Printed on recycled paper

Flynn, R.H.—Scoping of Flood Hazard Mapping Needs for Coos County, New Hampshire—Open-File Report 2006–1200
Scoping of Flood Hazard Mapping Needs for 

Coos County, New Hampshire

By Robert H. Flynn

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

In cooperation with the

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 1

Open-File Report 2006–1200
U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.
Acknowledgments

The author thanks Debra Foster for her assistance in contacting towns in Coos County to obtain 

preliminary scoping needs information and for editing this report, Ann Marie Squillacci for her help 

in formatting the tables, and Tina Cotton for her help with the figures.
 iii

Contents

Section 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Section 2. Data Collected from Coos County Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Community Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Delineation of Detailed and Approximate Study Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Letters of Map Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Letters of Map Change in Coos County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Mapping Needs Update Support System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Mapping Needs in Coos County, New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

State and Community Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Meeting with New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management (NHOEM) and 

Scoping Team Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Coos County Community Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Available Digital Mapping and Remotely Sensed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Data-Collection Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

NH GRANIT Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Community Data Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Stream Final Coverage Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Section 3. Options for Future Mapping and Digital Terrain Model Preparation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Mapping Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Digital Terrain Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Flood Insurance Risk Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Suitability of the Available Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

USGS of GRANIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Community Data Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

County Data Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Digital Terrain Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Flood Insurance Risk Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Mapping Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Digital Terrain Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Flood Insurance Risk Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Section 4. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Restudy Needs and Prioritization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Mapping Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Prioritization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Prioritization Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Non-Participating Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Section 5. Recommendations and Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Mapping Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Mapping Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
 iv

Project Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Selected References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Appendixes:

Appendix A. Summary of Letters of Map Change (LOMC) Data in Coos County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Appendix B. Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Needs Assessment Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix C. State and Community Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Appendix D. Prioritized Flooding Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figures

1. Coos County, New Hampshire, location map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Coos County, New Hampshire, hydrography and FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(DFIRM) data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Letter of Map Change (LOMC) and community location map in Coos County, New Hampshire. . . . . . . . . . . 9

4. Coos County, New Hampshire, stream final coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Tables

1. Coos County, New Hampshire, communities and populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. FIS and FIRM information for communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. Summary of specific mapping needs in Coos County, New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4. FIRM horizontal accuracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

5. National standard for spatial data accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

6. Currently available high resolution orthophotography for Coos County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

7. Estimate of costs to obtain Digital Terrain Model data (2-ft contours). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

8. Community flooding source prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square inch (in2) 6.452 square centimeter (cm2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Volume

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3)

Slope

foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894 meter per kilometer (m/km)

Velocity and Flow

foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

v

CONVERSION FACTORS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the insert datum name (and abbreviation) here for instance, 

“North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).”

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS USED IN REPORT

APFO Aerial Photography Field Office

BFE Base Flood Elevation

CAC Community Assistance Contact

CAV Community Assistance Visit

cfs cubic feet per second

CID Community Identification

CIS Community Information System

COTR Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

CTP Cooperating Technical Partner

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map

DOQ Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle

DOQQ Digital Ortho Quarter Quadrangle

DTM Digital Terrain Model

FBFM Flood Boundary and Floodway Map

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHBM Flood Hazard Boundary Map

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FIS Flood Insurance Study
 vi

GIS Geographic Information System

GRANIT Geographically Referenced ANalysis and Information Transfer system

GSP Ground Sample Distance

H&H Hydrologic and Hydraulic

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging

LOMA Letter of Map Amendment

LOMC Letters of Map Change

LOMR Letter of Map Revision

LOMR-F Letter of Map Revision based on Fill

MNA Mapping Needs Assessment

MNUSS Mapping Needs Update Support System

MrSID Multi-resolution Seamless Image Database

NAIP National Agriculture Imagery Program

NDOP National Digital Ortho Program

NED National Elevation Dataset

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

NHDOT New Hampshire Department of Transportation

NHOEM New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management

NHOEP New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning

NSSDA National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy

RMC Regional Management Center

SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area

TIN Triangulated Irregular Network

UNH University of New Hampshire

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS United States Geological Survey

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

WISE Watershed Information System
 1

Scoping of Flood Hazard Mapping Needs for 

Coos County, New Hampshire

By Robert H. Flynn

Section 1. Introduction

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) New Hampshire/Vermont Water 

Science Center for scoping of flood-hazard mapping needs for Coos County, New Hampshire, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency agreement Number HSFE01-05X-0018. This 

section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the reports.

Background

FEMA is embarking on a map modernization program nationwide to:

1. Gather and develop updated data for all flood prone areas in support of flood plain management.

2. Provide maps and data in a digital format for the improvement in the efficiency and precision of the 

mapping program.

3. Integrate FEMA’s community and state partners into the mapping process.

One of the priorities for FEMA, Region 1, is to develop updated Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

(DFIRMs) and Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) for Coos County, New Hampshire. The information provided 

in this report will be used to develop the scope for the first phase of a multiyear project that will ultimately 

result in the production of new DFIRMs and FIS for the communities and flooding sources in Coos County.

The average age of the FEMA flood plain maps in Coos County, New Hampshire is 20 years. Most of 

these studies were computed in the mid 1970s to the mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20–30 years, 

development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the rivers and streams and their flood plains have 

changed with time. In addition, as development has occurred, the peak flooding has increased downstream 

of the development due to increased flows from impervious surfaces. Therefore, many of the older studies 

may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights.

Coos County gained 544 residents between 2000 and 2005. This represents a growth of 1.6 percent 

compared to 6.0 percent for the state as a whole. Coos County ranks tenth (from highest to lowest) out of 

New Hampshire’s 10 counties in terms of rate of population increase. Since 1990, Coos County has lost 

1,173 residents (University of New Hampshire, 2005).
 2

Scope of Work

The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work:

Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State 

Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits 

(CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the Mapping Needs Update 

Support System (MNUSS) database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be 

inventoried for effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) panels, FIS reports, and other flood hazard 

data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood hazard data, and 

hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) data will be identified and obtained. FEMA Letters of Map Change 

(LOMC) areas will also be identified.

Task 2: Contact communities in Coos County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected 

them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed 

with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have 

prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community’s available mapping, 

hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) Target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The 

community’s engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. When requested 

by the community, or when needed to obtain information on mapping needs and available information, the 

USGS will schedule meetings with individual communities. 

Based on the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS 

will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Coos County. 

The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information; determine if and how the currently effective FIS data can be used in new project; identify other data needed to 

complete the Project and its source; and the DFIRM format. The Draft Project Scope will establish priority 

levels for flooding sources to be analyzed and mapped, and estimate schedules for completion of the components of flood mapping.

The USGS is to supply the FEMA Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) with a 

report summarizing the following:

1. Available data and collected information on mapping needs.

2. Documentation of meetings and contacts.

3. Suitability of existing data and options for future mapping.

4. Restudy needs and priorities.

5. Recommended project scope and cost.

This report provides a summary of data-collection efforts conducted for this task, as well as information 

on available mapping/remote sensing data. The report includes recommendations for providing needed 

mapping/remote sensing data to accomplish the ultimate goal of producing new DFIRMs. It also provides 

options for accomplishing this goal within the context of FEMA’s Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) 

Program. The report begins the process of establishing restudy priorities in Coos County. 

The communities of Coos County and their populations are listed in table 1, and the location of Coos 

County in New Hampshire is shown in figure 1. The Coos County Hydrography and FEMA DFIRM Data, 

county communities, rivers and streams and flood zones are shown in figure 2. 
Table 1. Coos County, New Hampshire, communities and populations.

County/Town Year 2000 

population

Land area 

(square mile)

Population per 

square mile

Coos County 33,511

Atkinson and Gilmanton Academy Grant 1 12

Beans Grant 1 1

Beans Purchase 1 4

Berlin 10,484

Cambridge 1 10

Carroll 725

Chandlers Purchase 1 1

Clarksville 294

Colebrook 2,377

Columbia 789

Crawfords Purchase 1 1

Cutts Grant 1 1

Dalton 921

Dixs Grant 1 1

Dixville 75

Dummer 312

Errol 294

Ervings Location 1 1

Gorham 2,918

Greens Grant 1 1

Hadleys Purchase 1 1

Jefferson 1,036

Kilkenny 1 1

Lancaster 3,388

Low and Burbanks Grant 1 1

Martins Location 1 1

Milan 1,379

Millsfield 1 22

Northumberland 2,412

Odell 1 5

Pinkhams Grant 1 1

Pittsburg 863

Randolph 343

Sargents Purchase 1 1

Second College Grant 1 1

Shelburne 387

Stark 510

Stewartstown 1,003

Stratford 931

Success 1 2

Thompson and Meserves Purchase 1 1

Wentworth Location 1 43

Whitefield 2,007

1 Unincorporated towns.

 3

1,800 18.6

19.7 0.6

5.2 0.2

65.2 0.1

61.7 169.9

50.8 0.2

50.2 14.4

2.1 0.5

60.2 4.9

41 58

60.8 13

8.2 0.1

11.4 0.1

27.5 33.5

20.2 0

48.9 1.5

47.8 6.5

61 4.8

3.7 0.3

31.9 91.5

3.7 0.3

7.4 0.1

50.2 20.6

25.6 0

50.1 67.6

26.1 0

3.8 0.3

61.7 22.4

45 0.5

36.2 66.6

44.5 0.1

3.8 0.3

282.3 3.1

47.1 7.3

25.9 0

41.6 0

47.9 8.1

59.1 8.6

46.4 21.6

79.8 11.7

58.8 0

18.5 0.1

18.8 0.1

34.2 58.7
72°

71°

45°

44°

43°

0 10 20 30 40

Coos

Grafton

Hillsborough Rockingham

Belknap

Strafford

Carroll

Sullivan

Cheshire

Merrimack

50 MILES

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

4

Figure 1. Coos County, New Hampshire, location map.
Pittsburg

Milan

Errol

Stark

Berlin

Odell

Stratford

Success

Columbia

Dixville

Dummer

Carroll

Clarksville

Cambridge

Lancaster

Randolph

Jefferson

Shelburne

Millsfield

Gorham

Beans

Purchase

Dalton

Colebrook

Whitefield

Stewartstown

Kilkenny

Northumberland

Dixs

Grant Second

College

Grant

Low-Burbanks

Grant

Wentworths

Location

AtkinsonGilmanton 

0 5 20 MILES

0 5 20 KILOMETERS

10 15

10 15

71°15'

71°30'

44°30'

44°15'

44°45'

45°

45°15'

71o45'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

Digital Line Graphs, 1:24,000, 1990-94 and

National Hydrography Dataset, 1:24,000, 1999

A

AE

X

Hydrography

EXPLANATION

Flood Insurance Rate zones

(See page 7)

5

Figure 2. Coos County, New Hampshire, hydrography and FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate 

Map (DFIRM) data.
 6

Section 2. Data Collected from Coos County Communities

This section provides a summary of the data-collection efforts for communities in Coos County relating 

to the most recent community FISs and FIRMs; Letter of Map Amendments (LOMAs) and Letter of Map 

Revisions (LOMRs); information from the MNUSS database; and state and community meetings, and information on the location of existing remote-sensing data. 

The flood-hazard information obtained in the data-collection efforts are summarized in figure 2, and 

include:

• State, county, and community boundaries.

• Water features.

• Limits of existing detailed and approximate study within Coos County.

These maps can be continually updated in the future as new information becomes available.

Community Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps

A summary of FIS and FIRM dates for the communities located in Coos County are listed in table 2.

Table 2. FIS and FIRM information for communities.

[SFHA, Special Flood Hazard Area; FIS, Flood Insurance Studies; 

FIRM, Flood Insurance Rate Map; FHBM, Flood Hazard Boundary 

Map; --, no data]

Community Date of entry FIRM/FHBM date

Berlin 6/15/1982 6/15/1982

Carroll 4/15/1986 4/15/1986

Clarksville SFHA 1/3/1975

Colebrook 5/17/1989 5/17/1989

Columbia 4/2/1986 4/2/1986

Dalton 12/15/1986 12/4/1985

Dummer 3/1/1995 3/1/1995

Errol 6/1/1995 4/16/2003

Gorham 4/1/1981 5/2/1994

Jefferson 4/15/1986 4/15/1986

Lancaster 4/13/1973 4/1/1982

Milan 4/2/1986 4/2/1986

Northumberland 5/4/1989 5/4/1989

Pittsburg SFHA 1/7/1977

Randolph SFHA 1/3/1975

Shelburne 4/2/1986 4/2/1986

Stark 4/2/1986 4/2/1986

Stewartstown 3/1/2000 3/1/2000

Stratford 4/18/1983 4/18/1983

Whitefield 4/2/1986 4/2/1986
7

The effective map dates range from 1975 in the Towns of Clarksville and Randolph to 2003 in the 

Town of Errol. Seventy percent of the FIRMs were produced prior to 1987 and will be 20 years old this 

coming year. The oldest FIRM is 31 years old, the most recent is 3 years old, and the average is approximately 19 years old.

Delineation of Detailed and Approximate Study Areas

Digital Q3 Flood Data have not been developed for Coos County to determine the areas of detailed 

study (Zone AE) and areas of approximate study (Zone A) within the communities. FEMA digital Q3 flood 

data is the electronically scanned currently effective map panels of an existing paper FIRM. Digital FIRM 

Data were created and provided by the University of New Hampshire Geographically Referenced ANalysis 

and Information Transfer system (UNH GRANIT) (Jenn Merriam, written commun., October 14, 2005) 

for this report. These data had not been quality checked by FEMA’s contractors as of the date received. 

GRANIT, a collaborative effort between the University of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Office 

of Energy and Planning (NHOEP), is a cooperative project to create, maintain, and make available a statewide geographic data base serving the information needs of state, regional, and local decision-makers. Definitions of flood insurance rate Zones A and AE are provided below:

• Zone AE: Zone AE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 100-year flood plains 

that are determined in the FIS by detailed methods. In most instances, whole-foot base flood elevations (BFEs) derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this 

zone.

• Zone A: Zone A is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 100-year flood plains that 

are determined in the FIS by approximate methods. Because detailed hydraulic analyses are not performed for these areas, no BFEs or depths are shown within this zone.

• Zone X: The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas outside of the 500-year flood plain, 

areas within the 500-year flood plain, and to areas of the 100-year flood plain where average depths 

are less than 1 foot, areas of the 100-year flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 

1 square mile, and areas protected from the 100-year flood by levees. No BFEs or depths are shown 

in this zone.

Letters of Map Change

A LOMC is a letter issued by FEMA in response to a request to revise or amend an effective NFIP map 

to remove a property or reflect changed flooding conditions on the effective map. LOMCs may include 

LOMAs and LOMRs, as defined below:

• LOMAs: A LOMA is an official amendment, by letter, to an effective NFIP map. A LOMA establishes a property’s location in relation to the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). There is no appeal 

period for LOMAs, and the letter becomes effective the date that it is sent.

• LOMRs: A LOMR is an official revision, by letter, to an effective NFIP map. A LOMR may 

change flood insurance risk zones, flood plain and(or) floodway boundary delineations, planimetric 

features, and(or) BFEs. The effective date of a LOMR depends on the type of change requested. For 

example, some LOMR’s are effective on the date that the letter is issued and others become effective 

following an appeal period (typically 30 to 90 days or 6 months).
8

• LOMR-F: A Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F) may be filed as a special case of the 

LOMR. A LOMR-F provides FEMA’s determination concerning whether a structure or parcel has 

been elevated on fill above the BFE and excluded from the SFHA. A LOMR-F is an official revision, by letter, to an effective NFIP map. The letter becomes effective on the date that it is sent.

In addition to the categories above, conditional LOMAs, LOMRs, and LOMR-Fs may be issued by 

FEMA to comment on a proposed project. The letter does not revise an effective NFIP map, but indicates 

whether the project, if built as proposed, would be recognized by FEMA.

Letters of Map Change in Coos County

LOMCs were collected for each of the communities.

A summary of the LOMCs obtained from FEMA (http://msc.fema.gov) and the NHOEM is provided 

in appendix A. The summary table in appendix A includes the LOMC case number, effective date, flooding 

source, location, area/structure removed from SFHA, and new flood zone. The location of each LOMC is 

shown in figure 3.
Pittsburg

Milan

Errol

Stark

Berlin

Odell

Stratford

Success

Columbia

Dixville

Dummer

Carroll

Clarksville

Cambridge

Lancaster

Jefferson Randolph

Shelburne

Millsfield

Gorham

Beans

Purchase

Dalton

Colebrook

Whitefield

Stewartstown

Kilkenny

Northumberland

Dixs

Grant Second

College

Grant

Low-Burbanks

Grant

Wentworths

Location

AtkinsonGilmanton 

0 5 20 MILES

0 5 20 KILOMETERS

10 15

10 15

71°15'

71°30'

44°30'

44°15'

44°45'

45°

45°15'

71o45'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

Digital Line Graphs, 1:24,000, 1990-94 and

National Hydrography Dataset, 1:24,000, 1999

Hydrography

LOMC

EXPLANATION

9

Figure 3. Letter of Map Change (LOMC) and community location map in Coos County, New 

Hampshire.
 10

Mapping Needs Update Support System

In accordance with section 575 of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, FEMA assesses 

“...the need to revise and update all flood plain areas and flood-risk zones identified, delineated, or established based on analysis of all natural hazards affecting flood risks.” FEMA initiated the Mapping Needs 

Assessment (MNA) process, which identifies and prioritizes flood-hazard mapping needs for communities 

nationwide. As part of this effort, FEMA developed the MNUSS, which is an interactive, web-based software application that maintains an inventory of needs for future map updates. In particular, MNUSS stores 

information on the following two types of update needs:

• Map Maintenance Needs: Includes changes to base map information, such as the addition of new 

roads, changes to corporate limits, and incorporation of LOMCs.

• Flood Data Update Needs: Includes changes to flood-hazard areas as a result of changes in H&H 

conditions, changes to BFEs, and(or) changes in the flood plain delineation.

Mapping needs may be viewed and entered into MNUSS by a variety of parties, including FEMA 

Headquarters and Regional offices, state NFIP coordinators, study contractors, CTPs, and other Federal 

agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the USGS. All needs are reviewed and 

approved by the FEMA MNUSS controller prior to office entry into the system.

Mapping Needs in Coos County, New Hampshire

Information on mapping needs for the respective communities within Coos County was downloaded 

from MNUSS on April 19, 2006, and is included in appendix B. This information included a summary of 

those communities that had and had not responded to requests for information on MNUSS mapping needs, 

as well as a summary of the map maintenance and flood-data-update needs, as appropriate, for those communities where responses had been received. A summary of the response status for each community and the 

general mapping needs are listed in appendix table B-1. Information on the specific community mapping 

needs is provided in table 3.
Table 3. Summary of specific mapping needs in Coos County, New Hampshire.

[BFE, Base Flood Elevation; LOMCs, Letters Of Map Change]

Community Need 

identifier

Study 

category Comments

Berlin 10575 Riverine Changes to flood plain width with an anticipated BFE decrease of between 1 and 

5 ft over 0.35 mi on the Androscoggin River on panel 017B.

Berlin 29275 Maintenance Add streets to panels 004B, 005B, 006B, 010B, 011B, 012B, 016B, and 017B.

Berlin 29276 Riverine Changes to hydrologic conditions, hydraulic analysis and flood plain width with 

an anticipated BFE increase of less than 1 foot over 0.3 mi on the Dead River 

(from Pleasant Street to the confluence with the Androscoggin River.

Colebrook 10614 Riverine Changes in hydraulic analysis with an anticipated BFE decrease of less than 1 foot 

over 5.85 mi on the Connecticut River on panel 010B.

Colebrook 10612 Riverine Changes in flood plain width with an anticipated BFE increase of greater than 5 ft 

over 10.98 mi on the Mohawk River on panels 005B and 010B.

Colebrook 10613 Riverine Changes in flood plain width with an anticipated BFE increase of greater than 5 ft 

over 3.33 mi on the North Branch Mohawk River on panel 005B. 

Colebrook 10611 Riverine Changes in flood plain width with an anticipated increase of greater than 5 ft over 

7.46 mi on the West and East Branch on panel 010B.

Dummer 10577 Riverine Changes in hydraulic analysis with an anticipated BFE increase of greater than 

5 ft over 8.3 mi on the Androscoggin River on panel 3302019999.

Dummer 10576 Maintenance Add LOMCs to panel 3302019999. 

Errol 10579 Riverine Changes in hydrologic conditions with an anticipated BFE increase of greater 

than 5 ft over 45.45 mi of all Zone As.

Gorham 25967 Riverine Changes in flood plain width with an anticipated BFE increase of less than 1 foot 

over 0.45 mi along the Androscoggin River on panel 010C.

Jefferson 10627 Riverine Changes in hydraulic analysis with an anticipated BFE increases of greater than 

5 ft over 10.77 mi on the Israel River.

Shelburne 15558 Maintenance Add streets to panels. No panels have been associated with this need.

 11

As shown in table 3, a total of 13 mapping update needs are listed in MNUSS throughout Coos County. 

These include three map maintenance needs and ten flood-data-update needs. Not all of the communities in 

the county responded to the FEMA request for information regarding mapping needs, so the actual number 

of mapping needs may be higher than what is currently reported in MNUSS. Additional information on 

mapping needs in the communities was established through state and community meetings, as discussed in 

the following sections.
 12

State and Community Meetings

As part of the scoping effort, the USGS conducted a series of meetings with the following State agencies and communities:

• NHOEM on August 24, 2005, to review LOMCs.

• Conference call kick-off meeting with NHOEM, FEMA, USGS, and Watershed Concepts on 

September 1, 2005.

The following section provides a summary of the key outcomes from each of the State and community 

meetings. Additional detail is given in appendix C, which provides copies of the meeting minutes and an 

example community interview form.

Meeting with New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management (NHOEM) and Scoping Team Members

USGS held a kick-off meeting with a conference call on September 1, 2005, that included representatives from NHOEM, FEMA, USGS, and Watershed Concepts (RMC - Regional Management Center). The 

meeting was used to introduce the scoping project team and review roles and responsibilities. The meeting 

agenda and minutes are included in appendix C. The following people were included in the meeting:

• Dean Savramis, representing FEMA, provided an overview of the Map Modernization Program and 

Scoping. He also provided a description of the countywide approach.

• Brent McCarthy (RMC) described the role of the RMC in assisting FEMA and the mapping contractors. He described the Watershed Information System (WISE) (Watershed Concepts, 2005) 

computer applications developed for FEMA to standardize the scoping process methodology, data 

collection, and storage for the map modernization program. Brent mentioned that it may be a good 

idea to set up a morning and evening meeting with each County in order to be able to talk to all of 

the representatives in each town (two meetings for each county). Brent also mentioned that Watershed Concepts could lead breakout sessions with towns during the meetings with the Counties.

• Jeff Burm (RMC) spoke about the WISE Scoping tool and various features of this tool including 

community contact information, available GIS data, stream data, statistical analysis, stream mile 

information to calculate costs for hydrology and hydraulics, LOMAs, CAVs and Community Assistance Contacts (CACs), creation of reports for each of the items.

• Fay Rubin (UNH GRANIT), Craig Johnston, Laura Hayes and Robert Flynn (USGS)—discussed 

available data and coverages within New Hampshire (for example, 2003 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) color Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles (DOQs)). Remote sensing, base map 

information, GIS data (for example, contour data, E911 data, Digital Elevation Model (DEMs), 

buildings layer, survey data available from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation 

(NHDOT). In addition, the county regional planning commissions were mentioned as possible 

sources of data.
 13

Coos County Community Meetings

Conference calls were conducted with representatives from all of the towns in Coos County. The following sections provide a brief summary of the key findings from each community interview, and in particular, identifying areas with increased development, areas with known flooding problems, and areas with 

changes to hydraulic structures. The applicable community contacts are also provided in each section.

The goals of these meetings were to:

• Inform the communities of the nature and the intent of the flood map update process.

• Solicit community input and discuss the flood-prone areas that communities would like to include 

as a part of the flood map update.

Community comments were captured on paper interview forms, FIRM panels, and on working maps 

of each community produced for this purpose. These comments were entered into the WISE scoping application. Notes from the working maps and FIRM panels are summarized on figure 3. For communities not 

represented at the meetings, information provided by NHOEM, and contained in the community business 

plan was relied upon.

Coos County:

Berlin

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

November 15, 2005):

• On panel 17, a detailed study is needed along the Dead River. Dead River flows under part of Pleasant Street and flows between main buildings on this street. The current map is limited in detail and 

there is planned future development in this area. The river is undermining building and causing erosion in the river channel. The town has questions about what is going on in the river and want the 

100-year flood plain boundary updated to current conditions. The river is shown as segmented on 

the panel but the river is never dry and is not contained within a culvert. This covers about a 400 ft 

reach. At the junction of Pleasant Street and Main Street both bridges have been reconstructed in 

the 1980s and 90s. 

• On panel 17, Community Street does not cross the Androscoggin River but ends at the river bank.

• On panel 17, A new bridge (James Cleveland Bridge) was built in 1983 across the Androscoggin 

River between BFE 925’ and 926’. Unity Street runs into the new James Cleveland Bridge and does 

not show up on the panel. Unity Street was built parallel to the Access Road and the railroad that 

runs east of the river. 

• On panel 17, Gorham Road should be labeled Route 16 and the road off of Route 16 in the southern 

part of the panel is called Glen Avenue.

• On panel 11, the high school complex is located at the end of Madison and Willard Avenues. An 

unnamed stream runs through this area and the town would like to have the flood boundary in the 

area along the Dead River checked to make sure it is accurate.

• Landmarks are not easily identified.
14

• Street names were changed July 1, 2005. These changes are not on the tax maps currently but will 

be added. 

• The Town of Berlin has GIS capabilities.

Contact: Pamela LaFlamme, City Planner (752-1630).

Carroll

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(August 25, 2005 and February 7, 2006):

• On panel 13, multiple roads need to be added between the Little River and the corporate limits.

• On panel 13, south of Route 3 (where Little River crosses Route 3), there is an island in the river 

that does not show up on the current FEMA map.

• On panel 13, Roads and development north of Profile Road between corporate limits and Little 

River and between Little River and intermittent stream to the east and north of Profile Road Area at 

the end of Birch Road is developed near the Zone A boundary and needs to be remapped. A detailed 

study is needed along the Ammonoosuc River due to development along the southern overbank.

• On panel 14, a new state bridge was built across the Ammonoosuc River in the southeast corner of 

the panel. A new road, named “Zealand Trail,” extends along the Zealand River from the bridge to 

the corporate limits in the southern part of the panel. Two campgrounds exist along the Zealand 

Trail Road.

• On panel 14, the town bridge from Dartmouth College Road to River Road, in the northwest corner 

of the panel, over the Ammonoosuc River, is scheduled to be replaced by 2012. A detailed study is 

needed along the Ammonoosuc River in this area continuing from panel 13 to the southern end of 

Lake Road.

• On panel 15, a new road named “Lower Falls Road,” runs parallel to the Ammonoosuc River 

(Zone A) from the western edge of the panel to Cherry Mountain Road. A detailed study is needed 

from the Zealand Trail Road panel 14 to Cherry Mountain Road.

• On panel 17, a bridge built in 1901 does not show up on the current panel. The road joins Route 302 

and heads northeast through a golf course to the edge of the panel. There is a newly approved 43 

unit and 9 house development off of the golf course from Route 302 toward the Zone A of Crawford 

Brook northeast of Route 302 midway between the Crawford Brooks intersection with Route 302 

and an unnamed intermittent tributary to the west.

• On panel 6, Straw Road needs to be extended by 400 ft. Woodland Acres Road needs to be added 

in the southwestern corner between an unnamed stream and Carroll Stream (south of Route 3).

• On panel 10, Zone A appears ok but need to add Woodlands Acres Road in Zone C in northwest 

corner of panel, add Twin View Drive off of Route 3 in lower southwest corner of panel between 

Route 3 and the railroad tracks, and add Sunset Ledge off of Route 115 south of Carroll Stream.

• On panel 13, Profile Road should be labeled Birch Road and Ruth Road needs to be added.

• On panel 14, need to add Mountain View Lake Road where Town bridge crosses Ammonoosuc 

River to Profile Road, School Street where town offices are located north of the Ammonusuc River 

off of Dartmouth College Road are, and, need to change Colebrook Pond Road to Fieldstone Lane. 
 15

There is also extensive road and development off of St. Margarets Street that runs between Tyler 

Brook and an unnamed intermittent brook to the east.

• On panel 15, need to add an extensive road system from development north of Base Road in lower 

southeast corner of the panel and add Crawford Ridge Road southeast of Crawford Road running 

parallel to the Ammonoosuc River. 

• Town does not yet have GIS capabilities. Town tax map layer was done by Cartographics Company. 

There is a proposal submitted for voters at the March 06 town meeting to purchase hardware and 

GIS software so capabilities will depend on the outcome of the vote. Tax map by Cartographics 

Company for April 1, 2005, was provided to USGS by Allen Strasser.

Contact: Allen Strasser, Town Selectman (846-5754) and Vicki Brodeur, Administrative Assistant 

(no longer working for the town).

Colebrook

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(September 7, 2006).

• On panel 5, there is no connection between Beaver Brook and the Mohawk River flowing from east 

to west near Zone X between Corliss Lane and Pleasant Street. There is a golf course with less than 

1 mi of lawns. A trailer park and lumber yard are in this area but the pond has disappeared.

• On panel 5, Route 26 (crossing Route 145, before Beaver Brook) was reconstructed and development in the area may have changed elevations due to fill that was brought in near the Zone A area 

along the Mohawk River and Route 145, just northwest of Park Street. A detailed study is needed 

along Beaver Brook from its confluence with the Mohawk River to Hughes Road and along the 

Mohawk River from its confluence with the Connecticut River to 2,000 ft upstream of Route 26.

• On panel 5, fill was brought in at the confluence of the Mohawk and Connecticut Rivers.

• On panel 5, flood mapping appears to be inaccurate at the location of BFE 1,008’ on the Connecticut 

River. There is an industrial park north of that area.

• On panel 5, there is a LOMA on file indicating that a portion of the Colebrook Golf Course property 

was removed from the flood zone.

• On panel 10, there is a LOMA on file indicating that a structure owned by Mr. Germain, at RFD #1 

Box 103, should be removed from the flood zone along the Mohawk River. The structure sits on a 

cliff and has never been in the flood zone. The current 1989 map indicates Zone A includes his property. The Zone A flood map needs to be corrected in this area (between Russell Road and H Cross 

Road on the Mohawk River, approximately 200–500 ft downstream of the confluence of Roaring 

Brook and Mohawk River).

• The GIS layers available to the town are tax maps. Money has been set aside to bring GIS capabilities to the town. The town has wildlife, small tributaries, forest layers available along the Connecticut River through John Severance, North County Council (603) 444-6303. The town does have 

E-911 roads data.

Contact: Donna Caron, Town Manager (237-4142)
 16

Columbia

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(November 17, 2005):

• On panels 1 and 3, the Connecticut River floods along this reach and a detailed study is needed from 

the Columbia Bridge (a covered bridge that spans the Connecticut River to Lemington, Vt.) south 

along Route 3 (for approximately 1.5 mi) to the confluence with Sweatt Brook. Route 3 is often 

threatened in this location and there is a sand/gravel and cement operation in this area.

• On panel 6, the delineation of the flood plain is questionable from Lyman Brook to the corporate 

limit. There is an old hydroelectric power dam and gas tanks are located in the areas between the 

railroad and Route 3.

• On panel 1, the town states that there is a trailer park in the area just north of Simms Stream and 

between the railroad tracks and Route 3. They question whether this area may be in danger of flooding.

• The town requests that the railroad tracks that run through town be added to the new flood maps. 

• The town would like to know if the gas tank farm located on Route 3 in Stratford is in the flood 

plain. This area is just south of Columbia on the Connecticut River.

• The town does not have GIS capability.

Contact: Bill Schomburg, Chair, Planning Board (237-5255)

Dalton

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(August 25, 2005):

• No new studies needed.

Contact: Dean Sweeney, Chair, Board of Selectmen, (837-2092).

Dummer

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(September 12, 2005 and April 10, 2006):

• On panel 1, the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) in the southwest corner of the panel, from the 

corporate limits along the Upper Ammonoosuc River to Route 16 are high in elevation and should 

not be in the flood plain.

• On panel 7, from Route 110A east to the Public Park (Boffenger Recreational Area), the topography 

drops steeply to the river and southwestern bank of the Androscoggin River should not be in the 

flood plain.

• On panel 7, in the area north of Route 110A along, and southwest of, Route 16, there is a 1,000 ft 

drop down to the river with a culvert that was replaced 5 years ago. This area should not be in the 

flood plain.
17

• On panel 7, along Route 16 in the northwest corner of the panel for about a 2,000 ft reach, there is 

an area showing flooding from the Androscoggin River over Route 16. In this area, the topography 

drops off and Route 16 does not flood.

• On panel 7, at the 300 ft label on the panel, there is a canal that flows into the Androscoggin River 

at the confluence where a hydroelectric dam was built in 1986. This canal is not reflected on the 

panel. The area west of this area is known as Wheeler Bay.

• On panel 7, in the southeast section near the edge of the map and south of the Androscoggin River, 

there is private land that never floods because the fields are at a higher elevation then the river. The 

owner wants to subdivide and do away with flood ordinance as he feels the boundaries are not correct. The hydro dam has controlled the river since 1991.

• On panel 10, in the southwest corner of the panel between the corporate limit boundary and the edge 

of the map along Route 16 (southwest of the Androscoggin River) is private area owned by the same 

person and is continued from Panel 07 (see previous bullet item). Concerns are still the same regarding inaccuracy of the flood boundaries.

• Based on the above items, a detailed study is needed along the Androscoggin River from the northern boundary of panel 7 to the corporate limit on panel 10.

• On panel 2, Phillips Brook flows over Paris Road. There are seasonal camps across the road. A 

detailed study is needed in this location.

• On panel 11, a detailed study is needed along the Androscoggin River from 500 ft west of the tributary (at annotation reading 600’) to the corporate limit.

• The town does not have GIS capabilities but, there is a person in town that has a GIS and can help 

the town. 

Contact: Brad Wyman, Chair, Board of Selectmen (449-2006) and Betty Hawkins, Board of Selectmen 

(449-2006).

Errol

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(November 16, 2005 and December 5, 2005):

• On panel 0030B, LOMA for 239 Akers Pond Road is believed to be accurate and property should 

be removed from the SFHA. Property currently sits in Zone A just south of Akers Pond.

• On panel 0030B, a detailed study is needed along the Androscoggin River from approximately 

4,000 ft south of the confluence with Clear Stream to approximately 4,000 ft north of the confluence 

with Clear Stream (approximately 1.5 mi). The study area is currently designated as Zone A. Study 

is needed as flooding occurred in this area and the town is currently buying up houses in the flood 

plain. In addition, two new bridges were built in town and the Route 26 center pier was removed 

(July 02).

• On panel 0030B, a detailed study is needed along Clear Stream from its confluence with the 

Androscoggin River to its confluence with the brook flowing south out of Akers Pond due to development along Route 26 and backwater effects from the Androscoggin River (approximately 1.2 mi) 

(July 02).
 18

• Road names are inaccurate on some of the 2003 FIRM panels. The following panels have no problems: 20, 40, 50, 60.

• Panel 25 has a mislabeled road. East Side Road should be labeled Colebrook Road-U.S. Route 26.

• Panel 30 has mislabeled roads: East Side Road should be labeled Colebrook Road-U.S. Route 26, 

White Mountain Road should be labeled Berlin Road-U.S. Route 16, Section of road from intersection of East Side Road with White Mountain Road should be labeled Main Street. Magallaway Road 

should be labeled Dam Road-U.S. Route 16 and 26a and Upton Hill Road should be labeled Upton 

Road-U.S. Route 26.

• Panel 35 has a mislabeled road. Magallaway Road should be labeled Dam Road-U.S. Route 16.

• Panel 55 has a mislabeled road. Upton Hill Road should be labeled Upton Road-U.S. Route 26.

Contact: Dottie Kurtz, Town Administrator (482-3351).

Gorham

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(September 21, 2005):

• On panel 10, there is Moose River and Moose Brook within the town limits. Flooding from the 

Moose and Peabody Rivers occurs from ice jams. Kate White, CRREL, has done an extensive study 

on the Peabody River.

• The town received three separate grants in 1999 for riverbank stabilization on the Peabody, Moose, 

and Androscoggin Rivers. Two grants were from a disaster declaration and the third was from 

FEMA’s disaster resistance initiative, known as Project Impact. With these grants, riverbank stabilization (reconstructed berm with additional riprap and vegetation) was done at one site on the Peabody River and one site on the Moose River. These changes were deteriorating gabion baskets and 

were replaced with boulder deflectors and vegetation on the Androscoggin River. These changes 

were completed in 2002. 

• On panel 10, parts of Bangor Street (along the Peabody River) need to be remapped as this area 

should be removed from flood Zone AE on current maps from 1994. A berm was built in 1988–89 

on the east side of the river and since then, there has been no flooding in this section of the town. A 

LOMA for 48 Bangor Street is still valid.

• On panel 10, on the east side of the panel, the area between cross sections D and E on the 

Androscoggin River and including Alpine, Jewell, Willis Place, and Androscoggin Streets, does not 

flood and should be remapped. Area is labeled Zone AE and Zone X.

• On panel 10, the area along the Androscoggin River (south of cross sections F and G) between 

Church Street and Union Street in Zone X does flood. In 2002, in the area along the river just west 

of this area has had boulder deflectors and vegetation planted for about 150 ft.

• On panel 10, on the Moose River between cross section I and B, ice jams in the past flooded the area 

but riverbank stabilization in 2002 has reduced flooding. Area should be remapped.

• On panel 10, Moose Brook had a detailed study that was completed in 2002 by the USGS NH/VT 

Water Science Center. The extent of this study was from its’ confluence with the Androscoggin 

River to Moose Brook State Park (approximately 2.2 mi).
 19

• On panel 5, Tinker Brook and Dead River area needs to be evaluated.

• On panel 5, the tributary to the Androscoggin River near Pisani Street has a 7-ft high box culvert at 

Main Street and does not flood. 

• On panel 15, in the area between the cross section O and S, a berm/riprap with vegetation stabilization project was completed since 1994 and may have changed the flood-plain boundary in this area.

• On panel 15, two housing developments have been built since the 1994 maps and are located at 

Stoney Brook Road and Marion’s Way. These developments are located on the side of a mountain 

along Route 16 and should not be in the flood zone as shown on the panel.

• Many street name changes have occurred since the town changed to the E-9111 program and these 

are available from the town.

• Gorham has the following GIS layers: zoning, streets, tax map, wetlands, 100-year flood plain, 

500-year flood plain, shoreland for the Androscoggin River, and hydrography of the town 

(Androscoggin, Peabody, and the Moose Rivers).

Contact: Heather Mortenson, Administrative Assistant, Deputy Emergency Management Department 

Hazard Mitigation Project Coordinator (466-5025).

Jefferson

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(August 24, 2005):

• On panel 1, on the Turnpike Road in the area between an unnamed road and Route 2 Junction, Turnpike Road is higher in elevation than the river and doesn't flood. The area between the river and 

Turnpike Road should be remapped.

• On panel 4, in the lower right hand corner, flood zone boundaries on the south side of the Israel 

River are too wide as this is the high elevation side of the river and never floods. The area to reevaluate is about a 500 ft reach on either side of Route 116 south of Israel River. This area extends 

into the top of Panel 07.

• On panel 8, the area along Turnpike Road to Route 116A intersection is high in elevation and the 

flood plain boundary is too wide along the Israel River in this location.

• On panel 11, Route 115 extension was built to connect to Israel River Road. Where Route 115 

crosses Cherry Mill Brook there is a new bridge. Another new bridge crosses an intermittent stream 

running through Zone A near the swamp area. A third new bridge was built crossing the Red Brook. 

This area should be remapped since the bridges were constructed from 1980 to 1985 but do not show 

up on this panel. The new Route 115 was continued across the Israel River and another new bridge 

was built. The old Route 115 is now called Stag Hallow Road.

• On panel 11, the area between Israel River Road and the Israel River on the east and west side of 

Route 115 is a high elevation, at about 1,000 ft in elevation, and the flood plain needs to be corrected 

in this location on the Israel River.

• On panel 11, where the intermittent unnamed stream crosses Route 115A, in the upper northwest 

corner of the panel, the flood-plain boundary is inaccurate as there is no flooding that occurs in this 

area.
 20

• On panel 12, old Route 115 becomes Stag Hollow Road and the new Route 115 needs to be added 

to the map in the northwest corner.

• Road names have been changed after Route 115 extension was built. The road east of where 

Route 115 crosses the Israel River is now called Valley Road.

• Town does not have GIS capabilities but would consider the option if there as a GIS coverage of the 

flood maps.

Contact: Linda Cushman, Assistant to the Board of Selectman (603-586-4553)

Lancaster

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(November 16, 2005):

• On panel 5, LOMA is correct and still applies for residential structure at 22 Stockwell Road, which 

should be removed from the flood zone. Area of about 1,000 ft on north side of Stockwell Road 

never floods due to high topography.

• On panel 5, between Summer Street and Depot Street there is a new bridge and culvert (2002) on 

Summer Street and an old culvert on Depot Street that needs repair. Town is looking for funding to 

replace this culvert. Trailers are located between Summer Street and 459 on Causeway Street that 

may be affected by floods with the new bridge.

• On panel 5, in the southwest corner of the panel, along Water Street from edge of panel to the Main 

Street bridge, there was a dam removed 2 years ago near the Water Street crossing. Ice jams occur 

where water backs up 3 mi of the Israel River. A dam was removed near the 869 mark a long time 

ago. All this activity is upstream of the covered bridge.

• On panel 5, a restudy is requested on the ice-affected profile of the Israel River. Annually, the town 

is flooded along the banks of the Israel River, which has affected homes and businesses in the community. The town wants a better understanding of the hydrology of the river and how flood stages 

occur to determine what to do to prevent the annual flooding. The ice-affected flood stages are not 

shown on the current maps.

• On panel 10, the covered bridge on the Israel River is having repair work done to it. The town is 

seeking permission to dismantle the dam at approximately BFE 893’ and they want to know what 

effect this will have downstream. The flood zone to be re-evaluated is between BFE 893’ and 895’ 

near the covered bridge.

• On panel 10, Garland Road bridge has been replaced since 1982 and may change the flood plain 

boundaries on Otter Brook.

• On panel 11, Valley Road bridge was replaced in 2004 and may change the flood plain boundaries 

on Caleb Brook.

• On panel 16, an unnamed stream crosses Route 2 south of Wesson Road. There is commercial 

development between the railroad tracks and Route 2 near the brook and at the end of Wesson Road. 

The State rebuilt the culvert bridge on this unnamed stream and there has been some flooding 

recently.

• On panel 17, new development is located where North Road meets Gore Road for about 400 ft on 

either side of that intersection. There is a culvert on North Road that crosses and unnamed stream. 

Zones may be O.K. but should be checked.
 21

• There is little development in the town.

• Kathleen White, CREEL, assessed the ice jam history of two reaches of the Connecticut River. 

CREEL also has monitoring devices on the river to monitor ice jams. One reach requires an 

update of the hydrology and hydraulics to accurately depict ice-affected flood profiles. The 

second reach did not require an ice-affected flood profile. Contact Kathleen at 

Kathleen.D.White@erdc.usace.army.mil (603) 646-4187

• The town does have GIS on a laptop. The town also has water and sewer map coverage and would 

definitely use a GIS coverage of the FIRM maps if it were available.

Contact: Joyce McGee, Town Manager (788-3391)

Milan

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(September 6, 2005):

• A detailed study was completed in 2002 by USGS NH/VT Water Science Center along the 

Androscoggin River from the upstream corporate limit of Berlin, N.H., to the downstream corporate 

limit of Dummer, N.H. A printed FIRM was sent to the town for any changes to be made. David 

Mendelsohn, FEMA, told the town that the revised map completion was on hold but that they could 

use the draft map they have in their possession as the most recent version. There were told that they 

would have to wait for Coos County to be completed. The town has agreement #EMW2001IA-096 

for this new map.

• On panel 10, (March 31, 2005 preliminary map) (panel 03 of 1986) - LOMA to remove structure at 

127 Spruceville Road from the flood zone is still correct.

• No other changes were needed on the revised maps as of 2003.

• The town has been in touch with 6 people, 3 from FEMA and 3 from Concord about the delay. The 

Selectman have a letter from FEMA that says they can use the map they were sent for review. The 

town contacted Senator Sununu and he received a letter from FEMA indicating that FEMA was 

taking care of this map publication issue. The town was told that they were all set with a revised 

map last March by FEMA. Then they were told the project was on hold and that they would have 

to wait 4–5 years so that the southern part of the State could be completed.

• The town does have E-911 but no GIS capabilities

Contact: Richard Lamontagne, Chairman, Board of Selectmen (449-2484)

Northumberland

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(September 2, 2005):

• On panel 5, in north section of the panel, along Route 3 between Zone AE and Connecticut River 

BFE 865’, houses along Ball Road are higher then Route 3 and a long way from the river. Section 

needs to be remapped.

• On panel 5, the Connecticut River meanders in the southwest part of the panel, which are changing 

the landscape. The river has eroded the banks in the horseshoe bends and about 3,000 ft of shoreline 
 22

is affected. At the end of Craggy Road in Zone X, there is a race track that may have shoreline erosion.

• On panel 5, in the southern part of the panel along Route 3 from the start of the ballooned flood zone 

north along Route 3 to where the railroad tracks cross the river, the river channel is re-carving in 

this southern 4,000 ft section. The area of the houses around Roaring Brook Road off Winter Street, 

which then turns into Lost Nation Road, appears to be in the flood plain. There are houses near 

Zone A area (from where the railroad tracks cross the river along Route 3 to the start of the word 

Winter in Winter Street) that flood but do not appear to be in Zone A. The bridge on Brooklyn Street 

was washed out so the town wants to know if this area is still in the flood plain as indicated on the 

1989 panel.

• On panel 5, an area of potential growth is off of Route 110 on the other side of the Potter Brook and 

runs parallel to Potter Brook and on to the Upper Ammonoosuc River along Brooklyn Street. The 

town has a question about whether this area is in a flood plain.

• On panel 5, there is no flooding along Route 3 from the railroad tracks to the panel boundary. The 

cemetery in this section does have flooding problems on occasion.

• On panel 5, potential growth exists along Brooklyn Street where the river curves as it heads north. 

The elevation is high to the east of Route 110 and the town wants to know if this area is in the flood 

plain.

• On panel 5, a revision of the hydrology and hydraulics of the Upper Ammonoosuc River channel is 

requested because Red Dam was breached in the early 1990s and the river channel has changed. The 

Dam was owned by a mill on Route 110 toward Berlin on the north side of the road. There used to 

be a retention pond behind the Dam but that is gone and currently, the water flows through a gravel 

area east and upstream of where the dam used to be. The Red Dam was breached and repaired after 

a hurricane and there is no retention pond anymore. The area north of the Dam is very dry with vegetation growing and sand banks. The Red Dam was maintained by Groveton Paper Board at the time 

it was breached. They no longer own the dam. Contact information for Groveton Paper Board is 

Roger Goulet, Environmental Manager (603) 636-3000. rogerg@grovetonpapers.com. He is unable 

to supply any other information other than the dam was repaired.

• On panel 5, there is residential development from where the river forks along Cummerland Street 

for about 3,000 ft. The closest house is on the east side of the stream. The river channel has changed. 

There are three houses upstream from the Dam, on Bert Hollow Road on the same river off Emerson 

Road. One owner has a garage in the flood zone but the house is higher in elevation and not in the 

flood zone. There is no LOMA in the file.

• On panel 10, there has been a big commercial development since the 1989 maps. Three large stores 

were put in on Paris Road and built in the flood plain.

• On panel 10, there is an old mill on Old Village Road that is commercial/industrial property with a 

prospective buyer and the town needs to know the hydraulics and hydrology of this reach along the 

Connecticut River.

• On panel 10, a trailer park near Ames Plaza on Route 3 is close to Dean Brook. Dean Brook Drive 

parallels the brook behind the Ames Plaza. York Street along Dean Brook turns into a housing 

development in a cul-du-sac. A new culvert was built in 2003 from the cul-du-sac road to a new 

housing development. There are two new subdivisions with new building occurring and the town 

doesn’t know if the culvert will change the hydrology of the area at the entrance to the development. 
 23

The town has a question as to whether this development is in a flood zone. Development runs about 

1,000 ft parallel to Dean Brook.

• On panel 10, at the intersection of Page Hill Road and Lost Nation Road there is residential development that parallels Dean Brook on either side of both roads for about 1,000 ft on page Hill Road 

and 2,000 ft on Lost Nation Road. The town would like that flood area clarified because of the 

increase in development.

• The roads are not correctly identified on the current FIRMs.

• Town does have E-911 coverage.

• Town does not have GIS capabilities but, there was a December 2004 vote in town to have areal 

surveys done. This project will give the town digital photographs, buildings and different zoning 

layers, and a new zoning map to overlay flood plains.

• Contact Cartographic Associates, Littleton, N.H., for details on the GIS layers the town uses. Franco 

Rossi (GIS) at 1-800-322-4540

• GIS layers available-parcel fabric in digital file.

• Arc View is provided by Cartographic Associates to the town, but town may decide to provide this 

software in the future.

Contact: Elaine Gray, Deputy Tax Collector, Town Clerk, Zoning, Planning, and Building Permit Assistant; 

map locations given by Becky Craggy, Administrative Assistant (636-1450).

Shelburne

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(September 2, 2005):

• Maps are difficult to read and the town can't locate properties on the maps so the town does not use 

the FIRMs. They have written often to complain and George Mussler visited to discuss the problem 

of the unreadable maps. There were culverts on an earlier map, but they don't show up on the most 

recent map and changes requested are not on the maps.

• On panel 2, bank work was done on a 1,000 ft reach of the Androscoggin River up and downstream 

of the confluence of Pea Brook. There is a golf course on the south side of the river between the 

river and the railroad tracks but the flood zone here appears to be accurate on the map.

• On panel 5, Shadow Pond (south of Route 2) floods and is connected to Reflection Pond but there 

is no bridge. The topography dips down between the ponds. Reflection Pond is an artificial pond 

created from the dam on the Androscoggin River and the current map shows flooding to be okay as 

is. When flash boards are not lifted in the dam, the pond floods Route 2. Reflection Pond has an 

earthern levy.

• On panel 5, immediately northwest of the North Road bridge on the banks of the Androscoggin 

River there is a private house out of the flood plain but it should be in the flood plain.

• On panel 7, the village is not in a flood plain but there is flooding in the town from Clement Brook 

every year in the area of the park and town hall between the railroad tracks, Village Road, and U.S. 

Route 2 and it extends northwest from Meadow Road. The map does not show this as a flood plain. 
 24

If it rains, Androscoggin River will rise and there is backwater up Clement Brook for about 

4,000 ft. If there is an ice jam on the Androscoggin River, Clement Brook backs up and floods.

• On panel 7, Northeast of the Meadow Road bridge, the flood plain does not extend across the road. 

During high water or ice jams, the road can flood between banks of the Androscoggin and North 

Road.

• On panel 7, a manmade channel, between Village Road and U.S. Route 2, blocks up every year. The 

State dredges it annually. The bridge on Village Road has “two boxes” and traps trees and breaks 

up ice jams.

• On panel 7, development is occurring in the area of Losier Road and flooding can extend to the road. 

A cul-de-sac at the end of Losier Road floods from East Brook during rain or high water from the 

Androscoggin River.

• On panel 7, some roads are not labeled correctly.

• On panel 11, there is a LOMA for 1333 State Route 2 (residential structure) that is believed to be 

accurate and the structure should be removed from the flood Zone A and placed in flood Zone C. 

House is above the river but land extends to the river.

• On panel 11, a 500-ft stretch on U.S. Route 2 never floods. The Androscoggin River never crosses 

Route 2 but the panel shows that it does.

• On panel 11, in the southeast corner of the panel, the Androscoggin River floods to the railroad 

tracks but, never over the tracks or to Route 2. The Androscoggin River backs up Connor Brook but 

does not cross Connor Road. There is a need to re-evaluate a 2,000 ft reach in this section.

• On panel 11, along North Road (north of the Androscoggin River) from Ingalis Valley Road and 

west to approximately 1,000 ft, Wheeler Pond does flood but not from the Androscoggin River. 

There is a culvert that causes flooding through a pipeline corridor from runoff uphill.

• The town requests a face-to-face meeting before any survey begins so they can point out certain 

areas to fix and which roads are needed on the map.

• Some roads are labeled incorrectly. Two-thirds of the roads in town are not on the maps.

• The town does have E-911, which was mapped for the town. The town will benefit from the availability of digital coverage

Contact: Josephine Carpenter, Administrative Assistant (466-2262)

Stark

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(January 31, 2006):

• On panel 10, the biggest problem for the town is a section of Route 110 along a 2,000 ft reach of the 

Upper Ammonoosuc River from the top of the panel south to the covered bridge. This area has some 

Zone A areas that are 1,000 ft or higher and do not flood. Current maps show this area to be in the 

flood zone.

• On panel 5, a dam went out in 1969 in Nash Stream but the dam was not rebuilt, therefore, the 

hydraulics of the river channel have changed. The area does not flood. At the intersection of North 
 25

Road and Nash Stream a new bridge was put in after the dam broke. An area about 1,000 ft of reach 

should be resurveyed and have a detailed study.

• On panel 7, Pike Pond has a conservation easement surrounding it so there is no development. In 

the lower southeast corner of the panel, the Phillips Brook parallels Paris Road. At the bend in the 

road south of Dewey Road, the section of road (in 2000) was built up 14 ft, creating a levee that 

prevents the road from flooding. The reach is about 1,000 ft. 

• On panel 7, in the Zone A area south of the railroad tracks in the southeast corner, a 77-foot long 

bridge was built in 2000 and the area no longer floods.

• The town would like to have someone come out and walk the Route 110 section north of the covered 

bridge before any revisions are made.

Contact: Joe Ike, Selectman and Sue Croteau, Office Manager (636-2118)

Stewartstown

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(September 22, 2005):

• The town has concerns about Murphy Dam at Lake Francis, in the Town of Pittsburg, upstream from 

Stewartstown. The Dam regulates flow but they wonder how that affects the flood zone in Stewartstown.

• On panel 1, most of the area from River Street to the end of Church Street is at least 75–100 ft above 

the Connecticut River along Route 3 (which follows the river). There are five houses on River Street 

that are above the river and are shown to be in the Zone A flood zone. It appears as if a broad brush 

was applied for approximately a 1,000 ft reach along the Connecticut River and high ground is 

shown to be in the flood Zone A. At the end of Church Street the drop off to the river is about 75 ft. 

LOMAs are thought to be accurate for residences at 1105 Route 3 and 1099 Route 3 and these 

should be removed from the flood zone because as the road follows the Connecticut River, it is 

higher in elevation than the river. LOMA for Pierre Road (leads to a subdivision called Fort Hill), 

which was built on the bank 75 ft above the river off of Route 3 and it is thought that this residence 

should also be out of the flood plain.

• On panel 1, there is new development along Day Brook (near where it intersects Route 3) and an 

evaluation of the boundaries of the flood plain would be helpful to the town.

• On panel 1, the river bank drops off along Route 3 from the confluence of Day Brook with the Connecticut River at the modified dam to where the railroad tracks cross the river. The town feels that 

this area should not be in the flood plain.

• On panel 1, there is a LOMA for Fort Hill Road. This site needs to be removed from the flood zone 

as the building location is more then 100 ft above the river.

• On panel 1, the area along Mill Street between the river and Route 3 (near the bend in the river) is 

greater then 75 ft above the river and is shown to be in the flood plain. A new bridge was built in 

2000 in the same area as the old one on Main Street. Park Street, in the same area, is 50–75 ft above 

the river and Rancor Street off of Park Street is greater then 75 ft above the river. All are shown as 

being in the flood plain and they are not.
 26

• On panel 1, Back Pond Road (that crosses Day Brook) has a LOMA at 242 Back Pond Road. Some 

of the road was in a flood in the past but the town believes that it is no longer in the flood plain and 

needs to be removed from Zone A. The grade of the land increases in the Special Flood Hazard Area 

along Crown Road. At the point where Crown Road crosses Day Brook, there is a culvert and bridge 

with no flooding in this location. 

• On panel 1, Back Pond is a spring-fed pond and the town questions whether the boundaries drawn 

around the pond are accurate because it is a wetlands or swamp area and is not directly connected 

to the Connecticut River.

• On panel 2, along Route 3, there is a development on a mountainside with new structures next to the 

Bishop Brook crossing of Route 3 so the area should be remapped. In October 2005, the brook 

flooded up to the Route 3 Bridge and the Zone A boundary is not shown on the panel. There are new 

commercial buildings on the bank of the river where the brook meets the Connecticut River. Any 

development along Route 3 is on the mountain side of Route 3 and high above the river.

• The town does not have GIS capabilities but they do have E-911.

Contact: Charles O. Stevens, Chairman, Board of Selectmen and Perry Richardson, Selectman (246-3329)

Stratford

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(September 12, 2005):

• One area for a property in North Stratford shows that a garage is below the base flood elevation 

according to the FIRM. No LOMA is on file, just a letter from the consulting firm Provan and 

Lorber. However, the flood boundary on the map does not extend beyond Route 3 yet, this garage 

is 1.5 ft higher than Route 3. The flood map needs to be updated in this area. A letter from private 

surveyor indicated that the building was in the flood plain but the maps show the building is not in 

the flood plain.

• The town questions whether a tank farm on Route 3 is in the flood zone or not.

• On panel 5, from the top of panel for about 1.5 mi southwest along the Connecticut River there are 

areas in which the town believes the Zone A to be inaccurate.

• On panel 5, at BFE 932’–930’, Zone B is shown to extend across Route 3. The town feels that it may 

not be accurate.

• On panel 5, at BFE 928’, there is a snack bar on high side of river.

• On panel 5, at BFE 928’–924’, Lyman Brook is not labeled.

• On panel 5, at BFE 923’ (near Zone A10), there is an oil storage company and the town is not sure 

if that is in the flood plain or not.

• On panel 5, from Paradis Road Zone B there is a development up on a hill in the area marked 

Zone B that should not be in the flood plain.

• On panel 5, Woodfield Road should be labeled Woodale Road.

• On panel 5, property location for Elevation Certification for Robinson property is between Zone B 

and Washburns Road. Certification states garage slab elevation is 886.12 ft or not above the 888 ft 
 27

on the FIRM map. The map doesn't extend beyond Route 3 and the property is 1.5 ft higher then 

Route 3, yet it shows the boundary does not extend beyond Route 3.

• On panel 15, a new road named Percy Road was built connecting Route 3 near Hog Back to the 

intersection with Egan Road.

• On panel 15, along Bog Brook, there are new large bridges built by the State near BFE 1065’, 1033’, 

975’, and 895’ (at RM3 near the end of Spur Road where it intersects with Bog Road). For about 

2,000 ft from BFE 1027’ to the end of the road crossing Bog Brook on the northeast side of the 

panel, there are new developments and roads, private camps, and another small culvert bridge at the 

intersection of Percy Road and Egan Road.

• On panel 15, there is a 2 mi reach of Bog Brook from Zone A15 to the confluence of East Branch 

Bog Brook that has the following changes: (1) At Potato Hill Road there are two, private bridges 

built over the East Branch Bog Brook near BFE 950’. This stream is regulated by the State; (2) 

Zone A including the wetlands south to Bog Road may be gone because there is no swamp or pond 

in the area anymore; (3) The dirt access road just south of 926 is called Martha's Way; (4) Old U.S. 

Route 3 is called Bog Road; (5) the new road connecting Old U.S. Route 3 to Spur Road is called 

Hollow Road; and (6) the unnamed road at BFE 866’ is called Maidstone Road. It is southeast of 

Route 3 and will connect Bog Road to Spur Road.

• On panel 20, the Nash Street Dam went out and may have changed the Zone A in this area. Main 

roads do not show up on flood map and the only development is at camps that are leased.

• The town does not have GIS capabilities, no maps are available in electronic format. 

• The town does have E-911.

Contact: Steve Allen, Emergency Management Director and Selectman and Patty Summers, Assistant to 

the Selectmen (922-5533).

Whitefield

The following provides a summary of the key issues identified during the community interview 

(October 7, 2005):

• On panel 10, there are some residential structures off of Water Street and off of Union Street that 

cross the Johns River that may be in the flood zone.

• The town does have GIS capabilities and has maps for wetlands, land use, lowlands, and center lines 

of the streets.

• The town does has E-911 but not in electronic format.

• Cardiographics, Inc., in Littleton, N.H., does the tax map as a GIS product.

Contact: Judy Ramdell, Secretary to the Board of Selectmen (837-2551) and Bill Thompson, Water 

Superintendent (837-9237).
 28

Available Digital Mapping and Remotely Sensed Data

This section provides an inventory of the digital data available to support the production of DFIRMs 

for the study area. Basic information is provided on the content, lineage, and accuracy of the products.

Data-Collection Efforts

To determine the availability of digitally available data, the USGS contacted Lynn Bjorklund (New 

England Liaison to USGS National Mapping), Fay Rubin (GIS Manager, NH GRANIT, UNH Complex 

Systems Research Center), North Country Council Regional Planning Commission (NCCouncil), and the 

communities themselves. The NH GRANIT has useful base mapping. 

NH GRANIT Data Sources

NH GRANIT is a cooperative project to create, maintain, and make available a statewide geographic 

database serving the information needs of state, regional, and local decision-makers. A collaborative effort 

between the UNH and the NHOEP, the core GRANIT system is housed at the UNH Institute for the Study 

of Earth, Oceans, and Space in Durham.

NH GRANIT maintains data layers (http://www.granit.sr.unh.edu) including features such as roads, 

streams, and political boundaries. Some of the base map data layers maintained by NH GRANIT have been 

derived from USGS data and represent many of the feature types found on USGS topographic maps. More 

recently developed data were derived from digital orthophotos providing improved base map accuracy.

NH GRANIT is presently converting the standard, paper FIRMs and Flood Boundary and Floodway 

maps (FBFMs) to DFIRMs by digitizing existing flood maps from the existing paper flood maps. The 

DFIRMs will depict flood risk information, and include 100- and 500-year flood plain boundaries as well 

as areas of minimal flood risk. NH GRANIT is using USGS 1998 DOQs as the base, and they are incorporating any LOMC that are on file with FEMA.

The Q3 flood-data product is a digital representation of certain features of FEMA’s FIRM product and 

are created by scanning the effective FIRM paper maps and digitizing selected features and lines. The digital 

Q3 flood data contain the following:

1. 1-percent (100-year) and 0.2-percent (500-year) annual chance flood plain boundaries (including 

velocity zones),

2. Flood insurance zone designations,

3. Floodway boundaries (where available),

4. Political boundaries (State, county, and community),

5. Community and map panel identification numbers,

6. FIRM panel neatlines,

7. USGS 7.5-minute (1:24,000 scale) series topographic map neatlines, and

8. Coastal Barrier Resources System areas.
 29

Community Data Resources

The USGS and NH GRANIT do not have digital base mapping data for Coos County that meet FEMA 

requirements for DFIRM production. Community data requests were limited to topographic data suitable 

for hydraulic modeling (for example, 4-ft contours).

Coos County has high resolution digital orthophotos (1:12,000). No suitable sources of digital elevation 

data for FEMA flood mapping were located.

Stream Final Coverage Output

The WISE Scoping Tool organizes and stores data and assists in the prioritization of the community 

requests for flood plain studies. As the scoping process is completed, three coverages (maps) are created: 

Effective, Meeting, and Stream Final. 

• Effective Coverage: Q3 flood-hazard data are not available for Coos County. NH GRANIT has a 

contract with FEMA to digitize the FIRMs and they made these nearly completed DFIRMs available to the USGS for purposes of scoping. The DFIRM data for Coos County were received from 

NH GRANIT on October 15, 2005, although it had not been Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

checked at that time. Users of the WISE tool should obtain an updated version of the DFIRM data 

when it becomes available in December of 2006. The DFIRM information was entered into the 

WISE scoping tool. The initial Scoping Tool database was set up using the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) stream centerline coverage 

(http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html) and digital flood boundary base mapping data provided by NH 

GRANIT. The NHD stream centerline coverage was used to build the Effective Coverage in the 

Scoping Tool. The digitized flood-hazard data were overlain onto the NHD stream centerline coverage. The Scoping Tool was used to enter each reach of the Effective Coverage one at a time by 

assigning the beginning and end of each reach and the current effective type of study. 

• Meeting Coverage: The Effective Coverage was used to prepare the work maps for recording mapping needs requested by the communities during the Scoping Meetings. These requests were also 

recorded in the Meeting Coverage of the Scoping Tool.

• Stream Final Coverage: The WISE Scoping Tool was used to create a Stream Final Coverage to 

document and highlight community meeting results. Community mapping needs based on community input are summarized in figure 4.
Pittsburg

Milan

Stark

Berlin

Stratford Odell

Success

Columbia

Dixville

Dummer

Carroll

Clarksville

Cambridge

Lancaster

Randolph

Jefferson

Shelburne

Millsfield

Gorham

Beans

Purchase

Dalton

Colebrook

Whitefield

Stewartstown

Kilkenny

Dixs

Grant Second

College

Grant

Low-Burbanks

Grant

Wentworths

Location

AtkinsonGilmanton 

0 5 20 MILES

0 5 20 KILOMETERS

10 15

10 15

71°15'

71°30'

44°30'

44°15'

44°45'

45°

45°15'

71o45'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

Digital Line Graphs, 1:24,000, 1990-94 and

National Hydrography Dataset, 1:24,000, 1999

Detailed study request

Hydrography

EXPLANATION

Errol

Northumberland

Limited detailed study request

Redelineation request

 30

Figure 4. Coos County, New Hampshire, stream final coverage.
 31

Section 3. Options for Future Mapping and Digital Terrain Model Preparation

Mapping Requirements

This section provides an assessment of the costs and benefits of utilizing the data cataloged in the previous section for the preparation of DFIRMs for Coos County. Options are presented for using these data 

sets in various combinations and supplementing them with new data sets.

DFIRMs are produced from the following three broad categories of geospatial data: (1) Base Map, 

(2) Digital Terrain Model (DTM), and (3) Flood Insurance Risk Zones. The spatial accuracy of each of these 

three categories is fixed by the specifications contained in the “Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners,” April 2003 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2004).

• Base Maps: Base maps (1998 DOQs) are being acquired from NH GRANIT and will be used by 

FEMA as the background to the flood insurance risk zones shown on the DFIRMs. 

• DTMs: DTMs are used in conjunction with H&H models to interpret the limits of flood insurance 

risk zones. 

• Flood Insurance Risk Zones: Geographic boundaries produced by FEMA.

Base Map

Base maps are defined in the “Guidelines and Specifications” as the “map of the community that depicts 

cultural features (for example, roads, railroad, bridges, dams, and culverts), drainage features, and corporate 

limits.” Depending on the source of the base map, the specific features found on DFIRMs may include the 

following data and features:

• Roads: centerlines, edge-of-pavement, right-of-way, names.

• Railroads: names.

• Bridges: names.

• Flood Control Structures: headwall, dam, levee, names.

• Airport Boundaries: names.

• Rivers: centerlines, banks, names.

• Streams: names.

• Lakes: names.

• Political Boundaries: county, municipality, special districts, wards, military reservations, Native 

American lands, names.

• Land Use: parks, individual land parcels, names.

The “Guidelines and Specifications” specify “absolute horizontal accuracy” for base map features to 

establish horizontal accuracy for the position of the digital data set to its actual location on the earth’s surface. The horizontal accuracy is specified as a statistical error distribution at the 95-percent confidence level 

and is specified in the “Guidelines and Specifications” as a function of finished map scale, as shown in 

table 4:
Table 4. FIRM Horizontal Accuracy.

[FIRM, Flood Insurance Rate Map]

FIRM map scale

Absolute horizontal accuracy at 

the 95-percent confidence level, 

in feet

1 in = 500 ft 19.0

1 in = 1,000 ft 38.0

1 in = 2,000 ft 45.6

 32

Digital Terrain Models

FEMA typically develops DTMs for the production of DFIRMS as they are not widely available at the 

accuracies required by FEMA. The DTMs are used in conjunction with H&H models to interpret flood 

boundaries and can be used by the community for many purposes other than flood management. DTMs represent terrain with irregularly spaced spot elevations (x,y,z) and breaklines that indicate changes in ground 

slope at features such as the toe or top of channel banks or ridge lines. These data sets are generally photogrametrically compiled by a mapping contractor from stereo photos and utilized in the form of a Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) or a DEM. A DEM uses a regular grid, or raster, spacing of (x,y,z) points to 

represent the land surface. Each grid cell is assigned an average elevation to represent the elevation of the 

ground that is covered by the grid cell. A DEM represents the terrain surface with a mesh of regularly spaced 

points, whereas a TIN uses contiguous triangular planes.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (2004) “Guidelines and Specifications” identify the following four types of DTMs: (1) Digital contours, (2) DEMs, (3) Mass points and breaklines, and (4) TIN. Each 

of these models can be created from the other and their use is application dependent.

Under FEMA guidelines, the allowable DTMs are as follows:

1. Digital contours: continuous, nonintersecting lines of equal elevation separated by a specified elevation interval.

2. DEM: x, y, and z coordinates of regularly spaced points that form a grid.

3. Mass Points and Breaklines: x, y, and z coordinates of irregularly spaced points.

4. TIN: contiguous triangles with x, y, and z values at the vertices and faces with slope and aspect.

The “Guidelines and Specifications” specify what is referred to as “absolute vertical accuracy” for 

DTMs, which relates the elevation of the land surface in the digital data set to its actual elevation relative to 

a specific vertical datum. The National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA) is specified as a statistical error distribution at the 90- and 95-percent confidence level as a function of the specified contour 

interval as shown in table 5.

Table 5. National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy.

[NSSDA, National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy, all values are in feet]

Contour interval NSSDA

90-percent confidence interval

NSSDA

95-percent confidence interval

2 1 1.2 

4 2 2.4 
 33

Contouring and DEMs are not printed on DFIRMS so their vertical accuracy is not labeled on the 

DFIRMS, but it is recorded in the metadata of elevation datasets used for H&H modeling.

Flood Insurance Risk Zones

Flood insurance risk zones are created by FEMA to set insurance rates and manage the flood plain. 

Flood insurance risk zone accuracy requirements are not specified in the Guidelines and Specifications but 

can be described in terms of the combined accuracies of the base map, DTM, and the hydrology and hydraulic simulation models.

Suitability of the Available Data

The following section provides a summary of the suitability of the base map and DTM available for 

Coos County, N.H., from the appropriate community, county, and state resources.

USGS of GRANIT

The USGS and NH GRANIT can provide digital data base mapping data for Coos County that meets 

FEMA requirements for DFIRM production. Neither USGS nor NH GRANIT has elevation data suitable 

for hydraulic modeling and communities were contacted to find topographic or elevation data suitable for 

hydraulic modeling (for example, 2-ft or 4-ft contours). 

Community Data Resources

 No community sources of digital elevation data for hydraulic modeling or FEMA flood mapping were 

located. 

County Data Resources

Coos County does not have suitable data for DFIRM use. Towns in Coos County are within the planning area of the North Country Council, Inc., Regional Planning Commission. The planning commission 

did not have suitable data for DFIRM use.

Base Map

NH GRANIT maintains data layers including features such as roads, streams, and political boundaries. 

Base map layers maintained by NH GRANIT include features such as roads, streams, and political boundaries. Base map data layers have been acquired from a variety of sources including the USGS data and represent many of the feature types found on USGS topographic maps. More recently developed data were 

derived from the digital orthophotos providing improved base map accuracy.

There are two base map sources available (table 6). These include the USGS DOQs (1:12,000; 1998, 

1992) and NAIP Aerial Photographs (1:40,000; 2003). Existing coverages maintained by NH GRANIT can 

be linked to or viewed at the following Web site: http://www.granit.sr.unh.edu
Table 6. Currently available high resolution orthophotography for Coos County.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; DOQQ, Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quad; B&W, Black and White; NAIP, National Agricultural 

Imagery Program, NH GRANIT, New Hampshire Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System]

Item Source Date Resolution Coverage

USGS DOQQ B&W USGS 1998, 1992 1.0 meter pixel Statewide

NAIP 2003 Color NH GRANIT, NAIP 2003 1.0 meter pixel Statewide

34

USGS Digital Ortho Quarter Quads (DOQQs) are available for all of Coos County. The DOQQs are 

FEMA’s default standard for the base map. The accuracy and quality of the DOQQs meets National Map 

Accuracy Standards at 1:12,000 scale for 3.75-minute quarter quadrangles, plus or minus 33.33 ft or 10 m. 

For Coos County, the DOQQ orthophotos are dated 1998 and are 1.0-m resolution.

The NAIP 2003 color orthophotos were created by the Aerial Photography Field Office (APFO) of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and processed by NH GRANIT to (1) standardize the exterior 

“nodata” values; (2) re-project the data into New Hampshire State Plane Feet (North American Datum of 

1983 (NAD 83)); (3) tile the data to 15-minute quadrangles to facilitate distribution; and (4) re-compress 

the data to MrSID Generation 3 format. The source product is 1-m ground sample distance (GSD) DOQQs 

from the National Digital Ortho Program (NDOP). The imagery may contain as much as 10-percent cloud 

cover per source photograph.

Digital Terrain Model

NH GRANIT has the DEM USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) available for download. NH 

GRANIT extracted the NED and re-projected the files into NAD 83. The data are based on USGS 7.5 minute 

DEMs (30 m x 30 m square grids). The DEMs were derived from USGS 1:24000 and 1:25000 quadrangle 

maps.

Flood Insurance Risk Zones

FEMA flood insurance rate 100- and 500-year flood zones are being converted to digital data layers by 

NH GRANIT for each community participating in the NFIP in New Hampshire. These datasets were developed by direct digitization of FIRM maps using data registration techniques that produced the best-fit registration to community boundaries or other suitable features.

Mapping Options

The following section provides a summary of the potential options for developing base maps, DTMs, 

and flood insurance risk zones.

Base Map

Three base map options are presented for consideration:

1. Use existing USGS DOQQs from 1998 and 1992.

2. Use NAIP 2003, 1.0-m resolution color orthophotos.

3. Produce new vector data.

The recommended option for DFIRM production in Coos County is option #1.
 35

Digital Terrain Model

There are no DTM data available that meet FEMA requirements for Coos County.

DTM development options include (1) obtaining countywide DTM data that covers all communities 

and (2) obtaining DTM data only for selected flood plain areas as needed to support a detailed study, limited 

detailed study, restudy or re-delineation of flood-hazard areas. 

The estimated costs of obtaining new DTM data is shown in table 7. These costs are based on the information determined by Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. (2004) in their 2005 Scoping Report for Rutland 

County, Vermont. The estimates include the cost of the LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) imaging system work and the associated aerial photography work needed to create break line data.

Obtaining DTM data on a countywide basis is expensive. Most of the acquired data would be outside 

of the flood plain and not needed for hydraulic analysis. If FEMA obtains new DTM data for selected areas 

as needed, it would be most cost effective to consolidate areas, where possible, and optimize flights, to 

reduce the unit costs.

Flood Insurance Risk Zones

The response from communities in Coos County, New Hampshire was mixed regarding the accuracy 

of the flood insurance risk zones as shown on the existing panels. The most common comment by community representatives was that a better base map is needed to allow easier determination of where the risk zone 

boundaries are relative to the existing features such as roads and buildings. 

Table 7. Estimate of costs to obtain Digital Terrain Model data (2-ft contours).

Area 

(square miles)

Unit cost 

($ per square mile) Estimated cost

20 5,000 $100,000

50 3,000 $150,000

75 2,250 $168,750

100 2,000 $200,000

1,800 

(All of Coos County)

1,000 $1,800,000
 36

Section 4. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Restudy Needs and Prioritization

This section summarizes the mapping needs prioritization process and presents the prioritization results 

based on community input as well as data obtained from other sources including MNUSS and LOMCs.

Mapping Needs

Based on community input, mapping needs included comments that no new studies were needed, flood 

plain boundaries are delineated incorrectly, the existing detailed study area needs to be extended, and 

remapping is needed. 

Prioritization Process

DFIRM data are available for parts of Coos County; however, the DFIRM data received on January 24, 

2006, and entered into WISE, has not been Quality Assurance/Quality Control checked. 

The data collected from the state and community meetings and MNUSS was entered into the WISE 

scoping tool. The data then were exported out of WISE and put into a spreadsheet to score each stream 

segment based on the relative importance of the following factors:

• Community population density.

• Population change (growth).

• Age of effective flood insurance study.

• Significant areas (as defined by the community).

• Existing or proposed development since the FIS.

• Presence of LOMAs/LOMRs.

• Priority (as assigned by community).

• Ranking of importance within the community (community defined).

The prioritization of the flooding sources was based on a number of factors specific to Coos County 

and is shown in table 8.
Table 8. Community flooding source prioritization.

[FIS, Flood Insurance Study; LOMCs, Letters of Map Changes]

Community population density

(population per square mile) 1990–2000 percent population growth Year since most recent FIS

Range Value Range Value Range Value

> 1,000 10 > 50 10 < 1980 10

90–999 8 40–49 8 1980–1984 8

80–89 6 30–39 6 1985–1989 6

60–79 4 20–29 4 1990–1994 4

30–59 2 10–19 2 1995–1999 2

10–29 1 5–9 1 2000–2004 1

< 9 0 < 4 0 2005 0

Significant areas 

(as defined by the community)

Existing or proposed development

since FIS Presence of LOMCs

Range Value Range Value Range Value

Yes 5 Yes 5 Yes 5

No 0 No 0 No 0

Community priority Community ranking

Range Value Range Value

High 20 1 10

Medium 10 2 8

Low 0 3 6

> 4 4

 37

Prioritization Results

The sum of the score for the parameters listed in table 8 was used to determine the final score for each 

stream and flooding source. The list of prioritized flooding sources is provided in appendix D.

Non-Participating Communities

The Towns of Randolph, Pittsburg, and Clarksville are not currently in the NFIP. However, community 

representatives for each of these towns stated that there are no flooding sources of concern.
 38

Section 5. Recommendations and Schedule

This section presents flood-mapping recommendations to meet the mapping needs described in previous sections.

Mapping Recommendations

FEMA’s goal is to develop updated DFIRMs and FISs for Coos County, New Hampshire. The County 

has a total area of approximately 1,831 mi2

 of which 1,800 mi2 is land and 31 mi2 is water. Coos County 

encompasses 21 incorporated cities and towns and 22 unincorporated locations, grants, townships or purchases.

Mapping Options

Mapping can be categorized based on the level of detail and required study effort to create or update 

flood-hazard zones.

• Baseline–DFIRM only: The most economical method of creating a countywide DFIRM is through 

digitizing flood-hazard information from the effective FIRMs and FISs onto new mapping. This 

baseline option is currently being undertaken by NH GRANIT.

• Redelineation: Detailed topography (2-ft contour interval) is not currently available. The floodhazard information from the effective FIRMs and FISs can be redelineated onto new topography 

and base mapping as it becomes available.

• Limited Detailed Study: Automated tools are used to produce digital information. This assumes 

new field surveys for structures but, no new field surveys for cross-sections are needed and that the 

existing hydraulic model can be used.

• Detailed Study: Can be performed to develop the digital information, including field surveyed 

cross-sections and structures. Since this is the most expensive type of study that FEMA can perform, 

the extent of the detailed study may be limited.

Project Alternatives

Costs can be reduced by cutting back on the level of effort for the H&H analyses and(or) reducing the 

number of DFIRM panels. Alternative H&H options that would help FEMA to reduce costs include reducing the study scope from a detailed study to a limited detail study or redelineation of current flood information only. Reducing the number of DFIRM panels by altering the mix of panel scales would lower the total 

panel count and reduce the estimated DFIRM production cost.

Schedule

The project schedule will vary depending on the final scope of the work. Detailed and Limited Detail 

Restudy and DFIRM production can be completed in 24 months, plus the time required for post preliminary 

processing, which may be completed in about 6 months for a total of 30 months.
 39

Selected References

Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., 2004, Flood insurance study needs in the Blackstone River basin in Providence County, Rhode Island and Worcester County, Massachusetts: Contract No. EME-2003-CO-0340, 

Task Order T001, Task 1, February 2004, variously paged.

Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., 2005, Flood insurance study needs in Rutland County, Vermont: Contract 

No. EME-2003-CO-0340, variously paged.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2004, Guidelines and specifications for flood-hazard mapping 

partners, accessed online January 10, 2006, at http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/gs_main.shtm

New Hampshire GRANIT (Geographically Referenced ANalysis and Information Transfer system), 2006, 

accessed online January 12, 2006, at http://www.granit.sr.unh.edu/

University of New Hampshire, 2005, Carsey Institute, accessed online September 28, 2005, at 

http://www.nneindicators.unh.edu/ShowOneRegion.asp?IndicatorID=1&FIPS=33013.

Watershed Concepts, a Division of Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Watershed Information System 

(WISE), version 2.0.9, 2005.
 40
 41

Appendix A. Summary of Letters of Map Change (LOMC) 

Data in Coos County
42

Table A-1. Summary of LOMC data in Coos County.[LOMC, Letters of Map Changes; SFHA, Special Flood Hazard Area. The SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled 

LOMA, Letter of Map Amendment; LOMR-FW, Letter of Map Revision Floodway; LOMA-OAS, Letter of Map Amendment Out-As-Show; LOMR-F, Letter of Map Revisi

Community LOMC type Case number Effective date Flooding source Address Property latitude Property longi- tude Removed from SFHA (1) Ne

flo

zo

Colebrook, N.H. LOMA 05-01-0312A 4/28/2005 Mohawk River Colebrook Golf 

Course

44.895 -71.488 Portion of property C 

Colebrook, N.H. LOMA-OAS 01-01-0734A 5/2/2001 Mohawk River 8 Parsons Street 44.893 -71.496 Office and showroom X Colebrook, N.H. LOMA 00-01-0148A 3/17/2000 Mohawk River RFD #1, Box 103 44.872 -71.385 Structures X Gorham, N.H. LOMR-F 00-01-1000A 10/12/2000 Peabody River 2 Underhill Street 44.384 -71.168 Structure AGorham, N.H. LOMA 99-01-1288A 12/29/1999 Peabody River 48 Bangor Street 44.384 -71.168 Residential structure X Gorham, N.H. LOMR 99-01-017P 12/1/1999 Peabody River -- -- -- -- ALancaster, N.H. LOMA 03-01-2062A 11/6/2003 Connecticut River 22 Stockwell Road 44.507 -71.571 Residential structure C Shelburne, N.H. LOMA 99-01-166A 3/12/1999 Androscoggin River 1333 State Route 2 44.395 -71.048 Residential structure C Stewartstown, N.H. LOMA 05-01-0621A 7/12/2005 Connecticut River 18 River Road 45.008 -71.506 Residential structure C Stratford, N.H. LOMA-OAS 04-01-1488A 9/2/2004 Bog Brook R.R. #1, Box 584, 

Spur Road

44.651 -71.556 Reidential structure C 

Stratford, N.H. LOMA 00-01-0946A 9/12/2000 Bog Brook Bog Road 44.675 -71.538 Residential structure AStratford, N.H. LOMA 01-01-0424A 2/9/2001 Bog Brook Bog Road 44.675 -71.538 Residential structure A
43

Appendix B. Mapping Needs Update Support System 

(MNUSS) Needs Assessment Reports

Coos County, New Hampshire

MNUSS Needs Assessment Reports Summary Table

New Hampshire Mapping Needs in MNUSS

April 19, 2006
Table B-1. Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) needs assessment reports summary.

CID Community name County Unmapped

Needs

Flood data 

update*

Map 

maintenance* Pending Resolved

330029 Berlin, City of Coos County 2 1 0 0

330030 Carroll, Town of Coos County 0 0 0 0

330184 Clarksville, Town of Coos County 0 0 0 0

330031 Colebrook, Town of Coos County 4 0 0 0

330185 Columbia, Town of Coos County 0 0 0 0

330198 Dalton, Town of Coos County 0 0 0 0

330200 Dixville, Town of Coos County * 0 0 0 0

330201 Dummer, Town of Coos County 1 1 0 0

330206 Errol, Town of Coos County 1 0 0 0

330032 Gorham, Town of Coos County 1 0 0 0

330033 Jefferson, Town of Coos County 1 0 0 0

335277 Lancaster, Town of Coos County 0 0 0 0

330035 Milan, Town of Coos County 0 0 0 0

330223 Millsfield, Town of Coos County * 0 0 0 0

330036 Northumberland, Town of Coos County 0 0 0 0

330186 Pittsburg, Town of Coos County 0 0 0 0

330187 Randolph, Town of Coos County 0 0 0 0

330037 Shelburne, Town of Coos County 0 1 0 0

330038 Stark, Town of Coos County 0 0 0 0

330194 Stewartstown, Town of Coos County 0 0 0 0

330039 Stratford, Town of Coos County 0 0 0 0

330040 Whitefield, Town of Coos County 0 0 0 0

Totals <0 3 0 0

*

These needs have a status of “Existing” or “Being Addressed”.

44
45

Appendix C. State and Community Meetings
GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BERLIN, CITY OF CID: 330029 

County: COOS COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000010575 Entered By: Chuck Wood 

Source: FEMA 5-year letter Date: 10/13/1997 

 Approved By: FEMA 

 Date: 10/13/1997 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Decreased By Between 1 and 5 feet 

Length of Study: 0.35 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 350 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3300290017B (06/15/1982) 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BERLIN, CITY OF [FIRE DEPT.] Phone: (603) 752-3135 Ext: Unspecified

Last Name: LAVERTUE First Name: MAURICE 

Address 1: 263 MAIN STREET Title: BUILDING INSPECTOR 

Address 2: Unspecified Email: Unspecified

City: BERLIN Fax: Unspecified

State: NH Zip: 03570- 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered 

By Note

09/30/2002 Kara 

Deutsch 

Berlin Planning Department stated that Cleveland Bridge 

was constructed but is not reflected on the FIRMs. Need 

cross-sections and benchmarks in this area.

 46

mu
GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BERLIN, CITY OF CID: 330029 

County: COOS COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000029275 Entered By: Kara Deutsch 

Source: State Implementation Plan Date: 09/30/2002 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 11/14/2002 

Study Category: MAINTENANCE Need Types: Add streets to panel 

Add an ERM 

Status: Existing 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3300290004B (06/15/1982) 3300290005B (06/15/1982) 

3300290006B (06/15/1982) 3300290010B (06/15/1982) 

3300290011B (06/15/1982) 3300290012B (06/15/1982) 

3300290016B (06/15/1982) 3300290017B (06/15/1982) 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BERLIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: (603) 752-1630 Ext: Unspecified

Last Name: LAFLAMME First Name: PAMELA 

Address 1: 168 MAIN STREET Title: CITY PLANNER 

Address 2: Unspecified Email: planning@ncia.net 

City: BERLIN Fax: (603) 752-8553 

State: NH Zip: 03570 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

There are no notes for this need. 

 47
GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BERLIN, CITY OF CID: 330029 

County: COOS COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000029276 Entered By: Kara Deutsch 

Source: State Implementation Plan Date: 09/30/2002 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 11/14/2002 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: DEAD RIVER 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE 

Change: Increased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 0.3 miles 

Average Width of 

Floodplain: 80 feet 

Location of 

Floodplain: 

from Pleasant Street to confluence with Androscoggin River 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3300290017B (06/15/1982) 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BERLIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: (603) 752-1630 Ext: Unspecified

Last Name: LAFLAMME First Name: PAMELA 

Address 1: 168 MAIN STREET Title: CITY PLANNER 

Address 2: Unspecified Email: planning@ncia.net 

City: BERLIN Fax: (603) 752-8553 

State: NH Zip: 03570 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered By Note

09/30/2002 Kara Deutsch Growth in area, as well as erosion and flooding issues.

 48
GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: COLEBROOK, TOWN OF CID: 330031 

County: COOS COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000010614 Entered By: Chuck Wood 

Source: FEMA 5-year letter Date: 04/01/1998 

 Approved By: FEMA 

 Date: 4/1/1998 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Flooding Source: CONNECTICUT RIVER 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Decreased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 5.85 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 170 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3300310010B (05/17/1989) 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: COLEBROOK, TOWN OF [TOWN 

GOVERNMENT] Phone: 6032375200 Ext: Unspecified

Last 

Name: MILLER First Name: FRED 

Address 1: 10 BRIDGE STREET Title: CONTACT PERSON 

Address 2: Unspecified Email: Unspecified

City: COLEBROOK Fax: 6032375069 

State: NH Zip: 03576- 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered 

By Note

04/01/1998 Chuck 

Wood 

THE COMMUNITY STATES THAT A DAM HAS BEEN 

ADDED ALONG THIS RIVER

04/01/1998 Chuck 

Wood 

THE COMMUNITY STATES THAT A DAM HAS BEEN 

ADDED ALONG THIS RIVER

 49
GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: COLEBROOK, TOWN OF CID: 330031 

County: COOS COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000010612 Entered By: Chuck Wood 

Source: FEMA 5-year letter Date: 04/01/1998 

 Approved By: FEMA 

 Date: 4/1/1998 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: Mohawk River 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Increased By Greater Than 5 feet 

Length of Study: 10.98 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 400 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3300310005B (05/17/1989) 3300310010B (05/17/1989) 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: COLEBROOK, TOWN OF [TOWN 

GOVERNMENT] Phone: 6032375200 Ext: Unspecified

Last 

Name: MILLER First Name: FRED 

Address 1: 10 BRIDGE STREET Title: CONTACT PERSON 

Address 2: Unspecified Email: Unspecified

City: COLEBROOK Fax: 6032375069 

State: NH Zip: 03576- 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

There are no notes for this need. 

 50
GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: COLEBROOK, TOWN OF CID: 330031 

County: COOS COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000010613 Entered By: Chuck Wood 

Source: FEMA 5-year letter Date: 04/01/1998 

 Approved By: FEMA 

 Date: 4/1/1998 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: NORTH BR. MOHAWK RIVER 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Increased By Greater Than 5 feet 

Length of Study: 3.33 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 320 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3300310005B (05/17/1989) 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: COLEBROOK, TOWN OF [TOWN 

GOVERNMENT] Phone: 6032375200 Ext: Unspecified

Last 

Name: MILLER First Name: FRED 

Address 1: 10 BRIDGE STREET Title: CONTACT PERSON 

Address 2: Unspecified Email: Unspecified

City: COLEBROOK Fax: 6032375069 

State: NH Zip: 03576- 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

There are no notes for this need. 

 51
GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: COLEBROOK, TOWN OF CID: 330031 

County: COOS COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000010611 Entered By: Chuck Wood 

Source: FEMA 5-year letter Date: 04/01/1998 

 Approved By: FEMA 

 Date: 4/1/1998 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: WEST & EAST BRANCH 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Increased By Greater Than 5 feet 

Length of Study: 7.46 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 400 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3300310010B (05/17/1989) 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: COLEBROOK, TOWN OF [TOWN 

GOVERNMENT] Phone: 6032375200 Ext: Unspecified

Last 

Name: MILLER First Name: FRED 

Address 1: 10 BRIDGE STREET Title: CONTACT PERSON 

Address 2: Unspecified Email: Unspecified

City: COLEBROOK Fax: 6032375069 

State: NH Zip: 03576- 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered By Note

04/01/1998 Chuck Wood COMMUNITY WANTS A COMPLETE RESTUDY

04/01/1998 Chuck Wood COMMUNITY WANTS A COMPLETE RESTUDY

 52
GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: DUMMER, TOWN OF CID: 330201 

County: COOS COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000010577 Entered By: Chuck Wood 

Source: FEMA 5-year letter Date: 10/14/1997 

 Approved By: FEMA 

 Date: 10/14/1997 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Flooding Source: ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Increased By Greater Than 5 feet 

Length of Study: 8.3 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 1500 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3302019999 (03/01/1995) 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: TOWN OF DUMMER Phone: 6034493464 Ext: Unspecified

Last Name: HANSON First Name: LEONARD B. 

Address 1: 75 HILL ROAD Title: PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN 

Address 2: Unspecified Email: Unspecified

City: DUMMER Fax: Unspecified

State: ME Zip: 03588-5406 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered 

By Note

10/14/1997 Chuck 

Wood 

REVISE RIVER DUE TO NEW STRUCTURES ON THE 

FLOODPLAIN. ADD ELEVATIONS.

10/14/1997 Chuck 

Wood 

REVISE RIVER DUE TO NEW STRUCTURES ON THE 

FLOODPLAIN. ADD ELEVATIONS. 

 53
GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: DUMMER, TOWN OF CID: 330201 

County: COOS COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000010576 Entered By: Chuck Wood 

Source: FEMA 5-year letter Date: 10/14/1997 

 Approved By: FEMA 

 Date: 10/14/1997 

Study Category: MAINTENANCE Need Types: Add LOMCs (per panel) 

Status: Existing 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3302019999 (03/01/1995) 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: TOWN OF DUMMER Phone: 6034493464 Ext: Unspecified

Last Name: HANSON First Name: LEONARD B. 

Address 1: 75 HILL ROAD Title: PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN 

Address 2: Unspecified Email: Unspecified

City: DUMMER Fax: Unspecified

State: ME Zip: 03588-5406 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

There are no notes for this need. 

 54
GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: ERROL, TOWN OF CID: 330206 

County: COOS COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000010579 Entered By: Chuck Wood 

Source: FEMA 5-year letter Date: 12/05/1997 

 Approved By: FEMA 

 Date: 12/5/1997 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Flooding Source: All Zone A'S 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Increased By Greater Than 5 feet 

Length of Study: 45.45 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 800 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: ERROL, TOWN OF [TOWN GOVERNMENT] Phone: 6034823351 Ext: Unspecified

Last Name: ENMAN First Name: LARRY 

Address 1: 33 MAIN STREET Title: SELECTMAN 

Address 2: P.O. BOX 100 Email: Unspecified

City: ERROL Fax: 6034823804 

State: NH Zip: 03579- 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered 

By Note

12/05/1997 Chuck 

Wood 

CURRENT 11 X 17 MAP WILL HAVE TO BE UPDATED 

TO Z-FOLD FORMAT.

12/05/1997 Chuck 

Wood 

CURRENT 11 X 17 MAP WILL HAVE TO BE UPDATED 

TO Z-FOLD FORMAT.

55
GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: GORHAM, TOWN OF CID: 330032 

County: COOS COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000025967 Entered By: Tim Witt 

Source: Other Date: 09/29/2001 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 1/14/2002 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: Androscroggin River 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Increased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 0.45 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 800 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3300320010C (05/02/1994) 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: Region I Office Phone: Unspecified Ext: Unspecified

Last Name: Unspecified First Name: Unspecified

Address 1: Unspecified Title: Unspecified

Address 2: Unspecified Email: Unspecified

City: Unspecified Fax: Unspecified

State: Unspecified Zip: Unspecified

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

There are no notes for this need. 

56
GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: JEFFERSON, TOWN OF CID: 330033 

County: COOS COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000010627 Entered By: Chuck Wood 

Source: FEMA 5-year letter Date: 05/08/1998 

 Approved By: FEMA 

 Date: 5/8/1998 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Flooding Source: ISRAEL RIVER 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Increased By Greater Than 5 feet 

Length of Study: 10.77 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 895 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: ASPM Phone: Unspecified Ext: Unspecified

Last Name: Unspecified First Name: Unspecified

Address 1: Unspecified Title: Unspecified

Address 2: Unspecified Email: Unspecified

City: Unspecified Fax: Unspecified

State: Unspecified Zip: Unspecified

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered By Note

05/08/1998 Chuck Wood UPDATE THIS 11 X 17 TO Z FOLD FORMAT

05/08/1998 Chuck Wood UPDATE THIS 11 X 17 TO Z FOLD FORMAT

57
58

FEMA Map Modernization Program

Coos County Scoping

Scoping Meeting Conference Call

Meeting Minutes

September 1, 2005

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) held a kick-off meeting via conference call on September 1, 2005, with 

representatives from New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management (NHOEM), Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), USGS, and Watershed Concepts (RMC - Regional Management Center) to 

introduce the scoping project team and review roles and responsibilities. 

As one of the scoping study process requirements, this conference call was held to review the USGS 

role in the scoping project process in four counties in New Hampshire (Merrimack, Coos, Belknap, and Carroll Counties) as well as to detail the data requirements of USGS in order to determine restudy needs and 

prioritization of restudies in these four counties. 

Attendance:

• Dean Savramis, FEMA Map Modernization Coordinator

• Brent McCarthy and Jeff Burm, Watershed Concepts (RMC)

• Fay Rubin, GIS Manager at Complex Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire

• Robert Flynn, Craig Johnston, and Laura Hayes, USGS

• Joanne Cassulo and Jennifer DeLong, Map Modernization Coordinators, NHOEM

Minutes:

1. Dean Savramis (FEMA)—Provided an overview of the Map Modernization Program and Scoping. 

He also provided a description of the countywide approach.

2. Brent McCarthy (Watershed Concepts)—Describe the role of the RMC in assisting FEMA and the 

mapping contractors. Description of the WISE computer applications developed for FEMA to 

standardize the scoping process methodology, data collection, and storage for the map modernization 

program. Description of the DFIRM Production tool.

3. Joanne Cassulo and Jennifer DeLong (NHOEM)—Spoke about CAVs to collect information. 

NHOEM is providing copies of LOMAs. Joanne mentioned that the regional planning commissions 

have a lot of data available and can provide community contacts.
 59

4. Jeff Burm (Watershed Concepts)—mentioned that FEMA’s Community Information System (CIS) 

has CAVs and CACs and access can be gotten from Mike Goetz at FEMA. He also spoke about the 

WISE scoping tool and various features of this tool including community contact information, 

available GIS data, stream data, statistical analysis, stream mile information to calculate costs for 

hydrology and hydraulics, LOMAs, CAVs and CACs, creation of reports for each of the items.

5. Fay Rubin (GRANIT, UNH Complex Systems)—Fay spoke about the Map Modernization work that 

is being done at FEMA and that she is using DOQs in her map modernization work. Fay mentioned 

that the Merrimack County digitization is complete, that the Belknap and Carroll County digitization 

will be complete by December and that the Coos County digitization will be complete next year (due 

by December of 2006). She stated that NHDOT is in the process of updating DOQs ion southeastern 

New Hampshire and that they are looking for a vendor to process the data. She mentioned that the 

2003 NAIP color DOQs may not meet FEMA specifications. She has the NAIP DOQs in New 

Hampshire State Plane coordinates (our NAIP DOQs are in UTM projection). 

6. Fay Rubin, Craig Johnston, Laura Hayes and Rob Flynn (GRANIT; USGS)—discussed available data 

and coverages within New Hampshire (for example, 2003 NAIP color DOQs). Remote sensing, base 

map information, GIS data (for example, contour data, E911 data, DEMs, buildings layer, survey 

data available from NHDOT). County Regional Planning Commissions may also have data.

7. USGS and NHOEM—Discuss follow-up meetings with communities to discuss prioritization. 

USGS will need to coordinate with NHOEM and Watershed Concepts to obtain mailing lists for 

communities and set a date to meet with representatives from each of the towns in each of the 

counties. Brent McCarthy mentioned that it may be a good idea to set up a morning and evening 

meeting with each county in order to be able to talk to all of the representatives in each town 

(two meetings for each county). Brent McCarthy also mentioned that Watershed Concepts could lead 

breakout sessions with towns during the meetings with the counties.
 60

Coos County Interview Form

FEMA Map Modernization Program

________________________________________________________________________

Date: _________________________ Effective FIS/FIRM Date:______________________

Community:____________________ Form of Government:__________________________

CID#:_________________________ If Town Government, 

 Date of Annual Town Meeting:__________________

Community Representative:

Name:______________________________________________________________________

Title:________________________________________________________________________

Telephone #:___________________________Email:__________________________________

Fax:________________________________________________________________________

Other Appropriate Community Contacts:_________________________________________

1. Known problems with current FIRMs and FISs for the community (general details on next 

pages).

a. Base Map Issues (note FIRM panel numbers): (for example, poor/mixed map scales, panels 

not printed, change in corporate boundaries, etc.)

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

b. Flood plain Issues (note FIRM panel numbers): (for example, need flood elevations, disagree with flood plain boundaries, flood elevations too high/low, comments from MNUSS 

or best available data)

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

2. Areas of approximate study (for example, Zone A’s) where detailed re-studies should be 

considered:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
 61

3. Areas not mapped/no flood plain where approximate or detailed studies should be considered:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

4. Changes to structures within the town that may affect river hydraulics (for example, reconstruction or removal of dams, changes to bridges and culverts, etc.):

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

5. Areas of increased/proposed development within the flood plain since the effective FIS:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

1. Availability of mapping at the town level:

a. Aerial Photography (flight date, scale, color/black and white): 

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

b. Topography (contour interval): 

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

c. Other: 

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

2. Future community data acquisition plans/wants/needs: 

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

3. Information on GIS programs in-place or GIS plans that may benefit from a new FIRM:

____________________________________________________________________

4. Other comments:

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

5. Action Items:

________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

 Additional Notes:

_________________________________________________________________________
62
 63

Appendix D. Prioritized Flooding Sources
64

Appendix D. Prioritized flooding sources in Coos County.—Continued[CID, Community Identification; FIS, Flood Insurance Studies; LOMC, Letter of Map Change; --, no data]

Community CID Reach_ID Description

Current 

analysis 

effective 

date

Current 

effective 

zone

Study 

reach 

length

(ft)

Study type

Community 

priority 

range

Community 

priority

Population 

density 

score

Population 

growth 

score

Year 

since 

most 

recent 

FIS 

score

S

s

Berlin 330029# {EF826111-A1BD-4D2A8D3C-A5CF62117D30} Dead River (1109067.78, 721426.40) 6/15/1982 A 5,491.2 Detailed study/ Riverine High 1 10 0 8 Gorham 330032# {06770A5A-068E-4E8B94C6-7780ED215BBC} Androscoggin River (1106502.11, 694140.58) 5/2/1994 AE 13,516.8 Detailed study/ Riverine High 1 10 0 4 Lancaster 335277# {52A9DAEF-E1AF-4168-

9836-01F77240FA70}

Connecticut River (1005374.06, 734310.39)

4/1/1982 AE 5,596.8 Redelineation Medium 

High

3 10 0 8 

Carroll 330030B {B1728FE5-7729-4F4BA128-24E35E52BD0B} Ammonoosuc River (1045400.96, 641069.25) 4/15/1986 A 52,958.4 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium High 1 8 4 6 Lancaster 335277# {DF7F66A7-9355-4D87-

9625-476ECA94058E}

Israel River (1018189.65, 718866.81)

4/1/1982 AE 16,579.2 Limited 

Detailed study

Medium High

1 10 0 8 

Gorham 330032# {1BAEEC3D-8A94-45F4-

94B2-08279E4040F0}

Peabody River (1113936.09, 685771.50)

5/2/1994 AE 4,804.8 Limited 

Detailed study

High 2 10 0 4 

Jefferson 330033C {EAF2F724-80DB-48C8-

800A-11DA748FAE95}

Israel River (1020103.49, 707831.59)

4/15/1986 A 4,118.4 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

1 10 1 6 

Whitefield 330040# {8A547472-45CF-47A0-

906D-D4909E615624}

Johns River (1001427.61, 681564.81)

4/2/1986 A 7,603.2 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

1 10 1 6 

Berlin 330029# {7E773BEC-E426-480FB724-513AB66D8C59} Androscoggin River (1110341.05, 716380.99) 6/15/1982 AE 2,376.0 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium High 2 10 0 8 Colebrook 330031# {3ED43855-E4B7-4BB8-

B6A2-6F94E709697C}

Mohawk River (1036098.58, 870847.88)

5/17/1989 A 12,249.6 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

1 10 0 6 

Lancaster 335277# {AD2BDCFE-A89A-484C9954-9AFDD7172CF9} Indian Brook (1013272.09, 727383.23) 4/1/1982 AE 7,656.0 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium High 2 10 0 8 Northumberland 330036# {CB2FD475-705E-4683-

9218-2353A84B202E}

Connecticut River (1014645.11, 765642.24)

5/4/1989 AE 41,764.8 Redelineation Medium 

High

1 10 0 6 

Stewartstown 330194A {BDC5EF3E-CE69-4FF1-

9ED4-616F0FC43BF5}

Connecticut River (1026677.05, 914027.91)

1/10/1975 A 8,342.4 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

1 10 0 1 

Stewartstown 330194A {84F976D0-07C4-4B29-

A329-9016B5B1F5B7}

Connecticut River (1030331.30, 911600.27)

1/10/1975 A 5,174.4 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

1 10 0 1 

Stewartstown 330194A {34C15C47-BE2D-4476-

B73D-20E96DA01092}

Connecticut River (1019076.32, 910281.45)

1/10/1975 A 15,576.0 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

1 10 0 1 

Stratford 330039# {94734D03-544C-49ED8AE8-64269C77C4D7} Bog Brook (1024691.46, 801658.25) 4/18/1983 A 27,456.0 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium High 1 8 0 8 Colebrook 330031# {3DB0E255-1940-44F7-

AB1B-08CF6FB8B19E}

Beaver Brook (1034069.69, 878726.63)

5/17/1989 A 10,137.6 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

2 10 0 6 

Northumberland 330036# {3E303E54-F447-42A5-

85D0-756368B8710F}

Upper Ammonoosuc R(1032631.77, 770992.34)

5/4/1989 A 25,608.0 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

2 10 0 6 

Gorham 330032# {FBF4C6E8-CB1B-45E5-

BB6A-A6C33D428C37}

Moose River (1105628.71, 691573.84)

5/2/1994 AE 4,118.4 Detailed study/

Riverine

High 4 10 0 4 

Gorham 330032# {28D1A06C-326A-4F21-

BD6F-23439404CD06}

Moose Brook (1104157.36, 693160.68)

5/2/1994 AE 3,854.4 Limited 

Detailed study

High 5 10 0 4 
65

Errol 330206# {5F591A6B-2F3B-4CA8-

B9D2-61FFB20E54E9}

Clear Stream (1118095.00, 833305.92)

1/17/1975 A 5,702.4 Detailed study/

Riverine

High 2 8 0 1 

Milan 330035A {AE44CCEC-F5F7-4676-

ADAF-BF5DE63A64E0}

Upper Ammonoosuc R(1079439.75, 758782.93)

3/31/2005 A 3,854.4 Redelineation Medium 

High

1 10 1 6 

Carroll 330030B {80A53C11-0047-4A97-

8A42-FFD595D6E9D4}

Crawford Brook (1046204.18, 635458.68)

4/15/1986 A 7,550.4 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

2 8 4 6 

Stewartstown 330194A {7D6FA2C9-C12C-4E3B8C7B-0CF406698F99} Connecticut River (1021754.09, 898675.60) 1/10/1975 A 12,196.8 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium High 1 10 0 1 Stewartstown 330194A {CA2CD62B-2F65-4424-

8394-7841BB02BD78}

Connecticut River (1021404.12, 899627.41)

1/10/1975 A 792.0 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

1 10 0 1 

Dummer 330201 {75D07179-95B0-49E0-

8CCD-AD787013C8A9}

Androscoggin River (1096575.75, 778175.62)

1/17/1975 A 21,225.6 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

1 8 0 2 

Jefferson 330033C {2C85FD5F-F408-4919-

9460-42FBF2A2CE8F}

Israel River (1034059.14, 686484.30)

4/15/1986 A 17,054.4 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

2 10 1 6 

Berlin 330029# {B40A7F6E-30DB-4C09-

98D6-ACB4AEB73FF2}

Dead River (1107109.82, 723201.78)

6/15/1982 AE 2,798.4 Limited 

Detailed study

Medium 3 10 0 8 

Carroll 330030B {64C0ECBF-1FEC-4E90-

A7DD-1884D1CB0AAF}

Unnamed (1045294.69, 636300.85)

4/15/1986 A 2,692.8 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

3 8 4 6 

Stewartstown 330194A {677F01B0-A54A-4C5A8092-9A088273122E} Day Brook (1024806.63, 910905.48) 1/10/1975 A 14,361.6 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium High 2 10 0 1 Colebrook 330031# {1A6D20E0-F9CC-4C1B8479-AB1CA6644B78} Mohawk River (1058824.04, 865053.63) 5/17/1989 A 5,596.8 Limited Detailed study Medium High 3 10 0 6 Northumberland 330036# {D6F2F671-D5B8-4B46-

98BF-B1A6205ACA17}

Dean Brook (1017706.86, 750187.98)

5/4/1989 A 7,603.2 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

3 10 0 6 

Shelburne 330037A {4FA537FC-F426-4A07-

849B-A99853E2D3D1}

Androscoggin River (1139760.15, 695778.43)

4/2/1986 A 19,694.4 Redelineation Medium 

High

2 8 0 6 

Stratford 330039# {ED14B726-5ECD-44A8-

A58E-8EBBBFF61BBF}

Gay Brook (1018596.70, 798798.18)

4/18/1983 A 2,534.4 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

2 8 0 8 

Columbia 330185A {C97DB9CD-5C66-43F1-

B314-1BBD73D5537B}

Connecticut River (1021763.15, 867686.18)

4/2/1986 A 55,598.4 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

1 8 2 6 

Northumberland 330036# {3DB9571B-045C-4B29-

B1C5-518057741F7D}

Dean Brook (1024006.30, 748311.38)

5/4/1989 A 10,824.0 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

5 10 0 6 

Northumberland 330036# {32C118E4-4D7B-4332-

8FB4-02AAFE666606}

Potter Brook (1025517.41, 772647.25)

5/4/1989 A 4,065.6 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

7 10 0 6 

Shelburne 330037A {E5B6493D-54F2-475D8AE4-67B81852B855} Clement Brook (1138198.74, 689519.28) 4/2/1986 -- 7,180.8 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium High 3 8 0 6 Columbia 330185A {87EAA8CC-B27C-4360-

9115-29741DA078CB}

Simms Stream (1022930.61, 865559.53)

4/2/1986 -- 2,904.0 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

2 8 2 6 

Errol 330206# {8A0DCA61-E7A0-42AA82C5-12A935E3AB59} Androscoggin River (1126840.07, 834417.96) 1/17/1975 A 13,094.4 Detailed study/ Riverine High 1 8 0 1 

Appendix D. Prioritized flooding sources in Coos County.—Continued[CID, Community Identification; FIS, Flood Insurance Studies; LOMC, Letter of Map Change; --, no data]

Community CID Reach_ID Description

Current 

analysis 

effective 

date

Current 

effective 

zone

Study 

reach 

length

(ft)

Study type

Community 

priority 

range

Community 

priority

Population 

density 

score

Population 

growth 

score

Year 

since 

most 

recent 

FIS 

score

S

s
66

Shelburne 330037A {409ED0AA-794F-4C0BA91C-A0CFE8EB3901} Androscoggin River (1116666.81, 689619.06) 4/2/1986 A 13,992.0 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium High 1 8 0 6 Stark 330038B {96765186-E220-4AB4-

8A96-7A1417C65266}

Upper Ammonoosuc R(1050298.23, 765775.20)

4/2/1986 A 6,547.2 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

1 8 0 6 

Stratford 330039# {9647FA91-6C43-402D9D79-E7D1A70E06AC} Connecticut River (1001040.60, 827782.56) 4/18/1983 AE 23,971.2 Redelineation Medium High 1 8 0 8 Jefferson 330033C {849FA4EF-956F-433D9185-96BA3C6BBE5D} Israel River (1043876.44, 682915.67) 4/15/1986 A 13,833.6 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium High 3 10 1 6 Shelburne 330037A {EEEEB661-AE59-46C1-

AD0F-744713B8B8D5}

Peabody River (1116675.37, 689373.28)

4/2/1986 AE 580.8 Limited 

Detailed study

Medium High

3 8 0 6 

Lancaster 335277# {3D3D8B8B-0E78-4F6CA349-E6619B3FBC6B} Unnamed (1018100.50, 711721.81) 4/1/1982 -- 2,164.8 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium 6 10 0 8 Lancaster 335277# {AF8EDE7E-67DE-4719-

BBD6-134368709994}

Unnamed (1030361.19, 713511.85)

4/1/1982 A 1,584.0 Redelineation Medium 7 10 0 8 

Lancaster 335277# {296B2403-3E81-4854-

92F9-589D3018646F}

Garland Brook (1028509.12, 714644.32)

4/1/1982 A 1,372.8 Redelineation Medium 8 10 0 8 

Stark 330038B {E84C3D70-3210-4CFCA304-3FC0F0C02C9C} Nash Stream (1036937.39, 778042.55) 4/2/1986 A 3,273.6 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium High 2 8 0 6 Stewartstown 330194A {04DF23DA-36B7-40EEA58C-39F82CA48E6F} Unnamed (1025373.12, 901682.98) 1/10/1975 A 3,643.2 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium High 3 10 0 1 Errol 330206# {00DBA968-773F-4211-

AEF9-72D6747A69C5}

Greenough Brook (1117165.74, 835720.11)

1/17/1975 A 3,115.2 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

3 8 0 1 

Gorham 330032# {693BF558-9DE0-4C36-

A813-024F96C06464}

Peabody River (1107106.12, 673777.35)

5/2/1994 AE 10,243.2 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

3 10 0 4 

Northumberland 330036# {F1FCD3BB-D838-481AAD11-170459DFECA4} Connecticut River (1012693.76, 777739.63) 5/4/1989 AE 12,355.2 Redelineation Medium High 4 10 0 6 Northumberland 330036# {0D9CCE33-DAC6-43BEB805-7B26BF9B9C3C} Roaring Brook (1027765.32, 763135.31) 5/4/1989 AE 3,484.8 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium High 6 10 0 6 Stark 330038B {74F8DA2E-0CCB-4B71-

B04C-DED16D5B6915}

Phillips Brook (1071988.44, 772820.91)

4/2/1986 A 4,804.8 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

3 8 0 6 

Stewartstown 330194A {15B35503-F78B-4683-

8E9A-D8EBBFC234A5}

Bishop Brook (1031192.58, 910902.28)

1/10/1975 A 1,214.4 Limited 

Detailed study

Medium High

5 10 0 1 

Dummer 330201 {7708383C-504A-4E07-

8B17-A9ED080F5FC8}

Canal (1097712.52, 774423.19)

1/17/1975 -- 4,276.8 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

2 8 0 2 

Gorham 330032# {0021F7C1-F0E3-431E9F47-2405E55A3940} Tinker Brook (1105447.07, 710846.61) 5/2/1994 A 6,652.8 Detailed study/ Riverine Medium High 6 10 0 4 Shelburne 330037A {2FF8B6C4-3211-49E3-

A93F-356446E993AD}

East Brook (1138589.43, 689644.53)

4/2/1986 -- 1,214.4 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium 4 8 0 6 

Lancaster 335277# {5CAB3496-FC88-4090-

A371-E669064AB7A6}

Otter Brook (1021282.66, 724877.94)

4/1/1982 AE 1,953.6 Redelineation Medium 4 10 0 8 

Appendix D. Prioritized flooding sources in Coos County.—Continued[CID, Community Identification; FIS, Flood Insurance Studies; LOMC, Letter of Map Change; --, no data]

Community CID Reach_ID Description

Current 

analysis 

effective 

date

Current 

effective 

zone

Study 

reach 

length

(ft)

Study type

Community 

priority 

range

Community 

priority

Population 

density 

score

Population 

growth 

score

Year 

since 

most 

recent 

FIS 

score

S

s
67

Lancaster 335277# {A897AA4C-1597-422B8090-06B24BC29F61} Caleb Brook (1027664.98, 728759.64) 4/1/1982 AE 2,692.8 Redelineation Medium 5 10 0 8 Dummer 330201 {59F373A5-9F1A-4602-

A80D-AB0BE521E7B6}

Upper Ammonoosuc R(1077340.64, 767087.78)

1/17/1975 A 4,171.2 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

3 8 0 2 

Jefferson 330033C {CE025015-E422-4F20-

972C-ABF15ED08A72}

Mill Brook (1035122.77, 678722.57)

4/15/1986 A 3,643.2 Redelineation Medium 4 10 1 6 

Jefferson 330033C {B663CC1F-119E-49EDBC1A-1FFD6ABC3983} Mill Brook (1032841.80, 686519.90) 4/15/1986 A 1,161.6 Limited Detailed study Medium 4 10 1 6 Jefferson 330033C {D712C21A-4257-4E58-

A303-1F9D9E6C5FAB}

Red Brook (1039362.47, 679359.53)

4/15/1986 A 4,118.4 Redelineation Medium 5 10 1 6 

Stewartstown 330194A {9F43594F-48DD-4247-

A8DB-EDF8583D41D3}

Back Pond Brook (1023914.39, 904550.81)

1/10/1975 A 1,214.4 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium High

4 10 0 1 

Stratford 330039# {B55DCB03-12BF-4991-

8788-10F353275CDB}

Unnamed (1014852.74, 792381.69)

4/18/1983 A 6,336.0 Limited 

Detailed study

Medium 3 8 0 8 

Stratford 330039# {AABACF3D-AF78-4F31-

8ADA-9DD86D5CE316}

Unnamed (1012113.65, 793863.41)

4/18/1983 A 3,062.4 Limited 

Detailed study

Medium 4 8 0 8 

Gorham 330032# {0B51BC47-9E2C-44C6-

93CD-F1BF0008C2CA}

Unnamed (1107543.38, 703531.33)

5/2/1994 A 1,636.8 Redelineation Medium 7 10 0 4 

Stark 330038B {BFFA40EC-3F52-4847-

902D-8BE1854C7536}

Upper Ammonoosuc R(1068814.27, 770349.63)

4/2/1986 A 2,640.0 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium 4 8 0 6 

Berlin 330029# {198FB8D1-840C-45F5-

8701-F1E67718C7D7}

Head Pond (1098631.85, 736673.66)

6/15/1982 A 3,484.8 Redelineation Medium 

Low

4 10 0 8 

Stratford 330039# {FCCDD511-B535-45F2-

A971-5D46F26C25BC}

Nash Stream (1044025.11, 805018.36)

4/18/1983 A 26,716.8 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium Low

5 8 0 8 

Dummer 330201 {725D06C8-890B-4FC3-

89B5-1162A9AF8437}

Androscoggin River (1110239.74, 789623.82)

1/17/1975 A 26,241.6 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium 4 8 0 2 

Dummer 330201 {7E50EF1C-AF5A-40B9-

B3C4-51BA99850C4C}

Phillips Brook (1077379.02, 784684.02)

1/17/1975 -- 5,860.8 Detailed study/

Riverine

Medium 5 8 0 2 

Colebrook 330031# {3B205B51-6364-4D39-

86D1-97DB2F2452F1}

Connecticut River (1024668.57, 871477.79)

5/17/1989 AE 2,376.0 Redelineation Medium 4 10 0 6 

Appendix D. Prioritized flooding sources in Coos County.—Continued[CID, Community Identification; FIS, Flood Insurance Studies; LOMC, Letter of Map Change; --, no data]

Community CID Reach_ID Description

Current 

analysis 

effective 

date

Current 

effective 

zone

Study 

reach 

length

(ft)

Study type

Community 

priority 

range

Community 

priority

Population 

density 

score

Population 

growth 

score

Year 

since 

most 

recent 

FIS 

score

S

s
Printed on recycled paper

Flynn, R.H.—Scoping of Flood Hazard Mapping Needs for Coos County, New Hampshire—Open-File Report 2006–1200