City of Nashua

Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019

Date Submitted: 7/23/2019

Date Approved Pending Adoption: 7/31/2019

Date Adopted: 8/21/2019

Date Final Approval: 8/26/2019

Prepared by the City of Nashua, NH

Funded in part by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program

2

CHAPTER 1. PLANNING PROCESS 7

Section 1.1 Overview of Planning Process 7

Section 1.2 Involvement of Community Stakeholders, Neighboring Communities, and Local/Regional/State Agencies 14

Section 1.3 Public Participation 21

Section 1.4 Updating the Plan 22

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL AUTHORITIES, POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND RESOURCES 24

Section 2.1 Capability Assessment 24

Section 2.1.1 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities 24

Section 2.1.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities 29

Section 2.1.3 Financial Capabilities 34

Section 2.1.4 Education and Outreach Capabilities 38

Section 2.1.5 Floodplain Management Capabilities 42

Section 2.2 National Flood Insurance Program 44

Section 2.3 Review and Incorporation of Existing Documents 45

CHAPTER 3. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT 49

Section 3.1 Description of Natural Hazards 49

Table 2—Natural Hazards in Jurisdiction 49

Section 3.2 Description of Previous Hazards 59

Table 3 —Previous Occurrences of Hazards in Jurisdiction 60

3

Section 3.3 Probability of Future Hazard Events 196

Table 4—Probability of Future Hazard Events 196

Section 3.3.1 Climate Change 202

Section 3.4 Critical Facilities and their Vulnerability 203

Table 5A—Healthcare 204

Table 5B—Fire 210

Table 5C—Police 211

Table 5D—Emergency Operations 212

Table 5E—Schools 212

Table 5F—Dams 220

Table 5G—Highway Bridges 222

Table 5H—Railway Bridges 226

Table 5I—Railway Facilities 227

Table 5J—Bus Facilities 227

Table 5K—Airport Facilities 228

Table 5L—Airport Runway 228

Table 5M—Potable Water Facilities 228

Table 5N—Waste Water Facilities 231

Table 5O—Natural Gas Facilities 235

Table 5P—Electric Power Facilities 237

4

Table 5Q—Communication Facilities 238

Table 5R—Hazardous Materials Facilities 241

Table 5S—Other Government Owned Facilities 247

Section 3.5 Vulnerability by Hazard 253

Section 3.5.1 Inland Flooding 253

Section 3.5.2 Drought 255

Section 3.5.3 Earthquake 257

Section 3.5.4 Extreme Temperatures 259

Section 3.5.5 High Wind Events 261

Section 3.5.6 Infectious Diseases 263

Section 3.5.7 Landslide 264

Section 3.5.8 Lightning 267

Section 3.5.9 Severe Winter Weather 270

Section 3.5.10 Solar Storms and Space Weather 272

Section 3.5.11 Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones 283

Section 3.5.12 Wildfire 286

Section 3.6 Changes in Development 288

Section 3.7 Overall Summary of Vulnerability 289

Table 6—Overall Summary of Vulnerability 289

CHAPTER 4. MITIGATION STRATEGY 303

5

Section 4.1 Goals to Reduce Vulnerability to Hazards 303

Section 4.2 Mitigation Actions 307

Table 7—Mitigation Actions 307

Section 4.3 Prioritizing Mitigation Actions 323

Table 8—Benefit Cost Review 323

Table 9—STAPLEE Analysis 344

Section 4.4 Implementing and Administering Mitigation Actions 377

Table 10—Implementation and Administration 379

Section 4.5 Progress on Local Mitigation Efforts 388

Table 11—Status of Previous Actions 388

Section 4.6 Changes in Priorities 395

Table 12—Changes in Mitigation Priorities 396

CHAPTER 5. PLAN ADOPTION 404

Section 5.1 Formal Adoption by Governing Body 404

Section 5.2 FEMA Approval Letter 405

APPENDIX 406

Resilient Nashua Initiative Meeting Participants 406

Sample Resilient Nashua Initiative Email Notifications, Agendas & Minutes 415

Official Meeting Notices to Media and City Calendar 419

Sample Resilient Nashua Initiative Public Postings 421

6

Community TV Broadcasts 422

Social Media Outreach 423

Neighboring Community Notifications 425

CoUrbanize Crowdsourcing Map 426

City of Nashua Website 427

Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Website 428

7

CHAPTER 1. PLANNING PROCESS

Section 1.1 Overview of Planning Process

The Disaster Mitigation Action (DMA) of 2000 was signed into law on October 30, 2000. It amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act to include, among other changes, Section 322—Mitigation Planning. This section placed new emphasis on local

mitigation planning. It requires local governments to develop and submit hazard mitigation plans as a condition of receiving mitigation project

grants under the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Annual Programs (including the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program) and post-disaster Hazard

Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

The municipality’s Hazard Mitigation Plan must be reviewed, revised as appropriate, and resubmitted to FEMA for approval within five years of

the plan approval date in order to maintain eligibility as an applicant for mitigation grants. During that five year period, municipalities are

encouraged to continue updating the plan’s assessment to vulnerability, adhere to its maintenance schedule, and begin implementing the

mitigation actions proposed in the plan when possible.

The Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019 was prepared by the City of Nashua. The plan was written as part of the Resilient Nashua

Initiative led by the Nashua Office of Emergency Management including Justin Kates, Director of Emergency Management, Anna McGinty

Community Resilience Coordinator, and Matt Chigas Emergency Management Coordinator. The Resilient Nashua Initiative consists of City of

Nashua staff, members of the Nashua Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), members of the Greater Nashua Voluntary Organizations

Active in Disaster (VOAD), subject matter experts from local, state, federal, and non-governmental agencies, and other community stakeholders.

The Resilient Nashua Initiative served as the Hazard Mitigation Team for the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019. While there were

many active meeting participants throughout 2018, the Resilient Nashua Initiative also regularly communicated and solicited feedback from

members of the:

● Nashua Board of Aldermen

● Nashua Planning Board

● Nashua Environment & Energy Committee

● Nashua Board of Public Works

● Nashua Board of Education

8

● Nashua Board of Health

● Nashua Conservation Commission

● Nashua Local Emergency Planning Committee

● Nashua Area Interfaith Council

● Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce

● Greater Nashua Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster

City of Nashua staff who participated in the Resilient Nashua Initiative meetings included:

First Name Last Name Organization Title

Jackie Aguilar Nashua Community Health Department Public Health Nurse Manager

Pam Andruskevich Nashua GIS Department GIS Technician

Bobbie Bagley

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health Director

Ren Beaudoin Nashua Environmental Health Department Deputy Health Officer

Dan Bennison

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health Disaster Preparedness Coordinator

Carlos Camacho Nashua Police Department Lieutenant

Jacqueline Cardoza Nashua Office of Emergency Management Community Resilience Fellow

Matthew Chigas Nashua Office of Emergency Management

Emergency Management Coordinator

Deb Chisholm Nashua Waterways Department Waterways Manager

9

Patty Crooker

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health

Public Health Network Services Coordinator

Amy DeRoche Nashua Office of Economic Development Arts Administrator

Derek Edry Nashua Mayor's Office Communications Coordinator

Mandeep Gill Nashua Engineering Department Senior Staff Engineer

Michael Harris Nashua Division of Public Works Division Operation Manager

Jessica Hillman

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health CDC Public Health Associate

Jenn Hosking Nashua Public Library Assistant Director

Roger Houston Nashua Planning Department Planning Manager

Justin Kates Nashua Office of Emergency Management

Director of Emergency Management

Ed Lecius Nashua Police Department Community Policing Coordinator

Sarah Marchant Nashua Community Development Division Community Development Director

Angelo Marino Nashua GIS Department GIS Manager

Linda McGhee Nashua Planning Department Deputy Planning Manager

Anna McGinty Nashua Office of Emergency Management Community Resilience Coordinator

Bill Mckinney Nashua Building Safety Department Building Official

Scott McPhie Nashua Planning Department Planner

Kyle Metcalf Nashua Code Enforcement Department Code Officer

Madeleine Mineau Nashua Waterways Department Waterways Manager

10

Camille Pattison Nashua Transportation Department Transportation Manager

Jahmal Mosley Nashua School District Superintendent

Scott Perkins Nashua Streets Department Operations Supervisor

Connor Pinkham Nashua Office of Emergency Management Intern

Reilly Roche

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health Intern

Carrie Schena Nashua Urban Programs Department Urban Programs Manager

Madison Soucy Nashua Office of Emergency Management Intern

Chelsea St George

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health

Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator

James Vayo Nashua Office of Economic Development Downtown Specialist

Nicole Viau

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health PHNS Program Assistant

George Walker Nashua Fire Rescue Assistant Chief

The Resilient Nashua Initiative meetings consisted of representatives from the entities listed below. A complete list of active members’ names

and titles appears in the Resilient Nashua Initiative section of the Appendix.

AARP Nashua GIS Department

Academy for Science and Design Nashua Information Technology Division

American Red Cross Nashua Mayor's Office

11

Animal Hospital of Nashua Nashua Office of Economic Development

Antioch University Nashua Office of Emergency Management

ARA Nashua Planning Board

Big Brothers Big Sisters of NH Nashua Planning Department

Bishop Guertin High School Nashua Police Department

Citizens Climate Lobby Nashua Public Library

City of Keene Nashua Regional Planning Commission

DHS CISA Region 1 Nashua River Watershed Association

DHS FEMA Region 1 Nashua School District

DMc Permaculture Nashua Soup Kitchen & Shelter

EngAGING NH Nashua Streets Department

EPA Region 1 Nashua Transportation Department

Eversource Nashua Urban Programs Department

Expert Design Solutions Nashua Waterways Department

Farnum Center Nashua's Community Conversation on Race & Justice

Fidelity Investments National League of Cities

First Church Congregational, United Church of Christ New Hampshire Geological Survey

Foundation for Healthy Communities New Hampshire Municipal Association

Foundation for Resilient Societies NH Businesses for Social Responsibility

Fresenius Kidney Care NH Catholic Charities, Nashua

Gateways Community Services NH Department of Environmental Services

Girls Inc. of NH NH Department of Health & Human Services - ESU

Great American Downtown NH Department of Transportation

Greater Nashua Habitat for Humanity NH Homeland Security & Emergency Management

12

Harbor Homes NH Office of Strategic Initiatives

Hindu Temple of NH NH Partnership for Successful Living

Humane Society for Greater Nashua NH House of Representatives

Kim Lundgren Associates NHPR

LDS Church NIST

Liberty Utilities Northeast States Emergency Consortium

MA Office of Technical Assistance Pennichuck Water Works, Inc.

Milford High School ReVision Energy

NAACP Rise Engineering

Nashua Adult Learning Center Rivier University

Nashua Airport Authority Sierra Club

Nashua Baptist Church Southern New Hampshire Health

Nashua Board of Aldermen Southern NH Services

Nashua Board of Education Southern NH University

Nashua Board of Health St Patrick's Church

Nashua Building Safety Department St. Joseph Hospital

Nashua CERT Texas A&M University

Nashua Code Enforcement Department Town of Pelham

Nashua Community Development Division Town of Peterborough

Nashua Community Health Department Town of Swanzey

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health United Way of Greater Nashua

Nashua Division of Public Works US Army (76th ORC)

Nashua Engineering Department US Army Corps of Engineers

Nashua Environment & Energy Committee Volunteer NH

13

Nashua Environmental Health Department World Academy

Nashua Fire Rescue Worthen Industries

The Resilient Nashua Initiative met for a series of 6 meetings in order to prepare the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019. Agendas &

minutes from these meetings can be found in the Appendix. The meetings were held throughout 2018. City of Nashua staff, Resilient Nashua

Initiative stakeholders, and other community members attended these meetings. This allowed a diverse set of community members and City of

Nashua staff, who collectively comprise the Resilient Nashua Initiative, to participate and provide input in the Hazard Mitigation Plan update

process.

In between meetings, the Nashua Office of Emergency Management worked directly with Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders and City of

Nashua staff to obtain additional information needed to write the Plan.

The following actions took place in the development of the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019:

● Step 1: Team Formation and Orientation, Goal Identification

● Step 2: Review Community Stakeholders, Develop Public Participation and Outreach Plan

● Step 3: Review Community Capabilities for Hazard Mitigation & Risk Reduction Including Planning & Regulatory, Administrative and

Technical, Financial, and Education & Outreach Functions

● Step 4: Assess Community’s Participation in National Flood Insurance Program

● Step 5: Review Existing Community Plans, Policies, & Programs for Inclusion in Hazard Mitigation Plan

● Step 6: Identify Historic and Potential Hazards, Develop Hazard Descriptions

● Step 7: Profile & Catalog Historic and Potential Natural Hazards

● Step 8: Profile & Catalog Critical Infrastructure

● Step 9: Discuss Development Trends and Future Conditions

● Step 10: List Existing Mitigation Strategies & Brainstorm to Identify Potential Mitigation Strategies

● Step 11: Examine the Mitigation Strategies from the Prior Plan

● Step 12: Evaluate and Categorize Potential Mitigation Action Items

● Step 13: Prioritize Mitigation Action Items to Determine Implementation Plan

● Step 14: Team Review of Plan Contents for Submission to HSEM/FEMA

● Step 15: Adopt and Monitor the Plan

14

Section 1.2 Involvement of Community Stakeholders, Neighboring Communities, and Local/Regional/State Agencies

At the first Resilient Nashua Initiative meeting, held on February 5, 2018, the group discussed who should be invited to participate on the

planning team that was not currently represented, such as neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation,

agencies with authority to regulate development, and others. As discussed in Section 1.1, the Resilient Nashua Initiative consists of City of

Nashua staff and diverse community stakeholders. It was concluded that the Resilient Nashua Initiative distribution list was very comprehensive

and that additional participants could include additional participants from the media, private sector (particularly small businesses), faith-based

communities, & educational institutions. These organizations were included in future meeting invitations. In addition, a link was added to the

Resilient Nashua Initiative website enabling interested parties to sign up for updates and meeting notices. This ensured that anyone interested in

the mitigation planning process could stay informed, even if we didn’t have them on our distribution lists. A complete list of the Resilient Nashua

Initiative participants’ names and titles appears in the Resilient Nashua Initiative section of the Appendix. The Resilient Nashua Initiative was

informed of upcoming Hazard Mitigation Planning meetings via email, sent by the Office of Emergency Management. A sample notice is

included in the “Sample Resilient Nashua Initiative Notice” section of the Appendix.

A number of Resilient Nashua Initiative members participated in the update process, including:

First Name Last Name Organization Title

Michael Bachand US Army Corps of Engineers Staff

Matthew Bachler Town of Swanzey Director of Planning & Economic Development

Douglas Barry Humane Society for Greater Nashua President/CEO

Amy Bewley Academy for Science and Design Administrator

Makenzie Bilodeau Girls Inc. of NH Program Coordinator

Laurie Branchaud Gateways Community Services Adult Day Services Program Manager

Doria Brown Worthen Industries/Nashua Environment & Energy Committee Sustainability Specialist

15

Stephen Buckley New Hampshire Municipal Association Legal Services Counsel

Peter Burke Farnum Center Marketing Director

Ash Bustead Citizens Climate Lobby Member

Tiffany Calvino Fresenius Kidney Care RN- clinical Manager

Steve Cauffman NIST Engineering Laboratory

Sara Ceaser United Way of Greater Nashua Director of Volunteer and Alumni Engagement

Nadia Choudhry Animal Hospital of Nashua Manager

Jason Climer DHS CISA Region 1 Protective Security Advisor

Matthew Cody Liberty Utilities Intern, Compliance, Quality, and Emergency Management

Valerie Connelly Worthen Industries Plant Manager

Catherine Corkery Sierra Club NH Chapter Director

Scott Cote Southern New Hampshire Health VP Facilities & Emergency Management

Pamela Coutermarsh Nashua Adult Learning Center Accounting Administrator

Shane Csiki New Hampshire Geological Survey Flood Hazards Program Administrator

Christa Daniels Antioch University Adjunct Faculty

Shaylin Deignan Foundation for Healthy Communities Program Coordinator

Dean Desautels Eversource Manager - Emergency Preparedness

Lisa Dias World Academy Head of School

Jennifer DiMaria Milford High School Career Development Specialist

16

Heather Dunkerley NH Homeland Security & Emergency Management Senior Field Representative

Mikaela Engert Consultant Sustainability & Climate Change Advisor

Zeina Eyceoz Southern NH University/Nashua Citizen Adjunct Faculty

Juana Fields Nashua Soup Kitchen & Shelter Hispanic Advocate

Liz Fitzgerald United Way of Greater Nashua Director of Community Impact

Brenda Flores Rivier University Student

Dara Gay US Army Corps of Engineers Staff

Steve Genest Southern NH Services Board of Directors

Sarah Gibson NHPR Reporter

Jennifer Gilbert NH Office of Strategic Initiatives State Floodplain Management Coordinator

Liz Gilboy NH Homeland Security & Emergency Management Field Representative

Sherry Godlewski NH Department of Environmental Services

Resilience and Adaptation Manager

Melissa Goerbig Big Brothers Big Sisters of NH Vice President of Programs

Amy Greenhalgh Greater Nashua Habitat for Humanity Development Manager

Robert Guillemin EPA Region 1 Environmental Specialist

Charles Hall American Red Cross Senior Disaster Program Manager

Amy Hamilton US Army Corps of Engineers

Brian Harris-Jones N/A Recent graduate of environmental science

Mark Hastings Southern New Hampshire Health Director, Emergency Management

17

Karyn Heavner Rivier University Director of Public Health

Kayla Henderson NH Homeland Security & Emergency Management State Hazard Mitigation Planner

Theresa Hill NH Department of Health & Human Services - ESU Staff

Angela Holt Fresenius Kidney Care RN Clinical Manager

Jenn Hosking Nashua Public Library Assistant Director

Americo Imperatore Community Member Member

Paul Janampa NH Catholic Charities, Nashua Community Outreach Coordinator

Nick Kasza National League of Cities Senior Associate

Patricia Klee Nashua Board of Aldermen/NH State Representatives Alderman

Amanda Kohn Kim Lundgren Associates Sustainability Specialist

Rhett Lamb City of Keene Assistant City Manager/Planning Director

Jennifer LaTouche Expert Design Solutions Kitchen and Bath Designer

Tom Lopez NH Partnership for Successful Living/Nashua Board of Aldermen Maple Arms Shelter Manager

Kim Lundgren Kim Lundgren Associates CEO

Michael Mabee Foundation for Resilient Societies Volunteer

Arlene Magoon DHS FEMA Region 1 Individual & Community Preparedness Coordinator

Matthew Malecha Texas A&M University PhD Student

Timothy Mallette NH Department of Transportation Hydraulics Engineer

Cooper Martin National League of Cities Program Director, Sustainable Cities Institute

Emily Martuscello DHS FEMA Region 1 Continuous Improvement Advisor

18

Jaimie Masterson Texas A&M University Associate Director

Terri McAllister NIST Community Resilience Group Leader & PM

Dave McConville DMc Permaculture Permaculture Designer & Educator

Ken McGarry First Church Congregational, United Church of Christ Associate Minister

Scott Mellor DHS CISA Region 1 Chemical Security Inspector

Jay Minkarah Nashua Regional Planning Commission Executive Director

David Mizzen NIST/ARA Engineer

Daniel Modricker DHS CISA Region 1 Department Outreach Coordinator

Jarad Monin US Army (76th ORC) NH EPLO NCO

Melbourne Moran Harbor Homes Clinical Director

Patrick Morrison Nashua CERT Instructor

David Muse American Red Cross Disaster Program Manager

Bill Naas St Patrick's Church Parish Council Saint Patrick's Church

Sharon Nall NH Department of Environmental Services

WWEB Sustainability Program Manager

Kathryn Nelson Nashua River Watershed Association Water Monitoring Coordinator

Russell Norris Rivier University Director of Security Programs

Nzenalu Obinelo Gateways Community Services Vice President of Children and Family Services

Rebecca Ohler NH Department of Environmental Services

Administrator, Technical Services Bureau

19

Hector Ortiz Rise Engineering

Scott Osterhuber Fidelity Investments Security Director

Fran Patno DHS CISA Region 1 Chemical Security Inspector

Michael Pedersen Nashua Planning Board Mayor's Representative

Chris Poland NIST Community Resilience Fellow

Thomas Popik Foundation for Resilient Societies Chairman & President

James Pyle Nashua Environment & Energy Committee Member

Liesel Richie NIST Community Resilience Fellow

Ray Rowell Worthen Industries Facilities Manager

Jessica Rudd US Army Corps of Engineers Staff

Peter Schaefer Nashua Resident Resident

Bob Scheifele Nashua Airport Authority Director

Jan Schmidt Nashua Board of Aldermen/NH State Representatives Alderman

Maida Sengupta AARP, LDS Church, EngAGING NH secretary

Paul Shea Great American Downtown Great American Downtown

Karen Simmons Volunteer NH Deputy Director

Elise Simons EPA Region 1 Assistance & Outreach Coordinator

Alison Skare Milford High School High school Senior

Tiffany Skogstrom MA Office of Technical Assistance Outreach & Policy

Heather Snide Milford High School Student

Susan Snide Town of Pelham Assessing

Sylvie Stewart Nashua Environment & Energy Committee Community Member

20

Jason Strniste Bishop Guertin High School Principal

Doraswamy Subramony Hindu Temple of NH Priest

Gloria Timmons

NAACP/Nashua's Community Conversation on Race & Justice/Nashua Board of Education Member

Amir Toosi Rivier University Dean, Division of Business

Carole Totzkay NH Department of Health & Human Services - ESU Staff

Mason Twombly Nashua Regional Planning Commission Regional/ Environmental Planner

Roland Vance St. Joseph Hospital

Emergency Preparedness/Environmental Compliance Manager

Michelle Veasey NH Businesses for Social Responsibility Executive Director

Meta Vornehm LDS Church Self Reliance/Nashua resident Facilitator

Ed Walker Town of Peterborough Fire Chief / EMD

Donald Ware Pennichuck Water Works, Inc. Chief Operating Officer

Sula Watermulder Northeast States Emergency Consortium

GIS & Emergency Management Specialist

Dan Weeks ReVision Energy Director of Market Development

Whitney Welch NH Homeland Security & Emergency Management State Hazard Mitigation Officer

Kashena Window NH Department of Health & Human Services - ESU Volunteer Program Coordinator

Stephanie Wolf-Rosenblum Nashua Board of Health Member

Stephen Woodard Nashua Baptist Church Pastor

21

Si Yu Texas A&M University PhD Student

Section 1.3 Public Participation

During the first Resilient Nashua Initiative meeting, held on February 5, 2018 Justin Kates, Director of Emergency Management, informed the

attendees of all the methods currently employed to notify the public of mitigation planning meetings and news. These methods include the City

of Nashua’s website and meeting calendar (www.nashuanh.gov), City of Nashua Office of Emergency Management Twitter account

(https://twitter.com/NashuaOEM) and Facebook account (https://www.facebook.com/NashuaOEM), City of Nashua Community Development

Division Twitter account (https://twitter.com/NashuaCDD) and Facebook account (https://www.facebook.com/Nashua.cdd)Nashua Community

Television (https://www.nashuanh.gov/318/CTV---Nashua-Community-Television), e-mail distribution to various municipal boards and

committees, and Public Meeting notices distributed to the media by our Legislative Affairs Manager and posted publicly at Nashua City Hall and

other public facilities. The group determined that these methods should also be used to encourage public participation in the Hazard Mitigation

Plan update process. Examples and photos of meeting notices appear in the Public Notice section of the Appendix to this Plan.

In addition, the Nashua Office of Emergency Management developed a webpage for the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019

(https://www.livablenashua.org/resilient-nashua-initiative/) which allows members of the public to participate in the update process even if

they cannot attend meetings. The webpage was updated throughout the planning process and includes the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan

Update 2013, the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019 draft for review, and the Public Meeting Schedule. It also provides meeting times,

locations, agendas, minutes, and meeting presentations. The City of Nashua’s website links to this webpage. The Nashua Office of Emergency

Management & the Nashua Community Development Division will keep the website active and will add information about ongoing updates over

the next 5 years. A screenshot of the website appears in the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Website section of the Appendix to this

Plan.

Finally, the City established a public participation website using the coUrbanize platform for the Resilient Nashua Initiative

(http://courb.co/resilient). This website enabled community members to provide feedback on hazards they have experienced in the City as well

as community resources and facilities that are important to them. This tool was innovative as it allowed community members who may not have

been able to participate in a Resilient Nashua Initiative meeting to provide comments and input into the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

2019. The coUrbanize platform is currently in a static mode which does not allow for any additional comments but is archived publicly for all to

see the input. A screenshot of the website appears in the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Website section of the Appendix to this Plan.

22

Beyond the input provided by Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders during meetings and documented in meeting minutes, a letter was

submitted by Local Emergency Planning Committee partner Worthen Industries regarding flooding concerns surrounding and impacting their

property on Spit Brook Road. As a response to their public response to the mitigation planning process, efforts were coordinated between the

City Engineer and Worthen to review flood studies and future mitigation actions that can be taken at the area of concern. Mitigation actions

have been included in the Mitigation Strategy portion of this document related to Worthen’s letter and concerns. There was no other public

response to provide input to the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019 process.

Section 1.4 Updating the Plan

The City of Nashua is required to update its Hazard Mitigation Plan at least every five years. In order to monitor, evaluate, and update the

Mitigation Strategies identified in Table 10—Implementation and Administration, the Resilient Nashua Initiative will continue to meet and

coordinate updates to the plan. Efforts will be made to ensure that key City staff members also participate, such as representatives from

planning, engineering, and building safety. The Directors of both the City of Nashua Community Development Division and the Office of

Emergency Management through the Resilient Nashua Initiative, will be responsible for working on updates to the Plan throughout the 5-year

cycle. They will meet every 3 months or more frequently if a project is underway. Proposals or suggestions regarding the Hazard Mitigation Plan

will go directly to this group. This will allow for the most efficient way to address hazard mitigation related issues. Due to the City’s Community

Rating System requirements, a formal progress report is required on an annual basis including hazard impacts and mitigation action status since

the last update.

Changes should be made to the Plan to accommodate projects that have failed or are not considered feasible after an evaluation and review for

their consistency with the benefit cost analysis, STAPLEE analysis, timeframe, community’s priorities, and funding resources. Mitigation

strategies that were not ranked as priorities during the 2019 update should be reviewed as well during the monitoring, evaluation, and update

of this Plan to determine the feasibility of future implementation. New mitigation actions or plans proposed upon adoption of this Plan should

follow the benefit cost and STAPLEE analysis methods utilized in this Plan to ensure consistency with the adopted Plan and to help the Resilient

Nashua Initiative stakeholders evaluate overall potential for success.

In addition to Resilient Nashua Initiative quarterly meetings, these stakeholders will meet after any hazard occurrence as part of the City’s

debriefing exercise. The Hazard Mitigation Plan will be updated following this meeting to reflect changes in priorities and mitigation strategies

that have resulted from the hazard event. It is especially important to incorporate updates within one year after a Presidential Disaster

Declaration.

23

The City of Nashua will utilize its website, official posted meeting notices, local cable channels, and existing social media outlets, including

Facebook and Twitter to notify members of the public about the Resilient Nashua Initiative meetings and to involve them in the update process.

Any public input that is received will be incorporated into the Plan update. All Resilient Nashua Initiative agendas, meeting minutes, and sub-

committee minutes are available to the public to aid with their continued involvement in the update process. Furthermore, public meetings are

typically held prior to implementing mitigation projects or when addressing specific issues related to hazard mitigation. For example, a series of

public meetings were held regarding the Jackson Mills Dam, Crest Gate Flood Mitigation Project. Meetings and associated outreach are

conducted by the department responsible for the project.

24

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL AUTHORITIES, POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND RESOURCES

Section 2.1 Capability Assessment

At the June 13th, 2018 Resilient Nashua Initiative meeting, the stakeholders discussed Nashua’s existing authorities, policies, programs, and

resources related to hazard mitigation and its ability to expand and improve on these. The purpose of this discussion was to determine the

ability of the City to implement its hazard mitigation strategies and to identify potential opportunities to enhance specific policies, programs, or

projects. The evaluation of Nashua’s existing authorities, policies, programs, and resources includes planning and regulatory capabilities,

administrative & technical capabilities, financial capabilities, education & outreach capabilities, and floodplain management capabilities. Each of

these areas provides an opportunity to integrate hazard mitigation principles and practices into the local decision making process.

Section 2.1.1 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities

Planning and regulatory capability is based on the implementation of plans, ordinances, and programs that demonstrate Nashua’s commitment

to guiding and managing growth in a responsible manner. The following is a summary of the relevant local plans, ordinances, and programs

already in place in the City of Nashua. Each one should be considered as an available mechanism for incorporating the recommendations of the

Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019.

● 2000 Master Plan (https://www.nashuanh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4550/Nashua-Master-Plan-2000-PDF?bidId=) - This Plan

minimally addresses hazards and does not identify projects to include in the mitigation strategy or be used to implement mitigation

actions. Funding to update this plan is expected within the next year and a focus will be incorporating mitigation and resilience

throughout the master planning process.

● Annual Capital Improvements Plan (https://www.nashuanh.gov/590/Capital-Improvement-Committee) -The plan addresses only

projects submitted by departments annually. It does identify mitigation related projects to include and can be used to implement

actions.

● 2018 Economic Development Plan (https://www.nashuanh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13542/MIT-2018-Economic-Report-FULL-

DOCUMENT) - This Plan minimally addresses hazards and does not identify projects to include in the mitigation strategy or be used to

implement mitigation actions.

● 2014 Nashua Comprehensive Emergency Plan (https://www.nashuanh.gov/334/Emergency-Management) - Plan includes a number of

hazards (natural, technological, or human-caused) that impact the City of Nashua. Plan includes the projects from the 2013 Mitigation

25

Plan though they are all duplicate, no additional projects. This plan highlights a process after a disaster to include mitigation in the

recovery phases. This plan is expected to be updated in 2019 and will shift to an Emergency Operations Plan and these recovery and

mitigation portions will be removed.

● 2016-2025 NTS Comprehensive Plan (https://www.nashuarpc.org/files/5814/8397/3814/NTS_2016-2025_CompPlan_Final.pdf) – This

plan minimally addresses hazards and does not identify projects to include in the mitigation strategy. It could be used to implement

mitigation actions.

● 2003 Downtown Master Plan (https://www.nashuanh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/308/Downtown-Master-Plan-PDF?bidId=) - This plan

minimally addresses hazards. There were potentially projects that would reduce risk along the Nashua River although the vision

expressed was 5 years ago and some are not applicable today. This plan cannot be used to implement mitigation actions.

● 2004 East Hollis Street Master Plan (https://www.nashuanh.gov/299/East-Hollis-Street-Plan) - This plan minimally addresses hazards.

The Plan addresses issue of traffic congestion with existing road infrastructure, railroad crossings; the Taylor Falls Bridge crossing to

Hudson; safety of pedestrians; and future land use. This plan does not identify mitigation projects cannot be used to implement

mitigation actions.

● 2009 Quadrant Plan – This plan shows wetland soils and steep slopes in excess of 20%. This plan does not identify mitigation projects

cannot be used to implement mitigation actions.

● 2017 Riverfront Master Plan (https://www.nashuanh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11236/NDRDP_Report_Final_170829-1?bidId=) - The

Plan promotes flood resiliency for future riverfront development and retrofit or relocate critical infrastructure to improve flood

resiliency. The plan proposes projects along the Nashua River that assist in the mitigation and proposes projects that will contain hazard

mitigation strategies to implement the projects.

● 2005 NRPC Region-Wide Buildout Impact Analysis (http://www.nashuarpc.org/files/5713/9463/5247/Regionwide_buildout_final.pdf) –

The Buildout Summary provides information on the amount of buildable space and lots in the City. This document may be outdated in

some parts of the City as it was created over a decade ago.

● 2016 Nashua Regional Water Resiliency Action Plan (https://www.nashuarpc.org/energy-environmental-planning/hazard-mitigation-

planning/) — Climate change in southern New Hampshire will impact the environment, ecosystem services, economy, public health, and

quality of life. According to a 2014 study by the Sustainability Institute at the University of NH, southern NH is expected to become

26

warmer and wetter over the next century with more extreme precipitation events. This weather pattern puts significant stress on the

region’s already aging water infrastructure. Furthermore, climate change is likely to cause a number of public health impacts on NH’s

most vulnerable residents. Despite efforts taking place to slow the rate of climate change, some level of change is inevitable. Therefore,

municipalities must make sound decisions to help their communities adapt to a new climate normal. The goal of the Nashua Region

Water Resiliency Action Plan is to help municipalities become more resilient to the impacts that climate change has on their water

infrastructure and vulnerable populations. This plan addresses hazards projected to see significant changes due to a warming climate

and identifies projects to include in the mitigation strategy. It could be used to implement mitigation actions.

● 2017 Climate and Health Adaptation Plan for the Greater Nashua Region (https://www.nashuarpc.org/hot-projects/chap-plan/) - The

Nashua Regional Planning Commission (NRPC) partnered with the City of Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services and

the Greater Nashua Region Public Health Network (GNRPHN) to prepare a Climate and Health Adaptation Plan (CHAP). Funding was

provided by the Centers for Disease Control administered by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services. This

project was designed to examine the impact a changing climate has on health in the Nashua Region. Heat-related illness was identified

as the primary health impact affecting the region, which led to the development of an educational intervention program in order to

increase the Region’s resilience. Through this process, the GNRPHN is now well positioned to address heat-related illnesses and continue

outreach to vulnerable populations. This document also became a chapter of the 2017 Nashua Community Health Assessment to help

guide policy and decision-making for the future. This plan addresses hazards projected to see significant changes due to a warming

climate and identifies projects to include in the mitigation strategy. It could be used to implement mitigation actions.

● 2017 Community Health Assessment (https://www.nashuanh.gov/560/Community-Health-Assessment) - A CHA is a process by which

community members gain an understanding of the health concerns and needs of the community by identifying, collecting, analyzing and

disseminating information on the community’s assets, strengths, resources and needs. There are many health topics covered in this CHA,

including access to healthcare, maternal health, chronic conditions, emergency preparedness, and substance misuse. This Assessment

does address public health hazards.

● 2018-2021 Community Health Improvement Plan (https://www.nashuanh.gov/564/Community-Health-Improvement-Plan-CHIP) -

Following the CHA, the Division and its regional partners continue the improvement process by developing a CHIP. The CHIP acts as a

guidebook and prioritizes health topics and creates an action plan to address those issues over the next three years. This plan does

identify actions for the public health hazards identified in the CHA, however many are not projects that can fit within the mitigation

strategy. This plan can be used to implement mitigation actions in the future.

27

● Building Code (https://www.nashuanh.gov/275/Building-Safety-Department) - The City has currently adopted and adequately enforces

the following codes with amendments:

o 2009 International Building Code (Amendments)

o 2009 International Residential Code (Amendments)

o 2009 International Existing Building Code (Amendments)

o 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (Amendments)

o 2009 International Mechanical Code (Amendments)

o 2009 International Plumbing Code (Amendments)

o 2017 National Electric Code (Amendments)

o 2015 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101 (Amendments)

o 2009 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1 (Amendments)

These codes are out of date and efforts have been made by the Building Safety Department and advocacy groups to move the State towards a

more current set of building codes. It is anticipated that the State of New Hampshire will move to the 2015 version of the International Building

Code after the release of this hazard mitigation plan update.

● Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) Score: 8 out of 10

● Fire Department ISO Rating: The Fire Department is an ISO Class 02/2X.

● Site Plan Procedures (http://ecode360.com/8732703) - Review of sites to ensure compliance with all ordinances, codes, and standards

ensures risk reduction measures are taken into consideration prior to construction or modification. Site Plan review is conducted by a

multidisciplinary group including the Planning Department, Building Safety Department, Code Enforcement Department, Engineering

Department, Environmental Health Department, and the Fire Marshal’s Office.

● Land Use Ordinances (http://ecode360.com/8730563) – Including Administrative, Zoning, Subdivision, Site Plan, and other procedures

28

● City of Nashua Zoning Ordinances (https://ecode360.com/8732477) - FEMA approved floodplain/floodway ordinances for development;

wetlands ordinance; water supply protection district; and airport approach zone and landfill groundwater protection overlay. Planning

Board, the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Conservation Commission and the Planning Department staff administer the ordinances and

works with Code Enforcement Department in the enforcement if necessary.

● Subdivision Procedures (http://ecode360.com/8732565) - The Planning Department Staff in conjunction with other review

agencies/departments review plans prior to being presented to the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Adjustment, Conservation

Commission for mitigating any known hazard attenuated with the site, development or adjacent issues that may affect the

development. Terms of the applicable ordinances are adhered to through the development review process and enforcement of the

approvals done through the Planning Department working with Code Enforcement Department.

● City of Nashua Floodplain Development Ordinance (http://ecode360.com/8731853) - The floodplain ordinance we have in place is the

minimum requirements for eligibility in the NFIP. Addition of a freeboard requirement would provide additional protection against

flooding hazards. The existing ordinance is adequately administered and enforced.

● Stormwater Management Ordinance (https://ecode360.com/8733254) - The purpose of this ordinance is to protect, maintain and

enhance public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse

impacts associated with stormwater runoff, and soil erosion and sedimentation from site construction and development. Subdivision

and site plans shall include plans for managing stormwater and controlling erosion and sedimentation as provided herein. This ordinance

meets requirements for Nashua’s participation in Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permitting program which has been

permitted by EPA since 2003.

● Fire Prevention Ordinances - Fire codes and land use codes the address topics including overgrown vegetation and excessive storage of

debris on a property. Due to current staffing levels these codes/ordinances are usually only enforced by the Fire Marshal’s Office when a

complaint comes in.

● Flood insurance rate maps - Both the Merrimack River and Nashua River watershed FIRMs are in the process of being revised and it is

expected that most of the FIRMs in Nashua will be updated soon. Requirements for flood insurance associated with FIRMs and NFIP

reduce hazard impacts however there are major issues, such as rising costs of premiums, with NFIP that need to be addressed at the

federal level.

29

● Acquisition of land for open space and public recreational uses - This is conducted in the City but there is not enough funding to

implement sizable land acquisition projects.

Section 2.1.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities

Nashua’s ability to develop and implement mitigation projects, policies, and programs is closely related to the staff time and resources it

allocates to that purpose. Administrative capability can be improved by coordinating across departments and integrating mitigation planning

into existing City procedures. The following departments, boards, and personnel are critical to Nashua’s hazard mitigation administrative and

technical capabilities:

● Nashua Planning Board - The Planning Board consists of appointed volunteers and the Mayor (or personal representative) and the City

Engineer as ex-officio members. It has no specific budget except through the Planning Department or the Capital Improvement project

to fund mitigation actions except through review or enforcement of development process or post development for violations. The

process and procedures of the board are effective at identifying issues associated with hazards within their purview.

● Resilient Nashua Initiative/Local Emergency Planning Committee – This committee is responsible for the development and execution of

the Hazard Mitigation Plan, annual updates to the plan, community mitigation outreach projects, and the creation of new mitigation

projects for inclusion in future plans.

● Maintenance programs to reduce risk - The Parks &Recreation Department has the capability to respond to tree issues year round with a

bucket truck, chippers and saws. They can handle most trees up to 65 feet tall. They also have a list of contractors to respond to work

outside of their capabilities. General tree maintenance is performed mostly during the months of November through March. The

Wastewater Department has Vactor vehicles, a CCTV truck, and other equipment that are regularly involved in maintenance of

infrastructure. The Street Department., has equipment including dump trucks, excavators, loaders, trench boxes, and sandbags to

maintain infrastructure throughout the year, more so during the warmer construction months. The Engineering Department

coordinates larger maintenance projects for City infrastructure that include external contractors. Coordination between the Divisions is

very good through unified planning and operations at the Division level. The work order system provides a way to follow up and

complete request that come in during the year.

● Mutual aid agreements - There are response related mutual aid agreements. Likely the only mutual aid agreement that would have any

connection to mitigation would be Public Works Mutual Aid which the City is not a member of. In addition there is NH Architects &

Engineers Emergency Response Task Force which has been developed and can be activated through the State, but this is not a mutual

30

aid agreement. City is not a member of Public Works Mutual Aid, the process for activating NH Architects & Engineers Emergency

Response Task Force through the State is unclear.

● City of Nashua Office of Emergency Management and Director of Emergency Management – Hazard mitigation is a key component of

emergency management, along with preparedness, response, and recovery. Opportunities to reduce potential losses through mitigation

practices are typically implemented before a hazard event occurs, such as enforcement of policies to regulate development that is

vulnerable to hazards due to its location or design. Existing emergency management capabilities for the City of Nashua fall primarily

under the Nashua Office of Emergency Management (OEM). Staffing is adequate because OEM does not enforce regulations in the City.

Staff is trained on hazards and mitigation techniques (through FEMA courses) and is very proactive with mitigation as a key component

of Emergency Management. Coordination between agencies and staff is average. OEM sits on Site Plan Review committee to provide

insight from a mitigation perspective. OEM is included in Building Safety week to an extent. There have been efforts to improve

coordination among physical safety/security organizations in the City regarding assessments of buildings. Coordination could be

improved between OEM and Public Works/Engineering on infrastructure mitigation projects. OEM’s responsibilities and capabilities

include:

o Coordinates the planning, organizing, and carrying-out of emergency management activities. Serves as the lead point of contact

in any emergency situation other than Police and Fire emergencies.

o Responsible for the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) outlining what each local agency/city department and

support agencies would do in case of any emergency. Coordinates the development, maintenance, and review of the CEMP and

other plans as needed.

o Establishes, develops, maintains, and runs an Emergency Operations Center (EOC).

o Develops EOC staffing and internal procedures to permit key officials to conduct coordinated operations in emergencies.

Coordinates the use of resources, equipment, and manpower.

o During emergencies coordinates emergency resources, reports activities and conditions to State Emergency Management, and

requests assistance as needed.

o Coordinates damage assessment activities and promptly reports all damage assessment reports to the State.

31

o Facilitates tests and exercises to give local officials practice in directing coordinated operations under simulated emergency

conditions.

o Establishes a system to alert key local officials in the event of an emergency.

o Coordinates and leads emergency communications planning. Secures all required equipment and exercises emergency

communications.

o Serves as the community representative in dealing with other governmental and private organizations.

o Coordinates public information programs to keep all residents of the community informed about emergency management

activities.

o Coordinates with doctors, hospitals, and public/private sector medical personnel to develop emergency medical plans and

capabilities, as part of local emergency plans.

o Establishes and maintains a shelter system including coordinating with City transportation resources.

o Establishes and maintains an emergency public information system and trains personnel to use it.

o Coordinates with the Red Cross and other volunteer groups to develop an emergency welfare capability to care for people

needing mass care as a result of any emergency.

o Establishes and maintains relationships with industry to develop industrial emergency plans and capabilities in support of local

emergency plans.

o Coordinates training and exercise programs to prepare emergency management personnel for emergency operations including

all City divisions and employees involved in emergency management.

o Assists local operating departments such as Police, Fire, and Public Works with their training needs.

o Coordinates and participates in training programs for the public.

o Assists in the establishment of mutual aid agreements to coordinate needed services, equipment, or other resources during an

emergency.

32

o Secures matching funds and other assistance available through the NH Homeland Security & Emergency Management program

and through federal programs.

o Keeps the Mayor and key personnel fully informed of all emergency management matters, with the exception of police and fire

emergencies.

o Assists community agencies and businesses in developing their plans for responding to emergencies.

● City of Nashua Community Development Division—the Community Development Division guides the City of Nashua, its citizens, and the

private sector towards a better vision for the City's future. Within the division, there are several departments, including the Department

of Building Safety, Planning Department, Code Enforcement, Urban Programs, Waterways, and the Transportation Department.

● City of Nashua Department of Building Safety—the Department of Building Safety accepts permit applications for review and conducts

inspections on permitted construction work. This includes building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and demolition plans. Staffing is

adequate to enforce regulations. All inspection staff is FEMA ICC and IMS certified. Building Official is FEMA ICC and IMS certified and

CalOES rapid damage assessment certified. Yes. Building Safety works closely with Fire Department, Public Health and Emergency

Management.

● City of Nashua Planning Department—the Planning Department provides professional expertise to several boards and commissions,

including the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Adjustment, Conservation Commission, and Historic District Commission. The Planning

Department oversees the creation of plans and studies for the City and reviews site plans, special exceptions, minor home occupations,

variance applications, and sign permits. Staffing is adequate to enforce regulations and staff trained on hazards and mitigation.

Coordination between agencies and staff is effective.

● City of Nashua Code Enforcement—Code Enforcement assures compliance with City housing and zoning ordinances to protect the

environment and the health and safety of the community. They investigate many violations including dilapidated and unsafe housing,

illegal signage and outdoor displays, accumulation of junk and trash, wetland violations, and unsanitary living conditions.

● City of Nashua Waterways Department/Floodplain Administrator – Staffing is adequate to enforce floodplain regulations. The City

previously had a Certified Floodplain Manager trained hazard mitigation and floodplain management and the new position is working

towards achieving this certification. Coordination is effective between agencies and staff.

33

● City of Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services—the mission of the Division of Public Health and Community Services is

to promote, protect and preserve the health and well-being of the Greater Nashua Region through leadership and community

collaboration. The Division is responsible for a variety of services, including child care, community health, emergency preparedness,

environmental health, health education, tobacco prevention and control, and welfare.

● City of Nashua Public Works Division—Public Works' services range from cleaning, repairing, and maintaining City streets and sewers, to

building and maintaining plazas, stairways, and other public areas. Public Works staff promote the under-grounding of overhead utilities,

as well as provide architectural, civil, structural, and mechanical engineering services, including project and construction management.

● City of Nashua Engineering Department – Additional staffing to reduce workload on Engineers would enable additional initiatives to

reduce risk. Staff attends meetings and training opportunities developed by the City Emergency Management Director and other

suitable appropriate programs when their schedule permits. Coordination between the Division and other city departments is adequate.

● City of Nashua GIS Department – GIS Staff does not enforce regulations in the City but current staffing of 2 personnel is adequate to

assist City staff in the creation of mitigation related maps. Staff are trained on hazards and mitigation mapping initiatives. Coordination

and awareness of GIS capabilities by other Departments could be improved.

● City of Nashua Office of the Mayor—the Office of the Mayor includes the Mayor of Nashua as well as the Mayor’s Cabinet, which

consists of the City Clerk, Director of Information Technology, Director of Public Works, Director of Economic Development, Chief

Financial Officer, Director of Community Development, Director of Human Resources, Director of Emergency Management, City

Attorney, and Director of Public Health.

● City of Nashua Fire Rescue—it is the mission of Nashua Fire Rescue to protect life, property, and lessen the effect on the environment by

providing effective emergency services related to fire suppression, emergency medical response, specialized rescues and hazardous

materials mitigation. Nashua Fire Rescue encourages all personal to take a proactive role in reducing the impact of such emergencies by

providing programs related to public education, risk reduction education, fire prevention, community relations, disaster planning, and

operational training.

● Board of Aldermen—the Board of Aldermen is the governing body of the City of Nashua and as such is the policy-making entity of the

City, except where otherwise expressed in the City Charter. The Board of Aldermen consists of nine ward aldermen elected for a term of

two years at every municipal election and six at-large aldermen elected for a term of four years, three of which are elected at each

municipal election.

34

● Warning systems/services - The City has the capability to warn the public through a variety of systems and services, directly and

indirectly. This includes cell phone, landline phone, TV, radio, app, social media, and web notifications. This capability has not been used

to assess/mitigate risk in the past because warning and notification is not a mitigation technique. The systems have been utilized for

response in the past.

● Hazard data and information - The City has limited authoritative data related to hazards affecting the jurisdiction. This data as well as

the authoritative sources is currently being collected as part of the mitigation planning process. In some cases the information may not

be specific to the City (may instead be for a neighboring county or another area in NH or MA. It is anticipated that this planning process

will develop a reference list of authoritative hazard data and a methodology for keeping it up to date. The City can improve the process

of collecting information on hazard impacts for smaller events that responders or Public Works respond to throughout the year. There is

no process for collecting this information. Information collected during previous Mitigation Plans did not include references or citations,

so it is not clear how this hazard data was collected. The focus of this hazard data was related to financial impacts (FEMA Declarations)

rather than a hazard based approach. Efforts to use hazard data for mitigation grants has been unsuccessful due to the quality of the

data.

● Grant writing - OEM Director has significant experience in the drafting and development of grants. Standard Operating Procedures for

grant application and management have been developed by the Office. OEM will be scaling back on grant applications due to the

administrative burden it creates on the office. The OEM has been very successful at the application of grant funding for many response

related projects as well as planning initiatives. OEM has been unsuccessful on the application of hazard mitigation grants due to the lack

of required documentation, assessments, and data for Benefit Cost Analysis.

● HAZUS analysis - While the City does not currently have the capability to complete HAZUS analysis, the GIS Department could likely

learn. The City does have ArcGIS Desktop and the OEM Director and GIS Manager have taken basic HAZUS training through FEMA.

Currently the City works through Northeast States Emergency Consortium (NESEC) to complete HAZUS analysis The City has had this

completed in 2014 for Hurricane, Flood, and Earthquake and is currently undertaking it as part of this planning process.

Section 2.1.3 Financial Capabilities

In addition to administrative and technical capabilities, the ability of the City to implement mitigation actions is closely associated with the

amount of money available for these projects. Mitigation actions identified in this Plan, including those in Table 10—Implementation and

Administration, may utilize the following funding sources:

35

● Capital improvements project funding – Funding has been requested and provided in limited cases for mitigation projects though the

requests for capital improvement program funding typically cost more than the funding available annually. Many flood mitigation

requests have been deferred over multiple years in this program.

● Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes – This funding resource has not been used in the past though it could be implemented in the

future.

● Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services - Sewer user fees support the operation and maintenance of the Wastewater Treatment

Facility and collection system or the City of Nashua as part of a Wastewater Enterprise Fund. These fees have been previously allocated

for separating sewer and stormwater combined lines. The operating and capital budgets have included annual appropriations for

stormwater abatement and CSO flooding projects. The funding sources are directed towards capital projects and operation and

maintenance. In addition, private utility companies do incorporate maintenance and mitigation project budgets into their fee programs

for vegetation management, repairs, and upgrades.

● Impact fees for new development – This funding resource has not been used in the past and it likely would not be supported in the

future.

● Stormwater utility fee – This funding resource has not been used in the past and it is unknown if this would be supported in the future.

● Incur debt through general obligation bonds and/or special tax bonds – Bonds have been leveraged for many large capital projects

including hydroelectric dam repairs, the construction of the Broad Street Parkway, and pavement management programs. This is an

option for future mitigation projects.

● Incur debt through private activities – This has not been leveraged in the past though this could be a future option for mitigation

projects.

● State and Federal Grants, including, but not limited to:

o Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program—this program is administered by the Federal Highway Administration

and was implemented to support surface transportation projects and related efforts that contribute to air quality improvements

and provide congestion relief. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/

36

o FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program—the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program provides grants to implement long-term hazard

mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the Program is to reduce the loss of life and property

due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster.

http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program

o FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program—the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program provides funds for hazard mitigation planning and

the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster. http://www.fema.gov/pre-disaster-mitigation-grant-program

o FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance - The FMA program is authorized by Section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968,

as amended with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FMA provides

funding to States, Territories, federally-recognized tribes and local communities for projects and planning that reduces or

eliminates long-term risk of flood damage to structures insured under the NFIP. FMA funding is also available for management

costs. Funding is appropriated by Congress annually. https://www.fema.gov/flood-mitigation-assistance-grant-program

o Community Development Block Grant Program—the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, administered

through the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, provides communities with resources to address a wide range

of unique community development needs, including Disaster Recovery Assistance. HUD provides flexible grants to help cities,

counties, and States recover from Presidentially declared disasters, especially in low-income areas, subject to availability of

supplemental appropriations. This funding has been used in the past for hazard mitigation. Direct types of activities included

CDBG being used to mitigate water infiltration at the Hunt Building. The work included modifying the sidewalk and drainage to

redirect run-off away from the building. Indirect types of activities included the use of HOME (HUD) funds at 30 Front

Street/Cotton Mill redevelopment, which indirectly supported floodplain modification. The developer initiated work to the

Jackson Falls flood gate, thereby changing the flood plain and resulting in a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). These funds did not

directly pay for this work but were part of the larger effort to make this project come together. CDBG also funded the Disaster

Resilience non-profit assessment pilot done in the City. CDBG can be used in a variety of ways that might affect hazard

mitigation. Flood hazards are one example and other examples include owner-occupied housing rehab or non-profit building

rehab – where design features can be incorporated that create more disaster resilient homes (installing hard wired generators,

fire-proofing materials, storm grade building materials, etc). The following categories are specific eligible activities that may

relate to hazard mitigation: Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, Parking facilities, Parks, Flood Drainage Improvements, Water/Sewer

Improvements, Street, Sidewalks, Tree Planting.

37

o Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program (SRF) - The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act created a

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to provide assistance in the form of low interest loans to public water systems to

finance the cost of drinking water infrastructure. Public water systems eligible for this program include all community public

water systems and non-transient non-profit public water systems. In addition, funds are used to promote proactive drinking

water measures such as source water protection, operator certification, small system technical assistance/capacity

development, and program administration. This funding has been used by Pennichuck Water in the past for mitigation projects

including the Merrimack River Raw Water Transmission Main and could be used in the future.

o Drinking Water and Groundwater Trust Fund - The Drinking Water and Groundwater Trust Fund, established under RSA 485-F, is

intended to provide for the protection, preservation, and enhancement of the drinking water and groundwater resources of the

state. In establishing the Fund, the legislature recognized that the widespread and persistent contamination of the State’s

drinking water and groundwater caused by contaminants such as methyl tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) and the need to invest in

the State’s drinking water infrastructure requires a comprehensive strategy designed to ensure the continued availability of safe

drinking water for all New Hampshire citizens. RSA 485-F requires that existing groundwater resources be preserved and

protected and alternative sources of drinking water be made available to the extent practicable. This funding has been used in

the past by Pennichuck Water for mitigation projects including the Merrimack River Raw Water Intake project and could be used

in the future.

o Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) - The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) created the Clean Water

State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program, which provides low-interest loans to communities, nonprofits and other local

government entities to improve and replace collection systems and wastewater treatment plants with the ultimate goal of

protecting public health and improving water quality. A portion of the CWSRF program is used to fund nonpoint source,

watershed protection and restoration, and estuary management projects that help improve and protect water quality in New

Hampshire. A major benefit for municipalities and other loan recipients is the substantial financial savings they can realize.

When funded with a loan from this program, a project typically costs much less than it would if funded through banks or the

municipal bond market. Loan interest charges are a percentage of the lower market rate at either the time of loan origination or

project completion: 25 percent of the established market rate for a five-year term, 50 percent of the established market rate for

a 10-year term, 75 percent of the established market rate for a 15-year term, and 80 percent of the established market rate for a

20-year term. This funding has been utilized by the City of Nashua in the past and could be used in the future.

38

o State Aid Grant (SAG) program - RSA 486 established the SAG Program which provides financial assistance in the form of a grant

to NH communities to off-set the planning, design and construction costs of certain sewage disposal facilities. Due to budgetary

reductions, the SAG program has not received sufficient funding to provide grants to all eligible projects. Projects that were

approved to receive funding by the Governor and the Executive Council prior to November 2008 continue to receive grant

payments. However, SAG pre-applications received after November 2008 have been placed on the "Delayed and Deferred List"

and may receive a grant in the event that funding is restored to the program in the future. The SAG program provides a 20 to 30

percent grant, depending on the community’s sewer user fee, to NH communities for eligible sewage disposal facilities. Nashua

has applied to this program in the past for projects including combined sewer separation, the Screening and Disinfection Facility,

and the Wet Weather Treatment Facility. Until funding is restored to this program, it is not available for mitigation projects.

o State Aid Grant Plus (SAG Plus) - In addition to the State Aid Grant Program (SAG), funds may be available to municipalities that

expand, upgrade, or develop new wastewater treatment facilities to provide for septage disposal. A municipality may be

reimbursed by the state an additional 10 percent of eligible costs, derived from the acquisition and construction of septage

treatment facilities, which results in increased septage or treatment capacity to meet the septage disposal needs of their

residents. The grant increases by two percent for each municipality with which the host community holds a written agreement

to provide for their septage disposal needs. The total grant amount can equal up to 50 percent of the eligible costs (including the

SAG). This funding could be used for future mitigation projects.

● City of Nashua Municipal Budget—the City of Nashua has the authority to prepare and adopt an annual budget according to City Charter

Sections 56 et seq. General Fund Budget and Departmental Appropriations may potentially be used to implement mitigation actions.

However, references to departmental budgets in this Plan do not imply that funding currently exists in these budgets or that it will be

available in the future to implement mitigation actions.

● Public Private Partnerships – Private developer funding has been used in the past to assist with mitigation projects including the Jackson

Mills Crest Gate project and privately funded flood mitigation efforts at Thoreau’s Landing.

Section 2.1.4 Education and Outreach Capabilities

● Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on environmental protection, emergency preparedness, access and functional

needs populations, etc:

o Environmental Protection

39

▪ Nashua River Watershed Association

▪ Lower Merrimack River Local Advisory Committee

▪ City of Nashua - Conservation Commission

▪ City of Nashua – Environment and Energy Committee

▪ Merrimack River Watershed Council

▪ The Nature Conservancy - NH

▪ 350.org - NH

▪ The Trust for Public Land - NH

▪ Sierra Club – NH Chapter

▪ Environment NH

▪ NH Audubon

o Emergency Preparedness

▪ NH Silver Jackets

▪ Greater Nashua Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD)

▪ Nashua Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)

▪ Red Cross - NH & VT Region

▪ Salvation Army Nashua

▪ Hillsborough County Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES)

40

▪ Latter-Day Saints Church - "Self-Reliance" Group

o Access and Functional Needs Populations

▪ Greater Nashua Continuum of Care

▪ Public Health Advisory Committee

▪ Gateways Community Services

▪ Partnership for Successful Living/Harbor Homes/Keystone Hall

▪ Nashua Adult Learning Center

▪ United Way of Greater Nashua

▪ Southern New Hampshire Services

▪ NH Catholic Charities

▪ PLUS Company

▪ Front Door Agency

▪ Nashua Soup Kitchen & Shelter

▪ The Youth Council

▪ Nashua Prevention Coalition

● Ongoing public education or information program(s) - Fire Department: The fire department does not currently have any education or

information programs to address natural hazards or community risk reduction. They do provide fire prevention outreach demonstrations

to schools throughout the City as available. The addition of public education staff in the Fire Marshal’s Office can assist with community

risk reduction efforts. Nashua Division of Public Health & Community Services does provide preparedness presentations and trainings

which highlight mitigation activities. Greater Nashua Public Health and the Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services has

41

partnered with the National Weather Service and the Manchester Health Department to offer at least two trainings annually on the

Skywarn Weather Spotter program, alternating venues and winter/summer spotter training. Pennichuck Water incorporates public

education campaigns annually on responsible water use.

● Natural disaster or safety related school programs - The Greater Nashua Public Health Network has partnered with the American Red

Cross to deliver the Pillowcase Project and Prepare with Pedro curriculums to youth throughout the region. These programs target

elementary students and provide a forum to discuss preparedness in the context of safety and natural disasters. Mitigation could be

integrated into these programs in the future.

● StormReady certification – The City has obtained StormReady certification through the Gray, Maine National Weather Service Office.

This certification must be maintained every three years. StormReady uses a grassroots approach to help communities develop plans to

handle all types of extreme weather—from tornadoes to winter storms. The program encourages communities to take a new, proactive

approach to improving local hazardous weather operations by providing emergency managers with clear-cut guidelines on how to

improve their hazardous weather operations. To be officially StormReady, a community must: Establish a 24-hour warning point and

emergency operations center, have more than one way to receive severe weather warnings and forecasts and to alert the public, create

a system that monitors weather conditions locally, promote the importance of public readiness through community seminars, and

develop a formal hazardous weather plan, which includes training severe weather spotters and holding emergency exercises. While

these activities promote a more resilient Nashua, the only component that fits as a mitigation action are the required seminars and

preparedness presentations.

● Firewise Communities certification – The City does not have Firewise Communities certification but should look to achieve this in the

next five years.

● Public-private partnership initiatives addressing disaster-related issues - Partnerships between the City of Nashua and community

organizations have developed over the last year to include a partnership with the American Red Cross, the United Way of Greater

Nashua, Gateways Community Services, the Caregivers, Dartmouth-Hitchcock, Southern New Hampshire Health Services, and St. Joseph

Hospital. These organizations have assisted in the delivery of preparedness information and programming to at-risk individuals and

started the discussion of health equity and access to healthcare amidst disasters. The Nashua Office of Emergency Management has

developed many public-private relationships through the Local Emergency Planning Committee.

42

Section 2.1.5 Floodplain Management Capabilities

The City of Nashua participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This provides full insurance coverage based on risk as shown on

detailed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The City joined the NFIP on June 15, 1979. As a participant in the NFIP, communities must agree to

adopt a floodplain management ordinance and enforce the regulations found in the ordinance. The City of Nashua has adopted the “City of

Nashua Floodplain Development Ordinance,” found in Chapter 190 Land Use, Article VII. Floodplain Management

(http://ecode360.com/8731853). The regulations found in the “City of Nashua Floodplain Development Ordinance” apply to all lands

designated as special flood hazard areas by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in its "Flood Insurance Study for the County of

Hillsborough, N.H." dated September 25, 2009, together with the associated Flood Insurance Rate Maps dated September 25, 2009, including

the revised map panels dated April 18, 2011. Additional information on the Floodplain Development Ordinance and Nashua’s participation in

the NFIP can be found in Section 2.2 of this Plan.

The City’s Floodplain Administrator is currently not certified as a Certified Floodplain Manager but is working towards this certification.

Floodplain management is an auxiliary function to the Waterways Manager/Environmental Scientist position. There is a check box on

building/zoning applications where applicants have to say if the property is or is not located in the floodplain. If it is located in the floodplain

then the site plan and/or building permit review process ensures that there is compliance with the floodplain management ordinance, including

inspections and requirement for elevation certificate. GIS department provides assistance with mapping when necessary. Education and

outreach is done by the Waterways Manager and OEM staff. Waterways Manager reviews LOMC/LOMR/LOMA requests that come to the City

and provides information to the public when requested. The City runs an effective NFIP program though additional efforts on public outreach

would enhance it greatly.

The community is currently in good standing with NFIP and there are no outstanding compliance issues. The most recent Community Assistance

Visit (CAV) was conducted in 2016. Another will be necessary in 2021. The flood insurance rate maps are digital. The City’s current floodplain

regulations meet FEMA & State minimum requirements. Permit process requires the applicant to complete a check box on building/zoning

applications if the property is or is not located in the floodplain. If it is located in the floodplain then the site plan and/or building permit review

process ensures that there is compliance with the floodplain management ordinance, including inspections and requirement for elevation

certificate.

The community participates in the Community Rating System as of May 2017. Nashua’s CRS Class Ranking is Class 8 (Category B – Repetitive Loss

Category) through a total of 1193 credit points. Categories where Nashua obtained CRS points include:

43

● Activity 310 – Elevation Certificates: The Building Department maintains elevation certificates for new and substantially improved

buildings. Copies of elevation certificates are made available upon request. (38 points)

● Activity 330 – Outreach Projects: Credit is provided for informational outreach projects that include brochures in City Hall, general

outreach projects that include Disaster Preparedness presentations and targeted outreach projects that include a letter to the repetitive

loss area. These projects are disseminated annually. (48 points)

● Activity 350 – Flood Protection Information: Credit is provided for floodplain information displayed on the community’s website. (42

points)

● Activity 420 – Open Space Preservation: Credit is provided for preserving approximately 43 percent of the Special Flood Hazard Area

(SFHA) as open space, protecting open space land with deed restrictions and preserving open space land in a natural state. (677 points)

● Activity 430 – Higher Regulatory Standards: Credit is provided for a Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) Classification

of 4/4, state mandated regulatory standards and regulations administration. (47 points)

● Activity 440 – Flood Data Maintenance: Credit is provided for maintaining and using digitized maps in the day to day management of the

floodplain. Credit is also provided for maintaining copies of all previous FIRMs and Flood Insurance Study Reports. (96 points)

● Activity 450 – Stormwater Management: The community enforces regulations for stormwater management, soil and erosion control,

and water quality. (56 points)

● Section 502 – Repetitive Loss Category: Based on the updates made to the NFIP Report of Repetitive Losses as of August 31, 2015, the

City of Nashua, NH has 3 repetitive loss properties and is a Category B community for CRS purposes. All requirements for a Category B

community have been met. (No credit points are applicable to this section)

● Activity 510 – Floodplain Management Planning: Credit is provided for the adoption and implementation of the City of Nashua Hazard

Mitigation Plan, adopted May 22, 2013. A progress report must be submitted on an annual basis. An update to the credited plan will be

due by October 1, 2018 (144 points)

● Activity 630 – Dams: Credit is provided for a State Dam Safety Program. (45 points)

44

● Activity 710 – County Growth Adjustment: All credit in the 400 series is multiplied by the growth rate of the county to account for

growth pressures. The growth rate for Hillsborough County is 1.04.

The CRS class can be improved by strengthening the existing floodplain ordinance beyond the basic minimum requirements, such as adding in a

freeboard requirement. This will be required during the City’s next CRS review to maintain the Class 8 rating. The Hazard Mitigation Plan does

include CRS planning requirements.

Section 2.2 National Flood Insurance Program

The City of Nashua participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This provides full insurance coverage based on risk as shown on

detailed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The City joined the NFIP on June 15, 1979. The City’s initial Flood Hazard Boundary Map was

identified on August 23, 1974 and its initial Flood Insurance Rate Map was identified on June 15, 1979. The current effective map date is April

18, 2011.

As of January 31, 2017, the City has 155 NFIP policies in force and $43,548,100.00 of insurance in force. There have been 31 paid losses totaling

$315,674.34 from 1979 to January of 2017. Nashua has three repetitive loss properties as of 2016; one is non-residential and two are single-

family residential.

There are 341 Structures (Primary Buildings) at risk to floods within the community. 81 structures throughout the City do not have NFIP policy

coverage that are fully or partially within the 1% annual chance floodplain. Streets with limited coverage include Marina Drive; Riverside Circle;

Waterview Trail; Cheryl Street; Chickie Street; Mayfair Lane; Bartemus Trail; Shore Drive; Brinton Drive; Walden Pond Drive; Canal Street; Lock

Street; Tampa Street; Lund Road; Caldwell Road; Demanche Street; Fairview Ave.; Pell Ave.; Freshwater Ct.; Hassel Brook Road; Almont Street;

Archery Lane; Harris Road; Meadowbrook Drive; Alex Circle; Niquette Drive; New Searles Road; Brook Village Road; and Royal Crest Drive.

As a participant in the NFIP, communities must agree to adopt a floodplain management ordinance and enforce the regulations found in the

ordinance. The City of Nashua has adopted the “City of Nashua Floodplain Development Ordinance,” found in Chapter 190 Land Use, Article VII.

Floodplain Management (http://ecode360.com/8731853). The regulations found in the “City of Nashua Floodplain Development Ordinance”

apply to all lands designated as special flood hazard areas by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in its "Flood Insurance Study

for the County of Hillsborough, N.H." dated September 25, 2009, together with the associated Flood Insurance Rate Maps dated September 25,

2009, including the revised map panels dated April 18, 2011. The ordinance includes the following sections: applicability (§190-60), district

delineation (§190-61), definition of terms (§190-62), construction requirements (§190-63), water and sewer systems (§190-64),certification

(§190-65), other permits (§190-66), watercourses (§190-67), special flood hazard areas (§190-68), special requirements for subdivision and site

plans (§190-69), and variance and appeals (§190-70).

45

To demonstrate the City of Nashua’s continued compliance with NFIP requirements, the Resilient Nashua Initiative identified NFIP-related

mitigation actions as part of its comprehensive mitigation strategy. These actions are identified inSection 4.2, Table 7—Mitigation Actions.

Section 2.3 Review and Incorporation of Existing Documents

A number of existing documents were reviewed and incorporated into the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019. The City of Nashua

Land Use Code was used to provide information on where and how the City builds. This was particularly helpful when mapping critical facilities

corridors (Section 3.4). The City of Nashua’s Master Plan provided insight on future development patterns (Section 2.1) and helped to inform

the analysis and prioritization of mitigation actions (Section 4.3). Finally, the City’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan was

referenced to write the hazard descriptions used to determine the City’s vulnerability by hazard (Section 3.5).

The Office of Emergency Management utilized the Safe Growth Audit to review existing plans for connections to the mitigation strategy.

● Comprehensive Plan - Land Use

o The future land-use clearly identifies natural areas. The conservation areas and open space areas contain wetlands and flood

prone areas and are recommended for protection in the Conservation Element of the Plan.

o Land-use policies discourage development or redevelopment within natural hazard areas. The conservation element of the plan

encourages no development in wetlands and in flood zones and steep slopes and areas of unstable soils.

o The plan provides adequate space for expected future growth in areas located outside natural hazard areas. Those areas are

identified on the future land use map and within written goals and objectives in the applicable sections of the plan.

● Comprehensive Plan – Transportation

o The transportation plan does not limit access to hazard areas. Planning for expansion of the transportation system involves a

review of existing environmental conditions and land uses in areas where expansion is being considered. Identification of hazard

areas is included in that review and the system expansion is designed to avoid those areas whenever possible.

o Transportation policy is not used to guide growth to safe locations. Land use and zoning policies guide growth more than

transportation policies. Most of the land in Nashua has already been developed with transportation access established. When

46

new facilities are proposed, intensive environmental review is conducted to ensure that they are located in safe locations as well

as to identify, minimize and mitigate any potential negative impacts.

o Movement systems are designed to function under disaster conditions (e.g., evacuation). New systems are designed to be

resilient, to operate under disaster conditions, and to support emergency operations. As funding becomes available, plans to

improve existing systems by making them more resilient and supportive of emergency operations will be implemented.

● Comprehensive Plan – Environmental Management

o Environmental systems that protect development from hazards are identified and mapped. The wetlands and floodplains, water

bodies, steep slopes and soils are shown in the plan. Parks and conservation land are mapped but they are not specifically

identified as protective from hazards. The water supply protection district is also mapped.

o Environmental policies maintain and restore protect ecosystems. The goals and objectives and land use recommendations detail

the conservation and protective efforts required. The Nashua wetlands ordinance is very important to protecting wetlands,

waterways, and water quality. It is more stringent than state regulation, however applicants can be granted special exception

from compliance. There are several polluted former industrial sites and asbestos disposal sites that could act as hazard multiplier

in the event of a natural hazard (flood that washes away toxic waste for example). Those sites are mostly known.

o Environmental policies provide incentives to development that is located outside protective ecosystems. The policies encourage

creation of conservation developments to preserve natural areas by providing incentives for their protection. The local, state,

and federal environmental policies that exist mostly encourage protection of existing protective ecosystems and therefore

encourage development outside of these areas. In Nashua there is relatively little undeveloped areas so mostly we are seeing re-

development.

● Comprehensive Plan – Public Safety

o The goals and policies of the comprehensive plan are related to those of the FEMA Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Generally they

comport by steering development out of sensitive and known hazard areas.

o Safety is explicitly included in the plan's growth and development policies. Plan objective is to ensure that proposed building

sites are safe from flooding meeting all FEMA requirements as specified by adopted ordinances.

47

o The monitoring and implementation section of the plan covers safe growth objectives. Many of those safe growth objectives

were incorporated into the land use ordinances when they were updated and periodically thereafter when required by the State

and Federal Agencies.

● Zoning Ordinance

o The zoning ordinance conforms to the comprehensive plan in terms of discouraging development or redevelopment within

natural hazard areas. This includes FEMA approved floodplain/floodway ordinances for development; wetlands ordinance; water

supply protection district and multiple approval process generally protect the hazard areas from being developed.

o The ordinance contains natural hazard overlay zones that set conditions for land use within such zones. Those areas have

specific conditions within the ordinances for the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Conservation Commission

and the Planning and Building Department staff to administer the ordinances.

o Rezoning procedures recognize natural hazard areas as limits on zoning changes that allow greater intensity or density of use.

Those hazard attributes are flagged and accounted for in review of any rezoning being considered by the City.

o The ordinance prohibits development within, or filling of, wetlands, floodways, and floodplains. There are specific ordinances

and procedures in effect compliant with state and federal and local laws.

● Subdivision Regulations

o The subdivision regulations restrict the subdivision of land within or adjacent to natural hazard areas. The Planning Department

Staff in conjunction with other review agencies/departments review subdivision plans prior to being presented to the Planning

Board, Zoning Board of Adjustment, Conservation Commission for mitigating any known hazard attenuated with the site,

development or adjacent issues that may affect subdivision and the lots created with the proposal.

o The regulations provide for conservation subdivisions or cluster subdivisions in order to conserve environmental resources.

There is a specific conservation subdivision ordinance which provides for the conservation of environmental resources.

o The regulations allow density transfers where hazard areas exist. The conservation subdivision allows density transfer within the

development to preserve natural areas.

48

● Capital Improvement Program and Infrastructure Policies

o The capital improvement program limits expenditures on projects that would encourage development in areas vulnerable to

natural hazards. The CIP program relies on conformance to the Comprehensive (Master) Plan which may constrain expenditures.

o Infrastructure policies limit extension of existing facilities and services that would encourage development in areas vulnerable to

natural hazards. The general policies discourage expansion where reasonable.

o The capital improvement program provides funding for hazard mitigation projects identified in the FEMA Mitigation Plan. The

CIP Program recommends funding these types of projects.

● Other

o Small area or corridor plans recognize the need to avoid or mitigate natural hazards. The area plans approved have generally

recognized need to address and attenuate natural hazards that may occur within the area.

o The building code contains provisions to strengthen or elevate construction to withstand hazard forces. The City follows the

state and international building code relative to construction to withstand natural hazards for the region.

o Economic development or redevelopment strategies include provisions for mitigation of natural hazards. Natural hazards would

need to be mitigated as part of any development or redevelopment.

o There an adopted evacuation and shelter plan to deal with emergencies from natural hazards. There is an evacuation plan for

areas impacted by the Nashua Levee System. There is no written shelter plan for the City of Nashua. Information about

sheltering is primarily institutional knowledge by OEM and Public Health. This should be formalized in the future. Evacuation

and Sheltering are not mitigation related and are instead response related actions.

49

CHAPTER 3. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT

Section 3.1 Description of Natural Hazards

The City of Nashua is susceptible to a variety of natural hazards, which are outlined in Table 2. For each hazard type, the hazard location within

the City, extent, and impact are also noted. Extent refers to how bad the hazard can be; it is not the same as location. Examples of extent

include potential wind speed, depth of flooding, and existing scientific scales (ex. Enhanced Fujita Tornado Damage Scale). Impact refers to

damages or consequences resulting from the hazard.

The hazards in the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019 have been adjusted to align with the hazard names identified in the State of New

Hampshire Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2018. Two hazards identified in the State plan that do not impact Nashua are Avalanche and

Coastal Flooding. In addition, Dam/Levee Failure was removed from the 2019 Update as it is not a natural hazard but instead a technological

hazard.

Table 2—Natural Hazards in Jurisdiction

Hazard Type Hazard Location within Jurisdiction

Hazard Extent Impact

Avalanche This hazard does not occur in Nashua

This hazard does not occur in Nashua

This hazard does not occur in Nashua

Coastal Flooding This hazard does not occur in Nashua

This hazard does not occur in Nashua

This hazard does not occur in Nashua

Inland Flooding All special flood hazard areas; areas have been identified that experience localized flooding on a regular basis. Slopes along Merrimack & Nashua Rivers prone to erosion. Roadways with the potential to flood include: FEE Turnpike: Southbound at crossing of Spit Brook Rd

FEMA flood probability elevation:

● 1% ● 0.2%

In the 1960's, the United States government decided to use the 1-percent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood as the basis for the National Flood Insurance Program. The 1-percent AEP flood was thought to be a fair balance between protecting the public and overly

Water damage to structures and their contents. Damage or loss of infrastructure, including roads, bridges, railroads, power and phone lines, City communications, City radio system, power generation facility, domestic water, and wastewater treatment plant. Environmental hazards resulting from damage.

50

Circumferential Hwy: Within Floodway Daniel Webster Hwy: In 1% and .2% Floodplain at Royal Crest Dr Canal St: From Merrimack River to Salvail Ct Bridge St: Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee E Dunstable Rd: Proximity to Floodway and .2% Floodplain but no flooding Main Dunstable Rd: Within .2% Floodplain from Valhalla Dr to Memory Ave; Proximity to .2% Floodplain for much of its run Spit Brook Rd: Within 1% Floodplain at intersection with FEE Turnpike W Hollis St: Within Floodway at Nashua River crossing E Hollis St: Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee from Denton Street to Crown Street/Merrimack River Concord St: Within Floodway/1% Floodplain at crossing of Pennichuck Brook and change into DW Highway Broad St: Within .2% Floodplain at Canter Ct and Broadcrest Ln, proximity to .2% Floodplain at Spar Ave

stringent regulations. Because the 1-percent AEP flood has a 1 in 100 chance of being equaled or exceeded in any 1 year, and it has an average recurrence interval of 100 years, it often is referred to as the "100-year flood". More recently, people talk about larger floods, such as the "500-year flood," as tolerance for risk is reduced and increased protection from flooding is desired. The "500-year flood" corresponds to an AEP of 0.2-percent, which means a flood of that size or greater has a 0.2-percent chance (or 1 in 500 chance) of occurring in a given year.

Isolation of neighborhoods resulting from flooding. Sewer backups.

51

Main St: Within Floodway at Nashua River crossing Allds St: Within Floodway at Salmon Brook crossing Pine Hill Rd: Within .2% Floodplain near intersection with Perimeter Rd Manchester St: Within Floodway at Harris Pond and within .2% Floodplain near Tinker Rd Broad Street Pkwy: Within .2% Floodplain on approach to Nashua River crossing and crosses Floodway Types of Roads Included: Highways: The top of the hierarchy. They are limited access, provide largely uninterrupted travel over long distances and are designed for high speeds. Example: Everett Turnpike. Arterial Roads: The next level of roadways. They serve to move large volumes of traffic through a town or to connect one section of town with another section. Example: NH 101A Collector Roads: Act to feed traffic to or from local roads and arterials. Collector roads provide direct access to abutting

52

properties and distribute it to or from arterials. Traffic using a collector is usually going to or coming from somewhere nearby. Example: Henri Burke Highway

Drought Entire jurisdiction. NH DES Drought Management Plan:

● Level 1—Alert ● Level 2—Warning ● Level 3—Emergency ● Level 4—Disaster

US Drought Monitor

● D0—Abnormally Dry ● D1—Moderate Drought ● D2—Severe Drought ● D3-Extreme Drought ● D4—Exceptional

Drought ● S—Short term, typically

less than 6 months ● L—Long term, typically

more than 6 months

D0 ● short term dryness

slowing planting, growth of crops

● some lingering water deficits

● crops not fully recovered D1

● some damage to crops ● streams, reservoirs, or

wells low, some water shortages developing or imminent

● voluntary water-use restrictions requested

D2 ● crop losses likely ● water shortages

common ● water restrictions

imposed D3

● major crop losses ● widespread water

shortages or restrictions D4

● Exceptional & widespread crop loss

53

● Shortages of water in reservoirs, streams, & wells creating water emergencies

S ● impacts on agriculture

L ● impacts on hydrology &

ecology Overall: Loss of crops. Inadequate quantity of drinking water. Loss of water for fire protection. Increased risk of fire.

Earthquake Entire jurisdiction. Richter Scale: ● <3.4 (detected only by

seismometers) ● >8 (total damage,

surface waves seen, objects thrown in air)

For full definitions of Richter Scale, see Section 3.5 Vulnerability by Hazard

Structural damage or collapse of buildings. Damage or loss of infrastructure, including roads, bridges, railroads, power and phone lines, City communications, City radio system, power generation facility, domestic water, and wastewater treatment plant. Loss of water for fire protection. Increased risk of fire from gas break.

54

Risk to life, medical surge.

Extreme Temperatures Entire jurisdiction. Extreme heat—period of 3 consecutive days which air temperature reaches 90F or higher on each day. Extreme cold— period of 3 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F

Overburdened power systems may experience failures due to extreme heat. Shortages of heating fuel in extreme cold due to high demand. Medical surge. Loss of municipal water supply for drinking water and fire protection due to freezing temperatures.

High Wind Events Entire jurisdiction. Enhanced Fujita Tornado Damage Scale:

● EF0—winds 65-85 mph ● EF1—winds 86-110 mph ● EF2—winds 111-135

mph ● EF3—winds 136-165

mph ● EF4—winds 166-200

mph ● EF5—winds over 200

mph

Wind damage to structures and trees. Damage or loss of infrastructure, including roads, bridges, railroads, power and phone lines, City communications, City radio system, power generation facility, domestic water, and wastewater treatment plant. Environmental hazards resulting from damage. Medical surge. Loss of natural resources.

Infectious Diseases Entire jurisdiction. Disease epidemics. Burden on healthcare facilities.

55

Large-scale incidents of food or water contamination. Extended periods without adequate sanitation services.

Possible quarantine to prevent disease from spreading.

Landslide Limited steep hills that are prone to landslide in jurisdiction.

While no universally accepted standard or scientific scale has been developed for measuring the severity of all landslides, severity can be measured several other ways:

● Steepness/grade of the Slope (measured as a percent)

● Geographical Area o ○ Measured in

square feet, square yards, etc. o

○ More accurately measured using LiDAR/GIS systems

● Earthquake, either causing the event or caused by the event (measured using the Moment Magnitude Intensity or Mercalli Scale)

There are also multiple types of landslides:

Structural damage or collapse of buildings. Damage or loss of infrastructure, including roads, bridges, railroads, power and phone lines, City communications, City radio system, power generation facility, domestic water, and wastewater treatment plant. Loss of water for fire protection. Increased risk of fire from gas break. Risk to life, medical surge.

56

● Falls: A mass detaches from a steep slope or cliff and descends by free-fall, bounding, or rolling

● Topples: A mass tilts or rotates forward as a unit

● Slides: A mass displaces on one or more recognizable surfaces, which may be curved or planar

● Flows: A mass moves downslope with a fluid motion. A significant amount of water may or may not be part of the mass

Like flooding, landslides are unique in how they affect different geographic, topographic, and geologic areas. Therefore, consideration of a multitude of measurements is required to determine the severity of the landslide event.

Lightning Entire jurisdiction. Areas with large populations present outdoors and large open spaces are particularly vulnerable.

Lightning Activity Level: ● Level 1 ● Level 2 ● Level 3 ● Level 4 ● Level 5 ● Level 6

Smoke and fire damage to structures. Disruption to power lines, traffic control systems, and communications.

57

For full definitions of Lightning Activity Level, see Section 3.5 Vulnerability by Hazard

Damage to critical electronic equipment. Injury or death to people involved in outdoor activity.

Severe Winter Weather Entire jurisdiction. Depth of snow in a given time frame (ex. 2 or more inches per hour over a 12 hour period). Blizzard—violent snowstorm with minimum winds of 35 mph and visibility less than ¼ mile for 3 hours. Ground snow load factor. Ice Storm—Sperry-Piltz Ice Accumulation Index:

● 0—little impact ● 5—catastrophic damage

to exposed utility systems

For full definitions of Sperry-Piltz Ice Accumulation Index, see Section 3.5 Vulnerability by Hazard

Disruption to road network. Damage to trees and power lines, communications, gas lines. Structural damage to roofs/collapse. Increase in CO, other hazards.

Solar Storms and Space Weather Entire jurisdiction Geomagnetic Storms: G5 - Extreme G4 - Severe G3 - Strong G2 - Moderage G1 - Minor

Space weather can produce electromagnetic fields that induce currents in wires, disrupting power lines and causing widespread power outages.

58

Solar Radiation Storms: S5 - Extreme S4 - Severe S3 - Strong S2 - Moderate S1 - Minor Radio Blackout: R5 - Extreme R4 - Severe R3 - Strong R2 - Moderate R1 - Minor For full definitions of NOAA Space Weather Scales, see Section 3.5 Vulnerability by Hazard

Severe space weather can produce solar energetic particles, which can damage satellites used for communications, global positioning, intelligence gathering, and weather forecasting.

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Entire jurisdiction. Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale:

● Category 1—sustained winds 74-95 mph

● Category 2—sustained winds 96-110 mph

● Category 3—sustained winds 111-129 mph

● Category 4—sustained winds 130-156 mph

● Category 5—sustained winds 157 mph or higher

Wind damage to structures and trees. Water damage to structures and their contents. Damage or loss of infrastructure, including roads, bridges, railroads, power and phone lines, City communications, City radio system, power generation facility, domestic water, and wastewater treatment plant. Environmental hazards resulting from damage.

59

Isolation of neighborhoods resulting from flooding. Water pressure, quality, and capacity issues impacting fire protection. Loss of natural resources.

Wildfire Forested areas in jurisdiction, particularly in northwest and southwest quadrants as well as in Mine Falls Park. Areas outside of municipal water supply system.

NWCG Fire Size Classification: ● A—greater than 0 but

less than or equal to 0.25 acres

● B—0.26 to 9.9 acres ● C—10.0 to 99.9 acres ● D—100-299 acres ● E—300 to 999 acres ● F—1,000 to 4,999 acres ● G—5,000 to 9,999 acres ● H—10,000 to 49,999

acres ● I—50,000 to 99,999

acres ● J—100,000 to 499,999

acres ● K—500,000 to 999,999

acres ● L—1,000,000+ acres

Smoke and fire damage to structures in wildland/urban interface Damage to habitat. Impacts to air quality. Impact to roadways. Loss of natural resources. Potential for urban conflagration.

Section 3.2 Description of Previous Hazards

The first step in determining the probability of future hazard events in the City on Nashua is to examine the location, extent, and impact of

previous hazards. If a hazard event has not occurred within the City of Nashua but has occurred in the region it is also noted. These regional

60

events are included as it would be reasonable to expect the event could have occured in Nashua. All SHELDUS data and recorded losses include

all of Hillsborough County.

Each hazard event also includes a source for the data. The primary sources of data include the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013, the

New Hampshire Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018 Update, neighboring Hazard Mitigation Plan Updates (Hollis & Hudson 2018 Updates) (unknown on

original sources), Arizona State University Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS) 16.1 (January 1960 to

December 2016), & FEMA Presidential Disaster Declarations (1953-2018).

This table does not take hazard extent into account as a threshold for inclusion. As a result, many hazard events of a lower hazard extent may

not be documented. This will typically be found in more frequently occurring hazards such as inland flooding, lightning, and severe winter

weather. Efforts should be made to improve municipal recordkeeping for smaller hazard events. A common example can be inland flooding

events that temporarily close roadways as a result of thunderstorms.

Some hazard events are included that occurred outside of the region but caused impacts to Nashua. Examples include tropical and post-tropical

cyclones where the eye did not pass through Nashua but the wind and rain fields impacted the City and earthquakes where the epicenter may

been been located far away but shaking was felt in the City.

Areas for improvement in future plans is to compare authoritative data sources from NOAA, USGS, and other agencies with the SHELDUS and

FEMA Disaster Declaration loss databases to ensure hazard events that may not have had human, physical, or financial losses are included in

these tables. This will provide a more comprehensive number of hazard events to calculate probability. Another recommendation is to

document warnings, watches, and advisories from the National Weather Service issued for Hillsborough County. While these may not have

resulted in an actual hazard event, these may provide more realistic estimates of conditions that could have been favorable for the hazard event

occurring leading to better probability estimates. Finally, it is recommended that this database be reorganized based on fundamental perils

(wind, rain, snow) to provide better estimates of the actual hazardous condition. Many hazards include multiple perils but are not clearly

documented across each category. An example is tropical and post-tropical cyclones which can also include inland flooding, lightning, high wind

events.

Table 3 —Previous Occurrences of Hazards in Jurisdiction

Hazard Type

Date Hazard Location within

Hazard Extent

Impact Crop Damage

Crop Damage Adjusted

Crop Damage Per Capita

Property Damage

Property Damage Adjusted

Property Damage Per Capita

Source

61

Jurisdiction

Inland Flooding

Inland Flooding

October 23, 1785

Merrimack River

No historic data on extent

No historic data on impact

NH HMP 2018

Inland Flooding

April 21-24, 1852

Merrimack River

Highest flood stage in 70 years. Flood waters 2 feet lower than 1785 flood.

No historic data on impact

NH HMP 2018

Inland Flooding

1927 Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

Damage to road network.

Nashua HMP 2013

Inland Flooding

March 11-21, 1936

Hillsborough County

25-50 year recurrence interval

$133,000,000 in property damage and 77,000 homeless throughout New England. Primary impact to

Nashua HMP 2013

62

structures, infrastructure, and road network. Flooding caused by heavy snowfall totals, heavy rains, and warm weather.

Inland Flooding

June 1942

Merrimack River

No historic data on extent

Damage to road network.

NH HMP 2018

Inland Flooding

June 1944

Merrimack River

No historic data on extent

Damage to road network.

NH HMP 2018

Inland Flooding

April 1960

Merrimack River

No historic data on extent

Flooding resulting from rapid snow melt and heavy rain. Damage

NH HMP 2018

63

to road network.

Inland Flooding

1963-03-06

Southern portion of Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

Floods 0 0 0 1666.67 13310.12 0.07 SHELDUS

Flooding - Hail - Lightning - Wind

1963-08-07

Nashua No historic data on extent

Electrical/ wind/ flooding/ hail

0 0 0 500 3993.03 0.02 SHELDUS

Flooding/ Severe Storm/Thunder Storm/ Wind/ Winter Weather

1965-02-25

Statewide No historic data on extent

WIND/ RAINS AND FLOODS/ GLAZE/ THUNDERSTORMS

0 0 0 5000 38789.4 0.19 SHELDUS

SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING

July 11, 1973

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

FEMA Disaster Declaration #399.

FEMA Declaration Database, Hollis HMP 2018

Flooding/ Severe Storm/Thunder Storm

1981-02-11 - 1981-02-12

Statewide No historic data on extent

Heavy Rains & Ice Jams

0 0 0 50000 134418.72 0.47 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

1984-05-29 - 1984-06-03

Southern and Central NH

No historic data on extent

Flood 0 0 0 83333.33 196000.33 0.66 SHELDUS

64

Inland Flooding

1986-01-26 - 1986-01-27

Statewide No historic data on extent

Flooding 0 0 0 50000 111484.14 0.35 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

1986-04-26 - 1986-04-27

Statewide No historic data on extent

Flood 0 0 0 50000 111484.14 0.35 SHELDUS

SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING

July 29-August 10, 1986

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

FEMA Disaster Declaration #771. Many roads impassable in Hillsborough County.

FEMA Declaration Database, NH HMP 2018

Flooding/ Severe Storm/Thunder Storm

1987-03-31

Belknap Co. Carroll Co. Cheshire Co. Grafton Co. Hillsborough Co. Merrimack Co. Rockingham Co. Staffor Co. Sullivan Co.

25-50+ year recurrence interval

Heavy Rain and Flooding

$4,888,889 in damage in NH. FEMA Disaster Declaration #789. Primary impact to agricultural fields.

0 0 0 55555.56 119509.61 0.37 SHELDUS, Nashua HMP 2013, FEMA Declaration Database

65

Flooding - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm

1987-04-01 - 1987-04-09

Southern and Central New Hampshire

25-50+ year recurrence interval

Fatalities: 1 Heavy Rain and Flooding

$4,888,889 in damage in NH. FEMA Disaster Declaration #789. Primary impact to agricultural fields.

5555.56 11950.97 0.04 555555.56 1195095.98

3.69 SHELDUS, Nashua HMP 2013, FEMA Declaration Database

Inland Flooding

1988-05-30

Hillsborough

No historic data on extent

Flood 0 0 0 25000 51642.69 0.16 SHELDUS

Flooding - Wind

1989-10-20

Weather Zones: NHZ001-002-003-004-005-006 All but Coastal and Eastern NH

No historic data on extent

Flooding and High Winds

0 0 0 50 98.54 0 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

August 7-8, 1990

Hillsborough County,

No historic

$2,297,777 in damage

0 0 0 55555.56 103873.69

0.31 Nashua HMP 2013,

66

Weather Zones: NHZ002-003-004-005

data on extent

in NH. FEMA Disaster Declaration #876. Primary impact to infrastructure. Flood

SHELDUS, FEMA Declaration Database

Inland Flooding

August 10-11, 1990

Belknap/ Carroll/ Merrimack/ Grafton/ Hillsborough Counties

No historic data on extent

$2,297,777 in damage in NH. FEMA Disaster Declaration #876. Primary impact to infrastructure. Flash Flooding

0 0 0 100000 186972.63

0.56 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS, FEMA Declaration Database

Inland Flooding

1995-10-21 - 1995-10-22

Statewide

No historic data on extent

Heavy Rain and Flood

0 0 0 60000 96209.93 0.28 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

October 20-23, 1996

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

$2,341,273 in damage in NH. FEMA Disaster

Nashua HMP 2013, FEMA Declarati

67

Declaration #1144. Primary impact to structures and infrastructure. FALL NORTHEASTER RAINSTORM

on Database

Inland Flooding

1997-07-14

Nashua No historic data on extent

FLOODS 0 0 0 2000 3045.15 0.01 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

June 12-July 2, 1998

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

$3,400,000 in damage in NH, 6 counties impacted including Hillsborough. FEMA Disaster Declaration #1231. Primary impact to structure

Nashua HMP 2013, FEMA Declaration Database

68

s and infrastructure.

Inland Flooding

October 7-18, 2005

Hillsborough County Weather Zones: NHZ012 - 012

50-100 year recurrence interval

5 counties impacted in NH, including Hillsborough. FEMA Disaster Declaration #1610. Primary impact to structures and infrastructure.

0 0 0 100000 125127.1 0.31 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

Inland Flooding

May 12-23, 2006

Hillsborough County

As much as 14 inches of rainfall in the region. 100-500 year recurrence interval.

$55,396.80 in damages in Nashua. FEMA Disaster Declaration # 1643. Primary impact to structure

0 0 0 2000000 2424337.55

6.04 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

69

s and infrastructure.

Inland Flooding

2006-06-02

Goffstown

No historic data on extent

Flash Flood

0 0 0 20000 24243.38 0.06 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

April 15-23, 2007

Hillsborough County Peterborough Manchester

100-500 year recurrence interval

$19,834.80 in damages in Nashua. $27,000,000 in damages in NH; 2,005 homeowners and renters applied for assistance in NH. FEMA Disaster Declaration #1695. Primary impact to structures and

0 0 0 1500000 1767899.59

4.39 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

70

infrastructure. Severe Weather 2007 - East/South Flood

Inland Flooding

2008-02-13

Peterborough/ Antrim

No historic data on extent

Flood 0 0 0 10000 11350.2 0.03 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

2008-07-21

Nashua No historic data on extent

Flash Flood

0 0 0 25000 28375.5 0.07 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

2008-09-06

Hillsborough County, 1 E Grasmere/ 2 NNW Massabesic

50-100 year recurrence interval

$6.90 per capita in damages in Hillsborough County. FEMA Disaster Declaration #1799 Primary impact to structures and infrastructure.

0 0 0 750000 851265.05

2.11 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

71

Flash Flood

Inland Flooding

2008-09-07

1 E Manchester/ 1 ESE Bedford

50-100 year recurrence interval

$6.90 per capita in damages in Hillsborough County. FEMA Disaster Declaration #1799 Primary impact to structures and infrastructure. Flood

0 0 0 5000 5675.1 0.01 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

Inland Flooding

2008-09-07

Goffstown

50-100 year recurrence interval

$6.90 per capita in damages in Hillsborough County. FEMA Disaster Declaration #1799 Primary impact to structure

0 0 0 30000 34050.6 0.08 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

72

s and infrastructure. Flood

Inland Flooding

2009-08-22

3 WNW Hancock/ Bennington

No historic data on extent

Flood 0 0 0 30000 34172.18 0.08 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

2009-08-22

1 E North Vlg/ 2 NNW Sharon

No historic data on extent

Flash Flood

0 0 0 640000 729006.48

1.8 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

March 14-31, 2010

Hillsborough County

50-100 year recurrence interval

$9,401.33 in damages in Nashua. $1,880,685 in FEMA public assistance in NH; $1.80 per capita in Hillsborough County. FEMA Disaster Declaration #1913 Primary impact to

0 0 0 50000 56034.51 0.14 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

73

structures and infrastructure. Flooding 2010 - Northeast Flood

Inland Flooding

2012-08-04

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

Flood 0 0 0 15000 15965.57 0.04 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

2012-08-16

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

Flash Flood

0 0 0 20000 21287.42 0.05 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

2014-07-15

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

Flash Flood Impacts to Nashua are unknown

0 0 0 20000 20645.21 0.05 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

2015-08-25

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

Flash Flood Impacts to Nashua are unknown

0 0 0 25000 25775.9 0.06 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

2015-08-25

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

Flash Flood Impacts to

0 0 0 35000 36086.28 0.09 SHELDUS

74

Nashua are unknown

Inland Flooding

2015-08-25

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

Flash Flood Impacts to Nashua are unknown

0 0 0 35000 36086.28 0.09 SHELDUS

Inland Flooding

2016-10-22

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

Significant flooding in Nashua closing streets. In Nashua, sewer main covers were popping off. A teenager was killed when he was swept into the combined sewer system in

0 0 0 25000 25000 0.06 SHELDUS, NH HMP 2018

75

Nashua. Numerous Fire and Rescue calls in Nashua rescuing people from cars on flooded city streets. Nashua fire received more than 50 calls for service in the threehour period of rain. According to the National Weather Service, Nashua got 2.79 inches. Flash Flood

76

Inland Flooding

2016-10-22

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

Flash Flood Impacts to Nashua are unknown

0 0 0 25000 25000 0.06 SHELDUS

Hazard Type

Date Hazard Location within Jurisdiction

Hazard Extent

Impact Crop Damage

Crop Damage Adjusted

Crop Damage Per Capita

Property Damage

Property Damage Adjusted

Property Damage Per Capita

Source

Drought

Drought 1960-1969

Entire jurisdiction

Long term drought—9 years of less than normal precipitation

Farms had minimal grass for grazing animals and poor crops. Wells went dry for 2 consecutive years in mid-1960s.

Nashua HMP 2013

Drought 1999 Entire jurisdiction

Level 2—Warning. Drought warning

Damage to crops. Low water

Nashua HMP 2013

77

issued on June 29, 1999.

levels in dug wells.

Drought March 2002

Entire jurisdiction

Level 3—Emergency. First time Level 3 Drought Impact Level had been declared.

Damage to crops. Low water levels in dug wells.

Nashua HMP 2013

Drought 2010-08-01 - 2010-08-31

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

Crop Indemnity Payment: $5642 Crop Indemnity Payment(ADJ): $6322.93 Crop Indemnity Payment Per Capita: 0.02

SHELDUS

Drought May 2015

Entire jurisdiction

USDA D0 (Abnormally Dry)

Damage to crops.

Hollis HMP 2018

78

Drought June 2015

Entire jurisdiction

USDA D1 (Moderate Drought)

Damage to crops.

Hollis HMP 2018

Drought August-September 2015

Entire jurisdiction

USDA D0 (Abnormally Dry)

Damage to crops.

Hollis HMP 2018

Drought October 2015-February 2016

Entire jurisdiction

USDA D1 (Moderate Drought)

Damage to crops.

Hollis HMP 2018

Drought March 2016-June 2016

Entire jurisdiction

USDA D0 (Abnormally Dry)

Damage to crops. Low water levels in wells.

Hollis HMP 2018

Drought July 2016-September 2016

Entire jurisdiction

USDA D2 (Severe Drought)

Low water levels in wells. Crop Indemnity Payment: $138336.31 Crop Indemnity Payment(ADJ): $138336.31

Hollis HMP 2018, SHELDUS

79

Crop Indemnity Payment Per Capita: 0.34

Drought October 2016-December 2016

Entire jurisdiction

USDA D3 (Extreme Drought)

Low water levels in wells.

Hollis HMP 2018

Drought January 2017-March 2017

Entire jurisdiction

USDA D2 (Severe Drought)

Low water levels in wells.

Hollis HMP 2018

Drought April 2017

Entire jurisdiction

USDA D1 (Moderate Drought)

Low water levels in wells.

Hollis HMP 2018

Hazard Type

Date Hazard Location within Jurisdiction

Hazard Extent

Impact Crop Damage

Crop Damage Adjusted

Crop Damage Per Capita

Property Damage

Property Damage Adjusted

Property Damage Per Capita

Source

Earthquake

Earthquake

There have been no earthquakes centered in

80

Nashua to date.

Earthquake

06/11/1638

Central NH

Richter Scale 6.5

Unknown impacts. The location and damage levels are very uncertain because settlements were sparse and reports were few. Shaking was felt strongly along the St. Lawrence River in Canada and in Boston. Aftershocks were felt for 20 days in

NH HMP 2018

81

Massachusetts.

Earthquake

10/29/1727

Off coastline

6.0-6.3 Richter Scale

Damage to structures

NH HMP 2018

Earthquake

11/18/1755

Off coastline

5.8 Richter Scale

Cape Ann Earthquake Damage to structures

NH HMP 2018

Earthquake

11/10/1810

Portsmouth, NH

4.0 Richter Scale

V MMI - was felt as far away as Boston, MA

NH HMP 2018

Earthquake

07/23/1823

Off Hampton

4.1 Richter Scale

IV MMI NH HMP 2018

Earthquake

12/19/1882

Concord, NH

No historic data on extent

V MMI NH HMP 2018

Earthquake

03/05/1905

Lebanon, NH

No historic data on extent

V MMI NH HMP 2018

Earthquake

08/30/1905

Rockingham County

No historic data on extent

V MMI NH HMP 2018

82

Earthquake

11/09/1925

Ossipee, NH

Richter Scale 4.0

VI MMI NH HMP 2018

Earthquake

March 18, 1926

New Ipswich, NH/Manchester, NH

No historic data on extent

Intensity V effects observed in Amherst, Lyndeborough, Manchester, Mason, and Wilton.

Nashua HMP 2013, NH HMP 2018

Earthquake

November 18, 1929

Grand Banks, Newfoundland

Richter Scale 7.2

No impact

Nashua HMP 2013

Earthquake

November 1, 1935

Timiskaming, Canada

Richter Scale 6.25

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Earthquake

11/10/1936

Laconia, NH

No historic data on extent

V MMI NH HMP 2018

Earthquake

December 20, 1940

Ossipee, NH

Richter Scale 5.5

No impact. VII MMI - many chimneys were damaged, plaster was

Nashua HMP 2013, NH HMP 2018

83

cracked, tombstones were rotated, some furniture was broken, and many items were thrown from shelves.

Earthquake

December 24, 1940

Ossipee, NH

Richter Scale 5.5

No impact VII MMI

Nashua HMP 2013, NH HMP 2018

Earthquake

December 4, 1963

Laconia, NH (43.6 latitude, -71.5 longitude)

Richter Scale 3.7

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Earthquake

June 15, 1973

Near Canadian/NH border

Richter Scale 4.8

Minor damage

Nashua HMP 2013

Earthquake

June 28, 1981

Sanbornton, NH (43.56 latitude, -

Richter Scale 3.0

No impact

Nashua HMP 2013

84

71.56 longitude)

Earthquake

January 19, 1982

(Laconia, NH; 42.62 LAT, 71.39 LONG)/Sanbornton, NH (43.5 latitude, -71.6 longitude)

Richter Scale 4.0-4.7

Minor damage This earthquake caused a chimney fire that destroyed one building, and it was felt strongly throughout central New Hampshire.

Nashua HMP 2013, NH HMP 2018

Earthquake

October 25, 1986

Northfield, NH (43.399 latitude, -71.59 longitude)

Richter Scale 3.9

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Earthquake

October 20, 1988

Milan, NH (44.539 latitude, -71.158

Richter Scale 3.9-4.0

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

85

longitude) 5KM NE of Berlin

Earthquake

November 22, 1988

Milan, NH (44.557 latitude, -71.183 longitude

Richter Scale 3.2

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Earthquake

April 6, 1989

Berlin, NH (44.511 latitude, -71.144 longitude) 15KM NE of Berlin

Richter Scale 3.5-4.1

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Earthquake

October 6, 1992

Canterbury, NH (43.324 latitude, -71.578 longitude

Richter Scale 3.4

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Earthquake

10/16/2012

SE Maine Richter Scale 4.7

VI MMI NH HMP 2018

Earthquake

June 16, 1995

Lyman, NH (44.184 latitude, -71.915 longitude)

Richter Scale 3.8

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

86

Earthquake

August 21, 1996

Bartlett, NH (44.184 latitude, -71.352 longitude)

Richter Scale 3.8

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Earthquake

January 27, 2000

Raymond, NH (43.00 latitude, -71.18 longitude)

Richter Scale 3.0

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Earthquake

June 2010

Ontario-Quebec border

Richter Scale 5.5

No impact

Nashua HMP 2013

Earthquake

June 23, 2010

Buckingham, Quebec, Canada

Richter Scale 5.0

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Earthquake

September 25, 2010

Boscawen, NH

Richter Scale 3.1

No impact

Nashua HMP 2013

Earthquake

September 26, 2010

Boscawen, NH (43.2915 latitude, -71.6568 longitude)

Richter Scale 3.4

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Earthquake

August 23, 2011

Washington, DC

Richter Scale 5.8

No impact

Nashua HMP 2013

87

Earthquake

January 12, 2012 (Laconia, NH)

Entire jurisdiction

Richter Scale 1.4

No impact

Nashua HMP 2013

Earthquake

October 16, 2012

Hollis Center, Maine

Richter Scale 4.0

No impact

Nashua HMP 2013

Earthquake

October 11, 2013

Contoocook, NH (43.255 latitude, -71.747 longitude)

Richter Scale 2.6

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Earthquake

March 21, 2016

Contoocook, NH (43.264 latitude, -71.767 longitude)

Richter Scale 2.8

No impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Hazard Type

Date Hazard Location within Jurisdiction

Hazard Extent

Impact Crop Damage

Crop Damage Adjusted

Crop Damage Per Capita

Property Damage

Property Damage Adjusted

Property Damage Per Capita

Source

Extreme Temperatures

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 16-20, 2000

Entire jurisdiction

5 consecutive days of minimum

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

88

temperatures at or below 0F: 1/16/00: -3 F 1/17/00: -2 F 1/18/00: -5 F 1/19/00: -6 F 1/20/00: -4 F

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 28-30, 2000

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 1/28/00: -6 F 1/29/00: -2 F 1/30/00: -4 F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 18-20, 2003

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of minimum

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

89

temperatures at or below 0F: 1/18/03: -9 F 1/19/03: -11F 1/20/03: -11F

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 28-31, 2003

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 1/28/03: -9 F 1/29/03: -5 F 1/30/03: -0 F 1/31/03: -0 F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

February 13-17, 2003

Entire jurisdiction

5 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

90

below 0F: 2/13/03: -3 F 2/14/03: -11F 2/15/03: -10F 2/16/03: -7 F 2/17/03: -2 F

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

February 26-28, 2003

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 2/26/03: -4 F 2/27/03: -6 F 2/28/03: -1 F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 9-12, 2004

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

91

below 0F: 1/9/04: -7 F 1/10/04: -8 F 1/11/04: -8 F 1/12/04: -7 F

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 14-17, 2004

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 1/14/04: -10F 1/15/04: -10F 1/16/04: -12F 1/17/04: -9 F

Wind chills of -30 degrees F 6 fatalities in NH

Nashua HMP 2013, Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 24-27, 2004

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

92

below 0F: 1/24/04: -4 F 1/25/04: -6 F 1/26/04: -6 F 1/27/04: -0 F

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 18-25, 2005

Entire jurisdiction

8 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 1/18/05: 0F 1/19/05: -8 F 1/20/05: -3 F 1/21/05: -5 F 1/22/05: -12F 1/23/05: -9 F 1/24/05: 0F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

93

1/25/05: -1 F

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 28-30, 2005

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 2/28/05: -1 F 2/29/05: -7 F 2/30/05: -5 F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 16-18, 2009

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 1/16/09: -16F 1/17/09: -16F 1/18/09: -9 F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

94

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 25-27, 2009

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 1/25/09: -7 F 1/26/09: -7 F 1/27/09: -5 F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 15-18, 2011

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 1/15/11: -6 F 1/16/11: -5 F 1/17/11: 0F 1/18/11: -2 F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

95

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 23-27, 2011

Entire jurisdiction

5 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 1/23/05: -5 F 1/24/05: -10F 1/25/05: -9 F 1/26/05: -3 F 1/27/05: -2 F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

January 15-17, 2012

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 1/15/12: -2 F 1/16/12: -2 F 1/17/12: 0F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

96

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

February 11-13, 2014

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 2/11/14: -7 F 2/12/14: -7 F 2/13/14: -7 F

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

February 1-4, 2015

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 2/1/15: 0F 2/2/15: 0F 2/3/15: -3 F 2/4/15: -2

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

97

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

February 14-19, 2015

Entire jurisdiction

6 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 2/14/15: -7 F 2/15/15: -4 F 2/16/15: -5 F 2/17/15: -2 F 2/18/15: -3 F 2/19/15: -4 F

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

February 14-16, 2016

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 2/14/16: -11F 2/15/16: -9 F

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

98

2/16/16: -9 F

Extreme Temperature (Cold)

December 28-31, 2017

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of minimum temperatures at or below 0F: 12/28/17: -7 F 12/29/17: -9 F 12/30/17: -6 F 12/31/17: -11F

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

May 3-5, 2001

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 5/3/01—93F 5/4/01—92F 5/5/01—92F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

99

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

June 15-17, 2001

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 6/15/01—92F 6/16/01—95F 6/17/01—91F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

July 22-26, 2001

Entire jurisdiction

5 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 7/22/01—90F 7/23/01—90F 7/24/01—92F 7/25/01—95F 7/26/01—93F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

100

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

August 7-10, 2001

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 8/7/01—94F 8/8/01—97F 8/9/01—96F 8/10/01— 100F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

July 2-5, 2002

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 7/2/02—90F 7/3/02—95F 7/4/02—98F 7/5/02—97F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

101

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

July 30-August 2, 2002

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 7/30/02—90F 7/31/02—91F 8/1/02—91F 8/2/02—93F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

August 13-20, 2002

Entire jurisdiction

8 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 8/13/02—94F 8/14/02—96F 8/15/02—98F 8/16/02—95F 8/17/02—94F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

102

8/18/02—92F 8/19/02—94F 8/20/02—92F

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

June 25-28, 2003

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 6/25/03—90F 6/26/03—93F 6/27/03—92F 6/28/03—92F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

July 5-7, 2003

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 7/5/03—91F 7/6/03—90F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

103

7/7/03—91F

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

July 17-19, 2006

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 7/17/06—90F 7/18/06—93F 7/19/06—94F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

August 2-4, 2006

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 8/2/06—96F 8/3/06—97F 8/4/06—92F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

August 16-20, 2006

Entire jurisdiction

5 consecutive days of

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

104

temperatures above 90F: 8/16/09—90F 8/17/09—90F 8/19/09—91F 8/19/09—93F 8/20/09—90F

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

July 4-10, 2010

Entire jurisdiction

7 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 7/4/10—90F 7/5/10—90F 7/6/10—97F 7/7/10—98F 7/8/10—97F 7/9/10—92F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

105

7/10/10—92F

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

July 17-20, 2010

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 7/17/10—93F 7/18/10—93F 7/19/10—93F 7/20/10—90F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

August 30-Sept. 3, 2010

Entire jurisdiction

5 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 8/30/10—92F 8/31/10—91F 9/1/10—94F 9/2/10—95F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

106

9/3/10—96F

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

July 21-24, 2011

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 7/21/11—92F 7/22/11—96F 7/23/11— 101F 7/24/11—96F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

June 21-23, 2012

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 6/21/12—96F 6/22/12—94F 6/23/12—93F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

107

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

July 13-16, 2012

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 7/13/12—92F 7/14/12—92F 7/15/12—93F 7/16/12—91F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

August 3-6, 2012

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of temperatures above 90 F: 8/3/12—91F 8/4/12—94F 8/5/12—95F 8/6/12—93F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

108

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

June 1-3, 2013

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 6/1/13—93F 6/2/13—92F 6/3/13—91F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

July 16-21, 2013

Entire jurisdiction

6 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 7/16/13—90F 7/17/13—91F 7/18/13—93F 7/19/13—93F 7/20/13—96F 7/21/13—91F

No known impact

Hollis HMP 2018

109

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

July 29-31, 2015

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 7/29/15—93F 7/30/15—94F 7/31/15—90F

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

August 16-20, 2015

Entire jurisdiction

5 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 8/16/15—90F 8/17/15—90F 8/18/15—91F 8/19/15 – 93F 8/20/15 – 90F

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

110

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

September 2-4, 2015

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 9/2/15—91F 9/3/15—92F 9/4/15—92F

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

September 7-11, 2015

Entire jurisdiction

5 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 9/7/15—90F 9/8/15—94F 9/9/15—94F 9/10/15 – 94F 9/11/15 – 93F

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

111

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

July 22-29, 2016

Entire jurisdiction

8 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 7/22/16—95F 7/23/16—93F 7/24/16—93F 7/25/16—92F 7/26/16—96F 7/27/16—96F 7/28/16—93F 7/29/16—93F

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

June 12-14, 2017

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 6/12/17—94 F

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

112

6/13/17—98 F 6/14/17—96 F

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

July 20-22, 2017

Entire jurisdiction

3 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 7/20/17—93 F 7/21/17—94 F 7/22/17—92 F

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

August 1-4, 2017

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 8/1/17—90 F 8/2/17—92 F 8/3/17—91 F 8/4/17—90 F

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

113

Extreme Temperature (Heat)

September 25-28, 2017

Entire jurisdiction

4 consecutive days of temperatures above 90F: 9/25/17—93 F 9/26/17—91 F 9/27/17—90 F 9/28/17—91 F

Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hollis HMP 2018

Hazard Type

Date Hazard Location within Jurisdiction

Hazard Extent

Impact Crop Damage

Crop Damage Adjusted

Crop Damage Per Capita

Property Damage

Property Damage Adjusted

Property Damage Per Capita

Source

High Wind Events

Tornado There have been no tornados in Nashua to date.

Tornado July 2, 1961

Northern Hillsborough Co,

Fujita Scale F2

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

50 408.65 0 500 4086.51 0.02 Nashua HMP

114

originated near Weare, NH

2013, SHELDUS

Tornado July 21, 1961

Central Hillsborough Co, originated near New Boston, NH

Fujita Scale F1

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

0 0 0 500 4086.51 0.02 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Tornado May 9, 1963

Northeastern, Hillsborough Co, originated near Goffstown, NH

Fujita Scale F1

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

0 0 0 25000 199651.33

1.04 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Tornado May 20, 1963

Western Hillsborough Co, originated near Peterborough, NH

Fujita Scale F1

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

0 0 0 2500 19965.13 0.1 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Tornado June 9, 1963

Northeastern Hillsborough Co, originated near Manches

Fujita Scale F2

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

500 3993.03 0.02 50000 399302.66

2.08 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

115

ter, NH, Manchester to Derry

Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Tornado - Wind

1965-07-14

Southern portion

No historic data on extent

0 fatalities, 0 injuries Tornado/ funnel cloud/ wind/ rain

0 0 0 1666.67 12929.83 0.06 SHELDUS

Tornado August 28, 1965

Eastern Hillsborough Co, originated near Litchfield, NH

Fujita Scale F1

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

Nashua HMP 2013

Tornado July 19, 1966

Southern Hillsborough Co, originated near Amherst, NH, Hollis

Fujita Scale F1

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

50 377.12 0 500 3771.19 0.02 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Lightning - Tornado

July 17, 1968

Central Hillsborough Co, originated near Temple, NH

Fujita Scale F2

0 fatalities, 0 injuries Tornado/ lightning

0 0 0 5000 35111.1 0.16 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

116

Tornado August 20, 1968

Northeastern Hillsborough Co, originated near Manchester, NH

Fujita Scale F1

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

0 0 0 5000 35111.1 0.16 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Tornado 1968-08-20

East Deering

No historic data on extent

0 fatalities, 1 injuries

0 0 0 5000 35111.1 0.16 SHELDUS

Tornado 1970-07-16

Milford No historic data on extent

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

0 0 0 5000 31491.39 0.14 SHELDUS

Tornado July 19, 1972

Southeastern Hillsborough Co, originated near Hudson, NH

Fujita Scale F1

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

0 0 0 500 2923.12 0.01 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Tornado 1978-06-19

New Boston/ Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

0 0 0 500 1874.03 0.01 SHELDUS

Tornado July 5, 1984

Western Hillsborough Co, originated near

Fujita Scale F1

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

0 0 0 25000 58800.1 0.2 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

117

Harrisville, NH, HARRISVILLE TO HANCOCK

Tornado July 5, 1984

Southeastern Hillsborough Co, originated near Pelham, NH, Willow Street

Fujita Scale F1

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

0 0 0 5000 11760.02 0.04 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Tornado June 16, 1986

Western Hillsborough Co, originated near Swanzey, NH

Fujita Scale F1

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

0 0 0 25000 55742.07 0.18 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Tornado July 3, 1997

Central Hillsborough Co, originated near Greenfield, NH

Fujita Scale F2

0 fatalities, 0 injuries

0 0 0 250000 380643.65

1.06 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Tornado May 31, 1998

Western Hillsborough Co, originated near

Fujita Scale F2

0 fatalities, 0 injuries Severe Weather/

0 0 0 30000 44976.67 0.12 Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

118

Antrim, NH

Tornadoes 1998 June

Downburst

July 6, 1999

Merrimack, Grafton, and Hillsborough Co.

Macroburst

2 fatalities, 2 lost roofs, damage to trees and utility infrastructure

Nashua HMP 2013

Hazard Type

Date Hazard Location within Jurisdiction

Hazard Extent

Impact Crop Damage

Crop Damage Adjusted

Crop Damage Per Capita

Property Damage

Property Damage Adjusted

Property Damage Per Capita

Source

Infectious Diseases

Infectious Diseases

1918 Entire jurisdiction

Influenza epidemic

208 Nashua residents died.

Nashua HMP 2013

Infectious Diseases

2005 Statewide

Hepatitis A

82 cases were reported; 30% higher than the previous four years.

NH HMP 2018

119

Infectious Diseases

2009 Statewide

H1N1 influenza

Treatment of affected individuals and mass prophylaxis. WHO Level 1 Pandemic “swine flu” Division of Public Health Services processed 4,192 specimens and 786 cases. 754 Hospitalizations and 10 Deaths

Nashua HMP 2013, NH HMP 2018

Infectious Diseases

Fall 2014 Statewide

Enterovirus D-68

>40 ill children in New Hampshire, some with paralysis

NH HMP 2018

120

A rare strain of enterovirus resulted in debilitating infections in children nationwide Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Infectious Diseases

Fall 2014- Feb 2016

Statewide

Ebola virus disease

>100 people in New Hampshire monitored for potential Ebola virus symptoms New Hampshire residents

NH HMP 2018

121

were monitored for symptoms of Ebola virus disease after travelling to West Africa during the unprecedented outbreak of Ebola virus. No actual cases of Ebola virus occurred in New Hampshire. Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Infectious Diseases

2016 Statewide

Gonorrhea

465 cases reported; 250%

NH HMP 2018

122

higher than previous years Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Infectious Diseases

2017-2018

Statewide

Seasonal Influenza Outbreak

A particularly virulent flu season impacted the region. The overall effectiveness of the flu vaccine during this flu season was estimated at 36%. As of April 2018, 63 adult

NH HMP 2018

123

influenza related deaths had been identified in New Hampshire Impacts to Nashua are unknown

Hazard Type

Date Hazard Location within Jurisdiction

Hazard Extent

Impact Crop Damage

Crop Damage Adjusted

Crop Damage Per Capita

Property Damage

Property Damage Adjusted

Property Damage Per Capita

Source

Landslide

Landslide There have been no landslides in Nashua to date.

Landslide 2010-03-30

Greenville

No historic data on extent

0 0 0 99 110.95 0 SHELDUS

124

Hazard Type

Date Hazard Location within Jurisdiction

Hazard Extent

Impact Crop Damage

Crop Damage Adjusted

Crop Damage Per Capita

Property Damage

Property Damage Adjusted

Property Damage Per Capita

Source

Lightning

Lightning September 6, 1898

No historic data on location

No historic data on extent

Several buildings burned down as a result of fires started by lightning strikes.

Nashua HMP 2013

Lightning 1960-08-

22 Nashua

No historic data on extent Electrical 0 0 0 500 4127.93 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning - Winter Weather

1960-10-24 - 1960-

10-25 Most of State

No historic data on extent

Electrical/ snow 0 0 0 50 412.79 0

SHELDUS

Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm

1962-05-24

Southern and central sections

No historic data on extent

Electrical/ rain 0 0 0 555.56 4495.5 0.02

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Severe Storm/Thu

1962-05-31

Southern Counties

No historic data on extent

Electrical/ wind/ rain/ hail 0 0 0 714.29 5779.91 0.03

SHELDUS

125

nder Storm - Wind

Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm

1962-07-09

Southern Sections

No historic data on extent

Electrical/ rain 0 0 0 714.29 5779.91 0.03

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

1962-08-20 Statewide

No historic data on extent Electrical/

wind/ rain/ hail 500 4045.91 0.02 500 4045.91 0.02

SHELDUS

Flooding - Hail - Lightning - Wind

1963-08-07 Nashua

No historic data on extent

Electrical/ wind/ flooding/ hail 0 0 0 500 3993.03 0.02

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Wind

1963-10-03 State

No historic data on extent

Electrical/ wind/ hail 0 0 0 500 3993.03 0.02

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Wind

1964-05-19 - 1964-

05-20 State

No historic data on extent

Lightning/ wind/ hail 0 0 0 500 3941.5 0.02

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

1964-07-02 - 1964-

07-03 State

No historic data on extent Electrical/

wind/ hail/ rain 50 394.15 0 500 3941.5 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning - Severe

1964-07-22 State

No historic

Electrical/ wind/ rain 0 0 0 500 3941.5 0.02

SHELDUS

126

Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

data on extent

Lightning - Wind

1964-08-08 State

No historic data on extent

Lightning/ wind 50 394.15 0 50 394.15 0

SHELDUS

Lightning 1965-05-

17 Southern portion

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 1666.67 12929.83 0.06

SHELDUS

Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

1965-06-07

Northern and southeastern portions

No historic data on extent Lightning/

wind/ rain 0 0 0 833.33 6464.87 0.03

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning

1965-06-19

Southern portion

No historic data on extent

Lightning/ hail 166.67 1293.01 0.01 166.67 1293.01 0.01

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Wind

1966-05-20 State

No historic data on extent

Lightning/ hail/ wind 0 0 0 50 377.12 0

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

1966-06-07 Southern

No historic data on extent Lightning/

wind/ rain/ hail 166.67 1257.09 0.01 1666.67 12570.66 0.06

SHELDUS

Lightning - Wind

1966-06-29 State

No historic

Injuries: 0.2 0 0 0 500 3771.19 0.02

SHELDUS

127

data on extent

Lightning/ wind

Lightning - Wind - Winter Weather

1967-02-16 State

No historic data on extent

Wind/ glaze/ lightning 0 0 0 5000 36582.82 0.17

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Wind

1967-04-10 State

No historic data on extent

Lightning/ wind/ hail 0 0 0 50 365.83 0

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Winter Weather

1967-04-18 State

No historic data on extent

Lightning/ hail/ snow 0 0 0 50 365.83 0

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning

1967-04-22 Southern

No historic data on extent

Lightning/ hail 0 0 0 71.43 522.62 0

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm

1967-06-12 State

No historic data on extent Lightning/

rain/ hail 0 0 0 500 3658.28 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning - Wind

1967-06-25 State

No historic data on extent

Fatalities: 1 Injuries: 1 Lightning/ wind 0 0 0 500 3658.28 0.02

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Wind

1967-07-24 State

No historic data on extent

Hail/ wind/ lightning 50 365.83 0 500 3658.28 0.02

SHELDUS

128

Hail - Lightning - Wind

1967-07-25 State

No historic data on extent

Hail/ wind/ lightning 50 365.83 0 500 3658.28 0.02

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning

1968-05-20 state

No historic data on extent

lightning/ hail 0 0 0 50 351.11 0

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning

1968-05-22 state

No historic data on extent

lightning/ hail 0 0 0 50 351.11 0

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning

1968-06-03 Southern

No historic data on extent

Hail/ lightning 714.29 5015.9 0.02 71.43 501.6 0

SHELDUS

Lightning - Tornado

1968-07-17 Temple

No historic data on extent

Tornado/ lightning 0 0 0 5000 35111.1 0.16

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Wind

1968-07-19 State

No historic data on extent

Lightning/ wind/ hail 500 3511.11 0.02 500 3511.11 0.02

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Wind

1968-08-09 State

No historic data on extent

Lightning/ wind/ hail 50 351.11 0 500 3511.11 0.02

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Wind

1968-08-20 state

No historic data on extent

lightning/ wind/ hail 50 351.11 0 500 3511.11 0.02

SHELDUS

129

Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

1968-08-20 State

No historic data on extent Lightning/

wind/ rain 0 0 0 500 3511.11 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning - Wind

1968-08-25 State

No historic data on extent

Lightning/ wind 0 0 0 500 3511.11 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning/ Severe Storm/Thunder Storm

1969-03-25 SOUTHERN

No historic data on extent

RAIN/ LIGHTNING 0 0 0 16666.66 110977.81 0.51

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm

1969-04-19 Southern

No historic data on extent

Rain/ lightning/ hail 0 0 0 714.29 4756.22 0.02

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

1969-04-22 - 1969-

04-23 State

No historic data on extent

Rain/ wind/ lightning/ hail 0 0 0 5000 33293.35 0.15

SHELDUS

Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

1969-06-15 State

No historic data on extent

Rain/ lightning/ wind 500 3329.34 0.02 5000 33293.35 0.15

SHELDUS

Lightning - Severe Storm/Thu

1969-06-20

Southern Portion

No historic

Wind/ lightning/ rain 714.29 4756.22 0.02 714.29 4756.22 0.02

SHELDUS

130

nder Storm - Wind

data on extent

Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm

1969-07-12 Southern

No historic data on extent

Rain/ lightning 7.14 47.54 0 714.29 4756.22 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning/ Severe Storm/Thunder Storm/ Wind/ Winter Weather

1969-12-26 - 1969-

12-28 STATE

No historic data on extent SNOW/

RAIN/ GLAZE/ WIND/ LIGHTNING 0 0 0 50000 332933.55 1.52

SHELDUS

Hail/ Lightning/ Wind

1970-07-12

CENTRAL AND SOUTH

No historic data on extent

HAIL/ WIND/ LIGHTNING 8333.33 52485.64 0.23 833.33 5248.54 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning/ Wind

1970-07-16 SOUTHERN

No historic data on extent

LIGHTNING/ WIND 0 0 0 16666.67 104971.34 0.47

SHELDUS

Lightning - Wind

1970-07-18 Southern

No historic data on extent

Lightning/ wind 0 0 0 1666.67 10497.15 0.05

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Wind

1970-07-26

Extreme southern

No historic data on extent

Wind/ lightning/ hail 16.67 104.99 0 1666.67 10497.15 0.05

SHELDUS

Lightning - Wind

1970-07-28 Southern

No historic

Lightning/ wind 0 0 0 1666.67 10497.15 0.05

SHELDUS

131

data on extent

Lightning 1970-09-

18 State

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 500 3149.14 0.01

SHELDUS

Lightning - Wind

1970-10-03

South and central

No historic data on extent

wind/ lightning 0 0 0 555.56 3499.07 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning/ Severe Storm/Thunder Storm/ Wind

1971-06-08 SOUTHERN

No historic data on extent WIND/

LIGHTNING/ RAIN 0 0 0 16666.67 100565.13 0.42

SHELDUS

Lightning - Wind

1971-06-21 Southern

No historic data on extent

Lightning/ wind 0 0 0 833.33 5028.24 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

1971-07-01 State

No historic data on extent Lightning/

wind/ rain 0 0 0 500 3016.95 0.01

SHELDUS

Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

1971-09-17 Southern

No historic data on extent

Wind/ lightning/ rain 0 0 0 714.29 4309.96 0.02

SHELDUS

132

Hail - Lightning - Wind

1971-10-06 State

No historic data on extent

Lightning/ wind/ hail 0 0 0 500 3016.95 0.01

SHELDUS

Lightning/ Wind

1972-01-25 STATE

No historic data on extent

WIND/ ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 5000 29231.25 0.12

SHELDUS

Lightning - Winter Weather

1972-03-02 - 1972-

03-03

New Hampshire- entire state

No historic data on extent

glaze/ lightning 0 0 0 500 2923.12 0.01

SHELDUS

Lightning - Winter Weather

1972-04-13 State

No historic data on extent

Snow/ lightning 0 0 0 50 292.31 0

SHELDUS

Lightning/ Severe Storm/Thunder Storm/ Wind

1972-07-10 STATE

No historic data on extent LIGHTNING

/ WIND/ RAIN 50 292.31 0 5000 29231.25 0.12

SHELDUS

Lightning

1972-07-16 - 1972-

07-17 State

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 500 2923.12 0.01

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

1972-07-25 State

No historic data on extent Lightning/

hail/ wind/ rain 50 292.31 0 500 2923.12 0.01

SHELDUS

133

Hail - Lightning - Wind

1972-08-09 State

No historic data on extent

Wind/ hail/ lightning 500 2923.12 0.01 500 2923.12 0.01

SHELDUS

Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

1972-08-27

Central and southern

No historic data on extent

Wind/ lightning/ rain 0 0 0 555.56 3247.94 0.01

SHELDUS

Lightning 1973-03-

15 State

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 50 275.2 0

SHELDUS

Hail - Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

1973-06-12

Central and Southern

No historic data on extent Wind/

rain/ hail/ lightning 55.56 305.8 0 555.56 3057.75 0.01

SHELDUS

Hail/ Lightning/ Severe Storm/Thunder Storm

1976-06-29

Grafton/ Merrimack/ and Hillsborough Counties

No historic data on extent

Rain/ Hail/ Lightning 0 0 0 16666.67 71579.75 0.28

SHELDUS

Lightning

1980-05-06 - 1980-

05-07 Petersborough

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 500 1482.85 0.01

SHELDUS

Hail/ Lightning

1980-07-11 Statewide

No historic

hail/ lightning 0 0 0 5000 14828.47 0.05

SHELDUS

134

data on extent

Lightning/ Severe Storm/Thunder Storm/ Wind

1980-08-01

Southern and Central

No historic data on extent

wind/ rain/ lightning 0 0 0 5555.56 16476.09 0.06

SHELDUS

Lightning 1980-08-

05 Southern

No historic data on extent

Injuries: 1.5 Lightning 0 0 0 8333.33 24714.11 0.09

SHELDUS

Lightning/ Severe Storm/Thunder Storm/ Wind

1980-08-06

Manchester and Windsor/ Hillsborough County; Newport/ Sullivan County; Londonderry/ Rockingham County

No historic data on extent

rain/ wind/ lightning 0 0 0 16666.67 49428.25 0.18

SHELDUS

Hail/ Lightning/ Severe Storm/Thunder Storm/ Wind

1980-09-02 Statewide

No historic data on extent

rain/ wind/ hail/ lightning 0 0 0 50000 148284.72 0.54

SHELDUS

135

Lightning 1981-08-

19 Antrim

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 5000 13441.87 0.05

SHELDUS

Lightning/ Wind

1982-05-19 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Lightning/Wind 0 0 0 5000 12661.83 0.04

SHELDUS

Lightning 1983-08-

06

Strafford/ Hillsborough

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 25000 61338.66 0.21

SHELDUS

Lightning 1988-05-

29 Bedford

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 50000 103285.39 0.31

SHELDUS

Lightning/ Wind

1988-06-22 Nashua

No historic data on extent

Wind/ Lightning 0 0 0 50000 103285.39 0.31

SHELDUS

Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind

1989-07-07 Hashua

No historic data on extent

Thunderstorm Wind/ Lightning 0 0 0 500 985.38 0

SHELDUS

Lightning 1991-06-

12 Merrimack

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 100000 179422.34 0.53

SHELDUS

Lightning 1992-08-

04

HOLLIS POLICE STATION

No historic

LIGHTNING 0 0 0 5000 8708.95 0.03

SHELDUS

136

data on extent

Lightning 1996-07-

09 Mont Vernon

No historic data on extent

Injuries: 1 Lightning 0 0 0 0 0 0

SHELDUS

Lightning 1998-06-

19 Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent LIGHTNING 0 0 0 5000 7496.11 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning 1999-08-

17 MANCHESTER

No historic data on extent

Injuries: 2 LIGHTNING 0 0 0 0 0 0

SHELDUS

Lightning 2002-08-

16 Hollis to Amherst

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 350000 475434.29 1.22

SHELDUS

Lightning 2003-08-

13 Pelham

No historic data on extent

Injuries: 9 Lightning 0 0 0 0 0 0

SHELDUS

Lightning 2004-05-

23 BEDFORD

No historic data on extent

Lightning Severe Weather/Hail/Tornadoes 2004 0 0 0 200000 258732.9 0.65

SHELDUS

Lightning 2004-05-

24 WEARE

No historic data on extent

Lightning Severe Weather/Hail/Tornadoes 2004 0 0 0 350000 452782.58 1.14

SHELDUS

137

Lightning 2005-05-

18 Nashua

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 5000 6256.35 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning 2005-06-

29 Manchester

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 5000 6256.35 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning 2005-07-

19 Brookline

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 25000 31281.77 0.08

SHELDUS

Lightning 2005-07-

27 Bennington

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 5000 6256.35 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning 2007-09-

08 1 SSE Pine Hill

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 25000 29464.99 0.07

SHELDUS

Lightning 2008-06-

29 Nashua

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 1500 1702.53 0

SHELDUS

Lightning 2008-08-

12 Brookline

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 15000 17025.3 0.04

SHELDUS

Lightning 2008-09-

09

2 SSW West Peterborough

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 10000 11350.2 0.03

SHELDUS

138

Lightning 2008-09-

09

2 NNE (ASH) Boire Field Nashua

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 3000 3405.06 0.01

SHELDUS

Lightning 2012-08-

04 Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 170000 180943.09 0.45

SHELDUS

Lightning 2013-09-

12 Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 15000 15735.09 0.04

SHELDUS

Lightning 2013-09-

12 Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent Lightning 0 0 0 45000 47205.26 0.12

SHELDUS

Lightning 2014-07-

23 Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

Impacts to Nashua are unknown 0 0 0 35000 36129.12 0.09

SHELDUS

Lightning 2014-09-

06 Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent

Impacts to Nashua are unknown 0 0 0 30000 30967.82 0.08

SHELDUS

Hazard Type

Date Hazard Location within Jurisdiction

Hazard Extent

Impact Crop Damage

Crop Damage Adjusted

Crop Damage Per Capita

Property Damage

Property Damage Adjusted

Property Damage Per Capita

Source

Severe Winter Weather

139

Severe Winter Weather

March 11-14, 1888

Entire jurisdiction

30-50 inches of snow

No historic data on impact

Nashua HMP 2013

Severe Winter Weather

1922 Entire jurisdiction

No historic data on extent

Extreme snow drifts paralyzed road network.

Nashua HMP 2013

Severe Winter Weather

12/17-20/1929

Statewide

No historic data on extent

Unprecedented disruption and damage to telephone, telegraph, and power system Ice Storm

NH HMP 2018

Severe Winter Weather

February 14-15, 1940

Entire jurisdiction

Over 30 inches of snow

Snow and high winds paralyzed road network.

Nashua HMP 2013

Severe Winter Weather

February 14-17, 1958

Entire jurisdiction

20-33 inches of snow

Primary impact to road network.

Nashua HMP 2013

140

Severe Winter Weather

March 18-21, 1958

Entire jurisdiction

22-24 inches of snow

Primary impact to road network.

Nashua HMP 2013

Wind - Winter Weather

1960-02-19 - 1960-02-20

Entire State Except Extreme Southeast

No historic data on extent

Snow/ Wind

0 0 0

5555.56 45865.88 0.26

SHELDUS

Severe Winter Weather

March 2-5, 1960

SOUTH AND CENTRAL

Up to 25 inches of snow

Primary impact to road network. SNOW

0 0 0

6250 51599.08 0.29

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Lightning - Winter Weather

1960-10-24 - 1960-10-25

Most of State

No historic data on extent

Electrical/ snow

0 0 0

50 412.79 0

SHELDUS

Severe Winter Weather

1960-11-28 - 1960-11-29

Most of State

No historic data on extent

Glaze 0 0 0

5 41.28 0

SHELDUS

Severe Winter Weather

1960-12-12 - 1960-12-13

Southern portion

No historic data on extent

Fatalities: .33 Snow/ Blizzard

0 0 0

1666.67 13759.78 0.08

SHELDUS

Severe Winter Weather

1961-01-01

Southern and Southeastern Sections

No historic data on extent

Glaze 0 0 0

714.29 5837.9 0.03

SHELDUS

141

Severe Winter Weather

January 18-20, 1961

Southern and Southeastern Sections

Up to 25 inches of snow

Blizzard conditions paralyze road network.

0 0 0

714.29 5837.9 0.03

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1961-02-01

- 1961-02-

03 STATEWIDE

8-40” of snow and hurricane gale force winds across New England

PROLONGED

SEVERE

COLD

0 0 0

5000 40865.09 0.22

SHELDUS, NH HMP 2018

Winter

Weather 1961-02-04

Southern

section

8-40” of snow and hurricane gale force winds across New England heavy snow

0 0 0

71.43 583.8 0

SHELDUS, NH HMP 2018

Wind -

Winter

Weather

1961-03-08

- 1961-03-

09 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Snow and

wind

0 0 0

500 4086.51 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1961-03-14

Southern

portion

No historic data on extent Heavy snow

0 0 0

1666.67 13621.72 0.07

SHELDUS

142

Winter

Weather 1961-05-31 STATEWIDE

No historic data on extent FROST 5000 40865.09 0.22 0 0 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1961-11-20

- 1961-11-

21 State

No historic data on extent Heavy snow

0 0 0

500 4086.51 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1961-12-17

- 1961-12-

20

Most of

state

No historic data on extent

Glaze/ sleet/

snow

0 0 0

500 4086.51 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1961-12-24

- 1961-12-

25

Southeast

and

extreme

south-

central

No historic data on extent

Heavy snow

0 0 0

833.33 6810.82 0.04

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1962-01-06

- 1962-01-

07 Statewide

No historic data on extent Glaze Storm

0 0 0

500 4045.91 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1962-01-15 Statewide

No historic data on extent Glaze

0 0 0

500 4045.91 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1962-01-22 Statewide

No historic data on extent Glaze

0 0 0

5 40.46 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1962-02-14

- 1962-02-

Southern

and

No historic Snow

0 0 0 833.33 6743.16 0.04

SHELDUS

143

15 Southweste

rn Sections

data on extent

Winter

Weather

1962-02-19

- 1962-02-

20 Statewide

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

500 4045.91 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1962-02-22

- 1962-02-

23

Southern

Sections

No historic data on extent Glaze

0 0 0

8.33 67.4 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1962-02-24 Statewide

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

500 4045.91 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1962-02-26

- 1962-02-

28 Statewide

No historic data on extent Glaze

0 0 0

500 4045.91 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1962-03-12

- 1962-03-

13

MOST OF

STATE

No historic data on extent

Injuries: 0.1

SNOWSTOR

M

0 0 0

5000 40459.14 0.22

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1962-12-29

- 1962-12-

31 Statewide

No historic data on extent Blizzard

0 0 0

50000 404591.43 2.16

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1963-01-11

- 1963-01-

13 Statewide

No historic data on extent Snow/ icing

0 0 0

500 3993.03 0.02

SHELDUS

144

Coastal -

Winter

Weather 1963-01-27 Statewide

No historic data on extent Snow/ tidal

0 0 0

500 3993.03 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1963-02-02

- 1963-02-

04

Southern

and central

sections

No historic data on extent Icing

0 0 0

5.56 44.4 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1963-02-19

- 1963-02-

20

Southern

and East-

Central

sections

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

625 4991.28 0.03

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1963-05-10

- 1963-05-

11 Statewide

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

50 399.3 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1964-01-13

- 1964-01-

14

Southern

portion

No historic data on extent Blizzard

0 0 0

1666.67 13138.37 0.07

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1964-02-06

- 1964-02-

07

Eastern and

south

central

sections

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

714.29 5630.75 0.03

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1964-02-16 Statewide

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

500 3941.5 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1964-03-10

- 1964-03-

11 Statewide

No historic

Snow

0 0 0

500 3941.5 0.02

SHELDUS

145

data on extent

Winter

Weather

1964-12-03

- 1964-12-

06

Central and

southern

portions

No historic data on extent

glaze/ sleet/

snow

0 0 0

55.56 437.98 0

SHELDUS

Flooding/

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm/

Wind/

Winter

Weather 1965-02-25 STATEWIDE

No historic data on extent

WIND/

RAINS AND

FLOODS/

GLAZE/

THUNDERST

ORMS

0 0 0

5000 38789.4 0.19

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1965-12-11

- 1965-12-

26 State

No historic data on extent Glaze

0 0 0

50 387.89 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1966-01-08

- 1966-01-

09 STATEWIDE

No historic data on extent BLIZZARD

0 0 0

5000 37711.92 0.18

SHELDUS

Wind/

Winter

Weather

1966-01-23

- 1966-01-

24 STATEWIDE

No historic data on extent

SNOW/

WIND

0 0 0

5000 37711.92 0.18

SHELDUS

Wind/

Winter

Weather

1966-01-30

- 1966-01-

31 STATEWIDE

No historic data on extent

Large

amount of

snowfall

resulting in

disruption of

power and

0 0 0

5000 37711.92 0.18

SHELDUS, NH HMP 2018

146

transportatio

n

SNOW/

WIND/

GLAZE

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm -

Winter

Weather 1966-02-13 State

No historic data on extent

Rain/ glaze

0 0 0

500 3771.19 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1966-02-25

- 1966-02-

26 state

No historic data on extent snow

0 0 0

500 3771.19 0.02

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1966-12-29 State

No historic data on extent

Snow/ glaze/

wind

0 0 0

500 3771.19 0.02

SHELDUS

Lightning -

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1967-02-16 State

No historic data on extent

Wind/ glaze/

lightning

0 0 0

5000 36582.82 0.17

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1967-02-23 State

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

500 3658.28 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1967-03-06

- 1967-03-

07

Southern

Half

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

714.29 5226.15 0.02

SHELDUS

147

Hail -

Lightning -

Winter

Weather 1967-04-18 State

No historic data on extent

Lightning/

hail/ snow

0 0 0

50 365.83 0

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather

1967-05-07

- 1967-05-

08 State

No historic data on extent Wind/ snow

0 0 0

500 3658.28 0.02

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm/

Winter

Weather

1967-05-25

- 1967-05-

26

Hillsboroug

h

No historic data on extent

NORTHEAST

ER WITH

RAIN AND

SNOW

0 0 0

50000 365828.18 1.74

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm -

Winter

Weather

1967-05-25

- 1967-05-

26 State

No historic data on extent

Injuries: 0.1

Northeaster

with rain and

snow

0 0 0

50000 365828.18 1.74

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1967-11-15 State

No historic data on extent

Fatalities: 0.3

Snow

0 0 0

500 3658.28 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1967-12-03

- 1967-12-

19 State

No historic data on extent Glaze

0 0 0

5000 36582.82 0.17

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1967-12-28

- 1967-12-

29 State

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

50000 365828.18 1.74

SHELDUS

148

Wind -

Winter

Weather

1968-01-07

- 1968-01-

08 State

No historic data on extent Snow/ wind

0 0 0

500 3511.11 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1968-01-14

- 1968-01-

15

Central and

Southern

portions

No historic data on extent glaze

0 0 0

55.56 390.15 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1968-01-29

- 1968-01-

30 state

No historic data on extent Glaze

0 0 0

50 351.11 0

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1968-03-01 State

No historic data on extent Wind/ snow

0 0 0

500 3511.11 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1968-03-12 State

No historic data on extent Glaze/ snow

0 0 0

50 351.11 0

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather

1968-11-07

- 1968-11-

08 State

No historic data on extent Snow/ wind

0 0 0

500 3511.11 0.02

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm -

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1968-11-10 State

No historic data on extent

Rain/ snow/

wind/ glaze

0 0 0

500 3511.11 0.02

SHELDUS

149

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm/

Wind/

Winter

Weather

1968-11-12

- 1968-11-

13 State

No historic data on extent Fatalities: 1

Rain/ wind/

snow/ glaze

0 0 0

5000 35111.1 0.16

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm -

Wind -

Winter

Weather

1968-12-04

- 1968-12-

05 State

No historic data on extent

Rain/ snow/

wind/ glaze

0 0 0

500 3511.11 0.02

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm -

Winter

Weather

1968-12-14

- 1968-12-

16 State

No historic data on extent Rain/ snow/

glaze

0 0 0

500 3511.11 0.02

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1968-12-23 State

No historic data on extent

Glaze/ snow/

wind

0 0 0

50 351.11 0

Winter

Weather

1968-12-28

- 1968-12-

29 State

No historic data on extent Glaze

0 0 0

5000 35111.1 0.16

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1969-01-01 State

No historic data on extent Wind/ snow

0 0 0

500 3329.34 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1969-01-30

- 1969-01- State

No historic Glaze

0 0 0 500 3329.34 0.02

SHELDUS

150

31 data on extent

Wind -

Winter

Weather

1969-02-03

- 1969-02-

04 State

No historic data on extent snow/ wind

0 0 0

500 3329.34 0.02

SHELDUS

Wind/

Winter

Weather

1969-02-09

- 1969-02-

10 STATE

No historic data on extent

SNOW/

WIND

0 0 0

50000 332933.55 1.52

SHELDUS

Wind/ Winter Weather

February 22-28, 1969

STATE 24-98 inches of snow in Central NH

Primary impact to road network. Slow moving storm. SNOW/ WIND

0 0 0

500000 3329335.5 15.18

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1969-03-03

Central and

south

No historic data on extent Snow/ wind

0 0 0

555.56 3699.29 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1969-10-22 State

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

500 3329.34 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1969-12-22 STATE

No historic data on extent

SNOW

GLAZE

0 0 0

5000 33293.35 0.15

SHELDUS

151

Lightning/ Severe Storm/Thunder Storm/ Wind/ Winter Weather

December 25-28, 1969

STATE 12-18 inches of snow

Primary impact to road network. SNOW/ RAIN/ GLAZE/ WIND/ LIGHTNING

0 0 0

50000 332933.55 1.52

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather

1970-01-28

- 1970-01-

29 State

No historic data on extent Wind/ glaze

0 0 0

500 3149.14 0.01

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm -

Wind -

Winter

Weather

1970-02-02

- 1970-02-

04

Central and

Southern

No historic data on extent

Wind/ rain/

glaze

0 0 0

555.56 3499.07 0.02

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm -

Wind -

Winter

Weather

1970-04-02

- 1970-04-

03

New

Hampshire

No historic data on extent

Snow/ rain/

wind

0 0 0

500 3149.14 0.01

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1970-12-04 State

No historic data on extent

Snow/

glaze/ wind

0 0 0

50 314.91 0

SHELDUS

Wind/

Winter 1970-12-17 STATE

No historic

SNOW /

WIND

0 0 0 5000 31491.39 0.14

SHELDUS

152

Weather data on extent

Winter

Weather

1970-12-22

- 1970-12-

23 State

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

500 3149.14 0.01

SHELDUS

Wind/

Winter

Weather

1970-12-23

- 1970-12-

24 STATE

No historic data on extent

SNOW /

WIND

0 0 0

5000 31491.39 0.14

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1971-02-05 State

No historic data on extent

Snow/

glaze/ wind

0 0 0

50 301.7 0

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather

1971-03-03

- 1971-03-

05 State

No historic data on extent Wind/ snow

0 0 0

5000 30169.53 0.13

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1971-03-11

- 1971-03-

12 State

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

500 3016.95 0.01

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1971-03-19

- 1971-03-

20 State

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

500 3016.95 0.01

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1971-04-07 State

No historic data on extent Snow/ wind

0 0 0

500 3016.95 0.01

SHELDUS

153

Wind/

Winter

Weather 1971-11-25 STATE

No historic data on extent

SNOW/

WIND

0 0 0

5000 30169.53 0.13

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1971-12-15 State

No historic data on extent Glaze

0 0 0

50 301.7 0

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm/

Wind/

Winter

Weather

1972-02-03

- 1972-02-

04 STATE

No historic data on extent

WIND/

SNOW/

RAIN/

GLAZE

0 0 0

5000 29231.25 0.12

SHELDUS

Coastal/

Wind/

Winter

Weather

1972-02-19

- 1972-02-

20 STATE

No historic data on extent

BLIZZARD/

WIND/SURF

0 0 0

50000 292312.47 1.24

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1972-02-26

New

Hampshire-

entire state

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

500 2923.12 0.01

SHELDUS

Lightning -

Winter

Weather

1972-03-02

- 1972-03-

03

New

Hampshire-

entire state

No historic data on extent

glaze/

lightning

0 0 0

500 2923.12 0.01

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1972-03-15

Central and

South New

Hampshire

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

555.56 3247.94 0.01

SHELDUS

154

Lightning -

Winter

Weather 1972-04-13 State

No historic data on extent

Snow/

lightning

0 0 0

50 292.31 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1972-11-14

- 1972-11-

15 Southern

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

8333.33 48718.73 0.21

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1972-12-01 State

No historic data on extent

Snow/

glaze/ wind

0 0 0

500 2923.12 0.01

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1972-12-04

- 1972-12-

05

South and

east

No historic data on extent Glaze

0 0 0

71.43 417.6 0

SHELDUS

Wind/

Winter

Weather

1972-12-15

- 1972-12-

17 STATE

No historic data on extent

NORTHEAST

ER/ SNOW/

WIND/

GLAZE/

BLIZZARD

0 0 0

5000 29231.25 0.12

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1972-12-30

- 1972-12-

31 STATE

No historic data on extent GLAZE

0 0 0

5000 29231.25 0.12

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1973-01-20 State

No historic data on extent Wind/ ice

0 0 0

500 2751.95 0.01

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

1973-01-28

- 1973-01- State

No historic Snow/ wind

0 0 0 500 2751.95 0.01

SHELDUS

155

Weather 29 data on extent

Winter

Weather 1973-02-02 State

No historic data on extent Glaze/ rain

0 0 0

500 2751.95 0.01

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1973-04-01

- 1973-04-

03 STATEWIDE

No historic data on extent

NORTHEAST

GALE

0 0 0

50000 275195.07 1.15

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1974-04-09

- 1974-04-

10

New

Hampshire

No historic data on extent Snowstorm

0 0 0

500 2478.43 0.01

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1974-12-02 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Winter

Storm

0 0 0

500 2478.43 0.01

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1975-01-12

- 1975-01-

13

Southern

counties

No historic data on extent

Fatalities:

0.67

snowstorm

0 0 0

1666.67 7570.44 0.03

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1975-02-05

- 1975-02-

06 Statewide

No historic data on extent Snowstorm

0 0 0

500 2271.13 0.01

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather

1975-02-24

- 1975-02-

25 Statewide

No historic data on extent Glaze-Wind

0 0 0

500 2271.13 0.01

SHELDUS

156

Winter

Weather

1975-04-02

- 1975-04-

05 Statewide

No historic data on extent Blizzard

0 0 0

5000 22711.27 0.09

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1975-11-24

- 1975-11-

25 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Winter

storm

0 0 0

50 227.11 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1975-11-27 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Winter

storm

0 0 0

500 2271.13 0.01

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1975-12-20

- 1975-12-

22 STATEWIDE

No historic data on extent

NORTHEAST

SNOWSTOR

M

0 0 0

5000 22711.27 0.09

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1975-12-25

- 1975-12-

26 STATEWIDE

No historic data on extent

WINTER

STORM

0 0 0

5000 22711.27 0.09

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1976-01-12

- 1976-01-

14

Hillsboroug

h County

No historic data on extent Blizzard

0 0 0

5000 21473.92 0.08

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1976-01-27

- 1976-01-

28 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Winter

Storm

0 0 0

500 2147.39 0.01

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1976-02-17

- 1976-02-

18 Statewide

No historic data on extent Ice storm

0 0 0

500 2147.39 0.01

SHELDUS

157

Winter

Weather

1976-03-02

- 1976-03-

03 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Snow-storm

glaze

0 0 0

50 214.74 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1976-03-17

Southern

Counties

No historic data on extent

Winter

storm

0 0 0

1666.67 7157.99 0.03

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1976-11-10 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Injuries: 0.8

Snowstorm

0 0 0

0 0 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1976-12-20 Statewide

No historic data on extent Glaze

0 0 0

5000 21473.92 0.08

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1977-01-10 Statewide

No historic data on extent Snow Storm

0 0 0

5000 20162.81 0.08

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm/

Winter

Weather

1977-02-24

- 1977-02-

25 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Rain/ Snow

0 0 0

5000 20162.81 0.08

SHELDUS

Wind/

Winter

Weather

1977-03-18

- 1977-03-

19 Southern

No historic data on extent

Northeaster

/ Wind

0 0 0

16666.67 67209.37 0.26

SHELDUS

Wind/

Winter

1977-03-22

- 1977-03- Statewide

No historic

Northeaster

/ Wind

0 0 0 50000 201628.07 0.77

SHELDUS

158

Weather 23 data on extent

Wind/

Winter

Weather

1978-01-08

- 1978-01-

09 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Injuries: 0.5

Fatalities:

0.1

Winter

Storm/

Wind

0 0 0

50000 187402.78 0.7

SHELDUS

Severe Winter Weather

January 19-21, 1978

Statewide

Up to 16 inches of snow

Primary impact to road network. Blizzard

0 0 0

500 1874.03 0.01

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Winter Weather

1978-01-25

Statewide

No historic data on extent

Rain and Snow

0 0 0

500 1874.03 0.01

SHELDUS

Wind/ Winter Weather

February 5-7, 1978 (Blizzard of ’78)

Entire jurisdiction

25-33 inches of snow

Snow paralyzed road network, trapped commuters in cars, and forced the closure of businesses.

0 0 0

500000 1874027.8 6.97

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

159

Northeast Blizzard/ Wind/ Snow

Fatalities: 0.3 Injuries: 6.67

Winter

Weather

1979-01-07

- 1979-01-

08 Statewide

No historic data on extent freezing rain

0 0 0

5000 16830.11 0.06

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm -

Winter

Weather

1979-01-20

- 1979-01-

21 Statewide

No historic data on extent Snow and

Rain

0 0 0

500 1683.01 0.01

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1979-01-24

- 1979-01-

25 Statewide

No historic data on extent

northeast

storm

0 0 0

50000 168301.12 0.61

SHELDUS

Wind/

Winter

Weather

1981-12-05

- 1981-12-

06 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Wet Snow/

Sleet/ Wind

0 0 0

5000 13441.87 0.05

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm -

Winter

Weather

1982-01-01

- 1982-01-

02 Southern

No historic data on extent

Snow/ Rain/

Freezing

Rain

0 0 0

833.33 2110.3 0.01

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun 1982-02-01 Southern

No historic

Rain/

Freezing

0 0 0 83.33 211.02 0

SHELDUS

160

der Storm -

Winter

Weather

data on extent

Rain/ Snow

Winter

Weather 1982-02-24 Southern

No historic data on extent Snow

0 0 0

83.33 211.02 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1982-03-07 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Heavy Wet

Snow

0 0 0

500 1266.18 0

SHELDUS

Severe Winter Weather

April 5-7, 1982

Entire jurisdiction

18-22 inches of snow

Primary impact to road network.

Nashua HMP 2013

Wind/

Winter

Weather

1983-01-15

- 1983-01-

16 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Heavy Snow/

Winds

0 0 0

5000 12267.73 0.04

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1983-01-23

- 1983-01-

24 Statewide

No historic data on extent Ice Storm

0 0 0

5000 12267.73 0.04

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1983-02-07

- 1983-02-

08 Statewide

No historic data on extent nor'easter

0 0 0

500 1226.77 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1983-02-11

- 1983-02-

12

Hillsboroug

h Co.

Rockingham

Co.

Strafford

No historic data on extent

Snowstorm

0 0 0

1666.67 4089.25 0.01

SHELDUS

161

Co.

Severe Winter Weather

March, 1983

Entire jurisdiction

Over 18 inches of snow, 30-40 mph winds

Snow paralyzed road network and forced closure of businesses.

Nashua HMP 2013

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm/

Winter

Weather 1983-03-11 Statewide

No historic data on extent Rain and

Snow

0 0 0

5000 12267.73 0.04

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm -

Winter

Weather

1983-03-27

- 1983-03-

28 Statewide

No historic data on extent Snow and

Rain

0 0 0

500 1226.77 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1984-03-13

- 1984-03-

14 Statewide

No historic data on extent

snowstorm

Fatalities: 1

0 0 0

500 1176 0

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1984-03-29 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Heavy

Snow/ High

Wind

0 0 0

5000 11760.02 0.04

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1985-03-04

- 1985-03-

05 Statewide

No historic Snow

Injuries: 0.3

0 0 0

5000 11355.63 0.04

SHELDUS

162

data on extent

Winter

Weather

1986-01-03

- 1986-01-

04 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Nor'easter

Injuries: 0.6

0 0 0

5000 11148.41 0.04

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1986-01-05 Statewide

No historic data on extent Heavy Snow

0 0 0

500 1114.84 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1986-02-17

- 1986-02-

18 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Freezing

Rain

Injuries: 0.7

0 0 0

5000 11148.41 0.04

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1986-03-14

- 1986-03-

15

Cheshire Co.

Sullivan Co.

Western

Hillsboroug

h Co.

Western

Merrimack

Co.

No historic data on extent

Ice Storm

0 0 0

125000 278710.34 0.88

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm -

Winter

Weather 1986-11-09

Hillsboroug

h County

No historic data on extent Rain and

Snow

0 0 0

35000 78038.89 0.25

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1986-11-18

Weather

Zones:

NHZ005-

006-007

No historic data on extent Heavy Snow

0 0 0

10000 22296.83 0.07

SHELDUS

163

Southern

NH

Winter

Weather

1986-12-02

- 1986-12-

03

Weather

Zones:

NHZ001-

002-003-

004-005-

006 Entire

State

excluding

Immediate

Coas

No historic data on extent

Snow and

Mixed

Precipitatio

n

Injuries: 0.2

0 0 0

5000 11148.41 0.04

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1986-12-09

Weather

Zones:

NHZ003-

004-006

Central and

Southern

No historic data on extent

Snow and

Mixed

Precipitatio

n

Fatalities: 1

Injuries:

0.33

0 0 0

5555.56 12387.14 0.04

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1986-12-18

Weather

Zones:

NHZ003-

004-005-

006 Central

and

Southweste

rn

No historic data on extent

Heavy Snow

0 0 0

7142.86 15926.31 0.05

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1987-01-02 Statewide

No historic data on extent Nor'easter

0 0 0

50000 107558.64 0.33

SHELDUS

164

Winter

Weather

1987-01-10

- 1987-01-

11 Statewide

No historic data on extent Heavy Snow

0 0 0

50000 107558.64 0.33

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1987-01-15

Weather

Zones:

NHZ006

Southern

Interior

No historic data on extent

Black Ice

Fatalities:

0.25

0 0 0

1250 2688.97 0.01

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1987-01-18

Weather

Zones:

NHZ006-007

Southeast

No historic data on extent

Snow and

Freezing

Rain

0 0 0

12500 26889.66 0.08

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1987-01-19

- 1987-01-

20

Weather

Zones:

NHZ002-

003-004-

005-006

Central and

Southern

No historic data on extent

Heavy Snow

0 0 0

500 1075.59 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1987-01-22

- 1987-01-

23 Statewide

No historic data on extent Nor'easter

0 0 0

50000 107558.64 0.33

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1987-01-30

- 1987-01-

31 Statewide

No historic data on extent Nor'easter

50000 107558.64 0.33

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1987-03-01

- 1987-03-

02

Weather

Zones:

NHZ005-

No historic

Mixed

Precipitatio

n

0 0 0

1000 2151.17 0.01

SHELDUS

165

006-007

Southern

New

Hampshire

data on extent

Injuries: 0.2

Winter

Weather 1987-03-08

Weather

Zones:

NHZ005

Monadnock

No historic data on extent Icy Roads

0 0 0

2500 5377.93 0.02

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1987-04-28

- 1987-04-

29

Weather

Zones:

NHZ001-

002-003-

004-005-

006

No historic data on extent

Heavy Snow

0 0 0

50000 107558.64 0.33

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm/

Winter

Weather 1988-01-04

Southern

NH

No historic data on extent Severe

Storm-Snow

0 0 0

10000 20657.08 0.06

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm/

Winter

Weather

1988-01-08

- 1988-01-

09

Central and

South NH

No historic data on extent Severe

Storm-Snow

0 0 0

5555.56 11476.16 0.03

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm/

Winter

Weather 1988-01-13 Statewide

No historic data on extent Severe

Storm-Snow

0 0 0

5000 10328.54 0.03

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun 1988-01-18 Statewide

No historic

Severe

Storm-

0 0 0 5000 10328.54 0.03

SHELDUS

166

der Storm/

Winter

Weather

data on extent

Ice/Sleet

Injuries: 0.4

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm/

Winter

Weather

1988-01-25

- 1988-01-

26

Weather

Zones: NH

001/ 002/

003/ 004/

005/ 006

No historic data on extent Severe

Storm-Snow

0 0 0

5000 10328.54 0.03

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm/

Winter

Weather 1988-02-04 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Severe

Storm-Snow

Fatalities: 1

Injuries: 0.6

0 0 0

50000 103285.39 0.31

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm/

Winter

Weather 1988-02-12 Statewide

No historic data on extent

Severe

Storm-Snow

Injuries:

0.22

0 0 0

50000 103285.39 0.31

SHELDUS

Severe

Storm/Thun

der Storm/

Winter

Weather 1988-03-04

Southern

NH

No historic data on extent

Severe

Storm-Snow

Injuries: 1

0 0 0

83333.33 172142.3 0.52

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1988-12-13

Weather

Zones:

NHZ006

Southern

Interior

No historic data on extent

Ice Storm

Injuries:

0.25

0 0 0

1250 2582.13 0.01

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 1988-12-27

Weather

Zones:

NHZ006

No historic

Ice Storm

Injuries:

0.25

0 0 0

125 258.21 0

SHELDUS

167

Southern

Interior

data on extent

Winter

Weather 1989-01-12

Weather

Zones:

NHZ004-

005-006

Central and

Southeast

New

Hampshire

No historic data on extent Light

Freezing

Rain

Injuries:

0.88

0 0 0

625 1231.72 0

SHELDUS

Wind -

Winter

Weather 1989-11-21

All of New

Hampshire

No historic data on extent

High Winds/

Heavy Snow

Injuries 1.5

0 0 0

500 985.38 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1989-12-02

- 1989-12-

03

Weather

Zones:

NHZ001-

002-003-

004-005-

006

No historic data on extent

Heavy Snow

0 0 0

500 985.38 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1990-01-21

- 1990-01-

22

Peterborou

gh

No historic data on extent Heavy Snow

0 0 0

5000 9348.63 0.03

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1990-01-21

- 1990-01-

22 Statewide

No historic data on extent Heavy Snow

0 0 0

500 934.86 0

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

1990-01-29

- 1990-01-

30 Statewide

No historic

Heavy Snow

0 0 0

500 934.86 0

SHELDUS

168

data on extent

Winter

Weather

1990-02-03

- 1990-02-

04 Statewide

No historic data on extent Heavy snow

0 0 0

5000 9348.63 0.03

SHELDUS

Severe

Winter

Weather

03/03-

06/1991

Southern

New

Hampshire

No historic data on extent

Major

power

outages

from Ice

Storm

NH HMP 2018

BLIZZARDS,

HIGH

WINDS &

RECORD

SNOWFALL

1993-03-13

- 1993-03-

17

Hillsboroug

h County

No historic data on extent

FEMA

Declaration

#3101

FEMA Declarations Database

Severe Winter Weather

1996-12-07

Hillsborough County

14 inches of snow

Damage to power lines forces closure of businesses. HEAVY SNOW Fatalities: 1

0 0 0

750000 1168132.05 3.31

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Severe Winter Weather

January 7-10, 1998

Hillsborough County Weather Zones:

No historic data on extent.

$12,446,202 in total damages,

0 0 0

500000 749611.12 2.07

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

169

NHZ011>012

1 death and 6 injuries in NH. $17,000,000 in damages to PSNH equipment. FEMA Disaster Declaration #1199. 20 major road closures; 67,586 without power; 2,310 without phone service; 1 communication tower failure. Ice Storm 1998 - Northeast SEVERE ICE STORM, RAINS

, FEMA Declarations Database

170

AND HIGH WINDS

Severe Winter Weather

January 23-24, 1998

Hillsborough County Weather Zones: NHZ012

No historic data on extent.

FEMA Disaster Declaration #1199. Primary impact to road network. SEVERE ICE STORM, RAINS AND HIGH WINDS

0 0 0

10000 14992.22 0.04

Hollis HMP 2018, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

Winter

Weather

2001-03-05

- 2001-03-

07

Hillsboroug

h County

Weather

Zones:

NHZ011>01

2

No historic data on extent.

FEMA

Disaster

Declaration

#3166

Heavy Snow

0 0 0

2500000 3449650.26 8.89

SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

Winter

Weather

2001-03-09

- 2001-03-

10

Weather

Zones:

NHZ011>01

2

No historic data on extent. Heavy Snow

0 0 0

250000 344965.03 0.89

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

2001-03-30

- 2001-03-

31

Weather

Zones:

NHZ011>01

2

No historic data on extent. Heavy Snow

0 0 0

100000 137986.01 0.36

SHELDUS

171

Winter

Weather

2002-11-16

- 2002-11-

17

Weather

Zones:

NHZ011>01

2

No historic data on extent. Ice Storm

0 0 0

75000 101878.78 0.26

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

2002-12-25

- 2002-12-

26

Weather

Zones:

NHZ011>01

2

No historic data on extent.

Winter

Storm

0 0 0

7000 9508.69 0.02

SHELDUS

Severe

Winter

Weather

2003-02-17

- 2003-02-

18

Hillsboroug

h County

No historic data on extent.

FEMA

Disaster

Declaration

#3177

Snow

$3 Million in

Damages,

numerous

power

outages

FEMA Declarations Database, NH HMP 2018

Severe

Winter

Weather

2003-12-06

- 2003-12-

07

Hillsboroug

h County

No historic data on extent.

FEMA

Disaster

Declaration

#3193

$3.2 Million

in Damages,

numerous

power

outages

Snow

FEMA Declarations Database, NH HMP 2018

Severe

Winter

Weather

2005-01-22

- 2005-01-

23

Hillsboroug

h County

No historic

FEMA

Disaster

Declaration

FEMA Declarations

172

data on extent.

#3207

RECORD

AND/OR

NEAR

RECORD

SNOW

$4.6 Million

in Damages,

numerous

power

outages

Database, NH HMP 2018

Severe

Winter

Weather

2005-03-11

- 2005-03-

12

Hillsboroug

h County

No historic data on extent.

$4.6 Million

in Damages,

numerous

power

outages

FEMA

Disaster

Declaration

#3211

RECORD

SNOW

FEMA Declarations Database, NH HMP 2018

Winter

Weather 2006-02-12

Weather

Zones:

NHZ012

No historic data on extent.

Winter

Storm

0 0 0

10000 12121.69 0.03

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 2007-01-15

Weather

Zones:

NH011>012

-015

No historic data on extent. Ice Storm

0 0 0

62500 73662.48 0.18

SHELDUS

173

Winter

Weather 2007-03-02

Weather

Zones:

NHZ015

No historic data on extent.

Winter

Storm

0 0 0

10000 11786 0.03

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

2007-04-04

- 2007-04-

05

Weather

Zones:

NHZ012-015

No historic data on extent.

Winter

Storm

0 0 0

35000 41250.99 0.1

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 2007-04-15

Weather

Zones:

NHZ011-015

No historic data on extent. Heavy Snow

0 0 0

10000 11786 0.03

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 2008-01-14

Weather

Zones:

NH011-015

No historic data on extent. Heavy Snow

0 0 0

5000 5675.1 0.01

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 2008-02-13

Weather

Zones:

NH011-015

No historic data on extent. Ice Storm

0 0 0

10000 11350.2 0.03

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather

2008-02-26

- 2008-02-

27

Weather

Zones:

NH011-015

No historic data on extent. Heavy snow

0 0 0

22500 25537.95 0.06

SHELDUS

Winter

Weather 2008-03-28

Weather

Zones:

NH015

No historic data on extent. Heavy Snow

0 0 0

3000 3405.06 0.01

SHELDUS

Severe Winter Weather

December 11-23, 2008

Hillsborough County Weather Zones:

No historic data on extent.

$10,383,602 in FEMA public

0 0 0

18000000

20430361.1

5 50.56

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

174

NHZ011-015

assistance in NH; $6.35 per capita in Hillsborough County. $299,661.63 in damage in Nashua. FEMA Disaster Declaration #1812&3297 Damage to power and phone lines and trees. Ice Storm

, FEMA Declarations Database

Winter Weather

2009-12-09

Weather Zones: NHZ011-015

No historic data on extent.

Heavy Snow

0 0 0

7500 8543.04 0.02

SHELDUS

Severe Winter Weather

February 23-March 3, 2010

Hillsborough County

Snow followed by rainfall

$6,268,179 in FEMA public

0 0 0

8000 8965.52 0.02

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

175

between 2-6 inches. Winds over 70 mph.

assistance in NH; $3.68 per capita in Hillsborough County. $161,387 in damage in Nashua. FEMA Disaster Declaration #1892 Damage to power and phone lines, trees, and road network. Over 330,000 customers without power state-wide. Heavy Snow

, FEMA Declarations Database

176

Winter Weather

2010-05-01 - 2010-05-31

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent.

Derecho Crop Indemnity Payment: $6429 Crop Indemnity Payment (ADJ): $7204.92 Crop Indemnity Payment Per Capita: $0.02

SHELDUS

Winter Weather

2010-12-26 - 2010-12-27

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent.

Winter Storm

0 0 0

25000 28017.26 0.07

SHELDUS

Severe Winter Weather

October 29-30, 2011

Entire jurisdiction

15-20 inches of snow.

$3,052,769 in FEMA public assistance in NH; $5.11 per capita in Hillsborough

0 0 0

50000 54319.89 0.14

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

177

County. $862,836.14 in damage in Nashua. FEMA Disaster Declaration #4049 & #3340 Damage to power and phone lines, trees, and road network. Heavy Snow

Winter Weather

2011-10-29 - 2011-10-30

Hillsborough County

15-20 inches of snow.

$3,052,769 in FEMA public assistance in NH; $5.11 per capita in Hillsborough County. $862,836.14 in

0 0 0

50000 54319.89 0.14

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

178

damage in Nashua. FEMA Disaster Declaration #4049 & #3340 Damage to power and phone lines, trees, and road network. Heavy Snow

Winter Weather

2012-03-01 - 2012-03-31

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent.

Freeze Crop Indemnity Payment: $18147 Crop Indemnity Payment (ADJ): $19315.14 Crop Indemnity

SHELDUS

179

Payment Per Capita: $0.05

Winter Weather

2012-04-01 - 2012-04-30

Hillsborough

No historic data on extent.

Derecho Crop Indemnity Payment: $18746 Crop Indemnity Payment (ADJ): $19952.7 Crop Indemnity Payment Per Capita: $0.05

SHELDUS

Severe Winter Weather

February 8-10, 2013

Entire jurisdiction

Snowfall totals of 12-18 inches across region, up to 30 inches in parts of NH. Winds

FEMA Disaster Declaration #4105 SEVERE WINTER STORM AND SNOWSTORM

Hollis HMP 2018, FEMA Disaster Declarations

180

10-20 mph with gusts up to 40 mph. Visibility less than ¼ mile.

Severe Winter Weather

01/02-03/2014

Statewide

The storm brought 6 to 14 inches of snow across much of the state

Unknown impacts

NH HMP 2018

Severe Winter Weather

2/5/2014 Statewide

Six to twelve inches of snow fell across eastern Hillsborough County.

Low pressure moving off the mid-Atlantic coast intensified as it moved northeastward over Nantucket. This spread heavy

NH HMP 2018

181

snow across all of southern New England.

Winter Weather

2014-04-01 - 2014-04-30

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent.

Derecho Crop Indemnity Payment: $11266 Crop Indemnity Payment (ADJ): $11629.45 Crop Indemnity Payment Per Capita: $0.03

SHELDUS

Winter Weather

2014-11-26 - 2014-11-27

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent.

Heavy Snow

0 0 0

10000 10322.61 0.03

SHELDUS

Winter Weather

2014-11-26 - 2014-11-27

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent.

Heavy Snow

0 0 0

10000 10322.61 0.03

SHELDUS

182

Winter Weather

2014-11-26

Merrimack/ Nashua

No historic data on extent.

Heavy Snow

0 0 0

15000 15483.91 0.04

SHELDUS

Severe Winter Weather

January 26-28, 2015

Entire jurisdiction

Snowfall totals of 18-24 inches across region. Winds 35 mph. Visibility 0.

$3,293,059 in FEMA public assistance in NH; $3.88 per capita in Hillsborough County. FEMA Disaster Declaration DR-4209. SEVERE WINTER STORM AND SNOWSTORM

Hollis HMP 2018, FEMA Declarations Database

Severe Winter Weather

2/14/2015

Statewide

Snowfall amounts ranged from 6 to 12 inches across much of the area

The two lows brought a moderate to heavy snow

NH HMP 2018

183

across the southern half of the state and near blizzard conditions along the coast.

Winter Weather

2016-04-01 - 2016-04-30

Hillsborough County

No historic data on extent.

Derecho Crop Indemnity Payment: $12282 Crop Indemnity Payment (ADJ): $12282 Crop Indemnity Payment Per Capita: $0.03

SHELDUS

Severe Winter Weather

12/29/2016

Statewide

Much of New Hampshire

Inland from the coast and across

NH HMP 2018

184

received between 6 and 16 inches of snow with lesser amounts along the Connecticut River Valley

southern areas, the rain changed to a heavy, wet snow which clung to trees and wires which resulted in scattered power outages. More than 11,000 homes and businesses saw outages due to the storm.

Severe Winter Weather

2/9/2017 Statewide

No historic data on extent.

An area of low pressure off the Delmarva Peninsula

NH HMP 2018

185

on the morning of the 9th intensified rapidly as it moved northeast through the Gulf of Maine during the day. The low brought heavy snow to all but Grafton and Coos Counties.

Severe Winter Weather

3/14/2017

Statewide

High winds and/or heavy wet snow downed trees and created numerous power outages across

The storm brought heavy snow to all of New Hampshire with high winds leading

NH HMP 2018

186

southeastern portions of the State. Snowfall amounts across New Hampshire ranged from about 12 to 20 inches.

to blizzard or near blizzard conditions across much of central and southern portions of the State. Much of the snow in any given area fell during about a six-hour window with weather spotters reporting snowfall rates of 2 to 3 inches per hour. Wind gusts in Manches

187

ter were 40 mph.

Severe Winter Weather

1/4/2018 Statewide

The storm brought 10 to 15 inches of snow to much of New Hampshire

The intense low brought heavy snow and high winds to much of the region.

NH HMP 2018

Severe Winter Weather

3/1-9/2018

Statewide

No historic data on extent.

Snow NH HMP 2018

Severe Winter Weather

March 13-14, 2017

Statewide

18 inches of snow.

No FEMA disaster declaration for Hillsborough County. Primary impact to road network.

Hudson HMP 2018, NH HMP 2018

Hazard Type

Date Hazard Location within

Hazard Extent

Impact Crop Damage

Crop Damage Adjusted

Crop Damage

Property Damage

Property Damage Adjusted

Property Damage

Source

188

Jurisdiction

Per Capita

Per Capita

Solar Storms and Space Weather

Solar Storms and Space Weather

There have been no solar weather events to impact Nashua to date.

Solar Storms and Space Weather

1989 Canada Geomagnetic storm

Major power blackout.

Nashua HMP 2013

Hazard Type

Date Hazard Location within Jurisdiction

Hazard Extent

Impact Crop Damage

Crop Damage Adjusted

Crop Damage Per Capita

Property Damage

Property Damage Adjusted

Property Damage Per Capita

Source

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Great Hurricane of 1938

Hillsborough County

No data on extent available

$12,337,643 total damages (not adjusted for inflation), 13 deaths

Nashua HMP 2013

189

and 494 injuries in NH. Damage to road network and structures caused by flooding. Many acres of downed trees and flooding in Nashua.

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

August 31, 1954 (Carol)

Hillsborough County

Saffir-Simpson Scale Category 3.

Extensive tree and crop damage.

Nashua HMP 2013

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

September 12, 1960 (Donna)

Hillsborough County

Saffir-Simpson Scale Category 3

Water damage to structures due to flooding. 5000 41279.26

0.23

5000 41279.26 0.23

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

1971-08-27 - 1971-08-28 (Doria)

Hillsborough County

No data on extent available

500 3016.95 0.01 5000 30169.53 0.13

SHELDUS

190

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

1976-08-09 (Belle)

Hillsborough County

No data on extent available

50 214.74 0 500 2147.39 0.01

SHELDUS

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

September 27, 1985 (Gloria)

Hillsborough County

Saffir-Simpson Scale Category 2

Damage to trees and power lines from high winds. Injuries: 1 200000 454225.32 1.48 50000 113556.33 0.37

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

August 18-20, 1991 (Bob)

Hillsborough County

Saffir-Simpson Scale Category 1

FEMA Disaster Declaration #917. Damage to structures, trees, and power lines from high winds.

0 0 0

50000 89711.17 0.27

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

September 16-18, 1999 (Floyd)

Hillsborough County

Tropical Storm (winds 39-73 mph)

Primary impact to trees, infrastructure, and

Nashua HMP 2013

191

road network.

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

August 28, 2011 (Irene)

Hillsborough County

Tropical Storm (winds 39-73 mph).

$21,428.88 in damages in Nashua. FEMA Disaster Declaration #3333. Damage to trees and power lines from high winds. Flash floods.

0 0 0

15000 16295.97 0.04

Nashua HMP 2013, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

October 26-31, 2012 (Sandy)

Hillsborough County

Tropical Storm (winds 39-73 mph).

FEMA Disaster Declaration #4095. Minimal damage. Injuries: 0.5 Wind

53000 56411.67 0.14

Hollis HMP 2018, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

192

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

2012-10-29

Hillsborough County

Tropical Storm (winds 39-73 mph).

FEMA Disaster Declaration #4095. Minimal damage. Wind

109600 116655.08 0.29

Hollis HMP 2018, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

2012-10-29

Hillsborough County

Tropical Storm (winds 39-73 mph).

FEMA Disaster Declaration #4095. Minimal damage. Wind

109600 116655.08 0.29

Hollis HMP 2018, SHELDUS, FEMA Declarations Database

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

October 29-30, 2017

Hillsborough County

Tropical Storm (winds 39-73 mph).

No FEMA Disaster Declaration for Hillsborough County. A powerful storm fed by tropical moisture knocked out power to more than

Hollis HMP 2018

193

270,000 homes and business across the state. Eversource reported around 190,000 customers were without power at its peak, ranking it as 1 of its top 5 largest outages in NH. The storm affected 330 roads in NH — 230 local and 100 state. In addition to the wind, 2.8

194

inches of rain fell in Nashua. There were more than 430 closings around the state. Nashua Fire Rescue responded to more than 100 calls in 12-hour period beginning at 8 p.m. Oct. 29. Falling trees severely damaged many homes and electrical infrastruc

195

ture. On Nov. 28 Governor Sununu, requested assistance for Belknap, Carroll, Coos, Grafton, and Sullivan counties.

Hazard Type

Date Hazard Location within Jurisdiction

Hazard Extent

Impact Crop Damage

Crop Damage Adjusted

Crop Damage Per Capita

Property Damage

Property Damage Adjusted

Property Damage Per Capita

Source

Wildfire

Wildfire There have been no documented wildfire events to impact Nashua to date.

196

Section 3.3 Probability of Future Hazard Events

After documenting the occurrence of previous hazard events in the City of Nashua and the surrounding region, the Resilient Nashua Initiative

stakeholders used this information to calculate the annual probability of these events occurring in the future. The first step was to determine

how many times a particular hazard had occurred in a given number of years. The year range is based upon the most detailed database being

used for the assessment. Because of this, there may be a number of significant hazard event outliers, (primarily before 1960) that are not

included in the probability calculation due to limited historical data. The number of occurrences was then divided by the number of years to

determine the average number of events per year. For example, if history shows that a particular hazard typically occurs 1 time every 4 years,

the average number of events per year is 0.25. Average number of events per year was calculated twice for each hazard. First, the average

number of events per year was calculated since the first recorded historic occurrence of the event. Second, the average number of events per

year was calculated based on occurrences since 2000 (up to 2016) to reflect potential recent changes in hazard event occurrence rates. Finally,

the estimated probability of one or more hazard events in any year was calculated using the Poisson Distribution

(https://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~mbognar/applets/pois.html). For the Poisson Distribution, λ is the average number of events per year

and X is 1 (the number of years to be evaluated for probability). Our calculation looked at the greater to or equal likelihood of occurrence. The

probability of future hazard events for each hazard type in the City of Nashua is outlined in Table 4.

Table 4—Probability of Future Hazard Events

Hazard Type Probability of Future Event Source

Inland Flooding 40 Inland Flooding events from 1960 to 2016 (56 years) 40 events in 56 years = .71 events per year Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 51% 20 Inland Flooding events from 2000 to 2016 (16 years) 20 events in 16 years = 1.25 events per year

NOAA NCEI Storm Events Database https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/ FEMA Presidential Disaster Declaration https://www.fema.gov/disasters/grid/year SHELDUS

197

Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 71%

Drought 11 Drought events from 1960 to 2016 (56 Years) 11 events in 56 years = .20 events per year Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 18% 9 Drought events from 2000-2016 (16 years) 9 events in 16 years = .56 events per year Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 43%

NH DES Current Drought Conditions http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/ water/dam/drought/droughtconditions.htm US Drought Monitor http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home.as Px SHELDUS

Earthquake 37 Earthquake events from 1638 to 2016 (378 Years) 37 events in 378 years = .10 events per year Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 10% 10 Earthquake events from 2000-2016 (16 years) 10 events in 16 years = .62 events per year Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 46%

US Geological Survey http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/ search/

Extreme Temperatures 51 Extreme Temperature events from 2000-2017 (17 Years)

NOAA National Climatic Data Center https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdoweb/search

198

51 events in 17 years = 3.00 events per year Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 95% 46 Extreme Temperature events from 2000-2016 (16 years) 46 events in 16 years = 2.87 events per year Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 94%

High Wind Events 20 High Wind events from 1960 - 2016 (56 Years) 20 events in 56 years = .36 events per year Estimated probability of one or more events in any year 30% 0 High Wind events from 2000-2016 (16 years) 0 events in 16 years = .00 Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 0%

NOAA NCEI Storm Events Database https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/ FEMA Presidential Disaster Declaration https://www.fema.gov/disasters/grid/year SHELDUS

Infectious Diseases 7 Infectious Disease events from 1918 -2018 (100 Years) 7 events in 100 years = .07 events per year

NH Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018

199

Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 7% 6 Infectious Disease Events from 2000-2016 (16 years) 6 events in 16 years = .37 Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 31%

Landslide 1 Landslide event from 1960 -2016 (56 years) 1 event in 56 years = .02 events per year Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 2% 1 Landslide event from 2000 -2016 (16 years) 1 event in 16 years = .06 events per year Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 6%

SHELDUS

Lightning 100 Lightning events from 1960 - 2016 (56 years) 100 events in 56 years = 1.79 events per year Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 83%

NOAA NCEI Storm Events Database https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/ SHELDUS

200

18 Lightning events from 2000-2016 (16 years) 18 events in 16 years = 1.12 Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 67%

Severe Winter Weather 226 Severe Winter Weather events from 1960-2016 (56 Years) 226 events in 56 years = 4.04 events per year Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 98% 38 Severe Winter Weather events from 2000-2016 (16 years) 38 events in 16 years = 2.37 Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 91%

NOAA NCEI Storm Events Database https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/ FEMA Presidential Disaster Declaration https://www.fema.gov/disasters/grid/year SHELDUS

Solar Storms and Space Weather Because of limited data on previous solar weather events, probability cannot be calculated statistically. History shows no occurrences of solar weather impacts in Nashua. However, this hazard is still possible and therefore, the probability is low. Low probability is defined as 0-25% chance of occurrence annually.

FEMA Mitigation Planning Workshop (Unit 3).

201

Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 0-25%

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones 10 Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclone events from 1960 - 2016 (56 years) 10 events in 56 years = .18 Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 17% 4 Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclone events from 2000 - 2016 (16 years) 4 events in 16 years = .25 Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 22%

NOAA NCEI Storm Events Database https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/ National Hurricane Center http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/index.php?season=2014&basin=atl FEMA Presidential Disaster Declaration https://www.fema.gov/disasters/grid/year

Wildfire Because of limited data on previous wildfire events, probability cannot be calculated statistically. History shows no occurrences of wildfire impacts in Nashua. However, this hazard is still possible and therefore, the probability is low. Low probability is defined as 0-25% chance of occurrence annually. Estimated probability of one or more events in any year = 0-25%

FEMA Mitigation Planning Workshop (Unit 3).

202

Section 3.3.1 Climate Change

Climate change in southern New Hampshire will impact the environment, ecosystem services, economy, public health, and quality of life.

According to a 2014 study “Climate Change in Southern New Hampshire” by the Sustainability Institute at the University of NH, southern NH is

expected to become warmer and wetter over the next century with more extreme precipitation events. This weather pattern puts significant

stress on the region’s already aging water infrastructure. Furthermore, climate change is likely to cause a number of public health impacts on

NH’s most vulnerable residents, including heat stress; flood related deaths and injuries; respiratory and cardiovascular illness, including asthma;

allergies; vector, food, and water-borne disease; chronic disease; and mental health and stress-related disorders. Despite efforts taking place to

slow the rate of climate change, some level of change is inevitable. Therefore, municipalities must make sound decisions to help their

communities adapt to a new climate normal. While not a hazard event, climate change is projected to amplify many of the hazards identified

above. The “Climate Change in Southern New Hampshire” report provides projections for increased hazard activity.

The frequency of short term drought (1-3 months) in New Hampshire is predicted to increase 2-3 times in the long term (2070-2099) under the

higher emissions scenario. The state will experience a more significant increase in medium-term drought (3-6 months) during this period. Short

and medium term droughts are primarily caused by evapotranspiration as a result of hotter summers. The frequency of long-term drought (6

plus months) does not change significantly in the future under the low or high emissions scenario compared to past long-term drought events in

New Hampshire (Wake et al., “Climate Change in Southern New Hampshire,” pg. 30-31).

Annual average precipitation is predicted to increase 17-20% in southern New Hampshire by the end of the century under both the low and high

emissions scenarios. Larger increases in precipitation are expected in the winter and spring, while summer and fall will only experience slight

increases (Wake et al., “Climate Change in Southern New Hampshire,” pg. 29). Southern New Hampshire can also expect more extreme

precipitation events, defined as those where more than 1 inch of rain falls within 24 hours or more than 2-4 inches falls in 48 hours. Under both

low and high emissions scenarios, the frequency of extreme precipitation events in predicted to more than double by the end of the century

(Wake et al., “Climate Change in Southern New Hampshire,” pg. 29).

Temperatures in southern New Hampshire will continue to rise under a lower or higher future emissions scenario. In the short-term (2010-

2039), average annual temperatures are predicted to increase by approximately 2F. Under a higher emissions scenario, long-term (2070-2099)

average annual temperatures are predicted to increase by 8 to 9F. If a lower emissions scenario is achieved, long-term average annual

temperatures are predicted to increase by 4F (Wake et al., “Climate Change in Southern New Hampshire,” pg. 23). The region is also predicted to

experience more extreme heat events. From 1970-1999, southern New Hampshire had an average of seven days above 90F each year. In the

long-term under a higher emissions scenario, southern New Hampshire is predicted to have over 54 days per year above 90F. Under a lower

203

emissions scenario, the region is predicted to have 23 days per year above 90F in the long-term (Wake et al., “Climate Change in Southern New

Hampshire,” pg. 25).

Section 3.4 Critical Facilities and their Vulnerability

The next step in determining the City’s overall vulnerability was to inventory Nashua’s community assets and determine what assets would be

affected by each type of hazard event. The Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders began by reviewing the City of Nashua Land Use Code to

provide information on where and how the City builds and to identify the corridors where critical facilities would likely be located. The

stakeholders then identified the broad categories of important assets within the City, including critical facilities essential to health and welfare;

vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly; economic assets and major employers; areas of high-density residential and

commercial development; and historic, cultural, and natural resources. The stakeholders then further divided the City’s critical facilities into the

following categories:

● Healthcare

● Fire

● Police

● Emergency Operations

● Schools

● Dams

● Highway Bridges

● Railway Bridges

● Railway Facilities

● Bus Facilities

● Airport Facilities

204

● Airport Runway

● Potable Water Facilities

● Waste Water Facilities

● Natural Gas Facilities

● Electric Power Facilities

● Communication Facilities

● Hazardous Materials Facilities

● Other Government Owned Facilities

The critical facilities within each category appear in the Tables 5A-5S below. Each table includes the critical facility’s name, address, locational

vulnerability to hazards, and content vulnerability.

Table 5A—Healthcare

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards Content Vulnerability

GATEWAYS CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES / GATEWAYS COMMUNITY SERVICES 144 CANAL STREET 42.763939 -71.456408 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

HUNT COMMUNITY 10 ALLDS STREET 42.750407 -71.458986 All Hazards Elderly population present

CONCENTRA URGENT CARE - NASHUA 14A BROAD STREET 42.769344 -71.481555 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS-PROSPECT ST 22 PROSPECT STREET 42.757151 -71.458891 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

205

HARBOR HOMES INC 3 WINTER STREET 42.764081 -71.470408 All Hazards Contents valuable to public health

DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND COMM. SERV 18 MULBERRY STREET 42.756293 -71.465204 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

COMFORT ANGELS HOME HEALTH OF NH LLC

1 CHESTNUT ST STE 337 42.759617 -71.47046 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

HARBOR HOMES III INC 156 CHESTNUT ST 42.750202 -71.464289 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

HARBOR CARE HEALTH & WELLNESS CTR-PEGGY & DAVID GILMOUR RESPITE CENTER / QUEST DIAGNOSTICS-HIGH ST / CONNECTIONS HLTH CRE FOR THE HMLSS CLINIC/HARBOR 45 HIGH ST 42.760831 -71.467448 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

NASHUA DIALYSIS 38 TYLER STREET, SUITE 100 42.757687 -71.460489 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

TECH MED INC 106 WEST HOLLIS STREET 42.754954 -71.473574 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS-300 MAIN STREET 300 MAIN STREET 42.753142 -71.458815 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

GREENBRIAR HEALTHCARE 55 HARRIS RD 42.732606 -71.473979

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Elderly population present

ST JOSEPH HOSPITAL 172 KINSLEY ST 42.749397 -71.480312 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

ST JOSEPH HOSPITAL 172 KINSLEY ST 42.749209 -71.479438 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population

206

present

ST JOSEPH HOSPITAL 172 KINSLEY ST 42.748256 -71.480175 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

ST JOSEPH HOSPITAL 172 KINSLEY ST 42.749899 -71.479118 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

LIVABILITY HOME HEALTH 12 HAYDEN STREET 42.73889 -71.461527 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

HEALTHY AT HOME, INC.

77 NORTHEASTERN BLVD 42.737114 -71.48573

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Contents valuable to public health

VISITING ANGELS 11 NORTHEASTERN BLVD. STE 320 42.733063 -71.477819 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

LIGHT OF PEACE HEALTH CARE SERVICES LLC 1 ECHO AVE 42.731015 -71.504289 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

LIFE COPING INC 159 MAIN DUNSTABLE RD STE 207 42.746239 -71.490419 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

SJH LAB DRAWING STATION OF AMHERST ST. / METABOLIC SOLUTIONS / ADULT DAY CARE OF NASHUA 460 AMHERST STREET 42.789584 -71.519255 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

NASHUA EYE SURGERY CENTER 5 COLISEUM AVENUE 42.765148 -71.498521

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

KEYSTONE HALL 615 AMHERST STREET 42.802315 -71.538584 All Hazards Contents valuable to public health

HEAVEN SENT HOME CARE, LLC

169 DANIEL WEBSTER HWY 42.720858 -71.443839 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

207

GLOBAL ADULT DAY CARE HEALTH CENTER

472 AMHERST ST UNIT 19 & 20 42.790086 -71.520298 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

IMMEDIATE CARE OF SOUTHERN NH / SOUTHERN NH MEDICAL CENTER-NW BLVD / NORTHEAST REHAB. HOSP. @ SNHMC, WEST 29 NORTHWEST BLVD 42.800195 -71.546153

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

HARBOR AVENUE RESIDENCE 62 HARBOR AVENUE 42.754147 -71.45673 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

HEALTH STOP, INC 228 DANIEL WEBSTER HWY 42.711833 -71.441947 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

SNHMC-MAIN ST 280 MAIN ST 42.754902 -71.461989 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

COURVILLE AT NASHUA 22 HUNT ST 42.747464 -71.469729 All Hazards

Elderly population present

MERRILL SENIOR SERVICES LLC

8 BICENTENNIAL DRIVE 42.715021 -71.471971 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

AYNSLEY PLACE 80 LAKE STREET 42.748152 -71.469427 All Hazards Elderly population present

FRESENIUS KIDNEY CARE OF NASHUA 20 COTTON RD 42.783905 -71.509755 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

LANGDON PLACE OF NASHUA, A SR LIVING COM

319 EAST DUNSTABLE ROAD 42.71126 -71.471044 All Hazards

Elderly population present

SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE MEDICAL CENTER 8 PROSPECT STREET 42.756421 -71.46208 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

208

SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE MEDICAL CENTER / THE SURGERY CENTER OF GREATER NASHUA / LAMPREY HEALTH CARE 10 PROSPECT ST 42.756718 -71.460779 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

MINUTECLINIC DIAGNOSTIC OF NH LLC (#1003)

214 DANIEL WEBSTER HIGHWAY 42.713943 -71.441873 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

BENCHMARK SENIOR LIVING AT NASHUA CROSSINGS 674 WEST HOLLIS ST 42.740084 -71.514227 All Hazards

Elderly population present

THE HUNTINGTON AT NASHUA 55 KENT LANE 42.712307 -71.464053 All Hazards

Elderly population present

DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK NASHUA ENDOSCOPY CTR / DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK NASHUA LAB

2300 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE 42.785205 -71.498056 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

NASHUA AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER LLC 15 RIVERSIDE STREET 42.748873 -71.496479 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

SNHMC - PROSPECT ST 17 PROSPECT STREET 42.756363 -71.458215 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

SO NH MEDICAL CENTER-SPIT BROOK RD / IMMEDIATE CARE OF SO NH-NASHUA 112 SPIT BROOK ROAD 42.708621 -71.458543 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

209

CONVENIENTMD URGENT CARE-NASHUA 565 AMHERST ST 42.798808 -71.532399 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

BRIDGES BY EPOCH AT NASHUA 575 AMHERST ST 42.800433 -71.532622 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

BELL TOWER HOME HEALTH CARE 3 Pine Street Ext 42.758769 -71.473767 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

QUIBIN STUDENT HEALTH SERVICES 430 MAIN STREET 42.738747 -71.455638 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

LAMPREY HEALTH CARE AT HEALTHY CONNECTIONS 7 PROSPECT STREET 42.755741 -71.461153 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

CPTE NASHUA INC 522 AMHERST STREET 42.794925 -71.527779 All Hazards Contents valuable to public health

SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY

505 WEST HOLLIS STREET, SUITE 104 42.746759 -71.500551 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE MEDICAL CENTER 19 TYLER STREET 42.75705 -71.461205 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health

SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE MEDICAL CENTER

21 EAST HOLLIS STREET 42.758035 -71.461742 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE MEDICAL CENTER 5 PROSPECT STREET 42.755518 -71.461827 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE MEDICAL CENTER 268 MAIN STREET 42.755208 -71.462472 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

ST JOSEPH HOSPITAL 265 LAKE ST 42.747757 -71.480199 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population

210

present

ST JOSEPH HOSPITAL 261 LAKE ST 42.748238 -71.479234 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

ST JOSEPH HOSPITAL 251 LAKE ST 42.748007 -71.478555 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

ST JOSEPH HOSPITAL 168 KINSLEY ST 42.750068 -71.480012 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

ST JOSEPH HOSPITAL 166 KINSLEY ST 42.750385 -71.479344 All Hazards

Contents valuable to public health, large staff and population present

Table 5B—Fire

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards Content Vulnerability

Nashua Fire Rescue Engine 2 177 Lake Street 42.748228 -71.475274 All Hazards

Contents and staff valuable to emergency management

Nashua Fire Rescue Engine 1 15 Amherst Street 42.766345 -71.469855 All Hazards

Contents and staff valuable to emergency management

Nashua Fire Rescue Engine 4 70 East Hollis Street 42.759844 -71.455443 All Hazards

Contents and staff valuable to emergency

211

management

Nashua Fire Dispatch 38 Lake Street 42.751356 -71.465472 All Hazards

Contents and staff valuable to emergency management

Nashua Fire Rescue Engine 6 2 Conant Road 42.734818 -71.500391 All Hazards

Contents and staff valuable to emergency management

Nashua Fire Rescue Engine 3 124 Spit Brook Road 42.708503 -71.461416 All Hazards

Contents and staff valuable to emergency management

Nashua Fire Rescue Engine 5 101 Pine Hill Road 42.775386 -71.508858

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Contents and staff valuable to emergency management

AMR Ambulance Station 380 W Hollis Street 42.749272 -71.490151 All Hazards

Contents and staff valuable to emergency management

Table 5C—Police

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards Content Vulnerability

Nashua Police Headquarters 0 Panther Dr 42.747604 -71.498854 All Hazards

Contents and staff valuable to emergency management

Nashua Police Garage 0 Panther Dr 42.747847 -71.498247 All Hazards

Contents and staff valuable to emergency

212

management

Nashua Police Substation 11 Railroad Sq 42.764553 -71.465834 All Hazards

Contents and staff valuable to emergency management

Nashua Police Training Building 82 Pine St 42.758191 -71.473585 All Hazards

Contents and staff valuable to emergency management

Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office 19 Temple St 42.76144 -71.464345 All Hazards

Contents and staff valuable to emergency management

Table 5D—Emergency Operations

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards Content Vulnerability

Nashua Police Headquarters/EOC 0 Panther Dr 42.747604 -71.498854 All Hazards

Contents and staff valuable to emergency management

Table 5E—Schools

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards Content Vulnerability

Nashua High School North 8 TITAN WAY 42.750626 -71.511746 All Hazards

Potentially large population present; shelter

213

Birch Hill Elementary School/Adult Learning Center 17 BIRCH HILL DR 42.766163 -71.513314 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Broad Street Elementary School/Adult Learning Center 390 BROAD ST 42.757964 -71.513062 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Charlotte Ave Elementary School/Adult Learning Center 48 CHARLOTTE AVE 42.774426 -71.482675 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Mt. Pleasant School 10 MANCHESTER ST 42.768377 -71.468672 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Elm Street Middle School 117 ELM ST 42.75295936 -71.464596 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Ledge Street School/Adult Learning Center 139 LEDGE ST 42.755281 -71.484014 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Fairgrounds Middle School 27 CLEVELAND ST 42.742836 -71.476145 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Fairgrounds Elementary School/Adult Learning Center 37 BLANCHARD ST 42.745075 -71.477522 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Sunset Heights School/Adult Learning Center 15 OSGOOD RD 42.73469 -71.443965 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

New Searles School/Adult Learning Center 39 SHADY LANE 42.724658 -71.482013 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Nashua High School South/Purple Panthers Preschool 36 RIVERSIDE ST 42.753402 -71.495737 All Hazards

Potentially large population present; shelter

214

Nashua Christian Academy 55 FRANKLIN ST 42.763159 -71.471122 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

St. Christopher School 20 CUSHING AVE 42.772226 -71.47244 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Nashua Catholic Regional Jr. High 6 BARTLETT AVE 42.776884 -71.467113 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Infant Jesus School 3 CROWN STREET 42.759546 -71.451946 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Nashua Title I Preschool 1 Concord Street 42.765765 -71.466426 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Academy for Science and Design Charter School 486 Amherst Street 42.790493 -71.52384 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Bicentennial Elementary School/Adult Learning Center 296 E DUNSTABLE RD 42.71373 -71.472209 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

World Academy 138 SPIT BROOK RD 42.709133 -71.463666 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Main Dunstable School/Adult Learning Center 20 WHITFORD RD 42.718871 -71.511002 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Bishop Guertin High School 194 LUND RD 42.738403 -71.474799 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Amherst Street School/Adult Learning Center 71 AMHERST ST 42.768952 -71.475362 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Dr. Norman W. Crisp School/Adult Learning Center 50 ARLINGTON ST 42.75702 -71.447029 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Christian Bible Church Academy

205 MANCHESTER STREET 42.78355 -71.477812 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Nashua Children's Home 125 AMHERST ST 42.771927 -71.48216 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

215

Pennichuck Middle School 207 MANCHESTER ST 42.78515 -71.478002 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

2nd Nature Academy/Nature of Things/Nature's Pathways At The Nature of Things 10 GROTON ROAD 42.702517 -71.517917 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

2nd Nature Academy/Nature of Things/Nature's Pathways At The Nature of Things 8 GROTON ROAD 42.702666 -71.518317 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

2nd Nature Academy/Nature of Things/Nature's Pathways At The Nature of Things 6 GROTON ROAD 42.703017 -71.518132 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Clearway High School/Adult Learning Center 40 Arlington Street 42.756227 -71.446884 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

MicroSociety Academy Charter School of Southern NH 591 West Hollis Street 42.744118 -71.506779 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Rivier University 410 South Main Street 42.739389 -71.458168 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Rivier University 424 South Main Street 42.739011 -71.456634 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Rivier University 426 South Main Street 42.738668 -71.456296 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Rivier University 430 South Main Street 42.738747 -71.455638 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Rivier University 30 Clement Street 42.739633 -71.456779 All Hazards Potentially large population present

216

Rivier University 16 Clement Street 42.739511 -71.455958 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Rivier University 4 Clement Street 42.739026 -71.455207 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Rivier University 2 Clement Street 42.738581 -71.454928 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Rivier University 436 South Main Street 42.738378 -71.454056 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Rivier University 438 South Main Street 42.738713 -71.453739 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Rivier University 440 South Main Street 42.738161 -71.452484 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Rivier University 435 South Main Street 42.737692 -71.455198 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Rivier University 429 South Main Street 42.737696 -71.45596 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Rivier University 427 South Main Street 42.737416 -71.456674 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Rivier University 427 South Main Street 42.737397 -71.456459 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Rivier University 15 Clement Street 42.739687 -71.454749 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Rivier University/The Landry Early Childhood Center @ Rivier University 29 Clement Street 42.740806 -71.455339 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Rivier University 29B Clement Street 42.741677 -71.454679 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Rivier University 35 Orchard Ave 42.742418 -71.455046 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Rivier University 2 Robinson Rd 42.737096 -71.457936 All Hazards Potentially large population present

217

St. Joseph School of Nursing 5 Woodward Avenue 42.750121 -71.478398 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Nashua Community College 505 Amherst Street 42.795109 -71.523956 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Hellenic American University 436 Amherst Street

42.788366 -71.515450 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Southern New Hampshire University 79 Perimeter Road 42.780075 -71.51597 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Southern New Hampshire University 85 Perimeter Road 42.780201 -71.517504 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Southern New Hampshire University 546 Amherst Street 42.79663 -71.530319 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

The Thomas More College of Liberal Arts 90 Concord Street 42.776796 -71.466116 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Adult Learning Center 4 Lake Street 42.752297 -71.462262 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Almost Angels Preschool 275 Broad Street 42.763129 -71.504685 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Chapel School 3 Lutheran Drive 42.759569 -71.514602 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Child Life Child Care Center 5 Norwood Street 42.765738 -71.498557

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Potentially large population present

Creative Years Child Development And Learning Center 30 Broad Street 42.769141 -71.485543 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Girls Incorporated 27 Burke Street 42.750692 -71.452387 All Hazards Potentially large population present

The Goddard School 8 Townsend West 42.787324 -71.518503 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Granite Start Early Learning Center 4 Merrit Parkway 42.716832 -71.504174 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Humpty Dumpty Learning Center 22 Lovewell Street 42.751281 -71.470685 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

218

Boys & Girls Club of Greater Nashua 1 Positive Place 42.756726 -71.482755 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

KinderCare Learning Center 3 Holiday Circle 42.733547 -71.47523 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Little Pilgrim School 4 Watson Street 42.77601 -71.488194 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Marguerite's Place 87 Palm Street 42.754606 -71.46989 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Minds In Motion 317 - 319 West Hollis Street 42.750924 -71.486637 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Nashua Child Learning Center 5 Saint Laurent Street 42.777649 -71.488824 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Nashua YMCA 24 Stadium Drive 42.746949 -71.504917 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Southern NH Services - Early Head Start - Nashua 88 Temple Street 42.762151 -71.459041 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Southern NH Services - 11th Street Head Start 24 Eleventh Street 42.753467 -71.483264 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Southern NH Services - Bronstein Head Start 41 Central Street 42.758536 -71.471011 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Southern NH Services - Child Development Center 134 Allds Street 42.758369 -71.454518 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

The Launching Pad by Basic Beginnings

53 Northeastern Boulevard 42.735597 -71.482969 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Children's Winter Garden with White Wing School 58 Lowell Street 42.764787 -71.463361 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Wise Owl Preschool 14 Kingston Drive 42.745554 -71.484352 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Little Sprouts 1 Tara Boulevard 42.708453 -71.454869 All Hazards Potentially large

219

population present

Ware To Grow 8 Dixville Street 42.764595 -71.509919 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Donna's Little Delights Family Child Care 75 Conant Road 42.725087 -71.49578 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Gail Fulton's Family Child Care 22 Nightingale Road 42.729096 -71.483045 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Happy Hearts 12 Cushing Avenue 42.771672 -71.47239 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Little Treasures 71 Dublin Avenue 42.771402 -71.509357 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Luv Bugs Forever 11 Jennifer Drive 42.734927 -71.499197 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Mena's Child Care 4 Derry Street 42.764084 -71.509006 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Ronnie's Child Care 31 East Pearl Street 42.761266 -71.461734 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Yeni Day Care 136 Kinsley Street 42.751269 -71.477108 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Charlotte Street Early Education and Care 1 Charlotte Street 42.774249 -71.484909 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Lissa's Mini Blossom's Childcare 59 Blossom Street 42.752003 -71.473951 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Olga's Family Daycare 32 Wilder Street 42.753211 -71.470727 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Nashua Children's Home - Concord Street 86 Concord Street 42.775931 -71.466101 All Hazards

Potentially large population present

Nashua School District 38 Riverside Street 42.755278 -71.496923 All Hazards Potentially large population present

Nashua School District 141 Ledge Street 42.754912 -71.485364 All Hazards Potentially large population present

220

Table 5F—Dams

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards Content Vulnerability

HOLT POND DAM N/A 42.800667 -71.515924 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

BOWERS DAM N/A 42.800084 -71.494013 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

HARRIS POND DAM N/A 42.792547 -71.479315 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

SALMON BROOK I DAM N/A 42.751478 -71.461332

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

SALMON BROOK DAM N/A 42.750239 -71.443535 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

NASHUA CANAL DAM N/A 42.759838 -71.473387 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

NASHUA CANAL DIKE N/A 42.749743 -71.504877 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

MINE FALLS DAM N/A 42.750232 -71.505347 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

JACKSON MILLS DAM N/A 42.763680 -71.463911 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

SUPPLY POND DAM N/A 42.791528 -71.474713 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

SALMON BROOK III DAM N/A 42.747825 -71.450685

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

SPIT BROOK I DAM N/A 42.715491 -71.444202 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

ICE POND N/A 42.734100 -71.439700 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

COBURN WOODS POND II DAM N/A 42.768300 -71.518000

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

221

BAE SYSTEMS FIRE POND DAM N/A 42.705479 -71.448295

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

RETENTION POND DAM N/A 42.740500 -71.488000

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

RETENTION POND DAM N/A 42.725000 -71.493600

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

RETENTION POND DAM N/A 42.743800 -71.488800

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

SKY MEADOW DAM N/A 42.703313 -71.477153 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

DARO DAM II N/A 42.733300 -71.513000 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

DARO DAM I N/A 42.732200 -71.514400 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

SECURITY HOMES DAM N/A 42.702485 -71.457939

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

MCLAUGHLIN DAM N/A 42.717700 -71.471100 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

LONG HILL ESTATES DET POND 2 N/A 42.732700 -71.456300

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

HOLDEN FARMS DEVELOPMENT DAM N/A 42.767700 -71.521700

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

MONAHAN DETENTION POND DAM N/A 42.730800 -71.468800

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

SPIT BROOK III DAM N/A 42.712530 -71.466652 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

CARRIAGE HOUSE COMMONS DET POND N/A 42.713600 -71.491100

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

MERRIMACK RIVER RIGHT BANK FDR N/A 42.764837 -71.445072

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control

222

Table 5G—Highway Bridges

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards Content Vulnerability

Hudson 109/068 N/A 42.76375278 -71.44353 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Hudson 110/068 N/A 42.76321944 -71.44353 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Merrimack 062/043 N/A 42.80420278 -71.54326 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Merrimack 089/038 N/A 42.80043889 -71.51587 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Merrimack 093/039 N/A 42.80242778 -71.51296 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Merrimack 106/042 N/A 42.80464722 -71.49897 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Merrimack 107/042 N/A 42.80464722 -71.49878 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Merrimack 120/026 N/A 42.79376111 -71.48486 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Merrimack 135/024 N/A 42.79347778 -71.47074 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 096/153 N/A 42.79112222 -71.49607 All Hazards; Within 1% Floodplain

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

223

Nashua 097/121 N/A 42.76895 -71.49355 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 097/152 N/A 42.78981944 -71.49572 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 100/112 N/A 42.76081667 -71.49353 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 100/118 N/A 42.76391944 -71.49365 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 100/135 N/A 42.77679444 -71.49308 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 101/112 N/A 42.76100833 -71.49313 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 101/118 N/A 42.76409167 -71.49338 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 101/127 N/A 42.77269167 -71.49313 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 102/090 N/A 42.74681389 -71.49251 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 104/035 N/A 42.70671944 -71.48922 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 111/045 N/A 42.71376944 -71.48248 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 115/120 N/A 42.76699722 -71.47726 All Hazards Structure valuable to

224

motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 116/056 N/A 42.72237778 -71.47682 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 118/118 N/A 42.76472222 -71.47476 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 119/115 N/A 42.76224444 -71.47328 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 121/071 N/A 42.73176389 -71.47237 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 122/073 N/A 42.73323889 -71.47206 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 123/073 N/A 42.73305833 -71.47045 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 123/076 N/A 42.73530556 -71.47099 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 126/112 N/A 42.76132778 -71.46791 All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 127/115 N/A 42.7635 -71.46656 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 132/098 N/A 42.75158056 -71.46106 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 134/073 N/A 42.73505278 -71.45820 All Hazards Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel

225

and safety

Nashua 137/076 N/A 42.73642778 -71.45657 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 137/095 N/A 42.74965556 -71.45709 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 139/115 N/A 42.76368889 -71.45473 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 143/049 N/A 42.7174 -71.45120 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 144/057 N/A 42.72295833 -71.45025 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 145/037 N/A 42.708 -71.45088 All Hazards; Within 1% Floodplain

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 145/056 N/A 42.72192222 -71.44979 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 145/057 N/A 42.72247222 -71.44955 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 146/037 N/A 42.70804167 -71.45059 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 146/050 N/A 42.71883889 -71.44834 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 147/037 N/A 42.70810556 -71.45021 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

226

Nashua 149/056 N/A 42.72161111 -71.44639 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 151/056 N/A 42.72261944 -71.44393 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 151/057 N/A 42.72287222 -71.44415 All Hazards

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 157/058 N/A 42.72395278 -71.43828 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Nashua 157/059 N/A 42.72427222 -71.43832 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to motor vehicle travel and safety

Table 5H—Railway Bridges

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards Content Vulnerability

Nashua 101/129 N/A 42.773330 -71.493330 All Hazards

Structure valuable to rail travel and safety

Rail Bridge N/A 42.800106 -71.549017 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to rail travel and safety

Rail Bridge N/A 42.762970 -71.459367 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to rail travel and safety

Rail Bridge N/A 42.766050 -71.450838 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to rail travel and safety

227

Rail Bridge N/A 42.800058 -71.469259 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to rail travel and safety

Rail Bridge N/A 42.748794 -71.441831 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to rail travel and safety

Table 5I—Railway Facilities

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards Content Vulnerability

LAW WAREHOUSES, INC.-NASHUA-NH 27 Airport Road 42.781603 -71.506568 All Hazards

Structure valuable to rail travel and commerce

LAW WAREHOUSES, INC.-NASHUA-NH 30 Airport Road 42.77991300000 -71.50433300000 All Hazards

Structure valuable to rail travel and commerce

Rail Yard Crown St 42.75792100000 -71.44347800000

All Hazards; Within Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Structure valuable to rail travel and commerce

Table 5J—Bus Facilities

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards Content Vulnerability

Nashua Transit Center 30 Elm St 42.758403 -71.465432 All Hazards

Structure valuable to public transportation

Nashua Transit Garage 11 Riverside St 42.748839 -71.497516 All Hazards

Structure valuable to public transportation

Nashua Transit Office 9 - 11 Riverside St. 42.748694 -71.498074 All Hazards Structure valuable to public transportation

228

Nashua Exit 8 Transportation Center

37-71 N Southwood Dr. 42.790893 -71.503964 All Hazards

Structure valuable to public transportation

Table 5K—Airport Facilities

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards

Content Vulnerability

Control Tower 79 Perimeter Rd 42.780075 -71.51597 All Hazards Structure valuable to air travel and safety

Nashua Airport Authority Facility 93 Perimeter Rd 42.780345 -71.518443 All Hazards

Structure valuable to air travel and safety

Fuel Farm N/A 42.780804 -71.520165 All Hazards Structure valuable to air travel and safety

Hangar 97 Pine Hill Rd 42.776135 -71.507275 All Hazards Structure valuable to air travel and safety

Table 5L—Airport Runway

Name Address Longitude Latitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards

Content Vulnerability

Runway NH14/32 N/A 42.781759 -71.514774 All Hazards Structure valuable to air travel and safety

Table 5M—Potable Water Facilities

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards

Content Vulnerability

229

Pennichuck Water Tank 190 Concord Street 42.789587 -71.472597 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck WTP Garage 206 Concord Street 42.791412 -71.474584

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck WTP 200 Concord Street 42.791445 -71.472588 All Hazards; Within 1% Floodplain

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck WTP Garage 204 Concord Street 42.791412 -71.474584

All Hazards; Within 1% Floodplain

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck WTP Recycle Pumping Station 202 Concord Street 42.791395 -71.473409

All Hazards; Within 1% Floodplain

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Pumping Station

313 Main Dunstable Rd 42.736609 -71.500631

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Pumping Station 8 Timberline Dr 42.730363 -71.470227 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Water Tank 69 Kessler Farm Dr 42.794695 -71.506926 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Pumping Station 69 Kessler Farm Dr 42.794662 -71.507551 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Water Tank 39 Orchard Ave 42.741762 -71.453857 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Water Tank 39 Orchard Ave 42.740989 -71.453551 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

230

Pennichuck Pumping Station 39 Orchard Ave 42.742527 -71.454512 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Water Tank 2 Shakespeare Rd 42.722429 -71.462267 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Water Tank 2 Shakespeare Rd 42.722296 -71.461963 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Pumping Station 2 Shakespeare Rd 42.722205 -71.462122 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Well 37 Pilgrim Cir 42.780525 -71.542755 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck WTP 37 Pilgrim Cir 42.780525 -71.542755 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Water Tank 37 Pilgrim Cir 42.780525 -71.542755 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Pumping Station 689 South Main St 42.724658 -71.444946 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Pumping Station 120 Flagstone Dr 42.770158 -71.494287 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Pumping Station 449 Broad St 42.757113 -71.517929 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Pumping Station 24 Indian Rock Rd 42.777173 -71.518914 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

231

Pennichuck Pumping Station

383 East Dunstable Rd 42.708848 -71.467898 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Pumping Station 200 Innovative Way 42.714569 -71.459317 All Hazards

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Pennichuck Pumping Station 8 E St 42.762997 -71.447121

All Hazards; Within Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Structure valuable to potable water supply and fire suppression

Table 5N—Waste Water Facilities

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards

Content Vulnerability

NASHUA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY 2 SAWMILL ROAD 42.747611 -71.444146

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to public health and sanitation

NASHUA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY 2 SAWMILL ROAD 42.746454 -71.442764

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to public health and sanitation

NASHUA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY 2 SAWMILL ROAD 42.747647 -71.443381

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to public health and sanitation

NASHUA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY 2 SAWMILL ROAD 42.74793 -71.443714

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to public health and sanitation

NASHUA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY 2 SAWMILL ROAD 42.747241 -71.443304

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to public health and sanitation

MAURICE ST PS N/A 42.737855 -71.468497 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

232

ROY STREET PRIVATE PS N/A 42.739429 -71.467824 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

NATIONAL ST PS N/A 42.749783 -71.471871 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

FULTON ST PS N/A 42.750679 -71.462287 All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

SPALDING ST PS N/A 42.748807 -71.456232 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

GILLIS ST PS N/A 42.755459 -71.443415 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

1950 FLOOD PROTECTIVE WORKS N/A 42.763327 -71.444894 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

WATSON ST PS N/A 42.775104 -71.487841 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

PAXTON TERRACE PPS N/A 42.76584 -71.474484 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

HEATHWOOD MEADOWS PPS N/A 42.781774 -71.492233 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public

233

health, and sanitation.

WILLOW SPRINGS N/A 42.70428 -71.437195 All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

TRESTLE BROOK DR PS N/A 42.734586 -71.52307 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

NEWTON DR PS N/A 42.761113 -71.496556 All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

HARRIS PRESERVE PS N/A 42.790759 -71.484922 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

SANTERRE ST PS N/A 42.795003 -71.46576 All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

BLACKSTONE DR PS N/A 42.798181 -71.529776 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

PPS W/ LOCKING COVER N/A 42.802673 -71.509721 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

THOREAUS LANDING PPS N/A 42.77052 -71.453912

All Hazards; Within 1% Floodplain

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

234

NORTHGATE SEWERS CONT 4 PS N/A 42.746269 -71.515583

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

HOLLIS LANDING PPS N/A 42.741992 -71.517616 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

PHEASANT LANE MALL PPS N/A 42.703504 -71.436491

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

TIMBER RIDGE PPS N/A 42.733609 -71.531024 All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

ASHLEY PLACE PPS N/A 42.742545 -71.48729 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

KESSLER FARMS PPS N/A 42.80035 -71.507309 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

KESSLER FARMS PPS N/A 42.793816 -71.514298 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

BRITTANY PLACE PPS N/A 42.752045 -71.518546 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

HOLLIS CROSSING PPS N/A 42.744968 -71.523621

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to flood control, public

235

health, and sanitation.

MARSHALL ST 6FT DIA PS N/A 42.756233 -71.455933 All Hazards

Structure valuable to flood control, public health, and sanitation.

Screening and Disinfection Facility Mechanical Control Building 62 Bridge St 42.765014 -71.44726

All Hazards; Within Area of Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Structure valuable to public health and sanitation

Table 5O—Natural Gas Facilities

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards

Content Vulnerability

Regulator Station 38 Bridge St 42.764266 -71.450978

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Structure valuable to utility network

Propane Plant 25 Van Buren St 42.765048 -71.451223

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Structure valuable to utility network

Operations Office 25 Van Buren St 42.764995 -71.451531

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Structure valuable to utility network

Warehouse 25 Van Buren St 42.765025 -71.452267

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Concord St @ Pennichuck St 42.791764 -71.470366 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Concord St @ Pennichuck St 42.791782 -71.469588 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Hills Ferry Rd @ Concord St 42.78386 -71.467208 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

236

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Manchester St @ Ferry Rd 42.785329 -71.479848 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Manchester St @ Ferry Rd 42.785329 -71.479848 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Manchester St @ Beauview Ave 42.777065 -71.475247 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

E. Stark St @ Berkley St 42.773704 -71.463837 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Lock St @ Chandler St 42.767341 -71.457939 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Nashua Plant @ 38 Bridge St 42.764787 -71.452092

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Nashua Plant @ 38 Bridge St 42.764787 -71.452092

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Broad St @ Sullivan St 42.769922 -71.485925 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Broad St @ Sullivan St 42.769922 -71.485925 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure Palm St @ Central St 42.75794 -71.471316 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure E Hollis St @ Main St 42.758146 -71.463611 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Chestnut St @ Kinsley St 42.755004 -71.466809 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure Twelfth St @ Will St 42.752393 -71.48384 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure Burke St @ Allds St 42.750899 -71.454437 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Caldwell Rd @ Booth St 42.74661 -71.479398 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

237

Natural Gas Infrastructure

Caldwell Rd @ Booth St 42.74661 -71.479398 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure Nagle St @ Pine St 42.743784 -71.469359

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure

S. Main St @ Clement St 42.738093 -71.45403 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure Musket Dr 42.720035 -71.513556 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure Danforth Rd 42.706382 -71.444052 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Natural Gas Infrastructure Paxton Ter 42.766654 -71.475278 All Hazards

Structure valuable to

utility network

Table 5P—Electric Power Facilities

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards

Content Vulnerability

FOUR HILLS LANDFILL Methane

844 WEST HOLLIS STREET 42.731601 -71.520647 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Eversource Nashua Area Work Center 370 AMHERST ST 42.783153 -71.506798 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Jackson Mills Hydro Dam 1 Nashua Drive 42.763806 -71.463597

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control and utility network

Mine Falls Hydro Dam 19 Stadium Drive 42.750606 -71.504511

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to flood control and utility network

Wastewater Methane 2 Sawmill Road 42.747647 -71.443381

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to utility network

Eversource Blue Hill Substation 34 Pine Hill Road 42.772849 -71.494881 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

238

Eversource Bridge Street Substation 1 Jackson Square 42.764928 -71.45436

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Structure valuable to utility network

Eversource Broad Street Substation 311 Broad Street 42.762066 -71.507486 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Eversource Edgeville Substation 150 Burke Street 42.751686 -71.443708

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain and Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Structure valuable to utility network

Eversource Front Street Substation 8 Front Street 42.7628058 -71.4681051

All Hazards; Within 1% Floodplain

Structure valuable to utility network

Eversource Long Hill Substation

81 Daniel Webster Highway 42.732371 -71.4525 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

EversourceMillyard Substation

3 Pine Street Extension 42.76097 -71.475058 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Eversource Nowell Street Padmount Transformer Nowell Street 42.742897 -71.471193

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to utility network

Eversource Simon Street Substation 37 Simon Street 42.754824 -71.490809 All Hazards

Structure valuable to utility network

Table 5Q—Communication Facilities

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards

Content Vulnerability

WGHM 900 & WSMN 1590 Tower N/A 42.759474 -71.476578

All Hazards; Within Floodway

Structure valuable to communications and data

WEVS 88.3 & W212AF 90.3 Tower N/A 42.749209 -71.479438 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

239

WSMN 1590 & WGHM 900 Studio 196 MAIN ST 42.760076 -71.46465 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Citywide Communications Tower & Antenna N/A 42.723026 -71.460882 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Citywide Communications Antenna N/A 42.794543 -71.506855 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Consolidated Communications Controlled Environmental Vault N/A 42.708251 -71.453295 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Consolidated Communications Controlled Environmental Vault N/A 42.791792 -71.52307 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Consolidated Communications Controlled Environmental Vault N/A 42.7784 -71.498042 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Consolidated Communications Controlled Environmental Vault N/A 42.755372 -71.518069 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Consolidated Communications Controlled Environmental Vault N/A 42.72873 -71.481854 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Consolidated Communications Controlled Environmental Vault N/A 42.739218 -71.494387 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

240

Consolidated Communications Controlled Environmental Vault N/A 42.77437 -71.498912 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Consolidated Communications Controlled Environmental Vault N/A 42.72205 -71.475 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Consolidated Communications Controlled Environmental Vault N/A 42.731514 -71.470259 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Consolidated Communications Central Office

124 WEST PEARL STREET 42.759333 -71.46723 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Consolidated Communications Central Office 7 GRAHAM DRIVE 42.729967 -71.447114 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Comcast Head End 37 ORCHARD AVE 42.741391 -71.45342 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Nashua Community TV 9 - 11 Riverside St. 42.748694 -71.498074 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Sprint Cell Tower N/A 42.78667 -71.502079 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Sprint Cell Tower N/A 42.797732 -71.523391 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Sprint Cell Tower N/A 42.741241 -71.45384 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

241

Sprint Cell Tower/Citywide Communications Antenna N/A 42.728124 -71.510521 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

SBA Communications Cell Tower N/A 42.776395 -71.471969 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Sprint Cell Tower N/A 42.743377 -71.494397 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Omnipoint Communications Cell Tower N/A 42.76891 -71.473825 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Omnipoint Communications Cell Tower N/A 42.764007 -71.49223 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Omnipoint Communications Cell Tower N/A 42.7682583 -71.4736298 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

SBA Communications Cell Tower N/A 42.723853 -71.533514

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to communications and data

SBA Communications Cell Tower N/A 42.763776 -71.445736

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Structure valuable to communications and data

Crown Castle International Cell Tower N/A 42.709057 -71.486876 All Hazards

Structure valuable to communications and data

Table 5R—Hazardous Materials Facilities

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards

Content Vulnerability

242

Airgas USA, LLC - Nashua, NH 472 Amherst St 42.790086 -71.520298 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

AMAZON.COM.KYDC LLC - BOS1 10 State Street 42.792 -71.529528 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Amphenol Printed Circuits Inc.

91 Northeastern Boulevard 42.738162 -71.488517 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Amphenol -TCS 200 Innovative Way Suite 201 42.713771 -71.456887 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

AT&T Communications of New Hampshire - NASHNHHY

35 NORTHEASTERN BLVD 42.735554 -71.480678 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

BAE Systems - Information and Electronic Systems Integration Inc 65 Spit Brook Road 42.702169 -71.446329 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

BAE SYSTEMS-Information & Electronic Systems Integration 95 Canal Street 42.763676 -71.458353

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Beazer East, Inc. - Nashua Facility 2 Hills Ferry Road 42.788627 -71.460332

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Benchmark Electronics Inc.-NH Division 100 Innovative Way 42.713697 -71.458578 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

BJ's Wholesale Club (0039) 8 Sexton Avenue 42.728356 -71.450372 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

B-XII Nashua LLC d/b/a Benchmark Senior Living at Nashua Crossings

674 West Hollis Street 42.740084 -71.514227 All Hazards

Elderly population, hazardous materials

CIRCUIT CONNECT INC 4 STATE ST 42.793612 -71.526846 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Colt Refining Inc. 12 Simon Street 42.751508 -71.490234 All Hazards Industrial complex,

243

hazardous materials

Comcast of MA/NH, LLC-37 Orchard Ave. 37 Orchard Ave. 42.741391 -71.45342 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Costco Wholesale (0307)

311 DANIEL WEBSTER HWY. 42.7028 -71.442404 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Crane Currency 1 Cellu Drive 42.796705 -71.537684 All Hazards Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Dell 300 Innovative Way 42.714474 -71.455321 All Hazards Industrial complex, hazardous materials

EnergyNorth Propane Nashua NH Plant 50 Depot Road 42.707804 -71.539428 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

EnerSys 16 Celina Avenue 42.798951 -71.542754 All Hazards Industrial complex, hazardous materials

FAA BOSTON ARTCC 35 NORTHEASTERN BLVD 42.735554 -71.480678 All Hazards

Critical to air travel and safety, hazardous materials

Fairpoint NASHUA CO (FPT- NH916106) 7 Graham Drive 42.729967 -71.447114 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Fairpoint NASHUA CO (FPT- NH916512) 124 W Pearl Street 42.759333 -71.46723 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

First Student, Inc. #11774 153 Burke Street 42.750614 -71.442056

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

FNA Nashua Transflow 57 Crown Street 42.758064 -71.443118

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

General Dynamics Global Imaging Technologies 24 Simon Street 42.75376 -71.491794 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Greenerd Press & Machine Company, Inc. 41 Crown Street 42.760746 -71.445899

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

244

HARCROS CHEMICALS INC - NASHUA BRANCH 8 CAPITOL STREET 42.794083 -71.533746 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Infinity Aviation 117 Perimeter Rd 42.780866 -71.520248 All Hazards Industrial complex, hazardous materials

John J Flatley - Nashua Technology Park Innovative Way 42.713771 -71.456887 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Kloeckner Metals - Nashua

385 West Hollis Street

42.750298 -71.49174 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Law Logistics 27 Airport Road 42.781603 -71.506568 All Hazards Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Liberty Utilities-Nashua Propane Facility 38 Bridge St 42.765048 -71.451223

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Critical to utilities,Industrial complex, hazardous materials

LOWE'S OF S. NASHUA, NH (#2391)

143 DANIEL WEBSTER HIGHWAY 42.725855 -71.448316 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

MCI- NASFNH (VZB- NHNASFNH) 97 MAIN ST BSMT 42.76222 -71.466236

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

MCI- NASHNH (VZB- NHNASHNH)

TEMPLE ST,1 INDIAN HEAD PLZ 42.76202 -71.463015 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Oracle America, Inc. One Oracle Drive 42.710742 -71.460771 All Hazards Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Pennichuck Water Works, Inc. Water Treatment Facility, Nashua 200 Concord Street 42.791445 -71.472588

All Hazards; Within 1% Floodplain

Critical to potable water and fire suppression, Industrial complex, hazardous materials

POLYMER TECHNOLOGIES LLC 4 BUD WAY SUITE 14 42.776158 -71.499304 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

PSNH dba Eversource Energy Blue Hill 34 Pine Hill Road 42.772849 -71.494881 All Hazards

Critical to electrical utilities, Industrial complex,

245

Substation (Nashua 1)

hazardous materials

PSNH dba Eversource Energy Bridge Street Substation (Nashua 2) 1 Jackson Square 42.764928 -71.45436

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Critical to electrical utilities, Industrial complex, hazardous materials

PSNH dba Eversource Energy Broad Street Substation (Nashua 3) 311 Broad Street 42.762066 -71.507486 All Hazards

Critical to electrical utilities, Industrial complex, hazardous materials

PSNH dba Eversource Energy Edgeville Substation (Nashua 4) 150 Burke Street 42.751686 -71.443708

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain and Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Critical to electrical utilities, Industrial complex, hazardous materials

PSNH dba Eversource Energy Front Street Substation (Nashua 5) 8 Front Street 42.7628058 -71.4681051

All Hazards; Within 1% Floodplain

Critical to electrical utilities, Industrial complex, hazardous materials

PSNH dba Eversource Energy Green Brick Mill 100 Factory Street 42.760127 -71.470278 All Hazards

Critical to electrical utilities, Industrial complex, hazardous materials

PSNH dba Eversource Energy Long Hill Substation (Nashua 6)

81 Daniel Webster Highway 42.732371 -71.4525 All Hazards

Critical to electrical utilities, Industrial complex, hazardous materials

PSNH dba Eversource Energy Millyard Substation (Nashua 7)

3 Pine Street Extension 42.76097 -71.475058 All Hazards

Critical to electrical utilities, Industrial complex, hazardous materials

PSNH dba Eversource Energy Nashua Area Work Center 370 Amherst Street 42.783153 -71.506798 All Hazards

Critical to electrical utilities, Industrial complex,

246

hazardous materials

PSNH dba Eversource Energy Nowell Street Padmount Transformer Nowell Street 42.742897 -71.471193

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Critical to electrical utilities, Industrial complex, hazardous materials

PSNH dba Eversource Energy Pheasant Lane Mall

310 Daniel Webster Highway 42.701493 -71.437252

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Critical to electrical utilities, Industrial complex, hazardous materials

PSNH dba Eversource Energy Simon Street Substation (Nashua 9) 37 Simon Street 42.754824 -71.490809 All Hazards

Critical to electrical utilities, Industrial complex, hazardous materials

PSNH dba Eversource Energy St Joseph Hospital 172 Kinsley Street 42.749397 -71.480312 All Hazards

Critical to electrical utilities, Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Quality Insulation 110 Perimeter Rd 42.780325 -71.520742 All Hazards Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Rapid Machining Proto 22 Charron Ave 42.7768127 -71.500439 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Rapid Sheet Metal 104 Perimeter Rd 42.779252 -71.519585 All Hazards Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Rapid Sheet Metal LVP 15 Charron Ave 42.778251 -71.500774 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Resonetics 44 Simon Street 42.759568 -71.489461 All Hazards Industrial complex, hazardous materials

SimplexGrinnell Suppression 35 Progress Ave 42.739798 -71.489987 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Southern New Hampshire Medical Center 8 Prospect Street 42.756421 -71.46208 All Hazards

Hospital, critical to public health Industrial complex, hazardous materials

247

SP Richards Boston 4 Capitol St. 42.792921 -71.531203 All Hazards Industrial complex, hazardous materials

St Joseph Hospital 172 Kinsley Street 42.749397 -71.480312 All Hazards

Hospital, critical to public health hazardous materials

The Bronze Craft Corporation 37 Will Street 42.751857 -71.488831 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

THE HOME DEPOT STORE #3481

288 DANIEL WEBSTER HWY 42.705625 -71.438071

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

THE HOME DEPOT STORE #3484 12 COLISEUM DRIVE 42.762776 -71.496367

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

U.S. Postal Service Nashua LDC 10 Celina Ave 42.797884 -71.539514 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

UniFirst Corporation 044 8 Industrial Park Dr. 42.73487 -71.47816 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, NASHUA 3 WHIPPLE STREET 42.757809 -71.491572 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Windstream Nashua 5E EL Switch 145 Temple Street 42.761665 -71.452746 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Worthen Industries Inc., Upaco Division 3 Spit Brook Road 42.709727 -71.439302

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Worthen Industries, Inc. Nylco 34 Cellu Drive 42.795299 -71.535435 All Hazards

Industrial complex, hazardous materials

Table 5S—Other Government Owned Facilities

Name Address Latitude Longitude

Locational Vulnerability to Hazards

Content Vulnerability

City Hall 229 MAIN ST 42.758205 -71.464747 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

248

Cemetery Service Shop 101 KINSLEY ST 42.753057 -71.474151 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

Mortuary 101 KINSLEY ST 42.752785 -71.474768 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations and public health/sanitation

Parking Garage 15 HIGH ST 42.760869 -71.466851 All Hazards

Structure valuable to transportation and commerce

Cemetery Building DANIEL WEBSTER HWY 42.714394 -71.44324 All Hazards

Contents have historic and intrinsic value

Public Works Transit Building 9 & 11 RIVERSIDE ST 42.748603 -71.498365 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations, transportation, and commerce

Hunt Building 6 MAIN ST 42.765138 -71.467194 All Hazards

Contents have historic and intrinsic value

Warehouse 57 GILSON RD 42.7185 -71.523109 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

Cemetery Building 107 AMHERST ST 42.771706 -71.447281 All Hazards

Contents have historic and intrinsic value

Cemetery Building 107 AMHERST ST 42.771650 -71.477213 All Hazards

Contents have historic and intrinsic value

Senior Center 70 & 76 TEMPLE ST 42.762342 -71.459847 All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Contents have historic and intrinsic value

249

Mine Falls Park Building 10 WHIPPLE ST 42.762996 -71.49115 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

Garage 836 WEST HOLLIS ST 42.732882 -71.52378 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

MakeIt Labs and Future Train Station 25 CROWN ST 42.448826 -71.448826

All Hazards; Within Area With Reduced Risk Due to Levee

Structure valuable to transportation and commerce

Parking Garage 14 ELM ST 42.758931 -71.465784 All Hazards

Structure valuable to transportation and commerce

Solid Waste Office 840 WEST HOLLIS ST 42.732222 -71.52244 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations and public health/sanitation

Scalehouse 840 WEST HOLLIS ST 42.732532 -71.522385 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations and public health/sanitation

Future Public Works Garage 141-143 BURKE ST 42.749419 -71.44566 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

Future Public Works Office 141-143 BURKE ST 42.750167 -71.445719

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to government operations

Smokestack BROAD ST PKWY 42.76101 -71.473921 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

Street Department Garage

5,9,13,23 STADIUM DR 42.74866 -71.503103

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to government operations

250

Traffic Garage 5,9,13,23 STADIUM DR 42.748398 -71.504162

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to government operations

Salt Shed 5,9,13,23 STADIUM DR 42.748398 -71.504162

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to government operations

Stellos Stadium 5,9,13,23 STADIUM DR 42.747518 -71.505825

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to recreation and culture

Conway Arena 5,9,13,23 STADIUM DR 42.748701 -71.501826

All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to recreation and culture

Historic Gatehouse RIVERSIDE ST 42.749791 -71.504942 All Hazards; Within Floodway

Contents have historic and intrinsic value

Old Arlington Street Fire Station

36-38-50 ARLINGTON ST 42.757321 -71.448321 All Hazards

Contents have historic and intrinsic value

Arlington Street Community Center

36-38-50 ARLINGTON ST 42.757175 -71.448176 All Hazards

Contents have historic and intrinsic value

Public Pool Building MAJOR DR 42.750801 -71.452803 All Hazards

Structure valuable to recreation and culture

Theater 14 COURT ST 42.762401 -71.464327 All Hazards

Structure valuable to recreation and culture

Public Library 2 COURT ST 42.763194 -71.464419 All Hazards; Within 1% Floodplain

Structure valuable to recreation and culture

Holman Stadium 67 AMHERST ST 42.768641 -71.473909 All Hazards

Contents have historic and intrinsic value

251

Baseball Field Building 67 AMHERST ST 42.768708 -71.474635 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

Office Building CONCORD ST 42.782082 -71.464701 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

Future Performing Arts Center MAIN ST 42.759877 -71.465354 All Hazards

Structure valuable to recreation and culture

Housing Authority Office 40 EAST PEARL ST 42.760646 -71.462319 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

Housing Authority Office 101 MAJOR DR 42.750955 -71.449088 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

Spring Street Courthouse 30 SPRING ST 42.760232 -71.462793 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

National Guard Armory

154 DANIEL WEBSTER HWY 42.725619 -71.444924 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

Liquor Store 25 COLISEUM AVE 42.763919 -71.49889 All Hazards Structure valuable to commerce

NH DOT Garage 243 MAIN DUNSTABLE RD 42.744194 -71.495841 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

NH DMV 110 BROAD ST 42.767496 -71.491784 All Hazards; Within 1% Floodplain

Structure valuable to government operations

NH Employment Security 6 TOWNSEND WEST 42.787029 -71.517532 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

252

Register of Deeds 19 TEMPLE ST 42.76144 -71.464345 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations

FAA ARTCC 35 NORTHEASTERN BLVD 42.735554 -71.480678 All Hazards

Structure valuable to government operations and safe and efficient airline travel

FAA Warehouse 11 MURPHY DR 42.73809 -71.484677 All Hazards; Within .2% Floodplain

Structure valuable to government operations and safe and efficient airline travel

Post Office 38 SPRING ST 42.759258 -71.462091 All Hazards Structure valuable to natural resources

Fish Hatchery 151 BROAD ST 42.768185 -71.498037 All Hazards Structure valuable to natural resources

Fish Hatchery 151 BROAD ST 42.768297 -71.497491 All Hazards Structure valuable to natural resources

Fish Hatchery 151 BROAD ST 42.768865 -71.496917 All Hazards Structure valuable to natural resources

Fish Hatchery 151 BROAD ST 42.76907 -71.495685 All Hazards Structure valuable to natural resources

Fish Hatchery 151 BROAD ST 42.769273 -71.496402 All Hazards Structure valuable to natural resources

Fish Hatchery 151 BROAD ST 42.767703 -71.498011 All Hazards Structure valuable to natural resources

253

Section 3.5 Vulnerability by Hazard

Section 3.5.1 Inland Flooding

Localized flooding can result from even minor storms. Runoff overloads the drainage ways and flows into the streets and low-lying areas.

Sewers back up and yards are inundated. Homes and businesses are flooded, especially basements and the lower part of the first floors.

Localized flooding poses most of the same problems caused by larger floods, but because it typically has an impact on fewer people and affects

small areas, it tends to bring less State or Federal involvement such as funding, technical help, or disaster assistance. As a result, the community

and the affected residents or business owners are left to cope with the problems on their own. Finally, flooding of this type tends to recur; small

impacts accumulated over time can become major problems.

Riverine flooding involves the overflowing of the normal flood channels of rivers or streams, generally as a result of prolonged rainfall or rapid

thawing of snow cover. The lateral spread of floodwater is largely a function of the terrain, becoming greater in wide, flat areas, and affecting

narrower areas in steep terrain. In the latter cases, riparian hillsides in combination with steep declines in riverbed elevation often force waters

downstream rapidly, sometimes resulting in flash floods.

The City of Nashua developed along the Merrimack and Nashua Rivers as they provided the mills with a power and transportation source.

Residents congregated around the mills and many structures were built in the floodplains. Damage due to riverine flooding can be traced back

to 1936 when rain and run-off from melting snow overflowed the Merrimack River.

From 1973 through the present (2018) there have been 11 flood-related declared disasters by FEMA in Hillsborough County. The most recent

took place in March of 2010 and was officially declared on May 12, 2010. All special flood hazard areas (SFHAs) in the City of Nashua are

potentially at risk in the event of riverine flooding.

Inland Flooding Hazard Loss Estimate

Step 1. Determine percent building damage to a 1 or 2 story building with basement

● 1 foot flood depth = 15% building damage

● 2 foot flood depth = 20% building damage

● 3 foot flood depth = 23% building damage

● 4 foot flood depth = 28% building damage

● Source: FEMA Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, pg 4-13

254

Step 2. Determine percent of structures in Nashua that would be damaged by inland flooding

● 0.5% of structures estimated to be damaged by inland flooding

● Source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders

Step 3. Determine total assessed value of structures in Nashua

● Total Assessed Value of all Structures in Nashua = $8,157,586,696

● Source: Nashua Assessing Department/2018 Summary Inventory of Valuation MS-1

Step 4. Determine total loss from inland flooding

● Total Loss from Inland Flooding = Total Assessed Value of all Structures *Percentage of Structures Estimated to be Damaged * Percent

Building Damage Ratio

● Total Loss from 1 foot flood depth = $8,157,586,696 * .005 * .15 = $6,118,190.02

● Total Loss from 2 foot flood depth = $8,157,586,696 * .005 * .20 = $8,157,586.67

● Total Loss from 3 foot flood depth = $8,157,586,696 * .005 * .23 = $9,381,224.70

● Total Loss from 4 foot flood depth = $8,157,586,696 * .005 * .28 = $11,420,621.37

Total Assessed Value of all Structures in City of Nashua

% of structures estimated to be damaged by Inland Flooding

Resulting Loss from Inland Flooding Flooding

$8,157,586,696 0.5% 1 foot flood depth: $6,118,190.02 2 food flood depth: $8,157,586.67 3 foot flood depth: $9,381,224.70 4 foot flood depth: $11,420,621.37

Critical Facility Type Total Number of this type of Critical Facilities in City of Nashua

Number of this type of Critical Facilities in Inland Flooding Hazard Area

Percentage of this type of Critical Facilities in Inland Flooding Hazard Area*

Healthcare 61 4 6.56%

Fire 8 1 12.50%

Police 5 0 0%

255

Emergency Operations 1 0 0%

Schools 79 1 1.26%

Dams 29 29 100%

Highway Bridges 49 27 55.10%

Railway Bridges 6 5 83.33%

Railway Facilities 3 1 33.33%

Bus Facilities 5 0 0%

Airport Facilities 5 0 0%

Airport Runway 1 0 0%

Potable Water Facilities 25 6 24.00%

Waste Water Facilities 34 15 44.11%

Natural Gas Facilities 28 7 25.00%

Electric Power Facilities 14 7 50.00%

Communication Facilities 30 3 10.00%

Hazardous Materials Facilities

69 15 21.73%

Other Government Owned Facilities

53 12 22.64%

*While localized flash flooding can impact all of the structures in this table, the hazard area used in this calculation was determined to be the

floodway, 1%, 0.2%, and 0.2% protected by levee zones found in the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

Section 3.5.2 Drought

Hydrological drought is evidenced by extended periods of negative departures from normal rainfall. New Hampshire has been under several

drought warnings, including a drought emergency, since 1999. The most severe drought conditions occurred between 1960 and 1969; the event

had a greater than 25 year recurrence interval. The Southern New Hampshire region experienced a 100 year drought event from 1964 to 1965.

Southern New Hampshire also experienced a 50-year drought event beginning in May 2015 and lasting through April 2017. During that time,

Nashua experienced drought levels from USDA D0 (Abnormally Dry) to USDA D3 (Extreme Drought).

While a drought is not as devastating as some other hazards, low water levels can have a negative effect on existing and future home sites,

especially those which depend on groundwater for water needs. Additionally, the dry conditions of a drought may lead to an increased wildfire

risk. Drought can cause the most significant impact to agricultural land and assets.

256

Drought Hazard Loss Estimate

Because the impacts of drought are long lasting and wide ranging, it is beyond the scope of this Plan to estimate the dollar value of losses to the

City resulting from drought. Instead, the Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders estimated the percentage of land in the City vulnerable to

drought as a quantitative measure of this hazard’s impact.

Total Acres of Land in Nashua Total Acres of Agricultural Land in Nashua % of Land in Nashua Vulnerable to Drought

19,776 127.47 0.6%

Critical Facility Type Total Number of this type of Critical Facilities in City of Nashua

Number of this type of Critical Facilities in Drought Hazard Area

Percentage of this type of Critical Facilities in Drought Hazard Area

Healthcare 61 61 100%

Fire 8 8 100%

Police 5 5 100%

Emergency Operations 1 1 100%

Schools 79 79 100%

Dams 29 29 100%

Highway Bridges 49 49 100%

Railway Bridges 6 6 100%

Railway Facilities 3 3 100%

Bus Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Runway 1 1 100%

Potable Water Facilities 25 25 100%

Waste Water Facilities 34 34 100%

Natural Gas Facilities 28 28 100%

Electric Power Facilities 14 14 100%

Communication Facilities 30 30 100%

Hazardous Materials Facilities 69 69 100%

Other Government Owned Facilities

53 53 100%

257

Section 3.5.3 Earthquake

The Richter magnitude scale was developed by Charles F. Richter in 1935 as a way to compare the size of earthquakes. The magnitude of an

earthquake is calculated from the logarithm of the amplitude of waves recorded by seismographs.

● Magnitude <2.0—micro-earthquakes. Recorded by seismographs, but not felt or rarely felt by people. Several million occur annually

worldwide on average.

● Magnitude 2.0-2.9—felt slightly by some people. No damage to buildings. Over 1 million occur annually worldwide on average.

● Magnitude 3.0-3.9—often felt by people but very rarely cause damage. Shaking of indoor objects can be noticeable. Over 100,000 occur

annually worldwide on average.

● Magnitude 4.0-4.9—noticeable shaking of indoor objects and rattling noises. Felt by most people in the affected area. Generally causes

minimal to no damage. Moderate to significant damage is very unlikely. 10,000-15,000 occur annually worldwide on average.

● Magnitude 5.0-5.9—felt by everyone. Can cause damage of varying severity to poorly constructed buildings; slight to no damage to all

other buildings. Few, if any, casualties. 1,000-1,500 occur annually worldwide on average.

● Magnitude 6.0-6.9—felt up to hundreds of miles from the epicenter. Strong to violent shaking in epicenter. Damage to many buildings in

populated areas. Poorly designed structures have moderate to severe damage. Earthquake-resistant structures have slight to moderate

damage. Damage can be caused far from the epicenter. Death toll up to 25,000. 100-150 occur annually worldwide on average.

● Magnitude 7.0-7.9—felt in very large area. Damage to most buildings, including partial or complete collapse. Death toll up to 250,000.

10-20 occur annually worldwide on average.

● Magnitude 8.0-8.9—felt in extremely large region. Major damage to buildings over large areas. Structures likely destroyed. Moderate to

heavy damage to sturdy or earthquake-resistant buildings. Death toll up to 1 million. 1 occurs annually worldwide on average.

● Magnitude 9.0< —damage and shaking extends to distant locations. Near or total destruction. Severe damage and collapse to all

buildings. Permanent changes in ground topography. 1 occurs every 10-50 years worldwide on average.

Since 1940, there have been 14 earthquakes centered in NH with a magnitude of 3.0 or greater and only two earthquakes with a magnitude of

5.0 or greater. There have been no recorded earthquakes to-date centered in Nashua, however, one could occur.

In the State of New Hampshire, earthquakes are due to intraplate seismic activity, as opposed to interplate activity or shifting between tectonic

plates that occurs in California. The causes of intraplate earthquakes have yet to be scientifically proved. From 1728-1989 there were 270

earthquakes in New Hampshire. This averages to approximately one quake every year. The most recent quake at Magnitude 4.0 or above

occurred on October 16, 2012, near Hollis Center, Maine, with a magnitude of 4.0 on the Richter scale.

258

Earthquake Hazard Loss Estimate

Step 1. Determine potential earthquake strength in Nashua

● US Seismic Hazard, 2% in 50 years PGA is 0.2 to 0.3(g) in Nashua

● Source: USGS NH Seismic Map 2014

Step 2. Determine percent building damage ratio to single family residence from PGA (g) 0.25 earthquake

● Wood Frame Construction with Low general seismic design level = 4.6% building damage

● Source: FEMA Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, pg 4-17

Step 3. Determine percent of structures in Nashua that would be damaged by PGA (g) 0.25 earthquake

● 1-5% of structures estimated to be damaged by earthquake

● Source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders (no historical data on earthquake damage in Nashua)

Step 4. Determine total assessed value of structures in Nashua

● Total Assessed Value of all Structures in Nashua = $8,157,586,696

● Source: Nashua Assessing Department/2018 Summary Inventory of Valuation MS-1

Step 5. Determine total loss from PGA (g) 0.25 Earthquake

● Total Loss from Earthquake = Total Assessed Value of all Structures *Percentage of Structures Estimated to be Damaged * Percent

Building Damage Ratio

● Total Loss from Earthquake = $8,157,586,696 * .01 * .046 = $3,752,489.88

● Total Loss from Earthquake = $8,157,586,696 * .05 * .046 = $18,762,449.40

● $3,752,489.88 to $18,762,449.40

Total Assessed Value of all Structures in City of Nashua

% of structures estimated to be damaged by Earthquake

Resulting Loss from Earthquake

$8,157,586,696 1% to 5% $3,752,489.88 to $18,762,449.40

259

Critical Facility Type Total Number of this type of Critical Facilities in City of Nashua

Number of this type of Critical Facilities in Earthquake Hazard Area

Percentage of this type of Critical Facilities in Earthquake Hazard Area

Healthcare 61 61 100%

Fire 8 8 100%

Police 5 5 100%

Emergency Operations 1 1 100%

Schools 79 79 100%

Dams 29 29 100%

Highway Bridges 49 49 100%

Railway Bridges 6 6 100%

Railway Facilities 3 3 100%

Bus Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Runway 1 1 100%

Potable Water Facilities 25 25 100%

Waste Water Facilities 34 34 100%

Natural Gas Facilities 28 28 100%

Electric Power Facilities 14 14 100%

Communication Facilities 30 30 100%

Hazardous Materials Facilities 69 69 100%

Other Government Owned Facilities

53 53 100%

Section 3.5.4 Extreme Temperatures

Extreme temperatures can be broken into both extreme heat and extreme cold. Though the hazards are different, the effects would be similar

to the vulnerable populations of the City.

Extreme heat (heatwave) is defined as a period of three consecutive days during which the air temperature reaches 90 degrees Fahrenheit or

higher on each day. Extreme heat is an occasional and short-lived event in southern New Hampshire. A heatwave should not be confused with a

260

drought (extended periods of negative departures from normal rainfall). Overburdened power networks may also experience failures due to the

impacts of extreme heat.

Extreme cold is defined as a period of three consecutive days during which minimum air temperatures are at or below 0 degrees Fahrenheit.

With the rising costs of heating fuel and electric heat, many low-income or homeless citizens are not able to adequately heat their homes,

exposing themselves to cold related emergencies or death. Extremely cold winters can lead to shortages in heating fuels due to high demand.

Extreme Temperatures Hazard Loss Estimate

Because the impacts of extreme temperatures can result in the loss of life, it is beyond the scope of this Plan to estimate the dollar value of

losses to Nashua resulting from extreme temperatures. Though the entire Nashua population may experience a thermal emergency, populations

without adequate climate control are most at risk. Extreme temperatures are not likely to cause damage to structures, although pipes can burst

in extreme cold conditions.

Critical Facility Type Total Number of this type of Critical Facilities in City of Nashua

Number of this type of Critical Facilities in Extreme Temperature Hazard Area

Percentage of this type of Critical Facilities in Extreme Temperature Hazard Area

Healthcare 61 61 100%

Fire 8 8 100%

Police 5 5 100%

Emergency Operations 1 1 100%

Schools 79 79 100%

Dams 29 29 100%

Highway Bridges 49 49 100%

Railway Bridges 6 6 100%

Railway Facilities 3 3 100%

Bus Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Runway 1 1 100%

Potable Water Facilities 25 25 100%

Waste Water Facilities 34 34 100%

Natural Gas Facilities 28 28 100%

Electric Power Facilities 14 14 100%

261

Communication Facilities 30 30 100%

Hazardous Materials Facilities 69 69 100%

Other Government Owned Facilities

53 53 100%

Section 3.5.5 High Wind Events

A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground. The most violent tornadoes are capable of

tremendous destruction with wind speeds of 250 mph or more. Damage paths can be in excess of 1 mile wide and 50 miles long. Tornadoes

originate from hurricanes and thunderstorms and are created when cold air overrides warm air causing the warm air to rise rapidly.

A downburst is a severe localized wind blasting down from a thunderstorm. These straight line winds are distinguishable from tornadic activity

by the pattern of destruction and debris. Depending on the size and location of these events, the destruction to property may be devastating.

Downbursts fall into two categories. Microbursts cover an area less than 2.5 miles in diameter and macrobursts cover an area at least 2.5 miles

in diameter.

Hillsborough County has a higher risk of tornadic activity compared to the rest of the State. Between 1961 and 2018 there were 15 known

tornadoes in Hillsborough County. More recent downburst activity occurred on JuIy 6, 1999 in the form of a macroburst within central New

Hampshire, throughout Merrimack, Grafton, and Hillsborough Counties. There were two fatalities as well as two lost roofs; widespread power

outages; and downed trees, utility poles, and wires.

High Wind Events Hazard Loss Estimate

There are no standard loss estimation models or tables for tornados (Understanding Your Risks, FEMA, pg 4-27). As such, the Resilient Nashua

Initiative stakeholders used data from previous tornado events to determine damage estimates. Historically, the strongest tornado seen in

Hillsborough County was an F2, so loss estimates were calculated based on a tornado of that strength.

Step 1. Determine percent building damage ratio to single family residence from F2 tornado

● Wood Frame Construction, Low general tornado design level = 50% building damage

● Source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders

Step 2. Determine percent of structures in Nashua that would be damaged by F2 tornado

262

● 1% of structures estimated to be damaged by F2 tornado

● Source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders (no historical data on tornado damage in Nashua)

Step 3. Determine total assessed value of structures in Nashua

● Total Assessed Value of all Structures in Nashua = $8,157,586,696

● Source: Nashua Assessing Department/2018 Summary Inventory of Valuation MS-1

Step 4. Determine total loss from F2 Tornado

● Total Loss from High Wind Events = Total Assessed Value of all Structures *Percentage of Structures Estimated to be Damaged * Percent

Building Damage Ratio

● Total Loss from High Wind Events = $8,157,586,696 * .01 * .5 = $40,787,933.48

Total Assessed Value of all Structures in City of Nashua

% of structures estimated to be damaged by High Wind Events

Resulting Loss from High Wind Events

$8,157,586,696 1% $40,787,933.48

Critical Facility Type Total Number of this type of Critical Facilities in City of Nashua

Number of this type of Critical Facilities in High Wind Events Hazard Area

Percentage of this type of Critical Facilities in High Wind Events Hazard Area

Healthcare 61 61 100%

Fire 8 8 100%

Police 5 5 100%

Emergency Operations 1 1 100%

Schools 79 79 100%

Dams 29 29 100%

Highway Bridges 49 49 100%

Railway Bridges 6 6 100%

Railway Facilities 3 3 100%

Bus Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Runway 1 1 100%

263

Potable Water Facilities 25 25 100%

Waste Water Facilities 34 34 100%

Natural Gas Facilities 28 28 100%

Electric Power Facilities 14 14 100%

Communication Facilities 30 30 100%

Hazardous Materials Facilities 69 69 100%

Other Government Owned Facilities

53 53 100%

Section 3.5.6 Infectious Diseases

Infectious diseases are illnesses caused by organisms—such as bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasites. Many organisms live in and on our bodies.

They're normally harmless or even helpful, but under certain conditions, some organisms may cause disease. Some infectious diseases can be

passed from person to person, some are transmitted by bites from insects or animals, and others are acquired by ingesting contaminated food

or water or being exposed to organisms in the environment. Signs and symptoms vary depending on the organism causing the infection, but

often include fever and fatigue. Mild infections get better on their own without treatment, while some life-threatening infections may require

hospitalization.

According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the number of people with a disease that is usually present in a

community is referred to as the baseline or endemic level of the disease. This number of infections is not necessarily the desired level, which

may in fact be zero, but rather is the typical or normal number of people infected. In the absence of intervention and if the number of infections

is not high enough to deplete the pool of susceptible persons, the disease may continue to occur at this level indefinitely. Thus, the baseline level

is often regarded as the expected level of the disease. While some diseases are so rare in each population that a single case warrants an

epidemiologic investigation (e.g., rabies, plague, polio), there are other diseases that occur more commonly so that only deviations from the

norm (i.e. seeing more cases than expected) warrants investigation.

Epidemics occur when an agent (the organism) and susceptible hosts are present in adequate numbers, and the agent can be effectively

conveyed from a source to susceptible people. More specifically, an epidemic may result from:

● A recent increase in amount or virulence of the agent,

● The recent introduction of the agent into a setting where it has not been before,

● An enhanced mode of transmission so that more susceptible persons are exposed,

264

● A change in the susceptibility of people’s response to the agent, and/or

● Factors that increase exposure or involve introduction through new portals of entry.

Epidemics may be caused by infectious diseases, which can be transmitted through food, water, the environment or person-to-person or animal-

to-person, and noninfectious diseases, such as a chemical exposure, that causes increased rates of illness. Infectious diseases that may cause an

epidemic can be broadly categorized into the following groups:

● Foodborne (Salmonellosis, E. Coli)

● Water (Cholera, Giardiasis)

● Vaccine Preventable (Measles, Mumps)

● Sexually Transmitted (HIV, Syphilis)

● Person-to-Person (TB, meningitis)

● Arthropod borne (Lyme, West Nile Virus)

● Zoonotic (Rabies, Psittacosis)

● Opportunistic fungal and fungal infections (Candidiasis)

An epidemic may also result from a bioterrorist event in which an infectious agent is released into a susceptible population, often through an

enhanced mode of transmission, such as aerosolizing (inhalation of small infectious disease particles).

Regarding foodborne and waterborne outbreaks, the epidemic hazard involves the safety of the food supply. This food safety may be

jeopardized because of a fire, flood, hurricane, earthquake, or other natural, technological or human-caused disaster.

Due to lack of historical data, it is beyond the scope of this Plan to estimate losses to the City resulting from infectious diseases. More

information about risks from infectious diseases and associated prevention techniques can be found in the Greater Nashua Community Health

Improvement Plan.

Section 3.5.7 Landslide

A landslide is the downward or outward movement of earth materials on a slope that is reacting to a combination of the force of gravity and a

predisposed weakness in the material that allows the sliding process to initiate. The broad classification of landslides includes mudflows,

mudslides, debris flows, rockslides, debris avalanches, debris slides and earth flows. Landslides may be formed when a layer of soil atop a slope

becomes saturated by significant precipitation and slides along a more cohesive layer of soil or rock. Although gravity becomes the primary

reason for a landslide once a slope has become weak through a process such as the one just described, other causes can include:

265

● Erosion by rivers or the ocean that creates over-steepened slopes through erosion of the slope’s base. In the case of rivers, this can

occur as a result of flash flooding

● Rock and soil slopes are weakened through saturation by snowmelt or heavy rains

● Earthquake creates stress that makes weak slopes fail—earthquakes of 4.0 magnitude and greater have been known to trigger landslides

● Wildfires (loss of vegetation)

● Excess weight from accumulation of rain or snow, stockpiling of rock or ore, the formation of waste piles, or building of man-made

structures may stress weak slopes to the point of failure

Landslide Hazard Loss Estimate

There are no standard loss estimation models or tables for landslides (Understanding Your Risks, FEMA, pg 2-27). The best predictor of future

landslides is past landslides because they tend to occur in the same places. Landslides, like other geologic hazards, are very complex and require

someone with geologic expertise to conduct a geotechnical study.

Step 1. Determine percent building damage ratio to single family residence from landslide

● Wood Frame Construction, Low general landslide design level = 4.6% building damage

● Source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders

Step 2. Determine percent of structures in Nashua that would be damaged by landslide

● 0.5% of structures estimated to be damaged by landslide

● Source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders (no historical data on landslide damage in Nashua)

Step 3. Determine total assessed value of structures in Nashua

● Total Assessed Value of all Structures in Nashua = $8,157,586,696

● Source: Nashua Assessing Department/2018 Summary Inventory of Valuation MS-1

Step 4. Determine total loss from landslide

● Total Loss from Landslide= Total Assessed Value of all Structures *Percentage of Structures Estimated to be Damaged * Percent Building

Damage Ratio

266

● Total Loss from High Wind Events = $8,157,586,696 * .005 * .046 = $1,876,244.94

Total Assessed Value of all Structures in City of Nashua

% of structures estimated to be damaged by Landslide

Resulting Loss from Landslide

$8,157,586,696 0.5% $1,876,244.94

Critical Facility Type Total Number of this type of Critical Facilities in City of Nashua

Number of this type of Critical Facilities in Landslide Hazard Area

Percentage of this type of Critical Facilities in Landslide Hazard Area

Healthcare 61 61 100%

Fire 8 8 100%

Police 5 5 100%

Emergency Operations 1 1 100%

Schools 79 79 100%

Dams 29 29 100%

Highway Bridges 49 49 100%

Railway Bridges 6 6 100%

Railway Facilities 3 3 100%

Bus Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Runway 1 1 100%

Potable Water Facilities 25 25 100%

Waste Water Facilities 34 34 100%

Natural Gas Facilities 28 28 100%

Electric Power Facilities 14 14 100%

Communication Facilities 30 30 100%

Hazardous Materials Facilities 69 69 100%

Other Government Owned Facilities

53 53 100%

267

Section 3.5.8 Lightning

By definition, all thunderstorms contain lightning. Lightning is a giant spark of electricity that occurs within the atmosphere or between the

atmosphere and the ground. As lightning passes through the air, it heats the air to a temperature of about 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit,

considerably hotter than the surface of the Sun. During a lightning discharge, the sudden heating of the air causes it to expand rapidly. After the

discharge, the air contracts quickly as it cools back to ambient temperatures. This rapid expansion and contraction causes a shock wave that we

hear as thunder.

Lightning is a major hazard to citizens involved in outdoor activities. A lightning strike at a densely attended special event has the potential to

create a major mass casualty incident. Lightning also can create wildfires and structure fires and may cause power and/or communications

outages.

The Lightning Activity Level (LAL) grid can be used to measure the extent of a lightning event.

LAL Cloud & Storm Development Lightning Strikes/15 min

1 No thunderstorms -

2 Cumulus clouds are common but only a few reach the towering cumulus stage. A single thunderstorm must be confirmed in the observation area. The clouds produce mainly virga, but light rain will occasionally reach the ground. Lightning is very infrequent.

1-8

3 Towering cumulus covers less than two-tenths of the sky. Thunderstorms are few, but two or three must occur within the observation area. Light to moderate rain will reach the ground, and lightning is infrequent.

9-15

4 Towering cumulus covers two to three-tenths of the sky. Thunderstorms are scattered and more than three must occur within the

16-25

268

observation area. Moderate rain is common and lightning is frequent.

5 Towering cumulus and thunderstorms are numerous. They cover more than three-tenths and occasionally obscure the sky. Rian is moderate to heavy and lightning is frequent and intense.

>25

6 Similar to LAL 3 except thunderstorms are dry.

9-15

Lightning Hazard Loss Estimate

Losses from lightning would be on a small, localized scale. The Hazard Mitigation Team used the following calculations to estimate loss to single

family residential structures from lightning.

Step 1. Determine percent building damage ratio to single family residence from lightning

● Wood Frame Construction = 5% building damage

● Source: Resilient Nashua stakeholders

Step 2. Determine percent of structures in Nashua that would be damaged by lightning

● 0.25% of structures estimated to be damaged by lightning

● Source: Resilient Nashua stakeholders (no historical data on lightning damage in Nashua)

Step 3. Determine total assessed value of structures in Nashua

● Total Assessed Value of all Structures in Nashua = $8,157,586,696

● Source: Nashua Assessing Department/2018 Summary Inventory of Valuation MS-1

Step 4. Determine total loss from lightning

269

● Total Loss from Lightning = Total Assessed Value of all Structures *Percentage of Structures Estimated to be Damaged * Percent Building

Damage Ratio

● Total Loss from Lightning = $8,157,586,696 * .0025 * .05 = $1,019,698.34

Total Assessed Value of all Structures in City of Nashua

% of structures estimated to be damaged by Lightning

Resulting Loss from Lightning

$8,157,586,696 1% $1,019,698.34

Critical Facility Type Total Number of this type of Critical Facilities in City of Nashua

Number of this type of Critical Facilities in Lightning Hazard Area

Percentage of this type of Critical Facilities in Lighting Hazard Area

Healthcare 61 61 100%

Fire 8 8 100%

Police 5 5 100%

Emergency Operations 1 1 100%

Schools 79 79 100%

Dams 29 29 100%

Highway Bridges 49 49 100%

Railway Bridges 6 6 100%

Railway Facilities 3 3 100%

Bus Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Runway 1 1 100%

Potable Water Facilities 25 25 100%

Waste Water Facilities 34 34 100%

Natural Gas Facilities 28 28 100%

Electric Power Facilities 14 14 100%

Communication Facilities 30 30 100%

Hazardous Materials Facilities 69 69 100%

Other Government Owned Facilities

53 53 100%

270

Section 3.5.9 Severe Winter Weather

Prone to the cold New England winters, Nashua has always experienced severe winter weather in the form of snowstorms, blizzards,

Nor’easters, and ice storms. Records note major snow or ice storms in New Hampshire in 1888, 1922, 1940, 1942, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1964, 1969,

1978, 1982, and 1983. Even though these storms were extreme, residents and responders of Nashua are familiar with snow every winter that

requires some level of snow removal from transportation networks.

A heavy snowstorm is generally considered to be one that deposits two or more inches of snow per hour in a twelve-hour period. Heavy snow

can immobilize a region, stranding commuters, closing businesses, and disrupting emergency services. Accumulating snow can collapse buildings

and knock down trees and power lines. Snow removal from roadways, utility damage, and disruption to businesses can have a significant

economic impact on municipalities and residents.

A blizzard is a violent snowstorm with winds blowing at a minimum speed of 35 miles per hour and visibility of less than one-quarter mile for

three hours. A Nor’easter is a large weather system traveling from south to north, passing along the coast. As the storm’s intensity increases, the

resulting counterclockwise winds impact the coast and inland areas in a Northeasterly direction. Winds from a Nor’easter can meet or exceed

hurricane force, knocking down trees, utility poles, and power lines. Ice storms occur when a mass of warm, moist air collides with a mass of

cold, arctic air. The less dense warm air rises and the moisture precipitates out in the form of rain. When this rain falls through the colder, more-

dense air and comes in contact with cold surfaces, ice forms and can become several inches thick. Heavy accumulations of ice can knock down

trees, power lines, and communications for extended periods of time. Ice Storm extent can be defined by the Sperry-Piltz Ice Accumulation

Index:

● 0—minimal risk of damage to exposed utility systems; no alerts or advisories needed for crews, few outages

● 1—some isolated or localized utility interruptions are possible, typically lasing on a few hours. Roads and bridges may become slick and

hazardous.

● 2—scattered utility interruptions expected, typically lasing 12-24 hours. Roads and travel conditions may be extremely hazardous due to

ice accumulation.

● 3—numerous utility interruptions with some damage to main feeder lines and equipment expected. Tree limb damage is excessive.

Outages lasing 1-5 days.

● 4—prolonged and widespread utility interruptions with extensive damage to main distribution feeder lines and some high voltage

transmission lines/structures. Outages lasing 5-10 days.

● 5—catastrophic damage to entire exposed utility systems, including both distribution and transmission networks. Outages could last

several weeks in some areas. Shelters needed

271

In recent years, FEMA issued disaster declarations in Hillsborough County for severe winter weather in 1998, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015.

Among these storms was a rare Nor’easter in late October of 2011 that caused major destruction in Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties.

Heavy wet snow fell on trees that had much of their foliage remaining. Many trees could not withstand the extra weight of the snow and

collapsed under the stress. Damage was very focused in the southern part of New Hampshire and caused nearly three times the amount of

debris that the 2008 ice storm produced.

Severe Winter Weather Hazard Loss Estimate

Severe Winter Weather events have primarily damaged road networks and infrastructure in NH. It is beyond the scope of this project to

estimate the costs of repairing or replacing transportation and utility infrastructure damaged by severe winter weather. The Resilient Nashua

Initiative stakeholders used the following calculations to estimate loss to single family residential structures from severe winter weather.

Step 1. Determine percent building damage ratio to single family residence from severe winter weather

● Wood Frame Construction, no additional provisions for roof snow loads = 5% building damage

● Source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders

Step 2. Determine percent of structures in Nashua that would be damaged by severe winter weather

● 1% of structures estimated to be damaged by severe winter weather

● Source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders

Step 3. Determine total assessed value of structures in Nashua

● Total Assessed Value of all Structures in Nashua = $8,157,586,696

● Source: Nashua Assessing Department/2018 Summary Inventory of Valuation MS-1

Step 4. Determine total loss from Severe Winter Weather

● Total Loss from Severe Winter Weather = Total Assessed Value of all Structures *Percentage of Structures Estimated to be Damaged *

Percent Building Damage Ratio

● Total Loss from Severe Winter Weather = $8,157,586,696 * .01 * .05 = $4,078,793.35

272

Total Assessed Value of all Structures in City of Nashua

% of structures estimated to be damaged by Severe Winter Weather

Resulting Loss from Severe Winter Weather

$8,157,586,696 1% $4,078,793.35

Critical Facility Type Total Number of this type of Critical Facilities in City of Nashua

Number of this type of Critical Facilities in Severe Winter Weather Hazard Area

Percentage of this type of Critical Facilities in Severe Winter Weather Hazard Area

Healthcare 61 61 100%

Fire 8 8 100%

Police 5 5 100%

Emergency Operations 1 1 100%

Schools 79 79 100%

Dams 29 29 100%

Highway Bridges 49 49 100%

Railway Bridges 6 6 100%

Railway Facilities 3 3 100%

Bus Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Runway 1 1 100%

Potable Water Facilities 25 25 100%

Waste Water Facilities 34 34 100%

Natural Gas Facilities 28 28 100%

Electric Power Facilities 14 14 100%

Communication Facilities 30 30 100%

Hazardous Materials Facilities 69 69 100%

Other Government Owned Facilities

53 53 100%

Section 3.5.10 Solar Storms and Space Weather

The term space weather is relatively new and describes the dynamic conditions in the Earth’s outer space environment, similar to how the terms

“climate” and “weather” refer to the conditions in the Earth’s lower atmosphere. Space weather includes any and all conditions and events on

273

the sun, in the solar wind, in near-Earth space, and in our upper atmosphere that can affect space-borne and ground based technological

systems

Solar activity (solar storms) refers to solar flares, coronal mass ejections, high-speed solar wind, and energetic solar particles. Any of these

events may occur for a few minutes to several hours, have the ability to affect Earth for days to weeks. All solar activity is driven by the solar

magnetic field. A solar flare is an intense burst of radiation resulting from the release of sunspot magnetic energy, which can occur for minutes

to hours. Solar prominence is a large, bright feature that extends outward from the sun’s surfaces. A coronal mass ejection (CME) occurs when

the outer solar atmosphere’s magnetic field is closed, resulting in a confined atmosphere that suddenly explodes, releasing bubbles of gas and

magnetic fields. The surface of the sun is hot electrified gas boiling up from the interior of the sun out into space- this is referred to as high

speed solar wind. Solar wind travels at 800,000 to 5 million miles per hour and carries mass the size of Utah’s Great Salt Lake into space every

second; however, solar wind is 1000 million times weaker than the winds that we experience on Earth.

A geomagnetic storm occurs when a CME or high-speed solar winds strike and begin to penetrate the Earth’s magnetosphere and can decrease

the Earth’s magnetic field strength for 6-12 hours.

Geomagnetic Storm Scale

Scale Description Effect Physical measure Average Frequency

(1 cycle = 11 years)

G 5 Extreme Power systems:

Widespread voltage

control problems and

protective system

problems can occur,

some grid systems may

experience complete

collapse or blackouts.

Transformers may

experience damage.

Spacecraft operations:

May experience extensive

Kp = 9 4 per cycle

(4 days per cycle)

274

surface charging,

problems with

orientation,

uplink/downlink and

tracking satellites.

Other systems: Pipeline

currents can reach

hundreds of amps, HF

(high frequency) radio

propagation may be

impossible in many areas

for one to two days,

satellite navigation may

be degraded for days,

low-frequency radio

navigation can be out for

hours, and aurora has

been seen as low as

Florida and southern

Texas (typically 40°

geomagnetic lat.).

G 4 Severe Power systems:

Possible widespread

voltage control problems

and some protective

systems will mistakenly

trip out key assets from

the grid.

Spacecraft operations:

May experience surface

charging and tracking

problems, corrections

may be needed for

orientation problems.

Kp = 8, including a 9- 100 per cycle

(60 days per cycle)

275

Other systems: Induced

pipeline currents affect

preventive measures, HF

radio propagation

sporadic, satellite

navigation degraded for

hours, low-frequency

radio navigation

disrupted, and aurora has

been seen as low as

Alabama and northern

California (typically 45°

geomagnetic lat.).

G 3 Strong Power systems: Voltage

corrections may be

required, false alarms

triggered on some

protection devices.

Spacecraft operations:

Surface charging may

occur on satellite

components, drag may

increase on low-Earth-

orbit satellites, and

corrections may be

needed for orientation

problems.

Other systems:

Intermittent satellite

navigation and low-

frequency radio

navigation problems may

occur, HF radio may be

intermittent, and aurora

has been seen as low as

Kp = 7 200 per cycle

(130 days per cycle)

276

Illinois and Oregon

(typically 50°

geomagnetic lat.).

G 2 Moderate Power systems: High-

latitude power systems

may experience voltage

alarms, long-duration

storms may cause

transformer damage.

Spacecraft operations:

Corrective actions to

orientation may be

required by ground

control; possible changes

in drag affect orbit

predictions.

Other systems: HF radio

propagation can fade at

higher latitudes, and

aurora has been seen as

low as New York and

Idaho (typically 55°

geomagnetic lat.).

Kp = 6 600 per cycle

(360 days per cycle)

G 1 Minor Power systems: Weak

power grid fluctuations

can occur.

Spacecraft operations:

Minor impact on satellite

operations possible.

Other systems:

Migratory animals are

affected at this and

Kp = 5 1700 per cycle

(900 days per cycle)

277

higher levels; aurora is

commonly visible at high

latitudes (northern

Michigan and Maine).

Solar Ration Storm Scale

Scale Description Effect

Physical measure

(Flux level of >= 10

MeV particles)

Average Frequency

(1 cycle = 11 years)

S 5 Extreme Biological: Unavoidable

high radiation hazard to

astronauts on EVA

(extra-vehicular activity);

passengers and crew in

high-flying aircraft at

high latitudes may be

exposed to radiation risk.

Satellite operations:

Satellites may be

rendered useless,

memory impacts can

cause loss of control,

may cause serious noise

in image data, star-

trackers may be unable

to locate sources;

permanent damage to

solar panels possible.

Other systems:

Complete blackout of HF

105 Fewer than 1 per cycle

278

(high frequency)

communications possible

through the polar

regions, and position

errors make navigation

operations extremely

difficult.

S 4 Severe Biological: Unavoidable

radiation hazard to

astronauts on EVA;

passengers and crew in

high-flying aircraft at

high latitudes may be

exposed to radiation risk.

Satellite operations:

May experience memory

device problems and

noise on imaging

systems; star-tracker

problems may cause

orientation problems, and

solar panel efficiency can

be degraded.

Other systems:

Blackout of HF radio

communications through

the polar regions and

increased navigation

errors over several days

are likely.

104 3 per cycle

279

S 3 Strong Biological: Radiation

hazard avoidance

recommended for

astronauts on EVA;

passengers and crew in

high-flying aircraft at

high latitudes may be

exposed to radiation risk.

Satellite operations:

Single-event upsets,

noise in imaging

systems, and slight

reduction of efficiency in

solar panel are likely.

Other systems:

Degraded HF radio

propagation through the

polar regions and

navigation position errors

likely.

103 10 per cycle

S 2 Moderate Biological: Passengers

and crew in high-flying

aircraft at high latitudes

may be exposed to

elevated radiation risk.

Satellite operations:

Infrequent single-event

upsets possible.

Other systems: Small

effects on HF propagation

through the polar regions

and navigation at polar

cap locations possibly

affected.

102 25 per cycle

280

S 1 Minor Biological: None.

Satellite operations:

None.

Other systems: Minor

impacts on HF radio in

the polar regions.

10 50 per cycle

Radio Blackout Scale

Scale Description Effect Physical measure Average Frequency

(1 cycle = 11 years)

R 5 Extreme HF Radio: Complete HF

(high frequency) radio

blackout on the entire

sunlit side of the Earth

lasting for a number of

hours. This results in no

HF radio contact with

mariners and en route

aviators in this sector.

Navigation: Low-

frequency navigation

signals used by maritime

and general aviation

systems experience

outages on the sunlit side

of the Earth for many

hours, causing loss in

positioning. Increased

satellite navigation errors

in positioning for several

X20

(2 x 10-3)

Less than 1 per cycle

281

hours on the sunlit side

of Earth, which may

spread into the night

side.

R 4 Severe HF Radio: HF radio

communication blackout

on most of the sunlit side

of Earth for one to two

hours. HF radio contact

lost during this time.

Navigation: Outages of

low-frequency navigation

signals cause increased

error in positioning for

one to two hours. Minor

disruptions of satellite

navigation possible on

the sunlit side of Earth.

X10

(10-3)

8 per cycle

(8 days per cycle)

R 3 Strong HF Radio: Wide area

blackout of HF radio

communication, loss of

radio contact for about

an hour on sunlit side of

Earth.

Navigation: Low-

frequency navigation

signals degraded for

about an hour.

X1

(10-4)

175 per cycle

(140 days per cycle)

R 2 Moderate HF Radio: Limited

blackout of HF radio

communication on sunlit

M5

(5 x 10-5)

350 per cycle

(300 days per cycle)

282

side, loss of radio contact

for tens of minutes.

Navigation: Degradation

of low-frequency

navigation signals for

tens of minutes.

R 1 Minor HF Radio: Weak or

minor degradation of HF

radio communication on

sunlit side, occasional

loss of radio contact.

Navigation: Low-

frequency navigation

signals degraded for brief

intervals.

M1

(10-5)

2000 per cycle

(950 days per cycle)

Solar weather is not likely to cause damage to structures in Nashua. Rather, its impact is primarily on power, communications, and information

technology infrastructure. Nashua, like any other modern community, relies on electricity and other technologies to support normal society. A

loss of any critical system could severely hinder life and commerce in the City. Space weather is costly and resource intensive to protect against.

However, due to lack of historical data, it is beyond the scope of this Plan to estimate losses to the City resulting from solar weather.

Critical Facility Type Total Number of this type of Critical Facilities in City of Nashua

Number of this type of Critical Facilities in Solar Storms and Space Weather Hazard Area

Percentage of this type of Critical Facilities in Solar Storms and Space Weather Hazard Area

Healthcare 61 61 100%

Fire 8 8 100%

Police 5 5 100%

Emergency Operations 1 1 100%

Schools 79 79 100%

Dams 29 29 100%

Highway Bridges 49 49 100%

Railway Bridges 6 6 100%

283

Railway Facilities 3 3 100%

Bus Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Runway 1 1 100%

Potable Water Facilities 25 25 100%

Waste Water Facilities 34 34 100%

Natural Gas Facilities 28 28 100%

Electric Power Facilities 14 14 100%

Communication Facilities 30 30 100%

Hazardous Materials Facilities 69 69 100%

Other Government Owned Facilities

53 53 100%

Section 3.5.11 Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Severe hurricanes reaching south-central New Hampshire in the late summer and early fall are the most dangerous of the coastal storms that

pass through New England from the south. Structurally, a tropical cyclone is a large, rotating system of clouds, wind, and thunderstorms. Its

primary energy source is the release of the heat of condensation from water vapor condensing at high altitudes. Therefore, a tropical cyclone

can be visualized as a giant vertical heat engine, supported by mechanics driven by physical forces such as the rotation and gravity of the Earth.

Hurricane season lasts from June through November every year.

The Atlantic hurricane season lasts from June 1 through November 30 and peaks in late August and September. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane

Wind Scale categorizes hurricanes from 1 to 5 based on sustained wind speed. The National Weather Service National Hurricane Center provides

the following estimates of potential property damage based on hurricane wind speed (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php).

Category 1—sustained winds 74-95 mph. Very dangerous winds will produce some damage. Well-constructed frame homes could have damage

to roof, shingles, vinyl siding, and gutters. Large branches of trees will snap and shallowly rooted trees may be toppled. Extensive damage to

power lines and poles likely will result in power outages that could last a few to several days.

Category 2—sustained winds 96-110 mph. Extremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage. Well-constructed frame homes could

sustain major roof and siding damage. Many shallowly rooted trees will be snapped or uprooted and block numerous roads. Near-total power

loss is expected with outages that could last from several days to weeks.

284

Category 3—sustained winds 111-129 mph. Devastating damage will occur. Well-built framed homes may incur major damage or removal of

roof decking and gable ends. Many trees will be snapped or uprooted, blocking numerous roads. Electricity and water will be unavailable for

several days to weeks after the storm passes.

Category 4—sustained winds 130-156 mph. Catastrophic damage will occur. Well-built framed homes can sustain severe damage with loss of

most of the roof structure and/or some exterior walls. Most trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power

poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or

months.

Category 5—sustained winds 157 mph or higher. Catastrophic damage will occur. A high percentage of framed homes will be destroyed, with

total roof failure and wall collapse. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly

months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.

Tropical depressions are considered to be of hurricane force when winds reach 74 miles per hour. Substantial damage may result from winds of

this force, especially considering the duration of the event, which may last for many hours. Potential effects of hurricane force winds include

fallen trees, telephone poles, and power lines.

FEMA declared disasters in Hillsborough County during Hurricane Bob (1991) and Hurricane Floyd (1999). Though these were the only formally

declared incidents, Nashua has experienced strong remnants of numerous tropical cyclones including Hurricane Carol (1954), Donna (1960),

Gloria (1985), Irene (2011), and Sandy (2012). In addition, the Hurricane of 1938 was one of the most devastating disasters to occur in the City.

Winds from the Hurricane of 1938 reached a high of 186 miles per hour and many areas of the City were flooded.

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Loss Estimate

There are no standard loss estimation models or tables for wind damage (Understanding Your Risks, FEMA, pg 4-30). As such, the Resilient

Nashua Initiative stakeholders used data from previous hurricane events to determine damage estimates. Historically, the strongest hurricane

seen in NH was a Category 3, so loss estimates were calculated based on a hurricane of that strength. Hurricanes have primarily damaged road

networks and infrastructure in NH. It is beyond the scope of this project to estimate the costs of repairing or replacing transportation and utility

infrastructure damaged by a hurricane. The Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders used the following calculations to estimate loss to single

family residential structures from a hurricane.

Step 1. Determine percent building damage ratio to single family residence from Category 3 hurricane

285

● Wood Frame Construction, Low general hurricane design level = 20% building damage

● Source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders

Step 2. Determine percent of structures in Nashua that would be damaged by Category 3 hurricane

● 5% of structures estimated to be damaged by Category 3 hurricane

● Source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders (no historical data on hurricane damage in Nashua)

Step 3. Determine total assessed value of structures in Nashua

● Total Assessed Value of all Structures in Nashua = $8,157,586,696

● Source: Nashua Assessing Department/Nashua Assessing Department/2018 Summary Inventory of Valuation MS-1

Step 4. Determine total loss from Category 3 hurricane

● Total Loss from Hurricane = Total Assessed Value of all Structures *Percentage of Structures Estimated to be Damaged * Percent Building

Damage Ratio

● Total Loss from Hurricane = $8,157,586,696 * .05 * .2 = $81,575,866.96

Total Assessed Value of all Structures in City of Nashua

% of structures estimated to be damaged by Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Resulting Loss from Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

$8,157,586,696 5% $81,575,866.96

Critical Facility Type Total Number of this type of Critical Facilities in City of Nashua

Number of this type of Critical Facilities in Tropical and Post Tropical Cyclones Hazard Area

Percentage of this type of Critical Facilities in Tropical and Post Tropical Cyclones Hazard Area

Healthcare 61 61 100%

Fire 8 8 100%

Police 5 5 100%

Emergency Operations 1 1 100%

Schools 79 79 100%

Dams 29 29 100%

286

Highway Bridges 49 49 100%

Railway Bridges 6 6 100%

Railway Facilities 3 3 100%

Bus Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Runway 1 1 100%

Potable Water Facilities 25 25 100%

Waste Water Facilities 34 34 100%

Natural Gas Facilities 28 28 100%

Electric Power Facilities 14 14 100%

Communication Facilities 30 30 100%

Hazardous Materials Facilities 69 69 100%

Other Government Owned Facilities

53 53 100%

Section 3.5.12 Wildfire

Wildfires are fires ignited in grassy or wooded areas. Though typically experienced in rural communities, the City of Nashua is also at risk. Small

wildfires impacting areas up to 10 acres are a concern in wooded areas in the outskirts of Nashua, particularly in the Northwest and Southwest

quadrants of the City as well as in Mine Falls Park. Wildfires have the potential to encroach the urban interface creating the potential for

structure fires in homes or businesses.

Wildfires may be ignited intentionally by humans (arson), naturally through lightning, or accidentally due to spark ignition in a remote area (ex.

power lines, fireworks). This plan is primarily concerned with naturally occurring wildfires due to lightning. Areas on the outskirts of Nashua are

potentially more at risk for wildfires as they may be located further from fire stations or may be without municipal water supply. However, the

entire City of Nashua experiences a relatively quick fire response time, keeping typical wildfires manageable.

Wildfire Hazard Loss Estimate

Step 1. Determine percent building damage ratio to single family residence from wildfire

● Wood Frame Construction, combustible siding and decking = 20% building damage

● Source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders

287

Step 2. Determine percent of structures in Nashua that would be damaged by wildfire

● 0.5% of structures estimated to be damaged by wildfire

● Source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders

Step 3. Determine total assessed value of structures in Nashua

● Total Assessed Value of all Structures in Nashua = $8,157,586,696

● Source: Nashua Assessing Department/2018 Summary Inventory of Valuation MS-1

Step 4. Determine total loss from Wildfire

● Total Loss from Wildfire = Total Assessed Value of all Structures *Percentage of Structures Estimated to be Damaged * Percent Building

Damage Ratio

● Total Loss from Wildfire = $8,157,586,696 * .005 * .2 = $8,157,586.70

Total Assessed Value of all Structures in City of Nashua

% of structures estimated to be damaged by Wildfire

Resulting Loss from Wildfire

$8,157,586,696 0.5% $8,157,586.70

Critical Facility Type Total Number of this type of Critical Facilities in City of Nashua

Number of this type of Critical Facilities in Wildfire Hazard Area

Percentage of this type of Critical Facilities in Wildfire Hazard Area

Healthcare 61 61 100%

Fire 8 8 100%

Police 5 5 100%

Emergency Operations 1 1 100%

Schools 79 79 100%

Dams 29 29 100%

Highway Bridges 49 49 100%

Railway Bridges 6 6 100%

Railway Facilities 3 3 100%

Bus Facilities 5 5 100%

288

Airport Facilities 5 5 100%

Airport Runway 1 1 100%

Potable Water Facilities 25 25 100%

Waste Water Facilities 34 34 100%

Natural Gas Facilities 28 28 100%

Electric Power Facilities 14 14 100%

Communication Facilities 30 30 100%

Hazardous Materials Facilities 69 69 100%

Other Government Owned Facilities

53 53 100%

Section 3.6 Changes in Development

Most of the development that has occurred in the City of Nashua over the past five years has been redevelopment. This is primarily because

most of the land in the City has already been developed. Therefore, there have not been significant changes in development that have increased

or decreased the City’s vulnerability to hazards.

Future development patterns, on the other hand, may increase Nashua’s vulnerability to hazards, particularly flooding. There is currently an

effort to redevelop Nashua’s riverfront areas over the next five years. For example, the Cotton Mill Square project converted the former cotton

mill and Nashua Corporation building on the north bank of the Nashua River into market value and low income apartments. Lofts 34 also

recently retrofitted the old Nashua Corporation mill near this site. Another project currently recently completed has been the first phase of the

redevelopment of the 26 acre Bridge Street site, which has over 2,000 feet of shoreline along the confluence of the Nashua and Merrimack

Rivers. This former brownfield site is owned by the City of Nashua and is located adjacent to the Taylor Falls Bridge. The first phase, Residences

at Riverfront Landing consists of housing and future phase redevelopment ideas include a mix of uses such as housing, retail, office, open space,

and riverfront amenities. The Bridge Street site would be located in a floodplain if not for a levy along the Merrimack River. Additional phases

to this project are planned for the next five years. There are additional projects in the planning phase for the Millyard including an additional

apartment building adjacent to Clocktower Apartments and a retrofit of the old Picker Building. Many parcels along the new Broad Street

Parkway are also significant opportunities for development including the Bagshaw Building and former Ultima-NIMCO building. Clean up and

redevelopment is planned for the former Mohawk Tannery Superfund site and Fimbel Door property is underway, with many sections of the

property being in the Special Flood Hazard Area. There are also plans across the City to redevelop many sites to apartments though these

289

properties are not in particularly vulnerable areas. One of the last remaining undeveloped areas in the City, Nashua Technology Park, also has

significant plans for additional residential & commercial development.

Section 3.7 Overall Summary of Vulnerability

Table 6—Overall Summary of Vulnerability

Hazard Types of Critical Facilities Affected

% of Critical Facilities in Hazard Area

Impact of Hazard on Critical Facilities

% of Structures Estimated to be Damaged

$ Value of Loss

Inland Flooding

● Healthcare ● Fire ● Police ● Emergency

Operations ● Schools ● Dams ● Highway

Bridges ● Railway

Bridges ● Railway

Facilities ● Bus Facilities ● Airport

Facilities ● Airport

Runway ● Potable

Water Facilities

● Waste Water Facilities

● Natural Gas Facilities

26.38% Water damage to structures and their contents. Sewer backups. Damage or loss of infrastructure, including roads, bridges, railroads, power and phone lines, City communications, City radio system, power generation facility, domestic water, and wastewater treatment plant. Environmental hazards resulting from damage. Isolation of neighborhoods

0.5% $6,118,190.02 to $11,420,621.37

290

● Electric Power Facilities

● Communication Facilities

● Hazardous Materials Facilities

● Other Government Owned Facilities

resulting from flooding.

Drought

● Healthcare ● Fire ● Police ● Emergency

Operations ● Schools ● Dams ● Highway

Bridges ● Railway

Bridges ● Railway

Facilities ● Bus Facilities ● Airport

Facilities ● Airport

Runway ● Potable

Water Facilities

100%

Loss of crops. Inadequate quantity of drinking water. Loss of water for fire protection. Increased risk of fire.

127.47 acres of agricultural land

Calculating $ value of losses is beyond the scope of this Plan (see Section 3.5 Drought for explanation)

291

● Waste Water Facilities

● Natural Gas Facilities

● Electric Power Facilities

● Communication Facilities

● Hazardous Materials Facilities

● Other Government Owned Facilities

Earthquake ● Healthcare ● Fire ● Police ● Emergency

Operations ● Schools ● Dams ● Highway

Bridges ● Railway

Bridges ● Railway

Facilities ● Bus Facilities ● Airport

Facilities ● Airport

Runway

100% Structural damage or collapse of buildings. Damage or loss of infrastructure, including roads, bridges, railroads, power and phone lines, City communications, City radio system, power generation facility, domestic water, and wastewater treatment plant. Loss of water for fire protection.

1% to 5% $3,752,489.88 to $18,762,449.40

292

● Potable Water Facilities

● Waste Water Facilities

● Natural Gas Facilities

● Electric Power Facilities

● Communication Facilities

● Hazardous Materials Facilities

● Other Government Owned Facilities

Increased risk of fire (gas break). Risk to life, medical surge.

Extreme Temperatures

● Healthcare ● Fire ● Police ● Emergency

Operations ● Schools ● Dams ● Highway

Bridges ● Railway

Bridges ● Railway

Facilities ● Bus Facilities

100% Overburdened power systems may experience failures due to extreme heat. Shortages of heating fuel in extreme cold due to high demand. Medical surge. Loss of municipal water supply for drinking water and fire protection due to

N/A Calculating $ value of losses is beyond the scope of this Plan (see Section 3.5 Extreme Temperatures for explanation)

293

● Airport Facilities

● Airport Runway

● Potable Water Facilities

● Waste Water Facilities

● Natural Gas Facilities

● Electric Power Facilities

● Communication Facilities

● Hazardous Materials Facilities

● Other Government Owned Facilities

freezing temperatures.

High Wind Events

● Healthcare ● Fire ● Police ● Emergency

Operations ● Schools ● Dams ● Highway

Bridges ● Railway

Bridges

100% Wind damage to structures and trees. Damage or loss of infrastructure, including roads, bridges, railroads, power and phone lines, City communications, City radio system, power

1% $40,787,933.48

294

● Railway Facilities

● Bus Facilities ● Airport

Facilities ● Airport

Runway ● Potable

Water Facilities

● Waste Water Facilities

● Natural Gas Facilities

● Electric Power Facilities

● Communication Facilities

● Hazardous Materials Facilities

● Other Government Owned Facilities

generation facility, domestic water, and wastewater treatment plant. Environmental hazards resulting from damage. Medical surge.

Infectious Diseases ● Healthcare ● Fire ● Police ● Emergency

Operations ● Schools ● Dams

100% Burden on healthcare facilities. Possible quarantine to prevent disease from spreading.

N/A Calculating $ value of losses is beyond the scope of this Plan (see Section 3.5 Infectious Diseases for explanation)

295

● Highway Bridges

● Railway Bridges

● Railway Facilities

● Bus Facilities ● Airport

Facilities ● Airport

Runway ● Potable

Water Facilities

● Waste Water Facilities

● Natural Gas Facilities

● Electric Power Facilities

● Communication Facilities

● Hazardous Materials Facilities

● Other Government Owned Facilities

Landslide

● Healthcare ● Fire ● Police

100% Structural damage or collapse of buildings.

0.5% $1,876,244.94

296

● Emergency Operations

● Schools ● Dams ● Highway

Bridges ● Railway

Bridges ● Railway

Facilities ● Bus Facilities ● Airport

Facilities ● Airport

Runway ● Potable

Water Facilities

● Waste Water Facilities

● Natural Gas Facilities

● Electric Power Facilities

● Communication Facilities

● Hazardous Materials Facilities

● Other Government Owned Facilities

Damage or loss of infrastructure, including roads, bridges, railroads, power and phone lines, City communications, City radio system, power generation facility, domestic water, and wastewater treatment plant. Loss of water for fire protection. Increased risk of fire from gas break. Risk to life, medical surge.

297

Lightning ● Healthcare ● Fire ● Police ● Emergency

Operations ● Schools ● Dams ● Highway

Bridges ● Railway

Bridges ● Railway

Facilities ● Bus Facilities ● Airport

Facilities ● Airport

Runway ● Potable

Water Facilities

● Waste Water Facilities

● Natural Gas Facilities

● Electric Power Facilities

● Communication Facilities

● Hazardous Materials Facilities

100% Smoke and fire damage to structures. Disruption to power lines and municipal communications. Damage to critical electronic equipment. Injury or death to people involved in outdoor activity.

1% $1,019,698.34

298

● Other Government Owned Facilities

Severe Winter Weather

● Healthcare ● Fire ● Police ● Emergency

Operations ● Schools ● Dams ● Highway

Bridges ● Railway

Bridges ● Railway

Facilities ● Bus Facilities ● Airport

Facilities ● Airport

Runway ● Potable

Water Facilities

● Waste Water Facilities

● Natural Gas Facilities

● Electric Power Facilities

● Communication Facilities

Disruption to road network. Damage to trees and power lines, communications, gas lines. Structural damage to roofs/collapse. Increase in CO, other hazards.

1% $4,078,793.35

299

● Hazardous Materials Facilities

● Other Government Owned Facilities

Solar Storms and Space Weather

● Healthcare ● Fire ● Police ● Emergency

Operations ● Schools ● Dams ● Highway

Bridges ● Railway

Bridges ● Railway

Facilities ● Bus Facilities ● Airport

Facilities ● Airport

Runway ● Potable

Water Facilities

● Waste Water Facilities

● Natural Gas Facilities

100% Space weather can produce electromagnetic fields that induce currents in wires, disrupting power lines and causing widespread power outages. Severe space weather can produce solar energetic particles, which can damage satellites used for communications, global positioning, intelligence gathering, and weather forecasting.

N/A Calculating $ value of losses is beyond the scope of this Plan (see Section 3.5 Solar Storms and Space Weather for explanation)

300

● Electric Power Facilities

● Communication Facilities

● Hazardous Materials Facilities

● Other Government Owned Facilities

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

● Healthcare ● Fire ● Police ● Emergency

Operations ● Schools ● Dams ● Highway

Bridges ● Railway

Bridges ● Railway

Facilities ● Bus Facilities ● Airport

Facilities ● Airport

Runway ● Potable

Water Facilities

100% Wind damage to structures and trees. Water damage to structures and their contents. Damage or loss of infrastructure, including roads, bridges, railroads, power and phone lines, City communications, City radio system, power generation facility, domestic water, and wastewater treatment plant.

5% $81,575,866.96

301

● Waste Water Facilities

● Natural Gas Facilities

● Electric Power Facilities

● Communication Facilities

● Hazardous Materials Facilities

● Other Government Owned Facilities

Environmental hazards resulting from damage. Isolation of neighborhoods resulting from flooding. Water pressure, quality, and capacity issues impacting fire protection. Loss of natural resources.

Wildfire ● Healthcare ● Fire ● Police ● Emergency

Operations ● Schools ● Dams ● Highway

Bridges ● Railway

Bridges ● Railway

Facilities ● Bus Facilities ● Airport

Facilities ● Airport

Runway

100% Smoke and fire damage to structures in wildland/urban interface. Damage to habitat. Impacts to air quality. Loss of natural resources. Potential for urban conflagration.

0.5% $8,157,586.70

302

● Potable Water Facilities

● Waste Water Facilities

● Natural Gas Facilities

● Electric Power Facilities

● Communication Facilities

● Hazardous Materials Facilities

● Other Government Owned Facilities

303

CHAPTER 4. MITIGATION STRATEGY

Section 4.1 Goals to Reduce Vulnerability to Hazards

The Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders established goals to reduce vulnerability to hazards by first developing problem statements for each

hazard type. Calculations for the annual probability of hazards identified in the problem statements below can be found in Section 3.3, Table

4—Probability of Future Hazard Events. The stakeholders then used these problem statements as a basis for developing its goals.

Hazard: Inland Flooding

Problem Statement: The estimated probability of one or more events in any year is between 51% (1960-2016) and 71% (2000-2016) and it has

the potential to create water damage, environmental health concerns, erosion of river banks, temporary closing of major roadways, and

property and infrastructure damage.

Goals: Incorporate Flood Mitigation in Local Planning, Form Partnerships to Support Floodplain Management, Limit or Restrict Development in

Floodplain Areas, Adopt and Enforce Building Codes and Development Standards, Improve Stormwater Management Planning, Adopt Policies to

Reduce Stormwater Runoff, Improve Flood Risk Assessment, Improve Compliance with NFIP, Manage the Floodplain Beyond Minimum

Requirements, Improve Participation in the CRS, Establish Local Funding Mechanisms for Flood Mitigation, Map and Assess Vulnerability to

Erosion, Manage Development in Erosion Hazard Areas, Promote or Require Site and Building Design Standards to Minimize Erosion Risk,

Remove Existing Structures from Flood Hazard Areas, Improve Stormwater Drainage System Capacity, Conduct Regular Maintenance for

Drainage Systems and Flood Control Structures, Elevate or Retrofit Structures and Utilities, Floodproof Residential and Non-Residential

Structures, Protect Infrastructure, Protect Critical Facilities, Construct Flood Control Measures, Remove Existing Buildings and Infrastructure

from Erosion Hazard Areas, Protect and Restore Natural Flood Mitigation Features, Preserve Floodplains as Open Space, Stabilize Erosion Hazard

Areas, Increase Awareness of Flood Risk and Safety, Educate Property Owners about Flood Mitigation Techniques, and Increase Awareness of

Erosion Hazards.

Hazard: Drought

Problem Statement: The estimated probability of one or more events in any year is between 18% (1960-2016) and 43% (2000-2016). Drought

has the potential to create low water supplies for fire protection and drinking water. It also results in increased wildfire risk.

304

Goals: Assess Vulnerability to Drought Risk, Monitor Drought Conditions, Monitor Water Supply, Plan for Drought, Require Water Conservation

During Drought Conditions, Retrofit Water Supply Systems, Enhance Landscaping and Design Measures, and Educate Residents on Water Saving

Techniques

Hazard: Earthquake

Problem Statement: the estimated probability of one or more events in any year is between 10% (1638 - 2016) and 46% (2000-2016). Although

earthquakes occur extremely rarely, they could create damage to pre-seismic standard buildings and infrastructure.

Goals: Adopt and Enforce Building Codes, Incorporate Earthquake Mitigation into Local Planning, Map and Assess Community Vulnerability to

Seismic Hazards, Conduct Inspections of Building Safety, Protect Critical Facilities and Infrastructure, Implement Structural Mitigation

Techniques, Increase Earthquake Risk Awareness, Conduct Outreach to Builders, Architects, Engineers, and Inspectors, and Provide Information

on Structural and Non-Structural Retrofitting.

Hazard: Extreme Temperatures

Problem Statement: the estimated probability of one or more events in any year is between 95% (2000-2016) and 94% (2000-2017). Extreme

temperatures have the potential to create heating fuel shortages and an inability for residents to pay fuel bills. They can also result in increased

demand on health care and emergency services, infrastructure and building problems, widespread power outages, and water supply shortages.

Goals: Reduce Urban Heat Island Effect, Increase Awareness of Extreme Temperature Risk and Safety, Assist Vulnerable Populations, and

Educate Property Owners About Freezing Pipes.

Hazard: High Wind Events

Problem Statement: The estimated probability of one or more events in any year is between 30% (1960-2016) and 0% (2000-2016). They have

the potential to cause wind damage and power outages.

Goals: Encourage Construction of Safe Rooms, Require Wind-Resistant Building Techniques, Adopt and Enforce Building Codes, Promote or

Require Site and Building Design Standards to Minimize Wind Damage, Assess Vulnerability to Severe Wind, Protect Power Lines and

Infrastructure, Retrofit Residential Buildings, Retrofit Public Buildings and Critical Facilities, Increase Severe Wind Risk Awareness, and Conduct

Tornado Awareness Activities.

305

Hazard: Infectious Diseases

Problem Statement: The estimated probability of one or more events in any year is between 7% (1918-2018) and 31% (2000-2018). Infectious

diseases have the potential to cause staffing shortages, over burden medical and public safety resources, and to result in increased morbidity

and mortality.

Goals: improve public outreach and education to encourage vaccinations, hand washing, and social isolation during illness; conduct coalition

building to increase capacity.

Hazard: Landslide

Problem Statement: The estimated probability of one or more events in any year is between 2% (1960-2016) and 6% (2000-2016). Landslides can

result in property damage to structures, infrastructure damage, and disruption to roadways.

Goals: Map and Assess Vulnerability to Landslides, Manage Development in Landslide Hazard Areas, Prevent Impacts to Roadways, and Remove

Existing Buildings and Infrastructure from Landslide Hazard Areas.

Hazard: Lightning

Problem Statement: The estimated probability of one or more events in any year is between 83% (1960-2000) and 67% (2000-2016). Lightning

has the potential to cause fires in structures, damage or loss of electrical equipment, injuries/fatalities, and power outages.

Goals: Protect Critical Facilities and Equipment and Conduct Lightning Awareness Programs.

Hazard: Severe Winter Weather

Problem Statement: The estimated probability of one or more events in any year is between 98% (1960-2000) and 91% (2000-2016). Severe

winter weather has the potential to cause localized flooding, river flooding, wind damage, and power outages. It can also occur in conjunction

with extreme temperatures.

Goals: Adopt and Enforce Building Codes, Protect Buildings and Infrastructure, Protect Power Lines, Reduce Impacts to Roadways, Conduct

Winter Weather Risk Awareness Activities, and Assist Vulnerable Populations.

Hazard: Solar Storms and Space Weather

306

Problem Statement: Solar storms and space weather has a low probability of occurring in Nashua, but has the potential to impact

communications and infrastructure and cause power outages.

Goals: ensure mission critical infrastructure is hardened and protected against solar storms and space weather.

Hazard: Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Problem Statement: the estimated probability of one or more events in any year is between 17% (1960-2016) and 22% (2000-2016). These

storms have the potential to cause localized flooding, river flooding, thunderstorms, tornadoes, wind damage, power outages, and

environmental health concerns.

Goals: Incorporate Flood Mitigation in Local Planning, Form Partnerships to Support Floodplain Management, Limit or Restrict Development in

Floodplain Areas, Adopt and Enforce Building Codes and Development Standards, Improve Stormwater Management Planning, Adopt Policies to

Reduce Stormwater Runoff, Improve Flood Risk Assessment, Improve Compliance with NFIP, Manage the Floodplain Beyond Minimum

Requirements, Improve Participation in the CRS, Establish Local Funding Mechanisms for Flood Mitigation, Adopt and Enforce Building Codes,

Promote or Require Site and Building Design Standards to Minimize Wind Damage, Assess Vulnerability to Severe Wind, Protect Power Lines and

Infrastructure, Remove Existing Structures from Flood Hazard Areas, Improve Stormwater Drainage System Capacity, Conduct Regular

Maintenance for Drainage Systems and Flood Control Structures, Elevate or Retrofit Structures and Utilities, Floodproof Residential and Non-

Residential Structures, Protect Infrastructure, Protect Critical Facilities, Construct Flood Control Measures, Retrofit Residential Buildings, Retrofit

Public Buildings and Critical Facilities, Protect and Restore Natural Flood Mitigation Features, Preserve Floodplains as Open Space, Increase

Awareness of Flood Risk and Safety, Educate Property Owners about Flood Mitigation Techniques, and Increase Severe Wind Risk Awareness.

Hazard: Wildfire

Problem Statement: although wildfire happens infrequently and on a small scale, it has the ability to cause significant damage to structures,

property, and infrastructure. Wildfire can also result in road closures due to smoke and environmental health hazards.

Goals: Map and Assess Vulnerability to Wildfire, Incorporate Wildfire Mitigation in the Comprehensive Plan, Reduce Risk through Land Use

Planning, Develop and Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Require or Encourage Fire-Resistant Construction Techniques, Retrofit At-Risk Structures

with Ignition-Resistant Materials, Create Defensible Space Around Structures and Infrastructure, Conduct Maintenance to Reduce Risk,

Implement a Fuels Management Program, Participate in Firewise Program, Increase Wildfire Risk Awareness, and Educate Property Owners

about Wildfire Mitigation Techniques.

307

Section 4.2 Mitigation Actions

After establishing goals to reduce vulnerabilities to each hazard type, the Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders identified mitigation actions to

achieve these goals. The stakeholders then obtained input on the proposed actions from the City departments responsible for their

implementation. Their recommendations were incorporated and the resulting mitigation actions appear in Table 7 below. They are divided into

two sections: Mitigation Actions Originally Identified in the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 and New Mitigation Actions. If a

mitigation action promotes the National Flood Insurance Program it is noted in the table.

Mitigation Type includes local plans and regulations, structure and infrastructure projects, natural systems protection, & education and

awareness programs. Local plan and regulation actions include government authorities, policies, or codes that influence the way land and

buildings are developed and built. Structure and infrastructure projects actions involve modifying existing structures and infrastructure to

protect them from a hazard or remove them from a hazard area. This could apply to public or private structures as well as critical facilities and

infrastructure. This type of action also involves projects to construct manmade structures to reduce the impact of hazards. Many of these types

of actions are projects eligible for funding through the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance program. Natural systems protection includes actions

that minimize damage and losses and also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Education and awareness programs include

actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. These actions

may also include participation in national programs, such as StormReady or Firewise Communities. Although this type of mitigation reduces risk

less directly than structural projects or regulation, it is an important foundation. A greater understanding and awareness of hazards and risk

among local officials, stakeholders, and the public is more likely to lead to direct actions.

Table 7—Mitigation Actions

Mitigation Action Mitigation Type Hazard Addressed Critical Facilities Addressed

National Flood Insurance Program Mitigation Action

Mitigation Actions Originally Identified in Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Signal failure prevention through additional wireless communications and backup power sources

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Earthquake High Wind Events Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather Solar Storms and Space Weather

Traffic signal infrastructure

No

308

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

Mast arm inspections throughout City

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Earthquake High Wind Events Lightning Severe Winter Weather Solar Storms and Space Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

Transportation infrastructure

No

Intersection design improvements

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Transportation infrastructure

No

Enhance pavement improvement plan. Incorporate porous paving where applicable to mitigate flooding and improve drainage including the use of low impact development techniques, porous pavement, vegetative buffers, and islands in large parking areas and the use of permeable driveways and surfaces to reduce runoff and increase groundwater recharge.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Transportation infrastructure and facilities near drainage problem areas

No

309

Improve drainage capacity of problem flood areas, particularly Wethersfield/Westwood, Shelly Drive and Browning Ave, Victor Ave at Emmett St, Westchester Dr, Wilmington Rd at New Searles Rd, Pemberton Rd at Belfast St, Park Ave/Lawndale Ave area, Courtland St/Hall Ave area; C, D, E Sts, Marshall St (Bowers to East Hollis), and Spaulding Ave.

● Local Planning and Regulations

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All facilities near drainage problem areas

No

Continue to work with dam safety agencies and dam owners to delineate and map potential risk areas in case of a dam failure in Nashua.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Earthquake Landslide Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Dams and critical facilities in inundation zones

No

Work with Pennichuck to increase public awareness of methods to reduce water consumption during drought conditions.

● Education and Awareness Programs

Drought All Facilities No

Support seismic-rated construction of buildings and infrastructure.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Earthquake All Facilities No

310

Improve outreach and education regarding mold and other health concerns resulting from flooding

● Education and Awareness Programs

Inland Flooding Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities No

Increase the capacity of culverts and storm drains and ensure drainage systems are properly engineered, citizens are included in the planning process, particularly as part of future paving initiatives

● Local Planning and Regulations

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Transportation infrastructure and critical facilities in flood hazard areas

No

Continue to work with Eversource to harden electrical infrastructure, including trimming trees near power lines

● Local Planning and Regulations

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather Solar Storms and Space Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

All Facilities No

Enforce building codes, particularly those related to wind and snow load.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather

All Facilities No

311

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

Provide ongoing outreach and education regarding snow load.

● Education and Awareness Programs

Severe Winter Weather All Facilities No

Work with local utilities to conduct public outreach and education to ensure energy users are operating systems efficiently during times of extreme temperatures and are aware of heating and cooling assistance options.

● Education and Awareness Programs

Extreme Temperatures All Facilities No

Maintain and update water and sewer infrastructure that could cause ground failure. Utilize cameras to inspect water and sewer lines throughout the City. Ensure ground failure repairs are properly completed. Maintain a database of ground failure occurrences in the City, including historic events.

● Local Planning and Regulations

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Earthquake Landslide Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Transportation infrastructure

No

312

Ensure mission critical infrastructure is hardened and protected against solar weather.

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Solar Storms and Space Weather

All Facilities No

Enforce fire permit regulations.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Wildfire All Facilities No

Make available NFIP, insurance, and building codes explanatory pamphlets or booklets.

● Education and Awareness Programs

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities Yes

Enhance local officials, builders, developers, local citizens and other stakeholders’ knowledge of how to read and interpret the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

● Local Planning and Regulations

● Education and Awareness Programs

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities Yes

New Mitigation Actions

Perform regular drainage system maintenance, such as sediment and debris clearance, as well as detection and prevention of discharges into stormwater and sewer systems from home footing drains, downspouts, or sewer pumps.

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Transportation infrastructure and facilities near drainage problem areas

No

313

Routinely clean and repair stormwater drains.

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Transportation infrastructure and facilities near drainage problem areas

No

Ask residents to help keep storm drains clear of debris during storms (not to rely solely on Public Works).

● Education and Awareness Programs

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Transportation infrastructure and facilities near drainage problem areas

No

Remove structures from flood-prone areas to minimize future flood losses by acquiring and demolishing structures from voluntary property owners and preserving lands subject to repetitive flooding, particularly southern portions of 300 Main Street Marketplace

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Transportation infrastructure and facilities near drainage problem areas

No

Use stream restoration to ensure adequate drainage and diversion of stormwater, particularly on Salmon Brook near Main Street

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Transportation infrastructure and facilities near drainage problem areas

No

Collect rainwater and use natural runoff to water plants.

● Education and Awareness Programs

Inland Flooding Drought Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities No

Provide grassy swales along roadsides.

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Drought Severe Winter Weather

Transportation infrastructure and

No

314

Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

facilities near drainage problem areas

Add building insulation to walls and attics and conduct overall weatherization upgrades.

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Extreme Temperatures All Facilities No

Install generators, solar+storage, and quick-connect emergency generator hook-ups for critical facilities and other residential, commercial, industrial, & specialty properties.

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather Solar Storms and Space Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

All Facilities No

Adopt the most current International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC).

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

All Facilities No

Promote the installation of air conditioners and heat pumps and

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Extreme Temperatures All Facilities No

315

opportunities to subsidize the equipment and energy costs for low income families.

Promote the installation of low-flow water saving showerheads and toilets and opportunities to subsidise the equipment for low income families.

● Education and Awareness Programs

Drought All Facilities No

Increase tree plantings around buildings to shade parking lots and along public rights-of-way.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Extreme Temperatures Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities No

Encourage installation of green roofs, which provide shade and remove heat from the roof surface and surrounding air.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Extreme Temperatures All Facilities No

Incorporate inspection and management of hazardous trees into the drainage system maintenance process.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Earthquake High Wind Events Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

All Facilities No

Improve roof coverings (e.g., no pebbles, remove ballast

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

High Wind Events Severe Winter Weather

All Facilities No

316

roof systems). Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Establish “value-added” incentives for hazard-resistant construction practices beyond code requirements.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Drought Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather Solar Storms and Space Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

All Facilities No

Work with insurance industry representatives to increase public awareness of the importance of multi-hazard insurance and coverage limitations.

● Education and Awareness Programs

Inland Flooding Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather Solar Storms and Space Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

All Facilities No

Acquire and demolish or relocate buildings and infrastructure at-risk from erosion and enforcing permanent restrictions on

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Landslide Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities No

317

development after land and structure acquisition, particularly on Nashua and Merrimack Rivers.

Prevent erosion with proper bank stabilization, sloping or grading techniques, planting vegetation on slopes, terracing hillsides, or installing riprap boulders or geotextile fabric, particularly on Nashua and Merrimack Rivers.

● Natural Systems Protection

Inland Flooding Landslide Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities No

Install, repair and/or replace HVAC systems at public facilities, particularly at schools, the library, fire stations, police department.

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Extreme Temperatures All Facilities No

Install redundancies in municipal fiber and fire alarm network.

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather Solar Storms and Space Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

318

Incorporate hazard mitigation principles into all aspects of public-funded building.

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Drought Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather Solar Storms and Space Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

All Facilities No

Incorporate mitigation retrofits for public facilities into the annual capital improvements program.

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Drought Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather Solar Storms and Space Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

All Facilities No

Incorporate a stand-alone element for hazard mitigation & resilience into the upcoming master plan.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Drought Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Infectious Diseases Landslide Lightning

All Facilities No

319

Severe Winter Weather Solar Storms and Space Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

Add at least a 1-foot “freeboard” requirement (feet above base flood elevation) in the flood damage ordinance to maintain Nashua’s Class 8 CRS Rating in 2020.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities Yes

Prepare and adopting a community-wide stormwater management master plan to maintain compliance with the City’s MS4 permit.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities No

Implement an inspection, maintenance, and enforcement program to help ensure continued structural integrity of municipal dams and the Merrimack River Right Bank – Flood Damage Reduction System levee.

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Earthquake Landslide Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

Dams & Levee No

320

Recommendations from the Army Corps of Engineers inspection reports should be resolved to bring the levee to an “Acceptable” status.

Promote the Resilient Nashua Toolkit interactive website for educating the public on hazard mitigation and preparedness measures.

● Education and Awareness Programs

Inland Flooding Drought Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Infectious Diseases Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather Solar Storms and Space Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

All Facilities No

Designated local floodplain manager and CRS coordinator achieves CFM certification.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities No

Install, upgrade, or maintain back-up generators for pumping and lift stations in sanitary sewer systems along with other measures (e.g., alarms,

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather

Water & Wastewater Facilities

No

321

meters, remote controls, and switchgear upgrades).

Solar Storms and Space Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

Raise utilities or other mechanical devices above expected flood levels, particularly in areas likely to be redeveloped soon in the Millyard.

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities No

Wet floodproof basements residential and non-residential structures, which may be preferable to attempting to keep water out completely because it allows for controlled flooding to balance exterior and interior wall forces and discourages structural collapse, particularly in areas likely to be redeveloped soon in the Millyard.

● Structure and Infrastructure Projects

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities No

Identify best approach to prevent new development or to require flood-resilient site & building design in developable parcels

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities No

322

adjacent to the Merrimack River.

Develop a coordinated GIS Department. Find out who uses GIS, determine how it is used, and identify other potential uses.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Drought Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather Solar Storms and Space Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

All Facilities No

Obtain hazard data and using GIS to map risk for various hazards.

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Drought Earthquake Extreme Temperatures High Wind Events Landslide Lightning Severe Winter Weather Solar Storms and Space Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones Wildfire

All Facilities No

Develop and maintain a database to track community exposure to flood risk, particularly smaller nuisance events for

● Local Planning and Regulations

Inland Flooding Severe Winter Weather Tropical and Post-Tropical Cyclones

All Facilities No

323

future benefit cost analysis use.

Section 4.3 Prioritizing Mitigation Actions

After identifying mitigation actions to address each hazard, the stakeholders then began a two-step process to prioritize them. The first step

was to conduct a benefit cost review. Benefit cost reviews provide a comprehensive overview of the monetary and non-monetary costs and

benefits associated with each action. During this process, the Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders asked a variety of questions such as, “How

beneficial is this action to the entire City?” “How many people will benefit from this action?” “How large of an area is impacted by this project?”

“How costly is this project?”

Table 8—Benefit Cost Review

Mitigation Action Likely Benefits Likely Costs

Signal failure prevention through additional wireless communications and backup power sources.

1. Addition of redundant power and communications to traffic signals would prevent non-operational signals at unsafe intersections after disaster.

2. Preventing signal failure would allow easier mobility for emergency responders.

3. Continuous traffic flow would result in reduced vehicle emissions.

1. It is expensive to implement this action.

2. Nashua DPW will need to provide project management and oversight.

3. $72,000-$2,000,000 (source: Nashua CIP & Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Mast arm inspections throughout City. 1. This action will help to avoid the high economic and public safety costs of a mast arm failure.

2. Although mast arm inspections only occur in a localized area, they are beneficial to a large portion of the population because they tend to occur in heavily traveled and densely developed areas.

1. Nashua DPW will need to provide project management and oversight.

2. This action is expensive to implement and there is no grant funding available.

3. $5,000 per mast arm for inspection only (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

324

Intersection design improvements. 1. This action may result in improved air quality from reduced vehicle emissions.

2. Although individual intersection improvements only occur in a localized area, they may be beneficial to a large portion of the population depending on how heavily traveled and densely developed the area is.

1. Construction may cause temporary disruptions to certain neighborhoods.

2. This action is expensive to implement and would be funded by taxpayers.

3. $150,000 per intersection for analysis (source: Nashua CIP)

Enhance pavement improvement plan. Incorporate porous paving where applicable to mitigate flooding and improve drainage including the use of low impact development techniques, porous pavement, vegetative buffers, and islands in large parking areas and the use of permeable driveways and surfaces to reduce runoff and increase groundwater recharge.

1. This action will primarily benefit the neighborhoods that fall within the plan.

2. These benefits may extend to a large portion of the population depending on how heavily traveled and densely developed the neighborhood is.

1. This action is expensive to implement and would be funded by taxpayers.

2. Project management and oversight would need to be provided by Nashua DPW staff.

3. $37.5 million-$45 million (source: Nashua CIP & Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Improve drainage capacity of problem flood areas, particularly Wethersfield/Westwood, Shelly Drive and Browning Ave, Victor Ave at Emmett St, Westchester Dr, Wilmington Rd at New Searles Rd, Pemberton Rd at Belfast St , Park Ave/Lawndale Ave area, Courtland St/Hall Ave area; C, D, E Sts, Marshall St (Bowers to East Hollis), and Spaulding Ave.

1. There are economic and environmental benefits resulting from reducing flood risks to problem properties and infrastructure.

2. Although individual drainage improvements only occur in localized areas, they may be beneficial to a large portion of the population depending on how heavily traveled and densely developed the area is.

1. It is difficult to find funding for these projects.

2. Individual drainage improvements may only benefit a localized area, while the economic costs are shared among the entire population.

3. $1.8 million-$2.1 million (source: Nashua CIP)

Continue to work with dam safety agencies and dam owners to delineate and

1. This action has the potential to reduce property damage and

1. The City does not have in-house capacity to map the risk areas.

325

map potential risk areas in case of a dam failure in Nashua.

subsequent environmental impacts.

2. The benefits of this action are geographically limited.

3. $200,000-$500,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Work with Pennichuck to increase public awareness of methods to reduce water consumption during drought conditions.

1. This action has environmental benefits if residents comply with reduced water consumption measures.

2. This action would benefit the entire City.

1. This action may have limited impact if there is not an accompanying enforcement mechanism.

2. $10,000; project cost borne by Pennichuck (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Support seismic-rated construction of buildings and infrastructure.

1. This action reduces the costs of rebuilding after an earthquake.

2. This action is beneficial to the entire City.

1. This action would add to construction costs.

2. Because major, damaging earthquakes are rare, the costs of this action may outweigh the benefits.

3. $4,000 Building Dept. budget; $300,000-$3,000,000 construction costs (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Improve outreach and education regarding mold and other health concerns resulting from flooding.

1. This action can improve public health.

2. This action is beneficial to the entire City.

3. This action has the biggest benefit when implemented prior to a flood event and continued immediately after.

1. There may be limited impact from this action because it is difficult to get people to pay attention to outreach campaigns.

2. $4,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Increase the capacity of culverts and storm drains and ensure drainage systems are properly engineered, citizens are included

1. Taking this action helps reduce the risk of major repair costs that might occur if no action were taken.

1. It is expensive to replace culverts. 2. Individual culvert and storm drain

repairs may only benefit a localized area, while the economic

326

in the planning process, particularly as part of future paving initiatives.

2. There are environmental benefits to local waterways and aquatic organisms.

3. Although individual culvert and storm drain repairs only occur in a localized area, they may be beneficial to a large portion of the population depending on how heavily traveled and densely developed the area is.

costs are shared among the entire population.

3. $50,000 per culvert for design and bidding; $195,000 per culvert on average for construction; final costs depend on culvert location (source: Nashua CIP)

Continue to work with Eversource to harden electrical infrastructure, including trimming trees near power lines.

1. Tree trimming reduces impact on the City’s public works and emergency services.

2. This action reduces the likelihood of power outages.

3. This action would benefit the entire City.

1. This action could negatively impact the looks of individual neighborhoods.

2. $2,000,000-$20,000,000; project cost borne by Eversource (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Enforce building codes, particularly those related to wind and snow load.

1. The City currently has the capacity to implement this action.

2. This action is beneficial to the entire City.

1. This action may not benefit older structures not subject to newer building codes.

2. $55,000 minimum (source: communications with Nashua Community Development)

Provide ongoing outreach and education regarding snow load.

1. The City currently has the capacity to implement this action.

2. This action is beneficial to the entire City.

1. This action may have limited impact because it is difficult to get people to pay attention to outreach campaigns.

2. $4,000 Building Dept. budget (source: communications with Nashua Community Development)

Work with local utilities to conduct public outreach and education to ensure energy users are operating systems efficiently during times of extreme temperatures and

1. This action is beneficial to the entire City.

2. This action particularly benefits the health and well-being of

1. This action may have limited impact because it is difficult to get people to change their behavior and use energy more efficiently.

327

are aware of heating and cooling assistance options.

access & functional needs populations.

3. This action benefits the environment by reducing energy usage.

2. $10,000-$30,000; project cost borne by utilities (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Maintain and update water and sewer infrastructure that could cause ground failure. Utilize cameras to inspect water and sewer lines throughout the City. Ensure ground failure repairs are properly completed. Maintain a database of ground failure occurrences in the City, including historic events.

1. If repairs are done correctly it will reduce the risk of ground failure.

2. This action benefits the entire City.

1. It is costly to maintain and update water and sewer infrastructure.

2. This action is disruptive to specific neighborhoods during repairs.

3. $500 per foot (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Ensure mission critical infrastructure is hardened and protected against solar weather.

1. This action will help reduce the number of disruptions resulting from solar weather.

1. This action is technically very difficult to implement.

2. This action is very costly. 3. Because solar weather is so rare,

the costs of this action may outweigh the benefits.

4. $2,000,000-$20,000,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Enforce fire permit regulations. 1. This action would result in reduced firefighting costs.

2. This action would benefit the environment by reducing the number of wildfires.

1. This action imposes an added burden on the Fire Dept.

2. Enforcement of this action would be costly.

3. $250,000 Nashua Fire Rescue Operating Budget (source: communications with Nashua Fire Dept.)

Make available NFIP, insurance, and building codes explanatory pamphlets or booklets.

1. The City currently has the capacity to implement this action.

2. This action increases public awareness about flooding.

1. This action only solves the symptoms related to flooding rather than the underlying problem itself.

328

2. This action is most beneficial to areas of the City that are prone to flooding.

3. $4,000 Building Dept. budget (source: communications with Nashua Community Development)

Enhance local officials, builders, developers, local citizens and other stakeholders’ knowledge of how to read and interpret the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

1. The City currently has the capacity to implement this action.

2. This action increases public awareness about flooding.

1. This action only solves the symptoms related to flooding rather than the underlying problem itself.

2. This action is most beneficial to areas of the City that are prone to flooding.

3. $4,000 Building Dept. budget (source: communications with Nashua Community Development)

Perform regular drainage system maintenance, such as sediment and debris clearance, as well as detection and prevention of discharges into stormwater and sewer systems from home footing drains, downspouts, or sewer pumps.

1. This action will prevent flash flooding in known problem areas in the City by removing obstructions from drainage systems.

2. This action reduces the possibility of flooding impacting road infrastructure.

3. This action prevents damage to aging stormwater infrastructure.

1. This action requires a substantial maintenance program and staff to manage.

2. Enforcement of discharges may be difficult without appropriate staffing.

3. $100,000-200,000 DPW budget (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Routinely clean and repair stormwater drains.

1. This action will prevent flash flooding in known problem areas in the City by removing obstructions from drainage systems.

2. This action reduces the possibility of flooding impacting road infrastructure.

1. This action requires a substantial maintenance program and staff to manage.

2. Enforcement of discharges may be difficult without appropriate staffing.

329

3. This action prevents damage to aging stormwater infrastructure.

3. $100,000-200,000 DPW budget (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Ask residents to help keep storm drains clear of debris during storms (not to rely solely on Public Works).

1. This action can reduce the burden on DPW staff throughout the year to keep drains clear.

2. This builds a sense of community and participation in risk reduction.

3. Citizens are more likely to know of issues near their properties.

4. Citizens are closer to these drains reducing the travel time for DPW crews to maintain.

1. There could be safety hazards with using citizens to keep storm drains clear.

2. $4,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Remove structures from flood-prone areas to minimize future flood losses by acquiring and demolishing structures from voluntary property owners and preserving lands subject to repetitive flooding, particularly southern portions of 300 Main Street Marketplace

1. This action will prevent future flood related losses in areas where structures are in the floodplain

2. This action will prevent injuries and death from populations in vulnerable properties.

1. This project would be very costly to acquire and demolish structures.

2. There’s a negative impact to the economy with the reduction of tax-paying homes or businesses being removed.

3. There may be a significant amount of opposition on the acquisition of private properties.

4. $2,000,000-$10,000,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Use stream restoration to ensure adequate drainage and diversion of stormwater, particularly on Salmon Brook near Main Street

1. This action will enable better pathways for aquatic life.

2. This action improves flood flow capacity.

3. This action improves recreational and/or natural areas.

1. This project would be very costly to restore streams and construction new bridges or large culverts.

2. There may be existing structures that prevent this option.

3. Permitting and regulatory requirements may be significant.

330

4. This could drastically change floodplains and impact other properties.

5. $2,000,000-$6,000,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Collect rainwater and use natural runoff to water plants.

1. This action recharges groundwater to help prevent drought

2. This action is fairly inexpensive at the individual level.

3. Gardens and plants benefit from the water.

4. This action builds a sense of individual involvement in hazard mitigation.

1. It may be difficult to get substantial numbers of individuals to conduct these actions.

2. Will require substantial outreach to promote and train individuals how to construct these systems.

3. May require subsidized rain barrels to distribute to residents.

4. $2,000-$10,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Provide grassy swales along roadsides. 1. This action recharges groundwater to help prevent drought

2. These swales can collect hazardous materials that may be discharged and filter prior to entering groundwater or collect materials for easy disposal during a spill

3. These swales prevent contaminants from going into drinking water sources

4. These swales provide additional stormwater capacity

5. The swales are esthetically pleasing along roadways

1. There may not be enough real estate to enable construction of grassy swales along roads in some areas.

2. There would be a substantial cost for the engineering, permitting, and construction of the swales.

3. $500,000-$2,000,000 (source Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Add building insulation to walls and attics and conduct overall weatherization upgrades.

1. This action improves the ability for buildings to maintain their heat or

1. While a smaller expense to conduct for a single home, conducting this at multiple

331

cool during extreme events and power outages.

2. This action reduces the waste of energy by allowing HVAC systems to work less.

properties can become very expensive.

2. Limited funding is available for these types of initiatives.

3. $20,000-$1,000,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Install generators, solar+storage, and quick-connect emergency generator hook-ups for critical facilities and other residential, commercial, industrial, & specialty properties.

1. This action enables homes, businesses, and critical facilities to maintain operations due to a power outage.

2. This action prevents a loss of productivity and/products that require power

3. The use of solar+storage has benefits from the use of clean energy throughout the year.

4. Quick-connect emergency generator hook ups are appropriate for facilities that may not need backup power immediately and can also be installed at facilities with fixed-mount generators as a backup.

5. Backup power can maintain communications, climate control, and other essential lifelines in a building.

1. This action could be very expensive depending on the number of facilities and buildings to be outfitted.

2. Generators still require fuel delivery to continue operations during long-term outages

3. Generators require testing plans and maintenance

4. Solar would be required to be installed after roofs would be upgraded if necessary

5. Some buildings do not have room for battery backup

6. $20,000-$5,000,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Adopt the most current International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC).

1. This action would add new life safety and hazard protections to new and retrofit construction.

2. The City is currently utilizing the 2009 IBC and IRC, much outdated

1. While this would decrease disaster related costs, the cost of homes and businesses could become more expensive to build

332

compared to the current 2018 codes.

3. The City would maintain compliance with the Community Rating System (CRS) and Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) if it were to obtain a new code.

4. This action would enable new construction to be more resilient, reducing the likelihood of disruptions during an incident

2. There has been political opposition to the updating of building codes at the State level

3. The adoption of the newer codes may require some training for inspectors to ensure they are familiar with all the new requirements.

4. $20,000 Building Dept. budget $1,000,000-$3,000,000 construction costs (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Promote the installation of air conditioners and heat pumps and opportunities to subsidize the equipment and energy costs for low income families.

1. This action will ensure all properties are capable of staying in a safe & comfortable temperature level during extreme heat events

2. Subsidizing the cost of equipment and additional energy costs would enable low income families to prevent heat related injuries during extreme heat events.

3. Heat pumps can be used for efficient air conditioning and heating in comparison to central HVAC

1. Air conditioners are inexpensive individually though they can be expensive if distributed and subsidized to many properties

2. An entity would need to manage the distribution and installation of subsidized equipment.

3. There are additional energy expenses when running air conditioners

4. There would be additional energy load on the electric grid during a period that already has a high demand, leading to greater carbon emissions.

5. $50,000-$300,000 for A/C or heat pumps; $300,000-$400,000 for energy costs (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Promote the installation of low-flow water saving showerheads and toilets and

1. This action will reduce the amount of water used from showers and

1. Showerheads and toilets are inexpensive individually though

333

opportunities to subsidize the equipment for low income families.

toilets helping to prevent overuse of water

2. Less energy will be used in the water treatment process due to the reduced demand.

3. Subsidized equipment will enable low income populations to assist in the campaign to reduce water use and reduce their water costs.

they can be expensive if distributed and subsidized to many properties

2. An entity would need to manage the distribution and installation of subsidized equipment.

3. $50,000-$300,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Increase tree plantings around buildings to shade parking lots and along public rights-of-way.

1. This action will reduce the heat island effect in the City

2. Parking areas and public rights-of-way will become cooler locations for people to walk in reducing heat related injuries

3. The additional trees will be esthetically pleasing

4. The additional trees will benefit the atmosphere by trapping CO2 and acting as carbon sinks.

1. There may be areas in need of trees that do not have enough room to allow for plantings.

2. An entity would need to manage the distribution and planting of trees.

3. Trees planted near utilities could become hazards for power lines and other critical services.

4. Trees planted near buildings could become hazards for buildings in the future if not maintained.

5. $50,000-$100,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Encourage installation of green roofs, which provide shade and remove heat from the roof surface and surrounding air.

1. This action will reduce the heat island effect in the City

2. Buildings and surrounding air will become cooler

3. The additional vegetation will be esthetically pleasing

4. The green roofs will benefit the atmosphere by trapping CO2 and acting as carbon sinks.

1. Green roofs may require additional maintenance

2. An entity would need to promote the use of green roofs within the private sector

3. Green roofs are not typically installed by roof contractors

4. This could be very expensive to replace roofs in large scale

334

5. $100,000-$3 million (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Incorporate inspection and management of hazardous trees into the drainage system maintenance process.

1. This action will trim or eliminate trees that could fall in roads, on utilities, or on buildings.

2. This action would reduce the likelihood of death or injuries from falling trees.

3. This action would reduce storm cleanup after wind related events.

1. Private property owners may not want their trees cut down

2. An entity would need to maintain an assessment program and trim or remove trees.

3. $50,000-$150,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Improve roof coverings (e.g., no pebbles, remove ballast roof systems).

1. This action would reduce damage to neighboring structures from stones used in roofing.

2. This action would reduce the likelihood of death or injuries from projectiles.

3. This action would reduce storm cleanup after wind related events

1. Property owners may not want to replace their roofs if they are still in good condition

2. This could be very expensive to replace roofs in large scale

3. $100,000-$3 million (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Establish “value-added” incentives for hazard-resistant construction practices beyond code requirements.

1. This action would promote “code plus” enhancements during new and retrofit construction to reduce risk from hazards.

2. Homeowners, businesses, and non-profits would receive incentives for designing sites and facilities with resilient features

1. Incentives may cost significant funding to implement wide scale.

2. Outreach would be necessary to promote the incentive program

3. Insurance industry has not jumped on to incentive programs in the Northeast yet.

4. $250,000-$3 million (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Work with insurance industry representatives to increase public awareness of the importance of multi-hazard insurance and coverage limitations.

1. This action would enable residents and businesses to be more familiar with their insurance coverage, the importance of insurance, and the

1. Insurance industry may not be interested in partnering with the City to promote this program.

2. Residents and businesses may not be interested in learning more

335

different items covered based on the type of insurance provided.

2. There would likely be a higher adoption of insurance coverage with better knowledge of the system.

about insurance coverage requiring a significant outreach campaign.

3. $5,000-$10,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Acquire and demolish or relocate buildings and infrastructure at-risk from erosion and enforcing permanent restrictions on development after land and structure acquisition, particularly on Nashua and Merrimack Rivers.

1. This action will prevent future erosion related losses in areas where structures are at risk

2. This action will prevent injuries and death from populations in vulnerable properties.

3. This option will enable rivers to naturally move overtime without impacting structures.

1. This project would be very costly to acquire and demolish structures.

2. There’s a negative impact to the economy with the reduction of tax-paying homes or businesses being removed.

3. There may be a significant amount of opposition on the acquisition of private properties.

4. $2,000,000-$10,000,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Prevent erosion with proper bank stabilization, sloping or grading techniques, planting vegetation on slopes, terracing hillsides, or installing riprap boulders or geotextile fabric, particularly on Nashua and Merrimack Rivers.

1. This action will stabilize properties with significant erosion from rivers and streams.

2. With this action, homes and businesses will not need to be acquired and demolished.

3. This action will prevent injuries and death from populations in vulnerable properties.

1. This project would be very costly to stabilize slopes along rivers.

2. Access to these areas will be extremely difficult for construction

3. Permitting and engineering will be extensive.

4. Even by repairing sections of the river bank, these problems may occur in the future.

5. $2,000,000-$10,000,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Install, repair and/or replace HVAC systems at public facilities, particularly at

1. This action will prevent aging HVAC systems from failing during extreme temperature events.

1. HVAC replacements could be very costly for multiple buildings at the same time.

336

schools, the library, fire stations, police department.

2. This action will keep these critical facilities at comfortable and safe temperatures.

3. Schools and the library can be utilized as cooling and warming centers or shelters during extreme temperature events and must have functioning HVAC systems.

4. Replacing older HVAC systems with newer more energy efficient systems could reduce energy costs and carbon emissions.

2. Construction could cause disruptions to building users

3. $500,000-$4.5 million (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders & Nashua CIP)

Install redundancies in municipal fiber and fire alarm network.

1. This action will ensure all appliances on the municipal fiber network will maintain communications during the loss of a section due to damage from storms or other emergencies.

2. The creation of redundancies on the municipal fire alarm network will ensure fire alarm boxes at buildings will still be able to communicate with Fire Alarm during an emergency.

1. This project could be very costly to implement.

2. $400,000-$500,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders & Nashua CIP)

Incorporate hazard mitigation principles into all aspects of public-funded building.

1. This action would require a review of all capital projects to ensure risk reduction and hazard mitigation techniques are included in new construction or renovations, when these options are cheapest to implement.

2. Including these principles would set the example for private

1. Costs for capital projects could go up due to the addition of mitigation and adaptation techniques

2. Incorporating these principles would require additional review and an entity to have the knowledge to recommend techniques.

337

entities to implement these techniques in their projects.

3. Overall costs from disasters would be reduced at these properties

4. Other co-benefits would leveraged including energy efficiency.

3. Projects may take longer to complete if they require additional construction.

4. $25,000-$5 million (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Incorporate mitigation retrofits for public facilities into the annual capital improvements program.

1. This action would require a review of all capital projects to ensure risk reduction and hazard mitigation techniques are included in new construction or renovations, when these options are cheapest to implement.

2. Including these principles would set the example for private entities to implement these techniques in their projects.

3. Overall costs from disasters would be reduced at these properties

4. Other co-benefits would leveraged including energy efficiency.

1. Costs for capital projects could go up due to the addition of mitigation and adaptation techniques

2. Incorporating these principles would require additional review by the Capital Improvements Committee.

3. Projects may take longer to complete if they require additional construction.

4. $25,000-$5 million (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Incorporate a stand-alone element for hazard mitigation & resilience into the upcoming master plan.

1. This action would enable mitigation and adaptation actions to be integrated more closely with the long term vision of the City

2. Mitigation and adaptation actions would be more likely to be implemented in the Master Plan.

3. Mitigation and resilience would be integrated into the overall master planning for the City

1. Effort would be required from all City Departments to draft this section of the Master Plan

2. Costs for the Master Plan could be higher due to this element being added.

3. The Master Plan could take longer to develop with this additional section

4. $10,000-$20,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

338

Add at least a 1-foot “freeboard” requirement (feet above base flood elevation) in the flood damage ordinance to maintain Nashua’s Class 8 CRS Rating in 2020.

1. This action would enable the City to maintain a Class 8 rating in 2020 per new requirements of the program.

2. Maintaining a Class 8 rating reduces insurance premiums for properties in the floodplain.

3. Adding at least 1 foot freeboard would ensure new construction had additional protection from floods

1. This action would require updates to the flood ordinance which could become controversial.

2. Addition of freeboard may require additional construction costs.

3. $4,000 for ordinance development; $25,000-$1 million construction costs (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Prepare and adopting a community-wide stormwater management master plan to maintain compliance with the City’s MS4 permit.

1. This action would meet the requirements included in the City’s MS4 permit to develop a stormwater management plan.

2. This action would develop a strategy to managing stormwater across the entire City and develop implementation actions for infrastructure improvements.

1. This action requires the development of a plan which the City may not have the internal capacity to draft.

2. Participation and time will be necessary from City staff to complete the document.

3. NH DES and EPA may require revisions and modifications to this new plan

4. $25,000-$50,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Implement an inspection, maintenance, and enforcement program to help ensure continued structural integrity of municipal dams and the Merrimack River Right Bank – Flood Damage Reduction System levee. Recommendations from the Army Corps of Engineers inspection reports should be resolved to bring the levee to an “Acceptable” status.

1. This action would ensure the dams and levee are kept in a safe condition.

2. Developing a comprehensive maintenance program would enable repairs to be made throughout the year rather than after an inspection by NH DES or US Army Corps of Engineers.

3. This action and the completion of recommendations would enable

1. There could be significant costs to maintain components of the levee.

2. NH DES and US Army Corps may be required to inspect or approve repairs or changes to the dams or levees

3. There’s currently not enough trained staff to maintain an inspection program for these structures.

339

the City to maintain an “Acceptable” status on the levee.

4. $50,000-$2,000,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Promote the Resilient Nashua Toolkit interactive website for educating the public on hazard mitigation and preparedness measures.

1. The Resilient Nashua Toolkit website is intended to reduce staff time by enabling the public to develop plans and conduct assessments on their own

2. The Toolkit website utilizes best practices and other resources developed by partners reducing the amount of time necessary from the City to maintain the website.

3. The Toolkit website is extremely low cost to maintain.

4. The Toolkit website also incorporates preparedness information in addition to the mitigation resources for facilities

1. Additional technical assistance may be requested from staff to assist with resources from the Toolkit

2. Significant outreach will be necessary to get the public to utilize the Toolkit

3. The Toolkit will require revisions and updates as resources change

4. $5,000-$10,000 (source: Nashua OEM & Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Designated local floodplain manager and CRS coordinator achieves CFM certification.

1. The CFM program will enhance the knowledge of the City’s floodplain manager

2. Citizens and businesses may be able to get floodplain related questions answered directly by the City’s floodplain manager rather than having to reach out to the State or FEMA.

1. The CFM certification will require additional time and studying for the floodplain manager.

2. There will likely be a cost to take the CFM test.

3. $500-$5,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Install, upgrade, or maintain back-up generators for pumping and lift stations in sanitary sewer systems along with other measures (e.g., alarms, meters, remote controls, and switchgear upgrades).

1. Upgrading pump and lift stations across the City with generators and redundant communications systems will enable water and

1. This project could be very costly depending on the number of pump and lift stations being upgraded.

340

wastewater services to continue during most hazards

2. Upgrades will replace aging equipment and prevent failures throughout the year.

3. Maintenance costs will be lower and staff resources will be less necessary with newer upgraded equipment.

2. The project will require the Wastewater and Engineer Departments to lead design and construction in conjunction with contractors for sewer and stormwater pump stations

3. The project will require Pennichuck to lead design and construction in conjunction with contractors for water pump stations.

4. Construction could cause disruptions to pump stations and wastewater or water services

5. $500,000-$7,000,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Raise utilities or other mechanical devices above expected flood levels, particularly in areas likely to be redeveloped soon in the Millyard.

1. This action will prevent significant damages to newly retrofitted or constructed properties near or in the floodplain, particularly historic buildings being developed in the Millyard.

2. It is cheaper to add resilient design in significant retrofits or new construction rather than install it after the fact.

3. Grant funding may be available to support these mitigation measures

4. Renovation of historic structures in the Millyard will revitalize the area and benefit the housing availability strains, only if the properties are protected

1. Adding these flood protection techniques may add additional cost to construction projects

2. Adding these flood protection techniques may add additional time to construction projects

3. Spaces within structures that could be used for living or commercial space may no longer be available

4. These techniques do not eliminate all flood risk to structures

5. $500,000-$1 million (source Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

341

5. Restoration times of flood protected structures will be far shorter than structures experiencing damage

Wet floodproof basements residential and non-residential structures, which may be preferable to attempting to keep water out completely because it allows for controlled flooding to balance exterior and interior wall forces and discourages structural collapse, particularly in areas likely to be redeveloped soon in the Millyard.

1. This action will prevent significant damages to newly retrofitted or constructed properties near or in the floodplain, particularly historic buildings being developed in the Millyard.

2. It is cheaper to add resilient design in significant retrofits or new construction rather than install it after the fact.

3. Grant funding may be available to support these mitigation measures

4. Renovation of historic structures in the Millyard will revitalize the area and benefit the housing availability strains, only if the properties are protected

5. Restoration times of flood protected structures will be far shorter than structures experiencing damage

1. Adding these flood protection techniques may add additional cost to construction projects

2. Adding these flood protection techniques may add additional time to construction projects

3. Spaces within structures that could be used for living or commercial space may no longer be available

4. These techniques do not eliminate all flood risk to structures

5. $500,000-$1 million (source Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Identify best approach to prevent new development or to require flood-resilient site & building design in developable parcels adjacent to the Merrimack River.

1. This action can enable preservation of additional green or recreational space in or near the floodplain

2. This action will prevent significant damages to newly constructed properties near or in the floodplain.

1. This action could eliminate taxpaying use of properties along the River.

2. Some parcels may not be easily converted to green space due to their prior use (industrial).

3. Adding flood protection techniques may add additional cost to construction projects

342

3. It is cheaper to add resilient design in new construction rather than install it after the fact.

4. Grant funding may be available to support these mitigation measures

5. Construction of new buildings will revitalize these areas and benefit the housing availability strains, only if the properties are protected

6. Restoration times of flood protected structures will be far shorter than structures experiencing damage

4. Adding flood protection techniques may add additional time to construction projects

5. Spaces within structures that could be used for living or commercial space may not be available

6. These techniques do not eliminate all flood risk to structures

7. There may be opposition to limiting the use of privately owned parcels

8. $500,000-$5 million (source Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Develop a coordinated GIS Department. Find out who uses GIS, determine how it is used, and identify other potential uses.

1. This action will enable coordinated use of GIS data for mitigation and resilience planning

2. Better GIS-based products could be developed to assist planners and officials with mitigation projects

3. Better GIS-based products could be developed to assist the public to understand hazards and mitigation projects

1. Efforts will need to be made to standardize GIS workflow across Departments

2. Close coordination will be required among GIS users in the City and external agencies

3. $50,000-$100,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Obtain hazard data and using GIS to map risk for various hazards.

1. This action will enable better understanding of hazard areas in the City including inundation zones, erosion risk, soil types, and infrastructure at risk.

2. This action will enable better hazard mitigation and master planning in the future.

1. Much of the data necessary for GIS hazard mapping is maintained by other agencies

2. Importing and analyzing hazard data requires experienced GIS technicians.

343

3. Data must be converted to ensure it is intuitive and understood by end-users.

4. $10,000-$25,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

Develop and maintain a database to track community exposure to flood risk, particularly smaller nuisance events for future benefit cost analysis use.

1. This action will enable better recordkeeping for smaller incidents (example: nuisance flooding that closes roads)

2. This data can be helpful in calculating Benefit Cost Analysis for grants

3. This data can be helpful in educating the public on hazard risk

1. This action would require additional recordkeeping by Departments based on incident responses they encounter throughout the year

2. Training would need to be provided to all staff using the recordkeeping system

3. Standards would need to be produced to ensure all data can be compared

4. $5,000-$10,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

After completing a Benefit Cost review for each action, the Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders then prioritized the actions by conducting a

STAPLEE Analysis, which stands for Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental factors. For each mitigation

action, the stakeholders asked the following questions:

● Social— Will the action unfairly impact any one segment of the population? Will it disrupt established neighborhoods? Is it compatible

with present and future community values? Will it adversely affect cultural resources?

● Technical—How effective is the action in avoiding or reducing future losses? Will it create more problems than it solves? What are

some secondary impacts? Does it solve a problem or only a symptom?

● Administrative— Does the community have the capability to implement the action? Can the community provide the necessary

maintenance? Can it be accomplished in a timely manner?

344

● Political— Is there public support both to implement and maintain the action? Is the political leadership willing to support it? Does it

present a financial burden to stakeholders?

● Legal— Does the community have the authority to implement the action? Is enabling legislation necessary? What are the legal side

effects? Will the community be liable for the actions, support of actions, or lack of actions?

● Economic— What are the costs of this action? How will the costs be borne? Are state/federal grant programs applicable? Does the

action fit into existing capital improvements or economic development budgets?

● Environmental— How will this action affect the environment? Does it comply with local, state, and federal environmental regulations?

Is it consistent with community environmental goals? Are endangered or threatened species likely to be affected?

The cost and benefit of each mitigation action were then evaluated and assigned a quantitative score based on the STAPLEE criteria.

Benefit Score Range: 0 = Not Beneficial, 1 = Somewhat Beneficial, 2 = Beneficial, 3 = Very Beneficial

Cost Score Range: 0 = Not Costly, -1 = Somewhat Costly, -2 = Costly, -3 = Very Costly

Next, the scores for each action were added to determine priority. Finally, the Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders reviewed the scores and

resulting prioritization to make sure it was consistent with the City’s goals and Master Plan. The STAPLEE analysis and prioritized mitigation

actions appear in Table 9 below. STAPLEE scores of 0 or below were determined to have costs that outweigh the benefits and will be reassessed

in the next plan update. These actions were not continued on to the implementation review.

Table 9—STAPLEE Analysis

Mitigation Action: Signal failure prevention through additional wireless communications and backup power sources

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social If a signal were to fail there would be significant costs to the downtown area. Public meetings and outreach efforts have been conducted in association with this project.

0 3

Technical This action is technically feasible. The traffic light system has been updated with CMAQ funding recently. During power outages or communications failures, the lights would still be operational.

0 2

Administrative Project management and oversight would need to be provided by Nashua DPW staff. If a signal were to fail, live traffic control would be needed.

-1 0

345

Political No public concerns are anticipated with this action. 0 1

Legal This action will incorporate changes based on new legal standards for uniform traffic signals. 0 1

Economic This action is expensive to implement, but it is grant funded so there is no additional tax burden to residents. However, there will be taxpayer funded costs to maintain it. There may also be economic benefits associated with saving fuel and time; the new system will return to its regular cycle after emergency vehicles come through rather than adding an extra light cycle.

0 1

Environmental There may be air quality benefits resulting from reduced vehicle emissions. 0 2

Subtotal -1 10

Total 9

Priority 1

Mitigation Action: Increase the capacity of culverts and storm drains and ensure drainage systems are properly engineered, citizens are included in the planning process, particularly as part of future paving initiatives

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There are no known social issues associated with this action. Citizens would like to be included in planning efforts.

0 1

Technical This action requires technical design work to implement effectively, which can be done by the City. It would help to avoid or reduce future losses and has the potential to solve the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts.

-1 0

Administrative The City has the capacity to administer this action. 0 1

Political No public concerns are anticipated with this action. 0 0

Legal There are no legal issues associated with this action. 0 0

Economic While it is expensive to replace culverts, it is also expensive to do nothing and incur major repair costs.

-1 0

Environmental All culvert and bridge projects follow rules and permitting processes set forth by the NH Dept. of Environmental Services. This project has environmental benefits to local waterways and aquatic organisms as a result of installing appropriately sized culverts.

0 3

Subtotal -2 5

Total 3

Priority 6

Mitigation Action: Make available NFIP, insurance, and building codes explanatory pamphlets or booklets.

346

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There are no known social issues associated with this action. Mortgage lenders require typically require borrowers to review this literature.

0 0

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to flooding rather than the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts.

0 2

Administrative The City has the capacity to administer this action. 0 1

Political No public concerns are anticipated with this action, as the City’s role is only to provide and distribute materials, not to make actual determinations.

0 0

Legal This action does not have any legal issues as the City’s role is only to provide and distribute materials, not to make actual determinations.

0 0

Economic This action is consistent with normal Community Development operations and does not impose additional economic costs.

0 0

Environmental This action has the potential to reduce property damage and subsequent environmental impacts. 0 2

Subtotal 0 5

Total 5

Priority 4

Mitigation Action: Work with local utilities to conduct public outreach and education to ensure energy users are operating systems efficiently during times of extreme temperatures and are aware of heating and cooling assistance options.

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social Heating and cooling assistance options would benefit the health and well-being of the most at risk populations in Nashua.

0 3

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to extreme temperatures rather than the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts.

0 2

Administrative The City has the capacity to administer this action and has access to educational materials. Administratively, it is difficult to get people to change their behavior and use energy more efficiently.

-1 0

Political No public concerns are anticipated with this action. 0 0

Legal There are no legal issues associated with this action. 0 0

Economic This action is consistent with normal City operations and does not impose additional economic costs. 0 0

Environmental This action has the potential to benefit the environment by reducing energy usage. 0 1

347

Subtotal -1 6

Total 5

Priority 4

Mitigation Action: Enhance local officials, builders, developers, local citizens and other stakeholders’ knowledge of how to read and interpret the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There are no known social issues associated with this action. 0 0

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to flooding rather than the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts.

0 3

Administrative The City has the capacity to administer this action. 0 1

Political No public concerns are anticipated with this action. 0 0

Legal There are no legal issues associated with this action. 0 0

Economic This action is consistent with normal city operations and does not impose additional economic costs. 0 0

Environmental This action has the potential to reduce property damage and subsequent environmental impacts. 0 2

Subtotal 0 5

Total 5

Priority 4

Mitigation Action: Improve outreach and education regarding mold and other health concerns resulting from flooding

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There are no known social issues associated with this action. 0 0

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to flooding rather than the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts.

0 3

Administrative The City has the capacity to administer this action and has access to educational materials. Administratively, it is difficult to get people to pay attention to outreach campaigns. Outreach efforts should start prior to a flood event and continue immediately after.

-1 0

Political No public concerns are anticipated with this action. 0 0

Legal There are no legal issues associated with this action. 0 0

Economic This action is consistent with normal City operations and does not impose additional economic costs. 0 0

348

Environmental This action is beneficial to indoor environmental quality. 0 2

Subtotal -1 5

Total 4

Priority 5

Mitigation Action: Enforce building codes, particularly those related to wind and snow load.

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There are no known social issues associated with this action. 0 0

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to hurricanes, thunderstorms, severe winter weather, and tornadoes rather than the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts.

0 3

Administrative The City has the capacity to administer this action as it is already part of the City’s building code. 0 1

Political No public concerns are anticipated with this action. 0 0

Legal There are no legal issues associated with this action. 0 0

Economic This action is consistent with normal City operations and does not impose additional economic costs. 0 0

Environmental This action has the potential to reduce property damage and subsequent environmental impacts. 0 1

Subtotal 0 5

Total 5

Priority 4

Mitigation Action: Provide ongoing outreach and education regarding snow load.

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There are no known social issues associated with this action. 0 0

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to severe winter weather rather than the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts.

0 2

Administrative The City has the capacity to administer this action and has access to educational materials. Administratively, it is difficult to get people to pay attention to outreach campaigns.

-1 0

Political No public concerns are anticipated with this action. 0 0

Legal There are no legal issues associated with this action. 0 0

Economic This action is consistent with normal Community Development operations and does not impose additional economic costs.

0 0

349

Environmental This action has the potential to reduce property damage and subsequent environmental impacts. 0 2

Subtotal -1 4

Total 3

Priority 6

Mitigation Action: Mast arm inspections throughout City

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This project provides the most benefit to the population in the downtown area. 0 1

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to multiple hazards rather than the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts. By replacing mast arms, inspections will not need to occur as frequently.

0 3

Administrative Project management and oversight will need to be provided by Nashua DPW staff. -1 0

Political There is political will for this project. 0 1

Legal There would be local costs if the mast arms were installed incorrectly and failed. -1 0

Economic This project is expensive to implement and there is no grant funding available. However, the economic costs of a mast arm failure would also be high.

-1 0

Environmental There are no environmental costs or benefits associated with this project. 0 0

Subtotal -3 5

Total 2

Priority 7

Mitigation Action: Enforce fire permit regulations.

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social The enforcement of any regulation can be challenged. -1 0

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has the potential to solve the underlying problem of wildfire if it can be administered. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts.

0 3

Administrative This action imposes an added burden on the Fire Dept. -2 0

Political Enforcement of any regulation can be challenged. -1 0

Legal Local and state regulations are already in place to legally support this action. 0 1

350

Economic Enforcement of this action will be costly, however, there would be benefits of reduced firefighting costs.

-1 0

Environmental This action will benefit the environment by reducing wildfires. 0 3

Subtotal -5 7

Total 2

Priority 7

Mitigation Action: Continue to work with Eversource to harden electrical infrastructure, including trimming trees near power lines

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There are social concerns if tree cutting impacts the looks of a neighborhood. -1 0

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to multiple hazards rather than the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts.

0 3

Administrative There is a slight administrative burden to the City to maintain communications with Eversource. -1 0

Political No public concerns are anticipated with this action. 0 0

Legal There are no legal issues associated with this action. 0 0

Economic There are economic benefits associated with this action, as tree trimming reduces impact on the City’s public works and emergency services.

0 3

Environmental There are no environmental issues associated with this action provided that tree trimming does not harm the tree itself and that too many trees are not removed.

0 0

Subtotal -2 6

Total 4

Priority 5

Mitigation Action: Work with Pennichuck to increase public awareness of methods to reduce water consumption during drought conditions.

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There are no known social issues associated with this action. 0 0

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to drought rather than the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts.

0 3

351

Administrative Pennichuck provides information that the City could utilize for public outreach. The administrative difficulty is finding the right forum to distribute the info. There would also be an added administrative burden if the City needed to do enforcement.

-1 0

Political There would likely be political resistance if the City started enforcement. -2 0

Legal There are no legal issues associated with this action. Pennichuck has legal authority to impose bans needed to maintain domestic and fire production.

0 0

Economic This action is consistent with normal City operations and does not impose additional economic costs. 0 0

Environmental This action is environmentally beneficial if residents pay attention to and comply with reduced water consumption measures.

0 3

Subtotal -3 6

Total 3

Priority 6

Mitigation Action: Intersection design improvements

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social Individual neighborhoods may want to have their intersections improved first, creating possible social tensions. Construction may also cause temporary disruptions to certain neighborhoods. Improvements will benefit the neighborhoods they are conducted in once they are complete.

-1 0

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to multiple hazards rather than the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts.

0 3

Administrative Project management and oversight will need to be provided by Nashua DPW staff. -2 0

Political Individual neighborhoods may put pressure on political leaders to have their intersections improved first. Any intersection changes must first be approved by the Board of Aldermen.

-1 0

Legal There are no legal issues associated with this action. Any intersection changes or changes in ordinances must first be approved by the Board of Aldermen.

0 0

Economic This action is expensive to implement and would be funded by taxpayers. There may be economic benefits associated with saving fuel and time if the project enhances traffic flow.

-1 0

Environmental There may be air quality benefits resulting from reduced vehicle emissions. 0 2

Subtotal -5 5

Total 0

Priority 9

352

Mitigation Action: Enhance pavement improvement plan. Incorporate porous paving where applicable to mitigate flooding and improve drainage including the use of low impact development techniques, porous pavement, vegetative buffers, and islands in large parking areas and the use of permeable driveways and surfaces to reduce runoff and increase groundwater recharge.

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social Individual neighborhoods may want to have their pavement improved first, creating possible social tensions. Paving may also cause temporary disruptions to certain neighborhoods. Improvements will benefit the neighborhoods they are conducted in once they are complete.

-1 0

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to multiple hazards rather than the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts. Porous pavement may be more difficult to maintain and may not last as long.

0 2

Administrative Project management and oversight will need to be provided by Nashua DPW staff. -1 0

Political Individual neighborhoods may put pressure on political leaders to have their roads repaved first. -1 0

Legal The City is legally required to maintain its Class V roads under RSA 229. 0 1

Economic This action is expensive to implement and would be funded by taxpayers. -2 0

Environmental Repaving existing paved roads would not add to the City’s impervious surface and would not have any additional environmental costs related to stormwater. There would be environmental benefits if the City were to use pervious paving materials.

0 3

Subtotal -5 6

Total -1

Priority 10

Mitigation Action: Improve drainage capacity of problem flood areas, particularly Wethersfield/Westwood, Shelly Drive and Browning Ave, Victor Ave at Emmett St, Westchester Dr, Wilmington Rd at New Searles Rd, Pemberton Rd at Belfast St, Park Ave/Lawndale Ave area, Courtland St/Hall Ave area; C, D, E Sts, Marshall St (Bowers to East Hollis), and Spaulding Ave.

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social Individual neighborhoods and property owners will want to have their problem flood areas improved first, creating possible social tensions. Construction may also cause temporary disruptions to certain neighborhoods. Improvements will benefit the neighborhoods they are conducted in once they are complete.

-1 0

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to flooding rather than the underlying problem itself. While improving drainage in problem

0 2

353

flood areas is a good mitigation action, an even better mitigation action would be to prevent construction in problem flood areas to begin with.

Administrative The City DPW would be responsible for administering this project. They do have the capability to implement this project in the engineering department. The DPW knows where the problem flood areas are and has rough priority list (located in the CIP).

0 2

Political No public concerns are anticipated with this action. However, this project may not enjoy political support if there were eminent domain issues associated with buying back property.

-1 0

Legal Flood mitigation projects involve environmentally based legal concerns as well as legal issues associated with flood insurance requirements. There may also be legal issues eminent domain is utilized.

-2 0

Economic It is difficult to find funding for these projects. However, there are economic benefits resulting from reducing flood risks to problem properties and infrastructure.

-1 0

Environmental Environmental regulations would oversee any flood mitigation project to ensure there were no adverse environmental impacts. This action has the potential to reduce property damage and subsequent environmental impacts.

0 3

Subtotal -5 7

Total 2

Priority 7

Mitigation Action: Support seismic-rated construction of buildings and infrastructure.

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This action may disrupt communities built with substandard housing if they were required to be rebuilt.

-2 0

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to earthquakes rather than the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts.

0 2

Administrative The City does have the capability to enforce building codes; seismic-rated construction is currently required by code for critical infrastructure. This would add an administrative burden to the review process if it were required for non-critical infrastructure.

-1 0

Political There would likely be political concerns if seismic-rated construction practices were required for non-critical infrastructure.

-1 0

Legal There are no legal issues associated with this action. 0 0

354

Economic This action would add to construction costs, however, it would reduce the costs of rebuilding after an earthquake.

-1 0

Environmental This action has the potential to reduce property damage and subsequent environmental impacts. 0 2

Subtotal -5 4

Total -1

Priority 10

Mitigation Action: Continue to work with dam safety agencies and dam owners to delineate and map potential risk areas in case of a dam failure in Nashua.

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This action might create concern for people who are in the mapped areas. -1 0

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to dam failure rather than the underlying problem itself. It will not create additional problems or cause secondary impacts.

0 1

Administrative The City does not have in-house capacity to map the risk areas. This is currently the responsibility of dam owners.

-2 0

Political This action might create political concern among residents who are in the mapped areas. -1 0

Legal There are no legal issues associated with this action. 0 0

Economic This action does not impose additional economic costs if administered by the dam owners. 0 1

Environmental This action has the potential to reduce property damage and subsequent environmental impacts. 0 2

Subtotal -4 4

Total 0

Priority 9

Mitigation Action: Maintain and update water and sewer infrastructure that could cause ground failure. Utilize cameras to inspect water and sewer lines throughout the City. Ensure ground failure repairs are properly completed. Maintain a database of ground failure occurrences in the City, including historic events.

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This action will have the most positive and negative impacts on neighborhoods in which ground failures occur. Positive impacts include the adequate repair of ground failure. Negative impacts include delays and detours during the repairs.

0 1

355

Technical This action would help to avoid or reduce future losses associated with ground failure. It is technically difficult to implement because the City’s infrastructure is very old.

-1 0

Administrative The administrative costs of this action could be reduced if the City and Pennichuck work together on this action. Outreach to the public is needed regarding the City’s aging infrastructure and the costs of maintaining it.

-1 0

Political There is high public support for this project. 0 2

Legal There are no legal issues associated with this action. 0 0

Economic It is costly to maintain and update water and sewer infrastructure and disruptive to the community during repairs. The costs could be reduced if the City and Pennichuck work together.

-1 0

Environmental There are no environmental issues associated with this action. 0 0

Subtotal -3 3

Total 0

Priority 9

Mitigation Action: Ensure mission critical infrastructure is hardened and protected against solar weather.

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There are no social issues associated with this action. 0 0

Technical This action is technically very difficult to implement. It has more potential to solve symptoms related to solar weather rather than the underlying problem itself.

-2 0

Administrative This action is administratively difficult as there are very few models to follow. -3 0

Political Public concerns are anticipated with this action. -2 0

Legal There are no legal issues associated with this action. 0 0

Economic There are very high costs associated with this action. -3 0

Environmental There are no environmental issues associated with this action. 0 0

Subtotal -10 0

Total -10

Priority 14

Mitigation Action: Perform regular drainage system maintenance, such as sediment and debris clearance, as well as detection and prevention of discharges into stormwater and sewer systems from home footing drains, downspouts, or sewer pumps.

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There are no social issues associated with this action. 0 2

356

Technical This is not likely to be very technically challenging. 0 0

Administrative This action requires a substantial maintenance program and staff to manage. -3 0

Political There are no public concerns anticipated with this action 0 1

Legal Enforcement of discharges may be difficult without appropriate staffing. -2 0

Economic There are high costs associated with this action. -3 0

Environmental There are no environmental issues associated with this action. 0 2

Subtotal -5 5

Total 0

Priority 9

Mitigation Action: Routinely clean and repair stormwater drains.

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social It is possible that stormwater drains in areas where there are many residents have connections to municipal officials or are familiar with DPW contact info may get serviced first unless DPW crews have a systematic approach to clearing all drains rather than handling calls as they come in.

-1 0

Technical This is feasible and does resolve many issues related to clogged drains. It does not cause additional issues. It is a pretty simple action to take.

0 2

Administrative This would be a burden on staff and may require additional staff depending on the workload of clogged drains. The City has the equipment necessary to clear drains.

-1 0

Political There are no anticipated political issues associated with this action. The public would support this project.

0 1

Legal There are no anticipated legal issues associated with this action. The City has the legal authority to take this action.

0 1

Economic This action reduces the possibility of flooding impacting road infrastructure 0 2

Environmental There are no environmental concerns associated with this action. Storm drains will work better preventing ponding of contaminants from roadways from flowing to sensitive areas.

0 2

Subtotal -2 8

Total 6

Priority 3

Mitigation Action: Ask residents to help keep storm drains clear of debris during storms (not to rely solely on Public Works).

357

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This builds a sense of community and participation in risk reduction 0 2

Technical Citizens are more likely to know of issues near their properties 0 2

Administrative This action can reduce the burden on DPW staff throughout the year to keep drains clear; Citizens are closer to these drains reducing the travel time for DPW crews to maintain

0 2

Political There are no anticipated political issues associated with this action 0 0

Legal There could be safety hazards with using citizens to keep storm drains clear; -2 0

Economic This action reduces the possibility of flooding impacting road infrastructure 0 2

Environmental There are no environmental issues associated with this action 0 0

Subtotal -2 8

Total 6

Priority 3

Mitigation Action: Remove structures from flood-prone areas to minimize future flood losses by acquiring and demolishing structures from voluntary property owners and preserving lands subject to repetitive flooding, particularly southern portions of 300 Main Street Marketplace

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This action will prevent injuries and death from populations in vulnerable properties 0 2

Technical This action will prevent future flood related losses in areas where structures are in the floodplain 0 2

Administrative This project would be very costly to acquire and demolish structures -3 0

Political There may be a significant amount of opposition on the acquisition of private properties -2 0

Legal Legal challenges could be significant and/or burdensome -1 0

Economic There could be a negative impact to the economy with the reduction of tax-paying homes or businesses being removed

-3 0

Environmental There are no environmental issues associated with this action 0 0

Subtotal -9 4

Total -5

Priority 13

Mitigation Action: Use stream restoration to ensure adequate drainage and diversion of stormwater, particularly on Salmon Brook near Main Street

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

358

Social This action improves recreational and/or natural areas 0 2

Technical There may be existing structures that prevent this option -2 0

Administrative This project would be very costly to restore streams and construction new bridges or large culverts -3 0

Political Public opposition is possible -1 0

Legal Permitting and regulatory requirements may be significant -1 0

Economic This action improves flood flow capacity 0 2

Environmental This action will enable better pathways for aquatic life; This could drastically change floodplains and impact other properties

0 0

Subtotal -7 4

Total -3

Priority 12

Mitigation Action: Collect rainwater and use natural runoff to water plants

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This action builds a sense of individual involvement in hazard mitigation 0 3

Technical Will require substantial outreach to promote and train individuals how to construct these systems -1 0

Administrative Will require substantial outreach to promote and train individuals how to construct these systems -1 0

Political It may be difficult to get substantial numbers of individuals to conduct these actions -1 0

Legal No legal challenges are anticipated with this action 0 0

Economic This action is fairly inexpensive at the individual level; May require subsidized rain barrels to distribute to residents

-1 0

Environmental This action recharges groundwater to help prevent drought; Gardens and plants benefit from the water

0 3

Subtotal -4 6

Total 2

Priority 7

Mitigation Action: Provide grassy swales along roadsides

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social The swales are esthetically pleasing along roadways 0 1

359

Technical The action will enable groundwater to recharge and will serve to better handle stormwater during flash flooding.

0 3

Administrative There may not be enough real estate to enable construction of grassy swales along roads in some areas. The community could implement the action but the maintenance may add to burdened staff.

-2 1

Political There would be political support. 0 2

Legal The City could implement the swales but may not own all property necessary. -2 0

Economic There would be a substantial cost for the engineering, permitting, and construction of the swales. -3 0

Environmental This action recharges groundwater to help prevent drought. These swales can collect hazardous materials that may be discharged and filter prior to entering groundwater or collect materials for easy disposal during a spill. These swales prevent contaminants from going into drinking water sources

0 3

Subtotal -7 10

Total 3

Priority 6

Mitigation Action: Add building insulation to walls and attics and conduct overall weatherization upgrades

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This action could impact low income populations more through subsidizing upgrades. 0 2

Technical This action improves the ability for buildings to maintain their heat or cool during extreme events and power outages.

0 2

Administrative The City could implement this action but it would require additional staff. -1 0

Political There would be political support. 0 1

Legal The City has the authority to implement through existing Urban Programs Department initiatives. 0 1

Economic This action reduces the waste of energy by allowing HVAC systems to work less. While a smaller expense to conduct for a single home, conducting this at multiple properties can become very expensive. Limited funding is available for these types of initiatives.

-2 0

Environmental This would benefit the environment through the reduction of wasted energy. 0 3

Subtotal -3 9

Total 6

Priority 3

360

Mitigation Action: Install generators, solar+storage, and quick-connect emergency generator hook-ups for critical facilities and other residential, commercial, industrial, & specialty properties

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This action could impact low income families if the same opportunities for backup power are not afforded to them.

-2 0

Technical This action enables homes, businesses, and critical facilities to maintain operations due to a power outage. Quick-connect emergency generator hook ups are appropriate for facilities that may not need backup power immediately and can also be installed at facilities with fixed-mount generators as a backup. Backup power can maintain communications, climate control, and other essential lifelines in a building. Generators still require fuel delivery to continue operations during long-term outages.

0 3

Administrative Generators require testing plans and maintenance. Solar would be required to be installed after roofs would be upgraded if necessary

-2 0

Political There would be political support, particularly for solar. 0 2

Legal The City would have authority to implement at public facilities but may need additional authorities to support private implementation.

0 1

Economic This action prevents a loss of productivity and/or products that require power. This action could be very expensive depending on the number of facilities and buildings to be outfitted.

-2 0

Environmental The use of solar+storage has benefits from the use of clean energy throughout the year. 0 3

Subtotal -6 9

Total 3

Priority 6

Mitigation Action: Adopt the most current International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC)

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This action could make affordable housing more expensive. -2 0

Technical This action would add new life safety and hazard protections to new and retrofit construction. The City is currently utilizing the 2009 IBC and IRC, much outdated compared to the current 2018 codes. This action would enable new construction to be more resilient, reducing the likelihood of disruptions during an incident

0 3

361

Administrative The City would maintain compliance with the Community Rating System (CRS) and Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) if it were to obtain a new code. The adoption of the newer codes may require some training for inspectors to ensure they are familiar with all the new requirements.

0 2

Political There has been political opposition to the updating of building codes at the State level -1 0

Legal The State should be involved in upgrading the code to ensure standardization among municipalities. -1 0

Economic While this would decrease disaster related costs, the cost of homes and businesses could become more expensive to build.

-1 0

Environmental This action will have little impact on the environment though it may incorporate some energy efficiency requirements.

0 1

Subtotal -5 6

Total 1

Priority 8

Mitigation Action: Promote the installation of air conditioners and heat pumps and opportunities to subsidize the equipment and energy costs for low income families

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social Subsidizing the cost of equipment and additional energy costs would enable low income families to prevent heat related injuries during extreme heat events.

0 3

Technical This action will ensure all properties are capable of staying in a safe & comfortable temperature level during extreme heat events.

0 3

Administrative An entity would need to manage the distribution and installation of subsidized equipment. -3 0

Political There would be support for this action. 0 1

Legal The City could implement through existing authorities within Urban Programs Department. 0 1

Economic Air conditioners are inexpensive individually though they can be expensive if distributed and subsidized to many properties. There are additional energy expenses when running air conditioners.

-2 0

Environmental Heat pumps can be used for efficient air conditioning and heating in comparison to central HVAC. There would be additional energy load on the electric grid during a period that already has a high demand, leading to greater carbon emissions.

-2 0

Subtotal -7 8

Total 1

Priority 8

362

Mitigation Action: Promote the installation of low-flow water saving showerheads and toilets and opportunities to subsidise the equipment for low income families

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social Subsidized equipment will enable low income populations to assist in the campaign to reduce water use and reduce their water costs.

0 3

Technical This action will reduce the amount of water used from showers and toilets helping to prevent overuse of water.

0 3

Administrative An entity would need to manage the distribution and installation of subsidized equipment. -2 1

Political There would be political support for this action. 0 1

Legal The City could implement through existing authorities within Urban Programs Department. 0 1

Economic Less energy will be used in the water treatment process due to the reduced demand. Showerheads and toilets are inexpensive individually though they can be expensive if distributed and subsidized to many properties

-1 0

Environmental This action would lead to a reduction in the use of water and energy used to treat the water. 0 3

Subtotal -3 12

Total 9

Priority 1

Mitigation Action: Increase tree plantings around buildings to shade parking lots and along public rights-of-way

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social The additional trees will be esthetically pleasing. 0 1

Technical This action will reduce the heat island effect in the City. Parking areas and public rights-of-way will become cooler locations for people to walk in reducing heat related injuries. Trees planted near utilities could become hazards for power lines and other critical services. Trees planted near buildings could become hazards for buildings in the future if not maintained.

0 1

Administrative There may be areas in need of trees that do not have enough room to allow for plantings. An entity would need to manage the distribution and planting of trees.

-2 0

Political There would be political support for this action. 0 1

Legal The City would have authority to plant in public properties, additional authorities would be necessary to plant on private property.

0 1

363

Economic This would be a pretty inexpensive action based on the benefit provided for inexpensive tree plantings.

0 1

Environmental The additional trees will benefit the atmosphere by trapping CO2 and acting as carbon sinks. 0 3

Subtotal -2 8

Total 6

Priority 3

Mitigation Action: Encourage installation of green roofs, which provide shade and remove heat from the roof surface and surrounding air

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social The additional vegetation will be esthetically pleasing. 0 1

Technical This action will reduce the heat island effect in the City. Buildings and surrounding air will become cooler.

0 1

Administrative Green roofs may require additional maintenance. An entity would need to promote the use of green roofs within the private sector. Green roofs are not typically installed by roof contractors

-2 0

Political There would be support for this action. 0 1

Legal The City could install green roofs on municipal buildings but private buildings would need additional authorities.

0 1

Economic This could be very expensive to replace roofs in large scale -3 0

Environmental The green roofs will benefit the atmosphere by trapping CO2 and acting as carbon sinks. 0 3

Subtotal -5 7

Total 2

Priority 7

Mitigation Action: Incorporate inspection and management of hazardous trees into the drainage system maintenance process

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social Private property owners may not want their trees cut down -2 0

Technical This action will trim or eliminate trees that could fall in roads, on utilities, or on buildings. This action would reduce the likelihood of death or injuries from falling trees.

0 3

Administrative An entity would need to maintain an assessment program and trim or remove trees. -2 0

Political There may not be political support for this action -1 0

Legal The City could cut trees on public property but would need authorities to cut private trees down -1 0

364

Economic This action would reduce storm cleanup after wind related events. 0 3

Environmental There would be a negative impact to cutting large numbers of trees down. -1 0

Subtotal -7 6

Total -1

Priority 10

Mitigation Action: Improve roof coverings (e.g., no pebbles, remove ballast roof systems)

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There is no likely social impact. 0 0

Technical This action would reduce damage to neighboring structures from stones used in roofing. This action would reduce the likelihood of death or injuries from projectiles.

0 3

Administrative There is no current way to determine the type of roof covering. -2 0

Political There may not be political support for this action. -1 0

Legal The City could implement this action on their properties but does not have authority to ban this currently.

-1 0

Economic This action would reduce storm cleanup after wind related events. Property owners may not want to replace their roofs if they are still in good condition. This could be very expensive to replace roofs in large scale.

-2 0

Environmental There is no likely environmental impact. 0 0

Subtotal -6 3

Total -3

Priority 12

Mitigation Action: Establish “value-added” incentives for hazard-resistant construction practices beyond code requirements

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This could be negative to low income families who may not have additional funding upfront to fund “code plus”: enhancements in return for incentives.

-1 0

Technical This action would promote “code plus” enhancements during new and retrofit construction to reduce risk from hazards. Homeowners, businesses, and non-profits would receive incentives for designing sites and facilities with resilient features

0 3

365

Administrative Outreach would be necessary to promote the incentive program. Insurance industry has not jumped on to incentive programs in the Northeast yet.

-1 0

Political There may not be political support for this action. -1 0

Legal There are currently no authorities enabling “code plus” style incentives. -1 0

Economic Incentives may cost significant funding to implement wide scale. -2 0

Environmental There would likely be environmental benefits from energy efficiency or solar+storage additions. 0 3

Subtotal -6 6

Total 0

Priority 9

Mitigation Action: Work with insurance industry representatives to increase public awareness of the importance of multi-hazard insurance and coverage limitations

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This action would enable residents and businesses to be more familiar with their insurance coverage, the importance of insurance, and the different items covered based on the type of insurance provided

0 3

Technical Insurance industry may not be interested in partnering with the City to promote this program -1 0

Administrative Residents and businesses may not be interested in learning more about insurance coverage requiring a significant outreach campaign

-2 0

Political There are no political challenges anticipated with this action. 0 0

Legal There are no legal challenges associated with this action. 0 0

Economic There would likely be a higher adoption of insurance coverage with better knowledge of the system 0 2

Environmental There are no environmental issues anticipated with this action. 0 0

Subtotal -3 5

Total 2

Priority 7

Mitigation Action: Acquire and demolish or relocate buildings and infrastructure at-risk from erosion and enforcing permanent restrictions on development after land and structure acquisition, particularly on Nashua and Merrimack Rivers

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

366

Social This action will prevent future erosion related losses in areas where structures are at risk; This action will prevent injuries and death from populations in vulnerable properties

0 3

Technical No technical challenges beyond those related to demolition/relocation are anticipated 0 0

Administrative This project would be very costly to acquire and demolish structures -3 0

Political There may be a significant amount of opposition on the acquisition of private properties -2 0

Legal Navigating the legal aspects of this action could be challenging and/or burdensome -1 0

Economic There is likely a negative impact to the economy with the reduction of tax-paying homes or businesses being removed

-2 0

Environmental This option will enable rivers to naturally move overtime without impacting structures 0 3

Subtotal -8 6

Total -2

Priority 11

Mitigation Action: Prevent erosion with proper bank stabilization, sloping or grading techniques, planting vegetation on slopes, terracing hillsides, or installing riprap boulders or geotextile fabric, particularly on Nashua and Merrimack Rivers

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This action will prevent injuries and death from populations in vulnerable properties 0 3

Technical Access to these areas will be extremely difficult for construction -3 0

Administrative This project would be very costly to stabilize slopes along rivers -3 0

Political With this action, homes and businesses will not need to be acquired and demolished 0 2

Legal Permitting and engineering will be extensive -2 0

Economic Even by repairing sections of the river bank, these problems may occur in the future -2 0

Environmental This action will stabilize properties with significant erosion from rivers and streams 0 2

Subtotal -10 7

Total -3

Priority 12

Mitigation Action: Install, repair and/or replace HVAC systems at public facilities, particularly at schools, the library, fire stations, police department

367

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social Schools and the library can be utilized as cooling and warming centers or shelters during extreme temperature events and must have functioning HVAC systems

0 2

Technical Construction could cause disruptions to building users -1 0

Administrative This action will keep these critical facilities at comfortable and safe temperatures 0 2

Political HVAC replacements could be very costly for multiple buildings at the same time -2 0

Legal There are no legal challenges anticipated with this action 0 0

Economic This action will prevent aging HVAC systems from failing during extreme temperature events 0 2

Environmental Replacing older HVAC systems with newer more energy efficient systems could reduce energy costs and carbon emissions

0 3

Subtotal -3 9

Total 6

Priority 3

Mitigation Action: Install redundancies in municipal fiber and fire alarm network

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social The creation of redundancies on the municipal fire alarm network will ensure fire alarm boxes at buildings will still be able to communicate with Fire Alarm during an emergency

0 3

Technical This action will ensure all appliances on the municipal fiber network will maintain communications during the loss of a section due to damage from storms or other emergencies

0 2

Administrative This project could be very costly to implement -2 0

Political This project could be very costly to implement -2 0

Legal There are no legal challenges anticipated with this action 0 0

Economic There are no economic challenges anticipated with this action 0 0

Environmental There are no environmental challenges anticipated with this action 0 0

Subtotal -4 5

Total 1

Priority 8

Mitigation Action: Incorporate hazard mitigation principles into all aspects of public-funded buildings

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

368

Social Including these principles would set the example for private entities to implement these techniques in their projects

0 3

Technical Incorporating these principles would require additional review and an entity to have the knowledge to recommend techniques

-2 0

Administrative This action would require a review of all capital projects to ensure risk reduction and hazard mitigation techniques are included in new construction or renovations, when these options are cheapest to implement; Projects may take longer to complete if they require additional construction

-2 0

Political Costs for capital projects could go up due to the addition of mitigation and adaptation techniques -2 0

Legal There are no legal challenges anticipated with this action 0 0

Economic Overall costs from disasters would be reduced at these properties 0 3

Environmental Other co-benefits would leveraged including energy efficiency 0 3

Subtotal -6 9

Total 3

Priority 6

Mitigation Action: Incorporate mitigation retrofits for public facilities into the annual capital improvements program

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social Including these principles would set the example for private entities to implement these techniques in their projects

0 3

Technical Incorporating these principles would require additional review and an entity to have the knowledge to recommend techniques

-2 0

Administrative This action would require a review of all capital projects to ensure risk reduction and hazard mitigation techniques are included in new construction or renovations, when these options are cheapest to implement; Projects may take longer to complete if they require additional construction

-2 0

Political Costs for capital projects could go up due to the addition of mitigation and adaptation techniques -2 0

Legal There are no legal challenges anticipated with this action 0 0

Economic Overall costs from disasters would be reduced at these properties 0 3

Environmental Other co-benefits would leveraged including energy efficiency 0 3

Subtotal -6 9

Total 3

369

Priority 6

Mitigation Action: Incorporate a stand-alone element for hazard mitigation & resilience into the upcoming master plan

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This action would enable mitigation and adaptation actions to be integrated more closely with the long term vision of the City; Mitigation and adaptation actions would be more likely to be implemented in the Master Plan; Mitigation and resilience would be integrated into the overall master planning for the City

0 3

Technical Effort would be required from all City Departments to draft this section of the Master Plan -1 0

Administrative The Master Plan could take longer to develop with this additional section -1 0

Political Costs for the Master Plan could be higher due to this element being added -2 0

Legal There are no legal challenges anticipated for this action 0 0

Economic An increase in citywide mitigation efforts could have an overall positive economic benefit 0 2

Environmental An increase in citywide mitigation efforts could have an overall positive environmental benefit 0 1

Subtotal -4 6

Total 2

Priority 7

Mitigation Action: Add at least a 1-foot “freeboard” requirement (feet above base flood elevation) in the flood damage ordinance to maintain Nashua’s Class 8 CRS Rating in 2020

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This action would enable the City to maintain a Class 8 rating in 2020 per new requirements of the program; Maintaining a Class 8 rating reduces insurance premiums for properties in the floodplain; Adding at least 1 foot freeboard would ensure new construction had additional protection from floods

0 3

Technical Technical expertise would be required for ordinance development and engineering during construction. Freeboard does provide substantial protection for properties for current and future conditions.

-1 2

Administrative Administrative challenges could occur during ordinance development, would require staffing and attention

-1 0

370

Political This action would require updates to the flood ordinance which could become controversial -1 0

Legal This action would require updates to the flood ordinance. -1 0

Economic Maintaining a Class 8 rating reduces insurance premiums for properties in the floodplain; Addition of freeboard may require additional construction costs.

0 0

Environmental There are no environmental issues anticipated by this action 0 0

Subtotal -4 5

Total 1

Priority 8

Mitigation Action: Prepare and adopting a community-wide stormwater management master plan to maintain compliance with the City’s MS4 permit

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This action would develop a strategy to managing stormwater across the entire City and develop implementation actions for infrastructure improvements

0 2

Technical This action requires the development of a plan which the City may not have the internal capacity to draft

-2 0

Administrative Participation and time will be necessary from City staff to complete the document -1 0

Political This action would meet the requirements included in the City’s MS4 permit to develop a stormwater management plan

0 2

Legal This action would meet the requirements included in the City’s MS4 permit to develop a stormwater management plan; NH DES and EPA may require revisions and modifications to this new plan

-1 0

Economic Infrastructure improvements could have a positive benefit on the economy 0 1

Environmental Improved stormwater management could have a positive impact on the environment 0 2

Subtotal -3 7

Total 4

Priority 5

Mitigation Action: Implement an inspection, maintenance, and enforcement program to help ensure continued structural integrity of municipal dams and the Merrimack River Right Bank – Flood Damage Reduction System levee. Recommendations from the Army Corps of Engineers inspection reports should be resolved to bring the levee to an “Acceptable” status

371

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There is likely no social impact from this action 0 0

Technical This action would ensure the dams and levee are kept in a safe condition. This action and the completion of recommendations would enable the City to maintain an “Acceptable” status on the levee.

0 3

Administrative Developing a comprehensive maintenance program would enable repairs to be made throughout the year rather than after an inspection by NH DES or US Army Corps of Engineers. NH DES and US Army Corps may be required to inspect or approve repairs or changes to the dams or levees. There’s currently not enough trained staff to maintain an inspection program for these structures.

-1 0

Political There would be political support for this action 0 1

Legal The City has the authority to maintain the levee with the approval of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Municipal dams can be maintained by the City with NH DES standards.

0 1

Economic There could be significant costs to maintain components of the levee. -2 0

Environmental There could be environmental impacts from changes to the dams or levees. Permitting will likely be required to mitigation impacts.

-1 0

Subtotal -4 5

Total 1

Priority 8

Mitigation Action: Promote the Resilient Nashua Toolkit interactive website for educating the public on hazard mitigation and preparedness measures

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social The Toolkit website also incorporates preparedness information in addition to the mitigation resources for facilities

0 3

Technical The Toolkit provides facility level mitigation actions that can be implemented to reduce risk. 0 2

Administrative The Resilient Nashua Toolkit website is intended to reduce staff time by enabling the public to develop plans and conduct assessments on their own. The Toolkit website utilizes best practices and other resources developed by partners reducing the amount of time necessary from the City to maintain the website. Additional technical assistance may be requested from staff to assist with resources from the Toolkit. Significant outreach will be necessary to get the public to utilize the Toolkit. The Toolkit will require revisions and updates as resources change.

-1 0

Political There is political support for this action. 0 1

Legal The City has the authority to implement the toolkit. 0 1

372

Economic The Toolkit website is extremely low cost to maintain. 0 1

Environmental There is no environmental impact from the toolkit. 0 0

Subtotal -1 8

Total 7

Priority 2

Mitigation Action: Designated local floodplain manager and CRS coordinator achieves CFM certification

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There is no social impact from this action. 0 0

Technical The CFM program will enhance the knowledge of the City’s floodplain manager. Citizens and businesses may be able to get floodplain related questions answered directly by the City’s floodplain manager rather than having to reach out to the State or FEMA.

0 3

Administrative The CFM certification will require additional time and studying for the floodplain manager. -1 0

Political There is political support for this action. 0 1

Legal There is no legal impact from this action. 0 0

Economic There will likely be a cost to take the CFM test. -1 0

Environmental There is no environmental impact from this action. 0 0

Subtotal -2 4

Total 2

Priority 7

Mitigation Action: Install, upgrade, or maintain back-up generators for pumping and lift stations in sanitary sewer systems along with other measures (e.g., alarms, meters, remote controls, and switchgear upgrades)

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There is no social impact from this action. 0 0

Technical Upgrading pump and lift stations across the City with generators and redundant communications systems will enable water and wastewater services to continue during most hazards. Upgrades will replace aging equipment and prevent failures throughout the year.

0 3

Administrative The project will require the Wastewater and Engineer Departments to lead design and construction in conjunction with contractors for sewer and stormwater pump stations. The project will require

-1 0

373

Pennichuck to lead design and construction in conjunction with contractors for water pump stations. Construction could cause disruptions to pump stations and wastewater or water services.

Political There is political support for this action. 0 1

Legal The City has the authority to conduct these upgrades. Pennichuck has the authority to conduct these upgrades.

0 1

Economic Maintenance costs will be lower and staff resources will be less necessary with newer upgraded equipment. This project could be very costly depending on the number of pump and lift stations being upgraded.

-1 0

Environmental These upgrades will benefit the environment by ensuring the wastewater system operates properly. 0 2

Subtotal -2 7

Total 4

Priority 5

Mitigation Action: Raise utilities or other mechanical devices above expected flood levels, particularly in areas likely to be redeveloped soon in the Millyard

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social Renovation of formerly empty structures to mixed-rate apartments will benefit low income families. 0 3

Technical This action will prevent significant damages to newly retrofitted or constructed properties near or in the floodplain, particularly historic buildings being developed in the Millyard. Adding these flood protection techniques may add additional time to construction projects. Spaces within structures that could be used for living or commercial space may no longer be available. These techniques do not eliminate all flood risk to structures.

0 2

Administrative The City may not have the capacity to assist with mitigation grant funding for properties. -1 0

Political There would likely not be support to eliminate redevelopment of properties. It is more likely that mitigation measures will be the only option.

-1 0

Legal The City does not have the authority to mandate mitigation measures on properties. -1 0

Economic It is cheaper to add resilient design in significant retrofits or new construction rather than install it after the fact. Grant funding may be available to support these mitigation measures. Renovation of historic structures in the Millyard will revitalize the area and benefit the housing availability strains, only if the properties are protected. Adding these flood protection techniques may add additional cost to construction projects.

0 1

Environmental There is no environmental impact though the renovation of properties will reduce former hazards from the properties.

0 0

374

Subtotal -3 6

Total 3

Priority 6

Mitigation Action: Wet floodproof basements residential and non-residential structures, which may be preferable to attempting to keep water out completely because it allows for controlled flooding to balance exterior and interior wall forces and discourages structural collapse, particularly in areas likely to be redeveloped soon in the Millyard

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social Renovation of formerly empty structures to mixed-rate apartments will benefit low income families. 0 3

Technical This action will prevent significant damages to newly retrofitted or constructed properties near or in the floodplain, particularly historic buildings being developed in the Millyard. Adding these flood protection techniques may add additional time to construction projects. Spaces within structures that could be used for living or commercial space may no longer be available. These techniques do not eliminate all flood risk to structures.

0 2

Administrative The City may not have the capacity to assist with mitigation grant funding for properties. -1 0

Political There would likely not be support to eliminate redevelopment of properties. It is more likely that mitigation measures will be the only option.

-1 0

Legal The City does not have the authority to mandate mitigation measures on properties. -1 0

Economic It is cheaper to add resilient design in significant retrofits or new construction rather than install it after the fact. Grant funding may be available to support these mitigation measures. Renovation of historic structures in the Millyard will revitalize the area and benefit the housing availability strains, only if the properties are protected. Adding these flood protection techniques may add additional cost to construction projects.

0 1

Environmental There is no environmental impact though the renovation of properties will reduce former hazards from the properties.

0 0

Subtotal -3 6

Total 3

Priority 6

Mitigation Action: Identify best approach to prevent new development or to require flood-resilient site & building design in developable parcels adjacent to the Merrimack River

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

375

Social Construction of new buildings will revitalize these areas and benefit the housing availability strains, only if the properties are protected

0 3

Technical This action will prevent significant damages to newly constructed properties near or in the floodplain. Some parcels may not be easily converted to green space due to their prior use (industrial). Restoration times of flood protected structures will be far shorter than structures experiencing damage. Adding flood protection techniques may add additional time to construction projects. Spaces within structures that could be used for living or commercial space may not be available. These techniques do not eliminate all flood risk to structures.

-1 0

Administrative The City may not have the capacity to assist with mitigation grant funding for properties. -1 0

Political There may be opposition to limiting the use of privately owned parcels. There may not be political support for this action.

-1 0

Legal The City does not have the authority to mandate mitigation measures on properties. -1 0

Economic This action could eliminate taxpaying use of properties along the River. Adding flood protection techniques may add additional cost to construction projects. It is cheaper to add resilient design in new construction rather than install it after the fact. Grant funding may be available to support these mitigation measures.

-1 0

Environmental This action can enable preservation of additional green or recreational space in or near the floodplain

0 3

Subtotal -5 6

Total 1

Priority 8

Mitigation Action: Develop a coordinated GIS Department. Find out who uses GIS, determine how it is used, and identify other potential uses

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social Better GIS-based products could be developed to assist the public to understand hazards and mitigation projects

0 3

Technical This action will enable coordinated use of GIS data for mitigation and resilience planning. Better GIS-based products could be developed to assist planners and officials with mitigation projects.

0 3

Administrative Efforts will need to be made to standardize GIS workflow across Departments. Close coordination will be required among GIS users in the City and external agencies.

-1 0

Political There may not be political support for this action. -1 0

Legal The City has the legal authority to complete this action. 0 1

Economic There may be additional costs to coordinate GIS services in the City. -1 0

376

Environmental There is no environmental impact. 0 0

Subtotal -3 7

Total 4

Priority 5

Mitigation Action: Obtain hazard data and using GIS to map risk for various hazards

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social There is no social impact from this action. 0 0

Technical This action will enable better understanding of hazard areas in the City including inundation zones, erosion risk, soil types, and infrastructure at risk. This action will enable better hazard mitigation and master planning in the future.

0 3

Administrative Much of the data necessary for GIS hazard mapping is maintained by other agencies. Importing and analyzing hazard data requires experienced GIS technicians. Data must be converted to ensure it is intuitive and understood by end-users.

-1 0

Political There may not be political support for this action. -1 0

Legal The City has the legal authority to complete this action. 0 1

Economic There may be additional costs to coordinate GIS services in the City. -1 0

Environmental There is no environmental impact. 0 0

Subtotal -3 4

Total 1

Priority 8

Mitigation Action: Develop and maintain a database to track community exposure to flood risk, particularly smaller nuisance events for future benefit cost analysis use

Criteria Evaluation Cost Benefit

Social This data can be helpful in educating the public on hazard risk. 0 3

Technical This action will enable better recordkeeping for smaller incidents (example: nuisance flooding that closes roads). This data can be helpful in calculating Benefit Cost Analysis for grants.

0 2

Administrative This action would require additional recordkeeping by Departments based on incident responses they encounter throughout the year. Training would need to be provided to all staff using the recordkeeping system. Standards would need to be produced to ensure all data can be compared

-1 0

377

Political There may not be political support for this action. -1 0

Legal The City has the legal authority to complete this action. 0 1

Economic There may be additional costs to track these hazard events in the City. -1 0

Environmental There is no environmental impact. 0 0

Subtotal -3 6

Total 3

Priority 6

Section 4.4 Implementing and Administering Mitigation Actions

The Office of Emergency Management and the Community Development Division in conjunction with the support of numerous City Departments

and Community Organizations will be worked together over 2018 on a comprehensive community resilience initiative. Urban resilience is

defined by the Rockefeller Foundation as the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive,

adapt, and grow no matter what kind of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience. The overall project consists of four major

components that were closely integrated over a period of two years and funded through federal and private grants.

This 2019 update to the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan was the first major component of this initiative. With the support of a Pre-Disaster

Mitigation Grant through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), this plan was updated per its five year cycle requirement.

Mitigation is most effective when it is based on a comprehensive, long-term plan that is developed before a disaster occurs. The purpose of

mitigation planning is to identify local policies and actions that can be implemented over the long term to reduce risk and future losses from

hazards.

Expanding upon this conventional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Healthy Communities Program funded the

development of the City’s first Community Resilience Strategy. Whereas the hazard mitigation plan focuses on actions to reduce risk for acute

shocks to the City, the Resilience Strategy integrates strategies for chronic stresses ranging from aging infrastructure, adverse socio-economic

trends, and climate adaptation by engaging with a range of diverse community stakeholders and the public throughout the year. The City was

selected to receive technical assistance through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) using their inclusive community

resilience planning process. This project continued through 2019 and concluded with a flood tabletop exercise focused on community recovery.

The exercise goal was to test the capabilities of local, state, and federal partners to coordinate resources to get Nashua’s neighborhoods and

economy back on its feet after a major disaster. Content from the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019 was combined with the

378

Resilience Strategy into one overall document. The Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan & Resilience Strategy will be incorporated in the City’s next

Master Plan revision.

The third component was added to this effort through the City’s acceptance as a member of the National League of Cities (NLC) Leadership in

Community Resilience 2018 Cohort. Out of 45 applicants, Nashua was one of seven awardees based on the many forward-thinking resilience and

sustainability initiatives underway by the City. The Leadership in Community Resilience Program enabled Nashua to integrate these many

municipal and regional efforts in our community resilience planning through a collaborative and interactive approach. Each city received a

$10,000 grant from NLC and 12 months of technical assistance, staff support, and professional development opportunities for community

leaders.

Finally, the Nashua Resilience Dialogues took place in June 2018. The Resilience Dialogues partners with communities to explore their risks from

climate variability and change. Using a professionally facilitated, online process to connect community leaders to a network of vetted national

experts, the Resilience Dialogues helps communities understand risks and lay the groundwork for long-term resilience. The service connects

communities with the most appropriate resources, whether from Federal agencies, regional networks, or the private sector. The Resilience

Dialogues is managed by the American Society of Adaptation Professionals in coordination with the U.S. Global Change Research Program and

American Geophysical Union’s Thriving Earth Exchange. The service builds on Federal efforts, such as the Partnership for Resilience &

Preparedness, the Climate Data Initiative, the Climate Resilience Toolkit, and the National Climate Assessment.

The City of Nashua will work to integrate requirements of the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan into other planning mechanisms. For example, the

City’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan currently has a mitigation component and the hazard assessments from the Nashua Hazard

Mitigation Plan Update 2019 will be included in the 2019 update of that document.

In addition, the City’s Capital Improvement Plan includes many of the large scale City mitigation projects identified in the Hazard Mitigation Plan,

such as culvert improvements. The Division of Public Health and Community Services works on incorporating public health mitigation strategies

into its Community Health Improvement Plan update cycle.

The Resilient Nashua Initiative will be responsible for helping other City departments to integrate the Hazard Mitigation Plan into their own

planning mechanisms.

The Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders developed Table 10, which is an action plan that outlines who is responsible for implementing the

prioritized mitigation actions, how they will be funded, and when they will be completed. This action plan is a goal and its ultimate

implementation is dependent on the availability of funding. The funding sources identified in this Table may potentially be used to implement

379

the mitigation actions, however, it does not imply that funding currently exists in these budgets or will be available in the future. Note that only

mitigation actions whose benefits outweigh their costs as calculated in STAPLEE analysis (Table 9) are included in Table 10.

Table 10—Implementation and Administration

Mitigation Action Responsible Party Cost & Funding Timeframe

Signal failure prevention through additional wireless communications and backup power sources.

City of Nashua Division of Public Works

$72,000-$2,000,000 (source: Nashua CIP & Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, CIP, grant funding, bonds

5 years (2023)

Mast arm inspections throughout City.

City of Nashua Division of Public Works

$5,000 per mast arm for inspection only (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget

5 years (2023)

Improve drainage capacity of problem flood areas, particularly Wethersfield/Westwood, Shelly Drive and Browning Ave, Victor Ave at Emmett St, Westchester Dr, Wilmington Rd at New Searles Rd, Pemberton Rd at Belfast St , Park Ave/Lawndale Ave area, Courtland St/Hall Ave area; C, D, E Sts, Marshall St (Bowers to East Hollis), and Spaulding Ave.

City of Nashua Division of Public Works

$1.8 million-$2.1 million (source: Nashua CIP) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, CIP, grant funding, bonds

5 years (2023)

380

Work with Pennichuck to increase public awareness of methods to reduce water consumption during drought conditions.

Pennichuck Corporation $10,000; project cost borne by Pennichuck (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: Pennichuck budget

5 years (2023)

Improve outreach and education regarding mold and other health concerns resulting from flooding.

City of Nashua Division of Public Health & Community Services

$4,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding

5 years (2023)

Increase the capacity of culverts and storm drains and ensure drainage systems are properly engineered, citizens are included in the planning process, particularly as part of future paving initiatives.

City of Nashua Division of Public Works

$50,000 per culvert for design and bidding; $195,000 per culvert on average for construction; final costs depend on culvert location (source: Nashua CIP) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, CIP, grant funding, bonds

5 years (2023)

Continue to work with Eversource to harden electrical infrastructure, including trimming trees near power lines.

Eversource $2,000,000-$20,000,000; project cost borne by Eversource (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: Eversource budget

5 years (2023)

Enforce building codes, particularly those related to wind and snow load.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development

$55,000 minimum (source: communications with Nashua Community Development) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding

5 years (2023)

381

Provide ongoing outreach and education regarding snow load.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development

$4,000 Building Dept. budget (source: communications with Nashua Community Development) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding

5 years (2023)

Work with local utilities to conduct public outreach and education to ensure energy users are operating systems efficiently during times of extreme temperatures and are aware of heating and cooling assistance options.

Eversource $10,000-$30,000; project cost borne by utilities (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: Eversource budget

5 years (2023)

Enforce fire permit regulations. Nashua Fire Rescue $250,000 Nashua Fire Rescue Operating Budget (source: communications with Nashua Fire Dept.) Funding Source: municipal annual budget

5 years (2023)

Make available NFIP, insurance, and building codes explanatory pamphlets or booklets.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development

$4,000 Building Dept. budget (source: communications with Nashua Community Development)

5 years (2023)

Enhance local officials, builders, developers, local citizens and other stakeholders’ knowledge of how to read and interpret the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

City of Nashua Division of Community Development

$4,000 Building Dept. budget (source: communications with Nashua Community Development) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding

5 years (2023)

382

Routinely clean and repair stormwater drains.

City of Nashua Division of Public Works

$100,000-200,000 DPW budget (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget

5 years (2023)

Ask residents to help keep storm drains clear of debris during storms (not to rely solely on Public Works).

City of Nashua Division of Public Works

$4,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, private funds

5 years (2023)

Collect rainwater and use natural runoff to water plants.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development

$2,000-$10,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding, private funds

5 years (2023)

Provide grassy swales along roadsides.

City of Nashua Division of Public Works

$500,000-$2,000,000 (source Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, CIP, grant funding, private funds, bonds

5 years (2023)

Add building insulation to walls and attics and conduct overall weatherization upgrades.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development

$20,000-$1,000,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding, private funds

5 years (2023)

383

Install generators, solar+storage, and quick-connect emergency generator hook-ups for critical facilities and other residential, commercial, industrial, & specialty properties.

City of Nashua Division of Public Works, City of Nashua Division of Community Development, City of Nashua Division of Information Technology, City of Nashua Division of Financial Services, Nashua School District, Nashua Public Library, Nashua Fire Rescue, Nashua Police Department, & Private Sector

$20,000-$5,000,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, CIP, grant funding, private funds, bonds

5 years (2023)

Adopt the most current International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC).

City of Nashua Division of Community Development

$20,000 Building Dept. budget $1,000,000-$3,000,000 construction costs (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, private funds

5 years (2023)

Promote the installation of air conditioners and heat pumps and opportunities to subsidize the equipment and energy costs for low income families.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development

$50,000-$300,000 for A/C or heat pumps; $300,000-$400,000 for energy costs (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding, private funds

5 years (2023)

Promote the installation of low-flow water saving showerheads and toilets and opportunities to subsidize the equipment for low income families.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development

$50,000-$300,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

5 years (2023)

384

Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding, private funds

Increase tree plantings around buildings to shade parking lots and along public rights-of-way.

City of Nashua Division of Public Works & Private Sector

$50,000-$100,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding, private funds

5 years (2023)

Encourage installation of green roofs, which provide shade and remove heat from the roof surface and surrounding air.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development & Private Sector

$100,000-$3 million (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, CIP, grant funding, private funds, bonds

5 years (2023)

Work with insurance industry representatives to increase public awareness of the importance of multi-hazard insurance and coverage limitations.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development

$5,000-$10,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding, private funds

5 years (2023)

Install, repair and/or replace HVAC systems at public facilities, particularly at schools, the library, fire stations, police department.

City of Nashua School District, Nashua Public Library, Nashua Fire Rescue, & Nashua Police Department

$500,000-$4.5 million (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders & Nashua CIP) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, CIP, grant funding, bonds

5 years (2023)

Install redundancies in municipal fiber and fire alarm network.

City of Nashua Division of Information Technology & Nashua Fire Rescue

$400,000-$500,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders & Nashua CIP)

5 years (2023)

385

Funding Source: municipal annual budget, CIP, grant funding, bonds

Incorporate hazard mitigation principles into all aspects of public-funded building.

City of Nashua Division of Public Works, City of Nashua Division of Community Development, City of Nashua Division of Information Technology, City of Nashua Division of Financial Services, Nashua School District, Nashua Public Library, Nashua Fire Rescue, & Nashua Police Department

$25,000-$5 million (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, CIP, grant funding, bonds

5 years (2023)

Incorporate mitigation retrofits for public facilities into the annual capital improvements program.

City of Nashua Division of Public Works, City of Nashua Division of Community Development, City of Nashua Division of Information Technology, City of Nashua Division of Financial Services, Nashua School District, Nashua Public Library, Nashua Fire Rescue, & Nashua Police Department

$25,000-$5 million (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: CIP

5 years (2023)

Incorporate a stand-alone element for hazard mitigation & resilience into the upcoming master plan.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development

$10,000-$20,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, CIP, grant funding

5 years (2023)

Add at least a 1-foot “freeboard” requirement (feet above base flood elevation) in

City of Nashua Division of Community Development

$4,000 for ordinance development; $25,000-$1 million construction costs

5 years (2023)

386

the flood damage ordinance to maintain Nashua’s Class 8 CRS Rating in 2020.

(source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, CIP, grant funding, private funds

Prepare and adopting a community-wide stormwater management master plan to maintain compliance with the City’s MS4 permit.

City of Nashua Division of Public Works

$25,000-$50,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding

5 years (2023)

Implement an inspection, maintenance, and enforcement program to help ensure continued structural integrity of municipal dams and the Merrimack River Right Bank – Flood Damage Reduction System levee. Recommendations from the Army Corps of Engineers inspection reports should be resolved to bring the levee to an “Acceptable” status.

City of Nashua Division of Public Works

$50,000-$2,000,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, CIP, grant funding, bonds

5 years (2023)

Promote the Resilient Nashua Toolkit interactive website for educating the public on hazard mitigation and preparedness measures.

City of Nashua Office of Emergency Management

$5,000-$10,000 (source: Nashua OEM & Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding

5 years (2023)

Designated local floodplain manager and CRS coordinator achieves CFM certification.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development

$500-$5,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

5 years (2023)

387

Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding

Install, upgrade, or maintain back-up generators for pumping and lift stations in sanitary sewer systems along with other measures (e.g., alarms, meters, remote controls, and switchgear upgrades).

City of Nashua Division of Public Works & Pennichuck Corporation

$500,000-$7,000,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, CIP, grant funding, bonds

5 years (2023)

Raise utilities or other mechanical devices above expected flood levels, particularly in areas likely to be redeveloped soon in the Millyard.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development & Private Sector

$500,000-$1 million (source Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding, private funds

5 years (2023)

Wet floodproof basements residential and non-residential structures, which may be preferable to attempting to keep water out completely because it allows for controlled flooding to balance exterior and interior wall forces and discourages structural collapse, particularly in areas likely to be redeveloped soon in the Millyard.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development & Private Sector

$500,000-$1 million (source Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding, private funds

5 years (2023)

Identify best approach to prevent new development or to require flood-resilient site & building design in developable

City of Nashua Division of Community Development & Private Sector

$500,000-$5 million (source Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders)

5 years (2023)

388

parcels adjacent to the Merrimack River.

Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding, private funds, bonds

Develop a coordinated GIS Department. Find out who uses GIS, determine how it is used, and identify other potential uses.

City of Nashua Division of Financial Services

$50,000-$100,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding

5 years (2023)

Obtain hazard data and using GIS to map risk for various hazards.

City of Nashua Division of Financial Services

$10,000-$25,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding

5 years (2023)

Develop and maintain a database to track community exposure to flood risk, particularly smaller nuisance events for future benefit cost analysis use.

City of Nashua Division of Community Development & City of Nashua Division of Public Works

$5,000-$10,000 (source: Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders) Funding Source: municipal annual budget, grant funding

5 years (2023)

Section 4.5 Progress on Local Mitigation Efforts

A requirement of the update process is to revise the Plan to reflect progress in local mitigation efforts. In order to assess progress on local

mitigation efforts, the Resilient Nashua Initiative stakeholders reviewed the actions originally presented in the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan

Update 2013 and determined if they had been completed, continuing, deleted, or deferred. Progress on each action and its current priority level

were also evaluated to determine if it should continue to be included in the mitigation actions identified in this Plan update. Some actions were

determined during the STAPLEE process to have costs that outweigh the benefits and will be reassessed in the next plan update.

Table 11—Status of Previous Actions

Mitigation Action Description Status Explanation

389

Signal failure prevention Standardize and increase inventory of spare cabinets so that mechanical failures can be repaired quickly. Regular inspections and maintenance of traffic signals to prevent failures from occurring.

Deferred The Division of Public Works has replaced some signals and associated electronic systems as part of the CMAQ process. This has reduced malfunctions in some cases but has made system maintenance more difficult. No backup power systems were introduced into the system as part of this project.

Increase the capacity of culverts and storm drains and ensure drainage systems are properly engineered.

Identify solutions to replace problem culverts with larger structures or identify options to daylight streams. Continue to use best engineering practices to ensure effective stormwater systems.

Continuing All projects involving the construction of a transportation related stream crossing have ensured compliance with best practices related to culvert size and flow throughput. Storm drains on these projects have also been engineered to allow flow for storms typical of our region. Many existing culverts and transportation systems were built prior to the City’s focus on community resilience and a lack of funding has not allowed replacement of these structures.

Make available NFIP, insurance, and building codes explanatory pamphlets or booklets.

Place pamphlets and booklets in public areas at City Hall, available through FEMA.

Continuing The City now participates in FEMA’s Community Rating System program, the City has also added NFIP pamphlets and flood insurance to reception areas of Community Development.

Work with local utilities to conduct public outreach and education to ensure energy users are operating systems efficiently during times of extreme temperatures and are aware of heating and cooling assistance options.

Conduct outreach campaigns with Eversource to promote less energy usage during temperature extremes.

Continuing The Greater Nashua Public Health Network conducted a Climate & Health Adaptation Plan focused on extreme heat events and how jurisdictions including the City of Nashua can better promote mitigation techniques. Work was identified on potential solutions to provide additional air conditioning units and weatherization programs to better mitigate the impact of

390

heat across our region. Preparedness messaging is provided during summer months related to extreme heat and cold events through Public Health.

Enhance local officials, builders, developers, local citizens and other stakeholders’ knowledge of how to read and interpret the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

Provide training opportunities for local officials, builders, developers, local citizens and other stakeholders on FIRM products. Ensure FIRM products are easily accessible to the public.

Continuing The City sends out annual outreach letters with information about flood insurance, flood risk, and flood preparedness to properties in areas with repetitive loss properties.

Improve outreach and education regarding mold and other health concerns resulting from flooding.

Provide additional awareness programs and materials to educate residents and businesses on flood related environmental health concerns

Continuing Information has been provided on the City of Nashua website related to Mold hazards. Information is provided during preparedness presentations related to mold issues after flooding.

Enforce building codes, particularly those related to wind and snow load.

Continue strong enforcement of building codes during new construction and renovations. Maintain staffing in Building Safety and Code Enforcement Departments to conduct enforcement

Continuing Building codes have been enforced since the last mitigation plan update. One challenge has been the State’s inability to keep up with the most current building codes. Because these codes are adopted at the State level, the City is limited on working to promote the most current code. Currently the State has adopted the 2009 code. The Building Safety Department is working to gain support by State Legislators to upgrade to 2015 code.

Improve public outreach and education to encourage vaccinations, hand washing, and social isolation during illness.

Continue public health emergency preparedness outreach campaigns on vaccinations, hand washing, and social isolation to

Deleted - Prevention & mitigation actions for infectious diseases are included in the Greater Nashua Public Health

The Division of Public Health has continued efforts to promote vaccinations, hand washing, and social isolation during illness. This has been through community presentations, outreach tables, social

391

prevent transmission of infectious diseases.

Network Community Health Improvement Plan.

media promotion, and other traditional media programs.

Provide ongoing outreach and education regarding snow load.

Promote the value of building codes through materials from the International Code Council and Building Safety Month. Conduct presentations and displays.

Continuing The Building Safety Department has continued to promote outreach and education related to snow load. This has included press releases, social media efforts, and additional outreach to make residents aware of the risks due to uneven heavy snow buildup on roofs.

Mast arm inspections throughout City.

Standardize inspections of mast arms to prevent their collapse due to interior corrosion.

Continuing The Division of Public Works has continued efforts to inspect mast arms as part of annual maintenance programs as needed. Safety concerns are dealt with through repair or replacement. A significant number of mast arms were replaced on Main Street due to a significant construction project.

Enforce fire permit regulations.

Continue to enforce fire permits to prevent opportunities for unsafe outside fires. Enhance outreach to permit holders to make them aware of days where no permits will be issued.

Continuing The Nashua Fire Rescue has continued to enforce fire permit regulations through increased awareness with citizens requesting permits, restricting outside fires and notifying the public, as well as ensuring visits to permit holders to assess risk to their property and neighbors.

Continue to work with Eversource to harden electrical infrastructure, including trimming trees near power lines.

Promote Eversource’s Vegetation Management program to reduce impacts to the electric infrastructure during high wind or storm events. This can include trimming and removing trees near critical lines. The

Continuing Eversource's Vegetation Management department maintains vegetation in and along electric line right-of-way corridors through Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Each year many of these rights-of-way are managed to control vegetation growing within the cleared and maintained areas - preventing the growth

392

City should assist Eversource with coordinating with residents and businesses during the planning of vegetation management projects. Eversource should also strengthen infrastructure with automated switches, and stronger transmission and distribution structures. Burying lines should be reviewed as an option for new construction and major redevelopment.

of tall trees that could interfere with the overhead facilities. Some of these rights-of-way also have vegetation trimmed to prevent trees and branches from contacting the lines. All work is performed in accordance with specifications conforming to utility industry best practices and compliance with federal management standards. Work is completed based on vegetation management plans that are reviewed and approved annually before Eversource can perform scheduled maintenance.

Work with Pennichuck to increase public awareness of methods to reduce water consumption during drought conditions.

Pennichuck should work to enhance public outreach on water consumption methods during drought conditions. This can include website updates, emails and phone calls to customers, and coordination with municipalities and the press.

Continuing Pennichuck has continued outreach related to water consumption during drought conditions. They have updated their website with additional information and real-time updates on conditions. During the recent drought, Pennichuck worked with communities to enhance public outreach related to reduction in water use through voluntary restrictions.

Intersection design improvements plan.

Secure funding to allow for additional studies of existing intersections and develop and implement improvement projects.

Continuing, but not found cost beneficial for 2019, will reassess in next plan update

The City has conducted a study to look at traffic flow patterns in the downtown. Many new traffic patterns were recommended including a reduction of the one-way streets. Additional projects near the Bridge Street and East Hollis Street interchange are in planning to modify the intersection.

393

Enhance pavement improvement plan. Incorporate porous paving where applicable to mitigate flooding and improve drainage.

Improve conditions of roads before they deteriorate and become dangerous to drivers.

Continuing, but not found cost beneficial for 2019, will reassess in next plan update

The City continues to look at incorporating porous paving where applicable to mitigate flooding and improve drainage. Porous pavement has also been promoted with private businesses when possible for parking lots. Funding for major paving projects will be implemented within the next few years to improve pavement conditions across the City.

Improve drainage capacity of problem flood areas.

There are several problem flooding areas in the City that need improved drainage capacity. Each area will require individual strategies such as replacement or construction of new culverts, and purchasing homes in the area.

Continuing The City continues to identify solutions for replacement of priority culverts to replace. Applications for hazard mitigation funding for projects has been unsuccessful and the capital improvement program has not prioritized requests. No efforts have been made on purchasing homes.

Support seismic-rated construction of buildings and infrastructure.

Continue the enforcement of building code and identification of critical structures that should be prioritized for retrofits.

Deferred, but not found cost beneficial for 2019, will reassess in next plan update

Building codes have been enforced since the last mitigation plan update. One challenge has been the State’s inability to keep up with the most current building codes. Because these codes are adopted at the State level, the City is limited on working to promote the most current code. Currently the State has adopted the 2009 code. The Building Safety Department is working to gain support by State Legislators to upgrade to 2015 code.

Continue to work with NH Dam Bureau to delineate and map potential risk areas

Work in partnership with NH Dam Bureau to better map inundation zones from high hazard dams within the

Deferred, but not found cost beneficial for 2019, will reassess in next plan update

There has not been any progress on this initiative and it does not appear NH Dam Bureau has responsibility to map inundation zones. This is the responsibility

394

in case of a dam failure in Nashua.

City. Identify flood mitigation techniques for structures within inundation zones.

of the dam owner as part of their emergency action planning requirements

Maintain and update water and sewer infrastructure that could cause ground failure. Utilize cameras to inspect water and sewer lines throughout the City. Ensure ground failure repairs are properly completed. Maintain a database of ground failure occurrences in the City, including historic events.

Upgrade and replace water and sewer infrastructure to prevent sinkholes. Monitor these systems with remote cameras to identify failures before they become larger issues. When repairing sinkholes, ensure repairs prevent further sinkholes in the same location.

Continuing, but not found cost beneficial for 2019, will reassess in next plan update

Work has continued across the City to replace and repair sewer and water infrastructure. Pennichuck has continued a robust plan to replace water lines throughout the City. The City Engineering Department has worked to develop a plan to line many aging sewer lines. There has not been any work to identify projected impacts to the sewer or stormwater systems due to climate change. Efforts to collect more data on failures have not progressed.

Identify alternative water supplies for fire protection and drinking water.

Efforts should be made to identify an alternate water source to the Pennichuck Brook for the City of Nashua.

Completed - Pennichuck has completed the Merrimack River Intake project.

Pennichuck has completed a major project to tie the Merrimack River Intake directly into the Water Treatment Facility without having to be mixed with the Pennichuck Pond system. This provides a completely separate water source in the event of drought or other water emergency along Pennichuck Brook Watershed.

Ensure mission critical infrastructure is hardened and protected against solar weather.

Critical infrastructure that relies heavily on power and telecommunications should harden systems against solar weather.

Deferred, but not found cost beneficial for 2019, will reassess in next plan update

No progress has been made on this action.

395

Section 4.6 Changes in Priorities

One frequent recommendation in the 2018 mitigation planning process was to develop stronger mitigation actions. Many of the actions

identified in the City’s 2013 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update were not specific enough to measure or recommend specific projects to complete.

The Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019 provides more specific mitigation actions and specific locations across the City.

The STAPLEE scoring system in the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 is the same as the STAPLEE scoring system used in the 2019

update enabling a simple comparison of priorities.

The following mitigation actions dropped in priority level from the 2013 Plan to the 2019 Plan:

● Increase the capacity of culverts and storm drains and ensure drainage systems are properly engineered

● Make available NFIP, insurance, and building codes explanatory pamphlets or booklets

● Work with local utilities to conduct public outreach and education to ensure energy users are operating systems efficiently during times

of extreme temperatures and are aware of heating and cooling assistance options

● Enhance local officials, builders, developers, local citizens and other stakeholders’ knowledge of how to read and interpret the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

● Improve outreach and education regarding mold and other health concerns resulting from flooding. ● Enforce building codes, particularly those related to wind and snow load. ● Provide ongoing outreach and education regarding snow load. ● Mast arm inspections throughout City. ● Enforce fire permit regulations. ● Work with Pennichuck to increase public awareness of methods to reduce water consumption during drought conditions. ● Intersection design improvements. ● Enhance pavement improvement plan. Incorporate porous paving where applicable to mitigate flooding and improve drainage. ● Improve drainage capacity of problem flood areas. ● Support seismic-rated construction of buildings and infrastructure. ● Continue to work with NH Dam Bureau to delineate and map potential risk areas in case of a dam failure in Nashua. ● Maintain and update water and sewer infrastructure that could cause ground failure. Utilize cameras to inspect water and sewer lines

throughout the City. Ensure ground failure repairs are properly completed. Maintain a database of ground failure occurrences in the City, including historic events.

● Ensure mission critical infrastructure is hardened and protected against solar weather. The following mitigation action rose in priority level from the 2013 Plan to the 2019 Plan:

396

● N/A

The following mitigation actions remained consistent in priority level from the 2013 Plan to the 2019 Plan:

● Signal failure prevention

● Continue to work with Eversource to harden electrical infrastructure, including trimming trees near power lines.

Table 12—Changes in Mitigation Priorities

Mitigation Action Current Status Priority Level in 2013 Plan Priority Level in 2019 Plan

Signal failure prevention The Division of Public Works has replaced some signals and associated electronic systems as part of the CMAQ process. This has reduced malfunctions in some cases but has made system maintenance more difficult. No backup power systems were introduced into the system as part of this project.

STAPLEE Score = 7 Rank = 1 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 9 Rank = 1 out of 14

Increase the capacity of culverts and storm drains and ensure drainage systems are properly engineered.

All projects involving the construction of a transportation related stream crossing have ensured compliance with best practices related to culvert size and flow throughput. Storm drains on these projects have also been engineered to allow flow for storms typical of our region. Many existing culverts and transportation systems were built prior to the City’s focus on community resilience and a

STAPLEE Score = 7 Rank = 1 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 3 Rank = 6 out of 14

397

lack of funding has not allowed replacement of these structures.

Make available NFIP, insurance, and building codes explanatory pamphlets or booklets.

The City now participates in FEMA’s Community Rating System program, the City has also added NFIP pamphlets and flood insurance to reception areas of Community Development.

STAPLEE Score = 5 Rank = 2 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 5 Rank = 4 out of 14

Work with local utilities to conduct public outreach and education to ensure energy users are operating systems efficiently during times of extreme temperatures and are aware of heating and cooling assistance options.

The Greater Nashua Public Health Network conducted a Climate & Health Adaptation Plan focused on extreme heat events and how jurisdictions including the City of Nashua can better promote mitigation techniques. Work was identified on potential solutions to provide additional air conditioning units and weatherization programs to better mitigate the impact of heat across our region. Preparedness messaging is provided during summer months related to extreme heat and cold events through Public Health.

STAPLEE Score = 5 Rank = 2 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 5 Rank = 4 out of 14

Enhance local officials, builders, developers, local citizens and other stakeholders’ knowledge of how to read and interpret the

The City sends out annual outreach letters with information about flood insurance, flood risk, and flood preparedness to properties in

STAPLEE Score = 4 Rank = 3 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 5 Rank = 4 out of 14

398

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

areas with repetitive loss properties.

Improve outreach and education regarding mold and other health concerns resulting from flooding.

Information has been provided on the City of Nashua website related to Mold hazards. Information is provided during preparedness presentations related to mold issues after flooding.

STAPLEE Score = 4 Rank = 3 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 4 Rank = 5 out of 14

Enforce building codes, particularly those related to wind and snow load.

Building codes have been enforced since the last mitigation plan update. One challenge has been the State’s inability to keep up with the most current building codes. Because these codes are adopted at the State level, the City is limited on working to promote the most current code. Currently the State has adopted the 2009 code. The Building Safety Department is working to gain support by State Legislators to upgrade to 2015 code.

STAPLEE Score = 4 Rank = 3 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 5 Rank = 4 out of 14

Improve public outreach and education to encourage vaccinations, hand washing, and social isolation during illness.

The Division of Public Health has continued efforts to promote vaccinations, hand washing, and social isolation during illness. This has been through community presentations, outreach tables, social media promotion, and

STAPLEE Score = 4 Rank = 3 out of 10

Removed from 2019 Update

399

other traditional media programs.

Provide ongoing outreach and education regarding snow load.

The Building Safety Department has continued to promote outreach and education related to snow load. This has included press releases, social media efforts, and additional outreach to make residents aware of the risks due to uneven heavy snow buildup on roofs.

STAPLEE Score = 4 Rank = 3 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 3 Rank = 6 out of 14

Mast arm inspections throughout City.

The Division of Public Works has continued efforts to inspect mast arms as part of annual maintenance programs as needed. Safety concerns are dealt with through repair or replacement. A significant number of mast arms were replaced on Main Street due to a significant construction project.

STAPLEE Score = 1 Rank = 5 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 2 Rank = 7 out of 14

Enforce fire permit regulations. The Nashua Fire Rescue has continued to enforce fire permit regulations through increased awareness with citizens requesting permits, restricting outside fires and notifying the public, as well as ensuring visits to permit holders to assess risk to their property and neighbors.

STAPLEE Score = 1 Rank = 5 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 2 Rank = 7 out of 14

400

Continue to work with Eversource to harden electrical infrastructure, including trimming trees near power lines.

Eversource's Vegetation Management department maintains vegetation in and along electric line right-of-way corridors through Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Each year many of these rights-of-way are managed to control vegetation growing within the cleared and maintained areas - preventing the growth of tall trees that could interfere with the overhead facilities. Some of these rights-of-way also have vegetation trimmed to prevent trees and branches from contacting the lines. All work is performed in accordance with specifications conforming to utility industry best practices and compliance with federal management standards. Work is completed based on vegetation management plans that are reviewed and approved annually before Eversource can perform scheduled maintenance.

STAPLEE Score = 1 Rank = 5 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 4 Rank = 5 out of 14

Work with Pennichuck to increase public awareness of methods to reduce water consumption during drought conditions.

Pennichuck has continued outreach related to water consumption during drought conditions. They have updated their website with additional

STAPLEE Score = 1 Rank = 5 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 3 Rank = 6 out of 14

401

information and real-time updates on conditions. During the recent drought, Pennichuck worked with communities to enhance public outreach related to reduction in water use through voluntary restrictions.

Intersection design improvements.

The City has conducted a study to look at traffic flow patterns in the downtown. Many new traffic patterns were recommended including a reduction of the one-way streets. Additional projects near the Bridge Street and East Hollis Street interchange are in planning to modify the intersection.

STAPLEE Score = -2 Rank = 6 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 0 Rank = 9 out of 14

Enhance pavement improvement plan. Incorporate porous paving where applicable to mitigate flooding and improve drainage.

The City continues to look at incorporating porous paving where applicable to mitigate flooding and improve drainage. Porous pavement has also been promoted with private businesses when possible for parking lots. Funding for major paving projects will be implemented within the next few years to improve pavement conditions across the City.

STAPLEE Score = -2 Rank = 6 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = -1 Rank = 10 out of 14

Improve drainage capacity of problem flood areas.

The City continues to identify solutions for replacement of

STAPLEE Score = -2 Rank = 6 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 2 Rank = 7 out of 14

402

priority culverts to replace. Applications for hazard mitigation funding for projects has been unsuccessful and the capital improvement program has not prioritized requests. No efforts have been made on purchasing homes.

Support seismic-rated construction of buildings and infrastructure.

Building codes have been enforced since the last mitigation plan update. One challenge has been the State’s inability to keep up with the most current building codes. Because these codes are adopted at the State level, the City is limited on working to promote the most current code. Currently the State has adopted the 2009 code. The Building Safety Department is working to gain support by State Legislators to upgrade to 2015 code.

STAPLEE Score = -2 Rank = 6 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = -1 Rank = 10 out of 14

Continue to work with NH Dam Bureau to delineate and map potential risk areas in case of a dam failure in Nashua.

There has not been any progress on this initiative and it does not appear NH Dam Bureau has responsibility to map inundation zones. This is the responsibility of the dam owner as part of their emergency action planning requirements

STAPLEE Score = -3 Rank = 7 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 0 Rank = 9 out of 14

403

Maintain and update water and sewer infrastructure that could cause ground failure. Utilize cameras to inspect water and sewer lines throughout the City. Ensure ground failure repairs are properly completed. Maintain a database of ground failure occurrences in the City, including historic events.

Work has continued across the City to replace and repair sewer and water infrastructure. Pennichuck has continued a robust plan to replace water lines throughout the City. The City Engineering Department has worked to develop a plan to line many aging sewer lines. There has not been any work to identify projected impacts to the sewer or stormwater systems due to climate change. Efforts to collect more data on failures have not progressed.

STAPLEE Score = -5 Rank = 8 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = 0 Rank = 9 out of 14

Identify alternative water supplies for fire protection and drinking water.

Pennichuck has completed a major project to tie the Merrimack River Intake directly into the Water Treatment Facility without having to be mixed with the Pennichuck Pond system. This provides a completely separate water source in the event of drought or other water emergency along Pennichuck Brook Watershed.

STAPLEE Score = -8 Rank = 9 out of 10

Removed from 2019 Update

Ensure mission critical infrastructure is hardened and protected against solar weather.

No progress has been made on this action.

STAPLEE Score = -12 Rank = 10 out of 10

STAPLEE Score = -10 Rank = 14 out of 14

404

CHAPTER 5. PLAN ADOPTION

Section 5.1 Formal Adoption by Governing Body

405

Section 5.2 FEMA Approval Letter

406

APPENDIX

Resilient Nashua Initiative Meeting Participants

First Name Last Name Organization Title

Jackie Aguilar Nashua Community Health Department Public Health Nurse Manager

Pam Andruskevich Nashua GIS Department GIS Technician

Michael Bachand US Army Corps of Engineers Staff

Matthew Bachler Town of Swanzey Director of Planning & Economic Development

Bobbie Bagley

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health Director

Douglas Barry Humane Society for Greater Nashua President/CEO

Ren Beaudoin Nashua Environmental Health Department Deputy Health Officer

Dan Bennison

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health

Disaster Preparedness Coordinator

Amy Bewley Academy for Science and Design Administrator

Makenzie Bilodeau Girls Inc. of NH Program Coordinator

Laurie Branchaud Gateways Community Services Adult Day Services Program Manager

Doria Brown Worthen Industries/Nashua Environment & Energy Committee Sustainability Specialist

Stephen Buckley New Hampshire Municipal Association Legal Services Counsel

Peter Burke Farnum Center Marketing Director

407

Ash Bustead Citizens Climate Lobby Member

Tiffany Calvino Fresenius Kidney Care RN- clinical Manager

Carlos Camacho Nashua Police Department Lieutenant

Steve Cauffman NIST Engineering Laboratory

Sara Ceaser United Way of Greater Nashua Director of Volunteer and Alumni Engagement

Matthew Chigas Nashua Office of Emergency Management

Emergency Management Coordinator

Deb Chisholm Nashua Waterways Department Waterways Manager

Nadia Choudhry Animal Hospital of Nashua Manager

Jason Climer DHS CISA Region 1 Protective Security Advisor

Matthew Cody Liberty Utilities Intern, Compliance, Quality, and Emergency Management

Valerie Connelly Worthen Industries Plant Manager

Catherine Corkery Sierra Club NH Chapter Director

Scott Cote Southern New Hampshire Health VP Facilities & Emergency Management

Pamela Coutermarsh Nashua Adult Learning Center Accounting Administrator

Patty Crooker

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health

Public Health Network Services Coordinator

Shane Csiki New Hampshire Geological Survey Flood Hazards Program Administrator

Christa Daniels Antioch University Adjunct Faculty

Shaylin Deignan Foundation for Healthy Communities Program Coordinator

Amy DeRoche Nashua Office of Economic Development Arts Administrator

408

Dean Desautels Eversource Manager - Emergency Preparedness

Lisa Dias World Academy Head of School

Jennifer DiMaria Milford High School Career Development Specialist

Heather Dunkerley NH Homeland Security & Emergency Management Senior Field Representative

Derek Edry Nashua Mayor's Office Communications Coordinator

Mikaela Engert Consultant Sustainability & Climate Change Advisor

Zeina Eyceoz Southern NH University/Nashua Citizen Adjunct Faculty

Juana Fields Nashua Soup Kitchen & Shelter Hispanic Advocate

Liz Fitzgerald United Way of Greater Nashua Director of Community Impact

Brenda Flores Rivier University Student

Dara Gay US Army Corps of Engineers Staff

Steve Genest Southern NH Services Board of Directors

Sarah Gibson NHPR Reporter

Jennifer Gilbert NH Office of Strategic Initiatives State Floodplain Management Coordinator

Liz Gilboy NH Homeland Security & Emergency Management Field Representative

Mandeep Gill Nashua Engineering Department Senior Staff Engineer

Sherry Godlewski NH Department of Environmental Services

Resilience and Adaptation Manager

Melissa Goerbig Big Brothers Big Sisters of NH Vice President of Programs

Amy Greenhalgh Greater Nashua Habitat for Humanity Development Manager

409

Robert Guillemin EPA Region 1 Environmental Specialist

Charles Hall American Red Cross Senior Disaster Program Manager

Amy Hamilton US Army Corps of Engineers

Michael Harris Nashua Division of Public Works Division Operation Manager

Brian Harris-Jones N/A Recent graduate of environmental science

Mark Hastings Southern New Hampshire Health Director, Emergency Management

Karyn Heavner Rivier University Director of Public Health

Kayla Henderson NH Homeland Security & Emergency Management State Hazard Mitigation Planner

Theresa Hill NH Department of Health & Human Services - ESU Staff

Jessica Hillman

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health CDC Public Health Associate

Angela Holt Fresenius Kidney Care RN Clinical Manager

Jenn Hosking Nashua Public Library Assistant Director

Roger Houston Nashua Planning Department Planning Manager

Americo Imperatore Community Member Member

Paul Janampa NH Catholic Charities, Nashua Community Outreach Coordinator

Nick Kasza National League of Cities Senior Associate

Justin Kates Nashua Office of Emergency Management

Director of Emergency Management

Patricia Klee Nashua Board of Aldermen/NH House of Representatives Alderman

Amanda Kohn Kim Lundgren Associates Sustainability Specialist

410

Rhett Lamb City of Keene Assistant City Manager/Planning Director

Jennifer LaTouche Expert Design Solutions Kitchen and Bath Designer

Ed Lecius Nashua Police Department Community Policing Coordinator

Tom Lopez NH Partnership for Successful Living/Nashua Board of Aldermen Maple Arms Shelter Manager

Kim Lundgren Kim Lundgren Associates CEO

Michael Mabee Foundation for Resilient Societies Volunteer

Arlene Magoon DHS FEMA Region 1 Individual & Community Preparedness Coordinator

Matthew Malecha Texas A&M University PhD Student

Timothy Mallette NH Department of Transportation Hydraulics Engineer

Sarah Marchant Nashua Community Development Division Community Development Director

Angelo Marino Nashua GIS Department GIS Manager

Cooper Martin National League of Cities Program Director, Sustainable Cities Institute

Emily Martuscello DHS FEMA Region 1 Continuous Improvement Advisor

Jaimie Masterson Texas A&M University Associate Director

Terri McAllister NIST Community Resilience Group Leader & PM

Dave McConville DMc Permaculture Permaculture Designer & Educator

Ken McGarry First Church Congregational, United Church of Christ Associate Minister

Linda McGhee Nashua Planning Department Deputy Planning Manager

Anna McGinty Nashua Office of Emergency Management

Community Resilience Coordinator

411

Bill Mckinney Nashua Building Safety Department Building Official

Scott McPhie Nashua Planning Department Planner

Scott Mellor DHS CISA Region 1 Chemical Security Inspector

Kyle Metcalf Nashua Code Enforcement Department Code Officer

Madeleine Mineau Nashua Waterways Department Waterways Manager

Jay Minkarah Nashua Regional Planning Commission Executive Director

Nick Miseirvitch Nashua Information Technology Division IT Manager - Infrastructure

David Mizzen NIST/ARA Engineer

Daniel Modricker DHS CISA Region 1 Department Outreach Coordinator

Jarad Monin US Army (76th ORC) NH EPLO NCO

Melbourne Moran Harbor Homes Clinical Director

Patrick Morrison Nashua CERT Instructor

Jahmal Mosley Nashua School District Superintendent

David Muse American Red Cross Disaster Program Manager

Bill Naas St Patrick's Church Parish Council Saint Patrick's Church

Sharon Nall NH Department of Environmental Services

WWEB Sustainability Program Manager

Kathryn Nelson Nashua River Watershed Association Water Monitoring Coordinator

Russell Norris Rivier University Director of Security Programs

Nzenalu Obinelo Gateways Community Services Vice President of Children and Family Services

412

Rebecca Ohler NH Department of Environmental Services

Administrator, Technical Services Bureau

Hector Ortiz Rise Engineering

Scott Osterhuber Fidelity Investments Security Director

Fran Patno DHS CISA Region 1 Chemical Security Inspector

Camille Pattison Nashua Transportation Department Transportation Manager

Michael Pedersen Nashua Planning Board Mayor's Representative

Scott Perkins Nashua Streets Department Operations Supervisor

Connor Pinkham Nashua Office of Emergency Management Intern

Chris Poland NIST Community Resilience Fellow

Thomas Popik Foundation for Resilient Societies Chairman & President

James Pyle Nashua Environment & Energy Committee Member

Liesel Richie NIST Community Resilience Fellow

Reilly Roche

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health Intern

Ray Rowell Worthen Industries Facilities Manager

Jessica Rudd US Army Corps of Engineers Staff

Peter Schaefer Nashua Resident Resident

Bob Scheifele Nashua Airport Authority Director

Carrie Schena Nashua Urban Programs Department Urban Programs Manager

Jan Schmidt Nashua Board of Aldermen/NH House of Representatives Alderman

413

Maida Sengupta AARP, LDS Church, EngAGING NH secretary

Paul Shea Great American Downtown Great American Downtown

Karen Simmons Volunteer NH Deputy Director

Elise Simons EPA Region 1 Assistance & Outreach Coordinator

Alison Skare Milford High School High school Senior

Tiffany Skogstrom MA Office of Technical Assistance Outreach & Policy

Heather Snide Milford High School Student

Susan Snide Town of Pelham Assessing

Madison Soucy Nashua Office of Emergency Management Intern

Chelsea St George

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health

Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator

Sylvie Stewart Nashua Environment & Energy Committee Community Member

Jason Strniste Bishop Guertin High School Principal

Doraswamy Subramony Hindu Temple of NH Priest

Gloria Timmons

NAACP/Nashua's Community Conversation on Race & Justice/Nashua Board of Education Member

Amir Toosi Rivier University Dean, Division of Business

Carole Totzkay NH Department of Health & Human Services - ESU Staff

Mason Twombly Nashua Regional Planning Commission Regional/ Environmental Planner

414

Roland Vance St. Joseph Hospital

Emergency Preparedness/Environmental Compliance Manager

James Vayo Nashua Office of Economic Development Downtown Specialist

Michelle Veasey NH Businesses for Social Responsibility Executive Director

Nicole Viau

Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services/Greater Nashua Public Health PHNS Program Assistant

Meta Vornehm LDS Church Self Reliance/Nashua resident Facilitator

George Walker Nashua Fire Rescue Assistant Chief

Ed Walker Town of Peterborough Fire Chief / EMD

Donald Ware Pennichuck Water Works, Inc. Chief Operating Officer

Sula Watermulder Northeast States Emergency Consortium

GIS & Emergency Management Specialist

Dan Weeks ReVision Energy Director of Market Development

Whitney Welch NH Homeland Security & Emergency Management State Hazard Mitigation Officer

Kashena Window NH Department of Health & Human Services - ESU Volunteer Program Coordinator

Stephanie Wolf-Rosenblum Nashua Board of Health Member

Stephen Woodard Nashua Baptist Church Pastor

Si Yu Texas A&M University PhD Student

415

Sample Resilient Nashua Initiative Email Notifications, Agendas & Minutes

Agendas and meeting minutes were sent via email to all Resilient Nashua Initiative active members by the Nashua Office of Emergency

Management staff. These agendas and meeting minutes were also sent to the full distribution lists for the Nashua Board of Aldermen, Nashua

Planning Board, Nashua Environment & Energy Committee, Nashua Board of Public Works, Nashua Board of Education, Nashua Board of Health,

Nashua Conservation Commission, Nashua Local Emergency Planning Committee, Nashua Area Interfaith Council, Greater Nashua Chamber of

Commerce, and Greater Nashua Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster. During the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update process, six

meetings of the Resilient Nashua Initiative were held. A similar notice was sent prior to each of these meetings, which were held on February 5,

2018; April 5, 2018; June 13, 2018; October 11, 2018, November 19, 2018 and December 18, 2018. An example of these agendas and minutes

are available below. The remainder and association meeting presentations can be found at www.livablenashua.org/resilient or the City of

Nashua Agenda Center website.

416

417

418

419

Official Meeting Notices to Media and City Calendar

Each Resilient Nashua Initiative meeting was posted on the official City of Nashua meeting calendar, posted in the City of Nashua Agenda Center

online, and distributed to the media through the weekly meeting notices from the Legislative Affairs Manager. Below is a screenshot of the City

Calendar, Agenda Center, and the weekly meeting distribution email and agenda.

420

421

Sample Resilient Nashua Initiative Public Postings

Public postings were hung prior to upcoming meetings at City Hall in multiple locations, and the Public Library. Some examples are provided

below.

422

Community TV Broadcasts

Notices in large print were broadcast on all Community TV channels including Government, Education, and Public Access. Below is an example of

the slide that would be shown between shows (similar to a commercial). The Resilient Nashua Initiative was also included in the Health View

show played on all three channels and the Health View YouTube channel.

423

Social Media Outreach

The Resilient Nashua Initiative meetings & events were well publicized on social media including the Nashua OEM and Nashua Community

Development Facebook and Twitter accounts. In addition to the official government websites, digital flyers were typically promoted by other

community organizations including the Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce.

424

425

Neighboring Community Notifications

Notifications were made to the Community Planning and Emergency Management Officials of every Nashua Regional Planning Commission

community via email and website notification form. Some examples are provided below.

426

CoUrbanize Crowdsourcing Map

To enhance opportunities for the public to participate in the hazard mitigation planning process, the City worked with the coUrbanize platform

to create a crowdsourced map of hazards concerning residents and community resources important to the City. The website is in an archived

state and is available for review at courb.co/resilient. Screenshots of the platform are below.

427

City of Nashua Website

Information about the Resilient Nashua Initiative was included on the front page of the website to solicit comments and recommendations for

the hazard mitigation planning process. Screenshots of the posting are below.

428

Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Website

The Nashua Office of Emergency Management developed a webpage for the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019

(https://www.livablenashua.org/resilient-nashua-initiative/) which allows members of the public to participate in the update process even if

they cannot attend meetings. The webpage was updated throughout the planning process and includes the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan

Update 2013, the Nashua Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019 draft for review, and the Public Meeting Schedule. It also provides meeting times,

locations, agendas, minutes, and meeting presentations. The City of Nashua’s website links to this webpage. The Nashua Office of Emergency

Management & the Nashua Community Development Division will keep the website active and will add information about ongoing updates over

the next 5 years. A screenshot of the website appears below.

429