cover image

Montana Geohazards Workshop

April 28th, 2022

Natural Resources Building | Montana Tech, Butte, Montana

  • Information
  • Session 1
  • Session 2
  • Session 3
  • Session 4

The Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) at Montana Tech hosted the Montana Geohazards Workshop on April 28, 2022. The meeting included staff from the MBMG, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Montana Department of Emergency Services (MT-DES), Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), Montana Department of Natural Resources (DNRC), Zylient, University of Montana, Montana State University, Idaho Geologic Survey, Wyoming State Geologic Survey, and Utah Geologic Survey. The goal of the workshop was to create a platform to bring together earth scientists, engineers, state agencies, local governments, various asset owners, and stakeholders to discuss geohazards and their potential risks to Montana and the broader Northern Rockies region.

The meeting provided an opportunity to present results from recent geohazards projects throughout Montana, and identified research priorities and potential pilot collaborative projects with partner agencies (e.g., shared geohazards database, URM training, Hazus model for selected metropolitan areas, and other local/regional workshops). We discussed the need to establish an earthquake response plan and clearinghouse for Montana, and to establish the Montana Seismic Safety Commission.

Funding for this Geohazards workshop came from FEMA / MT DES.


MBMG–Yann Gavillot, Mike Stickney, Colleen Elliot, Jenna Dohman, John Metesh, Madeline Gotkowitz, Katie McDonald, Kaleb Scarberry, John Sanford, Jesse Mosolf, Stuart Parker, Ginette Abdo and Yiwen Li
MT DES–Andrew Long and Jake Ganieany
FEMA–Sean McGowan, Dylan Berg
MT DNRC–Michele Lemieux
Zylient, Inc.–Anna Lang Ofstad
MT DEQ–Jeff Blend and Meranda Bass
Montana State Library–Troy Blandford
University of Montana–Hillary Martens
Montana State University–David Lageson

Attending via Zoom:

IGS–Zach Lifton
WSGS–Seth Wittke and James Mauch
UGS–Emily Kleber

Lidar figures showing landslide and faults

Session 1–Geohazards in Montana

Yann Gavillot | Lidar landslides and faults in Jefferson and Deer Lodge Counties, Montana

  • MBMG has been working on a geohazards database of active faults, earthquakes and landslides.
  • Work has largely followed where Lidar is available, which is currently limited, but progress is being made.
    • Where Lidar is present, it is leveraged for locating unidentified active faults and landslides, and helps focus site specific hazards studies
    • Mapping using Lidar is used to complete grant-funded geohazards studies (USGS,NEHRP, FEMA-MTDES).
    • Lidar makes it easier to identify features that can even be difficult to observe on the ground, and of course allows you to cover a lot of ground quickly.
    • Mapping using Lidar is essential to be able to characterize hazardous faults and landslides and produce hazards maps.
  • Review of hazardous faults and landslides in Jefferson County (311 landslides) and Deer Lodge County (583+ landslides) symbolized by age & activity.
    • New faults were identified using Lidar.
  • The longer the fault, the more hazardous it can become.
    • Any faults larger than 7km should be in the seismic registry for potential earthquake hazards.
    • Some of these are present in NW Montana and the Bitterroots, but more Lidar coverage is needed.
  • Slope maps can be created from hillshades and can be used to identify rockslides and rock falls.
  • Preview of MT Quaternary Fault & Landslide Databases–Online Map Viewer
    • Shows all features that have been confirmed with the Lidar.
    • Shows locations of features as well as more detailed attribute table information.

Sackung vs. landslides–Questionable landslides were not included in the Landslide inventory/database.

Fault geometry–There is limited information about fault geometry at depth. MBMG is focusing on fault and geological mapping, and structural cross sections to constrain fault geometry and whether these are low- or high-angle faults. More mapping is needed. The geometry of course affects the hazard (low-angle faults have more seismogenic width at depth, which would equate to more earthquake hazard potential).

Confidence values–Boundary confidence for faults and landslides are assigned based on mapping certainty and geomorphic signatures. Fieldwork and detailed geological mapping are needed to identify old landslides that do not exhibit activity during the Quaternary and are not well resolved in the Lidar. Lidar mapping is better geared at resolving young and dormant landslides that are potentially more hazardous.

John Sanford | Geohazards Database

  • MBMG is building an extensive hazards database with faults, earthquakes, and landslides.
    • Users can download data, create elevation profiles of landslides and view statistics, and visualize correlations between faults and earthquake activity (which might identify dormant structures).
    • How best to communicate this to the public?
    • As the database matures, the statistics and analyses will also mature.
    • Hazard classifications in the database were based on national standard USGS practices. The youngest features are typically the most concerning, so quaternary features are the focus.

Data export–It was mentioned that there is a desire to export xy data for elevation profiles from the database.

National datasets–Info from the geohazards database is plugged into USGS national datasets. These will be going into the update of the national seismic hazard model. The next update is planned for 2023

Creating the database dashboard–The database interface is using standard ArcGIS Online tools to create the dashboard–not custom script.

Yann Gavillot | Earthquake hazards study of the Bitterroot fault, Western Montana

  • The Bitterroot fault is a high priority research area since it’s a long and active fault (~100km) within a highly populated area. The hazard and risk are high. Lidar mapping provides the first documentation of fault scarps which justified multiple site-specific studies.
  • Research is ongoing in this area
    • Currently dating glacial moraines cut by the fault to estimate the slip rates
    • Two paleoseismic trenches were dug to constrain earthquake recurrence associated with earthquake surface ruptures. More trenches are planned this summer.
    • Working on more mapping, coring lake beds, & paleoclimate reconstruction

Mike Stickney | Earthquakes and Seismic Hazards in Montana

  • History of earthquakes in Montana–most occur within the belt of seismicity.
    • 1920s Three Forks (6.6)–lots of building damage
    • 1935 Helena (6.3)–Felt earthquakes for days afterwards
      • 4 people died from falling building debris. Temporary classrooms were set up in train cars. A tent city was erected for earthquake refugees. Even the State Armory (for emergency relief) collapsed.
    • 1959 Hebgen Lake (7.3)–The largest earthquake in Montana
      • There were four 6M aftershocks.
      • The earthquake left a 21ft high fault scarp and triggered the massive Madison landslide. Displacement along the fault tipped the entire lake basin. This created waves that caused flooding.
      • The Hebgen Dam was damaged, but it survived.
    • 2005 Dillon earthquake
      • Mostly minor damage–chimney damage, ground cracking
    • 2017 Lincoln earthquake
      • Minor ground cracking
    • In summary, building codes matter.
  • There is a need for more adequate seismic coverage
    • They’re using the Raspberry shake network and MBMG just purchased more to add tothis network. They’re looking for host sites for this equipment.

Hosting raspberry shakes–Raspberry shakes cost about $500. Montana DOT was interested in putting them in some of their gatehouses, though noise will likely be an issue there.

Hillary Martens | 2017 Lincoln earthquake mainshock–aftershock sequence

  • The Lincoln earthquake (5.8M) was the largest event in 60 years, felt 800km away.
  • UM reestablished a seismic network in Montana (2017-2022). This is complimentary to the regional seismic network run by MBMG.
    • Using this network, they were able to map the aftershock sequence. There were thousands of aftershocks within the first few months of the mainshock (110 days).
  • Their goal was to identify the mode and mechanism of the fault structure. It was unclear from main shock alone.
    • Two years of aftershock monitoring was conducted. They initially expected this to create a right-lateral EW fault, but as more data was collected it was identified as a left-lateral NS fault plane. This is almost perpendicular to the structural fault plane. Stress was being accommodated by bookshelf faulting. This is right-lateral shear that produces multiple faults rupturing perpendicular to the shear (left-lateral).
    • There was some variability in the fault orientation, but this is likely due to pre-existing weaknesses in the rock.
  • In summary, the mainshock likely ruptured on a north trending LL-strike slip fault, oblique to the LCL.

Faults & seismicity–There is a complicated relationship between faults and seismicity. Quaternary faults may not be tied to the earthquake, but tertiary faults may be. However, we generally think of quaternary faults as being higher risks.

Fault type and evaluating hazard risk–Are strike-slip faults just harder to see than normal faults? Maybe it’s a deformation zone with smaller faults and not just large obvious faults. This is important to consider for evaluating seismic hazards in the future.

Session 2–Mitigating Geohazards in Montana, Lightning talks

Andrew Long | Grants and Hazard Mitigation Projects

  • Grant programs offered
    • Building Resilient Infrastructures & Communities
    • Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
    • National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (Non-disaster)
  • Haven’t done physical mitigation projects since 2014. More recently they’ve been focusing on:
    • Retrofits (pre-destruction mitigation)
    • Mapping
      • Seismic hazards and liquefaction susceptibility
  • Non-structural mitigations
    • Bracing & strapping down items to provide stability and security to items in a building.
    • Scoping using Lidar.
  • Over a million in funding from various grant programs!

Troy Blandford | Montana State Library–Lidar

  • Lidar acquisition
    • Granite & Ravalli counties this year (expected release summer 2022), Flathead next year.
    • 88% of Montana counties are complete, in progress or planned. They’re expected to complete the state in 2024/2025.
    • Partners are key for funding! They have a cost share program to leverage the USGS 3D Elevation program.
    • They have the MT Elevation Working Group, which includes federal, state, county, local and private participants.
  • Montana Lidar Inventory through the Montana State Library
    • Building footprints derived from Lidar may be useful for analyses
    • Relative elevation models–mapping river migration (Very cool visuals).

Sean McGowan | Montana Earthquake Mitigation: Where to Start

  • Flooding has been a large focus of FEMA, and there’s generally a lack of attention to earthquakes, but there’s actually more earthquake risk than flood risk (50% higher year after year).
  • As population increases in MT, the earthquake risk gets higher.
  • FEMA can help fund seismic mitigation plans & developing inventories
  • Example from Utah
    • Unreinforced masonry is a high issue in MT (and Utah).
    • Held a summit with experts and created a Risk Reduction Strategy which included policy recommendations.
    • They formed an Applied Technology Council and conducted an inventory of K-12 schools with minimal money and lots of volunteers.
    • They found many schools not to be earthquake safe. The media exploded, and suddenly they received 171 million from the legislature.

Scott Helm | MDOT: Who they are and what they do

  • MDOT is responsible for 13,000 miles in the state with diverse geology and topography
    • They aren’t just responding to disasters, but are also responsible for the design
    • Responsible for identifying geohazards
      • Public safety is key, but so is the impact to the system.
      • They’re required to create a benefit-cost analysis.
  • MDOT has lots of technical tools (such as E-resistivity, drones) and catalogues lots of borings. They rely greatly on information from other agencies.
  • MDOT has a rockfall asset management program. They looked at all rockfall slopes near highways and are thinking about doing the same for highway related landslides. Funding opportunities are likely available there.
  • They conduct their own research–particularly on rockfall and liquefaction analysis.
  • They also pay attention to less glamorous hazards. Ex–asbestos
  • Tip for grant funding: Resilience is a buzzword right now, for both communities and infrastructure.
  • Next May–Shallow Exploration Drillers Conference. Hosted in Butte

Michele Lemieux | DNRC Earthquake Response Procedure

  • They test their ERP annually as well as when they get a small earthquake.
    • For this test, they are notified by the USGS. They immediately get on zoom and roles are assigned.
  • Adobe connect meeting room is used to communicate with leadership.
    • This was found to be more effective than email.
    • They’ve learned that leadership prefer visuals (like GIS maps) rather than tables.
  • GIS
    • They upload relevant info into ArcGIS online. This works great during work hours, but the GIS has been problematic outside of work hours.
    • DNRC needs the GIS to be automated for anything that might need a post-earthquake perspective. Then they can work on doing the inspections and communicate with leadership. GIS is the sticking point.

Jeff Blend | MT DEQ–Energy

  • Montana Energy Office
    • Covers energy emergencies which can include electricity, natural gas and liquid fuels infrastructure.
    • Other emergencies include a shortage of energy availability or a rapid rise of cost that imposes a threat to the health and safety of those who are most in need.
  • An energy emergency could come from another state, and one here could impact other states.
    • Outages could come from sabotage, cyber hacks, or international incidents.
    • Transmission is the higher risk issue than the energy plants themselves.
  • Earthquake issues
    • Pipeline breaks for natural gas and petroleum.
  • Call to action: Hope to work with others to map pipelines with earthquake hazards

Anna Lang Ofstad | Creating a Resilient Montana

  • Most important thing–remember why we do this and the people who are impacted.
  • Zylient, Inc conducts post-earthquake reconnaissance.
    • They use AI and computer vision to conduct inventories on buildings.
  • Recommendations
    • We can use other states as templates and use what works and makes sense for Montana.
    • Start a chapter with the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI)

Dave Lageson| Montana State University–Geohazard near Bozeman

  • Significant fractures were observed at Jumbo Mountain
    • The fractures were filled with rubble, but are likely quite deep.
  • Lots of potential for sudden failure due to earthquakes.
    • Could create a landslide dam on upper Hell Roaring Creek and dam the Gallatin River.
  • Climate change is exacerbating hazard risk factors - fire, soil erosion, mass wasting.
  • The high alpine is especially susceptible and should receive more attention.
  • Call to action: Study the high Alpine! There are long distance effects on communities downstream.

DISCUSSION–Lightening Talks

GIS and data–GIS and data sharing is key. All hazards have effects that impact one another, but ultimately, it’s about lives.

BCA and retrofitting–Benefit Cost Analysis is hard to do for earthquakes. FEMA is trying to reform it. You have to prove that over the lifetime of the project it will save money, or not doing it would cost more. For now, the best first steps are to identify issues and notify building owners and have continued communication with building owners. Let them know how long it will take to rebuild from an earthquake if they don’t retrofit. Host voluntary workshops for builder, with the goal that these ultimately become mandatory. Identify building owners who are willing to do the retrofits and can be showcased. Get the media to cover it. This will require some grassroots work.

How not to do outreach–Portland tried putting up plaques to say a building isn’t earthquake safe. It backfired. Meanwhile in California it’s illegal to doing building assessments for hazards.

Building community education–Some communities have a parapet ordinance which required that they be braced (very inexpensive). However, in one experience a building official didn’t know what a parapet was. Education is greatly needed.

Funding–FEMA can help cover home retrofits. There are the 5% projects. There are opportunities for dual purpose funding.

Building code–If you buy a building, shouldn’t you have to bring it up to earthquake code? Is historic preservation holding things back?

Centralized data–There should be centralized data for boring data for soils. Homebuilders should have access to this information. There’s a lot of info available through MDOT, but it’s all highway related. Utah Geological Survey is using data preservation funds to digitize Geotech logs and develop a subsurface 3D database for hazard mapping. (–Ben Erickson. And here’s a place to start for vs30 data–USGS web viewer (ask Seth Wittke for link).

Some potential future steps:
  • Bring community members in early to get them on board
    • The key is to identify what the communities “pain points” are. You’re always going to find a champion somewhere.
  • Start with schools and government buildings–these are easier to get on board.
    • There isn’t really an inventory of Montana schools for earthquakes. The most effective tactic for funding has been to share concerns with parents who then speak up.
  • Include the insurance community in the conversation.
  • Work with the historic preservation community. Historic Preservation grants are available that can be used for retrofits.
  • Conduct public education! Huge public education opportunity even for “ugly” retrofits.

Session 3–Earthquake Response Panel Discussion

Other state surveys share their experiences with geohazard responses. In Montana, we’ve had to rely on the feds in the past for pos-earthquake monitoring.

Zach Lifton| IGS Geologic Hazards Program and Earthquake Response in Idaho

  • Hazards program elements
    • Seismic & landslides
    • Online Landslide database (web map) and fault mapping in progress.
    • Lots of outreach publications
      • There isn’t a dedicated outreach position, thus scientists are trying to communicate when they can. Seems like there’s a missed opportunity there.
  • Earthquake monitoring challenges in Idaho
    • The state is remote and rugged and has a low population density and thus is considered low risk.
    • Idaho has slow fault slip rates, and there’s no specific regional seismic network.
      • They rely on other states for help identifying earthquakes.
    • They have scarce state funding and minimal staff.
  • Earthquake response in Idaho
    • Developed Idaho Post Earthquake Clearinghouse Operation Plan
      • Developed with the Idaho Office of Emergency Management and EERI
      • The purpose was to clarify the goals of data collection and how that fits into emergency response.
      • They worked through a simulation exercise with the plan.
    • Borah earthquake in 1983
      • Pretty remote location. There were 2 deaths.
      • There was a large scientific response, but it was uncoordinated.
    • Soda Springs M5.3
      • There wasn’t much damage. The state emergency department was not activated. The UUSS and USGS deployed 8 stations after the event.
    • Stanley Earthquake M6.5
      • BSU, IGS and USGS deployed dozens of temporary stations
      • The response was complicated by Covid. They did setup a virtual clearinghouse and website within 24 hours. Twitter was a good tool for sharing rapid updates.
      • Aftershock monitoring was conducted by MBMG. Temporary seismic stations were installed within 24 hours and aerials reconnaissance was conducted within 2 days. Ground reconnaissance of Stanley lake (liquefaction event) was conducted in spring 2020 and of the epicenter in fall 2020.

Who uses the clearinghouse?–They aren’t sure which agencies used the clearinghouse, but news agencies used photos from the clearinghouse. All photos have detailed metadata so it’s a nice archive.

Coordinated response–There’s a need for a coordinated response, since there is both a scientific purpose to document the event as well as needs from emergency services for public safety.

Infrastructure–It’s critical to maintain infrastructure enough to get emergency services in and for people to evacuate.

Seth Wittke| WSGS Geologic Hazards Program

  • History of the Hazards Program
    • Wyoming hasn’t had a 5M earthquake in a long time.
    • The program has one dedicated hazards geologist which is supported by other staff as time allows.
    • There is no geohazards advisory group, but there is an advisory board.
    • They’ve mapped most hazards at 1:100k scale and are 2 maps away from full coverage.
  • Landslides
    • They’ve done 24k mapping of landslides, digitized them, and are now updating the inventory.
    • WGS uses Lidar to map landslide susceptibility.
      • Based on slope and generalized rock strength (Wills and Others 2011).
  • Quaternary faults
    • They’ve conducted regional mapping and local mapping using Lidar.
    • Paleoseismic work is also being conducted with outside entities.
    • They’ve completed HAZUS models for USGS NSHM source faults.
  • Earthquakes
    • WGS relies on others for monitoring because they don’t have their own seismic network.
      • USGS, MBMG, and UU have all helped support them
      • Mike Stickney is looking at sub 2.2M which has changed their interpretations of some fault activity.
    • Public outreach
      • They share info about county seismic inventories.
      • WGS promotes the great Wyoming shakeout.
      • Promo swag is given to the public.
    • Other hazards mapped
      • Expansive soils (Bentonite)
    • Publicly Accessible Published maps
      • Online Wyoming Geologic Hazards Map
      • Geology of Yellowstone Web map
    • Future work
      • Refine existing fault traces and document unrecognized faults/lineaments.
      • Update HAZUS-MH models.
      • Update landslide inventory
        • Refine the population and infrastructure data.
      • Karst
    • Earthquake Response
      • They respond as requested (again, they haven’t had many large earthquakes).
      • Wyoming hasn’t had any major earthquakes to test their response.
      • They coordinate with many different agencies.

Lidar Availability–All of Wyoming has been flown for Lidar, but only about 50% of it is available and released.

Small hazards program–Due to the low population, Wyoming hasn’t had much outside pressure to step up their hazards program.

Emily Kleber | UGS and Earthquake Response in Utah

  • Earthquake Concern in Utah
    • Most of the state’s population is concentrated on Wasatch fault zone.
    • About 1/3 of residents participate in shakeout drill.
    • There’s aren’t a lot of recent felt earthquakes built into collective memory.
  • Lots of partnerships have been critical to success with the response program.
    • The hazards program includes about 10 people. The Utah Earthquake program includes the Utah Seismic Safety Commission, which was established in the 90s to inform leadership about earthquake safety issues.
      • Includes engineers, the university, Utah DNR, Utah ASCE, FEMA, etc.
  • 5.7M Magna, Utah earthquake Response
    • This earthquake hit during early covid. It was widely felt in the urban center.
    • An online clearinghouse activated within 2 hours of mainshock. An Emergency Operations Center was setup to manage the response, provide info and coordinate communication efforts.
    • Created physical and digital clearinghouse, which they used to relay info to field teams and document earthquake damage and effects while NOT interfering with emergency response.
    • A dedicated outreach team was created. They handled all social media and web interactions and were SUPER busy.
      • They requested photos and videos using social media links, cloud share, email and direct uploads.
  • Lessons learned
    • It’s important to have multiple channels of communication.
    • Solid connections between agencies prior to the event were critical.
      • You already need to know who to call.
    • Moderate earthquakes can cause extensive damage.
    • Scientific information needs to get out quickly and accurately. The more info we have readily available the better. Thus was created, which has lots of thorough information to help answer questions for the public.
  • Basin and Range Earthquake summit Fall 2022 (BRES)
    • October 17th 2022, Utah DNR Salt Lake
    • Will focus on earthquake science & response
    • There’s a potential Friday field workshop to practice earthquake response and field data collection.

Communication–They found phones to be the best way to communicate between the response team, but they did have radio as a backup. Their response team was all internal, which is not always the case. In Montana, we anticipate more communication challenges due to poor cell reception in remote areas. MDOT has used satellite phones in the past and note that radio communication is pretty robust in Montana.

Utah Seismic Safety Commission–A legislative act created this group and it is recognized by the state government. It has no dedicated budget, but is just funded by in-kind support. They are trying to get specific legislation passed. It used to have legislators sit in on the commission, but they stopped participating. It has a chair and vice-chair and operates under open meetings rule. They meet quarterly and meetings are open to the public. A lot of extra work is required to get things done for the commission, but there’s a lot of passion and momentum from the group. It’s important to find the people who care outside of the workspace. If interested in attending one of their meetings, let Emily know. The next meeting is July 7th.

Similarities with Utah–Like Montana, Utah has lots of rural areas that could potentially be impacted by earthquakes, and a governor who is thinking about rural areas. It’s key to find opportunities where needs align and take advantage of that.

Session 4–Geohazards Advisory Committee Panel Discussion

  • There’s important info to be gleaned from other state commissions. We should be looking at these and think about what would and would not work in Montana. This applies to any other relevant information as well. Don’t reinvent the wheel!
  • It’s obvious that we need a plan (for both scientific purposes and emergency services) in the event of an earthquake. We cannot and should not do this alone. This requires working together.
  • We need to get the legislature on our side for this effort. State recognition is key. Maybe a good approach is conducting an inventory of the K-12 schools which will hopefully get parents interested. Another potential approach is using HAZUS models to simulate earthquake impacts including casualties and economic impact. Here’s why the science matters in this place. Showing the vast consequences so that folks have something on that list that resonates with them and gets them to care.
  • We need to get the groups the legislatures will listen to, which may not be the state agencies, or at least not the state agencies alone.
  • Communicating with the public is incredibly important and scientists or engineers may not be the right ones for the job. We may need to hire a separate entity dedicated to communication.
  • A good next step might be attending a Utah Seismic Safety Commission meeting. The next one is July 7th in Salt Lake City.
  • Geohazards Advisory Committee
    • Multi-stakeholder
      • Research group
      • Insurance
      • Army Corps
      • This group
      • Local emergency managers (need their buy-in)
  • Need for a shared database
    • Buildings, pipelines, highway related landslides, coring → can they be made public?
  • Get an inventory of unreinforced masonry buildings → schools → BRIC for collaboration.
  • We need to setup a virtual earthquake clearinghouse plan/emergency response → communications → with strong connections between agencies prior to events.
  • Work on public response on earthquake hazards → Shakeout, publications.
  • Geohazards Advisory Committee – we should have one!
    • How to get funding from the legislature? Right now, groups are working on small projects, and we need money to do more.
    • What is the best way to structure this committee? Review others as examples.
    • Look for the examples for gaps/successes from earthquake response in the last 5 years.
      • In recent Puerto Rico earthquake, they were short on seismic inspectors.
      • Use small grants as launchpad to demonstrate what can be done with a little money, to help make the argument for more funding.
  • Identify a pilot community.
    • There’s a housing crisis in many communities.
    • Helena–where leadership lives.
  • Think about earthquake insurance! With Firewise, if mitigation work has been done, you get a discount. Could we do the same for retrofits for earthquakes?
  • MBMG could be one arm of this committee, but we need others. The agencies in attendance are willing to move forward with forming this committee.
  • This will be a long process. But we’ve got to start somewhere!
  • Next steps
    • Draft a Mission Statement Agreement – MBMG will start the process.
    • DES is meeting with FEMA in 2 weeks – there will be some state directors.
    • Automate the GIS earthquake response.
    • Legislative attention – pilot project needed to elevate geohazards.
    • Database sharing – breaking down barriers between data and agencies.
    • HAZUS model test on a specific area – Recreate 1935 Helena quake impacts.
    • FEMA training – can use hours as match for a grant.
    • Rapid Visual Screening for non-MBMG folks to refine info before model simulation.
      • Could engineering students at Tech do this, maybe partnering with certified engineers?
      • We could do this with students instead of the shakeout
    • DNRC planning grants – hire consultant to do this work (since we’re all so busy).
      • These grants are now for “crucial state needs”, and thus have a broader scope than they used to.
    • Review other state’s examples.
    • Create a communication space outside of these meetings.