by spotters,
amateur radio operators and NWS personnel. The hail damaged several vehicles in the Billings area,
and also caused heavy damage to crops. This event resulted in $8,000,000 of property losses and
$1,000,000 of crop losses.
● June 25, 1999 (Custer County): A 14-year-old boy was struck and killed by lightning while standing on
a front tire of a tractor in a field.
● May 16, 2001 (Rosebud County) Three men suffered minor injuries when lightning struck their truck as
they were crack sealing on Interstate 94.
● June 16, 2007 (Valley County): During the late afternoon and evening of June 16, 2007, a high
precipitation supercell thunderstorm tracked from across northern Montana, just to the north of a warm
front. This was the most devastating hailstorm to affect the area since at least 199- and prompted 22
severe thunderstorm and 6 tornado warnings in Glasgow county warning area. Properties such as
homes, vehicles and businesses suffered severe damage. Trees were uprooted. Horses and cattle were
injured by hail and wind, so were wildlife such as birds and small animals. Acres of crops such as alfalfa,
wheat and corn were also completely destroyed. This event results in $8,000,000 of property losses and
$15,000,000 of crop losses. According to the NCEI database, the overall estimated damage in this event,
including hail and wind damage, as well as the subsequent flooding, is estimated to be $34.2 million.
● June 16, 2010 (Valley County): A strong system ejecting out of the central Rockies brought heavy rainfall
and severe thunderstorms to the area during the evening. This episode produced an EF1 tornado in
northern McCone County and a microburst in eastern Roosevelt County that killed one person near
Froid, Montana. This event also caused $2,000 of property damage.
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
The frequency of severe summer weather events in the Eastern Region is ranked as highly likely. All
counties in the planning area are likely to experience a severe summer hazard yearly. Since 1955, 5,240
severe summer weather events over 1,100 days have been recorded in the Eastern Region. As discussed
above, there are variations in frequency and severity of damage from severe summer weather across the
Eastern Region. Several few counties in the Eastern Region, including counties of Valley, Powder River,
Yellowstone, Rosebud, Carter, and Garfield had highest exposure to severe weather in the 2018 SHMP. As
shown above in the NCEI data demonstrated, Valley and Yellowstone Counties experience a higher
frequency of reported events than the rest of the counties in the Eastern Region.
Extreme heat is uncommon in the Eastern Region. In the 27 years from 1996-20222, one extreme heat event
has occurred in five counties in the Eastern Region: Daniels, Garfield, Richland, Roosevelt, and Valley
counties. Only Dawson County has experienced two extreme heat events in the same time period. All of
these counties are in the northern end of the Eastern Region. It is probable that extreme heat is most likely
to occur in the northern part of the Eastern Region.
While there is some variation between counties in Eastern Region, all counties are likely to experience at
least one hail event per year. Counties such as Wheatland and Treasure averages less than two extreme hail
events per year, while some counties, such as Yellowstone and Valley Counties, average more than six hail
events per year. Figure 4-49 displays the trend of hail events by year in the Eastern Region from 1955 to
2021, showing a sharp increase in hail events in recent years.
Heavy rain events occur in all Eastern Region Counties. The frequency of heavy rain events ranges from
once per 26 years (Golden Valley and Musselshell Counties) to once per 1.2 years (Valley County). Valley
County experiences nearly twice as many heavy rainfall events (1996-2022) than any other county in the
region (Table 4-45).
192
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-135
All parts of the Eastern Region experience lightning, though only six counties have reported damaging
lightning events from 1996-2022 and none has reported more than two damaging lightning events in this
26-year period (Table 4-45). This could indicate a trend in the lightning hazard, or perhaps inconsistent and
incomplete reporting of lightning events in the NCEI database.
Figure 4-49 Hail Events by Year in the Eastern Region (1955-2021)
Source: NCEI, Chart by
The figures below depict annualized frequency of hail and lightning at a county level based on the NRI. The
NRI data shows dramatically higher hail frequency throughout the Eastern Region compared to the Western
and Central Regions. This difference between regions is confirmed in the NCEI data charted in Figure 4-49,
when compared to equivalent figures in the Central Region and Western Region base reports.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
E
v
e
n
t
s
Year
193
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-136
Figure 4-50 NRI Annualized Frequency of Hail Events by County
Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
194
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-137
Figure 4-51 NRI Annualized Frequency of Lightning Events by County
Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
195
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Climate Change Considerations
The planning area is warming due to climate change and even conservative estimates indicate the trend will
continue and even accelerate in the future. Increasing exposure to extreme heat is described as the greatest
concern for human health in the 2021 Montana Climate Change and Human Health study. This study
documented statewide average temperatures have increased 2-3 oF from the 65-year period from 1950-
2015 and are projected to increase 4-6 oF by 2069 relative to average temperatures 1971-2000, roughly 85
years of warming. The Montana Climate Change and Human Health study provides state -wide estimates,
but states that changes between climate divisions are slight. Seasonally, temperature increases were
greatest in summer and winter (Figure 4-52), with August having the greatest average temperature increase
in all climate divisions.
Figure 4-52 Observed Average Summer Temperature, 1895-2020
Dots represent summer average temperature for a specific year. Bars are 5-year averages of summer temperature.
Black horizontal line is the average summer temperature for all years, 1895 -2020.
Figure adapted from: 2022 NOAA State Climate Summaries, Montana. https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/mt/
Exposure to extreme heat will increase due to climate change, heat-related health impacts will increase, but
it is useful to keep the situation in perspective; the fifth National Climate Assessment notes that extreme
heat in the Northern Great Plains region remains modest relative to much of the country. The NRI rates the
planning area as having a relatively low or very low risk of Heat Wave impacts for current conditions. Even
under future warming scenarios, it appears unlikely the NRI ratings will change dramatically.
Hail is presently a relatively low impact hazard according to the National Risk Assessment and little is known
about how it will be affected by climate change. The 2022 NOAA Climate Summary for Montana
acknowledges that hail exists in Montana. The Fifth National Climate Assessment includes projections of
196
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
large hail increasing in frequency and season length throughout the Northern Great Plains. The 2021
Montana Climate Change and Human Health report mentions hail three times, acknowledging it exists, that
it can damage crops, and that the link between severe summer storms and climate change is not well
understood or easily predicted, though there is a solid physics -based linkage between the two. Hail can be
an extremely damaging hazard and the linkages with climate change are worthy of monitoring in future
HMP updates.
To date, climate change has not increased the frequency or severity of heavy rain and it is unclear if it will
in the future. Increasing rainfall intensity is a commonly cited impact of climate change. However, neither
the 2021 Montana Climate Change and Human Health study, the Fifth National Climate Assessment, or
NOAA’s 2022 Climate Summary address rainfall (or hail) intensity directly. As described in Section 4.2.7
Flooding, subsection Climate Change Considerations, multiple sources document spring rainfall has
increased slightly in total amount and/or is projected to increase substantially in the future. However, none
of these sources document an observed or projected climate-change caused increase in heavy rainfall.
Lightning is another summer-weather hazard that is relatively modest in scale. The NRI rates counties in the
planning area either relatively low or very low for lightning risk. There are presently no data or studies that
document lightning is increasing in the planning area. Likewise, no projections exist to suggest the hazard
is likely to increase or decrease in the future due to climate change. The 2022 NOAA Climate Summary
acknowledges that lightning exists. The Fifth National Climate Assessmen t mentions lightning once, as a
potential source of ignition for wildfire. The 2021 Montana Climate Change and Human Health study states
both that lightning exists in the planning area and that it is a potential source of ignition of wildfire.
Potential impacts of severe summer weather hazards are discussed in the Vulnerability subsection of this
hazard profile, as well as the impacts of population changes and development trends. Current variability in
vulnerability by jurisdiction, based on existing conditions, is discussed in these sections an d jurisdictional
annexes. Due to the uncertainty with climate change on severe summer weather, it is not possible to define
with further specificity the impacts and variability related to climate change on each jurisdiction within the
Region. Future updates to this plan should revisit this topic as scientific knowledge progresses and note any
trends that emerge.
Potential Magnitude and Severity
As mentioned in the 2018 SHMP, severe summer weather can cause damage to buildings, homes, and other
property but rarely cause death, serious injury, or long-lasting health effects. Straight-line winds are
responsible for most thunderstorm damage. The NWS reports that severe summer weath er has caused
$51.5 million in property damage and $26.3 million in crop damage over the past 60 years in the State.
Eight deaths and 31 injuries were attributed to lightning strikes. Across the country, large hail results i n
nearly $1 billion in damage annually to property and crops. In the Eastern Region alone, 6 fatalities, 17
injuries, $31,650,200 in property damages, and $31,954,000 crop damages have been recorded since 1955.
The individual scales for each severe summer weather hazards are summarized in the beginning of this
chapter.
Vulnerability Assessment
The severe summer weather Vulnerability Assessment identifies, or at least discusses, assets that
are in a high hazard area for severe summer weather and are susceptible to damage
from that exposure. In this context, assets are (1) people, (2) property, (3) critical
facilities and lifelines, (4) the economy, (5) historic and cultural reso urces, and (6)
natural resources. Exposure indicates interacting with severe summer weather
hazards, and likely to be exposed indicates a presence in areas deemed to be
197
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
especially likely to experience severe summer weather hazards. Susceptible
indicates a strong likelihood of damage from exposure to severe summer weather
hazards and is described in greater detail in Section 4.2 Hazard Profiles, subsection
4.2.1 Profile Methodology, subsection Vulnerability Assessment. Finally,
vulnerability under future conditions is considered above as it relates to climate
change and below as it relates to development.
198
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-141
Figure 4-53 and
Figure 4-54 illustrates the relative Risk Index (RI) rating to hail and lightning events for Montana counties
based on data in the NRI. The RI calculation takes into account various factors, including the expected
annual losses from these events, social vulnerability, and community resilience in each county across
Montana. Most counties in the region have a very low to moderate rating; none have a high or very high RI
rating.
199
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-142
Figure 4-53 NRI Risk Index Rating for Hail
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
200
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-143
Figure 4-54 NRI Risk Index Rating for Lightning
Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
201
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-144
People
Extreme summer weather poses hazards to people in the Eastern Region, and particularly for some of the
socially vulnerable populations located in rural areas of the counties further away from resources and
support. The entire Eastern Region is exposed to extreme heat. The heat island effect can further increase
temperatures in urban areas, like Billings. Hail and lightning also occur throughout the region and pose a
threat to people unable to take shelter with little or no notice; these may include vulnerable population that
work in the gas fields or in the agricultural industry that are typically work outside. Heavy rain will generally
not cause injuries but does pose a threat if it results in flash flooding or hail.
All people are potentially susceptible to injury or possibly death from summer weather. Some groups, such
as the elderly, young children, outdoor workers, and people with respiratory illnesses or weakened immune
systems are typically the most susceptible to especially extreme heat, especially if they lack access to air
conditioning or do not have adequate breaks for water and to refuel. Outdoor enthusiasts and workers are
most likely to be caught outdoors and exposed to hail and lightning ; this may include outdoor workers on
farms or working in the oil and gas fields in the far eastern portion of the Eastern Region . Young children
playing outdoors are also a concern. Lastly, unhoused persons are more vulnerable to heavy rain, especially
if they inhabit floodplain areas prone to flash flooding. Most of the planning participants noted that severe
summer weather events do have greater impacts on their seniors, young children, outdoor workers, and
individuals with health conditions.
Property
Individual storms have a limited extent, but over time all outdoor property is likely to be exposed to heavy
rain, extreme heat, and hail. Lightning typically strikes the highest objects in an area but can cause hazardous
power surges that extend much further. Lightning strikes can also start fires. The secondary effects of fire
are discussed in the section below titled Wildfire.
Some property is especially susceptible to damage. Houses and cars have a reputation for receiving
expensive-to -repair damage from hail events. Electrical equipment is often susceptible to the effects of
lightning far from the strike location. Lightning can cause power outages with potentially serious secondary
effects.
Susceptibility of property to heat and heavy rain is less of a problem in the planning area. Heat can expand
metal and cause problems with infrastructure. Heavy rain can damage foundations, especially where water
is allowed to accumulate near a foundation rather than being channeled away. Secondary effects of heavy
rain include flash flooding and are discussed in the section above titled Flooding. Despite the hazards of
heat and heavy rain, there are no reported property damages from excessive heat or heavy rain in the
planning area.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
All infrastructure and critical facilities located outdoors are similarly exposed to heat and hail. Lightning
typically strikes the highest objects in an area but can cause hazardous power surges that extend throughout
electrical circuits.
Infrastructure can be susceptible to damage from extreme heat. Heat expands roadbuilding materials and
can cause road surfaces to crack. Power infrastructure is especially susceptible to heat. Heat expands above -
ground power lines, causing them to lengthen and sag. Sagging power lines are a well-known fire hazard
and were at least partially at fault for recent catastrophic fires in California and Colorado. A mitigation
technique in certain states is to simply turn off power distribution during these times. Heat also reduces the
efficiency of power generation, transmission, and distribution. This happens at the same time that demand
peaks due largely to the increased use of air conditioners. The result of this puts stress on the power delivery
system. The full range of heat effects on power infrastructure is complex and far reaching.
202
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-145
The use of roads is also susceptible to hail accumulation, which can clog stormwater drainage infrastructure
and temporarily impair traffic.
Economy
As seen from NCEI data (Table 4-46), severe summer storms can result in significant economic losses,
especially if large hail is produced. Direct losses result to property or crops, but indirect losses can be a
result of these storms as well. The 2018 SHMP notes that increasing extreme temperature events will impact
tourism in the future and reduce revenue from tourists. Businesses will need to close, and commuters will
be unable to drive to work due to flash flooding or extreme hail events. These will resul t in disruption in
local economies.
Figure 4-55 and Figure 4-56 illustrate the relative risk of Expected Annual Loss (EAL) rating due to hail and
lightning for Montana counties based on data in the NRI. For hail, most counties in the region have a very
low to relatively low EAL rating. Yellowstone has a relatively moderate rating. For lightning, the majority of
the Counties have a very low to relatively low rating. Big Horn and Custer Counties have a relatively
moderate rating. Yellowstone County has a relatively high rating. For The EAL calculation takes into account
agriculture value exposed to hail and lightning, annualized frequency for hail and lightning, and historical
losses .
203
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-146
Figure 4-55 NRI Hail Expected Annual Loss Rating
Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
204
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-147
Figure 4-56 NRI Lightning Expected Annual Loss Rating
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
205
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-148
Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic and cultural resources are all exposed to severe summer weather. Susceptibility of historic and
cultural resources to is variable, but given the age of historic buildings most of the structure’s roofs and
windows are more susceptible. Old buildings were likely built to outdated building codes, or no building
codes at all, and many are in poor condition. This increases their susceptibility to severe summer weather ,
and particularly to high wind, lightning, and hail. This pattern exists throughout the Eastern Region.
Natural Resources
Vegetation such as trees, crops, and landscape are vulnerable to extreme heat events. Similarly, hail has
been documented to cause significant crop damage in the planning area and was also documented to break
branches off trees. The most significant crop d amages reported by the NCEI occurred in Yellowstone and
Valley counties. Lightning has also been documented to strike trees and cause fires, which can impact
vegetation and crops.
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
There are no clear trends that recent development has changed vulnerability to severe summer weather.
Nor is it evident that future development changes will affect vulnerability to severe summer weather. In
most cases existing development in older and more rural towns will continue to be more susceptible to
weather hazards. Whereas new development that is built to current code should be better designed to
withstand the effects of severe summer weather.
Risk Summary
● The hazard significance of severe summer weather (excessive heat, hail, heavy rain, and lightning) in the
Eastern Region is ranked as high.
● The entire Eastern Region can be impacted by severe summer weather; therefore, the geographic extent
is rated as extensive
● 1,100 days of severe summer weather events occurred in the Eastern Region over the course of 67 years,
from 1955 to March 2022. This averages roughly 16.4 days with severe summer event(s) per year;
therefore, the probability of future occurrence is ranked as highly likely.
● Six deaths, 17 injuries, $31,650,200 in property damages, and $31,954,000 in crop damages occurred
from severe weather events since 1955, therefore the potential magnitude is ranked as critical.
● People most vulnerable to severe summer weather events are children, the elderly, individuals with
preexisting medical conditions, outdoor workers/enthusiasts, and people living in dense urban areas.
● All outdoor property is vulnerable to severe weather events. Properties and vehicles are most frequently
reported as damaged property in the Eastern Region.
● Critical infrastructure such as roadways and electric equipment are especially vulnerable to severe
summer weather. Power outages, house fires, and damages to vehicles have been documented by the
NCEI dataset.
● Economic losses typically occur from severe hail events and associated cost of repairs from hail damage.
Areas with high infrastructure, such as major cities, are more likely to experience economic damages
from hail than urban areas due to greater quantity of property to be damaged.
● Related hazards: Drought, Wildfire. Wind & tornadoes
Table 4-47 Risk Summary Table: Severe Summer Weather
Jurisdiction Overall Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences
Eastern Region High
Big Horn Medium Hardin, Lodge Grass None
206
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-149
Jurisdiction Overall Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences
Carbon Medium Bearcreek, Bridger, Joliet,
Fromberg, Red Lodge
Newer development built to code
is better designed to withstand
severe summer weather.
Carter Medium Ekalaka None
Custer Medium Ismay, Miles City None
Crow Tribe High None
Daniels Medium Scobey, Flaxville None
Dawson Medium Richey, Glendive None
Fallon Medium Plevna, Baker None
Garfield Medium Jordan None
Golden Valley Medium Ryegate, Lavina None
McCone Medium Circle
A higher number of weather-
related events have occurred in
McCone County.
Musselshell Medium Melstone, Roundup None
Powder River High Broadus None
Prairie High Terry None
Richland Medium Fairview, Sidney None
Roosevelt Medium Wolf Point, Poplar, Bainville,
Culberson, Froid
None
Rosebud Medium Colstrip, Forsyth None
Sheridan Medium Plentywood, Medicine Lake,
Outlook, Westby
None
Stillwater Medium Columbus None
Treasure Medium Hysham None
Valley Medium Glasgow, Fort Peck, Nashua,
Opheim
A higher number of weather-
related events have occurred in
Valley County.
Wibaux High Wibaux None
Yellowstone High Billings, Broadview, Laurel A higher number of weather-
related events have occurred in
Yellowstone County; newer
development built to code is
better designed to withstand
severe summer weather.
4.2.11 Severe Winter Weather
Hazard/Problem Description
Severe winter weather presents one of the greatest threats to life of any hazard in Montana. Statistics on
winter deaths are difficult to obtain, but nationwide there are on average 100 lives directly and indirectly
lost to winter weather, more than lightning, hurricanes, or tornadoes. Winter storms are considered to be
deceptive killers because most deaths are indirectly related to the storm. People di e in traffic accidents on
snow- or ice-covered roads, from hypothermia due to prolonged exposure to cold, and from heart attacks
due to overexertion.
Winter storms may be categorized as blizzards, heavy snow, ice storms, winter storms, and winter weather.
These storms vary in size and intensity and may affect a small part of the state or several states at once. The
NWS defines common winter storm characteristics as follows:
207
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-150
Blizzard: A blizzard means that the following conditions are expected to prevail for a period of 3 hours or
longer:
● Sustained wind or frequent gusts to 35 miles an hour or greater; and
● Considerable falling and/or blowing snow (i.e., reducing visibility frequently to less than ¼ mile).
Cold/Wind Chill: Increased wind speeds accelerate heat loss from exposed skin, and the wind chill is a
measure of this effect. No specific rules exist for determining when wind chill becomes dangerous. As a
general rule, the threshold for potentially dangerous wind chill co nditions is about -20°F. Similarly, what
defines extreme cold varies in different parts of the country. In this plan, extreme cold is considered cold
temperatures below zero that are sufficient to cause damage to property, crops, or people.
Heavy Snow: This generally means:
● Snowfall accumulating to 4" or more in depth in 12 hours or less; or
● snowfall accumulating to 6" or more in depth in 24 hours or less.
● In forecasts, snowfall amounts are expressed as a range of values, e.g., "8 to 12 inches." However, in
heavy snow situations where there is considerable uncertainty concerning the range of values, more
appropriate phrases are used, such as "...up to 12 inches..." or alternatively "...8 inches or more...”
Ice Storm: An ice storm is used to describe occasions when damaging accumulations of ice are expected
during freezing rain situations. Significant accumulations of ice pull down trees and utility lines resulting in
loss of power and communication. These accumulations of ice make walking and driving extremely
dangerous.
Winter Storm: A winter weather event that has more than one significant hazard (i.e., heavy snow and
blowing snow; snow and ice; snow and sleet; sleet and ice; or snow, sleet, and ice) and meets or exceeds
locally/regionally defined 12 and/or 24-hour warning criteria for at least one of the precipitation elements.
Normally, a Winter Storm would pose a threat to life or property.
Winter Weather: A winter precipitation event that causes a death, injury, or a significant impact to
commerce or transportation, but does not meet locally/regionally defined warning criteria. A Winter
Weather event could result from one or more winter precipitation types (snow, or blowing/drifting snow,
or freezing rain/drizzle). The Winter Weather event can also be used to document out-of-season and other
unusual or rare occurrences of snow, or blowing/drifting snow, or freezing rain/drizzle.
Geographical Area Affected
All counties in the Eastern Region are impacted by severe winter weather; therefore, the geographic extent
of severe winter storms is ranked as extensive. The 2018 SHMP explains that the entire State is considered
equally vulnerable to severe winter weather. Arctic cold fronts typically enter the state from the northeast
and may cross the Continental Divide, affecting mainly the western portion of the State rather than the
Eastern Region. Arctic fronts meeting wet maritime fronts often combine to cause heav y snowfall, which
can occur in all parts of the State. The lowest temperatures are typically experienced in the northeast,
whereas the heaviest snowfall most often occurs in the mountain region in the southwest portion of the
Eastern Region.
Past Occurrences
The NCEI database was used to gather information on historic severe winter weather events in the Eastern
Region of Montana. It is important to note that weather events that occurred on Crow Tribe and North
Cheyenne Tribe are also included in the dataset tables down below. However, instead of individual records,
tribal data records were grouped into the nearest County. The NCEI dataset contains information on severe
winter weather events from 1996 to March of 2022. The specific hazards selected for severe winter weather
consist of blizzard, cold/wind chill, heavy snow, ice storm, winter storm, and winter weather events.
208
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-151
Table 4-48 summarizes winter weather data from NCEI. Not all severe winter weather events get reported
by the NCEI and losses are estimates, therefore actual losses may be higher than those reported below.
Based on these data, winter storms are the most frequently occurring and damaging type of severe winter
weather event in the Eastern Region. Heavy snow is another frequently occurring event in the Region.
Blizzards, heavy snow, and winter storms are the only types of se vere winter weather with documented
property losses. Blizzards, cold/wind chill, winter storm and winter weather events have resulted in a total
of 14 injuries and 13 deaths in the Eastern Region.
Table 4-48 Summary of Losses by Hazard in the Eastern Region
Deaths Injuries Property Loss Days with Events Total Events
Blizzard 1 5 $1,792,000 68 307
Cold/Wind Chill 4 0 $0 93 397
Heavy Snow 2 4 $1,236,000 210 701
Ice Storm 0 0 $0 11 56
Winter Storm 3 1 $6,331,700 285 1,138
Winter Weather 5 7 $0 71 209
Total 13 14 $9,359,700 738 2,808
Source: NCEI
There are variations in losses and frequency of hazards across the Eastern Region. Due to the regional nature
of severe winter storms, the NCEI records all severe winter weather events by zone rather than by county.
The zones used by NCEI can extend over county lines, and many counties contain more than one zone.
Table 4-49 and Figure 4-57 provides the total number of severe winter weather events by zone. Red Lodge
Foothills Zone has the greatest number of events.
Table 4-49 Summary of Severe Winter Weather Events by Zone in the Eastern Region
Zone Name Blizzard
Cold/
Wind
Chill
Heavy
Snow
Ice
Storm
Winter
Storm
Winter
Weather Total
Beartooth Foothills (Zone) 5 0 23 0 63 1 92
Beaverhead (Zone) 3 8 54 0 43 8 116
Big Horn (Zone) 2 4 10 1 0 0 17
Bighorn Canyon (Zone) 0 0 0 0 6 1 7
Carter (Zone) 21 1 21 3 37 0 83
Central and Southern Valley (Zone) 11 39 15 3 30 25 123
Custer (Zone) 8 4 32 3 27 0 74
Daniels (Zone) 16 40 10 2 26 14 108
Dawson (Zone) 22 26 8 3 31 15 105
Eastern Carbon (Zone) 1 0 10 0 33 2 46
Eastern Roosevelt (Zone) 20 28 2 4 21 14 89
Fallon (Zone) 18 4 15 3 24 0 64
Garfield (Zone) 10 17 15 2 37 15 96
Golden Valley (Zone) 2 0 9 0 32 0 43
Golden Valley/Musselshell (Zone) 0 2 12 1 0 0 15
Judith Gap (Zone) 8 0 6 0 39 0 53
McCone (Zone) 11 27 12 4 32 15 101
Musselshell (Zone) 2 0 24 0 39 0 65
Northeastern Yellowstone (Zone) 0 0 0 0 5 1 6
Northern Big Horn (Zone) 3 0 11 0 27 2 43
209
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-152
Zone Name Blizzard
Cold/
Wind
Chill
Heavy
Snow
Ice
Storm
Winter
Storm
Winter
Weather Total
Northern Carbon (Zone) 0 0 0 0 5 1 6
Northern Rosebud (Zone) 2 0 18 1 31 1 53
Northern Stillwater (Zone) 1 0 12 0 55 4 72
Northern Valley (Zone) 11 27 8 1 19 13 79
Powder River (Zone) 12 1 26 2 36 0 77
Prairie (Zone) 17 16 9 2 24 13 81
Pryor/Northern Bighorn Mountains 0 0 0 0 7 0 7
Red Lodge Foothills (Zone) 1 0 24 0 106 1 132
Richland (Zone) 21 30 8 5 26 15 105
Roosevelt (Zone) 2 0 3 1 2 0 8
Rosebud (Zone) 1 2 6 2 0 0 11
Sheridan (Zone) 23 49 9 3 28 12 124
Southeastern Carbon (Zone) 0 0 0 0 3 1 4
Southern Big Horn (Zone) 4 0 25 0 50 2 81
Southern Rosebud (Zone) 4 0 10 0 32 2 48
Southern Wheatland (Zone) 3 0 4 0 34 0 41
Southwestern Yellowstone (Zone) 0 0 0 0 6 2 8
Stillwater (Zone) 1 0 35 0 0 0 36
Stillwater/Carbon (Zone) 1 1 39 1 0 0 42
Treasure (Zone) 2 1 22 2 24 0 51
Valley (Zone) 1 0 3 1 4 0 9
Western Carbon (Zone) 1 0 41 0 0 0 42
Western Roosevelt (Zone) 14 48 5 3 24 14 108
Wheatland 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
Wheatland/Park/Sweet Grass
(Zone) 1 0 40 1 0 0 42
Wibaux (Zone) 18 18 10 1 29 13 89
Yellowstone (Zone) 2 3 44 1 41 2 93
Yellowstone/Big Horn 0 0 3 0 0 3
Total 307 397 701 56 1,138 209 2,808
Source: NCEI
210
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-153 Page | 4-153
Figure 4-57 Summary of Severe Winter Weather Events by Zone in the Eastern Region
Source: NCEI, Chart by WSP
92
116
17
7
83
123
74
108105
46
89
64
96
43
15
53
101
65
6
43
6
53
72
79 77 81
7
132
105
8 11
124
4
81
48
41
8
36
42
51
9
42
108
8
42
89 93
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Be
a
r
t
o
o
t
h
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
Be
a
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
Bi
g
H
o
r
n
Bi
g
h
o
r
n
C
a
n
y
o
n
Ca
r
t
e
r
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
V
a
l
l
e
y
Cu
s
t
e
r
Da
n
i
e
l
s
Da
w
s
o
n
Ea
s
t
e
r
n
C
a
r
b
o
n
Ea
s
t
e
r
n
R
o
o
s
e
v
e
l
t
Fa
l
l
o
n
Ga
r
f
i
e
l
d
Go
l
d
e
n
V
a
l
l
e
y
Go
l
d
e
n
V
a
l
l
e
y
/
M
u
s
s
e
l
s
h
e
l
l
Ju
d
i
t
h
G
a
p
Mc
c
o
n
e
Mu
s
s
e
l
s
h
e
l
l
No
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
Y
e
l
l
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
No
r
t
h
e
r
n
B
i
g
H
o
r
n
No
r
t
h
e
r
n
C
a
r
b
o
n
No
r
t
h
e
r
n
R
o
s
e
b
u
d
No
r
t
h
e
r
n
S
t
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
No
r
t
h
e
r
n
V
a
l
l
e
y
Po
w
d
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
Pr
a
i
r
i
e
Pr
y
o
r
/
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
B
i
g
h
o
r
n
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
s
Re
d
L
o
d
g
e
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
Ri
c
h
l
a
n
d
Ro
o
s
e
v
e
l
t
Ro
s
e
b
u
d
Sh
e
r
i
d
a
n
So
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
C
a
r
b
o
n
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
B
i
g
H
o
r
n
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
R
o
s
e
b
u
d
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
W
h
e
a
t
l
a
n
d
So
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
Y
e
l
l
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
St
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
St
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
/
C
a
r
b
o
n
Tr
e
a
s
u
r
e
Va
l
l
e
y
We
s
t
e
r
n
C
a
r
b
o
n
We
s
t
e
r
n
R
o
o
s
e
v
e
l
t
Wh
e
a
t
l
a
n
d
Wh
e
a
t
l
a
n
d
/
P
a
r
k
/
S
w
e
e
t
G
r
a
s
s
Wi
b
a
u
x
Ye
l
l
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
Ye
l
l
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
/
B
i
g
H
o
r
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
E
v
e
n
t
s
Blizzard Cold/Wind Chill Heavy Snow Ice Storm Winter Storm Winter Weather Total
211
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
The NCEI dataset reported $9,359,700 in total property losses in the Eastern Region since 1996. No crop
damage was reported in the region. Three zones accounted for 88% of the property damage reported. Table
4-50 summarizes property loss by zone in the Eastern Region.
Table 4-50 Summary of Property Losses from Winter Weather Events by Zone in the Eastern
Region
Zone Total Property Damage ($)
Big Horn (Zone) 1,200,000
Carter (Zone) 4,500,000
Dawson (Zone) 57,000
Garfield (Zone) 240,000
McCone (Zone) 2,000
Northern Valley (Zone) 5,000
Prairie (Zone) 10,000
Richland (Zone) 435,000
Roosevelt (Zone) 362,000
Sheridan (Zone) 2,500,000
Wibaux (Zone) 34,700
Yellowstone (Zone) 14,000
Total 9,359,700
Source: NCEI
The NCEI reported details on several significant events in the Eastern Region:
● November 1, 2000: A major winter storm hit eastern Montana leaving over 1 ,500 residents without
power as nearly 2,000 power poles snapped in half. The storm started as rain and produced several
hours of sleet before changing to snow. After the ice turned to all snow, strong winds from 30 to 45
mph with gusts to 60 mph developed creating blizzard conditions with 6 to 12 inches of snow. Drifts
up to 5 and 6 feet were reported in Sheridan County. This event impacted quite a few zones/counties
in the Eastern Region and resulted in a combined $3,306,700 of property losses.
● April 9, 2001: An early spring snowstorm impacted parts of South Central and Southeast Montana on
April 8th and April 9th. Southern Big Horn County was the hardest hit. An estimated 600 power poles
were knocked down from heavy, wet snow, ice, and wind. Thousands of people were without power for
up to 7 days. The hardest hit area was along Route 314 in the Kirby/Decker area and in the western end
of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. This event resulted in $1,200,000 of property losses.
● February 19, 2009: An arctic cold front moved across the forecast area during the late evening hours
of the 19th and early morning hours of February 20th. Upslope flow developed behind the front. This
resulted in heavy snow across the foothills of the Beartooth/Absaroka Mountains with minor
accumulations across the plains. However, very slick roads resulted in dangerous traveling conditions.
As a result of the icy roads, a 16-year-old girl died in a one-vehicle crash on Interstate 90 near Dunmore,
Montana. In addition, two women died in a two-vehicle crash on Highway 212, about 8 miles west of
Ashland. Although road conditions were icy and snow packed at the time of the accidents, Montana
State Patrol reported speed was also a factor.
● March 29, 2009: A second major snowstorm and blizzard within a week’s time brought heavy snow
and strong winds to portions of Southern Montana and Northern Wyoming. This storm impacted areas
that were hit hard by the March 23-24 storm. Winds across the area were sustained in the 25 to 35 mph
range with gusts from 30 to 40 mph. These winds combined with heavy snow resulted in visibilities
being reduced to a quarter mile at many locations. In addition, snowfall exceeded 12 in Carbon,
Stillwater, and Custer Counties. The storm resulted in one death. A 19-year-old woman was killed on
Highway 39 near Forsyth after losing control of her car on the snow -covered highway. This event
resulted in $1,500,000 of property losses.
212
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
● November 9, 2012: A low-pressure system from the Gulf of Alaska descended over the Rocky Mountain
region, then moved northeast, emerging over the northern high plains. An arctic air mass from Alberta
combined with warmer temperatures from the south to steer plentiful moisture through the area,
bringing the first major winter storm of the season to northeast Montana. This event caused three
deaths and one injury, as well as $25,000 in property losses.
● May 10, 2016: A very strong low-pressure system from the pacific northwest stalled over southern
Montana and northern Wyoming with plentiful moisture. Significant amounts of moderate and heavy
rain spread across many locations while enough cold air from the Canadian Rockies wrapped around
the system to change the precipitation to a heavy, very wet snow for some higher elevations of central
and northern Montana. This event resulted in $240,000 of property losses.
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
The frequency of severe winter weather in the Eastern Region is ranked as highly likely. Severe winter
weather impacts the state annually with blowing and drifting snow, extreme cold, hazardous driving
conditions, and utility interruption. The NCEI dataset reported 738 days with severe weather events over
26 years, which averages to nearly 29 days a year with severe winter weather events in the Eastern Region.
According to the 2023 SHMP, winter weather typically affects the state from November to April each year,
but late storms can extend into June.
213
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-156
Figure 4-58 below depicts the annualized frequency of cold events at a county level based on the NRI. A
trend exists of increased frequency in the northern part of the region, particularly in Daniels, Valley,
Roosevelt, and Sheridan counties.
Figure 4-59 depicts annualized frequency of winter weather events at a county level based on the NRI. A
trend exists towards increased frequency in the southwestern region, particularly Stillwater and Carbon
counties.
214
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-157
Figure 4-58 NRI Annualized Frequency of Cold Events by County
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
215
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-158
Figure 4-59 NRI Annualized Frequency of Winter Weather Events by County
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
216
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Between 1996 and 2022, winter weather events have occurred more frequently, then less frequently (Figure
4-60). It is not clear if this indicates a meaningful trend moving forward. The frequency of events by month
is provided in Figure 4-61.
Figure 4-60 Yearly Trend of Winter Weather Events in the Eastern Region (1996-2022)
Source: NCEI, Chart by WSP
Figure 4-61 Monthly Trend of Winter Weather Events in the Eastern Region (1996-2022)
Source: NCEI, Chart by WSP
0
50
100
150
200
250
19
9
6
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
E
v
e
n
t
s
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
E
v
e
n
t
s
217
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Climate Change Considerations
The 2021 Climate Change and Human Health in Montana report documents that annual average
temperatures have increased in Montana 2-3 oF since 1950 in both summer and winter. This is greater than
most of the U.S. due to the mid-continent location of the state. This trend is expected to continue and by
mid-century the Montana Climate Assessment anticipates Montana will be 4.5-6.0 oF warmer than it was
from 1971-2000. Precipitation has not changed significantly, but the 2021 Montana Climate Change and
Human Health report anticipates precipitation to increase slightly, perhaps an inch/year, mostly from
March-May.
With regard to winter weather, NOAA’s 2022 National Climate Assessment documents that average winter
temperatures in Montana have increased, with a striking reduction in the observed number of very cold
days, especially in the last 20 years as shown in Figure 4-62. Both the Montana Climate Assessment and
NOAA reports anticipate the number of cold days will continue to decline. Recent academic research also
indicates the frequency of blizzards are on the decline in Montana , including a dramatic reduction in the
number of blizzards in 2011-2020 relative to 2000-2010.2
Figure 4-62 Winter Temperature Observations in Montana
Dots represent annual average temperature (A.) and the number of days with a high temperature of 0 oF or lower (B.).
Bars are 5-year averages (both A. and B.).
Black horizontal line is the average summer temperature for all years, 1895 -2020.
Figure adapted from: 2022 NOAA State Climate Summaries, Montana. https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/mt/
Neither the Montana Climate Assessment or the NCA5 chapter on the Northern Great Plains explicitly
address climate change effects on blizzard, wind chill, heavy snowfall, ice storms, winter storms, or winter
weather, other than to state that winters are expected to become warmer .
Due to the relatively coarse resolution of climate change effects on severe winter weather, it would be
speculative to make judgements on differences between each jurisdiction within the region. Future updates
to this plan should revisit this topic as scientific knowledge progresses.
2 Browne, A., & Chen, L. (2023). Investigating the occurrence of blizzard events over the contiguous United States using observ ations
and climate projections. Environmental Research Letters, 18(11), 114044.
218
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Potential Magnitude and Severity
The 2018 Montana SHMP explains that the magnitude of severe weather is measured by the severity of the
event and the resulting damage. Winter storms are generally slow in developing and advance notice often
lessens their effects on the population. Severe winter weather that results in loss of life, extended road
closures, long-term power outages, or significant isolation problems represent high-magnitude weather
events for Montana. Routine damages to property are largely due to frozen pipes. Collapsed roofs from
snow loads are not common due to the low percent moisture in typical snow loads. In the Eastern Region,
millions of dollars have been lost in property damage, in addition to the loss of life and several injuries,
most of which occurred from a transportation accident due to severe winter weather. Several disaster
declarations were issued in the Eastern Region due to severe winter storms on December 6, 2000, May 28,
2001, and June 13, 2008. In the Eastern Region, NCEI reported 13 deaths, 14 injuries, and almost $9.4 million
in property losses; therefore, magnitude of severe winter weather is ranked as critical.
In 2001, the NWS implemented an updated Wind Chill Temperature index as shown in Figure 4-63. This
index was developed to describe the relative discomfort/danger resulting from the combination of wind
and temperature. Wind chill is based on the rate of heat loss from exposed skin caused by wind and cold.
As the wind increases, it draws heat from the body, driving down skin temperature and eventually the
internal body temperature.
Figure 4-63 National Weather Service Wind Chill Chart
Source: NWS
The severity of ice storms can be measured with the Sperry-Piltz Ice Accumulation (SPIA) Index, shown in
Table 4-51. The SPIA Index is a forecasting of ice accumulation and ice damage that uses various parameters
that can help predict the projected extent of ice storms. Historical measurements of ice storms using the
SPIA Index are unavailable.
219
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Table 4-51 Sperry-Piltz Ice Accumulation Index
Source: NWS
The extent rating of winter storms that cause issues in Montana includes storms forecasted with Winter
Storm Warnings or Blizzard Warnings. The NWS issues a Winter Storm Warning when conditions that can
quickly become life threatening and are more serious than an inconvenience are imminent or already
occurring. Heavy snows, or a combination of snow, freezing rain or extreme wind chill due to strong wind,
may bring widespread or lengthy road closures and hazardous travel conditions, plus threaten temporary
loss of community services such as power and water. Deep snow and additional strong wind chill or frostbite
may be a threat to even the appropriately dressed individual or to even the strongest person exposed to
the frigid weather for only a short period.
The most dangerous of all winter storms is the blizzard. A blizzard warning is issued when winds of 35 miles
an hour will occur in combination with considerable falling and/or blowing snow for at least 3 hours.
Visibilities will frequently be reduced to less than 1/4 mile and temperatures are usually 20 degrees
Fahrenheit or lower. The blizzard marks the upper extent of severe winter storms that could be experienced
in Montana.
NOAA's NCEI produces the Regional Snowfall Index (RSI) for significant snowstorms that impact the eastern
two thirds of the U.S. The RSI ranks snowstorm impacts on a scale from 1 to 5, similar to the Fujita scale for
tornadoes or the Saffir-Simpson scale for hurricanes (Table 4-52). As shown in Table 4-52 RSI is a regional
index; a separate index is produced for each of the six NCEI climate regions in the eastern two -thirds of the
nation. Montana is included in the Northern Rockies and Plains Region, along with Nebraska, North Dakota,
Wyoming, and South Dakota.3 RSI ratings from 1 to 5 are possible in Montana. RSI values for historical
3 The RSI is assigned according to methods outlined in:
220
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
events are unavailable for the state of Montana or are ambiguous as to the geographic extent of storms in
the northern Rockies and Plains states.
Table 4-52 Regional Snowfall Index (RSI) Ratings for Significant Snowstorms
Category Description
1 Notable
2 Significant
3 Major
4 Crippling
5 Extreme
Winter storms and blizzards can result in multiple injuries and illnesses; major or long-term property
damage that threatens structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for 24 -72
hours. This can include property damage, local and regional power and phone outages, and closures of
streets, highways, schools, businesses, and nonessential government operations. People can also become
isolated from essential services in their homes and vehicles. A winter storm can escalate, creating life
threatening situations when emergency response is limited by severe winter conditions. Other issues
associated with severe winter weather include hypothermia and the threat of physical overexertion that may
lead to heart attacks or strokes. Snow removal costs can impact budgets significantly. Heavy snowfall during
winter can also lead to flooding or landslides during the spring if the area snowpack melts too quickly and
contribute to high ground water tables and seepage into foundations. High snow loads also cause damage
to buildings and roofs.
Vulnerability Assessment
Severe winter weather occurs in the planning area as extreme cold, ice storm, or severe snow,
which can be combined with high winds. Snow events can be classified several ways,
including winter weather, snow, heavy snow, winter storm, snow and blowing snow,
or blizzard if accompanied by high winds. The National Risk Index categorizes
these conditions together as winter weather, and also has layers for extreme cold
and ice storm. The NRI is useful to simplify the vulnerability analysis by providing
information on the exposure of assets to these hazards and to some extent the
susceptibility of those assets to damage from exposure. The NRI risk index is
calculated as expected annual loss (EAL) multiplied by social vulnerability, divided
by community resilience and provides a measure of how severely extreme winter
weather is experienced. NRI data for cold waves is provided in
Squires et al. (2014) The regional snowfall index. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(12), 1835 -1848.
For more information see https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/rsi/.
221
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-164
Figure 4-64 for expected annual loss and risk index in Figure 4-65. The NRI risk index rating for ice storm is
not shown below. The ice storm risk is the lowest possible rating in most of the Eastern Region, very low.
Roosevelt County is rated one-classification higher risk, relatively low, and Yellowstone, Richland, and
Sheridan Counties are rated one additional classification higher risk a relatively moderate ice storm risk. NRI
data for winter weather are provided below for expected annual loss (Figure 4-66) and risk index (Figure
4-67).
222
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-165
Figure 4-64 NRI Expected Annual Loss Rating from Cold Waves
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
223
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-166
Figure 4-65 NRI Risk Index Rating for Cold Waves
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
224
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-167
Figure 4-66 NRI Expected Annual Loss Rating from Winter Weather
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
225
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-168
Figure 4-67 NRI Risk Index Rating for Winter Weather
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
226
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
People
People are susceptible to severe winter weather hazards. However, these hazards are well known to
impact residents in this part of the country and people are largely well adapted to them. Major problems
typically only occur during record snowfalls and extended periods of below -zero temperatures. However,
some populations are notably susceptible to the indirect effects of winter-storm associated utility
interruption, freezing pipe damage, and either the cost or physical toll related to snow removal. Given the
population is adapted to winter weather; most individuals avoid travel during inclement weather
conditions.
Individuals who depend on electricity are also vulnerable during blackouts caused by severe winter
weather. People without appropriate shelter or who work outside are more vulnerable to cold -related
illnesses. In all the cases of injury or death reported by the NCEI due to winter weather events, the
impacted individuals were on the road during a severe winter weather event and suffered injuries due to
an accident. The NCEI reported one death and ten injuries due to severe winter weather events.
Property
All property located outdoors is exposed to severe winter weather events. Accumulation of snow and ice
on roofs can cause collapse, especially on old or poorly constructed facilities. Ice storms can coat the exterior
of a facility and can cause superficial damages. Prolonged cold can cause signi ficant damages to poorly
insulated facilities. The NCEI reported property losses in the Eastern Region were primarily due to blackouts
caused by downed powerlines and poles, as well as damages to cars from automobile crashes. Communities
in the Eastern region that have experienced recent development may report that these structures are better
able to withstand severe winter weather as new construction is built to current code and roof loads are
better designed to withstand greater snow loads.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
The safe and efficient flow of traffic is susceptible to extreme winter weather. Automobile crashes are more
frequent during extreme winter weather and roads can become difficult or impossible to travel. These
problems can isolate many people and create a dangerous situation for stranded motorists. Additionally,
overhead power lines are susceptible to damage from the accumulation of snow and ice. This can cause
power outages that lead to a dangerous loss of heat or electricity needed to operate medical equi pment,
all during periods likely to be extremely cold and possibly windy.
Economy
The economy is susceptible to extreme winter weather hazards. Examples include lower economic activity
due to business interruptions associated with poor road conditions. Indirectly, power outages can cause
very costly impacts. The NCEI reported $9.3 million in property losses in the Eastern Region.
Expected Annual Loss due to cold waves as shown in
227
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Figure 4-64 and winter weather as shown in Figure 4-66 for the planning area is based on exposure to
buildings, agriculture, and people multiplied by the annualized frequency of hazard events. The resulting
value is multiplied by the historic loss ratio, a value that represents the estimated percentage of exp osed
buildings, agriculture, or people expected to be lost during a hazard event.
NRI data for expected annual loss shows opposite gradients for cold waves and winter storms as
shown in
228
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-171
Figure 4-64 and Figure 4-66. Losses from cold waves are greatest in the northern end of the Eastern Region,
while losses are generally highest in the south and southwest parts of the region.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic and cultural resources are somewhat susceptible to extreme winter weather. Historic buildings, in
particular, are unlikely to be insulated to the standard common to new construction. This leads to less
protection for property and people inside the buildings from extreme cold temperatures and wind, greater
susceptibility to damage from power outages, and increased probability of damage to or caused by frozen
pipes.
Natural Resources
Trees, landscaping, and crops can be damaged due to prolonged periods of extreme cold weather and the
accumulation of snow and ice. Trees that break due to the weight of snow and ice have also been reported
in the NCEI dataset.
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
There are no clear trends that recent development has changed vulnerability to severe winter weather one
way or the other. Nor is it evident that future development will affect vulnerability to severe winter weather,
other than new construction should be better designed to handle greater snow loads and the effects of
extreme temperatures through better insulation and efficient building materials .
Risk Summary
In summary, the Severe Winter Weather hazard is considered to be overall high significance for the Eastern
Region. Variations in risk by jurisdiction are summarized in the table below, followed by key issues noted in
the vulnerability assessment.
● Severe winter weather includes blizzards, cold/wind chill, heavy snow, ice storm, winter weather, and
winter storm. The hazard significance rating for this hazard is a Medium.
● These events can impact anywhere in the planning region; therefore, the hazard extent is rated as
extensive.
● The NCEI data reported 1,738 days with severe weather events over 26 years, which averages to nearly
28 days a year with severe winter weather events in the Eastern Region; therefore, the future occurrence
is rated as highly likely.
● The NCEI reported 13 death, 14 injuries, and $9,359,700 in property damages, therefore the magnitude
is rated as Critical.
● People who are dependent on electricity and populations who work outdoors or in transportation are
most vulnerable to severe winter weather events . People who do not have appropriate shelter or who
live in homes without proper insulation from winter weather, such as homeless populations and those
in mobile homes, are most vulnerable to winter weather.
● Power outages and poor road conditions are likely impacts of severe winter storms. Structures can
collapse under the weight of snow and ice. Most property damage in the Region occurred due to car
accidents because of poor road conditions from winter storms .
● Significant economic losses can occur from business and transportation disruptions, as well as from
repairing damaged infrastructure.
● Related hazards: Extreme Temperatures, Windstorms, Transportation Accidents
Table 4-53 Risk Summary Table: Severe Winter Weather
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Eastern Region Medium
Big Horn Medium Hardin, Lodge Grass None
229
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-172
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Carbon Medium Bearcreek, Bridger, Joliet,
Fromberg, Red Lodge
None
Carter Medium Ekalaka None
Custer Medium Ismay, Miles City None
Crow Tribe High None None
Daniels Medium Scobey, Flaxville None
Dawson Medium Richey, Glendive None
Fallon Medium Plevna, Baker None
Garfield Medium Jordan None
Golden Valley Medium Ryegate, Lavina None
McCone Medium Circle
None
Musselshell Medium Melstone, Roundup None
Powder River High Broadus None
Prairie High Terry None
Richland Medium Fairview, Sidney None
Roosevelt Medium Wolf Point, Poplar, Bainville,
Culberson, Froid
None
Rosebud Medium Colstrip, Forsyth None
Sheridan Medium Plentywood, Medicine Lake,
Outlook, Westby
None
Stillwater Medium Columbus None
Treasure Medium Hysham None
Valley Medium Glasgow, Fort Peck, Nashua,
Opheim
None
Wibaux High Wibaux None
Yellowstone Medium Billings, Broadview, Laurel Likely greater risk due to presence of more
property and infrastructure vulnerable to
winter weather.
4.2.12 Human Conflict
Hazard/Problem Description
Human conflict includes terrorism, active shooters, and civil unrest. Descriptions of these hazards are
presented below:
Terrorism
The FBI defines terrorism, domestic or international, as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons
or property to intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social
objectives. The US State Department designates 72 groups as Foreign Terrorist Organizations around the
world. There is no similar list of domestic terrorist groups. The Global Terrorism Database (GTD) maintained
by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terroris m lists 241 groups known
or suspected of carrying out terrorist attacks on US soil since 1970.
Incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) are a special subset of terrorism and mass violence
incidents. Such incidents may involve chemical, biological, radioactive, nuclear, or explosive (CBRNE)
weapons with the potential to cause high numbers of injuries or fatalities.
Historically explosives have been the most common terrorist weapon, accounting for 51% of all attacks
since 1970. Hazard impacts are typically instantaneous; secondary devices may be used, lengthening the
230
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-173
duration of the hazard until the attack site is determined to be clear. The extent of damage is determined
by the type and quantity of explosive. Effects are generally static other than cascading consequences and
incremental structural failures. Some areas could experience direct weapons’ effects: blast and heat; others
could experience indirect weapons’ effect.
Biological terrorism is the use of biological agents against persons or property. Liquid or solid contaminants
can be dispersed using sprayers/aerosol generators or by point of line sources such as munitions, covert
deposits and moving sprayers. Biological agents vary in the amount of time they pose a threat. They can be
a threat for hours to years depending upon the agent and the conditions in which it exists.
Another type of biological attack is agroterrorism, directed at causing societal and economic damage
through the intentional introduction of a contagious animal disease or fast-spreading plant disease that
affects livestock and food crops and disrupts the food supply chain. Such an attack could require the
agriculture industry to destroy livestock and food crops, disrupt the food supply both nationally and
globally, and could also affect consumer confidence in the food supply resulting in tremendous economi c
damage for potentially an extended period.
Chemical terrorism involves the use or threat of chemical agents against persons or property. Effects of
chemical contaminants are like biological agents. Radiological terrorism is the use of radiological materials
against persons or property. Radioactive contaminants can be dispersed using sprayers/aerosol generators,
or by point of line sources such as munitions, covert deposits and moving sprayers or by the detonatio n of
a nuclear device underground, at the surface, in the air or at high altitude.
Active Shooter
The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill
people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of one or more firearms. The
“active” aspect of the definition inherently implies the ongoing nature of the incidents, and thus the
potential for the response to affect the outcome. Typically, active shooters are not interested in taking
hostages or attaining material gain, and frequently are not even interested in their o wn survival. Unlike
organized terrorist attacks, most active shooter incidents are carried out by one or two individuals. School
shootings are a special subset of active shooter incidents.
The US Department of Homeland Security notes that “in most cases, active shooters use firearms(s) and
there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims…situations are unpredictable and evolve
quickly...and are often over within 10 to 15 minutes.” However, the presence or suspected presence of
secondary devices can lengthen the duration of the event until the attack site is determined to be clear.
Although this definition focuses on an active shooter, the elements remain the same for most active threat
situations.
Civil Unrest
The federal law defines civil disorder, or civil unrest, as “any public disturbance involving acts of violence by
assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury
to the property or person of any other individual” (18 U.S. Code 232). FEMA noted that civil unrest can be
triggered by a variety of reasons, including “disputes over exploitation of workers, standard living
conditions, lack of political representation, poor health care and education, lack of employment
opportunities, and racial issues” (FEMA 1993).
Geographical Area Affected
Although human conflict events can occur anywhere in the Eastern Region, individual events will typically
only impact localized cities. Past events indicate that the reported terrorist attack and civil unrest events in
the Eastern Region have been concentr ated to eight (8) cities in the Region listed below. Therefore,
geographic extent of these events is rated as significant.
231
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-174
● Rosebud County
o Lame Deer
● Custer County
o City of Miles City
● Carbon County
o Town of Joliet
o City of Red Lodge
● Big Horn County
o Crow Agency
o City of Hardin
● Yellowstone County
o City of Billings
o City of Laurel
Acts of terrorism are typically a pre-meditated, targeted attack on a specific place or group such as religious
or ethnic groups or sites of significant economic, strategic, military, or cultural significance. Consequently,
areas of higher risk include densely populated cities and counties and military facilities. Large venue events,
such as a sporting event attended by tens of thousands of people might be considered a desirable target.
Again, such events typically occur in densely populated areas since tho se areas can provide the
infrastructure support (hotels, eateries, etc.) for large numbers of people. Even a small -scale terrorist
incident in one of these locations would likely cause cascading impacts to the communities in Eastern
Montana. Like terrorist attacks, active shooter incidents most frequently occur in high-population areas. The
FBI report Active Shooter Incidents, 20-Year Review from 2000-2019 found that 29% of active shooter
incidents in the U.S. occur in businesses open to pedestrians, 15% in open spaces, 13% in schools (Pre-K-
12), and 12% in businesses closed to pedestrians.
Civil unrest, such as protests and demonstrations, can also occur anywhere. The 2020 George Floyd protests
occurred in cities across the United States and even extended to other counties across the world. Highly
populated cities are more likely to see larg e protests that can turn violent and result in property damage
and death. Protests can also be localized to a single city or organization.
Past Occurrences
Terrorism
The GTD catalogues more than 200,000 domestic and international terrorist attacks from 1970 to 2020.
Table 4-54 displays a list of the GTD reported seven events that have occurred in the State of Montana since
1970. Of the seven terrorist attack events reported in Montana, one occurred in the Eastern Region. This
terrorist attack occurred in the City of Billings (Yellowstone County) on March 15, 1970, and was aimed at
the police. No injuries or deaths were recorded .
Table 4-54 Terrorist Attacks in the State of Montana 1970-2020
Date City Perpetrator Group Fatalities Injuries Target Type
2017-05-16 Three Forks Anti-Police extremists 2 5 Police
1997-04-02 Bozeman Anti-Abortion extremists 0 0 Abortion Related
1994-10-11 Kalispell Anti-Abortion extremists 0 0 Abortion Related
1994-01-00 Helena Anti-Abortion extremists 0 0 Abortion Related
1992-01-18 Helena Anti-Abortion extremists 0 0 Abortion Related
1987-04-19 Missoula Aryan Nation (suspected) 0 0 Police
232
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-175
Date City Perpetrator Group Fatalities Injuries Target Type
1970-03-15 Billings Unknown 0 0 Police
Source: GTD 1970-2020
As shown in Figure 4-68, GTD data shows that there was an overall decreasing trend in the number of
terrorist attacks from 1970 to 2005. However, since 2010, there has been an uptake in the number of terrorist
attacks in the United States once again.
Figure 4-68 Terrorist Attacks on US Soil, 1970-2020
Source: GTD, https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/
The increase in attacks over the last decade has been driven primarily by domestic, not international,
terrorism. A domestic terrorist attack is a terrorist attack in which victims “within a country are targeted by
a perpetrator with the same citizenship as the victims” (Predicting Malicious Behavior: Tools and Techniques
for Ensuring Global Security). A recent report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies records
980 domestic terrorist attacks in the US since 1994, with sharp growth over the last 10 to 15 years. Figure
4-69 shows the increase in domestic terrorist attacks from 1994 to 2021 broken down by the ideology of
the attacker. As shown in the chart, the rise in domestic terrorist attacks since 2015 has been largely driven
by violent far-right groups. Data for 2021 was not complete at the time of this risk assessment, and this
explains the drop in attacks shown for that year.
233
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-176
Figure 4-69 Domestic Terrorist Attacks in the US, 1994-2021
Source: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Active shooters
The FBI reported 434 active shooter incidents from 2000 to2021 in the United States: 333 of these events
occurred between 2000 to2019 and were reported in the FBI 20-year active shooter review. Figure 4-70
shows the location of where these incidents took place. The FBI reported an additional 40 incidents in 2020
and 61 incidents in 2021. While none of these 434 incidents took place in the State of Montana, trends from
past events can be used to predict the likelihood of future events.
Figure 4-70 Active Shooter Incident Locations, 2000-2019
Source: FBI report Active Shooter Incidents, 20-Year Review 2000-2019
Civil Unrest
Count Love is an open-source database containing a comprehensive list of U.S. protests from January 20 th,
2017, to January 21st, 2021. The dataset reported 27,270 protests across 4,042 cities in the United States. In
Businesses Open to
Pedestrians
29%
Open Spaces
15%
Schools (Pre-K-12)
13%
Businesses Closed to
Pedestrians
12%
Government
6%
Higher Education
5%
Health Care
5%
Houses of Worship
5%
Residences
4%
Malls
3%
Military
3%
Other
0%
234
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-177
Montana alone, 293 protests were reported across the State: 228 in the Western Region, 42 in the Eastern
Region, and 23 in the Eastern Region. Table 4-55 provides details on these events. 5,178 people attended
these protests in total.
Table 4-55 Protests in the Eastern Region, Jan. 2017 – Jan. 2021
Date City County Attendees Event
1/26/2021 Billings Yellowstone 30 Civil Rights
1/6/2021 Billings Yellowstone 50 Executive
8/29/2020 Hardin Big Horn Other
8/16/2020 Red Lodge Carbon 200 Other
7/30/2020 Billings Yellowstone 100 Other
6/7/2020 Billings Yellowstone 1300 Racial Injustice
5/30/2020 Billings Yellowstone 50 Racial Injustice
4/19/2020 Billings Yellowstone 100 Healthcare
2/24/2020 Hardin Big Horn Other
12/17/2019 Billings Yellowstone Executive
9/23/2019 Hardin Big Horn 100 Other
8/29/2019 Hardin Big Horn 100 Other
6/12/2019 Billings Yellowstone 20 Civil Rights
5/21/2019 Billings Yellowstone 60 Civil Rights
5/21/2019 Billings Yellowstone 10 Civil Rights
4/5/2019 Billings Yellowstone 400 Other
2/26/2019 Billings Yellowstone Education
2/26/2019 Miles City Custer Education
2/14/2019 Lame Deer Rosebud Other
1/19/2019 Billings Yellowstone Civil Rights
12/31/2018 Lame Deer Rosebud 100 Other (Criminal Justice)
11/1/2018 Crow Agency Big Horn Legislative
10/31/2018 Miles City Custer 5 Healthcare
9/6/2018 Billings Yellowstone 50 Executive
7/25/2018 Billings Yellowstone 20 Executive
6/30/2018 Billings Yellowstone 100 Immigration (Families Belong Together)
6/26/2018 Billings Yellowstone 60 Civil Rights (Pro-Choice)
6/9/2018 Billings Yellowstone 150 Healthcare (Opioid Epidemic)
4/7/2018 Billings Yellowstone 100 Guns (Second Amendment)
3/24/2018 Billings Yellowstone 3 Guns
3/24/2018 Billings Yellowstone 400 Guns (March for Our Lives)
3/14/2018 Billings Yellowstone Guns (National Walkout Day)
1/26/2018 Billings Yellowstone Education (School Choice)
1/20/2018 Billings Yellowstone 1000 Civil Rights (Women's March)
1/20/2018 Miles City Custer 60 Civil Rights (Women's March)
9/5/2017 Billings Yellowstone 10 Immigration
6/17/2017 Billings Yellowstone 200 Civil Rights (Pride)
5/12/2017 Billings Yellowstone 100 Executive
4/29/2017 Billings Yellowstone 100 Environment (People's Climate March)
4/21/2017 Billings Yellowstone 50 Executive
3/28/2017 Laurel Yellowstone 100 Education (Principal Fired)
1/21/2017 Miles City Custer 50 Civil Rights (Women's March)
Source: https://countlove.org/
235
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-178
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
The probability of a terrorist attack, active shooter attack, and civil unrest can be difficult to quantify, largely
due to different definitions and data collection methods. In Montana, seven terrorist attacks have been
reported in the State since 1970, only one of which took place in the Eastern Region. The FBI recorded 434
active shooter incidents from 2000 to 2021, none of which occurred in the State. While both terrorist attack
and active shooter attacks are rare in Montana, civil unrest is a more common occurrence. Over the course
of 4 years from 2017 to 2021, 42 protest events were recorded in the Eastern Region of Montana, most of
which occurred in the City of Billings. This averages out to about 10 or 11 protests per year in the Eastern
Region. Based on the limited number of past events, the likelihood of these events is occasional.
Climate Change Considerations
Climate change has the potential to impact terrorism and civil unrest in the future. Extreme weather has
been known to worsen social tensions, poverty, and hunger. Social instability and global conflict brought
on by climate change could result in an increase in the number of both domestic and international terrorist
attacks and civil unrest. While it is unlikely that climate change will have a significant impact on human
conflict in the Eastern Region of Montana, if conditions continue to worsen, it is possible in the future.
Potential Magnitude and Severity
The severity of these incidents can be measured in multiple ways including length of incident, fatalities,
casualties, witnesses, and number of perpetrators. Although an active threat may only directly impact one
specific piece of infrastructure (e.g., a school, theater, or concert venue), it indirectly impacts the community
in many ways, including ongoing closures for investigation, local and national media lo gistics, VIP visits,
mental health concerns, need for additional support services, avoidance of si milar infrastructure, and
subsequent impacts to businesses. The psychological impact is often much worse than the direct impacts
and can continue to affect a community for years. Thus, the overall significance of this hazard is Critical.
Terrorism
The GTD catalogues more than 200,000 terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2020 (the most recent year the
GTD has analyzed). Those incidents averaged roughly one fatality and five injuries per incident. However,
this data is to a large extent skewed by a handful of deadly attacks. These five attacks account for 64% of
the fatalities and 87% of the injuries from terrorist attacks in the US:
● September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, DC, which killed 1,385 and injured 10,878
– more than all other terrorist attacks in the US since 1970 combined.
● October 1, 2017, shooting at the Route 91 Harvest Festival concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, which killed
59 and wounding 851.
● April 4, 2013, Boston Marathon Bombing killed three and injured 264.
● April 19, 1995, bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 and injuring 650.
● September–October 1984 salmonella food poisoning attack in Dalles, Oregon, which sickened 751
people.
Active Shooter
Figure 4-71 summarizes the outcomes of 333 active shooter incidents in the US from 2000 to2019 studied
by the FBI. Casualties for active shooter incidents vary widely, with 2,851 casualties from 333 incidents,
averaging over 8 deaths per incident.
236
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-179
Figure 4-71 Active Shooter Incident Outcomes, 2000-2019
Source: FBI report Active Shooter Incidents, 20-Year Review 2000-2019
Civil Unrest
Civil unrest resulting in large scale protests and demonstrations can have significant impacts to people and
infrastructure in a community. The U.S. Crisis Monitor is a database to facilitate efforts in tracking,
preventing, and mitigation political violence in America in partnership with the Armed Conflict Location and
Event Data Project (ACLED). The U.S. Crisis Monitor reported that in 2020, 11 people in the United States
were killed while participating in political demonstrations and another 14 died in incidents linked to political
unrest. Property damage, such as broken windows and vandalism, are also commonly reported during
violent protests in the United States.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
Most terrorist attacks are primarily intended to kill and injure as many people as possible. Physical harm
from a firearms attack or explosive device is not completely dependent on location, but risk is greater in
areas where higher numbers of people gather. If a biological or chemical agent were released indoors, it
could result in exposure to a high concentration of pathogens, whereas an outdoors release could affect
many more people but probably at a lower dose. Symptoms of illness from a biological or chemical attack
could go undetected for days or even weeks. Local healthcare workers may observe a pattern of unusual
illness or early warning monitoring systems may detect airborne pathogens. People could also be affected
by an attack on food and water supply. In addition to impacts on physical health, any terrorist attack would
likely cause significant stress and anxiety.
237
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-180
Similarly, most active shooters primarily target people, attempting to kill or injure large numbers of
individuals. The number of injuries and fatalities are highly variable, dependent on many factors surrounding
the attack including the location, the number of type of weapons used, the shooter’s skill with weapons, the
amount of people at the location, and law enforcement response time. Psychological effects of the incident,
on not only victims and responders but also the public, may last for years. Civil unrest and large political
demonstrations can also result in death or injuries to protestors, responders, and community members.
Property
The potential for damage to property is highly dependent on the type of attack. Terrorist attacks involving
explosives or other weapons, may damage buildings and infrastructure. For most attacks, impacts are highly
localized to the target of the attack, although attacks could potentially have much broader impacts. Active
shooter incidents rarely result in significant property damage, although crime scene measures may deny
the use of targeted facilities for days after the incident. Civil unrest can result in damaged property such as
broken windows, vandalism, damaged vehicles, stolen property, and fires.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Impacts to critical infrastructure would depend on the site of the attack. Short or long -term disruptions in
operations could occur, as well as gaps in continuity of business or continuity of government, depending
on who the victims of the attack are, and whether a continuity plan is in place. While active shooter incidents
rarely cause major property damage directly, indirect effects can be significant, such as the loss of critical
facilities for days or weeks due to crime scene concerns. Terrorists could disrupt communication and electric
systems through cyber-attacks. Additionally, terrorism, active shooter incidents, and civil unrest can result
in a drain on first responder resources and personnel for days to weeks following the incident.
Economy
Active shooter or terrorist incidents could have significant economic impacts. Specific examples could
include short-term or permanent closing of the site of the attack. Another economic impact could be caused
by general fear – as an example, an attack in a crowded shopping center could cause potential patrons to
avoid similar places and disrupt economic activity. Potential economic losses could include cost of repair or
replacement of damaged facilities, lost economic opportunities for businesses, loss of food supplies,
disruption of the food supply chain, and immediate damage to the surrounding environment.
As an extreme example, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington the
U.S. stock market lost $1.4 trillion, the Gross Domestic Product of New York City lost an estimated $27
billion, and commercial air travel decreased by 20 %.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Terrorists have been known to target sites with historic or cultural significance. Civil unrest and protests also
frequently target historically or politically significant areas, such as capital buildings, which can be damaged
during a civil unrest event if a protest turns violent. Additionally, active shooters can target cultural
significant areas if the motive is for religious or political reasons.
Natural Resources
Generally, active shooter incidents would not have an impact on the natural environment. Agro -terrorism
or chemical terrorism could result in significant damage to the environment in areas near the attack. These
events can pollute the environment and cause nearby plants and animals to get sick or die. Contaminated
material that gets into the air or water supply can affect humans further away from the incident site.
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
The link between increased development and terrorist attacks is uncertain at best. Many terrorist attacks
have targeted larger metropolitan areas, so a larger population could potentially make public events more
attractive targets. Population growth and development could expose more people and property to the
impacts of an explosive or other large-scale attack.
238
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-181
Depending on the motivation behind the attack, incidents will most likely be focused on so -called “soft
targets.” Protective design of buildings can reduce the risk of an active shooter incident, and if one occurs,
can mitigate, or reduce the impacts and number of potential victims.
Risk Summary
In summary, the human conflict hazard is overall medium significance for the Region. Variations in risk by
jurisdiction are summarized in the table below, followed by key issues noted in the vulnerability assessment.
● There were no recorded incidents of active shooters, one recorded terrorist attack, and forty-two (42)
recorded civil unrest cases in the Eastern Region, most of which occurred in Billings; therefore, the
ranking of frequency for human conflict is rated as occasional.
● Based on potential for death, injury, and significant damage to critical infrastructure and property,
magnitude is ranked as critical.
● Although human conflict events can occur anywhere in the Region, individual events will typically only
impact localized cities. Past events indicate that these events in the Eastern Region have primarily
occurred in 8 cities in the Region; therefore, geographic extent of these events is rated as significant.
● Impacts on people from human conflict include injury and death, as well as psycholog ical damage from
being in an incident.
● Impacts on property include vandalism, theft, and damage. Total destruction of property is possible in
the case of an extreme terrorist attack.
● Significant economic damages are possible in the case of a significant terrorist attack due to repairs
and business closures.
● In a severe human conflict case, it would be possible for significant disruption of critical facilities
including loss of power, transportation interruptions, and disruption of first responders.
● Unique jurisdictional vulnerability: the City of Billings experienced a disproportionate amount of civil
unrest.
● Related Hazards: Cyber-attack
Table 4-56 Risk Summary Table: Human Conflict
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Eastern Region Medium
Big Horn Medium Hardin, Lodge Grass Miles City had four documented civil unrest cases;
Lodge Grass had none
Carbon Medium Bearcreek, Bridger, Joliet,
Fromberg, Red Lodge
Joliet had one documented civil unrest incident
Carter Medium Ekalaka N/A
Custer Medium Ismay, Miles City Miles City had four documented civil unrest cases,
Ismay had none
Crow Tribe Medium N/A
Daniels Medium Scobey, Flaxville None
Dawson Medium Richey, Glendive None
Fallon Medium Plevna, Baker None
Garfield Medium Jordan N/A
Golden Valley Medium Ryegate, Lavina None
McCone Medium Circle
N/A
Musselshell Medium Melstone, Roundup N/A
Powder River Low Broadus N/A
Prairie Medium Terry N/A
Richland Medium Fairview, Sidney None
239
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-182
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance Additional Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Roosevelt Medium Wolf Point, Poplar,
Bainville, Culberson, Froid
None
Rosebud Medium Colstrip, Forsyth Lame Deer had two civil unrest cases, neither
Colstrip nor Forsyth had documented human
conflict
Sheridan Low Plentywood, Medicine
Lake, Outlook, Westby
None
Stillwater Medium Columbus N/A
Treasure Medium Hysham N/A
Valley Low Glasgow, Fort Peck,
Nashua, Opheim
None
Wibaux Low Wibaux None
Yellowstone High Billings, Broadview, Laurel Billings experienced more than half of the total
civil unrest incidents in the Region and the only
terrorist attack, Laurel had one documented civil
unrest incident
4.2.13 Tornadoes & Windstorms
Hazard/Problem Description
Tornadoes
Tornadoes are one of the most destructive types of severe weather. According to the 2018 SHMP, a tornado
is a violently rotating column of air in contact with the ground and extending from the base of a
thunderstorm. Until 2006, tornadoes were categorized by the Fujita scale based on the tornado’s wind
speed. The Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale was implemented in place of the Fujita scale and began operational
use on February 1, 2007. The EF scale has six categories from zero to five representing increasing degr ees
of damage. It was revised to better align wind speed s closely with associated storm damage. It also adds
more types of structures as well as vegetation, expands degrees of damage, and better accounts for
variables such as differences in construction quality. The EF -scale is a set of wind estimates based on
damage. It uses three-second estimated gusts at the point of damage. These estimates vary with height
and exposure. Forensic meteorologists use 28 damage indicators and up to 9 degrees of damage to as sign
estimated speeds to the wind gusts. Table 4-57 describes the EF-scale ratings versus the previous Fujita
Scale used prior to 2007 (NOAA 2007).
Table 4-57 The Fujita Scale and Enhanced Fujita Scale
Fujita Scale Derived Operational EF Scale
F Number
Fastest ¼ mile
(mph)
3-second gust
(mph) EF Number
3-second
gust (mph)
EF
Number
3-second
gusts (mph)
0 40-72 45-78 0 65-85 0 65-85
1 73-112 79-117 1 86-109 1 86-110
2 113-157 118-161 2 110-137 2 111-135
3 158-207 162-209 3 138-167 3 136-165
4 208-260 210-261 4 168-199 4 166-200
5 261-318 262-317 5 200-234 5 Over 200
Notes: EF = Enhanced Fujita; F = Fujita; mph = Miles per Hour
Windstorms
Windstorms represent the most common type of severe weather. Often , accompanying severe
thunderstorms cause significant property and crop damage, threaten public safety, and disrupt utilities and
240
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-183
communications. Straight-line winds are generally any wind not associated with rotation and in rare cases
can exceed 100 miles per hour (mph). The NWS defines high winds as sustained wind speeds of 40 mph or
greater lasting for one hour or longer, or winds of 58 mph or greater for any duration. Windstorms are often
produced by super-cell thunderstorms or a line of thunderstorms that typically develop on hot and humid
days. According to the 2023 SHMP, high winds can occur with strong pressure gradients or gusty frontal
passages. These winds can affect the entire State with wind speeds of more than 75-100 mph.
For this hazard, three different classifications of windstorms were analyzed: high winds, strong winds, and
thunderstorm winds. The most significant distinction between high winds and thunderstorm winds in the
NCEI dataset is that high winds are most frequently reported in the winter months (December, January, and
February) and are recorded on a zonal scale, whereas thunderstorm winds are most reported in the summer
months (June, July, and August) and recorded on a local county or city scale. Strong winds are another type
of windstorm, which originates from thunderstorms and are any wind exceeding 58 mph. Strong winds are
the least frequently documented category of wind in the Eastern Region. Despite these differences, the wind
speeds and associated impacts from these winds are comparable.
Wind speed can also be rated on the Beaufort wind scale (Table 4-58). The Beaufort wind scale is particularly
useful for estimating wind speed in the absence of instrumentation. This HMP update uses the
aforementioned NCEI wind speed classifications and data to evaluate wind hazard extent.
Table 4-58 Beaufort Wind Scale
Force Speed
(mph)
Description
0 0-1 Calm
1 1-3 Light Air
2 4-7 Light Breeze
3 8-12 Gentle Breeze
4 13-18 Moderate Breeze
5 19-24 Fresh Breeze
6 25-31 Strong Breeze
7 32-38 Near Gale
8 39-46 Gale
9 47-54 Severe Gale
10 55-63 Storm
11 64-72 Violent Storm
12 72-83 Hurricane
Geographical Area Affected
The spatial extent rating for both tornadoes and wind hazards is extensive. Windstorms and tornadoes can
occur anywhere in the Eastern Region. The rural, unpopulated areas of the County typically experience the
highest frequency of wind events due to the abundance of flat, open land in rural areas of the region. The
Montana State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018 highlights that greatest monetary losses due to property
damages are likely to occur in cities with concentrated infrastructure . Figure 4-72 and Figure 4-73 display
the historic tornado and wind events in the State of Montana by region.
241
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-184
Figure 4-72 Past Tornado Events in Montana by Region (1950-2021)
Source: NOAA
242
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-185
Figure 4-73 Wind Events in Montana by Region 1955-2021
Source: NOAA
243
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Past Occurrences
The NCEI database was used to gather information on historic severe summer weather events in the Eastern
Region of Montana. The NCEI data is a comprehensive list of oceanic, atmospheric, and geophysical data
across the United States and aggregated by county and zone. It is important to note that weather events
that occurred in Crow Tribe and North Cheyenne Tribe are also included in the dataset tables down below.
However, instead of individual records, tribal data records were grouped into the nearest county. The NCEI
uses unique methods of recording various hazards. High wind and strong wind are recorded by zone rather
than by county and these datasets begin in 1996. Thunderstorm wind is recorded by county and the dataset
starts in 1955. Tornadoes are also recorded by county and the dataset begins in 1950. All these datasets
contain information up to March 2022.
The NCEI database reported 4,730 windstorm events on 1,218 days and 252 tornado events on 172 days. A
summary of these events is captured in Table 4-59. In total, over $68.4 million was lost in property damages
and over $10.6 million in crop losses. Eleven fatalities and 35 injuries were also reported in the Eastern
Region. It is important to note that due to the nature of the NCEI data, losses from unre ported events are
not included in the dataset and some losses may be duplicated between counties; therefore, the real losses
from severe windstorms and tornadoes are likely different than what is displayed in the table below, but
estimates are useful for planning purposes.
Table 4-59 Summary of Losses by Hazard in the Eastern Region
Deaths Injuries Property Loss Crop Loss Days with
Events Total Events
High Wind 0 3 $930,000 $0 404 1,492
Strong Wind 0 0 $8,000 $0 4 5
Thunderstorm
Wind
7 15 $25,199,200 $10,550,000 810 3,233
Tornadoes 4 17 $42,279,250 $80,000 172 252
Total 11 35 $68,416,450 $10,630,000 1,390 4,982
Source: NCEI
The NCEI dataset reports variation in the frequency of events across the Eastern Region. Thunderstorm
Winds are the most common type of windstorm event. The Southern Wheatland Zone experiences the
highest frequency of high wind events. Both the Southern Wheatland and Central and Southern Valley
Zones also experience a high frequency of high wind events in comparison to the other zones in the
planning area. Table 4-60 and Figure 4-74 below display a summary of high wind and strong wind events
by zone.
Table 4-60 Total High Wind and Strong Wind Events by Zone (1996 to 2022)
Zone High Wind Strong Wind Total
Absaroka / Beartooth Mountains (Zone) 3 0 3
Absarokee / Beartooth Mountains (Zone) 5 0 5
Beartooth Foothills (Zone) 81 0 81
Big Horn (Zone) 12 0 12
Carter (Zone) 50 0 50
Central And Southern Valley (Zone) 89 4 93
Crazy Mountains (Zone) 3 0 3
Custer (Zone) 43 0 43
Daniels (Zone) 36 0 36
Dawson (Zone) 78 0 78
244
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Zone High Wind Strong Wind Total
Eastern Carbon (Zone) 18 0 18
Eastern Roosevelt (Zone) 24 0 24
Fallon (Zone) 56 0 56
Garfield (Zone) 83 1 84
Golden Valley (Zone) 23 0 23
Golden Valley/Musselshell (Zone) 5 0 5
Judith Gap (Zone) 69 0 69
McCone (Zone) 65 0 65
Musselshell (Zone) 57 0 57
Northern Big Horn (Zone) 16 0 16
Northern Rosebud (Zone) 49 0 49
Northern Stillwater (Zone) 71 0 71
Northern Valley (Zone) 29 0 29
Powder River (Zone) 17 0 17
Prairie (Zone) 37 0 37
Red Lodge Foothills (Zone) 21 0 21
Roosevelt (Zone) 9 0 9
Rosebud (Zone) 8 0 8
Sheridan (Zone) 61 0 61
Southern Big Horn (Zone) 33 0 33
Southern Rosebud (Zone) 14 0 14
Southern Wheatland (Zone) 101 0 101
Stillwater (Zone) 2 0 2
Stillwater/Carbon (Zone) 13 0 13
Valley (Zone) 10 0 10
Western Roosevelt (Zone) 44 0 44
Wheatland (Zone) 2 0 2
Wheatland/Park/Sweet Grass (Zone) 44 0 44
Wibaux (Zone) 39 0 39
Yellowstone (Zone) 72 0 72
Total 1,492 5 1,497
Source: NCEI
245
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Figure 4-74 Total High Wind and Strong Wind Events by Zone (1996 to 2022)
Source: NCEI, Chart by WSP
Similar to high wind and strong wind, there are variations in thunderstorm wind and tornado events
between counties in the Eastern Region. Valley County experienced the greatest number of recorded events
in both thunderstorm wind and tornado events. In total, there were 3,233 thunderstorm wind events since
1955 and 252 tornado events since 1950 in the Eastern Region. Table 4-61 displays a summary of these
events.
3
5
81
12
50
89
3
43
36
78
18
24
56
83
23
5
69
65
57
16
49
71
29
17
37
21
9
8
61
33
14
101
2
13
10
44
2
44
39
72
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
ABSAROKA / BEARTOOTH MOUNTAINS (ZONE)
ABSAROKEE / BEARTOOTH MOUNTAINS (ZONE)
BEARTOOTH FOOTHILLS (ZONE)
BIG HORN (ZONE)
CARTER (ZONE)
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN VALLEY (ZONE)
CRAZY MOUNTAINS (ZONE)
CUSTER (ZONE)
DANIELS (ZONE)
DAWSON (ZONE)
EASTERN CARBON (ZONE)
EASTERN ROOSEVELT (ZONE)
FALLON (ZONE)
GARFIELD (ZONE)
GOLDEN VALLEY (ZONE)
GOLDEN VALLEY/MUSSELSHELL (ZONE)
JUDITH GAP (ZONE)
MCCONE (ZONE)
MUSSELSHELL (ZONE)
NORTHERN BIG HORN (ZONE)
NORTHERN ROSEBUD (ZONE)
NORTHERN STILLWATER (ZONE)
NORTHERN VALLEY (ZONE)
POWDER RIVER (ZONE)
PRAIRIE (ZONE)
RED LODGE FOOTHILLS (ZONE)
ROOSEVELT (ZONE)
ROSEBUD (ZONE)
SHERIDAN (ZONE)
SOUTHERN BIG HORN (ZONE)
SOUTHERN ROSEBUD (ZONE)
SOUTHERN WHEATLAND (ZONE)
STILLWATER (ZONE)
STILLWATER/CARBON (ZONE)
VALLEY (ZONE)
WESTERN ROOSEVELT (ZONE)
WHEATLAND (ZONE)
WHEATLAND/PARK/SWEET GRASS (ZONE)
WIBAUX (ZONE)
YELLOWSTONE (ZONE)
Number of Events
High Wind Strong Wind
246
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Table 4-61 Total Thunderstorm Wind and Tornado Events by County
Thunderstorm Wind Tornadoes
Big Horn Co. 128 11
Carbon Co. 28 3
Carter Co. 105 18
Custer Co. 215 8
Daniels Co. 68 9
Dawson Co. 205 15
Fallon Co. 91 14
Garfield Co. 221 12
Golden Valley Co. 14 0
McCone Co. 161 9
Musselshell Co. 43 5
Powder River Co. 121 18
Prairie Co. 102 3
Richland Co. 192 13
Roosevelt Co. 236 16
Rosebud Co. 172 9
Sheridan Co. 107 10
Stillwater Co. 66 1
Treasure Co. 47 3
Valley Co. 512 39
Wheatland Co. 23 7
Wibaux Co. 76 8
Yellowstone Co. 300 21
Total 3,233 252
Source: NCEI
Figure 4-75 and Figure 4-76 display crop and property losses by county from tornado and thunderstorm
wind events. According to the dataset, Roosevelt County experienced the highest property loss and Dawson
and Garfield Counties experienced the greatest crop loss from thunderstorm wi nd events. Yellowstone
County experienced the greatest property loss from tornado events.
247
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Figure 4-75 Total Losses from Thunderstorm Wind by County
Source: NCEI, Chart by WSP
Big Horn County
Carbon County
Carter County
Custer County
Daniels County
Dawson County
Fallon County
Garfield County
Golden Valley County
McCone County
Musselshell County
Powder River County
Prairie County
Richland County
Roosevelt County
Rosebud County
Sheridan County
Stillwater County
Treasure County
Valley County
Wheatland County
Wibaux County
Yellowstone County
Property Losses Crop Losses
248
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Figure 4-76 Total Losses from Tornadoes by County
Source: NCEI, Chart by WSP
The NCEI reported details on significant events in the Eastern Region:
● July 13, 2005: A severe bow echo raced from west to east across Roosevelt County and caused
extensive damage from Poplar to Culbertson between 8 and 9 pm. Various properties and crops
suffered from severe damage, including but not limited to two hangers from the airport were blown
off; quite a few vehicles were blown off track; homes and businesses suffered roof and siding damage;
large grain bins were destroyed; many trees were also damaged. This event resulted in $3M of property
damage.
● November 12, 2007: A strong cold front moved across Western Montana and produced heavy snowfall
and high winds in the Bitterroot and Sapphire Mountains as well as high winds in the Anaconda and
Deer Lodge areas. This event resulted in $650,000 of property damage and 2 injuries.
● June 20, 2010: A very moist and unstable atmosphere was in place across portions of the Billings
Forecast area during the afternoon and evening of the 20th. A moist, southeast surface flow, strong
Big Horn County
Carbon County
Carter County
Custer County
Daniels County
Dawson County
Fallon County
Garfield County
Golden Valley County
McCone County
Musselshell County
Powder River County
Prairie County
Richland County
Roosevelt County
Rosebud County
Sheridan County
Stillwater County
Treasure County
Valley County
Wheatland County
Wibaux County
Yellowstone County
Property Losses Crop Losses
249
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
wind shear aloft, and ample afternoon heating provided the necessary ingredients for severe weather.
Numerous thunderstorms, some of which became rapidly severe producing tornadoes and large hail,
developed across South Central Montana. Debris from an arena impacted other nearby businesses
creating additional damage, mainly in the form of broken windows. Debris from the arena was reported
to have landed as far away as a mile from the tornado touchdown. This event resulted in $30M of
property damage.
● July 27, 2015: A low-pressure circulation over southeastern Montana; favorable winds, and warm, moist
air all combined with an approaching strong upper -level storm system quickly developed and
maintained well-organized severe thunderstorms over many locations; there was also a macroburst in
the Glendive area. This event resulted in $2.5M of property damage.
● September 28, 2019: Strong east winds developed on the western side of the Whitefish and Mission
ranges as high pressure settled into north-central Montana resulting in considerable damage. Severe
wind caused various damages, including but not limited to damages to trees and powerlines; power
outages that lasted for almost two days for thousands of customers; boat and dock damage as waves
reached certain heights. This event resulted in $300,000 in property damage.
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
According to the NCEI dataset, there has been 4,982 total recorded severe windstorm and tornado events
on 1,390 days over the past 72 years in the Eastern Region; therefore, there is an average of nearly 20 days
with severe wind and tornado events per year in the planning area. This corresponds to a highly likely
probability of occurrence.
Strong wind is the least documented type of windstorm in the Region and thunderstorm winds are the most
common. Based on the NCEI dataset, tornadoes are likely to occur somewhere in the Region around 3.5
times a year on average. Valley County experienced the greatest number of recorded events in both
thunderstorm wind and tornado events. The h ighest number of high wind events occur in the Southern
Wheatland and Southern and Central Valley zones.
250
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-193
Figure 4-77 below depicts the annualized frequency of tornado events at a county level based on the NRI.
The mapping shows a trend towards increased likelihood in the western and southern regions, particularly
in Valley and Carter Counties. Counties in the eastern and northeastern portions of the Region have a
relatively lower frequency of tornado events.
Figure 4-78 below depicts the annualized frequency of strong wind events at a county level based on the
NRI. A majority of the counties in the region are ranked as moderate and moderate to high frequency, with
the highest frequency of events occurring in McCone, Richland, and Dawson Counties .
251
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-194
Figure 4-77 Annualized Frequency of Tornado Events by County
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
252
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-195
Figure 4-78 Annualized Frequency of Strong Wind Events by County
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
253
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Climate Change Considerations
There is little documentation of how climate change may be affecting present or future summertime
windstorms or tornadoes. Projecting the future influence of climate change on these events can be
complicated by the fact that some of the risk factors for these events may increase with climate change,
while others may decrease.
The 2022 NOAA Climate Summary acknowledges summertime high winds exist but provides no indication
if a trend currently exists. The Fifth National Climate Assessment does not directly address climate-change
impacts on summertime wind. This assessment also did not suggest a trend in wind conditions exists, nor
is anticipated. Additionally, the 2021 Montana Climate Change and Human Health report does not directly
address the issue of summertime high winds. Interestingly, this report discusses an increase in wind
erosion of soil in wheat production, but attributes this to increased summer drought and changing
precipitation patterns, without mention of changes in wind cond itions.
Potential impacts are discussed in the vulnerability subsection of this hazard profile, as well as the impacts
of population changes and development trends. Current variability in vulnerability by jurisdiction, based
on existing conditions, is discussed in these sections and jurisdictional annex es. Due to the uncertainty
with climate change on tornadoes and windstorms, it would be speculative to define with further
specificity the impacts related to climate change on each jurisdiction within the Region. Future updates to
this plan should revisit this topic as scientific knowledge progresses.
Potential Magnitude and Severity
To calculate a magnitude and severity rating for comparison with other hazards, and to assist in assessing
the overall impact of the hazard on the planning area, information from the event of record is used as well
as the Beaufort Wind Scale (see Table 4-58). In some cases, the event of record represents an anticipated
worst-case scenario, and in others, it reflects common occurrence. While it is possible these estimates are
greater than actual losses due to potential duplicates in the dataset, these losses provide an understanding
of the likely magnitude in the planning area.
Overall, windstorm or tornado impacts in Eastern Region are generally Critical. While wind occurs rather
frequently in the area, most events cause little to no damage. The impact on quality of life or critical facilities
and functions in the affected area would be minimal. Injuries or deaths are possible due to wind -thrown
trees in the backcountry or from other blown debris.
Vulnerability Assessment
254
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-126
Figure 4-79 and
255
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-198
Figure 4-80 illustrate the relative risk index rating due to strong wind and tornadoes in Montana counties
based on data in the NRI. The NRI calculation takes into account various factors, including the expected
annual losses, social vulnerability, and community resilience in each county across Montana. Most counties
in the region have a very low to moderate rating for strong wind events while Roosevelt County has a
relatively high rating. For tornado events, counties in the region have a very low to relatively low rating;
none have a high or very high-risk index rating.
256
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-199
Figure 4-79 NRI Risk Index Rating for Strong Wind
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
257
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-200
Figure 4-80 NRI Risk Index Rating for Tornadoes
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
258
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-201
People
The planning area is only slightly exposed to tornadoes and concern over windstorms is focused on
Roosevelt and Bighorn counties.
Individuals caught in the path of a tornado who are unable to seek appropriate shelter are especially
vulnerable. This may include vulnerable individuals who are out in the open, in cars, are unhoused, or who
do not have access to basements, cellars, or safe rooms. Hikers and climbers in the area may also be more
vulnerable to severe weather events. Visitors to the area may not be aware of how quickly a thunderstorm
can build in the planning area. In addition, those living in mobile homes are especially vulnerable.
Other populations vulnerable to tornado and wind hazards include the elderly, low-income or linguistically
isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated
from major roads. Power outages due to severe wind or tornadoes can be life-threatening to those
dependent on electricity for life support. These populations face isolation and exposure during
thunderstorm wind, high wind, and tornado events and could suffer more secondary effects of the hazard.
Overall, however, the vulnerability of people to tornado and wind hazards is low
Property
Exposure to windstorms and tornadoes is low throughout most of the planning area, property in poor
condition or in particularly vulnerable locations may be susceptible to damage when these hazards do
occur. Property located at higher elevations and on ridges may be more prone to wind damage. Property
located under or near overhead powerlines or large trees may be damaged in the event of a collapse.
Older buildings in the planning area may be built to low code standards or none at all , making them more
susceptible to severe wind and tornado events . Mobile homes are disproportionately at risk due to the
design of homes. Tornadoes often create flying debris which can cause damages to homes, vehicles, and
landscape.
In the Eastern Region, property damages due to wind and tornadoes totaled over $68.4M. Reported impacts
from high wind in the planning area include damage to trees, mobile homes, roofs, power lines, and vehicles.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Transportation is susceptible to wind and tornado caused blockage of roads by downed trees or power
lines. Of particular concern are roads providing access to isolated areas and the elderly. Temporary loss of
utilities, most notably power, is a susceptibility. Downed power lines can cause blackouts, leaving large areas
isolated, which was reported several times in the NCEI dataset. Phone, water, and sewer system service can
be interrupted. Loss of phone connection, cellular or landline, would leave populations isolated and unable
to call for assistance.
Economy
Exposure of the economy of the Eastern Region to ill effects is somewhat different for tornado and
windstorm hazards. Windstorms are more frequent in the Eastern Region and have less intense impact
over a wider area. In contrast, tornadoes are relatively rare, effect a relatively small area, but have a well-
deserved reputation for causing intense destruction over a relatively narrow area. Both hazards expose
local economies to potential property damage, business closures, loss of services such as power and
transportation, displacement of people, loss of tourism and difficult to predict cascading effects. However,
the economy is exposed to these factors somewhat differently depending on the storm type. F or example,
tornadoes are more likely to cause displacement of people, while windstorms can cumulatively cause very
expensive damage, especially to housing.
In addition, the economy of the Eastern region is susceptible to damage from exposures such as property
damage, business closures, loss of services such as power and transportation, displacement of people, and
loss of tourism. The economy is also susceptible to cascading effects caused by these exposures .
259
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-202
When exposure and susceptibility is considered together, most economic loss due to wind and tornadoes
is related to direct property damage and subsequent debris removal, response, and repair activities.
Business closures, displacement of people, and loss of tourism also reduce economic activity and can cause
substantial damage to local economies. The loss of services related to lifelines can have a profound effect
on the extent of damage to the economy. Loss of power and shelter/housing are particularly important in
this regard.
Figure 4-81 and Figure 4-82 below illustrate the relative risk of EAL rating due to strong wind and tornadoes
for Montana counties based on data in the NRI. EAL ratings range from very low to low for both wind and
tornado hazards in all Eastern Region counties. The EAL calculation takes into account agriculture value
exposed to these events, annualized frequency, and historical losses. The EAL rating is thus heavily based
on agricultural impacts.
Figure 4-81 NRI Strong Wind Expected Annual Loss Rating
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
260
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-203
Figure 4-82 NRI Tornado Events Expected Annual Loss Rating
Map by WSP, Data Source: FEMA National Risk Index, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/determining-risk
Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic and cultural resources are exposed to tornadoes and windstorms similarly to other assets. In terms
of susceptibility, historic buildings are typically built to old building codes or no codes at all and are more
likely to sustain damage than newer buildings. This causes historic buildings and their contents to be more
vulnerable to windstorms and tornadoes than newer buildings. Historic assets w ithin newer buildings, such
as a more recently built museum, are likely no more vulnerable to windstorm and tornadoes than non -
historic assets.
Natural Resources
The environment is highly exposed to severe winds and tornadoes. Large swaths of tree blowdowns can
occur, particularly in the beetle-killed forests prevalent in the region. Severe winds can spread wildfire or
even trigger wildfire near overhead power lines. Crops are also at risk of losses. The NCEI dataset reported
over $10.6 M in crop losses from windstorm and tornado events in the Eastern Region.
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
All future development will be exposed to severe winds and tornadoes. The ability to withstand impacts lies
in sound land use practices and consistent enforcement of codes and regulations for new construction.
Development regulations that require safe rooms, basements, or other structures that reduce risk to people
would decrease vulnerability but may not be cost-effective given the relative infrequency of damaging
tornadoes in the Eastern Region.
The State of Montana has adopted the 2012 International Building Code IBC. The IBC includes a provision
that buildings must be constructed to withstand a wind load of 75 mph constant velocity and three-second
261
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-204
gusts of 90 mph. Buildings must be designed to withstand a snow load of 30 pounds per square foot
minimum.
Risk Summary
In summary, the tornadoes and windstorms hazard are considered to be of overall high significance for the
Region. with key issues summarized below. Variations in risk by jurisdiction are summarized in the table
below.
● Severe windstorms (high wind, strong wind, thunderstorm wind) and tornado events are rated as having
high overall significance for the Eastern Region
● These events can impact anywhere in the planning region; therefore, the hazard extent is rated as
extensive.
● The NCEI data reported 1,390 days with severe weather events over 72 years, which averages to nearly
20 days a year with severe winter weather events in the Eastern Region; therefore, future occurrence is
rated as highly likely.
● The NCEI reported 11 deaths, 35 injuries, over $68.4 million in property damages and over $10.6 million
in crop damages, therefore, the magnitude is rated as critical.
● People who are dependent on electricity and populations who work outdoors or in transportation are
most vulnerable to severe windstorm events and tornadoes. Individuals living in mobile homes are also
disproportionately likely to experience losses from wind and tornado events.
● Power outages and damage to buildings are frequently reported impacts to property of severe
windstorm events and tornadoes.
● Downed power lines resulting in communication and electricity failures are the most common impacts
on critical facilities.
● Significant economic losses are possible in the event of a severe windstorm or tornado due to
infrastructure repair and business/service disruptions .
● Related Hazards: Wildfire, Severe Summer Weather, Severe Winter Weather, Transportation Accidents
Table 4-62 Risk Summary Table: Tornadoes and Windstorms
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance
Additional
Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences
Eastern Region Medium
Big Horn Medium Hardin, Lodge
Grass
None
Carbon Medium Bearcreek,
Bridger, Joliet,
Fromberg, Red
Lodge
None
Carter Medium Ekalaka None
Custer Medium Ismay, Miles City None
Crow Tribe High None
Daniels Medium Scobey, Flaxville None
Dawson High Richey, Glendive There have been a higher number of wind events that
resulted in losses in Dawson County
Fallon Medium Plevna, Baker None
Garfield Medium Jordan There have been a higher number of wind events that
resulted in losses in Garfield County
Golden Valley Medium Ryegate, Lavina None
McCone Medium Circle
There have been a higher number of wind events that
resulted in losses in McCone County
262
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-205
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance
Additional
Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences
Musselshell Medium Melstone,
Roundup
None
Powder River Medium Broadus None
Prairie Medium Terry None
Richland Medium Fairview, Sidney None
Roosevelt High Wolf Point,
Poplar, Bainville,
Culberson, Froid
There have been a higher number of wind events that
resulted in losses in Roosevelt County
Rosebud Medium Colstrip, Forsyth None
Sheridan Medium Plentywood,
Medicine Lake,
Outlook, Westby
None
Stillwater Medium Columbus None
Treasure Medium Hysham None
Valley High Glasgow, Fort
Peck, Nashua,
Opheim
There have been a higher number of wind events that
resulted in losses in Valley County
Wibaux Medium Wibaux None
Yellowstone High Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
There have been a higher number of wind events that
resulted in losses in Yellowstone County
4.2.14 Transportation Accidents
Hazard/Problem Description
This hazard encompasses air transportation, highway transportation, waterway transportation, railway
transportation, and wild animal vehicle collisions. The transportation incidents can involve any mode of
transportation that directly threatens life and which results in property damage and/or death(s)/injury(s)
and/or adversely impact a community’s capabilities to provide emergency services. Incidents involving
buses and other high occupancy vehicles could trigger a response that exceeds the normal day -to-day
capabilities of response agencies.
Air Transportation
An air transportation incident may involve a military, commercial or private aircraft. Airplanes and
helicopters are used to transport passengers for business and recreation as well as thousands of tons of
cargo. A variety of circumstances can result in an air transportation incident; mechanical failure, pilot error,
enemy attack, terrorism, weather conditions and on-board fire can all lead to an air transportation incident.
Highway Transportation
Highway transportation incidents are complex. Contributing factors can include a roadway’s design and/or
pavement conditions (e.g., rain, snow, and ice), a vehicle’s mechanical condition (e.g., tires, brakes, lights), a
driver’s behavior (e.g., speeding, inattentiveness, and seat belt usage), the driver’s condition (e.g., alcohol
use, age-related conditions, physical impairment) and driver inattention by using a wireless device. In fact,
the driver’s behavior and condition factors are the primary cause in a n estimated 67 percent of highway
crashes and a contributing factor in an estimated 95 percent of all crashes.
Railway Transportation
A railway transportation incident is a train accident that directly threatens life and/or property, or adversely
impacts a community’s capabilities to provide emergency services. Railway incidents may include
263
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-206
derailments, collisions and highway/rail crossing accidents. Train incidents can result from a variety of
causes; human error, mechanical failure, faulty signals, and/or problems with the track. Results of an incident
can range from minor “track hops” to catastrophic hazardous material incidents and even human/animal
casualties.
Waterway Transportation
A waterway incident is an accident involving any water vessel that threatens life, property, or adversely
affects a community’s capability to provide emergency services. Waterway incidents primarily involve
pleasure watercraft on rivers and lakes. Waterway incidents may also include events in which a person,
persons, or object falls through the ice on partially frozen bodies of water. Impacts include fuel spillage,
drowning, and property damage.
Wild Animal Vehicle Collisions
Wild animal vehicle collisions consist of any roadway transportation accident where an animal is involved
in the accident. These accidents typically occur at dusk, from 6pm -9pm, when deer and other wildlife are
most active and when the visibility of drivers decreases. Deer are the most common wild animal involved in
roadway transportation accidents in the United States and in the Eastern Region.
Geographical Area Affected
All counties in the Eastern Region are prone to transportation incidents. Due to transportation accidents
typically occurring along roadways, waterways, or near airports, the significance rating for the geographic
area affected in the Eastern Region is rated as significant (10-50% of planning area). Roads with frequently
reported roadway transportation accidents in the Eastern Region include Highway 2, Highway 12, U.S. Route
191, Interstate 90, and Interstate 94. The BNSF railway is the most significant railway running through the
Eastern Region; therefore, the counties that contain the BNSF railway will be more likely to experience
railway accidents. The Eastern Region is also home to Billings Logan International Airport, as well as several
smaller regional or general aviation airports, any of which could be the location of an aircraft accident.
However, documented aircraft crashes have happened across the planning area and are most frequently
documented as being small civilian aircrafts.
Past Occurrences
Air Transportation Incidents:
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported 505 air transportation incidents in the State from
1964 to 2018. Figure 4-83 displays the annual trends of total fatal air transportation accidents. The greatest
number of incidents were reported in 2006 with 32 total incidents. Since 2001, there has been a significant
increase in the number of events reported. Most crashes have been small, private planes. Small Cessna and
Piper aircrafts were frequently reported in the dataset.
264
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-207
Figure 4-83 Annual Aircraft Incidents in the State of Montana
Source: NTSB, Chart by WSP
Highway Transportation Incidents:
The Montana Department of Transportation’s Office of Traffic and Safety maintains traffic crash statistics
and location maps by county. Table 4-63 and Figure 4-84 shows the trend of crashes in the Eastern Region
between 2016 and 2020. This dataset was extracted from the MDT’s Crash Database compiled for the
purpose of safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway -
highway crossings. The dataset has reported 26,984 road transportation events over the course of 4 years
across the counties in the Eastern Region. Yellowstone County had the greatest number of reported crash
events by far, with a total of 16,475 reported events, comprising 61% of the total incidents in the Region
from 2016- to 2020.
Table 4-63 Roadway Crash Statistics by County in the Eastern Region (2016-2020)
County Number of Accidents (2016-2020)
Big Horn 782
Carbon 966
Carter 68
Custer 777
Daniels 78
Dawson 1,153
Fallon 87
Garfield 77
Golden Valley 95
McCone 134
Musselshell 342
Powder River 227
Prairie 307
265
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-208
County Number of Accidents (2016-2020)
Richland 1,447
Roosevelt 534
Rosebud 656
Sheridan 234
Stillwater 1,291
Treasure 203
Valley 694
Wheatland 218
Wibaux 139
Yellowstone 16,475
Grand Total 26,984
Source: Montana Department of Transportation 2016-2020
Figure 4-84 Roadway Crash Statistics by County in the Eastern Region (2016-2020)
Source: Montana Department of Transportation 2016-2020
The Montana DoT also reported crash severity from 2011 to 2020 for the entire state of Montana . Figure
4-85 displays the temporal trends of crash severity. Throughout the state, accidents with no inju ry are most
commonly reported, followed by accidents with minimal injuries. Since 2011, 499 fatal crashes have been
reported across the state and 858 serious injury crashes. There is an average of 49.9 fatal crashes per year
in the State of Montana.
266
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-209
Figure 4-85 Roadway Crash Severity in Montana (2011-2020)
Source: Montana Department of Transportation 2011-2020
Wildlife Car Accidents
The Montana DoT also documented the number of accidents caused by wildlife and the animal carcasses
recovered. Montana DoT emphasizes that this dataset is best used to identify patterns in wildfire car
accidents, but the data is incomplete due to not all carcasses being reported on a regular schedule or some
carcasses not being reported at all. According to the Montana DoT dataset, there were 28,652 wildlife car
accidents from 2016 to2020. Figure 4-86 displays the animal carcass data by county in Montana. Most of
the Eastern Region has experienced between 1-348 wildlife car accidents, however, Carbon, Custer, and
Dawson County have experienced significantly more.
267
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-210
Figure 4-86 Wildlife Crash Statistics by County in Montana (2016-2020)
Source: Montana DoT, Map by WSP
268
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-211
Figure 4-87 displays a breakdown of the crashes by species of animal involved. Whitetail deer was by far
the most reported animal with 19,203 incidents in the past 4 years, followed by mule deer in second place
with 6,826 reported incidents.
Figure 4-87 Wildlife Crash Statistics by Carcass Type in the Montana (2016-2020)
Source: Montana Department of Transportation 2016-2020
The Montana DOT also reported on the date that these wildlife accidents occurred. Figure 4-88 displays the
temporal trends of these crashes. The greatest frequency of events occurs in the months of October and
November. This is likely because deer mating season occurs at this time of year and therefore, they are
more active and likely to wonder onto roadways. Accidents with deer are most likely to occur from 6 pm –
9 pm due to the crepuscular nature of deer, meaning that they are most active during twilight.
269
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-212
Figure 4-88 Wildlife Crash Statistics by Month in Montana (2016-2020)
Source: Montana Department of Transportati on 2016-2020
Waterway Transportation Incidents
Montana has a number of glacial-fed lakes and free-flowing rivers that provide opportunities for tourism
and recreation. Several major rivers in the Eastern Region include the Yellowstone River and Missouri River.
Fort Peck Lake also provides space for outdoor recreation in the Eastern Region. With extensive
opportunities for water recreation in the state, there are associated risks including boating accidents and
drownings.
The U.S. Coast Guard documents annual recreational boating statistics across the United States. Table 4-64
below displays information from the annual reports for the State from 2017 to 2021. In total, 82 accidents
have been reported in Montana over the past 5 years, resulting in 32 deaths and 41 injuries, as well as
$450,925.95 in property damages.
Table 4-64 Boating Accidents by Year in Montana (2017-2021)
Number of Accidents Persons Involved
Year Total Fatal Non-
Fatal
Property
Damage Total Deaths Injured Damages
2021 16 4 6 6 12 5 7 $56,050.00
2020 25 7 9 9 20 7 13 $178,600.00
2019 13 4 6 3 13 5 8 $59,275.95
2018 19 9 6 4 22 13 9 $144,900.00
2017 9 2 3 4 6 2 4 $12,100.00
Total 82 26 30 26 73 32 41 $450,925.95
Source: U.S. Coast Guard 2017-2021 Recreational Boating Statistics
270
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-213
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
Overall, transportation accidents are all but certain to occur on a yearly basis; therefore, the
frequency/likelihood of occurrence is rated as highly likely for the Eastern Region. Air traffic overall is more
limited and any planes that crash are likely to be small planes with no more than a pilot and potentially one
to a few passengers. However, since there are many commercial planes that fly over the Eastern Region,
there is always a chance for a major crash. More people are utilizing air travel now than in the past. The
NTSB documented 505 aircraft accidents over 54 years, which averages over 9 aircraft accidents per year
across the region. The trend of increasing numbers of people flying is likely to continue as will the
crowdedness of airports and the skies above Montana.
Although traffic engineering, inspection of traffic facilities, land use management of areas adjacent to roads
and highways, and the readiness of local response agencies have increased, highway incidents will continue
to occur. As the volume of traffic on the state’s streets, highways, and interstates increases, the number of
traffic accidents will likely also increase. The combination of large numbers of people on the road, wildlife,
unpredictable weather conditions, potential mechanical problems, and human error always leaves the
potential for a transportation accident open. Local jurisdictions should continue to look at where traffic
signals and speed limit changes are needed to protect the public. Montana DoT reported 26,984 roadway
traffic accidents from 2016 to 2020 in the Eastern Region, or an average of 6,746 accidents per year.
Collisions involving wildlife is commonly reported in Montana. The Montana DoT carcass database reported
28,652 accidents resulting in an animal carcass from 2016 to 2020, or an average of 7,163 accidents a year.
Many ponds, rivers, and lakes are used for recreation, including angling, boating, and swimming. The
number of users of Montana lakes and rivers is increasing with increased tourism and population growth in
the area. Minor incidents involving one or two boats and/or individuals can occur that tie up response
resources and cause death and injury are possible but unlikely each year. Incidents will be recreational -
related, as opposed to transportation-related, because the waterways are too small to support barges.
Waterway accidents are less likely to occur than roadway incidents. However, the U.S. Coast Guard reported
82 waterway accident events from 2017 to 2021 across the State of Montana, or an average of 16 events
per year.
Based on the available information, the probability of air transportation, highway, waterway, or railway
incident that directly threatens life and which results in property damage and/or death(s)/injury(s) and/or
adversely impact a community’s capabilities to provide emergency services is “Highly Likely” as multiple
occurrences happen each year.
Climate Change Considerations
If projections regarding milder winters come to fruition, climate change impacts may reduce the number of
transportation incidents associated with some severe weather. However, if ice occurs, rather than snow, this
could result in higher incidents of weather-related accidents. Extreme heat can also impact the performance
of motor vehicles, especially planes (McFadden, 2021). Increasing temperatures due to climate change could
therefore pose threats to aircrafts.
Potential Magnitude and Severity
The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration issued a technical advisory in 1994
providing suggested estimates of the cost of traffic crashes to be used for planning purposes. These figures
were converted from 1994 dollars to 2020 dollars. The costs are listed below in Table 4-65. Injuries and
deaths are also impacts of transportation accidents. While transportation accidents are frequent in the
Eastern Region, most accidents result in minor property injuries to vehicles involved; therefore, the
magnitude ranking for transportation incidents in Eastern Region is limited.
271
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-214
Table 4-65 Costs of a Traffic Crash
Severity Cost per injury (in 2020 $)
Fatal $4,645,467
Evident Injury $64,320
Possible Injury $33,948
Property Damage Only $3,573
Source: U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration Technical Advisory T 7570.2, 1994. Adjusted to 2020 dollars
Vulnerability Assessment
People
All people are vulnerable to transportation accidents in the Eastern Region. Travelers, truckers, delivery
personnel, and commuters are always at risk on the road. During rush hours and holidays the number of
people on the road is significantly higher. This is also true before and after major gatherings such as sporting
events, concerts, and conventions. Pedestrians and bystanders of the community are less vulnerable unless
they are in the roadway. Any individual incident will have a direct impact on only a few people. Individuals
involved in a transportation accident can have cuts, bruises, broken bones, loss of limbs, and death. It is also
common for individuals involved in an accident to experience psychological effects from a severe accident.
Not all people are equally vulnerable to transportation incidents. According to a study, An Analysis of Traffic
Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity 2021, by the Governors Highway Safety Association, found that traffic
fatalities are more common in low-income areas and among Native and Black Americans. The study found
that in 2020, total traffic deaths in the United States rose by 7.2%, but total traffic deaths among Black
Americans increased by 23%. The study reported several reasons for this, including poor r oad quality in
low-income areas, pedestrians being disproportionally Black, and members of the low-income population
being unable to stay home from work during the pandemic.
Property
All property is vulnerable to transportation accidents, including the modes of transportation themselves
and all associated equipment. Roadway accidents can impact surrounding infrastructure, including
surrounding buildings, poles, or guardrails. Railway a ccidents frequently result in damages to the railway
tracks which can be expensive to repair and result in delays in the transportation of goods. Aircraft accidents
frequently result in damaged or destroyed planes, as well as damage to infrastructure in th e landing area.
Boating incidents can cause extensive damage to ships, bridges, and docks.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Transportation accidents can result in delayed responses for emergency vehicles and severe or multi -car
accidents can put a strain on response services and hospital capacity. The transportation of goods can also
be delayed due to road closures from an accident. Power outages are also possible due to damages
infrastructure.
Economy
There are significant economic impacts likely to result from transportation accidents. Cost of repairing
property and hospital bills for those impacted by the accident can be substantial. The U.S. DoT reported the
estimated cost of a fatality is over $4.6 million in damages. Additionally, lost revenue from business
disruptions and disruptions in the transportation of goods can be significant.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic and cultural resources are equally vulnerable to transportation accidents as other types of property.
Natural Resources
The impacts of transportation accidents to natural resources are typically minimal. These accidents can result
in debris and fuel leakage into the environment, which can harm the surrounding ecosystem. Trees and
272
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-215
other landscaping can be damaged when a vehicle leaves the roadway. Wildlife is also at risk to injury or
death due to vehicles on the road. Significant threat to natural resources could occur if a transportation
accident involving hazardous materials occurs.
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
Increasing roadway infrastructure and number of cars on the road will likely result in an increase in the
number of transportation accidents in the Eastern Region. Increase in air travel is likely to continue and
therefore the increase in number of aircraft disasters. Construction and re -routing of local roads also
increases the chances of a traffic accident.
Risk Summary
In summary, the transportation accidents hazard is considered to be overall medium significance for the
Region. Variations in risk by jurisdiction are summarized in the table below, as well as key issues noted in
the vulnerability assessment.
● These events typically impact areas along roadways, railways, waterways, or near airports; therefore, the
hazard extent is rated as significant.
● The data sources used for each type of transportation accidents reported significantly more than one
accident a year, therefore, frequency is rated as highly likely.
● While transportation accidents commonly occur, most accidents impact only the people and vehicles
involved and therefore magnitude is ranked as limited.
● People who work in transportation and spend extensive time on the road, such as truck drivers or deliver
drivers, are most likely to experience transportation accidents. Studies have found that Black and Native
Americans are disproportionately likely to be involved in a transportation accidents and accidents are
more likely to occur in low-income areas.
● Transportation accidents are likely to cause damage to the vehicles involved as well as surrounding
infrastructure. First responder services may be delayed due to multi-car pileup accidents or significant
train derailments.
● Significant economic losses can result from business interruptions due to delays in the transportation
of goods and from repairs to transportation vehicles and infrastructure.
● Critical infrastructure such as bridges and major roads can be blocked off or closed due to major
roadway accidents. Railroads can also be closed for extended periods of time due to track damage,
which would limit the movement of goods in and out of the ar eas impacted.
● The frequency of transportation accidents is frequent across jurisdictions, but some counties such as
Yellowstone County are likely to experience greater losses due to larger populations and greater
concentration of transportation systems.
● Related Hazards: Hazardous Materials Accident
Table 4-66 Risk Summary Table: Transportation Accidents
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance
Additional
Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Eastern Region Medium
Big Horn Low Hardin, Lodge Grass Railway in Big Horn County, through
Hardin and Lodge Grass
Carbon Low Bearcreek, Bridger,
Joliet, Fromberg, Red
Lodge
N/A
Carter Low Ekalaka N/A
Custer Low Ismay, Miles City Railway through Miles City; I-94 crosses
county
273
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-216
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance
Additional
Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Crow Tribe Low Studies have shown Native American
populations may be at increased
vulnerability for traffic accidents
Daniels Low Scobey, Flaxville None
Dawson Low Richey, Glendive Railway through Glendive; I-94 crosses
county
Fallon Low Plevna, Baker Railway through Plevna and Baker,
Highway 12 crosses county
Garfield Low Jordan None
Golden Valley Low Ryegate, Lavina Railway crosses county
McCone Low Circle
N/A
Musselshell Low Melstone, Roundup Highways 12 and 87 intersect in central
Musselshell County
Powder River Medium Broadus N/A
Prairie Low Terry Railway through Terry; I-94 crosses county
Richland Low Fairview, Sidney None
Roosevelt Low Wolf Point, Poplar,
Bainville, Culberson,
Froid
Railway through Wolf Point and Poplar;
Highway 2 crosses county
Rosebud Low Colstrip, Forsyth Railway through Forsyth; I-94 crosses
county
Sheridan Low Plentywood, Medicine
Lake, Outlook, Westby
Railway through County, crosses through
multiple towns
Stillwater Medium Columbus Railway through County; I-90 crosses
county
Treasure Low Hysham Railway through Hysham; I-94 crosses
county
Valley Medium Glasgow, Fort Peck,
Nashua, Opheim
Railway through Valley County,
Wibaux Low Wibaux None
Yellowstone Medium Billings, Broadview,
Laurel
Billings is the largest city in the State, and
Yellowstone County is the most populous
county. This high level of traffic volume
coupled with extensive transportation
infrastructure of multiple modes gives
Yellowstone County the greatest numbers
of incidents by far in the region
4.2.15 Volcanic Ash
Hazard/Problem Description
A volcano is a vent in the earth’s crust, or a mountain formed by the eruption of subsurface material
including lava, rock fragments, ash, and gases, onto the earth’s surface. Volcanoes produce a wide variety
of hazards that can damage and destroy property and cause injury and death to people caught in its path.
These hazards related to volcanic activities include eruption columns and clouds, volcanic gases,
lava/pyroclastic flows, volcanic landslides, and mudflows or debris flows (called lahars). Large exp losive
eruptions can cause damage several hundred miles away from the volcano, primarily from ashfall.
Volcanic eruptions are generally not a major concern in Montana due to the relatively low probability of
events in any given year. However, Montana is within a region with a significant component of volcanic
274
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-217
activity and has experienced the effects of volcanic activity as recently as 1980 during the eruption of Mount
St. Helens in the State of Washington.
Based on the evidence of past activity, volcanoes can be considered “active”, “dormant”, or “extinct.” “Active”
volcanoes usually have evidence of eruption during historic times. Volcanoes have a wide degree of
variability in their eruptions, from mild lava flows to large explosions that eject tons of material and ash into
the air. The degree of volcano hazard depends largely on if the volcano has a reasonable probability of
erupting, the nature of the eruption, and the associated hazards that may be trigge red. There are 20 active
or potentially active volcanoes in the United States. The two volcanic centers affecting Montana in recent
geologic time are: 1) the Cascade Range of Washington, Oregon, and California; and 2) the Yellowstone
Caldera in Wyoming and eastern Idaho. Based on the historic trends of past eruptions, volcanic eruptions
in the Cascade Mountains are more likely to impact Montana than Yellowstone eruptions. The primary effect
of the Cascade volcanic eruptions in Montana would be ash fall.
The distribution of ash from a violent eruption is a function of the weather, particularly wind direction and
speed and atmospheric stability, and the duration of the eruption. As the prevailing wind in the mid-
latitudes of the northern hemisphere is generally from the west, volcanic ash is usually spread eastward
from the volcano. Exceptions to this rule do, however, occur. Ash fall, because of its potential widespread
distribution can result in significant volcanic hazards.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, Yellowstone National Park has been identified as a prominent hot
spot for geologic activity. The hot spot is presumed to exist under the continental crust in the region of
Yellowstone National Park and northwestern Wyoming. Large calderas under the park were produced by
three gigantic eruptions during the past two million years, the most recent of which was approximately
600,000 years ago. That particular volcanic eruption blasted molten rock into the air at 1,000 ti mes the
volume of the 1980 Mount St. Helen’s eruption subsequently collapsing to create the Yellowstone Caldera
(Tracking Changes in Yellowstone’s Restless Volcanic System, USGS Website). Ash deposits from these
volcanic eruptions have been mapped in Iowa, Missouri, Texas, and northern Mexico. Thermal energy from
the hot spots fuel hot pools, springs, geysers, and mud pots in the park today. According to recent surveys,
parts of the Yellowstone region rise and fall as much as 1 centimeter a year, indicati ng the area is still
geologically active (Kious, Jacqueline and Robert Tilling ND). However, these measurable ground
movements, which most likely reflect hydrothermal pressure changes, do not necessarily signal renewed
volcanic activity in the area.” (Kious, Jacqueline and Robert Tilling ND)
Geographical Area Affected
The geographical extent of volcanic ash is extensive. All areas of the Eastern Region would be affected by
a volcanic eruption of the Yellowstone caldera. According to the 2018 Montana SHMP, western and
southwestern Montana are most vulnerable to eruptions and ashfall from the Cascade Volcanoes. As shown
in Figure 4-89 below, almost all of the state of Montana has been covered with volcanic ash at some point
in the recent geologic history.
275
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-218
Figure 4-89 Areas of the United States once covered by volcanic ash from major eruptions
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
Past Occurrences
Since the late 1700s, volcanic eruptions in the continental United States have occurred in Oregon,
Washington, and California. The most recent volcanic activity in the Yellowstone region occurred 70,000
years ago in the form of a lava flow. However, the volcanic ash fallout from the eruption of Mount St. Helens
in 1980 was the most recent occurrence of volcanic activity to impact the region . Local news sources
reported the sky appeared to be foggy, and a thin layer of gritty, dull, grey powder was deposited in many
areas of Montana. The 2018 Montana SHMP notes travel was restricted in western Montana for over a week
because of concerns for public health, and that the main hazards associated with ash were reduced visibility
(resulting in closed roads and airports), clogging of air filters, and a health risk to children, the elderly, and
people with cardiac or respiratory conditions.
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
The frequency of volcanic as in the Eastern Region is ranked as unlikely. Ashfall from a Cascade Volcano is
the primary hazard to which the State may be vulnerable in the future. Future eruptions in the Cascades are
certain and have occurred at an average rate of 1-2 times per century during the last 4,000 years. Seven
volcanoes in the Cascades have erupted in the last 200 years. The next eruption in the Cascades could affect
hundreds of thousands of people. The effect in Montana would depend on the interaction of such vari ables
as source location, frequency, magnitude and duration of eruptions, the nature of the ejected material and
276
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-219
the weather conditions. Therefore, the entire State may be considered vulnerable to ashfall to some degree
in the event of a volcanic eruption.
Three major periods of activity in the Yellowstone system have occurred at intervals of approximately
600,000 years, with the most recent occurring about 600,000 years ago. The evidence available is not
sufficient to confirm that calderas such as the one in Yellowstone erupt at regular intervals, so the amount
of time elapsed is not necessarily a valid indicator of imminent activity. There is no doubt , however, that a
large body of molten magma exists, probably less than a mile beneath the surface of Yellowstone National
Park. The presence of this body has been detected by scientists who discovered that earthquake waves
passing beneath the park behave as if passing through a liquid. The only liquid at that location that could
absorb those waves is molten rock. The extremely high temperatures of some of the hot springs in the park
further suggest the existence of molten rock at shallow depth. A small upward movement in the magma
could easily cause this magma to erupt at the surface. If a major eruption occurre d, the explosion would be
"comparable to what we might expect if a major nuclear arsenal were to explode all at once, in one place ”
(Roadside Geology of Montana, Alt and Hyndman, 1986).
Climate Change Considerations
While climate change is not expected to impact the size or frequency of eruptions, eruptions themselves
can have a huge impact on climate. Eruptions can inject millions of tons of gases and debris into the
atmosphere, which can circulate far away from the incident site and disrupt normal climate patterns. Large-
scale volcanic activity may only last a few days, but the massive outpouring of gases and ash can influence
climate patterns for years, influencing both heating and cooling.
For example, the 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano in Indonesia resulted in far reaching global climate
impacts, with the average summer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere falling by 0.72 degrees
Fahrenheit the year after the eruption. The 1815 Mt. Tambora eruption, also in Indonesia, was the deadliest
volcanic eruption in recorded history. It also led to global climate impacts resulting in 1816 being referred
to as “the Year Without a Summer”. According to NASA, average global temperatures dropped with frost
and snow experienced in the middle of summer as far away as New England and Europe, leading to massive
crop losses and famine. A similar scale eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera would also likely eject massive
amounts of gasses which would affect the global climate, as well as the Eastern Montana.
Potential Magnitude and Severity
The potential magnitude and severity of volcanic ash is limited. Populations living near volcanoes are most
vulnerable to volcanic eruptions and lava flows, although volcanic ash can travel and affect populations
many miles away and cause aviation issues. The USGS notes specific characteristics of volcanic ash. Volcanic
ash is composed of small, jagged pieces of rocks, minerals, and volcanic glass the size of sand and silt. Very
small ash particles can be less than 0.001 millimeters across. Volcanic ash is not the product of combustion,
like the soft fluffy material created by burning wood, leaves, or paper. Volcanic ash is hard, does not dissolve
in water, is extremely abrasive and mildly corrosive, and conducts electricity when wet.
Volcanic ash is formed during explosive volcanic eruptions. Explosive eruptions occur when gases dissolved
in molten rock (magma) expand and escape violently into the air, and also when water is heated by magma
and abruptly flashes into steam. The force of the escaping gas violently shatters solid rocks. Expanding gas
also shreds magma and blasts it into the air, where it solidifies into fragments of volcanic rock and glass.
Once in the air, wind can blow the tiny ash particles thousands of miles away from the volcano.
Cataclysmic eruptions of the Yellowstone volcano 2.0, 1.3, and 0.6 million years ago ejected huge volumes
of rhyolite magma; each eruption formed a caldera and extensive layers of thick pyroclastic -flow deposits.
The caldera is buried by several extensive rhyolite lava flows that erupted between 75,000 and 150,000 years
ago.
277
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-220
Vulnerability Assessment
People
All people in the planning area are potentially exposed to volcanic ash fallout, as well as indirect effects of
volcanic ash. Direct exposure to volcanic ash can be reduced, though not eliminated, for people inside
buildings.
People are susceptible to complex health risks, related to both the physical effects of ash and secondary
impacts related to disruption caused by the ash fallout. The health impacts of volcanic ash are complex. The
abrasiveness of the volcanic ash particles can scratch the surface of skin and eyes and in general cause
discomfort and inflammation. Inhaling volcanic ash can cause a wide range of health impacts, including
death. The International Volcanic Health Hazard Network (IVHHN) provides a good reference to the current
research and information on the health hazards and impacts of volcanic eruptions (http://www.ivhhn.org/).
Populations that are especially vulnerable include children, the elderly, and individuals with cardiac and
respiratory considerations. The US Department of Health and Human Services tracks Medicare beneficiaries
Historic eruptions measured on the Volcanic Explosivity Index scale. Red
spheres indicate the volume of ash ejected. Image adapted from USGS.
Figure 4-90 Historic Volcanic Eruptions Measured on the Volcanic Explosivity Index Scale
278
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-221
who rely on electricity-depending medical equipment, such as ventilators, oxygen concentrator equipment,
and implanted cardiac devices. Many of these same individuals will be vulnerable to effects of volcanic ash.
Property
Virtually all property is potentially exposed to volcanic ash. Building exteriors and property located outdoors
are exposed to a greater degree, but property located indoors is also exposed. In fact, the USGS website on
impacts & mitigation of volcanic ashfall impacts contains a page dedicated to indoor cleanup procedures
(https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanic_ash/cleaning_up_inside.html ).
Susceptibility of property to damage caused by exposure to volcanic ash hazards is variable but potentially
extensive. Paint in general and especially on cars is susceptible to the abrasive nature of volcanic ash. Non -
structural elements of rooftops, such as gutters and drains, are susceptible to damage from as little as a few
millimeters of ashfall. Gutters tend to collect ash from the rooftop, can become blocked, and collapse from
the weight, especially when the ash becomes wet. In extreme cases, roofs have collapsed from the weight
of wet ash.
Building interiors can also be susceptible to damage from ash. Ash may clog ventilation grills and cooling
fans, which may cause overheating of buildings. Ash certainly passes through ventilation systems and can
coat interior surfaces. Some electronic equipment is especially susceptible, such as keyboards an d mice.
Hard drives, however, are well sealed and not particularly susceptible to damage. Damage may become
apparent months or years later due to corrosion that is chemically accelerated by ash.
Generally speaking, nearly everything is exposed to ashfall hazards and susceptibility to damage is
extensive. Cleanup is complex, difficult, and expensive. After the Mount Saint Helen eruption in 1980
extensive cleanup efforts were required throughout Montana. Vulnerability of property to ash is high but is
fortunately muted somewhat by the low probability of ashfall occurring.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Critical facilities and infrastructure are most vulnerable to the effects of ashfall. As stated earlier, nearly
everything is potentially exposed to volcanic ash following an eruption. As is the case with property,
susceptibility is widespread. The supply of electricity is susceptible to ashfall. Air intakes for backup
generators are also susceptible to becoming clogged by airborne ash post eruption. Telephone and radio
communications can also be susceptible to interruption due to ashfall.
Potable water supply can be susceptible to ash. Water treatment is susceptible to decreased quality of raw
water sources, both from increased turbidity and from chemical changes in the water, both caused by ash.
Cleanup also creates a high demand for water , which puts additional stress on the water supply.
Stormwater systems collect great amounts of ash from a broad area and can become clogged and cause
surface flooding. Clearing underground accumulation of ash in stormwater systems can be extremely
difficult. Pumps used in stormwater systems are especially susceptible to damage from volcanic ash.
Wastewater collection systems are also susceptible to damage from ashfall. Buildup of ash in drainage
systems can result in stormwater flooding. Ash -laden sewage that makes its way to wastewater treatment
plants can cause mechanical damage and, if it makes it further through the system, it will settle and reduce
the capacity of biological reactors, increasing the volume of sludge and changing its composition.
Transportation infrastructure is also vulnerable to the impacts of ashfall. Roads, highways, and airport
runways can be made impassable due to the slippery ash and reduction of visibility. The abrasive volcanic
ash can have damaging effects on aircraft, notably causing the engine(s) to stall. Volcanic ash can also lead
to the failure of critical navigational and operational instruments.
Economy
Virtually everything that affects the economy is potentially exposed to volcanic ash. The economy is
susceptible to both the direct costs of damage and cleanup, as well as indirect effects of reduced economic
279
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-222
activity following ashfall. The economy can be impacted for years following a significant ashfall. Vulnerability
is difficult to calculate but is fortunately muted to a large degree by the low probability of ashfall occurring.
Historic and Cultural Resources
All historic and cultural resources are potentially exposed to ashfall. Historical buildings and historical assets
within and outside of buildings all are susceptible. Terrestrial and especially aquatic ecosystems are
vulnerable to ashfall, which damages recreation and tourism.
Natural Resources
Volcanic ash can collect carbon dioxide and fluorine gases that can be toxic to humans and have significant
impacts on the natural environment. Windblown ash can spread and pollute areas that had previously been
unaffected. Vegetation is also vulnerable to the impacts of ashfall. Ashfall can result in decreased plant
photosynthesis and reduced pollination, impacting the overall vegetative population in the region . Visual
inspection of vegetation in a large area of the State of Washington impacted by the Mount Saint Helens
eruption showed three broad categories of plant damages: (1) Breakage due to the weight of ash (2)
physiological changes such as decreased plant growth and (3) chemical damages to the leaves (Ayris,
Delmelle, 2012).
Water bodies are also vulnerable to the effects of ashfall and can cause chemical changes that can affect
water quality. The following table from the USGS Volcanic Ashfall Impacts Working Group show the typical
effects of ashfall on the quality of surface waterbodies.
Table 4-67 Typical Effects of Ashfall on the Quality of Surface Water Bodies
Turbidity
Ash suspended in water will increase turbidity in lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams. Very fine
ash will settle slowly, and residual turbidity may remain in standing water bodies. In streams, ash
may continue to be mobilized by rainfall events, and lahars may be a hazard in some regions.
Acidity (pH) Fresh ashfall commonly has an acidic surface coating. This may cause a slight depression of pH
(not usually below pH 6.5) in low-alkalinity surface waters.
Potentially
Toxic
Elements
Fresh ash has a surface coating of soluble salts that are rapidly released on contact with water.
The most abundant soluble elements are typically Ca, Na, K, Mg, Al, Cl, S and F. Compositional
changes depend on the depth of ashfall and its 'cargo' of water-soluble elements; the area of the
catchment and volume available for dilution; and the pre-existing composition of the water
body.
4In rivers and streams, there will be a short-lived pulse of dissolved constituents.
4In lakes and reservoirs, the volume is usually large enough that changes in composition are not
discernible.
The constituents most likely to be elevated above background levels in natural waters are Fe, Al,
and Mn, because these are normally present at very low levels. Thus, water is likely to become
unpalatable due to discoloration or a metallic taste before it becomes a health hazard.
Source: USGS Volcanic Ashfall Impacts Working Group, Volcanic Ash Impacts & Mitigation - Water Supply (usgs.gov)
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
All development that occurs in the planning area will be exposed to volcanic ash hazards. Susceptibility is
widespread. Overall, vulnerability of development to ashfall is high, but muted to some extent by the low
probability of occurring.
Risk Summary
Overall volcanic ash is considered a low significance hazard throughout the Eastern Region due to the long
recurrence intervals between events. While low probability, effects can be widespread and cause serious
impacts.
280
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-223
● Effects on people: Serious adverse health impacts can occur, such as scratches and abrasion to the skin
and eyes from direct contact with ash, and ultimately death potentially if ash is inhaled and cements in
the lungs.
● Effects on property: exterior of buildings can have abrasive damage to roofs and gutters can be blocked ,
and the collapse of roofs if too much ash accumulates.
● Effects on the economy: ashfall can lead to disruptions in the tourism industries, through the prevention
of travel and access to affected areas, as well as massive losses to agriculture if heavy ashfall were to
occur during the growing season.
● Effects on critical facilities and infrastructure: ash can seriously damage electrical and mechanical
components of infrastructure, disrupt air travel and EMS/first responder operations, and lead to backups
and damage of wastewater systems.
● Unique jurisdictional vulnerability: the vulnerability is largely uniform as this hazard would likely result
in impacts on a large scale, regionwide manner.
● Related hazards: earthquake
Table 4-68 Risk Summary Table: Volcanic Ash
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance
Additional
Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Differences?
Eastern Region Low
Big Horn Low Hardin, Lodge Grass None
Carbon Low Bearcreek, Bridger,
Joliet, Fromberg, Red
Lodge
None
Carter Low Ekalaka None
Custer Low Ismay, Miles City None
Crow Tribe Low None
Daniels Low Scobey, Flaxville None
Dawson Low Richey, Glendive None
Fallon Low Plevna, Baker None
Garfield Low Jordan None
Golden Valley Low Ryegate, Lavina None
McCone Low Circle
None
Musselshell Low Melstone, Roundup None
Powder River Low Broadus None
Prairie Low Terry None
Richland Low Fairview, Sidney None
Roosevelt Low Wolf Point, Poplar,
Bainville, Culberson,
Froid
None
Rosebud Low Colstrip, Forsyth None
Sheridan Low Plentywood, Medicine
Lake, Outlook, Westby
None
Stillwater Low Columbus None
Treasure Low Hysham None
Valley Low Glasgow, Fort Peck,
Nashua, Opheim
None
Wheatland Low Harlowton, Judith Gap None
Wibaux Low Wibaux None
Yellowstone Low Billings, Broadview,
Laurel
None
281
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-224
4.2.16 Wildfire
Hazard/Problem Description
As defined by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), a “wildland fire” is any non-prescribed,
non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland” (NWCG 2012). Eastern Montana’s semi-arid to mesic climate,
rural setting, variable terrain makes most of the region vulnerable to frequent and potentially severe wildfire.
As such, wildfire is an ongoing concern for the residents of eastern Montana. The two main types of wild fires
affecting the Eastern Region are rangeland fires (wildfires occurring on range land) and forest fires (wildfires
occurring within a forest); however, while infrequent, wildfires can also occur in agricultural areas. Fires can
occur at any time of the year in Montana, but historically, the fire season extends from spring to fall, with
large fires being more common in the later summer months and early fall months when fire conditions are
more probable. Prime wildfire conditions occur when accumulated fuels become sufficiently dry from high
temperatures and drought and can more easily ignite. Furthermore, high winds during the summer and fall
can favor the chance of wildfire spreading. Climate change has led to hotter summers and has caused an
increase in fuel drying, which has resulted in increases to wildfire size, intensity, frequency, and fire season
length (NIFC, 2022a) as well as wildfire suppression costs (NIFC, 2022b). Throughout Montana, these trends
are expected to be exacerbated as climate change progresses (Whitlock et al 2017; Steblein 2021).
Historically, wildfire has been an important and normal component of the forest and rangeland ecosystems
in eastern Montana. Wildfires are necessary for maintaining the natural conditions and ecology of the region
(MT DNRC 2020a). Until the latter 20th century, fire suppression was the dominant fire management policy
across private, state, and federal lands across the western U.S. As a result, high levels of fuels have built up
in many fire prone ecosystems, including eastern Montana (MT DNRC 2020a). Management goals in
wildland areas typically are focused on bringing fire regimes back to their natural historic range of variation.
However, in areas with heavy human use, fuel maintenance and land management strategies will be
required to replace the historic role of wildfires. These can include, but are not limited to, prescribed burns,
targeted livestock grazing, and mechanical fuel removal treatments (MT DNRC 2020 a).
Generally, there are three major factors that predict wildfire behavior and predict a given area’s potential to
burn. These factors include fuel, topography, and weather.
Fuel: In order for fire to occur, fuel (a combustible material) must be available to burn. Fires are generally
determined by fuel type and volume. Generally, the various fuel types and fuel characteristics that cover a
landscape have significant impacts on wildfire behavior. Fuel types vary drastically throughout the eastern
Region. Fuel sources can vary from dead fine grasses, leaves, and needles to live large trees. Combustible
manmade structures also contribute to fuel sources. Fuels can be modified by humans through land use
and land management (e.g., prescribed burns, mechanical fuel removal, invasive plant management, and
grazing, among others). Scott and Burgan’s (2005) fire behavior fuel models were used to model fuels in in
the Eastern Region of Montana.
The primary fuel types in the Eastern Region are grass and grass-shrub fuels, as shown in Figure 4-91. Grass-
shrub (GS2) fuels are the most commonly observed fuels in the region and are characterized as lands with
up to 50% shrub cover with shrub height ranging from 1 to 3 feet high and accompanied with a moderate
grass load. Wildfire spread rate for GS2 fuels is usually high (20-50 chains per hour [1 chain is equal to 66ft])
and flame lengths are moderate (4-8 feet). Sagebrush (Artemisia sp.) ecosystems usually exhibit GS2 fuels.
GR2 (grass) fuels are also commonly observed fuels. Scott and Burgan (2005) describe GR2 fu els as
moderately coarse continuous grass with an average depth of about 1 foot. Wildfire spread rate is usually
high and flame lengths are moderate. Bunchgrass ecosystems typically exhibit GR2 fuels.
In the forested portions (e.g., the Beartooth Mountains, the Pryor Mountains, northern terminus of the Big
Horns, and other scattered island mountainous terrain in the region) of the Eastern Region primary fuel
types are timber-understory (TU2 and TU5) fuels. TU2 fuels are characterized by fuelbeds with a moderate
282
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-225
litter load with a shrub component where wildfire spread rate is usually moderate (5-20 chains per hour)
and flame lengths are predicted to be low (1-4 feet). Low-elevation forests comprised of species such as
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) usually exhibit TU2 fuels. TU5
fuels are characterized by fuelbeds with a high load of conifer litter and a shrub understory where wildfire
spread rate and flame lengths are moderate. Higher elevation forests comprised of species such as
subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta)
usually exhibit TU5 fuels.
Topography: A region’s topography is determined by slope and aspect. Normally, wildfire behavior, such
as fire intensity and rate of spread, is more pronounced on steep slopes due to convective heat transfer (i.e.,
heat rising up the slope). South facing slopes are typically drier due to receiving more sunlight than north
facing slopes. Thus, they normally contain drier and finer fuels that are more prone to producing faster rates
of spread than the fuels seen on wetter north facing slopes. Eastern Montana’s topography is diverse. It
contains hilly rangelands; steep forested mountains; deep canyons; forested hills; valley rangelands; flat
grasslands and shrublands; and flat farmlands.
Weather: Important weather characteristics, such as precipitation, wind speed, wind direction, temperature,
relative humidity, and lightning can affect both the potential for wildfire and spread of wildfire. Low
precipitation, high temperatures, and low relative humidity in drought years dry out live and dead fuels.
These dry fuels can amplify wildfire activity and result in more extreme fire behavior. Additionally,
antecedent wet years can build up finer fuels that may contribute to extreme wildfire behavi or during
summer or fall droughts. Weather regimes in the Eastern Montana region can vary drastically between low
and high elevations, where the mountains to the east receive more precipitation than the eastern plains
(PRISM 2022). Specifically, the Beartooth Mountains, Pryor Mountains, and Big Horn Mountains in Carbon
and Big Horn Counties receive the most annual precipitation, while the plains to the east are comparatively
dry. For precipitation across the Eastern Region, April through July are usually the wettest months of the
year, December through February are usually the driest months. The latter summer and early fall months of
August and September are comparatively dry compared to the spring and early summer months. Hazardous
wildfire risk and activity are most likely to occur in late summer and early fall (Whitlock et al 2017).
283
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-226
Figure 4-91 Wildfire Fuel Model of the Eastern Region
Source: MT DNRC 2022
284
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-227
Wildland-Urban Interface: The wildland-urban interface (WUI) is defined as the zone where structures and
other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuel (MT MHMP
2018). Starting in 2011, Montana DNRC compiled WUI boundaries for all counties within the state based
upon information provided from countywide Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) or through
consultation between the County and the MT DNRC. The methods for WUI delineation vary by County (MT
DNRC, 2020b), which is why some WUI areas encompass an entire county land mass, and some areas are
more nuanced, based on fuels, hazards, population density, infrastructure, and other factors. (see Figure
4-92).
In Eastern Montana, humans are a significant cause of wildfire ignitions. This is especially true is Eastern
Montana’s WUI, where wildfire risk is strongly with the WUI (e.g., exurban areas human caused ignitions
and utilities and vehicle/roadside ignitions); however, lighting strikes during thunderstorms are also a major
source of ignition (see Figure 4-95; MT DNRC 2022a). Most of the counties in the Eastern Region, with some
notable exceptions (e.g., the Billings area), have not experienced significant population trends or increases
in development (US Census 2020); however, property located in the WUI will likely experience greater risk
from wildfire due to increasing trends in human caused wildfires and a warming climate (MT DNRC 2020a).
285
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-228
Figure 4-92 Wildland Urban Interface Delineation
Source: MT DNRC 2020b
286
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-229
Geographical Area Affected
The climate of the Eastern Region varies from arid to semi-arid to mesic. All climates, combined with
continuous loading of rangelands, grassland , and some forest fuels, make most of the region susceptible
to wildfire; the geographical area affected for wildfire is therefore extensive (PRISM 2022; MTDNRC 2022).
The two main types of fires that can occur in the Eastern Region are rangeland and forest fires. These fire
types are reflected in the mapped risks from wildfire (in Figure 4-105 in the Wildfire Risk Section) The
rangelands of the central portion the eastern regions that have complex topography and occasional
patchwork of dry coniferous forests have historically been most at risk of wildfire (Figure 4-105). Large
rangeland and forest fires in the region have most commonly occurred in the counties of Powder River, Big
Horn, Yellowstone, Treasure, Rose Bud, Musselshell, Garfield, Carbon County, and Still water (Figure 4-97).
Almost the entire Eastern Region is at-risk and/or susceptible to wildfire. Large tracts of land with
agricultural crop cover (especially in the northeastern portion of the region) are usually at less risk of wildfire
compared to undeveloped rangelands and forests.
Past Occurrences
The Montana Wildfire Risk Assessment (MWRA) database, maintained by the Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation (MT DNRC), includes perimeter GIS layers for recent wildfires
throughout the state of Montana (MT DNRC 2022a). According to the MWRA, wildfires in the Eastern Region
occur on an annual basis and are usually contained early with little to no damage. Most wildfires are usually
less than 1,000 acres; between 2002 and 2021 there have been 106 wildfires greater than 1,000 acres (Figure
4-94). Large (fires greater than 1,000 acres) and potentially destructive fires can occur in any year. Over the
last 20 years there has been an increase in the number of Class F fires (fires greater than 1,000 acres). Years
where there are larger and more destructive fires (e.g., the 2003, 2007, 2012, 2017 and 2021 wildfire seasons)
are correlated with drought conditions and/or warmer growing season temperatures (PRISM 2022).
Generally, the majority of wildfire occurrences are small (less than 10 acres) and cau se no meaningful
damage. From 2002 to 2021 there were 10,079 fires that burned 10 acres or less (Figure 4-93); however, in
the same time frame there have also been 216 fires greater than 10 acres with approximately half of these
(106 fires) being greater than 1,000 acres (Figure 4-94).
Figure 4-93 Number of Wildfire in Eastern Montana Region by Year and Size Class A -B, 2002 to
2021
* Size Class: A = 0.25 acre or less; B = greater than 0.25 to 10 acres .
Source: MT DNRC 2022
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
s
Year
Eastern Region Fires of A and B Size Class by Year
287
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-230
Figure 4-94 Number of Wildfire in Eastern Montana Region by Year and Size Class C-F, 2002 to
2021
* Size Class: A = 0.25 acre or less; B = greater than 0.25 to 10 acres; C = 10 to 100 acres; D = 100 to 300 acres; E =
300 to 1,000 acres; F = 1,000+ acres.
As shown in Figure 4-95, natural wildfire occurrences (e.g., lightning ignitions) in the Eastern Region are
common and particularly common in the high elevation rangelands in south -central portion of the region
where there are expansive tracts of, mostly, wild rangelands intermixed with patches of forests. Human
caused wildfire occurrences are also common and are, generally, concentrated near the region’s
municipalities or infrastructure. Regional fire managers and emergency planners should take note that over
the last decade there has been a consistent increase in the number of wildfires attributed to human causes.
From 2017 to 2021 the number of human-caused wildfires outnumbered the number of natural caused
wildfires (MT DNRC 2022a). Figure 4-96 shows the total acres burned by year.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
s
Year
Eastern Region Fires by Year and Fire Size Class C-F, 2002-2021
C D E F
288
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-231
Figure 4-95 Number of Wildfires by Cause, 2002 to 2021
Figure 4-96 Total Acres of Burned per Year in Eastern Region, 2002 to 2021
Over the last 20 years, the larger fires in the region have generally occurred in areas that are an intermix of
rangelands and forests. Figure 4-97 shows the fire occurrence history in the Eastern Region. Figure 4-98
shows fire history in the Eastern Region.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
Cause of Eastern Region Wildfires, 2002-2021
Human Natural Unknown
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
Ac
r
e
s
Year
Total Acres Burned per Year in Eastern Region
289
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-232
Two notable wildfire incidents include the Ash Creek Fire Figure 4-99 and the Lodgepole Complex. The Ash
Creek Fire was a highly destructive lightning caused fire that occurred in the late spring and summer months
of 2012. It impacted privately managed land, tribal managed lands, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
managed lands. This fire burned 249,714 acres across Powder River County, Rosebud County, and the
Northern Cheyenne Reservation. The fire destroyed 39 structures (including 19 residential homes); killed
and displaced livestock; caused evacuations, and damaged regional infrastructure (Great F all Tribune 2017;
Billings Gazette 2013). Additionally, the Lodgepole Complex of 2017 burned 271,422 acres of Rangeland
and Ponderosa Pine savannah in Petroleum and Garfield Counties . The Lodgepole Complex destroyed 16
homes and 16 structures. In total, the state spent $6 million fighting this fire (Garfield County 2017). Finally,
to emphasize that wildfire risk is year-round, the West Wind Fire of Late November and early December of
2021 occurred in and around Denton, MT (in the Central Region) and was started by a powerline. This fire
burned 10,644 acres of grasslands, pasture, and riparian wetlands. The fire was particularly destructive as it
destroyed 25 primary structures, 18 secondary structures and 6 commercial structures in and around Denton
(NWCG 2022). Among the structures lost were family homes, historic grain elevators, and a bridge (3KRTZ
2021). The consequences of these rangeland fires exemplify the threats that wildfire can pose in Eastern
Montana’s rangelands.
290
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-233
Figure 4-97 Fire Occurrence History in Eastern Montana, 2002 to 2021
291
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-234
Figure 4-98 Fire History of Eastern Montana, Fire Perimeters, 2002-2021
Source: MT DNRC 2022
292
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-235
Figure 4-99 Representative Large Rangeland Wildfire in the Eastern Region – Ash Creek Fire of
2021
Source: MT DNRC 2022
293
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-236
Figure 4-100 Representative Forest Fire in Eastern Region – 2017 Lodgepole Complex Fire
Source: MT DNRC 2022
294
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-237
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence
Wildfires occur every year throughout the region and could occur in any county in any given year ; therefore,
the probability of occurrence is highly likely. Generally, the rangelands in the central portions of the Eastern
region exhibit a high annual burn probability, usually around 1% annual burn probability. These rangelands
are typically hilly and exhibit complex topography. The regions with a patchwork o f rangelands and dry
coniferous forests exhibit the highest annual burn probability (2%). These regions are also topographically
complex and are found in Powder River, Rosebud, and Yellowstone Coun ties. The northeastern portion of
the Eastern Region displays the lowest annual burn probabilities. These areas are typically grasslands and/or
farmlands with annual burn probabilities ranging from 0.01% to 0.1%. Figure 4-101 illustrates the annualized
frequency of wildfire events by County. Figure 4-102 illustrates the annual burn probability for the Eastern
Region.
Figure 4-101 Annualized Frequency of Wildfire Events by County
295
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-238
Figure 4-102 Eastern Montana Region Annual Burn Probability
Source: MT DNRC 2022
296
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-239
The counties with a high degree of undeveloped wildland rangelands and forests are usually more likely to
experience wildfire and experience larger wildfires (see Table 4-69 for summary breakdown of wildfire
statistics by county). Counties with a larger proportion of agricultural crop cover are less likely to experience
wildfire (Table 4-69). While many rangeland wildfires in the region can be small, large rangeland fires can
and do occur. It is important to note that the risk from wildfire is substantially higher during drought years.
The years with the largest wildfires in Montana have nor mally occurred during periods of drought with
associated high temperatures (Whitlock et al 2017).
Table 4-69 Average Number of Wildfires per year for Eastern Region Counties, 2002-2021
County/Reservation
Annual Average Number of
Wildfire Occurrences
(includes all ignitions)
Annual Average of Acres
Burned
Big Horn 155.05 20,911.93
Carbon 13.20 3,918.39
Carter 16.05 5,522.75
Custer 14.75 8,896.93
Crow Reservation 134.70 7,243.89
Daniels 1.35 107.12
Dawson 5.85 415.19
Fallon 4.15 72.66
Fort Peck Reservation 115.45 1,254.90
Garfield 12.05 27,098.30
Golden Valley 1.75 211.68
McCone 4.25 418.30
Musselshell 6.05 6,748.50
Northern Cheyenne Reservation 59.55 6,297.85
Powder River 32.20 20,156.13
Prairie 7.20 435.34
Richland 5.05 634.89
Roosevelt 105.65 1,176.11
Rosebud 62.65 19,763.00
Sheridan 2.10 2.09
Stillwater 7.30 3,902.09
Treasure 2.10 1,047.03
Valley 14.65 1,294.70
Wheatland 3.05 358.06
Wibaux 3.50 160.42
Yellowstone 37.30 12,004.65
Total 826.95 150,052.90
Climate Change Considerations
The 2021 Montana Climate Change and Human Health report states that climate change is and will continue
to increase wildfire and smoke hazards throughout Montana. The report declares reduced air quality due
to wildfire smoke to be the second greatest concern for human health related to climate change, after
extreme heat. Similarly, NOAA’s 2022 Climate Summary cites that climate change will increase in severity
and frequency of wildfires.
Annual average temperatures across the state, including daily minimums and maximums have risen 2.0 –
3.0oF between 1950 and 2015 (Whitlock et al 2017). Furthermore, Montana’s growing season length has
increased, as spring has come on earlier and fall freezes have occurred later. Between 1951 and 2010,
Montana’s growing season increased by 12 days. All regions of Montana are expected to experience
warming in all seasons and under all future emissions scenarios. By 2050, Montana’s average annual
297
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-240
temperatures are expected to increase 4.5 -6.0oF. Additionally, the number of days where 90 oF will be
exceeded will increase under future conditions. Finally, in the Eastern Region there has seen a significant
increase in spring precipitation. However, compared to the rest of the state, the Eastern Region is also
expected to experience the greatest increase in number of days where the temperature exceeds 90 oF
(Whitlock et al 2017; Steblein 2021). Across the Eastern region, wetter springs could fuel the growth of more
fine fuels while hotter summers could amplify fire risk.
Taken together these climate change effects have contributed to increases in wildfire frequency and severity
across the state and will exacerbate the future fire wildfire risk conditions across Eastern Montana. These
climate impacts are also affecting forest and rangeland health. Hotter and longer summers and prolonged
drought are known to put increased physiological stress on trees and increase mortality caused by diseases.
such as mountain pine beetle, Douglas-fire beetle, and spruce budworm, among others. Degraded forest
health, significantly attributed to climate change, has already been linked with increased fire risk throughout
large portions of Montana’s forested regions (MT DNRC 202c). As climate change ex acerbates disease
outbreaks in Montana’s forested areas, there will be an increased build up in hazardous fuels (Whitlock et
al 2017). Currently large tracts of Ponderosa Pine forests in the Eastern Region are experiencing attacks
from pine beetles (MT DNRC 2021). These attacks are especially prevalent in Powder River and Rosebud
Counties (MT DNRC 2021). These attacks are resulting in decreased forest health and build -up in dead, dry
fuels. Additionally, climate change can result in an increase in invasive grass and weed abundance in
grasslands and rangelands, which can contribute to increased wildfire risk in these systems (Whitlock et al
2017). As the fire season increases there will be a higher likelihood of wildfires coinciding with high wind
events during fall, winter, and spring storms, especially during drought years. When wildfire, wind, and
drought converge they can create conditions for particularly destructive wildfires, even outside of the
traditional wildfire season (e.g., the Denton, MT West Wind Fire of December 2021, a wildfire that occurred
in the Central Region).
While the idea that climate change has worsened wildfire hazards, it is less clear how bad the situation will
get in coming decades. There are no projections for wildfire ignitions or acreage burned specific to the
planning area that are available in other states. Projections of future wildfire exist but are at large spatial
scales with limited applicability to the specific situation of the planning area. For example, a well-cited 2022
report by the UN Environment Programme4 presented results from modeling studies that predict a 20%-
30% increase in wildfire events from 2020 to 2050 and a 31%-57% increase by 2100. These ranges reflect
modeling uncertainty and the use of different climate change scenarios. It’s noteworthy that the scenarios
modeled were in the low to mid-range climate projections (RCP2.6 and RCP6.0). Despite the coarse scale of
this study, it serves to provide an indication of the magnitude of future wildfire in the study area. It also
highlights the potential for a future study to model wildfire potential under various climate change
scenarios.
Potential Magnitude and Severity
Montana Wildfire Risk Assessment
The Montana Wildfire Risk Assessment (MWRA) provides information about the wildfire hazard and risk to
highly valued resources and assets (HVRAs) across Montana. This information is essential for planning
wildfire response, fuel management, and land planning. The MWRA is a quantitative assessment of how
human and natural resources are both influenced and affected by wildfire. The MWRA considers the
following state-wide spatial components when quantifying wildfire risk: likelihood of fire burning, the
intensity of a potential fire, the exposure of assets and resources based on their location, and the
susceptibility of those assets and resources (MT DNRC 2020c). Wildfire vulnerability to wildfire is determined
by wildfire exposure and susceptibility, whereas wildfire hazard is determined by wildfire intensity and
4 Sullivan, Andrew, et al., 2022, Spreading like wildfire: The rising threat of extraordinary landscape fires. Accessed 6-5-24 at:
https://www.unep.org/resources/report/spreading-wildfire-rising-threat-extraordinary-landscape-fires
298
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-241
wildfire probability. This conceptual relationship is depicted in Figure 4-103. Overall based on the
combination of the likelihood of a wildfire, the intensity of a wildfire, and the exposure of assets, the
magnitude for the Eastern Region is critical.
Figure 4-103 Conceptual Breakdown of the Components and Meaning of the Montana Wildfire
Risk Assessment
Source: MT DNRC 2022
MWRA Components
Wildfire Hazard. Wildfire hazard is determined by wildfire intensity and wildfire probability (MT DNRC
2022a). Areas that experience frequent and intense wildfire have the greatest wildfire hazard, while areas
that experience low intensity fires over longer time scales have the lowest wildfire hazard.
Wildfire likelihood is the annual probability of wildfire burning in a specific location. At the community level,
wildfire likelihood is averaged where housing units occur. It is the probability that any specific location may
experience wildfire in any given year. It does not say anything about the intensity of fire if it occurs. Wildfire
likelihood is derived from fire behavior modeling across thousands of simulations of possible fire seasons.
Factors contributing to the model, such as weather, topography, and ignitions are varied based on trends
observed in recent decades. It is important to note that wildfire likelihood is not predictive and does not
reflect any currently forecasted weather or fire danger conditions (MT DNRC 2022 a). The regions of Eastern
Montana that display an intermix of rangelands and ponderosa pine forests are more likely to experience
wildfire than continuous rangelands. Rangelands dominated by grass-shrub fuels (GS) are more likely to
experience wildfire than rangelands dominated by only grass fuels (GR). Agricultural areas and alpine areas
above tree line are least likely to experience wildfire (Figure 4-102).
Wildfire intensity is a measure of the energy expected from a wildfire and is mainly determined by the
topography and vegetative fuels of a landscape. Greater fuel loads (e.g., forests compared to grass lands),
especially on steeper terrain, typically produce greater wildfire intensity. Wildfire intensity is technically
measured in units of heat transfer per length of fire perimeter. However, it can also be observed and
expressed in terms of flame length (MT DNRC 2022a). The MWRA (MT DNRC 2022a) uses wildfire intensities
calculated in fire behavior modeling simulations. Modeled tall flame lengths (i.e., more intense fires) are
299
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-242
more likely to occur in regions comprised of forested areas (Figure 4-104). More intense and taller fires are
usually more difficult to control (Table 4-70). Only the forested portions with steep slopes in the Eastern
Region are predicted to have flame lengths greater than 25 feet when conditions are extreme enough. The
vast majority of the region is predicted to have flame lengths 4 to 8 feet in length. Areas with extensive crop
cover are more likely to experience flames lengths under 4 feet.
Table 4-70 Control Efforts Associated with Different Flame Lengths
Flame Length Interpretations
Less than 4 feet • Fires can generally be attacked at the head or flanks by firefighters using hand tools.
• Handline should hold fire.
4 to 8 feet • Fires are too intense for direct attack in the head with hand tools.
• Handline cannot be relied on to hold the fire.
• Dozers, tractor-plows, engines, and retardant drops
• can be effective.
8 to 11 feet • Fires may present serious control problems: torching, crowning, and spotting.
• Control efforts at the head will probably be ineffective.
over 11 feet • Crowning, spotting, and major fire runs are probable.
• Control efforts at the head of the fire are ineffective.
Source: Andrews et al. 2011
300
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-243
Figure 4-104 Eastern Montana Region Estimated Flame Length
Source: MT DNRC 2022
301
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-244
Vulnerability: Wildfire vulnerability to wildfire is determined by wildfire exposure and susceptibility (MT
DNRC 2022a). For example, fire susceptible structures and/or infrastructure located in high fire intensity and
high fire likelihood environments would have high exposure and high susceptibility to fire. In other words,
they would be vulnerable to wildfire.
Wildfire exposure. Exposure is the spatial coincidence of wildfire likelihood and intensity to homes and
communities. Homes are exposed to wildfire if they are located where there is any chance wildfire could
occur (i.e., burn probability is greater than zero). Communities can be di rectly exposed to wildfire from
adjacent wildland vegetation (e.g., homes situated in a forest), or indirectly exposed to wildfire from embers
and home-to-home ignition (MT DNRC 2022a).
Wildfire susceptibility. Susceptibility is the propensity of a home or community to be damaged if a wildfire
occurs. The susceptibility of a Highly Valued Resource or Asset (HVRA) to wildfire is determined by how
easily it is damaged by varying degrees of wildfire intensity and type. Assets that are fire-hardened and can
withstand very intense fires without damage (i.e., low susceptibility), whereas non -fire hardened structures
are more easily damaged by fire (i.e., high susceptibility). The MWRA generalize s the concept of
susceptibility. The MWRA assumes all homes that encounter wildfire will be damaged, and the degree of
damage is directly related to wildfire intensity. The greater the wildfire intensity, the greater the percent
damage to the structure. A community’s wildfire risk is the combination of likelihood and intensity (together
called “hazard”) and exposure and susceptibility (together called “vulnerability”) (MT DNRC 2022 a).
Wildfire Risk
As described previously, wildfire risk is calculated by combining the following components: likelihood of fire
burning, the intensity of a potential fire, the exposure of assets and resources based on their location, and
the susceptibility of those assets and resources (MT DNRC 2022a). To quantitatively assess wildfire risk
MWRA utilized an expected net value change (eNVC) analysis. The eNVC is an effects analysis that helps to
quantify wildfire risk to various highly valued resources and assets (HVRA) for example homes,
infrastructure, water resources, utility lines etc. (Finney, 2005; Scott et al., 2013; MT DNRC 2020c). The
methodology is described in detail in the MWRA Report (https://mwra-
mtdnrc.hub.arcgis.com/documents/montana-wildfire-risk-assessment-report/explore). As shown in Figure
4-105, the overall risk of loss to those HVRAs is categorized from low to extreme.
The risk to highly valued resources and assets from wildfire varies from low/medium to extreme throughout
the region but the risk from wildfire to people and property is usually greatest within and near the inhabited
areas (Figure 4-105) (i.e., see extreme risk ratings in inhabited areas). The municipalities most notably at risk
from wildfire include, but are not limited to, Red Lodge, Bridger, Bear Creek, Columbus, Billing’s sub -urban
and ex-urban communities, Roundup, Hardin, and Miles City. Across the region, agricultural areas generally
have low to medium risk from wildfire, while the rangelands and forested areas range from high to extreme
risk from wildfire, respectively. Forests and rangelands in areas with more complex topography and/or drier
climates generally have higher risk than forests and rangelands on flatter or less complex topography.
302
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-245
Figure 4-105 Eastern Region Wildfire Risk Summary as Determined by eNVC
*Blank areas have burnable fuels but no HVRAs have been mapped for the area (MT DNRC 2020c).
Source: MT DNRC 2022
303
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-246
It is important to note, however, that many of the towns and municipalities throughout the region have very
high to extreme risk from wildfire, regardless of the risk of surrounding landscapes. This is because the
expected net value change (eNVC) risk assessment model provides more weight in assessing detrimental
changes (or expected losses) to structures and infrastructure than to wildlands or agricultural areas. Thus,
HVRAs (typically structures or infrastructure) are given higher levels of weight (i.e., importance) in the model.
The results of these expected losses are then summed by each pixel displayed in the map. Thus, areas (or
pixels) with a high concentration of HVRAs (e.g., towns and municipalities) will display far greater risk to
wildfire even if the likelihood of fire occurring on the surrounding landscape is low. Thus, the results of these
eNVC risk assessment should be taken in context and interpreted with caution. To summarize, the observed
trends are mainly driven by risk to structures and in frastructure within the region’s towns and municipalities.
Figure 4-106. Most of these structures/infrastructures are susceptible to fire (where they tend to be
damaged if a wildfire occurs) and are exposed (located where there is a chance wildfire could occur), to
some degree, to wildfire occurrence, which accounts for the high risk overall in Figure 4-106.
Generally, however, towns/municipalities surrounded by undeveloped forests and rangelands (i.e.,
landscapes with a higher probability of fire occurring and fire spreading) have higher levels of risk to wildfire
than towns surrounded by more agricultural areas. However, agricultural fires can and do occur (see Denton
fire of 2021) and these fires can have substantial economic impacts (Agricultural Climate Network 2021). It
is also important to note that the MWRA was developed by the MT DNRC at the statewide scale.
Assessments at these scales may omit finer resolution, and more precise assessment of risk, as well as input
by local subject matter experts. Some county-wide or multi-county community wildlife protection plans
(CWPPs) have been developed for counties covering the Eastern region. For example, the 2016 Powder River
County CWPP provides a fine-scale local, wildfire risk assessment that incorporates recent wildfire effects,
community input, and recent wildfire mitigation efforts (Powder River County Co mmission 2016). CWPPs
for all counties in Eastern Montana can be accessed at the MT DNRC website (see
http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/forestry/fire-and-aviation/cwpps) (note: many CWPPs in Eastern Montana
have not been updated in over decade). In the event that a County has recently completed a CWPP with
fine scale risk assessment, land managers and fire responders should carefully consider if those locally
derived assessments provide a more accurate, authoritative dataset for use in addressing and mitigating
wildfire risk, than the statewide assessment.
Vulnerability Assessment
Figure 4-106 depicts the risk index rating for wildfire at a county level based on the NRI. The western and
southeastern parts of the region show a trend towards a relatively low rating, while the central, northern,
and northeastern parts of the region trend towards a relatively moderate rating.
304
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-247
Figure 4-106 Risk Index Rating for Wildfire by County
People
The most exposed population are those that are living within the WUI. The WUI in the Eastern Region is
expansive, but generally, population densities within the WUI are highest in the region’s more populated
municipalities/towns. More populated areas, gene rally, have more property and, thus, a greater degree of
property exposure to wildfire. Counties with higher portions of their property and infrastructure exposed to
fire prone landscapes (e.g., greater wildfire risk to structures and infrastructure) will have more of their
population vulnerable to the negative effects of wildfire than counties with lower portions of property and
infrastructure exposed to fire prone landscapes The vulnerability to property is discussed further below
People can also experience deleterious mental and physical health effects from fire. A study conducted in
California found that extreme wildfire (and it associated impacts) can result in post -traumatic stress disorder,
depression, and exacerbate pre-existing mental illness (Silveira et al 2021). Another study conducted in
California found that particulate air pollution from wildfire had greater impacts on respiratory health than
particulate air pollution from traditional sources (e.g., vehicle and power pla nt emissions) (Aguilera et al
2021). In Montana specifically, a study conducted on pulmonary function for community members living in
Seeley Lake found that that lung function diminished significantly when exposed to extreme levels of smoke
during the 2017 wildfire season (mostly due to the Rice Ridge Fire) and that lung function continued to
decline even one year post fire (Orr et al 2020). In the Western US, ten of the largest years for wildfire (by
total acres burned) have occurred since 2004. These larg e wildfires have been directly linked to poor air
quality and have led to adverse physical and mental health effects and costs to society (EPA 2022). As
climate change progresses, it is likely Eastern Montana will have larger and more frequent wildfires. Planning
to address the needs of populations at risk will be become increasingly important to mitigate property
damage and health impacts from wildfire.
Populations especially at risk from wildlife include socially vulnerable populations. As defined by the US
Forest Services Wildfire Risk to Communities (USFS 2022) socially vulnerable populations include the
305
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-248
following: families living in poverty, people with disabilities, people over 65 years, people who have difficulty
with English, households with no car, and people living in mobile homes. Across the Eastern Region, wildland
fire fighters are also populations at risk from wildfire. Wildland fire fighting is an inherently dangerous
profession where firefighters risk their health and lives while battling fires. During the 2017 Lolo Peak
Complex in western Montana, two wildland fire fighters were killed while battling the fire (Reuters, 2017).
Wildland fire fighters are especially vulnerable to medium- and long-term health and safety risks associated
with smoke and chemical inhalation and other conditions while firefighting, as well as immediate risks that
may endanger their lives due to the fire environment.
In order to determine the total general population living in wildfire risk areas, the structure count of
residential buildings within the various wildfire risk areas and applying the census estimated household size
for each county to the total number of structures. This provides an estimated figure for the number of
residents living in areas exposed to elevated wildfire risk.
Across the Eastern Region counties, there are an estimated 8,743 residents exposed to high-risk wildfire
areas, 100,683 residents exposed to very high risk wildfire areas, and 92,179 residents exposed to extreme
risk wildfire areas, as summarized in Table 4-71 below. Additionally, based on this analysis there are an
estimated 2,381 people residing within wildfire risk areas on the Crow Reservation, 5,211 people on the Fort
Peck Reservation, and 353 people on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. However, th ese residents
are included in the counts for their respective counties of residence in the table below.
Table 4-71 Population Within Wildfire Risk Areas in Eastern Montana
County High Risk Population Very High-Risk
Population
Extreme Risk Population
Big Horn 350 1,380 5,390
Carbon 241 3,810 7,397
Carter 53 318 261
Custer 460 5,766 3,399
Daniels 199 1,098 437
Dawson 707 5,242 970
Fallon 163 1,417 913
Garfield 31 357 689
Golden Valley 86 457 131
McCone 239 528 550
Musselshell 254 1,890 2,509
Powder River 62 236 682
Prairie 97 888 292
Richland 1,441 3,853 133
Roosevelt 660 2,591 3,873
Rosebud 130 2,303 3,280
Sheridan 390 1,464 1,540
Stillwater 1,124 6,458 1,415
Treasure 46 315 33
Valley 475 2,387 3,356
Wheatland 172 1,927 59
Wibaux 62 559 19
Yellowstone 1,300 55,442 54,852
Total 8,743 100,683 92,179
Source: MSDI 2022, MWRA, US Census Bureau
306
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-249
Property
The potential impacts of wildfire on property include crop loss; timber loss; injury and death of livestock
and pets; devaluation of property; and damage to infrastructure, homes and other buildings located
throughout the wildfire risk area. The greatest p otential impact on property, buildings and infrastructure is
likely to occur to those structures located within high and very high hazard zones including the WUI, and
buildings and infrastructure located within fire prone forests and rangelands.
Federal, state, and county lands throughout the Eastern Regions have high amounts of property and
infrastructure that are susceptible to wildfire. Public property lost or damaged by wildfire can exhaust
budgets (due to rebuilding and repair efforts), result in degraded conditions (e.g., damaged roads and
recreational facilities), and degrade the value of natural resources (which could inhibit leasing efforts and
result in lost revenue generation). There are multiple state and federal grants available which can ease costs
due to damages from wildfire (MT DNRC 2022b; FEMA 2022)).
Another method of estimating vulnerability is to determine the value of structures that are located within
wildfire risk areas. Another method of estimating vulnerability is to determine the number and value of
structures that are located within wildfire r isk areas. For this plan update loss estimations for the wildfire
hazard were modeled by using April 2022 MSDI Cadastral Parcel layer as the basis for the inventory of
developed parcels. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel
polygon, which was then intersected with the Montana Wildfire Risk Assessment (MWRA) data. Wildfires
typically result in a total building loss, including contents. Content values were estimated as a percentage
of building value based on their property type, using FEMA/HAZUS estimated content replacement values.
This includes 100% of the structure value for commercial and exempt structures, 50% for residential
structures and 100% for vacant improved land. Improved and contents values were summed to obtain a
total exposure value. Table 4-72 through Table 4-75 below summarizes the estimated exposed value of
improvements in each wildfire risk category for the counties and the Tribes in the Eastern Region. Figure
4-107 show the wildfire risk to structures in the Eastern Region. Loss Ratio is the ratio of the improved
parcels at risk compared to the overall number of improved parcels in each county.
Table 4-72 Exposure and Value of Structures at High Risk to Wildfire by County
County Improved
Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value Loss
Ratio
Big Horn 261 $69,696,592 $80,783,876 $150,480,468 9%
Carbon 248 $52,826,918 $43,797,984 $96,624,902 4%
Carter 109 $14,510,555 $12,844,693 $27,355,248 12%
Custer 342 $57,135,447 $45,742,464 $102,877,911 7%
Daniels 217 $27,659,178 $24,814,628 $52,473,806 13%
Dawson 508 $68,141,966 $45,277,149 $113,419,115 12%
Fallon 155 $23,759,705 $17,623,048 $41,382,753 9%
Garfield 145 $12,924,853 $12,390,997 $25,315,850 16%
Golden Valley 89 $9,995,274 $7,954,322 $17,949,596 14%
McCone 238 $24,405,086 $19,610,653 $44,015,739 17%
Musselshell 236 $22,969,386 $17,882,548 $40,851,934 8%
Powder River 154 $15,626,169 $14,252,815 $29,878,984 15%
Prairie 137 $11,667,759 $9,932,175 $21,599,934 16%
Richland 752 $169,699,932 $119,830,227 $289,530,159 15%
Roosevelt 394 $56,489,395 $44,629,488 $101,118,883 12%
Rosebud 197 $20,528,752 $17,777,771 $38,306,523 7%
Sheridan 340 $45,788,993 $41,760,992 $87,549,985 12%
Stillwater 680 $179,346,702 $124,273,341 $303,620,043 14%
Treasure 86 $10,736,876 $8,950,580 $19,687,456 19%
Valley 438 $80,198,087 $68,976,744 $149,174,831 10%
307
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-250
County Improved
Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value Loss
Ratio
Wheatland 126 $18,929,630 $14,766,850 $33,696,480 10%
Wibaux 71 $10,416,620 $9,028,040 $19,444,660 12%
Yellowstone 800 $500,526,347 $352,211,744 $852,738,091 1%
Total 6,723 $1,503,980,222 $1,155,113,124 $2,659,093,346 6%
Sources: MSDI 2022, MWRA
Table 4-73 Exposure and Value of Structures at Very High Risk to Wildfire by County
County Improved
Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value Loss Ratio
Big Horn 470 $84,697,265 $55,600,450 $140,297,715 16%
Carbon 2,090 $547,758,151 $338,899,010 $886,657,161 33%
Carter 194 $16,622,939 $11,777,870 $28,400,809 22%
Custer 2,619 $355,987,960 $205,139,052 $561,127,012 51%
Daniels 597 $49,379,383 $29,321,872 $78,701,255 37%
Dawson 2,534 $298,389,201 $160,992,812 $459,382,013 59%
Fallon 666 $82,437,643 $50,468,650 $132,906,293 39%
Garfield 211 $20,592,843 $13,824,137 $34,416,980 24%
Golden Valley 235 $27,723,611 $20,667,195 $48,390,806 37%
McCone 279 $23,816,544 $16,536,307 $40,352,851 20%
Musselshell 1,027 $104,380,896 $60,240,354 $164,621,250 36%
Powder River 213 $31,077,010 $29,785,330 $60,862,340 21%
Prairie 431 $23,090,380 $13,659,171 $36,749,551 49%
Richland 1,620 $276,214,590 $150,699,173 $426,913,763 33%
Roosevelt 881 $71,918,345 $43,188,463 $115,106,808 28%
Rosebud 970 $105,865,876 $63,965,597 $169,831,473 35%
Sheridan 758 $83,050,450 $64,111,850 $147,162,300 27%
Stillwater 2,865 $567,115,185 $316,256,337 $883,371,522 58%
Treasure 210 $16,963,574 $10,550,781 $27,514,355 48%
Valley 1,161 $160,221,477 $90,507,557 $250,729,034 27%
Wheatland 871 $67,516,048 $39,657,448 $107,173,496 66%
Wibaux 293 $23,250,971 $14,174,318 $37,425,289 49%
Yellowstone 24,939 $6,151,318,658 $3,597,410,593 $9,748,729,251 39%
Total 46,134 $9,189,389,000 $5,397,434,321 $14,586,823,321 39%
Sources: MSDI 2022, MWRA
Table 4-74 Exposure and Value of Structures at Extreme Risk to Wildfire by County
County Improved
Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value Loss Ratio
Big Horn 1,550 $202,949,949 $137,934,621 $340,884,570 53%
Carbon 3,296 $693,167,480 $378,618,127 $1,071,785,607 52%
Carter 152 $14,455,913 $11,113,807 $25,569,720 17%
Custer 1,521 $217,038,271 $114,139,069 $331,177,340 30%
Daniels 228 $24,807,057 $15,066,852 $39,873,909 14%
Dawson 466 $54,701,745 $33,992,742 $88,694,487 11%
Fallon 439 $54,146,980 $36,121,450 $90,268,430 26%
Garfield 300 $23,256,363 $13,039,702 $36,296,065 33%
Golden Valley 69 $4,487,390 $2,921,733 $7,409,123 11%
McCone 266 $23,428,567 $13,039,210 $36,467,777 19%
Musselshell 1,267 $116,264,790 $72,757,969 $189,022,759 44%
308
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-251
County Improved
Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value Loss Ratio
Powder River 339 $26,943,938 $14,775,338 $41,719,276 33%
Prairie 132 $9,161,738 $4,667,220 $13,828,958 15%
Richland 65 $6,399,632 $3,980,141 $10,379,773 1%
Roosevelt 1,233 $102,809,163 $59,724,939 $162,534,102 39%
Rosebud 1,241 $135,645,674 $81,799,109 $217,444,783 45%
Sheridan 752 $92,607,505 $57,328,988 $149,936,493 27%
Stillwater 602 $101,028,261 $56,171,507 $157,199,768 12%
Treasure 20 $793,239 $471,790 $1,265,029 5%
Valley 1,596 $207,970,575 $114,419,411 $322,389,986 38%
Wheatland 27 $2,881,529 $2,102,472 $4,984,001 2%
Wibaux 10 $1,265,355 $875,373 $2,140,728 2%
Yellowstone 24,107 $5,095,993,537 $2,674,222,521 $7,770,216,058 38%
Total 39,678 $7,212,204,651 $3,899,284,086 $11,111,488,737 33%
Sources: MSDI 2022, MWRA
Table 4-75 Eastern Region Parcel Exposure and Value of Structures at Risk to Wildfire by Tribe
Tribe Extreme Very
High High Medium
Total
Improved
Parcels
Improved
Value
Content
Value Total Value Loss
Ratio
Crow Tribe 294 278 157 325 1,054 $151,771,796 $122,155,017 $273,926,813 69%
Fort Peck
Assiniboine
and Sioux
Tribe
975 523 335 849 2,682 $268,133,296 $229,133,296 $497,786,897 68%
Northern
Cheyenne
Indian
Reservation
112 7 2 9 130 $8,645,052 $6,278,875 $14,923,837 93%
Total 1,381 808 494 1,183 3,866 $429,070,449 $357,567,098 $786,637,547 69%
309
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-252
Figure 4-107 Wildfire Risk to Structures in the Eastern Region
Source: MT DNRC 2022
310
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-253
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Buildings, equipment, vehicles, and communications and utility infrastructure are exposed and lost to
wildfires every year. Potential risk exists to water treatment facilities, government buildings, public safety
facilities and equipment, and healthcare services. Scour on bridge pilings may result in bridge and road
closures. Wildfire impacts to critical facilities can include structural damage or destruction, risk to persons
located within facilities, disruption of transportation, shipping, and evacuation operations, and interruption
of facility operations and critical functions. To estimate the potential impact of wildfire on critical facilities
and lifelines a GIS vulnerability analysis was performed similarly to the property vulnerability analysis, by
intersecting the Montana Wildfire Risk Assessment (MWRA) data with critical facility data from HIFLD,
Montana DES, and National Bridge Inventory (NBI).
Summary tables of these results are shown below in Table 4-76 through Table 4-78, highlighting the type
and number of facilities in each county that are located in High, Very High, or Extreme Wildfire risk areas.
Table 4-76 Critical Facilities at Risk to Extreme Wildfire Hazards
County
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
En
e
r
g
y
Fo
o
d
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
He
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Sa
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
Big Horn 33 30 15 2 0 12 10 102
Carbon 24 26 10 0 2 23 13 98
Carter 8 1 0 0 1 5 3 18
Custer 20 15 0 0 1 9 3 48
Daniels 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Dawson 10 0 0 0 1 1 1 13
Fallon 13 7 1 0 0 12 0 33
Garfield 11 1 1 0 1 7 5 26
Golden Valley 2 1 1 0 1 5 1 11
McCone 13 1 1 0 0 4 1 20
Musselshell 16 18 9 0 2 10 3 58
Petroleum - - - - - - - -
Phillips - - - - - - - -
Powder River 14 2 2 0 1 9 0 28
Prairie 4 5 0 0 1 0 0 10
Richland 2 1 0 0 1 4 0 8
Roosevelt 31 5 2 0 1 18 2 59
Rosebud 40 22 10 0 3 19 5 99
Sheridan 4 3 1 0 0 5 0 13
Stillwater 15 17 0 0 0 4 1 37
Treasure 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 14
Valley 13 1 3 0 1 9 5 32
Wheatland 6 1 0 0 0 4 0 11
Wibaux 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 5
Yellowstone 108 42 14 2 10 36 39 251
Total 396 207 70 4 27 200 92 996
Source: HIFLD 2022, Montana DES, NBI, MWRA
311
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-254
Table 4-77 Critical Facilities at Risk to Very High Wildfire Hazards
County
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
En
e
r
g
y
Fo
o
d
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
He
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Sa
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
Big Horn 1 1 4 0 0 4 37 47
Carbon 5 5 3 2 1 2 46 64
Carter 3 1 1 0 0 3 6 14
Custer 1 3 4 1 3 12 15 39
Daniels 9 13 0 0 0 11 1 34
Dawson 14 5 1 3 1 17 26 67
Fallon 3 24 1 0 0 2 8 38
Garfield 1 0 0 0 0 4 5 10
Golden Valley 0 12 0 0 1 4 3 20
McCone 1 10 0 0 1 0 8 20
Musselshell 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 10
Petroleum - - - - - - - -
Phillips - - - - - - - -
Powder River 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 7
Prairie 1 5 1 0 1 9 2 19
Richland 17 21 4 3 1 12 20 78
Roosevelt 12 23 2 1 0 14 4 56
Rosebud 4 10 1 0 0 4 28 47
Sheridan 12 18 0 0 2 11 7 50
Stillwater 3 4 3 0 2 21 42 75
Treasure 0 4 0 0 1 4 4 13
Valley 31 37 2 1 1 12 17 101
Wheatland 10 19 0 0 2 9 4 44
Wibaux 3 7 1 0 1 5 6 23
Yellowstone 50 18 16 15 2 42 134 277
Total 181 240 44 26 20 205 437 1,153
Source: HIFLD 2022, Montana DES, NBI, MWRA
Table 4-78 Critical Facilities at Risk to High Wildfire Hazards
County
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
En
e
r
g
y
Fo
o
d
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
He
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Sa
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
Big Horn 0 8 2 1 0 0 33 44
Carbon 5 2 1 0 0 0 6 14
Carter 0 1 0 0 0 1 13 15
Custer 4 0 0 1 0 1 31 37
Daniels 1 1 0 0 0 0 16 18
Dawson 4 2 0 1 0 2 42 51
312
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-255
County
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
En
e
r
g
y
Fo
o
d
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
He
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Sa
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
Fallon 0 0 1 2 0 0 18 21
Garfield 2 0 1 0 0 1 8 12
Golden Valley 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 7
McCone 0 1 0 2 0 0 14 17
Musselshell 2 0 1 0 0 0 4 7
Petroleum - - - - - - - -
Phillips - - - - - - - -
Powder River 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 8
Prairie 1 0 0 1 0 0 27 29
Richland 3 2 0 6 0 2 38 51
Roosevelt 4 0 2 3 0 0 29 38
Rosebud 3 0 1 1 0 0 51 56
Sheridan 5 0 2 1 0 0 27 35
Stillwater 10 0 1 3 0 0 24 38
Treasure 1 0 1 0 0 0 20 22
Valley 9 0 0 0 0 0 31 40
Wheatland 0 1 3 0 0 0 9 13
Wibaux 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6
Yellowstone 13 1 0 4 1 1 39 59
Total 67 19 17 26 1 9 499 638
Source: HIFLD 2022, Montana DES, NBI, MWRA
313
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-256
Figure 4-108 Wildfire Risk to Infrastructure in the Eastern Region
Source: MT DNRC 2022
314
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-257
Economy
The economic impacts of wildfire include loss of property, direct agricultural sector job loss, secondary
economic losses to businesses in or near wildland resources like parks and national forests, and loss of
public access to recreational resources. Damage to these assets or disruption of access to them can have
far reaching negative impacts to the local economy in the form of reduced revenues, in addition to the
monetary losses resulting from direct building losses. Fire suppression may also require increased cost to
local and state government for water acquisition and delivery, especially during periods of drought when
water resources are scarce.
Tourism and outdoor recreation are vital components of the Eastern Region economy. Wildland fires can
have a direct impact on the County’s scenery and environmental health, adversely affecting the presence of
tourism activities and the ability of the regions residents to earn a living from the related industries. The
Eastern Region’s scenic beauty and cultural resources are a main draw for tourism, so the entire region can
suffer economic losses from tourists not coming to the area due to wildfires.
Figure 4-109 illustrates the relative risk of EAL rating due to wildfire. Most counties in the Eastern Region
have very low risk, although Garfield, Rosebud, Custer, Powder River, Musselshell, Big Horn, Yellowstone,
Stillwater, and Carbon have a slightly higher risk score (but still relatively low overall).
Figure 4-109 NRI Wildfire Expected Annual Loss Rating by County
Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic structures are often at high risk to wildfire due to wood frame construction methods and being
constructed long before modern building and fire codes . Cultural resources include the natural and
recreational resources also mentioned in the Economy and Natural Resources sections. These resources add
not only monetary value and ecosystem goods and services to the region but can also serve as a source of
regional identity and pride for the residents of the Eastern Region. This makes these vital resourc es for the
various communities which are vulnerable to wildfire.
315
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-258
Natural Resources
Wildfire can be both beneficial and destructive to the Eastern Region’s natural resources. In the rangeland
and forest systems of Eastern Montana, fire is an essential component of the region’s ecosystems and is
necessary to maintain its native ecology (MT DNRC 2020a). However, in recent decades fire suppression,
fuel buildup, climate change, and non-native invasive plant species have altered the natural fire regimes
and increased the likelihood of high severity wildfire. These changing conditions have put much of the
region’s natural resources at risk (MT DNRC 2020a).
Across the western US, watershed vulnerability to wildfire has increased with the increasing wildfire
conditions. Larger and more extreme, high severity wildfires have resulted in degradation to watershed
quality. High severity wildfires can result in increased flows (due to increased hydrophobicity of the burned
soil); higher amounts of sedimentation and contamination (due to destabilization of topsoil), loss of aquatic
habitat, and degradation of aquatic ecology (Montana Free Press 2022; Rhoades et al 2019). As watersheds
become more vulnerable to wildfire, more mitigation efforts will be required to protect watershed health.
Recreation is a valuable natural resource in the region. The region contains vast areas of highly valued public
lands, which include, but are not limited to, the Eastern portion of the Beartooth Mountains and Wilderness;
The Yellowstone River; The Missouri River; The Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area; The Little Big
Horn Battlefield National Monument; Charles M Russell National Wildlife Refuge; Custer National Forest;
BLM managed lands, and multiple state parks. Increasing wildfire conditions can put these recreational
resources at risk. Increasing wildfire conditions, especially extreme large fires, can threaten access (due to
temporary closures), impact air and water quality, and alter visual aesthetics. Taken together, these impacts
can potentially deter visitation and hurt the region’s tourist economy (Kim and Jakus 2019).
Timber extraction in the Eastern region is carried out in limited capacity and predominantly occurs in areas
with continuous forests, such as the eastern edge of the Beartooth’s and the southern Big Snowy Mountains.
Increasing wildfire conditions can halt timber sales (due to closures) and damage and potentially destroy
harvestable trees, impacting the timber industry. In recent years forest wildfires have become larger and
more severe. Historically, however, wildfires of all frequencies and severities occurred in the regions forests
and were necessary for maintaining stand structure and native forest ecology (MT DNRC 2020c). Timber
management should be aligned with fire management, such that it allows natural fire regimes and their
dependent ecology to be restored and/or persist while minimizing the vulnerability of region’s timber
industry.
Public and privately managed rangelands across the Eastern Region provide ample grazing for livestock,
making the region highly valued for ranching. Increasing wildfire conditions can put ranches and livestock
at risk and threaten this region’s industry in the event of large fires. However, it is important to note that,
historically, the rangelands throughout the region req uired a mosaic of conditions created by wildfire (i.e.,
a landscape that exhibits different severities of wildfire and time since wildfire) to maintain their native
ecology. For instance, wildfire can clear woody shrubs, favor the growth of grasses and forbs, and increase
vegetative productivity (Cooper et al 2011); all of which can bolster ranching in the region. Wildfire should
be carefully managed to both maintain the region’s natural ecology and to minimize risk to local ranchers.
Wildfire can also threaten the region’s farmlands. Currently counties with a proportion of farmlands are less
vulnerable to wildfire. However, much of the region has an intermix of farmland and undeveloped
rangelands. These would likely be more vulnerable to wildfire. For example, wildfire on undeveloped
rangelands could threaten nearby farms and their crops. This is especially possible in the later summer and
early fall when wildfire could threaten dry fields of wheat. When wheatfields do catch fire they s pread at
fast rates, are hard to control, and can cause crop loss and property damage (Western Farm Press 2017).
Additionally, indirect impacts from wildfire, primarily smoke impacts, can also negatively affect produce
harvest, quality, and sales (AEI 2021). Overall, increasing wildlife conditions are making the Eastern Region’s
farmlands more vulnerable to wildfire.
316
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-259
Development Trends Related to Hazards and Risk
In recent decades, many counties in Eastern Montana have either experienced population declines or no
meaningful population trends. Stillwater and Yellowstone Counties, however, have experienced a large
growth in population. Most population growth in the Eastern Region has occurred in and around Billings.
Many of the new developments occurring in and around Billings (including the surrounding communities)
is occurring within the WUI. Trends across the state and the Western US have demonstrated that the WUI
is a desirable location for development, even though it presents increased wildfire ri sk [MT DNRC 2020a].
Current houses/structures and future houses/structures in high -risk WUI areas places lives and property in
the path of wildfires. Furthermore, the increasing wildfire risk brought on by climate change is also putting
greater risk on homes and infrastructure already located within the WUI throughout the region. Regulating
growth and decreasing fire risk in these areas will be a delicate balance between protecting private property
rights and promoting public safety. Local governments may wish to consider regulation of subdivision
entrance/exit roads and bridges for the safety of property owners and fire personnel, building
considerations pertaining to land on slopes greater than 25% (in consideration of access for fire protection
of structures), and water supply requirements to include ponds, access by apparatus, pumps, and backup
generators. Such standards serve to protect residents and property, as well as emergency services
personnel. Additionally, as climate change progresses, the wildfire conditions will likely be exacerbated.
Regional planners and property owners should also consider efforts to improve the wildfire resiliency of
homes, structures, and critical infrastructure currently situated in the WUI to prepare for potential increas ed
risk from wildfire.
Risk Summary
In summary, wildfire is considered to be overall High significance for the Region. Variations in risk by
jurisdiction are summarized in the table below, as well as key issues from the vulnerability assessment. The
frequency of wildfires in the Eastern Region overall is highly likely, although the forested and rangeland
areas have a higher burn probability and somewhere in the region fires occur annually.
● Wildfire ignitions occur most frequently in the s outhwestern and western portions of the Eastern
Region, where there are large portions of mostly undeveloped rangelands.
● The counties with large areas of forests and rangelands in the western part of the Eastern Region are
likely to experience the most acres burned in any given year.
● Socially vulnerable populations are likely to experience the worst effects of wildfire.
● Property, structures, and critical infrastructure is at moderate to extreme risk from throughout the
region.
● Jurisdictions surrounded by more fire prone landscapes (e.g., forests and rangelands), generally, have
structures and critical infrastructure most at risk to extreme wildfire.
● As climate change increases, drought will be more likely and the detrimental impacts on human health
and the built environment from wildfire will likely increase.
● Related Hazards: Drought, Flooding, Severe Summer Weather (lightning)
Table 4-79 Risk Summary Table: Wildfire
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance
Additional
Jurisdictions
Jurisdictional Differences?
Eastern Region High
Big Horn High None
Carbon High Bearcreek, Bridger,
Joliet, Fromberg, Red
Lodge
Higher risk located within the WUI near the
incorporated towns
Carter Medium Ekalaka Lower risk than the Region but higher risk
in WUI around Ekalaka
317
Montana Eastern Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page | 4-260
Jurisdiction Overall
Significance
Additional
Jurisdictions
Jurisdictional Differences?
Custer High Ismay, Miles City None
Crow Tribe High High risk located within the WUI within the
reservation lands
Daniels Medium Scobey, Flaxville Lower risk than Region
Dawson Low Richey, Glendive Lower risk than Region
Fallon Medium Plevna, Baker Higher risk around Plevna, Baker, and
Ismay WUI
Garfield High Jordan None
Golden Valley Low Ryegate, Lavina WUIs in the County, such as Town of Jordan
McCone Low Circle Lower risk than Region
Musselshell High Melstone, Roundup None
Powder River High Broadus None
Prairie Medium Terry Lower risk than Region
Medium Low Fairview, Sidney Lower risk than Region
Roosevelt Medium Wolf Point, Poplar,
Bainville, Culberson,
Froid
Lower risk than Region
Rosebud High Colstrip, Forsyth None
Sheridan Medium Plentywood, Medicine
Lake, Outlook, Westby
Lower risk than Region
Stillwater Medium Columbus Lower risk than Region
Treasure Medium Hysham Lower risk than Region
Valley Medium Glasgow, Fort Peck,
Nashua, Opheim
None
Wheatland Low Harlowton, Judith Gap Lower risk than Region
Wibaux Medium Wibaux None
Yellowstone High Billings, Broadview,
Laurel
None
318
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Strategy
Page | 5-1
5 Mitigation Strategy
Local Plan Requirement §201.6(c)(3): [The plan shall include] a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s
blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies,
programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. This section shall include:
(i) A description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long -term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
(ii) A section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being
considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and
infrastructure.
(iii) An action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and
administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are
maximized according to a cost-benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.
Tribal Requirement §201.7(c)(3): A mitigation strategy that provides the Indian tribal government's blueprint for reducing
the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and
its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. This section shall include:
(i): A description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long -term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
(ii): A section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being
considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and
infrastructure.
(iii): An action plan describing how the actions identified in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section will be prioritized,
implemented, and administered by the Indian Tribal government.
5.1 Mitigation Strategy: Overview
This section describes the mitigation strategy process and mitigation action plan for the Eastern Montana
Region HMP. It describes how the participating jurisdictions in the Region met the following requirements
from the 10-step planning process:
● Planning Step 6: Set Goals
● Planning Step 7: Review Possible Activities
● Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan
The results of the planning process, the risk assessment, the goal setting, the identification of mitigation
actions, and the hard work of each jurisdiction’s CPT/TPT led to this mitigation strategy and action plan.
Section 5.2 below identifies the goals of this plan and Section 5.4 describes the mitigation action plan.
5.2 Mitigation Goals
Up to this point in the planning process, each jurisdiction’s CPT/TPT has organized resources, assessed
hazards and risks, and documented mitigation capabilities. The resulting goals and mitigation actions were
reviewed and updated based on these tasks. During the 2022-2023 update of this plan, each CPT/TPT held
a series of meetings designed to achieve a collaborative mitigation strategy as described further throughout
this section.
Goals were defined for the purpose of this mitigation plan as broad-based public policy statements that:
● Represent basic desires of the community;
● Encompass all aspects of community, public and private;
319
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Strategy
Page | 5-2
● Are nonspecific, in that they refer to the quality (not the quantity) of the outcome;
● Are future-oriented, in that they are achievable in the future; and
● Are time-independent, in that they are not scheduled events.
Goals are stated without regard to implementation. Implementation cost, schedule, and means are not
considered. Goals are defined before considering how to accomplish them so that they are not dependent
on the means of achievement. Goal statements form the basis for objectives and actions that will be used
as means to achieve the goals.
During the mitigation strategy workshops held in April 2023, the jurisdictions reviewed the results of the
hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment. They then reviewed the goals of
the previous county and tribal hazard mitigation plans in the Eastern Region, as well as the Montana State
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. This analysis of the risk assessment identified areas where improvements
could be made and provided the framework for the counties and tribes to update planning goals and to
base the development of new or updated mitigation strategies for the counties and tribes in the Eastern
Region. The participating jurisdictions decided to collaborate and develop a set of new, uniform goals, which
were adopted by all counties in the Eastern Region:
Goal 1: Reduce impacts to people, property, the environment, and the economy from hazards by
implementing whole-community risk reduction and resilience strategies.
Goal 2: Protect community lifelines and critical infrastructure to ensure the continuity of essential
services during and after a disaster.
Goal 3: Support education and outreach to the public through improved communications and capacity
building that enhances resilience among underserved communities.
Goal 4: Promote regional cooperation and leverage partnerships with the private sector, non-profit
organizations, and other key stakeholder groups in mitigation solutions.
Goal 5: Sustain and enhance jurisdictional capabilities and resources to enact and implement mitigation
activities.
Goal 6: Integrate hazard mitigation into other plans, processes, and regulations.
Goal 7: Ensure local mitigation programs address underrepresented groups and protect socially
vulnerable populations.
Goal 8: Incorporate the potential impacts of climate change into all mitigation activities.
Objectives are an optional intermediate step between goals and mitigation actions that define strategies to
attain the goals and are more specific and measurable. After discussion, the HMPC decided not to include
regional objectives. Each county and tribe were given the opportunity to set objectives to meet their unique
situation and complement the regional goals. See Section 6 of each jurisdictional annex or addendum for
details.
5.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions
The next step in the mitigation strategy is to identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific
mitigation actions and projects to reduce the effects of each hazard on new and existing buildings and
infrastructure. During the 2022-2023 Regional HMP process, each jurisdiction’s CPT/TPT analyzed viable
mitigation options by hazard that supported the identified goals. The CPTs/TPTs were provided with the
following list of categories of mitigation actions, which originate from the CRS:
● Plan and Regulations (Prevention): Administrative or regulatory actions or processes that influence
the way land and buildings are developed and built.
320
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Strategy
Page | 5-3
● Property Protection: Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings or structures to protect
them from a hazard or remove them from the hazard area.
● Structural and Infrastructure Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce
the impact of a hazard.
● Natural Resource Protection: Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses, also preserve or
restore the functions of natural systems.
● Public Information/Education and Awareness: Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected
officials, and property owners about the hazards and potential ways to mitigate them.
● Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a disaster
or hazard event.
To identify and select mitigation actions in support of the mitigation goals, the HMPC evaluated each hazard
identified and profiled in Chapter 3.4. A link to reference documents titled “Mitigation Ideas” and “Mitigation
Action Portfolio” developed by FEMA was referenced in the meeting presentation and made available as
hard copies distributed during Workshop #3 to support the planning exercises . These documents list
common alternatives for mitigation by hazard and best practices. The jurisdictions considered both future
and existing buildings in considering possible mitigation actions. A facilitated discussion then took place to
examine and analyze the options.
The mitigation strategy is based on existing local and tribal authorities, policies, programs, and resources,
as well as the ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. As part of the Regional HMP
development, the CPTs and TPTs reviewed existing capabilities for reducing long-term vulnerability to
hazards. Those capabilities are noted by the jurisdiction in the county and reservation annexes and
addendums and can be assessed to identify gaps to be addressed and strengths to enhance through new
mitigation actions. For instance, gaps in the design or enforcement of existing regulations be addressed
through additional personnel or a change in procedure or policy.
Based upon the key issues identified in the risk assessment, including the capability assessment, the counties
and tribes came to a consensus on proposed mitigation actions for each hazard for their jurisdictions.
Certain hazards’ impacts were best reduced through multi-hazard actions. A lead for each new action, where
applicable, was identified to provide additional details on the pro ject so they could be captured in the plan.
Final action strategies are summarized in Section 5.4 and detailed within the respective jurisdictional
annexes.
5.3.1 Prioritization Process
Once the mitigation actions were identified, the CPTs and TPTs were provided FEMA’s recommended
prioritization criteria STAPLEE to assist in deciding why one recommended action might be more important,
more effective, or more likely to be implemented than another. STAPLEE is an acronym for the following:
● Social: Does the measure treat people fairly? (e.g., different groups, different generations)
● Technical: Is the action technically feasible? Does it solve the problem?
● Administrative: Are there adequate staffing, funding, and other capabilities to implement the project?
● Political: Who are the stakeholders? Will there be adequate political and public support for the project?
● Legal: Does the jurisdiction have the legal authority to implement the action? Is it legal?
● Economic: Is the action cost-beneficial? Is there funding available? Will the action contribute to the
local economy?
● Environmental: Does the action comply with environmental regulations? Will there be negative
environmental consequences from the action?
Other criteria used to assist in evaluating the priority of a mitigation action included:
● Does the action address hazards or areas with the highest risk?
321
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Strategy
Page | 5-4
● Does the action protect lives?
● Does the action protect infrastructure, community assets or critical facilities?
● Does the action meet multiple objectives?
At the mitigation strategy workshops, the counties and tribes used STAPLEE to determine which of the
newly identified actions were most likely to be implemented and effective. Keeping the STAPLEE criteria in
mind, each jurisdiction prioritized the new mitigation actions by giving an indication of relative priority,
which was then translated into ‘high,’ ‘medium’ and ‘low.’ The results of the STAPLEE evaluation process
produced prioritized mitigation actions for implementation within the planning area. Conti nued actions
were also assessed to see if priority changes were needed; most of these remained the same , but in some
cases, priorities were changed.
The process of identification and analysis of mitigation alternatives allowed the county and tribal planning
teams to come to a consensus and prioritize recommended mitigation actions for their jurisdictions. During
the voting process, emphasis was placed on the importance of a benefit-cost review in determining project
priority as this is a requirement of the DMA regulations; however, this was a planning-level analysis as
opposed to a quantitative analysis. A quantitative cost-benefit analysis will be considered in additional detail
when seeking FEMA mitigation grant funding for eligible projects identified in this plan.
Each mitigation action developed for this plan contains a brief description of the problem and proposed
project, the entity with primary responsibility for implementation, a cost estimate, and a schedule for
implementation. The development of these project details further informed the determination of a high,
medium, or low priority for each. During the plan update, the jurisdictions in the Eastern Region identified
some mitigation actions to be carried forward from their previous county HMPs. Priority levels on these
actions were revisited during Workshop #3 and through the distribution of a Mitigation Action Tracker tool
and, in some cases, modified to reflect current priorities based on the STAPLEE principles.
5.4 Mitigation Action Plan
This section outlines the development of the mitigation action plan. The action plan consists of the specific
projects, or actions, designed to meet the plan's goals. Over time the implementation of these projects will
be tracked as a measure of demonstrated progress on meeting the plan's goals.
5.4.1 Progress on Previous Mitigation Actions
This Eastern Regional HMP represents a plan update for all counties and tribes. As part of the update
process, the jurisdictions reviewed actions identified in their previous plans to assess progress on
implementation. These reviews were completed using worksheets to capture information on each action
including if the action was completed or deferred to the future . Actions that were not completed were
discussed for continued relevance and were either continued into the Regional Plan or in some cases
recommended for deletion.
The participating jurisdictions have been working steadily towards meeting the goals of their previous plans.
While several remain to be completed, many were noted as in-progress. Progress on mitigation actions
previously identified in these planning mechanisms is detailed in the jurisdictional annexes. These action
plans were also shared amongst the Regional Plan participants to showcase progress and stimulate ideas
amongst the respective planning committees in each county and tribe. Reasons that some acti ons have not
been completed include low priority, lack of funding, or lack of administrative resources.
Table 5-1 summarizes the progress in implementing mitigation actions by tribe and county (including the
municipalities). In total, 29 actions have been completed, and 24 were deleted as being no longer relevant
or feasible. A total of 948 actions were carried over into the Regional Plan, along with 104 new actions
developed during the planning effort.
322
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Strategy
Page | 5-5
Table 5-1 Mitigation Action Progress Summary by Jurisdiction
County/Reservation Completed Deleted Continuing New Actions
in 2023
Total Continuing and
New Actions
Big Horn 0 0 79 2 81
Carbon 1 3 69 12 81
Carter 0 0 19 6 25
Crow Tribe 0 0 13 1 14
Custer 2 0 96 6 102
Daniels 5 2 20 7 27
Dawson 0 0 32 1 33
Fallon 0 0 22 3 25
Garfield 0 0 10 1 11
Golden Valley 1 0 61 1 62
McCone 2 2 24 1 25
Musselshell 0 0 74 2 76
Powder River 0 0 12 2 14
Prairie 3 1 8 6 14
Richland 1 0 33 2 35
Roosevelt 3 0 34 3 37
Rosebud 0 0 39 0 39
Sheridan 3 0 21 4 25
Stillwater 0 16 43 17 60
Treasure 2 0 55 1 56
Valley 6 0 70 18 88
Wibaux 0 0 27 3 30
Yellowstone 9 14 64 5 69
Total 29 24 948 104 1,052
5.4.2 Continued Compliance with NFIP
Given the significance of the flood hazard throughout the planning area, an emphasis will be placed on
continued compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Jurisdictions that participate in
the NFIP are noted in the respective annexes’ and addendums’ Capability Assessment and will continue to
make every effort to remain in good standing with the program. This includes continuing to comply with
the NFIP’s standards for adopting floodplain maps and maintaining and periodically updating local
floodplain regulations. Actions related to continued compliance include:
● Continued designation of a local floodplain manager whose responsibilities include reviewing
floodplain development permits to ensure compliance with the local floodplain management
ordinances and rules;
● Suggest changes to improve enforcement of and compliance with regulations and programs;
● Participate in Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRMs) updates by adopting new maps or amendments to
maps;
● Utilize DFIRMs in conjunction with GIS to improve floodplain management, such as improved risk
assessment and tracking of floodplain permits;
● Promote and disperse information on the benefits of flood insurance.
Also, to be considered are the flood mitigation actions contained in this Eastern Regional Plan that support
the ongoing efforts by participating jurisdictions to minimize the risk and vulnerability of the community to
the flood hazard, and to enhance their overall floodplain management program.
323
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Strategy
Page | 5-6
5.4.3 Mitigation Action Plan
The action plan presents the recommendations developed by the county and tribal planning teams,
outlining how each jurisdiction and the Region can reduce the risk and vulnerability of people, property,
infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources to future disaster losses. The mitigation actions developed
by each participating jurisdictions are detailed in the jurisdictional annexes in Section 10. These details
include the action description, hazard(s) mitigated, lead and partner agencies responsible for initiating
implementation, costs, and timeline. Many of the action items included in this plan are a collaborative effort
among local, state, tribal, and federal agencies, and stakeholders in the planning area.
Table 5-2 summarizes the mitigation actions that address each hazard relevant to that jurisdiction.
Table 5-2 Mitigation Actions by Hazard and Jurisdiction
County/Reservation
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
b
l
e
D
i
s
e
a
s
e
Cy
b
e
r
T
h
r
e
a
t
Da
m
F
a
i
l
u
r
e
Dr
o
u
g
h
t
Ea
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
Fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
Ha
z
m
a
t
In
c
i
d
e
n
t
Hu
m
a
n
C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
Se
v
e
r
e
S
u
m
m
e
r
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
Se
v
e
r
e
W
i
n
t
e
r
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
To
r
n
a
d
o
e
s
&
W
i
n
d
s
t
o
r
m
s
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
Vo
l
c
a
n
i
c
A
s
h
Wi
l
d
f
i
r
e
Big Horn County 13 10 19 5 15 23 16 20 12 19 19 15 13 16 36
City of Hardin 7 4 9 1 6 10 9 10 5 10 10 7 4 7 15
Town of Lodge Grass 7 3 10 0 8 13 10 12 7 12 11 8 6 8 19
Carbon County 3 3 11 6 10 19 13 10 10 11 12 9 9 9 33
Town of Bearcreek 0 0 4 1 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 7
Town of Bridger 0 0 4 0 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5
Town of Fromberg 0 1 5 2 5 6 4 5 4 5 6 5 4 5 7
Town of Joliet 0 2 6 1 6 10 4 6 4 7 8 6 4 6 7
City of Red Lodge 0 0 6 1 5 13 5 4 5 6 5 5 4 5 10
Carter County 3 3 1 2 1 3 5 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 4
Town of Ekalaka 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1
Crow Tribe 3 1 6 1 6 8 7 5 5 6 6 7 2 6 9
Custer County 21 9 20 8 17 24 21 21 16 25 25 18 20 18 32
City of Miles City 20 8 17 7 15 33 22 21 14 23 24 16 21 16 28
Town of Ismay 20 4 14 5 13 15 17 14 13 19 19 14 16 14 17
Daniels County 1 0 5 0 0 5 3 5 0 4 4 5 0 0 11
City of Scobey 1 0 4 0 0 7 2 4 0 3 3 4 0 0 9
Town of Flaxville 1 0 3 0 0 5 2 4 0 3 4 4 0 0 9
Dawson County 1 1 3 1 2 14 7 3 2 9 8 2 1 2 3
City of Glendive 0 1 2 1 1 11 2 2 0 4 2 1 0 1 1
Town of Richey 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 5 2 1 0 0 0
Fallon County 4 5 5 4 2 4 5 5 2 5 5 2 3 2 5
City of Baker 2 3 5 3 2 4 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2
Town of Plevna 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Garfield County 1 1 2 1 2 4 3 2 3 3 4 2 2 2 4
Town of Jordan 1 1 2 1 2 4 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 4
Golden Valley County 9 8 10 7 8 15 8 11 6 15 15 8 9 8 20
Town of Ryegate 8 6 6 4 5 10 5 7 4 11 11 5 4 5 15
Town of Lavina 8 7 7 4 6 11 5 9 4 11 11 6 4 6 14
324
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Strategy
Page | 5-7
County/Reservation
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
b
l
e
D
i
s
e
a
s
e
Cy
b
e
r
T
h
r
e
a
t
Da
m
F
a
i
l
u
r
e
Dr
o
u
g
h
t
Ea
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
Fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
Ha
z
m
a
t
In
c
i
d
e
n
t
Hu
m
a
n
C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
Se
v
e
r
e
S
u
m
m
e
r
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
Se
v
e
r
e
W
i
n
t
e
r
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
To
r
n
a
d
o
e
s
&
W
i
n
d
s
t
o
r
m
s
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
Vo
l
c
a
n
i
c
A
s
h
Wi
l
d
f
i
r
e
McCone County 5 0 12 0 0 14 11 9 7 15 14 0 0 0 12
Town of Circle 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 1
Musselshell County 9 6 14 6 11 21 14 13 10 17 17 11 13 10 24
Town of Melstone 8 3 6 4 4 4 6 7 4 7 7 4 5 4 11
Town of Roundup 9 4 8 5 6 15 10 9 6 11 11 6 8 6 11
Powder River County 1 1 2 1 2 5 4 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 4
Town of Broadus 1 1 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1
Prairie County 1 3 3 3 3 4 1 3 1 5 7 3 1 3 3
Town of Terry 0 2 2 2 2 4 0 2 0 3 3 2 0 2 2
Richland County 2 1 1 3 1 5 3 2 2 7 9 2 1 1 2
Town of Fairview 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 6 8 2 0 0 0
Town of Sidney 0 0 0 0 1 9 3 2 0 12 14 1 0 0 2
Roosevelt County 8 0 6 0 7 10 8 1 0 10 10 1 1 0 8
City of Wolf Point 10 0 6 0 8 10 8 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 7
City of Polar 9 0 6 0 8 10 7 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 7
Town of Bainville 9 0 7 0 8 8 8 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 7
Town of Culbertson 8 0 5 0 7 9 8 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 7
Town of Froid 10 0 6 0 8 10 9 1 0 11 11 1 0 0 8
Rosebud County 5 1 8 5 7 9 9 5 7 9 7 7 7 4 13
City of Colstrip 4 0 7 5 6 6 8 3 6 7 6 6 4 3 10
City of Forsyth 4 2 9 4 8 10 7 4 8 9 8 8 4 3 12
Sheridan County 5 1 3 1 0 9 5 4 0 7 7 7 1 0 5
City of Plentywood 5 1 3 1 0 6 3 3 0 6 7 5 1 0 8
Town of Medicine Lake 6 1 3 1 0 7 4 5 0 4 4 4 1 0 10
Town of Outlook 5 1 3 1 0 9 5 4 0 7 7 7 1 0 11
Town of Westby 5 1 3 1 0 9 5 4 0 7 7 7 1 0 11
Stillwater County 4 6 11 2 9 18 9 12 11 12 12 9 8 7 25
Town of Columbus 3 4 3 1 2 10 1 3 1 6 5 2 2 1 10
Treasure County 8 5 13 7 10 18 14 11 10 14 14 11 8 8 21
Town of Hysham 8 6 10 6 9 14 10 12 8 12 12 10 7 9 12
Valley County 10 0 0 1 10 25 16 0 0 18 18 16 1 0 23
City of Glasgow 9 0 0 1 9 25 13 0 0 11 11 11 0 0 18
Town of Fort Peck 10 0 0 1 10 17 15 0 0 15 15 14 0 0 24
Town of Nashua 10 0 0 1 10 27 16 0 0 16 16 16 0 0 22
Town of Opheim 4 1 1 0 4 3 1 1 0 4 5 5 0 1 7
Wibaux County 3 2 4 4 4 11 11 5 3 13 12 10 4 4 11
Town of Wibaux 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2
Yellowstone County 9 7 12 3 11 22 17 15 10 18 17 11 6 9 23
City of Billings 8 4 6 3 5 18 11 10 5 10 9 5 3 4 13
Town of Broadview 8 3 4 1 4 6 6 7 3 8 7 4 3 4 11
City of Laurel 8 4 5 2 4 8 11 9 3 9 8 4 3 4 12
Total 369 156 383 147 345 719 491 365 239 606 606 379 238 240 753
325
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Strategy
Page | 5-8
The actions included in this mitigation strategy are subject to further review and refinement; alternatives
analyses; and reprioritization due to funding availability and/or other criteria. The participating jurisdictions
are not obligated by this document to implement any or all of these projects. Rather, this mitigation strategy
represents the desires of the communities to mitigate the risks and vulnerabilities from identified hazards.
The jurisdictions realize that new needs and priorities may arise as a result of a disaster or other
circumstances and reserve the right to support new actions, as necessary, as long as they conform to their
overall goals, as listed in this plan.
See the jurisdictional annexes and addendums for their list of mitigation actions, as well as more details on
progress on implementation of previous actions.
326
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance
Page | 6-1
6 Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance
Requirement §201.6(c)(4): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of
monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.
Tribal Requirement §201.7(c)(4): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and
schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan.
Requirement §201.6(c)(5): [The hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally
approved by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, county
commissioner, Tribal Council).
Implementation and maintenance of the plan is critical to the overall success of hazard mitigation planning.
This is Planning Step 10 of the 10-step planning process. This chapter provides an overview of the strategy
for plan implementation and maintenance and outlines the method and schedule for monitoring, updating,
and evaluating the regional plan. The chapter also discusses methods for incorporating the plan into
existing planning mechanisms and how to address continued public involvement. The system fo r
implementation and maintenance was created during the 2022-2023 development of the regional plan.
6.1 Formal Adoption
The purpose of formally adopting this plan is to secure buy-in from participating jurisdictions, raise
awareness of the plan, and formalize the plan’s implementation. The adoption of this plan completes
Planning Step 9 of the 10-step planning process: Adopt the Plan. The governing board for each participating
jurisdiction has adopted this local hazard mitigation plan by passing a resolution. A copy of the generic
resolution and the executed copies are included in Appendix D, Plan Adoptions. Th e Eastern Regional HMP
will be updated and re-adopted every five years in concurrence with the required DMA local and tribal plan
update requirements.
6.2 Implementation
Once adopted, the Plan faces the truest test of its worth: continued implementation. While this Plan contains
many worthwhile actions, each county, jurisdiction, and tribe will need to decide which action(s) to
undertake or continue. Two factors will help with making that decision: the priority assigned to the actions
in the planning process and funding availability. Low or no -cost actions most easily demonstrate progress
toward successful plan implementation.
Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated into the day-to-day functions and priorities of
government and development. Implementation will be accomplished by adhering to the schedules
identified for each action and through constant, pervasive, and energetic efforts to network and highlight
the benefits to the counties, tribes, communities, and stakeholders. This effort is achieved through the
routine actions of monitoring meeting agendas for hazard mitigation -related initiatives, coordinating on
the topic at meetings, and promoting a safe, sustainable community. Additional mitigation strategies could
include consistent and ongoing enforcement of existing policies and vigilant review of programs for
coordination and multi-objective opportunities.
Simultaneous to these efforts, it is important to maintain constant monitoring of funding opportunities that
can be leveraged to implement some of the more costly recommended actions. This will include creating
and maintaining a bank of ideas on how to meet local match or participation requirements. When funding
does become available, the Eastern Region and its counties and tribes will be able to capitalize on the
opportunity. Funding opportunities to be monitored include special pre - and post-disaster funds, state and
327
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance
Page | 6-2
federal earmarked funds, benefit assessments, and other grant programs, including those that can serve or
support multi-objective applications.
6.2.1 Role of Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee in Implementation and
Maintenance
With the adoption of this Plan, the Eastern Region, its counties, municipalities, and the tribe will be
responsible for the Plan implementation and maintenance. Each county and tribe, led by their Emergency
Management Coordinators, will reconvene their HMPC for plan implementation and maintenance. MT DES
staff will assist in the coordination of the regional HMPCs. This HMPC will be the same committee (in form
and function, if not actual individuals) that developed this Plan and will also be responsible for the next
formal update to the plan in five years.
The county level and tribal planning teams will:
● Act as a forum for hazard mitigation issues;
● Disseminate hazard mitigation ideas and activities to all participants;
● Pursue the implementation of high-priority, low/no-cost recommended actions;
● Ensure hazard mitigation remains a consideration for community decision-makers;
● Maintain vigilant monitoring of multi-objective cost-share opportunities to help the community
implement the plan’s recommended actions for which no current funding exists;
● Monitor and assist in the implementation and update of this plan;
● Report on plan progress and recommended changes to county and municipal officials; and
● Inform and solicit input from the public.
MT DES staff will:
● Assist with procurement of consultant support/additional technical assistance.
● Provide technical assistance and support to the delivery of an effective stakeholder and public
engagement/outreach strategy. This includes providing assistance with the planning and facilitation of
stakeholder and public outreach/ engagement meetings both in person and virtual. This also includes
coordinating with other Montana state agencies (e.g., Dept. of Commerce, DNRC, Dept. of
Environmental Quality, etc.) and their field staff and stakeholders to ensure a whole government
approach to participation, involvement, and regional planning outcomes. This includes assistance in
how underserved communities and socially vulnerable populations will be engaged in tangible activities
throughout plan implementation and maintenance and in the next plan update (see also Section 6.3.4).
● Provide technical assistance and support with data and resources needed to meet the mitigation
planning requirements.
● Assist during the mitigation action phase of the planning process and help guide
communities/stakeholders on the development of holistic and comprehensive mitigation actions.
Each HMPC will not have any powers over the respective county or tribal staff; it will be purely an advisory
body. The primary duty is to see the plan successfully carried out and to report to the county commissioners,
municipal boards, tribal councils, and the public on the status of plan implement ation and mitigation
opportunities. Other duties include reviewing and promoting mitigation proposals, considering stakeholder
concerns about hazard mitigation, passing concerns on to appropriate entities, and po sting relevant
information on county websites (and others as appropriate).
6.3 Plan Maintenance
Plan maintenance implies an ongoing effort to monitor and evaluate plan implementation and to update
the plan as progress, roadblocks, or changing circumstances are recognized. The regulation at 44
CFR§201.6(d)(3) requires that a local jurisdiction must re view and revise its plan to reflect changes in
328
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance
Page | 6-3
development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities, and resubmit it for approval
within five (5) years to continue to be eligible for mitigation project grant funding.
Similarly, a tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to review and revise its plan to reflect any
changes in development, progress in mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for
approval within 5 years to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
6.3.1 Maintenance Schedule
MT DES will work with the Emergency Management Coordinators to initiate annual plan reviews, in
consultation with the heads of participating departments in their own counties and tribes. In order to
monitor progress and update the mitigation strategies identified in the action plan, each county and tribe
and their standing CPT/TPT will conduct an annual review of this Plan and/or following a hazard event. An
annual mitigation action progress report will be prepared by the Emergency Management Coordinators
based on the HMPC input and kept on file to assist with future updates. The annual review will be conducted
by reconvening each HMPC in November or December of each year in coordination with MT DES.
This plan will be updated, approved, and adopted within a five-year cycle as per Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i)
(for local governments) and §201.7(d)(3) (for tribes) of the DMA of 2000 unless a disaster or other
circumstances (e.g., changing regulations) require a change to this schedule. The Eastern Region and its
counties and tribe will inquire with MT DES and FEMA for funds and or technical assistance to assist with
the update. The next plan update should be completed and reapproved by MT DES and FEMA Region VIII
within five years of the FEMA final approval date. The planning process to prepare the update should begin
no later than 12 months prior to that date. Note that the addendums developed during this current planning
process will be converted to annexes in the next update. Additional information on the plan maintenance
schedule for each participating jurisdiction is included in the annexes and addendums.
6.3.2 Maintenance Evaluation Process
Evaluation of progress can be achieved by monitoring changes in vulnerabilities identified in the plan.
Changes in vulnerability can be identified by noting:
● Decreased vulnerability as a result of implementing recommended actions;
● Increased vulnerability as a result of new or altered hazards; and
● Increased vulnerability as a result of new development.
● To best evaluate any changes in vulnerability as a result of plan implementation, each county and tribe
will adhere to the following process:
● A representative from the responsible office identified in each mitigation action will be responsible for
tracking and reporting on an annual basis to the department lead on action status and provide input
on whether the action, as implemented, meets the d efined objectives and is likely to be successful in
reducing vulnerabilities.
● If the action does not meet identified objectives, the lead will determine what additional measures may
be implemented, and an assigned individual will be responsible for defining the action scope,
implementing the action, monitoring the success of the action, and making any required modifications
to the plan.
Evaluation is used not only to measure progress, but to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan itself and if
goals are being achieved. Changes will be made to the plan to accommodate for actions that were not
successful or were not considered feasible after a review of their consistency with established criteria, time
frame, community priorities, and/or funding resources. Actions that wer e not ranked high but were
identified as potential mitigation activities will be reviewed as well during the monitoring and update of this
plan to determine the feasibility of future implementation.
329
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance
Page | 6-4
Updating of the Plan will be by written changes and submissions, as each HMPC deems appropriate and
necessary, and as approved by the respective participating agencies. In keeping with the five -year update
process, the HMPC will convene public meetings to solicit public input on the Plan and its routine
maintenance and the final product will be adopted by the governing council of each participating
jurisdiction. Updates to this plan will:
● Consider changes in vulnerability due to action implementation;
● Document success stories where mitigation efforts have proven effective;
● Document areas where mitigation actions were not effective;
● Document any new hazards that may arise or were previously overlooked;
● Incorporate new data or studies on hazards and risks;
● Incorporate new capabilities or changes in capabilities;
● Incorporate growth and development-related changes to infrastructure inventories; and
● Incorporate new action recommendations or changes in action prioritization.
The jurisdictional annexes explain in further detail the monitoring system for tracking the initiation and
status of projects as well as project closeouts, indicating who will be responsible for implementing and
maintaining this system for the respective tribes.
6.3.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
Another important implementation mechanism that is highly effective and low-cost is the incorporation of
the HMP recommendations and their underlying principles into other county or tribal plans and
mechanisms. Where possible, plan participants will use existing plans and/or programs to implement hazard
mitigation actions. As described in each county and reservation annexes and addendums’ capability
assessment section, the jurisdictions already implement policies and programs to reduce losses to life and
property from hazards. This Plan builds upon the momentum developed through previous and related
planning efforts and mitigation programs and recommends implementing actions, where possible, through
these other program mechanisms. Where applicable, these existing mechanisms could incl ude:
● County, tribal or community comprehensive plans
● County, tribal or community land development codes
● County, tribal or community Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs)
● Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments (THIRA)
● CWPPs
● Transportation plans
● Capital improvement plans and budgets
● Recovery planning efforts
● Watershed planning efforts
● Wildfire planning efforts on adjacent public lands
● Master planning efforts
● River corridor planning efforts
● Future updates to the Montana State Water Plan
● Other plans, regulations, and practices with a mitigation aspect
The jurisdictional annexes and County HMPs with addendums note where the previous versions of the
individual county and tribal HMPs have been incorporated into existing planning mechanisms in the past 5
years. Each annex and addendum also notes specific opportunities to integrate the mitigation plan into
other mechanisms in the future in Section 7. The addendums do not have sections on these specific
opportunities, but these opportunities are described in the base plan in Section 6.
330
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance
Page | 6-5
HMPC members involved in these other planning mechanisms will be responsible for integrating the
findings and recommendations of this plan with these other plans, programs, etc., as appropriate. As
described in Section 6.2 Implementation, incorporation into existing planning mechanisms will be done
through the process of:
● Monitoring other planning/program agendas;
● Attending other planning/program meetings;
● Participating in other planning processes;
● Ensuring that the related planning process cross -references the hazard mitigation plan, where
appropriate, and
● Monitoring community budget meetings for other community or tribal program opportunities.
The successful implementation of this mitigation strategy will require constant and vigilant review of existing
plans and programs for coordination and multi-objective opportunities that promote a safe, sustainable
community.
Efforts should continuously be made to monitor the progress of mitigation actions implemented through
these other planning mechanisms and, where appropriate, their priority actions should be incorporated into
updates of this HMP.
6.3.4 Continued Public Involvement
Continued public involvement is imperative to the overall success of the plan’s implementation. The update
process provides an opportunity to solicit participation from new and existing stakeholders and publicize
success stories from the Plan implementation and seek additional public comment. The Plan maintenance
and update process will include continued public and stakeholder involvement and input through
attendance at designated committee meetings, web postings, social media postings, press releases to lo cal
media, and through public hearings. To ensure the meaningful participation during continued involvement
activities of underserved communities and socially vulnerable populations, including the elderly, youth,
veterans, homeless individuals, and low-income families, the HMPC will employ targeted outreach
strategies. Partnerships with CBOs, NGOs, and individual government agencies —such as the American Red
Cross and local senior and healthcare facilities—will be key to facilitating communication and engagement,
as this strategy was successful for outreach in the Eastern Region . Meetings will be held in accessible
locations like senior centers and healthcare clinics, and materials will be provided in multiple languages to
overcome barriers like transportation, childcare, and language differences.
These communities will also be encouraged to participate in various activities that will be led by County
staff and representatives from CBOs and NGOs. Activities will include public meetings, focus groups, and
surveys with each regional CPT or TPT. Their feedback will be used to evaluate mitigation actions and shape
future plan updates. The feedback from underserved communities and socially vulnerable populations will
also be used to develop HMA grant applications, where applicable. CPTs and TPTs will ensure an open line
of communication and that feedback is recorded and addressed. Additionally, potential training and
capacity-building initiatives can empower these communities to take a more active role in future hazard
mitigation planning processes. Feedback will be documented and integrated into future updates, with
follow-up reports demonstrating how community input has influenced the plan.
When each HMPC reconvenes for the update, they will coordinate with all stakeholders participating in the
planning process—including those that joined the committee since the planning process began—to update
and revise the Plan. Public notice will be posted, and public participation will be invited, at a minimum,
through available website postings and press releases to the local media outlets, primarily newspapers.
Based on DMA requirements the public will be provided an opportunity to provide input during the plan
update process, and before the plan is finalized. This can be accomplished through public surveys or
331
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance
Page | 6-6
meetings. Public comments will be solicited on the plan update draft by posting the plan online and
soliciting review and comment for a minimum of two weeks.
332
333
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-1
Annex K Yellowstone County
K.1 Mitigation Planning and County Planning Team
This County Annex builds on previous versions of the Yellowstone County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP)
completed in 2019. As part of the regional planning process, the County established a County Planning
Team (CPT) to develop the mitigation plan and identify potential mitigation projects. The following
incorporated communities participated in the DMA planning process with the County:
• City of Billings
• City of Laurel
• Town of Broadview
More details on the planning process followed and how the counties, municipalities and stakeholders
participated can be referenced in Chapter 3 of the base plan. A full list of local government departments
and stakeholders that were invited to participate and that participated can be found in Appendix A.
K.2 Community Profile
K.2.1 Geography and Climate
Yellowstone County is in south-central Montana, between the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains. The
County is bordered by Musselshell County to the north, Treasure County to the northeast, Big Horn
County to the southeast, Carbon County to the southwest, Stillwater County to the west, and Golden
Valley County to the northwest. Billings, the County seat, is in central Yellowstone County and at 43
square miles is the largest city in Montana. The Crow Indian Reservation occupies the southeast portion of
Yellowstone County. Figure K-1 presents a location map of Yellowstone County.
The Yellowstone River forms the dominant physiographic feature in Yellowstone County. As the river
winds its way from the southwest portion of the County near Laurel to the northeast corner near Custer, it
is flanked by a broad alluvial valley. The only tributaries of the Yellowstone River that carry water year-
round are the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, Bighorn River, and Pryor Creek. The Clarks Fork defines
a small segment of the west County boundary while the Bighorn River forms a small segment of the east
County boundary. Other County drainages that flow intermittently but with some regularity include Alkali
Creek, Blue Creek, and Canyon Creek. There are approximately seven lakes and reservoirs in the County.
Plains occupy the largest portion of the County north and south of the Yellowstone River. The topography
of the plains varies with the thickness of the underlying shale and the presence of sandstone beds. Thicker
shale beds translate into more gently rolling terrain cut by steep-sided coulees. Rimrocks, rough ridges
and frequent outcrops occur where eroded shale layers expose the interbedded sandstone formations.
Elevation in the County ranges from 2,680 feet above sea level on the Yellowstone River near Custer to
4,971 feet at Stratford Hill in the southwest corner.
Yellowstone County consists of approximately 1,693,751 acres. Eighty-two (82) percent of the County is
under private ownership, while federal land managers (BLM, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service) administer 5 percent of the land area. State agencies, including Montana DNRC
(responsible for State Trust Land), and the Montana Dept. of Fish Wildlife and Parks (responsible for State
Parks and fishing accesses), administer 4 percent of the acreage. The Crow Indian Reservation comprises 8
percent of the County. Figure K-1 also shows the landownership in Yellowstone County. Population
density in Yellowstone County is 64.2 persons per square mile. Yellowstone County is the most populous
county in Montana with approximately 164,731 people according to the 2020 US Census. There are three
incorporated towns and cities in Yellowstone County: City of Billings, City of Laurel, and Town of
334
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-2
Broadview. Interstates 90 and 94 are the major transportation routes in the County, in addition to State
Highways 87, 47, and 212, which are north-south routes that intersect Interstate 90.
Yellowstone County has a semiarid climate which is relatively mild with few significant weather events
during an average year. Extremely low temperatures, less than 0 degrees Fahrenheit, may prevail in the
winter for short periods of time. High wind events are possible in the spring and summer and may include
rare tornadic activity. Heavy rainfall is rare, but localized thunderstorms can deposit significant rainfall in a
small area resulting in flashfloods. Flooding is a problem on the Yellowstone River and tributaries
particularly when warmer temperatures rapidly melt snow and ice during spring break up.
Yellowstone County’s complex topography and lack of common slopes or drainage pattern result in a
wide variety of local microclimates. In general, the Yellowstone River valley, where most of the population
resides, has the greatest range of highs and lows. The areas outside of the river valley tend to have lower
temperatures. Precipitation rates vary along a west to east gradient, dropping significantly from Laurel to
Custer. Winter Chinooks originating in the mountains move northeastward through the County,
moderating winter temperatures. Cold fronts from the north tend to affect the eastern highlands more
than they do the rest of the County. Cultivated lands usually experience little variance in the growing
season, which averages 129 days, normally extending from mid-May through mid-September.
The average annual rainfall is 15.09 inches, with an average of 57 inches of snow. Forty (40) percent of the
precipitation falls in the wet spring months of April, May and June. The maximum monthly rainfall
recorded was in May 1981, 7.7 inches, while the maximum 24-hour rainfall was recorded at 2.9 inches in
June 8, 1997. The maximum monthly snowfall was 42.3 inches in April 1955, while the maximum in 24
hours was 23.7 inches, also in April 1955.
Winters are cold, but usually not severe. January's average maximum is 36 degrees and minimums
average 18 degrees. Summers are warm with good sunshine and low humidities, but the nights are
generally cool. Extremes in temperature have ranged from 106° F in 1937 to -38°F in 1936. The average
number of days per year with temperatures of 90° F or above is 28. The number of days with temperatures
of 32°F and below is 48.
Average wind speeds are greatest during the winter months when they range from 10.5 mph to 12.5 mph.
The most blustery month is December when wind speeds average 12.5 mph. Winds are slowest in July and
August when speeds average 9.0 mph. The average prevailing wind is from the southwest. In June 1968,
the extreme wind speed of 79 mph was recorded.
335
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-3
Figure K-1 Yellowstone County Base Map and Land Stewardship
K.2.2 Population Trends
According to the 2020 U.S. Census, Yellowstone County is the most populous county in Montana with a
total population of 164,731. The U.S. Census Bureau reported the County experienced a 11.3% increase in
population since the 2010 census. Trends show that the population has increased in the County and the
336
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-4
incorporated jurisdictions like Billings and Laurel. Specific demographic variables for the County are
provided in Table K-1 below.
Table K-1 Population Trends in Yellowstone County, 1980-2020
Incorporated
Community 1980 1990 1980-1990
Change 2000 1990- 2000
Change 2010 2000- 2010
Change 2020 2010- 2020
Change
City of Billings 68,361 81,151 +18.7% 89,847 +10.7% 104,170 +15.9% 117,116 +12.4%
Town of
Broadview 125 133 +6.4% 150 +12.8% 192 +28.0% 139 -27.6%
City of Laurel 5,469 5,686 +4.0% 6,255 +10.0% 6,718 +7.4% 7,222 +7.5%
Yellowstone
County 107,661 113,419 +5.3% 129,352 +14.0% 147,972 +14.4% 164,7311 +11.3%
NOTES:
1 - During review of this plan, Yellowstone County noted their population was larger than counted by the
2020 US Census and the 2021 American Community Survey estimate. The 2022 population estimate for
Yellowstone County is 169,852 according to the ACS, and this is a more current estimate of the County’s
population at the time of this plan development.
Source: Decennial Census, https://data.census.gov/
K.2.3 Demographics
The 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) reports demographic estimates for Yellowstone
County which are summarized in the table below Table K-2.
Table K-2 Demographic Estimates for Yellowstone County (2016-2020 ACS)
Characteristic Yellowstone
County
State of
Montana
Percentage of persons below 150% poverty estimate 19.9% 24.1%
Unemployment Rate estimate 2.3% 4.0%
Percentage of housing cost-burdened occupied housing units with annual
income less than $75,000 (30%+ of income spent on housing costs) estimate 19.4% 21.4%
Percentage of persons with less than a high school diploma (age 25+)
estimate 6.6% 7.5%
Percentage uninsured in the total civilian noninstitutionalized population
estimate 8.5% 9.6%
Percentage of persons aged 65 and older estimate 22.5% 22.1%
Percentage of persons aged 17 and younger estimate 21.1% 21.3%
Percentage of civilian noninstitutionalized population with a disability
estimate 16.2% 15.6%
Percentage of single-parent households with children under 18 estimate 3.2% 3.9%
Percentage of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well" estimate 0.0% 0.3%
Minority (other than white non-Hispanic) estimate 9.9% 14.6%
Percentage of housing in structures with 10 or more units estimate 1.9% 3.3%
Percentage of mobile homes estimate 7.3% 13.1%
Percentage of occupied housing units with more people than rooms estimate 0.9% 2.1%
Percentage of households with no vehicle available estimate 5.2% 4.9%
Percentage of persons in group quarters estimate 2.5% 2.8%
Percentage Female estimate 50.7% 49.7%
337
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-5
Characteristic Yellowstone
County
State of
Montana
Median Age estimate 38.7 40.1
Median Gross Rent estimate $910 $836
Median House Value estimate* $330,800* $366,400*
Percent Unoccupied Housing Units estimate 6.2% 15.3%
Source: ACS 2016-2020, https://data.census.gov/ | *2022 ACS 1-year estimate
K.2.4 Social Vulnerability
Social vulnerability is broadly defined as the susceptibility of social groups to the adverse impacts of
natural hazards, including disproportionate death, injury, loss, or disruption of livelihood. Social
vulnerability considers the social, economic, demographic, and housing characteristics of a community
that influences its ability to prepare for, respond to, cope with, recover from, and adapt to environmental
hazards. Additional details on social vulnerability and the National Risk Index (NRI) can be found in
Section 4.1.1.5 of the Base Plan.
The social vulnerability index (SoVI) rated the social vulnerability in Yellowstone County as “Relatively
Low”, with a score of 32.8. Thus, Yellowstone County is less socially vulnerable than roughly three-fourths
of all Montana Counties. Refer to Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) for more information
on social vulnerability. Demographic factors that can influence the social vulnerability rating are displayed
in Table K-2, such as percentage below poverty level or over the age of 65. The ACS reports that most of
these factors are at or below statewide averages.
With regards to hazards, socially vulnerable populations may be disproportionately impacted by hazards
that include flooding, wildfires, and dam failures. Severe weather hazards may result in power outages
that could have a greater impact on these socially vulnerable populations including those dependent on
electricity for medical reasons and those that lack access to a vehicle to safely get to a community center
or shelter location with electricity.
K.2.5 Development Trends
According to the Montana Department of Commerce Regional Economic Models Incorporated Population
Projections1, the population of Yellowstone County is expected to increase to 179,726 by 2030, a 6.0%
growth from the 2022 ACS 5-year estimate. To accommodate the growth, new commercial, industrial, and
residential development will occur. However, at this time, residential development is the most rapidly
growing sector of land use in Yellowstone County. Most of the anticipated growth is expected to occur
within and near the communities of Billings and Laurel.
The County has experienced an increased demand for housing. Since the 2008 Recession, new
construction rates have remained low, creating a deficit of over 4,000 residential units. This created a
housing shortage for residents and new arrivals. This shortage was further exacerbated by COVID-19
pandemic and the heavy shift of urban dwellers relocating into smaller, more rural areas like Yellowstone
County and Billings.
In 2008, the Yellowstone County Board of County Commissioners and the City of Billings adopted updates
to the Yellowstone County / City of Billings Growth Policy. This plan includes individual neighborhood
growth plans to better reflect the communities’ vision for development. Specific growth trends by
jurisdictions are listed below:
• Yellowstone County: According to the CPT, the housing shortage for current residents and those
1 https://ceic.mt.gov/People-and-Housing/Population
338
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-6
new to Yellowstone County has caused housing prices to rise by nearly 41%, making the average
home price $357,000. However, according to the 2022 ACS 1-Year Estimates (which is the most
recent ACS publication), the median value of a home in Yellowstone County is $330,800. While the
amount of development growth has remained low and the implementation of the Yellowstone
County Growth Policy limits growth, population growth in the County has increased and thereby
slowly increased the overall exposure of people within the County to atmospheric/weather
hazards.
• City of Billings: The City of Billings and Yellowstone County are seen as ideal for new business
because there is not only an airport located nearby, but Billings has one of the largest populations
in the state. New businesses interest seems to favor the relocation or new creation of data/server
centers in the area. There has been a decrease in demand for traditional office space, which is
believed to be a result of the pandemic. Overall, there is seen to be an increase in businesses
throughout the City of Billings. Billings and Yellowstone County are also seeing increased interest
in shovel ready sites for development. There have been requests for building and warehouse
spaces larger than 30,000 square feet. Being the commerce hub for a 400+ mile radius region with
two major interstates dissecting the area and a north/south interstate corridor nearby, easy access
to the major airport, and rail service make this area highly desirable. There are also several new,
large building projects including the new Coca-Cola manufacturing plant south of the interstate
and two new warehouse projects between west Billings and downtown. The City of Billings Growth
Policy has helped the City manage population growth and housing development; however the
City’s steady increase in population has gradually increased the overall exposure of the City to
atmospheric hazards.
• City of Laurel: The City of Laurel has prime proximity to I-90 providing optimum conditions for
growth. Within the city limits, Highway 10 and the SE 4th Street corridors provide opportunity for
business growth with some vacant industrial and commercial zoned tracts. The potential for large
industrial sites remains small due to infrastructure concerns and the inability for the city to provide
water without investing in substantial upgrades. Where the city's greatest potential lies is in the
redevelopment of vacant commercial buildings located in the downtown area, as well as along First
Avenue south of the underpass. The City of Laurel has experienced some population growth over
the past five years, which has resulted in a slight increase in the overall exposure of the City to
hazards.
• Town of Broadview: The growth potential of the Town of Broadview was analyzed and found to
be constrained by the development of a better water supply and the construction of a railroad spur
from the Bull Mountain Mine to the railroad main line southeast of town. Without a better, more
reliable water supply, additional growth is not likely. The Montana Bureau of Mines and the
Montana DNRC have collaborated with the town to define and evaluate favorable sites for
development of additional viable groundwater sources. Because the limited water supply the Town
has experienced a gradual decline in population growth and development, which has resulted in a
slight decrease in the overall hazard exposure of the Town.
The U.S. Census Bureau Building Permit Survey provides information and local statistics on new privately-
owned residential construction. Figure K-2 below displays the new privately owned housing unit
authorizations by year in Yellowstone County. This data indicates that there was a sharp increase in
housing units in 2013, which has remained fairly high since. An increase in the number of housing unit
authorizations in the County could indicate an increase in the total number of buildings exposed to
hazard events. However, it is unknown how this development will impact vulnerability to specific hazards,
such as wildfire and flooding.
339
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-7
Figure K-2 New Privately Owned Housing Unit Authorizations
Source: US Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/data_visualizations/index.html
K.2.6 Economy
Table K-3 below provides a brief overview of economic characteristics in Yellowstone County. The
following information is provided by the U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimates from 2016-2020.
Table K-3 Yellowstone County Economic Profile
Economic Characteristics Yellowstone County
Families Below Poverty Level 6.9%
Individuals Below Poverty Level 18.4%
Median Home Value $330,800
Median Household Income $62,630
Per Capita Income $37,261
Population > 16 Years Old in Labor Force 66.7%
Population Employed 64.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimates, 2020
Table K-4 below shows the breakdown of employment in Yellowstone County by the industry sector.
According to the ACS, the leading employment sectors in the County are “Educational, Healthcare, and
Social Assistance Services” which composes of over 20% of the total employment in the County with
19,395 people. This is followed by “retail trade” with 9,969 people. A close third is the “Arts, entertainment,
and recreation, and accommodation and food services” Industry with over 10% of the population in
Yellowstone County employed.
19
9
0
19
9
1
19
9
2
19
9
3
19
9
4
19
9
5
19
9
6
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Total buildings Total units
340
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-8
Table K-4 Yellowstone County Occupation by Industry Profile
Industry Population
Employed
Percent of
Labor Force
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 19,395 23.8%
Retail trade 9,969 12.2%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food
services 8,892 10.9%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste
management services 8,006 9.8%
Construction 6,805 8.3%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 5,817 7.1%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 4,771 5.8%
Other services, except public administration 4,409 5.4%
Manufacturing 4,325 5.3%
Public administration 3,070 3.8%
Wholesale trade 2,705 3.3%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 2,201 2.7%
Information 1,244 1.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimates, 2016-2020
K.3 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
K.3.1 Identified Hazards
The CPT reviewed significant hazards for inclusion in the HMP. Some changes were made from the 2019
Yellowstone County Hazard Mitigation Plan to be consistent with the 2023 Eastern Montana Region
Hazard Mitigation Plan. The previous 2019 Yellowstone County HMP profiled the following hazards:
• Severe Weather and Drought
• Wildfire
• Ditch and Drain Failure
• Terrorism, Violence, and Civil Unrest
• Cyber Security
• Hazardous Material Incidents
• Transportation Accidents
• Flooding and Dam Failure
• Communicable Disease
• Landslide /Rockfall
In this plan update, severe weather hazards are organized into severe summer weather and severe winter
weather. Terrorism, Violence, and Civil Unrest are covered in Human Conflict. Cyber Security is covered in
Cyber Threats. Dam Failure is also a stand-alone section. Ditch and Drain Failure is also covered in this
Annex, but not in the Eastern Montana Regional HMP. Table K-5 provides a summary of the overall hazard
significance for the hazards evaluated in this plan, showing variability by jurisdiction. More details on
hazards can be found in Chapter 4 of the base plan.
341
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-9
Table K-5 Yellowstone County Overall Hazard Significance by Hazard and Jurisdiction*
Hazard Yellowstone
County City of Billings Town of
Broadview City of Laurel
Avalanche Low Low Low Low
Communicable Disease High High High High
Cyber-Attack Medium High High High
Dam Failure Low Medium Low Medium
Ditch & Drain Failure High High Low High
Drought High High High High
Earthquake Low Medium Medium Medium
Flooding High High High High
Hazardous Materials Incident High High High High
Human Conflict High High Medium Medium
Landslide Low Low Low Low
Severe Summer Weather High High High High
Severe Winter Weather High High High High
Tornadoes & Windstorms High High High High
Transportation Accidents Medium Medium Medium Medium
Volcanic Ash Low Low Low Low
Wildfire High High High High
*Significance based on a combination of Geographic Extent, Potential Magnitude/Severity and Probability as defined
below
Geographic Extent
Negligible: Less than 10 percent of planning area or
isolated single- point occurrences
Limited: 10 to 25 percent of the planning area or limited
single-point occurrences
Significant: 25 to 75 percent of planning area or frequent
single-point occurrences
Extensive: 75 to 100 percent of planning area or
consistent single- point occurrences
Potential Magnitude/Severity
Negligible: Less than 10 percent of property is severely
damaged, facilities and services are unavailable for less
than 24 hours, injuries and illnesses are treatable with
first aid or within the response capability of the
jurisdiction.
Limited: 10 to 25 percent of property is severely
damaged, facilities
and services are unavailable between 1 and 7 days,
injuries and illnesses require sophisticated medical
support that does not strain the response capability of
Probability of Future Occurrences
Unlikely: Less than 1 percent probability of occurrence
in the next year or has a recurrence interval of greater
than every 100 years.
Occasional: Between a 1 and 10 percent probability of
occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence
interval of 11 to 100 years.
Likely: Between 10 and 90 percent probability of
occurrence in the next year, or has a recurrence
interval of 1 to 10 years
Highly Likely: Between 90 and 100 percent probability
of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence
interval of less than 1 year.
Overall Significance
Low: Two or more of the criteria fall in the lower
classifications or the event has a minimal impact on
the planning area. This rating is also sometimes used
for hazards with a minimal or unknown record of
occurrences/impacts or for hazards with minimal
mitigation potential.
342
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-10
the jurisdiction, or results in very few permanent
disabilities.
Critical: 25 to 50 percent of property is severely damaged,
facilities and services are unavailable or severely hindered
for 1 to 2 weeks, injuries and illnesses overwhelm medical
support for a brief period of time or result in many
permanent disabilities and a few deaths. overwhelmed for
an extended period of time or many deaths occur.
Catastrophic: More than 50 percent of property is
severely damaged, facilities and services are unavailable
or hindered for more than 2 weeks, the medical response
system is overwhelmed for an extended period of time,
or many deaths occur.
Medium: The criteria fall mostly in the middle ranges
of classifications and the event’s impacts on the
planning area are noticeable but not devastating. This
rating is also sometimes utilized for hazards with a
high impact rating but an extremely low occurrence
rating.
High: The criteria consistently fall along the high
ranges of the classification and the event exerts
significant and frequent impacts on the planning area.
This rating is also sometimes utilized for hazards with
a high psychological impact or for hazards that the
jurisdiction identifies as particularly relevant.
K.3.2 Building Inventory and Assets
People, property, critical facilities/infrastructure, and other important assets in Yellowstone County are
exposed to the hazards identified in this plan. Table K-6 summarizes the property inventory for the
County and each participating jurisdiction, based on improvement value (i.e., structures) and includes the
building count and value grouped by parcel type and jurisdiction. This is an assessment of the overall
property exposed within the County and by jurisdiction.
Assets inventoried to determine vulnerability include people, structures, critical facilities, and natural,
historic, or cultural resources. For the regional planning process, locally available GIS databases were
utilized. Parcel and assessor data was obtained through Montana’s MSDI Cadastral website. This
Statewide database provided the basis for building exposure and property types. The focus of the analysis
was on “improved” or developed parcels. These parcels were identified based on an improvement value
greater than zero. Property Types were used to identify occupancy types as shown in the following table,
which includes summations of total improved value for the various property types.
Table K-6 Yellowstone County Building Inventory and Value by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Improved
Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value
Billings 43,604 $11,862,503,189 $6,844,972,623 $18,707,475,812
Broadview 95 $9,153,276 $5,253,798 $14,407,074
Crow Tribe 111 $19,469,548 $15,982,369 $35,451,917
Laurel 3,039 $545,083,990 $311,062,124 $856,146,114
Yellowstone County 17,137 $4,260,860,990 $2,697,545,405 $6,958,406,395
Total 63,986 $16,697,070,993 $9,874,816,319 $26,571,887,312
NOTE – A portion of the Crow Tribe is in Yellowstone County, although predominantly located in Big Horn
County. Source: MSDI Cadastral database, https://msl.mt.gov/geoinfo/msdi/cadastral/
Total building exposure with contents within Yellowstone County based on an analysis of improved parcels
is over $26 billion, with over $16 billion in improved value properties and $9 billion of contents. The City of
Billings accounts for more than $18 billion of this total number. Residential properties represent the greatest
343
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-11
portion of structures in the County, accounting for over $21 billion of the nearly $26.5 billion improved
property value, as shown in
Table K-7 below.
Table K-7 Yellowstone County Total Exposure by Jurisdiction and Property Type
Jurisdiction Property
Type
Improved
Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value
Billings
Agricultural 2 $257,990 $257,990 $515,980
Commercial 321 $131,041,427 $131,041,427 $262,082,854
Exempt 736 $1,599,410,120 $1,599,410,120 $3,198,820,240
Industrial 35 $45,193,570 $67,790,355 $112,983,925
Residential 42,487 $10,080,254.702 $5,040,127,351 $15,120,382,053
Vacant 23 $6,345,380 $6,345,380 $12,690,760
Total 43,604 $11,862,503,189 $6,844,972,623 $18,707,475,812
Broadview
Exempt 8 $896,680 $896,680 $1,793,360
Industrial 1 $228,820 $343,230 $572,050
Residential 86 $8,027,776 $4,013,888 $12,041,664
Total 95 $9,153,276 $5,253,798 $14,407,074
Crow Tribe
Agricultural 62 $11,182,680 $11,182,680 $22,365,360
Commercial 2 $582,910 $582,910 $1,165,820
Exempt 7 $727,950 $727,950 $1,455,900
Residential 38 $6,974,358 $3,487,179 $10,461,537
Vacant 2 $1,650 $1,650 $3,300
Total 111 $19,469,548 $15,982,369 $35,451,917
Laurel
Commercial 11 $1,417,180 $1,417,180 $2,834,360
Exempt 46 $62,847,717 $62,847,717 $125,695,434
Industrial 4 $6,387,680 $9,581,520 $15,969,200
Residential 2,978 $474,431,413 $237,215,707 $711,647,120
Total 3,039 $545,083,990 $311,062,124 $856,146,114
Yellowstone
County
Agricultural 993 $196,379,255 $196,379,255 $392,758,510
Commercial 95 $38,448,680 $38,448,680 $76,897,360
Exempt 190 $195,326,541 $195,326,541 $390,653,082
Industrial 38 $351,257,020 $526,885,530 $878,142,550
Residential 15,748 $3,477,888,190 $1,738,944,095 $5,216,832,285
Vacant 73 $1,561,304 $1,561,304 $3,122,608
Total 17,137 $4,260,860,990 $2,697,545,405 $6,958,406,395
344
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-12
Jurisdiction Property
Type
Improved
Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value
Grand Total 63,875 $16,677,601,445 $9,858,833,950 $26,536,435,395
Source: MSDI Cadastral database, https://msl.mt.gov/geoinfo/msdi/cadastral/
Critical Facilities, Infrastructure, and Other Important Community Assets
A critical facility is defined as one that is essential in providing utility or direction either during the
response to an emergency or during the recovery operation. Much of this data is based on GIS databases
associated with the 2022 Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD). Other critical facility
databases were also used, such as the National Bridge Inventory (NBI), with supplementation from the
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC). Where applicable, this information was used in an overlay
analysis for hazards such as dam failure, flood, and wildfire.
FEMA organizes critical facilities into seven lifeline categories as shown in Figure K-3. These lifeline
categories standardize the classification of critical facilities and infrastructure that provide indispensable
service, operation, or function to a community. A lifeline is defined as providing indispensable service that
enables the continuous operation of critical business and government functions, and is critical to human
health and safety, or economic security. These categorizations are particularly useful as they:
• Enable effort consolidations between government and other organizations (e.g., infrastructure
owners and operators). Enable integration of preparedness efforts among plans; easier identification
of unmet critical facility needs.
• Refine sources and products to enhance awareness, capability gaps, and progress towards
stabilization.
• Enhance communication amongst critical entities, while enabling complex interdependencies
between government assets.
• Highlight lifeline related priority areas regarding general operations as well as response efforts.
345
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-13
Figure K-3 FEMA Lifeline Categories
Source: FEMA
Table K-8 below summarizes the number of critical facilities by jurisdiction. Figure K-4 through Figure K-7
display the location of critical facilities by FEMA Lifeline in Yellowstone County, the City of Billings, the
Town of Broadview, and the City of Laurel.
346
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-14
Table K-8 Yellowstone County Critical Facilities by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
En
e
r
g
y
Fo
o
d
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
Sh
e
l
t
e
r
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
He
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
Me
d
i
c
a
l
Sa
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
Billings 85 9 37 15 16 106 55 323
Broadview - 1 - - 1 1 - 3
Laurel 4 1 8 - 1 6 1 21
Yellowstone County 143 67 18 22 8 44 239 541
Total 232 78 63 37 26 157 295 888
Source: HIFLD 2022, Montana DES, National Bridge Inventory
347
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-15
Figure K-4 Yellowstone County Critical Facilities
348
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-16
Figure K-5 City of Billings Critical Facilities
349
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-17
Figure K-6 Town of Broadview Critical Facilities
350
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-18
Figure K-7 City of Laurel Critical Facilities
351
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-19
Natural, Historic, and Cultural Assets
Assessing the vulnerability of Yellowstone County to hazards also involves inventorying the natural,
historical, and cultural assets of the area. This step is important for the following reasons:
• The community may decide that these types of resources warrant more protection due to their
unique and irreplaceable nature and contribution to the overall economy.
• If these resources are impacted by a hazard, knowing so ahead of time allows for more prudent care
in the immediate aftermath, when the potential for additional impacts are higher.
• The rules for reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement are often different for
these types of designated resources.
• Natural resources can have beneficial functions that reduce the impacts of natural hazards, such as
wetlands and riparian habitat, which help absorb and attenuate floodwaters.
Historic and Cultural Assets
By definition, a historic property not only includes buildings or other types of structures, such as bridges
and dams, roads, byways, historic landscapes, and many other features. The National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP), managed by the National Park Service and U.S. Department of Interior, is the nation’s
official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. Table K-9 below lists the properties that are
identified as having cultural and historic significance in Yellowstone County as recorded by the National
Register of Historic Places.
Table K-9 Historic Properties and Districts on National Registers
Property Name City/Town Location Date
Listed
Huntley Project Office Ballantine 2291 2nd Street W 6/5/2017
Acme Building Billings 109-111 N. Broadway 11/9/2005
Armour Cold Storage Billings 1 S. Broadway 7/7/2004
Babcock Theatre Building Billings 114-124 N. 28th Avenue & 2808-2812 2nd Avenue 4/9/2013
Billings Chamber of
Commerce Building Billings 303 N. 27th Street 1/20/1972
Billings Communal
Mausoleum Billings 1704 Central Avenue 06/28/2021
Billings Historic District Billings Roughly bounded by N. 23rd Street & N. 25th Street,
1st Avenue & Montana Avenue 3/13/1979
Billings Old Town Historic
District Billings
Generally bounded by Montana Ave. on the N, S. 26th
on the E, 1st Avenue S on the S, & S. 30th Street on the
W
09/16/2010
Billings Townsite Historic
District (Boundary Increase) Billings 2600(2528), 2604-2606, 2608, 2610-2614, & 2624
Montana Avenue 4/20/2006
Billings West Side School Billings 415 Broadwater Avenue 3/20/2002
Black Otter Trail Billings Black Otter Trail 1/5/2007
Boothill Cemetery Billings N of Billings 4/17/1979
Dude Rancher Lodge Billings 415 N. 29th Street 7/22/2010
Electric Building Billings 113-115 Broadway 3/1/2002
Fire House #2 Billings 201 E. 30th Street 2/29/1980
352
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-20
Property Name City/Town Location Date
Listed
Fratt-Link House Billings 142 Clark Avenue 11/9/2020
Garfield School Billings 3212 1st Avenue S. 10/3/2012
Graf, Arnold, House Billings 633 Highland Park Drive 4/20/2015
Hoskins Basin Archeological
District Billings Address Restricted 11/20/1974
James F. Battin Federal
Building (Courthouse &
Federal Office Building)
Billings 316 N. 26th Street 1/13/2023
Kate Fratt Memorial
Parochial School Billings 205 N. 32nd Street 7/28/2020
L and L Building Billings 2624 Minnesota Avenue 12/19/2008
Masonic Temple Billings 2806 3rd Avenue N. 4/17/1986
McKinley Elementary
School Billings 820 N. 31st Street 3/16/2021
McMullen Hall Billings 1500 University Drive 9/8/2015
Montana National Bank Billings 201 North Broadway 3/14/2022
Moss, Preston B, House Billings Address Restricted 4/30/1982
North Elevation Historic
District Billings Bounded by 12th Avenue N., alley between N. 31st
Street & N. 30th Street, 9th Avenue N. & 32nd Street N. 11/29/2016
North, Austin, House Billings 622 N. 29th Steet 11/23/1977
Northern Hotel Billings 19 N. Broadway 6/12/2013
O’Donnell, I.D., House Billings 105 Clark Avenue 11/23/1977
Oliver Building Billings 2702 Montana Avenue 12/19/2008
Parmly Billings Memorial
Library Billings 2822 Montana Avenue 10/26/1972
Pictograph Cave Billings 7 miles SE of Billings in Indian Caves Park 10/15/1966
Pioneer Park Billings Roughly bounded by Parkhill Drive, 3rd Street W., &
Virginia Lane 4/13/2021
Prescott Commons Billings Rimrock Road 4/30/1982
Ruth, Harold and Marion,
House Billings 111 Emerald Drive 6/21/2007
US Post Office &
Courthouse – Billings Billings 2602 1st Avenue N. 3/14/1986
Yegen, Christian, House Billings 208 S. 35th Street 10/1/1979
Yegen, Peter, House Billings 209 S. 35th Street 4/16/1980
Antelope Stage Station Broadview E of Broadview 1/19/1983
Erb, Abraham & Carrie,
House Laurel 110 4th Avenue 6/9/2005
353
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-21
Property Name City/Town Location Date
Listed
Laurel Downtown Historic
District Laurel
Roughly bounded by the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Railway Company tracks to the S, Third S to the N,
Wyoming Ave
9/16/2010
Mossman Overpass Laurel Mile 57, N. of I-90 Frontage Road 3/26/2012
Pompey’s Pillar Pompey’s
Pillar W. of Pompey 10/15/1966
Huntley Bridge Huntley Mile 12, MT 312 3/26/2012
Source: National Register of Historic Places National Archives (records up until end of 2012)
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm; National Register of Historic Places,
NPGallery Database (records listed after 2013) https://npgallery.nps.gov.nrhp
Natural Resources
Natural resources are important to include in benefit-cost analyses for future projects and may be used to
leverage additional funding for projects that also contribute to community goals for protecting sensitive
natural resources. Awareness of natural assets can lead to opportunities for meeting multiple objectives.
For instance, protecting wetlands preserves sensitive habitats as well as attenuates and stores flood
waters.
Wetlands are a valuable natural resource for communities, due to their benefits to water quality, wildlife
protection, recreation, and education, and play an important role in hazard mitigation. Yellowstone
County has over 7 lakes and reservoirs. The County is made up of approximately 16 square miles of water.
Endangered Species
A table of endangered and threatened species in the State of Montana, as identified by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological Services Field Office, can be found in the Assets Summary Section in
Chapter 4 of the base plan.
K.4 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards
Vulnerability to hazards that can affect the Eastern Region is described in Section 4.2 Hazard Profiles of the
Eastern Region base plan. The analysis of vulnerability in the base plan includes the type, location, and
extent of hazards. In addition, the base plan provides an analysis of the vulnerability of seven classes of
assets (People; Property; Critical Facilities and Lifelines; the Economy; Historic and Cultural Resources; and
Natural Resources). Subsections within Section 4.2 of the Eastern Region base plan provide descriptions
and analysis of the exposure of each asset class to each hazard, the susceptibility of each asset class to
damage from exposure to each hazard, and the overall vulnerability of each class of asset to each hazard.
This section details quantifiable vulnerability to specific hazards, only where it differs from that of the Region
as a whole. The results of detailed GIS analyses used to estimate potential for future losses are presented
here, in addition to maps of hazard areas, details by jurisdiction, and building type. For a discussion of the
methodology used to develop the loss estimates, refer to Chapter 4 of the base plan. In many cases, Chapter
4 contains information that differentiates the risk by county, thus the information is not duplicated here.
For most of the weather-related hazards the risk does not vary significantly enough from the rest of the
Region and thus the reader should refer to Chapter 4. Only unique issues or vulnerabilities are discussed,
where applicable.
Hazards considered in this HMP update annex are as follows.
• Avalanche
• Communicable Disease
354
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-22
• Cyber-Attack
• Dam Failure
• Drought
• Earthquake
• Flooding
• Hazardous Materials Incident
• Landslide
• Severe Summer Weather
• Severe Winter Weather
• Human Conflict
• Tornadoes & Windstorms
• Transportation Accidents
• Volcanic Ash
• Wildfire
• Ditch and Drain Failure
K.4.1 Avalanche
An avalanche is a low significance hazard for Yellowstone County and its jurisdictions (Table K-5). To
distinguish between counties where avalanches have not occurred and those that have no possibility of
avalanche occurrence, FEMA created a control table overlaying avalanche forecast zones and counties which
have experienced losses due to credible avalanche events. Based on this analysis, Yellowstone County was
determined to be an area where avalanches have no possibility of occurrence. Therefore, mitigation actions
were not included for this hazard.
Refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion of the avalanche risk relative to Yellowstone County and the Eastern
Region.
K.4.2 Communicable Disease
All populations are vulnerable to communicable disease. Elder populations, young children, and
individuals with pre-existing medical conditions are more likely to face long lasting impacts from
communicable disease. While areas of high population density are likely to experience a greater number
of cases due to a larger population, these larger cities also have greater access to medical resources.
Communicable disease is ranked as a high significance hazard for Yellowstone County and there were no
noted jurisdictional differences. As Billings is the largest city in an approximately 500-mile radius, it serves
as a medical hub for approximately two-thirds of Montana and a significant portion of boarding states,
making communicable disease a significant threat in Yellowstone County.2 Billings is also the only city in
Montana with a certified Level 1 Trauma Center.3 As of October 2023, according to data from the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Yellowstone County reported approximately 47,850 confirmed
cases of COVID-19 in Yellowstone County. Among these cases, 2,913 individuals were hospitalized directly
related to COVID-19, with 302 admitted to the ICU, and nearly 580 deaths. According to USA Facts, the
pandemic resulted in a 12% increase in closures of retail food establishments and 13% increase closures
of wholesale food establishments. All K-12 schools were closed from March 16, 2020, through May 6,
2020.
Refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion of the communicable disease risk relative to Yellowstone County and
the Eastern Region.
2 https://riverstonehealth.org/about-billings-montana/
3 https://www.billingsclinic.com/services-specialties/emergency-services/trauma-services/
355
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-23
K.4.3 Cyber-Attack
All servers, networks, and users are vulnerable to cyber-attacks in Eastern Montana. Yellowstone County is
ranked high, along with most other counties in the Region. There have been no recorded cyber- attack
events occurring in the County or its jurisdictions, however, minor cyber-attacks such as phishing emails
often go unreported. While all networks and servers are equally vulnerable to cyber-attacks, the City of
Billings has a greater population and therefore more people exposed to a cyber-attack event.
Refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion of the cyber-attack risk relative to Yellowstone County and the Eastern
Region.
K.4.4 Dam Failure
Dam failure in Yellowstone County and the Town of Broadview is rated a low significance hazard. The City
of Billings and the City of Laurel rate dam failure as a medium significance hazard (Table K-5). Chapter 4
provides a discussion of the dam failure risk in the Eastern Region, including Yellowstone County. See
Section 4.2.4 Dam Failure.
There is one high hazard dam (HHPD) in Yellowstone County (Lakeside Dam), and two significant hazard
potential dams in the County (Table K-10, Figure K-8). GIS delineations of the dam failure inundation zoned
for these dams are unavailable. This prevents identification of specific assets that could be exposed in the
event of a dam failure. The analysis of vulnerable assets, below, does not consider failure of these three
dams. Refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion of the dam failure risk relative to Yellowstone County and the
Eastern Region, and of the typical reasons that dam failure inundation zones are not made available for
hazard mitigation planning. At least two additional HHPDs exist upstream of Yellowstone County and are
discussed below.
Table K-10 Dams in Yellowstone County
Hazard
Class
Dam
Name Owner River
Nearest
Downstream
City
Distance to
Nearest
Downstream
City (miles)
Emergency
Action Plans
(EAP)
High Lakeside
Lakeside
Homeowners
Association
Off Stream (High
Ditch) Billings 0 Yes; Prepared
1/5/2021
Significant Dreves Oreves Farming
Corp Coulee None 0 Not Required
Significant Retriever
#1
Montana Retriever
Club
Twelve Mile Creek
Off Stream Huntley 6 Not Required
Source: National Inventory of Dams (NID)
The Cooney Dam is an HHPD upstream of Yellowstone County in Carbon County, seven miles west of Boyd
and 19 miles west of Joliet (Figure K-8). This irrigation reservoir is owned by the Montana DNRC, measures
102 feet tall, nearly a half-mile wide, and has the potential to inundate parts of both Laurel and Billings. The
inundation zone for this dam was made available for this HMP update and is shown in purple on Figure K-8.
The delineation extends just past Billings and stops, despite the fact that dam failure hazards would continue
further downstream. The analysis of assets in Yellowstone County that are vulnerable to dam failure hazards
is based entirely on this one delineation.
The Yellowtail Dam and Reservoir is another HHPD upstream of Yellowstone County. This dam is a concrete
thin-arch hydroelectric dam, towering 525 feet and stretching 1,480 feet across Bighorn Canyon in Big Horn
356
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-24
County. Failure of this dam would inundate the land along the Bighorn River on the eastern boundary of
Yellowstone County. The dam inundation zone for the Yellowtail Dam is unavailable and the potential
impact of failure of this dam on assets is not included in the vulnerability analysis below.
The SoVI-based rating of social vulnerability is relatively low in Yellowstone County (Section K.2.4 Social
Vulnerability). Regardless of how Yellowstone County rates in social vulnerability, severe floods can be
devastating events that are difficult to recover from both financially and emotionally. Floods may result in
injuries or fatalities in situations with limited warning or when evacuation orders are not adhered to.
Table K-11
Table K-11 summarizes the estimated number of improved parcels, building values, and people within
inundation zones in Yellowstone County by property type. A total of 5,971 people reside within the dam
inundation zone in Yellowstone County, over 3% of the total County population. Half of these people 3,017,
live in Billings.
Yellowstone County has a $1.3 billion total property value located within the inundation zone. Residential
property types represent the greatest total number of improved parcels and most property value, with
approximately $621 million in total property value at risk. A substantial amount of people (over 5,000
estimated) reside within the limited inundation area mapped in the County (primarily Cooney Dam); thus
the risk of loss of life and injury would be significant without adequate warning and evacuation.
The SoVI-based rating of social vulnerability is relatively low in Yellowstone County (Section K.2.4 Social
Vulnerability). Regardless of how Yellowstone County rates in social vulnerability, severe floods can be
devastating events that are difficult to recover from both financially and emotionally. Floods may result in
injuries or fatalities in situations with limited warning or when evacuation orders are not adhered to.
Table K-11 Yellowstone County Parcels at Risk to Dam Inundation by Property Type
Jurisdiction Property
Type
Improved
Parcels
Improved
Value Content Value Total Value Population
Billings
Commercial 9 $2,129,410 $2,129,410 $4,258,820 -
Exempt 41 $80,771,767 $80,771,767 $161,543,534 -
Industrial 13 $18,304,530 $27,456,795 $45,761,325 -
Residential 1,306 $230,399,990 $115,199,995 $345,599,985 3,017
Vacant 4 $57,290 $57,290 $114,580 -
Total 1,373 $331,662,987 $225,615,257 $557,278,244 3,017
Yellowstone
County
Agricultural 35 $8,934,450 $8,934,450 $17,868,900 -
Commercial 4 $1,972,630 $1,972,630 $3,945,260 -
Exempt 20 $59,791,770 $59,791,770 $119,583,540 -
Industrial 7 $160,264,770 $240,397,155 $400,661,925 -
Residential 1,279 $183,987,409 $91,993,705 $275,981,114 2,954
Vacant 21 $176,370 $176,370 $352,740 -
Total 1,366 $415,127,399 $403,266,080 $818,393,479 2,954
Grand Total 2,739 $746,790,386 $628,881,337 $1,375,671,723 5,971
357
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-25
Source: County Assessor data, NID, MT DNRC, WSP GIS Analysis
Figure K-8 Yellowstone County Dam Inundation
358
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-26
K.4.5 Drought
Drought was rated as a hazard of high significance hazard in Yellowstone County and all three
participating jurisdictions (Table K-5). Yellowstone County experienced 12 USDA drought declarations
from 2012-2021. These declarations occurred in 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Per the
Billings Chamber of Commerce, “The major crops grown in Yellowstone County are alfalfa, wheat, barley,
corn, and sugar beets. Alfalfa and other hay grown in the area is predominantly raised and saved to feed
livestock during the colder months.” 4 The Drought Impact Reporter recorded 16 drought impact reports
in Yellowstone County between 2000-2023, including, low hay reserves and slowing alfalfa growth.5,6
The U.S. Drought Monitor (USDM) is a national data set released weekly, showing the severity of drought
in locations across the nation. Figure K-9 displays a time series showing the severity of drought in
Yellowstone County between 2000 and 2023. The figure indicates that the County experienced
exceptional drought (D4) in 2004. The HMPC and CPT noted that the Governor’s Drought and Water
Supply Advisory Committee meets monthly to share water supply and moisture conditions to effectively
manage natural resources and support constituents most likely to be affected by drought. Refer to
Chapter 4 for a discussion of the drought risk relative to Yellowstone County and the Eastern Region.
Chapter 4 of the base plan provides a discussion of the drought risk relative to Yellowstone County and the
Eastern Region. In particular, all assets are exposed to drought, but assets are variably impacted by drought.
In the case of Yellowstone County and its jurisdictions, dry-land agriculture is especially vulnerable. In terms
of financial impact to agriculture, Yellowstone County is not among the most impacted counties in the
Eastern Region (Figure 4-22), though the County does have an expected annual loss rating of relatively
moderate from the NRI (Figure 4-23). As is the case across the Eastern Region, climate change is projected
to cause a moderate increase in drought frequency in coming decades (see the base plan, Section 4.2.5,
subsection Climate Change Considerations).
Figure K-9 Yellowstone County Percent Area in USDM Categories
Source: USDM; www.drought.gov
K.4.6 Earthquake
Earthquake is rated as low significance hazard in Yellowstone County overall, though all three participating
jurisdictions within the County rated it as a medium significance hazard (Table K-5).
4 https://www.billingschamber.com/business-advocacy/agriculture/
5 https://www.ktvq.com/news/local-news/montana-growers-navigating-hay-shortage-during-drought
6 https://unldroughtcenter.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/46afe627bb60422f85944d70069c09cf
359
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-27
There are several known fault systems throughout the State of Montana, mostly concentrated in the
Western Region (Figure 4-24). The probability of exposure to earthquake hazards, however, is not uniform
across the state. Most, but not all, earthquake epicenters are well west of the Eastern Region and
Yellowstone County and Yellowstone County is roughly on the edge of the area identified by USGS as having
a slightly elevated earthquake risk on the Long-Term National Seismic Map (Figure 4-27).
In terms of susceptibility to earthquake damage, Yellowstone County has a few key concerns. First, most
parts of Yellowstone County have soils with an insignificant risk of liquefaction. However, liquefaction risk
is elevated and even moderate in river valleys, where most development has occurred (Figure 4-25). Second,
Yellowstone County is physically closer to seismically active areas than most counties in the Eastern Region
(Figure 4-24). Third, Yellowstone County has relatively well-developed cities, especially Billings but also
Broadview and Laurel. Taken together, Yellowstone County is near enough to seismically active areas to
experience harmful ground shaking, has soils that could magnify the impacts of shaking on buildings, and
has many structures that would be exposed to ground shaking hazards in the event of a major earthquake.
According to a Hazus probabilistic loss analysis conducted for a scenario with 2% in 50 years recurrence,
The probabilistic scenario estimated Yellowstone County will experience the highest total economic losses
in the Eastern Region of any county in the Eastern Region. Hazus-simulated economic losses in Yellowstone
County were $71,054,000, which is over half of all losses in the Eastern Region and more than double the
next-most impacted county (Table 4-24). While all jurisdictions in the County have adopted building codes,
the City of Billings and City of Laurel are likely to experience greatest losses due to the concentration of
population and infrastructure and therefore have higher risk ratings. Older and historic buildings,
constructed before adoption of building codes, are more vulnerable to earthquake shaking.
Chapter 4 provides a further discussion of the earthquake risk relative to Yellowstone County and the
Eastern Region.
K.4.7 Flooding
Flooding is rated as a high significance hazard in Yellowstone County and all three participating jurisdictions
(Table K-5).
Table K-12 below summarizes the building counts and improved value of parcels in the County that fall
within the 1% chance floodplains. A total of 1,830 people reside within the 1% chance floodplain in
Yellowstone County, approximately 1% of the total County population. Of these people, 6% (111) live in
Billings and 360 (~20%) live in Laurel.
Additionally, Table K-12 summarizes loss estimate values, which are calculated based upon the improved
value of parcels that fall within the 1% chance floodplain, and estimated contents value and assumes a two-
foot-deep flood which usually results in losses equal to 25% of the total value, based on FEMA depth-
damage curves. NFHL flood data was used to perform this analysis.
For context, Yellowstone County as a whole has the second greatest total value within the 1% annual
chance flood zone and the second greatest estimated loss of any county in the Eastern Region, behind
only Custer County (Table 4-31 in the base plan). The greatest liability in terms of flood damage is to
residential property. Residential parcels make up 87% of the parcels and 65% of the total value within the
1% annual chance flood zone in Yellowstone County, Billings, Laurel, and the Crow Indian Reservation
(Table K-12). Nearly 1,800 people reside in the 1% annual chance floodplain, the majority within the
unincorporated area and Laurel.
The SoVI-based rating of social vulnerability is relatively low in Yellowstone County (Section K.2.4 Social
Vulnerability). Regardless of how Yellowstone County rates in social vulnerability, severe floods can be
devastating events that are difficult to recover from both financially and emotionally. Floods may result in
360
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-28
injuries or fatalities in situations with limited warning or when evacuation orders are not adhered to.
Confirming the high vulnerability to flood hazards, Yellowstone County has experienced the highest
historical National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) dollars paid of any county in the Eastern Region (see
Table 4-27 in the Base Plan, section National Flood Insurance Program Policy Analysis).
Table K-12 Yellowstone County Parcels at Risk to 1% Flood Hazard by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Property
Type
Improved
Parcels
Improved
Value Content Value Total Value Estimated Loss Population
Billings
Commercial 1 $57,920 $57,920 $115,840 $28,960 -
Exempt 5 $10,596,740 $10,596,740 $21,193,480 $5,298,370 -
Residential 48 $12,421,652 $6,210,826 $18,632,478 $4,658,120 111
Crow Tribe Agricultural 1 $59,260 $59,260 $118,520 $29,630 -
Exempt 1 $160,640 $160,640 $321,280 $80,320 -
Laurel
Commercial 3 $447,840 $447,840 $895,680 $223,920 -
Exempt 1 $178,540 $178,540 $357,080 $89,270 -
Residential 156 $4,546,671 $2,273,336 $6,820,007 $1,705,002 360
Yellowstone
County
Agricultural 94 $19,337,510 $19,337,510 $38,675,020 $9,668,755 -
Commercial 1 $68,070 $68,070 $136,140 $34,035 -
Exempt 5 $1,579,000 $1,579,000 $3,158,000 $789,500 -
Industrial 4 $13,960,030 $20,940,045 $34,900,075 $8,725,019 -
Residential 588 $104,865,256 $52,432,628 $157,297,884 $39,324,471 1,358
Vacant 7 $49,340 $49,340 $98,680 $24,670 -
Total 915 $168,328,469 $114,391,695 $282,720,164 $70,680,041 1,830
NOTE – A portion of the Crow Tribe is located in Yellowstone County, although predominantly located in Big
Horn County. Sources: DNRC, Hazus, FEMA NFHL
Yellowstone County has a total of 71 critical facilities located in the 1% annual chance floodplain. 55 are
transportation lifelines, six are communication facilities, five are energy facilities, two are food, water and
shelter and one is Safety and Security facilities. This is shown in Table K-13. Floodplain hazard areas are
shown in Figure K-10 through Figure K-13.
361
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-29
Table K-13 Critical Facilities at Risk to 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazards by FEMA Lifeline
Jurisdiction
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
En
e
r
g
y
Fo
o
d
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
He
a
l
t
h
&
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Sa
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
Billings 2 - - - - - 8 10
Laurel 1 - - - - - - 1
Yellowstone County 3 5 2 2 - 1 47 60
Total 6 5 2 2 0 1 55 71
National Flood Insurance Program
The NFIP aims to reduce the impact of flooding on private and public structures by providing affordable
insurance to property owners and by encouraging communities to adopt and enforce floodplain
management regulations. These efforts help mitigate the effects of flooding on new and improved
structures. The State has analyzed NFIP flood-loss data to determine areas of Montana’s Eastern Region
with the greatest flood risk. Montana’s Eastern Region flood-loss information was obtained from FEMA’s
“Montana’s Coverage Claims” for Montana’s Eastern Region, which documents losses from 1978. This
section was updated based on information obtained from FEMA’s PIVOT database through Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (MT DNRC) dated August 10, 2022.
There are several limitations to analyzing flood risk entirely on this data, including:
● Only losses to participating NFIP communities are represented;
● Communities joined the NFIP at various times since 1978;
● The number of flood insurance policies in effect may not include all structures at risk to flooding; and
● Some of the historical loss areas have been mitigated with property buyouts.
Yellowstone County has a total of $76,606,000 in NFIP coverage, with 263 total flood claims, and 275 current
policies in place. It also had the highest amount of dollars paid out due to flood claims with $1,814,878
dollars paid out. NFIP data and statistics for Yellowstone County is summarized in Table K-14.
Table K-14 Yellowstone County NFIP Statistics
County Date
Joined
Effective
Firm Date
Dollars Paid
(Historical)
Flood
Claims
Current
Policies Coverage ($)
Yellowstone 11/18/1981 11/6/2013 $1,814,878.16 263 275 $76,606,000
Source: FEMA Pivot NFIP Data as of August 10th, 2022; FEMA Community Status Book Report
Repetitive Loss
Repetitive losses are NFIP-insured structures that have had at least two paid flood losses of more than
$1,000 each in any ten-year period since 1978. Yellowstone County has a total of 21 repetitive loss properties
as of 2022. Ten of these structures are in Billings, four are in Laurel, two are in Worden, and the remaining
five are in the unincorporated County.
362
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-30
Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) properties have either four or more separate claims for flood damage (with
each claim exceeding $5,000 and with the sum of all payments exceeding $20,000,) or two or more separate
claims where the total of all claims exceeds the value of the property. Yellowstone County has no SRL
properties.
Table K-15 below lists that Yellowstone County has 21 repetitive loss structures, 53 repetitive loss claims
and $747,592.02 in funding paid.
Table K-15 Repetitive Loss Properties in Yellowstone County
County
Repetitive
Loss
Structures
per County
Repetitive
Loss
Claims
Structure
Type
Single -
Family
Structure
Type –
Multi-
Family
Structure Type
– Business/
Non-Residential
Total Paid Out
Yellowstone County 21 53 19 - 2 $747,592.02
Source: FEMA Region VIII as of 9/10/2022.
363
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-31
Figure K-10 Yellowstone County Flood Hazard and Structures
364
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-32
Figure K-11 City of Billings Flood Hazard and Structures
365
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-33
Figure K-12 Town of Broadview Flood Hazard and Structures
366
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-34
Figure K-13 City of Laurel Flood Hazard and Structures
367
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-35
Figure K-14 below displays the location of bridges in Yellowstone County and their condition. Refer to
Chapter 4 of the base plan for a discussion of the flood risk relative to Yellowstone County and the
Eastern Region.
Figure K-14 Yellowstone County Bridges
368
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-36
K.4.8 Hazardous Materials Incident
Hazardous Materials Incidents are ranked as a high overall significance hazard for Yellowstone County.
Yellowstone County has 11 Risk Management Program (RMP) facilities, and according to the National
Response Center (NRC), there were 621 reported hazardous material incidents in the County since 1990,
the greatest number in the Eastern Region. Yellowstone County also has gas transmission pipelines
present, which travel through the communities of Billings and Laurel, as well as the unincorporated
County. Hazardous liquid pipelines also traverse the County, going through Lockwood and Billings, as well
as the unincorporated County. Many major transportation routes also cross Yellowstone County, including
US Interstates 90 and 94, US Highways 87, 212, and 310, and Montana State Highways 3 and 47. These
transportation routes are likely locations for future occurrences of hazardous material incidents in transit.
Refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion of the hazardous materials incident risk relative to Yellowstone County
and the Eastern Region.
K.4.9 Landslide
Landslide is rated as a low significance hazard in Yellowstone County and all three participating
jurisdictions (Table K-5).
Section 4.2.9 Landslide provides an analysis of the landslide hazard in the Eastern Region. Yellowstone
County has an unusually high exposure to landslide hazards relative to the typically-very low exposure in
most parts of the Eastern Region (Figure 4-40, 4-41). Yellowstone is one of two counties in the Eastern
Region recognized as having an elevated landslide frequency (Figure 4-42). Nevertheless, the NRI rates
Yellowstone County as having a relatively low risk index rating and a relatively moderate expected annual
loss rating (Figure 4-43 and 4-44).
Unincorporated areas in the southwest of the County greater relief may be more likely to experience
landslides. The probability of landslide is greater in spring. The greatest area of concern is in the Billings
area below the Rimrocks, a geological rimrock sandstone formation, also called the Rims. Table K-16 lists
landslide events in Yellowstone County that were recorded by the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
or included in the 2019 Yellowstone County HMP. Although certain events are documented by both
sources, it's important to note that no single database comprehensively captures the entire history of
landslide events, therefore this is an inexhaustive list.
If landslide hazards occur, some assets are susceptible to damage, following a similar pattern as is discussed
for each class of asset in Section 4.2.9, subsection titled Vulnerability Assessment.
According to the CPT, Yellowstone County has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in mitigation,
repair, and response to landslide and rockfall events over the last few years. The County CPT says a
landslide occurring to the Billings Bench Water Association (BBWA) ditch is one of the most eminent and
dangerous threats currently facing the County. Such an event could lead to a breach of the BBWA ditch,
which would cause major flooding to the downtown area.
For more information refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion of the landslide risk relative to Yellowstone
County and the Eastern Region.
369
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-37
Table K-16 Recorded Landslide Events in Yellowstone County
Date Event Summary
October 9,
2010*
No one was hurt when a huge boulder crashed through the back of a house at 1313 Granite Ave. in
Billings. A wet spot just below the top of the rimrocks showed where a large slab of sandstone fell
off the side of the Rims. It broke into dozens of pieces when it hit the earth below, and the largest
piece slammed through the back of a wooden house. The rock fall caused a noise described as
thunder or an explosion and the dust cloud was larger than the Rims.
May 12,
2014*
Two rock falls during March led to the closure of Zimmerman Park. The park was closed for
approximately two months until a stabilization project was completed, and the city road crew
repaired the guardrail and damaged pavement. The MT Dept. of Transportation paid a contractor
over $700,000 for a rock removal and stabilization project at six locations along Zimmerman Trail.
Rockslide areas were also identified at Swords Park and several hundred tons of rock were removed
to mitigate rocks from falling onto Sixth Avenue North.
May 18,
2016*^
Phipps Park, on Molt Road west of Billings, was forced to close after a rockslide. A park user
witnessed the rockslide and said a large portion of the rock just separated from the rimrock. A
geotechnical survey was done of the area and existing trails in the rock fall zone were re-routed.
May 31,
2017^
A rockfall incident of medium scale, with an unknown trigger, originated from the Rimrocks in
northern Billings, causing a significant rockslide in the area. Massive boulders were thrown through
a residential structure, resulting in substantial damage.
June 26,
2018*^
A resident was lying in bed when she heard the roaring noise of about 150 yards of sandstone cliff
face breaking free from the rimrocks and rolling towards her house below. The rockslide smashed
through her garage on the 220 block of Mountain View Boulevard and covered roughly 75 yards of
road below the Rims with rocks and debris. No one was injured.
August 15,
2018^
Massive boulders, comparable in size to an all-terrain vehicle and the cab of a semi-truck, detached
from the Rims. These sizable pieces of sandstone were propelled through a residence in Billings,
with one boulder finding its resting place inside what appeared to be the living room area. The
family was not injured in the incident and no gas lines were damaged.
Source: * – 2019 Yellowstone County Hazard Mitigation Plan; ^ – USGS Landslide Inventory,
https://www.usgs.gov/tools/us-landslide-inventory
K.4.10 Severe Summer Weather
Severe summer weather is rated as a high significance hazard in Yellowstone County and all three
participating jurisdictions (Table K-5).
The impact of summer weather hazards in Yellowstone County is variable but by far most significant for
hail. According to the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Storm Events Database,
Yellowstone County experienced the second greatest number of total severe summer weather events in
Eastern Region, including 447 hail events, 5 heavy rain and 4 lightning events.7 Property losses from severe
summer weather in Yellowstone County totaled to $14,085,500 from 1955 to 2022 (44.5% of total losses in
the Eastern Region), mainly due to hail events. Yellowstone County also experienced $2,500,000 in total
crop losses from severe summer weather during the same time period (7.8% of total crop losses in the
Eastern Region).
7 The NCEI Database records tornado events from January 1950 to present; tornado, thunderstorm wind, and hail from January 1955
to present and all other hazard events from January 1996 to present.
370
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-38
All assets located outdoors are exposed to hail, extreme heat, and heavy rain. Lightning typically strikes the
highest objects in an area but can cause hazardous power surges that extend much further. Lightning strikes
can also start fires. The secondary effects of fire are discussed in the section below titled Wildfire. The
greatest property losses are likely to occur in the City of Billings, where people and infrastructure are
concentrated. Refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion of the severe summer weather risk relative to Yellowstone
County and the Eastern Region.
K.4.11 Severe Winter Weather
Severe winter weather is rated as a high significance hazard in Yellowstone County and all three
participating jurisdictions (Table K-5).
Section 4.2.11 Severe Winter Weather in the Eastern Region base plan provides an analysis of these hazards
in the region and relative to Yellowstone County. The main hazards of concern are blizzard, cold, heavy
snow, ice storms, winter storms and winter weather, defined in Section 4.2.11. From that analysis, all assets
located outdoors are exposed to these hazards and indoor plumbing is an additional concern for cold. Many
assets in Yellowstone County are susceptible to damage from severe winter weather, following the pattern
described in Section 4.2.11, subsection Vulnerability Assessment.
Yellowstone County experienced the tenth greatest number of NCEI recorded severe winter weather
events in the Eastern Region and the NRI rated Yellowstone County as “relatively low” risk index rating for
winter weather.
The NCEI Storm Events Database recorded a total of $14,000 in property losses due to severe winter events
in Yellowstone County from 1996 to (<1% of total recorded losses in the Eastern Region). However, the
Storm Events Database uses data from the National Weather Service (NWS) for historical and current events,
so any property loss data that was not reported to NWS will not be represented. The USDA recorded over
$4 million in crop losses in Yellowstone from cold winter weather, freeze, and frost, between 2007 and 2021.
Portions of the population are particularly susceptible to winter hazards. These populations include those
who are houseless or who work outside. Susceptibility of agriculture operations is also a significant concern.
Further analysis of winter weather impacts, including NRI ratings, is provided in Section 4.2.11 Severe Winter
Weather.
K.4.12 Human Conflict
Human conflict is ranked as an overall high significance for Yellowstone County. Only one of the seven
reported terrorist attacks in Montana occurred in the Eastern Region, a 1970 event that targeted police in
Billings. Additionally, Billings experienced more than half of the total civil unrest incidents in the Region
recorded by Count Love, while Laurel had one documented civil unrest incident.8 All cities and towns are
vulnerable to human conflicts, human conflict events tend to occur in more populated areas.
Refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion of the human conflict risk relative to Yellowstone County and the
Eastern Region.
K.4.13 Tornadoes & Windstorms
Tornadoes and windstorms are rated as a high significance hazard in Yellowstone County and all three
participating jurisdictions (Table K-5).
Chapter 4 of the base plan, specifically Section 4.2.13 Tornadoes & Windstorms, provides an analysis of
8 Count Love recorded public displays of protests between January 20, 2017, and January 31, 2021, that were not a part of “regular
business;” they did not include awareness events, townhalls, or political campaign rallies. https://countlove.org/faq.html
371
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-39
this hazard relative to Yellowstone County and the Eastern Region. From that analysis, all assets are
exposed to tornadoes and windstorms. According to the NCEI Storm Events Database, Yellowstone
County experienced the sixth greatest number of high wind and strong wind events in the Eastern Region,
with 72 total events between January 1996 and December 2022. Additionally, Yellowstone County
experienced the second greatest number of thunderstorm wind events (between January 1996 and
January 2022) and tornado events (between January 1950 and December 2022), with a combined 321
events.
Many assets in Yellowstone County are susceptible to damage from tornadoes and windstorms, following
the pattern described in Section 4.2.13, subsection Vulnerability Assessment. Most significantly for
Yellowstone County, Mobile homes, which are disproportionately susceptible to tornado and windstorm
events, comprise 7.3% of total housing in Yellowstone County.
Yellowstone County experienced the fifth greatest losses recorded by the NCEI Storm Events Database
from thunderstorm wind events in the Eastern Region, with over $3.2 million in recorded property and
crop damages, two deaths and three injuries. Yellowstone County also experienced the greatest losses
from tornado events in the Eastern Region, with $32.58 million in recorded property and crop damages,
together with three injuries.
K.4.14 Transportation Accidents
Transportation accidents are an overall high significance hazard for Yellowstone County. Yellowstone
County has reported by far the greatest number of roadway crashes in the Eastern Region, with 16,475
crashes between 2016 and 2020. On average, this equates to 3,295 reported crashes annually.
While transportation accidents can occur along any type of transportation route in the County and the
Region, a greater frequency of accidents occur along heavily traveled roadways, such as US Interstate 90
(I-90), which traverses the County, intercepting the Cities of Billings and Laurel, and Montana State
Highway 3, which connects Billings to Great Falls, intercepting the Town of Broadview. Due to the
presence of these roadways, along with the significant tourism volume, and the much higher population
density than much of the Region, there is a high likelihood that this hazard will continue to occur at
generally higher frequencies than most other counties in the Region.
Refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion of the transportation accident risk relative to Yellowstone County and
the Eastern Region.
K.4.15 Volcanic Ash
All counties in the Eastern Region and all jurisdictions within Yellowstone County ranked volcanic ash as a
low significance hazard.
Chapter 4, specifically Section 4.2.15 Volcanic Ash, provides an analysis of this hazard relative to Yellowstone
County and the Eastern Region. The frequency and extent of volcanic ashfall is likely to be consistent across
the Eastern Region and is discussed in Section 4.2.15, subsections Past Occurrences and
Frequency/Likelihood of Occurrence. All assets are potentially exposed to volcanic ash. Even assets located
indoors are exposed when ash penetrates the ventilation system of buildings. Many assets in Yellowstone
County are susceptible to damage from volcanic ash, following the pattern described in Section 4.2.15,
subsection Vulnerability Assessment.
372
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-40
K.4.16 Wildfire
Wildfire is rated as a high significance hazard in Yellowstone County and all three participating jurisdictions
(Table K-5).
Wildfire hazards in the Eastern Region and Yellowstone County are evaluated in the base plan, Section
4.2.16 Wildfire. Many assets in Yellowstone County are susceptible to damage from wildfire, following the
pattern described in Section 4.2.13, subsection Vulnerability Assessment. The analysis below compliments
the base plan and provides greater detail relevant to Yellowstone County, the City of Billings, City of
Laurel, and the Town of Broadview.
Yellowstone County has been included in seven federal disaster declarations for wildfire, including two
declarations in 2020 and one in 2021. These fires, the Bobcat Fire (2020), the Falling Star Fire (2020), and
the Buffalo Fire (2021), resulted in evacuations, tens of thousands of burned acres, and minimal damage
to structures, but no deaths or injuries. The CPT did not single out any wildfire events in the past five
years.
Billings is the largest city in the State, and Yellowstone County is the most populous county. This high
population density lends itself to high numbers of individuals living in fire risk areas. Yellowstone County
has by far the greatest number of individuals in the Eastern Region in wildfire risk areas, with over 85% of
the population (about 140,000 people) living in a fire risk area, representing 60% of all Eastern Region
residents who live in fire risk areas (Table K-17). All participating jurisdictions exist in very high and extreme
fire risk zones.
The SoVI-based rating of social vulnerability is relatively low in Yellowstone County (Section K.2.4 Social
Vulnerability). Regardless of how Yellowstone County rates in social vulnerability, wildfires can be
devastating events that are difficult to recover from both financially and emotionally. Wildfires may result
in injuries or fatalities in situations with limited warning or when evacuation orders are not adhered to.
Table K-17 summarizes the estimated exposed value of improvements in each wildfire risk category. Based
on this analysis, roughly 116,702 improved parcels are exposed to low/medium or higher wildfire risk,
totaling about $39.0 billion in improved building and content value. This represents 99.9% of the total
building inventory and building and content value in the County. Wildfires typically result in a total
building loss including contents. See Chapter 4 in the base plan for details on the methodology of this
analysis.
373
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-41
Table K-17 Yellowstone County Parcels at Risk to Wildfire by Jurisdiction and Risk Rating
At Risk
Rating Jurisdiction Improved
Parcels
Improved
Value Content Value Total Value Population
At Risk to
Extreme
Wildfire
Hazards
Billings 14,533 $3,424,387,681 $1,796,724,678 $5,221,112,359 33,135
Broadview 70 $7,021,957 $4,186,749 $11,208,706 143
Crow Tribe 8 $1,253,830 $997,595 $2,251,425 17
Laurel 2,049 $342,180,182 $186,038,753 $528,218,935 4,675
Yellowstone
County 7,447 $1,321,149,887 $686,274,747 $2,007,424,634 16,881
Total 24,107 $5,095,993,537 $2,674,222,521 $7,770,216,058 54,852
At Risk to
Very High
Wildfire
Hazards
Billings 16,918 $4,190,610,857 $2,507,107,422 $6,697,718,279 38,076
Broadview 20 $1,671,139 $836,960 $2,508,099 44
Crow Tribe 54 $10,038,442 $7,482,196 $17,520,638 106
Laurel 843 $113,685,217 $64,472,341 $178,157,558 1,915
Yellowstone
County 7,104 $1,835,313,003 $1,017,511,675 $2,852,824,678 15,301
Total 24,939 $6,151,318,658 $3,597,410,593 $9,748,729,251 55,442
At Risk to
High
Wildfire
Hazards
Billings 278 $305,806,288 $197,503,398 $503,309,686 589
Broadview - $- $- $- -
Crow Tribe 14 $1,696,300 $1,689,150 $3,385,450 4
Laurel 10 $8,608,263 $4,304,132 $12,912,395 23
Yellowstone
County 498 $184,415,496 $148,715,065 $333,130,561 684
Total 800 $500,526,347 $352,211,744 $852,738,091 1,300
At Risk to
Medium/Low
Wildfire
Hazards
Billings 11,875 $3,941,698,363 $2,343,637,126 $6,285,335,489 26,346
Broadview - $- $- $- -
Crow Tribe 35 $6,480,976 $5,813,428 $12,294,404 34
Laurel 137 $80,610,328 $56,246,899 $136,857,227 266
Yellowstone
County 2,022 $904,048,783 $830,152,183 $1,734,200,966 3,477
Total 14,069 $4,932,838,450 $3,235,849,636 $8,168,688,086 30,122
NOTE – A portion of the Crow Tribe is located in Yellowstone County, although predominantly located in Big
Horn County. Source: MSDI 2022, MWRA
Table K-18 summarizes the potential impact of wildfire on critical facilities and lifelines in Yellowstone
County and its associated jurisdictions. The table highlights the type and number of facilities in each
jurisdiction in the County in Wildfire risk areas. See Chapter 4 for the methodology of the critical facilities
at risk analysis.
374
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-42
Table K-18 Critical Facilities at Risk to Wildfire Hazards by Jurisdiction, Facility Type, and Risk
Rating
At Risk Rating Jurisdiction
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
En
e
r
g
y
Fo
o
d
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
He
a
l
t
h
&
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Sa
f
e
t
y
&
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
At Risk to
Extreme Wildfire
Hazards
Billings 10 2 3 - 4 11 7 37
Broadview - - - - 1 1 - 2
Laurel - - 5 - - 2 1 8
Yellowstone
County 98 40 6 2 5 22 31 204
Total 108 42 14 2 10 36 39 251
At Risk to Very
High Wildfire
Hazards
Billings 27 - 10 8 2 32 21 100
Broadview - 1 - - - - - 1
Laurel 1 1 1 - - - - 3
Yellowstone
County 22 16 5 7 - 10 113 173
Total 50 18 16 15 2 42 134 277
At Risk to High
Wildfire Hazards
Billings 3 1 - 3 - 1 5 13
Yellowstone
County 10 - - 1 1 - 34 46
Total 13 1 0 4 1 1 39 59
At Risk to
Medium/Low
Wildfire Hazards
Billings 45 6 24 4 10 62 22 173
Laurel 3 - 2 - 1 4 - 10
Yellowstone
County 13 11 7 12 2 12 61 118
Total 61 17 33 16 13 78 83 301
NOTE – A portion of the Crow Tribe is located in Yellowstone County, although predominantly located in Big
Horn County. Source: HIFLD 2022, Montana DES, NBI, MWRA
375
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page 43
Figure K-15 Yellowstone County Wildfire Hazard
376
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-44
Yellowstone County has many efforts in place to protect its residents from the threat of wildfire. The
Yellowstone County Fire Protection Services and Rural Fire Council consist of both municipal and
volunteer fire departments. Billings and Laurel have municipal fire departments, with seven fire stations in
Billings, including Central Headquarters at Fire Station #1. The City of Laurel operates one fire station.
Additionally, fire departments are present at key locations such as the Billings-Logan International Airport,
Phillips 66, Par Montana, and CHS refineries.
In Yellowstone County, a volunteer fire protection system is established to combat wildfires. This system is
divided into several fire districts, each having its own volunteer fire department, including Blue Creek VFD,
Broadview VFD, Custer VFD, Fuego VFD, Haley Bench VFD, Lockwood VFD, Molt VFD, Shepherd VFD, and
Worden VFD. The Rural Fire Council, comprising these volunteer fire departments, offers advice and
information to the Yellowstone Board of County Commissioners concerning fire and life safety services.
The council fosters collaboration and communication among its members, enhancing operational
efficiency and ensuring community fire protection. Mutual aid agreements have been signed within
Yellowstone County and with adjacent counties, as well as state and federal fire control agencies.
Montana's Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (MT DNRC) Forestry Division is responsible
for forestry and fire management programs across the state. The Fire and Aviation Management Bureau
coordinates resources and leadership to protect lives, property, and natural resources from wildland fires,
working closely with local, tribal, state, and federal partners. Montana DNRC focuses on fire preparedness
through fire prevention, training, equipment development, and financial support programs. The Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Montana/Dakota District Office is involved in planning activities for public land
within Yellowstone County, with an initial attack MOU for BLM or County fires.
The National Fire Prevention Association's (NFPA) FireWise Communities Program promotes safety by
engaging homeowners in wildfire risk mitigation. It's a key part of the Fire Adapted Communities
approach and is co-sponsored by various federal agencies. The program educates people about living
with wildfire and encourages community action to prevent losses and protect lives and property.
K.4.17 Ditch and Drain Failure Hazards
Ditch and drain failure hazards in Yellowstone County, Montana, primarily pertain to the potential dangers
associated with the extensive network of ditches and canals in the region. These hazards are typically
connected to irrigation canals, drainage, and stormwater management systems and can pose risks to
public safety and property. The irrigation facilities were constructed to deliver water to areas far removed
from the original water intake. Yellowstone County is intersected by a total of 23 ditches, with 7 of these
ditches situated within the boundaries of the City of Billings. Many of the ditches carry irrigation water for
agriculture and private lawns and gardens, and parks and provide a valuable function to agricultural
operations, residential and commercial outdoor watering, and groundwater recharge. Many of the ditches
are open waterways with steep sides; however, there are several miles of culverts and pipes that carry
ditch water beneath the City of Billings.
The (BBWA) is the most prominent canal in Billings. It is a gravity-fed canal that is diverted from the
Yellowstone River near Laurel. The canal consists of 63 miles of main canal and over 200 laterals,
distribution canals, and two storage reservoirs. It runs 20 miles through the City of Billings, somewhat
parallel to Poly Drive before disappearing through an 1,800- foot tunnel in the rimrocks and Alkali Creek,
then flows north through Billings Heights before discharging into Five Mile Creek. Ninety (90) percent of
the farms from the Heights to Shepherd depend on the BBWA for irrigation. The value of the crops along
the canal is in the millions of dollars. The BBWA has 1,463 customers and the canal waters the greens of
three golf courses and lawns at many adjoining residences. The County also contains several other ditches
and canals in the Billings area, such as the Hi-Line Ditch, Big Ditch, and Cove Ditch in West Billings.
377
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-45
Most of the ditches and drains are controlled and maintained through easements and prescriptive rights
by private ditch companies, and the City of Billings and Yellowstone County do not have any ownership
other than repair and replacement of street culvert crossings. Therefore, to address these ditch hazards
and promote public safety, Yellowstone County would need regulations and procedures in place to
manage ditches effectively. This could involve regular maintenance, inspections, and the enforcement of
guidelines for construction and land use near ditches. According to the 2019 Yellowstone County HMP,
there are approximately 112,093 acres in Yellowstone County (6.6 percent) located within ditch and drain
failure impact areas. Because ditch and drain failure can greatly impact residences, commercial and
industrial buildings, and critical facilities, future residential development along the Yellowstone River
Valley in these areas should be minimized to reduce property losses. As noted in Section K.4.10, the
County has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in mitigation, repair, and response to landslide and
rockfall events over the last few years. And an active landslide occurring on the BBWA ditch is one of the
most eminent threats and contributing factors that may result in the breach of the BBWA ditch, given this
hazard would cause major flooding to downtown Billings.
Residents and property owners in the County should be aware of the potential hazards associated with
ditches, and they should take measures to ensure their safety, such as avoiding constructing structures in
or near ditches, reporting blockages and erosion, and being prepared for potential flooding events. Also,
local government and authorities typically work to mitigate these hazards and protect public safety, while
also ensuring that the essential functions of the ditches, such as irrigation and drainage, are not
compromised.
K.5 Mitigation Capabilities Assessment
As part of the regional plan development, the Region and participating jurisdictions developed a
mitigation capability assessment. Capabilities are those plans, policies and procedures that are currently in
place that contribute to reducing hazard losses. Combining the risk assessment with the mitigation
capability assessment results in “net vulnerability” to disasters and more accurately focuses the goals,
objectives, and proposed actions of this plan. The CPT used a two-step approach to conduct this
assessment. First, an inventory of common mitigation activities was made using a matrix. The purpose of
this effort was to identify policies and programs that were either in place or could be undertaken, if
appropriate. Second, the CPT conducted an inventory and review of existing policies, regulations, plans,
projects, and programs to determine if they contribute to reducing hazard related losses.
378
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-46
K.5.1 Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities
Table K-19 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement
hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are in place in the Eastern Region and each
participating jurisdiction.
Table K-19 Yellowstone County and Jurisdictions Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities
Plans & Regulations Yellowstone
County City of Billings City of Laurel Town of
Broadview
Building Codes State Yes Yes No
Building Codes Year 2022 2022 2023 No
BCEGS Rating - - -
Capital Improvements
Program (CIP) or Plan
Yes. Yellowstone
County FY 2023
Yes. City of Billings
Capital
Improvement Plan
FY20-FY24
N/A No
Community Rating System
(CRS) Yes. CRS-7 No No N/A
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan (CWPP) Yes. Version 2006 Part of County Plan Part of County
Plan
Part of County
Plan
Comprehensive Master or
General Plan
Yes. Current
planning of
neighborhoods,
community, &
transportation.
Yes. Community
Master Plans
Yes. Community
Master Plans No
Economic Development
Plan Yes Yes Yes No
Elevation Certificates Yes N/A N/A N/A
Emergency Operations
Plan (EOP) Yes Part of County Plan Part of County
Plan
Part of County
Plan
Erosion/Sediment Control
Program No N/A N/A N/A
Floodplain Management
Plan Yes Yes Yes No
Flood Insurance Study Yes N/A N/A N/A
Growth Management
Ordinance Yes. Adopted 2008. Yes. Adopted 2016. Yes. Adopted
2020. No
Hazard-Specific Ordinance
or Plan (Floodplain, Steep
Slope, Wildfire)
Yes. HAZMAT,
Wildfire,
Floodplain,
Communicable
Disease, Source
Water Protection
Part of County
Plans.
Part of County
Plans.
Part of County
Plans.
National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) Yes Yes Yes No
Site Plan Review
Requirements Yes N/A N/A N/A
Stormwater Program, Plan,
or Ordinance Yes Yes Yes Yes
379
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-47
Plans & Regulations Yellowstone
County City of Billings City of Laurel Town of
Broadview
Zoning Code or Ordinance Yes Yes Yes. 2020 Yes
Climate Adaptation or
Resiliency Plan Yes N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Ordinance Yes Yes
Yes. Code of
Ordinances Title
16
No
Open Space/Conservation
Program
Yes, through
Zoning
Regulations,
development
planning, and the
Billings Parks and
Recreation
Department
Yes, through
Zoning
Regulations,
development
planning, and the
Billings Parks and
Recreation
Department.
N/A N/A
Resource Management
Plan No No No No
Threat Hazard
Identification and Risk
Assessment (THIRA)
Yes Part of County Plan Part of County
Plan
Part of County
Plan
Other? - - - -
Discussion on Existing Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities
The CPT noted that in accordance with the City of Billings Site Development Ordinance, specific
regulations mandate the implementation of mitigation measures concerning stormwater management
along the Rimrock geologic formation. These measures necessitate the on-site storage of stormwater to
minimize the discharge of water over the Rimrock formations. Subdivision regulations also require the
evaluation of potential flood hazards, floodplains, landslides, steep slopes, stormwater management and
high-water tables. This evaluation is conducted in collaboration with the City’s Planning Department.
The City/County Planning Division is responsible for overseeing Subdivision Regulations within both the
City of Billings and Yellowstone County. These regulations stipulate requirements for assessing flood
hazards whenever certain predetermined thresholds or parameters are met. Furthermore, the Subdivision
Regulations prohibit the development of areas with slopes exceeding 25%, and such areas must be clearly
indicated on plats. In addition, there are specific environmental assessment requirements, especially
within the County, which demand an in-depth analysis of natural hazards related to geology, soils, and
slopes. Details on Flood Hazard Evaluation requirements can be located in Appendix K of the subdivision
regulations.
The CPT emphasized that the City of Billings is obligated to align its building codes with those adopted by
the State of Montana. As of September 1, 2022, the City of Billings has officially adopted a set of codes,
accessible at this link: https://billingsmt.gov/323/Adopted-Codes. The responsibility for enforcing these
building codes within the City Limits falls under the jurisdiction of the City Building Division. These codes
encompass various hazard-specific considerations, including fire prevention requirements, as well as
mandatory structural design criteria for wind and snow loads.
It's important to note that the State of Montana operates on a 3-year code update cycle. Consequently,
the City of Billings is anticipated to adopt the subsequent set of updated codes in either 2024 or 2025.
The State Fire Marshal's Office oversees the adoption of the fire code, which is then enforced within the
380
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-48
city by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
In a distinct capacity, the City/County Planning Division does not manage building codes. However, the
planning staff plays an integral role in the permitting process within the City Limits, conducting site
reviews. In the zoned areas of Yellowstone County, the Division is responsible for administering County
Zoning Regulations, which encompass site and structural requirements. The approval of new
developments within these zoned areas necessitates a County Zoning Compliance Permit.
Montana state law (Montana Code Annotated [MCA] Title 76 Land Resources and Use, Chapter 5 Flood
Plain and Floodway Management 1-4) contains land use regulations that require floodplain management
regulations within sheetflood areas as determined by FEMA. It is in the best interest of the political
subdivision (e.g., incorporated cities or towns or any county) and the public to manage the regulation of
flood-prone lands and waters in a manner consistent with prudent land and water use practices. This
approach aims to prevent and alleviate threats posed by flooding to human life and health, while also
reducing economic losses incurred by both individuals and the public.
Discussion on NFIP Participation and Compliance
Yellowstone County, along with the cities of Billings and Laurel, actively participate in the NFIP. This
program necessitates that jurisdictions implement floodplain development regulations. In return for the
local adoption and enforcement of regulations which adhere to the NFIP's minimum criteria, FEMA offers
the availability of flood insurance coverage within Yellowstone County and the Cities of Billings and Laurel.
Additionally, Yellowstone County began participation in the Community Rating System (CRS) in 2003. As
of July 2024, the County is currently Class 7, which makes structures in the special flood hazard area
(SFHA) eligible for a 15% discount on flood insurance, and those outside of the SFHA eligible for a 5%
discount.
According to the 2022 Yellowstone County Floodplain Hazard Management Regulations, the County
Floodplain Administrator is appointed and is the responsibility of the Office of the County Public Works
Department. Within the County Public Works Department, the building official is appointed to serve as
the floodplain administrator and shall administer and implement the provisions of the 2013 City of Billings
Floodplain Hazard Management Regulations. According to the 2018 City of Laurel Floodplain Hazard
Management Regulations, the City Floodplain Administrator is appointed and is the responsibility of the
City Planner. The most recent flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) were adopted in 2013 for the City of
Billings, City of Laurel, and Yellowstone County.
Each jurisdiction’s floodplain regulations set forth baseline standards for development within the
regulated flood hazard areas and significantly influence decisions related to land use. Every jurisdiction
requires a floodplain permit for development projects in a mapped floodplain. Artificial obstructions and
alternations may be allowed by permit within the floodway, provided they are designed and constructed
to ensure that they do not adversely affect the flood hazard on other properties and are reasonably safe
from flooding and ensure that the carrying capacity of the floodway is not reduced. Yellowstone County
typically issues an average of ten floodplain permits each year.
Additionally, following a hazard event in each jurisdiction, it is the role of that floodplain administrator to
notify structure owners about the potential necessity for a permit required for alterations or substantial
improvements before beginning the repair or reconstruction of damaged structures. Property owners are
informed that structures experiencing substantial damage or undergoing substantial improvements must
go through the floodplain application and permit process. Additionally, these structures must be
upgraded during the repair or reconstruction process to meet the minimum building standards outlined
in the regulations. This approach ensures compliance with floodplain management measures, enhancing
the overall safety and resilience of the affected structures. Each jurisdiction’s floodplain administrator is
381
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-49
also responsible for educating the community about floodplain management and the various ways
property owners and businesses can participate in the process by learning about floodplain regulations
and building codes in flood prone areas, modifying or retrofitting existing buildings, and controlling
stormwater runoff.
The Town of Broadview does not participate in the NFIP as neither a FIRM nor a flood hazard boundary
map has been identified for the Town, thus participation is optional.
K.5.2 Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities
Table K-20 identifies the County and participating jurisdictions personnel responsible for activities related
to mitigation and loss prevention in Yellowstone County.
Table K-20 Yellowstone County Jurisdictions Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities
Administrative & Technical Yellowstone
County
City of
Billings
City of
Laurel
Town of
Broadview
Emergency Manager Yes Yes Yes Yes
Floodplain Administrator/ Position/ Department Yes Yes Yes No
Community Planning - - - -
- Planner/Engineer (Land Development) Yes Yes Yes No
- Planner/Engineer/Scientist (Natural Hazards) Yes Yes No Yes
- Engineer/Professional (Construction) Yes Yes Yes No
- Resiliency Planner - - - -
- Transportation Planner Yes Yes Yes No
Full-Time Building Official Yes Yes Yes No
GIS Specialist & Capability Yes Yes Uses
County
Uses
County
Grant Manager, Writer, or Specialist No No No No
Housing Authority Yes Yes Yes Yes
Warning Systems Yes Yes Yes Yes
- Sirens No No No No
- Reverse 911 No No No No
- IPAWS/ Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) Yes Yes Yes Yes
- Opt-In Notification (CodeRed, EverBridge, etc) Yes Yes Yes Yes
K.5.3 Financial Capabilities
Table K-21 identifies the County and participating jurisdictions financial tools or resources that the
jurisdictions have access or are eligible to use and could potentially be used to help fund mitigation
activities.
382
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-50
Table K-21 Yellowstone County Jurisdictions Financial Capabilities
Financial Capabilities Yellowstone
County
City of
Billings
City of
Laurel
Town of
Broadview
Ability to fund projects through Capital Improvements
funding Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ability to incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes. Up to $2M
w/o voter
approval
No No No
Ability to incur debt through private activities No No No No
Ability to incur debt through special tax bonds Yes No No No
Authority to levy taxes for a specific purpose with voter
approval Yes Yes Yes Yes
Authority to withhold spending in hazard prone areas No No No No
Community Development Block Grants Yes Yes Yes Yes
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants Yes Yes Yes Yes
FEMA Public Assistance funds Yes Yes Yes Yes
Stormwater Service Fees Yes Yes Yes No
System Development Fee No Yes Yes No
Utility fees (water, sewer, gas, electric, etc.) Yes Yes Yes No
Other? No No No No
FEMA and Other Grant Funding Leveraged for Hazard Mitigation
Funding for the proposed mitigation projects may come from a variety of sources. Below is a list of
funding possibilities. This list is not tied directly to each proposed project; however, these programs could
work for specific projects or multiple projects.
• FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants including:
o Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)
o Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA).
o Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
• US Army Corp of Engineers funding
• USDA Environmental Quality Incentive Program.
• USDA Conservation Reserve and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.
• USDA Small Watersheds (NRCS).
There are many more potential funding opportunities available to the municipalities and County. Funding
research will be done during the scoping process for each project. New funding mechanisms may be
present that were not before. Yellowstone County and its jurisdictions have participated in several of these
hazard mitigation assistance projects in the past, as summarized in Table K-22 below.
383
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-51
Table K-22 Yellowstone County Hazard Mitigation Assistance Projects
Program Date
Approved Project Type Status Location
HMGP 4/23/1998 106.1: Other Non-Construction (Regular Project Only) Closed Yellowstone
HMGP 11/6/1998 201.1: Relocation of Private Structures – Riverine Closed Yellowstone
HMGP 11/6/1999 401.1: Water & Sanitary Sewer System Protective
Measures Closed Yellowstone
HMGP 2/16/2001 401.1: Water & Sanitary Sewer System Protective
Measures Closed Yellowstone
HMGP 2/20/2002 201.1: Relocation of Private Structures – Riverine Closed Yellowstone
HMGP 3/13/2007 201.1: Relocation of Private Structures Riverine Closed Yellowstone
HMGP 9/15/2009 401.1: Water Sanitary Sewer System Protective
Measures Closed Yellowstone
HMGP 2/9/2015 106.1: Other Non-Construction (Regular Project Only) Closed Yellowstone
HMGP 11/28/2016 201.1: Relocation of Private Structures - Riverine Closed Yellowstone
HMGP 1/28/2021 106.1: Other Non-Construction (Regular Project Only) Obligated Yellowstone & 52
other counties*
* Other 52 counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Daniels,
Dawson, Fallon, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake,
Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, McCone, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera,
Powder River, Powell, Prairie, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Sheridan, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton,
Toole, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, & Wibaux
HMGP 2/10/2022 106.1: Other Non-Construction (Regular Project Only) Approved Yellowstone & 21
other counties**
** Other 21 counties: Carbon, Carter, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, Golden Valley, McCone, Musselshell,
Powder River, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sheridan, Stillwater, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, & Wibaux
Source: FEMA Opendata
K.5.4 Education and Outreach Capabilities
Table K-23 identifies the education and outreach programs in place at the County and participating
jurisdictions are or could be used to help promote mitigation activities.
Table K-23 Yellowstone County Education and Outreach Capabilities
Education & Outreach Programs Yellowstone County City of
Billings
City of
Laurel
Town of
Broadview
Ongoing public education programs (fire safety,
responsible water use, household preparedness,
etc.)
Yes. DES & City of Billings
Fire Department Yes Yes Yes
Local citizen groups that communicate hazard
risks
Yes. LEPC & Yellowstone
County COAD Yes Yes Yes
Firewise or other fire mitigation program Yes. Hazardous Fuels
Program Yes Yes Yes
National Weather Service StormReady Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yellowstone’s CPT notes a range of resources used for education and outreach – primarily warning tools
used to communicate emergencies to the community.
384
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-52
K.5.5 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Mitigation Partnerships
Table K-24 shows the local chapters partnered with the County and participating jurisdictions.
Table K-24 Yellowstone County Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) Yellowstone County City of Billings City of
Laurel Town of Broadview
American Red Cross Yes Yes Yes Yes
Chamber of Commerce Yes Yes (2) Yes Yes
Community Organizations
(Lions, Kiwanis, etc.)
Yes. Breakfast Exchange
& Optimist Yes Yes Yes
Environmental Groups Yes Yes Yes Yes
Homeowner Associations Yes Yes Yes Yes
Neighborhood Associations Yes. Billings Task Forces. Yes Yes Yes
Salvation Army Yes No No Yes
Veterans Groups Yes Yes Yes Yes
Other Yes. United Way - - -
K.5.6 Opportunities for Enhancement
Based on the capabilities assessment, Yellowstone County has the potential for expanding these hazard
mitigation capabilities, but it is circumscribed primarily by budgetary constraints and the limitations of
available staff resources. If grant funding for mitigation projects is not secured or if the County fails to
allocate matching funds for these initiatives, their progression becomes unfeasible. Currently, the DES
Office manages most of the grant applications, from the initial submission to project closure. Given the
constraints of a two-person, full-time equivalent (FTE) team working within standard 40-hour workweeks,
it becomes challenging to juggle these responsibilities alongside their daily duties and obligations.
It would also be beneficial for the incorporated jurisdictions to provide more information on their
websites about potential hazards, emergency preparedness, and response information. A webpage with
consolidated information like evacuation routes, emergency alerts, and links to County, State, and Federal
resources would be helpful for residents to learn more and access the information they if an incident
occurs.
With support from other County departments like emergency management, the County grant writer
should research potential funding new staff positions and opportunities for post-disaster support aimed
at reaching vulnerable populations. Improved cross jurisdictional communication can also help identify
areas for collaboration and support staffing and other capacity gaps. Other specific opportunities for
improvement are listed below:
Yellowstone County:
• Explore opportunities to improve CRS class rating, particularly for public outreach activities.
• Explore additional partnerships with area agencies to develop hazard mitigation programs.
• Consider employing a grant writer to enhance access to funding opportunities.
• Address ditch and drain failure in County growth policies, Subdivision Regulations, and Zoning
Ordinances.
385
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-53
City of Billings:
• Consider developing an economic development plan to ensure future development aligns with City
goals and vision.
• Consider joining FEMA CRS to lower the cost of flood insurance.
• Consider ways to establish ongoing public outreach on hazard awareness and preparedness.
City of Laurel:
• Consider joining FEMA CRS to lower the cost of flood insurance and better protect residents and
structures located in the floodplain.
Town of Broadview:
• Continue to collaborate with Yellowstone County and the City of Billings and City of Laurel on
emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation activities.
• Consider working with the City of Billings Planning Department to adopt and enforce Building Codes
that apply to the Town of Broadview.
K.6 Mitigation Strategy
This section describes the mitigation strategy and mitigation action plan for Yellowstone County. See
Chapter 5 of the base plan for more details on the process used to develop the mitigation strategy.
K.6.1 Goals
During the creation of the 2023 Regional Plan, the counties in the Eastern Montana Region decided to
collaborate and develop a set of new, uniform goals, which were adopted by all counties in the Region
and move away from hazard-specific goals. The adopted goals are as follows:
Goal 1: Reduce impacts to people, property, the environment, and the economy from hazards by
implementing whole-community risk reduction and resilience strategies.
Goal 2: Protect community lifelines and critical infrastructure to ensure the continuity of essential services
during and after a disaster.
Goal 3: Support education and outreach to the public through improved communications and capacity
building that enhances resilience among underserved communities.
Goal 4: Promote regional cooperation and leverage partnerships with the private sector, non-profit
organizations, and other key stakeholder groups in mitigation solutions.
Goal 5: Sustain and enhance jurisdictional capabilities and resources to enact and implement mitigation
activities.
Goal 6: Integrate hazard mitigation into other plans, processes, and regulations.
Goal 7: Ensure local mitigation programs address underrepresented groups and protect socially
vulnerable populations.
Goal 8: Incorporate the potential impacts of climate change into all mitigation activities when possible.
The Yellowstone County Planning Team also developed the following County-specific objectives to
supplement the region-wide goals:
The 2019 Yellowstone County Hazard Mitigation Plan outlined the following goals:
• Goal 1: Reduce impacts from severe weather and drought.
• Goal 2: Reduce impacts from wildfire.
• Goal 3: Reduce impacts from ditch and drain failure.
386
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-54
• Goal 4: Reduce impacts from terrorism, violence, civil unrest, and cyber security.
• Goal 5: Reduce impacts from transportation accidents and hazardous materials incidents.
• Goal 6: Reduce impacts from flooding and dam failure.
• Goal 7: Reduce impacts from communicable disease.
• Goal 8: Reduce impacts from landslides and rock falls.
• Goal 9: Reduce impacts associated with all hazards.
K.6.2 Progress on Previous Actions
During the 2023 planning process, the Yellowstone CPT reviewed all the mitigation actions from the 2019
plan. As shown in Table K-25, of 87 actions in the previous plan, 14 have been completed, and 9 have
been deleted.
Table K-25 Completed and Deleted Actions
ID Action Name & Description Hazard(s)
Mitigated Jurisdiction Status
DELETED ACTIONS
1.2.4
Support drought programs implemented
through the Conservation District, NWS, FSA,
NRCS, DNRC, and MSU Extension.
Drought Yellowstone Too vague. Too
hard to measure.
2.1.4
Conduct feasibility study to identify best
method to dispose of fuel mitigated material so
all of it doesn’t have to travel long distances to a
landfill.
Wildfire Yellowstone
Lack of plans/
projects and Loss
of funding.
3.2.4 Conduct study on how to improve drains and
outlet structures to mitigate flood risk.
Ditch & Drain
Failure Billings
Too vague/ hard
to measure &
too large to fund.
5.2.1 Improve public messaging when episodes of
refinery flaring occur.
HAZMAT
Incidents
Yellowstone,
Billings, &
Laurel
Refineries handle
in-house.
9.1.6 Recruit and train emergency response
personnel. All Hazards All Jurisdictions Too vague.
9.3.2 Develop plan for short-term water supply in
Billings. All Hazards Billings Not feasible/ no
money available.
COMPLETED ACTIONS
1.3.1
Encourage utility companies to ensure right of
way around power lines are free of trees or
limbs that could cause damage.
Severe
Weather All Jurisdictions 2019
1.4.2 Promote the use of hurricane clips for buildings
vulnerable to high winds.
Severe
Weather All Jurisdictions 2021
2.1.2
Develop database of hazardous fuel
assessments and landowner fuel reductions
projects to support future grants.
Wildfire Yellowstone &
Billings 2023
2.5.2
Develop database of water supplies, access
points, fire breaks, and other relevant criteria to
enhance fire agency response.
Wildfire Yellowstone &
Broadview 2023
3.1.1
Remove unstable rocks above North 14th Street
that could fall and block BBWA ditch at tunnel
entrance.
Ditch & Drain
Failure Billings 2019
387
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-55
ID Action Name & Description Hazard(s)
Mitigated Jurisdiction Status
3.1.2
Re-establish City-County Drain Outfall, at
Washington Street, with an adjustable weir and
4,500 feet of 48-inch diameter pipe washed out
in the 2018 spring runoff.
Ditch & Drain
Failure Billings 2019
3.1.4
Evaluate, maintain and improve rip-rap along
Yellowstone River from Laurel to Huntley near
ditch head gates to prevent failures that may
cause uncontrolled flows into ditches increasing
flood risk
Ditch & Drain
Failure
Yellowstone,
Billings, &
Laurel
2019
3.1.5
Install rip-rap along Yellowstone River for
approximately 2,200 feet at Huntley Project to
protect diversion dam and drainage ditch and
maintain irrigation.
Ditch & Drain
Failure Yellowstone 2019
3.2.1
Assess legal status of existing irrigation ditches
and drains to determine Municipal legal
authority for operations and maintenance
responsibilities.
Ditch & Drain
Failure Billings 2021
3.3.1 Obtain easements to access ditches and drains
for operational and maintenance purposes.
Ditch & Drain
Failure Billings 2019
4.3.3 Develop cloud-based backup system for city
County network systems. Cyber Security
Yellowstone,
Billings, &
Laurel
2023
6.4.2
Consider certifying dikes around water and
wastewater treatment plants to ensure adequate
protection.
Flooding Billings &
Laurel 2023
6.4.3 Update flood protection measures at Riverside
Park in Laurel to prevent flooding. Flooding Laurel 2022
7.3.2 Expand list serve for Health Alert Network Communicable
Disease All Jurisdictions 2019-2020
9.1.1 Implement mass notification capabilities
throughout Yellowstone County. All Hazards All Jurisdictions 2019
9.1.2
Enhance rural communications by coordinating
and cooperating on getting First Net in place in
Yellowstone County to improve first responder
communications.
All Hazards All Jurisdictions 2019
K.6.3 NFIP Continued Compliance
Compliance with the NFIP is also important to reducing losses to future development is continued. The
County, the City of Billings, and the City of Laurel will continue to make every effort to remain in good
standing with the program. This includes continuing to comply with the NFIP regarding adopting
floodplain maps and implementing, maintaining, and updating floodplain ordinances. See Section 5.4.2 in
the base plan for more discussion on NFIP compliance.
K.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan
As a part of the 2023 regional planning process, the CPT developed an updated list of hazard mitigation
actions or projects specific to Yellowstone County and its jurisdictions. The process used to identify,
develop, and prioritize these actions is described in Chapter 5 of the base plan. Yellowstone County has
64 continuing or in progress mitigation actions carried over from the previous plan and has added an
additional 5 new actions.
388
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-56
Table K-26 lists the 2023 Mitigation Action Plan for Yellowstone County and its participating jurisdictions.
The CPT identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment and
goals, and objectives. It is grouped by hazard(s) mitigated. Background information as well as information
on how the action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible
office, partners, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline also are described. Per the DMA
requirement, actions have been identified that address reducing losses to existing development as well as
future development.
The Cost Estimate column describes the estimated project costs using the following categories:
• Little to no cost
• Low: Less than $10,000
• Moderate: $10,000-$100,000
• High: $100,000-$1,000,000
• Very High: More than $1,000,000
The Timeline column describes the estimated time of completion for each project using the following
categories:
• Short Term: 1-2 years
• Medium Term: 3-5 years
• Long Term: 5+ years
• Ongoing: action is implemented every year
The Status/Implementation Notes column describes the progress made on the actions so far using the
following categories:
• Not Started: project is carried over from the previous Yellowstone County Plan; little to no work has
been completed.
• In Progress: project is carried over from the previous Yellowstone County Plan; work has begun on
the project and is proceeding.
• Annual: project is carried over from the previous Yellowstone County Plan and is implemented every
year on an ongoing basis.
• New in 2023: The action is new to this plan update; little to no work has been completed.
Table K-26 below lists the mitigation actions for each participating jurisdiction in Yellowstone County. All
jurisdictions have developed mitigation actions for each identified hazard in the HMP.
389
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-57
Table K-26 Mitigation Actions by Hazard and Jurisdiction Summary
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
1
Obtain mobile repeaters for patrol cars to
improve communications to prepare for
and respond to natural hazard events and
transportation accidents.
Dam Failure, Ditch and Drain
Failure, Earthquake,
Flooding, Hazardous
Material Incident, Landslide,
Transportation Accidents,
Wildfire
Yellowstone
County
County Sheriff’s
Office N/A High County General
Funds
Medium-
Term High Not Started
2
Interact with public safety officials and
schools on planning for emergencies to
enhance public awareness and education
on hazard impacts and mitigation.
Dam Failure, Ditch and Drain
Failure, Earthquake,
Flooding, Hazardous
Material Incident, Landslide,
Severe Summer and Winter
Weather, and Wildfire
Hazards,
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
LEPC, School
Resource Officers,
City of Billings
Planning &
Community Services,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
High
County & City
School District
General Funds
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
3
Obtain stationary and/or mobile generators
for critical facilities and emergency shelters
and install hookups during severe weather
events .
Severe Summer and Weather
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
DES, Critical Facility
Owners, City of
Billings
Communication
Center City of Laurel
Fire Department,
Town of Broadview
Town Council
Medium County & State
General Funds
Medium-
Term High Not Started
4
Identify facilities that meet national
standards to serve as emergency shelters
during severe weather events and create
Memorandums of Understanding.
Severe Summer and Winter
Weather
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
DES, American Red
Cross, City of Billings
Planning &
Community Services,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
Medium County & State
General Funds
Medium-
Term High In-Progress
5 Continue to aggressively address hazards
around rural properties, such as flooding Flooding, Wildfire Yellowstone
County
Yellowstone
County Dispatch
County Planning
Department, City of Medium State, County &
City General Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
390
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-58
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
and wildfire. Billings Planning &
Community Services,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
Funds
6
Provide special needs facilities with
guidelines for disaster preparedness,
including pet needs.
Dam Failure, Ditch and
Drain Failure, Earthquake,
Flooding, Hazardous
Material Incident, Landslide,
Transportation Accidents,
Wildfire
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
Special Needs
Facilities, MT Migrant
Worker Council, City
of Billings Planning &
Community Services,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
Medium
County, City, &
General Funds,
Special Needs
Facilities
budgets
Ongoing High Not Started
7
Update growth policies and subdivision
regulations as needed to consider hazard
mitigation.
Dam Failure, Ditch & Drain
Failure, Earthquake,
Flooding, HAZMAT Incident,
Landslide, Transportation
Accidents, Wildfire
Yellowstone
County &
Billings
County Planning
Department
City of Billings
Planning Department High County & City
Staff Resources Ongoing High Not Started
8 Enhance GIS data to better assist with
natural hazard mitigation.
Dam Failure, Ditch and Drain
Failure, Earthquake,
Flooding, Hazardous
Material Incident, Landslide,
Transportation Accidents,
Wildfire
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
County GIS N/A Low County Staff
Resources Ongoing Medium Annual
Implementation
9 City/County emergency communications/
resiliency - current facility is overly exposed
Dam Failure, Earthquake,
Flooding, Hazardous
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
City of Billings
Sheriff’s Office
Yellowstone County
DES, MT DES, MT Very High FEMA HMA
Grants, HMGP, Short-Term High New in 2023
391
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-59
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
to numerous failure points representing
complete failure of 911, public safety
resource dispatching of all city/county
responder agencies. All community
alerting/warning and three dozen city
county state and federal agencies
communications with no viable
consistencies
Materials Incidents,
Landslide, Severe Summer
and Winter Weather, Human
Conflict, Tornadoes and
Windstorms, Transportation
Accidents, Volcanic Ash,
Wildfire, Ditch and Drain
Failure
Broadview,
Laurel
DOJ, State Highway
Patrol
BRIC, Local
Budget
10
Increase immunization rates for vaccine
preventable communicable disease in all
populations.
Communicable Disease
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
RiverStone
Health
Administration
Department
County DES, City of
Billings Planning &
Community Services,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
High
County, City, &
Town General
Funds
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
11 Continue to prevent and control
communicable disease by surveillance. Communicable Disease
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
RiverStone
Health
Administration
Department
County DES, City of
Billings Planning &
Community Services,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
High
County, City, &
Town General
Funds
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
12 Continue to conduct risk-based inspections
of all food service establishments. Communicable Disease
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
RiverStone
Health
Administration
Department
County DES, City of
Billings Planning &
Community Services,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
High
County, City, &
Town General
Funds
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
13 Continue to promote public education on
preventing communicable disease. Communicable Disease
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
RiverStone
Health
Administration
Department
County DES, City of
Billings Planning &
Community Services,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
High
County, City, &
Town General
Funds
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
392
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-60
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
Broadview Town
Council
14
Continue to provide education and/or
training for Health Department staff and
key partners in medical community.
Communicable Disease
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
RiverStone
Health
Administration
Department
County DES, City of
Billings Planning &
Community Services,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
High
County, City, &
Town General
Funds
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
15
Collaborate with community partners to
train and exercise public health emergency
response plans.
Communicable Disease
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
RiverStone
Health
Administration
Department
County DES, City of
Billings Planning &
Community Services,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
High
County, City, &
Town General
Funds
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
16
Collaborate and coordinate with
community partners to review and update
public health emergency response plans
annually.
Communicable Disease
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
RiverStone
Health
Administration
Department
County DES, City of
Billings Planning &
Community Services,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
High
County, City, &
Town General
Funds
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
393
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-61
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
17
Begin multi-hazard public education and
awareness campaign to help residents
understand what hazards are present, how
to prepare, and personal accountability.
Keeping residents informed about natural
hazards and opportunities for mitigating
risks can help protect public health, safety,
and welfare. Special consideration will be
given to meeting the needs of vulnerable
and underserved populations. Planned
activities for this program include hosting
annual briefings on recent advancements in
mitigation strategy, distribute topic specific
brochures and mailers prior to vulnerable
seasons such as promoting Firewise
practices in the spring to help property
owners take preventative action against
summer wildfires, organize storm spotting
course in partnership with local NWS office,
and provide online resources for home
insurance policies and details on flood
insurance/NFIP.
Communicable Disease,
Drought, Flooding, Wildfire,
Severe Summer Weather,
Severe Winter Weather
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
City of Billings
Planning &
Community Services,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
Low
City, and Town
General Funds
and Time
Ongoing High New in 2023
18 Continue to provide end-user training on
email-related threats. Cyber-Attack
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
RiverStone
Health
Administration
Department
County DES, City of
Billings Information
Technology, City of
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
High
County, City, &
Town General
Funds
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
19
Continue to conduct vulnerability
assessment of critical cyber infrastructure
with priorities for enhanced security.
Cyber-Attack
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
& Laurel
Yellowstone
County IT
Department
City & Town IT
Departments High
County, City, &
Town General
Funds
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
20 EOC and Comms backup location. Currently
only have 1 location for EOC and Comms Cyber-Attack Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Yellowstone
County 911
County DES, Elected
Officials, State, City of Very High FEMA HMA
HMGP, BRIC,
Medium-
Term High New in 2023
394
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-62
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
Center equipment in vulnerable location. Broadview,
Laurel
Dispatch Billings
Communication
Center, City of Laurel
Fire Department,
Town of Broadview
Town Council
Grants
21
Participate in dam failure exercises on high
hazard dams, such as Lakeside Dam within
the County and upstream dams like
Yellowtail Dam and Cooney Dam that could
impact Yellowstone County.
Dam Failure
Yellowstone
County, Billings
& Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
City of Billings & City
of Laurel Planning &
Community Services,
Dam Owners,
Lakeside Home
Owners Association,
Bureau of
Reclamation, State
Water Projects
High DES, Local Staff
Time Ongoing Medium Annual
Implementation
22
Create an alternate water supply for the
City of Billings with off stream storage and
water treatment.
Drought City of Billings
City of Billings
Public Works
Department
N/A Medium Billings General
Funds
Medium-
Term High In-Progress
23 Encourage water conservation by domestic,
municipal, and industrial users. Drought
Yellowstone
County, Billings
& Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
City of Billings
Planning &
Community Services,
City of Laurel, &
Billings and Laurel
Public Works
High
Billings & Laurel
City General
Funds, Local
Staff Time
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
24
Address earthquake hazards on older and
historic buildings in the County constructed
before adoption of building code by
conducting an inventory of these buildings
to determine if seismic retrofits are needed
to preserve the integrity of the County’s
historical assets.
Earthquake
Yellowstone
County, City of
Billings, City of
Laurel, Town of
Broadview
Yellowstone
County
Yellowstone County
Planning Division Medium
FEMA HMA
HMGP, BRIC
Funds, General
Funds, Local
Staff Time
Long-Term Low New in 2023
395
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-63
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
25
Locate and re-establish unloader structures
used to divert surge flow throughout the
County and Billings and identify potential
downstream impacts.
Flooding
Yellowstone
County &
Billings
Yellowstone
County DES
Billings Public Works,
BBWA, City of Billings Medium
BBWA & Other
Ditch
Associations,
County & City
General Funds,
USACE Small
Flood Control
Projects, Silver
Jackets
Long-Term High In-Progress
26
Conduct bank stability assessment of BBWA
canal and laterals within the Billings City
limits.
Flooding
Yellowstone
County & City
of Billings
BBWA (no
specific
department)
County DES, City of
Billings Public Works
Flood Administrators
High BBWA General
funds
Medium-
Term High In-Progress
27
Conduct feasibility study to reduce risk of
ditch failure that could impact EOC, City-
County dispatch and both hospitals.
Flooding City of Billings Billings Public
Works N/A High
City General
Funds, HMGP,
BRIC, FMA,
CDBG, Economic
Development
Administration
(EDA) Public
Works Program,
USACE Planning
Assistance to
States (PAS)
Short-Term High In-Progress
28
Encourage BBWA to implement
recommendations of Main Canal Evaluation
Study.
Flooding City of Billings Billings Public
Works
City of Billings
Planning &
Community Services
High
BBWA General
Funds, Local
Staff Time
Long-Term High In-Progress
396
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-64
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
29
Continue to provide outreach to citizens
that dumping of debris on ditch bank or
within ditch can adversely impact the City’s
stormwater system and increase potential
for flooding and cause ditch bank
overflows.
Flooding
Yellowstone
County, Billings
& Laurel
Billings Public
Works
City of Laurel Fire
Department High
Billings & Laurel
City General
Funds
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
30
Continue to implement Stormwater Master
Plan to reduce impacts to private property
from surface water runoff.
Flooding Billings Billings Public
Works N/A Medium
Billings General
Funds, HMGP,
BRIC, FMA,
CDBG, EDA
Public Works
Program, USACE
PA
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
31
Evaluate and replace culverts at street
crossings in Billings. Upgrade and maintain
culverts, bridges, and roads to improve
conveyance of flood water elsewhere in the
County.
Flooding
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
County Road
Department
All Public Works, City
of Billings Public
Works, City of Laurel
Fire Department,
Town of Broadview
Town Council
High
County and City
General Funds,
HMGP, BRIC,
FMA, CDBG,
EDA Public
Works Program,
USACE PA
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
32 Continue community outreach on potential
for flooding. Flooding
Yellowstone
County, Billings
& Laurel
County Road
Department
County Public Works,
City of Billings Public
Works, City of Laurel
Fire Department
High
County and City
General Funds,
FMA,
Community
Assistance
Program (CAP)
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
33
Promote those homeowners in flood-prone
areas purchase flood insurance through
National Flood Insurance Program.
Flooding
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
City of Laurel
Flood
Administrators
City of Billings &
Town of Broadview
Flood Administrators
High
County and City
General Funds,
FMA, CAP
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
34 Study options for mitigating stormwater
runoff from Highway 3 near Billings Airport Flooding Billings Yellowstone
County DES Billings Public Works High DES, Billings
Public Works,
Medium-
Term High Not Started
397
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-65
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
FEMA HMA
FMA
35
Assess flood potential at Zoo Montana
property and address options for managing
zoo animals in the event of a flood.
Flooding Billings Yellowstone
County DES Billings Public Works High
DES, Billings
Public Works,
County and City
General Funds
Long-Term Medium In-Progress
36 Update boundaries of approximate study
areas for future floodplain mapping. Flooding Billings Yellowstone
County DES
County Floodplain
Administrator, DNRC,
City of Billings Public
Works
Medium
DES, County
Floodplain
Administrator,
DNRC
Medium-
Term High Annual
Implementation
37
Construct two small storage features on
Cove and Little Cove Creeks and improve
flood conveyance through the West Billings
area.
Flooding Billings Billings Public
Works N/A Medium
Billings Public
Works, FEMA
HMA FMA
Ongoing High Not Started
38
Review NFIP Repetitive Loss properties in
Yellowstone County and address means to
eliminate or reduce impacts from flooding.
Flooding Yellowstone
County
County
Floodplain
Administrator
Yellowstone County
Public Works,
Yellowstone County
DES, Yellowstone
County GIS, Billings
Public Works, Billings
Floodplain
Administrator, Laurel
Floodplain
Administrator
Medium
County General
Funds,
Floodplain
Administrator,
Local Staff Time
Long-Term Medium Annual
Implementation
39
Strengthen subdivision regulations to
ensure homes are not built where
potentially impacted by flood flows from
dry washes.
Flooding Yellowstone
County
County
Floodplain
Administrator
Yellowstone County
Public Works,
Yellowstone County:
DES & GIS; Billings:
Public Works &
Floodplain Admin;
Laurel Floodplain
Admin, City/County
Planning Department
High
County General
Funds, Local
Staff Time
Medium-
Term Medium Annual
Implementation
40 BBWA Breach - move the ditch. Flooding,
Landslide, Drain and Ditch
Yellowstone
County
Yellowstone
County DES
Billings Public Works,
BBWA Very High FEMA HMA
Grants, FMA
Medium-
Term High New in 2023
398
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-66
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
Failure
41
Rail accident at downtown 27th - spill no
fire, spill with fire, BLEVE Plume access
evacs and test/exercise plan
Hazardous Materials
Incidents
Yellowstone
County, City of
Billings
County DES
Billings Public Works,
National Weather
Service, LEPC, BNSF,
DOT, elected officials
DEQ, EPA, NTSB, FRA
High
FEMA HMA
Grants, County
and City General
Funds
Short-Term High New in 2023
42
Laurel Railyard - spill no fire, spill with fire,
BLEVE Plume access evacs and test/exercise
plan
Hazardous Materials
Incidents
Yellowstone
County, City of
Laurel
County DES
National Weather
Service, LEPC, BNSF,
DOT, elected officials
DEQ, EPA, NTSB, FRA,
Laurel Fire
Department
High
FEMA HMA
Grants, County
and City General
Funds
Short-Term High New in 2023
43
Encourage legislative support for funding
of Billings Regional HAZMAT Response
Team.
Hazardous Materials
Incidents
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
County
Commissioners
County DES, Fire
Departments, City of
Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council, Town of
Billings Public Works
High County & City
General Funds
Medium-
Term High Annual
Implementation
44
Obtain personal protective kits for Laurel
first responders and patrol cars so they can
secure scene before HAZMAT Team arrive.
Hazardous Materials
Incidents City of Laurel Laurel Fire
Department
Billings HAZMAT
Team, LEPC, City of
Laurel Fire
Department
Medium Laurel City
General Funds
Medium-
Term High Annual
Implementation
45
Provide basic and refresher HAZMAT
response training with first responders and
exercise regularly.
Hazardous Materials
Incidents
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
& Laurel
County DES
All Fire Departments,
HAZMAT Team, City
of Laurel Fire
Departments, City of
Billings Public Works
High County & City
General Funds Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
46 Update and maintain resource list of
emergency response supplies and vendors.
Hazardous Materials
Incidents
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County
City of Billings Public
Works, City of Laurel
Fire Department,
Town of Broadview
Town Council
High County General
Funds Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
47 Identify railroad point of contact and
establish protocol to shut down rail traffic
Hazardous Materials
Incidents
Yellowstone
County, Billings, County DES All Fire Departments,
LEPC, Railroads, City High County & City
General Funds, Short-Term High Annual
Implementation
399
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-67
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
when needed. & Laurel of Billings Public
Works, City of Laurel
Fire Department
Local Staff Time
48
Increase participation of local, state and
federal partners, industry, and utilities in
Yellowstone County LEPC.
Hazardous Materials
Incidents
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
LEPC, City of Billings
Public Works, City of
Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
High County General
Funds Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
49 Identify and prioritize intersections that
could be improved to enhance safety.
Hazardous Materials
Incidents
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
& Laurel
County Public
Works
MDT, City of Laurel
Fire Department,
Billings Public Works
High
County & City
General Funds,
Local Staff Time
Short-Term High Annual
Implementation
50
Protect storm drains in industrial areas to
ensure no hazardous materials are released
to the river.
Hazardous Materials
Incidents Laurel Laurel Public
Works N/A Medium City General
Funds Short-Term High In-Progress
51 Continue active shooter preparedness
training. Human Conflict
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
County Law
Enforcement, DHS,
City of Billings Public
Works, City of Laurel
Fire Department,
Town of Broadview
Town Council
High
County & City
General Funds,
DHS
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
52
Coordinate state/federal agencies and
private industry on potential threats that
may target critical facilities or large events.
Human Conflict
Yellowstone
County &
Billings
Yellowstone
County LEPC
DHS, MT Dept. of
Justice, MATIC, FBI,
Private Industry, City
of Billings Public
Works
Medium
County & City
General Funds,
State & Federal
Partners, Private
Industry
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
400
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-68
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
53
Continue physical hardening of critical
facilities and schools (i.e. anti-vehicle
barricades / interior barricades for locking
doors [door kicks, door stops] / perimeter
fencing / controlled access gates).
Human Conflict
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
DES, Law
Enforcement, Building
Departments, City of
Billings Public Works,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
Medium
County &
City/Town
General Funds,
Homeland
Security Grant
Program
(HSGP), Transit
Security Grant
Program (TSGP),
Buffer Zone
Protection
Program (BZPP),
Infrastructure
Security and
Resilience (ISR)
Grant Program,
Department of
Defense (DoD)
Defense Critical
Infrastructure
Program (DCIP),
U.S. Department
of Education's
Project SERV
(School
Emergency
Response to
Violence)
Ongoing High Not Started
401
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-69
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
54
Raise level of awareness on what public can
do to prevent and /or mitigate threat of
lone gunman/active shooter incident
(report suspicious or unusual behavior,
stop-the-bleed training, etc.)
Human Conflict
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
& Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
DHS, Chamber of
Commerce, MT
Migrant Worker
Council, City of
Billings Public Works,
City of Laurel Fire
Department
High County General
Funds, DHS Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
55
Conduct comprehensive vulnerability
assessment of critical facilities with
priorities for enhanced security.
Human Conflict
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
& Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
DES, DHS, Law
Enforcement, City and
County Building
Departments, City of
Billings Public Works,
City of Laurel Fire
Department
High
County and
City/Town
General Funds,
DHS SHSGP
Medium-
Term High Annual
Implementation
56
Review Crisis Action Plans in all schools and
hospitals to ensure adequate security
measures are in place.
Human Conflict
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County School
Resource
Officers
DES, Hospitals, City of
Billings Public Works,
City of Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
Medium
County and
City/Town
General Funds,
Hospitals
Ongoing High Not Started
57 Identify, preserve, and stabilize rock fall
prone areas Landslide
Yellowstone
County &
Billings
Yellowstone
County DES Billings Public Works Medium
County and City
General Funds,
FEMA HMA
HMGP
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
402
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-70
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
58
On older structures as needed, install 3-mil
window film on windows of schools and
critical facilities to prevent shattering.
Severe Summer and Winter
Weather
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County School
Districts
City of Billings Public
Works, City of Laurel
Fire Department,
Town of Broadview
Town Council
High
School District
Funding, USDA
Community
Facilities Direct
Loan & Grant
Program, HUD
Community
Development
Block Grant
Mitigation
(CDBG-MIT)
Ongoing Medium Not Started
59
Continue community outreach on
preparation and safety during severe
storms and tornadoes.
Severe Summer and Winter
Weather
Yellowstone
County
Yellowstone
County DES
City of Billings
Planning, City of
Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
High County
Resources, NWS Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
60
Encourage community partners to
participate in NWS Weather Ready Nation
Ambassador program.
Severe Summer and Winter
Weather
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
LEPC, City of Billings
Planning, City of
Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
High County General
Funds Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
61
Encourage utility companies to bury electric
and communication lines in hazard prone
areas.
Severe Summer Weather,
Tornadoes & Windstorms
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County
Commissioners
LEPC, City of Billings
Planning, City of
Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
Medium County General
Funds Ongoing High Not Started
403
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-71
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
62
Encourage development of tornado safe
rooms in schools, including Broadview
Elementary.
Severe Summer Weather,
Tornadoes & Windstorms
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
LEPC, School Districts,
City of Billings
Planning, City of
Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
Medium
School District
Funding, , FEMA
HMA
HMGPHMGP,
BRIC, CDBG,
USDA Rural
Development
Community
Facilities
Programs,
CDBG-MIT
Medium-
Term Medium Not Started
63
Continue to maintain NWS StormReady
status for Yellowstone County and City of
Billings and enhance communications and
support with the City of Laurel.
Severe Summer and Winter
Weather, Tornadoes &
Windstorms
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
& Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
City of Billings
Planning, City of
Laurel Planning
High
NWS, County
Resources,
Billings & Laurel
General Funds
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
64 Conduct wildland fire mapping to identify
high-risk areas Wildfire Yellowstone
County
Yellowstone
County DES
Yellowstone County
DES & GIS, BLM,
DNRC, Southern Land
Office
High
County General
Funds, DNRC
Fire Suppression
Fund, BLM Fuels
Management
Program
Short-Term High Not Started
65 Provide timely messaging on wildfire
smoke to protect vulnerable populations. Wildfire
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
NWS, City of Billings
Planning, City of
Laurel Planning, Town
of Broadview Town
Council
High County General
Funds Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
66
Continue grants programs to support
hazardous fuel assessments and cost-share
opportunities for landowners to create
defensible space in the WUI.
Wildfire
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
BLM, DNRC, City of
Billings Planning, City
of Laurel Planning,
Town of Broadview
Town Council
High
NFIC Rural Fire
Assistance
Grant, USDA
Community Fire
Protection
Program, USDA
National Fire
Plan, USDA
Forest Service’s
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
404
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-72
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
Community
Wildfire Defense
Grant (CWDG),
USDA NRCS
Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program (EQIP)
67 Update Yellowstone County Community
Wildfire Protection Plan. Wildfire
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
Fire Council, City of
Billings Planning, City
of Laurel Planning,
Town of Broadview
Town Council
High
FEMA Grant, MT
DES, DNRC Fire
Suppression
Fund
Medium-
Term High Not Started
68
Continue community outreach on FireWise
building practices in the wildland urban
interface.
Wildfire
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
Fire Council, City of
Billings Planning, City
of Laurel Planning,
Town of Broadview
Town Council
High
County General
Funds, Local
Staff Time
Short-Term High In-Progress
69
Promote and encourage individual fire
departments to implement a FireWise
program that will create fire adapted
communities throughout the County.
Wildfire
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
Fire Council, DNRC,
City of Billings
Planning, City of
Laurel Planning, Town
of Broadview Town
Council
High County & City
General Funds Ongoing High Not Started
70
Continue pushing out information on Red
Flag Warnings for broadcast when
conditions exist.
Wildfire
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
NWS, City of Billings
Planning, City of
Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
High
NWS, County
General Funds,
staff time
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
71
Explore whether subdivision regulations
could be strengthened to require
defensible space and construction with fire-
proof materials.
Wildfire
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
& Laurel
Yellowstone
County Planning
Department
City of Billings & City
of Laurel Planning
Departments
Medium County & City
General Funds Ongoing High Not Started
405
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
Page K-73
ID Action Name & Description Hazards Mitigated Jurisdictions Lead Agency Partner Agencies Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding Timeline Priority
Status &
Implementation
Notes
72 Continually improve fire agency training
and infrastructure Wildfire
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Fire Council
County DES, City of
Billings Planning
Department, City of
Laurel Fire
Department, Town of
Broadview Town
Council
High
County & City
General Funds,
Local Staff Time
Ongoing High Annual
Implementation
73
Install HVAC systems that meet air quality
system specifications for high dust and ash
filtration at all designated County
emergency shelters to mitigate volcanic ash
risk
Volcanic Ash
Yellowstone
County, Billings,
Broadview,
Laurel
Yellowstone
County DES
County DES, City of
Billings Council, Laurel
Fire Department,
Town of Broadview
Town Council
Medium FEMA HMA
HMGP Grants Long-Term Low New in 2023
NOTES: Acronyms for lead agency, partners, and funding are defined below:
BBWA – Billings Bench Water Association
BLM – Bureau of Land Management
BNSF – BNSF Railway
BRIC – Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program
BZPP – Buffer Zone Protection Program
CAP – Community Assistance Program
CDBG-MIT – HUD Community Development Block Grant Mitigation
COAD – Community Organizations Active in Disaster
DCIP – Department of Defense (DoD) Defense Critical Infrastructure Program
DEQ – Department of Environmental Quality
DES – Department of Emergency Services
DHS – Department of Health Services
DPHHS - Department of Public Health and Human Services
DOT – Department of Transportation
EDA – Economic Development Administration
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
EQIP – Environmental Quality Incentives Program
FMA – Flood Mitigation Assistance
FRA – Federal Railroad Administration
HMA – Hazard Mitigation Assistance
HMGP – Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
HSGP – Homeland Security Grant Program
ISR – Infrastructure Security and Resilience Grant Programs
LEPC – Local Emergency Planning Committee
MT DNRC - Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
NRCS – USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
NTSB – National Transportation Safety Board
NWS - National Weather Service
PAS – Planning Assistance to States
Project SERV – U.S. Department of Education's Project School Emergency Response to Violence
TSGP – Transit Security Grant Program
USACE – US Army Corps of Engineers
USDA – U.S. Department of Agriculture
USACE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
406
Page K-74
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
K.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance
Moving forward the Yellowstone County CPT will use the mitigation action table in the previous section to
track progress on implementation of each project. Implementation of the plan overall is discussed in
Chapter 6 of the base plan.
K.7.1 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
Yellowstone County and the City of Billings have made significant strides in integrating their previous
mitigation plan into their respective planning mechanisms. The County Public Works Department recently
updated the Flood Emergency Response Plan to address water and sewer system operations more
effectively. The department also oversees the stormwater management program, guided by the
Stormwater Management Manual, which is mandated for subdivision infrastructure and site development.
This manual provides a framework to mitigate stormwater runoff from new development and
redevelopment, aligning with the broader goals of the mitigation plan.
The growth policies for Billings and Yellowstone County reflect the unique needs and priorities of each
area. These policies evaluate various elements, such as housing, the economy, community facilities, local
services, and natural resources. Despite their differences, these growth policies are designed to be
complementary and can function synergistically with other adopted community plans. Although they are
not regulatory and do not exclusively dictate planning, their integration with the mitigation plan enhances
their effectiveness and ensures that risk management and mitigation objectives are woven into the fabric
of local development strategies.
When the opportunity arises, each jurisdiction will follow the process outlined in Section 6.3.3 of the
Eastern Region Base Plan to integrate information from the HMP into planning mechanisms. The process
for incorporation of the Regional HMP into other planning mechanisms by each jurisdiction can be as
simple as cross-referencing the Hazard Mitigation Plan where applicable or including data, goals, or
actions from the HMP in these mechanisms. Mitigation projects associated with wildfire can be integrate
into the future version of the County’s community wildfire protection plan. The Cities of Billings and Laurel
and Town of Broadwater each utilize growth or zoning policies to guide development. Findings from the
hazard profiles can be incorporated into future revisions of these policies to ensure limited or appropriate
growth in high-hazard areas. The CPT will collaborate with the staff responsible for these plans or
programs.
Additional opportunities for integration for each jurisdiction are listed below.
Yellowstone County:
• Yellowstone County Growth Policy, 2008
• Yellowstone County Floodplain Regulations, 2017
• Yellowstone County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2006
• Yellowstone County Dept. of Emergency & General Services, Capabilities Assessment and Strategic
Improvement Plan, FY2023-2028
• Yellowstone County Emergency Operations Plan, 2019
• Yellowstone County Emergency Resource Information, 2016
407
Page K-75
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
City of Billings:
• Groundwater Model and Background Data, West Billings Flood Mitigation and Groundwater
Recharge Study (PBS&J, 2010)
• City of Billings Growth Policy, 2016
• City of Billings Subdivision Regulations, 2015
• City of Billings Zoning Regulations
• Billings Heights Neighborhood Plan, 2006
• Central Terry Park Neighborhood Plan, 1999
• Highland Neighborhood Lockwood Community Plan, 2006
• Lockwood Growth Policy, 2016
• North Elevation Neighborhood Plan, 1994
• North Park Neighborhood Plan, 2008
• Northwest Shiloh Neighborhood Plan, 2005
• Shepherd Community Action Plan
• South Billings Master Plan, 2012
• Southside Neighborhood Plan, 2008
• West Billings Plan, 2001
• City of Billings Strategic, 2014
• City of Billings Capital Improvement Plan, FY 2020 to FY 2024
• Billings Urban Area Transportation Improvement Program, 2015-2019
• Billings water/Wastewater Master Plan, 2006
• Billings Long-Range Transportation Plan, 2014
City of Laurel:
• City of Laurel Growth Management Plan, 2013
Town of Broadview:
• Town of Broadview Zoning Regulations
The CPT noted that creating a regional hazard mitigation plan will offer insights into the hazards and
challenges faced by surrounding counties, aiding in the revision of current plans and the development of
future exercises and drills. It will also enhance understanding of how hazards in neighboring counties can
impact each jurisdiction, allowing for more effective and efficient planning and response.
K.7.2 Monitoring, Evaluation and Updating the Plan
Yellowstone County will follow the procedures to review and update this plan in accordance with Eastern
Montana Region as outlined in Chapter 6 of the Regional Plan. The County and municipalities realize that
it is important to review and update this plan regularly and update it on a five-year cycle. The Yellowstone
County Annex to the Eastern Montana Region HMP will be evaluated on a regular basis to determine the
effectiveness of programs, and to reflect changes in land development or programs that may affect
mitigation priorities.
K.7.3 Continued Public Involvement
Yellowstone County, along with Billings, Laurel, and Broadview, is committed to involving the public in the
review and updates of the MJHMP. The CPT and DES office will review and update the plan annually or as
needed. Public feedback will be encouraged, with copies of the plan available at the Yellowstone County
DES office, Clerk and Recorder's office, and Billings Public Library. The Plan and proposed changes will
also be posted on the Yellowstone County website, which will provide contact information for submitting
408
Page K-76
Eastern Montana Region Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annex K: Yellowstone County
comments and concerns. Public meetings will be held at least twice a year to discuss the plan, offering a
forum for expressing opinions and ideas. The DES Director will ensure these meetings are well-publicized
through the County website, newspapers, and other media outlets to maintain public involvement. The
County will also make efforts during plan implementation to increase the participation of underserved
communities by holding public meetings in convenient and familiar locations. The County will also
consider transportation options and meeting times that better accommodate different schedules, such as
evening and weekend meetings.
409
File Attachments for Item:
4. Clerk/Treasurer: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Authorizing The Mayor To
Execute An Independent Contractor Service Contract With Fisher’s Technology.
410
R25-__ Approve Independent Contractor Service Contract by and between the City of Laurel and Fisher’s
Technology
RESOLUTION NO. R25-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SERVICE CONTRACT WITH
FISHER’S TECHNOLOGY.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana,
Section 1: Approval. The Independent Contractor Service Contract by and between
the City of Laurel (hereinafter “the City”) and Fisher’s Technology, a copy attached hereto and
incorporated herein, is hereby approved.
Section 2: Execution. The Mayor is hereby given authority to execute the Independent
Contractor Service Contract with Fischer’s Technology on behalf of the City.
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ____ day of
____________________, 2025, by Council Member ______.
PASSED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel on the ____ day
of ____________________, 2025.
APPROVED by the Mayor on the ____ day of ____________________, 2025.
CITY OF LAUREL
___________________________
Dave Waggoner, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kelly Strecker, Clerk-Treasurer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Michele L. Braukmann, Civil City Attorney
411
Page 1 of 5
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SERVICE CONTRACT
This Contract is made and entered into this 11th day of March, 2025, between the City of Laurel,
a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Montana whose address
is P.O. Box 10, Laurel, Montana 59044, hereinafter referred to as “City” and Fisher’s Technology, a
contractor licensed to conduct business in the State of Montana, whose address is 575 E. 42nd St., Boise,
ID 83714, hereinafter referred to as “Contractor”.
SECTION ONE
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
A. Purpose. City shall hire Contractor as an independent contractor to perform for City the services
described in the attached Invoice, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and by this reference made part of this
contract.
B. Effective Date. This contract is effective upon the date of its execution by both Parties. Contractor
shall complete the services within 60 days of commencing work. The parties may extend the term of
this contract in writing prior to its termination for good cause.
C. Scope of Work. Contractor shall perform his/her work and provide services in accordance with the
specifications and requirements of this contract, any applicable Montana Public Work Standard(s) and
Exhibit “A”.
SECTION TWO
CONTRACT PRICE
Payment. City shall pay Contractor monthly for the work described in Exhibit A. Any alteration or
deviation form the described work that involves extra costs must be executed only upon written request
by the City to Contractor and will become an extra charge over and above the contract amount. The
parties must agree to extra payments or charges in writing. Prior to final payment, Contractor shall
provide City with an invoice for all charges.
SECTION THREE
CITY’S RESPONSIBILITIES
Upon completion of the contract and acceptance of the work, City shall pay Contractor the contract
price, plus or minus any additions or deductions agreed upon between the parties in accordance with
Sections one and two, if any.
SECTION FOUR
CONTRACTOR’S WARRANTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Independent Contractor Status. The parties agree that Contractor is an independent contractor for
purposes of this contract and is not to be considered an employee of the City for any purpose hereunder.
Contractor is not subject to the terms and provisions of the City’s personnel policies or handbook and
shall not be considered a City employee for workers’ compensation or any other purpose. Contractor
is not authorized to represent the City or otherwise bind the City in any dealings, agreements or su b-
contracts in any dealings between Contractor and any third parties. The City is interested solely in the
412
Page 2 of 5
results of this contract. Contractor is solely responsible for all work and work product under this
contract, including techniques, sequences, procedures, and means. Contractor shall supervise and direct
the work to the best of his/her ability.
B. Wages and Employment. Contractor shall abide by all applicable State of Montana Rules,
Regulations and/or Statutes in regards to prevailing wages and employment requirements. Contractor
shall comply with the applicable requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Contractor shall
maintain workers’ compensation coverage for all members and employees of his/her business, except
for those members who are exempted as independent contractors under the provisions of §39-71-401,
MCA. Contractor understands that all contractors or subcontractors working on publicly funded
projects are required to have withheld from earnings a license fee of one percent (1%) of the gross
contract price if the gross contract price is Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or more. This license fee is
paid to the Montana Department of Revenue pursuant to Montana law.
C. Unless otherwise specified by the terms of this Agreement, all m aterials and equipment used by
Contractor on the Construction Project shall be new and where not otherwise specified, of the most
suitable grade for their intended uses.
D. All workmanship and materials shall be of a kind and nature acceptable to the City.
E. All equipment, materials, and labor provided to, on, or for the Contract must be free of defects and
nonconformities in design, materials, and workmanship for a minimum period beginning with the
commencement of the work and ending one (1) year from completion and final acceptance by the City.
Upon receipt of City’s written notice of a defective or nonconforming condition during the warranty
period, Contractor shall take all actions, including redesign and replacement, to correct the defective or
nonconforming condition within a time frame acceptable to the City and at no additional cost to the
City. Contractor shall also, at its sole cost, perform any tests required by City to verify that such
defective or nonconforming condition has been corrected. Contractor warrants the corrective action
taken against defective and nonconforming conditions for a period of an additional one (1) year from
the date of City’s acceptance of the corrective action.
F. Contractor and its sureties are liable for the satisfaction and full performance of all warranties.
G. Contractor has examined the facilities and/or has made field examinations. Contractor has
knowledge of the services or project sought under this Contract and he/she further understands the site
conditions to be encountered during the performance of this Contract. Contractor has knowledge of the
types and character of equipment necessary for the work, the types of materials needed and the sources
of such materials, and the condition of the local labor market.
H. Contractor is responsible for the safety of the work and shall maintain all lights, guards, signs,
temporary passages, or other protections necessary for that purpose at all times.
I. All work is performed at Contractor’s risk, and Contractor shall promptly repair or replace all damage
and loss at its sole cost and expense regardless of the reason or cause of the damage or loss; provided,
however, should the damage or loss be caused by an intentional or negligent act of the City, the risk of
such loss shall be placed on the City.
J. Contractor is responsible for any loss or damage to materials, tools, work product or other articles
413
Page 3 of 5
used or held for use in the completion or performance of the Contract.
K. Title to all work, work product, materials and equipment covered by any payment of Contractor’s
compensation by City, whether directly incorporated into the Contract or not, passes to City at the time
of payment, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances.
SECTION FIVE
INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
Contractor shall indemnify, defend and save City, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any
and all losses, damage and liability occasioned by, growing out of, or in any way arising or resulting
from any intentional or negligent act on the part of Contractor or its agents or employees.
SECTION SIX
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Contractor shall comply with all federal, state, local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. Contractor
shall either possess a City business license or shall purchase one, if a City Code requires a business
license.
SECTION SEVEN
NONDISCRIMINATION
Contractor agrees that any hiring of persons as a result of this contract must be on the basis of merit and
qualification and further that Contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed,
political ideas, sex, age, marital status, physical or mental disability or national origin.
SECTION EIGHT
DEFAULT
If either party fails to comply with any term or condition of this Contract at the time or in the manner
provided for, the other party may, at its option, terminate this Contract and be released from all
obligations if the default is not cured within ten (10) days after written notice is provided to the
defaulting party. Said notice shall set forth the items to be cured. Additionally, the non-defaulting party
may bring suit for damages, specific performance, and any other remedy provided by law except for
punitive damages. The Parties hereby waive their respective claims for punitive damages. These
remedies are cumulative and not exclusive. Use of one remedy does not preclude use of the others.
Notices shall be provided in writing and hand-delivered or mailed to the parties at the addresses set
forth in the first paragraph of this Contract.
SECTION NINE
TERMINATION
Either party may terminate the contract for their convenience upon thirty days written notice sent
postage prepaid, to the addresses provided herein.
414
Page 4 of 5
SECTION TEN
GOVERNING LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The Parties agree that the laws of the State of Montana govern this Contract. The Parties agree that
venue is proper within the Courts of Yellowstone County, Montana. If a dispute arises, the Parties,
through a representative(s) with full authority to settle a dispute, shall meet and attempt to negotiate a
resolution of the dispute in good faith no later than ten business days after the dispute arises. If
negotiations fail, the Parties may utilize a third-party mediator and equally share the costs of the
mediator or file suit.
SECTION ELEVEN
ATTORNEY FEES
If any action is filed in relation to this agreement, the unsuccessful party in the action shall pay to the
successful party, in addition to all sums that either is ordered to pay, a reasonable sum for the successful
party’s attorney’s fees and all costs charges and expenses related to the action.
SECTION TWELVE
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This contract and its referenced attachment and Exhibit A contain the entire agreement and
understanding of the parties and supersede any and all prior negotiations or understandings relating to
this project. This contract shall not be modified, amended, or changed in any respect except through a
written document signed by each party’s authorized respective agents.
SECTION THIRTEENTH
ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS
The rights of each party under this Contract are personal to that party and may not be assigned or
transferred to any other person, firm, corporation, or other entity without the prior, express, and written
consent of the other party.
SECTION FOURTEEN
SEVERABILITY
Each provision, section, or subsection of this Contract shall stand separate and independent of every
other. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction shall find any provision, section, or subsection
of this contract to be invalid, the remaining provisions, sections, and subsections of this contract shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION FIFTEEN
PARAGRAPH HEADINGS
The titles to the paragraphs of this contract are solely for the convenience of the parties and shall not be
used to explain, simplify, or aid in the interpretation of the provisions of this agreement.
415
5 of 5
SIGNED AND AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES ON THE 11th DAY OF MARCH 2025.
CITY OF LAUREL CONTRACTOR
___________________________________ __________________________
Dave Waggoner, Mayor Fisher’s Technology
ATTEST: Employer Identification Number
___________________________________ __________________________
Kelly Strecker, Clerk/Treasurer
416
417
418
419