RESOLUTION NUMBER 7660
A RESOLUTION OF THE MISSOULA CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT A PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE WHICH WILL GUIDE THE CITY IN MAKING DECISIONS FOR PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PROJECTS AND ALLOW THE CITY TO BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE FEDERAL PRE- AND POST-DISASTER MITIGATION FUNDS.
WHEREAS, all citizens and property within the City of Missoula are at risk from a wide range of hazards, such as, but not limited to, flooding, earthquakes, winter storms, wind and thunderstorms, wildfire, landslides, and volcanic hazards, and;
WHEREAS, the Missoula City Council recognizes that mitigation is the most cost effective way to manage the potential consequences of disasters, and;
WHEREAS, a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan will guide the City in making decisions for pre-disaster mitigation projects, and;
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency requires local jurisdictions to have an approved Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan to be eligible for federal pre- or post-disaster mitigation monies, and;
WHEREAS, the 2004 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan was prepared in accordance with guidance provided by FEMA under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, and;
WHEREAS, the 2004 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan provides the background and essentials for evaluating risks and exposures to hazards, and;
WHEREAS, this 2011 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update has been prepared according to "Local Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance" (FEMA, 2008) and adds to the 2004 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Missoula, Montana hereby adopts, the Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan Update dated August, 2011.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 2011
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/ Martha L. Rehbein /s/ John Engen Martha L. Rehbein, CMC John Engen City Clerk Mayor
(SEAL).
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN 2011 UPDATE
MISSOULA COUNTY CITY OF MISSOULA
August 2011
Prepared for:
Missoula County and City of Missoula 201 West Broadway 435 Ryman Missoula, Montana 59802 Missoula, Montana 59802
Prepared by:
Atkins 1120 Cedar Street Missoula, Montana 59802
Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Resolution for Plan Update Adoption Missoula County
i Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Resolution for Plan Update Adoption City of Missoula
ii Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
TABLE OF CONTENTS Resolution for Plan Adoption Missoula County ...... i City of Missoula ...... ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Area Location ...... 1-1 1.2 Local Economy ...... 1-2 1.3 Land Use Trends ...... 1-2 1.4 Scope and Plan Organization ...... 1-4
2.0 PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 2-1 2.1 Local Emergency Planning Committee (LECP) ...... 2-1 2.2 Public Meetings ...... 2-1
3.0 INVENTORY OF COMMUNITY ASSETS ...... 3-1 3.1 Critical Facilities ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Essential Facilities ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Lifeline Utility Systems ...... 3-2 3.1.3 Transportation Systems ...... 3-3 3.1.4 Hazardous Material Facilities ...... 3-3 3.1.5 Other Essential Buildings & Facilities ...... 3-4 3.2 Building Structures and Improvements ...... 3-4 3.3 Population ...... 3-5 3.3.1 Total Population ...... 3-5
4.0 MISSOULA COUNTY HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 4-1 4.1 Overview ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Hazard Assessment Methodology ...... 4-1 4.2 Earthquakes ...... 4-2 4.2.1 Background ...... 4-2 4.2.2 Magnitude/Frequency ...... 4-4 4.2.3 Loss Estimation ...... 4-5 4.3 Flooding ...... 4-6 4.3.1 Flooding – Regional and Flash ...... 4-6 4.3.1.1 Participation in the Flood Insurance Program ...... 4-7 4.3.1.2 Magnitude/Frequency ...... 4-7 4.3.1.3 Loss Estimate ...... 4-11 4.3.2 Flooding – Ice Jams ...... 4-13 4.3.2.1 Magnitude/Frequency ...... 4-13 4.3.2.2 Loss Estimate ...... 4-15 4.3.3 Flooding - Dam Failure ...... 4-15 4.3.3.1 Dams within Missoula County ...... 4-15 4.3.3.2 Dams Upstream from Missoula County ...... 4-17 4.3.3.3 Inundation Maps ...... 4-18 4.3.3.4 Loss Estimate ...... 4-19 4.4 Landslide ...... 4-20 4.4.1 Magnitude/Frequency ...... 4-20 4.4.1.1 Landslides after Forest Fires ...... 4-20 4.4.1.2 Other Landslides in Missoula County ...... 4-21 4.4.2 Loss Estimate ...... 4-21
iii Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
4.5 Volcano ...... 4-22 4.5.1 Magnitude/Frequency ...... 4-23 4.5.2 Loss Estimate ...... 4-25 4.6 Weather (Storms and Wind) ...... 4-25 4.6.1 Severe Thunderstorms ...... 4-25 4.6.1.1 Magnitude/Frequency ...... 4-25 4.6.1.2 Loss Estimate ...... 4-26 4.6.2 Winter Storms and Cold Spells ...... 4-27 4.6.2.1 Magnitude/Frequency ...... 4-27 4.6.2.2 Loss Estimate ...... 4-27 4.7 Wildfire ...... 4-28 4.7.1 Magnitude/Frequency ...... 4-28 4.7.2 Loss Estimate ...... 4-32 4.8 Other Hazards ...... 4-32 4.9 Loss Summary ...... 4-33
5.0 MITIGATION STRATEGY ...... 5-1 5.1 Hazard Prioritization ...... 5-1 5.2 Progress on Completed Mitigation Actions ...... 5-1 5.3 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ...... 5-4 5.4 PDM Project Ranking ...... 5-5
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION & PLAN MAINTENANCE ...... 6-1 6.1 Implementation Plan ...... 6-1 6.2 Plan Maintenance Procedures ...... 6-2
7.0 REFERENCES ...... 7-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 - Essential Facilities in Missoula County Table 3-2 - Lifeline Utility Systems in Missoula County Table 3-3 - Hazardous Material Facilities in Missoula County Table 3-4 - Summary of Building Stock, Missoula County Table 3-5 - Select Demographic Characteristics by Census Designated Place Table 4-1 - Missoula County Hazards Table 4-2 - Missoula County Quaternary-age Faults Table 4-3 - Earthquake Zones in Missoula County Table 4-4 - Losses from Simulated 5.0m Earthquake near Seeley Lake (in thous$) Table 4-5 - NFIP Insurance in Force and Claims Table 4-6 - Missoula County Floods Table 4-7 - Loss Estimate for 100-year Flood on Preliminary DFIRM Mapped Floodplain Table 4-8 - Ice Jams in Missoula County Table 4-9 - Dams within Missoula County Table 4-10 - Dams Upstream from Missoula County Table 4-11 - Dams with Mapped Inundation Areas Affecting Missoula County Table 4-12 - Landslides on the Lolo National Forest in Missoula County Table 4-13 - Historic Volcanic Ash Events Affecting Montana Table 4-14 - Active and Potentially Active Volcanoes in the United States Table 4-15 - Summary of Wind, Thunderstorms, Hail Weather Events
iv Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 4-16 - Winter Storm Events Table 4-17 - Exposure and Estimated Losses from Wildfire Table 4-18 - Summary of Potential Losses – Missoula County Table 5-1 - Hazard Prioritization Table 5-2 - Mitigation Actions and Summary of Actions Completed or Not Completed Table 5-3 - PDM Project Ranking Format Table 5-4 - PDM Project Ranking Table 6-1 - Implementation Plan for Missoula County and City of Missoula
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 - Vicinity Map Figure 4-1 - Intermountain Seismic Belt Figure 4-2 - Earthquake Epicenters Figure 4-3 - Mapped Floodplains, High Hazard Dams, Vulnerable Bridges Figure 4-4 - Crown Fire Potential
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Meeting Attendance Appendix B – Public Meeting Notices Appendix C – Summary of Comments at Public Meetings Appendix D – Crosswalk
v Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Missoula County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan (PDM) Update was prepared for Missoula County and the City of Missoula updating the PDM Plan of 2004. Pre-Disaster mitigation planning is a tool for assessing and prioritizing projects for mitigating damage and casualties from natural disasters. It helps communities focus on the actual risks from hazards by profiling each potential threat and comparing the relative risks between hazards. A thorough profile of hazard history, economic and structural losses, injury and casualties, and the potential for hazards to occur again are analyzed for each hazard. The goal of the Plan is to assess the relative risks and then have an objective analysis of projects that can most cost-effectively reduce or eliminate risks and their threat to infrastructure, structures, and the population.
The Plan Update is intended to review progress made on the previous PDM plan, update the risk assessment to natural and man-caused hazards, and outline a new mitigation strategy for Missoula County and the City of Missoula. This Plan Update assesses the risks from natural hazards including earthquake, flooding, extreme storms, wildfire, and landslides.
The 2004 PDM Plan was prepared in accordance with local PDM guidance provided by FEMA under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The 2004 PDM Plan provides the background and essentials for evaluating risks and exposures to hazards. This Plan Update has been prepared according to "Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance" (FEMA, 2008) and adds to the 2004 PDM Plan. The Plan Update is a dynamic plan reflecting the current risks to the communities and a roadmap for reducing hazard exposure in the future. In addition, successful completion of the Plan Update will allow the County and City of Missoula to qualify for pre- disaster and post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds available through FEMA.
1.1 Project Area Location
Missoula County covers approximately 2,600 square miles in the western part of Montana (see Figure 1-1). The County includes five large valleys and three major rivers that wind through this mountainous region. Missoula County has a population of over 100,000 people with the County seat located in the City of Missoula. The City of Missoula is the only incorporated town or city in Missoula County; the Board of County Commissioners govern all areas outside the corporate limits of the city. Both Lolo and Seeley Lake have Community Councils that make recommendations about their communities to the County Commissioners.
Missoula County’s mountainous terrain has concentrated development in the major valleys and along stream and river corridors, following historic patterns of settlement. Rivers are important assets in semi-arid environments, as community growth and prosperity are critically tied to the availability of water. The City of Missoula’s central business district is built on the banks of the Clark Fork River and residential and commercial development has radiated throughout the large valley bottoms. Some development has migrated up stream and river valleys where there is available level ground and abundant water. Other communities in Missoula County, Lolo, Bonner, Frenchtown, Clinton, and Seeley Lake, have shown similar patterns of development.
Page 1-1 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
As homeowners seek more seclusion, residential development has encroached into mountainous areas where water is not as abundant and lands are more forested. This pattern of development has resulted in greater extension of government services to these areas. It also places a greater demand on fire protection services because more structures are infringing on previously wildland/forested areas. Commercial, governmental, and industrial growth remains in the valleys where there is developed infrastructure and ready access.
1.2 Local Economy
Historically, Missoula County has had a diverse economy balanced on wood products industry, retail trade, and government services. Based on 2007-2009 labor income statistics, the Missoula area economy is based on trade (retail and medical), government services, transportation/utilities, and wood and paper industries (BBER, 2010). Recent reductions in jobs dedicated to the wood products have significantly reduced the percentage of these jobs and as a result the Missoula County economy is less diverse than it has been in the last 40 years (BBER, 2010). The three straight years of no growth or declines (2008 to 2010) is Missoula’s worst economic performance since the early 1980s. The bad news was not solely due to the recession, the Missoula economy was lagging behind the rest of the state since mid-2004. It will be at least mid-2011 before Missoula’s real nonfarm labor income (an overall measure of the economy) regains its 2007 peak (BBER, 2010).
Total personal income for 2008 in Missoula County was $3.78 billion and per capita personal income was $35,108 (BEA, 2010). This represents a 57% increase in total personal income since 2000 and 40% increase in per capita personal income for that period. Total personal income growth in Missoula County was on par with rest of the state (58%), but the county's growth in per capita personal income was less than Montana's (47.5%) but greater than the average across the United States (32.5%) (BEA, 2010).
1.3 Land Use Trends
The Urban Fringe Development Area (UFDA) Project Update (2010) estimates a 1- 2% average annual growth rate for the Missoula urban area. As a result the Missoula Urban Service Area (URSA) will have to accommodate approximately 15,000 new dwelling units within the next 20 to 30 years. Current trends show much of the residential development occurring in the west side of the Missoula Valley (OPG, 2010).
Page 1-2 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Page 1-3 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
1.4 Scope and Plan Organization
The purpose of the Missoula County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan is to reduce or eliminate the loss of life and property damage resulting from natural and human-caused hazards. The process for Plan development is outlined below:
1. Planning Process: Identifies methods in compiling the hazard profiles and integration of the public into the development of the Plan. Provides background on the County and its communities and includes an assessment of the current and future development in the County. 2. Inventory of Assets: The Plan inventories the assets of the community including the population, critical facilities, hazardous material facilities, utility and transportation infrastructure, and building stock. 3. Hazard Profile & Hazard Assessment: Identifies the characteristics and potential consequences of hazards. Where feasible, FEMA models and loss tables are applied to calculate potential losses to vulnerable populations and structures within hazard zones. For most hazards, historic data provides a means to make a qualitative assessment of losses. 4. Mitigation Plan: Develops priorities to mitigate hazards and identifies strategies and projects for mitigation.
The PDM Update is being prepared through the Missoula County Office of Emergency Management (OEM). Bob Reid and Chris Lounsbury, OEM Director, coordinated the plan development; the PDM Update was drafted by Charlie Vandam, Atkins (formerly PBS&J), of Missoula, Montana.
Page 1-4 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
2.0 PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The planning process used in updating this Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan attempts to maximize community input and identify a wide variety of informational resources. The development of the Missoula County PDM Plan Update began with meetings with members of the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) whose specific interest and knowledge are in disaster prevention, mitigation, planning and response. The Draft PDM Plan Update was presented to the LEPC and the general public meeting on December 1, 2010 in Missoula. Input from the public meetings was integrated into a Draft Final PDM Plan. The planning process is presented in greater detail below:
2.1 Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC)
The Missoula County LEPC includes individuals representing Missoula County and the City of Missoula and private entities working in disaster mitigation, emergency management, local government administration, healthcare, transportation, and utilities. An introduction to the PDM Plan Update was first presented to the LEPC on January 12, 2010, and update on progress on the plan was presented on April 13, 2010. The purpose of the two meetings was:
1. Explain the purpose of PDM planning and the role of the LEPC; 2. Identify the hazards to include in the Plan; 3. Identify existing plans and documents that demonstrate ongoing disaster mitigation work; and, 4. Identify existing resources documenting hazard occurrence throughout the County.
Attendance and meeting notes of the initial Stakeholders Group meeting are included in Appendix A.
2.2 Public Meetings
One public meeting discussed the development of the Draft PDM Plan Update, further refined mitigation goals, and identified potential mitigation projects. A press release was issued to media outlets on November 23, 2010. The public meeting was held in conjunction with the Board of County Commissioners meeting and was advertised accordingly. Attendance for these meetings is listed in Appendix A.
The public meetings discussed the results of the hazard assessment and asked attendees about specific projects for mitigation. The outcome of these meetings is presented in Section 5.0, Mitigation Plan.
Page 2-1 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
3.0 INVENTORY OF COMMUNITY ASSETS
Community assets include the population, and the buildings and infrastructure that are important to maintaining a healthy and functional community. The inventory of these assets provides a basis for assessing potential losses from a disaster. Losses could be in the form of loss of life, actual structure damage, damage to critical infrastructure, business loss, or losses to key government functions and operations.
The inventory identifies critical facilities, including essential facilities (hospitals, police and fire stations, and emergency operations centers), lifeline utilities (water, sewer and power supplies), transportation systems (airports, roads, and rail facilities), and, hazardous material facilities (major facilities storing or transporting hazardous materials). It includes a summary of building stock and its value. The inventory also describes the population and population characteristics.
3.1 Critical Facilities
3.1.1 Essential Facilities
Essential Facilities are those buildings and infrastructure that are essential to the health and welfare of the whole population and are especially important following hazard events. The potential consequences of losing them are so great, that they must be carefully inventoried. As shown in Table 3-1, essential facilities include hospitals, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers and evacuation shelters, and schools.
In Missoula County, essential medical facilities include the two major regional hospitals that operate in the City of Missoula: St. Patrick Hospital and Community Medical Center. Fire response agencies include both the Missoula Fire Department, Missoula Rural Fire Department and many volunteer fire districts across the County. Law and order agencies include the Missoula Police Department for the City of Missoula and the Missoula County Sheriff for all incorporated areas. The Montana Highway Patrol is responsible for managing highway traffic safety on state highways. The Disaster & Emergency Services office is located in the Missoula County Courthouse.
Page 3-1 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 3-1 Essential Facilities in Missoula County Type of Essential Facility Name of Facility Location Note Community Medical Missoula 133 beds Hospitals Center St. Patrick Hospital Missoula 213 beds, Level II Trauma Center Missoula Fire Jurisdiction: Incorporated Areas of the Missoula Department City of Missoula Jurisdiction: Unincorporated Areas of Missoula Rural Fire Missoula West Missoula valley, Lolo, Miller Creek, Department Grant Creek, Milltown, Bonner, Turah Jurisdiction: Clinton, Rock Creek, Clark Clinton Rural Fire Clinton Fork Valley East Condon Rural Fire Condon Fire East Missoula Rural East Missoula Jurisdiction: East Missoula Fire Frenchtown Rural Jurisdiction: Frenchtown, Evaro, Huson, Frenchtown Fire Nine Mile, Petty Creek Greenough-Potomac Jurisdiction: Potomac, Greenough, Clearwater Junction Rural Fire Clearwater Junction Seeley Lake Rural Jurisdiction: Seeley Lake, Placid Lake, Seeley Lake Fire Clearwater River valley Missoula Police Jurisdiction: Incorporated Areas of the Missoula City Hall Department City of Missoula Missoula County Missoula County Jurisdiction: Unincorporated Areas outside Police/Sheriff Sheriff Courthouse of the City of Missoula Montana Highway Missoula Jurisdiction: State Highways Patrol Emergency Missoula County 911 Operations, Disaster & Emergency
Operations Courthouse Services National Guard Emergency Shelters Missoula Emergency Shelter Armory
3.1.2 Lifeline Utility Systems
These include utilities for potable water, wastewater, electricity, and communication systems. Table 3-2 describes the major utility systems by category in Missoula County.
Table 3-2 Lifeline Utility Systems in Missoula County Population Type of Utility Utility System Location Served Note Mountain Water Company City of Missoula 56,335 groundwater El Mar Estates West of Missoula 1,345 groundwater El Mar RV/MH Village Missoula 850 groundwater Water (over 500 Lolo Water & Sewer District Lolo 2,250 groundwater persons) Seeley Lake Water District Seeley Lake 900 surface water Travois Village Mobile Park Missoula 705 groundwater Westview Mobile Home Park Missoula 1005 groundwater City of Missoula Missoula 55,000 Wastewater Lolo Lolo 2,250 Northwestern Energy Electricity Missoula Elec Coop Missoula, Frenchtown, Qwest Lolo, Communications Clinton, Condon, Potomac, Blackfoot Telephone Coop Seeley Lake
Page 3-2 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
3.1.3 Transportation Systems
Transportation systems include all airports, highways and railway systems that are critical in maintaining the health and safety of the population during a disaster. They are crucial for bringing necessary supplies and transporting response vehicles.
Missoula County is served by the Missoula International Airport in Missoula. There are several highway routes through the County, including Federal Interstate 90, and State Highways 83 and 93 (north-south), and Highways 12 and 200 (east-west). An interstate rail system runs east-west through the County and is owned and maintained by Montana Rail Link.
3.1.4 Hazardous Material Facilities
There are over 60 facilities in Missoula County that report the storage and use of hazardous materials to the Missoula LEPC and the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) as required under federal Environmental Planning and Community Right to Know Act. The reporting threshold is 10,000 pounds for hazardous materials and typically 500 pounds for extremely hazardous materials. There is also a major petroleum pipeline and numerous natural gas mains that run throughout the County. In addition, rail and highway routes are used to transport hazardous materials. Listed below in Table 3-3 are the major petroleum storage, chemical manufacturing, and pipelines in the County and approximate quantities and type of materials stored or transported.
Page 3-3 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 3-3 Hazardous Material Facilities in Missoula County Approx. Quantity Hazardous Materials (millions of gallons Facility Facility type Stored/Handled per year) Conoco Petroleum Terminal Bulk storage Petroleum products >1m gallons Thatcher Chemical Chemical Wholesaler Chlorine, Acids, Caustics Varies Hexion Specialty Chemicals Glue manufacturing Formaldehyde, Phenols, Acids >1m gallons Wood products Roseberg Forest products Formaldehyde, Lead manufacturing Yellowstone Pipeline Pipeline transport Petroleum products NW Energy Pipeline Pipeline transport Natural Gas Cenex Propane Storage Propane Amerigas Propane Storage Propane Montana Rail Link Rail transport Various Products
3.1.5 Other Essential Buildings & Facilities
Other government/non-governmental buildings that are essential to public functions include schools, public shelters, banking institutions, grocery stores, hardware stores, gas stations, and public health assistance centers. Those facilities within high hazard zones will need to be identified for possible mitigation measures.
3.2 Building Structures and Improvements
The value of property and structures identifies the amount of exposure to particular hazards. Table 3-4 shows a breakdown of total properties and total value based on state assessment values (MDOR, 2010). Throughout Missoula County there is an estimated $7.5 billion of structural improvements, where an estimated 69% of the value is within residential structures. Including the University of Montana's $1b in building value (Corti, 2010), there is an estimated $8.5 billion structure investment county wide. The increase in assessed improvement value from 2003 to 2010 of commercial properties was an average of 60% and for residential properties the average was 38%.
Table 3-4 Summary of Building Stock, Missoula County Property # of Improvement Type Properties % $ % Property $ % Total $ % Agricultural 3,469 6.4% 48,693,856 0.6% 308,167,776 5.9% 356,861,632 2.8% Commercial 4,324 8.0% 1,965,329,603 26.1% 776,800,894 15.0% 2,742,130,497 21.5% Industrial 43 0.1% 124,912,430 1.7% 15,441,606 0.3% 140,354,036 1.1% Residential 37,989 70.3% 5,156,306,597 68.4% 3,324,568,327 64.1% 8,480,874,924 66.6% Exempt 3,365 6.2% 194,426,114 2.6% 247,038,994 4.8% 441,465,108 3.5% Vacant 4,253 7.9% 5,460,348 0.1% 427,658,137 8.2% 433,118,485 3.4% Other 620 1.1% 47,801,512 0.6% 84,209,610 1.6% 132,011,122 1.0% TOTAL 54,063 7,542,930,460 5,183,885,344 12,726,815,804 Source: Montana Department of Revenue Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal database, 2010.
Page 3-4 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
3.3 Population
3.3.1 Total Population
Missoula County and City of Missoula had a 2009 estimated population of 108,623 and 68,876 respectively, based on the US Census Bureau population forecasts. The forecasts are only projected at the county level and there are no forecasts at the county subdivision levels. The following table shows a summary of the County and City population estimates compared to 2000 population, housing, and income data for the County and census designated places.
Table 3-5 Select Demographic Characteristics by Census Designated Place Median Total Total % Housing Household Census Designated Population: Population: Population Households: units: Income in Places (CDP) Total Median age Over 65 Total Total Dollars Missoula County (2009) 108623* 33.0 10.5% na 46,317 43,260 Missoula City (2009) 68876* na na na na na Missoula County (2000) 95802 33.2 10.0 38,439 41,319 34,454 Bonner-West Riverside 1693 32.2 8.2 690 723 32,557 CDP(2000) East Missoula CDP 2070 36 10.7 795 828 27,094 (2000) Evaro CDP, (2000) 329 30.6 4.6 110 117 36,250 Frenchtown CDP(2000) 883 33.6 5.3 291 302 46,094 Lolo CDP, (2000) 3388 31.7 6.8 1218 1263 43,846 Missoula city(2000) 57053 30.3 10.4 24141 25225 30,366 Orchard Homes CDP 5199 39.5 12.6 2034 2091 40,240 (2000) Seeley Lake CDP (2000) 1436 41.2 11.8 589 938 35,101 *2009 estimates , source: US Census Bureau, 2010
Page 3-5 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
4.0 MISSOULA COUNTY HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT
4.1 Overview
4.1.1 Hazard Assessment Methodology
The hazard assessment is intended to inventory both the past occurrence and the future potential of where damages and casualties can occur from natural hazards. Natural hazards were identified and profiled through several different means. For some hazards, such as wind and hail storms, there is documentation of events and losses that can suggest trends and the likelihood of recurrence. For flooding potential, the floodplains are mapped and identify the potential areas for future occurrence. For earthquakes, models are developed to estimate the shaking from a possible earthquake and the resulting damages from the earthquake. The intent of using various methods is to assess the possible damage that can be expected by a hazard event and compare the relative risk and losses between hazards.
The hazards considered in detail for this Plan (in alphabetical order) are listed in Table 4-1. The level of detail for each hazard is based on the priorities established by the Mitigation Planning Committee (see meeting notes in file) and is limited on the amount of data available.
Table 4-1 Missoula County Hazards Hazard Background Sources Loss Estimation Methods Montana Bureau of Geology and Mines HAZUS®MH Earthquake model HAZUS®MH Earthquake model Earthquake USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project Montana CAMA Data USGS National Earthquake Information Center No Repetitive Loss Data State MDES State MDES Missoula County DES Loss Estimate in Mapped Missoula County Office of Planning & Grants Floodplains Flooding FEMA FEMA Flood Loss Estimation Tables National Weather Service Historic Losses National Climatic Data Center Repetitive Loss Data Available COE Cold Climate Research & Engineering Lab State MDES Qualitative Loss Estimate from East Flooding - Dam Montana Department of Natural Resource Fork Rock Creek Breach and Failure National Inventory of Dams Inundation Area Missoula County DES No Repetitive Loss Data Landslide History USGS National Study Landslide Landslide Prone areas USDA Forest Service Land System Inventory No Repetitive Loss Data State MDES Historic Losses Volcano Cascades Volcano Observatory (USGS, 2003) No Repetitive Loss Data State MDES National Climatic Data Center SHELDUS data and trends from Weather (Storms National Weather Service historic losses and Wind) Western Regional Climate Center No Repetitive Loss Data SHELDUS Missoula County Community Wildfire protection Montana CAMA data Wildfire Plan Historic Wildfire Losses Seeley-Swan Community Wildfire Protection Plan No Repetitive Loss Data
Page 4-1 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
4.2 Earthquakes
An earthquake is ground shaking and radiated seismic energy caused most commonly by a sudden slip on a fault, volcanic or magmatic activity, or other sudden stress changes in the earth. An earthquake of magnitude 8 or larger on the Richter scale is termed a great earthquake. Fortunately, Montana has not experienced a great earthquake by this definition over the past 100 years; however, that is not to say that one is not possible, nor that one of a lesser magnitude could not cause significant damages.
4.2.1 Background
. Magnitude and intensity are used to describe seismic activity from earthquakes. . Magnitude (M) is a measure of the total energy released. Each earthquake has one magnitude, usually measured on the Richter scale. . Intensity (I) is used to describe the effects of the earthquake at a particular place. Intensity differs throughout the area and is given a value on the Modified Mercalli Scale. . 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 cause fires. . Scientists continue to study faults in Montana to determine future earthquake potential. Faults are cracks in the earth’s crust along which movement occurs. . Thousands of faults have been mapped in Montana, but scientists think only about 95 of these have been active in the past 1.6 million years (the Quaternary Period). . Although it has been over four decades since the last destructive earthquake in Montana, small earthquakes are common in the region, occurring at an average rate of 7-10 earthquakes per day. . The largest earthquake in Montana, the 1959 Hebgen Lake event, caused more than $11 million in damage and 28 people died from the landslide it generated. . The second most-damaging earthquakes were the October 1935 Helena earthquakes, which caused more than $4 million in damage.
(Sources: Stickney, 2000, Qamar 1983)
Figure 4-1: Intermountain Seismic Belt. A belt of seismicity known as the Intermountain Seismic Belt extends through western Montana, from the Flathead Lake region in the northwest corner of the state to the Yellowstone National Park region.
Source: Stickney et al, 2000.
Page 4-2 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Page 4-3 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
4.2.2 Magnitude/Frequency
Earthquakes can strike communities without warning and damage buildings and infrastructure on a large scale. Missoula County is considered to be a region of low seismicity and therefore has a low earthquake hazard (Qamar, 1983). According to Mike Stickney of the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (Stickney, 2003), Missoula County is west of the main part of the Intermountain Seismic Belt and is thus devoid of larger historical quakes (earthquakes greater than 5.5 in magnitude on the Richter Scale).
The Quaternary-age faults in Missoula County are listed in Table 4-2. The “most recent earthquake” column on Table 4-2 approximates the date of the last surface-rupturing earthquake in thousands of years (ka) or millions of years (Ma). None of the faults listed in Table 4-2 have had earthquakes greater than magnitude 5.5 in historic times.
Table 4-2 Missoula County Quaternary-age Faults Most Recent Slip Rate Total Length Fault Name Earthquake (mm/yr) (km) Ninemile Fault <1.6 Ma 0.2 (?) 70.1* Bitterroot Fault <1.6 Ma 0.2 (?) 98.4* Jocko Fault 130 ka 0.2 (?) 15.8 Swan Fault <1.6 Ma 0.2 (?) 155.9* *Total length extends outside County boundary Source: Stickney and others, 2000.
Seismic activity within Missoula County in historic times has been limited to earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or less (ANSS, 2003). Earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 or greater have been recorded along the Ninemile Fault and Swan Fault. Two earthquakes of 5.0 magnitude occurred near Seeley Lake in 1947 and 1950 along the Swan Fault. This fault extends north of the County boundary and was the source of a 5.7 magnitude Flathead County earthquake in 1952. Between 1974 and 1976 there were scattered small earthquakes along the Ninemile Divide northwest of Missoula. According to Qamar (1983), these small quakes northwest of Missoula may be caused by the Ninemile Fault, which probably extends southwest to Missoula along the Clark Fork River (Figure 4-2). Since the epicenters lie west of the fault, this interpretation would require that the fault plane have a significant southwest dip.
The Jocko and Bitterroot Faults have had a notable lack of earthquake activity and the Bitterroot Fault is considered aseismic (Qamar, 1983).
The US Geological Survey’s National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (USGS, 2010) has created peak ground acceleration maps. The maps, including the one for Missoula County (Figure 4-2), shows the strength of seismic shaking that has a 10% probability of being exceeded in a 50 year period (0.2% annual probability). The strength of the shaking is measured as a percent of the acceleration of gravity (%g). The acceleration ranges shown correspond approximately to seismic zones on the International conference of Building Official’s seismic zonation map of the United States. The earthquake zones listed in Table 4-3 and shown on Figure 4-2 indicate that the southwestern half of Missoula County (south and east of Greenough,
Page 4-4 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Montana) is at less risk from earthquake damage than the northeastern half (southern Seeley- Swan Valley and Mission Mountains).
Table 4-3 Earthquake Zones in Missoula County Percentage of the Zone Location within Missoula County Acceleration of Gravity South and west of Greenough, Montana (including Missoula, Lolo and Zone 1 7.5 - 15% g the Ninemile Valley) North of Greenough, Montana (including the southern Seeley-Swan Zone 2a 15 - 20% g Valley) Northwest of Condon, Montana (including the eastern portion of the Zone 2b 20 - 30% g Mission Mountains) Source: Stickney et al, 2000.
4.2.3 Loss Estimation
Loss estimation from earthquake hazards required simulating a potential earthquake and calculating losses through the FEMA HAZUS®MH Earthquake model. The model’s loss estimation software calculates structure losses, economic loss, and potential injury or death. The earthquake simulation and loss estimate was based on default data in the HAZUS®MH Earthquake model and no user specific data was incorporated into the model to develop a refined loss estimate.
Atkins simulated a 5.0 magnitude earthquake at Seeley Lake to estimate earthquake damages. Estimated losses are expected to be $2.32m allowing for structural, content and business inventory loss, and income related losses (see Table 4-4). The losses all occur in the Clearwater and upper Blackfoot River areas. Because of the previous occurrence of two 5.0 earthquakes in the last 100 years, frequency is estimated at 1/50 years and annualized losses are estimated to be approximately $46,500.
Table 4-4 Losses from Simulated 5.0m Earthquake near Seeley Lake (in thous$) Structural Damage Non- Structural Damage Building Damage Content Damage Business Inventory Loss Relocation Cost Income Loss Rental Income Loss Wage Loss Total Loss Residential $187.16 $944.46 $1,131.62 $321.18 $0.00 $109.12 $3.30 $36.49 $7.61 $1,609.32 Commercial $50.51 $114.22 $164.73 $64.79 $2.80 $43.64 $48.79 $32.32 $47.54 $404.62 Industrial $17.55 $70.38 $87.94 $49.20 $15.53 $7.10 $3.21 $1.67 $5.36 $170.00 Agriculture $6.46 $5.59 $12.06 $4.67 $0.94 $1.25 $0.11 $0.03 $0.04 $19.10 Religion $5.98 $21.37 $27.34 $12.43 $0.00 $7.18 $0.63 $0.70 $1.50 $49.78 Government $1.11 $4.50 $5.61 $3.02 $0.00 $1.61 $0.03 $0.55 $2.29 $13.11 Education $6.90 $22.02 $28.92 $13.95 $0.00 $8.95 $0.79 $0.52 $1.89 $55.00 Totals $275.67 $1,182.54 $1,458.22 $469.24 $19.27 $178.85 $56.86 $72.28 $66.23 $2,320.93
Page 4-5 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
4.3 Flooding
During the 20th century, floods were the number-one natural disaster in the United States in terms of the number of lives lost and property damage (USGS, 2000). Floods are the result of a multitude of naturally occurring and human-induced factors, but they all can be defined as the accumulation of too much water in too little time in a specific area.
Flood plains are lands bordering rivers and streams that normally are dry but are covered with water during floods. Buildings or other structures placed in flood plains can be damaged by floods. They also can change the pattern of water flow and increase flooding and flood damage on adjacent property by blocking the flow of water and increasing the width, depth, or velocity of flood waters (FEMA, 2003).
The USGS (2000) offers the following facts about floods:
Most flood-related deaths are due to flash floods. Fifty percent of all flash-flood fatalities are vehicle related. Most homeowner insurance policies do not cover floodwater damage. Individuals and business owners can protect themselves from property losses by purchasing flood insurance through FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program.
Types of floods include regional floods, flash floods, ice-jam floods, storm-surge floods, dam- and levee-failure floods, and debris, landslide, and mudflow floods. Judging from historic flood patterns, Missoula County has the greatest potential for damage from regional, flash, ice jam, and dam-failure floods. Each of these types of flooding is described below.
4.3.1 Flooding – Regional and Flash
Flooding along the Clark Fork, Bitterroot, and Blackfoot Rivers and numerous other creeks and streams within Missoula County have caused property damage during historic times. Flash floods have the potential to occur, especially after a wildfire. The following descriptions and illustrations of regional and flash floods were provided by the USGS (2000).
Regional Floods: Some regional floods occur seasonally when winter or spring rains coupled with melting snow fill river basins with too much water too quickly. The ground may be frozen, reducing infiltration into the soil and thereby increasing runoff. Extended wet periods during any part of the year can create saturated soil conditions, after which any additional rain runs off into streams and rivers, until river capacities are exceeded.
Flash Floods: Flash floods can occur within several seconds to several hours, with little warning. Flash floods can be deadly because they produce rapid rises in water levels and have devastating flow velocities.
Page 4-6 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Rattlesnake Creek Flood, 1908. Several factors can contribute to flash flooding. Among these are rainfall intensity, rainfall duration, surface conditions, and topography and slope of the receiving basin. Urban areas are susceptible to flash floods because a high percentage of the surface area is composed of impervious streets, roofs, and parking lots where runoff occurs very rapidly. Mountainous areas also are susceptible to flash floods, as steep topography may funnel runoff into a narrow canyon. Floodwaters accelerated by steep stream slopes can cause the floodwave to move downstream too fast to allow escape, resulting in many deaths.
4.3.1.1 Participation in the Flood Insurance Program
Missoula County and the City of Missoula participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Initial Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Maps were developed in 1983 for both jurisdictions and the current effective maps are dated August 16, 1988. Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) mapping is in the production stage there is not estimated timeframe for DFIRMs will become effective. Table 4-5 below shows the NFIP claims filed since the effective status of the program November, 1981. Since 1981 there have been 77 NFIP claims for flood damage, 2 of the claims have been for repetitive losses (Montana DNRC, 2010).
Table 4-5 NFIP Insurance in Force and Claims Insured NFIP Participants Policies Amount Claims/(Repetitive) Losses Paid Missoula County 224 $44,590,900 63 / (2) $326,891 City of Missoula 52 $13,916,300 14 / (0) $35,254 Totals 217 $58,507,200.00 77 / (2) $362,145.00
4.3.1.2 Magnitude/Frequency
Missoula County flood events noted by FEMA and other Federal and State agencies are listed in Table 4-6. Flood records for Missoula County are available for 1899 to the present. For major rivers, such as the Clark Fork, Bitterroot and Blackfoot, the 10-year flood events and greater are shown on the table. The 10-year flood stage is determined by studying a long period of flow records for a stream and estimating the size of a flood that would have a 10-year recurrence interval (called a 10-year flood). A 10-year flood is one that would occur, on the average, once every 10 years. Although a 100-year flood is expected to happen only once in a century, there is a 1 percent chance that a flood of that size could happen during any year.
Page 4-7 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
As shown in Table 4-6, 100-year floods have occurred on the Bitterroot and Clark Fork Rivers in Missoula County. The Bitterroot River experienced 100-year floods in 1899 and 1908, whereas the Clark Fork exceeded the 100-year flood stage in 1908. Numerous un-gauged small streams, such as Rattlesnake Creek in Missoula, probably also exceeded their 100-year flood plain during 1908.
USGS Gauging Station 12340500 on the Clark Fork River above Missoula measured 10-year flood events during 1938, 1948, 1953, 1964, 1972, 1975, 1981, and 1997 (Table 4-6). Annual peak flow data at this station are available for 1899-1901, 1903-1905, and 1940 to the present (USGS, 2003).
Monitoring records for USGS Station 12352500 on the Bitterroot River near Missoula are less complete than some of the other stations in the County, but a 50-year flood was estimated in 1974 (Table 4-6). Annual peak flow data at this station are available for 1899-1901, 1903-1904, and 1990 to the present (USGS, 2003).
USGS Station 12340000 on the Blackfoot River near Bonner measured 10-year floods in 1899, 1948, 1964, and 1975. Annual peak flow data at this station are available for 1908 and 1930 to the present (USGS, 2003).
Pattee Creek and run-off from subdivisions on the South Hills in Missoula caused flooding in 1962, 1964, 1967, 1976, and 1980 (MDES, 1996). During 2003, the City of Missoula completed a new flood control project for Pattee Creek and South Hills area run-off. The project constructed new water storage basins, and removed numerous homeowners from the 100-year floodplain of Pattee Creek (Montana DNRC, 2003).
Presidential disasters were declared in Missoula County because of flooding during 1974 and 1981. In January 1974, Missoula County and 6 other counties were hit by flood waters which caused approximately $16 million worth of damage to Forest Service roads, bridges and facilities, private property, etc. These same counties suffered flood-related losses again in June 1975, totaling nearly $35 million (Montana Civil Defense Division, 1976).
Federal disaster declarations were also issued for Missoula County floods in 1995, and 1997. The damages for the 1997 declaration for Missoula and 20 other counties included the following damages: $5,762,964 Federal, $541,434 State, and $1,397,520 Local (Table 4-5).
Page 4-8 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 4-6 Missoula County Floods Gauge Gauge Gauge Number & (ft) (ft) flood Peak Flow Date Name Flow (cfs) measured stage1 Flood Type2 and Damages References June 19, 1899 Blackfoot near Bonner 17,200 ---- 10.0 10-yr flood USGS, 2003
June 20, 1899 Rattlesnake Creek 2,050 ------10-yr flood FEMA, 1988
Bitterroot River near June 20, 1899 38,300 ---- 11.0 100-yr flood FEMA, 1998 Missoula May and June, Bitterroot River near 38,000 (est) ---- 11.0 100-yr flood NRCS, 1998 1908 Missoula 100-yr flood; rain on snow event; May and June, Clark Fork above washed away houses, roads, and 48,000 (est) ---- 10.0 FEMA, 1988; 1908 Missoula bridges, disrupted travel and communications Clark Fork above May 3, 1938 19,700 10.01 10.0 10-yr flood USGS, 2003 Missoula
May 22, 1948 Blackfoot near Bonner 16,300 ---- 10.0 10-yr flood USGS, 2003
Clark Fork above May 23, 1948 31,500 13.07 10.0 10-yr flood USGS, 2003 Missoula June 6, 1948 Rattlesnake Creek 2,400 ------10-yr flood FEMA, 1988 Clark Fork above June 4, 1953 28,800 12.24 10.0 10-yr flood USGS, 2003 Missoula 1962 Pattee Creek, Missoula MDES, 1996 June 10, 1964 Blackfoot near Bonner 19,200 10.89 10.0 10-yr flood USGS, 2003
Clark Fork above June 10, 1964 31,700 13.35 10.0 10-yr flood FEMA, 1988 Missoula Wapikiya Subdivision December FEMA, 1988; and Pattee Creek, 1964 MDES, 1996 Missoula December Briggs Street, Pattee FEMA, 1988;
1967 Creek, Missoula MDES, 1996 Clark Fork above June 1, 1972 27,400 12.27 10.0 10-yr flood USGS 2003 Missoula Federal (Presidential) Disaster MDES, 2003; Declaration FDAA-417-DR-MT January 1974 MCDD, 1976; Missoula and 6 other counties: $16M MDES, 1996 damages (MCDD 1976) 10-yr flood; bank erosion, little June 1974 Rattlesnake Creek 2,400 FEMA, 1988 property damage Clark Fork above June 17, 1974 20,900 10.68 10.0 <10-yr flood USGS, 2003 Missoula Bitterroot River near 29,000 cfs June 1974 50-yr flood (estimated) FEMA, 1988 Missoula (est) 10-yr flood; Missoula and 6 other Clark Fork above June 17, 1975 32,300 13.75 10.0 counties: $35M damages (MCDD, USGS 2003 Missoula 1976) June 20, 1975 Blackfoot near Bonner 18,100 10.74 10.0 10-yr flood USGS 2003
Page 4-9 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 4-6 Missoula County Floods (continued) Gauge Gauge Gauge Number & (ft) (ft) flood Peak Flow Date Name Flow (cfs) measured stage1 Flood Type2 and Damages References Briggs Street and FEMA, 1988; March 1976 Moose Can Gully, MDES, 1996 Pattee Creek, Missoula Pattee Creek, S. Hills, FEMA, 1988; May 1980 Missoula MDES, 1996 10-yr flood; (Presidential Disaster) Clark Fork above USGS 2003; May 24, 1981 29,500 13.38 10.0 FEMA-640-DR-MT- Missoula & 9 Missoula MDES, 1996 other counties - $6m Briggs Street and February 1986 FEMA, 1988 Moose Can Gully EO 15-95 - Missoula, and 6 other December 27, counties - On-system highway MDES, 2003 1995 damage. March 12, FEMA-1184-DR-MT - Missoula, and MDES, 2003 1997 20 other counties - $7.5m EO 5-97; E0 6-97; EO 7-97; EO 12- April 10 - July 97; Emergency declaration of whole MDES, 2003 1, 1997 state due the imminent threat of flooding. In Missoula County, at least four bridges were damaged, including a Clark Fork and Lolo May 1, 1997 collapsed bridge on Sun Ray Lane in NCDC, 2010 Creek Lolo. Several culverts and dikes were damaged. Clark Fork above May 18, 1997 27,000 12.59 10.0 10-yr flood USGS, 2003 Missoula
Due to flooding in Grant Creek and high ground water, numerous health warnings were posted in Mullan Trail June 6, 1997 Grant Creek NCDC, 2010 subdivision near Missoula, affecting 82 homes with contaminated ground water and flooded basements.
Rainfall in excess of one inch in 4 hours caused street flooding on many Missoula and O'Keefe May 26, 1998 streets in Missoula while O'Keefe NCDC, 2010 Creek Creek , south of Evaro, was out of its banks. Localized sheet flow and basement July 26, 2009 Frenchtown Flash Flood flooding related to thunderstorm and NCDC, 2010 hail in the Black Cat burn. Localized sheet flow and basement July 26, 2009 Frenchtown Flash Flood flooding related to thunderstorm and NCDC, 2010 hail in the Black Cat burn. 1Flood stage information from: NWS, 2003 2Flood type information from: FEMA, 1988
Page 4-10 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
4.3.1.3 Loss Estimate
FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that depict 100-year floodplain maps (1% occurrence) for the Clark Fork River, Blackfoot River, Bitterroot River, and several smaller streams in Missoula County. In 2008, Missoula County began the digital FIRM (DFIRM) mapping process which published the maps into a digital format and updates the floodplain boundaries through more detailed topographic mapping. The DFIRM maps are preliminary but reflect a more accurate delineation of the flood boundaries and are used in this loss estimate to assess risks and exposure to flooding.
The mapped floodplains, or flood hazard zones, were related to the Structures dataset prepared by the State of Montana NRIS Mapping System. The structures dataset identifies each building location and type of building as a point dataset. All points falling within the preliminary floodplain was assumed to be exposed to flooding in a 100-year event. The average cost of structure by type was generated from values shown on Table 3-3. The results of the flood loss estimates are shown in Table 4-7. Based on a 100-year event, the annualized losses are estimated to be $413,870.
Table 4-7 Estimate for 100-year Flood on Preliminary DFIRM Mapped Floodplain Estimated Estimated # Estimated Estimated Estimated Income- Total Vulnerable Improvement Structural Content Related Estimated Properties Structures Value Loss1 Loss2 Loss3 Loss Residential 345 $42,592,000 $11,500,000 $17,250,000 0 $28,750,000 Commercial/Industrial 16 $14,245,000 $3,846,000 $5,769,000 $1,184,000 $10,799,000 Other Structures 111 $2,723,000 $735,000 $1,103,000 0 $1,838,000 TOTAL 472 $16,081,000 $24,122,000 $1,184,000 $41,387,000 1 Estimated at 27% of Improvement Value Residential & Commercial Uses 2 Estimated at 40.5% of Improvement Value Residential & Commercial Uses 3 Based on Loss of Function for 27 days and average annual sales of $1M/facility ($27,400/day)
Floodplain and subdivision regulations will eliminate the potential for new land uses to be located within floodplains and flood hazard zones. New construction in and near regulated floodplains need to show proximity to regulated floodplains and any development within flood fringe zones will be required to flood proof or elevate finished floors above the base flood elevation. Subdivision regulations require flood hazard areas be identified and that new structures be located outside defined flood hazard areas.
Page 4-11 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Page 4-12 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
4.3.2 Flooding – Ice Jams
Ice-jam floods occur on rivers that are totally or partially frozen. A rise in stream stage will break up a totally frozen river and create ice flows that can pile up on channel obstructions such as shallow riffles, log jams, or bridge piers. The jammed ice creates a dam across the channel over which the water and ice mixture continues to flow, allowing for more jamming to occur. Backwater upstream from the ice dam can rise rapidly and overflow the channel banks. Flooding moves downstream when the ice dam fails, and the water stored behind the dam is released. At this time the flood takes on the characteristics of a flash flood, with the added danger of ice flows that, when driven by the energy of the flood wave, can inflict serious damage on structures. An added danger of being caught in an ice-jam flood is hypothermia, which can quickly kill (USGS, 2000).
4.3.2.1 Magnitude/Frequency
The dates and descriptions of past ice jams in Missoula County are listed in Table 4-8. The table includes known ice jams since 1977; records prior to that time are incomplete. As shown in the table, ice jams occurred on the Clark Fork River in 1977, 1986, 1993, 1995, and 1996. A major ice jam occurred on the Blackfoot River in 1996. The 1996 ice jams and flooding on the Clark Fork and Blackfoot River, combined with damage in Mineral, Ravalli and 11 other counties totaled $1,820,739 (FEMA), $241,888 (State), and $365,006 (Local).
Page 4-13 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 4-8 Ice Jams in Missoula County Estimated Date Stream Description Damage January, Clark Fork Maximum annual gage height due to backwater from ice reported at CRREL, 2003 1977 above Missoula USGS gage Clark Fork above Missoula. Clark Fork December, Maximum annual stage of 7.98 feet due to backwater from ice reported River near CRREL, 2003 1986 at USGS gage Clark Fork near Clinton. Clinton Clark Fork Maximum annual stage of 7.26 feet due to backwater from ice reported November, River at Turah at USGS gage Clark Fork at Turah Bridge near Bonner. This is the peak CRREL, 2003 1993 Bridge stage for period of record 1986 to 1995. Maximum annual stage of 10.24 feet due to backwater from ice Clark Fork reported at USGS gage Clark Fork at Turah Bridge near Bonner. This is December, River at Turah the peak stage for period of record 1986 to 1998. EO 15-95 - Missoula, CRREL, 2003 1995 Bridge Ravalli Mineral and 4 other counties - On-system highway damage. EO is for purpose of qualifying for FHWA emergency funds Clark Fork and Blackfoot: an extended period of severely cold weather created thick ice jams, followed by rapid warming with rainfall that melted low-elevation snow pack; bridges and other structures damaged. Blackfoot River gauging station reached a record height of 16.0 feet (a large portion was ice). Flooding in Missoula County were reported in the following locations:
In Lolo, ice jams on Lolo Creek caused the flooding and evacuation of several trailer parks.
Water backing up into irrigation ditches, flooding homes and I-90 east of Clinton. The jam broke on 2/8/96 according to Andy Tuthill, CECRL-IE, who visited the site. Water was receding on 2/9/96 but a jam had formed near the Milltown Dam. Water levels dropped again on Blackfoot and 2/12/96. Clark Fork NCDC, 2003; February, Rivers; EPA, 2003; 1996 NWS Flood Statement on 2/9/96: ice was jamming on the Clark Fork flooding near EMC, 2001 River 3 miles west of Missoula, MT. The jam was causing bridge Lolo damage and flooding in the Ninemile area.
On Feb 23, 1996 the American Red Cross reported one home with major damage and five homes with minor damage in Bonner. According to Arill Berg, CENPS-CO-FL, and NWS Flood Statements on 2/9/96: The ice stopped about 3/4 mile up from Bonner Dam. The jam was 12 miles in length and caused the closure of Hwy 200. Andy Tuthill, CECRL-IE: the ice run caused significant fish kill and flooding and damage to bridges, a house, and cattle; ice jam released on 2/17/96.
EO4-96; FEMA-1105-DR-MT - Activation of MT National Guard, Mineral, Missoula, Ravalli and 11 other counties. (FEMA) $1,820,739 (State) $241,888 (Local) $365,006 Ice Jam broke on the Rattlesnake Creek on December 18, 2008, December, Rattlesnake knocking down several trees in riparian area and pushing debris and ice CRREL, 2010 2008 Creek onto the opposite back of the Clark Fork River. No reported structural damages.
Page 4-14 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
4.3.2.2 Loss Estimate
It is difficult to predict the location, magnitude, and impact of ice jams. Historic occurrences can provide insight into frequency but ice jams usually occur in shorter sections of rivers than riverine floods, thereby making it difficult to predict area impacted and losses from the ice jam event. Comprehensive records of ice jam damage were not found. The losses during the 1996 ice jam on the Blackfoot were probably less than $0.5m and included one residence, one pedestrian bridge, and several outbuildings. Ice jams are expected to cause localized flooding and there may be damage to structures, non-structural content, and transportation infrastructure. Future ice jam events will likely occur every 25 years with the potential to cause $500,000 in losses. Annualized loss estimate is $20,000.
4.3.3 Flooding - Dam Failure
Dams have been placed on large and small streams throughout Western Montana. Although no dams have failed and caused damages in Missoula County, dams could present a problem to downstream inhabitants if they fail.
Dams are usually engineered to withstand a flood with a computed risk of occurrence. For example, a dam may be designed to contain a flood at a location on a stream that has a certain probability of occurring in any 1 year. If a larger flood occurs, then that structure will be overtopped. If during the overtopping the dam fails or is washed out, the water behind it is released to become a flash flood. Failed dams can create floods that are catastrophic to life and property because of the tremendous energy of the released water (USGS, 2000).
4.3.3.1 Dams within Missoula County
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Inventory of Dams website (COE NID, 2003) keeps a record of dams across the country. Hazard ratings are given to those dams for emergency management planning. Missoula County has 3 high-hazard dams (see Figure 4-3), 14 significant-hazard dams and 12 low- hazard dams within its borders, as shown in Table 4-9. Dams assigned the high (H) hazard potential are those where failure or mis-operation will probably cause loss of human life.
Page 4-15 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 4-9 Dams within Missoula County
1 2 Dam Name Name Dam Dam Other Name River Height (feet) Storage (acre ft) Year Completed DNRC Regulated? Hazard Emergency Action Plan Owner Name Pollocks Jh Valley Of The Gibert Creek 25 140 1960 Y L NR Joseph Pollock Moon Steve's Tr-Union Lepus Gulch 30 82 1956 Y L NR Willis Cattle Co Creek Reservoir Big Sky Lake Big Sky Lake Dam Fish Lake Fish Creek 7 446 Blank Y L N Home Owners (Missoula) Association Woodchuck Woodchuck 25 58 1960 Y L NR Mary M Delaney Creek Blixit Creek Blixit Creek 20 82 1961 Y L NR Earl M Pruyn Tr-Union Wills, R. 20 51 1966 Y L NR Willis Cattle Co Creek Jones Meadow Robert G. Caloma Creek 34 209 1964 Y L N Dam Mullendore Tr-Clark Fork Kona Ranch 29 65 1959 Y S NR Kona Ranch River Gerhard/Ursula Isaac Creek Longpre Issac Creek 32 125 1948 Y H Y Von Der Ruhr Scheffer Molar, Tr-Sixmile BW Management, 15 125 1948 Y L NR (Missoula) Scheffer Creek Inc. Tr- Peterson Lake Rattlesnake 12 170 1920 Y L NR I E Peterson Creek Twin Lake, Tr- PPL Montana Upper Rattlesnake 15 75 1921 Y L NR (Hydropower) (Missoula) Creek Carlton Lake Carlton Carton Creek Carlton Creek 22 450 1948 N S N No 1 Lake No 1 Irrigation Co Carter Lake Creek Mountain Water Carter Lake 15 161 1921 N N Lake Rattlesnake Company SFN Spring Kreis Pond Spring Creek 15 50 1951 N S N Communications Creek Company Little Unknown Mountain Water Little Lake 14 345 1912 N S N Lake River Company Worden Lake Cr Mountain Water Worden Lake 12 43 1921 N S N Lake Rattlesnake Company Glacier Wrangle Cr Mountain Water Glacier Lake 20 210 1915 N S N Lake Rattlesnake Co McKinley McKinley Unknown Mountain Water 15 250 1923 N S N Lake Lake River Company
Page 4-16 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 4-9 Dams within Missoula County (continued)
1 2 Dam Name Name Dam Dam Other Name River Height (feet) Storage (acre ft) Year Completed DNRC Regulated? Hazard Emergency Action Plan Owner Name Wrangle Sanders Lake Sanders Mountain Water Creek 15 897 1915 N S N #2 Lake #2 Company Rattlesnake Unknown Mountain Water Big Lake Big Lake 20 720 1917 N S N River Company Lower High Falls Cr Lower Lake #2 8 93 1922 N S N Forest Service Lake #2 Rattlesnake Sheridan Lake 6 115 1915 N L N Mountain Water Co #1 Sheridan Lake Sheridan Lake Cr 12 114 1915 N L N Mountain Water Co #2 Lake #2 Rattlesnake Wrangle Sanders Lake Sanders Mountain Water Creek 15 897 1913 N S N #1 Lake #1 Company Rattlesnake Lower Jocko Confederated Salish Jocko Lake, Jocko River 20 9000 1937 N H N & Kootenai Tribes Jocko Lake Placid Lake Home Placid Lake 6 1500 1972 N L N Owners Association Wallace Creek Wallace 29 134 1922 N H Y Jim Flansberg Dam Creek 1 L for Low; S for Significant; H for High 2 Y=yes; N=no; NR=not required Source: US Army Corps of Engineers (COE), 2003. National inventory of Dams (http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid.cfm )
4.3.3.2 Dams Upstream from Missoula County
Dams upstream of Missoula County that have a potential to affect the County are listed in Table 4-10.
Page 4-17 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 4-10 Dams Upstream from Missoula County
2
1 Dam Name Other Dam Name River Height Storage Year Completed DNRC Regulated Hazard County Emergency Plan Action Owner Name
Flint Creek Georgetown Deer Granite Flint Creek 44 50,000 1905 Y H Y Dam Lake Dam Lodge County State Of Nevada Creek Nevada 105 17,300 1938 Y H Powell Y Montana, Dam Creek DNRC State Of East Fork East Fork East Fork 87 16,000 1940 Y H Granite Y Montana, Reservoir Reservoir Rock Creek DNRC West Fork State Of Painted Rocks Bitterroot 143 32,362 1940 Y H Ravalli Y Montana, River DNRC Rock Creek USDI Como Dam Lake Como (tributary to 70 --- 1908-1910 N H Ravalli Y Bureau of Bitterroot) Reclamation 1 L for Low; S for Significant; H for High 2 Y=yes; N=no; NR=not required Source for first 3 rows of information: US Army Corps of Engineers (COE), 2003. National Inventory of Dams (http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid.cfm ) Source for Painted Rocks & Como Dam: DNRC, 2003; USDI BOR 2003
4.3.3.3 Inundation Maps
The Missoula County Disaster & Emergency Services office has 8 Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) on file. Some of the EAPs show maps of areas that would be inundated by flood water should the dams fail. Inundation areas are modeled using various assumptions, usually including two different scenarios:
1. Areas affected by dam failure during high pool and a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF); and 2. Areas affected by dam failure during high pool and Clear Weather Break (CWB).
The information from inundation maps on file with Missoula County is summarized in Table 4- 11.
Page 4-18 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 4-11 Dams with Mapped Inundation Areas Affecting Missoula County 100-Year Dam Failure Dam Failure Flood Time to Affected River Scenario #1: Scenario #2: Wave Height Discharge* Reach and PMF CWB at Reference Author of Dam (cfs) at Reference Downstream Discharge at Discharge at Location for Effects at Reference Location Emergency Name Reference Location for Reference Reference Reference Scenario #1 Action Plan Location Scenario #1 Location Location Location (ft) (for (hrs) (cfs) (cfs) comparison) Failure during PMF: Area about 1 mile long and ¼- Wallace Clark Fork mile wide flooded north of Not Not Not Not Handley Creek River North of Not available Clinton, east of interstate; ¼- available available available available Ranch, 1995 Dam Clinton, MT mile wide area of interstate covered with flood water as it flows to Clark Fork River Flint Failure during CWB: Granite Clark Fork at Not Creek 42,500 27,250 2 Comparable to 10-year County, Milltown Dam available 23 Dam flood. 1998 Failure during PMF: Greater Nevada Blackfoot at than 500-year flood. Meets Creek Bonner, 25,000 54,216 22,204 19.1 11.5 DNRC, 2003 100 year floodplain at Dam Montana Milltown Reservoir. Failure during PMF overtops Milltown Dam, but 10 hrs would allow time for East Fork Clark Fork at Milltown Dam operator to 42,500 82,302 58,481 2.89 DNRC, 2003 Reservoir Milltown Dam 10.68 open gates. Downstream of Milltown Dam, see inundation estimate for Milltown Dam Failure during PMF covers Bitterroot at most of Big Flat, Stone Painted Kona Bridge Not Container ponds. Meets the 31,800 88,450 28.9 12.5 DNRC, 2003 Rocks (west available 100-year floodplain at Missoula) confluence of Bitterroot and Clark Fork Rivers. Modeled flood extends to 2 USDI Como Bitterroot at Not Not Not miles north of Big Flat. Bureau of 29,100 23 Dam Lolo, MT available available available Beyond that point flood Reclamation, confined to low-lying areas. 1994 *From FEMA, 1988 (Missoula County Flood Insurance Study)
The Emergency Action Plan for the Isaac Creek Dam (Von der Ruhr, 1997) does not show a predicted inundation area if the dam should fail, but the dam is located about ¾-mile upstream and northeast of the Ninemile Ranger Station.
4.3.3.4 Loss Estimate
A dam breach will cause significant losses and casualties. Circumstances causing a breach could be structural failure, earthquakes, terrorism, or even a major landslide. The East Fork Rock Creek Dam in Granite County and Painted Rocks Dam in Ravalli County have the greatest potential to damage property, highway infrastructure, transportation systems, and utility infrastructure in Missoula County. The East Fork Dam is 80 miles upstream of Missoula and under a clear-weather breach would flood low-lying areas near Clinton and Turah with flood waters about 2 feet above 100-year base flood elevations at Turah. Painted Rocks is 92 miles from Lolo and under a clear-weather breach would approach a 100-year flood at Lolo and flood
Page 4-19 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update low lying areas in and around Lolo and Buckhouse Bridge. There would be limited damage estimated to be less than $5m.
Precise loss estimates for this type of hazard were not computed. Design standards for dams and spillways typically exceed 500 year return intervals for flooding and earthquakes, therefore the likelihood for a breach to occur are very low. Based on a 500-year occurrence and estimated $5 million in potential damage, the annualized loss from dam failure flooding is $10,000.
4.4 Landslide
The term landslide as used here includes all types of gravity-caused mass movements of earth material, ranging from rock falls through mud slides, and debris flows. Landslides occur in all 50 of the United States. In the conterminous United States, areas most seriously affected are the Pacific Coast, the Rocky Mountains, and the Appalachian Mountains (USGS, 2001).
4.4.1 Magnitude/Frequency
Given the steep terrain in parts of Missoula County, a potential does exist for landslides. The USGS (1982) mapped the incidence and susceptibility of landslides on a nationwide basis. The areas identified as moderately susceptibility/low incidence areas include the northern Bitterroot Valley and Missoula / Ninemile Valleys areas.
The following is noted in the USGS (1982) study, “Susceptibility not indicated where same or lower than incidence. Susceptibility to landsliding was defined as the probable degree of response of [the areal] rocks and soils to natural or artificial cutting or loading of slopes, or to anomalously high precipitation. High, moderate, and low susceptibility are delimited by the same percentages used in classifying the incidence of landsliding. Some generalization was necessary at this scale, and several small areas of high incidence and susceptibility were slightly exaggerated.”
4.4.1.1 Landslides after Forest Fires
The steeper slopes along the northern Bitterroot and Missoula-Ninemile Valleys are located within the Lolo National Forest. Landslides have occurred on the forest, and are more likely after a major forest fire. According to the Burned Area Assessment 2000 by the Lolo National Forest, (USDA Forest Service, 2001), landslides could occur in some of the most severely burned areas, given the right combination of intense precipitation and hydrophobic soils. However, the geology and soil is not sensitive to landslides on most of the Lolo NF. Large-scale landslides were not expected to occur in any areas burned in 2000 on the Lolo NF (USDA Forest Service, 2001).
After the forest fires of 2000, the Lolo NF (USDA Forest Service, 2001) predicted that small slumps and washes could occur in scattered areas across the burned forest, but the effects of these were expected to be minimal. The threat of landslides was predicted to be highest during the thunderstorm season of 2001 (i.e. May through September), and then gradually subside in following years as the burned slopes revegetate and stabilize. Thunderstorms have a better
Page 4-20 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update chance of causing landslides than spring/autumn rains and snowmelt because they can produce intense rainfall over short durations that the burned soils simply cannot absorb.
4.4.1.2 Other Landslides in Missoula County
A landslide at LaValle Creek, north of Missoula, ruptured the Yellowstone Pipe Line on June 25, 1982, spilling 5,500 bbs of petroleum into LaValle Creek (BIA, 1995). The pipeline is no longer in operation north of Missoula. The landslide occurred on a steep slope in Tertiary-age sediments that are composed of conglomerate, shale, small coal seams, and some volcanic ash. These same Tertiary-age sediments flank the foothills north of Missoula from Mount Jumbo to the Ninemile Valley, where it occurs locally (McMurtrey, 1965). Although no other landslides are known within these Tertiary-age sediments, the shale and ash beds within this unit may create slide-prone areas, especially where septic systems or irrigation lubricate hazard-prone sediments.
The Lolo National Forest has recorded 8 locations within the County with slope stability problems along Forest Service roads (Table 4-12).
Table 4-12 Landslides on the Lolo National Forest in Missoula County Location Description Costs to Repair MslaRD- Southside Rd., #453- Jct. Many small to medium fill slope failures due to poor soil Estimated cost to Deep Cr. Rd to MP 3.0 (district conditions. repair: 30-40K. boundary) Estimated cost to Morman Cr. Rd., #2155- MP 0.67 Massive cut slope failure. repair: 100K. Johns Cr.(To the west side of the Estimated cost to Large fill slope failure. Morman Pk. Rd.- off the Mill Cr. Rd.) repair: 100K. Large fill slope problems- Road is undercut in some spots, very steep terrain- L shaped concrete bin wall type structures were Estimated cost to 9-Mile- Cyr Iron Mtn. Rd. #344 installed 10+ years ago as a stop gap measure but the fill slope repair: 200K. continues to degrade. Estimated cost to Fill slope problems due to Ninemile Cr. attacking the road at Ninemile-Siegel #412- MP 19.7 repair: 30K for the this point. Martina reroute. Seeley Lake- Lake Cr. #5400 - MP Significant fill slope failures at these two MP's, potential for Estimated cost to 0.6 & 2.7. more (poor soils). repair: 100K. Experienced a significant fill slope failure 6 years ago. Dunham Cr. Rd. #4388- MP 6.4 ( + or Completed a repair with large rip-rap and filter cloth but a new Estimated cost to - 0.5) retaining wall is now needed (a large amount of water runs off repair: 60K. the cut slope and through the retaining wall at this point). A large slice of cut slope material sheared off the cut slope and NF Blackfoot #5550- MP 6.7(+ or - settled in the ditch. It did not crumple in the ditch, but rather Estimated cost to 0.4) just slipped 3 or 4 feet, and now just lays in place. The remove: 30K. potential remains for this material to move further. Source: Smyers (2003)
4.4.2 Loss Estimate
A precise accounting of losses from landslides was not calculated. Most of the landslide hazard zones are located in remote undeveloped portions of the Lolo National Forest. The landslides that have occurred have been relatively small volumes and have caused localized damage to forest roads.
Page 4-21 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
The structures that are most vulnerable are homes located in and immediately below severely burned areas. It is unlikely the slides will occur on a large scale but will occur in isolated basins impacting individual homes. Potential damages are estimated to be $500,000 and occur every 25 years with an estimated annualized loss of $20,000.
4.5 Volcano
Although no active volcanoes exist within Missoula County, an eruption hundreds of miles away can blanket the County given the right conditions. Some of the effects of volcanic ash include:
. Short-circuits and failure of electronic components, especially high-voltage circuits and transformers (wet ash conducts electricity). . Eruption clouds and ash fall commonly interrupt or prevent telephone and radio communications. . Volcanic ash can cause internal-combustion engines to stall by clogging air filters and also damage the moving parts. Engines of jet aircraft have suddenly failed after flying through clouds of even thinly dispersed ash. . Roads, highways, and airport runways can be made treacherous or impassable because ash is slippery and may reduce visibility to near zero. Cars driving faster than 5 miles per hour on ash-covered roads stir up thick clouds of ash, reducing visibility and causing accidents. . Ash also clogs filters used in air-ventilation systems to the point that airflow often stops completely, causing equipment to overheat. . Crop damage can range from negligible to severe, depending on the thickness of ash, type and maturity of plants, and timing of subsequent rainfall. . Like airborne particles from dust storms, forest fires, and air pollution, volcanic ash poses a health risk, especially to children, the elderly, and people with cardiac or respiratory conditions, such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema.
Volcanic ash, like this 1980 ash from Mount St. Helens, Washington, is made up of tiny jagged particles of rock and glass (photo on right; magnified 200 times).
Source: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 027-00 Online Version 1.0 (USGS 2003)
Page 4-22 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
4.5.1 Magnitude/Frequency
A summary of some of the historic volcanic ash events affecting Montana is shown in Table 4- 13. The trajectory of ash fall events is heavily dependent upon the size of the eruption and the prevailing weather and ambient winds.
Table 4-13 Historic Volcanic Ash Events Affecting Montana Most Recent Eruption Volcano Location Affected Thickness of Ash in Montana (Years before Present) Yellowstone 665,000 Eastern Montana -- Caldera Glacier Peak 14,500 Western Montana 1.2 inches (compacted) Crater Lake (Mt. 7,600 Western Montana Up to 6 inches (compacted) Mazama) Mt. St. Helens 30 Entire State Up to 0.2 inches (uncompacted) Source: MDES, 1996; Sarna-Wojcicki and others, 1981; USGS, 2003; Nimlos, 1981.
The nearest active volcanoes to Missoula County are within the Cascade Range of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California and to the south in the Yellowstone Caldera of Wyoming and Northeastern Idaho. Table 4-14 shows the active volcanoes within the United States.
Table 4-14 Active and Potentially Active Volcanoes in the United States Washington State Number of Latest activity (in Volcano Eruption type(s) eruptions in past years before present Remarks 200 years or year(s) A.D.) More than 3,500 years Mount Adams Lava, ash 0 Debris flows are the most recent events ago Increased heat output and minor melting of summit Mount Baker Ash, lava 1 1870 glacier in 1975; some debris flows not related to eruption. History of extensive pyroclastic flows
Glacier Peak Ash More than 1? Before 1800
History of massive debris avalanches and debris Mount Rainier Ash, lava 1? 1882 flows. Occasional very shallow seismicity Mount St. Ash, dome, lava 3-Feb 1980 to present Continuing intermittent volcanic activity Helens Oregon Number of Latest activity (in Volcano Eruption type(s) eruptions in past years before present Remarks 200 years or year(s) A.D.)
Largest known eruption from Cascade Range Crater Lake Lava, ash, dome 0 4,000 years ago volcano. Catastrophic, caldera-forming eruption 7,000 years ago; post-caldera lava and domes
Mount Hood Ash, dome 2? 1865 Occasional seismic swarms More than 50,000 Debris flows in 1934, 1955; young basaltic flows in Mount Jefferson Ash, lava 0 years ago nearby area Newberry Crater Ash, lava 0 600 Latest eruption was obsidian flow Three Sisters Ash, lava 0 950? Debris flows in this century
Page 4-23 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 4-14 Active and Potentially Active Volcanoes in the United States (continued) California Number of Latest activity (in Volcano Eruption type(s) eruptions in past years before present Remarks 200 years or year(s) A.D.) Geothermal energy and long-period (volcanic) Clear Lake Lava, ash 0 Not known seismicity suggest "active" status Coso Peak, About 40,000 years Geothermal energy production and seismic activity Lava, ash, dome 0 California ago suggest "active" status Lassen Peak Ash, dome 1 1914-1917 Lateral blast occurred in last eruption Long Valley Caldera, Youngest activity represented by nearly simultaneous eruptions of rhyolite at several of the California Ash, dome, ashflow 3? About 1400 Inyo craters; currently restless, shown by seismicity (Inyo-Mono- and ground deformation Mammoth) Medicine Lake Ash, lava 0 1065 Latest eruption formed Glass Mountain Mount Shasta Ash, dome 1 1786? Debris flows in this century Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming Number of Latest activity (in eruptions in past years before present Volcano Eruption type(s) 200 years or year(s) A.D.) Remarks Bandera Field (McCarty's Flow), New Mexico Lava 1 About 1,000 Most voluminous lava within past 1,000 years Craters of the Moon, Idaho Lava About 1 2,100 years ago San Francisco Field, Arizona Lava 2 1065-1180 Sunset Crater; disrupted Anasazi settlements Yellowstone Caldera, Wyoming, Numerous hydrothermal explosions, geysers, Montana, and geothermal activity; currently restless, shown by Idaho Ashflow 0 70,000 years ago seismicity and ground deformation From: Wright and Pierson, 1992, Living with Volcanoes, The U.S. Geological Survey's Volcano Hazards Program: USGS Circular 1073, 57p
The Yellowstone Caldera is one of the largest and most active calderas in the world. The spectacular geysers, boiling hot springs, and mud pots that have made Yellowstone famous are surface manifestations of a magma chamber at depth. Cataclysmic eruptions 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 youngest caldera is an elliptical depression, nearly 80 kilometers long and 50 kilometers wide, which occupies much of Yellowstone National Park. The caldera is buried by several extensive rhyolite lava flows which erupted between 75,000 and 150,000 years ago (USGS, 1994).
The Cascade Range includes 27 volcanoes, many of which have been active in the last 10,000 years (Table 4-13). The only threat these volcanoes pose to Montana is ash fall. The likely extent of such ash fall can be estimated on the basis of past eruptions.
After the eruption of Mount St. Helens in May 1980, a coating of 5.0 to 2.5 mm (0.1 to 0.2 inches) of ash fell on Missoula County (Sarna-Wojcicki and others, 1981). Travel was restricted
Page 4-24 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update in Missoula for 5 days because of concerns for public health, but the ash was determined to be a physical respiratory irritant, not a toxic substance. The main hazards in Missoula County included reduced visibility (and resulting closed roads and airports), clogging of air filters, and a health risk to children, the elderly, and people with cardiac or respiratory conditions, such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema. Claims for state-wide damage totaled approximately $55,000 according to MDES (2003). The losses were estimated to be approximately $300,000 (Missoulian, June 19, 1980)
4.5.2 Loss Estimate
The northwest volcanoes remain active and the potential for future eruptions and ash fall is possible over the next 100 years. Estimating the impact and loss is difficult because there are so many variables that relate to the volcanic hazard in Missoula County. The type of eruption, the magnitude of eruption and prevailing wind and speed all factor into the potential for impacts. To estimate potential losses, the impact and costs from the Mt. St. Helens May 1980 eruption were updated and adjusted to reflect current economic activity in the County.
The 1980 eruption is estimated to have disrupted up to 50% of all economic activity for 5 days and income-related losses were estimated to be $300,000. In 1980, personal annual income in Missoula County was $700 million (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2003). In 2009, personal annual income for the County was $3.78 billion, representing a nearly 539% increase in income over 29 years (BEA, 2003). Using a growth factor of 539% for personal income over that time period, income-related losses would be approximately $1.62m if a similar event were to occur today. Expected occurrence is 1% annually, therefore annualized estimated losses for a Cascade volcanic eruption and ashfall in Missoula County is $16,200.
4.6 Weather (Storms and Wind)
4.6.1 Severe Thunderstorms
A “severe thunderstorm” is defined by the National Weather Service as a thunderstorm which produces tornadoes, hail 0.75 inches or more in diameter, or winds of 50 knots (58 mph) or more. Structural wind damage may imply the occurrence of a severe thunderstorm. A thunderstorm is “approaching” severe levels when it contains winds of 35 to 49 knots (40 to 57 mph), or hail 1/2 inch or larger but less than 3/4 inch in diameter. Although not considered “severe”, lightning and heavy rain can also accompany thunderstorms.
A tornado is a violently rotating column of air in contact with the ground and extending from the base of a thunderstorm. A condensation funnel does not need to reach the ground for a tornado to be present; a debris cloud beneath a thunderstorm is all that is needed to confirm the presence of a tornado, even in the total absence of a condensation funnel.
4.6.1.1 Magnitude/Frequency
Atkins compiled storm losses from the Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database (SHELDUS™) developed by the University of South Carolina's Hazards & Vulnerability and
Page 4-25 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Research Institute at the. SHELDUS™ is a county-level hazard data set for the U.S. for 18 different natural hazard events types such as thunderstorms, hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and tornados. For each event the database includes the beginning date, location (county and state), property losses, crop losses, injuries, and fatalities that affected each county. The events with reported damage or injury are shown below in Table 4-15 and each calculated loss is adjusted for inflation.
4.6.1.2 Loss Estimate
Extreme storms can occur anywhere within the County. The magnitude of the event can include wind storms up to 70 mph and lightning strikes with the potential to destroy individual structures. Wildfires, discussed below, are the greatest threat from extreme weather events. Severe storms occur every year, but most storms either cause no damage or the damage is not recorded. Based on data from the last 30 years and adjusted for inflation, there has been $1.88 million in property and $10,621 in crop damage. Annualized losses are expected to be $62,600 in property and $350 in crop damage with an estimated fatality rate of 1 per every 13 years.
Table 4-15 Summary of Wind, Thunderstorms, Hail Weather Events Date Weather Event Type Injuries Fatalities Property Loss Crop Loss 6/20/1985 Hail - Wind 0.02 0 $2,326 $2,326 7/8/1998 Lightning 1 1 $0 $0 7/15/2002 Lightning 1 0 $0 $0 5/21/1981 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm 0 0 $787,873 $0 6/17/1988 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 0 0 $91,228 $0 5/10/1989 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 0 0 $86,667 $0 8/12/1989 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 0 0 $86,667 $867 7/10/1998 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 0 1 $342,276 $0 7/8/2002 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 1 0 $0 $0 6/19/2003 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 0 0 $35,056 $0 8/19/2003 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 0 0 $29,213 $0 4/18/2004 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 0 0 $114,286 $0 8/9/2008 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 0 0 $15,000 $0 8/9/2008 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 0 0 $10,000 $0 8/9/2008 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 0 0 $6,000 $0 12/13/1988 Wind 0 0 $18,246 $0 11/23/1990 Wind 0 0 $9,171 $0 10/16/1991 Wind 0 0 $160,790 $0 11/3/1993 Wind 0 0 $743 $7,429 9/9/2000 Wind 2 0.25 $0 $0 7/2/2003 Wind 0 0 $46,742 $0 8/16/2003 Wind 3 0 $0 $0 12/15/2006 Wind 0 0 $1,191 $0 11/12/2007 Wind 0 0 $11,267 $0 5/9/2008 Wind 0 0 $8,000 $0 11/13/2008 Wind 0 0 $8,333 $0 1/31/2009 Wind 0 0 $6,500 $0 Totals 8.02 2.25 $1,877,575 $10,621 Source: SHELDUS, 2010
Page 4-26 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
4.6.2 Winter Storms and Cold Spells
Snow storms and bitterly cold temperatures are common occurrences in Missoula County and generally do not cause any problems as residents are used to winter weather and are prepared to deal with it. Sometimes, however, blizzards can occur and overwhelm the ability to keep roads passable. Heavy snow and ice events also have the potential to bring down power lines and trees. Extreme wind chill temperatures may harm residents if unprotected outdoors or if heating mechanisms are disrupted.
4.6.2.1 Magnitude/Frequency
Daily Climate Summaries from the Western Regional Climate Center (2003) for the Missoula County Airport (WSO AP 245745) from 1890-2003 show that temperatures have reached –33 degrees Fahrenheit, storms have produced up to 14.4 inches of snow in 24 hours, and snow depths have reached 27 inches.
The most significant winter storm events in recent history were the large Christmas storm in 1996 and the heavy June snowfall in 2001. In 1996, Missoula had a snowfall accumulation of 45 inches during a 5 day period, and Seeley Lake had snowfall of 78 inches over a 10 day period. Some buildings and carports in Missoula collapsed from the heavy snowfall, but there are no available estimates of losses. Up to 8 inches of wet snow fell on June 4, 2001, causing widespread damage to trees and utilities, and forcing the closure of several roads in Missoula.
4.6.2.2 Loss Estimate
Atkins compiled winter storm losses from the Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database (SHELDUS™) developed by the University of South Carolina's Hazards & Vulnerability and Research Institute at the. SHELDUS™ is a county-level hazard data set for the U.S. for 18 different natural hazard events types such as thunderstorms, hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and tornados. For each event the database includes the beginning date, location (county and state), property losses, crop losses, injuries, and fatalities that affected each county. The events with reported damage or injury are shown below in Table 4-16 and each calculated loss is adjusted for inflation.
Based on recent winter storm events and recorded losses, total losses over a 30 year period were $530,000. The estimated annualized loss is estimated to be $17,700.
Page 4-27 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 4-16. Winter Storm Events Date Type Weather Event Injuries Fatalities Prop Loss Crop Loss 2/3/1986 Winter Weather 0 0 $1,962 $0 3/18/1987 Winter Weather 0 0.25 $2,364 $236 1/31/1989 Winter Weather 0 1 $26,263 $263 2/1/1989 Winter Weather 0 0 $152,048 $152 2/11/1989 Winter Weather 0 1 $0 $0 8/22/1992 Winter Weather 0 0 $332 $33,248 8/25/1992 Winter Weather 0 0 $0 $1,342 10/7/1993 Winter Weather 0 0 $7,429 $0 2/23/1994 Winter Weather 0 0 $12,671 $0 4/25/1994 Winter Weather 0 0 $6,019 $0 11/16/1994 Winter Weather 0 0 $6,019 $0 11/25/1994 Winter Weather 0 0 $10,317 $0 3/24/1995 Winter Weather 0 0 $70,270 $0 11/18/1996 Winter Weather 0.09 0.18 $0 $0 11/19/1997 Winter Weather 0 2 $0 $0 2/15/2001 Winter Weather 0.25 0.13 $0 $0 6/3/2001 Winter Weather 0 0 $181,396 $0 12/29/2004 Winter Weather 0 0 $16,190 $0 6/10/2008 Winter Weather 0 0 $77 $0 1/1/2009 Winter Weather 0 0 $1,250 $0 Totals 0.34 4.56 $494,606 $35,241
4.7 Wildfire
A wildland or rangeland fire is an uncontrolled fire, a term which includes grass fires, forest fires, and scrub fires, be it man caused or natural in origin. 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. Within Missoula County there are two community wildfire protection plans (CWPP) that addresses the exposure, goals, and mitigation measures necessary to manage wildfire in proximity to rural and urban development. The Seeley Swan Fire Plan (2008) covers the Clearwater River drainage and portions of the Swan Valley in the northeastern portion of Missoula County. The Missoula County Community Wildfire Protection Plan covers the balance of the County. This section is intended to summarize the findings of the two plans and reinforce not supplant its findings and recommendations.
4.7.1 Magnitude/Frequency
Missoula County’s landscape and vegetation has been dominated and shaped by wildland fire. Many of the forest and grassland habitats are dependent on fire for plant succession; fires provided nutrients to soil, vegetation and animals. Suppression efforts to fight back these naturally occurring wildfire events have created greater fire hazards with increased fuel loads in the forest resulting in more intense wildfires. In the last 20 years the frequency and intensity of wildfires has increased and firefighting costs to control wildfires and protect structures have increased exponentially.
Page 4-28 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Missoula County’s history with wildfires, the mountainous terrain, and large areas of the County encompassed by forested land has prompted the community to identify wildfires as a significant hazard. Risk assessments for potential for wildfire hazards were evaluated classifying vegetative type and condition, adjusted by slope, with density and access issues. The resulting analysis in both the Missoula County and Seeley Swan plans are maps that identify areas of greater risk and where treatments need to be prioritized to protect human life and structures under the present conditions.
Federal and/or State disasters or emergencies for forest fires were declared for Missoula County in 1979, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2007 (MDES, 2010). A more complete summary of wildfire history is addressed in the Seeley Swan and Missoula Community Wildfire Protection Plans.
The Missoula CWPP assessed potential risk to wildfire and areas that should be targeted for fuel reduction projects by examining fire related factors and human factors. The fire related factors included the type of vegetative fuels in an area, the amount of disease and insect mortality associated with the vegetation, and slope. Human related factors identified the population density and ingress/egress limitations. The results show that the areas with the high and moderate needs for fuel reduction where in the mountainous drainages. The Missoula CWPP targeted over 22,000 acres that are high priority fuel reduction areas and 334,000 acres that are in moderate priority fuel reduction areas (see Figure 4-4).
The Seeley Swan CWPP used a similar approach assessing fuel types, slopes, development densities and ingress and egress factors. The results of the assessment show 31,000 acres targeted as high priority fuel reduction/treatment areas and 103,000 acres selected for moderate priority fuel reduction/treatment areas.
Page 4-29 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Figure 4-4: Priority Assessment for Fuel Reduction within Missoula County WUI
Source: Missoula County Community Wildfire protection Plan (Missoula County Office of Emergency Services, 2005)
Page 4-30 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Figure 4-5: Priority Assessment for Fuel Reduction within Seeley Swan WUI
Source: Seeley Swan Fire Plan May 2008 Update to the 2004 Fire Plan (Ecosystem Management Research Institute, 2008)
Page 4-31 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
4.7.2 Loss Estimate
The Missoula CWPP and Seeley Swan CWPP have completed assessment of exposure to wildfire and recommendations for mitigating the exposure through fuel reduction and treatment projects. Even with the detailed assessment in the two CWPPs, saving structures within fire perimeters depend on building materials, mitigation of fuels around the structure, and the ability of firefighters to safely ingress and egress the property. Because of fire fighter efforts to protect structures and loss of life, the relative number of structures lost within a fire perimeter has been very low. During the 2003 fires in Missoula County there were approximately 1,400 residences threatened and only three residences lost.
To determine potential losses from a wildfire, the improvement and content value was queried from the high and medium priority treatment areas from the Missoula and Seeley-Swan CWPPs (see Table 4-17 below). In the event of a severe fire expected to occur every 25 years, there will be 1% loss of structures and their content within high priority areas and 0.2% loss in medium priority areas. This is equivalent to 24 residences and 13 other type structures lost within the Missoula CWPP and 12 residences and 13 other type structures lost within the Seeley-Swan CWPP, an estimated $4.9m in structures and content losses. Assuming this severity of wildfire can occur on a 25 year cycle, the annualized loss ($4.9m/25 years) is estimated to be $197,000.
Table 4-17 Exposure and Estimated Losses from Wildfire High Priority Medium Priority
Improve Content Improve Content Value Value1 Value Value1 Totals Residential Missoula CWPP & Others 77,345,965 38,672,983 470,248,215 235,124,108 821,391,270
Commercial 258,550 258,550 8,971,678 8,971,678 18,460,456 Residential Seeley-Swan CWPP & Others 128,259,450 64,129,725 94,398,654 47,199,327 333,987,156
Commercial 4,513,710 4,513,710 3,350,729 3,350,729 15,728,878
Totals 210,377,675 107,574,968 576,969,276 294,645,842 1,189,567,760 Estimated Loss 25 Year Fire Event 2,103,777 1,075,750 1,153,939 589,292 4,922,757 1Content value is estimated to be 50% of improvement value in residences and 100% of improvement value in commercial structures
4.8 Other Hazards
Other hazards considered, but dismissed from detailed analysis by the Mitigation Planning Committee (see meeting minutes on file), included: aircraft accidents, civil disorder, communication interruption, drought, hazardous material incident, utility interruption, radiological or biological incident, subsidence, structure fires, and transportation accidents.
These hazards were eliminated from detailed analysis in this Plan because either the hazards were being evaluated in other County, State, or Federal processes, or the risks from these hazards
Page 4-32 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update were determined to be so low in Missoula County that additional study and evaluation is not necessary.
4.9 Loss Summary
Table 4-18 Summary of Potential Losses – Missoula County Occurrence Frequency Estimated Annualized Hazard Potential for Casualties with Damages1 Losses2 Earthquake (5.0 mag) 50 years $46,500 low Flooding-Flash & 100 years $414,000 high Regional Flooding-Ice Jams 25 years $20,000 moderate Flooding - Major Dam 500 years $10,000 low Failure Landslide 25 years $20,000 low Volcano 100 years $16,000 low Weather- Extreme Wind & 10 years $63,000 high Thunderstorms Weather- Severe 10 years $18,000 high Winter Storms Wildfire 25 years $197,000 high 1 Where there is significant damage to property and/or injuries/fatalities 2 Calculated by estimating damage over period of time divided by frequency
Page 4-33 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
5.0 MITIGATION STRATEGY
5.1 Hazard Prioritization
The mitigation strategy is the recommended actions by the City of Missoula and Missoula County to prevent or reduce losses from disasters in the future. These actions represent the best strategy, considering the exposure to hazards throughout the community and the likelihood a disaster will occur. The actions are prioritized based on the risk and exposure to the community from the hazards listed in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1 Hazard Prioritization Frequency (F) for a Significant Event Potential Impact (I) Potential for Overall Risk Hazard (possibility in any to Community Casualties (C) F(I+C) given year) Wildfire high very high high 36 Flooding-Flash moderate very high high 27 & Regional Extreme Wind/ high low high 24 Thunderstorms Weather-Winter high low high 24 Storms Earthquake low high low 16 Flooding-Ice moderate low moderate 15 Jams Flooding - Major Dam very low high low 7 Failure Landslide moderate low low 6 Volcano low low low 4 Very low -1 Low -2 Moderate -3 High -4 Very High -5
5.2 Progress on Completed Mitigation Actions
The 2004 PDM plan included 5 mitigation goals and 12 objectives for actions to help the county and communities within the county reduce vulnerability to natural hazards. Table 5-2 is a list of each of these mitigation actions and summary of actions completed or not completed.
Page 5-1 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 5-2 Mitigation Actions and Summary of Actions Completed Or Not Completed Goals Objectives Projects Status 1. Identify/Map Areas with heavy fuels near populated areas (to be addressed in the Community Fire Plan) 2. Map/Locate structures in wildland/residential interface (to be addressed in the Community Fire Mapping Wildland Plan) Refer to the Missoula Residential Interface 3. Promulgate ordinances/resolutions and Seeley Swan (WRI) Areas to assess requiring addresses for all existing Community Wildfire vulnerabilities to wildland parcels Protection Plan fire 4. Promulgate ordinances/resolutions requiring addresses for all new parcels created through subdivision or other means 5. Promulgate ordinances/resolutions requiring that structures be geo- referenced Reduce 1. Encourage fuel reduction around Wildland Fire homes in Wildland Residential Risk in Wildland Interface. Urban Interface Refer to the Missoula Thinning of public and 2. Encourage/support fuel mitigation and Seeley Swan private land with heavy projects in federal lands near Community Wildfire fuels Wildland Residential Interface Protection Plan areas. 3. Fuel Mitigation projects throughout the County 1. Develop guidance/rules for Requirement in place maintaining defensible space around existing structures in WUI (guidance in place 1994 DSL Fire Institutional measures that Protection document). would enforce 2. Revise subdivision regulations to Requirements in place maintenance of fuel free require sufficient fire suppression perimeters around water supplies for subdivisions in structures WUI (regulations in place in Missoula County Subdivision Regulations Article 3, Section 3 and Article 5, Section 5).
Page 5-2 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 5-2 Mitigation Actions and Summary of Actions Completed Or Not Completed (cont.) Goals Objectives Projects Status Model extreme flood 1. Require all floodplain modeling Current modeling events (heavy projects to analyze February/March takes into affect precipitation on top of runoff (rain on snow event) and extreme conditions - snowpack) spring runoff event. eliminate 1. Construction of Grant Creek Flood Project Implemented Control and Restoration Project. 2. Require floodplain modeling for all ? subdivisions in unmapped drainages. 3. Revise subdivision regulations to Completed in County assess groundwater flooding potential (Missoula County Address flood prone Subdivision Regulations require an zones in smaller streams assessment of groundwater flooding and vulnerable areas of potential). major rivers 4. Adopt regulations enforcing no- Not completed Reduce build zones in floodplains and flood Exposure to prone zones. Flooding 5. Improve dike system along the Ongoing Clark Fork River near 3rd and Tower Street. 6. Improve the dike system along the Ongoing Bitterroot River near Lolo.
1. Complete structural analysis of Ongoing bridges in County that have a low Assess structure integrity scour potential index of vulnerable bridges to 2. Identify critical access bridges and Ongoing flooding/debris dams evaluate potential for damage from debris. Reduce ice jam risks of damaging overhead 1. Assess feasibility of explosives for Remove structures (bridges, breaking up ice jams pipelines, etc.) 1. Upgrade EAS System for all Upgrade EAS System for Hazard Warning/Communication all Hazard Completed by Installing EAS encoder/decoder Warning/Communication in 911 dispatch Install Weather Stations 1. Install Weather stations on Deer Enhance to Enhance Storm Completed Mountain and Point 118 Communication Prediction for Hazard 1. Install River Gauge w/Telemetry River Gauges for Flood Warnings Below East Fork of Rock Creek to Needs to be Surge and Dam Notify Downstream Communities Addressed Breach/Failure Warnings of Flood Surge Expand the Capabilities 1. Implement Reverse 911 capabilities Completed of 911 Dispatch for 2. Implement Enhanced 911 Completed emergency notification capabilities (completed)
Page 5-3 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 5-2 Mitigation Actions and Summary of Actions Completed Or Not Completed (cont.) Goals Objectives Projects Status 1. Encourage Use of NOAA Weather Completed Radios to Residences in hazardous Enhance areas subject to flooding or Communication Expand Availability of mudslides (completed). for Hazard NOAA Weather Radios 2. Install NOAA Weather Radios in Recommend Warnings Public Buildings and other Removing Appropriate Locations. 1. Identify public buildings by Eliminate because of building type that may be the low risk to Hardening of Vulnerable susceptible to structural failures extreme snow events Infrastructure to High from heavy snow loads. Winds/Heavy Snow 2. Disseminate information to public Eliminate because of Reduce on reducing property damage from the low risk to Vulnerability to high winds. extreme wind events High 1. Install road sensors in key urban Not Completed Winds/Heavy roads (Rattlesnake, Grant Creek, Snow Warning Systems for South Hills, Linda Vista) to identify Hazardous Road freezing/dangerous road conditions. Conditions 2. Install webcams in key locations on Not Completed urban roads to facilitate real-time identification of hazardous road conditions 1. National Weather Service to Ongoing provide weather education Public Education on presentations and tours to educate Community’s Exposure to the public on weather hazards. Develop Greater Hazards 2. Targeted education and information Ongoing Resistance and to public officials on fuel mitigation Responsiveness and general hazard mitigation to Disasters Greater Enforcement of 1. Assess model regulations in other Not completed, Regulations intended to counties to ensure hazard mitigation addressed in various Reduce Exposure to is continuous and ongoing regulations Hazards
5.3 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Goal #1: Reduce Wildland Fire Risk within Wildland Urban Interface
The Missoula and Seeley-Swan CWPP assessed both potential risk to wildfire and areas that should be targeted for fuel reduction projects by examining fire related factors and human factors. The fire related factors included the type of vegetative fuels in an area, the amount of disease and insect mortality associated with the vegetation, and slope. Human related factors identified the population density and ingress/egress limitations. The Missoula CWPP targeted over 22,000/334,000 acres that are high priority/medium priority fuel reduction areas and Seeley Swan CWPP targeted 31,000/103,000 acres that are high priority/medium priority fuel reduction areas.
These two CWPPs are targeted assessments of wildfire hazards and have made recommendations for mitigating wildfire risks. The PDM accepts the Missoula and Seeley-Swan CWPPs and
Page 5-4 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
incorporates all proposed strategic actions as part of the Missoula County PDM mitigation plan. The CWPPs will be annexes to the PDM Update.
Goal #2: Reduce Exposure to Flooding
Objective 2.1: Address flood prone zones in smaller streams and vulnerable areas of major rivers. Specific Projects: 1. Require floodplain modeling for all subdivisions in unmapped drainages. 2. Determine feasibility of regulating development within mapped flood fringe, unmapped flood prone and channel migration zones. 3. Construct/modify south bank of the Clark Fork River between California and Russell Streets as a certified levee. 4. Study alternatives for minimizing local flooding from Rattlesnake Creek at the East Broadway Bridge.
Goal #3: Enhance Communication for Hazard Warnings
Objective 3.1: River Gauges for Flood Surge and Dam Breach/Failure Warnings Specific Projects: 1. Install River Gauge with Telemetry Below East Fork of Rock Creek to Notify Downstream Communities of Flood Surges
Goal #4: Develop Greater Resistance and Responsiveness to Disasters
Objective 4.1: Public Education on Community’s Exposure to Hazards Specific Projects: 1. National Weather Service to provide weather education presentations and tours to educate the public on weather hazards. 2. Targeted education and information to public officials on fuel mitigation and general hazard mitigation
Goal #5: Minimize Impacts of Earthquake Damages in Earthquake Hazard Zones
Objective 5.1: Address Vulnerability of Public Buildings in Seeley-Swan Area Specific Projects: 1. Complete Level 2 HAZUS analysis on Seeley Lake area to identify the extent of vulnerability.
5.4 PDM Project Ranking
The projects listed above were scored in Table 5-3 below based on the ability to address higher priority hazards, relative cost, ability to implement the project, and benefit to the population. The score for each factor is summed and multiplied by the hazard ranking. Each factor is defined below:
Page 5-5 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
. Hazard Ranking: based on priorities established in the risk assessment and scoring of exposure shown in Table 5-1. . Costs: The costs to the general public. The cost estimate does not account for the fiscal impact of regulations that may be imposed on individual facilities, property owners or developers. . Reduced Casualties: Relative evaluation of whether the project effectively reduces the potential for casualties. . Reduced Structural Damage: Relative measure of whether the project effectively reduces the potential for structural and property damage
Each factor was ranked high, medium, or low based on the following definitions.
Table 5-3 PDM Project Ranking Format High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) Hazard Ranking Score >20 Score 10-20 Score <10 Cost < $ 50,000 $50,000-$500,000 >$500,000 Reduces Potential Reduced Casualties Prevents Loss of Life Minimal Reduction Casualties/Injuries Reduced Property Prevents Property Reduces Damage to Minimal Reduction Damage Damage Property
The ranking system is intended to identify projects that will be most effective in hazard mitigation and be cost effective. Table 5-3 shows each project was assigned a value for each of these ranking factors. Projects that are already been implemented or specific projects that will be included in the Community Fire Plan were not included. The type of hazard it addressed was considered the most important factor in trying to prioritize projects and was thus used as a multiplier. The other three hazards were summed and multiplied by the Hazard Ranking. For example, a flood mitigation project that helped a small portion of the population and was very costly, but offered significant reduction of risk to life and property damage would be scored as follows:
Page 5-6 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Table 5-4 PDM Project Ranking (Projects that are already been implemented or specific projects that will be included in the Community Fire Plan have not been included) Reduced Hazard Cost Reduced Proj # PDM Project Property Score (1-5) (1-5) Casualties Damage Fuel Mitigation Projects identified and Goal 1 3 2 2 3 21 prioritized in the Community Fire Plan Construct/modify south bank of the Clark 2.1.3 Fork River between California and Russell 3 1 2 3 18 Streets as a certified levee Require floodplain modeling for all 2.1.1 3 3 1 1 15 subdivisions in unmapped drainages Determine feasibility of regulating 2.1.2 development within mapped flood fringe, 3 3 1 1 15 flood prone, and channel migration zones. Study alternatives for minimizing local 2.1.4 flooding from Rattlesnake Creek at the 3 2 1 2 15 East Broadway Bridge. 4.1.1 NWS weather education presentations 3 3 1 1 15 Complete Level 2 HAZUS analysis on 5.1.1 Seeley-Swan Region to identify the extent 2 3 2 1 14 of vulnerability to earthquakes. Targeted education/information to Public 4.1.2 2 3 1 1 10 Officials on hazard mitigation Install River Gauge w/Telemetry Below 3.1.1 1 2 3 1 7 East Fork Reservoir
Page 5-7 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION & PLAN MAINTENANCE
6.1 Implementation Plan
The mitigation projects in Table 5.3 that received the highest score will be given the highest priority. As funding and opportunities arise, the costs and benefits to the project can be refined. The implementation for some of the higher priority projects are shown in Table 6-1. The table provides a description of the project, the jurisdiction responsible for the project (Missoula County or City of Missoula), the agency or department responsible for implementing the project, and its potential funding sources.
Table 6-1 Implementation Plan for Missoula County and City of Missoula Agency / Time Priority Project Description Jurisdiction Funding Source(s) Department Frame Score City of Fuel Mitigation Projects All Fire Pre-Disaster Mitigation Missoula Short Term prioritized in Community Agencies and Grants, Hazard 21 Missoula (1-3 years) Fire Plan Fire Districts Mitigation Grants County California and Russell Streets bank City of USDOT Tiger II Grant Med Term Public Works 18 modification as a Missoula (3-5 years) certified levee Missoula Level 2 HAZUS County Rural Pre-Disaster Mitigation Short Term earthquake analysis on 14 (Seeley- Initiatives Planning Grants (1-3 years) Seeley-Swan Region Swan) Modify subdivision Office of regulations to require Missoula Office of Planning & Short Term Planning & 15 floodplain modeling on County Grants (1-3 years) Grants unmapped drainages Regulating development Office of within mapped flood Missoula Office of Planning & Short Term Planning & 15 fringe, flood prone, and County Grants (1-3 years) Grants channel migration zones. Study alternatives for minimizing local City of Short Term flooding from Public Works Public Works 15 Missoula (1-3 years) Rattlesnake Creek at the East Broadway Bridge. City of Office of NWS weather education Missoula Emergency NWS Ongoing 15 presentations Missoula Management County Targeted City of Office of education/information to Missoula Emergency DES Ongoing 10 Public Officials on Missoula Management hazard mitigation County Install River Gauge Office of Montana Department of Missoula Med Term w/Telemetry Below East Emergency Natural Resources & 7 County (3-5 years) Fork Reservoir Management Conservation
Page 6-1 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
The approval of this plan shows that hazard mitigation is a high priority for Missoula County and the City of Missoula. Any current or future planning will incorporate these goals, objectives, and disaster mitigation projects into the decision making process. Incorporating these objectives and projects into growth plans, subdivision regulations, floodplain regulations, and other land use tools can help reduce exposure and losses from natural hazards and reduce public costs for response and disaster assistance.
The PDM Update identifies projects that will help the City of Missoula and Missoula County work toward the jurisdictions being hazard resistant communities. Table 5-4 provides a general relationship of the costs relative to the impact of the hazard. The PDM Update has not completed a cost estimate to complete these projects nor has placed a price on the benefit to the community. It is recommended that the affected jurisdictions complete a cost benefit analysis for each project to ensure Missoula County and the City of Missoula invest in the best means to make the communities hazard resistant.
6.2 Plan Maintenance Procedures
This plan is maintained for Missoula County and the City of Missoula by the Missoula County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). The Missoula LEPC has representatives from both jurisdictions and both jurisdictions were active in the development of this plan. The plan will be reviewed by the LEPC annually in their January meeting. Changes or modifications to the plan must be approved by the LEPC and all such changes will be submitted to the Montana Department of Emergency Services. An updated PDM Plan will be reviewed and approved by both jurisdictions every 5 years. The next updated plan will be submitted to the Montana Department of Emergency Services and Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Office in January 2016.
Public comments, inputs, and modifications are a necessary part of the plan. This input will be addressed in the annual updates. All input shall be submitted in writing to the Missoula County Office of Emergency Management.
Page 6-2 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
7.0 REFERENCES
BBER, 2010. Montana's Economic Outlook 2010: Missoula County. Prepared by the University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Missoula, Montana. http://www.bber.umt.edu/econ/forecast.asp
BEA, 2010. Regional Economic Accounts, Annual Personal Income and Employment. Prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the US Department of Commerce, Washington. http://www.bea.gov/regional/
Corti, Dan, 2010. Email correspondence to Bob Reid regarding "Comments on PDM" dated December 1, 2010.
CRREL, 2010. Ice Jam Database. US Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL). http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/ierd/ijdb/ .
Ecosystem Management Research Institute, 2008. Seeley Swan Fire Plan May 2008 Update to the 2004 Fire Plan.
Fay, G. and Miller S. (2003), Summary Report of the Missoula Economic Development Forum, October 20, 2003. ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/documents/mayor/forum1summaryreport.pdf
FEMA 1988, Flood Insurance Study, Missoula County and Incorporated Areas.
FEMA, 2003. Floods and Flash Floods Fact Sheet. http://www.fema.gov/hazards/floods/floodf.shtm
FEMA, 2008. Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance. Federal Emergency Management Agency interpreted guidance of Mitigation Planning regulations under CR Title 44, Part 201, July 1, 2008.
Land & Water, 2004. Missoula County and City of Missoula Pre Disaster Mitigation Plan. Prepared by Land & Water Consulting for the City of Missoula and Missoula County. October 2004.
McMurtrey, R.G., Konizeski, R.L., Brietkrietz, A., 1965. Geology and ground-water resources of the Missoula Basin, Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 047, 36 page(s), 3 plate(s).
MDOR, 2010. Computer Aided Mass Appraisal (CAMA) database. Montana Department of Revenue property appraisal database system, Helena, Montana.
Missoula County Office of Emergency Services, 2005. Missoula County Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Montana DES, 1996. State of Montana Hazard Mitigation Plan. Revised October 1996.
Page 7-1 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Montana DES, 2003. State of Montana Department of Military Affairs Disaster and Emergency Services Division. Fax to C. Vandam dated 8/6/03.
Montana DNRC, 2003. Water Projects Bureau. State-owned Water Projects. http://www.dnrc.state.mt.us/wrd/home.htm
Montana DNRC, 2010. NFIP Claims Report Missoula County and City of Missoula. Report prepared by Traci Sears of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation documenting National Flood Insurance claims. Helena, Montana.
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), 2010. Event Record Details. NOAA. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
OPG, 2010. Urban Fringe Area Development Project 2009 Yearbook. Prepared by the Missoula County Office of Planning and Grants, Missoula, Montana.
Qamar, A.I., and Stickney, M.C, 1983. Montana Earthquakes, 1869-1979, Historical Seismicity and Earthquake Hazard. Memoir 51, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology.
Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M, and others, 1981. Aerial Distribution, thickness, mass, volume, and grain size of air-fall ash the six major eruptions of 1980. in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, p. 577-600.
SHELDUS, 2010. Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database of the United States. Data and maps compiled and geo-referenced by the Hazards & Vulnerability and Research Institute at the University of South Carolina. Columbia, South Carolina.
Stickney, M.C., 2003. E-mail correspondence with N. Winslow, Oct. 17, 2003.
Stickney et al, 2000. Quaternary Faults and Seismicity in Western Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 114.
Tetra Tech, 2010. State of Montana Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and Statewide Hazard Assessment, 2010 Update. Prepared for the Montana Disaster and Emergency Services by Tetra Tech, Helena, Montana. November, 2010.
US Army Corps of Engineers (COE NID), 2003. National Inventory of Dams, U.S. Army Topographic Engineering Center. http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid.cfm
US Census Bureau, 2010. American Factfinder Database. Population forecasts from the Department of Commerce.
USDI Bureau of Reclamation, 2003. Dam Project Information. http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/projects/index.html
Page 7-2 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
USGS, 1982 (and internet 1997 update). Landslide Overview Map Of The Conterminous United States. Authors: Dorothy H. Radbruch-Hall, Roger B. Colton, William E. Davies, Ivo Lucchitta, Betty A. Skipp, And David J. Varnes. Us Geological Survey Professional Paper 1183. http://landslides.usgs.gov/html_files/landslides/nationalmap/national.html
USGS, 1994. Volcanoes of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey General Interest Publication. Steven R. Brantley. http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Publications/BrantleyVolcanoesUS/framework.html
USGS 2000. Significant Floods in the United States During the 20th Century - USGS Measures a Century of Floods. USGS Fact Sheet 024-00. March 2000. http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/pubs/fact-sheets/fs.024-00.html
USGS, 2003. USGS Water Watch. Website maintained by the US Geological Survey, Washington, http://mt.water.usgs.gov/infodata/waterwatch.html
USGS, 2010. Earthquake Hazards Program. Website tool prepared by the US Geological Survey, Washington. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/
Page 7-3 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Appendix A
Meeting Attendance
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update
Missoula County City of Missoula
Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Appendix B
Public Meeting Notices
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update
Missoula County City of Missoula
Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Media Release November 23, 2010
RE: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Update Workshop
Missoula County
Missoula County's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) and Atkins will host a public workshop to inform and collect input on mitigating hazards within the County. Atkins was hired as a consultant to update the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan and make recommendations where mitigation projects are necessary. PDM plans review the exposure to hazards within the community, evaluates the areas and population that may be vulnerable to the hazards, and assesses the potential for future hazards and its impacts on the community. The plans identify methods and projects to mitigate hazards and prioritize projects based on need and cost-effectiveness.
The workshop will review the results of the hazard assessment, review a preliminary list of mitigation projects and solicit input on other mitigation projects throughout the County and within the City of Missoula.
The PDM plans are submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a requirement of the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Completed and approved plans are required for counties and local jurisdiction to qualify for both pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation assistance.
Workshops will be held at the following locations & times:
Missoula County Wednesday, December 1st , 4:00-6:00 pm, Missoula County Commissioners Conference Room 200 West Broadway, Missoula
For More Information Contact Charlie Vandam, Atkins, (406) 532-7275.
Page B-1 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REVIEW OF PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN
Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on Review of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan at their regularly scheduled Public Meeting on Wednesday, December 1, 2010, at 1:30 p.m., M.T., in Room 201 of the Missoula County Courthouse Annex, 200 West Broadway, Missoula, MT 59802.
The goals of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan are to assess potential large scale hazards facing the citizens of Missoula County, prioritize those hazards, and determine how they may be mitigated. Past projects include flood control on Grant Creek, initiation of a wildland fire fuels mitigation program, and acquisition of Reverse 9-1-1 for emergency notifications.
Any person wishing to be heard on the matter may submit written or other materials to the Commissioners and/or speak at the hearing. Comments may also be submitted any time prior to the hearing on December 1, 2010 by phone, mail, fax or personal delivery to the Commissioners at their offices in the Missoula County Courthouse, 200 West Broadway, Missoula, MT 59802, Fax (406) 721-4043.
Additional information on the proposals may be obtained from Bob Reid, Director of Emergency Services, 200 West Broadway, Missoula, MT 59802; or by calling (406) 258-4758.
DATED THIS ______DAY OF ______, 2010.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA
PUBLISH: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2010 and THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2010.
Page B-2 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Appendix C
Summary of Comments at Public Meetings
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update
Missoula County City of Missoula
P U B L I C M E E T I N G MISSOULA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2010 – 1:30 P.M. ROOM 201 – COURTHOUSE ANNEX M I N U T E S
1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Landquist called the meeting to order at 1:30pm
Commissioners Present : Commissioner (Chair) Michele Landquist, Commissioner Jean Curtiss, Commissioner Bill Carey
Staff Present : James McCubbin, Deputy County Attorney, Greg Robertson, Director of Public Works, Steve Smith, Public Works, Tony Hollaway, Public Works
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
Phyllis Jamison: I would like to make a comment that may be of interest to any resident in Missoula County that may have participated in an abandonment proceeding or may be considering one. The preprinted petition forms that Missoula County passes out do not meet the requirements of the law. I won’t go into detail here but the statues are pretty clear but they violate Montana Code Annotated 7- 14-2601. In one respect this form leaves off the required list of dissenters off of the petition form for an abandonment of a road. So anyone who is signing the petition form does not have an accurate view of what’s going on and they can’t contact or are not aware that there may be dissenters, it’s a requirement of the law. Also in addition to the form being false and not complete and not compiling with the law, Missoula County does not require that people who fill out a form pass in and submit a petition that they don’t require be even that be done correctly. It can be approved by the County even though the interested parties are left off of the form that is a requirement of the law. It says the names and addresses of the land owners affected by the abandonment must be listed. And you have to have a list of the name of the land owners who consent to the abandonment and those who do not consent. I’m reading this from your own papers here, this is Missoula County’s submission on your procedures for abandoning roads, exhibit J6. Further Missoula County does not follow the legal requirements necessarily of processing a petition for abandonment. One of the legal requirements is that the county surveyor be present on the site viewing meeting. Ms Jamison asked if Steve Nyday is now the County Surveyor, Commissioner Curtiss stated he is not. Ms Jamison said Chair Landquist told her he was, Chair Landquist stated that Ms Jamison asked who was in charge of the department and wanted specific titles. Steve Smith, registered plan l and surveyor in the State of Montana. Ms Jamison asked Mr Smith for his exact title – Assistant Public Works Director, examining Land Surveyor. Ms Jamison asked who the county surveyor is; Commissioner Curtiss replied that the elected county surveyor is Vickie Zeier but she delegates her authority to the public works dept where we have registered land surveyor such as Steve, we have several land surveyors. Ms Jamison understood this stopped being an elected position, the County Surveyor. She asked wasn’t Charles Wright appointed to Assistant Director of Public Works rather than running for County Surveyor? The residents of Missoula County may be interested to know that there may not be very many legally filed abandonment forms in the courthouse today. They should check their petitions, if they use the preprinted form or use that as a guide, likely it is not legal because it, for one thing, does not include the required list of dissenters.
4. ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS AND PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Weekly Claims List - $1,206,093.92 Commissioner Curtiss made a motion that the Board of County Commissioners approves the weekly claims list in the amount of $1,206,093.92. Commissioner Carey seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 3-0.
b. Chair Landquist wanted to add that now winter is here and things are getting cold, the 316 Mission is looking for contributions to their clothing boutique. They have a day center where they sell used furnishing to raise money for their mission but they also have a day center that they make available for people that are needy and homeless located on Toole Avenue, that is also where they would like some donations dropped off in the way of some warm coats and boats and things like that to help the people in need during this cold stretch. So if anyone out there can help, it would be nice to give some people a hand.
5. BID AWARD (Larchmont Golf Course) a. Irrigation Project – Pumps Parties Present: Bill Galiher, Dan Smith, Scott Reagan Proposed Bids: Franz Witte, Boise ID for $243,737.00 Rexius, Eugene, OR for $265,000.00 Bid Documentation Mr. Galiher asked the Commissioner to accept the bid from Franz Witte
Executive Session
Commissioner Carey made a motion that the Board of County Commissioners rewards the bid to Franz Witte in the amount of $243,737.00. Commissioner Curtis seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 3-0.
6. DECISION (from November 10, 2010 Hearing)
Petition to Abandon a Portion of Fourth Street from Mullan Road to Alley between Block 3, Lot 7 and Block 4, Lot 1 – East Clinton Addition
Steve Smith read the viewers report .
Public Comment
Phyllis Jamison : I’m not clear, are you saying you want to abandon part of…I don’t understand what you want to abandon. You’re not recommending abandoning something; I’m trying to follow what’s going on here.
Chair Landquist : “The recommendation was to abandon the whole road and after viewing the site, the portion that’s pretty much being used right now, which is the more Southerly, Chair Landquist asked if she has her directions correct. Steve Smith is showing them the map that was submitted with the petition, enlarged. He explains what they are requesting is the South half of the road right- a-way to be abandoned, leaving still as a public right-a-way the North half. So you have a 60 foot right-a-way; 30 feet recommended to be abandoned, the North 30 feet still remaining as public right- a-way.
Ms Jamison: First of all that’s not realistic even if that were the case, that’s’ a 60 foot wide road there that’s free and clear. Yes, there may be grass growing on it, there’s also encroachments on it. What did you recommend about the encroaching tent? Dec01_10 Page 2 of 18 Chair Landquist : “It wouldn’t be an encroachment with it being abandoned.”
Ms Jamison : “I’m opposed to it. You mention that the alleys not improved at all that there’s weed and debris and it prevents passage so that turns it into a dead-end alley as far as fire vehicle prevention access.
Chair Landquist: “ They can get out the one way but they can not get out the other way because of the cliff, it’s a dead end.”
Ms Jamison : “Concerned that this needs to go through a whole total separate new procedure. It needs to have a current survey map. That tent that’s encroaching now is that what you are saying is existed on that property in 2001 when this was drawn.”
Commissioners said “no, they are not saying that”.
Ms Jamison : “That’s what they said last time.”
Chair Landquist : “This is a time for comments not interrogation. Feel free to make your comments and they will do their best to address what they think they need to do, they’re doing their do diligence here.”
Ms. Jamison : “This is a public hearing and I was asked questions during the other public hearing and rearranged my agenda, whole comments to fit their schedule and how I could come back and took one minute do my notes and rearrange my notes, you opened up a road microphone and let them have at so I couldn’t even review her notes. And I was told so that I could rearrange and fit into the schedule and how I could come back and make comment at another time. My comment includes questions just like Deputy Attorney James McCubbin asked me questions.”
Commissioner Curtiss: “Ms Jamison, I think what you don’t understand is that this map shows something that was on there in 2001, that’s what they are talking about now. What they are saying is that if the area that Mr Smith is pink if we abandon that even though that drawing may not be exactly where the tent type structure that is there now sits, it would still be within that 30 feet so it doesn’t matter exactly where it fits, if we choose to abandon it, its not an issue anymore. So, I guess what your comment should be is whether or not leaving that 30 foot right-a-way that connects to the 20 foot right-a-way in the alley still gives public access to your property, which it does.”
Ms Jamison: “No that’s not all I’m concerned about; I’m concerned about emergency vehicle access and fire suppression access and that’s not adequate.
Commissioner Curtiss : “They only require 20 feet of access in all of our subdivision rules. Ms Jamison; when they get to the end of that where do they go? They have to have it all drivable weather conditions and that he just has stated is not, it’s Lake Clinton down at the other end of the alley because the garbage trucks run back and forth on it. All of the fire trucks say they need to be within 150 feet because they have that much hose.”
Ms Jamison: “Well I’m just saying what Pat Clinch, the Deputy Fire Marshall told me, the Deputy State Fire Marshall told me, it needs to be all weather conditions drivable and that’s not, the alleys not, it isn’t now.”
Ms Jamison agreed. But, first of all I have filed a petition for rehearing, I’m hopefully there will be a positive result but if there isn’t, there will be no…due to an unintentional mix up there’s going to be no access to her property what-so-ever from the other direction, none…coming in through this way, zero, zilch as it stand now unless she is successful in getting it over turned, none. The only access as it stands now is coming in off 4 th Street. Now, you said these alley dead ends into debris and a cliff, just like the back of my house dead ends into a cliff and the side of my house dead ends into a Dec01_10 Page 3 of 18 cliff and a gully. The only access to my house is this way…. (Looking at map) where I can bring in groceries has a steep hillside, Clinton is built on layers. Steep hillside coming down this way (looking at map) I has access this way for walking, for driving, for going places but not for unloading groceries or other things. I cannot go down that hillside even in the summertime going up and down carrying stuff, let alone its way too steep for winter (I have pictures of that).
Chair Landquist : Ms Jamison, explain if you have on the 4 th Street portion drivable, walkable access.
Ms Jamison : “I’m coming to that but I need to finish my thought. I’m establishing that I have no emergency vehicle access coming thorough, they could put a fence across that road, and they can do whatever they want to, legally now as we speak if it’s not over turned. I have filed that…I’m trying. No access there of any kind, emergency or whatever, they can put a concrete fence across there if they want to. So that’s out. This is the only way then for fire suppression access, let’s talk about that for a minute. They can’t go this way (looking at map) it’s a drop off, they’re not going to drive into a dead end and they can’t go this way because it’s not all weather conditions drivable. It’s 20 feet wide, it has to be a minimum of 20 feet wide, it’s got that, pretty close to it, I actually haven’t measured it but it probably does. This is Lake Clinton here – we had to walk around it and it was very deep and in the spring time it gets much worse. There could be a pile of nails under there. The fire truck can’t drive through on the way to a fire. They won’t go through something like that and nobody would ask them to. These people should be concerned, everybody on the…well that’s another issue but…so they can’t drive down here because of the…and the garbage trucks comes back up and gauge that all the time. Okay. The county does not maintain alleys. So, this is a dead-end, that’s not all weather drivable where they gonna go.”
Commissioner Curtiss: “Where they gonna go now?”
Ms Jamison: Laughs and says good point. “That’s why I got a law suit going because I don’t have access like all my neighbors do. This is a 60 foot, yes she’s got grass on it but those fire trucks can drive on it in an emergency.”
Chair Landquist: “And they will.”
Ms Jamison: “And they will and they will help her but they sure won’t go over here.”
Chair Landquist: “In and emergency I’m pretty confident they will do what they need to do to get the job done, ma’am.”
Ms. Jamison: “I’ll take the word of Deputy State Fire Marshall, Pat Clinch.”
Chair Landquist : “Okay, would you like to make some…”
Ms Jamison: “Another thing I want to clarify here and I asked it be put in the report, it wasn’t. Is that I was asked by McCubbin here last time did I have garbage service before my fence was up and I needed to clarify, the fence was the first thing I put in before I even painted the inside of my house. I didn’t have garbage service before the fence was up because the fence was the first thing I did for a number of reasons. So, I’m opposed to that. Not only that – this is a 60 foot wide street, there’s not – this is the only one in Clinton, all of Clinton that’s 60 foot wide. All of these people should be concerned about their fire suppression access coming in from this way in case the fire trucks needed to come back in that way. But, in any case, for that reason alone but also for the fact as I said last time, this is a gate here and area for a gate for me to…I couldn’t unload groceries or anything else but I could park a vehicle here or something and go out in some kinds of weather, at least I wouldn’t have to go up and out that way.
Dec01_10 Page 4 of 18 Chair Landquist: I think your – the boundary lines as I understand it - the blue line there is your boundary line that lines up just fine for with what we’re planning on leaving as a road. Ms Jamison: “I see a lot of blue lines here, I don’t know what you’re talking about – the blue line is my boundary line.”
Steve Smith: “May I help?”
Chair Landquist : “Mr Smith, could you please assist?”
Steve Smith : “The question that comes about is; there’s various colors on this drawing. According to the legend that’s over here, we have a fence wire, where my finger is, that’s your fence, wire fence that was located by the field crew back in evidentially late 2000, early 2001. And I believe on our observation, Ms Jamison also pointed out, it would be right about here, where my finger is, where there’s an opening or a future opening to have access to their property.
Chair Landquist: “Yea, that’s the way it lines up…”
Steve Smith : “Hang on a second; just hang on for a second. Can you hold this for a second? What we have here is an aerial photograph, I’m sorry a photograph taken by the petitioners, by the petitioners and presented to our office. What we have here would be East Mullan Road and we’re looking this way, so actually it’s – the photograph is from here looking back or to the West. So, here’s the travel surface and it was a scanned image, sorry for the quality. But, this point right here where my finger is would be this corner of the property and thank goodness there’s a little snow because you can see this fence going across the rail and some sort. And then probably right there where my finger is - is a future opening for a gate and that would be approximately right there. So basically in line, most likely in line with the 30 foot right-a-way if the decision is made to just abandon half of it.
Chair Landquist: “Which lines up nicely for Ms...to access Ms Jamison’s property in the back there.”
Steve Smith : “I call it a straight shot, right in. And then here’s the surface as mentioned earlier – this is lawn. Okay?”
Chair Landquist: “Thank you very much, nice job.”
Ms Jamison: “Actually that’s incorrect. This fence post here is marked – goes over to the corner of my property.”
Chair Landquist: “That’s what you said”
Ms Jamison: “That’s right, to the corner of my property.”
Chair Landquist: “Right.”
Ms Jamison: “First of all, this is a brand new hearing…here I come again unprepared.”
Chair Landquist: “It’s not a brand new hearing it’s a continuation ma’am. Don’t take your frustration out on us; we’re doing the best we can.”
Ms Jamison : “This is a brand new…set of…situation here, this is instead of abandoning – what this is Yellow, it’s now pink. That’s different.”
Commissioner Curtiss : The law allows us to do a partial abandonment of a proposed abandonment.” Dec01_10 Page 5 of 18 Ms. Jamison : “Without any further…”
Commissioner Curtiss: “yes, doesn’t let us make it any bigger but we can make it smaller.” Ms. Jamison: “Well, that’s not right that I’m not prepared, I can not be prepared to respond to this.”
Chair Landquist: “Okay.”
Commissioner Curtiss: “And that’s your house in the background there, right?”
Ms. Jamison: “Yes”
Commissioner Curtiss: “So you can see that the portion that we propose to not abandon or that the viewers have proposed to not abandon is that road and it goes right to your house.” Ms. Jamison: “First of all, see there are all kinds of reasons that it’s not going to work. These are all encroachments here, all the things that they have here. They have lots more displays and all kinds of stuff in their busy season. In addition to that, they have cars pulling in – they said they have a parking problem. They have cars pulling in every which way and they park every which way. My suggestion was to remove this encroaching fence. Now she claims that this is a Costco tent that was there when this fence…when this was drawn, according to the scale, that’s false. This is a building, its mark by blue.”
Commissioner Curtiss: “Ms. Jamison, we’re not talking about the encroachments today, that’s a whole another process, if they ask for that... (Ms Jamison is speaking away from the microphone, I can’t understand what is being said)…so all we’re talking about is abandoning a portion of the road.”
Chair Landquist : “Is there any other public comments, anybody else that would like to make a public comment about this road abandonment?”
Charles Drinville: “I live on...adjacent to Phyllis, down over the hill on Woodville Avenue…well no I’m told it’s Montana Avenue but whatever. As you look there it’s a reasonable approach what you’re doing, very reasonable. Owner of Jamison house there, if you look down that road there that’s in the street and that was abandoned by you, by which-a-call-it, which to her liking, which I have no problem with that but and I have no problems with what your doing so, I support you 150% so.”
Chair Landquist: “Thank you very much.”
James McCubbin : “May I ask Mr. Drinville a couple questions?”
Chair Landquist: “Sure”
James McCubbin : “Mr Drinville, are you familiar with the properties involved that are affected by this proposed abandonment?”
Charles Drinville : “absolutely.”
James McCubbin : “How are you familiar?”
Charles Drinville : “I’ve been out there 40 years.”
James McCubbin : “Okay.”
Charles Drinville : “I built the house over there adjacent to Phyllis – to the North, right on 3 rd and Woodville. I built that house; I bought the two lots right next door there. Verna Bugsby lived there and I sold one to Verna and I kept one, so that gave me four lots and there’s where Rich Weekley(?) lives at. My Mom and Dad owned the ones down over the hill where Jack and Dena live at. Dec01_10 Page 6 of 18 James McCubbin : “The Lunds?”
Charles Drinville : “Right.”
James McCubbin: “Are you familiar with Phyllis Jamison property?”
Charles Drinville : “Absolutely”
James McCubbin : “How are you familiar with her property?”
Charles Drinville: “I built the fence around it.”
James McCubbin: “Okay.”
Charles Drinville : “When she first moved in there, I was helping her, I have a tractor with a post pounder and when we moved the fence around there I came back to her piece of property, I said the back of your house is in the street, how do you want to do it? She said, put the fence out in the street, so that’s what I did and then she wanted it moved, so…after I put it in she wanted it moved.”
James McCubbin : “Can you share with us anything more on your impression on whether the partial abandonment that’s discussed in the viewers report will affect access to any properties, I mean including Ms Jamison’s because she’s expressed concerned, but any other properties - Would it effect anybodies access?”
James McCubbin : “It won’t affect any other people’s access, the kid Jim down over the hill from her, that’s…you come in on 5 th Street for that, that’s the people that are across 4 th Street to the South and there’s no access down through there because it’s all brush and that. He’s got access in through 5th Street. As far as a fire truck, a fire truck can go down that road down there, it’s a 30 foot Street they can down there take a right and go back up the alley. They’ve got 4-wheel drives, they have a 4-wheel drive truck in the Clinton fire department so that’s really not an issue and they do like you say, they do have a 150 feet to 200 feet of fire house so that’s not an issue neither, in my opinion.”
Chair Landquist: “Is there anybody else that would like to make a comment about this road abandonment?”
Debbie Lorenzo: “I just wanted to clarify one thing, at the last hearing she claimed that emergency vehicles could not get down for the person that had the problem when she was taking trees out. It’s a matter of public record, they did come down 4 th , went right up the alley, that fence was not there when she was taking those trees out and they treated him right there in the alley and went out on 3 rd so we already know that they can make it through.”
Chair Landquist : “And I think, just also to make the record clear, the comment last time was made that the ambulance couldn’t find the place but you told me on site there that in Clinton it’s usually the first responders that come and that would be from the fire department or rural fire and then they call and give appropriate directions to ambulance?”
Debbie Lorenzo : “If they need an ambulance, correct. As far as I remember an ambulance didn’t come on site, it was the quick response and the fire truck.”
Chair Landquist: “Okay, thank you for clearing that up. Is there anyone else that would like to make public comment?”
Ms Jamison: “If 9-1-1 records go back that far it will be on the record and it was the Clinton ambulance, whatever it was they put him in the ambulance and took him off. It will be…I imagine they keep those records, it will be there.” Dec01_10 Page 7 of 18 Chair Landquist: “Okay, thank you.”
Ms Jamison: “I mentioned the greenhouse thing, going to their credibility. Here this is the credibility in again the issue here, which is my right to bring that up because this is false.
Chair Landquist: “Okay, thank you.”
Ms Jamison: “I would like to finish what I was saying, last time she claimed that…I’m gonna catch my breath for just a minute. Totally unprepared as usual for these meetings because I’m not given information, I would of liked to have this report in advance so I could prepare. Going back to the credibility of the Lorenzo’s, last time they claimed that Costco tent was on the property when that map was drawn, that’s on the record. Actually what’s there as I said it was – a building, they denied it was a wood-framed building, that’s on the record. We’re looking at the credibility here. It was a wood-framed building.
Chair Landquist: “That’s why we do site visit though, ma’am. We listen to people’s testimony but we do site visits and I don’t think this hearing has anything necessarily to do with someone’s credibility. Again, you were warned last time at the last hearing; I’d be careful if I were you to not be crossing the line into saying that could get you in trouble for slander.
Ms Jamison: I didn’t cross any lines.
Chair Landquist: Just throwing that out there for ya.
Ms Jamison: I have a comment about that. When Missoula County is the one that pits neighbor against neighbor by the negligence of the way you handle your roads, it really isn’t appropriate for you to comment to me about how to handle the dispute. When it’s basically your issue, your problem, which you’ve caused. This is a 40 foot by 20 foot building.
James McCubbin : Correction let me just step in…
Ms Jamison: That’s an interruption…
James McCubbin : Ms Jamison, why don’t you just complete you comments as they are, however the Commissioners are not here to answer your questions. If you have questions that you think they should look into, you can mention that, that’s part of your comments. If you think there’s a credibility issue that relates to information that’s been presented to the Commissioners, you can comment on that but that doesn’t necessarily mean your comments are true either. So, in other words, this is your opportunity to present your comments and then the Commissioners will address them with further inquiry if they feel it’s necessary but it really isn’t a dialog, it’s your opportunity to present what you have to present.
Ms Jamison : And that’s what I’m trying to do but I keep getting interrupted but I would appreciate it. This is a 40 foot by 20 foot greenhouse, labeled as a greenhouse. If it were a tent it would be labeled as a tent, just as a wood pile is labeled as wood pile, a utility pole is labeled as a utility pole, etc. Further a greenhouse lets light through and a Costco tent doesn’t so we’re looking at a credibility issue here.
Commissioner Curtiss : We really don’t check people’s credibility before we take comment, it’s not our job.
Ms Jamison : Once they make comment, it’s good to have that in mind, for instance, over the ambulance issue. And, as far as the fire suppression access, they aren’t going to be able to have it at all; I won’t have any at all down here. Another thing here that I object to this is an illegally submitted petition… Dec01_10 Page 8 of 18 Chair Landquist : You covered that.
Ms Jamison: Are you going to interrupt me again in the middle of my sentence?
Chair Landquist : Ma’am, when you’ve already covered some of the things that…
Ms Jamison : I haven’t raised this particular petition up at all. This is the first time I have and you’re interrupting me every time I try to speak…and then when I get rattled I can’t think so thank you very much. And if you’re concerned why I’m in a not such a rosie mood, I’m being encroached in and hind in and abandoned in on every side of me. And completely hind-in now to this, you’re saying 30 foot there when they’ve got there, by your own pictures, this is in winter time here…they’ve got all this out, even here. In the summer this is all displays, clear out here and people parking over here and in every which…nobody could drive through there. And, further like as I say, Deputy State Fire Marshall Pat Clinch would never let any one of his trucks go down this way or this way. Another reason why this is an illegal, wrongly submitted petition; First of all, the petition itself is false, it doesn’t have a place to list the decentors. It doesn’t have a place to list…it’s false also even in the way it’s filled out, its supposed to have…at least the county does have a place for the name and mailing address of the people, the owners effected by the abandonment. Everyone on this alley is affected by the abandonment and there’s no other names besides the Lorenzo’s on here. Everyone signing this petition had the false impression that there’s no objections to this petition. Further, the Lorenzo’s falsely state, they sign there name here…I don’t even see their signature on it, okay well I guess they have it on here, yeah they have it on here….no just their singing the…they filled this out saying that we have connected the above name landowners and the following landowners consent, they didn’t contact me. If they…and you know, whoever else is an effected landowner on here, evidently they didn’t contact them maybe they contacted some of them, you just don’t know. But, they have filled out…this does not meet the requirements of the law. Further, Vickie Zeier, you’re saying who has no experience as a Surveyor, it is a requirement of law that the County Surveyor be on site. The County Surveyor, not the Manager, the Surveyor. You said Vickie Zeier is the Surveyor now, that’s her Title.
Commissioner Curtiss: By Title.
Ms Jamison: By Title, so the County Surveyor Vickie Zeier should have been out there, by law.” My uh…you haven’t…I’m opposed to this, there’s just too many encroachments, there’s too much to typography. There’s too much problems with the typography going down hill into my house to get access. There’s too much problems with typography on this side of my house without it getting access. There’s problems in the summertime with their fat traffic going in every which way, this won’t be travelable and they can’t go down here anyway. It’s not a safe idea, it’s not safe for me, and it’s not safe for anybody in that neighborhood. This is your opportunity Missoula County to start treating your roads responsibly instead of negligently. To stop trying to give them away and to do the responsible thing, that needs to be left open for all kinds of access for not just myself but for the neighbors and for the future. This was platted, that road, before 1907 and it’s the only one in Clinton that has a 60 foot wide road there, and it needs to be left as a road. They can certainly have their…they have their customers park on the grass now anyway, up and around in here. They can have them park along these greenhouses here and park them right along here and then there will be room to go through. If this 60 foot width is not left the cars will continue to go every which way, this way they can park in here and there will be room to go through. That road needs to be completely left open, that’s according to Deputy State Fire Marshall Pat Clinch.
Chair Landquist: Thank you. Is there any other public comment about this proposal we have before us? Okay James I do have a question for you, I don’t know if I should close the hearing first and then ask a question or do I ask a question of James? Okay, so at this juncture since there’s no other public comment the deliberations are up to the Commissioners, I think I’ll close this portion of the hearing to the public and we’ll go through our deliberations and if I may start with first asking you to clarify - is this application that we’ve been using do you consider that to meet the interpretation of the law? Dec01_10 Page 9 of 18 James McCubbin: I do think this is a legally valid petition and actually I just gone through and rechecked the statue to insure that’s my opinion and it is my opinion. Another couple comments, I am familiar with the pending petition to abandon to partially abandon the portion of Woodville Avenue used to access Ms Jamison’s house and it is my opinion that she will continue to have legal and the same physical access that she now if and when that abandonment - that partial abandonment is completed. And that she had noted for the record that she agreed in writing to that partial abandonment.
Chair Landquist: So that was an abandonment with an easement through it or something?
James McCubbin: No it’s just a partial abandonment so the part that’s used will continue to be there as a public access. Another thing that occurred to me might be useful information to you. It appears that from this survey that there have been encroachments in the South part of 4 th Street in the sections since at least…when was that Survey Steve, 2001?
Steve Smith : I have not checked the records to absolutely sure but my guess is the survey was done in approximately 2000 maybe early 2001. The drawing is dated February 2001.
James McCubbin: Okay. So I guess we have the convenience of having Greg Robertson, Public Works Director present with us and I think an interesting question would be – has there ever been a complaint about the encroachments on this stretch of road that have been there for some 9-10 years?
Greg Robertson : The one on 4 th Street?
James McCubbin : Correct
Greg Robertson: No
James McCubbin: No? Okay. So that’s all I have
Chair Landquist: I have a couple other questions for ya. Do you consider the fact that Steve Smith who’s a County Surveyor, Licensed Surveyor and can represent Vickie Zeier; do you consider that to meet the law, intent of the law?
James McCubbin : Yes, it’s my understanding that she has delegated that to staff. I’m not familiar with how exactly that was done but there’s nothing inappropriate to her delegating that to someone that’s under her oversight ultimately.
Greg Robertson : Title 7-4-2801 deals with office of the county surveyor specifically the section, section 1 deals with qualifications; one must either be a registered land surveyor or a registered professional engineer to hold the office of County Surveyor. Section 3, when the office of county surveyors consolidated with another county office, which that was done in this particular case when hoarses position was retired, it was consolidated with Vickie Zeier in the Clerk and Recorder and Treasurer, I think. When the County Surveyor is consolidated with another County Office within the County the requirements of subsection 1 are waived. Meaning Vickie is qualified under this particular section to hold that office. Unless the office holder has the qualifications prescribed in subsection 1, the officer shall with the approval the governing body, which did happen in this case, contract for the services of a person with those qualifications. That’s what’s been done and I am the one that the requirements have been turned over to - back in 2003.
Chair Landquist: My final question for you then James, do you consider the site (in auditable) that we did meets the intent of the law?
James McCubbin: Yes Dec01_10 Page 10 of 18 Chair Landquist: You don’t foresee e anything that we’ve done in going through this hearing as unlawful?
James McCubbin: No, I think it’s abundantly clear from the maps and photos that have been presented in the discussion that there clearly was an investigation of the area and actually went well beyond just 4 th Street; they investigated the whole area so I think that is a valid viewer. We have appropriate report of that – that’s been submitted into the record and it was read in full, it’s my understanding from Steve and from reviewing the written record was read in full verbatim by Steve Smith earlier in this preceding today.
Steve Smith: I’ll just add that the background was not read, as I pointed out during this hearing that Commissioner Landquist basically covered the background.
Chair Landquist : Fellow Commissioners do you have any questions or concerns regarding this petition before us today?
Commissioner Carey: No
Commissioner Curtiss: I have just one to clarify – one item that Ms Jamison brought up was that the petition didn’t identify people who dissented and I believe that’s what the public hearing process is about to tell – have people tell us whether or not they’re in favor or against. Do you believe that they need to write on the petition, the people who are against? We’ve never had that before.
James McCubbin : There’s not a requirement that you list people that don’t consent.
Chair Landquist: Without any other questions for our deliberations, fellow Commissioners I would appreciate it if a motion would be made or if you want me to make it and you guys can second, we can still vote on it - that you go with the recommendations that Steve and I, as the viewers, have come up with to abandon a portion of it, but not the full request.
Commissioner Carey: I think the road viewers report is reasonable and practical. I think I’ll (in auditable) for an improved, improved conditions of those particular roads and so on.
Executive Session
Commissioner Carey made a motion that the Board of County Commissioners accept the road viewers’ recommendation to not abandon the 4 th Street as requested by the petitioners, but instead, in its place recommend that the South half of 4 th Street be abandoned. Commissioner Curtiss seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 3-0.
Commissioner Curtiss added that the unique thing is that Clinton the typography in Clinton just various a lot, as it was stated earlier the town of Clinton was laid out in a very nice grid many years ago but as we seen over the years, many of those legal right-a-ways are not physically accessible by vehicles and I think that one such of those roads is the section of the 60 foot section of 4 th Street that goes past Ms Jamison’s house towards Mr Drinville’s house that we abandoned previously because it wasn’t a very physically usable road. Because of the typography that James has identified that this petition is legal and continues to provide access to the alley and to Ms Jamison’s house. Emergency vehicles can response either they...when we do subdivision review 20 feet is what they request, this is 30 feet so I don’t think we’re jeopardizing public health and safety, we’re recognizing more what’s on the ground and still maintaining that public access. I think it’s a good decision.
Chair Landquist moved that we have a motion, we have a second. The motion carried on a vote of 3-0.
Dec01_10 Page 11 of 18 Steve Smith: I’m looking at James McCubbin, now I believe all owners in this situation that coincide with the abandonment that’s been granted, which Lot 1 is owned by David and Debra. Debra signed the petition, do we need her approval since David signed it do we need Debra’s approval, granted we’ve testimony from her but as a matter of the paperwork? Is it necessary to have some sort of acknowledgment by Debra?
Chair Landquist : In writing you mean? Like by her signature?
Steve Smith: Well signature, yet at least through testimony I believe in the past we’ve acknowledged testimony.
James McCubbin : I think to the extent we require consent that’s been clearly stated on the records. We’re fine.
Steve Smith : Okay, just wanted to clarify. Thank you.
Chair Landquist : You’ll be getting a letter and you’re here at the hearing so - what we decided and why.
James McCubbin: One thing probably worth noting, Greg Robertson is the one who addressed about the intersection there if you’re going to improve that, I think you mentioned that last time, he still requires some kind of an encroachment permit likely. Right Greg?
Commissioner Curtiss : Through Public Works?
Greg Robertson : Yes, yes that would be correct.
Chair Landquist : Yes, we’ve checked with them too so for being able to make the improvements that you wanted to be able to do for…cuz I understand the incline of stuff you just need to get an encroachment permit before doing any work there. As well as you might share that with your neighbor too because I know he wanted to play around with some alley work and stuff even though the county doesn’t maintain alley’s, he still might need to check with Public Works and get an encroachment permit first.
Ms Jamison : I would like to have a letter too if you’re on the list of effected parties you automatically get a certified letter at the end and that’s one of the things I wouldn’t be getting because I’m not on that list. I would like to get the certified letter. I’d also like to get, where there any other public comments that were made that were mailed in or sent in of any kind what so ever? I’d also like to have a copy of the petition that they provided of how wonderfully they keep their property that they submitted last time, may I have a copy of that please?
Commissioner Curtiss: Didn’t we give you a copy of that?
Ms Jamison: No, not that copy no not that. Was that a yes answer? Can I have the certified mail – the copy of the final thing?
Chair Landquist: Well we would certainly mail you a copy of whatever we mail….
Ms Jamison : Yeah, it would be automatic if I had been listed on as one of the effected parties. I’ve gotten them in the past when I was an effected party.
Commissioner Curtiss: Yes, we’ll make sure you get a copy.
Chair Landquist: Thank you Steve, I appreciate your work on this.
Dec01_10 Page 12 of 18 7. HEARING Resolution to Adopt Regional Plan for Water System Expansion in the Wye Area. Staff Report
Greg Robertson : with me today is John Gass of WGM Group who will give you a short presentation on our findings as a matter of history or matter of background. During the conception of developing the Wye Area Sewer Project a collective of land owners was interested in also developing a regional water authority or establishing, at least a water system to serve the Wye Area. At the time the cost were considerable to do both and the decision was made back in mid 2000’s to forgo the water system notion and focus on providing sewer to the area. The sewer work has now been completed and we told this consortion of land owners that we would revisit the issue at a later date and so WGM was hired earlier this year to assist Missoula County and evaluating alternatives for development of a regional water system for the area that included looking at the expansion of Mountain Water System, also independent systems with some sort of (in audible) powers authority to manage it operation. So, I think before we go further it would be helpful to have John do his short presentation and give you an overall presentation of the issues we looked at and what we came to the conclusion. John Gass – power point presentation
Public Comment: None
Executive Session
Commissioner Curtis made a motion that the Board of County Commissioners sign the resolution to adopt this regional plan for a water system expansion in the Wye Area. Commissioner Carey seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 3-0.
RECESS
There being no further business to come before the Board, the Commissioners were in recess at 3:00. We will continue at 4:00pm with the next hearing regarding the Review of Pre-Disaster Mitigation plan.
8. HEARING Review of Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Chair Landquist called the meeting to order at 4:05pm
Bob Reid : Missoula County has what’s called a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan and it’s in some ways a qualifying document for funding sources at some point. It’s also a formal way for the county and the city to asses a variety of hazards and risks that we face and come together with a strategy on how to deal with those. The plan that we have now has been in effect since I believe 2004 and it’s required to be updated periodically and so were engaged in the update at this point. This project began last spring when we hired a consulting company here in town PBS&J and the person named Charlie Vandam to be our contractor to do this work and he’s drafted the revision and among the requirements the process requirements are that we hold public meetings and get public comment on that and so that’s what brings us here today. With that I’ll turn it over to Charlie with PBS&J.
Charlie Vandam, Water Resource Planner with PBS&J : I’m currently under contract to do not only Missoula County but also Ravalli County and Mineral County and I also have another contract doing work on the Yellowstone County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. I have a PowerPoint I’m gonna go through. I will be going through just some highlights of the update, I’m not gonna go through the whole update, the intent here is to update what we did in 2004. Some of the information in the plan is…was put into the original plan and we’ve just carried that forward. I think it’s important to be able Dec01_10 Page 13 of 18 to update relevant information especially related to any reason hazards. What the purpose is, as Bob mentioned, what we’re trying to do is find ways to mitigate hazards before they happen.
What I’m looking for today - one of the objectives is try to get some feedback on the PDM Plan and specifically what kind of projects the community, both the city and the county needs to take on to try to mitigate some of the hazards that threaten the community. (Passed out cards for comments, questions) He asks that everyone list hazards that most threaten our community.
Commissioner Carey : You said you worked in Ravalli County – Is that lab down there in (in audible) to potential hazard?
Charlie Vandam : We did not look at Hazardous materials, toxic materials, and biological materials as being something we want to address in their plan. There was…we talked about that in 2004 whether we should address hazardous materials but there’s environmental regulations or safety regulations that are intended to mitigate those hazards and at that time in 2004 we decided it wasn’t the place for this plan to address that. Also, in the State update, when the State just finished their mitigation plan they kept it all on national hazards on what the threat is from National Hazards related to a man-made facility or a chemical facility or hazardous materials facility.
Commissioner Carey : It just strikes me that if somebody were to blow up that biological lab and the wind was coming from the South we’d have a problem too it seems.
Charlie Vandam : I’m glad you brought that up because the thing is what we want to be able to do is identify where we can mitigate national hazards. There are all sorts of things to do as far as response and we have an EOP that’s intended to response, how do we respond to an incident like that. But, we could look at…there could be a number of ways that there could be a terrorists attack that could cause damage and threaten the community, whether it’s through damn failure, blowing up a damn. In 2004 and again this…for this update we’re not looking at trying to address those types of hazards.
Commissioner Curtiss : Are the labs required to have their own disaster plan? We always say that everybody should have a disaster plan but thought maybe because of the materials they have, they have to have some sort of reaction plan.
Charlie Vandam : They do and I know that like if we take the University they have to have their own Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan because their actual a safe facility. But as far as a private facility they’re not required to have a PDM plan but they do have plans in place for releases; what’s going to be the extent of the release and how much of an area that’s going to be impacted and what kind of response they have to be…how they have to response to that sort of release.
I think maybe it has to do to some extent with disaster nomenclature. A number of organizations are required to have response plans and they do those so they know how they’re going to react to things when they occur. As Charlie said, this plan deals primarily with natural hazards in the…based on the belief that the things that could be done to mitigate all of these other man caused things are handled through other regulatory measures that are already in existence.
Charlie Vandam : The emergency operations plans intended for response, the PDM Plan is intended for mitigation and as I said a lot of the fixed facilities are regulated on what they can handle on how, hopefully they can mitigate potential hazards.
One thing that we tried to do a little bit different in this plan update is to approach each hazard and try to come up with a semi-quantitative way to determine the risk between the different hazards. And what I’ll talk about through-out as I’m addressing some of the major hazards is annualized lost. We can think of it simply as being if we have a 100 year flood and we have ten million dollars in damage, if that flood only occurs once, is a 1% chance or once every 100 years then our annualized lost is one Dec01_10 Page 14 of 18 hundred thousand dollars. We’re just trying to look at things at…trying to compare apples to apples so as I go through these hazards I’m trying to relate things to annualized losses, what we could expect on a average, what the losses would be. Now the event may occur once every 50 years or it could be like wind storms that occur every year when there’s damage every year. That’s what I’ve done a little bit differently on this plan and just tried to come up with an annualized lost for all the hazards. I’m gonna try to go through some of the major ones, more significant hazards and what kind of exposure there is. ( PowerPoint slides )
Bill Coldwell : As I read the information there was property loss for home loss in the Blackfoot and the bridge loss that’s information that you gathered independently then of the other data sources?
Charlie Vandam : Yeah, that was gathered from Missoulian Articles or I can’t remember Bill what source. That’s not included under this – those losses were included under the ice jam.
Commissioner Curtiss : So you reflected somewhere in the report those losses but they’re not in these charts, is that what you’re saying?
Charlie Vandam : Well, I’m covering some of the highlights, I’m not going through every hazard – I wanted to point out some of the more significant hazards that affect the county. I’m gonna summarize it in the table, covering all the losses - what our estimated annualized loss is.
Chair Landquist : Charlie, the resources that you were using to go back to try to find the damages you use the acronym for them but what is unacronym..?
Charlie Vandam : You would me that! I have it in the plan and if you give me a second I’ll tell you exactly what it means, I just don’t have that...didn’t roll off the tip of my tongue.
Chair Landquist : I still find it kind of curious that there wasn’t anything recorded form ‘96 because that was a pretty crazy year for disasters that happen within the county.
Charlie Vandam : It’s complied by the University of South Carolina it’s the spatial hazard events and losses data base. And it’s been the standard what they use for most of this work and trying to assess what kind of losses there could be. Now the one thing it does do is…and I don’t know how they generate some of the data but they do estimate losses where I couldn’t find any source for it. I’m not sure how they generate some of that data, how they generate some of those losses. In periods where we don’t have any records even in a nice national climatic data center or anything that I’m familiar with, they identify losses. I think some of that is statistically generated based upon a type of hazard that occurs.
Public Comments:
Commissioner Carey : I wonder in suggesting that we’ll have a significant wildfire event every twenty-five (25) years, what would be the difference if we said no it’s every five (5) years, does it have any real impact of what we do?
Charlie Vandam : I’m sure we’ve…especially looking at recent history we’ve had quite a few wildfire and we almost have wildfires every year. But, in looking at when we have losses granted a lot of the resources are put into fighting wildfire to protect structures and a lot of times at the expense of actually fighting wildfire. But, if you look at when we’ve had losses there hasn’t been that many in recent history in the last 20 years. So that’s what I looked at Bill and when I looked at…sure we have fires almost every year but significant ones where we actually have structural lost.
Commissioner Carey : what about the cost of fighting those fires though? I mean if you’re going to fight a significant wildlife fire every five (5) years instead of every twenty-five (25).
Dec01_10 Page 15 of 18 Charlie Vandam : And that is again, I’m looking at what are we doing for mitigating what kind of structure loss we have and not in a cost for actually responding and fighting fires. It gets to be kind of a hard number to figure in on what the local cost is because a lot of resources come from state and federal money for fighting fires sure there’s cost at the local level but for trying to assess this and come up with a number I didn’t factor that.
Commissioner Curtiss : So one of the goals that you had on there was to limit tree equipment or something to look for a warning system on Rock Creek Damn, how expensive is something like that? And then does it connect to our 9-1-1 system or reverse 9-1-1, how do they work to notify people?
Charlie Vandam : I can’t answer that question Jean. I don’t know what the cost would be and I don’t know if Bob would have an idea how it would connect.
Bob Reid : I don’t know either. Another variable in that of course is that although Missoula County might bare the effects of that, the source of is in another county and so it would be a question of which county would bare the costs or the initiative to get it done. Comment: As far as copies of the plan, my thought was that after we had gotten through this meeting and knew what comments or significant changes we might have to make to the graph as a result of this. Once that’s done we’ll go ahead and put that on the counties website with an avenue for online comments like we’ve done with the ELP as well.
Chair Landquist : I think that’s a great idea. How long do you think it’ll be before that’s on there and then when will this come out of draft form?
Charlie Vandam : I don’t see a lot of changes to the draft come out of today. I think within two to three weeks we could have it up there.
Commissioner Curtiss : Do we have a required comment period time?
Charlie Vandam : There’s not a required comment period time. But what I’d like to do is see about getting comments identified here December 17 th but if we wanted to have it available on a revised form then perhaps we should have it open until the beginning of the year anyways, at least the first or second week in January.
Chair Landquist : I think that’s a great idea to leave the comment period open till maybe the first of the year also and since this is going to be on MCAT – MCAT does a fantastic job of replaying the program a number times so perhaps there’s someway to make the comment cards available easier on our website so that anybody that’s seeing it at home can go on our website and get a comment card easy, if they want to fill that out. The other thing to remind people is even if you’re not in the MCAT viewing area, if you look at a channel guide, or I think MCAT’s even got a thing online where you can see the programming, they stream this online on the computer when their showing it on the television, so that even those people that aren’t in the Bresnan viewing area to see MCAT can look at it that way too.
Charlie Vandam : I would add in that again for the MCAT audience, although we’re in a county meeting today it is a City-County document and so city residents should feel free to comment on that, I encourage that.
Chair Landquist : And have you already done a presentation to the City Council?
Charlie Vandam : No we haven’t done that.
Chair Landquist : Are you planning on doing something like that? It might be a good idea.
Dec01_10 Page 16 of 18 Charlie Vandam: Well we hadn’t planned on it. We had…the idea was to have a public forum and have everybody invited to it, not necessarily specific to your audience but just have it available to anybody. I guess that would be something to entertain, whether we want to do that when we revise the plan. We’ve been involved with city officials and had input from them on this and so I’ll certainly take that up with them across the street as how they want to address it.
Chair Landquist : I think that the viewing audience and the people that come to there meetings, they have them in the evening and may get more people involved, more public process there and there’s twelve (12) significant minds, critical minds, thinkers and the Mayor. I just think this is a city-county thing we should definitely check with the city side.
Commissioner Curtiss : well the other thing is I think it’s really important that we some how make a link on their website, I know you can work with their folks to do that because folks within the city are much more in tune with the city’s website then they are ours.
Chair Landquist : The city has a lot of public followers, a lot of the people that live in the city zoom in on things from the city council perspective things and sort of just think that we’re handling things from a larger perspective that doesn’t really concern them so that’s a really important point that you made Bob that this is a city-council plan.
Pam Walzer, Missoula City Council and LEPC : I think it would be helpful to have whether it’s a public hearing or just have an informational meeting. We do have a lot of folks that do pay attention and a lot of very talented citizens who can offer a lot of ideas and expertise, although I do know that Bob’s work well with our staff to have it available and I can work with Bob to see if we can at least get it linked through the city’s website because it is important for our community. And if we want to refer this to Public Safety and Health we can get that on a committee agenda and then have a public hearing at night.
Charlie Vandam : We’re in the process of working with the City on setting up briefing schedules for the emergency operations plan or disaster plan for them so it might be an easy fix to just put this on the same channel, I can talk about it all at once too.
Chair Landquist : We’re calling this a hearing and normally we open hearings and we close hearings but this doesn’t seem like it’s that kind of hearing, is it? Where we need to open necessarily and close it or do we? Yes? OK
Bob Reid : Charlie and I could go ahead and close the hearing and then he and I can stay here and be available if anybody happens to show up between now and 5:30 or so that may be expecting a second session. We’ll be glad to talk through this and take comments from them as well.
Chair Landquist : Thank you, is there any other public comments?
Dan Corti : I just have a couple observations. 1) I think the current plan is a great compellation based on available data of severity and frequency of risks. One of the things is currently lacks though is an evaluation component so it would be possible in the next five (5) year review to look back and see what mitigation measures have been put in place based on the current plan as it’s going forward. Absent that, it becomes just a really nice document that catalogs risks but I think it should serve as a template for what direction the community wants to take to actually mitigate some of those risks.
Commissioner Curtiss : Dan are you saying that there should be a way in there to say are we meeting any of these goals?
Dec01_10 Page 17 of 18 Dan Corti : Exactly. I think the document meets the federal requirements now, if I’m correct, in that it does catalog the severity and frequency. But, to be really useful at the local level it would be very helpful to actually look back and see what we have done in regard to those.
Charlie Vandam : Let me address that before you leave Dan. As part of the requirement is to go through and look at what was identified before and what action has taken place. There is a section that does look at…review all those projects and determines; was it completed? Is it going to be carried forward? Is it going to be eliminated? There is a table in there that does address those projects. There is an annual requirement to review these plans and I think it’s typically been put on the shoulders of the LEPC to take it up and look at the plan, open it up and say okay where are we going, what have we done, and be able to identify progress. I think it’s important that they put that on the regular agenda that they do annual review of the PDM Plan.
Commissioner Curtiss : Seems like it might be a good follow-up to that then to have someone from LEPC give an annual report to the City Council and the Commissioners just as to what the review showed.
9. OTHER BUSINESS None
10. RECESS There being no further business to come before the Board, the Commissioners were in recess at 3:05pm.
Dec01_10 Page 18 of 18 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Appendix D
Crosswalk
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update
Missoula County City of Missoula
Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
The plan cannot be approved if the plan has not been formally adopted. Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of the requirement must be rated “Satisfactory” in order for the requirement to be fulfilled and receive a score of “Satisfactory.” Elements of each requirement are listed on the following pages of the Plan Review Crosswalk. A “Needs Improvement” score on elements shaded in gray (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing. Reviewer’s comments must be provided for requirements receiving a “Needs Improvement” score.
NOT Prerequisite(s) (Check Applicable Box) MET MET 1. Adoption by the Local Governing Body: §201.6(c)(5) OR
2. Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption: §201.6(c)(5)
AND 3. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation: §201.6(a)(3)
Planning Process N S 4. Documentation of the Planning Process: §201.6(b) and
§201.6(c)(1)
Risk Assessment N S 5. Identifying Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i) 6. Profiling Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i) 7. Assessing Vulnerability: Overview: §201.6(c)(2)(ii) 8. Assessing Vulnerability: Addressing Repetitive Loss
Properties. §201.6(c)(2)(ii) 9. Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures,
Infrastructure, and Critical Facilities: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) 10. Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses:
§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) 11. Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends:
§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C) 12. Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment: §201.6(c)(2)(iii)
*States that have additional requirements can add them in the appropriate sections of the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and modify this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements.
Page D-1 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update SCORING SYSTEM Please check one of the following for each requirement.
N – Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments must be provided. S – Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments are encouraged, but not required.
Mitigation Strategy N S 13. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals: §201.6(c)(3)(i) 14. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions:
§201.6(c)(3)(ii) 15. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: NFIP
Compliance. §201.6(c)(3)(ii) 16. Implementation of Mitigation Actions: §201.6(c)(3)(iii) 17. Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions: §201.6(c)(3)(iv)
Plan Maintenance Process N S 18. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan:
§201.6(c)(4)(ii) 19. Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms:
§201.6(c)(4)(ii) 20. Continued Public Involvement: §201.6(c)(4)(iii)
LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN APPROVAL STATUS PLAN NOT APPROVED See Reviewer’s Comments PLAN APPROVED
Page D-2 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
Local Mitigation Plan Review and Title of Plan: Missoula County/City of Approval Status Jurisdiction: Date of Plan: Missoula PDM Plan Update Missoula County, Montana Local Point of Contact: Address: Chris Lounsbury Missoula County Courthouse Title: Basement Floor - Annex Building Director, Office of Emergency Management 200 W Broadway Agency: Missoula, MT 59802 Office of Emergency Management Phone Number: E-Mail: [email protected] (406) 258-4469
State Reviewer: Title: Date:
FEMA Reviewer: Title: Date:
Date Received in FEMA Region VIII
Plan Not Approved
Plan Approvable Pending Adoption
Date Approved
DFIRM NFIP Status* CRS In Plan NOT in Plan Y N N/A Jurisdiction: Class 1. Missoula County X 2. City of Missoula X 3. 4. 5. [ATTACH PAGE(S) WITH ADDITIONAL JURISDICTIONS] * Notes: Y = Participating N = Not Participating N/A = Not Mapped
Page D-3 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update PREREQUISITE(S)
1. Adoption by the Local Governing Body Requirement §201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council). SCORE NOT Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments MET MET A. Has the local governing body adopted the new or i, ii updated plan? B. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, i, ii included? SUMMARY SCORE 2. Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption Requirement §201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted. SCORE NOT Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments MET MET A. Does the new or updated plan indicate the specific Section 1.1, Page 1-1 jurisdictions represented in the plan? B. For each jurisdiction, has the local governing body i, ii adopted the new or updated plan? C. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, i, ii included for each participating jurisdiction?
SUMMARY SCORE
Page D-4 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
3. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation Requirement §201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process … Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans. SCORE NOT Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments MET MET A. Does the new or updated plan describe how each Section 2.0, page 2-1 jurisdiction participated in the plan’s development? B. Does the updated plan identify all participating jurisdictions, including new, continuing, and the Section 1.1, Page 1-1 jurisdictions that no longer participate in the plan? SUMMARY SCORE
PLANNING PROCESS: §201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan.
4. Documentation of the Planning Process Requirement §201.6(b): 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. Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [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.
Page D-5 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the plan provide a narrative description of the process followed to prepare the new or updated Section 2.0, Page 2-1 plan? B. Does the new or updated plan indicate who was involved in the current planning process? (For example, who led the development at the staff level and were there any external contributors such as Section 1.3, Page 1-4 contractors? Who participated on the plan committee, provided information, reviewed drafts, etc.?) C. Does the new or updated plan indicate how the public was involved? (Was the public provided an Section 2.2 Page 2-1 opportunity to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to the plan approval?) D. Does the new or updated plan discuss the opportunity for neighboring communities, agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, and other Section 2.2 Page 2-1 interested parties to be involved in the planning process? E. Does the planning process describe the review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, Throughout studies, reports, and technical information? F. Does the updated plan document how the planning team reviewed and analyzed each section of the Throughout plan and whether each section was revised as part of the update process? SUMMARY SCORE
Page D-6 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
RISK ASSESSMENT: §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.
5. Identifying Hazards 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. SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan include a description Table 4-1 of the types of all natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction? Page 4-1
SUMMARY SCORE
6. Profiling Hazards 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. SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., Sections 4.2 -4.8, geographic area affected) of each natural hazard Pages 4-2 – 4-34 addressed in the new or updated plan? B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., Sections 4.2 -4.8, magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in Pages 4-2 – 4-34 the new or updated plan? C. Does the plan provide information on previous Sections 4.2 -4.8, occurrences of each hazard addressed in the new or Pages 4-2 – 4-34 updated plan? D. Does the plan include the probability of future Sections 4.2 -4.8, events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard Pages 4-2 – 4-34 addressed in the new or updated plan? SUMMARY SCORE
Page D-7 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
7. Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan include an overall Table 4-18, Page 4- summary description of the jurisdiction’s 34 vulnerability to each hazard? B. Does the new or updated plan address the impact Sections 4.2 -4.8,
of each hazard on the jurisdiction? Pages 4-2 – 4-34 SUMMARY SCORE
8. Assessing Vulnerability: Addressing Repetitive Loss Properties
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment] must also address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods. SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe Section 4.1.1, Table Note: This requirement becomes effective vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of 4-1, Section 4.3.1.1, for all local plans approved after October 1, repetitive loss properties located in the identified Table 4-6 2008. hazard areas? SUMMARY SCORE
Page D-8 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
9. Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area … . SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of Table 4-7, Page 4-11 this requirement will not preclude the plan existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical Table 4-17, Page 4-33 from passing. facilities located in the identified hazard areas? B. Does the new or updated plan describe Section 1.3, Page 1-2 Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of Section 4.3.1.3, Page this requirement will not preclude the plan future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities 4-12 from passing. located in the identified hazard areas? SUMMARY SCORE
10. Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate … . SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on A. Does the new or updated plan estimate potential Table 4-7, Page 4-11 this requirement will not preclude the plan dollar losses to vulnerable structures? Table 4-17, Page 4-33 from passing. Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on B. Does the new or updated plan describe the Table 4-1 this requirement will not preclude the plan methodology used to prepare the estimate? Page 4-1 from passing. SUMMARY SCORE
Page D-9 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
11. Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on A. Does the new or updated plan describe land uses Section 1.3, Page 1-2 this requirement will not preclude the plan and development trends? from passing. SUMMARY SCORE
12. Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction’s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan include a risk Table 4-6, Page 4-10 assessment for each participating jurisdiction as Table 4-17, Page 4-33 needed to reflect unique or varied risks? SUMMARY SCORE
MITIGATION STRATEGY: §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.
13. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A Does the new or updated plan include a description Section 5.3 Page 5-4 of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term – 5-5 vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? SUMMARY SCORE
Page D-10 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
14. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include 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. Location in the Plan SCORE (section or annex and N S Element page #) Reviewer’s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze Section 5.3 Page 5-4 a comprehensive range of specific mitigation – 5-5 actions and projects for each hazard? B Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of hazards on new buildings no and infrastructure? C. Do the identified actions and projects address Section 5.3 Page 5-4 reducing the effects of hazards on existing – 5-5 buildings and infrastructure? SUMMARY SCORE
15. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe the Section 4.3.1.1 Page Note: This requirement becomes effective jurisdiction (s) participation in the NFIP? 4-7 for all local mitigation plans approved after October 1, 2008. B. Does the mitigation strategy identify, analyze Note: This requirement becomes effective and prioritize actions related to continued for all local mitigation plans approved after compliance with the NFIP? October 1, 2008. SUMMARY SCORE
Page D-11 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
16. Implementation of Mitigation Actions Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] 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. SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated mitigation strategy include how the actions are prioritized? (For Table 5-4 Page 5-6 example, is there a discussion of the process and criteria used?) B. Does the new or updated mitigation strategy address how the actions will be implemented and administered, including the responsible Section 6.1 Page 6-1 department, existing and potential resources and the timeframe to complete each action? C. Does the new or updated prioritization process include an emphasis on the use of a cost-benefit Section 6.1 Page 6-1 review to maximize benefits? D. Does the updated plan identify the completed, deleted or deferred mitigation actions as a Table 5-2 Page 5-2 – benchmark for progress, and if activities are 5-4 unchanged (i.e., deferred), does the updated plan describe why no changes occurred? SUMMARY SCORE
Page D-12 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update
17. Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan.
SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A Does the new or updated plan include identifiable action items for each jurisdiction requesting FEMA Section 6-1 approval of the plan? B. Does the updated plan identify the completed, deleted or deferred mitigation actions as a Table 5-2 Page 5-2 – benchmark for progress, and if activities are 5-4 unchanged (i.e., deferred), does the updated plan describe why no changes occurred? SUMMARY SCORE
PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS 18. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i): [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. SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe the Section 6.2 method and schedule for monitoring the plan, Page 6-2 including the responsible department? B. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and schedule for evaluating the plan, Section 6.2
including how, when and by whom (i.e. the Page 6-2 responsible department)? C. Does the new or updated plan describe the Section 6.2 method and schedule for updating the plan within Page 6-2 the five-year cycle? SUMMARY SCORE
Page D-13 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update 19. Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan identify other local planning mechanisms available for incorporating I-II the mitigation requirements of the mitigation plan? B. Does the new or updated plan include a process by which the local government will incorporate the mitigation strategy and other information contained I-II in the plan (e.g., risk assessment) into other planning mechanisms, when appropriate? C. Does the updated plan explain how the local government incorporated the mitigation strategy and other information contained in the plan (e.g., I-II risk assessment) into other planning mechanisms, when appropriate? SUMMARY SCORE
Continued Public Involvement Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. SCORE Element Location in the Plan Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan explain how continued public participation will be obtained? Section 6.2 (For example, will there be public notices, an on- Page 6-2 going mitigation plan committee, or annual review meetings with stakeholders?) SUMMARY SCORE
Page D-14 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update MATRIX A: PROFILING HAZARDS
This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each natural hazard that can affect the jurisdiction. Completing the matrix is To check boxes, double not required. click on the box and change the default value Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” to “checked.” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk.
Hazards Identified Per C. Previous D. Probability of A. Location B. Extent Hazard Type Requirement Occurrences Future Events §201.6(c)(2)(i) Yes NSNSNSNS Avalanche Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Levee Failure Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm §201.6(c)(2)(i) Profiling Hazards A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? C. Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each natural hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? D. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan?
Page D-15 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update MATRIX B: ASSESSING VULNERABILITY
This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to To check boxes, double ensure that the new or updated plan addresses each requirement. Completing the matrix is not required. click on the box and change the default value Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box to “checked.” for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk. Note: Receiving an N in the shaded columns will not preclude the plan from passing.
B. Types and Hazards A. Overall A. Types and Number Number of Future Identified Per Summary B. Hazard of Existing Structures A. Loss B. Structures in Hazard Type Requirement Description of Impact in Hazard Area Estimate Methodology Hazard Area §201.6(c)(2)(i) Vulnerability (Estimate) (Estimate) Yes N S N S N S N S N S N S Avalanche Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Levee Failure Flood
Hailstorm Losses Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano
Wildfire §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Windstorm Other §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Other §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures Other
Legend: B. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the A. Does the new or updated plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s identified hazard areas? vulnerability to each hazard? §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses B. Does the new or updated plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction? A. Does the new or updated plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures structures? A. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of B. Does the new or updated plan describe the methodology used to prepare the existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? estimate?
Page D-16 Missoula County/City of Missoula PDM Plan Update MATRIX C: IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION ACTIONS
This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure consideration of a range of actions for each hazard. Completing the matrix is not required.
Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk.
Hazards Identified A. Comprehensive Range of To check boxes, double Per Requirement Actions Hazard Type §201.6(c)(2)(i) and Projects click on the box and Yes N S change the default value Avalanche to “checked.” Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Levee Failure Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm Legend: §201.6(c)(3)(ii) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions A. Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard?
Page D-17