2013 Rochester Hazard Mitigation Plan

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Prepared for New Hampshire Homeland Security & Emergency Management By Strafford Regional Planning Commission Rochester, NH 03867 March 29, 2013 Final All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

1|Page

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Acknowledgements This plan was updated through a grant from New Hampshire Homeland Security Emergency Management (HSEM).

The following organizations have contributed invaluable assistance and support for this project: The 2004 Rochester Hazard Mitigation Committee New Hampshire Homeland Security Emergency Management (HSEM) City of Rochester

The 2013 City of Rochester Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Ten people have attended meetings and/or been instrumental in completing this plan: Norm Sanborn Mark Dupuis Melodie Esterberg Dennis Schafer Kenn Ortmann Robert Jaffin Julia Chase Elizabeth Peck Lance Harbour Kyle Pimental

Fire Chief/EMD, Rochester Assistant Fire Chief, Rochester Department of Public Works, Rochester MIS System Supervisor, Rochester Planning and Development Director, Rochester Planning Board, Rochester NH HSEM Field Representative Mitigation Planner HSEM State Hazard Mitigation Officer SRPC Regional Planner

Plan Prepared and Authored By Kyle Pimental, Regional Planner Strafford Regional Planning Commission 150 Wakefield Street, Suite 12 Rochester, NH 03867 603-994-3500 www.strafford.org

Date of Conditional Approval: 1/22/2013 Date of Adoption by City: 3/5/2013

Date of Final Approval: 3/29/2013 Date Distributed by SRPC: 5/9/2013

Cover: Flooding Event – Rochester, NH Photo Credit: Rochester Fire Department 2|Page

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1: All-Hazard Planning Process ....................................................................... 7 A. Authority and Funding ............................................................................................... 7 B. Purpose & History of the FEMA Mitigation Planning Process ................................. 7 C. Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................. 8 D. Scope of the Plan........................................................................................................ 8 E. All-Hazard Planning Process ...................................................................................... 8 F: Involvement ................................................................................................................ 9 G: Narrative Description of the Process and Methodology ............................................ 9 Chapter II: Community Profile ..................................................................................... 14 A. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 14 B. Rochester’s History & Past Development Trends.................................................... 16 C. Current & Future Development Trends ................................................................... 17 Table 2.1 Statistics of Interest to Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning ....................... 19 Chapter III: Hazard Identification ............................................................................... 22 A. Hazard Rankings ...................................................................................................... 22 B. Description of Hazards ............................................................................................. 22 C. Rochester Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Status ................................................. 29 D. Probability of Future Potential Disasters ................................................................. 29 Table 3.1: Historic Hazard Identification ................................................................. 30 Chapter IV: Critical Infrastructure & Key Resources (CF/KR) ............................... 34 Chapter V. Multi-Hazard Effects in Rochester ........................................................... 40 A. Identifying Vulnerable Structures ............................................................................ 40 B. Identifying Future Vulnerable Structures ................................................................. 41 C. Calculating the Potential Loss .................................................................................. 42 Chapter VI: All-Hazard Goals and Existing Mitigation Strategies ........................... 45 A. All-Hazard Mitigation Goals ................................................................................... 45 B. Mitigation Strategies Currently Underway in Rochester ......................................... 45 Table 6.1: Existing Mitigation Strategies Matrix and Proposed Improvements ....... 46 Chapter VII: Prior Mitigation Plan(s) .......................................................................... 47 A. Date(s) of Prior Plan(s) ............................................................................................ 47 Table 7.1: Accomplishments since Prior Plan(s) Approval ...................................... 47 Chapter VIII: New Mitigation Strategies & STAPLEE ............................................. 48 A. Feasibility and Prioritization .................................................................................... 48 B. The Team’s Understanding of Multi-Hazard Mitigation Strategies ........................ 49 Table 8.1: Potential Mitigation Strategies & STAPLEE .......................................... 50 3|Page

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Chapter IX: Implementation Schedule for Prioritized Strategies ............................. 53 Table 9.1: Implementation Plan ................................................................................ 54 Chapter X: Monitoring, Evaluation and Updating the Plan ...................................... 56 A. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 56 B. All-Hazard Plan Monitoring, Evaluation and Updates ............................................ 56 C. Integration with Other Plans .................................................................................... 57 Chapter XI: Signed Community Documents and Approval Letters ......................... 58 A. Conditional Approval Letter from FEMA ............................................................... 58 B. Signed Certificate of Adoption ................................................................................ 59 C. Final Approval Letter from FEMA .......................................................................... 60 Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 62 Appendix A: Bibliography ............................................................................................ 63 Appendix B: Summary of Possible Multi-Hazard Mitigation Strategies ..................... 64 Appendix C: List of Contacts ....................................................................................... 75 Appendix D: Technical and Financial Assistance for Multi-Hazard Mitigation .......... 76

4|Page

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Executive Summary This Plan was revised and updated to meet statutory requirements and to assist the City of Rochester in reducing and mitigating future losses from natural and man-made hazardous events. It was developed by Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) and participants from the City of Rochester Hazard Mitigation Team. The Plan contains the tools necessary to identify specific hazards, critical infrastructure and key resources, and address existing and future mitigation efforts.

This plan addresses the following hazards that affect the Town: Extreme Weather Events o Wind damage o Ice and snow damage o Flooding Wildfire o Including the urban rural interface and large structure fires Earthquakes, Landslides, Subsidence Large Local Event incidents

Impacts from adjoining region events including Radioactive Fallout and Evacuations Extreme Heat & Drought Geomagnetic and Electromagnetic events Public Health Threats Hazardous Material or Human induced events

This plan also provides an updated list of Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CI/KR) categorized as follows: Emergency Response Services (ERS), Non-Emergency Response Facilities (NERS), Facilities and Populations to Protect (FPP) and Potential Resources (PR). In addition, this plan addresses the City’s involvement in The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

The revision process included reviewing other City Hazard Plans, technical manuals, federal and state laws, the State Hazard Mitigation Plan, historic district brochures, tax maps, downtown and environmental topics, Master Plan chapters on existing and future land use, the City Zoning Ordinance, Site Plan Review and Subdivision regulations, the Economic Development Strategic Plan, research data, and other available planning documents from multiple sources. Combining elements from these sources, the Team was able to produce this integrated all-hazards plan and recognizes that such a plan must be considered a work in progress. In addition to periodic reviews there are three specific situations, which require a formal review of the plan. The plan will be reviewed: Annually to assess whether the existing and suggested mitigation strategies have been successful and remain current in light of any changes in federal state and local regulations and statutes. This review will address the Plan’s effectiveness, accuracy and completeness in regard to the implementation strategy. The review will address any recommended improvements to the Plan, and address any weaknesses identified that the Plan did not adequately address. This report will be filed with the City Council.

5|Page

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Every Five Years the Plan will be thoroughly reviewed, revised and updated using the same criteria outlined above. At that time it is expected to be thoroughly reviewed and updated as necessary. The public will be allowed and encouraged to participate in that five year revision process.

After any declared emergency event, the EMD using the same criteria outlined above.

If the City adopts any major modifications to its land use planning documents, the jurisdiction will conduct a Plan review and make changes as applicable.

Public involvement is encouraged throughout this process and will continue to be stressed in future revisions. In the pre-meeting, City officials were given a recommended list of people to invite and participate in the process. A press release was issued which encouraged public involvement and it was also stressed that public attendance was recommended. Finally, once conditional approval for this plan had been received, a public hearing was held before the City Council to formally adopt the Plan. The public will have the opportunity for future involvement as the Plan will be periodically reviewed and the public will be invited to participate in all future reviews and updates to this plan.

Public notice was and will be given by such means as: press releases in local papers, posting meeting information on the City website, sending letters to federal, state, and local organizations impacted by the Plan, and posting notices in public places in the City, on the SRPC website and noticed to the County commission. There will also be a public hearing before each formal review and before the any change/update is sent to FEMA. Once final approval by FEMA has been received, copies of the Plan will be distributed to the relevant City Departments and personnel, HSEM, and FEMA and other state and local governmental entities; the Plan will then be distributed by these entities per requirements. Copies of the Plan will remain on file at the Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) in both digital and paper format.

Flooding Event – Rochester, NH 6|Page

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Chapter 1: All-Hazard Planning Process A. Authority and Funding Rochester’s original Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA), Section 322. This revised all-hazard plan will be referred to as the “Plan”. Rochester’s current All-Hazard Mitigation Plan has been prepared by the Rochester Hazard Mitigation Planning Team with the assistance and professional service of Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) under contract with New Hampshire Homeland Security Emergency Management (HSEM) operating under the guidance of Section 206.405 of 44 CFR Chapter 1 (10-1-2010 Edition). This plan is funded, in part, by HSEM through grants from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration). Funds from city dues and matching funds for team member’s time are also part of the funding formula.

B. Purpose & History of the FEMA Mitigation Planning Process The ultimate purpose of Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) is to: “establish a national disaster hazard mitigation program – Reduce the loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption and disaster assistance costs resulting from natural disasters; and Provide a source of pre-disaster hazard mitigation funding that will assist States and local governments (including Indian tribes) in implementing effective hazard mitigation measures that are designed to ensure the continued functionality of critical services and facilities after a natural disaster.”1 DMA 2000 amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by, among other things, adding a new section “322 – Mitigation Planning” which states: “As a condition of a receipt of an increased Federal share for hazard mitigation measures under subsection (e), a State, local, or tribal government shall develop and submit for approval to the President a mitigation plan that outlines processes for identifying the natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities of the area under the jurisdiction of the government.”2 HSEM’s goal is to have all New Hampshire communities complete a local all-hazard plan as a means to reduce future losses from natural and man-made events before, during, or after they occur. HSEM has outlined a process whereby communities throughout the state may become eligible for grants and other assistance upon completion of this multihazard plan. The state’s regional planning commissions are charged with providing assistance to selected communities to help develop local plans.

1 2

Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000, Section 1, b1 & b2 Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000, Section 322a

7|Page

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Rochester’s All-Hazard Mitigation Plan is a planning tool for reducing future losses from natural and man-made disasters as required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000; this plan will be adopted as an appendix to the city’s master plan. The All-Hazard Mitigation planning process results in significant cross talk regarding all types of natural and manmade hazards by team members.

The DMA places new emphasis on local mitigation planning. It requires local governments to prepare and adopt jurisdiction-wide hazard mitigation plans as a condition for receiving Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMPG) project grants. Local governments must review the plan yearly and update their plans every five years to continue program eligibility.

C. Jurisdiction This plan addresses only one jurisdiction – the City of Rochester, NH. Once approved by the Planning Team, the Plan will be forwarded to HSEM and FEMA for Conditional Approval. Upon review and conditional approval by HSEM and FEMA, the City Council will hold a public hearing, to consider public comments and must promulgate a signed Resolution to Adopt the Plan.

D. Scope of the Plan A community’s all-hazard mitigation plan often identifies a vast number of natural hazards and is somewhat broad in scope and outline. The scope and effects of this plan were assessed based on the impact of hazards on: Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CI/KR); current residential buildings; other structures within the City; future development; administrative, technical and physical capacity of emergency response services; and response coordination between federal, state and local entities.

E. All-Hazard Planning Process The planning process consists of ten specific steps. Many factors affect the ultimate sequence of the planning process: length of meetings, community preparation and attendance, and other community needs. All steps are included but not necessarily in the numerical sequence listed. The steps are: 1: 2: 3.

4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10:

Establish and Orient a Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Identify Past and Potential Hazards Identification of Hazards and Critical Facilities Assessing Vulnerability – Estimating Potential Losses Analyze Development Trends Existing Mitigation Strategies and Proposed Improvements Develop Specific Mitigation Measures Prioritized Mitigation Measures Mitigation Action Plan Adopt and Implement the Plan 8|Page

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 F: Involvement The Public, Neighboring Communities, Agencies, Non-profits and other interested parties Public involvement has been and continues to be stressed starting with the initial meeting; community officials were given a list of potential team members before the first review meetings were held. These included the city council, the conservation commission, the planning board, the school board, the zoning board, the police department, the fire department, the library trustees, and the tax collector. Local business owners, interested organizations, and residents of Rochester were also invited to participate. Community officials were urged to contact as many people as they could to participate in the planning process. A public notice, stressing the public nature of the process, was sent to area newspapers. While the Committee aimed at targeting input from the public, there was no response from any public citizens, neighboring communities, or local businesses. This is most likely due to the fact scheduled meeting times could only be held during the day, while most people are at work. Future consideration for night meetings was discussed. While there was little input from the public a state representative for the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, District Six was able to make the strategy meeting and offer his expertise to the Committee. Although they were not able to attend any of the meetings, input was solicited from the City Engineer and the Wastewater Treatment Plant Chief Operator.

Public Announcement City of Rochester Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Strafford Regional Planning Commission has begun the update process for Rochester’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and the first meeting of the Rochester Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee has been scheduled for Monday, November 28th at 1:00 pm at the Rochester Community Center, Conference Room 1A. The first meeting will include: a brief background of the Hazard Mitigation Planning process, necessary updates for the current 2005 Rochester Hazard Mitigation Plan, and first steps for reviewing recent natural hazard events, such as the 2006 flood. All citizens, businesses, officials and interested parties are invited.

If you are unavailable to attend, please forward any ideas or concerns to: Kyle Pimental, Regional Planner, Strafford Regional Planning Commission, 994-3500 or kpimental@strafford.org or to Norm Sanborn, Emergency Management Director at 335-7545 or norm.sanborn@rochesternh.net. This update of the 2005 Rochester Hazard Mitigation Plan is funded by FEMA under contract to Strafford Regional Planning Commission, and is a collaborative planning process with the City of Rochester.

G: Narrative Description of the Process and Methodology The Plan is being developed with substantial local, state and federal coordination; completion of this new all-hazard plan required significant planning preparation. All meetings are geared to accommodate brainstorming, open discussion and an increased awareness of potential threats to the City.

9|Page

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Planning Team Meeting 1: November 28, 2011 Members present: Bob Jaffin (Strafford Regional Planning Commission Representative), Dennis Schafer (MIS System Supervisor), Norm Sanborn Jr. (Fire Chief), Mark Dupuis (Assistant Fire Chief), Melodie Esterberg (Public Work Director), Kenn Ortmann (Planning and Development Department Director) and Kyle Pimental (Strafford Regional Planning Commission).

Kyle Pimental of the Strafford Regional Planning Commission explained the reason for this meeting and provided an outline of what he hoped to accomplish at the upcoming meetings. He provided a draft version of the first five chapters and stated that he had been working on moving the existing plan in to the new format that was going to be used for all plans in the future. Kyle stated that the object of this effort was to update the Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan that was adopted in 2006. All municipalities are required to update their mitigation plans in order to be eligible for FEMA funds in the event of a natural or man-made hazardous event. The committee began by going through and reviewing the first four chapters.

Chapter I: All-Hazard Planning Process. The group discussed having more active members of the project planning team present at the next and future meetings. It was stated that members from the school department, the hospital, and members of the police department should be involved in the planning process, especially when it is time to brainstorm new mitigation action items. It was also acknowledged that interested citizens of the community are encouraged to attend the meeting and participate in the process.

Chapter II: Community Profile. The basic information was accurate, except a few minor adjustments. The sections on past and future development trends were assigned to the planning director with assistance from the economic development department. This data would be collected at a later date and reviewed by the committee. The group also updated a number of statistics of interest (Table 2.1) for Kyle to add.

Chapter III: Hazard Identification. The group made suggestions for new hazards to be added to this section. They were: public health threats, hazard material or human induced events, large local event incidents, and impacts from adjoining region event including radioactive fallout and evacuations. All hazards were evaluated, ranked, and prioritized according to the type and severity of each hazard. This chapter included a number of tables showing past hazards and events to include. A map will be updated with this data.

Chapter IV: Critical Infrastructure & Key Resources. With team discussion and brainstorming, resources within Rochester were identified. Facilities that may need protection because of their importance to the City and residents during hazardous events were discussed and identified. A number of new infrastructure and potential resources were added to the existing table. It was discussed that this table needed to be worked through more thoroughly at the next meeting.

The next meeting date was scheduled for December 16, 2011.

10 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Planning Team Meeting 2: December 16, 2011 Members present: Bob Jaffin (Strafford Regional Planning Commission Representative), Dennis Schafer (MIS System Supervisor), Norm Sanborn Jr. (Fire Chief), Mark Dupuis (Assistant Fire Chief), Melodie Esterberg (Public Work Director), and Kyle Pimental (Strafford Regional Planning Commission).

Kyle Pimental of the Strafford Regional Planning Commission kicked off the meeting by reviewing the chapters that were updated in the previous meeting. There was a discussion on suggestions and edits that still needed to be made and what resources were available in order to get the most up to date information. The hazard rankings were reviewed, with special focus on the new hazards that were added to the plan update.

Next, the planning committee gathered around a GIS print out map of Rochester and the group mapped out all the past and potential flooding areas. Both members from the Fire & Rescue Department assisted in locating the potential and areas of concern for wildfire and structure fires.

The planning committee spent the majority of time during the meeting reviewing Chapter IV: Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources. The group continued to brainstorm resources within Rochester that may need protection because of their importance to the City and residents during hazardous events. A continued number of new infrastructure and potential resources were added to the existing table.

Chapter V: Multi-Hazard Effects in Rochester. The group held a discussion on the importance of identifying the critical facilities and other structures that are most likely to be damaged by hazards in Rochester. It was decided that the City Engineer would get a copy of the finalized list (Chapter IV) of all the critical infrastructure and key resources throughout the City and be asked to highlight which buildings or structures have been subjected to any flooding or past damage from previous storm events. From there, Kyle would attach their assessed values to a table in order to provide a preliminary risk assessment.

Lastly, the group reviewed the section on calculating potential losses. It was agreed upon that the group would be using the assumption that hazards that impact structures could result in damage 0-1%, 1-5%, or 5-10% of Rochester’s structures, depending on the nature of the hazard, whether or not the hazard is localized, and its economic impact.

In the interest of time it was decided that the economic impact calculations would be completed by Kyle and Bob in their next planning advising session. Those results would be tabulated and then presented to the planning group during the next meeting in order to reach consensus.

The next meeting date was scheduled for March 9, 2012

11 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Planning Team Meeting 3: March 9, 2012 Members present: Bob Jaffin (Strafford Regional Planning Commission Representative), Dennis Schafer (MIS System Supervisor), Norm Sanborn Jr. (Fire Chief), Mark Dupuis (Assistant Fire Chief), Kenn Ortmann (Planning and Development Department Director), and Kyle Pimental (Strafford Regional Planning Commission).

Kyle Pimental of the Strafford Regional Planning Commission started the meeting by reviewing Chapter IV and the entire list of new infrastructure that was compiled. Small edits and additions were made. The team also reviewed the hazard map that was created by digitizing the mark-ups made at the previous meeting. The committee then reviewed the economic loss section that was completed by Kyle and Bob in their previous planning advising session. Each hazard was reviewed and a discussion was held in order to make sure the correct dollar value and probability was assigned to each hazard. The committee continued updating the next chapters.

Chapter VI: All-Hazard goals and Existing Mitigation Strategies. The team reviewed the goals in their existing plan and read through the New Hampshire Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan 2010 in order to make sure they were consistent. Next, the planning committee reviewed and updated the mitigation strategies currently underway in Rochester. The team updated the existing matrix table with the 2013 update column for each of the existing strategies.

Chapter VII: Prior Mitigation Plan(s). The team reviewed the current mitigation strategies table. Filled in and finalized all the gaps and improvements. The recent accomplishments table was reviewed and final edits were made.

Lastly, the STAPLEE method was reviewed and a discussion on the NEW potential mitigation strategies took place. Kyle handed out copies of examples and asked the group to come to the next meeting prepared with their own strategies and implementation/responsibility schedule.

The next meeting date was scheduled for May 11, 2012.

Planning Team Meeting 4: May 11, 2012 Members present: Bob Jaffin (Planning Board), Dennis Schafer (MIS System Supervisor), Mark Dupuis (Assistant Fire Chief), Steve Ireland (NHDOT) and Kyle Pimental (Strafford Regional Planning Commission).

The team came up with Potential Mitigation Strategies using the STAPLEE method. The STAPLEE method was developed by FEMA to determine the effectiveness in accomplishing the goals set forth in the plan. STAPLEE method analyzes the Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental aspects of a project and is commonly used by the public for making planning decisions. Each proposed mitigation strategy was then evaluated and assigned a score based on the criteria each category was discussed and awarded the following scores: Good=3; Average=2; Poor=1.

12 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Each strategy that was prepared was discussed by the committee and was evaluated, then scored accordingly. After scoring, an implementation schedule was discussed along with City staff responsibilities.

Kyle discussed the final process of the update and the next steps the City would have to go through in their adoption process and agreed to email the group a final draft copy in a week for their final review and any other edits to be made before submitting to FEMA for conditional approval.

Kyle told the team he would email them when FEMA gave their conditional approval letter in order to schedule a board of selectmen meeting for adoption.

If another meeting date is needed for any reason, it would be set for some time in June or July.

On a quarterly basis, staff working on this update met one-on-one with Bob Jaffin to discuss the planning process and review work completed by the planning committee.

Planning Advising Session with Bob Jaffin: Kyle Pimental, SRPC Regional Planner, held an initial meeting with Bob Jaffin to discuss the hazard mitigation plan update. Both members reviewed and read through the existing plan and decided how to move forward. Each chapter was reviewed and a list was created on what topics needed to be discussed and updated by the planning committee.

Suggestions were made on which members of the Rochester planning committee were going to be invited to the hazard mitigation meetings and what other resources were available.

Planning Advising Session with Bob Jaffin: Kyle Pimental, SRPC Regional Planner, held a second meeting with Bob Jaffin to review all the edits and work that has been completed to the plan thus far. Both members spent a majority of their time reviewing the hazards and their rankings. Edits and updates were made to the hazard listings. Another topic of the plan that was worked through was the potential and economic loss section. Both Kyle and Bob went through each hazard and with input from the planning committee calculated potential losses by identifying the probability, impact of severity, and economic loss for each hazard.

Planning Advising Session with Bob Jaffin: Kyle Pimental, SRPC Regional Planner, held the third and final meeting with Bob Jaffin.

This meeting was to review the final draft of the hazard mitigation plan update before being submitted to FEMA for conditional approval. Both members read through the plan and discussed final edits and made corrections as needed. There were a number of discussions and suggestions on the final mitigation actions table. Edits were made to the implementation schedule and details were given on other potential grants to be included in the appendix section.

13 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Chapter II: Community Profile A. Introduction

The City of Rochester, NH

The City of Rochester is located in the southeast portion of Strafford County in southern New Hampshire. Rochester is bounded on the north by Farmington, on the east by Berwick, Maine, on the south by Somersworth and Dover and on the west by Barrington and Strafford.

With a population of 29,752 (according to the 2010 Census), Rochester is one of the largest cities in the seacoast region and the sixth largest city in New Hampshire The City of Rochester consists of 46 square miles and is located only 30 minutes from Lake Winnipesaukee and the Lakes Region, the Atlantic Ocean and the Great Bay National Estuary. The topography of Rochester consists of rolling hills and rivers. The Cocheco River runs through the heart of the city, and the Salmon Falls River forms the border between Rochester and Maine. Major highways include Routes 11, 108,125, 202 and the Spaulding Turnpike (Route 16), a four-lane, limited access highway with six exits providing access to the City.

Rochester's climate is temperate. Normal average temperature is 47 degrees F. The average rainfall is 41.9”. The City is known as the “Lilac City” because of the extensive plantings of these flowering shrubs. Rochester has a 4-season climate that is conducive to outdoor activities. The city offers a variety of activities including swimming, boating, fishing and hiking.

Incorporated: 1722 Origin: This town was one of four granted by Samuel Shute during his brief term as Governor of Massachusetts, which at the time included the New Hampshire province. The 1722 grant included what is now Farmington and Milton, and was named for a close friend of Governor Shute, Laurence Hyde, Earl of Rochester, who was a brother-in-law to King James II. The first settlers arrived in 1728, but due to trouble with Indians, the settlement didn't experience any growth until about 1760. Rochester was incorporated as a city in 1891. It includes the village of Gonic, named for the Indian Squamanagona, meaning day and water.

Villages and Place Names: East Rochester, Gonic Population, Year of the First Census Taken: 2,857 residents in 1790 Population Trends: Population change for Rochester, the ninth largest numeric increase among the cities and towns, totaled 14,787 over 50 years, from 13,776 in 1950 to 28,563 in 2000. The largest decennial percent change was a 24 percent increase between 1980 and 1990. The 2009 Census estimate for Rochester was 30,957 residents, which ranked fifth among New Hampshire's incorporated cities and towns.

Population Density and Land Area, 2008 (NH Office of Energy & Planning): 693.6 persons per square mile of land area. Rochester contains 44.8 square miles of land area and 0.6 square miles of inland water area.

Source: Economic & Labor Market Bureau, NH Employment Security, 2010.

14 http://strafford.org/towns/towncensus/rochestert2010.pdf

|Page

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 The City Manager serves as the Chief Executive of the City Government and is responsible for the day-to-day supervision and direction of most City Departments. The City Manager is appointed by the City Council on the basis of his/her qualifications and serves at their pleasure. In addition, the City Manager serves as chief policy advisor to the Council and represents the interests of the City in dealing with other municipalities, and the state and federal governments.

The Rochester Fire Department serves the City with a dedicated and well-trained staff of firefighters who use state of the art equipment and apparatus. The Department consists of 37 full-time firefighters and officers with 25 on-call members.

Staff: 1 Chief, 1 Assistant Chief, 1 Deputy Chief, 1 Fire Marshal, 1 Fire Prevention Captain Line: 4 Captains, 4 Lieutenants, and 24 Firefighters: These are broken down into four shifts with a Captain and Lieutenant on each shift.

Call Firefighters: 25 on call Firefighters respond to numerous types of emergencies throughout Rochester's 49 square miles on a daily basis from two stations, making quick and efficient responses throughout the City. The 7,000 square foot Gonic Fire Station is manned by one Lieutenant and two firefighters that operate as an engine company. The facility includes living quarters, a physical training room, a meeting/training room and an office from which general fire department business can be conducted. The Central Station is manned by one Captain and four firefighters.

The Department has: four pumpers, one tanker (3000 gallons), two aerial devices (1-110’ ladder & 1-100’ tower), one heavy-duty Rescue unit and one Forestry unit, two command vehicles, one fire prevention truck, and one utility vehicle. They also has: one air trailer, one technical rescue trailer, one radiological response trailer, and one point of distribution trailer.

Other full time departments include the Police Department, Water and Sewer Departments, Public Works, Assessing, Code Enforcement, MIS, Planning, and Economic Development.

Frisbie Memorial Hospital is a 112-bed acute care community hospital located in Rochester. The medical staff includes approximately 250 physicians and other healthcare professionals, representing nearly 30 specialty care services. The hospital serves adults, children and infants from Rochester and the greater Strafford County and Southern Maine areas.

15 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 B. Rochester’s History & Past Development Trends The City of Rochester (1722), like many historic municipalities in Strafford County, relied on the Cocheco, Salmon Falls, and Isinglass Rivers to power an early industrial center. This business center included lumbering, agriculture, and a variety of industrial businesses such as Spaulding Composites Inc., which has existed in the City for more than a century.

In 1806, several tanneries were in operation, as well as a saw mill, two grist mills, and one cloth fulling mill. By the mid 1830’s, a cabinet maker, clockmaker and mechanics company specializing in the production of woolen blankets for the Union Army had located its operation to Rochester. The 1850’s brought the establishment of the E.G. & E. Wallace Shoe Company, which eventually became the City’s largest employer with over 700 employees by the turn of the twentieth Century.

As a result of steady industrial growth during the nineteenth Century, Rochester was able to incorporate as a city in 1891. Subsequently, workers were attracted from as far away as Canada, traveling to Rochester by way of four railroads, which conveniently passed through its borders.

During the Great Depression the New England economy was devastated, with the downturn rapidly spreading from urban centers to the countryside and affecting tens of thousands of people. Like many other New Hampshire municipalities, Rochester lost several large industries to bankruptcy and witnessed the relocation of many to southern states where operating costs were less expensive.

In more recent years, the City of Rochester benefited greatly from the development of Route 16 (Spaulding Turnpike), completed in the early 1950’s. The turnpike has proved essential to the City’s ability to attract large businesses as it has for the entire New Hampshire seacoast region.

Steady residential and commercial growth in the 1980’s and 1990’s, especially in the Gonic area on the south side of City, as well as explosive residential growth during the late 1990’s and into the 2000’s, have contributed to a progressive, bustling City which has, in many respects, withstood the country’s most recent economic recession beginning in 2007.

16 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 C. Current & Future Development Trends The City of Rochester is located in southeastern New Hampshire’s Strafford County, along the Spaulding Turnpike (NH Route 16) corridor within the New Hampshire and Maine seacoast region. Rochester’s location ties it primarily to the economic influences of the greater Dover, Somersworth, and Portsmouth region, with secondary economic influences stemming from the Lakes Region (Alton/Wolfeboro), west to the Northwood and Deerfield area, south to Portsmouth, and east to the greater Sanford Maine area.

According to data provided by the City’s Accessing Department, Rochester contains approximately 27,000 acres (42.18 square miles) of area, 638 acres of which is surface water (1 square mile). The City lies within the watersheds of the Salmon Falls, Piscataqua, and Cocheco River watersheds, with a dense network of tributary streams connected by large wetland complexes, lakes and ponds existing throughout. As stated within the City’s 2009 Master Plan, significant portions of Rochester’s land area (1,775 acres) is located within the 100 year floodplain as identified by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps (2006). According to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Flood Rate Insurance Mapping (FIRM) and aerial imagery (2010), there are only a limited number of structures located within this floodplain, greatly reducing potential impacts to municipal infrastructure. To ensure these protections continue, the City’s Zoning Ordinance prohibits any development or encroachment which will result in an increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance requires that new and replacement water systems to be located in flood prone areas be designed to eliminate infiltration of flood waters, avoid potential contamination, and requires documentation of flood proofing for all new or improved structures with the lowest floor of any new or renovated residential structures being no lower than the 100 year flood level.

Within the City’s borders, 50% of the land is used for residential purposes, 17% is used for Commercial and industrial purposes and the final 33% currently remain undeveloped.

Today, there are 259 miles of roadway that service Rochester, with access points at exits 11 - 16 along the Spaulding Turnpike, as well as from Routes 202, 11, 108 and 125.

According to the City Engineer, 80 miles of municipal sewer, 120 miles of municipal water lines, 440 drainage outfalls and 2300 manholes are in place to service the City, its residents and future developments.

Since 1998, Rochester’s population growth has fallen behind both the region and many surrounding communities (particularly those located north of Rochester). From 2000 to 2010, the City experienced a 1.22% average annual increase in housing units, a 0.79% average annual increase in households and a 0.43% average annual population increase.

However, this trend is beginning to change. As the supply of housing units in communities south of the City continues to decline, and average home prices continue to rise, Rochester is often seen as more “affordable” when compared with other communities. While new home construction is not at pre-recession levels, Rochester is currently working with several housing developers on projects throughout the City aimed at providing accessible, affordable housing for Rochester’s highly mobile, young professional target market.

17 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 In addition to reasonable housing prices; the City offers a diversified economic base; including several advanced manufacturing companies, retailers, restaurants, hospitality, and health care providers. Like many local communities, the City was forced to adapt to a changing economy by investing funds in a variety of public programs to offset the impacts caused by the current recession. City personnel worked throughout the past five years to revitalize the downtown and create a regional shopping destination attraction. In 2009, Rochester created a Small Business Retention Program for “at risk” retailers, restaurants, and other businesses. The program provided marketing services and scholarship programs with educational opportunities for local business owners and staff.

This effort ties directly to the Rochester Economic Development Strategic Plan (August 2006) which brought forth the goal of assisting the City, Rochester School District, and local businesses to work together in training the public for the benefit of the local economy.

Based on an analysis of local retail and commercial listings, Rochester currently contains approximately 70,000 square feet of available space. The City’s largest employment and establishment industrial sector is retail trade, which supports one in five of the community’s jobs and businesses. Rochester completed a retail analysis with the goal of targeting developers and companies from across the country; an effort which resulted in thousands of City retail jobs over the past ten years. Recent retail development activity, such as the new Home Depot, Hannaford’s, Kohl’s and Lowe’s, along with proposed retail developments within Rochester’s permitting “pipeline”, suggests that retailers currently seek to capture existing consumer demand from the greater Rochester region.

While the City has experienced some recent success with the addition of new businesses, it has witnessed very large, less diversified companies falling into dissolution. This fact has led many business owners to focus more closely on research and development activities that are essential to remaining viable in the twenty-first century economy. The City’s ability to better control developable industrial land and utilize its vast transportation network, attract businesses to invest in the downtown and riverfront areas, improve educational attainment of students in the local school system, and cultivate a prosperous community image is essential to future growth.

Flooding Event – Rochester, NH 18 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Table 2.1 Statistics of Interest to Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Table 2.1: Statistics of Interest to Multi-Hazard Planning City of Rochester Karen Pollard, Economic Development Manager 31 Wakefield Street, City Hall Rochester, NH 03867 Population

Phone

(603) 335-7522

Fax

(603) 335-7597

Email Website

Karen.pollard@rochesternh.net www.rochesternh.net

2010

2000

1990

1980

1970

City of Rochester

29,752

28,461

26,630

21,560

17,938

Strafford County

123,589

112,676

104,348

85,408

70,431

Elderly Population (% over 65)

13.2%

Median Age

38.8

Regional Coordination County

Strafford

Regional Planning Commission

Strafford Regional Planning Commission

Watershed Planning Region(s)

Cocheco River Watershed

Tourism Region

Lakes/Seacoast

Municipal Services & Government Type of government

Council/Manager

Select Board

No

Planning Board

Yes; Appointed

Library Trustees

Yes; Appointed

Conservation Commission

Yes; Appointed

Building Inspector/Health Officer

Yes

Master Plan

Yes; Last amended 2011

Capital Improvement Plan

Yes; 2011

Emergency Operation Plan (EOP)

Yes

Zoning & Land Use Ordinances

Yes; 2005

Subdivision Regulations

Yes

Building Permits Required

Yes

Flood Ordinance

Yes

Percent of Local Assessed Valuation by Property Type, 2009 Residential Buildings

76.0%

Commercial Land & Buildings Public Utilities, Current Use, and

21.7% 2.3%

19 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Table 2.1: Statistics of Interest to Multi-Hazard Planning Emergency Services Emergency Warning System(s)

Code Red

Police Department

Yes; Full-time

Fire Department

Yes; Full-time

Fire Stations

2

Town Fire Insurance Rating

4/9

Emergency Medical Services

Private – Frisbie Hospital

Established EMD

Yes

Nearest Hospital Utilities

Frisbie Memorial, Rochester [Local; 82 staffed beds)

Public Works Director

Yes

Chief Operator Waste Water/Sewer

Yes

Water Supplier

Municipal

Electric Supplier

PSNH

Natural Gas Supplier

Northern Utilities

Cellular Telephone Access

Yes

High Speed Internet

Yes

Telephone Company

Fairpoint

Public Access Television Station

Yes

Pipeline(s) Transportation

Methane Gas Line

Evacuation Routes Nearest Interstate

No official routes Spaulding Tpk., Exits 12-16; I-95, Exit 5 [local access; 21 miles]

Railroad

NH Northcoast

Public Transportation

COAST

Nearest Airport Scheduled Service

Manchester-Boston Regional [distance 42 miles]

Nearest Public Use Airport

Skyhaven, Rochester

Housing Statistics, 2010 Census Data Total Households

12,378

Average Household size

2.38

Total Housing Units

13,372

Occupied Housing Units

12,378

Vacant Housing Units

994

20 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Table 2.1: Statistics of Interest to Multi-Hazard Planning Other Web site

www.rochesternh.net

Local Newspapers

Fosters Daily Democrat; Rochester Times

State (E) 911 GIS data available

In process

Assessed structure value 2010

$1,384,968,200

National Flood Insurance Program

Yes; June 1979

Repetitive Losses

0

Information found in Table 2.1 was derived from local input or the Economic & Labor Market Information Bureau, NH Employment Security, 2010 and the Census 2010.

Flooding Event – Rochester, NH

21 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Chapter III: Hazard Identification A. Hazard Rankings The nature of each hazard type and the quality and availability of corresponding data made the evaluation of hazard potential difficult. The Rochester Hazard Mitigation Committee considered what data was at hand and used its collective experience to formulate statements of impact or potential. Each hazard type is assigned a general ranking of high (H), medium (M), or low (L) likelihood and/or impact.

The Team determined that the hazards are distributed as follows: 2 hazards ranked as being high in Rochester are: Extreme Weather Events; Hazardous Material or Human Induced Threats 4 hazards ranked as being medium in Rochester are: Wildfire [based on the urban rural interface] and Large Structure Fires; Impacts from adjoining region events including Radioactive Fallout and Evacuations; Geomagnetic or Electromagnetic Events; and Public Health Threats 3 hazards ranked as being low in Rochester are: Earthquakes, Landslides, Subsidence; Large Event Incidents; Extreme Heat and Drought B. Description of Hazards This chapter describes the location and extent of hazards that could impact the City of Rochester, presents past hazard events in Rochester or elsewhere in New Hampshire that have had effects in Rochester, and discusses their rank order placement. The Hazard Mitigation Committee investigated past and potential hazards using a variety of sources and techniques, including but not necessarily limited to interviewing City historians and other citizens; researching historical records archived at the City Library; scanning old newspapers; reading published City histories; consulting various hazard experts; and extracting data from the NH Hazard Mitigation Plan and other state and federal databases. Where spatial data were available, past and potential hazards were mapped.

1) Extreme Weather Events (High) Wind Damage o Rochester's location in southeast New Hampshire makes it somewhat more susceptible to extremely high winds and flooding that are associated with hurricanes. There have been relatively recent instances where hurricanes uprooted trees onto structures, specifically Hurricane Gloria in 1985 and Hurricane Bob in 1991. The great hurricane of 1938 devastated much of south coastal New England, causing significant damage in Rochester. Significant hurricanes could be expected to affect Rochester approximately every 15-20 years. Although this frequency is relatively low, the damage from a hurricane that makes landfall in Coastal New Hampshire could be enormous. Hurricanes can and do create flooding. The mobile home parks in Rochester would be most susceptible to wind damage from a hurricane.

22 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 o Hurricanes, tornadoes, microbursts have been reported regularly, although infrequently since 2006 throughout this area.

Ice and Snow Damage o In the New England region, the winter season may extend from September to May. Severe winter weather includes snow, sleet, icy storms, freezing rain, and hail. Possible damage may include: felled trees, downed power lines with loss of electrical power, structure collapse under the weight of snow, blocked or narrowed right-of-ways, frozen or restricted water/sewer lines, flooding caused by ice-jammed rivers or storm drains, train derailments, and traffic accidents.

Winter storms will continue to affect the City of Rochester regularly. According to the National Climatic Data Center web site at least 67 significant winter storms have affected Strafford County. Records from the early 1900's and from the 1950's through 1980's indicate multiple occurrences of extremely heavy snowfalls. More recently, in March 1993, February 1996, and three times in Winter 2002, heavy snow events occurred. Perhaps most significantly in recent history, January 1998 brought a devastating ice storm, after which the President issued a Disaster Declaration for the State of New Hampshire (with the exception of Rockingham County). Since 2006 there have been presidentially declared disasters and of those residentially to lead disasters included Strafford County and/or Rochester. The likelihood of winter storms affecting Rochester is very high, as demonstrated by events occurring regularly since the December 2008 ice storm.

Flooding (Riverine & Dam Breach) o Flooding has occurred repeatedly in Rochester since 2006. Recent year weather patterns and DES and University weather studies indicate that we will see more precipitation in fewer events leading to more flooding events. Overlay analysis of floodplains on structures in the City revealed a large number of structures in the floodplain and thereby exposed to flooding. o No dam breaches are on record in Rochester, but the potential for serious damage does exist from the Rochester Reservoir Dam, a Class S – Significant Hazard Structure. The inundation area is quite extensive, and a breach would especially affect areas along the Isinglass River, a major tributary of the Cocheco River, and immediately downstream of the Reservoir. Although the hazard potential is arguably even greater from dams on the Cocheco and Salmon Falls Rivers, dam inundation areas had not yet been delineated at the time of this study, so risk associated with breach of these dams cannot be considered here. [This is one of the many reasons that a full-scale vulnerability study is being recommended for calendar year 2013. There have been significant flooding and dam related issues starting in 2006.] Of further note is the overlap of the Rochester Reservoir Dam inundation area with that of the Bow Lake Dam, a Class H – High Hazard Structure in the Town of Strafford. The Isinglass River begins at the Bow Lake, so floodwaters from any breach would affect the same stretch of the Isinglass in Rochester that would a Reservoir breach. Damages, with the assumption of total loss, would probably be about the same.

23 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 2) Hazardous Material or Human Induced Threats (High) Transportation of chemicals and bio-hazardous materials to and from Canada or Maine by railroad or truck is a concern. The seasonal influx of vacationers in our area is of concern to the firefighters and emergency care providers as far as preparing for protection of these visitors in the case of an accidental release. New Hampshire Northcoast rail line runs through Rochester, mostly carrying freight and crossing major city streets at signaled, street-level crossings in several locations. Potential for accidents exist at rail crossings. The Spaulding Turnpike (Route 16) is a main highway from southern New Hampshire to the Lakes Region and the White Mountains that passes through Rochester and close to the downtown area. Traffic accidents occur on this highway regularly, and hazardous materials are routinely carried on this road. No disastrous accidents on either the highway or rail system in Rochester have been recorded. Safety regulations and enforcement are fairly strict, so the likelihood of an accidental and seriously damaging release of harmful chemicals in Rochester is quite small. If an accident does occur, though, especially close to downtown, the percentage of the population exposed to the hazard could be large.

1) Wildfire [Based on the urban rural interface] & Large Structure Fires (Medium) The cause of wildfire may include arson, lightning, and burning of debris. The damage may include road closures, burned trees, a destroyed ecosystem, property damage, and loss of life. If the fire is detected and put under control immediately after breakout, the damage may be minimized. Although the City is urbanized and relatively densely populated, several large (300-800 acres) areas of unfragmented lands (further than 500’ from Class I – V roads) remain, a significant amount of which is forested. Much of the rest is agricultural land, but residences do occur around the periphery of the unfragmented areas. Due to continued residential development and recent extreme weather events of the last five years, fire loads in proximity to local rights-of-way through heavily urbanized areas has grown significantly and has created situations similar to the 1938 hurricane which in turn led to the 1947 forest fires. Conditions that favor wildfire are likely to recur on a periodic basis. The City should anticipate recurrence of such conditions (1947 forest fires).

2) Impacts from adjoining region events including Evacuations and Radioactive Fallout (Medium) Adjoining Region Events and Evacuations o Large scale events that could impact Rochester may include:  Bike Week – Laconia, NH  Pease Air Show – Portsmouth, NH  New Hampshire Motor Speedway – Loudon, NH  Dam Failure or Forced Release (Milton Dam/Spaulding Dam) o Upon completion the Seacoast Evacuation Plan will deem Rochester a reception sight for the entire Seacoast region during an emergency. o The Seabrook Evacuation Plan has deemed Rochester a reception sight for Portsmouth, in the case of an emergency with regards to the nuclear power plant.

24 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 o The Portsmouth International Airport at Pease sees frequent military traffic, as it retains its military capacity as a New Hampshire Air National Guard base. With military charters using this airport regularly, there is a concern for a military aircraft or commercial plane crash over Rochester.

Radioactive Fallout o Rochester’s proximity to the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant’s falls within one of their two emergency planning zones, which is an ingestion zone of about 50 miles, concerned mainly with ingestion of food and liquid contaminated by radioactivity. With increased seismic activity all over the world, the likelihood of an incident pertaining to the stability of the plant and potential contamination has become more of a concern.

3) Geomagnetic/Electromagnetic Events (Medium) Geomagnetic and electromagnetic disturbances are of potential risk to Rochester.

Such could be events of significance for all communications and signaling, that includes electric power utilities, pipeline operations, municipal water systems, highway signaling devices, and all emergency communications. Nothing can be done to shield earth from these events. Effects could include electrical grid failure, complete communications failure, command control signaling and warning system failure and water distribution system failure, as well as failure of wireless, satellite, and landline telephone and data services throughout City.

Traditionally, serious geomagnetic disturbances have been rare; recent scientific research indicates an increasing cycle of sunspots and there are growing indications that the concept of EMP can be or has been used as a weapon.

Although many such events are naturally occurring, human activities are unlikely to have any effect on the frequency of these events, that does not mean that alternate command control and communication systems should not be examined in light of recent scientific data. This is yet another area that needs to be examined specifically in the proposed threat and vulnerability assessment conducted in 2013.

4) Public Health Threats (Medium) The City of Rochester is an active member of the Strafford County Public Health Network (SCPHN): a collaborative of local governments and health and human service agencies preparing for and responding to public health emergencies on a regional level. A public health emergency is broadly defined as the occurrence of an event that affects the public’s health and can be caused by natural disasters, biological terrorism, chemical terrorism, accidental releases or naturally occurring communicable disease outbreaks. Of greatest concern to cities within the SCPHN are public health emergencies including: o Communicable Disease Outbreaks: Outbreaks of communicable diseases may be small and localized or impact thousands of people across an entire continent. Outbreaks may also refer to epidemics, which affect a region in a country or a group of countries, or pandemics, which describe global disease outbreaks. With an increase in international travel there is a 25 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 concern of an outbreak from other countries being transported back; especially into the school systems and health care facilities. Rochester recognizes the need to plan for response to health care facilities, the school systems, elderly populations, and public transportation. Rochester also recognizes distribution levels of the strategic national stockpile in the city. o Massive Foodborne or Waterborne Disease Outbreaks: Foodborne or waterborne illness is caused by harmful bacteria, viruses, parasites or chemicals that are found in food and beverages and enter the body through the gastrointestinal tract. Potential sources of a public health disease outbreak in the region include contaminated municipal water supplies, failed wastewater facilities, restaurants and community events where food and beverage are distributed. Rochester recognizes that given any massive failures to wastewater, water treatment, and sewage the City would depend on the State for assistance.

1) Earthquakes, Landslides, Subsidence (Low) Earthquake o New England experiences an average of 30-40 earthquakes per year although most are not felt. Due to the solid bedrock geology of New England, an earthquake will affect a much larger area than an earthquake of similar magnitude in California. The State of New Hampshire lies in an area of the Northeastern United States that has a “Moderate� risk from seismic activity.

On April 19, 2002, a 5.1 earthquake centered near Plattsburgh, N.Y. hit New Hampshire. The tremor was felt in Rochester, but did not cause any damage.

Earthquakes can cause buildings and bridges to collapse, disrupt gas, electric and phone lines, and often cause landslides, flash floods, fires, avalanches, and tsunamis. Larger earthquakes usually begin with slight tremors but rapidly take the form of one or more violent shocks, and end in vibrations of gradually diminishing force called aftershocks. There is no season for earthquakes. They can occur at any time without warning. The Committee could find no records of earthquake damage in Rochester. Significant seismic activity in southeast New Hampshire is rare. Given the proximity to past significant events, the likelihood of a significant seismic event occurring in the future should be considered moderate. The most significant earthquake in the Rochester area was the Cape Ann quake that occurred November 18, 1875.

Landslides o The potential for landslide in Rochester is minimal. The City is mostly a lowlying area with little topographic relief, sitting at about 200 feet above sea level. There are some hilly areas west of the City, especially south of the Spaulding Turnpike, along the Rochester Reservoir and the Barrington Town line, where elevations rise to about 500 feet. Soils are not generally of unstable types that would contribute to landslide events. There is no record of any landslide activity in Rochester, and the lack of physical conditions that would promote landslide indicates a minimal likelihood of occurrence.

26 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Subsidence o Land subsidence, the loss of surface elevation due to removal of subsurface support, occurs in nearly every state in the United States. Subsidence is one of the most diverse forms of ground failure, ranging from small or local collapses to broad regional lowering of the earth's surface. The causes (mostly due to human activities) of subsidence are as diverse as the forms of failure, and include dewatering of peat or organic soils, dissolution in limestone aquifers, first-time wetting of moisture-deficient, low-density soils (hydrocompaction), natural compaction, liquefaction, crystal deformation, subterranean mining, and withdrawal of fluids (ground water, petroleum, geothermal). Subsidence poses a greater risk to property than to life. Damage consists of direct structural damage, property loss, and depreciation of land values. Subsidence conditions are thought to be rare at most in Rochester, so the probability of occurrence should be considered minimal.

2) Large Local Event Incidents (Low) Large local event incidents that impact Rochester include: o Rochester Fair – which takes place at the Rochester Fairgrounds and is the largest single outdoor venue in the city, with the capability to attract thousands of people. o Skyhaven Airshows – while there hasn’t been any airshows recently, there is the potential for them to return. In years past, this has been a widely viewed event in Rochester. o Rodger Allen Park – an assortment of athletic fields which are used daily by children and families for baseball, football, and soccer games. On any given day these fields are filled with people. o Downtown Events – During the holidays there are parades and other celebrations. These types of events often change traffic patterns and signalization, which has an effect on impact response from both the fire and police departments.

3) Extreme Heat and Drought (Low) Extreme Heat o Normally, the state enjoys variably moderate temperatures throughout the summer months with occasional peaks of high temperature and humidity.

Extreme heat may come from a lasting heat wave in the summer. The major threat from extreme heat to humans is heat stroke and exhaustion. Elderly citizens are especially affected. Roads, bridges, and railroads can be damaged in very high temperature, and utilities may need more energy for artificial cooling to remain functional. Other structures used by humans may have a similarly increased energy demand. The 2010 census shows Rochester with 4,397 citizens over 65 (14.8%), so the number of people at risk from the hazard is significant. Direct impacts and extensive and variable indirect effects of extreme heat make an estimate of economic losses difficult. The City of Rochester has good availability of heat emergency sheltering for the elderly, so exposure of the elderly to extreme heat hazards is low to moderate.

Heat wave conditions will continue to affect the Rochester area. The City 27 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 should anticipate periodic recurrence of such conditions. An Internet search of temperature and climate data shows a high frequency of heat wave conditions, characterized by 3 consecutive days of temperatures exceeding 90 degrees F. Drought o Droughts are characterized by prolonged periods of lack of rainfall. The ground water table and surface waters may drop to very low levels. Droughts may last for months, years, or decades in extreme cases. New Hampshire has forest coverage, numerous rivers, lakes, ponds, and wetlands contributing to adequate ground and surface water resources. The last drought that occurred in the southeastern portion of the state was from 1999 through 2002.

Conditions during the summer and fall of 2002 were particularly severe. The city gets its water from one main source and is vulnerable to drought conditions. Damage caused by drought may include: dryness of vegetation and structures with an increase of fire hazards, lack of adequate potable water, and soil erosion by wind. Firefighting may be hampered by a lack of water.

Without adequate water flow, the Town sewers may not function, and, if the river courses were to become dry, the Waste Water Treatment Plant may not be able to discharge treated wastewater. Impact on local agriculture also could be severe. Also, the likelihood of secondary hazards, such as wildfire due to extreme dryness of environmental fuels, may increase. Drought and dry conditions will continue to affect the Rochester area. The National Climatic Data Center web site documents several recent dry spells/droughts that have affected Strafford County since 1999. The City should anticipate periodic recurrence of such conditions. Furthermore, global climate change could be leading to an increased frequency, duration, and severity of droughts.

Flooding Event – Rochester, NH 28 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 C. Rochester Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Status Rochester has been a member of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since June, 1979. The City does have significant portions of land in the 100-year floodplain; along Rickers, Howard, Axe Handle, Heath, and Willey Brooks, areas along Hanson Pond, and portions of the Isinglass River. There are limited structures within this floodplain according to available GIS Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data and aerial imagery (2010). Also, as reported in FEMA’s Biennial Flood Report (last submitted on 10/22/2007) Rochester is listed as having 350 (only 20 of which are 1-4 family structures) total structures in the floodplain and has had no repetitive loss claims3.

As noted in the Regulatory Floodway Zone4: A. Purpose. This ordinance, adopted pursuant to the authority of RSA 674:16, shall be known as the City of Rochester Floodplain Development Ordinance. The regulations in this ordinance shall overlay and supplement the regulations in the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance, and shall be considered part of the Zoning Ordinance for purposes of administration and appeals under state law. If any provision of this ordinance differs or appears to conflict with any provision of the Zoning Ordinance or other ordinance or regulation, the provision imposing the greater restriction or more stringent standard shall be controlling B. All proposed development in any special flood hazard areas shall require a permit.

Rochester has continued communication with FEMA to discuss NFIP compliance issues, especially with designated flood areas. In 2011, the New Hampshire Geological Survey conducted a fluvial erosion assessment on the Cocheco River. The study evaluated the physical conditions, adjacent floodplain, and identified problematic areas such as crossings, culverts and locations where erosion may be a hazard. These zones will be mapped and will be used to identify areas most at risk to erosion, flooding and future river adjustments through an understanding of the physical condition of the river, and to identify priorities for the replacement and rehabilitation of problematic culverts, and river restoration projects. In the future the City will continue to look into revising their zoning ordinances that would improve floodplain management in the community.

D. Probability of Future Potential Disasters Rochester is prone to a variety of man-made and natural hazards. These include: dam failures, riverine and ice jam flooding, severe wind events, wildfire, drought, earthquakes, ice storms and severe winter storms. Severe wind events, hurricane residuals and downbursts have also caused damage to Rochester in the past. New Hampshire lies over an area of "moderate risk" seismic activity.

Table 3.1 provides more information on past and potential hazards in Rochester.

3

FEMA Biennial Flood Report; from August 29, 2011 email, Jennifer Gilbert, NH Office of Energy & Planning 4 Rochester Zoning Ordinance. City of Rochester, New Hampshire. Amended through 8/3/10.

29 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Table 3.1: Historic Hazard Identification Blue = Past Events Red = Recent & Potential Hazards Hazard

Date

Location

Remarks

Source

Past or Potential Flooding Hazards: Riverine flooding is the most common disaster event in the State of New Hampshire (aside from frequent inconveniences from rather predictable moderate winter storms). Significant riverine flooding impacts upon some areas in the State in less than ten year intervals. The entire State of New Hampshire has a high flood risk.

Flooding

Flooding

Flooding

Flooding

Flooding

Flooding

March 1936

State-wide

Worst flooding in New Hampshire history.

“Raging Rivers and the WPA” by William P. Fahey.

New Hampshire Administrator.

October 1936.

July 1973

Belknap, Carroll, Cheshire, Coos, Grafton, Hillsborough, Severe storms, Merrimack, flooding Rockingham, Strafford, and Sullivan Counties

FEMA Disaster Declaration #399

March 1987

Carroll, Cheshire, Grafton, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Severe storms, Rockingham, flooding Strafford, Sullivan Counties

FEMA Disaster Declaration #789

October 1996

Grafton, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Severe storms, Rockingham, flooding Strafford, and Sullivan Counties, NH.

FEMA Disaster Declaration #1144

May 2006

Belknap, Carroll, Hillsborough, Severe storms and Merrimack, flooding Rockingham, and Strafford Counties.

FEMA Disaster Declaration #1643 (Individual Assistance) & Local Knowledge

April 2007

FEMA Disaster Grafton, Hillsborough, Declaration #1695 Merrimack, Severe storms and (Individual and Public Rockingham, and flooding Assistance) Strafford Counties. & Local Knowledge

Past or Potential Wildfire Hazards: New Hampshire is heavily forested and is therefore vulnerable to wildfire, particularly during periods of drought. The proximity of many populated areas to the state’s forested lands exposes these areas their populations to the potential impact of Wildfire. *Note: Damage from the Hurricane of 1938 created a fire load situation that led to the 1947 wildfire.

Wildfire

October 1947

Rochester (Maine/NH)

Biggest fire to strike Rochester. Over 30 Local Knowledge homes were lost.

30 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Hazard

Date

Location

Remarks

Source

Past or Potential Tornado, Downburst (Wind Shear) & Hurricane Hazards: Tornados are spawned by thunderstorms and, occasionally by hurricanes, and may occur singularly or in multiples.

A downburst is a severe localized wind blasting down from a thunderstorm. Downburst activity is very prevalent throughout the State, yet most go unrecognized unless significant damage occurs.

Hurricanes develop from tropical depressions, which form off the coast of Africa. New Hampshire’s exposure to direct and indirect impacts from hurricanes is real, but modest, as compared to other states in New England.

Hurricane ‘38

September State-wide 1938

High winds, downed trees, road closures, and loss of electricity.

News clipping Sept.

19, 1998. Rochester Times, Historical Record.

Hurricane Carol

November State-wide 1954

High Winds

Local Knowledge

Hurricane Bob, Severe storm

FEMA Disaster Declaration #917

Belknap, Carroll, Severe storms, Merrimack, Tornado, and Rockingham, and Flooding Strafford Counties

FEMA Disaster Declaration #1782

Hurricane Bob

August 1991

Severe Storm Event

July 2008

State-wide

Wind Storm

February 2010

Grafton, Hillsborough, FEMA Disaster Merrimack, Declaration #1892 Rockingham, Severe winter storm (Public Assistance) Strafford, and Sullivan & Counties Local Knowledge

Tropical Storm Irene

August 2011

Belknap County, Carroll, Coos, Grafton, FEMA Disaster Tropical Storm Irene Merrimack, Strafford, Declaration #4026 and Sullivan Counties

Past and Potential Severe Winter Weather Hazards: Severe weather in New Hampshire may include heavy snowstorms, blizzards, Nor’easters, and ice storms. Generally speaking, New Hampshire will experience at least one of these hazards during any winter season. Most New Hampshire communities are well prepared for such hazards.

Ice Storm

Snowstorm

January 1998

March 1993

NH – Statewide

Major tree damage, electric power interrupted for many days. Schools were closed.

Committee and FEMA Disaster Declaration #1199

New England

Snow removal, high winds.

FEMA Emergency Declaration #3101

31 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Hazard

Date

Location

Remarks

Source

March 2001

Cheshire, Coos, Grafton, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Snow removal Rockingham, and Strafford Counties, NH.

FEMA Emergency Declaration #3166.

March 2003

Cheshire, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Snow removal Rockingham, and Strafford Counties, NH.

FEMA Emergency Declaration #3177.

Snowstorm

January 2005

Belknap, Carroll, Cheshire, Grafton, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Snow removal Rockingham, Strafford and Sullivan counties.

FEMA Emergency Declaration #3207

Snowstorm

April 2005

Carroll, Cheshire, Hillsborough, Snow removal Rockingham and Sullivan counties.

FEMA Emergency Declaration #3211

Snowstorm

Snow storm

Belknap, Carroll, Cheshire, Coos, Grafton, Hillsborough, December Winter Storm, snow Merrimack, 2008 removal Rockingham, Strafford, and Sullivan Counties.

FEMA Disaster Declaration #1812 (Public Assistance) & Local Knowledge

Snowstorm

Belknap, Carroll, Cheshire, Grafton, Hillsborough, Winter Storm, snow March 2005 Merrimack, removal Rockingham, Strafford, and Sullivan

FEMA Emergency Declaration #3207

Snowstorm

Belknap, Carroll, Cheshire, Coos, December Grafton, Hillsborough, Winter Storm, snow 2008 Merrimack, removal Rockingham, Strafford, and Sullivan

FEMA Emergency Declaration #3297

Ice Storm

Snowstorm

October 2011

Belknap, Carroll, Cheshire, Coos, Grafton, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Severe storm Rockingham, Strafford, and Sullivan Counties

FEMA Emergency Declaration #3344

32 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Map 1: Historic & Potential Hazards

33 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Chapter IV: Critical Infrastructure & Key Resources (CF/KR) With team discussion and brainstorming, Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CI/KR) within Rochester were identified for the all-hazards plan.

Emergency Response Facilities (ERF) ERF's are primary facilities and resources that may be needed during ID Facility Type of Facility Rochester Police Station Police Department Central Fire Station Fire Department Gonic Fire Station Fire Department Frisbie Memorial Hospital Hospital Public Works Department Public Works

an emergency response Address Phone 23 Wakefield Street (603) 330-7127 37 Wakefield Street (603) 335-7545 Maine Street & Route 125 (603) 11 Whitehall Road (603) 332-5211 45 Old Dover Road (603) 332-4096 Rochester Hill Road N/A Water Tower/Communications Communication Function Salmon Falls Road N/A Chesley Hill Road N/A Cell Towers Communication Function N/A N/A 20 Allen Street - Rochester (603) 332-1429 36 Main Street – Gonic Post Office Post Office (603) 332-5115 62 Main Street (Unit 2) – (603) 332-0049 East Rochester Bridges – Due to time constraints the planning committee was not able to complete a formal prioritization process.

Spaulding Avenue bridge over Transportation Spaulding Avenue N/A the Salmon Falls River NH16 bridge over Betts Road Transportation Betts Road N/A NH16 bridge over Cross Road

Transportation

Flat Rock Road bridge over Transportation Salmon Falls River US202/NH11 bridge over Transportation Salmon Falls River Salmon Falls Road bridge over Transportation Heath Brook Little Falls Road bridge over Transportation Cocheco River NH125 bridge over Transportation US202/NH11 WB US202/NH11 bridge over Transportation NH125 NH16 bridge over NH16 Transportation Connector US202/NH11 bridge over BMRR Transportation US202/NH11 bridge over Transportation Chestnut Hill Road US202/NH11/NH16 bridge over Transportation BMRR US202/NH11/NH16 bridge over Transportation Cocheco River

Cross Road

N/A

Flat Rock Road

N/A

US 202/NH 11

N/A

Salmon Falls Road

N/A

Little Falls Road

N/A

NH125

N/A

US202/NH11

N/A

NH16

N/A

US202/NH11

N/A

US202/NH11

N/A

US202/NH11/NH16

N/A

US202/NH11/NH16

N/A

NH11 over US202/NH16

Transportation

NH11

N/A

Four Rod Road bridge over Rickers Brook

Transportation

Four Rod Road

N/A

34 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Emergency Response Facilities (ERF) US202/NH16 bridge over Ten Transportation Rod Road Portland Street bridge over Transportation Wardley Brook NH202A bridge over Cocheco Transportation River US202/NH16 bridge over Transportation NH202A

US202/NH16

N/A

Portland Street

N/A

NH202A

N/A

US202/NH16

N/A

Transportation

NH202A

N/A

Transportation

NH16

N/A

Transportation

Recreation Trail

N/A

Lowell Street bridge over Willow Transportation Brook

Lowell Street

N/A

NH125 bridge over Cocheco River

Transportation

NH125

N/A

US202 bridge over Rickers Brook

Transportation

US202

N/A

Chesley Hill Road bridge over Rickers Brook

Transportation

Chesley Hill Road

N/A

NH125 bridge over Axehandle Brook

Transportation

NH125

N/A

BMRR over Haven Hill Road

Transportation

BMRR Railroad

N/A

NH16 NB bridge over NH125

Transportation

NH16

N/A

NH16 SB bridge over NH125

Transportation

NH16

N/A

NH16 bridge over Cocheco River

Transportation

NH16

N/A

Old Dover Road bridge over Wardley Brook

Transportation

Old Dover Road

N/A

NH16 off ramp bridge over Wardley Brook

Transportation

NH16

N/A

Transportation

Maple Street

N/A

Transportation

Tebbetts Road

Transportation

NH16

N/A

Transportation

Stillwater Circle

N/A

Transportation

NH125

N/A

Transportation

Rochester Neck Road

N/A

NH202A bridge over Rickers Brook NH16 bridge over Axehandle Brook Recreation Trail bridge over Cocheco River

Maple Street over Cocheco River Tebbetts Road bridge over NH16 NH16 bridge over Blackwater Road Stillwater Circle bridge over brook NH125 bridge over Isinglass River Rochester Neck Road bridge over Isinglass River

N/A

35 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Non-Emergency Response Facilities (NERF) NERF's are facilities considered essential for the everyday operation of Rochester, that although critical, not necessary for the immediate emergency response effort.

ID Facility Rochester City Hall Rochester Community Center Wastewater Treatment Plant Water Mains Sewer Lines Water Treatment Plant

Type of Facility City Hall Community Center

Address 31 Wakefield Street 150 Wakefield Street

Phone (603) 335-7500 (603) 332-7845

Treatment Plant

175 Pickering Road

(603) 332-8950

Treatment Plant

64 Strafford Road (202A) (603) 335-4291 Rochester Hill Road N/A Salmon Falls Road N/A Chesley Hill Road N/A Columbus Ave 21 Jarvis Ave (603) 332-5466 217 Washington Street N/A 201 South Main Street N/A Industrial Way & Ten Rod N/A 15 Gina Drive N/A 169 Gonic Road N/A 54 Ledgeview Drive N/A 6 Weeping Willow Drive N/A 40 Lowell Street N/A 15 Warren Ave N/A 182 South Main Street N/A Innovative Drive (Safran site) N/A 19 Ryan Circle N/A 91 Airport Drive N/A 10 Western Ave N/A 724 Salmon Falls Road N/A 13 Front Street N/A 89 Main Street N/A 235 Salmon Falls Road N/A 48 Autumn Street N/A 16 Gonic Road N/A 23 Kirsten Ave N/A 121 Washington Street N/A 8 Bridge Street N/A 18 Community Way N/A 62 River Street N/A 2 Ray Drive N/A 25 Farmington Road N/A 20 Thomas Street N/A 15-A Capital Circle N/A 36 Chestnut Hill Road N/A 63 Pickering Road N/A 2 Matildas Way N/A

Water Tower

Water Supply

Telephone Central Office Metrocast Office Water Pump Station Water Pump Station Water Pump Station Water Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station

Communication Function Communication Function Pump Booster Station Pump Booster Station Pump Booster Station Pump Booster Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station (future station) Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station

36 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Non-Emergency Response Facilities (NERF) Wastewater Pump Station Pump Station Wastewater Pump Station Pump Station (future station) Wastewater Pump Station Pump Station Turnkey Recycling & Environmental Enterprise Waste Management (TREE) Industrial Park

23-A Sterling Driver Route 108 20 Fillmore Boulevard (pr.)

N/A N/A N/A

Rochester Neck Road

(603) 330-0217

Facilities and Populations to Protect (FPP) FPP's are facilities that need to be protected because of their importance to the Town and to residents who may need help during a hazardous event Schools and Daycare Facilities ID Facility Name Type of Facility Address Phone Spaulding High School High School 130 Wakefield Street (603) 332-0757 Middle School Middle School 47 Brock Street (603) 332-4090 Chamberlain St. School School 65 Chamberlain Street (603) 332-5258 School East Rochester School 773 Portland Ave (603) 332-2146 Gonic School School Railroad Ave (603) 332-6487 School Maple Street School 27 Maple Street (603) 332-6481 McClelland School School 59 Brock Street (603) 332-2180 School Nancy Loud School 5 Cocheco Ave (603) 332-6486 School Street School School 13 School Street (603) 332-6483 School William Allen School 23 Granite Street (603) 332-2280 Bud Carlson Academy School 150 Wakefield Street (603) 332-3678 School Lighthouse Christian Academy (603) 335-1151 St. Elizabeth Seton School School 95 Bridge Street (603) 332-4803 Monarch School of New School (603) 332-2848 England Jack and Jill Kindergarten School 56 Whitehall Road (603) 332-3177 Richard W. Creteau Regional School 140 Wakefield Street (603) 335-7351 Technology Center Emmanuel Child Care Center Day Care Facility 24 Eastern Ave (603) 332-5353 Rochester Child Care Center Day Care Facility 16 Charles Street (603) 332-9333 At Risk Neighborhoods Isinglass Urban Development Manufactured Housing N/A N/A Village at Riverside Manufactured Housing Day Lily Lane N/A Cocheco River Estates Manufactured Housing Monadnock Drive N/A Commercial and Industrial Development Lilac Mall Mall 25 Lilac Mall (603) 332-9234 Granite State Business Park Industrial Park Route 108 N/A Granite Ridge Develop. District Commercial/Economic Impact (603) 335-7522 NH Northcoast Industrial Park Industrial Park Route 125 N/A Industrial Park Gonic Industrial Park N/A Gerrity Business/Industrial Park Industrial Park N/A Ten Rod Road Industrial Park Industrial Park Ten Rod Road N/A Industrial Park Crossroads Industrial Park N/A Lydall Filtration/Separation Engineering Products 134 Chestnut Hill Road (603) 332-4600

37 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Facilities and Populations to Protect (FPP) Animal Services Broadview Animal Hospital Animal Services Myhre Equine Clinic Animal Services Animal Health Center Animal Services Long-Term Care Facilities Rochester Manor Care Facility Lilac View Care Facility Colonial Hill Care & Care Facility Rehabilitation Center Meadow View Manor Care Facility Studley Home Care Facility Fairgrounds Large scale events Critical Utilities Rail Line Rail Methane Gas Line Methane Gas Transmission Lines Natural Gas Utilities Power Grid Telephone Eastern Propane Corporate Headquarters Emergency Fuel Source Storage Facility

134 Ten Rod Road 100 Ten Rod Road 22 Lowell Street

(603) 335-2120 (603) 335-4777 (603) 332-3358

Whitehall Road 11Dreyer Way

(603) 332-7711 (603) 332-7004

62 Rochester Hill Road

(603) 335-3955

749 Salmon Falls Road 15 Easter Ave Fairgrounds

(603) 335-2288 (603) 332-1738 (603) 332-6585 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

28 Industrial Way Behind Market 1-800-523-5237 Basket Railroad Ave

Potential Resources (PR) PRs are potential resources that could be helpful for emergency response in case of a hazardous event Fuel/Retail/Transportation Services/Providers ID Facility Name Type of Facility Address Phone Behind Market Easter Propane Storage Emergency Fuel Source Basket 1-800-523-5237 Facility Railroad Ave Oil/Fuel Providers Midway (603) 332-8258 Irving (603) 330-0034 Rymes N/A Fuel Source N/A N/A Hometown N/A Webber (603 )664-1080 Just Oil (603) 330-0800 Local Pride Wal-Mart Retail/Generator Supplier 116 Farmington Rd (603) 332-4300 Home Depot Retail/Generator Supplier 280 North Main Street (603) 335-1300 Lowes Retail/Generator Supplier 160 Washington Street (603) 833-4000 K-Mart Retail 116 Farmington Road (603) 332-2430 Brocks Retail 298 North Main Street (603) 332-4065 290 North Main Street Hannaford(s) Retail (603) 332-9401 11 Milton Road Market Basket Retail 96 Milton Road (603) 335-7780 SUR Construction Construction Contractor 233 Chestnut Hill Road (603) 332-4554 Route 125 R.V. & Marine RV Service Route 125 (603) 335-0112

38 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Potential Resources (PR) Tow Trucks

Police Assistance

N/A

Heavy Lifting & Rigging 33 Littleworth Moores Crane Rental (603) 740-3613 Road (Dover) (603) 335-2084 Rochester Truck Emergency Assistance N/A (603) 436-3200 (HULK) N/A National Wrecker Alliance for Community Transportation Infrastructure 42 Summer Drive (Dover) (603) 743-5777 Transportation (ACT) COAST Bus Service Transportation Infrastructure 42 Summer Drive (Dover) (603) 743-5777 Goffstown Truck Area Transportation Infrastructure 35 Industrial Way (603) 509-2904 Rochester School Bus Transportation Infrastructure Other Health Care Facilities Homemakers Health Services Health Care Facility 215 Rochester Hill Road (603) 335-1770 Rochester District VNA Adult Care Facility 178 Farmington Road (603) 332-1133 (Visiting Nurse Association) Airport/Helipad Sky Haven Airport Airport 238 Rochester Hill Road (603) 332-0005 Other Resources Army Reserve Army Reserve 70 Rochester Hill Road (603) 335-0122 National Guard Armory National Guard Armory 106 Brock Street (603) 332-6567 Dams Boston Felt Dam Salmon Falls River Low Hazard N/A Baxter Lake Center Dike Rickers Brook Low Hazard N/A City Dam I Cocheco River Low Hazard N/A Hatfield Dam Cocheco River Low Hazard N/A Mill Pond Dam Cocheco River Low Hazard N/A Baxter Lake East Dike Rickers Brook Low Hazard N/A Spaulding Pond Dam Salmon Falls River Significant Hazard N/A Baxter Lake Main Dam Rickers Brook Significant Hazard N/A Rochester Reservoir Dam Howard Brook Significant Hazard N/A Upper Gonic Dam Cocheco River Significant Hazard N/A Lower Gonic Dam Cocheco River Significant Hazard N/A Rochester Sewage Lagoon Wastewater Treatment Plant Significant Hazard N/A Three Ponds Dam - Milton Salmon Falls River Significant Hazard N/A * A Low Hazard Structure means a dam that has a low hazard potential because it is in a location and of a size that failure or misoperation of the dam would result in no possible loss of life and low economic loss to structures/property. * A Significant Hazard Class means a dam that has a significant hazard potential because it is in a location and of a size that failure or misoperation of the dam would result in no probable loss of lives but major economic loss to structures or property.

Water Resources (WR) Auxiliary Fire Aid ID Facility Name Wells Fire Aids River Access Points Water Towers

Type of Facility Fire Aid/Water Supply Fire Aid Fire Aid Fire Aid/Water Supply

Address

Phone N/A N/A N/A N/A

39 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Chapter V. Multi-Hazard Effects in Rochester A. Identifying Vulnerable Structures It is important to identify the critical facilities and other structures that are most likely to be damaged by hazards. In Rochester, there were five CI/KR within the potential and past flood areas (PPFA) that were identified in the risk assessment for a potential loss value estimate of $5,600,000.00 at 100%.

Critical Infrastructure & Key Resources

Facility

100 % of Structure Value

Type of Hazard

100% of Structure Value

Dams

Boston Felt Dam

The Dam Bureau at NHDES has looked into assessing values for state-owned dams with marginal success. They considered bond ratings, market value, and construction costs. They also developed a formula that calculated the cubic feet of water impounded as a monetary value.

Because dams serve different purposes (recreational, hydro-power), assessed values are hard to estimate and cannot be determined accurately.

Flooding

Bridges5 Salmon Falls Road Bridge over Heath Brook

Flooding

$200,000.00

Chesley Hill Road Bridge over Rickers Brook

Flooding

$600,000.00

Wastewater Pump Station [Front Street]

Flooding

$1,800,000.00

Wastewater Pump Station [Salmon Falls Road]

Flooding

$1,200,000.00

Wastewater Pump Station [Gonic Road]

Flooding

$1,800,000.00

Other Critical Infrastructure

Total

$5,600,000.00

[Note: The City’s Wastewater Treatment Plan Facility Chief Plan Operator, David Green, assisted in estimating the costs for the three pumping stations. These estimates were based on past construction of upgrades and replacements to smaller stations and the cost to include a new wet well, earthwork, new building structures, equipment replacement, and generators. It also takes into consideration the cost to tie back into the system after construction is completed.

5

The approximate assessed value for the bridges was calculated by multiplying $1,000.00 per square foot of bridge. This estimate was provided by the Bridge Design Bureau at NHDOT and includes all cost (engineering, consulting and in-house design, construction, etc.) to build a new bridge.

40 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 B. Identifying Future Vulnerable Structures During 2011, a total of 33 new building permits were issued to developers working in the City of Rochester. Out of the 33 building permits, 20 were for residential uses and the remaining thirteen were issued for commercial uses. The 2011 commercial and residential building permits were issued for properties located throughout the City.

Several commercial building permits were dispensed to properties located on Turnkey Way at the southeast end of the municipal boundary with Barrington. Residential building permits were issued to properties located on Crimson Lane, Millers Farm Drive, Gagne Street and several other streets throughout the City. Construction work in Rochester has remained active, when compared to other municipalities in the region, but has tapered off significantly. According to the City’s most recent building permit data, between 2004 and 2011 there has been an 87% decline in growth for all new building construction with very little mobile homes and multi-family buildings being constructed.

New Buildings 2011 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Single Family Detached 162 108 76 89 59 36 Multi Family 17 6 9 4 0 0 Mobile Home 65 55 40 17 0 0 Commercial 0 0 5 14 14 7 Industrial 0 0 6 1 0 0 Total 244 169 136 125 73 43 [Note: October, November, December were not available for FY2011]

2010 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011 20 0 0 13 0 33

Total 550 36 177 53 7 823

As mentioned in earlier sections, the City has experienced some recent success with the addition of new businesses; it has witnessed very large, less diversified companies falling into dissolution. This fact has led many business owners to focus more closely on research and development activities that are essential to remaining viable in the twentyfirst century economy. The City’s ability to better control developable industrial land and utilize its vast transportation network, attract businesses to invest in the downtown and riverfront areas, improve educational attainment of students in the local school system, and cultivate a prosperous community image is essential to future growth.

For any major subdivisions in the near future, Rochester has a Regulatory Floodway Zone for all subdivisions and proposals for other developments to reduce or eliminate flood damage.

The New Hampshire Geological Survey will provide the City with maps, upon completion, of the Fluvial Erosion Assessment (2010) on the Cocheco River. This data will be used as a planning tool when discussing plans for new residential developments, commercial infrastructure, and critical facilities.

The City will also use this Plan as a guide to determine where past hazards have been documented and try to steer potential development away from these hazard areas.

41 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 C. Calculating the Potential Loss It is difficult to ascertain Assessed Value of All Structures (only) Low Medium High Economic Loss the amount of damage 1% damage 5% damage 10% damage 2010 that could be caused by a natural or man-made *Residential 971,138,718 9,711,387 48,556,935 97,113,871 hazard because the Manufactured 122,951,900 1,229,519 6,147,595 12,295,190 damage will depend on *Commercial 262,383,682 2,623,836 13,119,184 26,238,368 the hazard’s extent and 28,493,900 284,939 1,424,695 2,849,390 severity, making each *Tax Exempt 1,384,968,200 13,849,682 69,248,410 138,496,820 hazard event somewhat Total Source: Department of Revenue Administration; 2010 Report unique. Therefore, we *Total assessed value takes into account land and property value, except for have used the Manufactured. assumption that hazards that impact structures could result in damage 0-1%, 1-5%, or 510% of Rochester’s structures, depending on the nature of the hazard, whether or not the hazard is localized, and its economic impact.

Based on this assumption, the potential loss from any of the identified hazards would range from $0 to $13,849,682 or $13,849,682 to $69,248,410 or $69,248,410 to $138,495,820 based on the 2010 Rochester City valuation, which lists the assessed value of all structures in Rochester to be $1,384,968,200 (see chart above).

Human loss of life was not included in the potential loss estimates, but could be expected to occur, depending on the severity and type of the hazard.

The Hazards Extreme Weather Events (wind, ice/snow, and flooding damage)….$0 to $13,849,939 Power outages, extreme cold, felled trees, flooding, and impacts to infrastructure are all effects of extreme storms that have been felt in Rochester in the past. All of these impacts are a risk to the community. Damage caused as a result of these types of hazards varies according to wind velocity, snow accumulation, and high water levels. Extreme weather events can be expected with a high probability, a high impact of severity each year, but a low economic loss.

Wildfire (urban rural interface and large structure)……$69,248,410 to $138,495,820 Between the storm events experienced since 2006 and the population growth Rochester has seen, fire load conditions are similar to the conditions seen right before the 1947 forest fire and thus the highest internal threat for the city. Currently, there is an abundance of limbs and branches on the forest floor and the city may be susceptible to wildfire during drought; causes include but aren’t limited to arson, lightning, and the burning of debris. A wildfire can be expected with a high probability, a high impact of severity within any given year, as well as a high economic loss. The damage may include destroyed ecosystems, property damage, and the potential for loss of lives.

42 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Earthquakes, Landslides, Subsidence……………………………….$0 to $13,849,939 It is well documented that there are fault lines running throughout New Hampshire, but high magnitude earthquakes have not been frequent in New Hampshire history. Land subsidence, the loss of surface elevation due to removal of subsurface support, occurs in nearly every state in the United States and is one of the most diverse forms of ground failure, ranging from small or local collapses to broad regional lowering of the earth's surface. Given the lack of incidents of these kinds of events in Rochester’s history it can be expected to occur with a low probability, a low impact of severity within any given year, and a low economic loss.

Large Local Event Incidents……………………………………..……$0 to $13,849,939 Rochester experiences a number of large scale local events each year. These events often attract large numbers of people into confined locations raising public safety concerns, alter traffic patterns, and disrupt emergency response. Given the number of incidents that Rochester experiences it can be expected to occur with a high probability, a low impact of severity within any given year, and a low economic loss.

Impacts from adjoining region events…………..…..……..$13,849,939 to $69,248,410 Impacts from adjoining region events are especially important to consider when discussing large scale events outside the city limits and evacuations. Rochester’s geographic size and location have made it susceptible to be impacted by these kinds of events and is a reception site for both the Seabrook and Seacoast Evacuation Plans. Given the number of incidents that occur outside the city, Rochester can expect to experience impacts occurring with a high probability, a low impact of severity within any given year, and a medium economic loss.

Extreme Heat & Drought….……………………………………..……$0 to $13,849,939 There is a growing concern with the increasing number of days each summer that record a temperature of 100° Fahrenheit or greater. The 2010 census shows 4,397 citizens over 65 (14.8%), a significant elderly population that could be impacted by extreme high temperatures. Direct impacts and extensive and variable indirect effects of extreme heat and drought make an estimate of economic losses difficult. Given the lack of incidents of these kinds of events in Rochester’s history it can be expected to occur with a low probability, a low impact of severity within any given year, and a low economic loss.

Geomagnetic and Electromagnetic Events….…..…..……..$13,849,939 to $69,248,410 Recent scientific research indicates an increasing cycle of sunspots and solar activity; there are also growing indications that the concept of EMP can be or has been used as a weapon. Rochester can expect to experience impacts occurring with a high probability, a high impact of severity within any given year, and a medium economic loss.

43 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Public Health Events……………………...….…..…..……..$13,849,939 to $69,248,410 Outbreaks of communicable diseases may be small and localized or impact thousands of people across an entire continent. With an increase in international travel there is a concern of an outbreak from other countries being transported back; especially into the school systems and health care facilities. Rochester can expect to experience impacts occurring with a high probability, a low impact of severity within any given year, and a medium economic loss Hazardous Material or Human Induced Events…...…………..……$0 to $13,849,939 Transportation of chemicals and bio-hazardous materials to and from Canada or Maine by railroad or truck is a concern. New Hampshire Northcoast rail line runs through Rochester, mostly carrying freight and crossing major city streets at signaled, street-level crossings in several locations and there is a potential for accidents exist at rail crossings.

The Spaulding Turnpike (Route 16) is a main highway from southern New Hampshire to the Lakes Region and the White Mountains that passes through Rochester and close to the downtown area. The Team recognizes that there will be a need to re-evaluate this hazard after the Safran and Albany Engineering Composites companies are fully manufacturing at the Granite Business Park. Rochester can expect to experience impacts occurring with a high probability, a low impact of severity within any given year, and a low economic loss.

Flooding Event – Rochester, NH 44 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Chapter VI: All-Hazard Goals and Existing Mitigation Strategies A. All-Hazard Mitigation Goals Before identifying new mitigation actions to be implemented, the Team reviewed and adopted the following all-hazard goals. These goals were based on the State of New Hampshire Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan 2010 that was prepared and is maintained by Homeland Security & Emergency Management (HSEM).

To improve upon the protection of the general population, citizens and guests of the City of Rochester, from all natural and Human-caused hazards.

To reduce the potential impact of natural and Human-caused disasters on the Rochester’s Critical Support Services, Critical Facilities and Infrastructure.

To improve Rochester’s Emergency Preparedness, Disaster Response and Recovery Capability throughout the City.

To reduce the potential impact of natural and Human-caused disasters on Rochester’s Economy, Environment, Historical & Cultural Treasures and Private Property.

Develop pre-existing relationships from mutual aid and support To identify, introduce and implement cost effective Hazard Mitigation measures in order to accomplish goals.

To reduce Rochester’s liability with respect to natural and Human-caused hazards generally.

To address the challenges posed by increased frequency of severe weather events as they pertain to increasing risks in the City’s infrastructure and natural environment.

B. Mitigation Strategies Currently Underway in Rochester The Hazard Mitigation Committee established an initial list of mitigation actions by conducting a brainstorming session. The Committee reviewed these objectives and concluded that, with some modification, the objectives would constitute a usable framework for identifying and categorizing potential mitigation actions.

Existing Protection Matrix The Rochester Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee has developed the summary matrix of existing hazard mitigation strategies presented on the following pages. This matrix, a summary of the preceding information, includes the type of existing protection (Column 1), a description of the existing protection (Column 2), the type of hazard (Column 3), type of activity (Column 4), the area of city affected (Column 5), the effectiveness and or enforcement of the strategy (Column 6), and the 2013 Update (Column 7).

45 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Table 6.1: Existing Mitigation Strategies Matrix and Proposed Improvements Existing Program/Activity

Description

Type of Hazard

Section 42.20 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance has provisions dealing with the Floodplain Regulatory Floodway Zone. information on the Flooding The public can access this web site information on the Rochester web site to see if their home is in the floodplain.

Type of Activity

Planning

Area of City Covered

Effectiveness/ Changes in Priority Enforcement

City-Wide

The City has all zoning ordinance Completed Action: information available on the City website.

This program They also have a link available to FEMA’s Department of continues to be an Map Service site that allows users to print Building & implemented off DFIRM maps of their property for more Safety mitigation action item detailed information. The City will continue since the original to revise this ordinance as needed and plan was developed. have available to citizens.

Tree Program

Public Works clears trees from roads if they've become a hazard/after a storm.

MultiHazard

Snow Removal Plan

Outlines priorities during a snow event and where to put the snow.

Severe Winter Event

Dam Inundation Plan

Emergency Action plan in case Flooding of a dam failure.

Prevention

City Water Supply Reservoir

Building Standards (Earthquakes)

State building codes require that all new "critical" buildings Earthquakes have to be constructed using current earthquake standards.

Prevention

City-Wide

Prevention

City-Wide

Emergency City-Wide Preparedness

2013 update

Completed Action: This program The Public Works Department will continue continues to be an to clear trees from roads after a storm or if Public Works implemented they have become a hazard to existing mitigation action item traffic flow as needed. since the original plan was developed.

Completed Action: This program The Public Works Department will continue continues to be an to prioritize what roadways get plowed first Public Works implemented during a storm and where to put the snow mitigation action item as needed. since the original plan was developed.

Completed Action: This program In 2011, Wright-Pierce Engineering continues to be an completed a dam breach analysis for the State implemented Rochester Reservoir Dam. An Emergency mitigation action item Action Plan will be developed based on this since the original study, once adopted by the City. plan was developed.

Completed Action: This program All development will continue in continues to be an accordance with the 2009 International State implemented Building Codes, which requires by law that mitigation action item all critical building being constructed use since the original current earthquake standards. plan was developed.

46 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Chapter VII: Prior Mitigation Plan(s) A. Date(s) of Prior Plan(s) Rochester participated in a prior mitigation plan that was developed by the Strafford Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and adopted by the City Council in 2004. This Plan, the “All-Hazard Mitigation Plan, Rochester, NH” is an updated version.

All Committee members agreed that the ranking of the actions as presented below was valid as far as it went; however, they felt that this scoring scheme does not consider the practicality, relative cost, immediacy of need, or potential mitigation gain associated with each of the actions very well.

Table 7.1: Accomplishments since Prior Plan(s) Approval Rank

Proposed Mitigation Action

Update 2013

1

In 2011, Wright-Pierce Engineering completed a dam breach analysis for the Rochester Reservoir Dam (Significant Class Hazard Dam). An Emergency Action Plan will be developed based Update the Dam Inundation Plan. The plan is obsolete on this study, once fully adopted by the City. It and covers only the City Water Supply reservoir. should also be noted that the Squanamagonic Dam suffered major failure during a high flooding event. The decision was made to not reconstruct the dam and to have it permanently removed.

2

Completed. FEMA has issued the City new Flood Insurance Maps dated May 17, 2005 to which the Update Flood Maps. The City of Rochester has City was able to use for planning purposes. While requested that FEMA update their flood maps so that the committee acknowledges the new maps and they have more accurate information. This will be an their importance, they recognize that the region item to move forward with when FEMA is able to has experienced new weather patterns and there supply resources for the City. is still a need for updated maps that take these patterns into consideration.

3

All development will continue in accordance with Building Standards. State building codes require that the 2009 International Building Codes (IBC), all new "critical" buildings have to be constructed which requires by law that all critical building by using current earthquake standards. constructed using current earthquake standards.

4

As part of the NH Statutes Title XVII – Housing and Redevelopment; Chapter 205-D – Mobile Home Tie-Down Ordinance. Make available to Manufactured Housing Installation Standards, it mobile home owners. Research existing ordinances, states that all manufactured housing is in find a model ordinance, evaluate and pattern new accordance that meets New Hampshire ordinance to require tie-downs for future mobile installation standards. The Code Enforcement homes.

Officer ensures that all manufactured housing has the proper anchoring system to withstand wind loads as designated in the IBC.

47 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Chapter VIII: New Mitigation Strategies & STAPLEE A. Feasibility and Prioritization Table 8.1 reflects the newly identified potential multi-hazard mitigation strategies as well as the results of the STAPLEE Evaluation as explained below. It should also be noted that although some areas are identified as “Multi-Hazard”, many of these potential mitigation strategies overlap.

The goal of each proposed mitigation strategy is reduction or prevention of damage from a multi-hazard event. To determine their effectiveness in accomplishing this goal, a set of criteria was applied to each proposed strategy that was developed by the FEMA. The STAPLEE method analyzes the Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic and Environmental aspects of a project and is commonly used by public administration officials and planners for making planning decisions. The following questions were asked about the proposed mitigation strategies discussed in Table 8.1.

Social: ……………... Is the proposed strategy socially acceptable to the community? Is there an equity issue involved that would result in one segment of the community being treated unfairly?

Technical: ………….Will the proposed strategy work? Will it create more problems than it solves?

Administrative: ……Can the community implement the strategy? Is there someone to coordinate and lead the effort?

Political: …………... Is the strategy politically acceptable? Is there public support both to implement and to maintain the project?

Legal: ……………... Is the community authorized to implement the proposed strategy?

Is there a clear legal basis or precedent for this activity?

Economic: ………… What are the costs and benefits of this strategy? Does the cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and the likely benefits?

Environmental: …... How will the strategy impact the environment? Will it need environmental regulatory approvals?

Each proposed mitigation strategy was then evaluated and assigned a score based on the above criteria. Each of the STAPLEE categories were discussed and were awarded the following scores: Good = 3; Average = 2; Poor = 1. An evaluation chart with total scores for each new strategy is shown in Table 8.1.

48 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 The ranking of strategies with the scores displayed in the following pages was merely a guideline for further prioritizing. The team then prioritized the strategies and prepared the action plan using additional criteria: • Does the action reduce damage?

• Does the action contribute to community objectives?

• Does the action meet existing regulations?

• Does the action protect historic structures?

• Can the action be implemented quickly?

The prioritization exercise helped the committee seriously evaluate the new hazard mitigation strategies that they had brainstormed throughout the multi-hazard mitigation planning process. While all actions would help improve the Town’s multi-hazard and responsiveness capability, funding availability will be a driving factor in determining what and when new mitigation strategies are implemented.

B. The Team’s Understanding of Multi-Hazard Mitigation Strategies The Team determined that any strategy designed to reduce personal injury or damage to property that could be done prior to an actual disaster would be listed as a potential mitigation strategy. This decision was made even though not all projects listed in Tables 8.1 and 9.1 (Implementation Plan) are fundable under FEMA pre-mitigation guidelines.

The Team determined that this Plan was in large part a management document designed to assist the Board of Selectmen and other town officials in all aspects of managing and tracking potential emergency planning strategies. For instance, the team was aware that some of these strategies are more properly identified as readiness issues. The Team did not want to “lose” any of the ideas discussed during these planning sessions and thought this method was the best way to achieve that objective.

49 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Table 8.1: Potential Mitigation Strategies & STAPLEE New Mitigation Project Complete a vulnerability/risk assessment study to help implement and facilitate the next hazard mitigation plan update.

Type of Hazard

MultiHazard

Affected Location

City-Wide

Type of Activity

S

T

A

P

L

E

E

Total

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

17

3

19

3

17

3

18

Planning & Prevention

External Activity

3 Broadband/data capacity increase.

There is a need for critical emergency back-up transmission ability. Microwave Radio communication equipment.

MultiHazard

City-Wide

City-Wide

Fire & Rescue

City-Wide

3

3

3

3

Emergency Response Communications

Preventative & Emergency Preparedness

1 Budget Constraints

1

3

Not politically acceptable 3

Fire Department must be deployed, equipped, and trained pursuant to National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) standards and recommendations (currently not meeting response and personnel needs).

3

Infrastructure & Prevention 3

MultiHazard

3

Budget Constraints

3

3

2

Lack of Council Support

1 Budget Constraints

3

1

Budget Constraints

50 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

New Mitigation Project Conduct an engineering feasibility study on raising roadway grade on Salmon Falls Road to reduce flooding (mitigate).

National Incident Management System (NIMS) & Incident Command System (ICS). Training for elected & appointed officials.

Identify & map evacuation routes throughout the City & emergency service routes. Partner with Seacoast Evacuation Plan. Involve Director of HSEM Chris Pope and Portsmouth Assistant Fire Chief, Steve Achilles.

Type of Hazard

Affected Location

Salmon Falls North Flooding of Autumn Street

MultiHazard

Elected & & Appointed Officials

Type of Activity

S

T

A

P

L

E

E

Total

3

3

3

3

3

1

3

19

Planning & Prevention

Budget Constraints

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

21

3

3

3

2

3

2

3

19

2

18

Prevention

Multi- Evacuation Emergency Hazard Rules Preparedness

Identify suitable location for North End Fire Fire Station. Response & times not meeting Rescue standards.

Budget Constraints

3 City-Wide

Infrastructure & Additional Staff

3

3

3

3

1

Budget Environmental Constraints Impacts

51 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

New Mitigation Project Removing overhead utilities from critical access roads. Longterm goal to eliminate safety issues.

Type of Hazard MultiHazard

Affected Location

City-Wide

Type of Activity

S

T

A

P

L

E

E

Total

3

2

3

3

3

1

3

18

3

13

3

18

Planning & Prevention

Create utility problems 1

Land acquisition.

Long-term goal to remove structures from 100-year floodplain.

100-year Flooding floodplain

Comprehensive review of zoning ordinances and land use regulations to ensure compliance with best Multimanagement practices Hazard (BMPs) and accepted emergency management practices.

Comprehensive review of emergency Multicommunications Hazard systems.

Improve relationship with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region 1 to improve public awareness.

MultiHazard

Planning & Prevention

Citizens may not want this.

Property rights.

3

City-Wide

Planning

City-Wide

Emergency Preparedness

City-Wide

Outreach & Awareness

3

Budget Constraints 1

1

3

Potential to Administration be problems politically unaccepted 3

2

2

1

Budget Constraints

3

Administration Change is problems difficult

2

Budget Constraints

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

21

3

3

3

2

3

3

3

20

Political resistance with involving federal government

52 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Chapter IX: Implementation Schedule for Prioritized Strategies After reviewing the finalized STAPLEE numerical ratings, the Team prepared to develop the Implementation Plan (Table 9.1). To do this, team members created four categories into which they would place all the potential mitigation strategies.

Category 0 was to include those items, which were “continuous”, that is those that are being done and will continue to be done in the future.

Category 1 was to include those items under the direct control of town officials, within the financial capability of the Town using only town funding, those already being done or planned, and those that could generally be completed within one year.

Category 2 was to include those items that the Town did not have sole authority to act upon, those for which funding might be beyond the Town’s capability, and those that would generally take between 13—24 months.

Category 3 was to include those items that would take a major funding effort, those that the Town had little control over the final decision, and those that would take in excess of 24 months to complete.

Each potential mitigation strategy was placed in one of the three categories and then those strategies were prioritized within each category.

Once this was completed, the Team developed an implementation plan that outlined who is responsible for implementing each strategy, as well as when and how the actions will be implemented. The following questions were asked in order to develop an implementation schedule for the identified priority mitigation strategies.

WHO? Who will lead the implementation efforts? Who will put together funding requests and applications?

WHEN? When will these actions be implemented, and in what order?

HOW? How will the community fund these projects? How will the community implement these projects? What resources will be needed to implement these projects?

In addition to the prioritized mitigation projects, Table 9.1, Implementation Plan, includes the responsible party (WHO), how the project will be supported (HOW), and what the timeframe is for implementation of the project (WHEN).

53 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Table 9.1: Implementation Plan Rank

New Mitigation Project

Complete a vulnerability/risk assessment study to help 0–1 implement and facilitate the next hazard mitigation plan update.

National Incident Management System (NIMS) & Incident 0–2 Command System (ICS). Training for elected & appointed officials Comprehensive review of zoning ordinances and land use regulations to ensure compliance 0–3 with best management practices (BMPs) and accepted emergency management practices.

Improve relationship with the Federal Emergency Management 0–4 Agency (FEMA) Region 1 to improve public awareness.

Responsibility and/or Oversight

Funding and/or Support

SRPC

Matching Funds

Fire & Rescue, City Manager & Emergency Time & Commitment Management Director/Personnel

Cost Effectiveness Low Cost = <$1,000 Timeframe Medium Cost = $1,000 - $5,000 High cost = > $5,000

STAPLEE Score (21 being the highest)

High Cost ($15,000.00)

FY2013

17

No Cost.

FY2013

21

Planning Board

Municipal & In-Kind

Low Cost

FY2013

18

SRPC & Planning Board

No Requirement

Low Cost

FY2013

20

Fire Department must be deployed, equipped, and trained pursuant to National Fire 1 – 1 Prevention Association (NFPA) standards and recommendations (currently not meeting response and personnel needs).

Fire & Rescue

Municipal Funds

High Cost – Re-Occurring

FY2013FY20114

18

Conduct an engineering feasibility study on raising roadway grade 1–2 on Salmon Falls Road to reduce flooding (mitigate).

Department of Public Works

Grant & Municipal Revenues (City)

High Cost ($10,000.00 - $15,000.00)

FY2013FY2014

19

54 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Responsibility and/or Oversight

Funding and/or Support

SRPC

Municipal Revenue & Time

Police & Fire Departments

Grant Funding & Match (In-Kind)

Police & Fire

Grant Funding & Municipal Time

There is a need for critical emergency back-up transmission 2–3 ability. Microwave Radio communication equipment.

Police & Fire

Grant Funding & Municipal Funding

Land acquisition. Long-term goal *3 – 1 to remove structures from 100year floodplain

City Council & Planning Board

Identify suitable location for North *3 – 2 End Fire Station. Response times not meeting standards.

Removing overhead utilities from *3 – 3 critical access roads. Long-term goal to eliminate safety issues

Rank

New Mitigation Project

Identify & map evacuation routes throughout the City & emergency service routes. Partner with 1 – 3 Seacoast Evacuation Plan.

Involve Director of HSEM Chris Pope and Portsmouth Assistant Fire Chief, Steve Achilles.

Comprehensive review of 2 – 1 emergency communications systems.

2–2

Broadband/data capacity increase.

Cost Effectiveness Low Cost = <$1,000 Timeframe Medium Cost = $1,000 - $5,000 High cost = > $5,000

STAPLEE Score (21 being the highest)

FY2013FY2014

19

FY2015

21

FY2015

19

High Cost ($100,000)

FY2015

17

External Funds & Grants

High Cost

FY2016FY2017

13

Fire & Rescue

Municipal Revenue

High Cost - Re-occurring; While the location can be identified as early as FY2013, construction won’t begin until at least FY2017

FY2016FY2018

18

City Council/Planning Board & Utilities Co.

Private/Public Partnership

High Cost

FY2016FY2018

18

Medium Cost

High Cost; There would also be an external cost from utilities and rate payers.

High Cost; The City should be actively participating in the state sponsored broadband initative.

*Note: While the timeframe for these mitigation actions does not exceed the life of the plan (2017), there is a strong possibility they may take longer to complete.

55 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Chapter X: Monitoring, Evaluation and Updating the Plan A. Introduction A good mitigation plan must allow for updates where and when necessary, particularly since communities may suffer budget cuts or experience personnel turnover during both the planning and implementation states. A good plan will incorporate periodic monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to allow for review of successes and failures or even just simple updates.

It was stressed by the planning committee that although this plan update was completed to the best of their ability given the funding and time constraints, there remains a great need to be examined specifically in the proposed threat and vulnerability assessment to be conducted within a year or two after this planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s adoption. There were not enough tools available in order for all the necessary data to be collected and a formal vulnerability/risk assessment is needed in order to help implement and facilitate the next hazard mitigation planning phases. This was the number one mitigation action item discussed by the committee and was restated throughout the entire update as a necessary and essential part of developing a strong and worthwhile plan that will benefit City personnel, assist emergency responders, and maintain public safety.

B. All-Hazard Plan Monitoring, Evaluation and Updates To track programs and update the mitigation strategies identified through this process, the City will review the all-hazard mitigation plan annually or after a hazard event.

Additionally, the Plan will undergo a formal review and update at least every five years and obtain FEMA approval for this update or any other major changes done in the Plan at any time. The Emergency Management Director is responsible for initiating the review and will consult with members of the all-hazard mitigation planning team identified in this plan. The public will be encouraged to participate in any updates. Public announcements will be made through advertisements in local papers, postings on the town website, and posters disseminated in town. A formal public hearing will be held before reviews and updates are official.

Changes will be made to the Plan to accommodate projects that have failed or are not considered feasible after a review for their consistency with STAPLEE, the timeframe, the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s priorities or funding resources. Priorities that were not ranked high, but identified as potential mitigation strategies, will be reviewed as well during the monitoring and update of the plan to determine feasibility of future implementation. In keeping with the process of adopting this all-hazard mitigation plan, a public hearing to receive public comment on plan maintenance and updating will be held during the annual review period and before the final product is adopted by the City Council. Chapter XI contains a representation of a draft resolution for Rochester to use once a conditional approval is received from FEMA.

56 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 C. Integration with Other Plans This all-hazard plan will only enhance mitigation if balanced with all other city plans.

Rochester will take the necessary steps to incorporate the mitigation strategies and other information contained in this plan with other city activities, plans and mechanisms, such as comprehensive land use planning, capital improvements planning, site plan regulations, and building codes to guide and control development in the City of Rochester, when appropriate. The local government will refer to this Plan and the strategies identified when updating the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Master Plan, Capital Improvements Program, Zoning Ordinances and Regulations, and Emergency Action Plan. The City Council and the Hazard Mitigation Committee will work with city officials to incorporate elements of this Plan into other planning mechanisms, when appropriate.

The planning committee also discussed other integration into existing plans outside the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s borders. Specifically, both the Seacoast and Seabrook Evacuation Plans should be incorporated into this Hazard Mitigation Plan Update upon their completion. Other emergency planning mechanisms included partnerships with both PanAm/Amtrak and the Pease Development Authority as those two entities deal with two important modes of transportation (rail and air) that have a direct impact on the City.

The Emergency Management Director along with other members of the Hazard Mitigation Committee will work with the Planning Board to include the updated Hazard Mitigation Plan as a chapter in the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Master Plan. In addition, the City will review and make note of instances when this has been done and include it as part of their annual review of the Plan.

57 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Chapter XI: Signed Community Documents and Approval Letters A. Conditional Approval Letter from FEMA Email received on Tuesday, January 22, 2013 Congratulations!

FEMA Region I has completed its review of the Rochester, NH Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and found it approvable pending adoption. With this approval, the jurisdiction meets the local mitigation planning requirements under 44 CFR 201 pending FEMA’s receipt of the adoption documentation and an electronic copy of the final plan. These items should be provided to your state's mitigation planning point of contact who will ensure they are forwarded to FEMA. Acceptable electronic formats include Word or PDF files and may be submitted on a CD or via email. Upon FEMA’s receipt of these documents, a formal letter of approval will be issued, along with the final FEMA Checklist and Assessment.

The FEMA letter of formal approval will confirm the jurisdiction's eligibility to apply for Mitigation grants administered by FEMA and identify related issues affecting eligibility, if any. If the plan is not adopted within one calendar year of FEMA’s Approval Pending Adoption, the jurisdiction must update the entire plan and resubmit it for FEMA review. If you have questions or wish to discuss this determination further, please contact me at marilyn.hilliard@fema.gov or 617-956-7536.

Thank you for submitting Rochester’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation congratulations again on your successful community planning efforts.

Plan

and

marilyn.hilliard@fema.gov Mitigation Division, FEMA Region I 99 High St., 6th fl., Boston, MA 02110 617-956-7536 phone 617-956-7574 fax

58 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 B. Signed Certificate of Adoption

59 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 C. Final Approval Letter from FEMA

60 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

61 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

Appendices Appendix A: Bibliography Appendix B: Summary of Possible Multi-Hazard Mitigation Strategies Appendix C: List of Contacts Appendix D: Technical and Financial Assistance for Multi-Hazard Mitigation Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) US Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields Program (EPA) Department of Justice (DOJ) USDOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

62 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Appendix A: Bibliography Documents Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guide, FEMA, October 1, 2010 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plans o Town of Albany, 2010 o Town of Goffstown, 2009 o New Durham Hazard Mitigation Plan 2010 o Barrington Hazard Mitigation Plan 2010 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2010, State Hazard Mitigation Goals http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/hsem/HazardMitigation/documents/guide/AP PENDIX_D.pdf Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000, Section 101, b1 & b2 and Section 322a http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1935 Economic & Labor Market Information Bureau, NH Employment Security, 2009; Census

2000

and

Revenue

Information

derived

from

this

site;

http://www.nh.gov/nhes/elmi/htmlprofiles/strafford.html NCDC [National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. 2010. Storm Events

Photos Rochester Fire Department

63 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Appendix B: Summary of Possible Multi-Hazard Mitigation Strategies I. RIVERINE MITIGATION A. Prevention Prevention measures are intended to keep the problem from occurring in the first place, and/or keep it from getting worse. Future development should not increase flood damage.

Building, zoning, planning, and/or code enforcement personnel usually administer preventative measures.

1.

Planning and Zoning - Land use plans are put in place to guide future development, recommending where - and where not - development should occur and where it should not. Sensitive and vulnerable lands can be designated for uses that would not be incompatible with occasional flood events - such as parks or wildlife refugees. A Capital Improvements Program (CIP) can recommend the setting aside of funds for public acquisition of these designated lands. The zoning ordinance can regulate development in these sensitive areas by limiting or preventing some or all development - for example, by designating floodplain overlay, conservation, or agricultural districts.

2.

Open Space Preservation - Preserving open space is the best way to prevent flooding and flood damage. Open space preservation should not, however, be limited to the floodplain, since other areas within the watershed may contribute to controlling the runoff that exacerbates flooding. Land Use and Capital Improvement Plans should identify areas to be preserved by acquisition and other means, such as purchasing easements. Aside from outright purchase, open space can also be protected through maintenance agreements with the landowners, or by requiring developers to dedicate land for flood flow, drainage and storage.

3.

Floodplain Development Regulations - Floodplain development regulations typically do not prohibit development in the special flood hazard area, but they do impose construction standards on what is built there. The intent is to protect roads and structures from flood damage and to prevent the development from aggravating the flood potential. Floodplain development regulations are generally incorporated into subdivision regulations, building codes, and floodplain ordinances.

Subdivision Regulations: These regulations govern how land will be divided into separate lots or sites. They should require that any flood hazard areas be shown on the plat, and that every lot has a buildable area that is above the base flood elevation.

Building Codes: Standards can be incorporated into building codes that address flood proofing for all new and improved or repaired buildings.

Floodplain Ordinances: Communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program are required to adopt the minimum floodplain management regulations, as developed by FEMA. The regulations set 64 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 minimum standards for subdivision regulations and building codes.

Communities may adopt more stringent standards than those set forth by FEMA. 4.

Stormwater Management - Development outside of a floodplain can contribute significantly to flooding by covering impervious surfaces, which increases storm water runoff. Storm water management is usually addressed in subdivision regulations. Developers are typically required to build retention or detention basins to minimize any increase in runoff caused by new or expanded impervious surfaces, or new drainage systems. Generally, there is a prohibition against storm water leaving the site at a rate higher than it did before the development. One technique is to use wet basins as part of the landscaping plan of a development. It might even be possible to site these basins based on a watershed analysis. Since detention only controls the runoff rates and not volumes, other measures must be employed for storm water infiltration - for example, swales, infiltration trenches, vegetative filter strips, and permeable paving blocks.

5.

Drainage System Maintenance - Ongoing maintenance of channel and detention basins is necessary if these facilities are to function effectively and efficiently over time. A maintenance program should include regulations that prevent dumping in or altering water courses or storage basins; regrading and filling should also be regulated. Any maintenance program should include a public education component, so that the public becomes aware of the reasons for the regulations. Many people do not realize the consequences of filling in a ditch or wetland, or regrading.

B. Property Protection Property protection measures are used to modify buildings subject to flood damage, rather than to keep floodwaters away. These may be less expensive to implement, as they are often carried out on a cost-sharing basis. In addition, many of these measures do not affect a building's appearance or use, which makes them particularly suitable for historical sites and landmarks.

1.

Relocation - Moving structures out of the floodplain is the surest and safest way to protect against damage. Relocation is expensive, however, so this approach will probably not be used except in extreme circumstances. Communities that have areas subject to severe storm surges, ice jams, etc. might want to consider establishing a relocation program, incorporating available assistance.

2.

Acquisition - Acquisition by a governmental entity of land in a floodplain serves two main purposes: 1) it ensures that the problem of structures in the floodplain will be addressed; and 2) it has the potential to convert problem areas into community assets, with accompanying environmental benefits. Acquisition is more cost effective than relocation in those areas that are subject to storm surges, ice jams, or flash flooding. Acquisition, followed by demolition, is the most appropriate strategy for those buildings that are simply too expensive to move, as 65 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 well as for dilapidated structures that are not worth saving or protecting.

Acquisition and subsequent relocation can be expensive, however, there are government grants and loans that can be applied toward such efforts.

3.

Building Elevation - Elevating a building above the base flood elevation is the best on-site protection strategy. The building could be raised to allow water to run underneath it, or fill could be brought in to elevate the site on which the building sits. This approach is cheaper than relocation, and tends to be less disruptive to a neighborhood. Elevation is required by law for new and substantially improved residences in a floodplain, and is commonly practiced in flood hazard areas nationwide.

4.

Floodproofing - If a building cannot be relocated or elevated, it may be floodproofed. This approach works well in areas of low flood threat.

Floodproofing can be accomplished through barriers to flooding, or by treatment to the structure itself.

Barriers: Levees, floodwalls and berms can keep floodwaters from reaching a building. These are useful, however, only in areas subject to shallow flooding.

Dry Floodproofing: This method seals a building against the water by coating the walls with waterproofing compounds or plastic sheeting.

Openings, such as doors, windows, etc. are closed either permanently with removable shields or with sandbags.

Wet Floodproofing: This technique is usually considered a last resort measure, since water is intentionally allowed into the building in order to minimize pressure on the structure. Approaches range from moving valuable items to higher floors to rebuilding the floodable area. An advantage over other approaches is that simply by moving household goods out of the range of floodwaters, thousands of dollars can be saved in damages.

5.

Sewer Backup Protection - Storm water overloads can cause backup into basements through sanitary sewer lines. Houses that have any kind of connection to a sanitary sewer system - whether it is downspouts, footing drain tile, and/or sump pumps, can be flooded during a heavy rain event. To prevent this, there should be no such connections to the system, and all rain and ground water should be directed onto the ground, away from the building. Other protections include: • Floor drain plugs and floor drain standpipe, which keep water from flowing out of the lowest opening in the house.

• Overhead sewer - keeps water in the sewer line during a backup.

• Backup valve - allows sewage to flow out while preventing backups from flowing into the house.

66 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 6.

Insurance - Above and beyond standard homeowner insurance, there is other coverage a homeowner can purchase to protect against flood hazard. Two of the most common are National Flood Insurance and basement backup insurance.

National Flood Insurance: When a community participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, any local insurance agent is able to sell separate flood insurance policies under rules and rates set by FEMA. Rates do not change after claims are paid because they are set on a national basis.

Basement Backup Insurance: National Flood Insurance offers an additional deductible for seepage and sewer backup, provided there is a general condition of flooding in the area that was the proximate cause of the basement getting wet.

Most exclude damage from surface flooding that would be covered by the NFIP.

C. Natural Resource Protection Preserving or restoring natural areas or the natural functions of floodplain and watershed areas provide the benefits of eliminating or minimizing losses from floods, as well as improving water quality and wildlife habitats. Parks, recreation, or conservation agencies usually implement such activities. Protection can also be provided through various zoning measures that are specifically designed to protect natural resources.

1.

Wetlands Protection - Wetlands are capable of storing large amounts of floodwaters, slowing and reducing downstream flows, and filtering the water.

Any development that is proposed in a wetland is regulated by either federal and/or state agencies. Depending on the location, the project might fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which in turn, calls upon several other agencies to review the proposal. In New Hampshire, the N.H. Wetlands Board must approve any project that impacts a wetland. Many communities in New Hampshire also have local wetland ordinances.

Generally, the goal is to protect wetlands by preventing development that would adversely affect them. Mitigation techniques are often employed, which might consist of creating a wetland on another site to replace what would be lost through the development. This is not an ideal practice since it takes many years for a new wetland to achieve the same level of quality as an existing one, if it can at all.

2.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control - Controlling erosion and sediment runoff during construction and on farmland is important, since eroding soil will typically end up in downstream waterways. Because sediment tends to settle where the water flow is slower, it will gradually fill in channels and lakes, reducing their ability to carry or store floodwaters.

3.

Best Management Practices - Best Management Practices (BMPs) are measures that reduce non-point source pollutants that enter waterways. Non-point source pollutants are carried by storm water to waterways, and include such things as lawn fertilizers, pesticides, farm chemicals, and oils from street surfaces and industrial sites. BMPs can be incorporated into many aspects of new 67 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 developments and ongoing land use practices. In New Hampshire, the Department of Environmental Services has developed Best Management Practices for a range of activities, from farming to earth excavations.

D. Emergency Services Emergency services protect people during and after a flood. Many communities in New Hampshire have emergency management programs in place, administered by an emergency management director (very often the local police or fire chief).

1.

Flood Warning - On large rivers, the National Weather Service handles early recognition. Communities on smaller rivers must develop their own warning systems. Warnings may be disseminated in a variety of ways, such as sirens, radio, television, mobile public address systems, or door-to-door contact. It seems that multiple or redundant systems are the most effective, giving people more than one opportunity to be warned.

2.

Flood Response - Flood response refers to actions that are designed to prevent or reduce damage or injury, once a flood threat is recognized. Such actions and the appropriate parties include: • Activating the emergency operations center (emergency director) • Sandbagging designated areas (Highway Department) • Closing streets and bridges (police department) • Shutting off power to threatened areas (public service) • Releasing children from school (school district) • Ordering an evacuation (Board of Selectmen/emergency director) • Opening evacuation shelters (churches, schools, Red Cross, municipal facilities)

These actions should be part of a flood response plan, which should be developed in coordination with the persons and agencies that share the responsibilities. Drills and exercises should be conducted so that the key participants know what they are supposed to do.

3.

Critical Facilities Protection - Protecting critical facilities is vital, since expending efforts on these facilities can draw workers and resources away from protecting other parts of town. Critical facilities fall into two categories: Buildings or locations vital to the flood response effort: • Emergency operations centers • Police and fire stations • Highway garages • Selected roads and bridges • Evacuation routes

68 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Buildings or locations that, if flooded, would create disasters: • Hazardous materials facilities • Schools All such facilities should have their own flood response plan that is coordinated with the community’s plan. Schools will typically be required by the state to have emergency response plans in place.

4.

Health and Safety Maintenance - The flood response plan should identify appropriate measures to prevent danger to health and safety. Such measures include: • Patrolling evacuated areas to prevent looting • Vaccinating residents for tetanus • Clearing streets • Cleaning up debris

The Plan should also identify which agencies will be responsible for carrying out the identified measures. A public information program can be helpful to educate residents on the benefits of taking health and safety precautions.

E. Structural Projects Structural projects are used to prevent floodwaters from reaching properties. These are all man-made structures, and can be grouped into the six types discussed below. The shortcomings of structural approaches are: • Can be very expensive • Disturb the land, disrupt natural water flows, & destroy natural habitats.

• Are built to an anticipated flood event, and may be exceeded by a greater-than expected flood • Can create a false sense of security.

1.

Diversions - A diversion is simply a new channel that sends floodwater to a different location, thereby reducing flooding along an existing watercourse.

Diversions can be surface channels, overflow weirs, or tunnels. During normal flows, the water stays in the old channel. During flood flows, the stream spills over the diversion channel or tunnel, which carries the excess water to the receiving lake or river. Diversions are limited by topography; they won’t work everywhere. Unless the receiving water body is relatively close to the flood prone stream and the land in between is low and vacant, the cost of creating a diversion can be prohibitive. Where topography and land use are not favorable, a more expensive tunnel is needed. In either case, care must be taken to ensure that the diversion does not create a flooding problem somewhere else.

69 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 2.

Levees/Floodwalls - Probably the best known structural flood control measure is either a levee (a barrier of earth) or a floodwall made of steel or concrete erected between the watercourse and the land. If space is a consideration, floodwalls are typically used, since levees need more space. Levees and floodwalls should be set back out of the floodway, so that they will not divert floodwater onto other properties.

3.

Reservoirs - Reservoirs control flooding by holding water behind dams or in storage basins. After a flood peaks, water is released or pumped out slowly at a rate the river downstream can handle. Reservoirs are suitable for protecting existing development, and they may be the only flood control measure that can protect development close to a watercourse. They are most efficient in deeper valleys or on smaller rivers where there is less water to store. Reservoirs might consist of man-made holes dug to hold the approximate amount of floodwaters, or even abandoned quarries. As with other structural projects, reservoirs: • are expensive • occupy a lot of land • require periodic maintenance • may fail to prevent damage from floods that exceed their design levels • may eliminate the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain.

4.

Channel Modifications - Channel modifications include making a channel wider, deeper, smoother, or straighter. These techniques will result in more water being carried away, but, as with other techniques mentioned, it is important to ensure that the modifications do not create or increase a flooding problem downstream.

Dredging: Dredging is often cost-prohibitive because the dredged material must be disposed of in another location; the stream will usually fill back in with sediment. Dredging is usually undertaken only on larger rivers, and then only to maintain a navigation channel.

Drainage Modifications: These include man-made ditches and storm sewers that help drain areas where the surface drainage system is inadequate or where underground drainage ways may be safer or more attractive. These approaches are usually designed to carry the runoff from smaller, more frequent storms.

5.

Storm Sewers - Mitigation techniques for storm sewers include installing new sewers, enlarging small pipes, street improvements, and preventing back flow.

Because drainage ditches and storm sewers convey water faster to other locations, improvements are only recommended for small local problems where the receiving body of water can absorb the increased flows without increased flooding. In many developments, streets are used as part of the drainage system, to carry or hold water from larger, less frequent storms. The streets collect runoff and convey it to a receiving sewer, ditch, or stream. Allowing water to stand in

70 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 the streets and then draining it slowly can be a more effective and less expensive measure than enlarging sewers and ditches.

F. Public Information Public information activities are intended to advise property owners, potential property owners, and visitors about the particular hazards associated with a property, ways to protect people and property from these hazards, and the natural and beneficial functions of a floodplain.

1.

Map Information - Flood maps developed by FEMA outline the boundaries of the flood hazard areas. These maps can be used by anyone interested in a particular property to determine if it is flood-prone. These maps are available from FEMA, the NH Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM), the NH Office of Energy and Planning (OEP), or your regional planning commission.

2.

Outreach Projects - Outreach projects are proactive; they give the public information even if they have not asked for it. Outreach projects are designed to encourage people to seek out more information and take steps to protect themselves and their properties. Examples of outreach activities include: • Presentations at meetings of neighborhood groups • Mass mailings or newsletters to all residents • Notices directed to floodplain residents • Displays in public buildings, malls, etc.

• Newspaper articles and special sections • Radio and TV news releases and interview shows • A local flood proofing video for cable TV programs and to loan to organizations • A detailed property owner handbook tailored for local conditions.

Research has shown that outreach programs work, although awareness is not enough. People need to know what they can do about the hazards, so projects should include information on protection measures. Research also shows that locally designed and run programs are much more effective than national advertising.

3.

Real Estate Disclosure - Disclosure of information regarding flood-prone properties is important if potential buyers are to be in a position to mitigate damage. Federally regulated lending institutions are required to advise applicants that a property is in the floodplain. However, this requirement needs to be met only five days prior to closing, and by that time, the applicant is typically committed to the purchase. State laws and local real estate practice can help by making this information available to prospective buyers early in the process.

71 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 4.

Library - Your local library can serve as a repository for pertinent information on flooding and flood protection. Some libraries also maintain their own public information campaigns, augmenting the activities of the various governmental agencies involved in flood mitigation.

5.

Technical Assistance - Certain types of technical assistance are available from the NFIP Coordinator, FEMA, and the Natural Resources Conservation District.

Community officials can also set up a service delivery program to provide oneon-one sessions with property owners.

An example of technical assistance is the flood audit, in which a specialist visits a property. Following the visit, the owner is provided with a written report detailing the past and potential flood depths and recommending alternative protection measures.

6.

Environmental Education - Education can be a great mitigating tool if people can learn what not to do before damage occurs. The sooner the education begins the better. Environmental education programs for children can be taught in the schools, park and recreation departments, conservation associations, or youth organizations. An activity can be as involved as course curriculum development or as simple as an explanatory sign near a river.

Education programs do not have to be limited to children. Adults can benefit from knowledge of flooding and mitigation measures; decision makers, armed with this knowledge, can make a difference in their communities.

II. EARTHQUAKES A. Preventive 1. Planning/zoning to keep critical facilities away from fault lines 2. Planning, zoning and building codes to avoid areas below steep slopes or soils subject to liquefaction 3. Building codes to prohibit loose masonry overhangs, etc.

B. Property Protection 1. Acquire and clear hazard areas 2. Retrofitting to add braces, remove overhangs 3. Apply Mylar to windows and glass surfaces to protect from shattering glass 4. Tie down major appliances, provide flexible utility connections 5. Earthquake insurance riders C. Emergency Services 1. Earthquake response plans to account for secondary problems, such as fires and hazardous material spills D. Structural Projects 1. Slope stabilization 72 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 III. DAM FAILURE A. Preventive 1. Dam failure inundation maps 2. Planning/zoning/open space preservation to keep area clear 3. Building codes with flood elevation based on dam failure 4. Dam safety inspections 5. Draining the reservoir when conditions appear unsafe B. Property Protection 1. Acquisition of buildings in the path of a dam breach flood 2. Flood insurance C. Emergency Services 1. Dam condition monitoring 2. Warning and evacuation plans based on dam failure D. Structural Projects 1. Dam improvements, spillway enlargements 2. Remove unsafe dams IV. WILDFIRES A. Preventive 1. Zoning districts to reflect fire risk zones 2. Planning and zoning to restrict development in areas near fire protection and water resources 3. Requiring new subdivisions to space buildings, provide firebreaks, on-site water storage, wide roads, multiple accesses 4. Building code standards for roof materials and spark arrestors 5. Maintenance programs to clear dead and dry brush, trees 6. Regulation on open fires B. Property Protection 1. Retrofitting of roofs and adding spark arrestors 2. Landscaping to keep bushes and trees away from structures 3. Insurance rates based on distance from fire protection C. Natural Resource Protection 1. Prohibit development in high-risk areas D. Emergency Services 1. Fire Fighting

73 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 V. WINTER STORMS A. Prevention 1. Building code standards for light frame construction, especially for windresistant roofs

B. Property Protection 1. Storm shutters and windows 2. Hurricane straps on roofs and overhangs 3. Seal outside and inside of storm windows and check seals in spring and fall 4. Family and/or company severe weather action plan & drills: • include a NOAA Weather Radio • designate a shelter area or location • keep a disaster supply kit, including stored food and water • keep snow removal equipment in good repair; have extra shovels, sand, rock, salt and gas • know how to turn off water, gas, and electricity at home or work C. Natural Resource Protection 1. Maintenance program for trimming trees and shrubs D. Emergency Services 1. Early warning systems/NOAA Weather Radio 2. Evacuation plans

74 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Appendix C: List of Contacts NH Homeland Security & Emergency Management Hazard Mitigation Section ............................................…........…271-2231 Federal Emergency Management Agency (Boston)……. 877-336-2734 NH Regional Planning Commissions: Central NH Regional Planning Commission .................……......226-6020 Lakes Region Planning Commission............................….......….279-8171 Nashua Regional Planning Commission...........................…...….424-2240 North Country Council RPC...............................................….….444-6303 Rockingham Planning Commission.........................…....……….778-0885 Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission.............…...….669-4664 Southwest Region Planning Commission.........................………357-0557 Strafford Regional Planning Commission ............................…....742-2523 Upper Valley Lake Sunapee RPC .......................................…….448-1680 NH Executive Department: New Hampshire Office Energy & 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................................….........271-3434 Rivers Management and Protection Program.....................….......271-8801 Bureau of Dams..................................................................….......271-3503 NH Fish and Game Department ....................................….......271-3421

Additional Websites of Interest Natural Hazards Research Center, U. of Colorado http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/ National Emergency Management Association http://nemaweb.org NASA-Earth Observatory http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Natural Hazards/category.php?cat_id=12 NASA Natural Disaster Reference Reference of worldwide natural disasters http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/NASANDRD.html National Weather Service Weather Warnings, 60 Second Updates http://nws.noaa.gov FEMA, National Flood Insurance Program, Community Status Books http://fema.gov/business/nfip/ Florida State & NWS University Atlantic Hurricane Site http://www.met.fsu.edu/orgs/explores/ National Lightning Safety Institute List of Lightning Safety Publications http://lightningsafety.com

NH DRED.....................................................................................271-2411 Natural Heritage Inventory ................................................….......271-3623 Division of Forests and Lands ...........................................….......271-2214 Division of Parks and Recreation .......................................…......271-3556

NASA Optical Transient Detector Space-based sensor of lightning strikes http://www.gr.ssr.upm.es/~jambrina/ray os/thunder.msfc.nasa.gov/otd.html

NH Department of Transportation ..............................….........271-3734

LLNL Geologic & Atmospheric Hazards General Hazard Information https://www.llnl.gov/

US Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: National Weather Service; Gray, Maine................………... 207-688-3216 US Department of Interior: US Fish and Wildlife Service........................................…............223-2541 .

US Geological Survey..................................................................225-4681 US Department of Agriculture: Natural Resource Conservation Service......................…..............868-7581 New Hampshire State Police .......................................…..........846-3333

The Tornado Project Online Recent tornado information & details http://www.tornadoproject.com/ National Severe Storms Laboratory Information & tracking of severe storms Http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/ USDA Forest Service Forest Fire & Land Management Information http://www.fs.fed.us/fire

75 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Appendix D: Technical and Financial Assistance for Multi-Hazard Mitigation FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs provide funding for eligible mitigation activities that reduce disaster losses and protect life and property from future disaster damages. Currently, FEMA administers the following HMA grant programs6: • Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) • Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) • Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) • Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) • Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) FEMA's HMA grants are provided to eligible Applicants (States/Tribes/Territories) that, in turn, provide sub-grants to local governments and communities. The Applicant selects and prioritizes subapplications developed and submitted to them by subapplicants. These subapplications are submitted to FEMA for consideration of funding. Prospective subapplicants should consult the office designated as their Applicant for further information regarding specific program and application requirements. Contact information for the FEMA Regional Offices and State Hazard Mitigation Officers is available on the FEMA website, www.fema.gov.

HMA Grant Programs The HMA grant programs provide funding opportunities for pre- and post-disaster mitigation. While the statutory origins of the programs differ, all share the common goal of reducing the risk of loss of life and property due to Natural Hazards. Brief descriptions of the HMA grant programs can be found below. For more information on the individual programs, or to see information related to a specific Fiscal Year, please click on one of the program links.

A. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) HMGP assists in implementing long-term hazard mitigation measures following Presidential disaster declarations. Funding is available to implement projects in accordance with State, Tribal, and local priorities.

What is the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program?

The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. Authorized under Section 404 of the Stafford Act and administered by FEMA, HMGP was created to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters. The program enables mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster.

6

Information in Appendix E is taken from the following website and links to specific programs unless otherwise noted; http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/hma/index.shtm

76 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Who is eligible to apply?

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding is only available to applicants that reside within a presidentially declared disaster area. Eligible applicants are: â&#x20AC;˘ State and local governments â&#x20AC;˘ Indian tribes or other tribal organizations â&#x20AC;˘ Certain non-profit organizations Individual homeowners and businesses may not apply directly to the program; however a community may apply on their behalf.

How are potential projects selected and identified?

The State's administrative plan governs how projects are selected for funding. However, proposed projects must meet certain minimum criteria. These criteria are designed to ensure that the most cost-effective and appropriate projects are selected for funding. Both the law and the regulations require that the projects are part of an overall mitigation strategy for the disaster area.

The State prioritizes and selects project applications developed and submitted by local jurisdictions. The State forwards applications consistent with State mitigation planning objectives to FEMA for eligibility review. Funding for this grant program is limited and States and local communities must make difficult decisions as to the most effective use of grant funds.

For more information on the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), go to: http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/hmgp/index.shtm

B. Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) PDM provides funds on an annual basis for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster. The goal of the PDM program is to reduce overall risk to the population and structures, while at the same time, also reducing reliance on Federal funding from actual disaster declarations.

Program Overview The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program provides funds to states, territories, Indian tribal governments, communities, and universities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event.

Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. PDM grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis and without reference to state allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation of funds.

77 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

C. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) FMA provides funds on an annual basis so that measures can be taken to reduce or eliminate risk of flood damage to buildings insured under the National Flood Insurance Program.

Program Overview The FMA program was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

FEMA provides FMA funds to assist States and communities implement measures that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insurable under the National Flood Insurance Program.

Types of FMA Grants Three types of FMA grants are available to States and communities: • Planning Grants to prepare Flood Mitigation Plans. Only NFIP-participating communities with approved Flood Mitigation Plans can apply for FMA Project grants • Project Grants to implement measures to reduce flood losses, such as elevation, acquisition, or relocation of NFIP-insured structures. States are encouraged to prioritize FMA funds for applications that include repetitive loss properties; these include structures with 2 or more losses each with a claim of at least $1,000 within any ten-year period since 1978.

• Technical Assistance Grants for the State to help administer the FMA program and activities. Up to ten percent (10%) of Project grants may be awarded to States for Technical Assistance Grants

D. Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) RFC provides funds on an annual basis to reduce the risk of flood damage to individual properties insured under the NFIP that have had one or more claim payments for flood damages. RFC provides up to 100% federal funding for projects in communities that meet the reduced capacity requirements.

Program Overview The Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) grant program was authorized by the BunningBereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108–264), which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et al).

Up to $10 million is available annually for FEMA to provide RFC funds to assist States and communities reduce flood damages to insured properties that have had one or more claims to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

78 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Federal / Non-Federal Cost Share FEMA may contribute up to 100 percent of the total amount approved under the RFC grant award to implement approved activities, if the Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed activities cannot be funded under the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program.

E. Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) SRL provides funds on an annual basis to reduce the risk of flood damage to residential structures insured under the NFIP that are qualified as severe repetitive loss structures.

SRL provides up to 90% federal funding for eligible projects.

Program Overview The Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grant program was authorized by the BunningBereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, which amended the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to severe repetitive loss (SRL) structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Definition The definition of severe repetitive loss as applied to this program was established in section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance Act, as amended (NFIA), 42 U.S.C. 4102a. An SRL property is defined as a residential property that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and: (a) That has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 each, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or (b) For which at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building.

For both (a) and (b) above, at least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any ten-year period, and must be greater than 10 days apart.

Purpose: To reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through project activities that will result in the greatest savings to the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF).

Federal / Non-Federal cost share: 75 / 25 %; up to 90 % Federal cost-share funding for projects approved in States, Territories, and Federally-recognized Indian tribes with FEMA-approved Standard or Enhanced Mitigation Plans or Indian tribal plans that include a strategy for mitigating existing and future SRL properties.

79 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Other Grants and Technical Assistance

A. US Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields Program The U.S. EPA Brownfields Program empowers states, communities, and other stakeholders to work together to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. The program offers a variety of funding and assistance opportunities for redevelopment, bringing life and economic vitality back to communities.

Due to growing national concern, Congress made properties contaminated by controlled substances such as methamphetamine (meth) eligible for Brownfields funding.

Brownfields redevelopment is not the primary solution to the emerging clandestine drug lab issue. However, some stakeholders may find Brownfields Program funding and technical assistance beneficial to combating the meth problem in their area.

The Brownfields Program provides several types of funding and assistance opportunities that can be used to address clandestine drug labs.

Assessment Grants fund a variety of pre-cleanup environmental activities such as site assessment, inventory, characterization, prioritization, community outreach, and cleanup planning and design.

Cleanup Grants fund the cleanup of brownfield sites.

Revolving Loan Fund Grants help establish state or locally administered loan funds.

Job Training Grants are designed to help unemployed/underemployed local residents take advantage of jobs created by the assessment/ cleanup of brownfield sites.

Targeted Brownfields Assessments provide funding and technical assistance for environmental assessments at brownfield sites.

State and Tribal Response Program (Section 128) Funds for state and tribal response programs are a non-competitive grant source for states and tribes

B. Department of Justice The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) does not have a specific brownfields reuse program, but it supports initiatives through the Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO) that encourages redevelopment directly, through its Brownfield Special Emphasis Initiative, and indirectly, through the Weed and Seed Program. The CCDO aims to work with local communities to design strategies for deterring crime, promoting economic growth and enhancing quality of life.

Brownfields Connections Brownfields Special Emphasis Initiative gives communities that are unsuccessful in seeking EPA funding, a “second chance” to carry out initiatives aimed at site preparation and development, and community outreach and participation — targeted to Weed and Seed program grantees.

Advise and assist with the use of EPA Brownfields Program funds to clean up methamphetamine labs — targeted to all EPA grantees addressing meth labs.

80 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Assist in crime prevention and improving the community climate through neighborhood restoration and crime prevention — targeted to local governments for community use.

Brownfields Special Emphasis Initiative (found within Methamphetamine Lab/Environmental Activities) In order to support community health and economic development, the CCDO provides funding through its Brownfields Special Emphasis Initiative. Applicants are encouraged to seek funding for brownfields activities from existing brownfields programs prior to seeking funding from the Weed and Seed program.

Eligibility Requirements: Only Officially Recognized Weed and Seed sites in good standing are eligible to apply for funding. Official Recognition (OR) designation is the first step in the federal Weed and Seed process. A community that is interested in becoming a Weed and Seed site must first notify the appropriate U.S. Attorney’s Office and then obtain a Weed and Seed Implementation Manual and the current Official Recognition Guidelines and Application. These documents can be downloaded from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Website Availability: Only one Weed and Seed grant award per site per federal fiscal year is allowed. Unless otherwise noted Continuation sites may apply for a total of $225,000: $175,000 in core funding plus $50,000 for Special Emphasis Initiatives.

Uses/Applications: Grants and technical resources can be used for brownfields related activities including: Build partnerships and outreach among stakeholders Cleanup, reuse planning, assessment and evaluation Renovate existing facilities Foster local job development and training initiatives Weed and Seed Program Weed and Seed’s law enforcement and community policing elements make up the “weed” portion, while the prevention, intervention, treatment and neighborhood restoration elements comprise the “seeds”. It is the program’s seed portion that may indirectly affect redevelopment by promoting revitalization activities in distressed areas where brownfields are located.

Uses/Applications: Weed and Seed sites can budget up to a maximum of $7,500 in grant funds for travel to CCDO-sponsored conferences and training. Sites should seek prior approval from their program manager prior to any other use of these funds.

Weed and Seed sites can submit a written site-driven Technical Assistance request asking attendance at appropriate off-site training courses. The request is reviewed by the applicable CCDO director for final review and approval.

Website: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ccdo/welcome.html 81 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013

C. USDOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration HMEP Grant Guidance for States and Territories Preparation of Application for Assistance Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Grant Application Kit This document is intended to guide States and Territories in applying for training and planning grants under the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) program (49 CFR Part 110).

For further information, contact Charles Rogoff, Manager, HMEP Grants Program of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) at (202) 366-0001.

Purpose of this Grant Program The Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security Reauthorization Act of 2005 authorizes the U.S. DOT to provide assistance to public sector employees through training and planning grants to States, Territories, and Native American tribes for emergency response. The purpose of this grant program is to increase State, Territorial, Tribal, and local effectiveness in safely and efficiently handling hazardous materials accidents and incidents, enhance implementation of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), and encourage a comprehensive approach to emergency training and planning by incorporating the unique challenges of responses to transportation situations.

Proposal Development Training and planning are two parts of the comprehensive national grant program. State and Territory applicants are encouraged to request funds to conduct one or both parts in a single application package (if both are included in one package, separate budgets for training and planning must be included). DOT/PHMSA will simplify the grant process by awarding funds for both parts in one grant document.

Because training and planning components for the grant program are funded separately by a special national registration fee program, DOT/PHMSA has a fiduciary responsibility to obligate and account for training and planning funds separately.

Therefore, separate accounts for costs must be established for each in the application and grantee records.

Training and Planning Application Requirements A training and planning grant application from a State or Territory must be accompanied by a letter from the Governor designating an entity to receive Federal funds if it has not already been provided to PHMSA. DOT encourages the designated entity to obtain substantive knowledge of the status of training and planning under EPCRA, familiarity 82 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 with State and local emergency preparedness and response capabilities and training needs. Also required is a statement that all members of the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) have been given an opportunity to review the grant application.

To be approved for a planning grant, a State or Territory must agree that it is complying with Sections 301 and 303 of EPCRA and the National Incident Management System (NIMS). With respect to Section 301, the State or Territory must state that a SERC has been established, emergency planning districts have been designated, and Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) have been appointed by the SERC. The State or Territory also must describe the status of the LEPCs' emergency response plans and their compliance with Section 303. In addition, the State or Territory must agree that the aggregate expenditure of funds (as defined by the State or Territory), exclusive of Federal funding, for planning activities will not fall below its average expenditure for its last 5 fiscal years. The State or Territory also must agree to make available to LEPCs at least 75 % of the Federal planning grant funds provided.

To be eligible for a training grant, a State or Territory must agree that it is complying with Sections 301 and 303 of EPCRA. With respect to Section 301, the State or Territory must state that a SERC has been established, emergency planning districts have been designated, and LEPCs have been appointed by the SERC. The State or Territory also must describe the status of the LEPCs' emergency response plans and their compliance with Section 303. In addition, the State or Territory must agree to make at least 75 % of the awarded Federal funds available for the purpose of training employees either employed or used by political subdivisions. The State or Territory also must agree that it will maintain a 2-fiscal-year average of its own aggregate level of expenditures (as defined by the State or Territory) for training public sector employees and volunteers to respond to accidents and incidents involving hazardous materials and agree to use courses consistent with the National Curriculum Guidelines developed under HMEP. HMEP Funding Priorities Due to limited funding, PHMSA encourages grantees to use HMEP funds on activities that maximize transportation safety benefits to the community. The HMEP grant program prioritizes efforts that lead to the prevention of serious hazmat transportation related incidents, principally those of high consequence to people and the environment.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Training conducted IAW NFPA 472 core competencies.

Training conducted IAW NFPA 472 mission specific training based on assessed hazmat transportation safety risks.

Increase availability of hazmat training to accommodate volunteer organizations.

Conduct drills and exercises to test State and County emergency response capabilities and to identify gaps in training and planning needs.

Ensure State, Federal, and local emergency planning and preparedness is established, integrated, and mutually supportive.

83 | P a g e

Rochester, NH All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 6.

7.

8.

Community, industry, State and Federal disaster plans are integrated under a single unified Incident Command System (ICS). Plans are reviewed and updated as necessary annually.

Conduct appropriate hazard assessments and gap analysis to determine the level of hazmat safety risks within a jurisdiction, state, or region.

Improve interagency inoperability to better respond and mitigate hazmat incidents.

Project and Budget Periods Funding will be provided on the basis of approximately one-year budget periods. Each budget period will be funded according to a specifically defined budget and statement of work.

Matching Funds For both training and planning grants, States must contribute a minimum of 20 % matching share to the total cost of the grant project. Thus, if the total cost of the project is $50,000, the State or Territory must provide at least $10,000, and DOT will provide no more than $40,000. The matching requirement must be satisfied by costs incurred by the grantee or by the value of in-kind contributions. Funds or costs used for matching purposes under any other Federal grant or cooperative agreement may not be used for matching proposes. The 2-year averaged non-Federal aggregate amount cannot be used for matching (in other words, the State's or Territory's matching share must be new money, either new State or Territory funds or new in-kind contributions).

Grant Target Amounts The letter transmitting the continuation application kit advises applicants of the target amount of Federal funds available that may be applied for. The scope of work and the budget (Federal and non-Federal funds) should reflect the proposed activities to be conducted during the continuation grant period.

For planning grants, approved applicants who include all required information and agree to comply with Sections 301 and 303 of EPCRA will receive an amount determined by using the following key factors: (1) number of 302 facilities filing to date (Section 302 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1987 [SARA], Title Ill, requires any facility with one or more emergency hazard sites above a threshold quantity to identify itself to the SERC and the LEPC. In turn, the LEPC must develop a comprehensive emergency plan that includes all covered 302 facilities and transportation routes as well as other hazardous materials risks); (2) population; and (3) hazardous materials truck miles within the State or Territory.

For training grants, approved applicants who include all required information will receive an amount determined by using, the following key factors: (1) population; (2) the number of chemical facilities listed in the summary provided by the Bureau of Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis; and (3) highway miles (within the State or Territory).

Website: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/firesafety/hazmat/documents/FY10HMEPApplication.pdf 84 | P a g e