UPDATE TO THE STATE OF MONTANA PDM PLAN
STAKEHOLDER MEETING
Date: Thursday, April 19, 2007
Time : 12:30 pm – 4:30 pm
Place: Fort Harrison, Montana
Meeting Attendance:
Dave Biggar, Flathead Electric Coop
Ed Mahlum, Flathead Electric Coop
Don Contraman, American Red Cross
Mike Stickney, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
Kurt Baltrusch, MUCC (Utility One Call)
Laurence Siroky, MT DNRC, Chief WOB
John Q. Grainger, MT Dept. Livestock, BE Admin
Joe Triem, MT Dept. Admin, Architecture & Engineering Div. - Planning Manager
Bill Henne, MT Lottery, Criminal Investigation
Aric Curtiss, MT Risk Management and Tort Defense
Walt Timmerman, MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Paul Spengler, Lewis & Clark Co. DES Coordinator
Chuck Lee, Fallon Co. DES Coordinator
Carole Raymond, Rosebud Co. DES Coordinator
Cheri Kilby, Fergus Co. DES Coordinator
Candy Loehding, Carter Co. DES Coordinator
Belinda Van Nurden, Park Co. DES Coordinator
Gary Macdonald, Roosevelt County Commissioner
Lars A. Allestad, Hill County Electric, Safety Officer
Don Prevost, General Manager of Lower Yellowstone Rural Electric Co-op
Steve Knecht, Montana DES, Operations Chief
Rob Rankin, State DCI
Art Robinson, DNRC - Dam Safety
Millie Bowman, DNRC - Map Mod Coordinator
Butch Renders, Richland County DES Coordinator
Tom Gocksch, MT Dept. Transportation
Steve Mantinka, MT National Guard
Don Gillespie, MT National Guard
Nan Johnson, Mitigation Division, Region 8, FEMA
Tom Ellerhoff, MT Dept. Environmental Quality
Dan Reilly, National Weather Service
Pat McKelvey, Lewis & Clark Deputy DES Coordinator
Art Bicsak, MT Dept. Public Health and Human Services
Ron Zellar, MT Dept. Agriculture, PIO/Projects
Mary Hill, Judith Basin Co. DES Coordinator
Paula Rosenthall, Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation
Sean O’Callaghan, Gallatin Co. Floodplain Coordinator
Kent Atwood, State of Montana – DES

Larry Akers, Contractor
Daphne Digrindakis, Contractor
Fred Gifford, Contractor
Mary Bell, Contractor
Lynn Peterson, Contractor
Nan Johnson (Mitigation Division, Region 8, FEMA) on State and Local Plans:
Montana has a good State Plan but FEMA is hoping the state will build on the first plan.
Local plans are also good. Lewis and Clark Co. noted that their local plan is good because they did it themselves. However, it was noted that when the plan was run through the crosswalk, it didn’t meet all the crosswalk criteria so the county fixed this problem. It was also wondered how many plans interact with all the other plans?
Ms. Johnson noted that project impact was mentioned but the PDMC has no identification. Mitigation has to be the major cornerstone of emergency management instead of response and recovery. This is seen from the federal level down to the local level. An example of this is the Forest Service budget. A total of 47% of the budget was spent on firefighting near the WUI. Will next year be 50%? Mitigation must be moved to the forefront.
State buildings, facilities and infrastructure need to be included in the State and
University plans. The map mod plan must be addressed in the State plan along with a discussion of hazards.
Kent Atwood (Montana DES) on a Review of PDM Meetings:
In 2000, the state had only six approved plans. Today, 42 local plans have been approved.
Another meeting is scheduled after Labor Day to review the State plan.
Mr. Atwood asked if the ten hazards addressed in the 2004 State Plan are still relevant today.
Dan Reilly suggested that straight line winds may need to be added to the top hazards list.
Currently, winds are lumped with winter and summer storms.
Discussion also focused on the livestock industry as a possible hazard. It was noted that a livestock truck from Canada tipped over recently. This was a non stop quarantine truck headed for feed lots in other states.
Paul Spengler felt that the 10 hazards were appropriate and that it would be too much to take on additional hazards.

Pandemic flu and biological hazards were also mentioned as possible threats. However, these hazards probably concern preparedness rather than mitigation. For instance, the
Health Dept. has plans for pandemic flu and biological hazards. Each jurisdiction is responsible for their planning. Biological and agricultural terrorism need to be separated out as different from mitigatable hazards (natural hazards and hazardous material incidents). Discussion also focused on hazards that could cause complete loss of IT systems, like earthquakes, terrorism and violence, hacking and other human interference.
These hazards would be funded by other sources, not FEMA mitigation programs.
It was wondered if there is any redundancy in Local Emergency Plans for each county.
The consensus was negative as most counties are very involved in the PDM plans.
Discussion returned to the topic of human diseases and pandemics. It was noted that the primary agency for this hazard is the Dept. of Public Health and Human Services.
However, many participants felt that communicable disease is relevant as a hazard and should be included in the State Plan. It was pointed out that FEMA does not consider communicable disease as a mitigatable hazard; however, this hazard can be in the State
Plan if people want it there.
A question arose on why man-made hazards should be addressed if they are not FEMA eligible. It was noted that if a man-made hazard is a direct or indirect result from a natural hazard, a mitigation project for the man-made hazard may get funded. Again, it was noted that non-mitigatable hazards may be included in the State Plan because people want them included. Additionally, projects should be identified in local or state plans in order to apply for funding. Other possible hazards mentioned include fire ants and killer bees. These hazards can be included as long as they can be proved with a benefit cost analysis in an application.
Guest Speaker Mike Stickney (Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology) on
Earthquakes:
A total of 27,000 earthquakes have been recorded in Montana. There are 45 active or potentially active faults in the state; most have not been studied in detail. The National
Seismic hazard map is the Montana basis for building codes. National Seismic map uses peak acceleration figures (%g) which participants found confusing. Mr. Stickney noted that the probabilistic seismic hazard map is like a rain forecast, it predicts how much rain
(or strength of shaking) you might get. Helena has a 10% chance of experiencing 15%g of shaking in any 50-year period. The average human can detect ground acceleration of
1% g. A total of 1g shaking equals total destruction of any city. The 1930s Helena earthquake was 13%g acceleration. As part of dam safety, any earthquake that has 0.5%g shaking results in an automatic inspection of dam facilities.
Mr. Stickney also discussed the July 2005 Dillon earthquake (15%g) which occurred on a non-mapped, blind fault. The USGS records earthquake range with a “did you feel it?” map. Earthquakes can cause cracks in the ground which can affect underground utilities.
The Dillon quake did not cause liquefaction of soils. The largest aftershock was 4.2

magnitude on the Richter scale. A very large area continued to experience small aftershocks; this area expanded with time. Aftershocks continued through October 2005 and daily/weekly shocks continue through today. Participants wondered if there was a way to tell if an event is an aftershock or a pre-shock. Mr. Stickney replied that the answer is complex and related to temporary or permanent groundwater shifts.
Since the first State PDM Plan, Montana has more seismograph network sensors on line.
Two stations were added above Big Sandy and near Red Lodge. These record real time data. Between May 2004 and Sept. 2006, a total of 4357 earthquakes were recorded; three of these were 4.6 magnitude or larger. Between 1880 and the present, Montana has experienced many earthquakes that are larger than 5.0. Earthquakes with a magnitude 6.0 or larger occurred every 10 years from 1920 to 1960. Currently, we may be in an earthquake “drought”.
Mr. Stickney noted that changes have occurred in the county population chart from 1960-
2000. Most of the counties gaining population are in the seismic zones.
The Iron Gulch Fault Escarpment Investigation in the Scratchgravel Hills of northwest
Helena Valley was discussed. The investigation concluded the escarpment is the result of a flood deposit, not a fault zone.
It was suggested that the State PDM Plan update include SP 117 data. The State Hazard
Mitigation Officer has this data and will forward to Tetra Tech, Inc.
Participants also discussed the Yellowstone Caldera. Mr. Stickney explained that there is no imminent danger from the caldera. The bulging bottom of the lake bed is probably old structures. Humans have not witnessed the really big events that occur every 600,000 years. It is likely that we would see more activity in the normal volcanic channels or more traditional earthquake events before we would see a caldera type event.
Ms. Digrindakis suggested that participants think about mitigation projects for earthquakes. The Montana Dept. of Transportation noted that the agency is pursing four bridge mitigation projects as wells I-15 corridor projects already on the books.
Guest Speaker Dan Reilly (National Weather Service) on Severe Weather Hazards:
Mr. Reilly presented national statistics on Montana injuries and fatalities due to weather hazards from 1950 to 2006. Wind is the greatest source of injuries (n=42). Reports by month from 1980 to 2005 for hail, high wind and tornadoes indicate peak activity in June,
July and August. Thunderstorm flash density is most common in south/southeast
Montana. For severe weather fatalities, Montana is in the top five for the nation between
1997 and 2006. Tornadoes reported, F0 or greater, have occurred from 1950-2003. The southeast portion of the state may be under reported for tornadoes. Hail reports from
1950-2003 cite very strong wind events, >75 mph. A wind gust of 118 mph occurred at
Heart Butte near the Blackfeet Reservation.

Flooding and the possibility of dam failure were briefly mentioned. Concerning severe winter weather, Montana ranks fifth in the nation for avalanche fatalities. Montana has experienced drought cycles since 1900 (based on annual departure from mean stream flow of the Missouri River).
Mr. Reilly also discussed the connection between wildfire and drought and the need to mitigate the impacts of these hazards.
Participants asked about the protocols for issuing heavy snow warnings. Warnings are issued with 6” of snow in the valleys and 12” in the mountains.
Guest Speaker Paula Rosenthall (Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation) on
Wildfire in Montana:
DNRC data indicates the 2005 fire season experienced 478 fires that burned 477,000 acres. The total cost was $60 million and the net cost was $35 million. There were three
FEMA assist incidents (FMAG). The first fire occurred on Jan. 8th and the last fire occurred on Nov. 22nd. The busiest day was August 10 th
when 28 new fires were reported.
Ms. Rosenthall discussed fire in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). This is a safety issue for the public and private citizens. Critical infrastructure is also at risk. According to the Jan. 2007 Cost Report, 39% of DNRC fire protection occurs in the WUI, but 66% of all fires occurred in these areas. WUI fires cost 46% more to suppress than non WUI fires. Large fires (over 10 acres) account for less than 5% of wildland fires but account for over 89% of total firefighting cost.
Mitigation projects include private properties fuels mitigation assistance program and supertreating the slash of logging near WUI areas mandated by DNRC to up to 90% removal.
The PDM/CWPP planning is ongoing with the BLM and DNRC as participants. It was questioned if the National Fire Plan is in decline? Ms. Rosenthall noted that it is still fluctuating but appears to be ongoing. Local jurisdictions can apply. The DNRC would like to tap into FEMA PDM funds for mitigation. The agency would like FEMA to allow the DNRC to apply for PDMC on behalf of a group of counties or jurisdictions. The
Benefit Cost Analysis is too cumbersome and the definitive nature of specific locations is too difficult. The required latitude/longitude coordinates is driving people away from utilizing PDMC grants. Other funding sources are easier to apply for.
Fire in the WUI will only get worse. Development pressure is intense in the middle of the forest. There were 42,000 new residents in Montana last year.
It was noted that the insurance industry and environmental groups should have attended the meeting as a stakeholders. Other agencies with land management responsibilities in
Montana that should have been at the Stakeholders Meeting include the Forest Service,

the BLM, and the National Park Service. It was also noted that the Tribes were not in attendance. Some of these groups were invited but did not come.
Guest Speaker Sean O’Callaghan (Gallatin Co. Floodplain Coordinator) on
Flooding:
Flood hazards are not well mapped as this is an insurmountable task. Funding dollars are given out based on population and there is no match in Montana. The state of Montana experiences more ice jams than any other state in the nation. This is largely due to the
Yellowstone and Milk rivers. Montana has experienced more rapid snowmelt in recent years which may be related to global warming. Rain on snow events, coupled with undersized storm drains or culverts, cause nuisance flooding across the state. Rapid snowmelt may be a more significant threat of flooding due to climate change.
Mitigation concerns include an aging infrastructure that when replaced, should ensure a minimum of 2-ft. of freeboard for a 100-year flood event. The same criterion should be applied to culverts. Additionally, pre-existing dikes and levees haven’t been well maintained and this issue needs to be resolved as most of these structures do not meet current FEMA standards. Flood maps are changing due to this non-certification; Miles
City is one example and there are other cities as well. Mr. O’Callaghan noted that levees actually raise elevation of the 100-year flood and channelize flood waters which increase downstream flood hazards. Additionally, bank stabilization projects with hard armoring increases velocities of water with detrimental downstream effects.
It was noted that the Association of Montana Floodplain Administrators should stay involved with updating the PDM Plan and the new president, Laura Hendrix, should be invited to the next meeting.
The flood discussion concluded with the observation that when flooding occurs, the local
Floodplain Administrators should be notified in addition to the DES coordinators and local responders. Potential mitigation projects include additional floodplain mapping and the relocation of residences outside the floodplains.
Daphne Digrindakis (Tetra Tech, Inc.) on Review of Hazard Risk Maps:
Drought: Central and eastern Montana appear to be more at risk from this hazard.
Earthquake: Flathead County, rated at medium risk, was thought to be too high.
However, it was noted that it is up to the local LEPC to change their risk rating. Mike
Stickney observed that Lake and Missoula counties could be upgraded from medium to high risk.
Flood: This includes dam failure.
Hazardous Material Incident: Counties were rated as high risk if they are located near the
Canadian border or have universities or interstate routes.

Landslide: It was noted that Beaverhead and Madison counties are at high risk for this hazard. However, this hazard was not assessed by these counties. The Montana Bureau of Mines has a landslide map for Montana that can be used to verify and improve hazard ratings.
Terrorism and Violence: Gallatin County called and requested that their risk be upgraded to high based on a document to follow. It was also suggested that Missoula (medium risk) and Lewis & Clark (not assessed) counties might upgrade their risk.
Severe Thunderstorm, Hail, Wind and Tornado: Majority of counties are rated high risk.
Volcanic Eruption: All counties are rated low risk or not assessed.
Wildfire: All counties are rated as high risk except Mineral and Silver Bow. However,
Mineral County requested an upgrade to high and Pat McKelvey noted that Silver Bow should also be high risk based on the condition of the county forests.
Winterstorms: Majority of counties are rated high risk.
2004 Mitigation Goals:
It was noted that mitigation goals should be eligible for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Competitive (PDMC) program.
State Plan Update Exercises:
In the first exercise, participants were asked to rank each goal from 1 to 8 (with 1 the highest priority). Rankings were totaled with the following results:
1.
Maximize the use of mitigation actions that prevent losses from all hazards.
2.
Reduce the community impacts of wildland and rangeland fires.
3.
Increase State’s capability to provide mitigation opportunities.
4.
Mitigate the potential loss of life and property from flooding.
5.
Reduce potential earthquake losses in western Montana.
6.
Minimize economic impacts of drought.
7.
Reduce impacts from severe winter weather.
8.
Encourage mitigation of potentially devastating but historically less frequent hazard.
In a second exercise, participants were asked to rank each mitigation objective from the
State Plan as high, medium or low priority.
In a third exercise, participants were asked to list any new goals or objectives they would like to see included in the State Plan update. It was noted that floodplain ordinances need to be added and enforced.