Arborlook
Risk & Response
by Arborlook Insights

Lewis and Clark County, MT

Community risk profile | NRI Score: 67.2 Relatively High

73,464
Population
18
Departments
40
Stations
17
Census Tracts

Natural Hazard Loss Profile

Expected annual loss across the 18 natural hazards in FEMA's National Risk Index. Life safety is expressed in fatality-equivalents, combining expected deaths and injuries. Property loss counts building damage only, separate from agriculture.

Natural Hazard Life Safety
1.47
expected fatality-equivalents per year, natural hazards only
10th highest of 56
Life Safety per 100k
2.00
natural hazard fatality-equivalents per 100,000 residents
44th highest of 56
Natural Hazard Property Loss
$17.6M
expected building loss per year, natural hazards only
7th highest of 56
Property Loss per Resident
$240
natural hazard building loss per resident per year
52nd highest of 56

These figures cover natural hazards only. Structure fire, EMS, and motor vehicle incidents are not included in the National Risk Index and are not counted here, so this is not an all-cause life safety measure. For Lewis and Clark County, the largest single contributor is Cold Wave, 63% of the life-safety total.

Lewis and Clark County carries an expected 1 natural hazard fatality-equivalents and $17.6M in building loss per year. Rank chips compare the 56 Montana counties. Nationally, Lewis and Clark County ranks 396th of 3,222 U.S. counties for life-safety loss, 626th for life safety per 100k residents, 984th for property loss, and 2406th for property loss per resident. Computed from census tract data covering every resident, independent of fire department boundaries.

Add fire mortality, cause, and loss

Natural hazard exposure is one half of the picture. The other half is what your departments run on: fire deaths and injuries, cause of ignition, dollar loss per incident. That comes from NERIS incident reporting, and it grows as departments serving Lewis and Clark County enroll. Our Regional tier brings it together across your jurisdiction, with participating departments, alongside response time analytics, cross-department benchmarking, and coverage gap analysis.

Talk to us about Lewis and Clark County See what a department sees

What Drives the Loss

46%
53%
Property (buildings): $17.6M (46.4%)
Life safety: $20.2M (53.0%)
Agriculture: $221K (0.6%)

Total expected annual loss: $38,034,779 per year. Life safety is shown here in dollars, at FEMA's $13.7M value of statistical life, so the three shares sum to the total.

Hazards Ranked Two Ways

The hazard that threatens people is often not the hazard that destroys buildings. Both columns cover the same 18 hazards over the same year.

By life-safety loss ($/yr)

Cold Wave
$12.7M
Avalanche
$3.7M
Winter Weather
$1.5M
Earthquake
$1.1M
Lightning
$489K
Heat Wave
$212K

By property loss ($/yr)

Inland Flooding
$12.3M
Earthquake
$2.7M
Wildfire
$2.4M
Strong Wind
$43K
Tornado
$40K
Cold Wave
$38K

Census Tract Risk Map

Shaded by quintile across the census tracts in Lewis and Clark County. Gray tracts have no modeled loss or no resident population. Per-resident figures on this map use the National Risk Index 2020 tract population.

Fire Service Profile

94%
Career: 6% (1)
Volunteer: 94% (17)
Residents per Station
1,837
census population per registered station
Stations per 100k
54.4
registered stations per 100,000 residents

Department composition covers the 18 departments registered in NERIS Public for Lewis and Clark County, MT. Departments that have not registered are not counted. Station coverage divides census population by registered stations; department service areas overlap, so their populations are not summed.

Department Rankings

Fire and EMS departments serving Lewis and Clark County. Click column headers to sort.

NRI Rating is from FEMA's National Risk Index, which measures community risk across 18 natural hazards using expected annual losses, social vulnerability, and community resilience. Life-Safety Loss uses FEMA's Value of Statistical Life ($13.7M per expected fatality) to estimate annual risk to human life.

Department boundaries and station counts are self-reported through NERIS Public and may not reflect current service areas. Population and Life-Safety Loss reflect each department's full jurisdiction. County-level risk metrics are computed from census tract data and are not affected by boundary accuracy. See full methodology.

Showing 18 departments
Department Est. Population Life-Safety Loss NRI Rating Stations
Lewis & Clark Volunteer Fire Department 35,444 $11.5M Very High 2
Helena Fire Department 31,642 $8.4M Relatively High 4
West Helena Valley Volunteer Fire Department 25,997 $7.2M Relatively High 3
Tri-Lakes Volunteer Fire Department 22,901 $6.1M Very High 6
Wolf Creek - Craig Fsa 10,986 $4.0M Very High 3
Choteau Volunteer Fire Department 10,373 $3.7M Very High 1
Birdseye Volunteer Fire Department 9,094 $2.9M Very High 2
Canyon Creek Volunteer Fire Department 9,094 $2.9M Very High 1
Dearborn Volunteer Fire Department 4,809 $2.2M Very High 1
Marysville Volunteer Fire Department 6,472 $1.8M Very High 1
East Valley Volunteer Fire Department 7,255 $1.6M Relatively High 4
Eastgate Volunteer Fire Department 7,255 $1.6M Relatively High 1
York Volunteer Fire Company 2,899 $1.2M Very High 3
Baxendale Volunteer Fire Department 2,622 $1.1M Relatively High 1
Augusta Volunteer Fire Department 1,615 $1.1M Very High 1
Lincoln Volunteer Fire Company 1,615 $1.1M Very High 3
Bull Mountain Rural Fire Department 4,948 $1.0M Very High 2
East Helena Volunteer Fire Department 4,948 $1.0M Very High 1
No departments match your search.

Risk Snapshot

8.1%
Poverty Rate
20.2%
Age 65+
14.8%
Disability Rate
5.7%
Uninsured
47.5%
Pre-1980 Housing
9.6%
Mobile Homes
8.4%
Vacancy Rate
3.9%
Wood Heat
$80,297
Median HH Income

FEMA Disaster Declarations

6
Last 10 Years
11
Last 25 Years
Fire
Most Frequent

Response-level intelligence for your region

Our Regional tier gives county fire authorities and state fire marshals rollup dashboards across all departments in your jurisdiction: response time analytics, cross-department benchmarking, and coverage gap analysis.

Explore the Regional Tier See the Response Demo