Printed on recycled paper

Flynn, R.H.—Scoping of Flood Hazard Mapping Needs for Belknap County, New Hampshire—Open-File Report 2006–1201
Scoping of Flood Hazard Mapping Needs for 

Belknap County, New Hampshire

By Robert H. Flynn

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared for the

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 1

Open-File Report 2006–1201
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.
 iii

Contents

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

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

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

Section 2. Data Collected from Belknap 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 Belknap County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Mapping Needs Update Support System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Mapping Needs in Belknap County, New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

State and Community Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

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

Scoping Team Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Belknap County Community Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Available Digital Mapping and Remotely Sensed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Data-Collection Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

NH GRANIT Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Community Data Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Stream Final Coverage Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Section 3. Options for Future Mapping and Digital Terrain Model Preparation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Mapping Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Digital Terrain Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Flood Insurance Risk Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Suitability of the Available Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

USGS of GRANIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Community Data Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

County Data Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Digital Terrain Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Flood Insurance Risk Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Mapping Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Digital Terrain Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Flood Insurance Risk Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Section 4. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Restudy Needs and Prioritization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Mapping Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Prioritization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Prioritization Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Non-Participating Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Section 5. Recommendations and Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Mapping Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Mapping Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
 iv

Project Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Selected References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Appendixes:

Appendix A. Summary of Letters of Map Change (LOMC) Data in Belknap County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix B. Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Needs Assessment Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix C. State and Community Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix D. Prioritized Flooding Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figures

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

2. Belknap 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 Belknap County, New Hampshire. . . . . . . . 8

4. Belknap County, New Hampshire, stream final coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Tables

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

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

3. Summary of specific mapping needs in Belknap County, New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4. FIRM horizontal accuracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5. National standard for spatial data accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

6. Currently available high resolution orthophotography for Belknap County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

7. Estimate of costs to obtain Digital Terrain Model data (2-ft contours). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

8. Community flooding source prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
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

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)

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 

Belknap 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 Belknap 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 Belknap 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 

Belknap County.

As of 2006, the average age of the FEMA flood plain maps in Belknap County, New Hampshire is 

19.9 years. Most of these studies were computed in the late 1970s to the late 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 as a result. In addition, as development has occurred, peak flooding has increased 

downstream of the development from increased flows across impervious surfaces. Therefore, many of the 

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

Belknap County gained 5,222 residents between 2000 and 2005. This represents a growth of 9.3 percent 

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

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

gained 12,331 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 Belknap 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 Belknap 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 Belknap County. 

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

Belknap County in New Hampshire is shown in figure 1. The Belknap County Hydrography and FEMA 

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

County/Town Year 2000 

population

Land area 

(square mile)

Population per 

square mile

Belknap County 56,325 401.2 140.4

Alton 4,502 63.1 71.3

Barnstead 3,886 41.9 92.7

Belmont 6,716 30.6 219.5

*Center Harbor 996 13.4 74.3

Gilford 6,803 39 174.4

*Gilmanton 3,060 57.1 53.6

Laconia 16,411 20.3 808.4

Meredith 5,943 40.2 147.8

New Hampton 1,950 36.7 53.1

Sanbornton 2,581 47.5 54.3

Tilton 3,477 11.4 305.0

*Not in the National Flood Program.

 3
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. Belknap County, New Hampshire, location map.
Meredith

Sanbornton

Laconia

Gilford

Belmont

Tilton

Gilmanton

Alton

Barnstead

71o15'

71o30'

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

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

National Hydrography Dataset, 1:24,000, 1999

A

AE

Hydrography

EXPLANATION

Flood Insurance Rate zones

(See page 7)

Lake 

Winnipesaukee

Center

Harbor

New

Hampton

43o30'

5

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

Rate Map (DFIRM) data.
 6

Section 2. Data Collected from Belknap County Communities

This section provides a summary of the data-collection efforts for communities in Belknap 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 Belknap 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 Belknap County are listed in 

table 2.

Table 2. FIS and FIRM information for communities.

[FIS, Flood Insurance Studies; FIRM, Flood Insurance Rate Map; FHBM, Flood 

Hazard Boundary Map; NSFHA, No Special Flood Hazard Area; --, no data]

Community Date of entry Initial FIRM/

FHBM date

Current 

effective

map date

Alton 5/17/88 5/17/88 5/17/88

Barnstead 4/2/86 4/2/86 4/2/86

Belmont 9/1/89 9/2/89 9/2/89

*Center Harbor -- -- --

Gilford 6/19/89 6/19/89 5/4/92

*Gilmanton 1/17/76 1/17/75 9/21/79

Laconia 8/15/80 8/15/80 8/15/80

Meredith 6/3/88 6/3/88 6/3/88

New Hampton 4/2/86 4/2/86 4/2/86

Sanbornton 6/15/79 6/15/79 NSFHA

Tilton 5/1/79 5/1/79 8/19/97

*

Not in the National Flood Program.

The effective map dates for communities in the National Flood Program range from 1980 in the City 

of Laconia to 1997 in the Town of Tilton. Fifty percent of the FIRMs were produced prior to 1988 and are 

16 years old or older. The oldest FIRM is 27 years old, the most recent is 9 years old, and the average is 

18.8 years old. Most (over 77 percent) of the FIS analyses were performed between 1979 and 1989 and have 

not been updated. 
7

Delineation of Detailed and Approximate Study Areas

Digital Q3 Flood Data have not been developed for Belknap 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).

• 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.
8

Letters of Map Change in Belknap 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.

Meredith

Sanbornton

Laconia

Gilford

Belmont

Tilton

Gilmanton

Alton

Barnstead

71o15'

71o30'

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

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

National Hydrography Dataset, 1:24,000, 1999

Lake 

Winnipesaukee

Center

Harbor

New

Hampton

43o30'

Hydrography

LOMC

EXPLANATION

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

New Hampshire.
 9

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 Belknap County, New Hampshire

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

from MNUSS on November 30, 2005, 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 Belknap County, New Hampshire.

[BFE, Base Flood Elevation]

Community Need 

identifier

Study 

category Comments

Alton 25972 Riverine Increase in BFE by between 1 and 5 ft on 6.25 mi of Lake Winnipesaukee.

25973 Riverine Changes to flood plain width resulting in an increase in BFE by between 1 and 5 ft 

on a 0.66 mi reach of Watson Brook.

Barnstead 10604 Maintenance Add streets to panel.

Belmont 29265 Riverine Changes to hydrologic conditions, hydraulic analysis and flood plain width with an 

anticipated BFE decrease of less than 1 foot on 0.4 mi of Sargent Lake.

29268 Riverine Changes to hydrologic conditions, hydraulic analysis and flood plain width with an 

anticipated BFE decrease of less than 1 foot on 0.3 mi of Pout Pond.

29271 Riverine Changes to hydrologic conditions, hydraulic analysis and flood plain width with an 

anticipated BFE decrease of less than 1 foot on 0.8 mi of Zone A swamp area 

bounded by Grey Rocks Road, Jefferson Road, Union Road and the B&M railroad 

tracks.

29270 Riverine Changes to hydrologic conditions, hydraulic analysis and flood plain width with an 

anticipated BFE decrease of less than 1 foot on 0.4 mi of Badger Pond.

29272 Riverine Changes to hydrologic conditions, hydraulic analysis and flood plain width with an 

anticipated BFE decrease of less than 1 foot on 0.6 mi bounded by Timothy Road, 

B&M tracks, and Tucker Shore Road.

29273 Riverine Changes to hydrologic conditions, hydraulic analysis and flood plain width with an 

anticipated BFE decrease of less than 1 foot on 1.4 mi of swamp area bounded by 

Hurricane Road, Seavey Road, and Bean Hill Road.

29267 Riverine Changes to hydrologic conditions, hydraulic analysis and flood plain width with an 

anticipated BFE decrease of less than 1 foot on 9 mi of the Tioga River from the confluence with Silver Lake to Route 107.

29274 Riverine Changes to hydrologic conditions, hydraulic analysis and flood plain width with an 

anticipated BFE decrease of less than 1 foot on 0.4 mi of Zone A area located on the 

southwest side of Hurricane Road.

29264 Riverine Changes to hydrologic conditions, hydraulic analysis and flood plain width with an 

anticipated BFE decrease of less than 1 foot on 9.5 mi of Winnisquam Lake.

10605 Riverine Changes to BFEs with an increase of greater than 5 ft along 1.1 mi of Silver Lake.

29266 Riverine Changes to hydrologic conditions, hydraulic analysis and flood plain width with an 

anticipated BFE decrease of less than 1 foot on 1 mile of Purgin Brook from the confluence with Winnisquam Lake to Horne Road.

29269 Riverine Changes to hydrologic conditions, hydraulic analysis and flood plain width with an 

anticipated BFE decrease of less than 1 foot along 2.6 mi of Pumping Station Brook 

from the confluence with the Tioga River to Clough Pond.

Tilton 10564 Riverine Changes to hydrologic conditions with an anticipated decrease in BFE by less that 

1 foot along 17.7 mi of Hunt Brook.

 10

As shown in table 3, a total of 16 mapping update needs are listed in MNUSS throughout Belknap 

County. These include one map maintenance need and fifteen 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.
 11

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.
 12

Belknap County Community Meetings

Conference calls were conducted with representatives from all of the towns in Belknap 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.

Belknap County:

Alton

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

(June 28, 2006):

• Development is occurring along the Merrymeeting River and the flood maps need to be updated 

along this river.

Contact: Cathy Currier, Assessing Office (603-875-2167).

Barnstead

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

(June 15, 2006):

• On panel 3, a detailed study is needed along Wheeler Brook from its confluence with the Suncook 

River to approximately 2,000 ft upstream due to development in this area.

• On panel 3, a detailed study is needed along Big River from its confluence with the Suncook River 

to 2,000 ft upstream due to development. 

Contact: David Merli, Selectman (603-269-4071).

Belmont

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

(November 21, 2005 and December 5, 2005):

• On panel 5, a detailed study is needed to establish the base flood elevation (BFE) on Silver Lake 

(approximately 1.5 mi) due to development around the lake.
13

• On panels 1, 2, 3 and 5, a detailed study is needed to establish the BFE on Winnisquam Lake 

(approximately 9.5 mi) due to development around the lake. The lake is bounded by the towns of 

Laconia, Sanbornton, Belmont, Meredith, and Tilton and has a surface area of approximately 

4,500 acres.

• On panels 9 and 10, a detailed study is needed to establish the BFE on Sargent Lake (approximately 

0.4 mi) due to development around the lake.

• On panels 2 and 5, a detailed study is needed along the swamp area (approximately 0.8 mi) bounded 

by Grey Rocks Road, Jefferson Road, Union Road, and the B&M railroad tracks due to development.

• On panels 2 and 3, a detailed study is needed along the swamp area (approximately 0.6 mi) bounded 

by Timothy Drive, B&M railroad tracks, and Tucker Shore Road due to development.

• On panels 2 and 3, a detailed study is needed along Durgin (also called Tucker) Brook (approximately 1 mile) from Horne Road to Winnisquam Lake.

• On panels 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, a detailed study is needed along the Tioga River (approximately 9.0 mi) 

from its confluence with Silver Lake to the Bean Dam on panel 7.

• On panels 5, 6, and 9, a detailed study is needed along the swamp area (approximately 1.4 mi) 

bounded by Hurricane Road, Seavey Road, and Bean Hill Road.

• On panels 5 and 6, a detailed study is needed along the swamp area (approximately 0.4 mi) southwest of Hurricane Road, near the intersection with Seavey Road.

• On panels 8, 9, and 12, a detailed study is needed along Pumping Station Brook from its confluence 

with the Tioga River to Shaker Road.

• There are many new roads in town that need to be included on the flood maps. E911 roads data are 

available for the town and the town has a GIS.

• NRCS data is available pertaining to flooding in Belmont.

• USGS topographic maps are thought to provide the best available data.

• There are dams located on Badger Pond, Sargent Lake (breached and re-built), Winnisquam Lake 

(hydro-electric dam with half in Lockmere and half in Belmont), and Tioga River (Bean Dam which 

NHDES wants removed and a breached dam near Eagle Court on panel 9).

Contact: Town officials present at meeting in Belmont: Candace Daigle, Town Planner; Donald McLelland, 

Town Administrator; Gary Boisvert, Building Code Enforcement Officer; and Rick Ball, Town Land Use 

Specialist (603-267-8300, ext. 13).

Gilford

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

(January 12, 2006, and February 6, 2006):

• The resolution on the maps is poor.

• A condominium unit by Lake Shore Road at Routes 11 and 11B is partly mapped in the flood zone 

and the town feels that it should not be in the flood zone - delineation issue.

• No other flood mapping issues.
 14

Gilford

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

(February 6, 2006):

• On panel 4, a detailed study is needed along Nighthawk Hollow Brook from the corporate limit to 

Garret Hill Road due to development. 

• On panel 4, a detailed study is needed along Ayers Branch from the confluence with Nighthawk 

Hollow Brook to Twigg Street due to improperly delineated flood zone and flooding that occurs 

over the road. This area is currently Zone A. 

• On panel 4, a detailed study is needed along the Suncook River from the corporate limit to Mountain 

Road due to development and improperly delineated flood zone.

Contact: Tim Warren, Town Administrator and Assistant to the Board of Selectmen (603-225-3008).

Laconia

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

(January 19, 2006):

• Overall, it was felt that the maps reflect the flood prone areas very well.

• On panel 5, Beacon Street: The straight section by the river is Beacon Street East and the curved 

area from Church Street to South Main is Beacon Street West.

• On panel 4, on the bottom left of the map, Laighton Avenue should be spelled Leighton Avenue. 

Above the Huston-Morgan State Forest, Morgan Road is not a thru road. Above the Prescott State 

Forest, Hilliard Road is not a thru road. There is a new and very large development (1,000 + units) 

approximately where the “Elevation Reference Marks” annotation is in the map.

• On panel 3, on the bottom left of the map, Laighton Avenue should be spelled Leighton Avenue.

• On panel 2, the largest island in the water body is labeled as Plummer Island but the City refers to 

it as Christmas Island.

• On panel 1, at the very bottom of the map, the flood zone stops at Rollercoaster Road. The town 

feels that the flood plain should be extended to the other side of Rollercoaster Road. At the intersection of Rollercoaster Road and Route 3 (Daniel Webster Highway and also called Endicott Street 

by locals), the fourth road is Watson Road which then turns into Scenic Road at the corner and along 

the water. Midpoint along Scenic Road (approximately where “Zone C” is written), there is a new 

thru road that goes out to Route 3 and has approximately 200 new lots. On the Scenic Road is a huge 

detention basin that should be shown on the flood map.

Contact: Shanna B. Saunders, Director, City of Laconia Planning and Zoning (603-527-1264).

Meredith

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

(February 7, 2006 and June 17, 2006):

• On panel 10, there are causeways to the islands labeled “Zone X” on the northeast side of Lake 

Waukewan and these causeways flood. In addition, the tributary labeled as a “Zone A” and extending to Jeness Hill Road is not delineated correctly. Both of these are redelineation issues.
 15

• On panel 10, Hawkins Brook (northwest of Meredith Bay and along Route 3) is not delineated correctly. Development is occurring in this area and a detailed study is needed.

• On panel 5, a detailed study is needed along Wickwas Lake due to development.

• On panel 5, a detailed study is needed along Swains Pond and the tributary from Winnisquam Lake 

to above Camp Waldron Road.

• On panel 5, a detailed study is needed along Mill Brook from the confluence of Collins Brook at 

Collins Road to Wickwas Lake.

• On panel 5, a detailed study is needed along Collins Brook from its confluence with Mill Brook at 

Collins Road to Pickerel Pond.

• On panel 5, a detailed study is needed above Old Stage Road for Hatch Brook wetland area as this 

area in not properly delineated.

Contact: John Edgar, Town Planner (603-279-4538).

New Hampton

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

(June 26, 2006):

• On panels 2, 7, 8, 9, 3, 4, and 1, the Pemigewasset River Zone A delineation, north of the Ayers 

island Dam (PSNH), is thought by the town to be not delineated correctly with several high elevation areas delineated as being in the flood plain. This land could potentially be developed in the 

future and a detailed study is requested along the Pemigewasset from Ayers Dam to the northern 

corporate limit.

• On panel 4, the Zone A area along Ames Brook is thought to not be delineated correctly. Southeast 

of the railroad tracks, the fields flood to a much greater extent than shown. The area is not developed 

but the town believes that this is ideal frontage for development. A detailed study is requested along 

Ames Brook from 2,000 ft southeast of the Boston and Maine Railway railroad tracks to the corporate limit.

• On panel 7, a detailed study is needed along Blake Brook from its confluence with the Pemigewasset 

River to upstream of its crossing with Brook Road. This area floods and there are a few houses, as 

well as open land, in this area.

• On panel 8, a tributary to the Pemigewasset River (along the southern side of Route 104 and under 

the “Back Road to Bristol,” does not go over the road and there is significant ponding upstream of 

the “Back Road to Bristol.” The Zone A flood area is not delineated correctly. This area is also 

known as “Dark Hollow.”

• On panel 9, excavation has changed the flood boundaries along Harper Brook between Interstate 

Route 93 and Route 38. This area is zoned to be commercial and industrial and thus could potentially be developed in the future. A detailed study is requested for this area. 

• On panel 9, between Route 38 and Dana Hill Road, there is a large wetland area that is not correctly 

delineated with the Zone A delineation. This area is not developed but the delineation is incorrect 

and redelineation is requested for this area.
16

• On panel 9, Magoon Brook is not delineated accurately and it is in a commercial and industrial 

zoned area. A detailed study is requested along Magoon Brook from Route 38 to the confluence with 

the Pemigewasset River.

• On panel 11, the southwestern side of Winona Lake is not delineated accurately near the annotation: 

“Zone A and “Winona Lake.” The land around the lake is developed.

• On panels 11 and 17, the Snake River Zone A is not delineated correctly due to wetlands. There is 

currently no development in this area although Center Harbor has development along this river. A 

detailed study is requested along this river.

• On panel 17, Lake Waukewan Zone A is not delineated accurately and there is development occurring around the lake. A detailed study is requested.

• On panel 15, a detailed study is needed on Pemigewasset Lake from Route 104 to the corporate limit 

due to flooding, development around the lake, and inaccurately defined Zone A boundary.

• On panel 16, development is occurring around Forest Pond and a detailed study is needed to inaccurate zone a delineation.

Contact: Barbara Lucas, Town Administrator (603-744-3559).

Sanbornton

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

(June 15, 2006):

• On panel 5, a detailed study is needed along Salmon Brook from the limit of 1979 detailed study 

above Tilton Bridge Road to the upstream corporate limit. This includes Hermit Lake and Cawley 

Pond, as well as the unnamed tributary east of Salmon Brook at the corporate limit. Study is needed 

due to development along Salmon Brook and new culverts at Hermit Woods Road.

• On panel 10, a detailed study is needed along Wallis Brook and Patterson Brook from Poplar Road 

to Hunkins Pond Road due to development.

• On panel 10, a detailed study is needed along a tributary into Black Brook from Hill Road to the 

confluence with Black Brook due to flooding and beaver dams.

• On panel 20, a detailed study is needed along Threshing Brook from its confluence with Salmon 

Brook to above Burleigh Hill Road.

Contact: Rob Jutton, Assessing Clerk (603-286-8303).

Tilton

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

(January 12, 2006):

• No flooding issues or issues with the accuracy of the FEMA maps.

• On panel 5, however, there is an area on Packer Brook from the confluence with the Winnipesaukee 

River to Chestnut Street (in the vicinity of BFE 450) in which the flood plain width is thought to be 

too wide.

Contact: Joe Plessener, Building Inspector (603-286-4521).
 17

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), Lakes Region Planning Commission (LRPC), and the communities themselves. 

The NH GRANIT has useful base mapping available and these data are also being used by LRPC and the 

communities. 

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.
 18

Community Data Resources

The USGS and NH GRANIT do not have digital base mapping data for Belknap 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).

Topographic data are limited to that found on USGS topographic maps with 10 or 20-ft contour intervals. No other community 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 Belknap 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 Belknap County was 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.
Meredith

Sanbornton

Laconia

Gilford

Belmont

Tilton

Gilmanton

Alton

Barnstead

71o15'

71o30'

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

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

National Hydrography Dataset, 1:24,000, 1999

Lake 

Winnipesaukee

Center

Harbor

New

Hampton

43o30'

Detailed study request

Hydrography

EXPLANATION

Redelineation request

19

Figure 4. Belknap County, New Hampshire, stream final coverage.
 20

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 Belknap 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) acquired from NH GRANIT 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

 21

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 

 22

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 

Belknap 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 Belknap 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

Belknap County does not contain suitable data for DFIRM use. Towns in Belknap County are within 

the planning area of the Lakes Region Planning Commission. The planning commission’s data for DFIRM 

use was obtained from NH GRANIT.

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 
 23

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 three 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 Belknap 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

USGS Digital Ortho Quarter Quads (DOQQs) are available for all of Belknap 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 Belknap 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 (30m x 30m 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.
 24

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 Belknap County is option #1.

Digital Terrain Model

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

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

401

(All of Belknap County)

1,500 $601,500

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 Belknap 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. 
 25

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 Belknap County; however, the DFIRM data received on October 15, 

2005, 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 Belknap 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

 26

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 Center Harbor and Gilmanton are not currently in the NFIP. The town of Gilmanton have 

a Flood Hazard Boundary Maps dated September 21, 1979 and town officials identified flooding sources of 

concern on these maps.
 27

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 Belknap County, New Hampshire. The 

County has a total area of approximately 469 mi2 and encompasses 1 city (Laconia) and 10 towns. The total 

land area for the county is 401 mi2 and the total water area is 68 mi2

, most of which is part of Lake Winnipesaukee.

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.
 28

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 June 19, 2006, at 

http://www.nneindicators.unh.edu/ShowOneRegion.asp?IndicatorID=1&FIPS=33001&.

Watershed Concepts, a Division of Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Watershed Information System 

(WISE), version 2.0.9, 2005.
 29

Appendix A. Summary of Letters of Map Change (LOMC) 

Data in Belknap County
30

Table A-1. Summary of LOMC data in Belknap 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; LOMA-DEN, Letter of Map Amendment Non-Removal; LOMA-OAS, Letter of Map Amendment Out-As-Shown; --. no data]

Community LOMC type Case number Effective date Flooding source Address Property latitude Property longitude Removed from SFHA (1) N

f

z

Alton, N.H. LOMA 04-01-1660A 10/12/2004 Merrymeeting River Baker Road 43.466 -71.233 Residential structure Alton, N.H. LOMA-OAS 03-01-0510A 2/24/2003 Unnamed flooding 

source

5 Route 140 Gilmanton Road

43.431 -71.249 Residential structure 

Alton, N.H. LOMA 02-01-1650A 9/25/2002 Alton Bay/Lake 

Winnipesaukee

Loon Cove Road 43.496 -71.258 Structure 

Alton, N.H. LOMA 01-01-0850 11/7/2001 Merrymeeting River River Lake West Street 43.467 -71.234 Residential structure Gilford, N.H. LOMA 05-01-0949A 10/18/2005 Lake Winnipesaukee -- 43.618 -71.375 Structure Gilford, N.H. LOMA 05-01-0094A 12/13/2004 Lake Winnipesaukee 4 Camp Island 43.618 -71.372 Structure Gilford, N.H. LOMA 05-01-0833A 9/27/2005 Lake Winnipesaukee 1 Round Island 43.607 -71.38 Residential structure Gilford, N.H. LOMA 05-01-0234A 4/6/2005 Lake Winnipesaukee 30 Mark Island 43.627 -71.399 Residential structure Gilford, N.H. LOMA-DEN 04-01-1292A 8/5/2004 Lake Winnipesaukee/ 

Smith Cove

66 Wildwood Road 43.58 -71.396 Structure

(not removed)

Gilford, N.H. LOMA 01-01-0140A 11/14/2000 Lake Winnipesaukee 97 Shore Road 43.602 -71.417 Residential structure Gilmanton, N.H. LOMA 04-01-1220A 9/2/2004 Nighthawk Hollow 

Brook

47 Nighthawk Hollow Drive

43.405 -71.31 Structure 

Laconia, N.H. LOMA 04-01-1132A 5/27/2004 Winnipesaukee River 13 Riverside Court 43.039 -71.969 Structure Laconia, N.H. LOMA 05-01-0839A 10/13/2005 Opechee Lake/

Winnipesaukee River

51 Opechee Street 43.536 -71.471 Residential structure 

Laconia, N.H. LOMA-OAS 03-01-1772A 10/14/2003 Black Brook 1197 Union Avenue 43.557 -71.454 Westernmost 

structure

Laconia, N.H. LOMA 00-01-0578A 5/2/2000 Lake Winnipesaukee 614 Endicott Street East 43.596 -71.43 Structure Laconia, N.H. LOMA-OAS 02-01-1280A 7/24/2002 Winnipesaukee River 148 Channel Lane 43.601 -71.458 Residential structure Meredith, N.H. LOMA 03-01-0784A 3/24/2003 Winnisquam Lake 35 Stoney Brook Road 43.592 -71.537 Residential structure Meredith, N.H. LOMA 02-01-0568A 6/5/2002 Wickwas Lake 4 Loon Point Road 43.607 -71.551 Structure Meredith, N.H. LOMA 03-01-0044A 11/27/2002 Lake Waukewan 148 Winona Shores Road 43.658 -71.533 Structure Meredith, N.H. LOMA 02-01-1530A 8/14/2002 Lake Waukewan 150 Winona Shores Road 43.658 -71.532 Structure Meredith, N.H. LOMA 05-01-0633A 8/25/2005 Lake Waukewan 7 Canal Street 43.652 -71.505 Structure Meredith, N.H. LOMA 04-01-0156A 11/13/2003 Lake Waukewan 3 Canal Street 43.652 -71.504 Residential structure Meredith, N.H. LOMA 03-01-2014A 10/20/2003 Lake Waukewan 100 Water Street 43.656 -71.511 Residential structure Meredith, N.H. LOMA 03-01-1850A 10/14/2003 Lake Waukewan 15 Pike Island Road 43.663 -71.519 Residential structure Meredith, N.H. LOMA 05-01-0345A 3/21/2005 Lake Waukewan 79 Bonney Shores Road 43.665 -71.519 Residential structure New Hampton, N.H.

LOMA 00-01-1088A 11/30/2000 Lake Waukewan 84 Seminole Avenue 43.661 -71.543 Residential structure 

Sanbornton, N.H.

LOMA-OAS 02-01-0530A 2/22/2002 Tributary A 148 Bay Road 43.512 -71.522 Residential structure 
31

Appendix B. Mapping Needs Update Support System 

(MNUSS) Needs Assessment Reports

Belknap County, New Hampshire

MNUSS Needs Assessment Reports Summary Table

New Hampshire Mapping Needs in MNUSS

November 30, 2005
Table B-1. Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) needs assessment reports summary.

CID Community name Flood data update Map maintenance Pending Resolved

330001 Alton, Town of 2 0 0 0

330177 Barnstead, Town of 0 1 0 0

330002 Belmont, Town of 12 0 0 0

330004 Gilford, Town of 0 0 0 0

330208 Gilmanton, Town of 0 0 0 0

330005 Laconia, City of 0 0 0 0

330006 Meredith, Town of 0 0 0 0

330007 New Hampton, City of 0 0 0 0

330008 Sanbornton, Town of 0 0 0 0

330009 Tilton, Town of 1 0 0 0

Total 15 1 0 0

32
33

Appendix C. State and Community Meetings
 34

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: ALTON, TOWN OF CID: 330001 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000025972 Entered By: Tim Witt 

Source: Other Date: 10/01/2001 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 1/14/02 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to BFEs 

Flooding Source: Lake Winnipesaukee 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Increased By Between 1 and 5 feet 

Length of Study: 6.25 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 500 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3300010010B (05/17/1988) 

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. 
35

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: ALTON, TOWN OF CID: 330001 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000025973 Entered By: Tim Witt 

Source: Other Date: 10/01/2001 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 1/14/02 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: Watson Brook 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Increased By Between 1 and 5 feet 

Length of Study: 0.66 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 500 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3300010020B (05/17/1988) 

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. 
36

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BARNSTEAD, TOWN OF CID: 330177 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000010604 Entered By: Chuck Wood 

Source: FEMA 5-year letter Date: 03/16/1998 

 Approved By: FEMA 

 Date: 3/16/98 

Study Category: MAINTENANCE Need Types: Add streets to panel 

Status: Existing 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BARNSTEAD, TOWN OF Phone: 6032694071 Ext: Unspecified

Last Name: BARNARD First Name: SUSAN L. 

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. 
 37

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BELMONT, TOWN OF CID: 330002 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000029265 Entered By: Kara Deutsch 

Source: State Implementation Plan Date: 09/28/2002 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 11/12/02 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: SARGENT LAKE 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Decreased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 0.4 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 2300 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BELMONT PLANNING & LAND USE DEPARTMENT Phone: (603) 267-8300 Ext: 13 

Last Name: DAIGLE First Name: CANDACE 

Address 1: 143 MAIN STREET Title: PLANNER 

Address 2: P.O. BOX 310 Email: cdaigle@belmontnh.org 

City: BELMONT Fax: (603) 267-8327 

State: NH Zip: 03220 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered By Note

09/28/2002 Kara Deutsch Zone A - currently under development.
 38

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BELMONT, TOWN OF CID: 330002 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000029268 Entered By: Kara Deutsch 

Source: State Implementation Plan Date: 09/28/2002 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 11/12/02 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: POUT POND 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Decreased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 0.3 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 1600 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BELMONT PLANNING & LAND USE DEPARTMENT Phone: (603) 267-8300 Ext: 13 

Last Name: DAIGLE First Name: CANDACE 

Address 1: 143 MAIN STREET Title: PLANNER 

Address 2: P.O. BOX 310 Email: cdaigle@belmontnh.org 

City: BELMONT Fax: (603) 267-8327 

State: NH Zip: 03220 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

There are no notes for this need. 
 39

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BELMONT, TOWN OF CID: 330002 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000029271 Entered By: Kara Deutsch 

Source: Other Date: 09/28/2002 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 11/12/02 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: ZONE A 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Decreased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 0.8 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 1000 feet 

Location of Floodplain: Grey Rocks Road to Union Road 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BELMONT PLANNING & LAND USE DEPARTMENT Phone: (603) 267-8300 Ext: 13 

Last Name: DAIGLE First Name: CANDACE 

Address 1: 143 MAIN STREET Title: PLANNER 

Address 2: P.O. BOX 310 Email: cdaigle@belmontnh.org 

City: BELMONT Fax: (603) 267-8327 

State: NH Zip: 03220 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered 

By Note

09/28/2002 Kara 

Deutsch 

Development around Zone A swamp area bound by Grey 

Rocks Rd., Jefferson Rd., Union Rd., and B&M Railroad 

tracks.
 40

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BELMONT, TOWN OF CID: 330002 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000029270 Entered By: Kara Deutsch 

Source: State Implementation Plan Date: 09/28/2002 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 11/12/02 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: BADGER POND 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Decreased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 0.4 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 600 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BELMONT PLANNING & LAND USE DEPARTMENT Phone: (603) 267-8300 Ext: 13 

Last Name: DAIGLE First Name: CANDACE 

Address 1: 143 MAIN STREET Title: PLANNER 

Address 2: P.O. BOX 310 Email: cdaigle@belmontnh.org 

City: BELMONT Fax: (603) 267-8327 

State: NH Zip: 03220 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

There are no notes for this need. 
 41

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BELMONT, TOWN OF CID: 330002 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000029272 Entered By: Kara Deutsch 

Source: State Implementation Plan Date: 09/28/2002 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 11/12/02 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: ZONE A 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Decreased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 0.6 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 1200 feet 

Location of Floodplain: Tucker Shore Road to Timothy Drive 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BELMONT PLANNING & LAND USE DEPARTMENT Phone: (603) 267-8300 Ext: 13 

Last Name: DAIGLE First Name: CANDACE 

Address 1: 143 MAIN STREET Title: PLANNER 

Address 2: P.O. BOX 310 Email: cdaigle@belmontnh.org 

City: BELMONT Fax: (603) 267-8327 

State: NH Zip: 03220 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered 

By Note

09/28/2002 Kara 

Deutsch 

Development in Zone A swamp area bounded by 

Timothy Rd., B&M tracks, and Tucker Shore Rd.
 42

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BELMONT, TOWN OF CID: 330002 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000029273 Entered By: Kara Deutsch 

Source: State Implementation Plan Date: 09/28/2002 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 11/12/02 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: ZONE A 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Decreased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 1.4 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 600 feet 

Location of Floodplain: Hurricane Road to Seavey Road 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BELMONT PLANNING & LAND USE DEPARTMENT Phone: (603) 267-8300 Ext: 13 

Last Name: DAIGLE First Name: CANDACE 

Address 1: 143 MAIN STREET Title: PLANNER 

Address 2: P.O. BOX 310 Email: cdaigle@belmontnh.org 

City: BELMONT Fax: (603) 267-8327 

State: NH Zip: 03220 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered 

By Note

09/28/2002 Kara 

Deutsch 

Development in Zone A swamp area bound by Hurricane 

Road, Seavey Road and Bean Hill Road.
 43

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BELMONT, TOWN OF CID: 330002 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000029267 Entered By: Kara Deutsch 

Source: State Implementation Plan Date: 09/28/2002 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 11/12/02 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: Tioga River 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Decreased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 9 miles 

Average Width of 

Floodplain: 200 feet 

Location of Floodplain: cofluence with Silver Lake to Rt. 107 (Province Road) 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BELMONT PLANNING & LAND USE DEPARTMENT Phone: (603) 267-8300 Ext: 13 

Last Name: DAIGLE First Name: CANDACE 

Address 1: 143 MAIN STREET Title: PLANNER 

Address 2: P.O. BOX 310 Email: cdaigle@belmontnh.org 

City: BELMONT Fax: (603) 267-8327 

State: NH Zip: 03220 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

There are no notes for this need. 
 44

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BELMONT, TOWN OF CID: 330002 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000029274 Entered By: Kara Deutsch 

Source: State Implementation Plan Date: 09/28/2002 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 11/12/02 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: ZONE A 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated 

BFE 

Change: 

Decreased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of 

Study: 0.4 miles 

Average 

Width of 

Floodplain: 

600 feet 

Location of 

Floodplain: 

Seavey Road to Hurricane Road (Southwest side of Hurricane Road) 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BELMONT PLANNING & LAND USE DEPARTMENT Phone: (603) 267-8300 Ext: 13 

Last Name: DAIGLE First Name: CANDACE 

Address 1: 143 MAIN STREET Title: PLANNER 

Address 2: P.O. BOX 310 Email: cdaigle@belmontnh.org 

City: BELMONT Fax: (603) 267-8327 

State: NH Zip: 03220 
 45

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered By Note

09/28/2002 Kara Deutsch Development near Zone A. This area is on the 

southwest side of Hurricane Road.

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BELMONT, 

TOWN OF CID: 330002 

County: BELKNAP 

COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000029264 Entered By: Kara Deutsch 

Source: State Implementation Plan Date: 09/28/2002 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 11/12/02 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: WINNISQUAM LAKE 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Decreased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 9.5 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 6300 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BELMONT PLANNING & LAND USE DEPARTMENT Phone: (603) 267-8300 Ext: 13 

Last Name: DAIGLE First Name: CANDACE 

Address 1: 143 MAIN STREET Title: PLANNER 

Address 2: P.O. BOX 310 Email: cdaigle@belmontnh.org 

City: BELMONT Fax: (603) 267-8327 

State: NH Zip: 03220 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered By Note

09/28/2002 Kara 

Deutsch 

Development around lake in surrounding towns. 

Currently Zone A.
 46

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BELMONT, TOWN OF CID: 330002 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000010605 Entered By: Chuck Wood 

Source: FEMA 5-year letter Date: 06/08/1999 

 Approved By: FEMA 

 Date: 6/8/99 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to BFEs 

Flooding Source: Silver Lake 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Increased By Greater Than 5 feet 

Length of Study: 1.1 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 1600 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3300029999 (09/01/1989) 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BELMONT, TOWN OF [PLNNING BOARD] Phone: 2678300 Ext: Unspecified

Last Name: DAIGLE First Name: CANDACE 

Address 1: TOWN OF BELMONT Title: PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR 

Address 2: P.O. BOX 310 Email: Unspecified

City: BELMONT Fax: Unspecified

State: NH Zip: 03220-0310 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered 

By Note

06/08/1999 Chuck 

Wood 

ADD ELEVATIONS TO SILVER LAKE. ALSO 

WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER NEEDS A MODEL FOR 

MANAGING THE FLOW OF WATER.

06/08/1999 Chuck 

Wood 

ADD ELEVATIONS TO SILVER LAKE. ALSO 

WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER NEEDS A MODEL FOR 

MANAGING THE FLOW OF WATER.
 47

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BELMONT, TOWN OF CID: 330002 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000029266 Entered By: Kara Deutsch 

Source: State Implementation Plan Date: 09/28/2002 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 11/12/02 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: PURGIN BROOK 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Decreased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 1 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 400 feet 

Location of Floodplain: confluence with Winnisqaum Lake to Horne Road 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BELMONT PLANNING & LAND USE DEPARTMENT Phone: (603) 267-8300 Ext: 13 

Last Name: DAIGLE First Name: CANDACE 

Address 1: 143 MAIN STREET Title: PLANNER 

Address 2: P.O. BOX 310 Email: cdaigle@belmontnh.org 

City: BELMONT Fax: (603) 267-8327 

State: NH Zip: 03220 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

Date Entered By Note

09/28/2002 Kara Deutsch Zone A
 48

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: BELMONT, TOWN OF CID: 330002 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000029269 Entered By: Kara Deutsch 

Source: State Implementation Plan Date: 09/28/2002 

 Approved By: Automatic (no FEMA validation) 

 Date: 11/12/02 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Changes to hydraulic analysis 

Changes to floodplain width 

Flooding Source: PUMPING STATION BROOK 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Decreased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 2.6 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 200 feet 

Location of Floodplain: confluence with Tioga River to Clough Pond 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

No panels have been associated with this need. 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: BELMONT PLANNING & LAND USE DEPARTMENT Phone: (603) 267-8300 Ext: 13 

Last Name: DAIGLE First Name: CANDACE 

Address 1: 143 MAIN STREET Title: PLANNER 

Address 2: P.O. BOX 310 Email: cdaigle@belmontnh.org 

City: BELMONT Fax: (603) 267-8327 

State: NH Zip: 03220 

NEED NOTES AND COMMENTS 

There are no notes for this need. 
 49

GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION 

Community: TILTON, TOWN OF CID: 330009 

County: BELKNAP COUNTY State: New Hampshire 

NEED DETAIL INFORMATION 

Need ID: 100000000010564 Entered By: Chuck Wood 

Source: FEMA Future File Date: 06/08/1999 

 Approved By: FEMA 

 Date: 6/8/99 

Study Category: RIVERINE Need Types: Changes to hydrologic conditions 

Flooding Source: HUNT BROOK 

Status: Existing 

NEED FLOODPLAIN DATA 

Anticipated BFE Change: Decreased By Less Than 1 foot 

Length of Study: 17.7 miles 

Average Width of Floodplain: 2500 feet 

Location of Floodplain: 

PANELS AFFECTED BY THE NEED 

3300090005C (08/19/1997) 

ORIGIN OF NEED INFORMATION 

Entity: D&D FUTURE FILE 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

06/08/1999 Chuck 

Wood 

IN A LETTER DATED 10/8/91 TO HQ, IT WAS NOTED 

THAT HUNT BROOK FLOW INTO ICE HOUSE POND ON 

THE EFFECTIVE. HOWEVER, THERE IS RECENT 

TOPO INFO. THAT SHOWS HUNT BROOK AS A 

TRIBUTARY TO GULF BROOK.

06/08/1999 Chuck 

Wood 

IN A LETTER DATED 10/8/91 TO HQ, IT WAS NOTED 

THAT HUNT BROOK FLOW INTO ICE HOUSE POND ON 

THE EFFECTIVE. HOWEVER, THERE IS RECENT 

TOPO INFO. THAT SHOWS HUNT BROOK AS A 

TRIBUTARY TO GULF BROOK.
 50

FEMA Map Modernization Program

Belknap 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 (Belknap, 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.
 51

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 Belknap 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.
 52

Belknap 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:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
53

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:

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________
 54
 55

Appendix D. Prioritized Flooding Sources
56

Appendix D. Prioritized flooding sources in Belknap County.—Continued[CID, Community Identification; FIS, Flood Insurance Studies; LOMC, Letter of Map Change]

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

Belmont 330002 {9B65958A-C14F-46FAB2CB-5B3A94824AB0} Tioga River (1042832.44, 352600.55) 6/25/1976 A 37144.40 Detailed Study/Riverine High 1 8 2 10 Belmont 330002 {929FFCBC-04BD-4BEA84D5-9FDF034A3644} Tioga River (1017564.09, 345591.22) 6/25/1976 A 4148.35 Detailed Study/Riverine High 1 8 2 10 Belmont 330002 {3DF0E508-FECE-42B3-

98ED-26FF6DCCC7B8}

Tioga River (1018603.53, 344857.05)

6/25/1976 A 1008.32 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

High 1 8 2 10 

Belmont 330002 {416ED476-3FB6-45A0-

86FB-117391027010}

Silver Lake (1018027.83, 349814.73)

6/25/1976 A 936.76 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

High 2 8 2 10 

Belmont 330002 {49028A33-3D10-4A02-

B777-75073B641AD7}

Silver Lake (1018000.05, 348936.66)

6/25/1976 A 3554.10 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

High 2 8 2 10 

Meredith 330006 {7FFCF2EC-571D-4DBBB302-BAD28B57679A} Lake Waukewan (1020197.31, 423717.38) 6/3/1988 AE 10155.92 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 1 8 4 6 Alton 330001 {E4969C97-D0BB-413E92C4-F7ED78B26AAB} Merrymeeting River (1099072.07, 354110.55) 5/17/1988 A 27485.15 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 1 4 6 6 Belmont 330002 {0F8A159D-3AAA-46DDA528-8FC625A63CCE} Winnisquam Lake (1021816.02, 357564.34) 6/25/1976 A 1467.48 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 3 8 2 10 Belmont 330002 {F5C4D03E-00C0-456AAB27-63478AE2B90A} Winnisquam Lake (1026956.89, 371744.63) 6/25/1976 A 15818.18 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 3 8 2 10 Belmont 330002 {210D2907-8E31-41AC9081-08065ABA6398} Winnisquam Lake (1020451.28, 357730.53) 6/25/1976 A 2041.13 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 3 8 2 10 Belmont 330002 {F5C4D03E-00C0-456AAB27-63478AE2B90A} Winnisquam Lake (1027653.65, 376719.27) 6/25/1976 A 5024.89 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 3 8 2 10 Gilmanton 330208 {9E9D61F0-F292-4784-

805D-329D48A5CF4C}

Nighthawk Hollow Brook (1075027.09, 333398.44)

9/21/1979 A 15621.65 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

1 2 4 10 

Meredith 330006 {4FF6FE19-B08F-41FFBA32-9D8AD60A979E} Hawkins Brook (1026426.32, 429691.68) 6/3/1988 A 10223.46 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 2 8 4 6 Sanbornton 330008 {DCB273F5-C82B-42F8-

B680-5E65808FB393}

Hermit Lake (997994.89, 390022.14)

6/15/1979 D 7542.29 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

1 2 4 10 

New Hampton 330007 {7FFCF2EC-571D-4DBBB302-BAD28B57679A} Lake Waukewan (1016386.45, 424580.10) 4/3/1986 A 3928.69 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 2 2 4 6 Meredith 330006 {5EAC5176-9E74-4EFB8F26-4CBB78EC91E7} Wickwas Lake (1011800.93, 407581.46) 6/3/1988 A 8493.56 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium 3 8 4 6 Meredith 330006 {5EAC5176-9E74-4EFB8F26-4CBB78EC91E7} Wickwas Lake (1012591.13, 409068.69) 6/3/1988 A 2728.75 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium 3 8 4 6 Barnstead 330177 {0C200BF2-DDA0-48B3-

B870-4B388838E2EC}

Big River (1093955.47, 304310.04)

4/2/1986 D 3847.95 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

1 8 4 6 

Belmont 330002 {3B38B671-7325-4A9A8192-09FF39BA5CDA} Silver Lake (1019669.68, 354535.65) 6/25/1976 A 5457.86 Detailed Study/Riverine High 2 8 2 10 New Hampton 330007 {DCE66164-1FC8-42A1-

BE56-682E2CC5DEE1}

Pemigewasset River (987455.31, 411234.89)

4/2/1986 A 27879.55 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

1 2 4 6 
57

New Hampton 330007 {CE80B0DB-E586-427FB9FF-7B77A7278F73} Pemigewasset River (987798.94, 413771.43) 4/2/1986 A 2331.43 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 1 2 4 6 New Hampton 330007 {25F5B8CF-7277-4118-

A9AB-7B2333371926}

Pemigewasset River (986974.25, 411803.91)

4/2/1986 A 750.69 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

1 2 4 6 

New Hampton 330007 {F110AA16-E0DE-496AAC71-BF2615198CBE} Pemigewasset River (988905.12, 431284.35) 4/2/1986 A 7439.28 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 1 2 4 6 New Hampton 330007 {63A8AC29-69C0-4D74-

B79A-B9C359FBEC7E}

Pemigewasset River (988048.62, 424275.20)

4/2/1986 A 801.62 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

1 2 4 6 

New Hampton 330007 {F4AF7EEA-EBD3-42B1-

A55A-537E8862886D}

Pemigewasset River (987333.62, 423392.47)

4/2/1986 A 10236.46 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

1 2 4 6 

New Hampton 330007 {839627A4-92D9-4738-

8B36-B52878351C58}

Pemigewasset River (987491.36, 423704.15)

4/2/1986 A 343.88 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

1 2 4 6 

Barnstead 330177 {4F7A684B-48D3-42BE8A91-D46F71E0588B} Wheeler Brook (1081981.85, 306458.39) 4/2/1986 D 5164.42 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 2 8 4 6 Laconia 330005 {3E129232-5076-4285-

8446-A61338E4CED9}

Pickerel Cove Brook (1028490.06, 405509.85)

8/15/1980 D 2449.44 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

1 8 0 8 

Belmont 330002 {468FAEE2-3144-4DC9-

BF9C-B06303768454}

Pumping Station Branch (1032608.35, 342583.40)

6/25/1976 A 2314.08 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

4 8 2 10 

Belmont 330002 {70AA5BC7-17F4-43AAAC56-00C514AA3AD1} Durgin Brook (1030472.14, 360341.08) 6/25/1976 A 5256.68 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 5 8 2 10 Belmont 330002 {5A401F4C-AF0F-480FAA86-02ABD039FC0E} Unnamed (1024483.37, 355443.14) 6/25/1976 A 3284.21 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium 7 8 2 10 Belmont 330002 {5A401F4C-AF0F-480FAA86-02ABD039FC0E} Unnamed (1024732.91, 356514.95) 6/26/1976 A 2295.99 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium 8 8 2 10 Gilford 330004 {AFA79BDF-9761-425DB17C-82C831A66A11} Gunstock River (1054774.59, 391092.69) 5/4/1992 A 2037.16 Redelineation Medium 1 8 2 4 Gilmanton 330208 {14122F93-121E-4C4DA095-740881D0AC9E} Suncook River (1081149.61, 335329.87) 9/21/1979 A 8443.80 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 2 2 4 10 Sanbornton 330008 {DF7210EC-5164-4EFD88DB-D73994B55325} Salmon Brook (999999.38, 384656.57) 6/15/1979 D 13684.79 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 2 2 4 10 New Hampton 330007 {95D20AFF-7CE8-4160-

BF17-C5E37C83CDBB}

Pemigewasset Lake (1002507.97, 406012.38)

4/2/1986 A 5397.43 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

3 2 4 6 

Sanbornton 330008 {EAD94021-6BC0-404A8399-C92A0E04C507} Salmon Brook (996350.24, 392444.93) 6/15/1979 D 3413.21 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 3 2 4 10 New Hampton 330007 {F31823D3-2803-41A1-

8096-C097FC68B0C1}

Harper Brook (990421.02, 411867.74)

4/2/1986 A 4673.87 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

4 2 4 6 

Sanbornton 330008 {72D9CC58-44BB-446AAFFC-A2651A577A9D} Unnamed (999285.60, 391611.01) 6/15/1979 D 2706.36 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 4 2 4 10 Sanbornton 330008 {C6A100A4-85E9-4653-

A1E6-0C212534E2A3}

Patterson Brook (1016180.30, 368673.09)

6/15/1979 D 5070.56 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

5 2 4 10 

Appendix D. Prioritized flooding sources in Belknap County.—Continued[CID, Community Identification; FIS, Flood Insurance Studies; LOMC, Letter of Map Change]

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
58

Sanbornton 330008 {B72B6F77-B95B-42B6-

BFF9-F06A94F359F9}

Wallis Brook (1018363.20, 368292.93)

6/15/1979 D 3207.53 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium High

6 2 4 10 

Sanbornton 330008 {80C179A0-7301-4AE0-

8942-055166CFECAE}

Threshing Mill Brook (998933.01, 362031.23)

6/15/1979 D 8080.35 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium 7 2 4 10 

Belmont 330002 {1D2C040B-AFB7-414F9D7D-08C4AAD2E8CF} Sargent Lake (1045499.70, 344412.77) 6/25/1976 A 2307.53 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium 6 8 2 10 Meredith 330006 {0C49E6C1-002E-42A0-

AE63-0381FFDFAEE2}

Collins Brook (1019978.63, 402129.25)

6/3/1988 A 5707.13 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium 6 8 4 6 

New Hampton 330007 {4BE933EC-7732-4F4F904F-B62489141151} Ames Brook (1000820.93, 429657.35) 4/2/1986 A 7903.65 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium High 5 2 4 6 New Hampton 330007 {488A9D3D-1563-4C73-

93BF-3EEDF289CF95}

Winona Lake (1009445.51, 430474.07)

4/2/1986 A 3366.59 Redelineation Medium 6 2 4 6 

New Hampton 330007 {48EA7EED-B6E9-43E7-

AD41-3250324CD53E}

Magoon Brook (992698.51, 408035.75)

4/2/1986 A 5941.83 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium 7 2 4 6 

Tilton 330009 {757E10D4-2C6D-4AC4-

9718-2B5667E3D41B}

Packer Brook (1003891.25, 344576.92)

8/19/1997 AE 846.63 Redelineation Medium 1 8 1 2 

Sanbornton 330008 {B72B6F77-B95B-42B6-

BFF9-F06A94F359F9}

Wallis Brook (1019575.07, 365883.43)

6/15/1979 D 323.90 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium 4 2 4 10 

Sanbornton 330008 {B72B6F77-B95B-42B6-

BFF9-F06A94F359F9}

Wallis Brook (1019537.24, 365888.32)

6/15/1979 D 38.14 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium 4 2 4 10 

Sanbornton 330008 {C54F001F-3924-47D1-

81C1-CBE341D62583}

Chapman Brook (1019454.31, 365684.26)

6/15/1979 D 524.34 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium 5 2 4 10 

Belmont 330002 {602F59EA-F8F8-49CBA1D6-CB9D65162753} Unnamed (1033126.57, 350137.66) 6/25/1976 A 2146.73 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium 9 8 2 10 Belmont 330002 {F8033E3A-CA21-4803-

A595-77D3670C62DD}

Unnamed (1028535.99, 349407.67)

6/25/1976 A 2115.93 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium 10 8 2 10 

Gilmanton 330208 {E08EE26D-A0F2-46B7-

B2F1-0A4FBF42EC49}

Ayers Branch (1075066.58, 328110.15)

9/21/1979 A 6170.71 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium 3 2 4 10 

Meredith 330006 {42B6D8E4-646D-42B6-

B013-0DF86C42E31D}

Swains Pond (1014369.74, 397342.63)

6/3/1988 A 4197.16 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium 4 8 4 6 

Meredith 330006 {C7429F58-8BE6-483F8864-668DAE788F7C} Unnamed (1016206.90, 417869.06) 6/3/1988 A 2090.65 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium 7 8 4 6 Meredith 330006 {8BB31B93-FF28-4EEA9B43-8B430DE880B4} Mill Brook (1019978.63, 402129.25) 6/3/1988 A 7375.01 Detailed Study/Riverine Medium 5 2 4 6 New Hampton 330007 {F31823D3-2803-41A1-

8096-C097FC68B0C1}

Harper Brook (994536.43, 411035.11)

4/2/1986 A 5893.05 Redelineation Medium 8 2 4 6 

New Hampton 330007 {63F8483B-34CC-47A2-

8977-19EDF5E86F35}

Blake Brook (974598.18, 393934.91)

4/2/1986 A 4016.15 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium 9 2 4 6 

Sanbornton 330008 {0E8ABF9A-C9C3-42C4-

AA29-8B505C1B877F}

Unnamed (1017439.82, 380391.98)

6/15/1979 D 3725.51 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium 8 2 4 10 

New Hampton 330007 {562FCC04-B5B9-4DB8-

ADE0-57FF07D5D9C0}

Unnamed (987538.54, 402428.62)

4/2/1986 A 3368.20 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium 10 2 4 6 

New Hampton 330007 {639802AA-D7AE-4EC3-

8FF4-96ED176FE564}

Snake River (1012148.59, 426910.00)

4/2/1986 A 5652.33 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium Low

10 2 4 6 

New Hampton 330007 {27D435C5-6033-4A15-

B67F-0C7215F60514}

Forest Pond (1012538.35, 416216.26)

4/2/1986 A 1127.14 Detailed 

Study/Riverine

Medium Low

10 2 4 6 

Appendix D. Prioritized flooding sources in Belknap County.—Continued[CID, Community Identification; FIS, Flood Insurance Studies; LOMC, Letter of Map Change]

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
Printed on recycled paper

Flynn, R.H.—Scoping of Flood Hazard Mapping Needs for Belknap County, New Hampshire—Open-File Report 2006–1201