November 14, 2025

Angela Davis

Division Director, Floodplain Management

Department of Conservation and Recreation

600 East Main Street

Richmond, VA 23219

RE: Virginia Floodplain Management Standards for State-Owned Property

Dear Angela Davis,

I appreciate the effort that the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has made to create Standards for development on state-owned properties in floodplains. These Standards are critical to the Commonwealth’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance, as well as ensuring the Commonwealth develops in a flood resilient manner. Below are several concerns I have regarding the proposed Standards that I hope you will consider before making the proposed Standards effective.

1. The applicability of the proposed Standards is not inclusive of all known flood risk areas.

The proposed Standards identify in Section 2.1 and Section 3.1.B that the requirements are only applicable to FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). This is concerning for two reasons.

First, FEMA SFHA data is limited across the Commonwealth, and based on FEMA guidelines, is only established for drainage areas of one square mile or larger. Flood risk does not simply stop because the drainage area is smaller than one square mile, and some localities, like Henrico County, have established and adopted Community SFHAs that identify flood risk in these smaller drainage areas to account for the missing data from FEMA. These flood risk areas should be utilized by state agencies conducting work within our locality. These flood risk areas, including the models used to create them, are publicly available.

Second, this is concerning because language throughout the proposed Standards is inconsistent. In Section 2.2.A, requirements have been identified for Shaded X Zones, also known as the 500-year floodplain. By definition, these areas are not part of the FEMA SFHA, so these proposed Standards would not apply to those areas. Additionally, Section 2.4 mentions using FATHOM data to establish flood risk, but as proposed, this data cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Additionally, the definition of “FATHOM data” in Appendix A says that FATHOM data has been established where FEMA SFHAs have not been identified. However, when viewing the Virginia Flood Risk Information System (VFRIS), FATHOM data appears to overlap with existing FEMA SFHAs.

Additionally, in Appendix A, the definition for “Special flood hazard area” states that it is “determined in Article 3, Section 3.1 of this standard.” I did not see a definition of “Special flood hazard area” in this Section.

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the following:

2. 1. Sections 2.1 and 3.1 be revised to include, at a minimum, Shaded X Zones, so that the proposed Standards are enforceable in those areas.
   2. Revise Sections 2.1 and 3.1 to incorporate any locally adopted SFHAs and FATHOM data, where FEMA SFHA data is not available.
   3. Revise the “FATHOM data” definition to clarify that this includes areas overlapping FEMA SFHAs but is intended to fill the gap where FEMA SFHAs are unavailable.

3. The proposed Standards reference NFIP minimums instead of incorporating development requirements into the Standards.

The proposed Standards incorporate the NFIP minimum requirements by referencing 44 CFR 60.3-60.6 instead of writing out those requirements. This is problematic for two reasons.

First, the definitions used in the proposed Standards are not all consistent with NFIP definitions identified in 44 CFR 59.1. Most notably, the definition of “structure” is not the same. Throughout the proposed Standards, the term “building” is used in place of the NFIP “structure” term. This is problematic because the NFIP requirements in 44 CFR 60.3-60.6 are based on the NFIP terms not the proposed Standard terms. If a state agency goes to 44 CFR 60.3, they will see requirements to elevating the lowest floor of a structure, which would not be applicable to something like a culvert, which is considered a “structure” in the proposed Standards. The proposed Standards do not reference 44 CFR 59.1, so those definitions would not be applicable to clarify that a “structure” in CFR generally means a building. This is made even more confusing because the definition of “building” in the proposed Standards refers to it as a “structure”.

Second, by not including the NFIP minimum requirements in the proposed Standards, state agencies may not understand the requirements that apply to their project, so requirements may be missed. This places additional burden on the state agencies conducting development to have to search through multiple locations to find the applicable requirements. Additionally, if changes are made to 44 CFR 60.3-60.6, that will impact the proposed Standards.

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the following:

4. 4. The minimum NFIP requirements should be taken out of CFR and incorporated directly into the proposed Standards. This will provide one location for state agencies to find requirements, it will provide an avenue to change terms throughout, so that DCR can maintain the definitions identified in the proposed Standards, and it will provide additional protection for the Commonwealth if the national level requirements are ever weakened or removed.
   5. The definitions of “building” and “structure” be revised to provide additional clarification on what these mean, especially if the NFIP minimum requirements will remain included by reference.

Again, I appreciate DCR’s work on this proposed Standard, and I hope that you will consider these recommendations to revise the proposed Standards before making them effective. I am happy to meet with you to discuss my comments.

Sincerely,

Kristin Owen, AICP, CFM

Assistant Division Director

DPW Design Division