city of claremont, new hampshire€¦ · power for all schools), planning/policies e.g. coordinate...

City of Claremont,

New Hampshire

Claremont Hazard Mitigation Plan Final Draft – November 2004

Prepared with the Assistance of:

City of Claremont Hazard Mitigation Plan NOV. 2004 FINAL DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 1 PURPOSE 1 AUTHORITY 1 SCOPE OF THE PLAN 1 METHODOLOGY 2 HAZARD MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 7 COMMUNITY PROFILE 8 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS 8 SECTION II: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND POTENTIAL RISK

ASSESSMENT 9

SECTION III: EXISTING MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND PROPOSED

IMPROVEMENTS 24

SECTION IV: NEWLY IDENTIFIED MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND

CRITICAL EVALUATION 27

SECTION V: PRIORITIZED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 30 SECTION VI: ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 31 RESOURCES USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAN 32 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: Technical Resources APPENDIX B: Technical And Financial Assistance APPENDIX C: Matrix of Federal All-Hazards Grants APPENDIX D: Meeting Documentation APPENDIX E: CRREL Ice Jam Listings


3

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION

Introduction Section I BACKGROUND The New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management (NHOEM) has a goal for all communities within the State of New Hampshire to establish local hazard mitigation plans as a means to reduce future losses from natural or man-made hazard events before they occur. The NHOEM has provided funding to the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission (UVLSRPC), to facilitate the development of local Hazard Mitigation Plans for several of its communities. UVLSRPC began preparing a local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City of Claremont in January 2004. PURPOSE The Claremont Hazard Mitigation Plan serves as a strategic planning tool for use by the City of Claremont in its efforts to reduce future losses from natural and/or man-made hazard events before they occur. This Plan does not constitute a section of the Master Plan. AUTHORITY The Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee prepared the Claremont Hazard Mitigation Plan with the assistance and professional services of the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission (UVLSRPC) under contract with the New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management (OEM) operating under the guidance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). After a pub lic hearing held in the _____, the Claremont City Council adopted the Plan on _____, 2004.

SCOPE OF THE PLAN The scope of the Claremont Hazard Mitigation Plan includes the identification of natural hazards affecting the city, as identified by the Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee. The hazards were reviewed under the following categories as outlined in the State of New Hampshire Hazard Mitigation Plan:

I. Flooding (Including hurricanes, 100-year floodplain events, debris- impacted infrastructure, erosion, mudslides, rapid snow pack melt, river ice jams, dam breach and/or failure)

II. Wind (Including hurricanes, tornadoes, “Nor’easters,” downbursts and lightning)


4

III. Fire (Including forest fires and issues such as isolated homes and residential areas)

IV. Ice & Snow Events (Including heavy snow storms, ice storms, and “Nor’easters,”) V. Earthquake (Including landslides and other geologic hazards related to seismic

activity) VI. Other Events (Including hazardous materials events and terrorism).

METHODOLOGY Using the Hazard Mitigation Planning for New Hampshire Communities handbook, as developed by the Southwest Regional Planning Commission (SWRPC), the Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee, in conjunction with the UVLSRPC, developed the content of the Claremont Hazard Mitigation Plan by following the ten-step process set forth in the handbook. The Committee held a total of six meetings beginning on January 12, 2004 and ending on September 21, 2004. All meetings were posted at Claremont City Hall and open to the general public. Once the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has approved the Plan, the Claremont City Council will hold a public hearing to formally adopt it. The following are dates of meetings that were vital to the development of this Plan:

• January 12, 2004: Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee meeting • February 18: Committee meeting • March 9: Committee meeting • May 27: Committee meeting • June 17: Committee meeting • September 1: Meeting with EMD • September 21: Committee meeting

To complete this Plan, the Hazard Mitigation Committee followed the following planning steps: Step 1: Map the Hazards Committee members identified areas where damage from natural disasters had previously occurred, areas of potential damage, and man-made facilities and infrastructure that were at risk for loss of life, property damage, and other risk factors. A GIS-generated base map provided by the UVLSRPC was used in the process. Step 2: Determine Potential Damage Committee members identified facilities that were considered to be of value to the city for emergency management purposes, for provision of utilities and services, and for historic, cultural and social value. A GIS-generated map was prepared to show critical facilities identified by the Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee. In addition, a summary listing of “Critical Facilities” is presented at the end of Section II.


5

Step 3: Identify Plans/Policies Already in Place Using information and activities in the handbook, the Committee and UVLSRPC staff identified existing mitigation strategies that are already implemented in the city related to flood, wind, fire, ice and snow events and earthquakes. A summary chart and the results of this activity are presented in Section III of the Plan. Step 4: Identify the Gaps in Protection/Mitigation Existing strategies were then reviewed for coverage, effectiveness and implementation, as well as need for improvement. Some strategies are contained in the Emergency Action Plan and were reviewed as part of this step. A summary chart and the results of these activities are presented in Section III of the Plan. Step 5: Determine Actions to Take During an open brainstorming session, the Hazard Mitiga tion Committee developed a list of other possible hazard mitigation actions and strategies for the City of Claremont. Ideas proposed included Emergency Response/Coordination (e.g. Purchase back-up emergency power for all schools), Planning/Policies (e.g. Coordinate regional hazard mitigation meeting), Public Works (e.g. Develop snow removal policy/plan) and public education (e.g. Distribute information about City emergency shelters). Step 6: Evaluate Feasible Options The Hazard Mitigation Committee reviewed each of the ten hazard mitigation actions and strategies that were identified in the brainstorming session using Evaluation Charts from Step Six of the handbook. Each strategy was rated (good, average, or poor) for its effectiveness related to fourteen factors (e.g., damage reduction, environmental impact, social acceptability and financial feasibility). Each factor was then scored according to the STAPLEE chart outlined in chapter seven of the handbook and all scores were totaled for each strategy. Strategies were ranked by overall score for preliminary prioritization then reviewed again under step eight. Step 7: Coordinate with other Agencies/Entities UVLSRPC staff reviewed the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that was prepared by the City of Claremont, as well as the Claremont Master Plan. This was done in order to determine if any conflicts existed or if there were any potential areas for cooperation. Step 8: Determine Priorities The Committee reviewed the preliminary prioritization list in order to make changes and determine a final prioritization for new hazard mitigation actions and existing protection strategy improvements identified in previous steps.


6

Step 9: Develop Implementation Strategy Using the chart provided under step nine of the handbook, the Committee created an implementation strategy which included person(s) responsible for implementation (who), a schedule for completion (when), and a funding source and/or technical assistance source (how) for each identified hazard mitigation actions. Step 10: Adopt and Monitor the Plan UVLSRPC staff compiled the results of steps one through nine in a draft document, as well as helpful and informative materials from the State of New Hampshire Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. People who participated in the development of this plan: Peter Chase, Emergency Management Director/Fire Chief Rick Bergeron, Deputy Fire Chief Alex Scott, Chief of Police Bill Wilmot, Assistant Chief of Police Paul Fredette, Public Works Director Anthony Lyons, Community Development Director Gerry Coogan, Planning Director Guy Santagate, City Manager Pete Petschik, Field Representative, NH Office of Emergency Management Victoria Boundy, UVLSRPC A big thank you is due to Chief Chase, who invested a lot of time and thought into this project!


7

HAZARD MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The State of New Hampshire Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, which was prepared and is maintained by the New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management (OEM), sets forth hazard mitigation goals and objectives for the State of New Hampshire. The City of Claremont concurred with these goals and adopted them.

1. To improve upon the protection of the general population, the citizens of the city and guests, from all natural and man-made hazards.

2. To reduce the potential impact of natural and man-made disasters on the city’s critical

support services.

3. To reduce the potential impact of natural and man-made disasters on critical facilities in the city.

4. To reduce the potential impact of natural and man-made disasters on the city’s

infrastructure.

5. To improve emergency preparedness.

6. To improve the city’s disaster response and recovery capability.

7. To reduce the potential impact of natural and man-made disasters on private property.

8. To reduce the potential impact of natural and man-made disasters on the city’s economy.

9. To reduce the potential impact of natural and man-made disasters on the city’s natural

environment.

10. To reduce the city’s liability with respect to natural and man-made hazards generally.

11. To reduce the potential impact of natural and man-made disasters on the city’s specific historic treasures and interests as well as other tangible and intangible characteristics which add to the quality of life of the citizens and guests of the city.

12. To identify, introduce and implement cost effective hazard mitigation measures so as

to accomplish the city’s goals (above) and to raise the awareness and acceptance of hazard mitigation.


8

COMMUNITY PROFILE The City of Claremont is located in Sullivan County in West Central New Hampshire. Major highways in Claremont are NH Route 120 and NH Route 103, which links up with Interstate 91 in Ascutney, Vermont. Route 103 handles heavy traffic that flows from Interstate 91 to points East. There is a major rail freight service and some Amtrak passenger service operating on approximately 10 miles of track located on the western boundary of Claremont. Claremont is situated on the Sugar River, with the Connecticut River serving as its western boundary. The city participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, and as a result has adopted regulations restricting construction in designated floodplains. Claremont has a resident population of about 14,000. The city is governed by a nine-person City Council, one of whom is elected Mayor and Chief Executive Officer. Day-to-day business is handled by the City Manager, who is hired by the City Council and advises them on all community affairs. The City Council also appoints an Emergency Management Director. Claremont maintains the Police and Highway Departments, and is served by a combination Career and Call Fire Department. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS During the last decade in Claremont, a loss of manufacturing jobs has contributed to a declining popula tion (See Table I). The City has since then been focusing on both revitalizing their downtown and developing industrial areas and parks. In the downtown, both the Brown and Rand Blocks are offering a mix of retail and housing. “Big-box” developments are also planned for Washington Street. As the job market continues to grow and housing market continues to be tight in the Hanover/Lebanon area, Claremont will likely see growth in their housing market. Recently, there have been several proposed large housing developments in Claremont and this trend is likely to continue as the job market expands. As the population grows, demand for services will increase.

TABLE I: Population Growth Comparisons: Claremont and Neighboring Communities Jurisdiction 1970 1980 1990 2000 Abs.

Change 1980-1990

% Change 1980-1990

Abs. Change 1990-2000

% Change 1990-2000

Claremont 14,221 14,557 13,902 13,151 -655 -4 -751 -5 Newport 5,899 6,229 6,110 6,269 -119 -2 159 3 Unity 709 1,092 1,341 1,530 249 23 189 14 Sunapee 1,384 2,312 2,559 3,055 247 11 496 19 Sullivan County

30,949 36,063 38,592 40,458 2,529 7.0 1,866 4.8

NH 737,681 920,610 1,109,252 1,235,786 188,642 20.5 126,534 11.4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970-2000 Census


9

SECTION II:

HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND POTENTIAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Hazard Assessment Section II

The Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee reviewed the list of hazards provided in the State of New Hampshire Hazard Mitigation Plan, and some hazard history for the State of New Hampshire and Sullivan County in particular. A list of major past hazard events in the region is listed on page 15. Armed with this information, the Committee conducted a Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment for the City of Claremont, located on pages 17-18. A. FLOODING The Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee reviewed the following kinds on hazards related to flooding: 1. Hurricanes

“A hurricane is a heat engine that derives its energy from ocean water. These storms develop from tropical depressions which form off the coast of Africa in the warm Atlantic waters. When water vapor evaporates, it absorbs energy in the form of heat. As the vapor rises, it cools within the tropical depression, then condenses, releasing heat, which sustains the system.”1 Since 1635, ten hurricanes have reached New Hampshire: 1635, 1778, 1804, 1815, 1869, 1938, 1954, 1960, 1985 and 1991.2 All areas of the city of Claremont are potentially at risk for hurricane events. Committee members recall a hurricane event in the early 1990s, which had no significant impacts. 2. 100-year Floodplain Events “Localized street flooding occasionally results from severe thundershowers, or over larger areas, from more general rain such as tropical cyclones and coastal ‘northeasters.’ More general and dangerous floods are rare but some result in the spring from large rainfall quantities combined with warm, humid winds that rapidly release water from the snow pack ... General flooding is also caused by major hurricanes that closely follow major rainstorms.

1 State of New Hampshire Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, p. 56 2 Ibid.


10

Significant flooding occurs periodically along the watercourses with resultant loss of lives and property.”3 Similar to many other New Hampshire communities, the city of Claremont developed along the waterways. As a result of this development pattern, the floodplains … were rapidly settled. The shift to industrialization during the mid-nineteenth century compounded the problem …” as “[r]esidents moved to the floodplains … Such encroachment has led to problems, as the floodplains are extensions of the watercourses and … carry excessive runoffs naturally. Flood safety is a great concern along these watercourses and can be greatly enhanced by flood hazard mitigation planning.”4 Flooding in Claremont has moderate impacts overall; however, flooding impacts on Washington Street and Beauregard Village can be moderate to critical. Low-lying areas of Claremont are subject to periodic flooding caused by overflow of the Connecticut and Sugar Rivers, and Redwater, Grandy, Tyler, Puckershire, and Spring Farm Brooks. The most severe flooding, particularly on the Connecticut River, occurs in early spring as a result of snowmelt and heavy rains. Repeated damage to structures in the floodplains has occurred during such floods as those in 1927, 1934, 1936, 1938, 1950, 1953, 1973, and 1976. The 1927 flood was the largest event of record and the March 1936 flood was the event of record on the Sugar River. 5 3. River Ice Jams “Ice forming in riverbeds and against structures presents significant hazardous conditions [;] … storm waters encounter these ice formations which may create temporary dams. These dams may create flooding conditions where none previously existed (i.e., as a consequence of elevation in relation to normal floodplains). Additionally, there is the impact of the ice itself on structures such as highway and railroad bridges. Large masses of ice may push on structures laterally and/or may lift structures not designed for such impacts.”6 Ice-jam related events seem to be almost annual occurrences, most of them in West Claremont on the Sugar River. See Appendix E for CRREL Ice Jam event listings. Bridges, culverts, water and sewer infrastructure, roads and water-based industrial sites may be especially vulnerable to this type of hazard. 4. Dam Breach and Failure “The Department of Environmental Services (DES), through its Dam Bureau, is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the public safety as it relates to the regulation of dams. Specifically, authority is granted in the Revised Statutes Annotated, Chapter 482 ‘Dams,

3 Ibid. p. 12 4 Ibid. pp. 12-13 5 Claremont Flood Insurance Study, FEMA, February 15, 1984 6 Ibid. p. 16


11

Mills and Flowage.’ These laws enable DES to regulate the construction and reconstruction of dams, as well as to periodically inspect existing dams to ensure the design, construction, maintenance and operation meet accepted engineering standards … These dams function to serve the needs of flood control, recreation, wildlife enhancement and water resources management.”7 B. WIND The Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee reviewed the following kinds of hazards related to wind: 1. Hurricanes Wind speeds within hurricanes may reach 250 miles per hour in a Category 5 hurricane, as measured on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. Tropical depressions are considered to be of hurricane force when winds reach 74 miles per hour. Damage result ing from winds of this force can be substantial, especially considering the duration of the event, which may last for many hours.8 All areas of Claremont are potentially at risk if a hurricane reaches Sullivan County, NH. 2. Tornadoes “A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel shaped cloud. These events are spawned by thunderstorms and, occasionally by hurricanes, and may occur singularly or in multiples. They develop when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, causing the warm air to rise rapidly. Most vortices remain suspended in the atmosphere. Should they touch down, they become a force of destruction.” 9

All areas of Claremont are potentially at risk for property damage and loss of life due to tornadoes. There are no records of damages from tornado events. 3. “Nor’easters” A Northeaster is “[a] large weather system traveling from South to North passing along or near the seacoast. As the storm approaches New England and its intensity becomes increasingly apparent, the resulting counterclockwise cyclonic wind, impact the coast and inland areas from a northeasterly direction. The sustained winds may meet or exceed

7 Ibid. p. 17 8 Ibid. p. 56 9 Ibid. p. 54


12

hurricane force, with larger bursts, and may exceed hurricane events by many hours in terms of duration. These storms have complex meteorological derivations.”10 “Unlike the relatively infrequent hurricane, New Hampshire generally experiences at least one or two of these events each year with varying degrees of severity. These storms have the potential to inflict more damage than many hurricanes because … high winds can last from 12 hours to 3 days, while the duration of hurricanes ranges from 6 to 12 hours. Infrastructure, including critical facilities, may be impacted by these events, and power outages and transportation disruptions (i.e. snow and/or debris impacted roads, as well as hazards to navigation and aviation) are often associated with the event.”11 All areas of Claremont are potentially at risk for property damage and loss of life due to “Nor’easters.” 4. Downbursts “A downburst is a severe localized wind blasting down from a thunderstorm. These ‘straight line’ winds are distinguishable from tornadic activity by the pattern of destruction and debris. Depending on the size and location of these events, the destruction to property may be devastating. Downbursts fall into two categories.” Microbursts cover an area less than 2.5 miles in diameter, and macrobursts cover an area at least 2.5 miles in diameter.”12 Potentially all locations in Claremont are at risk for property damage and loss of life due to downbursts; there are occasional, isolated microburst events. 5. Lightning “During the development of a thunderstorm, the rapidly rising air within the cloud, combined with the movement of the precipitation within the cloud, causes electrical charges to build up within the cloud. Generally, positive charges build up near the top of the cloud, while negative charges build up near the bottom. Normally, the Earth’s surface has a slight negative charge. However, as the negative charges build up near the base of the cloud, the ground beneath the cloud and the area surrounding the cloud becomes positively charged. As the cloud moves, these induced positive charges on the ground follow the cloud like a shadow. Lightning is a giant spark of electricity that occurs between the positive and negative charges within the atmosphere or between the atmosphere and the ground. In the initial stages of development, air acts as an insulator between the positive and negative charges. However, when the potential between the positive and negative charges becomes too great, there is a discharge of electricity that we know as lightning .”13

10 Ibid. p. 58 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. p. 59 13 Ibid. p. 63


13

Lightning kills an average of 87 people per year in the United States, and New Hampshire has the 16th highest casualty rate in the nation. 14 All areas of Claremont are potentially at risk for property damage and loss of life due to lightning. C. WILDFIRE The Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee reviewed wildfire: “Historically, large NH wildland fires run in roughly 50 year cycles. The increased incidence of large wildland fire activity in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s is thought to be associated, in part, with debris from the Hurricane of 1938. Significant woody ‘fuel’ was deposited in the forests during that event. Present concerns of New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, Division of Forests & Lands are that the Ice Storm of 1998 has left a significant amount of woody debris in the forests of the region as may fuel future wildfires.”15 “NH averages 500 fires per year and averages ½ acre or less per fire due to the excellent coordination between Fire Towers and local Fire Departments.”16 Wildfires occur about every 50 years in Claremont, according to Committee members. Both drought conditions, and increasing development intensify the wildland/urban interface, increasing the likelihood and occurrence of wildfire events in Claremont. D. ICE AND SNOW EVENTS The Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee reviewed the following kinds of hazards related to ice and snow: 1. Heavy Snow Storms “A heavy snowstorm is generally considered to be one which deposits four or more inches of snow in a twelve-hour period… A blizzard is a winter storm characterized by high winds, low temperatures, and driving snow- according to the official definition given in 1958 by the U.S. Weather Bureau, the winds must exceed 35 miles per hour and the temperatures must drop to 20°F (-7°C) or lower. Therefore, intense Nor’easters, which occur in the winter months, are often referred to as blizzards. The definition includes the conditions under which dry snow, which has previously fallen, is whipped into the air and creates a diminution of visual range. Such conditions, when extreme enough, are called ‘white outs’.”17 All areas of Claremont are potentially at risk for property damage and loss of life due to heavy snows. Heavy snowstorms are an annual event and occur throughout the city.

14 Ibid. p. 63 15 Ibid. p. 34 16 Ibid. p. 34 17 Ibid. pp. 69-70


14

2. Ice Storms “When a mass of warm mois t air collides with a mass of cold arctic air, the less dense warm air will rise and the moisture may precipitate out in the form of rain. When this rain falls through the colder more dense air and comes in contact with cold surfaces, the latent heat of fusion is removed by connective and/or evaporative cooling. Ice forms on these cold surfaces and may continue to form until the ice is quite deep, as much as several inches. This condition may strain branches of trees, powerlines and even transmission towers to the breaking point and often creates treacherous conditions for highway travel and aviation. Notwithstanding the unique beauty of such events, the weight of formed ice (especially with a following wind) may cause power and phone lines to snap and the towers that support them to fail under the load of ice and/or bending or broken tree limbs. Debris impacted roads make emergency access, repair and cleanup extremely difficult. The recent Ice Storm of January 1998 was not unique in either its spatial scope or its devastating consequences. A similar event in 1929 is believed to have been comparable to this event.”18 All areas of Claremont are potentially at risk for property damage and loss of life due to ice storms, but especially the higher elevation areas. 3. “Nor’easters” In the winter months, [Towns within] the State may experience the additional coincidence of blizzard conditions with many of these events as well as the added impact of the masses of snow and/or ice upon infrastructure thus, impacting upon transportation and the delivery of goods and services for extended periods of time, as well as various related impacts upon the economy. The entire area of the State may be impacted by these events… Heavy snow and/or rainfall may be experienced in different areas of the State and the heavy rains may contribute to flood conditions. Nor’easter events which occur toward the end of a winter season may exacerbate the spring flooding conditions by depositing significant snow pack at a time of the season when spring rains are poised to initiate rapid snow pack melting.”19 All areas of Claremont are potentially at risk for property damage and loss of life due to “Nor’easters.” E. EARTHQUAKE The Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee reviewed the following kind of seismic hazards: 18 Ibid. p. 80 19 Ibid. p. 70


15

1. Earthquakes “A series of vibrations induced in the Earth’s crust by the abrupt rupture and rebound of rocks in which elastic strain has been slowly accumulating.”20 “In general, New England is considered to have a moderate seismic vulnerability but a high seismic risk because of our built environment.”21 All areas of Claremont are potentially at risk for property damage and loss of life due to earthquakes.

New England States Historical Earthquakes State Years of Record # Of Earthquakes Connecticut 1568 - 1989 137

Maine 1766 - 1989 391 Massachusetts 1627 - 1989 316

New Hampshire 1728 - 1989 270 Rhode Island 1766 - 1989 32 Vermont 1843 - 1989 69

Total Number of Earthquakes within New England 1215. Total Number of Earthquakes in the Northeast, 1538-1989 4498.

Source: NESEC website 2. Landslides “Webster: ‘The sliding of a mass of soil, detritus or rock on or from a steep slope.’ More specifically, a landslide is the downward movement of slope forming materials reacting under the force of gravity including: mudflows, mudslides, debris flows, rockslides, debris avalanches, debris slides and earth flows. …Landslides may be formed when a layer of soil atop a slope becomes saturated by significant precipitation and slides along a more cohesive layer of soil or rock.”22 According to the Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee, there are no vulnerable landslide areas in the city of Claremont.

20 Ibid. p. 37 21 Ibid. p. 43 22 Ibid. p. 45


16

TABLE II:

Past Hazard Events in Sullivan County and the State of New Hampshire

Hazard Date Area Affected

(River Basin or Region)

Remarks/Description

Flooding March 11-21, 1936 Statewide Double flood; due to rainfall and snowmelt Flooding September 21, 1938 Statewide Hurricane Flooding August 1955 CT River Basin Heavy rains caused extensive damage throughout basin Flooding April 1976 CT River Rain and snowmelt

Flooding July - August 1986 Statewide Severe summer storms: heavy rains, tornados flash flood, and severe winds (FEMA DR-771-NH)

Flooding August 7-11, 1990 Statewide A series of storm events with moderate to heavy rains. FEMA DR-876-NH

Flooding August 19, 1991 Statewide Hurricane Bob - effects felt statewide Flooding October 1996 North/West NH Sullivan County Declared: FEMA-DR-1077-NH Flooding October - Nov. 1995 North/West NH Sullivan County Declared: FEMA DR-1144-NH

Flooding June - July 1998 Central & Southern NH

Sullivan County Declared: FEMA DR-1231-NH

Tornado May 23, 1782 Sullivan County No further information available Tornado September 9, 1821 Sullivan County “ ” Tornado July 1, 1831 Sullivan County “ ” Hurricane September 21, 1938 Statewide 186 mph (max)

Winter Storms (“Nor’easters, blizzards, snowstorms)

Too numerous to mention here Northeast

Most notable events between the years 1955-1985: blizzards of February 1958 and January 1966, triple snowstorms of 1960/61 winter, wind and snowstorm of February 1978, “Presidents’ Day Storm of 1979, and paralyzing urban storm of February 1983.

Ice Storm Dec. 17-20, 1929 NH Disruption and damage to telephone, telegraph, and power system.

Ice Storm Dec. 29-30, 1942 NH Glaze storm; severe intensity Ice Storm Dec. - Jan., 1969/70 NH Power disruption to many communities Ice Storm Jan. 8-25, 1979 NH Major disruptions to power and transportation

Ice Storm January 7, 1998 NH 52 communities in nine counties impacted, six injuries, one fatality, road closures, power outages, telephone service failure, other damages.

Earthquake December 20, 1940 Ossipee, NH 5.5 on Richter scale (this list of earthquakes are those with magnitude 4.2 or more, 1924 - 1989.)

Earthquake December 24, 1940 Ossipee, NH 5.5

Earthquake December 28, 1947 Dover-Foxcraft, ME

4.5

Earthquake June 10, 1951 Kingston, RI 4.6 Earthquake April 26, 1957 Portland, ME 4.7 Earthquake April 10, 1962 Middlebury, VT 4.2

Earthquake June 15, 1973 In NH @ Quebec border

4.8

Earthquake January 19, 1982 West of Laconia, NH

4.5

Sources: New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management; Northeast States Emergency Consortium (NESEC) Website; US Army Corps of Engineers Ice Jam Database


17

TABLE III: Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment - City of Claremont

The City of Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee reviewed each potential hazard and rated both the likelihood as unlikely, possible, likely, and highly likely and impact of that hazard as limited, moderate, critical, or catastrophic, and from both of those ratings determined a Community Vulnerability rating (low, moderate, or high). The Committee also identified the most vulnerable facilities and populations for each hazard type.

Hazard Likelihood Impact Vulnerability Most Vulnerable/Other Notes

Flooding Highly Likely Moderate Moderate to High

Roads, culverts, bridges, Washington Street (road

damage), Beauregard Village and Sullivan Street residential area

Hazardous Materials

Moderate Moderate to

Critical Moderate to High

Rail line - derailment, crashes, prevailing west

winds Trucks - travel

secondary routes, Intersection Routes

120/11 biggest concern (Police, Fire, EMS, EOC

located here) transfer incidents (local delivery)

is greatest risk Fixed sites: 2nd largest propane storage in NH

Wildfire Possible Limited Low Urban/wildland interface

with increasing development

Structure Fire Highly Likely Moderate to

Critical Moderate to High

Downtown/Mill District has had 3 major mill

fires and several downtown fires over

recent years; Citywide threat is low

Winter Storm Highly Likely Moderate Moderate to High

Roads, commuters, power; secondary

impacts (e.g. hydrants are buried in 2-foot

event) Ice Storm Possible Moderate Moderate Mostly higher elevations

Hurricane Likely Critical Moderate Trees, residual flooding, houses, power

Earthquake Possible Critical Moderate

Mill buildings, high school (construction),

churches in W. Claremont; January 1982

- no damages recorded

Radiological Unlikely Limited Low Truck traffic, hospital, UPS and FedEx - small

quantities, isolated


18

events

Drought Possible Moderate Moderate Have had moderate droughts

School safety (earthquake,

domestic terrorism) Possible

Limited to Critical

Moderate

Limited emergency personnel and resources;

large number of students; high and

middle schools in high traffic area

Water Supply Contamination Possible Critical Moderate

Not a targeted community; water

supply is not secure

General Wind Events Highly likely Moderate Moderate

There is some type of event every year; 1999 -

power outages up to three days

Terrorism Likely Moderate Moderate

Domestic terrorism potential (Industrial Park area; WalMart; several anthrax scares (Postal); residual effects from VT

Yankee/Seabrook Landslide Unlikely Limited Low No areas at risk

Airplane crashes Possible Limited Low Under Lebanon flight path


19

CRITICAL FACILITIES/LOCATIONS The Committee divided critical facilities/locations into structures, buildings, evacuation routes, and at-risk areas. Structures

• Bridges • Dams • Fuel storage areas • Whitewater Reservoir - inundation area (Redwater Brook to Sugar River) - not

secured • Water Treatment Plant Reservoir (WalMart in inundation area) - not secured • New Running Track (gathering place) • Claremont International Speedway

Buildings

• EOC - Police, Fire, EMS - in high traffic area (Note: A county mobile unit is being established in Unity)

• Emergency Shelters § Zotto Gym – 200 capacity § Stevens High School – 300 capacity, no back-up power § Claremont Middle School – 150 capacity, no back-up power § Disnard School - 100 § St. Mary’s Gym- 200 § NH National Guard Armory (with permission) - 150

• Schools • Hospital • Integrated Health Services - Rt. 120/Hanover Street • Courthouse/City Hall • Downtown - National Historic Register District • WalMart • Churches, West Claremont

§ Union Church § St. Mary’s Church - oldest Catholic Church in State of NH

• Daycare § Milestones - Charlestown Rd./Rt. 12 § Numerous others of various sizes

• Elderly housing complexes § Hillside Terrace - in downtown intersection (traffic and hazmat concerns) § Marion Phillips - traffic/hazmat § Sugar River Mill Complex, Main Street - on River and across street from dam;

truck traffic and hazmat concerns


20

Evacuation Routes

• Primary evacuation routes: • Secondary evacuation routes:

General At-Risk Areas

• Downtown/Mill District • Washington Street


21

Critical Facilities in Claremont

Facility Name Type Generator In 100-Year

Type of Hazard Most Vulnerable To

$ Value (Est.)

EOC Emergency Operations

Yes No HazMat, structure fire, earthquake See City Hall

Zotto Gym Emergency Shelter

No No Structure fire, hazmat 4 M

Stevens High School

Emergency shelter (Sec)


Claremont Middle School

Emergency shelter (Sec.)


Disnard School Emergency shelter (Sec.)


St. Mary’s Gym Emergency Shelter (Sec.)


NH National Guard Armory

Back-up emergency

shelter No No Structure fire, hazmat 2 M

Hospital At-Risk

population Yes No Structure fire, hazmat 30 M

Integrated Health Services

At-Risk population

Yes No Structure fire, hazmat 7 M

Courthouse/ City Hall

Municipal/ Emergency Operations

Yes No HazMat, earthquake, structure fire 50 M

Downtown (National Historic Register District)

Area at Risk ____ No

Flooding, structure fire, HazMat, earthquake 200 M

WalMart Area at Risk No ? Flooding, HazMat 2 M

Union Church At-Risk population

No Structure fire, hazmat 4 M

St. Mary’s Church

At-Risk population


Hillside Terrace At-Risk Population


Marion Phillips At-Risk Population

Yes No Structure fire, hazm 15 M

Sugar River Mill Complex

Yes No Flooding, structure fire, hazmat 24 M

Washington Street

Area at Risk ____ Yes Flooding, HazMat 400 M

Claremont International Speedway

Area at Risk No No Domestic terrorism (minor risk) 1 M


22

POTENTIAL LOSS ESTIMATES In order to determine potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures due to natural and man-made hazards, each hazard area was analyzed with results shown below. Human losses are not calculated during this exercise, but could be expected to occur depending on the type and severity of the hazard. These figures exclude the contents of the structure. UVLSRPC and the Claremont Emergency Management Director calculated the information below based on vulnerability and risk discussions held during Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee meetings. Flooding Beauregard Village : § Estimated number of buildings in hazard area: 30 residences § Flooding about every three years; typically flooded basements § 1970s flood: a person drowned; many people moved out of area § 6-8 existing mobile homes – potential for significant damage

- Worst-case scenario: Complete losses of 6 mobile homes at cost of approximately $55K each

§ City does have an evacuation plan for this area

Washington Street: § Road Damage – Just completed a $4 M road widening project

Sugar River Drive area: § 150 dwellings in area; failing culvert

Hazardous Material Incident Worst-Case Scenario: Event downtown. Three emergency services within 1/8 mile of each other; elderly housing; school. No losses estimated. Structure Fire Downtown: § 1976, and 2 earlier ones (dates not recalled): Total destruction of occupied businesses

– damage in millions of dollars


23

Mill District: § Fires in 1978, 1980, ~1990 § 2 out of 3 mills were occupied; total losses § Losses in the millions of dollars

Winter Storms § Closing of schools and loss of access to roads biggest challenges § Secondary costs as a result, e.g. snow loads on roofs make access more difficult in

fires § No losses estimated


24

SECTION III:

EXISTING MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

Existing Mitigation Section III

REVIEW OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

The Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee identified the following existing mitigation strategies: Emergency Response

• Emergency Plan: up-to-date; includes hazmat • Generators - not adequate - Fire/Police have; EMS and schools do not have • Shelter needs – back-up emergency power • Radio communications • Schools - have kitchen facilities but no emergency power • Fire

o 18 F/T; 28 Call o Training needs (see Police) o Significant rural/suburban housing development anticipated; continued

economic development; build-out of Lebanon/Hanover area • Mutual Aid

o Law Enforcement - all of Sullivan County o Fire - 4 or 5 mutual aid organizations

• Police o 4 F/T dispatchers - need 5 (relied on heavily for any big event) o Training needs: Hazmat training (ongoing); mock emergency response o Training has to be done on OT- significant expense o No serious equipment needs, just training

Planning and Development Dept.

• 10 Staff, 3 F/T, including Planner and Building Inspector • Town Plan - plan to update • Conservation Commission • Building Code - State code - looking at revisions • National Flood Insurance Program • Just beginning to look at zoning and code changes - there is resistance • Downtown economic development - Main Street program, etc.


25

Public Works

• DPW needs a repeater station, as the radio system doesn’t cover the entire City. There was a question as to whether or not the City could apply for Homeland Security funding for this. There was also a discussion about the Fire Dept. giving their old radios to Public Works, as they received new digital and analog with federal funding.

• It would be beneficial if all Claremont agencies/departments, such as the school dept. and DPW, meet and discuss radio communications, e.g. the possibility of having one standard emergency channel with one dispatcher assigned to those.

Summary of Recommended Improvements The Claremont Hazard Mitigation Team recommended improvements to existing programs as follows:

• Seek back-up emergency power for other buildings, especially schools and shelters. • Both Police and Fire have significant training needs, including hazmat response and

mock emergency response, but is prohibitively expensive to do as overtime. • The Town Plan needs to be updated (in progress). • The City should look at revising the Building Code. • The City should revisit the zoning regulations. • The DPW needs a repeater station, and there is need for all departments to meet to

discuss radio communications in the City.


26

Existing Protection Matrix A summary matrix of existing hazard mitigation strategies is presented on the next page. This matrix includes the type of existing protection (Column 1), its current status (Column 2), enforcement of the strategy (Column 3), the effectiveness and identified improvements/changes needed (Column 4), and possible follow-up action steps (Column 5). Existing Protection Current

Status Enforcement/Oversight Effectiveness/improvements

or changes needed Possible

Action Steps

Emergency Plan Up-to-Date EMD None; needs periodic updating

None

Claremont Emergency Plan

Discussion of beginning update

Planning Dept. Add hazmat section for rail line

Zoning regulations Planning Dept. None known Back-up emergency power

Fire/Police have

EMD Schools and shelters do not have

Pursue funding

Emergency shelters EMD Back-up power needs Pursue funding

Radio Communications

DPW needs Consult with other City departments

Fire Dept. Staffing and equipment are adequate

EMD Additional training needed Pursue training opportunities

Police Equipment adequate

Police Chief

Additional training needed; another dispatcher needed

Pursue training opportunities

Master Plan 1991 Planning Plan to update Reference hazard mitigation

Building Code State Code Planning Revisions needed

Pursue in future

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

Member Updated engineering/mapping needed

Request to FEMA

DPW Staffing and equipment adequate

DPW Director Repeater; coordinated radio communications with other depts.

Inter-departmental meetings


27

SECTION IV: NEWLY IDENTIFIED MITIGATION STRATEGIES

AND CRITICAL EVALUATION

Proposed Mitigation Section IV Summary of New Strategies The Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee brainstormed potential mitigation actions at meetings on June 17, September 9, and September 21, 2004. The new proposed measures are organized by the type(s) of hazard event to be mitigated. The Committee did not brainstorm actions for landslide events, as they felt there are no areas vulnerable to this type of event. Multi-Hazard (Flooding, HazMat, Fires, Wind events, Winter storms, Earthquake, Terrorism, Drought)

• Organize meeting with city departments, agencies, school to discuss radio communications and Incident Management System. Establish policy for County Mobile Unit.

• Pursue back-up emergency power for City schools. • National Incident Management System (unified incident command) training needed

for all field medical responders (schools, Police, DPW, Fire). Chief Chase is a trainer for NIMS. The Fire Academy and Bureau of Emergency Mgmt could both provide this training, perhaps with Emergency Management Planning Grant (EMPG) funding, which is available year-round.

• Compile all emergency-related plans, including Emergency Plan, Hazard Mitigation Plans, and dam plans, and make available to all City department heads.

• Encourage a more formalized Mutual Aid Compact to develop for Public Works Departments: Call Dave Fluharty, UNH Technology Transfer Center, as a starting point.

• Hold a meeting on hazard mitigation with surrounding towns that are also developing plans (Newport, Cornish, Plainfield).

• In updating Master Plan Land Use chapter, focus on where to concentrate development, from a hazard mitigation/emergency planning perspective.

• Coordinate hazmit plan updates and emergency planning with Valley Regional Hospital.

• Distribute public information about hazard mitigation/emergency response, for example, educating about the City’s emergency shelters, so that people are aware of where they are and when they are used. Utilize CCTV, advertisements, signage, printed materials, and other strategies.

Hazardous Materials

• Continue pursuing hazardous materials response and emergency response training sessions and technical assistance from state and private agencies.


28

• Develop Rail Line HazMat Response Plan, perhaps in concert with Cornish and Charlestown. Also develop Passenger Rail Mass Casualty Plan.

• Establish truck route around center of City for trucks for trucks carrying hazardous materials: Check Keene’s truck ordinance (which sets maximum tonnage), ask DOT for average daily traffic numbers for trucks in Claremont.

Flooding

• Request updated flood maps from FEMA for Sugar River and find out status of Connecticut River updates.

• Replace Sugar River Drive culvert. • Inventory and map drainage infrastructure for City.

Winter Storm Events

• Develop snow removal policy/plan to plan for major snow event and for routine maintenance purposes.

Terrorism/Public Health

• Develop follow-up implementation plan to address vulnerabilities in Water Vulnerability Plan.

Ongoing Mitigation/Coordination with other City activities

• The City is currently updating its Master Plan and the Hazard Mitigation Committee reinforced the need to incorporate hazard mitigation planning and reference the Hazard Mitigation Plan in the Master Plan.

• The Committee reinforced the need to coordinate hazard mitigation and emergency planning with Valley Regional Hospital.

• The Planning Department will request updated flood maps from FEMA for the Sugar River and determine the status of Connecticut River floodplain mapping updates.

• The Emergency Management Director will compile all emergency-related plans, including Emergency Plan, Hazard Mitigation Plans, and dam plans, and make it available to all City department heads.

Mitigating Impacts on New and Existing Built Environment Each action was reviewed with respect to its potential effectiveness in reducing the effects of hazard events on both new and existing buildings and infrastructure in the respective area(s). Most of the proposed actions are quite global in nature, as the Committee focused much of their attention on improving interdepartmental and regional communication and coordination. The Committee felt this was an important first step in ensuring that future mitigation and implementation actions accomplish multiple city goals, are regionally consistent and have wide benefit. The remaining action recommendations that are more specific to particular hazards and/or geographic areas all address reducing the effects of hazards on both new and existing buildings and infrastructure.


29

Summary of Critical Evaluation

The Claremont Hazard Mitigation Committee reviewed each of the newly identified mitigation strategies using the following “STAPLEE” criteria: Social acceptability; Technical feasibility; Administrative workability; Political acceptability; Legal authority to implement; Economic impact; Environmental compatibility. The Committee assigned the following scores to each strategy for its effectiveness related to the critical evaluation factors listed above, and actions had the following scores, with the highest scores suggesting the highest priority. The highest possible total score is 21. We then looked at cost/benefit considerations, estimating cost and possible funding sources. A more detailed cost-benefit analysis will be undertaken at the time of project implementation, and the Committee will ensure that the benefits equal or exceed costs before proceeding.

Project STAPLEE Score

Approx. Cost

Funding Source

Cost/Benefit Considerations

Organize interdepartmental meeting to discuss radio communications and Incident Management System.

21

Staff time only

N/A Better coordination will enhance capabilities

Set up National Incident Management System training for all field medical responders. 21

Overtime costs for trainees

EMPG funding

NH BEM will provide

assistance Establish policy and plans for mobile EOC unit. 20

Staff time N/A Only involves staff time

Pursue back-up emergency power for City schools

20 5 schools at $80K each

Federal & local funds

Expensive but critical

Continue pursuing hazmat response and emergency response training 18

Overtime costs

Technical assistance

Necessary for better ER

Convene regional haza rd mitigation meeting 19 Staff time N/A UVLSRPC &

NH BEM assistance

Engineering study for alternative truck route 14 $300K FHWA

(Federal) Politically

challenging

Develop rail line hazmat plan 20 Staff time N/A Incorporate in

EM Plan

Advocate for formalized Mutual Aid Compact for Public Works Depts. 21

Staff time N/A Ongoing

Develop snow removal policy for major event and ongoing maintenance

21 Staff time N/A No dollar cost,

will improve efficiency

Sugar River Drive culvert replacement 21 $150K Federal/local

match Applied for PDM funds

Inventory and map drainage infrastructure 21 $300K Federal/state/

local Would benefit Fire & Public

Works

Public education program for residents 21 Perhaps

printing costs Unknown Low cost with

wide benefit


30

SECTION V: PRIORITIZED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Implementation Section V

Mitigation Action Who (Leadership)

When (Deadline)

How (Funding Source)

Organize interdepartmental meeting to discuss radio/ICMS

Hazard Mitigation Committee 18 mos. N/A

Set up ICMS training for all field medical responders.

EMD 18 mos.

Emergency Management Planning Grant (EMPG) or other federal funds

Establish policy and plans for mobile EOC unit.

EMD 6 mos. N/A

Pursue back-up emergency power for City schools

EMD 2007 for High School Federal Funds with local match

Continue pursuing hazmat response and emergency response training

EMD and Police Ongoing EMPG or other federal funds

Convene regional hazard mitigation meeting

HazMit Committee with Pete Petschik of NH

BEM 18 mos. N/A

Engineering study for alternative truck route

Public Works Director 3-5 years FHWA funds

Develop rail line hazmat plan

EMD 1 year Perhaps EMPG or other

grant for EMD staff time

Mutual Aid Compact –Public Works

PWD 1 year to initiate N/A

Develop snow remo val policy for major event and ongoing maintenance

Highway Super. 1 year N/A

Sugar River Drive culvert replacement

PWD 1 year Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) funding (federal)

Inventory and map drainage infrastructure

PWD 3 years Federal/State/Local

Public education program for residents

HazMit Committee 2 years Perhaps funding for printing


31

SECTION VI: ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN

Adoption Section VI

A good plan needs to be periodically monitored and evaluated for its successes and challenges, and to allow for updates of the Plan where necessary. In order to track progress and update the Mitigation Strategies identified in the Plan, it is recommended that the City of Claremont revisit the Hazard Mitigation Plan annually, or after a hazard event . The Claremont Emergency Management Director is responsible for initiating this review and should consult with the Hazard Mitigation Committee. Changes should be made to the plan to accommodate for projects that have failed, or that are not considered feasible after a review for their consistency with STAPLEE criteria, the timeframe, the community’s priorities, and funding resources. Priorities that were not ranked highest, but that were identified as potential mitigation strategies, should be reviewed as well during the monitoring and update of this plan, to determine feasibility for future implementation. During the annual review period, there should be a public hearing to receive public comment, and the City Council should adopt the final Plan. The public should continue to be involved in the hazard mitigation planning process. Implementation Through Existing Programs In future years, the information in this plan may be incorporated as a separate chapter in the Master Plan. In addition, the City Council, during the Capital Improvement Process, will review and consider the inclusion of proposed projects outlined in this plan. The City’s Emergency Management Director will ensure ongoing consistency between the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Emergency Plan. Public Participation All hazard mitigation meeting agendas will continue to be posted publicly and the meetings open to the general public. Public and informational hearings will be broadcasted on the local access television station.


32

RESOURCES USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAN

NH OEM’s State of New Hampshire Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (9/99)

Guide to Hazard Mitigation Planning for New Hampshire Communities, prepared for NH OEM by the Southwest Regional Planning Commission (October 2002)

FEMA’s Community Based Hazard Mitigation Planning: Lowering the Risks and Costs of Disasters (8/98)

City of Claremont Emergency Management Plan


APPENDICES

Appendix A: Technical Resources

Appendix B: Technical and Financial Assistance

Appendix C: Matrix of Federal All-Hazards Grants

Appendix D: Meeting Minutes Appendix E: CRREL Ice Jam Listings


Appendix A:

Technical Resources


APPENDIX A:

TECHNICAL RESOURCES

1) Agencies

New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management ............................................... 271-2231 Hazard Mitigation Section ......................................................................................... 271-2231

Federal Emergency Management Agency .......................................................(617) 223-4175 NH Regional Planning Commissions :

Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission .................................. 448-1680 NH Executive Department :

Governor’s Office of Energy and Community Services ........................................... 271-2611 New Hampshire Office of State Planning ................................................................. 271-2155

NH Department of Cultural Affairs : ........................................................................ 271-2540

Division of Historical Resources ............................................................................... 271-3483 NH Department of Environmental Services: ........................................................... 271-3503

Air Resources ............................................................................................................ 271-1370 Waste Management ................................................................................................... 271-2900 Water Resources ........................................................................................................ 271-3406 Water Supply and Pollution Control ......................................................................... 271-3504 Rivers Management and Protection Program ............................................................ 271-1152

NH Office of State Planning and Energy Programs ................................................. 271-2155 NH Municipal Association ......................................................................................... 224-7447 NH Fish and Game Department ............................................................................... 271-3421 NH Department of Resources and Economic Development: .................................. 271-2411

Natural Heritage Inventory ........................................................................................ 271-3623 Division of Forests and Lands ................................................................................... 271-2214 Division of Parks and Recreation .............................................................................. 271-3255

NH Department of Transportation ........................................................................... 271-3734 Northeast States Emergency Consortium, Inc. (NESEC)...............................(781) 224-9876

US Department of Commerce :

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: National Weather Service; Gray, Maine ............................................................207-688-3216


US Department of the Interior:

US Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................................... 225-1411 US Geological Survey ............................................................................................... 225-4681 US Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................................(978) 318-8087

US Department of Agriculture :

Natural Resource Conservation Service .................................................................... 868-7581

2) Mitigation Funding Resources

404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)............ NH Office of Emergency Management 406 Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation................ NH Office of Emergency Management Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)............ NH OEM, NH OSP, also refer to RPC Dam Safety Program ................................................NH Department of Environmental Services Disaster Preparedness Improvement Grant (DPIG) ....... NH Office of Emergency Management Emergency Generators Program by NESEC‡ ................ NH Office of Emergency Management Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) ProgramUSDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP) ............. NH Office of Emergency Management Flood Plain Management Services (FPMS) ...................................US Army Corps of Engineers Mitigation Assistance Planning (MAP).......................... NH Office of Emergency Management Mutual Aid for Public Works.............................................................NH Municipal Association National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) † ................................... NH Office of State Planning

Power of Prevention Grant by NESEC‡ ......................... NH Office of Emergency Management Project Impact................................................................. NH Office of Emergency Management Roadway Repair & Maintenance Program(s)......................... NH Department of Transportation Section 14 Emergency Stream Bank Erosion & Shoreline Protection……………….US Army Corps of Engineers Section 103 Beach Erosion…………………………………US Army Corps of Engineers


Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction………………………US Army Corps of Engineers Section 208 Snagging and Clearing ...............................................US Army Corps of Engineers Shoreline Protection Program.………………...NH Department of Environmental Services Various Forest and Lands Program(s)NH Department of Resources and Economic Development Wetlands Programs.............................................…..NH Department of Environmental Services

‡NESEC – Northeast States Emergency Consortium, Inc. is a 501(c)(3), not-for-profit natural disaster, multi-hazard mitigation and emergency management organization located in Wakefield, Massachusetts. Please, contact NH OEM for more information. † Note regarding National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Community Rating System (CRS): The National Flood Insurance Program has developed suggested floodplain management activities for those communities who wish to more thoroughly manage or reduce the impact of flooding in their jurisdiction. Through use of a rating system (CRS rating), a community’s floodplain management efforts can be evaluated for effectiveness. The rating, which indicates an above average floodplain management effort, is then factored into the premium cost for flood insurance policies sold in the community. The higher the rating achieved in that community, the greater the reduction in flood insurance premium costs for local property owners. The NH Office of State Planning can provide additional information regarding participation in the NFIP-CRS Program. 3) Websites

Sponsor Internet Address Summary of Contents

Natural Hazards Research Center, U. of Colorado

http://www.colorado.edu/litbase/hazards/

Searchable database of references and links to many disaster-related websites.

Atlantic Hurricane Tracking Data by Year

http://wxp.eas.purdue.edu/hurricane

Hurricane track maps for each year, 1886 – 1996

National Emergency Management Association

http://nemaweb.org Association of state emergency management directors; list of mitigation projects.

NASA – Goddard Space Flight Center “Disaster Finder:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/ndrd/disaster/

Searchable database of sites that encompass a wide range of natural disasters.

NASA Natural Disaster Reference Database

http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/ndrd/main/html

Searchable database of worldwide natural disasters.

U.S. State & Local Gateway http://www.statelocal.gov/ General information through the federal-state partnership.


National Weather Service http://nws.noaa.gov/ Central page for National Weather Warnings, updated every 60 seconds.

USGS Real Time Hydrologic Data

http://h20.usgs.gov/public/realtime.html

Provisional hydrological data

Dartmouth Flood Observatory

http://www.dartmouth.edu/artsci/geog/floods/

Observations of flooding situations.

FEMA, National Flood Insurance Program, Community Status Book

http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.htm

Searchable site for access of Community Status Books

Florida State University Atlantic Hurricane Site

http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/tropical.html

Tracking and NWS warnings for Atlantic Hurricanes and other links

National Lightning Safety Institute

http://lightningsafety.com/ Information and listing of appropriate publications regarding lightning safety.

NASA Optical Transient Detector

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/otd.html

Space-based sensor of lightning strikes

LLNL Geologic & Atmospheric Hazards

http://wwwep.es.llnl.gov/wwwep/ghp.html

General hazard information developed for the Dept. of Energy.

The Tornado Project Online http://www.tornadoroject.com/

Information on tornadoes, including details of recent impacts.

National Severe Storms Laboratory

http://www.nssl.uoknor.edu/ Information about and tracking of severe storms.

Independent Insurance Agents of America IIAA Natural Disaster Risk Map

http://www.iiaa.iix.com/ndcmap.htm

A multi-disaster risk map.

Earth Satellite Corporation http://www.earthsat.com/ Flood risk maps searchable by state.

USDA Forest Service Web http://www.fs.fed.us/land Information on forest fires and land management.


Appendix B:

Technical and Financial Assistance


Minimum Project Criteria • Must conform with the State’s

"409" Plan • Have a beneficial impact on the

Declared area • Must conform with: • NFIP Floodplain Regulations • Wetlands Protection Regulations • Environmental Regulations • Historical Protection Regulations • Be cost effective and substantially

reduce the risk of future damage • Not cost more than the anticipated

value of the reduction of both direct damages and subsequent negative impacts to the area if future disasters were to occur i.e., min 1:1 benefit/cost ratio

• Both costs and benefits are to be computed on a "net present value" basis

• Has been determined to be the most practical, effective and environmentally sound alternative after a consideration of a range of options

• Contributes to a long-term solution to the problem it is intended to address

• Considers long-term changes and has manageable future maintenance

Eligible Subgrantees include: • State and Local governments, • Certain Not for Profit Corporations • Indian Tribes or authorized tribal organizations • Alaskan corporations not privately owned.

APPENDIX B:

TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR HAZARD MITIGATION

Note – Communities must have an approved Hazard Mitigation Plan to be eligible for HMGP and PDM grants.

♦ HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM - "Section 404 Mitigation" The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) in New Hampshire is administered in accordance with the 404 HMGP Administration Plan which was derived under the authority of Section 404 of the Stafford Act in accordance with Subpart N. of 44 CFR. The program receives its funding pursuant to a Notice of Interest submitted by the Governor’s Authorized Representative (or GAR, i.e. the Director of NHOEM) to the FEMA Regional Director within 60 days of the date of a Presidentially Declared Disaster. The amount of funding that may be awarded to the State/Grantee under the HMGP may not exceed 15% of (over and above) the overall funds as are awarded to the State pursuant to the Disaster Recovery programs as are listed in 44 CFR Subpart N. Section 206.431 (d) (inclusive of all Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, etc.). Within 15 days of the Disaster Declaration, an Inter-Agency Hazard Mitigation Team is convened consisting of members of various Federal, State, County, Local and Private Agencies with an interest in Disaster Recovery and Mitigation. From this meeting, a Report is produced which evaluates the event and stipulates the State’s desired Mitigation initiatives. Upon the GAR’s receipt of the notice of an award of funding by the Regional Director, the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) publishes a Notice of Interest (NOI) to all NH communities and State Agencies announcing the availability of funding and solicits applications for grants. The 404 Administrative Plan calls for a State Hazard Mitigation Team to review all applications. The Team is comprised of individuals from various State Agencies.


Flood Mitigation Assistance Program

• NFIP Funded by a % of Policy Premiums

• Planning Grants

• Technical Assistance

Grants to States (10% of Project Grant)

• Project Grants to

communities

• Communities must have FEMA approved Flood Mitigation Plan to receive Project Funds

FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE (FMA) PROGRAM New Hampshire has been a participant in the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA or FMAP) since 1996/97. In order to be eligible, a community must be a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. In 1997, the State was awarded funds to assist communities with Flood Mitigation Planning and Projects. A Planning Grant from the 1996/97 fund was awarded to the City of Keene in 1998. In preparation for the development of the Flood Mitigation Plan, the Planning Department of the City of Keene created a digital data base of its floodplain including the digitizing of its tax assessing maps as well as its Special Flood Hazard Areas in GIS layers. The Plan Draft was submitted to FEMA for review and approval in March of 2000. The Plan includes a detailed inventory of projects and a "model" project prioritization approach.

Eligible Projects may be of any nature that will result in the protection to public or private property and include: • Structural hazard control or protection projects • Construction activities that will result in protection from hazards • Retrofitting of facilities • Certain property acquisitions or relocations • Development of State and local mitigation standards • Development of comprehensive hazard mitigation programs with implementation as an essential

component • Development or improvement of warning systems


Eligible Projects (44 CFR Part 78)

• Elevation of NFIP insured residential structures • Elevation and dry-proofing of NFIP insured non-residential structures • Acquisition of NFIP insured structures and underlying real property • Relocation of NFIP insured structures from acquired or restricted real property to

sites not prone to flood hazards • Demolition of NFIP insured structures on acquired or restricted real property • Other activities that bring NFIP insured structures into compliance with

statutorily authorized floodplain management requirements • Beach nourishment activities that include planting native dune vegetation and/or

the installation of sand-fencing. • Minor physical mitigation projects that do not duplicate the flood prevention

activities of other Federal agencies and lessen the frequency of flooding or severity of flooding and decrease the predicted flood damages in localized flood problem areas. These include: modification of existing culverts and bridges, installation or modification of flood gates, stabilization of stream banks, and creation of small debris or flood/storm water retention basins in small watersheds (not dikes, levees, seawalls etc.)

In 1998, the FMAP Planning Grant was awarded to the Town of Salem. Given the complexity of the issues in the Spicket River watershed, the Town of Salem subcontracted a substantial portion of the development of its Flood Mitigation Planning to SFC Engineering Partnership of Manchester, NH, a private engineering firm. Salem submitted a Plan and proposed projects to the State and FEMA in May of 1999 which were approved by FEMA. This made Salem the first community in NH to have a FEMA/NFIP approved Flood Mitigation Plan.

♦ PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAM (PDM)

FEMA has long been promoting disaster resistant construction and retrofit of facilities that are vulnerable to hazards in order to reduce potential damages due to a hazard event. The goal is to reduce loss of life, human suffering, economic disruption, and disaster costs to the Federal taxpayer. This has been, and continues to be accomplished, through a variety of programs and grant funds.

Although the overall intent is to reduce vulnerability before the next disaster threatens, the bulk of the funding for such projects actually has been delivered through a "post-disaster" funding mechanism, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). This program has successfully addressed the many hazard mitigation opportunities uniquely available following a disaster. However, funding of projects "pre-disaster" has been more difficult,


particularly in states that have not experienced major disasters in the past decade. In an effort to address "pre-disaster mitigation", FEMA piloted a program from 1997-2001 entitled "Project Impact" that was community based and multi-hazard oriented.

Through the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Congress approved creation of a national Predisaster Hazard Mitigation program to provide a funding mechanism that is not dependent on a Presidential disaster declaration. For FY2002, $25 million has been appropriated for the new grant program entitled the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM). This new program builds on the experience gained from Project Impact, the HMGP, and other mitigation initiatives.

Here are the high points of the FY 2002 PDM program:

The program will be administered by each State, with a base allocation of $250,000, and additional funds provided via a population formula.

Eligible projects include:

§ State and local hazard mitigation planning § Technical assistance [e.g. risk assessments, project development] § Mitigation Projects

- Acquisition or relocation of vulnerable properties - Hazard retrofits - Minor structural hazard control or protection projects

§ Community outreach and education [up to 10% of state allocation]

The emphasis for FY2002 will be on mitigation planning, to help localities meet the new planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

Each state establishes grant selection criteria and priorities based on:

§ The State Hazard Mitigation Plan § The degree of commitment of the community to hazard mitigation § The cost effectiveness of the proposed project § The type and degree of hazard being addressed § For project grants, "good standing" of the community in the National Flood Insurance

Program

The funding is 75% Federal share, 25% non-Federal, except as noted below. The grant performance periods will be 18 months for planning grants, and 24 months for mitigation project grants. The PDM program is available to regional agencies and Indian tribes. Special accommodation will be made for "small and impoverished communities", who will be eligible for 90% Federal share, 10% non-Federal.


Disaster Preparedness Improvement Grant

• Evaluate natural hazards on a

continuing basis and develop programs and actions required to mitigate such hazards

• Provide Technical Assistance • Grants to States of up to $50,000

annually • (50% State match - cash or in kind)

Eligible Projects Include:

• Evaluations of Natural Hazards • Hazard Mitigation activities (i.e.

Plan/ policy/program/strategy development

• Plan updates • Handbooks: publication &

distribution • Creating exercise materia ls • Developing Standard Operating

Procedures • Training state employees • Report of formal analysis of State

enabling legislation and authorities • Update inventory of State/local

Critical Facilities • Develop a tracking system of critical

actions to be taken post-event • Creating Damage Assessment Plans

and defining procedures • Developing Plans for procedures

when no Federal Aid is forthcoming • Creating Plans for Search and

Rescue Operations • Developing Disaster accounting

procedures This list is not exhaustive

♦ DISASTER PREPAREDNESS IMPROVEMENT GRANT (DPIG) FEMA and the State co-sponsor the DPIG Program, which supports the development and updating of disaster assistance plans and capabilities and promotes educational opportunities with respect to preparedness and mitigation. Authority: See Subchapter E. of 44 CFR. Past DPIG initiatives include:

• Support of the position of Protection Planner/Hazard Mitigation Officer

• Installation of river gauges • Support of the NH State Environthon School

Program • Coordinate the Voluntary Organizations

Active in Disasters (VOAD) Program (See Resource Profile Annex) NHOEM via the DPIG has sponsored annual meetings with training workshops

• Sponsoring Dam Safety Training initiatives and workshops

• Production and distribution of a handbook for small embankment dam owners

• Inventory of the State’s Dams • Review of Dam Plans • Sponsored extensive statewide, two day

workshops for Granite State Incident Stress Debriefing Teams and funded educational materials

• Community visits and production of informational materials

• Assist with Plan Annex update for local Haz Mat planning.

• Funding workshops for NH Road Agents in cooperation with the T2 program of the Technology Transfer Center at the University of New Hampshire

Present DPIG funded Hazard Mitigation initiatives

• Support the position of Protection Planner/Hazard Mitigation Officer

• Continued support of the Environthon Program • Development of this Plan • Providing Technical Assistance to State and local officials • Development of Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs) for Significant and High

Hazard dams


Future DPIG funded Hazard Mitigation initiatives • Continued Support the position of Protection Planner/Hazard Mitigation Officer • Continued support of the Environthon Program • Update and maintenance of this Plan • Provide Technical Assistance to State and local officials • Support of other planning, technical assistance and training as indicated • Digitization of EOPs for the State’s "Significant" and "High Hazard" dams to provide

rapid access to information in Emergency situations and to facilitate Plan maintenance.


Community Development Block Grant

• U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development

• Funds for a Declared Disaster’s "Unmet Needs"

• Projects must meet one of three National

Objectives

• Provide a direct benefit to low and moderate income persons or households

• Prevent or eliminate slums and blight

• Eliminate conditions which seriously and

immediately threaten the public health and welfare

Additional conditions with respect to the expenditure of these funds includes the provision that at least 50% of the grant award must be expended in a manner which benefits individuals who earn 80% or less than the area’s (county’s) median income.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM These Federal funds are provided through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and are administered by the CDBG Program of the New Hampshire Office of State Planning. Some CDBG disaster related funding has been transferred to FEMA recently and the SHMO is scheduled to receive guidance as to which specific funds and, new program management criteria. The specific CDBG funds designated for hazard mitigation purposes are made available to address "unmet needs" pursuant to a given Disaster Declaration to States which request them. For these funds, project selection guidance is provided by NHOEM and NHOSP administers the grant. Pursuant to Declaration DR-1144-NH, $557,000.00 was made available to the State and pursuant to DR-1199-NH, the grant award is targeted at $1,500,000.00. In October of 1998, HUD announced the program guidelines for the expenditure of the DR-1144-NH related funding and the community of Salem applied for, and has received preliminary approval for funding to acquire a 19 unit trailer park in the Floodplain. Mitigation Programs of Other NH State Agencies The following agencies of the State of New Hampshire are directly or indirectly involved in

activities that include Hazard Mitigation Planning and/or program implementation.

NH Department of Transportation Bureau of Repair and Maintenance NH OSP/NFIP Program

NH OSP Coastal Program NH DRED Division of Forests and Lands

NH DES Water Resources Division – Dam Safety Program NH DES Wetlands Program

NH DES Shoreline Protection Program


Appendix C:

Matrix of Federal All-Hazards Grants


Appendix D:

Meeting Documentation


Claremont Hazard Mitigation Meeting 1/12/04

Present: Chief Peter S. Chase, Fire Chief/EMD Alexander Scott, Police Chief Bill Wilmot, Deputy Police Chief Paul A. Fredette, Public Works Director Anthony Lyons, Community Development Pete Petschik, Field Representative, NH BEM Vicky Boundy, Senior Planner, UVLSRPC Minutes: The meeting began at 9:00 a.m. and adjourned at 10:30 a.m. There was a round of introductions, and Vicky reviewed the purpose and process of this project. The group reviewed the State of NH Hazard Mitigation Goals and decided to review them further before the February meeting. The Committee then looked over the proposed project workplan and concurred with all except the public meeting timeframe, agreeing that they wished to wait until at least March to hold a public meeting. Someone suggested that the public meeting be videotaped for public access to allow more members of the public to learn about the project. Vicky then handed out the State of NH “Natural Hazards Vulnerability Overview by County” and a summary of NH hazard history. A hazard analysis survey was handed out and Committee member were asked to complete it to the best of their abilities before the February meeting, so that the meeting can be as efficient as possible. A summary about Pre-Disaster Mitigation planning (‘why is this important?’) was also distributed. Finally, the group set a date for the next meeting: Wednesday, February 18 (same time and place) and discussed the best method of notice for meetings. The consensus seemed to be via email. Vicky also mentioned that the meeting agendas should be posted publicly somewhere in City Hall to allow members of the public to learn more and/or participate. Thanks to all for participating in the January meeting. -End-


Claremont Hazard Mitigation Meeting

2/18/04 9:00 - 11:00 a.m.

Police Station Present: Chief Peter S. Chase, Fire Chief/EMD Alexander Scott, Police Chief Bill Wilmot, Deputy Police Chief Paul A. Fredette, Public Works Director Pete Petschik, Field Representative, NH BEM Vicky Boundy, Senior Planner, UVLSRPC Minutes: Vicky asked for any revisions/additions to the State of NH hazard mitigation goals and there were none. She will revise for City of Claremont. The Committee then identified past and potential hazards and indicated areas of vulnerability to these hazards on a GIS base map. Following is a summary of that discussion. Flooding - Ice Jam-related (Annual flooding not a concern?)

• West Claremont - approximately 30 homes at risk • Washington Street - road damage; road raised last summer

Structure Fire

• Mill District/Downtown Hazardous Materials - Railroad and highway; fixed facilities and transportation

• Proximity of I-91; prevailing west winds • Intersection Routes 120/11 - biggest hazmat concern. Critical facilities in the area of

this intersection: Police, Fire, EMS, EOC • Railroad line - derailment, crashes • Washington/Bowen Street area

Radiological

• Truck transportation • Hospital • UPS and FedEx

Water Supply Contamination

• A concern; unsecured water supply Airplane Crashes

• Under Lebanon flight path


• Terrorism Winter storms

• Annual occurrences; no particular area at greater risk Ice Storm

• 1998 Storm - Impacted Green Mt.; no residences affected Wind Events

• 1999 - power outages up to three days (throughout City?) • Tornados: Not a concern; no record of tornado events • Microbursts: Occasional; isolated cases • Hurricane: Early 1990s; no impacts

Terrorism - Domestic bigger concern

• Industrial Park area • WalMart - 24 hours/day, large crowds

School Safety - High School and Middle School

• Schools in high traffic area - traffic accidents and trucks carrying hazardous materials greatest concern.

• Schools have good emergency plan Earthquake

• Downtown area • January 1982 - no damages recorded

Wildfire

• No significant events recorded Drought

• No major impacts; river (Sugar?) is back up water supply Landslide

• No areas at risk for landslide activity The Committee then began discussing critical facilities in the City that are vulnerable to hazard events. The following list was generated as a starting point.

• Bridges • Police, Fire, EMS, EOC - in high traffic area. (Noted: a County EOC is being

established in Unity) • Downtown/Mill District • Reservoirs - not secured

-End-



9:00 - 11:00 a.m. Police Station

Present: Chief Peter S. Chase, Fire Chief/EMD Alexander Scott, Police Chief Bill Wilmot, Deputy Police Chief Anthony Lyons, Community Development Guy Santagate, City Manager Pete Petschik, Field Representative, NH BEM Vicky Boundy, Senior Planner, UVLSRPC MINUTES, written by Vicky Boundy: The Committee reviewed community hazards and critical facilities lists, and assessed overall community vulnerability to each hazard type. Information in italics is information requests. Community Vulnerability Vulnerability was determined by assessing the combination of the likelihood of an event happening and the known and potential impacts of that event. Flooding - Moderate to Critical Vulnerability

• Likelihood - Highly Likely (HL) • Impact - Moderate (M) overall

o Beauregard Village and Washington Street - Moderate to Critical Structure Fire - Moderate to Critical

• Likelihood - HL • Impact - Moderate to Critical (downtown)

o Mill District/downtown has had 3 major mill fires and several downtown fires over recent years.

• Low (citywide) Hazardous Materials - Moderate to Critical

• Rail Line - M - C o Likelihood - Low o Impact - Moderate to Critical o West winds into downtown

• Truck - M - C o No truck route designated


o Trucks travel secondary roads (weight limit lower on interstate than secondary roads).

o Transfer incidents (local delivery) - biggest risk o East-West corridor - lots of fuels coming right through Claremont

• Fixed sites o 2nd largest propane storage in the State of New Hampshire

Radiological - Low

• Small quantities; isolated events Water Supply Contamination - Moderate

• Likelihood - L • Impact - C • Not a targeted community

Airplane Crashes - Low Winter storms - M - C

• Likelihood - Highly Likely • Impact - M • Secondary impacts, e.g. in a 2-foot event, hydrants are buried

Ice Storm - M

• Mostly higher elevations Wind Events - M

• Hurricane o Likelihood - L o Impact - C o Trees down; residual flooding

• General wind events o Likelihood - HL (some type of event every year) o Impact - M

Terrorism - M

• Likelihood - L • Impact - M • Potential for domestic terrorism - smaller communities underestimate risk • Random events; no security at locations • Residual effects from VT Yankee/Seabrook • Several anthrax scares (Postal)

School Safety - M

• Limited resources; large number of students and limited emergency personnel


Earthquake - M • Likelihood - L • Impact - C • Mill buildings; high school (shoddy construction); churches in West Claremont

Wildfire - L

• Every 50 years • Drought conditions; wildland/urban interface increasing with development

Drought - M

• Have had moderate droughts Landslide - L

• No areas at risk for landslide activity Critical Facilities The Committee then reviewed critical facilities in the City that are vulnerable to hazard events.

• General At-Risk Areas o Downtown/Mill District o Washington Street

• Bridges - Chief Chase-obtain list of critical bridges from Public Works Director • EOC - mobile unit in Unity • Whitewater Reservoir - inundation area - Redwater Brook to Sugar River • WTP Reservoir - WalMart in inundation area • Emergency Shelters - Chief Chase - provide me with • Schools - Chief Chase - provide me with • Downtown/Mill District • Hospital • Integrated Health Services - Rt. 120/Hanover Street • Dams • Courthouse/City Hall • Downtown - National Register Historic District • New running track (gathering place) • Claremont International Speedway • WalMart • Churches, West Claremont

o Union Church o St. Mary’s Church - oldest Catholic church in State of NH

• Several fuel storage areas - Any in particular of note? • Daycare


o Milestones - Charlestown Rd./Rt. 12 o Numerous others of various sizes

• Several elderly housing complexes o Hillside Terrace - in downtown intersection (traffic and hazmat concerns) o Marion Phillips - traffic/hazmat o Sugar River Mill Complex, Main Street - on river and across street from dam;

truck traffic/hazmat Existing Mitigation Strategies in Place Emergency Response

• Emergency Plan: up-to-date; includes hazmat • Generators - not adequate - Fire/Police have; EMS does not have - Chief Chase - how

about emergency shelters? • Shelter needs - significant • Radio communications - backed up by emergency generators (?) • Schools - have kitchen facilities but no emergency power • Fire

o 18 F/T; 28 Call o Training needs (see Police) o Significant rural/suburban housing development anticipated; continued

economic development; build-out of Lebanon/Hanover area • Mutual Aid

o Law Enforcement - all of Sullivan County o Fire - 4 or 5 mutual aid organizations

• Police o 4 F/T dispatchers - need 5 (relied on heavily for any big event) o Training needs: Hazmat training (ongoing); mock emergency response o Training has to be done on OT- significant expense o No serious equipment needs, just training

Planning and Development Dept.

• 10 Staff, 3 F/T, including Planner and Building Inspector • Town Plan - plan to update • Conservation Commission • Building Code - State code - looking at revisions • National Flood Insurance Program - under Public Works? • Special zoning districts - Anthony - check • Just beginning to look at zoning and code changes - there is resistance • Downtown economic development - Main Street program, etc.

-End-



9:00 - 11:00 a.m. Police Station

Present: Rick Bergeron, Deputy Fire Chief Alexander Scott, Police Chief Gerry Coogan, Planning Paul Fredette, Director Public Works Pete Petschik, Field Representative, NH BEM Vicky Boundy, Senior Planner, UVLSRPC MINUTES, written by Vicky Boundy: The Committee reviewed existing hazard mitigation strategies in Claremont and discussed gaps. We began discussing potential mitigation strategies, as well as possible public forum venues. Miscellaneous Discussions/Regional Efforts:

• Correction from 3/9/04 minutes: Rick Bergeron also participated in the meeting.

• Paul Fredette mentioned that Vicky should contact the City GIS staff to make sure mapping efforts aren’t duplicated. Vicky will contact them this month.

• We discussed possible venues for public outreach, to educate people about hazard

mitigation and the Plan. The following venues were mentioned: Realty Board; Senior Citizen lunch; Host meeting on CCTV.

• Paul emphasized that we need to make sure we are incorporating the hazard

mitigation planning with similar planning efforts. For instance, we should append or reference the Dam Action Plans and the Emergency Action Plan. Another suggestion was to continue interagency training and cooperation, in concert with the annual HazMit Plan review.

• On a related note, Pete P. mentioned that there are EMPG grants for training in

unified incident command and other interagency emergency trainings. Pete also mentioned the upcoming Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs) that have a timeline of 2005 and will be multi-purpose plans that incorporate all others.

• Alex mentioned that the Valley Regional Hospital is working on an Emergency Plan,

and we discussed whether or not to invite them to the next meeting. It was decided


that being so late in the process, they should be invited to review the draft Plan and be invited to meetings when the Plan is updated.

• Regional Planning: The group discussed having a regional meeting with other

communities going through the hazard mitigation planning process. Vicky and Pete indicated that they could both help coordinate such an effort. The group also discussed the need for a Mutual Aid program for Public Works Departments. There is currently an effort to set up such a program; it is very informal now and not emergency management-related.

Existing Hazard Mitigation Programs/Policies in Claremont: This discussion was continued from our March meeting.

• DPW needs a repeater station, as the radio system doesn’t cover the entire City. There was a question as to whether or not the City could apply for Homeland Security funding for this. There was also a discussion about the Fire Dept. giving their old radios to Public Works, as they received new digital and analog with federal funding.

• It would be beneficial if all Claremont agencies/departments, such as the school dept. and DPW, meet and discuss radio communications, e.g. the possibility of having one standard emergency channel with one dispatcher assigned to those.

• Planning Dept.: Gerry shed light on current initiatives growth trends in Claremont: - Population hasn’t grown in 40 years, but it is likely that the City and environs

will experience spillover development from the Upper Valley. The upcoming Master Plan update will focus on a vision of where that development should be concentrated.

- Home Depot coming - will be located in floodplain. - Flooding areas: Lower Sullivan Street; Beauregard Village; Washington Street

(although no serious flooding in last 40 years). Ice jams cause most significant flooding problems.

-End-



Police Station Present: Chief Chase, Fire Chief/EMD Alexander Scott, Police Chief Paul Fredette, Director Public Works Pete Petschik, Field Representative, NH BEM Vicky Boundy, Senior Planner, UVLSRPC MINUTES, written by Vicky Boundy: This meeting was not that well attended, but we did have a good brainstorming session about potential hazard mitigation projects. We decided to prioritize this list and develop an implementation schedule at our September meeting (details below). 1. Project Ideas, in random order: Emergency Response/Coordination

• Organize meeting with city departments, agencies, school to discuss radio communications and Incident Management System.

• Continue to advocate for County Emergency Operations Center, and consider the current EOC for Claremont (Council Chambers) as an alternate EOC.

• Pursue back-up emergency power for City schools. • Continue pursuing hazardous materials response and emergency response training

sessions and technical assistance from state and private agencies. • National Incident Management System (unified incident command) training needed

for all field medical responders (schools, Police, DPW, Fire). Chief Chase is a trainer for NIMS. The Fire Academy and Bureau of Emergency Mgmt could both provide this training, perhaps with Emergency Management Planning Grant (EMPG) funding, which is available year-round.

Planning/Policies

• Hold a meeting on hazard mitigation with surrounding towns that are also developing plans (Newport, Cornish, Plainfield).

• In updating Master Plan Land Use chapter, focus on where to concentrate development, from a hazard mitigation/emergency planning perspective.

• Coordinate hazmit plan updates and emergency planning with Valley Regional Hospital.


• Establish truck route around center of City for trucks for trucks carrying hazardous materials: Check Keene’s truck ordinance (which sets maximum tonnage), ask DOT for average daily traffic numbers for trucks in Claremont.

• Redevelop Sugar River (Dam Plan? - I’m afraid there’s a gap in my notes and my memory has failed) - Plan is outdated, make new plan available to public.

• Develop Rail Line HazMat Response Plan, perhaps in concert with Cornish and Charlestown.

Public Works

• Encourage a more formalized Mutual Aid Compact to develop for Public Works Departments: Call Dave Fluharty, UNH Technology Transfer Center, as a starting point.

• Develop snow removal policy/plan to plan for major snow event. • Develop follow-up implementation plan to address vulnerabilities in Water

Vulnerability Plan. Public Education

• Distribute public information about the City’s emergency shelters, so that people are aware of where they are and when they are used: Utilize CCTV, advertisements, identify the shelters with signage, signage also on evacuation routes.

2. Next Steps in HazMit Planning Process: Next meeting: Thursday, September 9, 9:00 a.m., Police Station (Agenda: Refine project list and develop implementation schedule). Agenda to follow in August. Public meeting: Hold in late September or October, when draft Plan is completed Who should be invited to review draft?

• Members of public - leave copies at City Hall and Library • City Manager • Planning • Conservation Commission • Police • Fire • DPW • EMS

-End-


AGENDA Claremont Hazard Mitigation Meeting

Tuesday, September 21, 2004, 10:30 a.m. Police Station

10:30 a.m.: Comments/Revisions on Draft Plan 11:00: Prioritize HazMit Projects 11:30: Set Implementation Schedule 12:00: Finalize Public Review Process 12:30: Adjourn


Appendix E:

CRREL Ice Jam Database


Ice Jam Database Search Results

CLAREMONT

Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Feb 28, 2000 Water Year: 2000 Jam Type: Break-up Damages: Unknown CRREL Contact: K. White Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́45" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: Peak annual stage of 8.31 feet due to ice jam occurred on February 28, 2000 at USGS gage Sugar River at Claremont. Average daily discharge estimated at 874 cfs. Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Mar 04, 1999 Water Year: 1999 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́45" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: The USGS reported an ice jam on 4 March, 1999 near West Claremont, NH on the Sugar River. The water discharge was an estimated 3700 cubic feet per second. Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Jan 25, 1999 Water Year: 1999 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́45" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: The USGS reported an ice jam on 25 January, 1999 near West Claremont, NH on the Sugar River. The water discharge was an estimated 3700 cubic feet per second. Location: Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Jan 19, 1996 Water Year: 1996


Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́45" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: An ice jam was reported on the Sugar River on the right bank, 0.2 mi downstream from Redwater Brook with a river gage of 7.85 on Jan 19, 1996. Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Mar 09, 1995 Water Year: 1995 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́45" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: An ice jam was reported on the Sugar River in West Claremont at gage station no. 01152500 on the right bank, downstream of the Redwater Brook with a gage level of 9.52 feeton March 9, 1995. Another jam was reported at this location on Mar 12, 1936 with a gage level of 11.80 feet. Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Mar 27, 1992 Water Year: 1992 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: Maximum annual gage height, 10.99 feet due to an ice jam recorded at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont, NH on March 27. Average daily discharge 1400 cfs. Location: Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Mar 11, 1992 Water Year: 1992 Jam Type: Break-up Damages: Home and road flooding CRREL Contact: K. White Visuals: Available at CRREL Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́45" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: Ice jam at a bend near the Main Street Bridge caused residential and road flooding, and disruption to electrical and gas utilities. A crane was used to break up the ice jam. As reported in The Union Leader on Thursday, March12,1992,"As late as yesterday morning [Wednesday, March 11, 1992] most of the Sugar River was still ice-covered, and water levels were relatively low. But as the


morning wore on, the water level rose fast, feuled by a fast-running snow melt and steady rain. Rushing water broke up the ice and sent it downstream in huge chunks, turning the section of the river below the city center into a raging torrent. The first ice jammed about 9 a.m. at a dam at Coy Paper Co. in West Claremont. Authorities rented a crane and wrecking ball from Miller Cosntruction Co. in Ascutney, Vt., which was used to break the first jam. Later, another jam formed upstream at a sharp bend in the river, causing water to spill over the river's south bank and head for a group of homes near Cote's Motel. Residents were evacuated from the area, and police closed a strech of Main Street on the opposite bank, which was under as much as 2 feet of water. . . . The second ice jam was broken by the wrecking ball about 3p.m. . . . Water levels quickly receded, but the ice then jammed up again at another bend further down the river, back near the paper company's dam." As reported by Valley News on Thursday, March 12, 1992, "About a dozen Claremont Families are back in their homes after being forced to flee yesterday because of rising water in the Sugar River. Claremont officials used a crane to break up an ice jam that had caused about 1 1/2 feet of water to cover a 150-foot section of Main Street yesterday." Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Jan 26, 1990 Water Year: 1990 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: Maximum annual gage height, 6.27 feet due to an ice jam recorded at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont, NH on January 26. Average daily discharge 2000 cfs. Location: Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Jan 26, 1986 Water Year: 1986 Jam Type: Break-up Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́45" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description Jam formed on Coy Paper Company Mill pool, finally breaking loose at 1230 on 1/26/86. 14 homes evacuated. Dufresne-Henry describes this event as comparable to 1936, 1981, and 1984 events. Gage height of 9.24 feet due to ice jam reported at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont, NH on January 27, 1986. Location: West Clare mont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Feb 25, 1985 Water Year: 1985 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104


Gage Number: 01152500 Description: Maximum annual gage height, 6.73 feet due to an ice jam recorded at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont, NH on February 25. Average daily discharge 1000 cfs. Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Feb 16, 1984 Water Year: 1984 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: Maximum annual gage height, 11.43 feet due to an ice jam recorded at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont, NH on February 16. Average daily discharge 3000 cfs. Location: Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Feb ?, 1984 Water Year: 1984 Jam Type: Break-up Damages: 20 cars damaged, evacuations, est 1M USD CRREL Contact: S. DenHartog Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́45" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: River flooded Rte 12A in front of D'Amane's store early in the morning of February 16. At 0745, a wall of ice came over the Dartmouth Woolen Mill Dam, "plunging a dozen cars into the river." The cars had been in the mill parking lot when the ice came over the dam; 8 others did not go into the river but were damaged. Water seeped into boiler room, causing plant to be evacuated. Evacuated several mobile homes in Beauregard Village, Cote's Motel, and homes along river. Police closed several roads and monitored river levels. Dufresne-Henry describes this flood as comparable to the 1936, 1981, and 1986 floods. Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Feb 04, 1983 Water Year: 1983 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: Maximum annual gage height, 6.26 feet due to an ice jam recorded at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont, NH on February 4. Average daily discharge 1500 cfs Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Feb 12, 1981


Water Year: 1981 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: maximum annual gage height of 12.19 feet, affected by an ice jam, reported at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont, at 0330 hours on February 12, 1981. Discharge 3400 cfs. Location: Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: ? ?, 1981 Water Year: 1981 Jam Type: Break-up Damages: 1 dead CRREL Contact: S. DenHartog Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́45" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: from newspaper: "Heavy flood damage occurred two years ago at Beauregard Village, a trailer park. One woman died in the 1981 flood, and the city received a federal grant to relocate residents of the trailer park." This flood is described as comparable to the 1936, 1984, and 1986 floods by Dufresne-Henry. Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Mar 07, 1979 Water Year: 1979 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: maximum annual gage height, 6.36 feet due to an ice jam recorded at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont, NH on March 7 at 0430 hours. Discharge 3400 cfs Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Jan 26, 1978 Water Year: 1978 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: Gage height not determined, occurred during an ice jam recorded at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont on January 26. discharge 6200 cfs


Location: Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: ? ?, 1978 Water Year: 1978 Jam Type: Break-up Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́45" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: "...from 1961 to 1980 the highest stage from ice was in 1978 and was approximately 3 feet lower than the 1936 ice jam. The 1978 ice jam was slightly above the 1987 open flood which was described as about a 10-year flood." Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Jan 28, 1976 Water Year: 1976 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: Maximum annual gage height, 7.69 feet due to an ice jam recorded at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont, NH on January 28. Average daily discharge 3000 cfs. *See also Sugar River at Claremont same date. Location: Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Jan 28, 1976 Water Year: 1976 Jam Type: Break-up Damages: ? CRREL Contact: S. DenHartog, K. White Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́45" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: "ice jam in a pool above Coy Paper Company had backed up to D'Amante's store and the water was slowly rising." Flood waters threatened residents of the Beauregard Street section of Beauregard village from this jam. A jam on the Claremont-Newport border was also being monitored. *See also Sugar River at West Claremont same date. Location: West Claremont, NH River : Sugar River Jam Date: Feb 11, 1970 Water Year: 1970 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White


Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: Maximum annual gage height, 8.68 feet due to backwater from ice recorded at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont, NH on February 11. Discharge 3,000 cfs Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Mar 19, 1968 Water Year: 1968 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21´ 14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: Maximum annual gage height, 5.72 feet due to an ice jam recorded at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont, NH on March 19. Discharge 2,800 cfs Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Jan 22, 1959 Water Year: 1959 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: maximum annual gage height of 7.49 feet, affected by backwater from ice, reported at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont, on January 22, 1959. Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Mar 12, 1936 Water Year: 1936 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Local Contact: New England Division (NED) Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: Maximum gage height for period of May 1928 to September 1991, 11.80 feet due to an ice jam recorded at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont on March 12, 1936. Location: West Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Mar 12, 1936 Water Year: 1936


Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Latitude : 43° 34´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́45" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: An ice jam was reported on the Sugar River in West Claremont at gage station no. 01152500 on the right bank, downstream of the Redwater Brook with a gage level of 11.80 feet on Mar 12, 1936. Location: Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Mar 12, 1936 Water Year: 1936 Jam Type: Break-up Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́14" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: maximum gage height for the period 1928 to 1989 at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont: 11.8 feet due to ice jam on March 12, 1936. Green reports maximum annual gage height of 11.80 feet, affected by backwater from ice, reported at USGS gage Sugar River at West Claremont, on March 12, 13, 1936. Discharge 6,180 cfs. Location: Claremont, NH River: Sugar River Jam Date: Mar 12, 1936 Water Year: 1936 Jam Type: ? Damages: ? CRREL Contact: K. White Latitude : 43° 23´ 15" Longitude: 72° 21 ́45" Hydrologic Unit: 01080104 Gage Number: 01152500 Description: An ice jam was reported on the Sugar River on the right bank, 0.2 mi downstream from Redwater Brook with a river gage of 11.80 on March 12, 1936.

city of claremont, new hampshire€¦ · power for all schools), planning/policies e.g. coordinate...

Documents