date submitted: 7/23/2019 date approved pending adoption
TRANSCRIPT
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