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
429
Embed
Date Submitted: 7/23/2019 Date Approved Pending Adoption ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
$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
$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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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%
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%
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%
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.
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%
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
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
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-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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