November 14, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION (angela.davis@dcr.virginia.gov)
Angela Davis
Division Director, Floodplain Management
Department of Conservation and Recreation
600 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Angela Davis,
We appreciate the work the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has undertaken to date to develop standards governing development activities on state-owned land in floodplains (hereafter, “proposed Standards”). In addition to promoting the safe and responsible development of the Commonwealth’s real property resources, the development of robust floodplain management standards for state-owned floodplains is necessary to ensure the Commonwealth complies with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as outlined in 44 C.F.R. §60.11-13. Below, we raise several concerns about apparent discrepancies between the proposed Standards and the Virginia Code, as well as the weakening or elimination of resilience requirements previously applied to state-owned properties in flood-prone areas. We recommend and request that you address the concerns we raise below prior to making the proposed Standards effective.
A. The proposed Standards do not properly incorporate Va. Code §10.1-603(C)’s required showing regarding feasible alternatives.
The proposed Standards do not adequately reflect what we read as a fundamental provision in Virginia Code §10.1-603(C) that prohibits DCR from issuing a permit for development activities proposed on state-owned property located in a floodplain unless “no feasible alternative to development in a floodplain exists.” Instead, Section 3.1(B)(8) of the proposed Standards merely includes whether “[a]lternative siting of proposed development outside of the state-managed floodplains is unavailable or unfeasible” among a list of potentially applicable “additional factors” that DCR must “consider” during permit application reviews. There is no language in the proposed Standards that clearly limits DCR’s authority to grant a permit to those situations in which no feasible alternative exists. We respectfully request that you address this apparent inconsistency with the Virginia Code prior to effectuating the Standards.
B. The proposed Standards do not properly incorporate the limited grounds for issuing a permit established in Va. Code § 10.1-603(C)(1) through (C)(4).
In addition to limiting DCR’s authority to issue a permit to those situations in which there is no feasible alternative to locating the development activity in the floodplain, Va. Code §10.1-603(C) makes clear that a proposed development activity must fit into one of the four categories enumerated in (C)(1) through (C)(4) in order for DCR to issue a permit. Yet similar to the feasible alternative determination discussed above, Section 2.1(B) of the proposed Standards appears to downgrade each of the four permitting categories from a prerequisite that must be met to justify issuance of a permit to one of eight “additional factors” that DCR must merely “consider” during permit application reviews. Since DCR needs only to “consider” such factors, the proposed standards would seem to allow the agency to grant a permit even if none of the permitting prerequisite categories in Va. Code §10.1-603(C)(1) through (C)(4) are met. As with the concern voiced above, we believe this issue needs to be addressed to ensure the proposed standards are consistent with the Virginia Code.
C. The proposed exemptions in Section 3.2 threaten to undermine the effectiveness of the proposed Standards.
We are concerned with the proposed exemption of six categories of activities and projects in Section 3.2 of the proposed Standards. As an initial matter, it is unclear that the Virginia Code even provides the authority to establish exemptions for categories of development activities; Va. Code §10.1-603 does not include any such language. Further, at least two of the proposed exemption categories (Routine Maintenance and Small Projects) are extremely broad, and neither the text of the Proposed Standards nor the Glossary included as Appendix A provides parameters or definitions for these terms. This creates significant potential for confusion and inconsistency among agencies and could result in risky projects being deemed to fall within a poorly defined exemption. In addition, Section 3.2 lacks instruction on what it means for a project to have an “insignificant effect on flooding characteristics and water conveyance” or on how agencies are to make that determination. In short, the exemptions provided create significant potential to undermine the purpose and value of the proposed Standards, and we believe they should either be eliminated or clarified.
D. The proposed standards do not effectuate the need for proactive planning before committing state funds for state development projects.
In general, the proposed Standards fall short of supporting proactive planning for state-funded projects by reducing or eliminating protective measures that have previously set a strong benchmark for resilience and protected Virginia’s investments. Several functional protective measures that previously guided state decision-making have been reduced or removed, including higher freeboard elevations in riverine and coastal areas, the use of Sea Level Rise Inundation Areas, and technical requirements that encouraged forward-looking engineering, such as adaptive design for future adaptation. The current proposed Standards rely primarily on FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas, which represent only existing conditions and lag significantly behind current and emerging flood hazard risks. By eliminating predictive tools and datasets from decision-making, and by reducing elevation requirements, adoption of the proposed Standards as drafted would weaken the Commonwealth’s ability to make informed long-term decisions about siting, design, and investment in public facilities and development.
State-funded and state-owned projects, whether roads, buildings, utilities, or non-structural development, have decades-long useful life after construction and are often in service much longer. Designing solely on present-day flood conditions, despite significant statewide investments in resilience, fails to account for the increasing frequency and severity of flooding driven by sea-level rise, changing precipitation patterns, and watershed alterations from human development. The absence of a forward-looking flood elevation benchmark, such as a specific sea-level rise planning scenario or a 50-year useful life assumption, means that agencies may unknowingly commit public resources to locations or designs that will become unsafe or nonfunctional long before the end of their intended lifespan. Reintroducing long-range planning tools and recognizing state-identified areas of high future inundation risk would help ensure that state projects remain viable and resilient over time.
Although Section 2.4 acknowledges that flood hazards extend beyond FEMA SFHAs and encourages agencies to consult the FATHOM dataset, this reference does not meaningfully strengthen the decision-making process. Concurrently, the state has invested in the Coastal Resilience Master Plan (CRMP) and the statewide Virginia Flood Protection Master Plan (VFPMP), both of which include the accompanying flood risk data. Under the proposed Standards, FEMA SFHAs remain the only regulatory boundary for permitting and elevation requirements, meaning agencies are not required to act on broader or more accurate flood hazard information that FATHOM or CRMP data may reveal. Notably, the CRMP data is not even mentioned as an available dataset, and it provides reliable state-owned flood risk data in the coastal zone. Simply noting the availability of this dataset does not require use in a specific manner or prevent risky development decisions outside SFHAs, nor does it substitute for clear, forward-looking planning requirements. Highlighting the existence of supplemental data without providing guidance on how to integrate it into state siting and design decisions leaves agencies without the tools needed to fully evaluate long-term flood exposure and undermines the goal of making prudent, resilient investments with state funds.
It is reasonable and fiscally responsible that when state funding is committed to a development project, whether it be a road, building, or non-structural site improvement, the project should meet standards that protect that investment from Virginia’s most frequent and costly natural hazard – flooding. More robust freeboard requirements and explicit planning for future sea level rise can serve as practical signals that specific locations may pose long-term challenges or require costly adaptation. In particular, where a project is proposed within an area anticipated to experience chronic inundation, a higher elevation standard based on a defined dataset remains a meaningful indicator that additional scrutiny is warranted. Strengthening the proposed Standards by restoring future-condition planning, establishing higher-elevation benchmarks, and imposing limits on exemptions would help safeguard public resources and position the Commonwealth to make durable, cost-effective decisions about state development.
E. It is unclear whether and how the proposed Standards apply to development activities other than buildings.
Finally, we are concerned that the proposed Standards focus almost exclusively on buildings and lack clarity regarding the applicability of the permitting requirement established in Va. Code §10.1-603(B) to projects that involve development activities that do not qualify as buildings.
Specifically, the final paragraph of Section 1.1 of the proposed Standards indicates that the requirement to obtain a “variance permit” from DCR only applies to “state-owned buildings, or buildings constructed on state-owned property.” Although the draft flow chart provided as Appendix B to the proposed Standards suggests that a “[p]ermit may be required as determined by DCR” for non-structural development and state agency acquisitions, neither the flow chart nor the main body of the proposed Standards makes clear the circumstances in which those development activities might require a permit. This lack of procedural clarity could lead to inconsistent implementation, uncertainty about when a floodplain development permit is required, and misalignment with the National Flood Insurance Program requirements. We urge revision of the proposed Standards to provide the needed clarification and explanation.
In closing, we appreciate DCR’s work on the proposed Standards and respectfully urge the agency to address the issues above prior to making them effective. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss our comments.
Sincerely,
Mary-Carson Stiff, Executive Director
Wetlands Watch
Morgan Butler, Senior Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
Emily Steinhilber, Director, Climate Resilient Coasts and Watersheds, Virginia
Environmental Defense Fund
Uday Khambhammettu, President
Virginia Floodplain Management Association
Jay Ford, Virginia Policy Manager
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Pat Calvert, Virginia Director of Conservation
American Rivers
Rebecca Malpass, Director of Clean Water & Land Conservation
Virginia Conservation Network
Karen Forget, Executive Director
Lynnhaven River NOW